2013 08-15E IDIAN~-- MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
I D A H O COMMISSION MEETING
AGENDA
City Council Chambers
33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, August 15, 2013 at 6:00 p.m.
1. Roll-call Attendance
X Macy Miller O Michael Rohm
X Scott Freeman X Joe Marshall
X Steven Yearsley -Chairman
2. Adoption of the Agenda Adopted
3. Consent Agenda
4. Action Items
A. Public Hearing: CUP 13-008 Linder Springs by Linder Springs,
LLC Located Northeast Corner of W. McMillan Road and N.
Linder Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a
Multi-Family Development Consisting of 96 Residential Units
in a C-G Zoning District Recommend Approval with
Modifications
B. Public Hearing: PP 13-017 Zebulon Commons Subdivision by
The Traditions by Amyx II, LLP Located South of E. McMillan
Road and West of N. Eagle Road Request: Preliminary Plat
Approval Consisting of Thirty-Eight (38) Residential Building
Lots and Four (4)Common /Other Lots on 13.56 Acres of Land
with an R-8 Zoning District Recommend Approval with
Modifications
C. Public Hearing: CPAM 13-001 Baltic Place Addition by HD
Fowler Company Located South of E. Franklin Road and West
of E. Kalispell Street Request: Amend the Future Land Use
Map Contained in the Comprehensive Plan to Change the Land
Use Designation on Approximately 9.41 Acres from High
Density Residential to Industrial Recommend Approval
D. Public Hearing: RZ 13-007 Baltic Place Addition Located South
of E. Franklin Road and West of E. Kalispell Street Request:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, August 15, 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.
Rezone of Approximately 9.41 Acres from the R-4O (High-
Density Residential) Zoning District to the I-L (Industrial)
Zoning District Recommend Approval
E. Public Hearing: PP 13-015 Baltic Place Addition by HD Fowler
Company Located South of E. Franklin Road and West of E.
Kalispell Street Request: Preliminary Plat Approval for Two (2)
Buildable Lots on Approximately 9.41 Acres in a Proposed I-L
Zoning District Recommend Approval
Adjourned at 7:19 p.m.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, August 15, 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 August 15, 2013
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of August 15, 2013, was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Steven Yearsley.
Present: Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Joe Marshall, Commissioner
Macy Miller and Commissioner Scott Freeman.
Members Absent: Commissioner Michael Rohm.
Others Present: Jaycee Holman, Ted Baird, Caleb Hood, Sonya Watters, Bill Parsons,
Bruce Freckleton and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Scott Freeman X Macy Miller
O Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall
X Steven Yearsley -Chairman
Yearsley: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time we'd like to call to order
the regularly scheduled Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission on August 15th,
2013, at 6:00 p.m. Let's begin with roll call.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda
Yearsley: Thank you. The next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. Can
I get a motion to adopt the agenda?
Freeman: So moved.
Miller: I second it.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. All in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda
Yearsley: There is nothing on the Consent Agenda, so we don't have to approve the
Consent Agenda.
Item 4: Action Items
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 15, 2013
Page 2 of 26
A. Public Hearing: CUP 13-008 Linder Springs by Linder Springs,
LLC Located Northeast Corner of W. McMillan Road and N.
Linder Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a
Multi-Family Development Consisting of 96 Residential Units
in a C-G Zoning District
Yearsley: So, we will go on to the Action Items and the first one there is -- well, first of
all, let me go through the public hearing process. We are going to open each one of
these applications one at a time. We will start off with the staff report. They will present
their findings regarding how it adheres to the Comprehensive Plan and Uniform
Development Code, with staffs recommendations. At that time we will ask the applicant
to come forward to state their case for approval of the application. After that we will
allow public testimony. There is a sign-up sheet in the back. Anyone wishing to testify
can sign up there. They will be given three minutes. If they are speaking for a larger
group and there is a show of hands, they will be given up to ten minutes. After that we
will ask the applicant to come forward again to -- to respond to any of the comments
and they will have up to ten minutes for that. After that we will close the public hearing
and the Commission will have an opportunity to discuss and deliberate and hopefully
make recommendations for approval or for the project.
Yearsley: So, at this time we will open the public hearing for CUP 13-008, Linder
Springs, and begin with the staff report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The first item on the
agenda this evening is the Linder Springs conditional use permit. The property consists
of 6.84 acres and is currently zoned C-G within the city. To the north of this property we
have a local street, Deer Crest Street and self storage -- or aself-service storage
facility. To the west we have planned R-8 property, which will be a future phase of the
Paramount Subdivision. To the south we have commercially zoned property developed
with a Walgreens and two vacant commercial lots and, then, also to the west we have
some vacant commercial lots and Linder Road. The applicant is here this evening to
discuss developing a 96 unit multi-family development. Back in 2007 this property was
platted as Commercial Southwest Subdivision. Even later than that in 2003 it was
approved through the planned development process with the original Paramount
Development and so this property has been annexed for quite some time. The original
vision for the property included a grocery store and a lot more intense commercial uses
on the site. Since that time the applicant has gone through several reiterations with
staff, modified the development agreement and now we are here this evening to talk
about imposing a residential component on the property. Here is the site plan the
applicant is proposing this evening. The site will consist of 16 buildings in the form of
eight-plexes and four-plexes. It will also house one clubhouse building. I believe in the
staff report I did mention there were 15 structures, but I wanted to clarify on the record
that's what was going to happen here. They are proposing four development phases.
As you can see phase one will include several structures and, of course, all of the site
work, including the parking lot, interior landscaping and all that. And, then, slowly phase
through, with an ultimate design. I would mention to Commission that this could either
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 15, 2013
Page 3 of 26
happen in one phase, two phases, three phases -- staff hasn't really conditioned them to
follow this phasing plan. It's really up to the applicant how they phase it and how the
market -- basically the market demand at this point. The applicant is required to provide
a ten foot wide landscape buffer along Deer Crest Street here. They provided in excess
of 20 feet along the east boundary. Since there is commercial property adjacent to
residential property, there is a requirement of a 25 foot separation. The site plan before
you this evening does show that and has the required trees as well. The multi-family
standards requires that the applicant provide ten percent open space and four
amenities. The site plan before you this evening has a little over 1.48 acres, which is
above the ten percent requirement and includes five amenities, which includes several
large open space areas, a tot lot, again, that clubhouse with a fitness facility inside of it
and a covered patio. And this area here is an enclosed dog play area for the folks.
Since this is part of a commercial development the applicant is providing perimeter
fencing for the development. There is a concern with access coming in off of this street,
but having two access points to a commercial driveway it's important to try to keep
those families and kids contained in those play areas so as to not impose onto the
commercial driveway here. I would also mention to you with the approval of that
commercial subdivision the applicant was required to -- not this application, but the
previous applicant developer was required to grant cross-access to this property. So,
there is that recorded document in place to allow these two access points as shown.
Since the staff report was printed the applicant has provided new elevations for you to
act on this evening. Here were the renderings that were approved in the staff report
and included a mix of materials, wood siding, board and batten, had some of the
exposed timbers, articulation of the facade and modulation of the roof lines. Here are
what the applicant is proposing. We just got these on Tuesday. Staff has had some
time to evaluate these. We believe they are still consistent with the requirements of the
UDC. We are supportive of what the applicant is proposing. I do want to give you a
closer perspective so you can see the street view. As you can see probably the biggest
change is the covered areas along the back of the rear facades of the structures. The
applicant's vision here is really to try to emulate more of a town home design, instead of
multi-family design and I think if you look at the architecture in the area and what
Paramount has done out there, you can see that these material emulate that far better
than what the previous versions did. And, again, staff is supportive of that. The
applicant will also be providing the required number of covered carports, covered stalls,
and the required number of parking stalls. They are actually a little bit over what the
code requires and that is consistent. Both the open space and the proposed amenities
this evening are consistent with code as well. Staff has received written testimony on
this application for you this evening. The applicant is requesting a couple of
modifications before you. Staff has had a chance to read through that and we do
concur with the recommendations that they have before you. That first one would be,
basically, to swap the elevations out, the ones that I just presented and the ones in the
staff report we would request that Commission allow that modification to happen. As far
as the carport structures, originally in the staff report we had conditioned them to
provide an eight and a half inch facia along the -- all four sides of the carport. The
applicant isn't sure on how thick or how much of a facia they want to provide, so they
would simply ask that we strike that requirement for providing that facia and just let staff
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 15, 2013
Page 4 of 26
-- allow them to work with staff through the design review process to find an adequate
thickness for that facia. One other item to note is staff is recommending that those
carports be powder coated or painted to match in compliment to this color scheme of
the development. So, there is a couple things. We want it to blend in, but we also want
it to have enough facia or reveal around those carports to make it look like a more
substantial structure than just thin metal and the applicant is in agreement with that as
well. And the last item is -- has to do with a Public Works condition that is 2.3. The
applicant is requesting to strike that and just allow them the flexibility to work with the
Public Works Department on the routing of that infrastructure. We have spoke with the
applicant, Public Work has, and they are in agreement with that. We can work behind
the scenes as we near the construction phases and finalize documents. We are
confident we can come up with a solution. So, staff is amenable to striking that
condition from the staff report. We also received comment from two of -- from two
concerned citizens. I would mention to Commission that they were in favor of the
project, they just wanted to make sure that is -- the project would be esthetically
pleasing and consistent with Paramount. They had some reservations with the
carports. They would prefer to see garages in lieu of the carports and they were also
asking Commission to require a pool as an amenity in lieu of the play structure.
Apparently in Paramount there has been some concerns with folks using their pools and
they just want to make sure if this is an extension of paramount that no one goes there
and uses the pool facilities. I would also mention that Paramount at some point will be
adding a third pool out there in their subdivision, so I think that should solve some of
their concerns out there as far as this development. This is really on the fringe of
Paramount. It has no relevance. It's a separate project from that development, but it's
still within their perimeter. Staff is recommending approval with conditions as stated in
the staff report, except for the changes requested by the applicant. This concludes my
presentation and I will stand for any questions you have.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions?
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I did. Bill, you mentioned there was some concern over the access
to Deer Crest. What was the concern there on Deer Crest Street and the access there?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman and Commission, there isn't a concern, I just wanted to put to
rest that there is perimeter fencing, so that folks aren't going out in the street or going in
to that commercial development. I think the main entrance will be off of Deer Crest. So,
there really isn't a concern. The only concern that we have right now is not really a
concern, is the routing of the water utility location. I'm not sure if I misstated something
incorrectly, but I think my intention was to show that there would be perimeter fencing
along here to make sure that folks aren't going into the commercial drive aisle and there
is other access, other than the commercial drive aisle.
Marshall: Okay. Thank you.
Freeman: Mr. Chair?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 15, 2013
Page 5 of 26
Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman.
Freeman: Bill, you talked about the -- the condition for the facia on the carport. Could
you clarify again for me what you were saying we needed to modify or might consider
modifying?
Parsons: Sure. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Freeman, the elevation that was
presented and attached to the staff report shows an eight and a half inch facia on two
sides of the carport. In looking at this development, if you drive down this commercial
drive aisle and you were to look east into the development, you could see some of
those carports would be prevalent from that commercial drive aisle. Staff was
concerned about how that appearance of carport would blend into the development.
So, since the applicant was proposing an eight and a half inch facia on two sides we
conditioned them to provide it on all four sides. In speaking with the applicant they are
concerned that people moving in with moving trucks or vehicles may -- if the facia is too
thick that moving trucks and vehicles could hit that and damage it. So, they are just
asking for some way to work with staff and come up with an appropriate reveal and to
define that edge of the carport and I think we can do that through design review,
whether it's a six inch facia or four inch, it's to be determined, but I think the applicant's
architect is here, maybe he brainstormed some ideas to present to you this evening as
well.
Freeman: Thanks for clarifying.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, if I could. Bill, just a little further on that. I believe it stated also
that it was to somehow match the belly band on the buildings in some -- in some
degree?
Parsons: Yes.
Marshall: So, what we are talking about is striking only the facia thickness, but not the
matching of the belly band on the buildings?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the intent I think of the architect
in the theme of the development was to have the carport kind of emulate the belly band,
or at least at eye level to help blend in with the architecture of the structure.
Marshall: Right.
Parsons: Again, the belly band still on the structures, so I don't imagine -- even whether
it's an eight and a half reveal or four inch facia, it's still going to provide that blending
and contribute to the design theme of the development.
Marshall: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 15, 2013
Page 6 of 26
Yearsley: Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward? Please
state your name and address for the record.
Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Tamara
Thompson. I'm with The Land Group, 462 East Shore Drive in Eagle. Staff has been
great to work with and I think did a good job of presenting the project, so I won't reiterate
that. We have read the staff report and we agree with the conditions with the four
modifications that we suggested. I won't go through all -- the first one was just kind of a
housekeeping, which I think was a typo, and just on the -- I just want to just reiterate on
the -- on the facia we are not -- we are not asking for that to be eliminated, just the eight
and a half inch. That we could go to a six inch or we could go to a ten inch. We just
want that -- that leeway to work with staff on that and certainly all four sides. So, that's
not an issue. The proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
We fully comply with the amenity and open space requirements of the UDC and we
respectfully request approval of a proposed CUP with the four modifications that we
have submitted and I will stand for questions. I do want to add, we do have the
architect here if you have questions regarding the change in the design, we can bring
him up.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions at this time?
Freeman: Mr. Chair, I have one.
Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman.
Freeman: My apologies. When staff was presenting I did write down three
modifications. You mentioned four. So, I probably missed one. Could you enumerate
for the ones that you think --
Thompson: Do you have a copy of what we submitted, Mr. Chairman?
Freeman: I don't know I have that.
Thompson: From 15 buildings to 16.
Freeman: Fifteen to sixteen buildings? That's the one I did not have.
Thompson: Mr. Chairman, the first one is the -- it's kind of a housekeeping item, just
clarifying how many buildings there are.
Freeman: Okay.
Thompson: And, then, the second one is revising the elevations. The third one is the
eight and a half inch facia. And the fourth one is just to rework the wording to work with
the Public Works for a final utility design.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 15, 2013
Page 7 of 26
Freeman: Thank you.
Yearsley: Any other questions? Thank you very much.
Thompson: Thank you.
Yearsley: I have one person signed up. Is it Mora? Please come on up and state your
name and address for the record, please.
Prow: My name is Monte Prow. 636 West Cagney, Paramount. And, Mr. Chairman,
Members of the Commission, first of all thanks for keeping Meridian bicycle friendly.
Apologize for the attire. But I was one of the -- I was one of the folks who wrote in and
talking about some of the things we were concerned about. So, I'm excited to hear
about the carport. Clearly integrating a garage structure reduces the living space and
we are sympathetic to that, so anything you can do to make that carport tie into the
existing Paramount community would be exciting. On the pool that is a big deal to us.
We have two pools right now. Paramount, as you know, is growing very rapidly and
until the weather starts cooling down those are going to be used very heavily and we
have seen some encroachment, even in Lochsa Falls where they don't have that pool,
other than that space out front that occasionally gets some soap bubbles into it. But we
get some of those kids over there, too, kind of knocking on the door and all that, so we
would ask that some of that open space be used for a pool. And, Mr. Chairman, with
that I'll stand for any questions that you or the Commission might have.
Yearsley: Any questions?
Freeman: None.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Prow: Thank you.
Yearsley: I don't have anybody else signed up. Would anybody else like to testify? If
no one else is wanting to testify, I will stand for a motion to close the public hearing.
Freeman: Should we let the applicant come back up?
Yearsley: Oh. Sorry. You're gone a week and you forget everything. Would the
applicant like to come forward and address his comments?
Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, like I said before, we fully
comply with the amenities of the UDC and pools are not required and one is not
planned for this project.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. I guess at this time could I get a motion to close the
public hearing for CUP 13-008, Linder Springs.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 15, 2013
Page 8 of 26
Miller: So moved.
Marshall: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing for CUP 13-008,
Linder Springs. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: Comments?
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: I am personally very familiar with the issues of the pools at Paramount. They
get overcrowded and there has been some uninvited guests and the like. But, again, as
Mrs. Thompson pointed out, we don't require pools as part of the city code and we can't
request or -- we can request, but we can't demand that this developer place a pool.
They can meet the amenities and if they feel that the project will sell well without a pool,
then, that's their decision. I also recall a discussion here recently, six, eight weeks ago
or so, discussion about the positives and negatives of different roofing material for
carports and garages and the like and (believe -- please correct my if I'm wrong if
anybody recalls -- that the consensus was at the end of that that a flat roof carport
actually detracted less from the -- from the buildings and the architecture than a pitched
roof, shed roof, or garages, which tended to block the view of the buildings and -- and it
appeared that that discussion was more focused on more attractive look with the flat
roof with a belly band matching type facia around that and I believe that was say six,
eight weeks ago that we went there with that and I would appreciate anybody correcting
me if I'm wrong there. What's that?
Miller: You're correct.
Marshall: Okay. And I very much do feel you with the pool. I -- yeah. It gets very
crowded in those two pools. Personally, I'm pleased to see some additional options,
rather than just single family residential within the area. I know that has been a much
high demand for apartments and the like, especially after the economic crash and the
like and vacancy rates have plummeted and it's good to see some higher density stuff,
especially closer to high traffic corridors and Ustick being one that is very focused on.
Chinden as well. But Ustick is being focused on by COMPASS. I'm kind of pleased to
see this. I'm also kind of pleased to see the apartments go in prior to the houses back --
that will eventually back up to this, I assume, because the people who buy the houses
will know, hey, there is apartments there, rather than having houses there and, then,
suddenly, oh, I'm getting an apartment in my backyard. That usually upsets people.
And this way everybody will know well ahead of time and I like the timing in that regard.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 15, 2013
Page 9 of 26
Other than that I'm very -- I like the elevations and the like. I think that the new
improved elevations do seem to match the architecture within the area better and I think
they are very appropriate and I welcome the project.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Miller: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Miller.
Miller: I will just add my two cents as well. I think it's very nice elevations personally, if I
was looking at living somewhere. I think this would be a nice place to live. I have read
some of the comments about concerns over these being rentals versus buying it and
those are valid, because you get invested when you purchase a place. However, these
are, obviously, nice apartments and I think you're going to get the type of renters that
have the same investment in their area. In regard to the carports, honestly, I think they
are a great solution. It kind of mimics some of the -- the overhangs and such here.
don't see a problem with the carports personally and it's nice to have other types of
housing developments. I don't like garages personally, so I might be a little biased.
They tend to dominate the front of the house, where this can kind of sit back and let the
buildings speak more. I also completely understand the pool issue. Hopefully that third
pool opening up will help that, but it's hard to enforce that somebody do something we
can't enforce in a development, unfortunately. I think it will be a great space. There is a
lot of amenities. Hopefully, that is enough to keep people there, you know. But I'm in
favor of the project. Definitely.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Freeman: Mr. Chair, I guess I'm the last to go and that makes it somewhat easier.
concur with the commissioners on their comments regarding the pool. I would like to
point out on the carports and, Commissioner Marshall, you're correct, I remember that
conversation also. On that particular project we were discussing six or eight weeks ago,
the carports were actually on the perimeter of the project and the apartments on the
interior, so they were actually more visible to the street. This project you actually see
the carports much less of a concern, because they have been arranged largely on the
interior. I understand we can get a side view of a couple of them from the street, but I
do like the layout of this where we have the architecture of the apartments largely on the
perimeter and the carports are on the interior and the low profile is less obtrusive than a
sloped roof to change from carports to built-in garages anyway. Along the same lines
Commissioner Miller mentioned the rentals versus ownership of property and, again,
that's -- that's something that as the Commission we can't dictate whether a developer
is going to put the properties up for sale or rent them, that's not something that we have
power to determine and that's probably enough said on that. I like the project. I think
the architecture is nice. I like the colors. I like the undulations that I see. So, I am in
favor of this project.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 15, 2013
Page 10 of 26
Yearsley: Thank you. For me I guess pretty much everything has been said. I do
concur with most everybody else. So, with that can I get a motion?
Marshall: Want to take a shot at it?
Freeman: Actually, I would prefer not to today, if you would like to do it.
Marshall: All right. I can do that if you want. I have got mine right here. All right.
States it better than I did.
Freeman: I will take an easier one.
Marshall: Okay. Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve
file number CUP 13-008 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August
15th, 2013, with the following modifications: At the bottom of the page, the second
sentence to be modified: The proposed family development consists of 16 buildings.
Four -- eight four-plexes, eight eight-plexes, containing a total of 96 dwelling units and a
clubhouse. Also Condition 1.1.4, replace the previous building elevations with the
revised building elevations, dated 8/18/13.
Freeman: 8/8/13.
Marshall: Dated 8/8/13.
Freeman: Okay. You said 8/18.
Marshall: Oh.
Freeman: Go ahead.
Marshall: I apologize. 8/8/13. Condition 1.1.4, second bullet, carport structure, to strike
the reference to eight and a half inch facia. The rest of the bullet will remain. To strike
the size thickness. And, then, Condition 2.3, strike and replace the utility design will be
coordinated between the project engineer and Public Works.
Freeman: I will second. Well done.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve public hearing CUP 13-008, Linder
Springs. All in favor say aye. Opposed. Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 15, 2013
Page 11 of 26
B. Public Hearing: PP 13-017 Zebulon Commons Subdivision by
The Traditions by Amyx II, LLP Located South of E. McMillan
Road and West of N. Eagle Road Request: Preliminary Plat
Approval Consisting of Thirty-Eight (38) Residential Building
Lots and Four (4)Common /Other Lots on 13.56 Acres of Land
with an R-8 Zoning District
Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is PP 13-017, Zebulon Commons Subdivision and
we'd start with the staff report.
Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission. The next
application before you is a request for a preliminary plat. This site consists of 13.56
acres of land. It's currently zoned R-8 and is located south of East McMillan Road and
west of North Eagle Road on the north side of Wainwright Drive. Adjacent land use and
zoning. To the north are single family residences, zoned R-1 B in Boise City. To the
east is vacant land, zoned R-1 C and OD in Boise. To the south are single family
residential properties, zoned R-4. And to the west are residential properties in the
development process in another plat for Zebulon, zoned R-4. In 2005 this site was
annexed as an R-8 zoning district and a preliminary plat for Milford Creek Subdivision
was approved. A development agreement was not required as a provision of
annexation. A final plat was approved in 2007, but never received city engineer
signature within the required time period and the preliminary plat did expire. The
proposed plat consists of 38 building lots and four common other lots on 13.56 acres of
land in the R-4 -- or, excuse me, R-8 zoning district. The gross density is 2.8 dwelling
units per acre, which is slightly below the target density of the medium density
residential land use designation for this property. There is an existing home on Lot 4,
Block 4, at the southeast corner of the property there that is proposed to remain. The
existing barn further to the north is proposed to be removed. The primary access for
this subdivision is at the south boundary via East Wainwright Drive. But Milford Drive,
an existing stub street, is proposed to be extended at the east boundary and a stub
street is proposed at the west boundary for future extensions. The existing home has
an access easement via North Eagle Road, which staff is recommending be vacated.
Access via Eagle Road is prohibited. This home currently takes access via Wainwright
Drive and the applicant requests Council approve -- approval to retain this access. A 20
foot side street buffer is required along East Wainwright Drive, a collector street. This
buffer is required to be extended across the lot where the existing home is located. A
total of 1.64 acres of qualified open space is proposed consistent -- consisting of a
pocket park and landscape street buffers and parkways. Playground equipment is
proposed as a site amenity in accord with UDC standards. No new fencing is proposed.
However, there is an existing six foot tall fence located at the back of the existing
sidewalk where the existing home is located that does not comply with the city's fencing
and is required to be removed. This -- a fence --anew fence may be constructed at the
back edge of the street buffer if the property owner desires. The North Slough crosses
the northeast corner of this site. The applicant requests a waiver from Council to allow
the canal to remain open due to its large capacity and not be piped as required by the
UDC. Written testimony was received from Becky McKay, the applicant's
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 15, 2013
Page 12 of 26
representative, in response to the staff report. The applicant was in general agreement
with the staff report, except for Condition 1.1.4B, which requires a 20 foot wide
landscape buffer in a common space maintained by the HOA along Wainwright Drive, a
collector street. She's requesting that that condition be deleted. ACHD differentiates
between collector and residential collector streets and allows front-on housing on a
residential collector. The city does not differentiate between collectors. If providing for
the buffer and a common is not feasible, the applicant may request alternative
compliance to provide the buffer within the easement instead. Staff is recommending
approval of the proposed plat and will stand for any questions the Commission may
have.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions?
Marshal: Mr. Chair, I do. Okay. Concerning the 20 foot buffer in front of the existing
house on Wainwright. If that were placed in as a common lot wouldn't that make the
property landlocked?
Watters: It would -- excuse me, Chairman Yearsley and Commissioners, it would not
comply with the UDC, because that lot would need to provide street frontage. We have
kind of got a Catch 22 on this particular lot. Typically we require existing properties to
provide access from within the subdivision and meet the minimum frontage
requirements. In this particular case the applicant requested that access to Wainwright
be retained, therefore, they have the street address -- or street frontage, but our code
requires that the buffer be placed within a common lot. But we can get around that by
going to alternative compliance and putting it in an easement. Staff has no problem
with that, it just -- the code doesn't outright allow that.
Marshall: So, what would be the process, then, if they choose to go by easement -- to
me -- and I'm trying to understand what the easiest way to apply -- to address that is
and still meet the code as best we can, because if we require that common lot there,
then, that's -- that lot becomes landlocked and has no frontage. So, then, you would
have to redesign the entire subdivision on the inside and it makes sense that it's an
existing -- that residential collector is -- it's not a high volume street, I assume, and it
already has an existing driveway there and access I'm assuming.
Watters: Yes.
Marshall: That appears to work appropriately, because they are not requesting access
to be elsewhere now. So, would it easier to go to alternative compliance and put in the
easement for everybody involved?
Watters: I believe so, Commissioner Marshall. Unless our city attorney does not agree.
I would recommend that the Commission recommend approval of the layout with the
contingency the applicant requests alternative compliance to provide the buffer within
the easement.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 15, 2013
Page 13 of 26
Marshall: And I will at this point in time ask our city attorney what his thoughts might be
on this.
Baird: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I was shaking my head along with the rest of the
staff at the suggestion. I think it's a good way to solve a problem. Very creative.
Marshall: Thank you.
Yearsley: Any other questions?
Freeman: I do. And I'm almost afraid to ask it, because I think it overlaps what you
were getting at, Commissioner Marshall, but Ihave -- I have a question about the
landscape buffer in front of the existing house relative to requirement of 1.1.5. Is what
we are talking about going to apply in front of that house, as well as in front of the new
development or am I getting the two mixed up? Are we requiring landscaping to be put
in also that 20 foot buffer in front of the existing lot that's in this corner down here on --
Wafters: Chairman Yearsley, Commissioner Freeman, yes, we are. That existing home
is on a lot in the proposed subdivision. As a subdivision requirement they are required
to provide a street buffer meeting UDC standards.
Freeman: And the responsibility for that would fall upon who?
Wafters: That's an agreement between the developer and that property owner.
Freeman: Okay. But it is going to be a requirement for approval of this project as --
Waters: Yes as well. It is a UDC standard.
Freeman: Thank you.
Yearsley: Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward. Please
state your name and address for the record.
McKay: Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions. Business address 1029 North Rosario,
Meridian. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I'm here this
evening representing Traditions by Amyx. To kind of give you a little history of this
project, back in 2005 I was the representative for the owners at the time of this
particular property. We brought it through as Milford Creek. It came through with an
R-8 annexation, rezone, and 48 lots. A single family development. Lots ranged from --
they were -- I think we had lots about 6,200 square feet and, then, they went all the way
up to 8,200 square feet. It was approved and, then, we rolled into design and we had
final plat and construction plan approval in 2007 and, then, obviously, everything
stopped. This particular project, when they ran into financial difficulties, they split the
home off that had been constructed in 1976 that took access to Wainwright and sold it.
The rest of the property went back to a bank and Mr. Amyx, who happened to own the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 15, 2013
Page 14 of 26
Zebulon or Alpine Point project to the west, purchased this property, so he had us take
another look at it. What we did is we dropped ten lots, reduced the density, because he
wanted larger lots, a little deeper, a little wider, to be more consistent with what we have
to the west and we kept pretty much the same design connecting to the stub street on
the east and the west side and, then, having more linear open space that runs between
the block. When we met with the staff about our pre-app, the staff said, well, what
about the outparcel. Now, there was no development agreement when they annexed
and zoned this, but yet we went to Mr. Thompson, who is here this evening and would
like to speak to the Commission, and said, you know -- you know, we really need to
clean this up. Your property technically was illegally divided from the parent parcel and
would you work with us and so he has been generous enough to say, you know what,
will allow you to include me, submit the application and so we have -- we have gone,
you know, with him through this process and, of course, you know, it's new to him, he's
not a developer, so some of the problems that have arose affect him. So, when I sent
my response I had not got a hold of Mr. Thompson. I did speak to him afterwards and
so we did -- I did get it clarified, so I want to make sure for the record that -- that we
have this clarified. The staff has mentioned, first of all, that there is an easement that
runs out to Eagle Road. That easement -- the parcel originally had access to Eagle
Road and when I built the office portion of Zebulon Heights, which is within the city of
Boise, that property then started taking access from the public street. Now, there is also
a lateral that runs parallel with his easement and that easement is not only to -- was old
access to Eagle Road, but it also allows for access maintenance of the little lateral. So,
Mr. Thompson has indicated I don't want to relinquish my rights to it. I think the staff
referred to it as vacating, but we only vacate it when they are platted. You know, I don't
want to relinquish my right. I take access to Wainwright, I recognize that, but I don't
want to relinquish that and that's within the city of Boise and so I feel, you know, from a
planning perspective it's outside the jurisdiction of the City of Meridian. Secondly,
Wainwright Drive, when we designed it, it was a collector for the office portion. We
have always worked with the highway district -- you know, we have got this existing
1976 house, the way it's oriented I have to let it access Wainwright. It's accessed
Wainwright ever since the collector was built, which has been I believe ten years and I'd
like to note for the Commission we now have a signalized intersection at Eagle Road
that just became operational last month. So, my traffic will be going onto Wainwright
and, then, out to a signalized intersection, which we were very ecstatic and I'm sure Mr.
Thompson is happy. ACHD has always recognized that they would have afront-on
house. They differentiate between a standard collector and a residential collector.
When we pre-apped with the staff I have said, you know, this is a residential collector,
you know, I got to deal with this existing lot. I can't -- I have -- these people just do not
want to give up 20 feet and give it to my homeowners association. I mean they can't.
With their lenders it causes problems. It's easier said than done, I guess, and I looked
at the ACRD master street map, I looked at the COMPASS functional classification
map, I have looked at comp plan as far as Meridian's collectors and nowhere is this
designated a collector. It functions kind of like a collector, but I would classify it more as
residential. So, you know, that's something I guess to take into consideration when they
look at updates to the UDC, differentiating between a residential collector and a
collector. Residential collector is -- front-on housing is allowed under ACHD's policy
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 15, 2013
Page 15 of 26
manual and I did quote that section. But to get back to -- you know, my client does not
want -- or my clients -- Mr. Thompson does not want to give up 20 feet of his property.
The six foot fence that staff has indicated lies along the right of way was installed with
the Boise city project to buffer the homes from headlights within the office complex and
their approaches out to Wainwright. So, I don't know, I have never faced this. The
Boise city limits, they go to the north side of the right of way. That's where the fence
was. We were required to buffer those headlights. That was one of the issues that
had to contend with. So, it's kind of one of these gray areas that for some unknown
reason I always wade into. So, on the conditions, I guess we are objecting to -- we are
providing our 20 foot buffer for all of the -- the proposed lots. We don't want to provide it
for Lot 4, Block 4. We don't want to relinquish that easement, because we have got that
little lateral that's in Boise city and, then, as far as the six foot fence, I don't know how to
deal with that when I had to install it to buffer him and I said, you know, could we set it
back? Could we remove it, set it back? He said I don't want to lose my front yard. So,
-- I don't know. We encourage these out parcels with these older homes to be annexed
to be part of our project, to clean them up, to put curb, gutter, sidewalk across their
frontages, but, then, they are penalized if they agree to come in. So, I don't know what
to do with it. So, I guess I ask the Commission for a little leniency and, hopefully, they
will -- they will see my problem. And I think that's it and I will turn the podium over Mr.
Thompson, who definitely wants to chat with you guys. If you have any questions
would be glad to answer them.
Yearsley: Are there any questions?
Miller: I actually have a quick question for you. Just to clarify, this fence that we are
talking about, is it on the south or the east side?
McKay: It is on the north side on the right of way of Wainwright. Right there --
Miller: Okay.
McKay: -- right there at the back of the walk.
Miller: Okay.
McKay: And I did bring some photographs if the Commission wants to see it. It's pretty
obvious -- you know, it was a continuation intended as a buffer. You can see the fence
connected with this. You can see the fence was an extension of the Boise city project
at the west end and there are office approach -- shared approaches across the street.
Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Mark Thompson. State your name and address for the record.
Thompson: Mark Thompson. 2980 East Wainwright. So, I'm here basically to discuss
the front edge of my property as it is. It's been here 30 odd years and when I bought
the property it had a fence up against Wainwright and I have an easement out -- all the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 15, 2013
Page 16 of 26
way out to Eagle. I don't wish to give up any of my property. I really don't want the
fence moved. There is another proposed -- another easement placed due south of me
for another feeder street, which would come in and add yet more headlights straight into
my front yard and my front door. So, from my standpoint, you know, I -- I'm not -- I have
no financial connection with the subdivision whatsoever. So, they are adding -- they are
including me as a -- I believe a contingency from the city. So, it doesn't matter to me if
I'm in the subdivision or not. I just don't feel that I should lose any of my frontage in my
property, having to move my fence back and, then, having to deal with yet another
fence, so -- and cutting off my access to my other easement that goes east-west, so --
that's about it.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Freeman: Thanks.
Yearsley: Next on the list is Ray Eives. Thank you. A Dave Bellamy?
Bellamy: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. I just wanted to --
Yearsley: Please state your name and address for the record.
Bellamy: David Bellamy. 4138 North Rogue River Way in Meridian. We just built a
house there in Zebulon Heights in one of the phases there and I was going to comment
on the pool, but I have heard through your discussions that you have no impact on
pools one way or the other. But I would like to know if a developer -- does he have to
apply for a permit for a pool and who -- where he goes for that to size the pool for the
lots that are -- it's supposed to serve and -- or does he just pick a pool and put it in?
don't know that. But I know that the one that was built for us was too small when they
built it. It can only accommodate six to eight people and I think there is over 220 lots in
this thing when it's done and it's the only pool and it has a restroom facility and a
changing room. No clubhouse or nothing, but that's beside the point. But other than
that it's a nice place to live and so I have had my say.
Yearsley: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify? Would the
applicant like to come and comment?
McKay: Mr. Chairman, to answer the question, we don't propose a pool with this
particular project. We have like central play equipment in the acre -- a little over an acre
linear open space. That's the minimum amenity. I don't know -- we have not discussed
building a second pool at this juncture. Obviously, if they decided to go with a
swimming pool complex, then, we have to go through DR and all -- you know, all of the
normal requirements.
Yearsley: All right. Thank you. At this time can I get a motion to close the public
hearing for PP 13-017, Zebulon Commons.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 15, 2013
Page 17 of 26
Marshall: So moved.
Miller: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing for PP 13-017,
Zebulon Commons Subdivision. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: Who would like to go first?
Marshall: I guess I have got a question of staff, Mr. Chair, real quick
Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman. Or Marshall.
Marshall: The 20 foot easement. If that was ended up being required -- I'm really -- this
is kind of -- you know, I don't like forcing something on somebody who didn't even want
to be a part of the project anyway and requested that they come in and I'm not quite
sure how an illegal lot split was ever made and that does need to be cleaned up. I don't
know how that happened or how it transpired or anything of the sort, but I have to admit
I lean towards not requiring this guy to lose his fence and all that kind of stuff. If we
required this 20 foot easement what would be required of that area? Could he keep the
fence there? I mean are we going to go in and say, no, you got to tear all this out and
put in some type of landscaping that matches the landscaping on the street? I mean
what are we going to do?
Watters: Chairman Yearsley? Excuse me. Go ahead.
Marshall: Go ahead.
Watters: That was your question.
Marshall: On an upward note I just didn't know where to stop with it.
Watters: Chairman Yearsley, Commissioner Marshall, Commissioners, yes, if they
provide an easement, rather than a common lot, regardless, a 20 foot wide buffer is
required. Code requires that. Council does have the authority to approve a reduced
buffer width upon request. The only other alternative is -- well, it's really not an
alternative. Anyway you look at it there is a buffer required there.
Marshall: What all does that entail relative to what's already existing?
Watters: A fence would be --
Marshall: He has a front yard. He has a front yard.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 15, 2013
Page 18 of 26
Watters: Right.
Marshall: I assume it's landscaped up to the street. Does he need to change anything,
other than you're saying he's got to tear down the fence?
Watters: Landscaping needs to comply with our standards. The area needs to be
vegetated, one tree at a minimum per every 35 lineal feet. It needs revegetated.
Whether that be grass -- you know, ground coverings to meet our coverage
specifications. The fence is not allowed per our ordinance to be within that buffer area.
It has to be placed at the back edge of the buffer.
Marshall: Is the vegetation requirement different than what is there existing right now?
Watters: I would have to look at the site, but I don't believe that the existing area meets
our code requirements.
Marshall: Thank you.
Freeman: Mr. Chairman, another question for staff.
Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman.
Freeman: I'm not especially sharp today, obviously, but I'm going to try this question
anyway. If -- if we were to opt to allow the developer to go with this alternative
compliance, it looks like from -- from the wording here that alternative compliance just
shifts this buffer a little bit more forward than what it would be required -- where it would
be required to be otherwise. Am I reading that correctly? Alternative compliance allows
it to be in the easement, whereas if we don't allow it -- if we don't require alternative
compliance it's in back of the easement, is that correct, or --
Watters: There was two different references. Excuse me, Chairman Yearsley,
Commissioner Freeman. The first was alternative compliance to the requirement in
11-3B that requires the street buffer to be placed within a common lot in residential
districts. Okay. So, that first alternative compliance would be to allow that to be placed
in an easement instead. The second request for alternative -- actually, it wasn't --
excuse me. It was not alternative compliance, it was a Council waiver for a reduced
buffer width. Our Landscape Section 3-B allows for Council to approve a reduced width
for the buffer.
Freeman: Okay. So -- so, the alternative compliance is to allow it be within an
easement, rather than be a common lot?
Watters: Yes.
Freeman: I got it now.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 15, 2013
Page 19 of 26
Watters: The buffer would still need to be in an easement, though, in order for that lot to
meet street frontage requirements.
Freeman: Okay.
Watters: And if that is not the case that -- that lot would need to be provided street
frontage from within the subdivision.
Freeman: Okay. Thank you.
Miller: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Miller.
Miller: I also have a question for staff and it's just that I'm confused. It was brought up
that access to the east being Boise access, can you describe that a little bit? Like do
we have any jurisdiction to change that, since the property is in Meridian?
Watters: Chairman Yearsley, Commissioner Miller, are you referring to the access
easement for the existing home to Eagle Road?
Miller: I think so.
Watters: You know, I think that's a question for legal. I would think that we have
jurisdiction over it, because that parcel is in the city. But legal may not agree.
Baird: Commissioner -- Chairman and Commissioners, I agree with planning staff
analysis. It's kind of like the situation where we are talking about access from a parcel
onto -- you know, denying access say onto a state highway where the state highway
can say that they allow the access if we allow the access, but if we say this is our lot
and our jurisdiction, then, we are not going to let you leave from that portion of the lot.
think we have jurisdiction to do that. So, we stand by that analysis.
Yearsley: I do have a couple quick questions regarding that easement. He mentioned
that it's also an irrigation easement; is that not correct?
Watters: I have not seen a copy of the easement, Chairman Yearsley. I don't know
how the easement reads.
Yearsley: Okay.
Watters: However, I would like to note staff's recommended that that easement be
vacated. Staff also recommended that a note be placed on the -- on the plat itself
prohibiting access to Eagle Road. Beyond that staff did not require the applicant to
vacate that easement.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 15, 2013
Page 20 of 26
Yearsley: Okay. So, what's the difference between arecommendation -- well, I know
the difference, but if we are recommending and they don't comply, does -- I'm not quite
sure how that works. Does that make sense?
Wafters: Staff is saying that the city is not allowing an access to Eagle Road.
Yearsley: Okay.
Wafters: We are not requiring that they vacate that easement.
Yearsley: Okay. So, all we are going to say is can't have access to Eagle Road, but
you can have the easement if you want. Pretty much.
Wafters: Right.
Yearsley: Okay. I just want to clarify that. With regard to the buffer, we have to comply
with the code. The Council has the option to make that waiver, but we have to comply.
We can just recommend if it's in an easement or a common parcel; is that correct?
Watters: Yes. Your recommendation for approval of the proposed plat can be
contingent upon an easement being provided through alternative compliance --
Yearsley: Okay.
Watters: -- for that lot.
Yearsley: And, then, they would have to apply to the city -- when they go to the City
Council for that waiver.
Watters: Yes.
Yearsley: Okay. That just helps me clarify that. Thank you. Any other comments?
Freeman: Mr. Chair, I haven't commented yet and you just touched on something that
has been rolling through my mind. This is an unfortunate result of something that
happened not quite the right way years ago and while I completely sympathize with --
with you who have a lot there already and you got a fence there and you -- you're facing
the prospect of actually having to move that fence and provide additional landscaping,
feel for you. I would be up here the same way -- maybe not as calm as you were in
saying, hey, I don't like this. I agree with Chairman Yearsley, however, that because of
what happened as a result of a past decision that probably didn't get reviewed as well
as it should have -- whatever happened it's water under the bridge. We are required to
comply with the UDC here as the Commission and it seems to me the best thing we can
do is recommend approval per the staff report with the UDC and allow you to discuss
with Council, who has more power to do different things than we do, the issue at hand
and see how they would handle that. I would guess that they will be somewhat
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 15, 2013
Page 21 of 26
sympathetic also, as we all obviously are. That's the place where it seems to me the
power resides to perhaps veer from the UDC's strict compliance. You know, I feel for
staff, too, because you kind of get painted as a bad guy in this situation. Staffs job is to
tell us tell how we comply with the UDC and zoning code and you have done that.
Again, this is just an unfortunate situation that's been created. So, other than this one
item that we have been focusing on all this time, I do like the project. The project is a
nice project. We have this -- this sticky little issue, which I think the best thing we can
do, Commissioners, is approve it per staffs recommendations and take this on to City
Council with our hope that they will be able to give you some relief from the
requirement.
Yearsley: Thank you. Any other comments?
Marshall: I would simply ask in staff's recommendation is it recommended that that's an
easement or a common lot. I believe that's a common lot and we would have to make
the modification that we recommended an easement; is that correct?
Wafters: Chairman Yearsley, yes, that is correct.
Marshall: And recommend that maybe -- speaking to you guys now -- possibly
recommend that City Council consider some sort of alternative compliance beyond the
easement that allows him to retain and doesn't put a bunch of changes in there for him
and it is very unfortunate that somehow this lot split was done inappropriately or
somehow and it appears Mr. -- I believe it was Mr. Thompson, right, that you were
caught on this and I'd like to see us do minimal damage if we can and still clear this up
so it's all nice and legal. I would agree that access to Eagle should not be allowed. We
are trying to minimize access to all major corridors and I am vehemently against access
-- a full access to Eagle Road in any way, shape, or form. What you do with the
easement is up to you and I don't have any issues with him retaining that easement in
any way, shape or form, doesn't bother me, but I do believe that the access should be
disallowed.
Yearsley: Thank you. If there is no other comments, I would entertain a motion to
approve -- or I guess I would just entertain a motion however you would like to make it.
Marshall: Want to give it a shot? No? Okay I will give it a shot then. After considering
all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council
of file number PP 13-017 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August
15th, 2013, with the following modification: That -- well, the following recommendation
to City Council that they grant alternative compliance through an easement, as opposed
to a common lot, since the common lot would require a -- would create a landlocked
situation. I would also recommend that City Council consider minimizing the effects on
Mr. Thompson's property.
Freeman: I will second that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 15, 2013
Page 22 of 26
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve public hearing PP 13-017, Zebulon
Commons. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
C. Public Hearing: CPAM 13-001 Baltic Place Addition by HD
Fowler Company Located South of E. Franklin Road and West
of E. Kalispell Street Request: Amend the Future Land Use
Map Contained in the Comprehensive Plan to Change the Land
Use Designation on Approximately 9.41 Acres from High
Density Residential to Industrial
D. Public Hearing: RZ 13-007 Baltic Place Addition Located South
of E. Franklin Road and West of E. Kalispell Street Request:
Rezone of Approximately 9.41 Acres from the R-40 (High-
Density Residential) Zoning District to the I-L (Industrial)
Zoning District
E. Public Hearing: PP 13-015 Baltic Place Addition by HD Fowler
Company Located South of E. Franklin Road and West of E.
Kalispell Street Request: Preliminary Plat Approval for Two (2)
Buildable Lots on Approximately 9.41 Acres in a Proposed I-L
Zoning District
Yearsley: Next on the -- on the agenda is public hearing of CPAM 13-001, RZ 13-007,
and PP 13-015, for Baltic Place Addition and start with the staff report.
Parsons: Thanks, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The last items on the
agenda this evening is the Baltic Place Addition Subdivision. The applicant is here this
evening to request approval of a comp plan amendment to change the zoning
designation from high density residential to industrial, to rezone 9.41 acres from the
R-40 zoning district to the I-L zoning district. The preliminary plat has two buildable
industrial lots and, then, also a DA modification to unravel all the approvals that have
happened since -- before coming before you. As you can see here to the north you
have commercial property zoned C-G. It is also part of that planned development that
was approved in 2001. To the east we have industrial zoned property. To the south we
have commercial property and also cemetery property. And also to the west we have a
developed cemetery in the county zoned RUT. As I mentioned to you earlier, this
property was annexed and received planning and development for a commercial and
residential project. To the north you have those developed office lots and, then, this
property that was zoned R-40 was expected and planned to develop with 228 multi-
family units. If you look at the proposed comp plan change here you can see how it
currently sits on our map today. Again, it's high density residential. The applicant is
here proposing only to change their portion of the project, which is, again, 9.41 acres, to
industrial. If you also look at this exhibit you can see along this -- this light brown color
here is mixed use community on our Comprehensive Plan and, then, we have the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 15, 2013
Page 23 of 26
Locust Grove corridor. I think the Commission would agree over the last several years
we have seen a -- quite a bit of increase in multi-family development over industrial
development. So, with this zoning designation here or this land use designation here,
staff anticipates additional residential uses happening on this property. Therefore,
making this an ideal location to change the zoning designation -- the land use
designation from -- in high density residential to industrial. I'd also point your attention
to this pie chart that we have here and it really tells you what's happening in Meridian at
this point. You can see we are primarily a residential community -- zoned community.
We have some large acreage of zoning -- commercial zoning and, then, this little note
here, which is designated employment, represents mixed employment with the Ten Mile
area specific plan land uses and also includes our industrial zoning. What's striking
here is that the residential portion is actually probably primarily developed property than
what you see here. This acreage here represents -- we had it planned, but we don't
necessarily have that much developed yet. So, you can see right now looking at this
graphic we have quite a bit of residential compared to what we have in commercial
compared to industrial, making this, again, a good fit to change the land use
designation. Here is the preliminary plat the applicant is proposing. Again we have two
buildable lots. The first lot will be developed with a contractor's yard or H.D. Fowler
facility. Access to this property is provided from South Baltic Place to the south and
north boundary here and there is also East Kalispell Street stubbed to the southwest
corner here. Both of those streets are proposed to end in cul-de-sacs. ACHD has
provided comment on that extension of those roadways in terminus of the cul-de-sacs
and they do support that. H.D. Fowler will actually pave a 30 foot wide access drive
through their storage yard that would allow them dual access points to the street and,
then, the second buildable lot here would have frontage and access onto East Kalispell
Street. So, what they are proposing tonight is consistent with the UDC's access
management standards as well. The landscape plan is pretty minimal for the industrial
development. Along the local streets the UDC requires a ten foot wide easement to be
planted with trees, lawn, and other vegetative ground cover. The proposed landscape
plan before you this evening does comply with that requirement. Here is a conceptual
development plan that I spoke to you proposing two structures on the site, an 8,000
square foot office building and, then, also an 8,000 square foot warehouse building and
the rest of this five acres would be screened storage yard. The applicant hasn't
provided any details of what the screening would look like. Through the certificate of
zoning compliance process we would look at that screen to make sure they -- they do
comply with our screening requirements and also the proposed elevations would also
have to comply with those requirements. The applicant did provide sample elevations
of what they anticipate the structures to be constructed of. You see here metal siding
and split face block and that is pretty typical of what we see for an industrial
development. I would make the Commission aware that metal siding is to be a primary
-- or a secondary accent material only. So, in working with the applicant I'm sure we
can probably work out the design details when we get further down the road here. Staff
did receive written testimony from the Becky McKay, the applicant's representative.
She is in agreement with all the conditions as stated in the staff report. Other than that
staff is recommending -- there are no outstanding issues before you this evening and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 15, 2013
Page 24 of 26
staff is recommending approval of the applications and I'd stand for any questions you
may have.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? Would the applicant like to come
forward?
McKay: Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions. 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. Thank
you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The application before you is H.D.
Fowler. They currently have a facility in Meridian and they have pretty much outgrown
it, so they wanted to be along that Franklin Road corridor, so it is their intent to develop
this nine and a half acres. My other client Lee Centers, who is the current owner of
record of the property has owned it for quite a long time. He was -- it was his original
intent that he would have office and, then, multi-family type development and many
people have looked at the property and it's just not the right location. I mean that
particular area is predominately light industrial, commercial, office and it really was not a
good fit and I remember I was at a hearing when I think it was originally discussed and
the Council at that time was a little bit antsy, because their main concern was not losing
more industrial property, because they want to preserve those industrial corridors. So,
in our discussions with the staff they have agreed that it makes more sense that it go
back to that industrial designation and that's why we submitted this comp plan map
amendment. It will be compatible with what's adjacent to us. It will be compatible with
the office. H.D. Fowler intends on building an office facility and, then, they will have like
a small warehouse and, then, a yard, which will, obviously, be screened. They will
come through with their design review application and so staff can review landscaping
and architecture. We are platting it into two lots. It was originally part of the Baltic
Subdivision, but they -- they just platted the first phase, never platted the second phase,
so it's unplatted. We did talk to H.D. Fowler about creating a secondary access for their
lot and that's why the -- the lot has frontage both on Baltic and on Kalispell, because,
obviously, Franklin Road is built out to five lanes. Some day it may be left turn
restricted and they may need a secondary access. So, they like that idea and so that's
-- that's why we configured the lots kind of in an unusual fashion. We are in agreement
with the staff report. I think the letter that I sent over today -- sorry for the lateness of it.
I had to wait for a response from the client who is in Montana -- or at least our contact
was in Montana. The only thing I highlighted was Item 2.2 and I think Bruce and I have
discussed this in person and over the phone. It's more of a technical issue dealing with
the two different pressure zones. I told Bruce that we will get more information from the
client's architect on the structure and, then, meet with the fire department and try to
confirm their fire flow needs and what is available out there and prior to going to the
Council we will determine which -- if we need to make this additional connection to
Franklin or put in a pressure reducing valve. So, we are still working on it and I ask the
Commission to go ahead and approve this and send us forward and I think this is pretty
cut and dried. I have no gray areas that I'm aware of.
Yearsley: Any questions? Thank you.
McKay: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 15, 2013
Page 25 of 26
Yearsley: I have no one signed up to testify. Was there anybody who would like to
testify on this application? With that could I get a motion to --
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on CPAM 13-001, RZ 13-
007, PP 13-015 and MDA 13-013.
Yearsley: We have a motion and a second to close the public hearing for Baltic Place
Addition. All in favor say aye.
Freeman: Did you get a second?
Yearsley: Oh.
Miller: I will second it.
Freeman: Oh, there you go.
Miller: I thought you were really quiet.
Yearsley: It is. It's like let's just move this forward. Sorry.
Marshall: Aye.
Yearsley: All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: Comments? Questions?
Freeman: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman.
Freeman: This is a good change. This is a good use of this property. I'm glad to see it
happen. Contrary to what Ms. McKay said, this is all gray area now on that map if you
would go back. All gray area. That's what you want. I'm for this. It's a really good
move.
Yearsley: Thank you. Any other comments?
Marshall: I absolutely agree. I think it's a good move.
Yearsley: I do have one comment. I am grateful that the Fowlers decided to stay in
Meridian. You know, if we can keep our businesses in Meridian that's great. So, I also
agree that this is a good fit. So, with that can I get a motion?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 15, 2013
Page 26 of 26
Freeman: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman.
Freeman: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to City Council of file number CPAM 13-001, RZ 13-007, and PP
13-015, with no modifications as presented during the hearing on August 15th, 2013.
Marshall: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve CPAM 13-001, RZ 13-007, and PP
13-015, Baltic Place Addition. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank
you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: Any last comments? At that can Iget amotion --
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: -- to adjourn?
Marshall: I move that we adjourn.
Miller: I second that.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor say aye
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:20 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
~ ~ $ ~~°l 3
STEVEN YEARSLEY - MA DATE APPROVED
°Rp,'f ED AUCG
ATTEST: 3G°~ srj,
.~~
~, p ~+ a~ of
~./VL ~ IDIAN~...
JAYCEE HOLMAN, CITY CLE K ~UAMC
SEAL,
nAy~6`of~de TYFASUpe~~~~~
Motion
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: August 15, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4A
PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 13-008
ITEM TITLE: CINDER SPRINGS, LLC
Public Hearing: CUP 13-008 Linder Springs by Linder Springs, LLC Located Northeast
Corner of W. McMillan Road and N. Linder Road Request: Conditional Use Permit
Approval for aMulti-Family Development Consisting of 96 Residential Units in a C-G
Zoning District
MEETING NOTES
C/i pPPROYED~
~h~~~~~~
CLERKS OFF/CE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: August 15, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 46
PROJECT NUMBER: PP 13-017
ITEM TITLE: ZEBULON COMMONS SUBDIVISION
Public Hearing: PP 13-017 Zebulon Commons Subdivision by The Traditions by Amyx II,
LLP Located South of E. McMillan Road and West of N. Eagle Road Request:
Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Thirty-Eight (38) Residential Building Lots and
Four (4)Common /Other Lots on 13.56 Acres of Land with an R-8 Zoning District
MEETING NOTES
. CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: August 15, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4C
PROJECT NUMBER: CPAM 13-001
ITEM TITLE: BALTIC PLACE ADDITION
Public Hearing: CPAM 13-001 Baltic Place Addition by HD Fowler Company Located
South of E. Franklin Road and West of E. Kalispell Street Request: Amend the Future
Land Use Map Contained in the Comprehensive Plan to Change the Land Use
Designation on Approximately 9.41 Acres from High Density Residential to Industrial
MEETING NOTES
u~ APPROVED
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: August 15, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4D
PROJECT NUMBER: RZ 13-007
ITEM TITLE: BALTIC PLACE ADDITION
Public Hearing: RZ 13-007 Baltic Place Addition Located South of E. Franklin Road and
West of E. Kalispell Street Request: Rezone of Approximately 9.41 Acres from the R-40
(High-Density Residential) Zoning District to the I-L (Industrial) Zoning District
MEETING NOTES
~ ~PPROVFG
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: ,August 15, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4E
PROJECT NUMBER: PP 13-015
ITEM TITLE: BALTIC PLACE ADDITION
Public Hearing: PP 13-015 Baltic Place Addition by HD Fowler Company Located South
of E. Franklin Road and West of E. Kalispell Street Request: Preliminary Plat Approval for
Two (2) Buildable Lots on Approximately 9.41 Acres in a Proposed I-L Zoning District
MEETING NOTES
~ APPBOVfO
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS