2013 12-05E IDIAN~-~- MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
I p g y p COMMISSION MEETING
AGENDA
City Council Chambers
33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, December 05, 2013 at 6:00 p.m.
1. Roll-call Attendance
O_ Macy Miller O Michael Rohm
X Scott Freeman X Joe Marshall
X Steven Yearsley -Chairman
2. Adoption of the Agenda Approved
3. Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of November 21, 2013 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
13-013 Cole Valley Christian School Auxiliary Field by Cole
Valley Christian School Located 1108 NE 2 1/2 Street Request:
Conditional Use Permit Approval for the Expansion of a
Private Education Institution for an Auxiliary Field in an R-15
Zoning District
4. Action Items
A. Continued Public Hearing from November 21, 2013: AZ 13-015
TM Creek by SCS Brighton, LLC Located Southeast Corner of
W. Franklin Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Annexation
and Zoning of 45.34 Acres of Land with C-G (34.82 acres), R-40
(3.94 Acres) and TN-C (5.58 Acres) Zoning Districts Continue
Public Hearing to January 16, 2014
B. Continued Public Hearing from November 21, 2013: PP 13-030
TM Creek by SCS Brighton, LLC Located Southeast Corner of
W. Franklin Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Preliminary
Plat Approval Consisting of Forty-Nine (49) Building Lots and
Three (3) Common/Other Lots on 41.03 Acres of Land in the
Proposed C-G, R-40 and TN-C Zoning Districts Continue Public
Hearing to January 16, 2014
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, December 05, 2013Page 1 of 2
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
C. Public Hearing: CUP 13-014 Westmark Credit Union at
Bridgetower Crossing by Westmark Credit Union Located at
3115 W. Quintale Drive (Lot 66, Block 10 of Bridgetower
Crossing Subdivision No. 7) Request: Conditional Use Permit
Approval for aDrive-Thru Establishment (Bank with Drive-
Thru) in a C-N Zoning District Approved -Prepare Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law
D. Public Hearing: PP 13-034 Gramercy Heights by Gramercy,
LLC Located South of E. Overland Road and West of S. Bonito
Way Between E. Blue Horizon Drive Request: Preliminary Plat
Approval Consisting of Thirty-Seven (37) Residential Lots and
One (1) Common Lot on Approximately 5.59 Acres in an R-15
Zoning District Recommend Approval to City Council
Meeting adjourned at 6:59 p.m.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, December 05, 2013Page 2 of 2
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's OfFce at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission December 5, 2013
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of December 5, 2013, was
called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Steven Yearsley.
Present: Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Joe Marshall, and
Commissioner Scott Freeman.
Members Absent: Commissioner Michael Rohm and Commissioner Macy Miller.
Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Justin Lucas, Sonya Wafters, Bill Parsons,
and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Scott Freeman X Macy Miller
X Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall
X Steven Yearsley -Chairman
Yearsley: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I would like to call to order
the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for
December 5th, 2013. Let's begin with roll call.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda
Yearsley: Thank you. Next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. The only
change that we have today is Action Items A and B, continued public hearing from
November 21st, 2013, of AZ 13-015 and PP 13-030, TM Creek, will be continued to
January 16th. So, with that can I get a motion to adopt the agenda?
Marshall: So moved.
Freeman: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. All in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of November 21, 2013 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 5, 2013
Page 2 of 18
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
13-013 Cole Valley Christian School Auxiliary Field by Cole
Valley Christian School Located 1108 NE 2 1/2 Street Request:
Conditional Use Permit Approval for the Expansion of a
Private Education
Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have the approval of
the November 21st, 2013, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes and the
Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law approval of CUP 13-013, Cole Valley Christian
School Auxiliary Field. Can I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda?
Marshall: So moved.
Freeman: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All in favor
say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 4: Action Items
A. Continued Public Hearing from November 21, 2013: AZ 13-015
TM Creek by SCS Brighton, LLC Located Southeast Corner of
W. Franklin Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Annexation
and Zoning of 45.34 Acres of Land with C-G (34.82 acres), R-40
(3.94 Acres) and TN-C (5.58 Acres) Zoning Districts Continue
Public Hearing to January 16, 2013
B. Continued Public Hearing from November 21, 2013: PP 13-030
TM Creek by SCS Brighton, LLC Located Southeast Corner of
W. Franklin Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Preliminary
Plat Approval Consisting of Forty-Nine (49) Building Lots and
Three (3) Common/Other Lots on 41.03 Acres of Land in the
Proposed C-G, R-40 and TN-C Zoning Districts
Yearsley: Can I -- since -- we are going to open the public hearing for the continued
public hearing of November 21st, 2013, of AZ 13-015 and PP 13-030 of TM Creek. Can
I get a motion to continue that public hearing to January 16th, 2014?
Freeman: Mr. Chair, I move that we continue file numbers AZ 13-015 and PP 13-030 to
the January 16th P&Z meeting.
Marshall: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 5, 2013
Page 3 of 18
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to continue the public hearing. All in favor say
aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Yearsley: For the next two items let me explain how this process will work. We are
going to open each item individually. We will start off with the staff report. The staff will
prepare -- has prepared findings regarding how it adheres to our comprehensive plan
and uniform development code with staff recommendations. At that point we will have
the applicant come forward to present their case for approval of the application and
respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have up to 15 minutes to do so.
After that we will allow the public to come up and to testify. There is a sign-up sheet in
the back if anyone is wishing you to testify. Anyone wishing to come forward will be
allowed three minutes. If they are speaking for a larger group, like an HOA and there is
a show of hands to represent the group, they will be given up to ten minutes. After the
testimony has been heard the applicant will have an opportunity to respond if they
desire for up to ten minutes and, then, after that we will close the public hearing and the
Commission will have an opportunity to discuss and deliberate and, hopefully, make
recommendations to City Council.
C. Public Hearing: CUP 13-014 Westmark Credit Union at
Bridgetower Crossing by Westmark Credit Union Located at
3115 W. Quintale Drive (Lot 66, Block 10 of Bridgetower
Crossing Subdivision No. 7) Request: Conditional Use Permit
Approval for aDrive-Thru Establishment (Bank with Drive-
Thru) in a C-N Zoning District
Yearsley: With that I would like to open the public hearing on CUP 13-014, Westmark
Credit Union, and let's begin with the staff report.
Watters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission. First
application before you tonight is a request for a conditional use permit. This site
consists of .75 of an acre. Is currently zoned C-N. It is located at 3115 West Quintale
Drive. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is commercial property, zoned C-G.
To the east are single family residential properties, zoned R-4. To the south is vacant
land, zoned C-N. And to the west is North Ten Mile Road and vacant commercial
property, zoned C-G. This site was annexed and platted as part of the Bridgetower
Crossing development in 2001. A property boundary adjustment was recently approved
to change the configuration of the boundary of the site. It is a little different than what's
shown here on the zoning map. As you see here on the site plan, the property line
actually changed from here and goes up here now. And this is all one property. The
portion of the site before you tonight is right here where you see the arrow on the top
left. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for adrive-thru in the C-N
zoning district for Westmark Credit Union. A conditional use permit is required per the
UDC, because the proposed drive-thru is located within 300 feet of a residential zoning
district and existing residences. Access to the site is provided by a driveway access off
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 5, 2013
Page 4 of 18
of Quintale Drive. As you see right here. Across-access exists at the southwest corner
of the site to the property to the south. And staff is recommending across-access
easement be required to the property to the east here. Street buffer landscaping along
Ten Mile Road and West Quintale Drive already exists. It was installed with the
subdivision. Internal parking lot landscaping will be installed with development of this
site. Building elevations were submitted of the proposed structure as you see here.
Building materials consist primarily of stucco with metal panel siding accents. A metal
canopy is proposed for water protection over the entrances and shade over the
windows. The proposed use and site design complies with the specific use standards
for drive-thru establishments. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map
designation is commercial for this property. There has been no written testimony
received and staff is recommending approval of the proposed conditional use permit
with conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions?
Freeman: No.
Yearsley: At this point would the applicant like to come forward. Please state your
name and address for the record.
Fish: I'm Lance Fish with ZGA Architects. I can't even remember our address of our
office. At this moment we received the comments and we don't have any problems with
any of the comments. Certainly be glad to oblige them, so --
Yearsley: Okay. Any questions of the applicant?
Freeman: No.
Yearsley: All right. Thank you.
Fish: Okay. Thanks.
Yearsley: I don't have anybody else signed up for this. Is there anybody wishing to
testify on this application?
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman -- or Marshall. Sorry.
Marshall: That's all right. I thought maybe he got in there before I did. Mr. Chair,
move that we close the public hearing on CUP 13-014.
Freeman: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 5, 2013
Page 5 of 18
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on CUP 13-014. All
in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Yearsley: Comments?
Freeman: Mr. Chair, I don't have a whole lot to discuss. The project seems pretty
straight forward. Drive-thru doesn't seem to be an issue at all with the adjacent
residences, so I'm in favor of approval.
Yearsley: Okay.
Marshall: I would second that.
Yearsley: And Ihave -- will third that. So, with that I would entertain a motion.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move
to approve file number CUP 13-014 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date
of December 5th, 2013, with no modifications.
Freeman: I second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the public hearing on CUP 13-014.
All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Yearsley: Thank you. Next we will hear the public hearing of PP 13-034, Gramercy
Heights. Let's begin with the staff report.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, before I get into my presentation this evening, I would note that
the applicant is not in the audience, so I at least want to put that on the table. Would
you still like to proceed with tonight's hearing or give the applicant some time to show
up? I'm not sure where he's at. I'd leave it in your court.
Freeman: I don't mind taking a five minute break if that helps.
Yearsley: Let's take a five minute break to see if we can't get the applicant here. Thank
you.
(Recess: 6:20 p.m. to 6:28 p.m.)
D. Public Hearing: PP 13-034 Gramercy Heights by Gramercy,
LLC Located South of E. Overland Road and West of S. Bonito
Way Between E. Blue Horizon Drive Request: Preliminary Plat
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 5, 2013
Page 6 of 18
Approval Consisting of Thirty-Seven (37) Residential Lots and
One (1) Common Lot on Approximately 5.59 Acres in an R-15
Zoning District
Yearsley: We will go ahead and get started. Hopefully during the presentation the
applicant will come forward. He should be on his way, so let's go ahead and get
started.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the next item on the agenda is
the Gramercy Heights Subdivision. It's currently located on the south side of East
Overland Road in between the Ridenbaugh Canal and East Blue Horizon Drive.
Currently zoned R-15 in the city and consists of 5.59 acres of land. In 2006 this
property came through and preliminary platted pretty similar to what -- the subdivision
you will be acting on this evening. Since that time, though, the applicant was here in
front of you in 2011 where they proposed a two lot residential subdivision. If you can
see here in the aerial -- or at least the zoning map on the left-hand side, you can see a
portion of that is currently platted and zoned R-40 in the city and is developing with that
multi-family development that you guys acted on. Well, this is the last remnant five and
a half acre piece out in the Gramercy development here. Again, because of the change
in the market to single family homes, the applicant is here to discuss doing additional
single family within this remnant piece. Back in 2011 they thought at one point it might
be an assisted living facility, but as I mentioned to you, given the economies of scale
they want to come back to what the original plan was in 2005-2006. The applicant is
proposing a preliminary plat, a development agreement modification, and alternative
compliance application before you this evening to discuss a 37 lot residential
subdivision. As I mentioned to you this is in-fill and is the last remaining remnant
residential piece in the Gramercy development to be platted. To the west you can see
there are some existing single family homes and, again, this applicant will be extending
the two stub streets into the development of this site, platting basically common drive
lots along the south -- southern portion of the lot or the boundary of the plat, consistent
with those lot sizes to the west and, then, transitioning to more single family -- traditional
single family homes north of that. The applicant was also kind enough to show you how
this would transition with the multi-family development that's currently under
development as well. Because this is an in-fill project in nature, open space will be
minimal on this site. The open space the applicant is proposing, basically, a micropath
lot that will tie into the pathway system constructed within the Bonito Subdivision -- or EI
Dorado Subdivision. The multi-family development that you see to the north also tied
into that system and this ultimately ties into the pathway system along the Ridenbaugh
Canal. So, we are starting to see some interconnectivity with the mixed use
developments and, of course, the employment center to the east as well. Going back to
the alternative compliance request, one of staffs recommendations moving forward was
we wanted to at least give the Commission an idea of how these auto courts would
work. Keep in mind that the applicant will have to come back through for CZC and
design review for not only the structures, but also the site design. Also with their final
plat submittal they will have to depict building setbacks, building orientations, so at that
point staff will evaluate whether or not these homes will actually, indeed, fit on the lots
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 5, 2013
Page 7 of 18
that are presented to you this evening. In the R-15 zone the setbacks are minimal, but
they still are required to comply with that. But this exhibit tonight is really to show you
how the auto court would function. So, typically, you have one curb cut to the street, 20
foot common drive into the site and, then, each homeowner -- the applicant is proposing
attached product along the quad lots there. So, you can see here this area needs to be
unobstructed in order to get that maneuverability in there to allow these folks to enter
and exit out of that -- their garages and so that's one of the reasons why staff is
supporting the alternative compliance. Currently under the UDC we do require single
family homes to have a two car garage and a 20-by-20 parking pad for three bedroom
homes. In order to make this design work we have to allow the applicant the flexibility
not only to fit in with the character of the subdivision, at least the mixed use
development as a whole, but also we feel it's a unique design and it offers a different
housing type or housing product for the community as a whole. So, staff is
recommending that the applicant -- we are recommending -- or supporting the
alternative compliance request to waive the 20-by-20 parking pad. One of our
conditions of that -- approving that request is we want to make sure that at least one set
of the units still provides the tandem parking, so that would give an additional to
someone that wanted more garage space or had additional vehicles and also eliminate
some obstruction here from people trying to attempt to park in here. Our other condition
would be -- we do not want any parking allowed within this area. So, either through the
CC&Rs or through signage the applicant needs to make future residents aware that you
cannot park in here. It would just really hurt the entrance and exit into this development.
It's not set up to allow for on-site -- or at least parking pad -- vehicle parking within the
auto court. So, we want to make sure that was clear in our staff report. Here is the
landscape plan and, basically, what the applicant's done here is try to show you what
was contributed or given as part of the overall Gramercy project. So, just because they
are only doing a little micropath connection, they want to show you how -- how this fits
in with the rest of the Gramercy development and what they contributed as far as open
space. One thing -- if I can go back to the aerial for you very quickly -- and it doesn't
show up very quickly here, but there is also another plaza or open space here. There is
ten foot pathways along the west boundary that tie back into the park. The applicant did
dedicate a portion of their site to -- as a contribution to that park and also includes this
linear open space along the canal. So, in essence, staff feels that because this is an in-
fill project and they did provide their proportionate share of open space with the overall
project in 2005, 2006, staff finds that this proposal before you this evening does comply
with the open space and amenity requirements as required by the ordinance. Here are
the proposed elevations -- I put that slide in twice. Here are the proposed elevations for
the subdivision. Currently the applicant has shown all single story homes for the
development. They do have a mix of materials. The reason for the development
modification was originally when they came through in 2005 they actually had higher
end homes planned for these lots, at least to the west of this area, and so in order to
move forward with this product and kind of open it up to a different Hitch and different
market, the applicant needs to amend the development agreement and replace -- not
those elevations, but substitute or include these elevations to allow them to move
forward and construct something similar to what they are proposing to you this evening.
As I mentioned to you, they will have to come back through for CZC and design review
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 5, 2013
Page 8 of 18
and, again, show us how these will work and fit on those lots. So, we will be looking for
that -- least for the quad lots only, not the internal lots -- or the traditional lots, but just
primarily for the common drive lots along the south boundary. Staff did receive written
testimony on this application from Larry Kavarik and Stephanie Meyers. Larry's
comments were in reference to single story homes within the development. I think that
should be in front of you this evening as part of your packet. Stephanie Meyers did
provide written testimony in support of the application and she just wanted to make sure
that the proposed elevations were similar to what is already currently constructed with
the Corey Barton homes or the other adjacent single family residential development to
the west. Staff is recommending approval of the subdivision. To my knowledge there
aren't any other outstanding issues before you, except for the written testimony, and at
this time I'd stand for any questions you have.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions?
Freeman: I have a question, Bill, and we might need to involve counsel on this one.
But you mentioned that one of the requirements would be -- for the alternative
compliance would be that we disallow parking in the driveway between the units and
typically as planning and zoning we don't dictate CC&Rs, but through a development
agreement are we able to dictate a minimum requirement being placed in the CC&Rs in
this case or do we just hope that's going to happen?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, certainly you can do that.
mean the development agreement is open up, so if that's -- if you feel that's the way to
enforce it you certainly can require that as a provision of the DA. We have not. We
have merely stated that as part of their common drive requirements that there be no
parking in there. I could see it happening two ways. One, the applicant could -- with
their exhibit that they submit final with their final plat they could show no parking
signage or some type of guarantee that there is no parking allowed in there or -- as you
said, we are not a party to the CC&Rs, but the plat does -- right now it's a plat condition.
If you think it's prudent for the DA certainly you can recommend that. But I think as an
exhibit with the final plat I think it works as far as us being able to enforce that.
Freeman: Okay. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Any other questions?
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I would real quick. I believe we are only acting on the preliminary
plat; is that correct? Because the MDA and the alternative compliance are solely the
purview of City Council, but we can, if we so choose, make comment, I believe.
Freeman: That's my understanding, Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: Just double-checking on that.
Yearsley: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 5, 2013
Page 9 of 18
Merrill: Commissioners. My name is Taylor Merrill. My address is P.O. Box 244,
Meridian, Idaho. 83680. I apologize for holding you up. I feel like a heel. I looked at
the agenda and it was -- I thought it would be longer. But I will never do that again. We
appreciate the opportunity to present this project in Gramercy to you. We appreciate
staff, their support, and we really appreciate their comments in working through some of
the issues that we have addressed here so far. This plat is consistent with the Meridian
City Comprehensive Plan, which is consistent with our Gramercy district master. Mixed
use residential. It's working well over there, which is consistent with staffs statement,
was approved in 2006. This development agreement, in part, is requested to reduce
the height of the structures, which would address -- the staff commented on. We have
platted -- oh, I don't have that number. Probably 30 of these other courtyard lots and
there was some economic restrictions and I'm going to address this parking issue in a
minute, but there was just a little bit too much dense in there and there are -- both lots
are still out there. I believe the owner of those lots has met with staff on several
occasions trying to figure it out. We think we have a really nice floor plan here. We are
siding for single level homes based on not a 55 year old community, but on a semi-tired
community or not so much the family type would be the demographic that we are
striving for here, but, you know, a nice kind of a double master floor plan type of thing
but without stairs, if you will. The lot frontage on these courtyard lots is about 110 feet.
That should allow us ample overflow parking and also the demographics of what we are
trying to achieve wouldn't ideally identify multiple cars to a family. A couple, maybe one
care, maybe two, and maybe even three. We will include some CC&R language that
talks about a maintenance for these homes, because they will not have yards. So,
basically, we are doing a sweep and probably with that CC&R, because that CC&R will
include an access agreement to -- as staff mentioned, the -- the trails that are already in
there. We feel the landscaping is minimal in this particular project, but we think it very
abutted and very complimentary with the Gordon Harris Park, the interior parks to
Gramercy -- there is a half acre park inside, kind of a private park versus a city park
and, then, three or four or several strips throughout that they will have access to. So,
we need to probably do two things, address the parking issue, whether it's signage or
conditions of the home, but we still have 110 of that frontage to accommodate at least
on the one side, you know, as many as four or five -- maybe even a half a dozen cars
and that may even require -- we can look at that and even look at staffs
recommendation on that, that it's the overflow issue. Some of our products that we
have out there -- you know, overnight parking or long-term parking is -- is kind of turned
away from, so to speak, not prohibitive in same cases, but we feel the parking -- the
allowance to get them out of the courtyard and have that courtyard interact with itself, so
to speak, isn't viable to storing vehicles in there. That being said, for homes it's the
possibility of having two, four, six -- you know, eight, almost nine, maybe ten vehicles
inside those homes. So, that ought to be adequate, you know, for anybody. Again, we
have that great buffer in the back. It's part of the -- I believe it's part of the Gordon
Harris Park or it's at least a city park -- it's about a 70 foot park strip that we put in in the
initial plat and overflowed this -- this several hundred feet of the pathway in conjunction
with the Ridenbaugh, it's a really nice feature and that landscape now is becoming quite
mature. I think I counted -- I can't remember the number, but there was 30 or 40 trees
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 5, 2013
Page 10 of 18
in there and several evergreens, so it's -- it's going up nicely. It's really comfortable to
go back there. I think I have covered our plat. We appreciate -- again, I apologize for
holding up anything. I know your time is valuable, so I do really sincerely apologize
about that. I feel like a heel. But I do also really express my gratitude with staff. You
guys really have -- I do business with several cities and I say it anywhere, Meridian
Staff, Planning and Zoning, Development Services, they really strive to help us out and
think they help the community out and solved a lot of issues coming in. So, again,
thank you and I apologize for being late. I hope I didn't do anything and I will stand for
questions if you have any.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions?
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: Real quick one. I would ask -- you can see on your screen there -- is this the
current preliminary plat that we are looking at?
Merrill: Uh-huh. Yes.
Marshall: Okay. So, at the southeast corner there -- those last two quad lots --
Merrill: Yes.
Marshall: -- I believe we are referring to, where do they have any frontage and how do
we get a driveway to them and --
Merrill: We have a little bit of an error there. That's -- oh, that's probably about 30 feet
wide. That would be a private driveway to at least the driveway of that 55 feet turning
in. There will be a sidewalk through there to access this -- the pathway -- can I -- does
this --
Parsons: Pick a color.
Merrill: So, we need to go back. There we go. Right there. This area here.
Yearsley: You need to pick a color on top.
Merrill: Okay. So, this area through here -- okay? Will be a driveway into that -- into
those units there and, then, this pathway will continue until it's through there, already
established, but back lots, yes, Commissioner, will -- will be accessed through that
drive.
Marshall: All right.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 5, 2013
Page 11 of 18
Yearsley: Any other questions?
Marshall: My question, then, would go to staff. How does that meet the code on
frontage requirements?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Marshall, this is
zoned R-15, so there really are no frontage requirements within that district, so the
common lot, as Taylor has described, meets the ordinance, so --
Marshall: Okay. So, what we are saying is as long as they have a written ingress-
egress easement appropriately, then, they are okay?
Parsons: That's correct.
Marshall: All right. Thank you.
Yearsley: Okay. Any others? Thank you.
Merrill: Thank you.
Yearsley: I have a couple of people signed up. Is it Larry Kovarik? Would you like to
come forward. Please state your name and address for the record.
Kovarik: Okay. It's Larry Kavaric. 2686 East Green Canyon Drive, Meridian, Idaho.
83642. I pretty much am the spokesperson for the majority of the adjoining
homeowners around this plat, with the exception of Gloria, who is also here tonight. We
-- for the most part we support the applicant's plan, looking for homes for an older -- I
hate to say older, because I qualify myself -- for an older demographic is -- is a good
thing. Some of the other ones in the community throughout Meridian are working pretty
good. Our only concern here is in the development agreement modification, whereas
the applicant is asking for only Lots 1 through 16 of Block 1 to be -- to be specified as
same story, we would like to see all the lots specified as single story. We have a
concern for the most part since the applicant is a developer at anytime it's possible he
could sell the property to somebody else and with that somebody else coming in here
doing something to the contrary, once again our only consideration of the panel is to --
is to include their recommendation all 37 lots, not just Lots 1 through 16. Any
questions?
Yearsley: Any questions?
Marshall: My question is why do you want to see these limited to one story?
Kavaric: Because -- because of -- basically because of height. We have already in the
past gone along with the applicant with some of the other plans that they have proposed
and have started or completed in the area. Some of them would be in apartments that
are back there and the -- quite frankly, if, in fact, once again, if this was going for an
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 5, 2013
Page 12 of 18
older demographic, if that's the intent, then, there is no reason I guess to see a two
story home in that area. So, we are asking for consideration for the neighbors with
regard to the view and everything else has got to be single story and also that it does, in
fact, attract an older demographic and, once again, I don't like to use that, but -- but that
is the intent here, so --
Marshall: Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. I don't think -- any other questions?
Freeman: No.
Yearsley: All right. Thank you. Next on the list is Gloria Fern. Could you at least come
to the microphone and -- so we can at least -- sorry about that. State your name and
address for the record, please.
Fern: Gloria Fern. 2660 East Green Canyon Drive, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. I'm just
here because I, actually, attended the neighborhood meeting and we discussed at the
neighborhood meeting with the people that were present there and they actually told us
that there would be single level homes, so we are kind of -- I'm kind of surprised to see
now that only 1 through 16 or 1 through -- let's see. One through 16 are going to be for
single level homes and, then, the rest of them were going to be -- could be two story
homes. So, it was kind of a conflict of information there, so I would like to see single
level homes as well, just to, you know, protect our view looking out and, you know, it's
really a height factor. So, I think the single level homes could really do what they want
to do and we are asking for all of the lots to be single family homes -- single level
homes. Okay?
Yearsley: Any questions? All right. Thank you.
Fern: Thanks.
Parsons: Chairman Yearsley?
Yearsley: Yes.
Parsons: Before we have the applicant come up and rebut what was just testified to,
want be clear on the record that there is nothing -- the recommendation before you this
evening did not restrict any of those lots to single story homes.
Yearsley: Even the first 16?
Parsons: Even the first 16.
Yearsley: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 5, 2013
Page 13 of 18
Marshall: That's part of the MDA, as opposed to the PP we are acting upon tonight;
right?
Parsons: No. Staff has not recommended any changes to the DA restricting these lots
to single story. The only -- the only recommended change to the DA going forward to
City Council is to attach these elevations to allow them to be -- have a consistency with
the elevations that are showing. There is no restriction on the lots -- any one of the lots
in there.
Marshall: I understand. But, again, any restrictions that might have been or could be
placed were -- are typically placed in the MDA and not on the preliminary plat that we
are acting upon.
Parsons: That's correct. But if you wanted to forward a recommendation on with that
requirement you can do so.
Marshall: Appreciate that. Thank you.
Freeman: Bill, could I follow up on that, because that -- I'm confused now, because
when I read page five where it says development agreement modification, apparently
I'm misunderstanding that, because I thought that was going to modify the DA to restrict
it to single story buildings and what I heard you say is I'm misunderstanding it if I'm
reading it that way. They are not restricted. That's not the intention of this paragraph.
So, what was the intention of this paragraph? Is it just the elevations?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, that's correct, it's just to show
the style of homes. Just because they showed single story we did not say that thou
shalt only construct single homes -- single story elevations.
Freeman: So, even though it says single story attached homes are proposed for the
quad lots, the intention of that statement is not to say that site is restricted to this. Okay.
Parsons: That's correct. We are just saying what was presented to us as far as their
narrative in how it's depicted on the site plan that I showed you this evening where you
can see the garages are attached --
Freeman: Okay.
Parsons: -- that's where we -- that's why we testified or put that in the staff report, that
they attached for the quad lots.
Freeman: Okay. And I think I understand where the 16 lots are that have been
identified as being designated single story. Could you point those out for me on the site
plan?
Parsons: On the south boundary.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 5, 2013
Page 14 of 18
Freeman: One, two, three, four, five, six -- I only see -- okay.
Parsons: Those are --
Freeman: I'm seeing sixteen lots. Thank you.
Parsons: Yeah. Sixteen lots.
Freeman: Okay. I'm clear. Thanks.
Yearsley: I also had Richard Fern. Would you like to come up and testify or -- okay.
just wanted to make sure. Your name was on there, so -- with that would the applicant
like to come forward, since there is nobody else in the audience.
Merrill: Taylor Merrill. Westpark Company, P.O. Box 344, Meridian, Idaho. 83680.
Yes, there has been some -- a little bit of discrepancy and we had the neighborhood
meeting and, again, we appreciate the neighborhood support of our project. That being
said on these things, we are modifying and designing this plat by virtue of an economic
driven machine here that the larger, taller homes, the price point doesn't fly, we can't get
there. It addresses the traffic issue as well, which I touched on. We don't oppose --
mean we are here to build somewhat of a -- of a quiet community in there. We aren't
opposed particularly on the -- the south -- those four quad lots, Commissioners, that
they are restricted and it's been discussed by myself and the neighbor representative,
you know, and the restriction of all of it. In regards to height, you know, we have done
this battle a little bit, we got the apartments approved, which are 38 feet tall, you know,
they are 500 feet away from southern border of these neighbors, so to speak, but
particularly on the south line on these 16 lots or those four, we don't oppose a restriction
on those. Our intention is to build single levels in the interior. You know, if I was
looking at it there may be some economic limitations to that. We have multi-level
homes throughout there to the -- to the west, but our intention is here to -- to build a civil
-- you know, a stellar community, if you will, and so just to clear that up, that's our
intention. Restriction or whatnot, you know, there is some economic factors there.
Based on those quad lots that's the only way we can get these quad lots to work and we
worked hard with staff to get to this point in getting that -- that product in there. The
interior homes -- you know, again, our intention is to do single level. We'd rather not be
restricted to that there, that that be our preference and discussions with the neighbors
have been consistent in our application of two stories. We have represented to them
single stories and that's our intention to do so. But to Mary's point, we may sell these,
you know, and we don't want to limit ourselves economically to what's there, but we are
very vested in Gramercy and we feel very very proud of the product that we are putting
in there, including the apartments and the mixed use and after all these years we are
finally getting something in there, so it's our -- but I think the whole community's interest
to protect what we have and we appreciate your consideration of that fact.
Yearsley: All right. Any questions?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 5, 2013
Page 15 of 18
Freeman: No.
Yearsley: All right. Thank you. Is there any other discussion before we close the public
hearing?
Freeman: I have some discussion after we close the public hearing. So, Mr. Chair, if
may, I propose that we close the public hearing on PP 13-034.
Marshall: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on PP 13-034. All
in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Yearsley: All right. Commissioner Freeman.
Freeman: It looks like I have been volunteered. First of all, I agree with staff and the
applicant that this project is consistent with the zoning for the area and the adjacent
project. I think it finishes it out nicely. It seems that the big concern is regarding the
building height of these and I -- I don't know what was represented or misrepresented or
misunderstood at the neighborhood meeting, but the fact remains we have no means of
justifying limiting this particular development to one store buildings. There is no -- no
mechanism in the code that would dictate that these be one story buildings. It sounds
like they might be, maybe they won't be, and I understand the concern about losing
view. I built a home in Bridgetower, brand new subdivision, years ago -- I don't live
there anymore, but when I -- when I built it I had a wonderful view of the mountains in
Boise. I could see Bogus Basin. But I recognized that when development continued
there was a good chance that I would lose that view and I did. But, frankly, I went in
understanding that development is going to happen and those owners to the north of
me were perfectly well within their rights to build two story versus one story. It's just a --
it's afact of living in this type of zone and I just had to live with that and I'm afraid, you
know, if you end up with some two story homes behind you that restrict your view
somewhat, yeah, I understand. There is a loss there. But, again, we cannot restrict
developers' rights to build what the zoning code will allow him to build. In this case if he
wanted to do all of these two stories he could. I think you probably could look at it as a
great benefit that the intention is to build at least the majority of these as one story
homes and the fact that the -- the particular market the applicant is going after would
dictate that for most of these homes, just happens to be a plus in favor of those who
wish their views to remain unrestricted. So, I guess I tried my best to address the
concern. I understand the concern. However, in my mind there is not much we can do
about that concern and I am in favor of this project. I think it completes what was
started there very nicely.
Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 5, 2013
Page 16 of 18
Marshall: Well, I'm going to take a minute and try to separate out between the
preliminary plat, the MDA, and the alternative compliance. I like what staff and the
applicant have come together with on the alternative compliance. I see what you're
going for there with the quad homes and I like the idea and I agree that there shouldn't
be any parking there in front of those garages and I think it is a different product and it is
kind of fun to see different products available. As far as the preliminary plat goes, it
appears to fit quite well and is appropriate. In fact, I'm kind of pleased that it ended up
matching the rest of the subdivision, because it was kind of a small area with the
number of houses and, then, suddenly we have the multi-family in there and -- and
there was potentially now an assisted living center and things changed from what was --
and I'm -- I'm actually rather pleased it went back to what it was, because I like the
larger group here of these similar houses and I -- I know this community is kind of torn
back and forth and we have seen you down here quite a few times with a lot going on
around you and I'm pleased that you like the direction it's developing. I agree with you,
think it's good to see that filling in and being something similar to what you have got
already. As far as the MDA, again, we are not making any decisions on that, the City
Council is going to make that decision on the MDA, but if -- and I would want some
more questions on this. If there were additional two story houses on the other side --
and Imean Ican't see why you would even want all one story on one side and already
have two story on the other -- I agree that, yeah, I want to keep my -- my view and the
like, but, you know, there is arguments on both sides, that one story versus two story.
With two story you get more square footage and you might get a little higher dollar value
out of the house sometimes, but, then, again, the one story you're focusing on -- you're
focusing on an older generation that can't make it up and down stairs and doesn't want
a second story. I'm torn on that and I'm going to make a decision on the MDA, to be
honest, I'm only making a recommendation on the preliminary plat and I am for it.
Yearsley: Thank you. Bill, can you go to the -- the alternative compliance. The only
concern I have on this one is if you look at the driveway on that south -- or the lower
property, they have got their driveway right up against the house and I'm a little
concerned about that. I'd prefer that to be a -- a little bit more buffer between the house
and driveway, you know, because someone might actually hit it or something to that
effect if it could be done. But I don't believe that's -- that would be my recommendation
is to allow a little bit better buffer on the one side. Overall I think the -- the layout as well
is consistent with what's already been built. I know on the homes to the west there is
already two stories. I would almost think that you would want two stories on that -- in
that middle lot, just because it would give a buffer to the apartments to the north. You
know, you have got three story apartments to the north. If you have the two story
apartments -- house -- or two story houses, it would kind of get a stair step feel and not
as much. So, with that I don't know if I have issues with the two story as well. So,
agree. So, since I'm not making the recommendation, Iwould at least like to see if you
guys are -- have concurrence -- at least make recommendations on the driveway for
the --
Marshall: Alternative compliance.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 5, 2013
Page 17 of 18
Yearsley: --alternative compliance.
Freeman: Mr. Chair, given that this is just a preliminary plat and these are conceptual in
my mind of what they are trying to achieve, I'm not sure it would be appropriate to
include a requirement on --
Yearsley: I'm not asking for a requirement, for a recommendation is what I'm asking for.
Freeman: Yeah. When I looked at this, Mr. Chair, I had the same concern, but I also
assumed as the details of this are worked out they may end up seeing the wisdom and
perhaps a narrower driveway with some planters and some curbs to protect those
buildings. But, again, in my mind that's something that happens in the future with staff,
they will figure that out, so I would be hesitant to make a recommendation to that level
of detail for a preliminary plat.
Yearsley: All right.
Freeman: Commissioner Marshall may differ.
Marshall: To be honest, I -- other than the drainage issues, which I know have to be
worked out, I really don't have a problem with it. I think, essentially, with 20 foot you're
looking at two lanes here and the only time you're going to get anyone close to that
house is if you're trying to squeeze two cars in between those two houses at the same
time and I think that's going to be pretty rare. I think 20 foot is quite a wide margin and,
yeah, I would probably want a planter out there if I owned the house. I would probably
put one out there myself if the builder didn't, but I --
Freeman: I would agree. I was restricting myself so as not to design this thing
immediately. I'd like to make a motion if I may.
Yearsley: Absolutely.
Freeman: Okay. Mr. Chair, after considering all staff,
move to recommend approval to the City Council
presented in the staff report for the hearing date c
modifications.
Marshall: Second.
applicant, and public testimony, I
of file number PP 13-034 as
f December 5th, 2013, with no
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve public hearing PP -- or file number
PP 13-034. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Yearsley: With that we have one last motion to make.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 5, 2013
Page 18 of 18
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move we adjourn.
Freeman: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Yearsley: We stand adjourned.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:59 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
YEARSLE~'t(-CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
~~_~~~_
DATE APPROVED
C-~-x-+1
`~GO~4~¢pTED A LCGS~ j,9
JAYCEE HOLMAN, CITY LER
Qi+
r`_~ /'r Gtyof
~ IOANO
~'„ a
~'1I.. ~
'4, ter,
~~~~~he 7RFA5~t'6A
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: December 5, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 3A
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE:
Approve Minutes of November 21, 2013 PZ Meeting
MEETING NOTES
3d
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: December 5, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 3g
PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 13-013
ITEM TITLE: Cole Valley Christian School Auxiliary Field
FFCL for Approval: CUP approval for the expansion of a private education institution for an auxiliary
field in an R-15 zoning district by Cole Valley Christian School - 1108 NE 2 1 /2 Street
MEETING NOTES
~~n~~~l
~ISF
3 -D
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
~~~~ ~ Y
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: December 5, 2013
ITEM NUMBER: 4A
PROJECT NUMBER: AZ 13-015
ITEM TITLE: TM Creek
Continued Public Hearing. from 11 /21 /13: Annexation and zoing of 45.34 acres of land with C-G (35.82
acres) R-40 (3.94 acres), and TN-C (5.58 acres) zoning districts by SCS Brighton, LLC -SEC of W. Franklin
Road and S. Ten Mile Road
MEETING NOTES
~ ~~ ~ ~
~~
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION ,
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: December 5, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: t~.g
PROJECT NUMBER: PP 13-030
ITEM TITLE: TM Creek
Continued Public Hearing from 11 /21 / 13: Preliminary Plat approval consisting of 49 building lots and 3
common /other lots on 41.03 acres of land in th proposed C-G, R-40 and TN-C zoning districts by SCS
Brighton, LLC -SEC of W. Franklin Road and S. Ten Mile Road
MEETING NOTES
~ --v
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: December 5, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4C;
PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 13-014
ITEM TITLE: Westmark Credit Union ~ Bridgetower Crossing
Public Hearing: Conditional use permit for a drive thru establishment (bank with dreive thru) in a C-N
zoning district by Westmark Credit Union - 3115 W. Quintale Drive (Lot 66, Block 10 of Bridgetower
Crossing Sub No. 7)
MEETING NOTES
~1P Ip n~ V~e ~
7v~I s~
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: December 5, 2013
ITEM NUMBER: 4D
PROJECT NUMBER: PP 13-034
ITEM TITLE: Gramercy Heights
Public Hearing: Preliminary plat approval consisting of 37 residential lots and 1 common lot on
approximately 5.59 acres in an R-15 zoning district by Gramercy, LLC -south of E. Overland Road and
west of S. Bonito Way between E. Blue Horizon Drive and the Ridenbaugh Canal
MEETING NOTES
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS