2013 06-20E IDIAN--- MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
I p ~ ~ COMMISSION MEETING
AGENDA
City Council Chambers
33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, June 20, 2013 at 7:00 p.m.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Roll-call Attendance
X_ Macy Miller
X Scott Freeman
X
X_ Michael Rohm
X_Joe Marshall
_ Steven Yearsley -Chairman
Adoption of the Agenda Approved
Consent Agenda Approved
A. Approve Minutes of June 6, 2013 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
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
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
(Limited Office) (1.71 Acres) and R-8 (Medium-Density
Residential) (3.63 Acres) Zoning Districts Continue Public
Hearing to July 18, 2013
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
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, June 20, 2013Page 1 of 2
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Approximately 4.52 Acres in the Proposed L-O and R-8 Zoning
Districts Continue Public Hearing to July 18, 2013
C. Public Hearing: PP 13-009 Touchstone Place by Iron Mountain
Real Estate, Inc. Located South Side of E. Fairview Avenue and
West of N. Stonehenge Way Request: Preliminary Plat
Approval Consisting of Sixteen (16) Multi-Family Lots and Six
(6) Common Lots on Approximately 4.38 Acres in an Existing
R-15 Zoning District Recommend Approval to City Council
D. Public Hearing: CUP 13-003 Touchstone Place by Iron
Mountain Real Estate, Inc. Located South Side of E. Fairview
Avenue and West of N. Stonehenge Way Request: Conditional
Use Permit Approval for Sixty-Four (64) Multi-Family Dwelling
Units in an Existing R-15 Zoning District Recommend Approval
to City Council
Meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, June 20, 2013Page 2 of 2
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 20, 2013
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of June 20, 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, Commissioner Scott Freeman and Commissioner Michael
Rohm.
Others Present: Machelle Hill, Bill Nary, Bruce Chatterton, Bill Parsons, Bruce
Freckleton, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Scott Freeman X Macy Miller
X Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall
X Steven Yearsley -Chairman
Yearsley: Good evening,.ladies and gentlemen. At this time I would like to call to order
the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission on
June 20th, 2013. Let's begin with roll call
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda
Yearsley: Thank you. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. We
have no changes, so could I get a motion to adopt the agenda?
Miller: So moved.
Marshall: Second.
Rohm: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. All in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 3: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of June 6, 2013 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
Meridian 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
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 I
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 staffs 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.
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 staffs
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 staffs
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,
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.
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
square foot pad. So -- that's a pretty good size pad,
too --
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I'm ready to chime in here.
Yearsley: All right. All right.
. So -- okay. So, you got a 2,000
but you start counting the garage,
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,
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.
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.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 20, 2013
Page 22 of 34
Yearsley: Gentlemen, I think you have your work cut out for you. Wish you the best of
luck and hopefully we can get this resolved. Thank you.
C. Public Hearing: PP 13-009 Touchstone Place by Iron Mountain
Real Estate, Inc. Located South Side of E. Fairview Avenue and
West of N. Stonehenge Way Request: Preliminary Plat
Approval Consisting of Sixteen (16) Multi-Family Lots and Six
(6) Common Lots on Approximately 4.38 Acres in an Existing
R-15 Zoning District
D. Public Hearing: CUP 13-003 Touchstone Place by Iron
Mountain Real Estate, Inc. Located South Side of E. Fairview
Avenue and West of N. Stonehenge Way Request: Conditional
Use Permit Approval for Sixty-Four (64) Multi-Family Dwelling
Units in an Existing R-15 Zoning District
Yearsley: Moving on I'd like to open the public hearing for PP 13-009 and CUP 13-003,
Touchstone Place by Iron Mountain Real Estate. Let's begin with the staff report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Next item on the
agenda is the Touchstone Place Subdivision. The property is currently zoned R-15 in
the city. It's located south of East Fairview Avenue and approximately a quarter mile
west of North Stonehenge Way. This property was annexed, zoned and preliminary
platted and received conditional use approval in 2006 fora 48 unit multi-family
development. Surrounding the property is commercial and residential zoned properties
along the east boundary. Along the west boundary -- south boundary you have
residential homes zoned R-4. To the west we have commercial -- partially developed
commercial property, zoned C-G. To the north we also have C-G property and Ada
County property designated R-1 in the county. The applicant is proposing a 64 unit
multi-family development consisting of 16 four-plex units on 16 buildable lots. Access to
the site was provided from a stub street that was created with the Danbury Fair
Subdivision along the south boundary. So, only a small segment of this roadway will be
constructed with the subdivision improvements and will stub to that partially commercial
developed property to the west. I'd also mention to the Commission that the master
pathway plan prescribed a ten foot pathway on this property, so that will run along this
road segment here and provide future connectivity and run across this commercial
development to the private street as well in the future. Cross-access will be facilitated
within the development with a driveway extension connecting to Fairview Avenue. Staff
is recommending cross-access with the two adjacent properties and there is an animal
clinic here currently and, then, we have, as I mentioned to you, an Ada County parcel
here. One item of discussion for you this evening is this out-parcel that I have
highlighted for you. When this property was annexed and zoned in the city in 2006 it
was included as part of this property and this parcel. Since that time that bank has
purchased the property and somehow this remnant parcel has been split off from the
property. Staff is recommending a condition that the applicant provide a revised
preliminary plat prior to City Council that includes this remnant parcel as part of the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 20, 2013
Page 23 of 34
subdivision boundary for several reasons. One, the original development agreement
for this development requires that cross-access be provided to the county parcel and
this property is not part of this application or the subdivision. This could become a
spite strip in the future and restrict access from happening, therefore, going back to my
point on the previous application this person would either be forced to provide -- get
cross-access granted from this property or seek another access point to Fairview
Avenue. As you know our access management policy in the UDC tries to eliminate curb
cuts and requires cross-access and that's what we are trying to achieve here. The other
thing to keep in mind is we are not requiring that curb cut to be built with this
development. Because we don't know how this county parcel property will develop, we
will allow that easement to float along this boundary, so that it would be established
when this property develops. All we are asking for is they provide across-access --
cross-access easement to these two properties. However, for the property to the east
there is developed an animal care facility. Back in 2009 that piece of property did go
through a certificate of zoning compliance with the city for an expansion. During that
review staff required cross-access when this driveway or street was developed. Now
that the applicant is here proposing that connection to happen, this -- the owner of the
animal care facility must connect to that driveway as part of their agreement with the city
and so as soon as this driveway gets constructed the city is forced to send that property
owner a letter informing him of his commitment to connect to that driveway and so we
have got to make sure that the applicant constructs this for a portion of their easement.
Our recommendation is that they coordinate with that property owner on that exact
location of that driveway connection. Here is the proposed landscape plan for you this
evening. Again, it depicts the sliver a little bit better for you, so you can see where this
needs to come back in. Here is the general layout of those four-plexes. Along the
boundary here the applicant is proposing a 14 foot setback, which is in excess of the
required amount for multi-family developments. The minimum is ten feet. So, the
applicant is proposing an additional buffer along the residential portion of the
development. Here is that ten foot multi-use pathway that I described to you. This is
the common lot that the applicant will be providing to share access in a common
driveway and shared parking and, then, again open space is pretty minimal with this
development. The only requirements are based on the number of unit counts, which is
approximately 16,000 square feet if you take the 250 square feet per unit times 64 units,
that's what the maximum comes out to is 16,000 square feet. A majority of the open
space will be located centrally to the development. Along with this central open space
the applicant is proposing a gazebo area here and a tot lot and, then, an additional
5,000 square feet of open space. So, right now they have the required three amenities.
In the UDC specifications for multi-family standards they do require three amenities
from each of a specific group. In this case the applicant's only provided amenities from
two of the groups, so the applicant is working with staff on coming up with an additional
amenity. We do anticipate some sort of fitness facility -- not a structure, but some kind
of outdoor fitness area on the central common lot here, so folks can work -- adults in the
facility can do their outdoor workouts here in the open space lot and still meet that
amenity requirement. Here are the elevations. As I mentioned to you they are all four-
plex structures. The applicant has proposed four distinct color pallets for you. They are
conditioned to provide those four different color pallets. Here is a streetscape view for
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 20, 2013
Page 24 of 34
you. One of stafFs recommendations this evening is that they provide another design
with development of the site. It's not a requirement for Council or Commission review
this evening, it would be a requirement when they submit for their design review that
they submit ultimately the same building form, just provide a different variation of
building materials to kind of give a more balanced design in their units. The unique
feature about these four-plexes that we haven't seen is the applicant is actually
proposing to enclose the patio structures with the same building materials. So, that
should help screen some of the barbecues and the sitting areas and the patio furniture
from the adjacent neighbors as well, so that certainly is a nice touch that you see here
and it definitely provides a better design for the back of those structures. Staff has also
recommended that they add additional fenestration on the side elevations. So,
basically, you can expect at least four more windows on each side of those units. Staff
has not specified a size requirement for those windows and in discussing it with the
applicant they intend on putting in some of these transom windows here just to add
some light there. That way these will all become usable areas for the tenants as they
lease the units as well. One thing I did want to mention to you is staffs original
recommendation was that they come back to you with a different carport design. The
one that's attached in the staff report staff did not approve of that design. We have
since met with the applicant. It is their preference to go with a flat roof type style
carport. Staff has had some discussions internally and we believe that maybe after
looking at other other developments in the area and throughout the country it appears
the flat carport design actually blends into the developments a lot better and allows the
building to stand out as the predominate feature of the development. But we would
mention to you that staff has put the condition that they design a carport that at least
has, you know, some substantial reveal along the top of it and, then, also be powder
coated or painted to match the color scheme of the development. Staff has not
received any written testimony on this application. The applicant is here this evening.
We did have discussions with them. They have some issues they would like to discuss
with you. I think I have hit on most of those. I know Mr. Chatterton -- or Mr. Freckleton
has some concerns about one of the conditions in the staff report as far as a
requirement for a pressure reducing valve that we have in the DA provision and also
one of the recommended conditions for the plat. This concludes my presentation and I
stand for any questions Commission might have.
Yearsley: Are there any questions? Bruce, do you want to --
Freckleton: Thank you, Chairman and Members of the Commission. Good evening.
One thing that I did want to point out is the -- as Bill mentioned, the original annexation
came in in 2006. Staff report was prepared for that application. During that time a
hydraulic analysis was done of the water system for the city and at that point in time
there was a comment that the applicant needed to make a connection to Fairview
Avenue. There is a water main in Fairview. So, they needed to connect water through
from Fairview down to Sandlin Avenue to the south. The comment went on to say that
upsizing may be required due to fire flow that hadn't been yet determined at the time
they did that. Since that time, as you know, the water system in the city is not a static
thing, it changes over time, as buildings build, the city spreads out, more wells are
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 20, 2013
Page 25 of 34
brought online. The system is dynamic and it changes all the time. We have
established across the city -- I believe there is five or six pressure zones now that divide
the city up and that's to try and get more even pressures as you go through the city.
One of those boundaries happens to be the south boundary of this proposed
development. I did condition the applicant that due to that pressure boundary being
there that they would -- they would need to make a connection at Fairview, but they
would also need to install a pressure reducing station at -- near that Sandlin Avenue
connection. This to the applicant is a surprise. You know, as they were doing their due
diligence they -- they probably had the old report and that sort of thing and didn't
anticipate this, so -- and it is a pretty costly item. We are going to continue our
discussions with them, bringing the Public Works folks into the discussions as well and
just wanted to bring that up to you tonight, that it is in the report and give you a little bit
of background how it got there and we are going to further our discussions before we
get to the City Council, so --
Yearsley: Thank you. Any other questions at this time?
Freeman: Mr. Chair. If I could go back to Bill for just a second. Regarding the carport
design, I see your recommendation there is still a recommendations for a gabled roof,
but you mentioned that the flat would be okay, as long as they colored it. Could you
clarify that for me?
Parsons: Sure. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it's your desire to modify
that condition based on testimony that you hear from the applicant. Staff is amenable to
changing that condition.
Freeman: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I have a follow up to Bruce.
Yearsley: Okay.
Rohm: It kind of sounds to me from your testimony just now like this condition that has
been placed on this development didn't -- wasn't a necessary component when this
property was first annexed into the city, but now due to the growth of the city in order to
maintain the pressures within the city water system a reducing valve would be
necessary. But it almost sounds like that this is the straw that broke the camel's back,
not just this application in and of itself is what caused the condition and just for my own
understanding, it doesn't seem to me that a single application when it's the aggregate of
several applications that caused the situation, why they would be responsible to correct
something that has been caused by multiple developments over a period of time. So,
would just like you to speak to that if you could, please.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 20, 2013
Page 26 of 34
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, no, you're exactly right. It wasn't a
condition originally back in '06. With the establishment of those pressure zones you
have to kind of draw those lines and it's based on, you know, the elevations and the
system pressures and pipe sizes -- it's all taken into consideration in our hydraulic
models that we run. It's difficult to try and draw a straight line when you have got, you
know, your parcel lines and that sort of thing. So, you're exactly right, I mean this
development has happened. Establishing this PRV here helps draw the line, because it
does make a connection between a high zone and a lower zone. I don't know if that
answers your question. But beyond the boundaries of this development --
Rohm: Well, I agree that the pressure valve needs to be installed, I'm just saying that
from what you have said it sounds like that it is almost a maintenance item on our
system, not necessarily specific to this application that the relief valve or pressure
reduction valve needs to be installed. So, it just -- it doesn't seem to me that it's tied to
this application specifically.
Freckleton: Yeah. And, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, that certainly is part of the
discussions that we have had with the applicant yesterday. You know, they didn't feel
that it was -- it was one hundred percent their responsibility to install that as well. So,
we will address that with the Public Works Department and is see what kind of
opportunities there might be out there to achieve the city's overall need and goal, as
well as the developer's goals.
Yearsley: And also, Commissioner Rohm, on that I believe at this point it is not our
decision to weigh in on that. It needs to go in and it will be the City Council's decision
on how that gets paid for, so -- if I am not correct, so --
Rohm: Okay. Well, never mind.
Yearsley: So, make that a little cleaner for us to have to deal with. We don't really have
to deal with that at this level.
Marshall: I would simply ask one more thing, though. If the lot on either side of them
were developing today they, too, have to address that with the same pressure reducing
valve; right?
Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Marshall, any connection that we would establish
between one zone to another zone, you have to be able to create that boundary. So,
yeah, it depends on where along the line you would make those connections and where
we have drawn the lines for our boundaries.
Marshall: So, if they had built this in '06 it would have been somebody else today here
in front of us needing to put it in is what we are saying?
Freckleton: If they would have built this in '06 we wouldn't have had -- we didn't have
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 20, 2013
Page 27 of 34
the requirement in the staff report from '06. That's right. And so we would have had to
establish the boundary somewhere else. You're exactly right, so --
Yearsley: Any other questions before we move on? Thank you. Would the applicant
like to come forward? State your name and address for the record, please.
Brown: For the record my name is Kent Brown. 3161 Springwood in Meridian, Idaho.
Just a brief understanding. My clients Iron Mountain three or four years ago they
started doing these four-plex developments. There was a lot of thought that it might
have been too soon, because the market was so bad, but they really hit a Hitch in the
market in these four-plexes and having them on individual lots has been something that
has been very surprising I think to them. They do a very good job and they have
continued to improve their product. One of the parts that was discussed by Bill, the
screening in of the patios, that's something that they just recently started doing and the
thing that has brought them along really well is that they have a constant demand for
these -- these items to be built. These apartments. There is a demand for renters and
there is a demand for the buyers and we know that this product will sell and we want to
build it as quickly as possible, as soon as we can go though all the necessary
requirements to make that happen. With the different colors that's a part of what has
also made these successful by mixing those, having another elevation as staff is
requesting, is also another benefit that they don't all look vanilla, that they all have a
little bit of uniqueness to them and, yet, the two bedroom, two bath, that these are
providing, we have found to be very useful and the renters like those and they seem to
fill up very quickly. We are grateful for staff and their willingness to work with us on a
number of these items, specifically the Public Works and Bill in planning and we are --
with the items that they highlighted we are willing to work forward with those on. We
tried to contact the -- the spite strip neighbor. We weren't aware of that until this week.
The developer has been busy with some family situations and so it's been kind of
difficult to trace those people down and work that out, but we have done some research
on that parcel and how it was created and so we are willing to go talk with them and
have that included prior to the City Council. I'd stand for any questions you might have.
Yearsley: Are there any questions? I do have a couple. I just want to make
clarification. You are in agreement of the staff report; is that correct?
Brown: We are.
Yearsley: Okay. And, then, the other question is is do you prefer the flat roof as
presented here tonight or the other gabled roof?
Brown: Yes, we -- we want the flat roof. We have done for the City of Meridian both
and where we have done the gabled one it becomes the major feature that you see
when you look at these units and Planning was willing to work with us and we have
shown them some examples of how that flat roof and the color pallet being in the same
earth tones as the buildings and how that blends in and we feel that that's very
amenable to us.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 20, 2013
Page 28 of 34
Yearsley: Alt right. Thank you. Any other questions?
Miller: I have got a quick question. Can you go back to the elevations real quick? So,
are all of -- do all their 16 units look the same, just a different color? Is that what I'm
understanding?
Brown: There is a different color pallet and, then, we are going to have a different
building elevation that has different treatments over the windows --
Miller: Okay.
Brown: -- different shed roof type looks over some of the windows, different rock faces
and so forth.
Miller: Great. Okay. Thank you.
Yearsley: All right. Thank you. I think that's it. Thank you very much. Have a couple
of people signed up. Dustin Bristol. Please state your name and address for the
record.
Bristol: Dustin Bristol. I live at 1480 East Stonehenge in the subdivision right next to it.
If I could, I have printed off a couple things, if I can present it to the Commissioners.
Yearsley: Please.
Bristol: So, I bought my house with my wife and we have had two kids since then. We
have lived there almost nine years. We live in Danbury Fair on Stonehenge and our
house butts up on that 1480 -- I'm here with two neighbors in 1484 and I'm representing
my other one from 1474. On section -- or the second page A, B, D, our three homes,
really why I'm here -- I'm not opposing the complex. I think it's probably even great. But
these units will have two stories, you know, different -- six windows, six sliding glass
doors, different balconies. They are going to have master bedrooms and that kind of
thing, dining rooms, kitchens, living rooms that will butt up to our homes. Our homes
are all single level homes in our subdivision. It was built in the early '90s and they are
pretty small homes. Like mine is probably 1,200 square feef. So, really, our backyard
is our extension of our home. It's not a very big backyard. We put a covered patio on.
My kids play. We barbecue. That kind of thing. So, we bought high when the market
was really peaking and we are stuck in our little house. You know, we want to stay
there for as long as it takes until, you know, we regain some of the stuff we have lost.
The only thing -- I'm just here to request maybe that the developers look at another
design for the three units that abut right up to our backyard. Maybe something single
level or -- there is an apartment complex in the beginning of our subdivision that faces
Fairview that comes in on Stonehenge and it's an apartment complex and, then, it has
parking and, then, it has landscaping and, then, fencing into the rest of the subdivision.
We think that looks great for sharing with rental units. I have taken a look at some of
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 20, 2013
Page 29 of 34
the other units around town that they have built and they are attractive. We'd just ask
that maybe they would consider another plan for those three units that abut up to our
house. And that's all. Thank you for listening.
Freeman: Question.
Yearsley: Absolutely. Go ahead.
Freeman: Mr. Chair. Is it the two story aspect that bothers you most?
Bristol: Yeah. You know, like -- it is. It's -- it's the windows, because we would really
retreat back into our house. I have a six year old and a three year old and we play
outside a lot and, I don't know, I think that it would just mostly be kind of an
uncomfortable situation, I suppose.
Freeman: Thank you.
Yearsley: I also have a question. Looking at those plans, with your homes E, B and
D --
Bristol: Yes.
Yearsley: -- it looks like the only apartment, really, that's going to -- with the back facing
you is actually going to be in front of B.
Bristol: That's me. Yeah. Uh-huh.
Yearsley: And the other two is actually facing the other apartments, so your -- you
know, their backyards or their patio won't abut you.
Bristol: Right.
Yearsley: And, then, the other ones on the corner, so it wouldn't -- it would kind of be
away from you. So, you're only really looking at --
Bristol: Really, only moving B over.
Yearsley: You want it a little bit different.
Bristol: Yes.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you.
Bristol: Thank you.
Yearsley: Any other questions I guess? Thank you. The next one I have is Richard
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 20, 2013
Page 30 of 34
Verschoor.
Verschoor: Thank you. I could say the same thing twice.
Yearsley: Please state our name and address for the record.
Verschoor: Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Richard Verschoor and my address is 1484
North Stonehenge Way and it's just south of the development -- proposed development
and I live in the D house there and I was also requesting a redesign of those -- those
units there to possibly be one story duplexes to eliminate the privacy invasion from the
second story from those units. That's basically all I have to say. Thank you for your
time.
Yearsley: Thank you. And, then, the last one is Jeremy Amar. Okay. Is there anybody
else that would like to testify at this time? Okay. If there is nobody else, would the
applicant like to come up and --
Brown: As you look at our plan -- I don't know. Do I need to state my name and so
forth for the record again?
Yearsley: Sure.
Brown: Kent Brown, 3161 Springwood. Thank you. As you look at the plan, one of the
things that we have tried to accomplish on here is not to align with someone. Well, we
aligned with one person and that's Justin -- or Dustin that got up and spoke. The
Bristols. I have been to their house. They missed the neighborhood meeting and
brought them an example. We did take the neighbor to the west of him and we turned
that building, so that it has a side view and you saw the side view in Bill's presentation
how few windows that there are. We have screened those patios that are in that upper
level that help create that privacy for both us and for them and the fact that you're not
sitting and looking out a sliding glass door or seeing those people there. The one
interesting thing that we found with those screened in patios, those upper ones, is that it
really creates a privacy for them. They can go out there, they can sit and not have
people gawking at them either. As you look down the easterly boundary, almost all of
those are not lining up directly behind the houses that are behind them. They are kind
of offset. Richard is over here directly in the -- our -- kind of our southeast corner. We
turned that building also at an angle, so that it's not looking directly into the backyards
there also. So, we understand their concern. We have tried to address it as best we
can with the configuration that we have done. Staff said we also have a greater setback
on those. Part of that was able to be accomplished. In the original approval there was
a public street that ran -- connected Fairview with Sandlin. Now that this isn't a public
street, it's a common drive, we were able to reduce that width and we were able to kind
of move the units away from the houses. The other design -- and I don't know if you're
familiar with it. Maybe Mike is. But they have garages. In our experience the garages
don't really work. They end up being storage units for the people and they, then, don't
have anyplace to park and so we found that the carports and parking, you know, do
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 20, 2013
Page 31 of 34
work in these kinds of complexes. So, I believe that that's the best we can do. We
have tried to address the concerns and be mindful in the design of our neighbors.
Yearsley: Thank you. Any other questions?
Miller: I have got a quick question. I'm not sure quite how deep this is, but is
landscaping an option that maybe you can put a little buffer that way in between --
Brown: We are proposing a number of trees back there and we are not opposed to
putting, you know, trees that are in that area. One of the interesting things -- the homes
that are along our easterly boundary, their fence is actually five or ten feet off of their
property line. They have an additional ten feet to their backyards that they are currently
not using, so they will -- when our fence goes in there is going to be this space, their
fences are somewhat older and some are nonexistent. They will probably extend their
yards. They will have another ten feet added to their backyard. But we are not
opposed to putting more trees. We are working with staff to try to put as many trees in
here as we can.
Yearsley: Thank you. Any other questions? All right. Thank you. At this point can I
get a motion to close the public hearing for PP 13-009 and CUP 13-003?
Freeman: 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: ALL AYES.
Yearsley: So, who would like to go first?
Freeman: Mr. Chair; I will.
Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall -- or Freeman. Sorry.
Freeman: First of all, addressing the carport design. I tend to agree that the flat roof
design actually works better with these sorts of projects visually, so that you can present
buildings, rather than carports to people that are looking at the project. So, I -- if I make
the motion I will propose that we strike the gable roof language from 1.5.3 of the
conditions. Addressing Dustin and Richard -- and I thank you for coming forward and
testifying. Development -- development like this happens often. It's not uncommon for
two story apartments to be adjacent to properties that have single story residences on
them and while some changes like this are uncomfortable, I would have to say the
owner is perfectly within his rights to build two story apartments on his property
honoring the setbacks and everything and I do appreciate the fact that I'm seeing some
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 20, 2013
Page 32 of 34
spirit or cooperation from the applicant, trying to stagger the buildings as best he can,
willing to screen, willing to put additional landscape in if that helps. It doesn't solve all of
the issues, but he has -- he has made a valid attempt and I can understand, you know,
dropping those to single story can -- can make a development like this just not pencil
out anymore, it just -- it wouldn't work and he is well within his rights to do those. So, I
would encourage you to continue to talk to him and perhaps about additional
landscaping that might help buffer that situation between you. Otherwise, I am in favor
of the project. I like the arrangement. I am a little concerned about the sliver -- the spite
property -- is that what we call it? And I --
Marshall: The what? Spite.
Freeman: Spite. That's what I said. Spite property.
Marshall: Yeah.
Freeman: Yeah. I am curious if we approve this and something can't be worked out,
though, with that piece of property where do we stand. Is that a question to ask of staff?
Have you thought that far down the road? Or is that a question for legal over here?
will start with you, Bill, if I may ask.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Freeman, as
stated in the staff report, it's -- the approval of the plat is predicated on this becoming a
lot and block. So, if it -- if that doesn't become part it's a denial. I mean ought to go to
the Council with our change of denial, because they didn't follow through. It's not an
approved split through the city or county. We can't -- we can't recognize the parcel,
so --
Freeman: Although I want to ask how does that happen, it's pointless of me to ask, isn't
it?
Parsons: We asked the same question.
Freeman: All right. That answers my question, but I'm favor of the project with that
modification, that we allow the flat carport roofs.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I think Commissioner Freeman did an excellent job articulating the voice of the
Commission, at least for me. He did a good job and I agree with everything he said.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Marshall: I was just going to say that in the past we have run into some projects that
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 20, 2013
Page 33 of 34
were a three story and the like and we have had to bring them down to two story, so
they could sit next to one story. It is very typical, even within regular subdivisions, to
have two story right next to one story constantly. Very regularly. Run into problems
when we get larger than that next to one. I can understand the trepidation. You know,
I'm not going to want somebody looking down on top of me, but it -- unfortunately, you
never know how the neighbor is going to develop until it's there. I would also suggest
some good trees are usually a really good thing. I have been in one story before and I
went out and planted a bunch of trees and it took care of the problem without a problem.
So, other than that I am for this.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Miller: I second all of those statements. I think trees are a great idea. You have paid
so much attention to all of the other lots not to get a direct partner there and I think that
one little area could benefit from a little extra landscaping. I think that you might be
surprised of much that could help the situation. But I like the development.
Yearsley: I also have a tendency to agree. If this was a regular subdivision there could
have been a two story house there anyways and I have seen up to three story homes
go in certain areas. So, you could have neighbors looking back into you even if it was a
regular development. I do believe that that -- the developer has tried to screen the best
as possible and I do recommend additional trees, specially on that one parcel where it's
fronting directly into his backyard. If we could screen that a little bit better, that would be
awesome. The only other item that I have that I don't like about it is it's individual lots,
so they can be solid individually. However, it is going to be maintained by one single
property management group for all of the homes -- or the apartments, but, you know, for
me that's something that is my personal preference, not per code. So, that's just my
preference, so -- but I'm in agreement with the staff. With that can I get a motion?
Freeman: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman.
Freeman: After considering all staff, applicant, and
recommend approval to City Council of file number
presented in the staff report for the hearing date
modifications.
Yearsley: One.
public testimony, I move to
PP 13-009, CUP 13-003, as
of June 20th, 2013, with no
Freeman: Oh. With one modification. With one -- the one I brought up. With one
modification, that condition 1.5.3 -- delete the language requiring a gable roof on the
carports.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 20, 2013
Page 34 of 34
Miller: I second that.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve public hearing PP 13-009 and CUP
13-003. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Yearsley: Any other comments from staff at this time? Thank you. At this point I have
one last motion to make.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move we adjourn.
Miller: Yeah. I motion we adjourn.
Rohm: Second.
Yearsley: There has been a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Yearsley: We stand adjourned.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:50 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
~I ~~ I~~l
STEVEN YEARSLEY - AIRMA DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
JAYCEE HOLMAN, CITY CLERK GO~DR[.TEDgVCG~,
`~ ~9
~,~ ~- GtYof ~
~-/Vl E IDIAIV
c+ ~pANp
~ (+
f+Pyr~o S L' A i ~~~~i
o~ ~d'y7+~CElA1S•uTe`1
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: June 20, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 3A
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE:
Approve Minutes of June 6, 2013 PZ Commission Mtg
MEETING NOTES
/~d~~pv~, 5F~ ~
~-D
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
•
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: June 20, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 3B
PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 13-005
ITEM TITLE: Red Tail Communities
FFCL for Approval: Conditional Use permit approval for amulti-family development
consisting of 220 residential units in an R-15 zoning district by W.H. Moore Co. -SEC of E.
Victory Rd and S. Meridian Rd (SH 69)
MEETING NOTES
5F ~~
I
50
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
•
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: June 20, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4A
PROJECT NUMBER: AZ 13-006
ITEM TITLE: Jack's Place Subdivision
Public Hearing: Annexation of 5.34 acres from RUT in Ada County to the L-O (Limited
Office) (1.71 acres) and R-8 (Medium-density residential) (3.63 acres) zoning districts by
Jack's and Jesse Place, LLC - e/side of S. Meridian Road, approximately 1 /4 mile n/o of E.
Victory Road
MEETING NOTES
0 ~%fC-'> ltz
p'H +o ~-~ ~ 13
s~~~ ~
s-~o
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
•
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: June 20, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4B
PROJECT NUMBER: PP 13-010
ITEM TITLE: Jack's Place Subdivision
Public Hearing -Preliminary Plat consisting of 3 office lots, 20 residential lots & 3 common
lots on approximately 4.52 acres in the proposed L-O and R-8 zoning district by Jack's and
Jesse Place, LLC - e/side of S. Meridian Road, approximately 1 /4 mile n/o E. Victory Road
MEETING NOTES
sF~ w~,~
s-o
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
•
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: June 20, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4C
PROJECT NUMBER: PP 13-009
ITEM TITLE: Touchstone Place
Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat approval consisting of l bmulti-family lots and 6 common
lots on approimately 4.38 acres in an existing R-15 zoning district by Iron Mountain Real
Estate, Inc. -south side of E. Fairview Avenue and west of N. Stonehenge Way
MEETING NOTES
~j ~e~mmen~- ~t"'a~a-Q~a ~C
~~ -~ ~ ~ 7-a 3~ 3
~F/~
s-o
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
•
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: June 20, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4D
PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 13-003
ITEM TITLE: Touchstone Place
Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit approval for 64 multi-famil dwelling units in an
existing R-15 zoning district by Iron Mountain Real Estate, Inc. -south side of E. Fairview
Avenue and west of N. Stonehenge Way
MEETING NOTES
•
~~~
sue- ~ ~( ~
~1~~ 3 ~ 3
~~
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
•