2013 10-03E IDIAN.- MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
1 D A H Q COMMISSION MEETING
AGENDA
City Council Chambers
33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, October 03, 2013 at 6:00 p.m.
Roll-call Attendance
_O Macy Miller
X Scott Freeman
X
2.
_X Michael Rohm
_X Joe Marshall
Steven Yearsley -Chairman
Adoption of the Agenda Approved as Amended
3.
Consent Agenda Approved
A. Approve Minutes of August 1, 2013 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
B. Approve Minutes of September 5, 2013 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
C. Approve Minutes of September 19, 2013 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
4.
Action Items
A. Public Hearing: AZ 13-010 McLinder Subdivision by TS
Development, LLC. Generally Located at the Southeast Corner
of W. McMillan and N. Linder Roads at 4650 N. Linder Road
and 1437 W. McMillan Road Request: Annexation and Zoning
of 13 Acres of Land With the R-15 (6.43 acres) and C-N (6.58
acres) Zoning Districts. Recommend Approval to City Council
with Modifications
B. Public Hearing: PP 13-022 McLinder Subdivision by TS
Development, LLC. Located at 4650 N. Linder Road and 1437
W. McMillan Road Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 28
Building Lots (7 Commercial & 21 Multi-Family Residential)
and 2 Common/Other Lots on 11.88 Acres of Land in the R-15
and C-N Zoning Districts. Recommend Approval to City
Council with Modifications
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, October 03, 2013Page 1 of 3
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.
C. Public Hearing: CUP 13-010 Sawtooth Village at McLinder
Subdivision by TS Development, LLC. Generally Located at the
Southeast Corner of W. McMillan and N. Linder Roads at 4650
N. Linder Road and 1437 W. McMillan Road Request:
Conditional Use Permit for a Multi-Family Development
Consisting of 84 Dwelling Units in the R-15 Zoning District.
Recommend Approval to City Council with Modifications
D. Public Hearing: RZ 13-009 Village at Cold Creek by Hayden
Homes Idaho, LLC Located North Side of W. Ustick Road,
Approximately 1/4 Mile East of N. Ten Mile Road Request:
Rezone of 4.38 Acres of Land from the R-4 to the R-8 Zoning
District Recommend Approval to City Council
E. Public Hearing: PP 13-023 Village at Cold Creek by Hayden
Homes Idaho, LLC Located North Side of W. Ustick Road,
Approximately 1/4 Mile East of N. Ten Mile Road Request:
Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Sixteen (16) Single
Family Residential Building Lots and Three (3) Common/Other
Lots on 4.38 Acres of Land in a Proposed R-8 Zoning District
Recommend Approval to City Council
F. Public Hearing: PP 13-018 Olson & Bush Subdivision by
Ronald W. Van Auker Located 2950 E. Franklin Road Request:
Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Six (6) Building Lots
on 6.81 Acres of Land in the I-L and C-G Zoning Districts
Recommend Approval to City Council with Modifications
G. Public Hearing: PP 13-027 Tustin T.W.O. Subdivision by
Conger Management Located North Side of E. Ustick Road,
West of the McMillan/Locust Grove Road Intersection Request:
Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Forty-Four (44) Single
Family Residential Building Lots and Ten (10) Common/Other
Lots on 15.26 Acres of Land in an R-4 Zoning District
Recommend Approval to City Council
H. Public Hearing: CUP 13-009 Rodhouse Office Park by Rod
House Capital, LLC Located at 289 SW 5th Avenue (Lot 7,
Block 1 of Troutner Park Subdivision)Request: Detailed
Conditional Use Permit Approval to Construct Four (4) Office
Buildings in an L-O Zone Approved
I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
13-009 Rodhouse Office Park by Rod House Capital, LLC
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, October 03, 2013Page 2 of 3
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.
Located at 289 SW 5th Avenue (Lot 7, Block 1 of Troutner Park
Subdivision)Request: Detailed Conditional Use Permit
Approval to Construct Four (4) Office Buildings in an L-O Zone
Approved
J. Public Hearing: RZ 13-010 Three Corners by C13, LLC Located
at Southeast Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and Chinden
Boulevard Request: Rezone Approximately 31.73 Acres from
the C-C (Community Business), the R-8 (Medium Density
Residential) and the R-2 (Low Density Residential) Zoning
Districts to the C-C (Community Business) (12.52 Acres), the
R-4 (Medium-Low Density Residential)(16.51 Acres) and the R-
8 (Medium Density Residential) (2.70 Acres) Zoning Districts
Recommend Approval to City Council
K. Public Hearing: PP 13-025 Three Corners by C13, LLC Located
Southeast Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and Chinden
Boulevard Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of
Eight (8) Commercial Lots, Fifty-Four (54) Single Family Lots
and Six (6) Common Lots to Approximately 30.27 Acres in the
Proposed C-C, R-4 and R-8 Zoning Districts Recommend
Approval to City Council
L. Public Hearing: AZ 13-009 Spurwing Orchard East Subdivision
by Brighton Investments, LLC Located North Side of Chinden
Boulevard and West of N. Ten Mile Road Request: Annexation
of 26.53 Acres from RUT in Ada County to the R-4 (Medium-
Low Density Residential) Zoning District Continued Public
Hearing to 10/17/2013
M. Public Hearing: PP 13-021 Spurwing Orchard East Subdivision
by Brighton Investments, LLC Located North Side of Chinden
Boulevard, West of N. Ten Mile Road Request: Preliminary Plat
Approval Consisting of Sixty-Three (63)Single Family
Residential Lots and Four (4) Common Lots on Approximately
25.85 Acres in the Proposed R-4 Zoning District Continued
Public Hearing to 10/17/2013
Adjourned Meeting at 7:58 P.M.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, October 03, 2013Page 3 of 3
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 October 3, 2013
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of October 3, 2013, was
called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Steven Yearsley.
Present: Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Joe Marshall, Commissioner
Scott Freeman, and Commissioner Michael Rohm.
Members Absent: Commissioner Macy Miller.
Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Justin Lucas, Sonya Wafters, Bill Parsons and
Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Scott Freeman 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 for
October 3rd, 2013. 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 and
the only change that we really have is Items L and M on Action Items are to be opened
solely for the purpose to be continued to the October 17th meeting and that is the
Spurwing Orchard East Subdivision hearing. With that can I get a motion to adopt the
agenda.
Freeman: So moved.
Marshall: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. All in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of August 1, 2013 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 2 of 40
B. Approve Minutes of September 5, 2013 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
C. Approve Minutes of September 19, 2013 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. The three items that we
have are the approve minutes of August 1st, 2013, Planning and Zoning; approve
minutes of September 5th, 2013, Planning and Zoning, and approve minutes of the
September 9th, 2013, Planning and Zoning meeting. Can I get a motion to approve the
Consent Agenda.
Marshall: I move that we approve that for the 1st of August, the 5th of September and
the 19th of September.
Freeman: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All in favor
say aye. Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: Did I mess up on that? All right. The next process -- before we open the
public hearings I'd like to go through the process of the public hearings. We will open
each item one by one. We will start off with the staff report. The staff will present their
findings regarding how the items adhere to the Comprehensive Plan and the Uniform
Development Code with staff recommendations. At that time the applicant will have the
opportunity to come forward and present their case for approval of their application.
The applicant will have 15 minutes to do so. After that we will open it to the public
testimony. There is a sign-up sheet in the back of anyone wishing to testify. Any
person who is testifying will come forward and be allowed three minutes. If they are
speaking for a larger group, like an HOA, or there is a show of hands to represent the
groups, they will be given up to ten minutes. After the testimony has been heard the
applicant will have an opportunity to respond if they desire and they have up to ten
minutes to do so. At that point we will close the public hearing and the Commission will
have the opportunity to discuss and deliberate and hopefully make adecision -- or make
a recommendation to City Council.
Yearsley: So, with that I would like to open public hearing AZ 13-010.
Freeman: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Yes.
Freeman: Did we want to continue those items first that we need to continue?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 3 of 40
Yearsley: I figured we would do that at the back of the agenda.
Freeman: Okay.
Item 4: Action Items
A. Public Hearing: AZ 13-010 McLinder Subdivision by TS
Development, LLC. Generally Located at the Southeast Corner
of W. McMillan and N. Linder Roads at 4650 N. Linder Road
and 1437 W. McMillan Road Request: Annexation and Zoning
of 13 Acres of Land With the R-15 (6.43 acres) and C-N (6.58
acres) Zoning Districts.
B. Public Hearing: PP 13-022 McLinder Subdivision by TS
Development, LLC. Located at 4650 N. Linder Road and 1437
W. McMillan Road Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 28
Building Lots (7 Commercial & 21 Multi-Family Residential)
and 2 Common/Other Lots on 11.88 Acres of Land in the R-15
and C-N Zoning Districts.
C. Public Hearing: CUP 13-010 Sawtooth Village at
McLinder Subdivision by TS Development, LLC.
Generally Located at the Southeast Corner of W.
McMillan and N. Linder Roads at 4650 N. Linder Road
and 1437 W. McMillan Road Request: Conditional Use
Permit for aMulti-Family Development Consisting of 84
Dwelling Units in the R-15 Zoning District.
Yearsley: So, with that we will open the public hearing for AZ 13-010, PP 13-022, and
CUP 13-010, McLinder Subdivision. Let's begin with the staff report.
Watters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission. The
applications before you tonight are a request for an annexation and zoning, preliminary
plat, and conditional use permit. This site consists of 13 acres of land. It's currently
zoned RUT in Ada County, and is located at 4650 North Linder Road on the southeast
corner of Linder and McMillan Roads. To the north land use and zoning is commercial
property. Walgreens is on the corner. The rest of the corner there is in the
development process. It's zoned C-N. To the south are single family residential
properties in Arch Rock Terrace Subdivision, zoned R-8. To the east are single family
residential properties in Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision, zoned R-8. And to the west
is North Linder Road and vacant land zoned L-O. The applicant has submitted an
application for annexation and zoning of 13 acres of land with R-15 zoning, which
comprises 5.43 acres of land on the site and C-N zoning, which comprises 6.58 acres,
consistent with the mixed use neighborhood feature land use map designation for this
site. A preliminary plat was submitted for McLinder Subdivision, consisting of 28
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 4 of 40
building lots, seven of those commercial and 21 multi-family residential and two
common lots on 11.88 acres of land. Conditional use permit is also requested for a
multi-family development consisting of 84 dwelling units in 21 two story four-plex
structures on 6.43 acres of land in a proposed R-15 zoning district for Sawtooth Village.
The gross density proposed is 13.07 dwelling units per acre, which is slightly above the
desired density of six to 12 units per acre desired in mixed use neighborhood
designated areas. Access to the development is proposed via one right-in, right-out
access off North Linder Road. You can see my pointer here. Midway between Ann
Taylor Street and McMillan. Ann Taylor is right here at the southwest corner of the site.
One right-in, right-out access off of McMillan Road, approximately 300 feet east of the
intersection and another full access approximately 500 feet west of the -- excuse me --
east of the intersection. Ann Taylor Street at the southwest corner of the site will be
widened to the full street section. It's currently a half street section. And will provide
access from the south. Internal driveways are required to be in an easement providing
access to all the lots. Because the UDC restricts access to arterial streets when access
from a local street is available, the applicant requests a waiver from Council for the
three access points proposed via Linder and McMillan Roads. Both arterial streets.
ACHD has not yet provided comments on this application, as they are waiting for
revisions to the traffic impact study to be submitted. The Lemp Canal runs along the
north boundary of the site, adjacent to McMillan Road. A couple of other ditches exist
and the northeast corner of the site. The UDC requires all waterways to be piped,
unless approved as a water amenity or linear open space or waived by Council when
the public purpose requiring such will not be served and public safety can be preserved
or due to large capacity facilities. The applicant proposes to pipe approximately 300
feet of the Lemp Canal midway between the east and west boundaries, but request
Council approval of a waiver to allow the remaining portion, which consists of
approximately 485 feet, to remain open due to its large capacity. The section of the
city's multi-use pathway, the Eagle Island Pathway is designated on the site along the
east side of Linder Road. Because there is already a sidewalk along Linder Road the
Parks Department is allowing the existing sidewalk to satisfy the pathway requirement.
A 25 foot wide street buffer is required along Linder and McMillan Roads and a ten foot
wide buffer is required along Ann Taylor Street. Common area and site amenities are
required for the residential portion of this development in accord with the subdivision
and multi-family development standards. A clubhouse, swimming pool, barbecue area
with picnic tables, playground, pathway to the common areas, and an additional five
percent open space are proposed as amenities. The clubhouse and swimming pool are
proposed right here where my pointer is. Playground equipment, barbecue area and
open space here. Conceptual building elevations were submitted by the applicant
showing what type of construction is planned for this site. This is the site plan here on
your left. It's showing the layout of the multi-family units, the parking and driveway
accesses to the site. And these are just some various pictures of elevations of homes
that they are proposing for the subdivision. Written testimony was received from Lance
Warnick, the applicant, in agreement with the conditions, except for condition number
1.2.10, which requires bicycle parking to be provided for each building or pair of
buildings on the site. He proposes a minimum of seven different parking facilities in
locations to be determined with staff. The applicant also requests the following minor
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 5 of 40
modifications to the staff report, which staff supports. Delete development agreement
provision number 1.1 E, which requires a ten foot wide pathway along Linder Road and
number 1.3.2, which requires a public use easement for the pathway. Originally when
the staff report was written we were allowing for the ten foot wide multi-use pathway
along Linder. Since that time the Parks Department changed their requirement and the
staff report just didn't get totally updated on that, so it's just -- just a correction. Staff is
recommending approval of the annexation and zoning, plat, and conditional use permit
with the conditions in the staff report and is recommending a development agreement to
insure that the site develops as proposed. Staff will stand for any questions the
Commission may have.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions at this time?
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do.
Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: Could we go back to the site -- clear back. Back one more. Right there. Is
West Arch Street actually developed? It appears that the street actually loops through
and needs to connect to this subdivision twice. And is that platted? I mean what's --
don't believe that's built out.
Wafters: Chairman Yearsley, Commissioner Marshall, it is constructed.
Marshall: Oh.
Wafters: It -- this is Ann Taylor Street right here, if you can see my pointer. Half of that
street section has been constructed. It drops down to the south, which is Arch Rock
and, then, it stubs to this property here and, then, also at the east boundary. So, with
this development they just will be connecting these two stubs.
Marshall: All right. Thank you.
Yearsley: Is that it?
Marshall: That's it.
Yearsley: All right. Would the applicant like to come forward. Please state your name
and address for the record.
Warnick: Thank you very much. For the record my name is Lance Warnick, special
engineer with Aspen Engineers. Business address is 2422 12th Avenue Road, No. 323,
Nampa, Idaho. 83686. I'm here on behalf of the applicant TS Development to introduce
the project. We also have some other members of the development team that -- I hope
to be brief, so they can also have a chance to speak. I think Sonya and staff have done
a great job introducing the project. A few points I'd just like to explain about the project.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 6 of 40
As you can see on the map that is before you now, we are essentially an enclave piece
in the city. The desire is to bring it into the city, provide an opportunity, provide housing
and business opportunities for this community. Also to take advantage of city services.
This would be a great addition to the city and we think it would blend well with the other
uses that we have out there on the site. As you can see on the development the project
will be developed in, essentially, two different phases. The southeast portion of the
property, which is, essentially, the apartment areas, would be the first phase where
those 21 apartment buildings would be constructed, together with the infrastructure,
sewer, pathway, landscaping. As part of that we would also be constructing a five foot
sidewalk along the north part of the property on the south side of the canal to help
provide a pedestrian access along McMillan and we would be doing that as part of
phase one. The second phase would be the development of the commercial lots that,
essentially, form the west and north parts of the facility. Our desire is to create an
integrated community. You know, we are proposing to have architectural features in
common with the commercial buildings and residences themselves, so it looks like they
blend together. There will also be pedestrian connections back and forth between
them. So, that folks come home, they have a place to live, and eventually they will have
an opportunity to go and actually shop and interact with whatever services are provided
in the commercial lots that are next door. The buildings themselves, as you can see on
this site plan here, have a lot of architectural interest. You can describe them as a --
they call it a classic pinwheel design were it's a four sided building where each side of
the building they have a separate entrance and so there is a great measure of privacy
as people come into their homes. Each apartment is two stories. An opportunity to
have a patio on the ground floor to provide them some open space and, then, they have
the bedrooms. But it's a great design. A lot of architectural interest. The developer and
the builder can talk a little bit more about the quality of the units if you have specific
questions. But they are --- are top notch and they are a good product and we think they
will provide a good opportunity here. We have provided for the amenities as Sonya has
described that will be a way to help attract and entertain the folks that live in the
community and, again, hopefully, to provide an opportunity for, you know, our neighbors
and friends, a place for them to live and to do business here in the community. So,
think in terms of introduction that's about it, you know, so we are requesting approval of
the annexation, the zoning to C-N and R-15 in those two spots and approval of the CUP
for this and with that I would stand for any question and go from there.
Yearsley: Are there any questions of the applicant?
Freeman: I have one. Could you explain your proposal regarding the bike racks?
Warnick: Oh, yes. In staffs recommendations they had indicated the placement of
wanting to see one bike rack for every one to two buildings on the site. As I looked over
the site when you look at the number of parking -- bike rack parking that's required per
code -- I mean it's -- it's small and we recognize there could be some additional effort to
provide some additional spaces. My thought is is having one for every one to two
buildings may be overkill. There is storage space that's available on these units. We do
see a lot of the people that live in these storing their bikes in their outdoor storage
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 7 of 40
spaces. So, my proposal is that we would choose some locations and I was looking for
things -- you know, if you look here at the map, this first building down here -- I'm a little
touchy here. It seems to make sense to provide one and, then, we would strategically
place them throughout the site. You know, here in the central middle portion -- if I can
move the --
Wafters: Lance, if you press a color at the top of the board. At the very top.
Warnick: Oh, excellent. Thank you.
Wafters: Yes. Then you can --
Warnick: So, these buildings down here, you know, it's possible that, you know, one
bank of bike parking could serve all of those, so I could see having, you know, one in
this area, one in this area, one in this area, one in this area, this area, this area, and this
area. So, that gives us our one, two, three, four, five, six, seven spaces and as we lay
things out if we need to put more we can do it. I think having 21 or ten different bike
parking areas -- it seems a little extreme in this case. So, that's all I was trying to say on
that. So, all we'd like to do is provide at least seven and, then, we would coordinate the
specific locations with staff. It may be more, but commit to at least seven in different
locations.
Freeman: Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Any other questions? All right. Thank you.
Warnick: Thank you.
Yearsley: Now, do you have --
Warnick: Other members of our development team. You can have them come up if you
like.
Yearsley: Okay.
Warnick: Thank you.
Yearsley: If they'd like to come up.
Riley: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm Penelope Riley with Riley
Planning Services. My address is Post Office Box 405, Boise, Idaho. 83702. I'm really
small, so I can fit into things like post office boxes. You're supposed to laugh at that.
just wanted to briefly talk about the context of the development and I enjoyed working
with your comprehensive planning documents and looking at ways that the development
could fit into your vision. So, it's a great transition between the rural more -- what
consider to be almost suburban that almost rural development patterns and as you
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 8 of 40
transition towards Meridian, of course, it becomes more urban. So, we have a nice
balance of neighborhood commercial and the medium density residential. The site is
designed so that there is a lot of -- it's a nice distribution of structures and green space,
so that it's not a -- I mean you can see a lot of different things going on, but I think it's
important that green space that -- that's distributed evenly around the development
blends well with the different kinds of uses that are in the vicinity. It's a great transition
between the urban and suburban areas of Meridian. It's also a great transition between
the commercial uses that will be along the arterial roads and the low density single
family residential development that is to our south. So, we feel that it will make a nice
transition for density, nice transition for noise and other kinds of things that are less
desirable in a single family residential area. The density in the development is slightly
higher than the most common density that you find in the R-15 zone. I did want to point
out that the development does meet all the standards for the zoning codes. Our square
footage and our lots are compliant. We have met all the standards for open space and
private space and amenities -- everything has been able to -- we have been able to fit it
nicely -- actually, Lance fit it nicely together. I did want to add a little bit more about the
design of the four-plexes. They -- visually they don't even look like amulti-family
structure. They are so nicely designed with a good combination of planes on the sides
and the roof lines and with one door on each side of the structure -- unless you're really
paying attention it just looks like another home. So, it's ideal for the residents. It
provides a great environment for the people that live there. It makes a good visual
transition between the higher density residential and the single family that's next door.
We have good parking. We actually have more parking spaces than are required for
the site and I think that covers all my points. Is there -- anyone have any questions for
me?
Yearsley: Are there any questions?
Freeman: No.
Rohm: I have just one. How many more parking spaces than are required?
Riley: Give me a minute and I will tell you. We have three more parking spaces than
are required. Which doesn't seem like a lot, but --
Rohm: Thank you.
Riley: You're welcome.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Riley: Thank you.
Yearsley: Is there anybody else from the applicant team that wants to come up?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 9 of 40
Bevan: Good evening. My name is Tom Bevan. I'm a developer. My address is 4202
North Marcliffe in Boise. We have had the property for about six years and our dream
for the property was always a mixed use concept like this. So, we could get some good
quality residential homes and also some good quality commercial. We have -- we plan
as a developer to own some of the buildings, to stay involved long term, so our -- we
really want to have a nice quality project. The builder I think builds one of the best four-
plexes. If you go inside of the four-plexes that he builds you will see it's very nicely
done, nice finishes. The exterior also has very nice finishes. As Penelope mentioned,
when you look at the side it doesn't look like afour-plex, it really looks like a big house.
So, you have four doors and entries on each side. So, that really appeals to me,
because I didn't really want to build just a bunch of four-plexes that look, you know, like
typical four-plexes opening in the middle. So, each site has its own appeal, beautifully
landscaped. He does a great job. He's also going to retain some of the buildings in
ownership, so you have the builder and the developer that are going to stay in the
project for the long term and so we want to do a good -- a nice job. Always do anyway,
but particularly on something like this where we want to maintain ownership we think it's
very important that we build a nice community, something that's great for the people that
are going to live there. Also for people that are going to have businesses there. So, I
just wanted to emphasize the fact that we are in it for the long term. Any questions?
Yearsley: Any questions?
Rohm: I have just a question. What commercial businesses types do you anticipate?
Are they --
Bevan: Probably more smaller businesses. One of the buildings we had in mind is
about 20,000 square feet and is probably divided up into five or six business, you know,
so it's hard to tell until you actually start talking to some people about it, but I do have
some interested parties, like, for instance, a hair salon, someone's talking about doing
that and some -- more of the smaller type businesses I would say. I don't know if we will
even have a national anchor in this or not. I would like to have one, obviously, if we
could -- if it could work, but I really think it's going to be more the. smaller businesses
that cater, you know, smaller --
Rohm: Like professional services?
Bevan: Yes.
Rohm: Yeah. Okay.
Bevan: Something like that.
Rohm: Okay.
Yearsley: All right.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 10 of 40
Bevan: I want to also say that I enjoyed working with the staff. They have got some
great recommendations for -- when we first came in and they have guided us on some
things that made some great improvements I think. So, appreciate that and look also
for any comments that you might have. We sure want to -- like I say, build a -- a prime
great location and good quality and be a good member of the community.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Bevan: Thank you.
Yearsley: Any other questions? Any other applicants want to -- okay. All I have signed
up here are from the applicant -- from the applicant themselves. Is there anybody else
who would like to testify? With that I don't believe we need to have the applicant come
forward again. So, I would make -- I would entertain a motion to close the public
hearing.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on AZ 13-010, PP 13-022,
and CUP 13-010.
Freeman: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on AZ 13-010, PP
13-022, and CUP 13-010. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: Any comments, questions?
Freeman: Mr. Chairman? I'm sorry.
Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman.
Freeman: I -- I agree that this appears to be an appropriate use of the land. I like the
transition between the corner, going from commercial to the single family residential on
the interior of this block. I do have some concerns about the proposal for bike racks.
While I favor flexibility in locating those, I wouldn't like to see it drop below the minimum
standards for our UDC. It wasn't clear to me, though. Maybe I should ask staff. If in
the UDC I see that part of the -- part of the bicycle requirements are in the UDC, but I
don't know if the numbers are. Is that dictated by UDC also?
Wafters: Chairman Yearsley, Commissioner Freeman, it -- the UDC does require one
bicycle parking space to be provided for every 25 vehicle spaces. So, staff did
recommend a number well above what our UDC requires based on the proposed use.
Freeman: Yeah. I saw that.
Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 11 of 40
Wafters: So, what the applicant's proposing is not out of line to staff.
Freeman: Okay. Thank you. That's all for my comments. I like the project. I like the --
Ilike the arrangement of the duplexes. I think the -- the applicant has emphasized the
benefits of that and I tend to agree.
Yearsley: Anybody else?
Marshall: I would make a comment about the bike racks. I'm torn in both directions.
Again, I don't want to flood the place with -- with bike racks, but at the same time I worry
that you're probably going to get a bunch of families in here. Some of them won't be,
but there will be a number of families here and there and there is a lot of schools really
nearby and kids are going to be riding their bikes and I don't want my kid having to park
his bike three houses down. Either they will never get locked up. I will never be able to
check it. Things like that. So, yeah, I have some concerns there. I would want some --
don't mind one in the middle of those four. You know, for the two down here. But
when we get up top and I have got one along that line of five, Idon't -- you know,
suddenly clear over here in the corner if you have got a family in that four-plex -- or a
couple families, those kids are going to have to walk down three houses to get to a bike
rack, I'm not real fond of that.
Freeman: I agree. Mr. Chair. I agree with you, Commissioner Marshall. It seems like
some of -- some of those buildings would be pretty inconvenienced having to go so far
for access to a bike rack.
Yearsley: Can I -- I'm going to speak up on this as well. If -- you know, I always try to
put myself in these developments and how Iwould -- how I would live there and stuff
and they talk about having some places to store stuff in their facility or at their facilities.
I would almost prefer my kids to store that close to the house versus -- or inside of a
locked door, because I mean out on a bike rack you have a chance for vandalism and
stuff like that that would be more prevalent. So, the seven to ten bike racks I'm not sure
if I have an issue with that, just because I think a lot of them will be putting them inside
versus out at the bike racks and stuff, so -- I don't see --
Marshall: I just worry that my outside storage is always filled with basketballs and
footballs and --
Yearsley: Yeah.
Marshall: -- skateboards and everything else and I'm not sure it's going to have room
for a bike. Personally I'd like to see some kind of compromise somewhere between the
two and see a bike rack contiguous to each lot. So, you would put one in the middle of
those -- of four and it serves all four of those buildings, one in the middle of these four,
and, then, one in between each of the houses up here. So, you just -- as long as it was
contiguous.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 12 of 40
Yearsley: Right.
Marshall: And it's considerably less than one per building.
Yearsley: I --
Watters: Chairman Yearsley, may I -- may I interrupt for just a moment?
Yearsley: Please.
Watters: The applicant did relate to me a moment ago that they would be willing to put
in one bike rack per every two buildings, if that makes a difference in the Commission's
discussion and decision.
Yearsley: And I think that would be appropriate. It's what we talked about.
Marshall: To me it doesn't even have to be that. I mean I think it's very arguable that
you have one bike rack for those four and those four. I would say just one bike rack
contiguous to each lot, which is less than one per two buildings.
Yearsley: Yeah. Sonya, I have one question, though. On most of these type
developments we would require a caretaker's facility and do we have that with this
facility?
Watters: We do not require a caretaker's facility, Chairman Yearsley, Commissioners.
We require a management office.
Yearsley: Okay.
Watters: And storage shed and maintenance facility, that kind of thing. There is several
other items, but that is included in the analysis in the staff report.
Yearsley: Okay. I just missed that, so -- thank you. Any other comments or questions?
With that I would entertain a motion.
Freeman: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman.
Freeman: If I can get myself together here I will attempt a motion. After considering all
staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of file numbers AZ
13-010, PP 13-022, and CUP 13-010 as presented in the staff report for the hearing
date of October 3rd, 2013, with the following modifications. That condition 1.1E be
stricken. That condition 1.3.2 be stricken and that 1.2.10 be modified to read that at
lease seven bike racks will be located as negotiated with staff. Did I say at least ten?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 13 of 40
Yearsley: You said seven.
Freeman: That's not what I mean. I meant at least ten bike racks would be located on
the project, locations to be negotiated with staff.
Marshall: I second that.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number AZ 13-010, PP 13-022,
and 13-010. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
D. Public Hearing: RZ 13-009 Village at Cold Creek by Hayden
Homes Idaho, LLC Located North Side of W. Ustick Road,
Approximately 1/4 Mile East of N. Ten Mile Road Request:
Rezone of 4.38 Acres of Land from the R-4 to the R-8 Zoning
District
E. Public Hearing: PP 13-023 Village at Cold Creek by Hayden
Homes Idaho, LLC Located North Side of W. Ustick Road,
Approximately 1/4 Mile East of N. Ten Mile Road Request:
Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Sixteen (16) Single
Family Residential Building Lots and Three (3) Common/Other
Lots on 4.38 Acres of Land in a Proposed R-8 Zoning District
Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is a public hearing for RZ 13-009 and PP 13-023,
Village at Cold Creek. Can we begin with the staff report.
Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission. The next
application before you is a request for a rezone and preliminary plat. This site consists
of 4.38 acres of land. It's currently zoned R-4 located on the north side of West Ustick
Road approximately a quarter mile east of North Ten Mile Road. Adjacent land use and
zoning. To the north is the Five Mile Creek and single family residential properties in
Bridgetower Subdivision, zoned R-4. To the east are offices zoned R-4. To the south is
Ustick Road and single family residential properties in Fieldstone Meadows Subdivision,
zoned R-4 and to the west is rural residential properties zoned R-1 in Ada County. This
property was annexed back in 1995. A preliminary plat was approved for Bramblewood
Subdivision, which later expired. In 2006 the plat for Cold Creek Subdivision was
applied for, but was denied. The applicant is now submitting a request for a rezone of
4.38 acres of land from R-4 to R-8 consistent with the medium density residential future
land use map designation for this site. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 16
building lots and three common lots. The gross density for the proposed subdivision is
3.65 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the desired density in medium density
residential designated areas of three to eight units per acre. A 25 foot wide street buffer
is required along Ustick Road. Because the site is below five acres in size open space
and site amenities are not required. Storm water from the streets will be discharged into
Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 14 of 40
a storage pond on Lot 1, Block 3, in the center of the development. One access is
proposed via Ustick Road. A stub street is proposed to the west for future extension and
interconnectivity. A stub street is not required to the office development to the east as
there is no public street connection and that site is already developed. A six foot tall
vinyl fence is proposed to be constructed around the perimeter boundary of the
subdivision where fencing doesn't already exist. Sewer is proposed to be extended
from the north via an aerial crossing over the Five Mile Creek from Bridgetower
Subdivision and will extend into the site by a 20 foot wide sewer easement on the west
side of Lot 8, Block 1, as you see right here. Water will be extended from Ustick Road.
Conceptual building elevations for future homes within the development were submitted
by the applicant. Staff recommends the structures on Lots 2, 3, 4, Block 1, and Lot 2,
Block 2, that back up to Ustick Road incorporate articulation in the rear or side facades
facing the street to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines. Written testimony
has been received from Ross Erickson, the applicant's representative in agreement with
the staff report. Staff is recommending approval with conditions in the staff report and is
recommending a development agreement to insure the site develops as proposed.
Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have.
Yearsley: Are there any questions? Would the applicant like to come forward.
Erickson: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Ross Erickson,
a civil engineer, at 6213 North Cloverdale Road in Boise. I'm representing Hayden
Homes for the applications before you tonight for the rezone and preliminary plat for the
Cold Creek Subdivision. Could we go back to the land use or the zoning map real
quick, Sonya? If you take a look at the zoning map you will see that our piece is one of
the last pieces of this area that hasn't yet been developed. We think that the R-8 is a
good zoning designation for this piece. It's a good transition adjacent to Ustick Road
and we are bordered by office on the east side, with residential to the north, with the
Five Mile Creek as a natural buffer between the developments. The gross density of
the subdivision is 3.65 units per acre, which is on the low end of an R-8 zoning
designation. The R-8 request fits within the city's future land use map designation, so
we are in compliance there. The density is, like I say, on the low end with an average
lot size of 7,700 square feet. So, we are not by any means trying to push the limits of
an R-8 lot size. If you look at the design of the development you will see that it's quite a
bit different if any of you -- I don't know if any of you were on the Commission back
when the old applications went through, but it's quite a bit cleaner and more I guess
true. The last development tried to cram a bunch of lots in -- in an R-4 and they had
really unique shapes to them. In fact, a lot of lots were probably unbuildable. Our
proposal has nice rectangular lots that will be easy to construct homes on and has a
nice flow. It's somewhat of a challenging site dimensionally to develop, because it
doesn't quite layout efficiently anyway and that's why we decided to include the central
area as an open space, so that when you do enter the development you're not, you
know, met with a wall of homes, it's going to be nice and open, we will have some trees
planted around that open space that will include -- it will be a drainage pond and, then,
the irrigation pond. One of the reasons for denial of the previous application -- or,
actually, the reason for denial was because of sewering the property. The previous
Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 15 of 40
applicant had a common lot proposed up in -- I believe it was up in the northwest corner
and they hadn't worked out how that was going to be done quite fully. We actually went
in and met with Public Works and worked out a method to serve the property that would
not create the same problem that was created with the previous application and that's
what we are going to do is bring sewer into the property from Five Mile Creek and
actually locate the sewer in a concrete driveway that we will actually construct. It's not a
shared driveway, it's a single driveway to that lot, but that corridor will be preserved,
unless you put a gate and a fence there so that Public Works can access this. And
Public Works is in concurrence with this proposal, so we think that we have solved that
issue. As Sonya mentioned we have submitted written testimony indicating that we are
in -- you know, we are in agreeance with the staff report. We think Sonya did a great
job putting all the conditions together reviewing our project and with that I will stand for
any questions.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions?
Freeman: No.
Yearsley: All right. Thank you. I have one person signed up. John Schafer. Would
you like to come forward and testify? Please state your name and address for the
record.
Schafer: Thank you for this opportunity. John Schafer. I live at 2788 West Ustick
Road. This is the adjacent property to the west, 4.38 acres. And testified back
originally when the .original design was done and it was a horrible design. They have
done a much better job on this to clean it up and I have to give them kudos on that for --
fortheir design on this and we do appreciate the offer of the six foot vinyl fence adjacent
to our property, for the 300 plus feet down the side. But this property was zoned an R-4
zoning, which requires 80 foot frontage lots and 8,000 square foot minimum lot sizes.
From my understanding they are trying to reduce that to an R-8, which would go to a 60
foot frontage and a 6,000 square foot lot. Excuse me for a second here. Another
concern in the past hearing are the street widths. We see on this here that it's still a
fairly minimal width road for parking and for fire access. Again, I would say that we are
trying to force an R-8 in here for personal profit and gain by the developer. If you take a
look at the designs like they have been in the past, parking on the street for each
residence, by the time you put a two car garage driveway, your setbacks off of property
lines, you can barely squeeze one car parking on the street per house and, then, you
get to the radius corners and you have absolutely no parking for visitors to these
locations. And, then, you get to the -- kind of the northeast corner and there is a shared
access to two lots or shared driveway, which, again, prevents any private parking on the
streets or visitor parking on the streets. Basically all this is doing is just a higher density
by approving the R-8. It was an R-4 at the time and I don't feel that that change should
be allowed. And they also mentioned at the preliminary neighborhood meeting that they
had water rights on property within the vicinity and they were going to use those water
rights from that other location transferred to this location to drill an irrigation well, which
is -- probably can do, but in the past the wells were on an 80 foot well adjacent to this
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 16 of 40
property and back in 2000 -- the late '90s, 2000, wells were going dry, so we have a
little concern. They couldn't give us a depth on that -- that well as -- and we asked for
that.
Yearsley: And we need to hurry up, please. Your time has expired.
Schafer: All right. If this is approved I would request that Lots 6-2, 10-1, 11-1, and 12-1
be limited to a single story residence and to match about a 20 foot rise limit and also the
sewer design on this -- excuse me for taking a little to much -- a little more time, but the
part of the property to the west of our property was designed back in the days of a flood
plain that came approximately a hundred feet into the property line. So, the Hartford
Subdivision had to be elevated by two feet on the north side of the property adjacent to
File Mile, so the sewer lines that were installed in that subdivision were installed
adjacent, but they were also supposed to pick up our property, as well as Cold Creek.
Now, the flood has changed. The flood plain is back to the channel itself, so they have
pulled that flood plain back in. So, by developing this property next to us in the Cold
Creek Subdivision, if that is approved, we would hope that the Planning and Zoning
would take a look at this to be able to accept if our property was ever developed to tie
into that, so we don't have to do another crossing over File Mile Creek if we develop our
property there. So, that's about all I have got to say and appreciate your time.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Schafer: Thank you.
Yearsley: I don't have anybody else signed up for this. Would anybody like to testify?
If so, would the applicant like to come back and --
Erickson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Ross Erickson again. I will just
be real brief. I will try to touch on some of the points Mr. Schafer brought up to,
hopefully, bring some clarifications. We don't feel the R-8 designation as we have
proposed to utilize it is overdeveloping this site. An R-8 you can have around 8,000
square foot -- or, excuse me, 5,000 square foot lots. In an R-4 you can do 8,000 and
we are at 7,700 square feet for our average lot size. So, we are -- our lot size averaged
almost an R-8 lot size -- or, excuse me, an R-4 lot size. So, we don't feel that we are
pushing any restriction or trying to maximize. If we were coming in with 5,000 square
foot lots, then, yeah, we would be trying to maximize an R-8 zone, but that certainly isn't
the case. From a parking perspective we worked with ACHD to develop the street
sections and what made sense for this project. We actually felt there was actually more
parking available than there would be in a typical neighborhood, because if you look at
the way the site's designed, we have that central corridor area where it's -- it's single
loaded. You don't have homes on both sides of the street. So, it's going to free up
more parking opportunities for guests or residents that live there. Mr. Schafer
mentioned the wells in the area. That is our intent to drill an irrigation well and to
supplement an irrigation pond that we have for primarily surface water. The state of
Idaho has code that we need to follow for drilling out wells and the standard that needs
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 17 of 40
to be held to. There are setbacks to property lines, setbacks to other wells that we will
certainly need to comply with. So, I'm not trying to do anything that would be outside of
any state code requirement. I guess we would contest limited or restricting the lots that
Mr. Schafer proposed to single level. I don't think it's appropriate for this particular
project. I think the flexibility for the developer to utilize the lots as they would like would
-- would be best served for this project. As far as the sewer goes, yeah, we are
planning to extend the sewer all the way to Mr. Schafer's property. You will note that
the manhole goes all the way to the property line. If it weren't we could actually stop it
probably 55 feet short of where it's shown there, so there will be an opportunity for Mr.
Schafer, whoever develops this property, to extend that in the future to get sewer and
believe that pretty much touches on all the points, so unless you have any other
questions for me.
Yearsley: I have one quick question. What is the roadway width that you're proposing?
Kind of hard to see on the --
Erickson: We have a few different street sections for this project. The main street
coming in is a 33 foot section, as well as the street going back to Mr. Schafer's property
is a 33 foot section. The loop that goes around the open space is a 29 foot reduced
section --
Yearsley: Okay.
Erickson: -- that's loaded on a single side. We kept it -- even though the main street
coming through is only loaded on one side for that portion where it abuts the common
lot, we kept that 33 feet wide just to make the main street a little bit wider, so --
Yearsley: Okay. Any other questions?
Freeman: No.
Rohm: I have a question about the irrigation. There is no like Nampa-Meridian
irrigation available for that acreage or --
Erickson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, yes, there is. We are on a rotation and
Mr. Schafer is actually the manager for that rotation. So, what happens is water comes
to -- comes from the other side of Ustick Road and comes to the north at about where
these two properties have joined and, then, it's just on a rotation where it splits from side
to side based on whoever gets it on the schedule.
Rohm: Oh, so the balance of the time when it's on the other rotation, then, you draw
from a domestic well?
Erickson: Sure. It will supplement when the waters are low -- when the level is low in
the pond. It also provides -- it's a good method, because it provides fringe irrigation,
whereas, you know, a lot of these developments that don't have that opportunity or even
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 18 of 40
have a water right would, then, connect onto Public Works to irrigate with domestic
water, which strains the city system and --
Rohm: I think that's great myself. Thank you.
Erickson: Thank you.
Yearsley: Any other questions? No? Thank you. With that there is no one else -- no,
you have already testified. I'm sorry. Hold on.
Baird: Mr. Chair, the recorder just told me he couldn't hear a word that was said, so
there is nothing on the record. It's up to you whether to allow this. It doesn't appear to
be relevant to the decision that's before you.
Yearsley: Okay.
Baird: If you believe it is you can invite him to testify, but, then, you will have to have --
allow the applicant --
Yearsley: To rebut.
Baird: -- opportunity to rebut.
Yearsley: I guess do you -- I don't think it's relevant from what -- my opinion, so --
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on RZ 13-009 and PP 13-
023.
Freeman: I second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say
aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: Comments?
Marshall: When I -- I apologize, but I don't know as if water rotation is going to be
relevant that -- you have got a nice pond. When you have got water you don't want to
be using your well, because it's going to cost you money and that's electricity and things
like that. So, you're only going to use that when your water is down. As far as the R-4
to the R-8, it is very close to the R-4. I did like the fact that it was mentioned that the
layout is significantly better than the past R-4 layout and improved. I don't see a
problem with the layout. I know 60 feet of frontage is not a significant amount
oftentimes, but it -- we have even smaller lots in other areas and we are trying to get
higher densities, so that people don't have to drive so far to employment centers and
Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 19 of 40
things like that and as we get closer to town we want to see these densities go up even
more and anytime we are along collector streets, such as Ustick Road where we are
trying to get some bus service eventually maybe, would like to see some higher
densities in these collector areas so that people can walk to a bus and ride a bus, trying
to minimize the amount of travel people have. Honest, I think the developer has done a
good job in trying to address the issues of the past and they have come up with a better
project than was here and was already gone through. I think it satisfied Public Works
and, to be honest, I'm kind of happy with it. I don't -- I don't know that I have a problem
with two story residences going next to one story residences and I don't know of any
rationale to say that they shouldn't. If they were two story commercial I'd probably have
a problem and have kind of an issue with that or if there was offset distance -- if they
were very very close there, but you're going to have two story houses next to one story
houses within this development and I mean they are going to be right next door. I have
that in my development where I live as well. What are your comments, thoughts?
Freeman: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman.
Freeman: Before I comment I did have one question. Maybe I have a question and
that's going to be directed at Public Works. There were some concerns expressed with
the sewer situation on the sites to the west and the difference in elevation. I just
wondered if you could comment on that. Is there really an issue there or --
Lucas: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I am neither an engineer or a Public
Works employee, but I love to play one sometimes.
Freeman: You're sitting -- you're sitting in that --
Lucas: I know. I know. I'm in the hot seat tonight. Let me speak to the sewer and what
I know about it. You can hear that it was -- it's an aerial crossing over the Five Mile
Creek, so this is not going to go under the File Mile Creek and because of that aerial
crossing and the way it looks like the system is designed and it's being stubbed to the
property to the -- to the west, this system will be able to serve that property and that's
the plan, to my knowledge, of how that's going to work, so --
Freeman: That's what I suspected, I just wanted to hear somebody from your end as to
that situation.
Lucas: Sure. Sure. And Ican -- I'm positive that's how it is, because we wouldn't
require that stub to that property if that wasn't the case.
Freeman: Okay. Thank you. That clarifies it for me. I'd like to -- I like the project.
Frankly, I think that changing this from an R -- well, to the R-8 gives the owner the
flexibility to make this a better plan. I think that was a contributing factor to loosen this
up a little bit and providing better -- better flow, better frontage, better access to the sites
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 20 of 40
and I don't think it's at all inappropriate at this location, especially given the fact that
you're actually not really pressing the limitations of the new zone, you're closer to the
old zone. To me it just gave you flexibility to make this a better, more efficient plan that
flows better. So, I like that. The street widths are narrow, but, you know, it's -- it's not
serving a large population here and it is single loaded in every case and I thought that
was a pertinent point and good response to that concern. That water rights I really
choose -- I wouldn't get into that. It's not something that I can really make a decision on
anyway. There are codes that will govern that and I'm sure that will be taken care of
with the appropriate authorities. Again, we have had some owners on adjacent
properties look at some residential developments going on across the property line and
wish that perhaps a single story development would go on the other side, but, honestly,
a property owner in a zone like this is well within his rights to do a two story building and
I think it would be a travesty of justice for us to say anything other than that. We don't
really have any legal tools to limit heights that are within -- within our codes, so, you
know, two story on these sites is going to -- it's going to occur. The sewer issues I think
were adequately addressed. I'm happy with that. I'm for the project. I like it. I like that
you have got some open space in the middle of these properties. I think it's a great use
for a challenging lot.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Freeman: That's all for me.
Yearsley: All right. I will echo their -- the comments. I don't want to reiterate
everything. I think it was pretty well addressed and I think it's a good project as well.
And with that I would entertain a motion.
Freeman: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman.
Freeman: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers RZ 13-009 and PP 13-023, as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 3rd, 2013, with no
modifications.
Rohm: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number RZ 13-009 and PP 13-
023. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
F. Public Hearing: PP 13-018 Olson & Bush Subdivision by
Ronald W. Van Auker Located 2950 E. Franklin Road Request:
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 21 of 40
Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Six (6) Building Lots
on 6.81 Acres of Land in the I-L and C-G Zoning Districts
Yearsley: The next item on the agenda is public hearing PP 13-018, Olson and Bush
Subdivision. Let's begin with the staff report.
Watters: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. The next application
before you is a request for a preliminary plat. This site consists of 6.81 acres of land,
currently zoned I-L and C-G, and is located at the northwest corner of East Franklin
Road and Olson Avenue at 2950 East Franklin Road. Adjacent land use and zoning.
To the north is industrial property in Olson and Bush Subdivision No. 2, zoned I-L. Just
to note, this map before you does not reflect zoning, because this property was recently
annexed and zoned and our map has not yet caught up to it, so just an explanation
there. To the south is Franklin Road and rural residential and commercial property
zoned RUT, R-1, M-1 and C-2 in Ada County. To the east is industrial and commercial
property owned by the applicant, zoned I-L and C-G. And to the west is vacant land,
zoned R-1 in Ada County. In 2012 a Comprehensive Plan amendment was approved to
change the future land use map designation on this site from commercial to industrial on
the -- on the northern portion here and annexation and zoning with a C-G zoning district
on this property right here and it was approved with a development agreement. The
subject request is for a preliminary plat. It consists of six building lots, on 6.81 acres of
land in the C-G and I-L zoning districts. The applicant intends to extend the depth of the
existing adjoining lots in Olson and Bush Subdivision to the north. Flip back to this map
for a second here. That would be these lots right here. They are, basically, wishing to
extend down into this property. There is an existing home on Lot 1 right here and a
shed on Lot 2, Block 2, that are proposed to remain. Upon development of Lot 2 the
shed will be removed. A provision of the existing development agreement allows the
existing home and residential use to remain on the property and allows hookup to city
services to occur upon development or system failures. Existing access for the home
via Franklin Road is also allowed to remain until such time as the property redevelops or
a change in use occurs, then, access shall be provided via Olson Avenue. All other
accesses shall be provided via Olson Avenue or from the existing lots to the north via
Lanark Street. A 25 foot wide street buffer is required along Franklin Road. The
applicant tends to request alternative compliance with the final plat application for the
existing grass, trees, and other landscaping associated with the existing home to serve
as the required street buffer until such time as the property redevelops. That will be a
staff level approved application, along with the final plat. The Schneider Lateral runs
across portions of this site and is depicted on the plat within a 40 foot wide easement.
Approximately 180 feet of the lateral is piped west of North Olson Avenue on Lot 2. The
remainder is open. The remaining portion of the lateral on Lot 2 is proposed to be
piped. Because the lateral appears to straddle the property boundary of Lots 5 and 6
and the neighboring properties to the south and west and because these portions of the
lateral are not visible or accessible from any of the streets, the applicant requests a
waiver from Council to allow the remainder of the lateral to remain open. If you look
right here this is what the darker line is here along the southern boundary and up the
west boundary. Written testimony was received from the applicant Brad Miller in
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 22 of 40
general agreement with the staff report. He is in the process of working with the
irrigation district to obtain documentation for a request for a waiver to the requirement
for pressurized irrigation. Staff is recommending approval with conditions and the
following clarification on timing of the improvements. Removal of the existing domestic
well and septic system and piping of the Schneider Lateral shall occur upon
redevelopment of Lot 2 and that applies to provisions 1.1.3, 2.2.3 and 2.2.4. Lastly,
staff is recommending a new condition be added for across-access easement to be
provided via Olson Avenue for Lots 3 through 6 or if the applicant prefers across-
access easement could be granted if they own all the properties to the north. I'm a little
unsure about that. I did not get a chance to speak with the applicant prior to the hearing
tonight about that. It was something that we noted kind of last minute tonight, so,
hopefully, Brad's okay with that. Didn't want to leave these lots over here to the west
landlocked in the event that something weird happens. So, staff will stand for any
questions the Commission may have on this.
Yearsley: Are there any questions? Would the applicant like to come forward. Please
state your name and address for the record.
Miller: Brad Miller with Van Auker Properties. 3084 East Lanark in Meridian. Mr.
Chairman, Members of the Commission, thank you very much. Sonya did a great job
until the last little part. I don't know what that means. Could I get more clarification on
that, please?
Wafters: Yes. Chairman, may I address the applicant?
Yearsley: Please.
Wafters: These lots as you see over here -- one, two, three, four of these lots do not
have frontage on a public street. Therefore, if you were to sell off these lots they would
not have an access available to them, because across-access easement is not noted
on the plat. Staff's recommending that across-access easement be provided from
Olson Avenue. However, like I was saying, if the applicant would prefer and the
applicant owns all of these lots to the north, access could be provided via cross-access
easement from those lots to Lanark, since those lots are going to be probably joined
with those. Either way we need some kind of cross-access to a public street.
Miller: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think that we can make that work.
Do you -- Sonya, do you happen to have an aerial?
Wafters: I do not.
Miller: Okay. Currently, what we have there is we have two buildings that are already
constructed. One is John Deere Landscapes. We own that building. And they have
extended their yard onto a portion of this property. One of those future lots. And next
door is American Wall covering and we have allowed them to do the same thing. So,
the intent is -- it's kind of a goofy little piece of property that is behind those other lots
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 23 of 40
and so with -- I mean the only choice we really had was to combine them with these
other lots that we already owned. So, that would be our intention. I would -- I would
imagine that it would be best to connect those from -- do across-access easement from
East Lanark, rather than from Olson, because if you go from Olson you're going to
stretch across each of those lots, so -- I mean we would be willing to work with staff on
that. I don't see any issues with that. In regard to the pressurized irrigation there is
some significant issues in regard to providing pressurized irrigation onto those lots.
One of the issues is four of those lots will have no landscaping and so the cost of
putting in a pressurized irrigation system just doesn't make any sense. There are only
two lots which will have landscaping and that is where the existing home is and where
the existing shed is and so we will work that through with Nampa-Meridian and we will
address that before the City Council. In regard to the ditch and not tiling the ditch, the
residences to the south drain into that ditch and so if you were to the it would create a
problem for them. Plus it meanders along there. Some of it's on our property, some of
it's on their property and sometimes it's split between the two properties. But we
generally agree with the staff report and respectfully request your approval of this
tonight. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Miller: Stand for any questions.
Yearsley: Are there any questions?
Miller: Thank you very much.
Yearsley: I do not have anybody signed up. Is there anybody who would like to testify
regarding this application? With that --
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on PP 13-018.
Yearsley: I have a motion --
Rohm: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on PP 13-018. All
in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: Anyone like to go first or --
Freeman: I don't have a ton to say. As the applicant admitted, this is kind of an odd
little lot and this move in combining with lots to the north makes sense. If I were to
make a motion I would probably allow the flexibility to provide cross-access easement
from either Olson Avenue or East Lanark. However, that can be whatever staff
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 24 of 40
approves in that case. They can work with staff as far as that goes. The rest of it
seems pretty straight forward. I don't have any concerns.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Marshall: I do have one small concern and at this time I'm not -- I'm not sure which way
it's going to go. And I'm not sure it's even up us. They are asking for a waiver on this
requirement for the pressurized irrigation and I fully understand why they don't want any
right now, because they are not going to develop, they are going to be kind of the
backyard to some other lots, but once they are split off and become separate lots --
eventually in the future this property sells, somebody owns it and wants to go in and put
in other commercial entities there, there is not going to be any pressurized irrigation
there and now we are back on using city water and I'm a little split there on this,
because I don't want to require these guys to have to have pressurized irrigation for
something that's not going to have any landscaping. Don't want to see that happen.
But at the same time if in the future those develop into commercial facilities -- and I don't
know that they ever will, but if they were to I would hate to see them irrigating using tap
water. That's all.
Yearsley: My -- my comment on that is most of these are going to be commercial or
industrial type facilities with more than likely very little landscaping. You're going to
have more parking lots, more building sites, so you're going to have very minor irrigation
anyway, so I don't know if it's a big issue to not have a pressurized irrigation system.
So, I can understand their request.
Freeman: Mr. Chair, there is also the question of whether we even have any jurisdiction
on the --
Yearsley: Jurisdiction over that.
Freeman: -- waiver. That normally goes to City Council and we can provide a
recommendation, but they make that decision.
Yearsley: With that I would entertain a motion.
Freeman: Commissioner Marshall, would you like this one?
Marshall: Go for it. You're on a role. You're rolling. You're doing well.
Freeman: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commission Freeman.
Freeman: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to the City Council of file number PP 13-018, as presented in the
staff report for the hearing date of October 3rd, 2013, with the following modifications:
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission
October 3, 2073
Page 25 of 40
Staff -- according to staffs further recommendation that the removal of the existing
domestic well and septic system and piping of the Schneider Lateral shall occur upon
redevelopment of Lot 2. That has to do with requirements number 1.1.3, 2.2.3, and
2.2.4 and also that cross-access easement be provided via either Olson Avenue or East
Lanark for Lot 3 through 6 as negotiated and approved by staff.
Marshall: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the application of PP 13-018. All in
favor say aye. Motion carries. Or I'm sorry. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: Getting ahead of myself.
Marshall: I didn't know if you were voting or --
G. Public Hearing: PP 13-027 Tustin T.W.O. Subdivision by
Conger Management Located North Side of E. Ustick Road,
West of the McMillan/Locust Grove Road Intersection Request:
Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Forty-Four (44) Single
Family Residential Building Lots and Ten (10) Common/Other
Lots on 15.26 Acres of Land in an R-4 Zoning District
Yearsley: I'm not sure what I'm doing sometimes. The next item on the agenda is the
public hearing of PP 13-027, Tustin T.W.O. Subdivision. Let's begin with the staff
report.
Wafters: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. The next application
before you is a request for a preliminary plat. The site consists of 15.26 acres of land.
It's currently zoned R-4 in the city and is located on the north side of East McMillan
Road approximately an eighth mile west of North Locust Grove Road. Adjacent land
use and zoning. To the north are single family residential properties in Tustin
Subdivision, zoned R-4. To the east is a rural residential property zoned RUT in Ada
County. To the south is East Ustick Road and single family residential properties in
Crestwood, zoned RUT in Ada County and R-4. And to the west is a rural residential
subdivision Larkwood zoned RUT in Ada County. This property was annexed and
preliminary platted in 2005 as part of the Tustin Subdivision to the north of this site. A
final plat was recorded for phase one to the north, but the remainder of the plat, which
included the subject property, did expire. The proposed preliminary plat consists of 44
building lots and ten common lots on 15.26 acres of land in an R-4 zoning district. A
gross density of 2.88 dwelling units per acre is proposed consistent with the desired
density of low density residential designated areas. Access is proposed on the plat via
East McMillan Road. A stub street is proposed to the east for future extension and
interconnectivity. Timberline Way, an existing stub street at the north boundary of the
site, is proposed to be extended for interconnectivity. The North Slough runs along the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 26 of 40
northern boundary of the site and was piped with the development of the property to the
north. The Lemp Canal runs along the southern boundary of the site adjacent to East
McMillan Road and is open. Another smaller ditch runs along the west boundary. The
UDC requires all ditches to be piped unless waived by Council. The applicant requests
a waiver from Council to allow the Lemp Canal along the southern boundary of the site
to remain open due its large capacity. A 20 foot wide street buffer is required along
East McMillan Road and is proposed on the north side of the Lemp Canal. A ten foot
wide multi-use pathway is proposed in accord with the pathways plan with the street
buffer along McMillan Road. The plat includes 1.85 acres or 12.1 percent of qualified
open space and a ten foot wide multi-use pathway along McMillan and a pathway within
the common area here at the north boundary of the site, in accord with open space and
site amenity requirements. A six foot tall fence is proposed -- a vinyl fence is proposed
along the perimeter boundary of the subdivision, as well as the interior common areas.
The UDC does not allow six foot tall closed vision fencing along interior common open
space areas or pathways. The fencing does need to be reduced to four feet in height if
solid material is used or six foot is allowed if an open vision material is used.
Conceptual building elevations were submitted for future homes within this
development. Staff recommends the street facades facing McMillan Road on Lots 15
through 17, Block 1, and Lots 4 through 9, Block 5, incorporate articulation on the
facades to break up monotonous wall plains and roof lines. Written testimony was
received from Kent Brown, the applicant, in response to the staff report. He is in
agreement with the conditions proposed by staff. Staff is recommending approval of the
proposed preliminary plat with the conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any
questions.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? Would the applicant like to come
forward.
Brown: For the record Kent Brown, 3161 East Springwood Drive, Meridian, Idaho.
believe staff has covered everything in the staff report in the explanation. I thought I
would just kind of explain -- we did have a neighborhood meeting. For the most part
they were Tustin residents. There was a few people from Larkwood that are along our
westerly boundary. The concern from the people in Larkwood is that there is four
homes over there, they currently don't have access to Settlers' water. Not all of them.
And they were in hopes that when we install our system that they would have the ability
to access that. I called Mack, the maintenance -- or the head superintendent for
Settlers and it's a decision that their board has to make. Apparently these people have
water rights. It makes sense to me that if all of a sudden there is a supply close and
that they can pull out of that they will do that, but that's a decision that Settlers is going
to have to make. Our system that we are extending as a part to provide irrigation and
pump station that my client installed in phase one and it is a Settlers' system, so that it
is their decision whether other people can connect on. Settlers has allowed that on the
west side of Larkwood. When Saguaro went in they allowed those kind of connections
to take place for these people. I would anticipate that that would be the case, but that's
a Settlers' decision. There was also some concern at the end of phase one in their
southwest corner. There is a sewer connection that's located in that point right here.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 27 of 40
They have a maintenance road. Sewer trucks go through there. Also Settlers checking
their facilities go through there and currently, because the path and road is in that
location and they have gates to continue west, it -- it doesn't stop people from the Tustin
sub going west into the Larkwood area. I have talked to the sewer guys and to Settlers
and we have come up with a way that we can gate that when we complete our fencing
with the rest of this development and that should take care of that issue that was
brought up. Other than that, really, the neighbors were mostly, you know, what's going
to happen and was there going to be a connection, was there going to be a light down
on McMillan Road or not and how are we getting out to McMillan Road, you know, with
a bridge and that kind of stuff. So, I think that that brings you up to date with what
know and I think staff has covered everything and just to reiterate that we are in
agreement with the staff report.
Yearsley: Any questions? I have a Barbara White -- Wright. Would she like to come
forward? You need to stand in front of the mike, please. Please state your name and
address for the record.
Wright: I'm Barbara Wright. My address is 5048 North Larkwood Place. A resident to
the west of Tustin T.W.O. I had two questions coming into this. The first one I think has
been answered about the pressurized irrigation, to get in touch with Settlers. The other
question is about the six foot vinyl fence that is to be on the perimeter of Tustin T.W.O.
We live at the northwest corner where there is to be a -- my understanding a green
space to the south of the existing fencing between Tustin One and Tustin T.W.O. I want
to be sure that the vinyl fencing will go to that corner, because we have people who
think that we are part of the pathway and we have had trash, we have had people
harvesting our asparagus and I just would like to be sure that that fencing goes to the
corner or there are provisions for our privacy. That's it.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Wright: Thank you. Any questions?
Yearsley: No. Is there anybody else -- I don't have anybody else signed up. Is there
anyone else that would like to testify? With that would the applicant, please, come
forward and --
Brown: Kent Brown for the record. 3161 East Springwood. Our intent is to fence our
boundary. That was a real clear understanding at the neighborhood meeting and -- and
it wasn't an easy thing to get Settlers and the sewer guys -- for them to communicate to
me. Public Works really went out of their way. I mean I had to go down to the sewer
treatment plant and talk to those guys. What currently exists is a gate and, then, you
have two foot aprons on either side from the posts and so you can just walk around the
gate, you don't have to open the gate. The sewer guys are the only ones that have to
open up the gate to drive their truck through, but our intent is to continue the fence
through there, just as we did in phase one.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 28 of 40
Yearsley: Thank you.
Brown: Thanks.
Yearsley: Can I get a motion to close the public hearing on PP 13-027, please.
Marshall: So moved.
Freeman: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on PP 13-027. All
in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: Any comments, questions?
Freeman: Mr. Chair, I have, again, a question. Maybe staff can clarify for me, because
I failed to ask the applicant. This question about the fence -- in looking at the -- at the
plan, the layout of the properties, we have got a path extending along the north
boundary of the development that butts into those properties on the west side and I
assume one of those is probably Mrs. Wright's property. In talking about the fence
going all the way to the north boundary, it appears that that path is going to die right into
a fence. I was just curious how that's intended to be resolved or are there options or will
there just be a pedestrian access there? Is it intended to go through the neighboring
property to the west? I'm just confused about that path, where it's going and the fence.
Wafters: Chairman, Commissioner Freeman, Commissioners, there is -- if you look
right here where my pointer is, there is a common lot in Tustin One. So, people can
come down this pathway and out of vice-versa here and down here also. So, yes, it
dead ends, but at the same time it can -- it can loop around.
Freeman: So, it's not intended to extend westward? Okay.
Wafters: No.
Freeman: That makes sense, then.
Wafters: Not until if and when the properties to the west develop.
Freeman: Although some modification to the path itself, then, at that intersection seems
to make sense to me, instead of dying it strangely into a fence.
Yearsley: Yes.
Wafters: Yes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 29 of 40
Freeman: Okay. Thank you for clarifying. My comment then. I like this layout. It
seems to fit. I only have general comments. I think you have done a good job with the
layout. I really appreciate the fact that you came forward and addressed with us the
concerns that came up in your neighborhood meeting and explained to us how you went
about resolving those. I appreciate that and your willingness to cooperate with your
neighbors. I'm in favor of the project.
Marshall: I'd like to second Commissioner Freeman's comments there. I do appreciate
your straight forwardness and the efforts there. I think it is a pretty good project and I'd
like to see it go forward.
Yearsley: Thank you. With that I would entertain a motion.
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to City Council of file number PP 13-027 as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of October 3rd, 2013, with no modifications.
Rohm: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve public hearing PP 13-027. All in
favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
H. Public Hearing: CUP 13-009 Rodhouse Office Park by Rod
House Capital, LLC Located at 289 SW 5th Avenue (Lot 7,
Block 1 of Troutner Park Subdivision)Request: Detailed
Conditional Use Permit Approval to Construct Four (4) Office
Buildings in an L-O Zone
Yearsley: Next on the agenda is a public hearing for CUP 13-009, Rodhouse Office
Park. Let's begin with the staff report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Next item on the
agenda, as you mentioned, is the Rodhouse Office Park complex. It is a commercial
property currently zoned L-O within the city. It consists of 1.22 acres of land and was
platted in 1997 as the Troutner Business Park. To the west we have residential
properties zoned R-8. To the north we have vacant commercial property zoned L-O.
Across the street we have some developed commercial properties zoned C-G and to
the south of this is also vacant property zoned L-O and within the same complex. When
this property was originally annexed and zoned into the city there was a requirement of
Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 30 of 40
a development agreement. At the time those neighbors to the west were pretty vocal
and wanted to insure that they weren't impacted by the commercial development out
there and so as a requirement of that DA the applicant is required to come before you
and get detailed site plan approval for any construction within the L-O zoned portion of
the property. Again, the applicant is proposing four office lots. Or, excuse me, office
buildings on a single parcel. Access will be provided from Southwest Fifth Avenue,
which is a designated collector street. Since the property is going to be held under a
single ownership staff is not recommending cross-access with the adjacent properties or
within the development. At some future date the applicant has the option of subdividing
or condoing the buildings and at that point staff would require the cross-access
agreement to be in place. I would mention to you that with the development of the lots
or the subdivision there was a 35 foot landscape buffer requirement along the east
boundary and the applicant -- and that's currently installed and been in place since
1997. So, there are no modifications or changes to that boundary at all and buildings
are setback from that landscape buffer. The UDC requires a minimum of 36 parking
stalls on the site. The applicant is proposing 39 this evening. Here is the proposed
landscape plan. All the planter islands comply with the zoning ordinance as far as how
many are required. The applicant is providing a trash enclosure in between two of the
structures along the south boundary and, then, as a condition of approval staff has
recommended that the bike rack be -- appropriate bike rack be provided for each
individual building as well, so it's clear on who has the right to use that facility. Looking
at what could occur in the area and the residential in the area there was a requirement
with this subdivision in the past where a pedestrian connection was required with the
residential to the west and so staff felt it appropriate to at least require some bike parks
for each building in there. If this might develop with any medical office or any other type
of office or residential subdivision may use to and they could either bike or walk to the
facilities. The applicant is proposing a pretty consistent design theme. All of the
structures on the site are proposed to be constructed of architectural shingles, vinyl
windows, stones wainscot and stucco treatment. You can see that the applicant has
also proposed some pop outs on the roof to break up that roof plain as well. One thing
that I would mention to you that none of these elevations before you have any weather
protection over the entrances into the building as required by the UDC. So, the
applicant, as they go through CZC design review process they will have to add some
kind of design treatment to that entry to make sure folks aren't getting wet as they enter
into the building. Staff has received written testimony from the applicant in agreement
with the conditions of the staff report and at this time staff will stand for any questions
you may have.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do. Bill, can we go back to that site plan? It's real goofy for me,
because north is down. So -- and I'm used to north being up. That jog on the northwest
corner, which it would be the bottom right. Yeah. Is there supposed to be a setback
there, because that's another residential property there, isn't it? Is there another
setback against that or am I missing something?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 31 of 40
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Marshall, when
this project came through in '96 -- if you can look at the arrow here you can see that
there is a street there at that boundary. A requirement of that was the applicant wants
to provide a fire department turnaround. So, that notch out is an asphalt turnaround for
the fire department. But there still is 35 feet -- there is some landscaping and, then, the
building will be set away from that. So, it is consistent with what's developed on the
property.
Marshall: Thanks.
Parsons: That's why. it's done like that.
Marshall: Thank you.
Yearsley: Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward? Please
state your name and address for the record.
Reeder: My name is Shawn Reeder with Performance Engineers. I'm located at 1102
North Franklin Boulevard in Nampa, Idaho. 83687. Mr. Chairman, Members of --
Commissioners, we are excited about this development. It seems to be an interesting
place to land here in the -- in that we are actually complying with what is the zoning and
those things that are happening. It's fairly simple. It's a nice project. The owner is
excited to -- to develop the area that's been vacant for a considerable period of time.
We are glad -- we are more than willing to work with those recommendations that staff
has given and agree to those and we would be glad to answer any questions you may
have.
Yearsley: Any questions? All right. Thank you. I have a Bill Hamlin. Would he like to
come forward?
Hamlin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Bill
Hamlin. Business address 216 Southwest 5th Avenue. Right here in Meridian. I'm one
of a group of owners of several properties that are just to the east side of the road just
north of this proposed development. I do want to say that I'm here listed as in support
of this project. However, that's going to be a qualified support. So, I'm an advocate of
responsible development. I have a concern about parking that's provided with this
project. I want to thank Mr. Parsons for taking the time to explain staffs position on the
project. I certainly understand it given the ratios of parking that are listed in the
development code. I was glad, Mr. Commissioner, to hear you say when you're looking
at these projects you try to place yourself in the project and look at it that way. I have
had the benefit of being at our site most days over the past seven years and so I have
had an opportunity to observe the actual condition taking place there. My concern is
that our development is about a 6,000 square foot professional office building. We have
-- at the time we developed we were right at 23 parking spaces. That 23 parking
spaces is pretty much full most of the time. It's really a good radio for what we do there.
Directly across the street from us is another 6,000 -- approximately 6,000 square foot
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 32 of 40
building that's currently being I think used for medical therapy type -- type use. That is
woefully inadequate for the parking. They also have 23 spaces. However, very often
there is approximately a dozen cars parking on the street, parking in our lot, parking in
our adjacent property lot that's undeveloped, parking in front of fire hydrants. There is a
little bit of curb on the road there that's got us concerned. So, those parking issues that
are provided with those -- those existing facilities, are approximately in one space every
250 square foot of office space -- of building space. So, in looking at the situation that
ratio works for our building. It's not working across the road. This application doesn't
say what the use of these buildings are going to be. So, what I'm asking -- what I'm
here to ask you to do is to take a look at the parking ratios. This is a conditional use
application, I would hope that you would look at that and take some of the insights that
we have gained over our -- over our time there. I'd further like to point out that the road
through the area is not marked well. It's just paved. There is no center line, there is no
parking lanes shown, and it creates some problems in that location. It's a little bit of a
narrow spot where people park coming around that bend in the road and so we want to
be good neighbors, we want them to be good neighbors to us, and we are just trying to
look at this so there won't be a problem in the future for everybody.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Hamlin: Thank you.
Yearsley: I do not have anybody else signed up to testify. Is there anybody else that
would like to testify? If not, would the applicant, please, come forward.
Reeder: Again, Shawn Reeder with Performance Engineers, 1102 North Franklin
Boulevard in Nampa, Idaho. Our parking is per the zoning requirements. Our zone is
actually a little different than that across the road, so what those businesses are located
on will be different than those that are located across the street and our current ones I --
the guy that we are currently working on the project with is -- he's going to have extra
spaces in his -- that first building for sure, as well as -- so, hopefully, that will not be a
been problem for our neighbors. Thank you. Any questions?
Yearsley: Any other questions?
Freeman: No.
Yearsley: Okay. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing of CUP 13-009.
Freeman: So moved.
Marshall: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on CUP 13-009. All
in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 33 of 40
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Freeman: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman.
Freeman: The application seems to be pretty straight forward, appropriate for the area.
would like to address the concerns about parking, though. You know, I'm torn over this
issue, because sometimes parking proves to be inadequate and we have -- we have an
ordinance that tries to I guess estimate what is appropriate. The applicant is right in I
believe 14 percent over what is actually required and I would have a hard time, given
what the UDC tells us, requiring him to be 50 percent over or twice. It's arbitrary. And
don't disagree that sometimes the UDC proves to be under. Maybe this is a problem
that needs to be addressed on a larger stage and we take a look at the UDC and ask
the question, hey, are we appropriately requiring a minimum number of parking stalls in
all of these different uses. But I can't project just an exception onto one applicant,
especially when he's gone over the requirements of the UDC, but I do recognize your
concern that we do have some parking issues as a result of -- as a result of our
minimum standards. I do believe that Mr. Reeder is correct that these uses will be of
lighter use than yours, but, again, I can't guarantee that. We just don't know. Reversing
it a little bit, you know, he could come up here and complain that you have inadequately
parked your place -- your own place, so you would have to add more, I suppose, too,
but, you know, that's out of the realm of possibilities and that's not practical either. I just
want to say I see the concern, but I can't justify putting an additional requirement on this
particular applicant because of a perceived inadequacy of the UDC parking
requirements. Other than that, I'm in favor of this project and would move to
recommend approval.
Yearsley: With that I would entertain a motion if there is no other comments. No other
comments?
Rohm: I think he said it all.
Freeman: You agree with me? Okay.
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to approve
file number CUP 13-009 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October
3rd, 2013, with no modifications.
Rohm: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number CUP 13-009. All in
favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 34 of 40
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
13-009 Rodhouse Office Park by Rod House Capital, LLC
Located at 289 SW 5th Avenue (Lot 7, Block 1 of Troutner Park
Subdivision)Request: Detailed Conditional Use Permit
Approval to Construct Four (4) Office Buildings in an L-O Zone
Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law for
the approval of CUP 13-009, Rodhouse Office Park. I'm just wanting to make sure that
you're all comfortable with making that motion tonight. And, if so, I would entertain a
motion.
Freeman: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, I missed that. Could you repeat what you just said?
Yearsley: We are, basically, approving the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law of
CUP 13-009, which is the one we just heard.
Marshall: Specifically because there were no modifications and we can accept it as
written.
Yearsley: And they are wanting to move forward to get it built as soon as possible.
Freeman: Thank you for accommodating my inattention.
Rohm: So moved.
Freeman: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law of CUP 13-009. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
J. Public Hearing: RZ 13-010 Three Corners by C13, LLC Located
at Southeast Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and Chinden
Boulevard Request: Rezone Approximately 31.73 Acres from
the C-C (Community Business), the R-8 (Medium Density
Residential) and the R-2 (Low Density Residential) Zoning
Districts to the C-C (Community Business) (12.52 Acres), the
R-4 (Medium-Low Density Residential)(16.51 Acres) and the R-
8 (Medium Density Residential) (2.70 Acres) Zoning Districts
K. Public Hearing: PP 13-025 Three Corners by C13, LLC Located
Southeast Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and Chinden
Boulevard Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 35 of 40
Eight (8) Commercial Lots, Fifty-Four (54) Single Family Lots
and Six (6) Common Lots to Approximately 30.27 Acres in the
Proposed C-C, R-4 and R-8 Zoning Districts
Yearsley: All right. Get my papers here. The next item on the agenda is public hearing
RZ 13-010 and PP 13-025, Three Corners. Let's begin with the staff report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Next item and final
item for me this evening is the Three Corners Subdivision, currently situated on the
southeast corner of North Locust Grove Road and Chinden Boulevard, currently this
property annexed and zoned in the city with the C-C, R-8, and R-2 zoning district.
Surrounding this property we have county subdivisions, to the west -- or excuse me. To
the east and to the south have essentially one acre lots. To the east -- excuse me -- to
the west we have a Catholic school -- private school and a public school and, then, a
church zoned R-8 in the city as well. In 2007 this property received a Comprehensive
Plan map amendment, preliminary plat, and annexation approval for a mixed use
development, which consisted of the private school, commercial along Chinden, and a
mix of residential development, R-8 and R-2 zoning. As I mentioned to you the comp
plan designation changed this from I think medium density residential to a mixed use
community designation. If you saw my analysis in the staff report I didn't kind of call out
some of those design elements that were prudent to this property. The one thing that
did want to bring to your attention is the fact that the density on the sight is quite a bit
under what we anticipate in a mixed use density, but as I laid out in the staff report, they
are proposing more lots than what was previously approved and they are still meeting
the intent by providing those pedestrian amenities connecting the subdivision with the
commercial planned in the future and also trying to have a cohesive development to
blend in with the surrounding county residences as well. So, we take out -- we have
taken into account all of those factors when bringing forth a recommendation to you and
that's what we have done here. So, as I mentioned to you, the applicant is proposing a
slight modification to the zoning, only to mirror what's proposed before you this evening
with the plat. So, the C-C portion of the property is shrinking slightly to accommodate a
small node of R-8 here along Chinden Boulevard and, then, the remainder of the
residential lots would be zoned R-4. So, we are decreasing commercial, increasing
residential with the rezone. As I mentioned to you, here are a few patio homes here.
The applicant is proposing 54 residential lots. The majority of those will fall within the
R-4 designation here. The applicant wanted to keep with the integrity of the plan that
was before you back in 2007 and provide those larger lots allowed around the boundary
to buffer against those residential -- or, excuse me, the county subdivisions as
mentioned to you. The main access for this development is going to be from Locust
Grove, which is East Three Corners Drive, which has been extended with the first phase
when the school went in and, then, of course, provide an interconnectivity network with
the development. The applicant is also proposing a stub street to the south boundary
as previously approved and pretty consistent to what you approved -- or acted on back
in 2007. One thing I did want to mention to you -- the applicant is required to provide a
35 foot landscape buffer along Locust Grove and Chinden Boulevard, both entryway
corridors. Because the applicant is now proposing residential up against Chinden
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 36 of 40
Boulevard they will have to provide sound attenuation to buffer the residential district
from the road noise of the facility. The applicant is also proposing a ten foot multi-use
pathway along Chinden Boulevard, which will connect into the internal pathway system
that they are proposing this evening. Get to the -- the one thing that's changed since
this has come through is the applicant has -- at least the property owner to the south is
currently constructing a home in the vicinity of the southern stub street. One of our
recommendations this evening was that they bring forth an exhibit to depict on how this
stub street could be extended in the future. I know ACHD has some concerns with that
as well and so staff has worked with the applicant to bring forth an exhibit for you this
evening and this is what was presented to staff and something that we wanted to bring
forth to you as well. So, it's not identically scaled or dimensioned perfectly, but this kind
of shows a representation of where the stub street fits currently at the south boundary.
Here is the home that's currently under construction to the south and you can see here
if a road does go through or when that road extends through, the applicant -- at least the
home will be set back from the future roadway at least a minimum of 30 feet. So, staff
is -- certainly has no more concerns regarding whether or not that road could be
extended and certainly this exhibit portrays that. I know staff had received a draft staff
report from ACHD and comments. They had required, basically, a turnaround on this
property to be provided to that stub street. In working with the fire department they see
no need for a temporary turnaround be placed adjacent to this current home under
construction and certainly as we work through final platting the applicant will have to
work with the fire department and ACHD to insure that all requirements are being made
as far as connectivity and life safety issues. So, here is the landscape plan. The
amenities are pretty abundant for the site. The primary amenity is the integrated
pathway system. Again, the applicant is connecting to the commercial development.
That could happen -- or will happen in the future and, then, we have some micropath
lots that butt into adjacent roads and, then, also run along the south boundary and
couple be extended with the future development to the south and, then, the applicant is
also proposing another micropath here through the cul-de-sac. It runs along the school
district property. Dumps into one or both parks proposed for the development. The
applicant is proposing a sitting area or picnic area on this lot here for the residential
portion and, then, has a nice entry feature into the development the applicant is
proposing athree-quarter acre park and adjacent to the commercial development. One
of our recommended conditions is that they provide a sitting area within the park, so that
the folks that are working within the commercial area can go there and relax or eat
lunch in the parking and take advantage of that amenity as well and that's pretty
consistent to what we require for a mixed use development. The elevations are slightly
changing from the previous approval. Council will be acting on a development
agreement modification as we move forward through the hearing process. These
elevations show -- do depict a mixture of building materials pretty consistent. You can
see here there is modulation in the roof forms. There is a mix of materials. There is
stucco and stone wainscoting on the building. So, staff is pretty amendable to the
elevations while the applicant has not proposed any elevations for the commercial
portion of the development. But as they plat those properties and bring forth structures
for that site, they will have to go through CZC and design review process with the city.
would mention to you that the applicant is now proposing -- at this time the applicant is
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 37 of 40
not proposing any access to Chinden Boulevard either. So, the main access will be off
that curved road coming into the development ultimate further connectivity happening
from the south. Staff has received written testimony from Kent Brown, the applicant's
representative. They are in agreement with all the conditions in the staff report and at
this time I will stand for any questions you may have.
Yearsley: Are there any questions of staff?
Freeman: I have one regarding the stub road to the south. I guess when I read that in
the report obviously what I envisioned was that road continuing directly south and tying
into something. I didn't envision it taking a 90 degree and cutting across what appears
to be a back yard of a residence there. Does that encroach on that property owner's
property?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Freeman,
currently that owner owns all 35 acres or so there, so it's -- we don't have the
landscaping for the property on this site, but we are sure that they have designed the
site to where landscaping -- everything that will go with that home won't be destroyed or
removed with the extension of the roadway.
Freeman: Oh. So, they own that entire lot?
Parsons: The own all of that lot.
Freeman: Well, then, it makes a lot more sense. And they are aware of this?
Parsons: They are.
Freeman: Thank you.
Yearsley: Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward?
Brown: For the record, Kent Brown, 3161 Springwood, Meridian, Idaho. Since the only
item that was kind of discussed was this stub street, if you want to go back to that, Bill,
that diagram. This is a new home that's just recently finished construction. They
anticipate that road being in that area and they are actually even installing landscaping
to obscure that house if and when that -- that ever connects in the future. If you can go
back to the overall drawing, Bill. Just real quickly, some key elements in the design. As
you come in off of Locust Grove that open space really doesn't -- really lets you know
that there is homes back there that are kind of hidden behind that and the school, which
we believe is a nice design element and, then, from the south going north the lots
progressively get bigger as they go closer to the -- to the road and as you discussed
and you see on a regular basis that kind of consistent -- we are really happy that the
Meridian fire chief does not have a problem with the T type turn around. We think that
that's a really nice element for finishing that versus a cul-de-sac where you end up with
a bunch of pie shapes and common drives. We are going to have to either do a
Meridian Planning 8: Zoning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 38 of 40
common drive to accommodate the necessary frontage or we might end up having to
just extend the right of way. You can give more right of way, but you can't -- you have a
minimum that you're supposed to do. The fire department requires 60 feet from center,
but we might need to go maybe 70 to provide that frontage and, then, not have to do a
common drive, if that makes sense. When my parents moved from the bench I lived
next door to this piece of property. We were the large lot subdivision to the east of this.
I think that it's a really nice amenity to have that walking path between the two
neighbors and we have the room to do that. I think it is the nicest amenity that we have
here in this development and we have tried to do a nice job with it and I will stand for
any questions you that might have.
Yearsley: Are there any questions? Thank you.
Brown: Thanks.
Yearsley: I have no one signed up. Is there anyone that would like to testify on this
public hearing? With that I would entertain a motion.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on RZ 13-010, PP 13-025.
Rohm: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on RZ 13-010 and
PP 13-025. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: Comments? Commissioner Freeman?
Freeman: Now it's assumed I'm going to go first, uh? I'm the loud mouth today. I was
waiting for somebody else to volunteer. I like this plan. The only question I had has
been answered. I like the way you configured it. I like the park. I like the walking path.
I like the way you have wound the streets in here. I like the way you have progressively
changed the size of the lots. I like the mix of lots and, obviously, the mix of residential
opportunities that will be there. I think it's a good development and fits well.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Freeman: Oh. One more thing. I really like your elevations. So, kudos to your
architect. They are atypical. So, hopefully, we will see these progress according to
those elevations. I like to see unique architecture in new development. I think you have
provided that. Now I'm done.
Yearsley: All right. Any other comments?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 39 of 40
Marshall: I just really like the project. I do. I think it's appropriate. I think they have
worked well to try to fit in with the neighborhood. I'm a little sorry that the owner to the
south hadn't taken into account that they would eventually get a stub street there before
they built their house, because they are just under construction. They have got 33
acres to put it anywhere they want and they picked right there on the north side, but --
yeah. It gives them an opportunity to develop in the future. So, I'm glad the stub
street's there and available to them should they ever want to develop and that way we
have cross-access. Other than that I'm all for it.
Yearsley: Thank you. I, too, like the pathway. For one that I -- I use our pathway
system a lot and I think they are of great benefit to the communities. So, kudos to you
for that. Any other comments?
Rohm: I just have just -- just one. You know, it used to be when a developer brought a
project in before the Commission there was a lot of opposition from the public that was
vocalized with testimony after testimony and I think that our developers in this
community have done a much better job of meeting with the adjacent property owners
to validate that what they are wanting to move forward with is in concert with what's
already there and I applaud these developers, as well as the others that we have had
before us tonight for doing that job and it makes our -- our work a lot easier. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. At this point I would entertain a motion then.
Marshall: Another easy one for me. Get the easy ones tonight. After considering all
staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of
file number RZ 13-010, PP 13-025, and I guess recommend approval on MDA 13-017,
as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 3rd, 2013.
Freeman: I will second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number RZ 13-010 and PP 13-
025. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
L. Public Hearing: AZ 13-009 Spurwing Orchard East Subdivision
by Brighton Investments, LLC Located North Side of Chinden
Boulevard and West of N. Ten Mile Road Request: Annexation
of 26.53 Acres from RUT in Ada County to the R-4 (Medium-
Low Density Residential) Zoning District
M. Public Hearing: PP 13-021 Spurwing Orchard East Subdivision
by Brighton Investments, LLC Located North Side of Chinden
Boulevard, West of N. Ten Mile Road Request: Preliminary Plat
Approval Consisting of Sixty-Three (63)Single Family
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 40 of 40
Residential Lots and Four (4) Common Lots on Approximately
25.85 Acres in the Proposed R-4 Zoning District
Yearsley: I guess the last -- well, second to the last. I'm going to open public hearing
AZ 13-009 and PP 13-021 for the sole purpose of continuing this public hearing to
October 17th, 2013. Can I entertain a motion?
Freeman: Mr. Chair, I move to continue file numbers AZ 13-009 and PP 13-021,
Spurwing Orchard East Subdivision to the hearing date of October 17th, 2013, at the
applicant's request.
Rohm: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to continue public hearing AZ 13-009 and PP
13-021. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: I move we adjourn.
Freeman: Second.
Rohm: Second. Third.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: We stand adjourned.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:58 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
STEVEN YEARSLE -CHAIR AN DATE A OVED
ATTEST: Go~O~p,~trn q u~~,rrlr9
3 ~
JAYCEE HOLMAN, CITY CLER ~',; ,~ , ~ ,~ ~
a
'J
~°' S,~
ufrh
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: October s, 2o~s ITEM NUMBER: 3C,,
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE:
Approve minutes of September 19, 2013 PZ Meeting
MEETING NOTES
~~Yu ~
Jam- ` m n- L-1 0
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: October 3, 203 ITEM NUMBER: 3A
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE:
Approve minutes of August 1, 2013 PZ Meeting
MEETING NOTES
.S~ ~ ~ rL ~-f - C7
CLERKS OFF/CE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: October s, 2o~s ITEM NUMBER: 3B
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE:
Approve minutes of September 5, 2013 PZ Meeting
MEETING NOTES
~pl~~~d
~~m~. 4-0
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: October 3, 203 ITEM NUMBER: 4A
PROJECT NUMBER: AZ 13-010
ITEM TITLE: McLinder Subdivision
Public Hearing: Annexation and Zoning of 13 acres of land with the R-15 (6.43 acres) and
C-N (6.58 acres) zoning districts by TS Development, LLC generally located at the
southeast corner of W. McMillan& N. Linder Roads at 4650 N. Linder Road and 1437 W.
McMillan Road.
MEETING NOTES
~-e.-t ~ov~ ~ ~ l ~-1o ~ 3
~r~l ~-'
~~o
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: October 3, 2013 ITEM NUMBER:- L~B
PROJECT NUMBER: PP 13-022
ITEM TITLE: McLinder Subdivision
Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat consisting of 28 building lots (7 commercial and 21 multi-
family residential) and 2 common/other lots on 11.88 acres of land in the R-15 and C-N
zoning districts by TS Development, LLC generally located at the southeast corner of W.
McMillan& N. Linder Roads at 4650 N. Linder Road and 1437 W. McMillan Road.
MEETING NOTES
~ ~ wi.oof..1 f~'~ `~''` s ~~' awl
dam-- c - ~ ~ ~
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: October 3, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4C
PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 13-010
ITEM TITLE: Sawtooth Village at McLinder Subdivision
Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit for amulti-family development consisting of 84
dwelling unitis in the R-15 zoning district by TS Development, LLC generally located at the
southeast corner of W. McMiltan8~ N. Linder Roads at 4650 N. Linder Road and 1437 W.
McMillan Road.
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: October 3, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4~
PROJECT NUMBER: R,Z 13-009
ITEM TITLE: Village at Cold Creek
Public Hearing: Rezone of 4.38 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-8 zoning district by
Hayden Homes Idaho, I.LC -north side of W. Ustick Road, approximately 1 /4 mile east of
N. Ten Mile Road
--
MEETING NOTES
s ~~ ~ rz
4~
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: October 3, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4E
PROJECT NUMBER: PP 13-023
ITEM TITLE: Village at Cold Creek
Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat approval consisting of 16 single family residential building
lots and 3 common/other lots on 4.38 acres of land in a proposed R-8 zoning district by
Hayden Homes Idaho, LLC -north side of W. Ustick Road, approximately 1 /4 mile east of
N. Ten Mile Road
MEETING NOTES
t~e c f1~ r~ ~rov~ to G e
~~~~~
~F-o
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: October 3, 2013
ITEM NUMBER: 4F
PROJECT NUMBER: PP 13-018
ITEM TITLE: Olson ~ Bush Subdivision
Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat approval consisting of 6 building .lots on 6.81 acres of land
in an I-Land C-G zoning districts by Ronald W. Van Auker - 2950 E. Franklin Road
MEETING NOTES
~~ ~l~v~va.~ -lam G~
~F~~
~-o
~~ ~~ ~j~ 11-~-r3
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: October 3, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4C~
PROJECT NUMBER: PP 13-027
ITEM TITLE: Tustin T.W.O. Subdivision
Public Hearing -Preliminary plat approval consisting of 44 single family residential building
lots and 10 common/other lots on 15.26 acres of land in an R-4 zoning district by Conger
Mngt -north side of E. Ustick Road and west of the McMillan /Locust Grov Road
Intersection
MEETING NOTES
~eC f~1°p~va.Q~ 'h~
e~C~~vr L'`C fl-/o -13
~~~
sw~1 i-nrt
~~
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: October 3, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4H
PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 13-009
ITEM TITLE: RODHOUSE OFFICE PARK
Public Hearing: Request for Detailed Conditional Use Permit Approval to construct four (4)
office buildings in an L-O zone by Rodhouse Capital, LLC
MEETING NOTES
S~ f~ c(c t~-~-i3
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: October 3, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 41
PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 13-009
ITEM TITLE: RODHOUSE OFFICE PARK
FFCL for Approval: Request for Detailed Conditional Use Permit Approval to construct four
(4) office buildings in an L-O zone by Rodhouse Capital, LLC
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: October 3, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4,J
PROJECT NUMBER: RZ 13-010
ITEM TITLE: Three Corners
Public Hearing: Rezone approximately 31.73 acres from the C-C (Community Business),
the R-8 (Medium Density Residential) and the R-2 (Low Density Residential) zoning districts
to the C-C (Community Business) (12.52 acres), the R-4 (Medium-low Density Residential)
(16.51 acres) and the R-8 (Medium Density Residential) (2.70) zoning districts by C 13, LLC -
SEC of N. Locust Grove Road and Chinden Boulevard
MEETING NOTES
~~ `~or C~C I l-lo `/3
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
~/ SF
~ ~~
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: October 3, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4K
PROJECT NUMBER: PP 13-025
ITEM TITLE: Three Corners
Public Hearing:Preliminary plat approval consisting of 8 commercial lots, 54 single family
lots and 6 common lots on approimately 30.27 acres in the proposed C-C, R-4 and R-8
zoning districts by C 13, LLC -SEC of N. Locust Grove and Chinden Boulevard
MEETING NOTES
~~C f~yopv~ovaQ -fb C+~C
~f -b
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
..STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: October 3, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4L
PROJECT NUMBER: AZ 13-009
ITEM TITLE: Spurwing Orchard East Subdivision
Public Hearing:Annexation of 26.53 acres from RUT in Ada County to the R-4 (Medium low
density residential) zoning district by Brighton Investments, LLC -north side of Chinden Blvd
and west of N. Ten Mile Roa
MEETING NOTES
~ow+rh t,~..eo~- ~~ ~ -fv tD-l7- ~3
5 ~ / r,-,,~ y-o
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIAL8
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: October 3, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4.M
PROJECT NUMBER: PP 13-021
ITEM TITLE: Spurwing Orchard East Subdivision
Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat approval consisting of 63 single family residential lots and
four common lots on approximately 25.85 acres in the proposed R-4 zoning district by
Brighton Investments, LLC -north side of Chinden Blvd, west of N. Ten Mile Road
MEETING NOTES
V~I-f ~ u-~ci~ (mil ~t -f-~ t v - (7 - ~ 3
~~ J m,~
~~
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS