2013 10-17Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission October 17, 2013
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of October 17, 2013, was
called to order at 6:05 p.m. by Chairman Steven Yearsley.
Present: Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Joe Marshall, Commissioner
Scott Freeman, and Commissioner Macy Miller.
Members Absent: Commissioner Michael Rohm.
Others Present: Holly Binkley, Ted Baird, Sonya Watters, 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 we would like to start --
open the public hearing or, excuse me, we would like to call to order the regularly
scheduled meeting of our Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for October 17th,
2013. Sorry we are running a little late. We had a little bit of a computer problem. Let's
begin with roll call.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda
Yearsley: Thank you. The next thing on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. At
this time we have no modifications to it. Can I get a motion to adopt the agenda?
Freeman: Mr. Chair, I move that we adopt the agenda.
Miller: Second.
Marshall: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. All in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of October 3, 2013 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 2 of 56
Yearsley: The next thing on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and all we have on that
is the approval of the minutes of the October 3rd, 2013, Planning and Zoning
Commission. Is there any comments on those or are we all good? If so, I would
entertain a motion to approve the Consent .
Marshall: So moved.
Miller: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All in favor
say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: Before we go any further I would like to explain kind of the process of how we
are going to proceed forward. We are going to open each one of these items one at a
time. We will begin with the staff report. The staff will describe the project and, then,
how it adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code with staff
recommendations. After that time the applicant we come forward to present their case
for approval. The applicant will have up to 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant we
will open it up to the public for testimony. There is a sign-up sheet in the back for
anyone wishing to testify. Any persons wishing to come forward will be allowed three
minutes. If they are here for a larger group they will be given up to ten. After the
testimony has been heard the applicant will have an opportunity to respond to the
comments if desired for up to ten minutes. After that we will close the public hearing
and the Commission will have an opportunity to discuss and deliberate and hopefully
make a recommendation to City Council.
Item 4: Action Items
A. Continued Public Hearing from September 19, 2013: AZ 13-008
Oaks South Subdivision by Coleman Homes, LLC Located
South Side of W. McMillan Road Between N. McDermott Road
and N. Black Cat Road Request: Annexation of Approximately
103.04 Acres from the RUT Zoning District in Ada County to
the R-4 (Medium-Low Density Residential) and R-8 (Medium
Density Residential) Zoning Districts
B. Continued Public Hearing from September 19, 2013: RZ 13-008
Oaks North and Oaks South by Coleman Homes, LLC Located
South Side of W. McMillan Road Between N. McDermott Road
and N. Black Cat Road (Oaks South) and North Side of W.
McMillan Road Between N. McDermott Road and N. Black Cat
Road (Oaks North) Request: Rezone Approximately 33.08
Acres from the R-8 (Medium Density Residential) and R-15
(Medium-High Density Residential) Zoning Districts to the R-4
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 3 of 56
(Medium-Low Density Residential)(1.77 Acres), R-8 (Medium
Density Residential) (7.43 Acres), R-15 (Medium-High Density
Residential) (18.34 Acres) and L-O (Limited Office) (5.54 Acres)
Zoning Districts for Oaks South Subdivision AND Rezone
Approximately 298.33 Acres from R-4, R-8 and R-15 Zoning
Districts to the R-4 (160.06 Acres), R-8 (104.56 Acres), R-15
(33.71 Acres) Zoning Districts for Oaks North Subdivision
C. Continued Public Hearing from September 19, 2013: PP 13-013
Oaks South Subdivision by Coleman Homes, LLC Located
South Side of W. McMillan Road Between N. McDermott Road
and N. Black Cat Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of
310 Single Family Lots, One (1)Multi-Family Lot, Six (6) Office
Lots, One (1) Park Lot, One (1) Other Lot and 33 Common Lots
on Approximately 135.93 Acres in a Proposed R-4, R-8, R-15
and L-O Zoning Districts
D. Continued Public Hearing from September 19, 2013: PP 13-014
Oaks North Subdivision by Coleman Homes, LLC Located
North Side of W. McMillan Road Between N. McDermott Road
and N. Black Cat Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of
653 Single Family Lots, Three (3) Multi-Family Lots, 40
Common Lots and Two (2) Other Lots on Approximately 252.12
Acres in a Proposed R-4, R-8 and R-15 Zoning Districts
`~(earsley: So, with that I would like to open the continued public hearing from
September 9, 2013, of AZ 13-008, RZ 13-008, PP 13-003 -- or 013 and PP 13-014, the
Oaks North and South Subdivision by Coleman Homes. Can we start with the staff
report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. We are up and
running again, so hopefully we can get to this presentation tonight and show all those
pretty pictures for the folks in the audience here this evening. Certainly this -- as you
mentioned earlier, this project has been continued from the September 17th hearing.
The primary reason for the continuation was staff was waiting on ACHD's comments
from the report. Given the size and the complexity of this project we wanted to make
sure before we brought something forth that we had their comments. I would mention to
you that we just received their draft comments this afternoon, so I don't have a lot to
report, other than they have done their analysis, everything that's before you tonight
shouldn't change based on their findings of the traffic study or the road layout that we
are proposing this evening as well. Some history on this site. This property -- a portion
of this property was annexed into the city in 2008. At that time it was called The Oaks
project and it was zoned R-4, R-8 and R-15. The primary reason for the annexation
was so that the applicant could develop a 30 acre subdivision here on the southeast --
or the southwest corner of Black Cat and McMillan Road. At the time of annexation
they came forth with a concept plan that showed how the remaining acreage would
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 4 of 56
develop. It included a mix of alley loaded products, single family homes, townhomes,
multi-family. So, it was geared towards a mixed use residential project. Now that we
have specific development planned the applicant is coming before you this evening to
talk about what he plans on doing moving forward. Primarily the area is rural in nature.
I mean a lot of it is agriculture. We do have several large subdivisions to the east that
are zoned and planned to move forward in the future. One of those being Bainbridge,
which you acted on in July of this year, and, then, also we have Volterra North to the
east and as I mentioned to you, Coleman Homes, the applicant this evening, is currently
developing this 30 acre subdivision in the southwest corner of Black Cat and McMillan.
The remaining acreage in the vicinity is all RUT in Ada County and the aerial here does
depict that. Here is the Comp Plan for the property overall. What I will try to do tonight
is give you an overview and, then, breakdown each project specific to their zoning, their
acreage, their lot sizes. I will start with The Oaks South first and, then, progress
through Oaks North and at that point we will let the applicant get up. So, right now, if
you could see here, the Comp Plan, I have designated all the parcels that are before
you this evening proposed for platting and annexation and rezone on approximately 380
acres or so, plus or minus. The Comp Plan does designate a majority of it as medium
density residential, so we are anticipating densities between three to eight units to the
acre. If you see here it's hard to tell with the fire station note on here and the two future
park lots, but there is a small office node here at the half mile on McMillan Road that the
applicant has requested to shift over in this area. Not move the designation, but allow
the zoning to flex over here at the quarter mile to allow for their plat design and I will go
into that more in detail once I get to the plat design. As you can see here we do have a
parks designation on the south portion and we also have a future parks designation on
the north portion. I would point out to Commission that these are meant to flow. I mean
they are set on a section within our area of impact and, then, as development comes in
they will get the opportunity to work with the developer and coordinate the dedication
and have the parks involved. We certainly get the applicant to the table and see where
it's most feasible to place these and we will get into that as we get into the North
discussion as well. So, moving forward, as I mentioned to you, I will start off with the
Oaks South presentation first and, then, again, go up to the Oaks North. So, right now
the applicant -- this is the Oaks South preliminary plat. The applicant is proposing 310
single family home lots, one multi-family lot, six office lots and 33 common lots and one
other lot on approximately 135 acres of land. As I mentioned to you they are annexing
a portion of it. If I can go back here. These two parcels here are currently not annexed
into the city and with their request this evening these will come in and adjoin to this
parcel here moving forward. And, then, a small portion of it is because this portion is
already annexed and zoned into the city, the applicant is rezoning a portion of this
property to fit with the development context of the plat here before you this evening.
The applicant is proposing nine development phases and they are highlighted here.
One of my comments to the applicant was get a lot of that line work off the plat, so that
the Commission and the community here can see what's actually proposed out there as
far as a phasing plan. So, you can see a majority of the phasing will come in, start at
McMillan, go on the east and, then, optimally end up over here along the west boundary
along McDermott Road here. Open space for the site consists of approximately 20
acres. Most of it would be a pathway along this way here. Multiple ped connections.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 5 of 56
The applicant is also proposing a pool facility, covered picnic area as well. One thing
want to touch on is the road connectivity within the development. The applicant -- or
ACHD has a master street map that we will operate from. Per that document the
applicant is required to provide anorth-south collector road system. The applicant is
doing that consistent with that plan. It just starts at the half mile, comes into the
development and, then, terminates at the south boundary for future extension and future
connectivity. With the development of the Oak Creek Subdivision there was two stub
streets or one's under construction, but one is stubbed to the east that will be extended
with this development and, then, the applicant is also proposing basically a bypass
collector system here that cuts through the office lots along the multi-family and
ultimately terminates to McDermott Road. The primary reason for this collector system
is if you're -- some of you are aware, there is Highway 60 -- Highway 16 that's planned
in this area and that study has been completed and ITD envisions a future overpass in
this area to go over and the existing McDermott Road in the future and so the applicant
is dedicating afew -- one of the -- the lot here that you see on the future park site, they
are dedicating that to ITD or that staff recommendation they are dedicating that right of
way, so that ITD has the right of way for that overpass in the future and the applicant is
in agreement with that. I'd also mention to you that the applicant is also proposing to
dedicate a well lot to the city, which is situated here on the multi-family and also as part
of this development, because the applicant is outside of the city sewer shed area, the
master planned area for sewer in this area, they are required to construct an interim lift
station or I guess a regional lift station to serve not only this development, but
surrounding properties moving forward. They are currently working with our Public
Works Department on the requirements and sizing of that facility, so details aren't ironed
out yet, but they are in close communication and contact with Public Works Department.
Here is the pretty picture for the site. As I mentioned to you there is a park site. It's
approximately six acres that will be dedicated toward Western Ada Rec District, not a
city park. From the Parks Department standpoint that suffices for'the park designation
that I showed you earlier on the Comp Plan for the south portion of the site. One of the
office lots will be a future home to a fire station consistent with the designation on the
Comp Plan that you saw that showed that and, then, here are the five additional office
lots that will basically mirror the collector road system and be on the fringe of this
development, not only to provide services for this development, but also -- I think that's
a primary purpose is to get some kind of neighborhood services out there when -- when
we are talking almost a thousand homes in the area you need to provide something like
that. As I mentioned to you, the Comp Plan did designate that in this general location,
but as part of our staff analysis we were in favor of having that shift over here to not
align a lot into develop this residential portion, but it just makes sense they get it out of
the fringe, outside of the -- internal to the neighborhood, even though getting some of
that connectivity it makes sense to have that office park up against the amenity of the
public park and, then, allow some of those uses to -- a daycare or a doctor's office or
some kind of professional service that serves the multi-family. So, in our opinion it
makes sense to float it over here in this area. Now, again, as I mentioned there is over
20 acres of open space. The primary amenity I think for this development is the ten foot
multi-use pathway along the Five Mile Creek area. The developer is working with our
Public Works Department, as he did in 2008 he is proposing to basically reclaim Five
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 6 of 56
Mile area and leave it open and improve it as a pedestrian amenity consistent with our
pathways plan. Because of some of the larger block lengths within the subdivision they
fall primarily within the 750 foot range and one thousand foot range, the applicant has
provided additional ped connections to break up those block lengths as well. The
amenity here for -- to be developed with phase one would be a pool, covered picnic
area, tot lot. This, again, as I mentioned to you would be installed with phase one of the
development and it's conditioned to do so. And, then, here are the stub streets that
mentioned. There is the collector street and, then, the two extensions of the roadway
into the development. I would also mention to you the applicant is providing the 25 foot
landscape buffers along McMillan. They are actually proposing a greater width than 25
feet. We have conditioned to do that. One thing that I mentioned in the staff report was
there is an existing residence that is to remain as part of this development and it's
located right off the entrance in from McMillan Road here. The applicant has provided
their 25 foot common lot in front of that. A condition in the staff report does require that
the home take access from the local street here, not McMillan Road moving forward.
The developer does -- I believe he owns the home there, so he can control that moving
forward. It's not a separate homeowner or land owner, it's involved with the application.
And the one other thing that we requested is the concept plan that you see here before
you doesn't really depict future access points to the commercial lots, so we'd like the
applicant to explain tonight -- try to just clarify whether they intend on having curb cuts
for each office lot or is it their intention to have cross-access within the development or
at least shared between the office lots. And, then, also the fire station lot -- in the
preliminary plat they showed an access to McMillan Road and an access to the collector
street, so moving forward the applicant will have to request Council to grant that waiver
if the fire department does develop this fire station lot moving forward. But overall
generally all lots comport to the UDC. The open space is in excess of what UDC
requirements were -- approximately at 15 percent here. So, the applicant does comply
with the open space and the site amenity requirements and as I mentioned to you a lot
of this will be R-8 and, then, transition to larger lots, which it's zoned for. Overall density
with this subdivision is 2.95 acres -- dwelling units to the acre, which is slightly under the
medium density residential designation, but if you look at what's surrounding the
property, given that it's pretty rural in nature, staff finds that it is consistent, not only with
the existing subdivision, but also the surrounding properties. So, if I move north here,
again, this is the Oak North. The applicant is, again, requesting no annexation with this
plat. It's, basically, a rezone and a preliminary plat. Again, the rezone is only requested
so that the zoning can align with the proposed plat before you this evening. This plat
consists of 653 residential lots. We are looking at three multi-family lots, one mini
storage lot and 40 common lots and one other lot and, really, the one other lot, again,
as I mentioned to you on the south is located in this area where McDermott Road
overpass will be extended in the future. Again the applicant has set aside ITD right of
way or future right of way preservation for that overpass in the future. As I mentioned to
you earlier, staff is requiring that they deed it to ITD once it's platted or if they want to do
it sooner we are open to that as well, as long as it's understood that that needs
preserved for future extension. As I mentioned to you here the applicant is proposing
22 development phases with this portion of the plat. There is a collector street network
would start at the half mile and transverse through the development, stubbing to the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 7 of 56
north. There is also an east-west segment that comes over and stubs to the Ada
County property here to the east. In my staff report we have conditioned in working with
the developer to the east the applicant has agreed to shift this road to the north per
those discussions and one of our recommendations is prior to going to City Council we'd
like to see how that road could be shifted and see if it would work with plans to develop
perhaps with this portion to the east. All of the lots do comport to the R-8, R-4 and R-15
dimensional standards as I mentioned. Primary open space for this -- again, going back
to block length, there are a few blocks in here that need to be corrected in accordance
with the staff report. One of those -- one of those recommendations is that the applicant
would provide a street connection through here and, then, two additional ped
connections to break up the block lengths so that they are consistent with the UDC
standards. The applicant has submitted at least conditions, they are in agreement with
those changes and that would -- those changes would be reflected once they got up to
City Council. Prior to City Council staff would review that. The one other item that
have circled here is in our staff report and per the recommendations of the parks
department we have -- they had requested that the applicant dedicate a seven acre
neighborhood park and as I showed you earlier, there is an asterisk in this general
location and it is meant to float. So, we have the Parks Department here to answer any
questions you may have as far as what they are wanting -- what they are expecting to
see here moving forward. In our discussions with the applicant and the property owner
to the south here they did talk about working together and both co-donating, if you will,
working together and partnering with the city and donating some acreage in this general
vicinity. Those things still need to be worked out. I will let the applicant kind of explain
their position on this as they get up and provide their testimony. Here is the landscape
plan that the applicant is proposing. We are looking at approximately 13 percent open
space with this plat. Most of it is eight foot parkways along the internal streets. We
have -- the 25 foot landscape buffers are actually wider buffers along McMillan Road, as
mentioned earlier. Twenty foot landscape buffers are provided along the -- all of the
collector streets in accordance with the UDC. Again, a majority of those are wider than
the 20 foot minimum. Staff has conditioned the applicant to comply with the width that
they have shown and that are before you this evening. The applicant is providing
actually a 50 foot wide landscape buffer here along this segment of McDermott Road.
We have multiple pathway connections in here. The pathways master plan shows a ten
foot pathway along this segment of the collector road and will stub to the north boundary
and, then, it will also come in and run along the south boundary of the east-west
collector roadway. Ultimately running to this property and connecting up with Volterra to
the south -- or to the east. Excuse me. Those pathways are consistent with the city's
master pathways plan. Probably the gem of this develop is the central park. It's
approximately 5.71 acres. Again, it will have a pool facility. The tot lot, the covered
picnic shelters, the restroom facilities to serve the development. One thing that I would
bring to your attention is based on staff's calculation we could only find that the plat
complied with eight amenities for the development. Per the size of this project the
applicant needs to provide 12 amenities in accord with the ordinance. Our
recommendation is that they clarify tonight at the public hearing what the four additional
amenities will be moving forward. As I mentioned to you we have amulti-family lot here
and two multi-family lots located in this general vicinity. Densities are anywhere
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page•8 of 56
between 12 and 13 units to the acre. Ultimately they will have to come back and go
through a conditional use process to determine the density, but as a recommended
provision of the DA we have tied them to a density requirement of between eight and 15
units to the acre and that also applies to The Oaks South project. We want to make
sure we get something on that, not just come back in with more single family and more
low density development in that area. So, if you're going to propose something let's get
a density that's appropriate to the zoning that you're requesting. Here are the home
elevations that the applicant is proposing. It's pretty typical to what you're seeing out
there as far as the Coleman Homes plans out there. It is consistent with The Oak Creek
Subdivision, the 230 acre subdivision that's currently platted and being -- has homes in
it. Staff is amenable to these elevations. We have recommended that they -- the future
homes within that subdivision comply with those requirements. The applicant did not
provide any home -- or any office elevations or multi-family development elevations, but
as you're aware they will have to come back, go through a CZC or design review and go
through conditional use approval for the multi-family. So, at that point we can address
those design concepts and make sure it's consistent with the UDC moving forward.
Staff did not receive -- or, actually, late this afternoon I did receive written testimony
from Scott Noryuki on this application. He is the applicant's representative for the
property to the east. As I mentioned there is approximately 40 or 60 acres here to the
east. They want to make sure that their interests are protected tonight and they -- they
have agreed to working with Coleman on dedication of a park when they come in with
annexation. They want to insure that the road shifts up as previously discussed and as
conditioned in the staff report and, then, they want -- they made mention of the lift
station and want to make sure that they have the ability to up grade that in the future to
serve other properties they own -- not in this area, but in the vicinity of The Oaks South
project. Staff has received written testimony from the applicant and, again, they are in
general agreement with the conditions of approval. I think you're aware -- you got a
memo earlier from Bruce Freckleton from our land development department. He's
worked with the applicant on some revised language to upgrade -- updating the staff
report. And so I will leave it at that. What he said in the memo is what we will change
the conditions to is basically Public Works condition. I would mention to you that we do
have to modify one DA provision -- I'm sorry, I'm getting my projects confused. We will
get to that later. But we are amenable to those changes. The applicant wants to
discuss a couple items with you. One has to do with the mini storage lot. One of our
recommended -- we wanted to make it clear to the applicant that mini storage is just not
an out right permitted use in the R-15 zone. Under the UDC it's an accessory use. So,
it's not meant to run -- or be operated as a commercial storage building or storage
facility. The intent behind that is really for it to be an accessory to the residential
development that they are proposing this evening. How they set that up is to be
determined. We don't know, but we -- if it's their intent to have it operate other than an
accessory use to the -- to the multi-family or the residential development, then, they will
have to come back with a Comp Plan change and a rezone and if they want to have a
stand-alone business there. Right now we have conditioned it through the DA that they
limit it to accessory use for the purpose of those residential homes, consistent with the
UDC. So, I know they want to discuss that a little bit further with you. The other item
that I failed to mention to you is dealing with the block length issue with Oak South.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 9 of 56
One of our recommended conditions was that they provide a mid block connection here
to break up the block length in this vicinity. The applicant contends this open space
suffices that requirement for adequately breaking up the block length. We respectfully
disagree. We think if you measure from this point into this development it still exceeds
that requirement in the UDC and we are still standing with our recommendation for a
connection there. It seemed to make a nice transition into that development as well.
Other than that I think everything is pretty good. As I mentioned to you, ACHD had no
issues with the plat layout or the internal street connectivity. I know as the applicant
moves through the project and depending on phasing and the number of homes
constructed, there will be requirements -- additional road requirements to McMillan,
Black Cat, the intersection will default to ACHD on that. So, really, it's up to you guys to
determine whether or not you feel comfortable recommending -- making a
recommendation onto City Council without having adequate time to review ACHD
comments. Again, I will turn it over to the applicant and I will stand for any questions
you may have.
Yearsley: Are there any questions? With that would the applicant like to come forward?
McKay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Becky McKay.
Engineering Solutions. 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. I'm here representing Coleman
Homes on this particular application. I think Bill is loading up the PowerPoint. I will go
ahead -- I will go ahead and begin. As Bill indicated, this particular project came
through -- or a large portion of it came through in 2008 for annexation and rezone. It
had a concept plan on it and, then, we had a small preliminary plat that was about 131
single family residential lots located over in the southwest corner of Black Cat and
McMillan. The reason that we broke the project up at that time was the -- everything to
the quarter mile west of Black Cat sewered into the Black Cat trunk and, then,
everything beyond that quarter mile mark had to go to either a regional lift station at
Can-Ada or an interim lift station at McDermott. So, we -- we are in our third phase of
Oak Creek. It is under construction now and the plat is moving forward for signature,
trying to get recorded as -- before the end of the year. So, obviously, we have to start
planning for the facilities that will be required to serve the remainder of this property and
get moving on our phase one and two. What's before you right now is an overall plan of
the property. Initially when it came through in 2008 there was about 99 acres right in
the middle of this that was not apart. Between 2008 and here just about two years ago
my client acquired that 99 acres, so that allowed us to have a continuation of this
particular project. The next phases of the Oaks development will begin on the south
side of McMillan and they will be a logical continuation of the Oak Creek development.
Let's see. Hold on. In the project we have approximately 43 plus acres of open space
throughout the entire project. We have two miles of ten to 14 foot multi-use pathways
and 5.5 miles of five foot pathways and the 5.5 doesn't include the detached sidewalks
that are adjacent to the roadways. We will have two private central parks with
swimming pool facilities, tot lots, picnic areas. We have, in addition to that, the Western
Ada Recreation District, which will be public. The client will be donating 5.69 acres to
the district and, then, they will be putting it in their long range planning and their budget.
We have done some site planning based on another site that the -- the district owns and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 10 of 56
so we are working with them as far as a time table for improvements and they are
excited about this particular project. We will have park benches throughout the project
as you walk along the pathways in the multi-use pathways with fitness trail amenities,
bocce ball courts. Bill indicated -- Bill indicated that -- that we are short I believe in the
north section approximately four amenities. Obviously, when the final plats come in with
their landscape plans that show the specific design in each of our tot lots we will meet
the requirements of the ordinance. It was just kind of oversight on the part of the
landscape architect. What you're looking at right now is the north portion of the project
and the overall project is 388 acres and the north section consists of I think
approximately 252 acres. We have been working with ITD and Ada County Highway
District for two years. Obviously, we -- we had to wait to find out what that exact
alignment of the Highway 16 was going to be, because there were three possible routes
that they were looking at. Secondly, how they would treat the existing arterials,
because it is going to be a limited access expressway with interchanges every two miles
and so some of the section line roads, obviously, as going to have to be on overpasses
over the top of Highway 16. So, one of the things that -- that was determined by ITD
with their EIS that was approved by the feds, is Highway 16 will run parallel with
McDermott to the west. It will be about a 300 foot right of way and that will be an
expressway. It is anticipated that McMillan will go over the top, will be an overpass over
Highway 16 and the reason being is it's cheaper to take three to five lanes over than to
take the future -- what is it, six or eight lanes that they -- they are trying to build out --
think it's an 82 foot section that they are building in the first phase. So, one of the things
that we needed to make sure was obviously -- that whatever uses we put would not be
adversely impacted when this overpass happens, because it could happen in five years,
ten years, 20 years. Obviously, when -- when things change and you have got houses
below an overpass you have some very upset people. So, we didn't want to put any
dwelling units -- even the multi-family dwelling units adjacent to that overpass. So, the
-- one of the things that -- that I came up with was the neighborhood mini storage
facility. That would be located right there at the intersection. That would join the north
side of that future overpass. We -- when we did Bridgetower Subdivision, in addition to
that we did Ten Mile Mini Storage for the same client next to the Meridian sewer
wastewater treatment plant there on the west side of Ten Mile. Bridgetower filled up
that mini storage facility, because just like Bridgetower, the covenants will not allow
recreational vehicles to be parked on the lots in front or in the driveways and so,
obviously, those people need places to put their RVs to store, you know, whatever it
may be. Bill, are you messing with that?
Parsons: I am.
McKay: I didn't -- I wasn't sure it was me. So, the mini storage -- it's not going to be
owned by the HOA. You know, it -- like at Bridgetower Ten Mile mini storage it stayed
in the ownership of the family, put they put it under Ten Mile mini storage, LLC. You
know, if there are -- if there are some people in an adjoining subdivision that want to
park their RV and pay, I mean it would be, you know, your standard mini storage where,
you know, it's enclosed, it's landscaped, it's buffered, you know, they have covered,
they have uncovered, they have small units, large units -- I mean it varies. It's small in
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 11 of 56
size, so it will be -- we use the same layout and site plan that I used on Ten Mile mini
storage. The other project that -- that we did that had mini storage was Ironwood
Subdivision at Cloverdale and I-84. That is the Cloverdale mini storage and that's what
you see when you drive down Interstate 84 right there at the Cloverdale overpass, for
the very same reason. An overpass and a mini storage was a good buffer for the single
family residential. Along the McDermott corridor one of the things that's going to
happen is McDermott will terminate with Highway 16 and the overpass, McDermott
Road has to have what they call a bypass. So, McDermott Road in our project we
created a bypass, so that those residents that live both north and south of McMillan will
be able to come through our development on a collector network and bypass around
that overpass and what happens is McDermott cul-de-sacs up here, comes down, cul-
de-sacs down there. So, it's I think now a section line designated as a future principal
arterial, that's going to change when this second phase of Highway 16 extension takes
place. The other transitional use that we had next to Highway 16 is amulti-family area.
We located that there. That could be attached dwellings, it could be a combination of
townhomes, more apartments. We kept it under that R-15 designation, so, obviously,
you know, that's -- that's going to be a limitation. But that would create a transition from
Highway 16 to the single family. We have an outparcel that's located right here on the
Bentley property. I have two local street stubs. I did look at the configuration of their
property. What makes the most sense is a street network that comes through and loops
out. So, then, that would, one, take them off -- off that McDermott corridor and allow
them access to utilities and public streets internally within us. I do have a small loop
that would abut the old McDermott Road and Highway 16. We provided a 60 foot
corridor there, a landscaped area that we can berm and put a lot of vegetation for
buffering. The key challenge on this particular property was the collector system. We
ended up with a half mile collector as designated on the master street map and within
your Comprehensive Plan, your transportation plan, that's included in there. This
collector is what we call a continuous collector. I have -- it goes all the way through the
project. It will continue on to the north and connect to Highway 20-26, the State
Highway, at the half mile mark, which is anticipated at some point in time to be
signalized. There was debate about not having an intersection at the half, but, then,
ITD had since changed their mind. They also -- the continuous collector will go
eastward to our adjoining boundary. This property that adjoins us is now in the site
planning plan stage. We have seen some of their concepts. I believe they are still
working on it. The key thing, as Bill indicated, is that that collector goes out to the half
mile on Black Cat, because that will be a signalized intersection. When I did Volterra
Subdivision, which has not been constructed, but I believe they are moving forward on
right now -- there is an elementary school that's located north of that collector that would
warrant that signal and, then, Volterra was a fairly large development. So, this will
connect to a signal here. We will end up installing the signal at the half mile when we
need that warrant. We submitted our traffic study to ACHD back in June. They kind of
had quite a heavy workload. They have been behind in trying to review it. They needed
more information, just because of the sheer size and complexity of this project and the
fact that you have to look at it from two different perspectives. The fact that you have
McDermott right now that's utilized as a section line arterial, but eventually at build out
we anticipate McDermott basically goes away. So, we have to, you know, assign our
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 12 of 56
trips. At build out this will generate about 13,400 vehicle trips per day. Oops. Got
carried away there. Sorry. We did submit a pathway plan. Our multi-use pathways go
clear through the project, follow the collectors and you exit. If they continue on I also
did multi -- multi-use pathways in Volterra, so they will connect to their collector system,
which is a continuous collector and exits over at Ten Mile and connects to McMillan and
that will go over the Heroes Park. So, that will complete that chain of pathways. We
were -- we were really diligent in making sure that we had good pedestrian connections,
so intermittent within the blocks we have ped paths, we have pocket parks, we also
have stubbed to adjoining properties. I have a pathway that will run through our primary
open space and go this direction. That's a five foot pathway. So, we felt that it was
important to link the multi-family developments and to link the single family with the
adjoining property. The south portion, our buffer next to McDermott we have a multi-
family lot. We have a lift station, a well, and, then, the Western Ada Recreation District
parcel. On your comp plan it showed office lots here. It made more sense to shift those
to the west. Reason being is we worked with the fire department to establish a future
fire station and I wanted that as a buffer. We don't like to put those right next to the
single family. This also has a continuous collector that comes out of our signal at the
half mile and goes south. One of the things that I think is unique with our project is we
took our local streets and as you can see we took some of these local streets down to
Five Mile Creek. So, you will have more multi-use pathway. It will be visible, open, safe
illuminated and, then, this will also provide parking on street on the south side of the
roadway, so we don't have people calling in saying, hey, you know, people are parking
and walking and they are parked in my driveway. So, we like that design and we felt
that -- that it was superior to everything else. We will be building our main pool facility
with tot lot, picnic area, with the first phase. We will be connecting stub streets. I
believe we have a total of ten stub streets within the project. Do you have any
questions?
Yearsley: Are there any questions of the applicant?
Freeman: Not at this time.
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: Just real quick. When you say the other four amenities are going to be
essentially tot lots or --
McKay: We have -- Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Marshall, we have bocce ball courts,
we have tot lots, we have park benches, we have trail signs, we have pathways, pools,
gazebos, picnic shelters, so, you know, it will be a combination of multiple amenities.
This is a ten year project. The demand of the market as far as amenities may change
between phase one and phase eight. So, we may -- you know, something -- you know,
maybe tennis courts come back in, you know. We will definitely meet all the standards
for the required amenities and with the amount of open space we exceed the ten
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 13 of 56
percent and we feel that -- that we are supplying plenty of amenities to support a
development of this magnitude. Thank you.
Marshall: Thank you.
Yearsley: Any other questions?
Miller: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Miller. Or I mean -- yeah. Sorry.
Miller: I just have a question on the storage lot. It sounds like it is kind of a separate
commercial sort of indices; is that true?
McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Miller, if -- it won't be owned by the homeowners
association. You see some multi-family -- or storage facilities that are -- that are under
the HOA. You can see one that's like at Emerald, it's just kind of an open lot. They
have townhomes and they have RVs in there. This would be more along the line as far
as design like a more standard commercial type mini storage, but we believe it is
accessory to this use, because it's going to supply a need, since the covenants will not
allow that you park -- you know, allow you to park your motor home, your boat, your jet
skies, snowmobiles -- that will be convenient, it will be available. And, typically, you
know, it's -- it is under a different entity and it's operated -- I guess it operates
commercially. They -- they do have to pay to have a unit or to park their RV there.
Miller: Okay.
McKay: And we will go through design review standards and landscape standards and
make sure that it is neighborhood compatible, that it is not -- you know, obviously, we
are spending a lot of money making this look awesome with all the open space and we
sure don't want something that's a detriment to the marketability of the overall project.
Miller: Okay.
Yearsley: Any other questions? Thank you.
McKay: Thank you.
Yearsley: I have two people that are signed up. A Terri Bentley. Would you like to
come forward? Okay. And, then, Dale Bentley. All right. Is there anybody else that
would like to come forward? With that,. before we close the public hearing, are there
any final questions of the applicant before we close the public hearing?
Freeman: None for the applicant.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 14 of 56
Yearsley: Okay. With that I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing for AZ
13-008, RZ 13-008, PP 13-013 and PP 13-014.
Miller: So moved.
Marshall: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say
aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: Anybody have questions before we --
Freeman: Mr. Chair, I do.
Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman.
Freeman: Question for staff. And it's on the topic of this mini storage. You -- you had
mentioned in your report that if the mini storage was of one type we are good to go, if
it's of the other type there are going to have to be some additional measures that we
tackle at a later date or now? I'd just like you to clarify, since it does seem like it's going
to be of the commercial type not restricted to the subdivision. Could you explain to us
again what we are going to have to do to allow this -- at this time or in the future?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Freeman, the applicant has always indicated it
would be an accessory use to the development and so as far our definition in the UDC,
accessory use is subordinate to the primary use, which in this case is the residential
development. Our communication to them would be -- it's to serve the development. If
you want it to serve that development, then, it's an accessory. If you want folks from
Bainbridge or cross two miles down the road to come and rent a storage unit, well, that's
a stand alone commercial business. That's not accessory to this development. And,
then, that would require, as I stated earlier, a Comp Plan change to a commercial
designation or industrial designation and a rezone and at that point they could -- either
way I think it would work for them, stand alone or -- but the integrity of this is -- the intent
-- at least even the DA provision is meant that it's to serve this development, not from a
family home two miles away.
Freeman: Yeah. I understand that. And my -- my dilemma in making the decision is --
you know, overall I like this development. It's well planned, very well thought out, it
looks like it's going to be a quality development. It's a large development, so we want to
do it right, and I don't want this particular little hiccup here, which I consider it to be the
linchpin, having to say, hey, come back to the drawing table. So, I'm wondering if at this
point -- maybe we have to ask legal -- since it's clear the way that the applicant intends
to use this is not what you're describing, how do -- can we separate this out? How can
we do this to get the project moving forward with -- with that part still having some
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 15 of 56
issues? And in saying that -- don't forget my question, but in saying that I realize there
is no guarantee that we can get this thing rezoned as the storage that's intended to be
used here. We just -- so, I'm kind of stuck on what we do about that, because I -- I don't
want to cross the UDC and I won't. So -- I don't know if that's a question for you or for
legal, if we can separate out this portion somehow in a motion -- that's my question.
And we don't have to sit on that right now, we can come back to it, but those are my --
those are my thoughts right now and my concern.
Parsons: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Freeman, I think there is -- certainly an important
aspect of this facility is the timing of it. Right now we have a condition in the
development agreement it's an accessory use for this development. This is phase 22,
which is the last phase of the development. We still don't have a lot of answers as to
what was going to happen when Highway 16 gets built and what other uses will develop
along that road segment. The city may come back in ten years and do different land
use adjacent to that roadway. The applicant's representative said he's happy to stand
with the recommendation condition in the DA for this point to move it along and, then, if
-- if they want to do something different certainly they can amend the DA --
Freeman: Which they may have to do, but --
Parsons: They would have to come back and amend the DA and go through the
process.
Freeman: Okay. No, that's a great answer. I like that answer. Thank you. Somebody
else can take the floor.
Yearsley: Any other questions? Comments? I guess I'm going to go next, I guess, with
this. With Scott Noryuki's comments about the access on that collector off onto -- to the
east there, I don't know if -- I think we may want to -- my thinking is maybe to continue
this to allow these two to work together to come up with a solution prior to Council,
because I think it's our decision and our job to make sure that these items are -- are
thoroughly looked at prior to putting that decision onto the Council. Given that this is
such a big development and there is enough developments wanting to come around, we
need to make sure that it's done correctly and, then, there is also the issue of the park
issue as well and what are we going to do about the park. So, in my opinion I would
almost recommend a continuance to allow them to work together for that purpose.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I would like a little clarification as to how far north are we talking
moving that collector. I mean how far off are we. I mean --
Yearsley: You can -- you can actually see on the drawing where that entrance is at.
Marshall: Moving it clear up to the north there. You have lost me now.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Marshall, you can
-- this tells a story. I mean right now this is where the collector aligns from Volterra,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 16 of 56
which gives us -- here is the property that we are talking about to the east. Currently,
the applicant's collector road is in this general vicinity where my cursor is. We are
talking about a one lot shift to the north. So, we are talking 60 feet, maybe 70 -- 50 to
80 feet in that range. I don't know exactly the lot dimension there, but that way we
would get that in general alignment. That would give this owner to the east ample
opportunity to shift the road up along here and dive back into the applicant's
development.
Marshall: And everybody would be happy with that and I don't see a significant issue
there, to be honest, to move that up. They can do that. One lot up. I do agree, though,
that there is an issue with the park, as well as -- well, I like the work around on the -- on
the storage facility, because as it is -- and I am absolutely in keeping with that as an
accessory use to the subdivision and that's all -- that's -- it's not a commercial use. It
has to be zoned as such the minute you open it up to anyone outside of the subdivision.
would look for a little help and anybody's thoughts on -- on the park issue. This was --
there was designated a -- we have identified -- the parks commission has identified this
area to try to have a city park in this area and I think the developer is trying to say, well,
look, we are sending it over to Western Ada -- Ada County, because they are going to
put in a swim facility and that's great. Are we -- are we arguing over parks space --
mean is that taken into account when we say we want a city park? I --
Freeman: Is the issue what kind of park it's going to be or --
Yearsley: I believe -- it's my understanding if you look at the Comp Plan that there was
supposed to be two parks.
Freeman: Yes.
Yearsley: The Western Ada Recreation District satisfies the one. The city wants a
second park, I believe, is my understanding.
Marshall: And that was a part of the original development agreement, wasn't it? No,
that was not. And we are coming in after the fact asking for it. And they are willing to
put in a private park and take care of it themselves, but nobody else outside of the
subdivision can use it. Okay.
Freeman: I guess I'm not as clear on what the park issue is as you and I hear
Commissioner Yearsley's concern about the connection through the property to the
east. I'm torn on that. You know, as long as the two property owners can work together
with staff to -- or the developers can work together with staff to come up with that
connection point, that's great, but there is no guarantee that that's going to happen as
cleanly as we hope that it will.
Yearsley: Right.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 17 of 56
Freeman: So, do we need to make sure we have that answered before we were to
move this forward to City Council? I'm torn on that. I see your concern. I hate to send
something on that's half baked and not thoroughly thought through on our behalf.
Yearsley: And that was kind of my thought, as well as making sure that we do our due
diligence before we send it onto City Council.
Miller: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Miller.
Miller: I have got a question for staff, actually. In your staff report you had mentioned
that the development to the south of that access point was talking about donating some
land to that park. Is that in the plan already?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Miller, during pre-apps -- during discussions
with this applicant and that landowner -- or future landowner, yes, we talked about them
partnering together and the applicant even spoke with our Parks Department on -- on
what they were looking for. As I said, I don't disagree with the applicant, they do have
an abundance amount of open space with the subdivision. It's laid out very nice. The
pedestrian connectivity is there. The amenities are nice. But if you have to look at the
whole area -- I mean when we are talking a city park, we are looking at probably two to
three thousand lots out there. We have Bainbridge with 500 and some odd lots. We
have this, which is close to 1,000 lots. Bainbridge did give up a seven acre park to the
city, has donated to the city. We have Volterra, which is 500 lots and we are looking at
quite a few number of lots here that folks out there could benefit from another
neighborhood park out there. We have a Comp Plan, yes, it can designate. Do we
have other properties out there that we could ask developers to donate that property?
Certainly we do. It's pretty undeveloped at this point. But if we have two willing parties
-- at least a portion. If this applicant is willing to dedicate a portion and we have
someone to the south that's willing to work with us, staff feels it appropriate to see if -- if
they are willing to come to the table and offer something up to the city.
Freeman: And this project has already providing one park.
Yearsley: Oh, absolutely.
Freeman: I know that it's absolutely this project's responsibility to provide the second,
although it's probably one of the larger ones that we are aware of now. Maybe that's
appropriate. Personally, I'm happy with the fact that they are providing at least the one
park and that to me is not one of my major concerns.
Marshall: It looks like they have got the Ada County park and, then, the private park.
So, I'm counting the two.
Freeman: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 18 of 56
Marshall: I mean one's private, but the other one is a public.
Freeman: Yeah. Okay. True. They have the amenities. They have the open space. It
works well. I'm still thinking about the connector issue. I'm not ready to make a
decision on that quite yet. I do have a question of staff, Mr. Chair.
Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman.
Freeman: Well, maybe two questions. First of all, Bill, regarding this connector, I mean
you're aware that there is still some alignment that needs to go on there. You're aware
of that in your staff report. Did you provide a condition in here covering that particular --
could you point out to me what that is? Because maybe that will satisfy me.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commission Freeman, the way the condition is written is that
they'd shift that street to the north in general alignment with the Volterra collector street
prior to City Council. We will --
Freeman: Prior to City Council. So, you have a condition that they shift it to the north.
So, we actually have a solution in our hands, as long as the applicant agrees with the
staff report, which I heard that they do as far as this goes.
Parsons: And let me -- excuse me. Let me elaborate a little bit further. We actually
want multiple changes to the plat before City Council. We want the road network. We
want the additional pathway connections. We want this road to shift. And we also
recommend that they depict a portion of that public park in the northeast quadrant. So,
there is a lot of -- it's more than just modifying the plat to shift the road. We have
multiple conditions requiring the plat change prior to City Council. So, the park is an
issue. It's something you need to --
Freeman: Which are fine, as long as the applicant is amenable to those conditions,
which I'm hearing that they are, except for perhaps the mini storage lot.
Parsons: And the park.
Freeman: And the park.
Yearsley: Are they not also wanting the -- to strike commission -- or strike condition
1.3.1A requiring that condition through Block 4?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, yes, that would be for Oak South, though. This is --
Yearsley: Okay.
Parsons: -- primarily for Oaks North at this point.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 19 of 56
Freeman: Was that the DA -- you mentioned also -- I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Bill, you
mentioned the DA modification also that needed to be made. Have we already talked
about that?
Parsons The DA provision refers to the park.
Freeman: Thank you. The pieces are coming together slowly.
Parsons: And we also have that plat condition that references the park.
Freeman: Okay.
Parsons: And when that change is to occur.
Freeman: Okay. Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman.
Freeman: I'm actually -- I'm comfortable at this point recommending approval per staffs
recommendation per the staff report. That will give the applicant time to work out the
issues with the proposed storage facility and Iguess I -- I am in agreement with staff on
the -- on the park as well and maybe some of the other commissioners disagree with
me on that, but I would be comfortable making a motion to recommend approval
according to staff's recommendations.
Yearsley: Okay.
Freeman: I think it covers the collector street as well.
Yearsley: Any other comment?
Miller: Mr. Chair?
Freeman: I'm sure Commissioner Marshall has one, but --
Yearsley: Commissioner Miller.
Miller: You know, I tend to agree with Commissioner Freeman. I like the layout a lot. It
works really well. I tend to agree on the park issue, just because this is such a big
development they should at least start that piece. I'm not sure how to do that, but
guess I am not a designer at this point on this project, but -- but I do feel like that should
be started in this project at least and maybe work through more with the adjacent
properties. But I'm also comfortable recommending compliance with the staff report.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 20 of 56
Freeman: Commissioner Marshall, I'd love to hear from you before we make a motion.
Marshall: I'm really trying to put it all together in my mind. I like the project. Be honest.
It's a nice project. Becky did a nice job with it here and it looks pretty good. I -- I do -- I
would like them to be able to -- to have thrown in a little for the park, especially if you
have got somebody there just to the east willing to put in a bunch for the park and I'd
like to see something about it before I go tell City Council, yeah, this is it. I don't want to
see -- you know, I don't think they have to go overboard on that, because I think they
have a lot of amenities. I think they have a lot of park space and a lot of open space.
They do have a private park and a Western Ada County park, which is going to be a
swim facility it appears in the future and I think it would be fairly -- I could overlook the
fact that, yeah, they can get in the street connection there, as well -- to break up the
block length, as well as the pedestrian pathways. I'm sorry, I am for those in breaking
up those -- those pathways, as well as on the south plat. I know you're suggesting that
you got a park there on the end and that makes it across -- but to me the letter of the
ordinance says you got a block this long, you put a pathway in it, you got to break it up
somehow and -- because if we go, well, geez, a park on the very end makes that a
shorter block, you know, what's next? I think the block length is a block length and it
needs to be broken up. So, I'm sticking with the staff report on the pathways and the
extra road and they have approved all those. There is -- I have to -- the move north on
that collector is only 60 foot, but the more I look at it I think it could be fairly quickly
done, to be honest. A few adjustments, you pull -- and, actually, I don't know how long
-- that block length is not even close to it. You could bring this up down below -- the
block down below it. As you run this -- take this collector towards the north here you're
going to have to -- ,
Freeman: Make some adjustments.
Marshall: -- make some adjustments in here. Yes.
Freeman: Yeah.
Marshall: You can see what I'm pointing at, but -- but -- and that's not going to be too
difficult.
Freeman: You have the floor. Commissioner Marshall, I have a question for you. It
sounds like you're in agreement with what Commission Miller and I have said regarding
the park, that we -- we like the conclusion per the staff report, but were you implying that
you would go beyond that and continue this, so that we can see exactly how they would
intend to comply with that requirement? Is that what you were implying?
Marshall: I'm torn on that and that's why I'm sitting on the fence and trying to convince
myself one way or the other.
Freeman: One of us has got to get off the fence tonight.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 21 of 56
Marshall: Yeah. Well, you have already got two of you I think in agreement, aren't you?
Freeman: Largely.
Marshall: So -- and that leaves me -- since there is four of us to make adecision -- a lot
of issues here, but --
Freeman: Mr. Chair, may I ask another question of staff?
Yearsley: Yes.
Freeman: Commissioner -- go ahead, Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: One thing we never addressed was fencing. Fencing. No fencing was
shown on the submitted plans. The applicant should clarify at the public hearing if
permanent perimeter fencing is proposed.
Freeman: We didn't ask that question. I remember that as well.
Marshall: Go back through everything on my notes.
Freeman: It wasn't addressed.
Marshall: And to do that we would have to reopen the public hearing.
Yearsley: Absolutely.
Baird: Mr. Chair?
Marshall: And maybe that allows us to get the applicant's opinion on some of these
changes on how quickly and readily they can do it and how they propose to do that.
Freeman: Mr. Chair, I think staff was going to say something regarding the fence. No?
Okay. So, do you want to open the public hearing, so we can talk -- well, you may want
to limit what we want to talk about for the specific purpose of talking about the fence, so
we don't open a whole can of worms.
Yearsley: Okay. I think so. So, are we just going to open the public hearing for a fence
or are we going to ask about this road to the south and the park?
Freeman: Yes.
Yearsley: At this time I would like to reopen the public hearing for RZ 13-008, AZ 13-
008, PP 13-013 and PP 13-014 for the sole purpose to talk about fencing, the park, and
moving that collector road to the east.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 22 of 56
McKay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will keep my comments to the two items at hand.
Yearsley: Name and address for the record, please.
McKay: Becky McKay. 1029 North Rosario. Engineering Solutions. Representing the
applicant. As far as fencing, it is our intent to provide perimeter fencing with the project.
We -- Mr. Coleman typically does like a vinyl six foot fencing around the perimeter.
Obviously, adjoining the open spaces we have the choice of doing nonsight obscuring
fencing or if he does sight obscuring four foot maximum height. So, we will comply with
the ordinance, but he always does fencing in his particular projects. So, we will comply.
Concerning the roadway, Ada County Highway District and the City of Meridian had told
the adjoining developer to get with us when they were aware that we were -- we were
nearing completion of our project and submittal to the city and coordinate that collector
location and they -- they kept asking me have they called you. No, they haven't. They
finally called me and I set up a meeting time. They canceled it. And, then, we did meet
with the staff and the adjoining developer. They said, well, we are still working on our
plan. We got a concept, but it's still in flux and they have not submitted and they said
depending on what we come up with are you willing to move your roadway a little bit to
the north. We said yes. So, we have already made that commitment to them. I don't
know where they want the road, so if you defer me for the road -- I mean then -- I mean
they could drag me out for six months. Who knows. We have agreed -- we have a
condition that states we will move the road. We will move the road. And what I did is I
have an interim road that goes to Black Cat that's in that L leg in the event that we
needed access to Black Cat prior to their development. So, I kind of have like a plan B
and we intentionally left that just as two big lots, because -- for the very reason there is
discussion about the park, they would also not commit, the adjoining developer, on
where their component piece would go. But I don't feel with this layout we are slamming
the door on anything, since it's just two big lots.
Yearsley: Okay. Any questions of the applicant at this time?
Freeman: No further question. Thank you.
Marshall: I appreciate that. Thank you.
McKay: Thank you.
Yearsley: At this time is there anybody in the audience that would like to come up and
testify only on those three items? If not, I would entertain a motion to close the public
hearing.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move we close the public hearing on AZ 13-008, RZ 13-008, PP
13-013 and PP 13-014.
Miller: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 23 of 56
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: All right. With those answers are we ready to make a decision?
Freeman: I think so. I will just -- I -- while Ms. McKay was answering our questions
also located the specific condition regarding that park, which says the applicant shall
provide a city neighborhood park in the northeast quadrant, dedicating a minimum of
seven acres within the applicant's development or reach an agreement and this is to be
done prior to City Council hearing. I'm comfortable with that. So, if I'm going to make
the motion -- yes, Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: Well, if they are to dedicate the seven acres, are we talking about -- is that
enough property up here or are we talking they are going to have to take out lots?
Freeman: They may have to adjust lots depending on whether that's enough there.
Marshall: And they are asking to strike that condition.
Freeman: They are asking to strike it. You're --
Marshall: I would require that.
Freeman: -- moving to leave it in. Yes.
Miller: It's to dedicate seven acres or reach an agreement; correct?
Yearsley: Correct.
Freeman: Correct. So, they are given flexibility. We know the region. Yes, there will
be some changes likely before City Council sees this, but 95 percent of this
development is solid. I like it and I think I'm comfortable giving them the flexibility to
make these minor adjustments before they go see City Council and I think Staff has
done a good job of outlining those requirements, so that we aren't shirking our duty, at
least in my mind, in forwarding something to City Council that's solidly put together and
clearly stated on what the applicant still needs to do, so --
Marshall: Well, I'm just being clear on this, so -- or reach an agreement meaning their
agreement would require them to have an additional seven acre park, the way I read
that.
Freeman: Seven acres.
Marshall: In addition to the private park and the West Ada County park.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 24 of 56
Freeman: Correct.
Marshall: Period.
Miller: Can't the agreement be with adjacent parties, so -- that's going to donate some
or is talking about that -- has been talking about it? It just has to amount to seven
acres.
Marshall: Seven acres total. Yes. Okay.
Freeman: Yes. Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman.
Freeman: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to City Council of file number AZ 13-008, RZ 13-008, PP 13-013,
PP 13-014, and I don't think I include MDA 13-015. As presented in the staff report for
the hearing date of October 17th, 2013, with no modifications. -
Marshall: I thought we did one.
Freeman: Do I still need to -- am I missing one, Commissioner Marshall?
Marshall: Bruce Freckleton's comments. Are these in? Are we just -- just saying that
this memorandum is to be included or not? Sorry, I couldn't pronounce the yellow --
Freeman: Oh, thank you. So, I would like to amend my motion to include the changes
to Section 2.1.3 as presented by Bruce Freckleton, development services manager.
And I won't read the whole thing.
Yearsley: I appreciate that.
Miller: I second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number AZ 13-008, RZ 13-008,
PP 13-013 and PP 13-014. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Nay. Motion passes.
Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
E. Continued Public Hearing from October 3, 2013: 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
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 25 of 56
in Ada County to the R-4 (Medium-Low Density Residential)
Zoning District Recommend Approval to City Council
F. Continued Public Hearing from October 3, 2013: PP 13-021
Spurwing Orchard East Subdivision by Brighton Investments,
LLC Located North fide 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
Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the continued public hearing from October 3rd,
2013, of AZ 13-009 and PP 13-012, Spurwing East -- or Spurwing Orchard East
Subdivision. Let's begin with the staff report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The next item on
the agenda is the Spurwing Orchard East Subdivision. It's located on the north side of
Chinden Boulevard just west of North Ten Mile Road. It consists 26.53 acres of land.
It's currently zoned RUT in Ada County. Surrounding this property we have city
residential development to the west and to the north zoned R-8 and R-2. To the east
we have a county subdivision, West Wing Estates, zoned RUT in the county. To the
north we -- or, excuse me, to the south we have Chinden Boulevard and Ada County
parcels currently being farmed and that's zoned RUT as well. If you look at the aerial
here you can see primarily the southern portion is undeveloped, but we do have -- much
of the area is rapidly transitioning with urban development, as I mentioned, to the north
and to the east. The Comp Plan for this property is designated low density residential,
which is -- the anticipated density for that land use designation is three units or less to
the acre. The applicant is proposing to annex and plat a 63 lot residential subdivision.
It has four common lots. As I mentioned to you the proposed zoning is R-4, with a
density of 2.44 units to the acre, which is consistent with the LDR designation of the
property. All of the lots -- or a majority of the lots do comport with the R-4 zoning
district. There are afew -- one lot that needs to be adjusted in accordance with the
ordinance and it's primarily this lot here. Since it's on a 90 degree angle it needs to
have 30 feet of frontage and I believe it's 28, 26, something in that range. So, the
applicant will agree to correct with the final plat. The applicant is proposing basically
19.2 percent open space, which consists of 50 by 100 -- or open space in excess of 50
by 100 square feet central in between the buildable lots. All of the streets -- local
streets will have eight foot parkways with trees consistent with the ordinance. Two stub
streets are located along the west and one to the north that would be brought in for
future connectivity. The one thing I did fail to mention to you is the applicant will be
providing a stub street to the east. At this point in time it will not connect to the road
that's developed within the West Wing Estates Subdivision and there is two reasons for
that. One, it's a private road. It's not a public street. And, two, they still have access to
Chinden. And so until ITD closes off that access and mitigates that concern, both
ACHD and staff don't feel it appropriate to connect the road and funnel traffic through a
public street -- or a private street. ACHD is amenable to that. The applicant will have to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 26 of 56
go back and modify. I would mention there is an easement in place already through the
common lot. They will have to go back to ACHD and modify that easement, but future
connectivity will happen when ACHD and ITD deem it appropriate. Here are the home
elevations that the applicant is proposing this evening. Again, you have a mix of
materials. It is pretty consistent to what's developed to the north and to the east. The
primary purpose of this development is an extension of that development. So, the
applicant's running out of lots out there, they have purchased this property, and they are
looking to extend it. Because this is a low density development staff is not
recommending a DA with the annexation of the property. They will be pretty much tied
to the conditions of approval of the preliminary plat and future final plats. Staff did
receive written testimony from Mike Wardle in agreement with the conditions in the staff
report and to staffs knowledge there aren't any outstanding issues before you this
evening and I'd stand for any questions you have.
Yearsley: Are there any questions?
Marshall: My only question was Mr. Wardle's response, you're in agreement with all the
technical issues? Do we need to make a modification to the staff report to reflect these
technical changes?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I have read through his
response and, no, there are no changes. He just wants to go on record for clarification.
I think as we go to -- I will change the wording. I said depict a ten foot pathway I think is
how the condition read and it should have said construct. So, some minor words -- we
have got to wordsmith it a little bit, but, yes, they are pretty much in agreement, just
further clarification before we get to Council.
Marshall: Thank you.
Yearsley: Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward.
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation.
12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. Just to quickly note that even the conditions of
approval with the technical changes, those will be addressed at final plat, so there is
really nothing that needs to be changed. Just wanted to be sure that some of the
technical items were noted. Interesting that this piece of ground is almost an in-fill now,
with -- well, it's been some years ago that the original Jayker Subdivision was approved
for the properties to the west and to the north. Obviously, this is the one parcel that was
part of a -- one of the old nonfarm projects and now with all of the facilities and services
in place it is appropriate to go ahead with the annexation and the zoning and
development. Bill, how do I just forward on through these? What's the magic -- okay.
Just -- and this is more for informational purposes, but all of the area to the --
surrounding this project is now developed or is in the process of developing. There is
one phase that's under development right now -- excuse me, I have -- there we go.
Immediately to the west the under name of Spurwing Orchard Two. All of the other
project elements have been completed within the Spurwing Greens, which was
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 27 of 56
approved in 2010 as an update of the original Jayker development. So, there is really
nothing particular. I would just note that the stub street to the west, Bay Oak, and, then,
the street to the north, were both anticipated in the previous approvals and so those are
-- well, the one to the west, Bay Oak, will be completed shortly. The one to the north
was completed with the Spurwing Greens No. 2 Subdivision in the estates area
previously. Next slide, Bill. As Bill noted that we actually are providing a substantially
greater amount of open space and so we have the amenity aspects in two forms, one
additional opens space more than was required, as well as the ten_ foot multi-use
pathway along the southern boundary on the extension of that that was developed with
the original Jayker One Subdivision and that will extend to Double Eagle Lane on the
east. Next slide, Bill. Again, I would just restate that the -- ACHD did secure from the
prior landowners an easement that made the connection from Spurwing Greens
Subdivision No. 2 to the north over to Double Eagle purely for the event that may
happen in the future when improvements are made to Chinden and that road is cut off,
but that's not a decision that we will make, it's nothing that we will provoke, it's simply
that we are making provision and we will modify the precise location of that easement
with, first of all, the public street and, then, a connection on over to Double Eagle, so
that in future when ITD and ACHD mandate that, that they can take that action and that
would be up to them. I would just note that when we had our neighborhood meeting
that the -- the two families that came from the West Wing Estates simply requested is it
possible that the street could connect in the future? Yes, it is possible. And, then,
secondly, could they go through the common area to get to the internal street pathway
and sidewalk system of Spurwing Greens and certainly there would be no limitation to
that. So, those were two items that simply came up that we anticipated accommodating
regardless. I think the next slide is simply a -- if you look kind of orienting yourself north
to the left, Chinden, of course, on the south is to the right. It shows the orientation of
those existing homes and along that private street there is a ten foot landscaped buffer
currently. We are adding a 25 foot buffer to that at the back of the lots that we will build
adjacent to that. So, there would end up being a 35 foot landscaped buffer between the
street and the back of those lots. And all of the lots that back up to Double Eagle, while
they are not certainly of the estate character, they are one-third acre -- they are 13,000
to 19,000 square foot lots. So, they are not small, but they give kind of a transition in a
development that is the low to medium density under the Comp Plan. So, Mr.
Chairman, Commission Members, I have nothing more to add. Would simply answer
your questions if you have them.
Yearsley: Are there any questions? No? Thank you very much.
Wardle: Thank you.
Yearsley: I have two people signed up. Howard Shoemaker. Would you like to come
up and testify? Please state your name and address for the record, please.
Shoemaker: I'm Howard Shoemaker. I'm at 6568 North Double Eagle Lane. So, never
done this before, so I appreciate being here. I appreciate all the work you guys do.
have had no zoning and planning experience. But we were just for the first time -- you
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 28 of 56
know, my -- our concerns, obviously, the separation and maintaining our property
values.
Yearsley: Could you, please, speak into the microphone.
Shoemaker: Sure. So, you know, my concern was the buffering between Double Eagle
Lane and the backs of these new houses and that we currently have pretty much a wide
open view and we don't want to -- you know, have those houses backing right up to
Double Eagle Lane, so we were pleased to hear 35 feet. I didn't know that and none of
us were sure about that. The only question I would have about that would be the height
of it, as opposed to, you know, just a flat space that something that -- you know, the
height that would give us some sort of a -- you know, block the view to the houses
across there. And the other comment I wanted to make is currently Double Eagle Lane
is a gated community, so if and when Chinden gets closed off and we access on the
north end, we want to be able to maintain that gated status, so those are my two
comments.
Yearsley: All right. Thank you. I have another person, just -- is it Harry? Would you
like to getup and testify as well?
Hessing: Sorry. Jeff Hessing.
Yearsley: Oh, Hessing. Would you like to testify? Please come forward.
Hessing: My name is Jeff Hessing and live at 6748 North Double Eagle Lane. I wonder
if we could go to six again. This is for -- let's go back to five. I just -- I'm -- my property
is the very last -- the northern piece of -- on Double Eagle Lane here. The cul-de-sac is
basically in my front yard or -- and I just wanted -- and I talked to the Brighton folks and
my question -- my concern is this little piece here that's L-4 on the diagram. There is a
little triangular piece there that, .indeed, if you look my driveway actually connects into
that cul-de-sac and it's really -- the way it's been for -- ever since the home was built
over ten years ago that is really part of Lot 1 in this new subdivision and I have talked to
Brighton about my driveway connection and Iwould -- they have agreed to modify this
so that I can continue to get my driveway into the rest of the -- as it is and not have to
cross lawn or something. So, I would just like to express my support of this as long as
I'm able to maintain that driveway connection as I have and they have indicated that I
would.
Yearsley: All right. Thank you.
Hessing: Thank you.
Yearsley: I don't have anybody else signed up. Would anybody else like to come up
and testify? With that, would the applicant like to come and respond to those
comments?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 29 of 56
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation. Let me just deal with Mr.
Hessing first as -- his comment. I have actually looked at the assessor's maps with the
parcel overlays and I don't think he actually is on that property, but I have assured him
that when we get to the final plat that if there is any encroachment at all we will not
require him to move his driveway, we will simply accommodate that either by deed or by
easement. So, we have no problems with that. It certainly would be a very minor
involvement if at all. With regard to Mr. Shoemaker's question about the height of the
berm, there is just a very little -- a subtle little bump there right now and our anticipation
-- and, obviously, we will work with those folks, but we want to pick up where that is,
whatever the height is and continue to build on that. Now, within a total of 35 feet part
of that which we wouldn't be touching on -- you know, immediately adjacent to the
street, you can't get a great deal of elevation, but it's possible to get, you know, maybe
up to four feet. We will go as high as the landscape consultants would encourage us,
which could be as steep as a three to one -- typically they tend to go four to one, but we
will get as much elevation as we physically can within that and what we have also done
on some of the projects -- and will actually be done along Chinden Boulevard, there will
be some sloping in the back yard of the lots along Chinden, which are a little bit deeper
because of the influence of that street, but there could be even a little bit of that tapering
into those lots, so that we will get as much height as we possibly can and we will
certainly work with them as we can, so that we don't disrupt what they have done and
build on what they have.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions?
Freeman: There was one item that came up and I don't know if you're able to address
this, but Mr. Shoemaker I believe mentioned their gate. Did you have any thoughts on
that? Is that something that's been discussed at all prior to this evening?
Wardle: Well, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Freeman, the gate that they are talking
about is just beyond as you come up off Chinden, that little cul-de-sac area, it's just right
to the north of that and we won't have -- we don't have any involvement with that street,
so we won't be changing or doing anything. Now, we have to put the caveat on it, in the
future when ITD expands that roadway and may limit access, it necessitates the
connection to our street system, I can't guarantee what will happen. But that's not our
decision to make. But we have no intent to do anything that would change their current
access or their gate. We will not be taking access to that street.
Freeman: Thank you. I suspected that was the answer and, I agree, that's probably
something we can't tell for certain in the future what's going to happen with that.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Wardle: Thank you.
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 30 of 56
Yearsley: Commissioner --
Marshall: I move that we close the public hearing on AZ 13-009 and PP 13-021.
Miller: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on AZ 13-009 and
PP 13-021. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: Any comments? Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: Yes, sir. I see this as a continuation of what I see as a very fine subdivision.
It's really nice, I wish I could afford something like that, but -- and I think it's an
appropriate -- Brighton has shown that they are -- they are more than willing to work
with the neighbors and I have always appreciated that. They did a nice job again
making the buffer significantly more where theirs might not have. So, I really appreciate
it and it makes things easy on me. Also, my thought is that since it's a private street
those owners actually own that gate and if ITD closes that off, then, you just take the
gate and move it down to the other end. So, those are my thoughts.
Freeman: Good thought. I have nothing to add, Mr. Chair.
Miller: Me either.
Yearsley: All right. At that point I would entertain a motion.
Miller: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Miller.
Miller: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend
approval to the City Council for file AZ 13-009 and PP 13-021 as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of October 17th, 2013, with no modifications. The technical
stuff.
Freeman: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the public hearing AZ 13-009 and
PP 13-021. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
G. Public Hearing: RZ 13-011 Crimson Maple by Crimson Maple
Townhomes, LLC Located on the East Side of NW 4th Street,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 31 of 56
North of W. Maple Avenue Request: Rezone 1.59 Acres from
the R-8 (Medium-Density Residential) Zoning District to the R-
15Zoning District (Medium High-Density Residential).
H. Public Hearing: CUP 13-011 Crimson Maple by Crimson Maple
Townhomes, LLC Located on the East Side of NW 4th Street,
North of W. Maple Avenue Request: Conditional Use Permit to
Construct aMulti-Family Development Consisting of 12
Residential Units in a Proposed R-15 Zoning District
Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is public hearing RZ 13-011 and CUP 13-011,
Crimson Maple and let's start with the staff report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Next item before
you this evening is the Crimson Maple development. It's located on the east side of
Northwest 1st -- or North 4th Street -- Northwest 4th Street, excuse me, just north of
West Maple Avenue. It's currently zoned R-8 within the city. It's currently surrounded
by single family residential development to the east, south, west and to the north we
have a LDS stake center, zoned R-4 as well. The applicant is here this evening to
discuss rezoning the property, approximately 1.59 acres, from the R-8 zone to the R-15
zone to develop a 12 unit multi-family development. One thing that I would mention to
you in 2007 this property was approved with a preliminary plat for six residential lots --
single family lots. That approval has since expired. With that rezone at that time the
city did not require a development agreement, so all we have now in place is the R-8
zone in which the applicant's requesting to change. If you look at the layout that the
applicant is proposing it is similar to a single family development and similar to what is
existing in the area. I would mention that the residential subdivision to the south --
along the south boundary is actually designated high density residential on the Comp
Plan, but developed and zoned R-4, which is interesting. So, I don't know why that's --
that's the case, but at one time there must have been a different vision for that and,
then, they came in and subdivided it as an R-4 subdivision. This property is designated
medium density residential on our Comprehensive Plan. Under our Comprehensive
Plan the applicant is allowed to request a step up to the R-15 zone. I would mention
with the number of units that the applicant is proposing this evening the density on this
site is at 7.55 dwelling units to the acre, which is consistent with that three to eight unit
range of the medium density residential. So, even though they are asking for the step
up in R-15, the density is consistent with the underlying land use of MDR. So, here is a
close end view and the only reason why I bring this up is because I want to at least
show the Commission that the applicant's trying to make every effort to blend in with the
surrounding area. So, basically, they will have one main entrance off of Northwest 4th
Street and, then, there will be some guest parking for visitors to the site. One thing
would mention -- the only reason why this is defined as multi-family is because we have
numerous units on a single parcel. We don't dictate how the units look -- well, we do
within a sense, but -- and when we get to the elevations you can see they emulate
single family homes. So, all intents and purposes it's designed as a single family
development, but it meets the definition of the UDC for multi-family and that's why we
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 32 of 56
are rezoning and going through the conditional use process. So, the applicant did have
their neighborhood meeting. During those discussions some of the neighbors were
concerned with the height of the units and limiting some of those as part of the site plan
and I think the applicant has demonstrated that they are trying to meet that intent and
work with the surrounding property owners. So, you can see here along the north
boundary there is a couple two story units and, then, the transition to a single story unit
and we have a property management office. It's not a requirement, but the applicant is
proposing that to go along with this development and, then, again, another two story
unit -- couple two story units along the east boundary and, then, along the south
boundary are single story units. Because the applicant is going through a rezone
process staff is recommending a development agreement and part of our recommended
DA provisions limits this site to the densities proposed this evening, the layout proposed
this evening and also the height -- the height and bulk of the buildings -- the structures
on the site plan. So, what you see here is what we are going to be reviewing with future
development applications. It will be restricted to single story and two stories in this
configuration and I'm presenting to you this evening. The open space is required for the
multi-family development standards. The applicant is proposing roughly 600 and 700
square foot enclosed yards behind each of the units that will be fenced off. Each unit
will have its own private backyard, which is consistent with the UDC requirement. There
is a 4,600 square foot open space lot or area in front of the development as you come
off of 4th Street that will be developed with a picnic area, barbecue pit, and, then, also
the applicant hasn't depicted it on this plan, but they have communicated with staff that
they intend on incorporating a community garden within the development. So, they are
meeting the open space requirements and the amenity requirements for amulti-family
development. One thing that staff wasn't clear on -- and we didn't have ACHD's
comments until this afternoon on this project, but we wanted to make sure that
Northwest 4th Street was actually designated a collector on the map -- street map. We
did receive confirmation from ACHD on that. So, the applicant will have provide a
detached sidewalk or even attached sidewalk. I think we can work with them on that
given what's happening in the area. It's predominately attached sidewalk in the area,
but they will have to dedicate 30 feet of additional right of way, construct a 20 foot land
-- 20 foot wide landscape buffer, which will more than likely cause them to lose a stall,
which is fine, because they are actually providing two car garages for each unit, plus a
two car parking pad. So, they are actually exceeding the parking requirements of the
UDC for multi-family development. So, there certainly won't be an impact to the
surrounding development for cars overflowing into the neighborhood for parking. I think
the applicant thought of all those provisions making sure that, again, this is a single
family development trying to blend in with the surrounding community. Here are the
elevations. We have a board and batten siding, shutters, covered entryways, dormers.
As a provision in the DA we are requiring that all units constructed on the site comply
with these submitted elevations. So, as I mentioned to you you can see they do
emulate single family homes and that's the intent. So, as I mentioned to you earlier, the
two -- two story units will be in this design in the lower right-hand corner and, then, the
two story single units would be in this configuration and, then, of course, the two single
units would be -- would look like this. The applicant did dot provide any elevations for
the management office, but staff has provided -- recommended a condition in the DA
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 33 of 56
that the management office has to compliment the design of these structures before you
this evening. Staff received written testimony -- or spoke with the applicant. They are in
agreement with the conditions in the staff report. I would mention to you that Wayne
Stephans -- or Stevens, excuse me, submitted written testimony in opposition to the
application. That should be in your packet this evening. Again, staff is -- finds that it is
consistent with the Comp Plan with the surrounding properties and we have
recommended approval of this rezone and conditional use permit application. I'd stand
for any questions you have.
Yearsley: Are there any questions of staff?
Marshall: Mr. Chair, if I could.
Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: Bill, help me out. For some reason I missed something here. You said the
density is 7.95?
Parsons: 7.55.
Yearsley: 7.55. And why we are rezoning to R-15?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Marshall, under the UDC our multi-family
developments aren't allowed in the R-8 zone. So, in order to process the way the
applicant's proposed it has to be up zoned or ask for the higher --
Marshall: Just clarifying. Thank you. Appreciate that.
Yearsley: Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward. Please
state your name and address for the record.
Leraris: Justin Leraris with J.J. Howard Engineers. 5983 West State Street, Boise,
Idaho. And I'm representing the applicant.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Leraris: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Bill, does such a
good job I -- he's pretty much taken most of the things that I needed to say, but I will try
not to reiterate too much. But, as he said, it's -- we are R-8. We are seeking R-15 for
the sole purpose of -- we don't need to divide this up into lots. The developer is going to
maintain ownership of the property and is going to maintain the property under a sole
homeowners association and they will take care of all the landscaping and everything
like that and these homes are going to be rented, which is consistent with a lot of the
surrounding uses. We have over -- if you can -- I wish we had another site plan that
shows -- there we go. Back to that -- there we go. So, I think most of these homes in
here are rented and these are duplexes here to the east. So, it is pretty consistent with
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 34 of 56
the way things are there currently. And, like he said, it's really -- it's considered multi-
family, because we are not putting in the lot lines, we are not -- basically the only
difference from the subdivision is we are not going to be driving pins for lot lines. So,
we -- there was just no reason to do that and -- but we need to ask for the R-15 to allow
for that, but we are not increasing the density, so -- and that's exactly -- you know, it's
going to actually -- it's exceeding the building elevations that it is going to look like -- like
a subdivision with 3,000 square foot homes, so -- let's see. And like Bill said, we just
got the ACHD staff report today and from what looked through there, I don't think we
actually do have to dedicate 30 feet. That is what we originally proposed, but we are
going to work through that, because we have -- they are asking for a seven foot
attached sidewalk, since it is a collector, so we may shift that a little bit here or there,
along with the 20 foot buffer, so we don't lose too many of the additional parking
spaces. That's all something that we can work through. Something also I'd like to
mention is that the -- the applicant would like to extend the sidewalk from the southwest
corner of the site all the way down to the corner of North 4th Street and Maple to just
provide -- because that is a -- currently a gap in pedestrian traffic right now. It certainly
isn't required and is something that we may not be able to do. It will depend if we have
enough right of way there and what that homeowner is allowed to give as an easement,
but if we can, you know, we figured it would be just worthwhile to go ahead and build
that and we don't know if ACHD will help with the funding of that or not, but that's
something that we definitely want to do. Vinyl fencing all around the perimeter of the
site. Six foot vinyl fencing. Between each -- also the -- as you said, the backyards will
be fenced and gated for access to those for maintenance. The common area, as he
said, will be a barbecue area and a community garden, which I thought was just an
excellent idea. There is a lot of different ways that you can run those and he will kind of
leave those up, I think, to the -- to the homeowners or the residents as to how they want
to -- to run that, whether it be all maintained by the association or individual gardens in
one spot, but that way they will be able to use their backyard for what they want and,
then, they can go and have a vegetable garden in the common area. And Ijust -- just
want to reiterate that this is I think just a really great fit for this lot. It's an unusual lot.
It's -- it only has 80 foot frontage and so, you know, if you went the subdivision route
you're eating up a lot of your land with right of way and so, you know, the private road
idea and, you know, keeping all on one area really frees things up to make it a nice
development. It just -- it wouldn't work very well I don't think with dedicating right of way
back through there, you would just -- you would lose a lot of land to road that isn't
necessary. It's unfortunate that we don't have a little more connectivity I guess with the
road, with the hammerhead, but I mean that is what it is. You really can't do anything
with that there. The fire department has approved that hammerhead and we are
providing, you know, 20 feet and the appropriate lengths to turn a big fire truck around,
so -- and we are going to extend water services under there and we will have a fire
hydrant and everything and that will all be taken care of. Let's see. More on the
technical side of it, we did -- the sewer runs along 4th Street and it was fairly shallow,
only about five and a half feet.. So, we were a little worried about sewering those
projects, but we ran through the numbers and we got a little bit of an elevation climb
going to the east, so it doesn't look like we are going to need that much fill and we
probably -- actually because of the large home size and excavating crawl spaces, we
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 35 of 56
will probably be a net cut on the side, as opposed to having to import fill. So, that
actually turned out to not be a problem at all. And irrigation will be provided by a private
well. This property does have a surface water right in a ditch that runs through the site,
but delivery is very inconsistent and unreliable. It's -- there is a gate upstream and
several users downstream of it and you never know if you're going to get water or not
and so what we have decided to do is just pipe it through the site, punch our own hole
and go from there and just a submersible pump and that will be a much more reliable
way to go. The phasing of it is -- we are going to be required to build all of the site
improvements and that's what we want to do. The entire private road and everything
will be constructed all at once. However, I spoke with Bill about this. We don't
necessarily want to build all of the buildings at one time and those will need to be
phased out over time, as -- just as you would see with a subdivision and he said there is
an allowance for that I believe with the certificate of zoning that we can do -- break up
the certificate of zoning compliance to allow for building these building units over time,
as opposed to all at once, which would require -- you know, there may not even be a
demand for it, so -- let's see. There is not very many trees on site. Just a few small
ones. I think there is only one maybe over four inch, so mitigation for that is not going to
be an issue at all. We are putting in a lot more than what is being taken out. There are
some large nice trees around the perimeter of the site. There is one on the northeast
corner that the neighbor talked to us about and was a little concerned about that and we
agreed to, you know, do whatever -- you know, we are not going to be encroaching on
that tree and we will have to -- there is a drainage ditch back there that we will have to --
to work around when we pipe that through, because we do want to get that covered up,
but we are going to be working in the root zone we don't know if it will just be shovel
digging or if we will have to do a directional bore or something like that, but that's
something that we have been working with to -- to make sure that we are not killing that
tree. There may be some trimming, because it does hang over our property quite a bit,
but I don't think that will decrease the screening much at all. Plus we will have the six
foot vinyl fence, so -- yeah, I just want to, you know, give my support of this project,
because it just seems like it makes a lot of sense. This developer has gone above and
beyond to make sure that the neighbors are happy and that -- like Bill said, he's put the
one stories along the south side to avoid any privacy issues and the two stories are
along the church on the east side where they already have the duplexes on a little bit of
a buffer there and the trees, so -- I think he's just covered all his bases and done a good
job with this. So, if there is any questions you have I would be happy to answer them.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? No? Thank you very much.
Leraris: Thank you.
Yearsley: I have a Wayne Stevens. Would he like to come up and testify? Okay. And,
then, Todd Campbell? Okay. Is there anybody else that would like to testify? With that
I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on RZ 13-011 and CUP 13-011.
Miller: So moved.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 36 of 56
Marshall: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say
aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: Anyone like to go first? Comments?
Freeman: Sure, Mr. Chair.
Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman.
Freeman: It's just -- it's interesting sitting up here and seeing huge projects, like our first
one that's hundreds of acres, and, then, a project like this, both housing and both I think
very suitable to their context. I -- I agree this project -- it fits very well into its immediate
context. I think the design of the site. I like the design of the buildings. I like the ideas
that the applicant came forward with. I did read Mr. Stevens' testimony and I would like
to address a couple of things there. You know, when developers come in and do new
projects there is, of course, always concern about reduction of property values and, you
know, if you get a really bad project or a project that is inappropriate for its context,
then, we -- I guess we would all acknowledge that that is a possibility. However,
projects like this that do fit their context and are quality projects, I don't see them as
being a threat to property values. You know, this area is all zoned residential. It is
going to develop and the worst thing that we could do is put an incompatible use up
against these existing homes or -- or a residential project that is just out of scale to the
rest of these homes and the Planning and Zoning Commission has no interest in doing
that. I think this project is actually avery -- an excellent fit for -- for this area and you
shouldn't see any reduction in property values because of it, because it brings newness
to the neighborhood you might even actually see an increase as this continues to
develop. Increased traffic was another concern that's been expressed here. There is
no traffic that's going to flow through other neighborhoods. This has a completely
independent traffic pattern and, yeah, you're going to have a few extra trips on Maple --
Maple Avenue and the other main streets in the area, but they are not going to be
significant. Again, this entire block is going to develop in the future and there are going
to be traffic impacts as it develops, but nothing, again, out of the ordinary that would --
that would cause traffic issues or safety issues. I don't see that happening with this
project. And noise levels -- you know, I built a home years ago in Meridian and was
moved in to a new neighborhood and there were people building a home right next door
to me for months and, yeah, it was a bit of an annoyance in the morning when the
hammers were banging up against my bedroom window, but that's some of the
temporary inconvenience we suffer together as a community as we are a growing
community, it's going to happen for a little while. I don't see any ongoing noise resulting
from the project. It's residential, like all the adjoining properties. So, I do appreciate you
writing with your concerns and we did read them, we did consider them. I just wanted to
address those and let you know what our thinking was on those things. In my opinion
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 37 of 56
for what you could be facing here if we were bad planners -- and we are not -- this is an
excellent project for -- for this area, as this area will continue to develop. So, I'm in favor
of it. I like it. I think it's been sensitive to the neighbors, sensitive to its context and will
be a good addition or some multi-family, even though with single family residences.
That was longwinded, but I'm done, I wanted to cover all of the concerns.
Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, if I could. Thank you. I would like to second everything
Commissioner Freeman said and in addition I would simply suggest that as far as traffic
goes this is actually what we are looking for to decrease traffic in the long haul. We
want little higher densities and we want them closer into town so people -- these people
are moving here whether they live here or they live in Timbuktu and drive here, they are
going to -- they are moving here and the closer we can get them into the employment
centers and closer nucleus that -- that the few people we are going to have driving cars
miles and miles on the roads and this actually helps overall in general for the city
decrease traffic I believe and, yeah, it really -- I think it really fits in quite well and I have
seen a log of different projects and this seems to be a very good one in my opinion and
I'm all for it.
Yearsley: Thank you. Commissioner Miller.
Miller: My two cents. I agree with everything both of these gentlemen said. I think it's a
great development. I think it would be a fun place to live. I really like the community
garden. That's off topic, but that would be a great draw I think. I'm in favor.
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 of file numbers RZ 13-001 and CUP 13-011 as presented in the
staff report for the hearing date October 17th, 2013.
Miller: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second for the approval of RZ 13-001 and CUP 13-001
-- 011, sorry, Crimson Maple. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: It's 8:00 o'clock. Does anyone want to take a break or -- for five minutes or
do we want to continue to move on?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 38 of 56
Freeman: It may be appropriate, Mr. Chair, to take a quick break, since we have been
at it for two hours.
Yearsley: That's what I was thinking. We will take a break.
(Recess: 8:05 p.m. to 8:11 p.m.)
I. Public Hearing: AZ 13-012 Sagewood Subdivision by
Sagewood Overland„ LLC Located on the South Side of W.
Overland Road Approximately 650 Feet West of S. Stoddard
Road. Request: Annexation of Approximately 16.34 Acres from
R1 and RUT in Ada County to the L-O (Limited Office)(5.02
acres) and R-8 (Medium-Density Residential)(11.32 acres)
Zoning Districts.
J. Public Hearing: PP 13-026 Sagewood Subdivision by
Sagewood Overland„ LLC Located on the South Side of W.
Overland Road Approximately 650 Feet West of S. Stoddard
Road. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of two(2) office
lots, forty-five (45) residential lots, and Eight (8) Common Lots
on Approximately 15.62 Acres in the Proposed L-O and R-8
Zoning Districts.
Yearsley: Let's go ahead and get started again. At this time we would like to open the
public hearing for AZ 13-012 and PP 13-026, Sagewood Subdivision. I will start with the
staff report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The next item on
the agenda is the Sagewood Subdivision. It's located on the south side of Overland
Road. It approximately 650 feet west of South Stoddard Street -- or Stoddard Road.
Excuse me. Surrounding the property. To the north we have commercial --
undeveloped commercial properties zoned C-G. To the east we have C-G zoned
property developed with aself-storage facility and a commercial building. To the south
we have Ada County property. Some RUT, which is owned by the school district for a
future school and, then, also to the west we have Ada County property zoned RUT and,
then, a small sliver, which isn't shown here, but this little triangular piece here is zoned
R-2 in the city and that was annexed in 2007. You can see here the property is -- has a
couple of residents and outbuildings on the property. One home is proposed to stay
and one is -- the other home and outbuildings are proposed to be removed and I will get
into that a little bit further as I get into the presentation. Our Comp Plan for this property
is designated medium density residential. The applicant is proposing an office park at
the north part of the subdivision as you can see here with the conceptual development
plan. So, we have two office lots here and, then, the residential portion consists of 45
residential lots for a gross density of 3.97 dwelling units to the acre. The property to the
east that is currently zoned commercial has a mixed use designation on it. So, when
we were evaluating the applicant's proposal for an office designation or L-O zoning, we
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 39 of 56
took that land use designation and we would say how does it relate to this property. As
you know, zoning is parcel specific. However, land uses aren't. They are meant to
move and float with -- with conditions and circumstances. So, in our analysis we found
that having that office component adjacent to C-G zoned property, which can develop
with more intense commercial uses, made some sense to provide a transition not only
for the residential development, but also Overland Road with the amount of traffic we
anticipate on that roadway. The applicant's concept plan shows six office buildings.
Four of them are oriented towards Overland Road. We have two along the entryway at
the main corridor, basically, the boulevard into the subdivision and, then, all the parking
-- internal parking is screened by the buildings, which is pretty consistent to what we like
to see in accordance with our design guidelines. The building should front the street
and shape the development, not the parking lots. The applicant is also proposing cross-
access to the property to the west. For future connectivity and also the one thing that
we were lacking when the property to the east came through, we did not have
connectivity to that C-G zoned parcel. The applicant has worked with that property
owner and he's agreed to allow that cross-access to happen. So, moving forward we
anticipate that commercial development to tie into this, therefore, restricting further need
for additional access points onto Overland Road. The one little item I would mention is
the property to the west is currently zoned R-2. That is developed with a single family
home. Given the location and proximity to Overland Road, there is a good chance it
could come in and change with a different land use -- go through a Comp Plan and
rezone in the future when actual development plans are proposed. The only reason
why it annexed into the city was back in 2007 ACRD was widening the road and wiped
out probably their well or septic system, so they had to hook up to city services. So,
that's probably the main reason why it annexed in. The other interesting piece is that's
where sewer has to run across to serve this development. So, that applicant's been
working with the property owner. She will be responsible to secure an easement to run
along the Hardin Drain there to provide sewer to this development -- the office
development and also the residential portion of the development. Here is the proposed
landscape plan. As far as my analysis of the staff report in accordance with the UDC,
basically I took the residential portion, added up all the open space that the applicant
proposed and I believe the main qualifying open space is approximately 1.61 acres or
14.2 percent of the site. The office development doesn't factor into the open space
requirement for the zone, but they do depict a 25 foot wide landscape buffer along --
excuse me -- along Overland Road as required. They do provide 20 foot wide
landscape buffers adjacent to the residential use required by our ordinance. The one
item I did want to bring up with Commission tonight is the requirement fora 20 foot wide
landscape buffer along the west boundary here. As I mentioned to you, this property is
zoned R-2. Currently the UDC requires a 20 foot landscape buffer where you have
office zoning next to residential zoning. But under the UDC the applicant does have the
option to ask Council to ask for a waiver to reduce that buffer through the public hearing
process. So, in their narrative to us -- to me or in their written statement testimony to
me they have asked that they have elected to proceed to Council with asking for the
waiver. So, basically, the building that you see here will be set 15 feet from the property
edge and, basically, the landscape buffer will be ten feet in width. Given the fact that
that could redevelop in the future I think staff is leaning towards supporting the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 40 of 56
applicant's request. Certainly it makes sense -- they have done a nice job of laying out
this office development. Would hate to have to shift a few buildings and lose a few
more parking stalls out there just to accommodate a 20 foot buffer. I think it will be a
low impact use adjacent to that residence, so moving forward the hours of operation will
be restricted on the site from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. in our L-O zone. Usually they
develop with Monday through Friday 8:00 to 5:00 type uses with an office zoning
designation. So, we don't see that being much of a detriment or impact on that adjacent
property. The applicant has submitted sample elevations. Again, pretty consistent to
what we see in Bear Creek West, even Fall Creek, which is a little farther to the south
being developed by Coleman Homes. The applicant will have a mix of siding materials,
variation in roof lines. Again, they are proposing to -- or required to comply with those
elevations through the development agreement. One thing that I did want to mention to
you is the applicant is providing some future access to the properties to the west, so
there is two stub streets proposed and as I mentioned to you the school district does
own that 20 or 40 -- excuse me -- that 40 acres to the south of this. Rather than getting
a pedestrian -- or a vehicular connection, we are just requiring the pedestrian
connection as proposed by the applicant. So, we are -- we are making some
concessions and given the fact that we have a Freedom Storage -- sub storage facility
on the east and an Idaho transfer station on the east boundary that won't allow
connectivity, we have nothing moving forward. Nothing stubbed to the east. Again, I
did receive written testimony from the applicant in agreement with the conditions in the
staff report, except for one clarification and, then, you also received that memo from
Bruce Freckleton detailing the requirements for modification. I won't get into the
specifics of that. The applicant has been given a chance to respond to that. They are
in agreement with that change that Bruce proposed in his memo to you. The one item
that the applicant wants to discuss with you, if you look at the plat here and the office
lots, as I mentioned there is two office lots here along Overland Road. The applicant
this evening owns the majority of the property. However, this portion of the property is
owned by Dexter King, which has given consent to the annexation and the platting of
this property. However, this property is -- it's a single family residence and he wants
some flexibility to leave the home in place until such time as the property redevelops,
whether it's a certificate of zoning compliance -- way of condition in the staff report, staff
has required that the homes be scraped with the final platting of the property. We don't
specifically want to allow nonconforming uses on commercial. What happens if we put
zoning -- if we allow the single family homes to stay on an L-O we have created a
nonconforming use on the property and so in this instance certainly Council has the
authority to act on that moving forward. I don't know if that's within your purview.
Certainly you can make -- just weigh in on it and let Council know how you feel about
keeping a nonconforming home on an L-O zoned piece of property, but staffs
recommendation this evening is to scrape the home as stated in the staff report. Other
than that issue -- and, like I said, the applicant's in agreement. Staff has not received
any comments or complaints or issues regarding the project and I would be happy to
stand for any questions you have.
Yearsley: Are there any questions of staff?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 41 of 56
Freeman: No.
Yearsley: Would the applicant like to come forward.
McKay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Becky McKay.
Engineering Solutions. Business address 1029 -North -- Meridian. I am here
representing Mr. Markham and Mr. Hunemiller on this particular project. This is not as
complex as their last one, so it won't take nearly as long. This is a smaller project. It's
only about 15.62 acres. As Bill indicated, being -- the fact that we are on the Overland
Road corridor, which is five lanes, we -- we have Kennedy Commercial Center, which is
C-G that is just directly north of us. To the east of us we have office commercial, an
existing mini storage facility and, then, an Idaho Power sub station and so it's C-G on
our eastern boundary. On the western boundary is Denny Johnson and he's located
here and, then, this neighbor I met with him. He has a home on there, but his intent at
some point in time to develop as office, so he was supportive of our application and in
coming up with a design I looked at where the line was as far as between the office and
the mini storage. We matched that line on our plat and we came up with this particular
design here. We have four -- four buildings. We don't want to create a wall effect on
Overland. We have no access to Overland, other than the boulevard, which will have
landscape islands, landscaping on both sides. We talked to the gentleman to the west.
He agreed that he would like cross-access. I met with the owner of the office parcel.
He said I would love cross-access. So, we will put that on the plat. So, we will have
some interconnectivity and possibly capture some of those trips within the projects as it
develops on westward and keep the -- the traffic off of Overland. The property has the
Hardin Drain, which comes through it like this diagonally. We show that we are piping
the Hardin Drain. We have a corridor where we will pipe that. I have talked to Nampa-
Meridian Irrigation District, they have indicated that they will allow us to pipe that facility.
In the landscape plan the property was kind of an odd shape, so it made the most sense
to create linear open space. I like that where it kind of -- we could transition. We have
two different types of lot sizes. Those lot sizes -- I think they range from 6,000 square
feet -- 5,280 up to 9,680. So, we have two different types of product. We have an
interconnecting pathway that runs through that linear open space and connects to this
micropath. The Meridian School District -- that will be a middle school. They believe
that will be in their bond election next year. We are also kitty-corner to Fall Creek that
came through the Commission here a few months ago that's currently under
construction now. We feel that, obviously, the two particular uses -- yeah, the split
between the L-O and the R-8 makes sense. I don't want to put the single family
dwellings up on that five lane highway with commercial surrounding it. The staff was
extremely supportive of it. They said, you know, that's a great idea and Ithink we -- we
were pretty much in agreement on everything. We meet the ten percent open space
and we meet the amenity requirements. Under the site specific conditions I received an
e-mail from Bruce Freckleton that allowed us to -- on the number of lots, the rule is you
can have 25 lots on one source of water and, then, you need a redundant source, not
just a looped .source. So, obviously, we are going to explore our options of either
coming down the Hardin Drain where we are taking the sewer and bringing -- you know,
possibly making a secondary connection to water or seeing what options are available
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 42 of 56
in that existing office lot to possibly loop the water there. So, we will work, obviously,
with Public Works on that. And I think the -- the one item that -- that we are asking the
Commission to alter is 1.2.1 and that is prior to the city engineer's signature at both the
existing homes that are located on the office lots will be removed and existing septics
and wells abandoned prior to signature on the final plat. When we started the plat --
when we first looked at these properties -- as you can see there are three parcels. My
client only owns the easterly two parcels. When we met with the staff they said, you
know, that's really tough and it really -- it's too narrow and not conducive to a very good
design and we agreed. They said we would really love it if you go to the adjoining
property and you see if you can do a combination type development and make for a
better development. So, that's what my client did. So, we got Dexter King to join in on
our project. So, my clients are purchasing from Mr. King all of the single family
residential area and what Mr. King did is he is keeping this office lot and where the
existing home is. It is a rental home. He does not live there and he has a mortgage on
it. Now, in order to sell the southern portion he worked with his lender to basically
reduce his mortgage to just that office lot and so it was his desire that the home remain
and, then, he's selling it as an office and, then, it will be completely scraped. But until
that -- that mortgage -- I mean we can't -- he can't commit to tear the house down when
there is a mortgage on it. My client on the left lot, he's already started removal of all
structures and getting everything out of there. So, I don't -- I suggested that prior to
signature on the final plat, like the westerly office lot will be cleared off and prior to any
certificate of zoning that an office use on the westerly lot, that that would have to be
scraped. We are going to be installing all the improvements and everything. So, it will
just, you know, be a lot with a house on in the interim. He may sell it once we get
approval. I don't know. Obviously, values are going up. But we need a little bit of
flexibility and so I asked for a little bit of relief on that. As far as the landscape buffering,
the gentleman to the -- to the west he likes what we are doing. He agrees that the
highest and best use for him is office and he said that's his long-term plan. He is glad
that we are establishing an L-O corridor there and extending what's happening to our --
or what's existing to the east and he intends to do the same if he can sell his property.
So, I would hate to do a 20 foot buffer that's -- that's really -- that residential use is an
interim use. So, I do ask -- and I know that's a Council decision, but I just want it on the
record. And, then, I think we just included Bruce Freckleton's comments on 2.1.2 and,
then, on 2.1.3 and 2.1.4, because the property has elevation Bruce placed a condition
that we provide an overall grading plan and establish the -- the lot corners of all the lots
and that's because they don't want one lot draining onto another and they want to be
assured that the lots drain away from the home. Now, we had the same condition on
Fall Creek and, then, I worked with Bruce and he said -- you know, we said we don't
want to establish the elevation of each individual house, but we want to do a master
grading plan and if we have to we will do yard drains in the rear yards and slope them
and just like Fall Creek where that was Coleman Homes building all the homes, this will
be Mr. Markham, the developer, building all the homes. So, I kind of altered that and
took out that each floor east elevation will be set for each building lot, because that's
kind of hard. It's better to do a master grading plan and Bruce allowed us to do that on
Fall Creek and we submitted that with our construction plans for his review and making
sure that it met his standards and -- and the intent of that condition. So, that's -- that's
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 43 of 56
the reasoning between 2.1.3 and 2.1.4. If the Commission would like us to address
those at Council and go ahead and stick with the condition, since we don't have a
representative from Public Works I'm comfortable with that.
Parsons: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Yes.
Parsons: Sorry to interrupt. I did speak with Mr. Freckleton on those proposed changes
by the applicant for 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 and he's in agreement with that language.
McKay: Okay. Great.
Yearsley: Any questions of the applicant?
Freeman: Mr. Chair, I may. Just give me a moment here.
Yearsley: Absolutely.
Freeman: Mrs. McKay, when you -- you were speaking to require 2.1.1 -- no, it wasn't.
It was 2.2.1 having to do with -- you were specifically talking about bullet point number
three prior to the city engineer's signature on the final plat all existing structures.
McKay: Yes, sir. And I provided alternative language.
Freeman: Will you -- what was the alternative language?
McKay: The alternative language is in my -- in my comment sheet prior to the city
engineer's signature on the final plat the existing structures on Lot 1, Block 2, the
easterly office lot --
Yearsley Turn the pages.
Freeman: Okay.
McKay: Shall be removed and the existing well and septic abandoned .prior to issuance
of certificate of zoning compliance on lot 1, Block 1, the westerly office lots, the existing
structure shall be removed and the existing well and septic systems abandoned.
Freeman: Five times as long now. Thank you for clarifying.
McKay: Thank you. Sorry.
Yearsley: Thank you. Another other questions? Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 44 of 56
Yearsley: I do not have anybody signed up for this testimony. Is there anybody that
would like to come up and testify? So, if there is no further questions, I would entertain
a motion to close the public hearing on AZ 13-012 and PP 13-026.
Marshall: So moved.
Miller: 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.
Freeman: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman.
Freeman: I see eyeballs looking at me, so I will start. Again, restricted site. I think this
was thoughtfully designed with consideration for what was going on around it and I
appreciate that. I think you have resolved some potential issues, clashes with
residential up against the street. I like the project. I -- I'm sorry I didn't have all of your
revised -- proposed revised language, but thank you for clarifying. It seems like I had
one more -- no. You also answered my question regarding the sewer lines going to the
west, that connection, so I guess I don't have any other questions or concerns. I think
this is a good fit and I think it was well thought out. There were some challenges for this
site that have been dealt with adequately I think.
Yearsley: Thank you. Anybody else? Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: To be honest, I'm very comfortable with the applicant's request here and the
wording and the change to 1.2.1 and I appreciate the update that Mr. Freckleton was
good with 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 rewording there. That makes it fairly easy for me. You know,
I'm willing go to with those modifications.
Miller: Yeah. I agree with what these gentlemen said once again. I think the situation
with the existing house there makes sense as part of the process and we don't get to
make that decision, but I don't see any reason why not to recommend that to City
Council. I think it's a cool project.
Yearsley: All right. Thank you. With that I would entertain a motion.
Freeman: Mr. Marshall would love to give you one.
Marshall: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to
recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 13-012 and PP 13-026 as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 17th, 2013, with the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 45 of 56
following modifications: As discussed in Becky McKay's letter in response, the
rewording for 1.2.1, 2.1.3 and 2.1.4, to be revised as per the applicant's request.
Freeman: We also have Bruce Freckleton's amendments to 2.1.2 to add to that.
Marshall: And add in Mr. Freckleton's change to 2.1.2. Thank you.
Freeman: That's why I left it to you and I will second that.
Marshall: Thank you.
Freeman: You're welcome.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second for the approval of AZ 13-012 and PP 13-026,
Sagewood Subdivision. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
K. Public Hearing: CUP 13-012 Fanci Freez by Bill Martin Located
4920 N. Linder Road Request: Conditional Use Permit
Approval for aDrive-Thru Establishment in a C-G Zoning
District Within 300 Feet of an Existing Drive-Thru
Establishment.
Yearsley: We are getting closer. At this point we would like to open the public hearing
for CUP 13-002, Fancy Freeze and start with the staff report.
Watters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission. Give me just a
moment here. My presentation isn't quite working. All right. The next application
before is a conditional use permit. This site consists of .79 of an acre. It's currently
zoned C-G and is located at 4920 North Linder Road on the east side of North Linder,
north of West McMillan Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north and east is
vacant commercial property, zoned C-G. Apartments have been approved on the C-G
property adjacent to the east boundary of this site. To the south is a vacant lot and
Walgreens pharmacy zoned C-G and to the west is North Linder Road and single family
residential property zoned R-8. The applicant requests a conditional use permit for a
drive-thru for the Fancy Freeze restaurant in a C-G zoning district. A restaurant is a
principal permitted use in the C-G district, however, because the proposed drive-thru is
located within 300 feet of an existing drive-thru establishment, Walgreens pharmacy, a
conditional use permit is required per the UDC. A site plan showing how the site is
proposed to develop was submitted by the applicant as shown. Access is proposed via
a driveway. Access to Linder Road along the north boundary of the site and an internal
driveway along the east boundary of the site. Across-access and cross-parking
agreement exists between all the lots in the subdivision. A sidewalk and landscape
street buffer exists along Linder Road and is required to be protected during
construction. Internal parking lot landscaping is required in accord with UDC standards.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 46 of 56
A trash enclosure is shown on the site plan at the southeast corner of the sight here
where you see the little red and the red arrow. It is proposed to be relocated further to
the south in an area where Republic Services can service the trash dumpster without
blocking the drive-thru here. The proposed hours of operation are from 8:00 a.m. to
12:00 a.m., seven days a week. The proposed drive-thru does not currently abut a
residential use or district and as I have previously mentioned a 96 unit apartment
complex, Linder Springs, was recently approved to develop on the lot directly to the
east. For this reason staff is recommending the hours of operation be restricted to that
proposed with this application. Building elevations were submitted for the future
structure. Building materials consists primarily of stucco siding with checkerboard
pattern tiles, corrugated metal siding, stone veneer, and glazing as accent materials.
Development is required to comply with the specific use standards for drive-thru
establishments listed in the UDC. Written testimony has been received from Dalin
Baird, the. applicant's representative, in agreement with the staff report. Staff is
recommending approval with the conditions in Exhibit B of the staff report. Staff will
stand for any questions the Commission may have.
Yearsley: Are there any questions?
Freeman: Mr. Chair, I have one.
Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman.
Freeman: Sonya, you mentioned that trash dumpster. Is that moving off the property to
an adjacent property?
Watters: It is moving to the adjacent lot to the south. I'm under the understanding that
the same property owner owns both lots.
Freeman: Okay. That was all.
Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, if I could. Sonya, how many lots are between this and the
Walgreens?
Watters: One.
Marshall: Just one lot? All right. Thank you.
Yearsley: Any other questions? Oh.
Marshall: Because those two align, then, with the drive-thrus.
Yearsley: Okay. If there is no more questions, would the applicant like to come
forward. Please state your name and address for the record.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 47 of 56
Martin: Members of the Commission and staff, my name is Bill Martin and I'm here
representing myself as the applicant for the conditional use permit. We are in
agreement with the staff report and be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Yearsley: Any questions?
Freeman: I don't have any.
Marshall: I don't either.
Yearsley: No. Thank you then.
Martin: Okay.
Yearsley: I do have someone signed up. A Dick Carter. Would you -- okay. With that
don't have anybody else. Is there anybody else that would like to come forward? If
that's the case, that no one else would like to testify --
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: I move we close the public hearing on CUP 13-012.
Miller: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on CUP 13-012. All
in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: Anybody have comments?
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do. I have to admit, I -- the one thing that was a little worrisome --
and I'm glad there is a lot in between and that lot in between -- this is going to make it
so that that cannot have adrive-thru, because this drive-thru will align up with the
Walgreens drive-thru and I don't know if anybody was out in the area this weekend, but,
oh, my gosh, that -- the Dutch Brothers backed up all the way to McMillan. Oh, my
gosh. I have never seen anything like it. I guess free coffee brings it out. It had to have
been a three hour wait. There is, obviously, a pent up demand and I hope you do well,
sir. That's all I have to say. I think -- I think it's a great place for it, because I think there
is -- a lot of people will probably use it.
Yearsley: Thank you. Any other comments?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 48 of 56
Freeman: Mr. Chair, just -- this is a very easy drive-thru proposal to approve -- or to
recommend approval for. It's not right up against adjacent residential properties, it's got
adequate distance. It's -- it's fine. The design looks good and is appropriate for this
context.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Marshall: Now, we did approve the apartments just back behind this, but --
Freeman: We did. But it seems to me we have adequate space here. These tend to
be less of an issue with multi-family residential apartment-type uses than with single
family uses and --
Marshall: I think it is an appropriate location. I do.
Miller: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Miller.
Miller: I agree. It's an appropriate use in an appropriate spot. I love Fancy Freeze, so
yeah. I apologize that you had to wait so long for such a simple application. But thank
you.
Yearsley: Well, I'm going to actually have one objection. I wish you would have put it
on the south side of the interstate so I could actually utilize it a little bit more. Working
downtown I have frequented the Fancy Freeze a lot and it's a very good restaurant, so
-- but, yes, I think it's a very good usage. So, with that I would entertain a motion.
Freeman: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move
to approve file number CUP 13-012 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date
of October 17th, 2013, with no modifications.
Miller: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve CUP 13-012, Fancy Freeze. All in
favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
L. Public Hearing: PP 13-028 Whitebark Subdivision by Cindy K.
Lewis Trust and T & M Holdings, LLC Located 2135 E. Amity
Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Fifty-
Five (55) Single Family Residential Building Lots and Seven (7)
Common/Other Lots on Nineteen (19) Acres of Land in an R-4
Zoning District
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 49 of 56
Yearsley: All right. Last but not least -- glad you guys were staying here for the time.
We'd like to open the public hearing on PP 13-028, White Bark Subdivision, and let's
start with the staff report.
Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley. My presentation is giving me fits once again,
so give me just a minute. All right. Sorry about that. The next two applications before
you, the final ones, are for a development agreement modification and a preliminary
plat. This site consists of 19 acres of land. It's currently zoned R-4 and is located at
2135 East Amity Road on the south side of East Amity midway between South Locust
Grove and South Eagle Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. This site is surrounded
by rural residential agricultural property, zoned R-1 and RUT in Ada County. In 2006
this property was annexed with a development agreement and a preliminary plat, but
the plat has since expired. The current development agreement restricts development
of this site to 48 single family residential building lots and eight common or other lots
consistent with the previously approve preliminary plat. The applicant is proposing an
amendment to the development to change the number of building lots to 48 consistent
with the proposed preliminary and other clean-up items related to current conditions and
ownership of the property. The proposed preliminary plat consists of 55 single family
residential building lots and seven common or other lots on 19 acres of land. The gross
density of the proposed subdivision is 2.89 dwelling units per acre consistent with the
low density residential future land use map designation for this site. The plat is
proposed to develop in two phases with the western half developing first, which will
include the entry and approximately half of the central common area. All development
is required to comply with the dimensional standards of the R-4 zoning district. The
main access to the subdivision is proposed at the north boundary via East Amity Road.
Two stub streets are depicted on the plat to the south and one stub street is proposed to
the west and east for a future extension and interconnectivity. The fire department does
require any stub streets over 150 feet to provide an approved turn around. Common
driveways are proposed to the lots in the northwest and northeast corners of the
development and shall comply with the standards in effect at the time of final plat
submittal. A 25 foot wide landscape street buffer and five foot wide detached sidewalk
is required along East Amity Road as proposed. Parkways with detached sidewalks are
proposed along internal streets within the development. Because this site is over five
acres in size, a minimum of ten percent qualified open space and one site amenity is
required to be provided. The applicant is proposing 2.08 acres or 11.3 percent of the
site in qualified open space and a tot lot with play equipment and pathways through the
common area as site amenities. A six foot tall solid vinyl fence is proposed along the
perimeter boundary of the subdivision and a four foot tall vinyl fence is proposed at the
rear and side boundaries of the lots adjacent to the interior common area. There are
ditches that exist along the property boundaries of this site that are required to be piped
with the development per requirement of the UDC. Conceptual building elevations were
submitted for future homes within this development consisting of a mix of one and two
stories with three car garages. The homes are proposed to be earth tone colors with
stone accents and other details to enhance the front elevations. Staff recommends a
provision be added to the amended development agreement for future homes on the
site to be generally consistent with the conceptual building elevations proposed by the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 50 of 56
applicant as shown and structures Lots 4 and 6, Block 1, and Lot 4, Block 4, that back
up to East Amity Road incorporate articulation on the rear or side elevations that face
Amity to break up monotonous wall plains and roof lines. Written testimony has been
received from John and Helen Huffman, the property owners directly to the west of this
property. They are asking that the developer provide a nonclimbable fence along the
west boundary. The ditch along the south boundary be piped with access to the
irrigation water not being restricted or changed and covenants that prevent feeding,
teasing, abusing, or taunting their livestock and/or students and address motorized
radio controlled airplanes. And just to note again the applicant is proposing a six foot
tall vinyl fence along that west boundary. Written testimony was also received from
Bruce Freckleton, Development Services, a memo that -- asking for the Commission to
modify condition number 2.1.1 and 2.1.2. You should have a copy of that memo
hopefully in your packet. Dave Yorgason, the applicant, has responded in agreement
with staff's memo containing the revised conditions in the staff report. The Boise Project
Board of Control also submitted comments. The Bureau of Reclamation has an
easement for the Beasley Lateral. They would like wording on the preliminary and final
recorded plat to state that any proposed and/or future usage of the Boise Project Board
of Control facilities are subject to Idaho statutes Title 42-1909. And also that fencing
must be constructed just off the lateral easement. Staff is recommending approval with
the conditions in Exhibit B of the staff report in accord with the changes to conditions
2.1.1 and 2.1.2 contained in the memo from Bruce Freckleton dated October 17th,
2013. Staff will stand for any questions commission may have.
Yearsley: Are there any questions of staff?
Marshall: Mr. Chair, real quick. Sonya, does Bruce's -- that doesn't address the BLM
request. That's a separate issue, isn't it?
Wafters: Yes.
Marshall: Okay. Thank you.
Yearsley: Any other questions? With that would the applicant like to come forward?
Yorgason: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is
Dave Yorgason with Tall Timber Consulting, representing the applicant here tonight for
White Bark Subdivision and it's been a long night, we are at the end, and we will be
fairly brief for you as well tonight. As was mentioned -- restating the history of this plat,
this site has already been annexed by the city. Has already been zoned R-4 zoning.
The plat has expired and which is cause for us to come back for a renewal of this
preliminary plat to get it back in shape so we can start construction again. A couple
points just to clarify. First, the development agreement -- I think I heard staff say that
we are requesting a change to 48 -- I think that's the current -- we are requesting
change to 55 lots in the development agreement and that is actually -- the changes in
the development agreement are consistent with what you see in the staff report, first of
all, and also is consistent with what our plat shows which we are presenting for you
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 51 of 56
tonight for your approval. Some of the few changes -- and, Sonya, if you could maybe
change to the colored plan of the site. Thank you. The -- some of the changes we
made from the previous design, we show a little more linear open space where you
have some lots to get back up to have a little more open space feel. We have a one
acre park in the middle of the site, which was not part of the concept before, a little more
spread out. We think this is a little more usable, more functional in our design and more
efficient. We have some additional pathways that will help incorporate. The sidewalks
are also separated sidewalks in this plat, which I believe they were not separated
previously. So, all these things are improvements to neighborhood quality of life, which
we think will be positive for this neighborhood in the area. Since the ACHD report did
come in a little bit late and we received it and we agree with all the conditions of the
staff report and as far as the changes from Mr. Bruce Freckleton in his memo dated
today, October 17th, we agree with all their changes as well in the conditions 2.1.1 and
2.1.2. He also included a couple of exhibits. One is an exhibit, the other is a table, of
which are city changes in the staff report and we agree with those changes that he's
provided as well. Aside from that we agree with the staff report as submitted with the --
some of the changes from Bruce Freckleton and stand for any questions you may have.
Yearsley: Are there any questions?
Freeman: No. Thanks.
Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, if I could. Yes. Thank you. I would simply ask about the BLM
request and you're okay with all that and no problems there?
Yorgason: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Marshall, it's the first we have heard of it,
actually. But it's a pretty standard request to have some protection to the pipes and
easements and fences off the pipes and so that's --
Marshall: Correct.
Yorgason: Actually, my interpretation is it's already in the staff report, just not clearly
identified with this reference.
Marshall: Thank you.
Yorgason: Thank you.
Yearsley: Any other questions?
Miller: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Miller.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 52 of 56
Miller: Actually, I just want to address John and Helen's comments also. I know you
have the nonclimbable fence. Is there any intention to pipe ditches or incorporate
nonteasing actions or something?
Yorgason: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Marshall -- Miller, excuse me. The -- the two
points there -- one is the ditches and the other is the CC&Rs. Yes, the small ditch that
believe is on the south boundary of the site, we are not going to restrict the water, we
will just the it as normal through the site and so we will not be restricting their access or
impeding their water as is currently designed. Regarding CC&Rs and encouraging
children to not fly aerial planes or not tease their livestock, that's a little hard to enforce.
Certainly there is a lot of things that are concerning with regard to neighborhoods next
to agricultural use and we believe that the solid fence will be a great help. If their
animals come to our property I'm not sure how we could stop the kids from saying hi to
the nice horses. If there is some direction you have for us we are open to that, but
typically we -- we are not sure how to enforce that.
Miller: Yeah.
Yearsley: Thank you. Any other final questions? All right. Thank you.
Yorgason: Thank you.
Yearsley: I have one person signed up to testify. Ed Young. Would you like to come
forward or -- okay. Was there anybody else that would like to come forward? Please
come forward. State your name and address for the record, please.
Boyle: All right. Gwen Boyle. I live at 2125 East Amity Road. Right next door. And my
only concern with the noise, the radio controlled aircraft and the teasing is reflected in
the fact that my daughters have been riding out there for seven years and so we are a
long time client of Arabians West and we just want to make sure that it continues to be a
place where the children feel safe on the horses and they are not harassed by
neighborhood dogs, children, or radio controlled aircraft.
Freeman: Question. Have you actually had incidents with radio controlled aircraft?
Boyle: We have before. There were people that live up on the hill behind them that had
radio controlled aircraft and it took the police -- police's involvement in order to get it
stopped, because they do have pregnant mares and cows and it is a concern with them.
Freeman: I typically see that out in parks or, you know, open spaces, not in
subdivisions, residential neighborhoods, because you will lose track of your plane,
guess.
Boyle: You have to understand the lots out there are still very large.
Freeman: Yeah.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 53 of 56
Boyle: So, the agriculture --
Freeman: These are actually smaller. I would -- I would have a hard time seeing that
being an issue. Not that it's impossible, but probably that's not going to be a main
activity of interest for the kids in this neighborhood I wouldn't think. But appreciate
those concerns being voiced.
Boyle: Okay. Thank you very much.
Freeman: Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify? So, would the
applicant have anything else to say? You want to come up and --
Yorgason: For the record, my name is Dave Yorgason with Tall Timber Consulting,
representing the applicant. We are fine with adding something that encourages the
neighbors to -- to be a good neighbor. Specifically restricting the flight of the remote
controlled aircraft and being kind to or not harassing the surrounding agricultural
animals. If we can put that kind of encouraging language into the CC&Rs if the
Commission would like us to do that.
Freeman: Thank you. I might address that and just for clarity, too, we really -- we don't
have any jurisdiction over CC&Rs. I would encourage you to continue talking with the
neighbors and maybe you can come up with some language. I'm glad to hear your
amenable to it. That satisfies them. I do agree it's going to be very difficult to enforce,
but perhaps that six foot fence I think is going to be your best friend to combat all those
potential issues.
Miller: And the nice little park area in the middle.
Freeman: The park area in the middle without a landing strip.
Yorgason: For football and --
Freeman: Don't put one in.
Yorgason: -- little place for soccer.
Freeman: Okay. Thank you.
Yorgason: Thank you.
Yearsley: If no other testimonies, could I get a motion to close to public hearing on PP
13-028.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 54 of 56
Miller: So moved.
Marshall: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on PP 13-028,
White Bark Subdivision. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Marshall: Am I first?
Freeman: Sure.
Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: My first comment is that I feel for the next door neighbors and I -- that their
animals are being harassed and planes being flown over them and I'm sorry the police
had to get involved. I hate to hear that. I really appreciate -- as Commissioner
Freeman pointed out, we really don't have any jurisdiction over the CC&Rs or anything
like that and I really appreciate the fact that the applicant here was suggesting that they
would be willing to work with them and try to provide some kind of language. But how
enforceable it is -- some of the growing pains we have and we are going to experience
that throughout the entire valley and I hope and pray that you do not experience very
much of that. But we see probably a little more of that than we used to as things grow
and fill in and I think it's part of some of our growing pains and it's an unfortunate side of
it, but that's what brings jobs and keeps us employed and brings growth to the valley.
Other than that I appreciate the fact that the applicant is amenable to all of the staff
report recommendations and everything else that was suggested there, so I'm pretty
happy to move forward.
Miller: I don't really have anything more to add to that. I'm in support of the project.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Freeman: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman.
Freeman: Again, I'm in favor of the development. I think it was well worked out.
appreciate the applicant's willingness to work with the neighbors, because we do have
to -- we do have to get along and we have -- we have a use there that's not exactly a
typical neighborhood use that -- that should continue and I would encourage it to
continue unharassed. I think the six foot solid fence is really, probably, as I have stated
before, our best protection against issues between the kids in this neighborhood and the
animals across the way. It's -- the solidness of it is going to screen them, for one thing.
would clarify that a six foot solid fence when you're talking about kids, is not
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 55 of 56
unclimbable. I'm not sure if a 30 foot fence with razor wire electrified is unclimbable by
a teenager, but I do think this will be enough to screen and discourage an unwanted
interactions between your students and these kids. And we don't have any public open
space up against your property. These are individual backyards, which, furthermore,
should -- should help alleviate that. I think the concerns have been adequately address
again with that fence, with the possibility of further talks about CC&Rs and Iwould --
would recommend approval for this project.
Yearsley: Thank you. With that I would stand for a motion.
Miller: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Miller.
Miller: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend
approval to the City Council of file number PP 13-028 as presented in the staff report for
the hearing date of October 17th, 2013, with the following modifications -- and that
would be including the memo from Bruce Freckleton modifying condition 1.2.1 and
2.1.2. I think that's it.
Freeman: The requested language.
Miller: Oh. And the requested language by the BLM.
Freeman: I think that covers it.
Marshall: I will second that.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second for the approval of PP 13-028, the White Bark
Subdivision. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: With no other business -- Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: I'd like to move that we adjourn.
Miller: Second.
Freeman: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor say aye. Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 17, 2013
Page 56 of 56
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:05 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
STEVEN YE RSL - C N DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
`aG~gyORATgD9~C
G`r~
JAYCEE HOLMAN, CITY CLERK ~C"`I~ c~,°f
IDI
A
S~,O,h~~
s __+++444
of 'allRFAS9&EVp~`~i