2014 01-16Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission _ January 16, 2014
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of January 16, 2014, was
called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Steven Yearsley.
Present: Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Joe Marshall, Commissioner
Michael Rohm, Commissioner Macy Miller and Commissioner Scott Freeman.
Others Present: Holly, 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'd like to call to order the
regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning on January 16, 2014.
Let's begin with roll call.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda
Yearsley: Thank you. The next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. We
have a couple of changes. Action Items B and C, which is RZ 13-014 and PP 13-035,
Summertree Subdivision, has been -- the application has been withdrawn. And, then,
Items No. F and G, AZ 13-015 and PP 13-030, TM Creek, has been asked to be
continued to February 6, 2014. With that can I get a motion to adopt the agenda.
Miller: So moved.
Freeman: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as amended. All in favor
say aye. Opposed? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner.
Marshall: Did we want to move the first item to the end, which would affect the agenda,
wouldn't it?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 16, 2014
Page 2 of 29
Freeman: It would.
Baird: Mr. Chair, Members, you can actually address that as soon as you get to it and
just make a motion to table it until such time as the interpreter is present.
Yearsley: Okay.
Marshall: Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Marshall: And also vote to approve the agenda.
Item 3: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of December 19, 2013 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
13-015 Terror Design Studio by Brian Spangler Located 760 E.
King Street Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval to
Operate an Indoor Recreation Facility in an 1-L Zoning District
Yearsley: Okay. Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and on that we have
the meeting minutes for December 13, 2013, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of approval of CUP 13-015, Terror
Design Studios. Can I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda?
Freeman: So moved.
Marshall: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All in favor
say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Yearsley: We were supposed to have an interpreter for Action Item A, the public
hearing for Falconers Place, and we are going to table that and move it to the end of the
agenda items until the -- so the interpreter can get here.
Item 4: Action Items
B. Continued Public Hearing from December 19, 2013: RZ 13-014
Summertree Subdivision by Summer Woods, LLC Located
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 16, 2014
Page 3 of 29
Southwest Corner of W. Cherry Land and N. Summertree Way
Request: Rezone Approximately 2.64 Acres from the R-4
(Medium-Low Density Residential) Zoning District to the R-15
(Medium-High Density Residential) Zoning District
C. Continued Public Hearing from December 19, 2013: PP 13-035
Summertree Subdivision by Summer Woods, LLC Located
Southwest Corner of W. Cherry Lane and N. Summertree Way
Request: Preliminary Plat Approval for Sixteen (16) Single
Family Residential Lots and One (1) Common Lot on
Approximately 2.30 Acres in a Proposed R-15 Zoning District
Yearsley: So, with that can I get a motion to acknowledge the withdraw of RZ 13-014
and PP 13-035, Summertree Subdivision?
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Go ahead.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we acknowledge that.
Miller: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to acknowledge the withdraw. All in favor say
aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
F. Continued Public Hearing from December 5, 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
G. Continued Public Hearing from December 5, 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: And at this time I'm going to actually open the public hearing of AZ 13-015
and PP 13-030, TM Creek, for the sole purpose of continuing that to the February 6th,
2014, meeting. Can I get a motion to continue that?
Freeman: So moved.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 16, 2014
Page 4 of 29
Marshall: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to continue AZ 13-015 and PP 13-030 to
February 6, 2014. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
E. Public Hearing: CUP 13-016 ACHD Park and Ride Lot by Ada
County Highway District (ACHD) Located Southeast Corner of
W. Overland Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Conditional
Use Permit for aPublic/Quasi-Public Use in the R-8 Zoning
District
Yearsley: Kind of mixing things up a little bit. I am going to open Action Item E, the
CUP 13-016, the ACHD Park and Ride Lot by Ada County Highway District and let's
begin with the staff report.
Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission. The next
application before you is a request for a conditional use permit. This site consists of 2.5
acres of land, currently zoned R-8, and is located at the southeast corner of South Ten
Mile Road and West Overland Road. Adjacent land uses and zoning. To the north is
vacant land, zoned C-C. To the south is residential property, zoned RUT in Ada
County. To the east is vacant land, zoned R-4. And to the west is South Ten Mile Road
and rural residential agricultural property, zoned RUT in Ada County. This property was
annexed in 2007 as part of the larger Southridge development. A conditional use permit
is requested to construct an ACHD Park and Ride Lot in an R-8 zoning district. The
UDC requires a conditional use permit for public, quasi-public uses in the R-8 district.
The purpose of the facility is allow commuters of the surrounding area access to
alternative modes of transit via car pooling, van pooling, and/or bus service. A
landscape plan was submitted that depicts a 35 foot wide street buffer along Overland,
an entryway corridor and arterial street and a 25 foot wide buffer along Ten Mile, an
arterial street. Parking lot landscaping is depicted. All landscaping on the site is
required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B. One access to the site is
proposed by Overland Road, which you see here. A 30 foot wide potential future
connection is shown to the east boundary. Storm drainage will be contained in storm
water basins. Black vinyl coated chain link fencing with dense landscaping is proposed
along the southern boundary of the site as a buffer to the residential property. The
comprehensive plan future land use map designation for this property is civic, consistent
with the proposed use. Written testimony has been submitted by Tim Mokwa in
response to the staff report. Tim did have one concern about the pressurized irrigation
requirement, that the development provide underground pressurized irrigation water in
accord with the UDC requirements. City domestic water is only allowed to be used if
the property does not have water rights in an existing irrigation district. The applicant is
proposing water conserving landscaping within this project and because of that would
like to be allowed to use city water, since the amount they would be using would be very
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 16, 2014
Page 5 of 29
little. Anyway, the applicant will speak to that in their -- in their presentation. Staff is
okay with modifying condition number 2.1 under Public Works Department to say the
development shall provide underground PI in accord with the UDC or as otherwise
approved, if you should want to modify that condition. Staff is recommending approval
of the proposed conditional use permit with conditions. Staff will stand for any questions
Commission may have.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions?
Marshall: Mr. Chair? So, the condition on the development agreement; right?
Wafters: No. Just conditions of approval of the conditional use permit.
Marshall: Okay. On the CUP were as approved by --
Wafters: Staff.
Marshall: By staff. All right.
Wafters: Actually, it would be the city engineer. Excuse me.
Marshall: All right. Thank you.
Yearsley: Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward?
Mokwa: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Tim Mokwa, I'm with
KM Engineering, 9233 State Street, Garden City, representing ACHD on this
application. As Sonya mentioned, you know, we have been working together on this
and we really don't have any issues with the -- the recommended conditions of
approval, with the exception of the PI issue. I don't know that this Commission has the
ability or -- you know, that's what we were discussing before was the -- does the
Commission in this forum have the ability to waive a condition that's -- that's, basically,
part of the UDC. We would like to request that -- as Sonya had mentioned, that we --
we include a little bit of flex language in there at the end that -- or as approved by the
city engineer, because we'd like to take this issue up a little further and I would like to
get a couple of our concerns about this particular application and how it relates to using
PI, just for your consideration and it might be something that the city would like to
address at some point. The site was designed using not necessarily LID or low impact
development standards, but particular care was taken with the landscape to -- to design
a drought tolerant landscape and using only native materials, some materials that have
a very low water use. This is somewhat of a test project for the highway district in that
they haven't used this type of a design before and they'd like to have -- you know, if it's
successful they'd like to use it in more places, because the whole intent is, again, low
water use and low maintenance. Some of the -- some of the justification, I guess, for
our request on relaxing this condition. Again, we are proposing -- we are proposing an
irrigation system, but our only connection would be the city metered water and irrigation
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 16, 2014
Page 6 of 29
system that we would be proposing is a low volume, subsurface drip irrigation system.
The sprinklers would only be intended to provide periodic irrigation during the first two
years, just to help that plant material get establish and after that only occasionally
during extreme heat or drought situations. Using city water -- metered city water, as
opposed to ditch water for this site, has three major advantages for the project. One
being ACHD's limited maintenance. availability. They -- if it were ditch water they would
be responsible for coming out, opening, closing gates. One of their big responsibilities
for -- particularly for a low volume drip system would be cleaning their filters. Otherwise,
the algae and sediment and silt from the ditch -- it's just not going to work. It doesn't
typically work real well with low volume drip. We plug the holes and, then, when you do
need the water you don't necessarily know it, because it's subsurface, until plants start
dying. So, the second issue or second way in which using metered water would help is
this being a test project for ACHD, being able to monitor the specific amount of water
you're using and being able to track that against the health of the plant material really
could help them set it up for future sites as well. And I mentioned a little bit about this,
but with a low volume, low flow, drip system the algae and the silt, even with a high level
of screening we -- these things are prone to failure, particularly on one like this that's --
it's not going to be running regularly, it's going to be pretty intermittent when that system
comes on and off, just as, you know, some observed plant stress is going on. The city
does require in all commercial developments that we calculate the common area for
purposes of issuing an assessment on irrigation water. So, in other words, your -- you
may have a pressurized system using ditch water, but you do across-connection with
city metered .water for the purposes of watering these commercial development
common areas and buffers in shoulder seasons where the irrigation water is not
available. And then -- and this project even with city water as its only source of
irrigation would only use a fraction of what that typical commercial site would use in the
shoulder seasons. You know, staff recommends that we seek a waiver with the city
engineer, but a waiver is only granted in the event that -- as code is written currently a
waiver is only granted in the event that the irrigation district provides a letter stating that
we don't have a water right. Well, it seems confusing to me that you would -- there is a
provision for a waiver if don't have a water right, where if you don't have a water right it's
basically impossible to provide pressurized irrigation. So, that's where I was discussing
and I think Sonya discussed this a little bit with Caleb maybe that there should be some
provision in the code for addressing this, particularly as we are looking at more low
impact and drought tolerant types of developments where you can mitigate those
negative effects of using treated potable water by using a fraction of the water, which is
what -- what we are proposing here. So, again, I don't know that this is the correct
forum or if there is even the ability to waive a UDC requirement, but our request would
be -- I guess there is three options that we would request. One would be, as Sonya
said, to add language that -- or as approved by staff. Our second -- our request or our
preference short of that would be that that condition be waived and that this
Commission, if possible, could grant us a waiver. I don't know that that's possible, but
that's what I was talking to Sonya about beforehand and it -- I suppose it doesn't hurt to
ask. And, thirdly, if you don't agree or don't feel that it's appropriate at this time, we
would recommend that the conditions be approved as is and we can address that issue
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 16, 2014
Page 7 of 29
with the city engineer. So, is that clear? I hope that's clear on my -- the three -- three
levels that -- I guess the fourth level is denial, but we certainly hope you don't go there.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Mokwa: I can answer questions.
Yearsley: Are there any questions of the applicant?
Freeman: I have one. I'm familiar with xeriscapes. That's not quite what you're
proposing, though, is it? Can you describe the difference between what you're
proposing and a xeriscape that virtually requires no water?
Mokwa: Commissioner Freeman, I -- you know, I think there is -- there are xeriscapes
that they will say take no water, but any plant material to survive through some of our
105 degree extended periods of drought and wind and -- are going to require some
water, you know. Unless you're planting all sagebrush and gravel. So, you know, what
we are proposing is going to require some water during the first couple seasons, just to
get that root mat established and -- but all the plant material we have selected,
particularly -- this site is particularly good for them. They are used to windier sites,
exposed sites, lots of sun and dry --dry conditions. I hope that answers your question.
Freeman: Yeah. Thank you.
Yearsley: Any other questions? Thank you.
Mokwa: Thank you.
Yearsley: I don't have anybody signed up for this public hearing. Is there anybody
wishing to testify?
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman. Or Marshall. Sorry.
Marshall: That's all right. I move that we close the public hearing on CUP 13-016.
Miller: I second that.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on CUP 13-016. All
in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Baird: Mr. Chair?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 16, 2014
Page 8 of 29
Yearsley: Yes.
Baird: If I could take a moment to respond to the request to waive the condition. I'm
sure this Commission understands that you don't have the ability to do that, but I wanted
to make clear to the applicant that that remedy does lie within the City Council to
change the ordinance and that's why we proposed the language change to get the
approval and allow them that opportunity to go seek that change if they so desire or
work something out with the city engineer. So, that's the legal framework for
accomplishing what they are -- what they are seeking.
Yearsley: Thank you. Any comments?
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do.
Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: Just a couple quick -- a little bit of a slippery slope when we start approving
properties without the pressurized irrigation and there is a good reason for requiring the
pressurized irrigation, because we don't want to be treating water and having to treat it
and it becomes a tax on the system and I love this design. I think it's a great location.
Everything is positive, except for I do worry about the water and as explained this is an
experiment and if the experiment goes array and it doesn't -- it isn't able to work and
they have to put in different landscaping, then, we are going to be watering that with
potable water. Again, as explained, we don't have the ability to waive that. But I'm torn
-- even if we did I would be torn as to whether or not to do that, because I think this is a
great project, would love to see it go forward and I'm not sure, you know, is there a
possibility that in the future, as other pieces of property develop, could they hook onto
another pressurized irrigation system close by, you know, and pay some small fee --
monthly fee to be able to have that. I don't know. But, again, that's not ours to figure
out. I'm glad to hear that. And so I do appreciate the language that was placed in
there, giving some flexibility, because I do like that project. I mean it's well done and --
and I'm excited to see it go forward and that's it.
Yearsley: Thank you. Any other comments?
Miller: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Miller.
Miller: I second the same concern. However, I do think it's a good idea to include the
language just because of the potential this has. Really, this sort of landscaping has
been fairly successful and that's why ACHD is looking at doing it potentially down the
line. If they can get a baseline here, it's something successful, it could save, you know,
a lot more burden down the line. So, it is a great project. I'm in favor of it.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 16, 2014
Page 9 of 29
Freeman: Mr. Chair. I think Mr. Mokwa -- he articulated very well the reasons for the
request and I can tell that a lot of thought went into designing the landscape, so that you
wouldn't need regular irrigation. I applaud that. As it's been stated, of course, we can't
grant the waiver, but I am -- I am in favor of changing the language so that there can be
some flexibility in dealing with that. We focused on -- we focused on the irrigation
primarily and that's really the only issue here I think is it looks like a well designed
project and well landscaped. I like the landscape design as well. So, I'm in favor of the
project and I have no issue changing that language. And, then, take it up with City
Council and see what can happen and perhaps we need to consider some sort of
exceptions in the UDC in the future to allow for creatively designed landscape that
minimize the need for irrigation water of any kind.
Yearsley: Thank you. So, I, too, agree that I think this is a good project and so we --
you know, I think it needs to be moved forward and with that I would entertain a motion.
Freeman: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, what
there was of it, I move to approve file number CUP 13-016 as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of January 16th, 2014, with the following modification: That
the conditional -- the condition 2.1 language be changed to include -- to replace the end
of that sentence with as -- or as otherwise approved by the city engineer. Hopefully
that's clear enough.
Yearsley: Okay.
Marshall: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve -- approve CUP 13-016. All in favor
say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
A. Public Hearing: PP 13-039 Falconers Place by Falcon Drive
Meridian, LLC Located Southeast Corner of E. Falcon Drive
and S. Eagle Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval
Consisting of Two (2) Residential Lots and One (1) Common
Lot on Approximately 4.69 Acres in an R-8 Zoning
District
Yearsley: As I see in the audience we do have our interpreter here, so at this time
would like to open the public hearing for PP 13-039, Falconers Place, and let's begin
with the staff report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The next item on
the agenda is the Falconers Place Subdivision. It's currently located on the east side of
South Eagle Road, just west of East Victory Road -- or, excuse me, just south of East
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 16, 2014
Page 10 of 29
Victory Road. It's currently zone R-8 within the city and it's approximately 4.69 acres of
land. This project was before you, annexed -- received annexation and zoning in 2005.
At the time that that project came before you the applicant was proposing an assisted
living facility on the site. Through their annexation request they did ask for a step up in
density as allowed under the Comprehensive Plan to step it up from an R-4 -- R-2, R-4
zone up to the R-8 district and the main reason for that zoning district was because an
assisted living facility is not allowed within the R-4 -- R-2 and R-4 zone. So, at that time
under the current UDC, in order to get an assisted living out there -- or at least on this
property consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, they would have to go through a
conditional use permit in the R-8 zone and that's -- those were the approvals that were
in place at the time that they came forward. As you can see, the surrounding
developments -- the city is encroaching on some of this area quite rapidly. Currently to
the west we do have a mixed use development -- at least a residential mixed use
development, which has some four-plexes near the intersection and, then, transitions to
single family lots. Across the street on the -- north of this site we do have a commercial
node here that is planned for commercial development, is currently valid with the city as
well. There is a remnant -- a five acre piece within the city -- or within the county still
that was platted as the Golden Eagle Estates Subdivision and, then, recently the
Council did approve a final plat for the Carmel Subdivision, which in this instance this
property is currently zoned R-4 and it's platted with densities less than three units to the
acre consistent with that land use designation on this property. And, then, as you can
see along the west boundary of this site we do have a piece of property that's currently
a five acre sliver that is also within the city limits, zoned R-4 currently. And, then, to the
south is the Dartmoor Subdivision, which is a county subdivision, and these consist of
three-quarter to one acre lot sizes and, then, also to the west we have the Tuscany
Subdivision, which, again, is a mixed use development, which has alley loaded product,
as well as traditional single family homes. So, in looking at the surrounding area here
you can see what the applicant's trying to do here is mimic what was typically approved
and allowed within the area as well. As I mentioned to you, the FLUM does designate
this property as low density residential. You can see primarily on the east side of Eagle
Road most of that development is at the low density standards at this point. As
mentioned to you earlier, the west side of the street is currently medium density,
although it's not developed at that density that was allowed at the time. Most of the
development in the surrounding area, as I mentioned to you, is four acres -- four units to
the acre or less. So, for purposes of this application staff has to evaluate the project
based on the underlining zoning of the property and, then, take into account the
surrounding developments and how this would melt into this or be consistent with that
surrounding development and I think we have laid that context out with -- for you in the
staff report as well. So, here is the preliminary plat the applicant is proposing. Again, it
consists of two buildable lots. One of those lots is currently developed with an existing
single family home that will remain with the development of the project. The one larger
lot will consist of 36 townhome units and, then, there is a requirement for a common lot
along South Eagle Road moving forward. Because this is a single family townhome
development access needs to be provided from a local street. With the subdivision
improvements the applicant is required to extend this public street into the site and
terminate it as a cul-de-sac. The existing home will remain taking access from East
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 16, 2014
Page 11 of 29
Falcon Drive moving forward and, then, all of the townhome un-its will take access to the
local street to a reciprocal cross-access shared parking agreement. In this particular
case you can see how each one of these are -- there is internal driveways to serve
these developments. I would mention to you that the applicant has submitted
alternative compliance requests. Typically with our single family developments we do
require a two car garage and a 20 by 20 parking pad in front of those garages. In this
particular instance the applicant is requesting alternative compliance for a couple
reasons. First of all, they want to provide more open space. than what you typically see
in a residential development. By reducing that parking pad it allows them to narrow up
their common drives and provide more passive common open space throughout the
development. And typically with your townhome developments you have garage
parking and you don't typically see the parking pads as well. So, in lieu of providing the
parking pads the applicant has provided overflow parking for each one of the townhome
nodes, if you will, at the end of these driveways.. Staff did have concerns with the
southeast corner here and here is a blown up graphic. In my staff report I did
recommend -- request the applicant provide an exhibit on how parking could be
increased in that area. This is the exhibit that I have before you. You can see that they
have definitely increased the parking, redesigned that slightly. They don't have the six
required parking stalls that we requested in the staff report, but by adding the parking
central to the node they were able to increase the area here and provide us some
additional parking in front of the townhome units here. So, they have actually added
more parking than what staff had required or recommended in the staff report. We are
in agreement with this proposal as well. As I mentioned to you because of the
increased open space and because this development is under five acres in size, the
applicant has no requirement for providing ten percent open space. The only required
landscaping is the 25 foot wide landscape buffer along South Eagle Road here.
Because of the reduced parking on the site the applicant is able to develop -- the plan
that you see here is approximately 2.74 acres of open space. Like the previous
application, this property is unable to have sufficient surface water to landscape -- or
water -- irrigate the development, so they, too, are also seeking city engineer's approval
for domestic water to irrigate. In that particular instance ACHD is doing more of a
drought tolerant -- planting xeriscape. You can see here with 2.74 acres of sod and
trees it's -- it's going to be a lot of -- a huge burden on future -- future homeowners to
irrigate the development. I know the engineer is looking to what they can do as far as
providing a secondary source out here, but for right now we have crafted a condition
that they provide the PI -- provide us a letter that the irrigation district cannot serve this
property and that, ultimately, it will come down to City Council and city engineer on how
they want this to be irrigated moving forward. So, here is the proposed elevations
before you this evening. All of the buildings are meant -- are of a similar design. There
will be multiple color schemes out there as conditioned in the staff report. You can see
here that the -- each unit will be attached three units per building. There is a mix of
stone wainscot, vertical siding, cedar siding, decorative corbels. One other item I would
like to point out as far as this design as well is you can see that it's not a true two story
method of shared walls, at least along the perimeter of the site. You can see that
second story actually is stepped in a little bit, so it is to emulate more of the single family
homes that you see in the area. So, from the street if you didn't go internal to the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 16, 2014
Page 12 of 29
development you could definitely see that this could look like a large single family home
development out there and certainly moving forward the applicant would have to come
back through CZC and design review approval to make sure that they comply with these
elevations. Because this -- one thing that I failed to mention was when this site was
annexed into the city there was a development agreement required with the annexation.
Moving forward the applicant does have to seek City Council approval of that DA
modification. Currently this property is restricted to the assisted living facility use. So,
in your recommendation tonight if you feel strongly or support the proposed
development this evening, I would encourage Commission to support Council on
modifying that development agreement to change that language in the DA that --
restricting the use from the assisted living facility and allowing them to move forward
with the townhome development. We do have that language in the staff report
restricting the use of the site to no -- the 35 townhome units and a single family home.
So, I at least wanted to get that on the table. We did receive some written testimony in
opposition of this application. The primary concerns were really the density. The use. I
believe you have that written testimony in your packet and it identifies -- I think in those
letters you can see they basically have turned to you as the recommending body to look
at those past approvals. They have highlighted what was approved on the site as far as
an assisted living facility and how it is tied to the development agreement. So, it is the
staffs recommendation, based on our DA provisions in the staff report, that we have
addressed the neighborhood concerns. We are tying the applicant to the plan as shown
this evening. We are tying into the uses and the density that they are proposing. The
plan before you this evening is roughly 7.87 units to the acre, so it is a little bit denser
than the surrounding development, but because there is a roadmap only for this
development, there is greater setbacks along the perimeter. The design emulates the
single family developments in the area. Staff believes that we have everything locked
into place as far as recommended DA provisions. We find that the site does comply
with the UDC and the Comprehensive Plan and, therefore, we are recommending
approval for this before you this evening and I'd stand for any questions you have.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are any questions at this time? Would the applicant like to come
forward?
Bailey: Good evening, Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Laren Bailey. My work
address is 3023 East Copperpoint Drive, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. Again, I'd like to
thank you for hearing our application this evening and I'd like to thank staff for all their
help. I'd also like to introduce the developer David Alexander, who is here tonight. If
there are any questions for him he would be glad to answer them as well. I think Mr.
Parsons did a great job explaining the project, so I'm not going to regurgitate a whole
bunch of information for you again. I would like to point out a couple items. First off,
just to make things clear, this is a different developer than who was proposing the
assisted living -- assisted living prior. That project fell through and Mr. Alexander since
purchased the property. I'd like to talk about that this is an in-fill development. It really
is surrounded by other developed properties and so, you know, part of the
Comprehensive Plan and city's goal says to fill in these spaces and develop. So, that's
one of the issues that we wanted to talk about tonight. The other thing is that in the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 16, 2014
Page 13 of 29
Comprehensive Plan, you know, it talks about getting a diversity of housing products
within the city and we feel that -- we feel that this is a good way to do that. These are a
different type of housing products than is in the neighborhood, they are not your stacked
four-plex apartments, it's somewhere in between that and a single family. We are going
have, you know, where you have got atwo-car garage, you have got more of a single
family type living, but we are able to achieve a little higher density and have that extra
open space. So, it's not congested, we are not adding, you know, a lot of congestion
here, we are just -- we have got the open space, we have got the -- the tighter housing
units to add that diversity to the area. The other thing is the quality of building materials.
The type of building materials, as you can see from the rendering, it's going to be a high
quality product. It's going to be very nice. There is going to be a lot of amenities here, a
lot of landscaping, a very nice project. Another issue about the parking is the CC&Rs
are going to require people to park in their garage. It's not going to be a storage unit
attached to their house, it's going to have to park their cars in their garage, so that, you
know, we don't have cars parked all over the place. Leave everything open so people
can get in and out easily. Again, the landscaping is all going to be maintained by the
HOA and so you're not going to have separate lawns, did this guy water his lawn, did
that guy mow, did -- you know, you're not going to have those issues. It's all going to be
maintained by one group and not only will that help keep the area nice, but it will also
increase the property values in that area, because it's going to be taken care of, there is
not going to be any question on whether the plantings or trees need replaced, things
like that, that's all going to be taken care of. Landscaping will be watered accordingly.
want to point out that this project is close to employment opportunities and we feel that
that's why some of the density here is warranted. You know, you're close to -- we are
on Eagle Road, we are close to Eagle and Overland and all the employment
opportunities there. We are close to city services -- or to city services. So, from an in-
fill standpoint we think it makes a lot of sense this density in this area. I think -- I think
that pretty much covers the comments I wanted to make tonight. If there is any
questions -- I mean if you have with me or the developer we will stand for those now.
Yearsley: Are there any questions?
Freeman: No.
Yearsley: I have one. I'm assuming that these are going to be rentals; is that not
correct?
Bailey: Well, we are actually going to condo them, so some of them probably will be
rentals, but they will be available for -- for purchase.
Yearsley: For purchase. Okay. And that's what I was just kind of curious with that, so
-- all right.
Rohm: I had a question, Mr. Chairman. Could you speak to the irrigation for a bit here,
please?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 16, 2014
Page 14 of 29
Bailey: Yeah. I'm working with the Boise Project Board of Control currently. This area
-- we do have water delivery, but from what I'm understanding it's on a rotation and the
amount of water we are getting and the type of rotation can make it difficult to have a
full-time system. So, we are working with them to try and understand when we do have
water could we utilize it at that period and, then, use city water maybe in between to
offset that. So, we are working through that right now. My understanding is the
assisted living that was proposed before in talking with Boise Project Board of Control is
they -- they weren't going to use the irrigation water at all, their plan was to use city
water as well, because of the -- the difficulty in receiving the water. So, we are working
through that. We will definitely work with the city engineer to make sure we are, you
know, doing the best we can to utilize what water is available.
Yearsley: Any other questions? Thank you very much.
Bailey: Thank you.
Yearsley: I have on here David Alexander. I'm assuming you don't want to -- or do you
want to come up and testify as well? Okay. Bradley Turner. Would you like to come
forward? And I failed to mention this before. Each individual will be given three minutes
to speak. If you're speaking for a larger group and there is a show of hands of who
you're speaking for, you will be given up to ten minutes, so -- and, then, if you would,
please, state your name and address for the record, please.
Turner: Certainly. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Brady Turner. I
live at 3678 South Caleb Place in Meridian. 83642. I worked with The Cottages on the
original proposed development of this community. We -- the neighboring property
owners did have some concerns about the development that was proposed at the
assisted living facility, but in working with them we came to the conclusion that the
single story building units that they were proposing and the fact that this was an
assisted living facility would have minimal impact on traffic during rush hour and that it
would be acceptable within the lower density housing that's in this area of the -- of the
city and as was previously mentioned, the R-8 zoning was only done because of the
use of the assisted living facility. That facility, as a result, as previously noted, that
development has gone belly up and the original developer is in default of the
development agreement. I would like to point out to you a couple of paragraphs from
that original development agreement that states Section 7 states: Compliance or -- or
consent to rezone. This agreement and the commitments contained herein shall be
terminated and the zoning designated reversed upon default of the owner. The Section
8, consent to de-annex and reverse all the zoning designations states: Owner
developer consents on default to reversal of the zoning designation of the property,
subject to and conditioned on the following conditions precedent to wit: That the city
provide written notice of any failure to comply with the agreement to the owner-
developer and that the owner-developer shall secure -- failure within six months of.
Now, both of these conditions have occurred. It seems to me that the -- the developer
is in default. The development agreement should be terminated and that the zoning
should be restored back to the original RUT zoning of the county and, therefore, based
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 16, 2014
Page 15 of 29
upon that the intent of the city that was clearly established in the development
agreement, we feel that the R-8 zoning and the benefit of this project is not compatible
with the intended use of this property. So, based upon that we are asking the Planning
and Zoning to -- the planning board to reject the applicants and follow up on the original
intent of the development agreement and restore the original zoning of this property.
Thank you for your time.
Yearsley: Thank you. Is it Theresa Turner? Would you like to -- okay. A Lindell
Timothy. Okay. Just so -- for the record you are against this project as well. Harold
Krusinski. Would you like to come forward? Again, name and address for the record.
Krusinski: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Harold Krusinski, 3475 East
Falcon Drive. We own the property at the cul-de-sac at the end of Falcon. We have
some similar thoughts that Brady had. We -- I don't know that we were tricked
necessarily. However, we feel that the original intent was that particular development,
the fairly low amount of traffic flow in and out -- we would have residents, employees,
and visitors, but not 36 families coming and going all day to work, rush hour. We are on
a fairly rural road and having that density at the end of the road I think is going to create
an even bigger mess than we already have, because they are not far from the Victory-
Eagle intersection and it's pretty hard to get out of there now and with the whole stream
of cars coming out I think that's going to be more than we bargained for when we, you
know, kind of agreed to the previous development plan, which seemed like it would be
fairly low impact at the time and, as Brady stated, it does sound like -- and we were led
to believe if for some reason that fell through we would go back a lower density
development if one were to take its place. So, certainly I think the 36 units in there is
probably more than we can handle and, actually, if you look at the proximity of Falcon
Road to the Victory-Eagle intersection, that's probably not what normally would be
approved these days anyway, except for the jog in the road, Falcon Drive might make
more sense to line up with the Falcon Drive on the other side -- on the west side of
Eagle for that other small subdivision over there. And I speak for myself and my wife
Shawntelle that we -- we have a lower medium density around us and we would
certainly like to keep it a little bit more rural as long as possible, so I guess that's all I
really have on that respect, so --
Yearsley: Thank you.
Krusinski: You're welcome. Thank you for your time.
Yearsley: Next up is Rex Cook. Would you like to come forward?
Cook: My name is Rex Cook. 3691 South Caleb Place. 83642. I'm not sure I have
much more to add, other than maybe just the intent of the height of the -- the buildings
that will be right butting up next to the subdivision that we -- we currently are residents
of and understand that the density seems to kind of go from a really low density to now
a very high density proposal and so we'd just kind of like to reiterate and appreciate you
taking the time to listen to this and that's all I have to say.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 16, 2014
Page 16 of 29
Yearsley: Thank you. Tammy Cook. Would you like to come forward? Okay. And just
for the record you're against this as well. And, then, last I have is Bob Aldridge.
Aldridge: Mr. Chairman, to start I do represent a number of people here. I'm also a
homeowner. I'm at 3300 Falcon and in the past I have been before this Commission a
number of times on surrounding projects before the City Council, so if possible I would
like to ask for the ten minutes and there is a number of people I think that would raise
their hand who I am representing their interest, if that's possible.
Yearsley: That would be fine.
Aldridge: Okay. Thank you. Looking at the -- I will do my best to use this technology,
but I will probably mess it up. My home is the home right here and (have --
Yearsley: You need to press the button at the top, I believe.
Aldridge: Okay. I just mainly want to be able to indicate points. Okay. This is my
property. I have been there since 1985 and originally all of this was the Golden Eagle,
all five to six plus acre development. During the time period since then we have had a
number of surrounding developments. In each of those I have worked with those and
we have been able to work out problems and have been very cooperative and we have
been able to rationally solve all of those and, for example, over here in this area there
are a few things you need to know. First of all, that's a very deep hole. From street
level that goes down approximately 20 feet to the actual level of the ground there and
that, with the surrounding fence, means that that -- those of the high density area -- very
protected. You simply don't see it. It is out of sight. I did work with ACHD and that
developer to move what they originally said was gong to be the entrance street here,
which would have been a traffic disaster down to this area here. That is the area in
which this drops off rapidly. There is quite a dip there. And that's a real problem and
traffic coming out of here -- the reason we moved that was so the traffic here could look
to the south and see things coming. When we come out on this area Eagle Road is a
two lane road. There is no center turn lane. I had a talk with ACHD. This was on their
20 years plan forever. They have no current plans to widen that two lanes -- past the
two lanes. Currently when I come out in the morning, if I'm lucky the stop sign -- stop
light up here is stopped, the traffic is stopped and if the people are nice I may be able to
get in. If traffic is moving it's a tremendous problem due to the fact that that's a 40 mile
an hour zone out there, people are going 40 miles an hour and you have that dip to the
south where when you're looking down there -- when you start out traffic can pop over
that and they are on top of you immediately. Second, when you're coming south
through this that is now a green light that turns from two lanes north of that intersection
into one lane and so all of that southbound traffic is down to a single lane of traffic and
that's the high point. And so down here is out of sight until you have cleared that crest
and when I'm here waiting to turn in there is only one lane and I'm occupying that lane
and we have had traffic have to go around us -- we had one that went in and screeched
into the ditch and barely missed a telephone pole, et cetera. It's a major major traffic
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 16, 2014
Page 17 of 29
problem. And if you now add that kind of density of traffic coming out I don't know,
frankly, how it's going to work. It's already a huge mess there for traffic and this is
simply going to make it much much worse. And that there is no way to cure it. The
problem is that this has a single entrance onto a very small road that was designed
back in 1979. At the time there was no freeway exit. Eagle Road was a tiny two-lane
road that I used to joke I could go out and lay down in the middle of it and lay there for
two hours without worrying that the only one to come by would be a farmer. Now Eagle
Road is full of traffic. We have the roundabout down at the end that generate traffic
speeds coming up through. We have Tuscany, we have all the other developments to
the south dumping out onto Eagle Road and heading north and in the mornings and
evenings that traffic is simply something you cannot navigate coming up and the second
thing is that, again, when Gerrald first brought up that project about the assisted living,
we worked with them, we thought it was an excellent project and I thought it was great
to have some assisted living in that area. It was low density. I work around those
areas, I know what kind of traffic would come from that. I thought it was excellent. But
also said that when the day came my driveway went right down to their driveway and I
could just get in my wheelchair and go down into the assisted living unit. This situation
could be drastically different than that. If you look at that plan and you see there is
footage of those, it is massive, that is highly dense. Everything else around here is four
to the acre -- that's four to the acre and under and mostly under. The ones that are
higher are shielded. Carmel Subdivision we worked with them to have large lots on the
edge, to have fences and so forth and screen all of that. Attempting to put that amount
of mass there is going to totally change the look of the area. It is not compatible in
terms of the density, because you have 36 units there on four acres. This area here at
the corner I donated my frontage to ACRD, hoping that they would be able to put in
some kind of sidewalk or whatever, because that's where school kids -- on the corner of
our property we have a little building they can stay in and so forth and right now there is
nothing but mud and a ton of traffic out in front. These units are realistically going to
have children. How many we don't know and I don't know where they are going to go.
If you try to have the school bus stopping at that intersection you're going to have real
problems. You don't want them trying to cross that road -- having school children cross
to the other side where there is more room to stop isn't going to work. There is no
crossing guard. There is no space for that. None of those problems can be solved. As
much as in the past I tried to work with developers and realize that even though they
impact me, even though, as I have said before, everybody will go away and it was still
1979 again, that's not going to happen. But we have to have rational development. We
have to have things that will work in terms of traffic. We have to have things that will
work in terms of compatibility with the neighborhood and when I'm sitting here looking
out my front door I'm going to see a huge mass of property. From my viewpoint that's
going to be solid. Those are two story and even though the ends may be slightly down,
they are two story. They are large and they fill the vast majority of that property,
especially visually. Number two, any traffic coming out of here there is only two options.
Go this way onto Eagle, virtually impossible. They come down here and try to wind their
way through, come out eventually up here on Overland Road, along with all the units
that Carmel -- that subdivision has and any left turn is going to be almost impossible. I
don't know how they get back to Eagle Road. Right turn outs are about the only thing
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 16, 2014
Page 18 of 29
they are going to be able to do. So, if this is approved you're going to be creating a
traffic problem in perpetuity. I'm going to be meeting with ACHD to talk about
something to do with this area, but realistically staff assures me it's not going to happen.
Center turn .lane, no place to put it. And so I just don't see how we can do this. And I,
again, agree -- back to the time that we did this with Gerrald my clear understanding
was -- and as an attorney I looked at that pretty thoroughly -- that if he couldn't get his
assisted living units in -- this was solely for the R-8, this was going to go away and we
would be able to start over again with that low density and so I think that it is, in a
sense, a bate and switch, that we now are suddenly looking at piggybacking that
technical requirement for the R-8 that wasn't really meant to be an R-8, now turning into
a true R-8 with heavy density without being able to change the surrounding houses,
surrounding traffic, and all those other situations. So, for those reasons reluctantly
have to oppose this vehemently. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Yearsley: Are there any questions? Thank you.
Aldridge: Thank you.
Yearsley: I don't have anybody else signed up. Is there anybody else who would like to
come forward on this application? Please come forward. And, please, state your name
and address for the record.
Thomas-Mowery: Good evening. Holly Thomas-Mowery. 3295 Falcon Drive, Meridian.
83642. My property is the little notched out property that you see, that little point .502
acre lot. My family and I have lived there since 2008. When we bought our property in
2008 we were told that the current developer, which is at that point Maxfield
Subdivision, was going to be an assisted living facility and because of that it was zoned
R-8, but it was for that purpose and that when that was put in that our property would be
fenced and that our property would be brought onto city sewer and water. Well, that
development went away and, then, this newer development option came about and we
weren't involved to know that was it supposed to revert back to R-1 or 2. We didn't
know about that part. We just thought, oh, well, this is what it has to be, let's be in favor
of this, because now we get a really nice fence, we get to get city sewer and city water.
After learning that it may not be right what's happening, it may not be that this new
property developer gets to continue on with the R-8 zoning, if that's the case and that's
our understanding that that's the case, we are not in favor of 36 houses directly in our
front yard and directly to the left of our house. So, that's directly to our west and to our
south. It wraps around half of our home. Well, all of the front of our home and all of the
side of our home. And so because of that we are against this much congestion when
have got horses and a five acre lot and a nice family behind us, we have got a nice half
acre lot -- sure, we don't mind it being developed at some point if that's in the cards and
it's according to zoning, that's fine, but we want it to revert back to the original zoning.
Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to come forward?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 16, 2014
Page 19 of 29
Freeman: I think you have one more.
Yearsley: Yeah. Go ahead. Come forward. State your name and address for the
record.
Mowery: Okay. Hello. My name is -- I am Golden Mowery. I live at 3295 Falcon Drive
and I ask the Planning and Zoning Commission to deny the 12 tri-plexes or 36
residences in front and on the side of our home. Thank you for your consideration.
That is all I have to say.
Yearsley: Thank you. Is there anybody else? Would the applicant like to come forward
and comment?
Bailey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, Laren Bailey for the applicant. Just wanted
to cover a couple items that came up. We talked about traffic repeatedly. We met with
ACHD on several occasions to discuss this project. They don't feel that it's going to be
an unnecessary burden on the local traffic situation. We are dedicating -- or, actually,
right of way was dedicated with the prior development to ACHD along Eagle Road to
facilitate widening in the future. So, that property is there and they have significant -- or
sufficient width. Also wanted to talk about curb, gutter, and sidewalk was brought up.
We will be installing curb, gutter and sidewalk on Falcon Drive adjacent to the property,
as well as sidewalk along Eagle Road. We won't be doing curb, gutter on Eagle Road,
because ACHD has got that in their plan to widen. So, that will provide access for
school children or whoever needs to use the sidewalk it will be there. I wanted to talk
about -- density came up a couple times and we ran a quick calculation on the plan for
the assisted living center and that plan had about a little over an acre -- about 1.25
acres of the four and a half acres were in actual open space. This project over to --
were close to -- were over 50 percent open space for this entire project. On building
height we would meet the building height requirements for the zone. We are not going
to be any taller than any other two story homes in the area and there are several in the
area. We are not going to be any taller than they are. The site also has some
topography. As you move south the topography does slope down considerably. We
lose about ten, 12 feet of elevation. So, this isn't going to be one block you're looking
at, you're going to -- that's going to taper down the hill, it's going to be very attractive.
Sorry. I'm just reviewing my notes real quickly. I guess with that I'd stand for anymore
questions you might have.
Yearsley: Any questions?
Bailey: Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. With that can I get a motion to close the public hearing on PP
13-039?
Miller: So moved.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 16, 2014
Page 20 of 29
Rohm: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on PP 13-039. All
in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, before we do too much discussion I have got a quick question for
counsel.
Yearsley: Okay.
Freeman: You do?
Marshall: Yeah.
Yearsley: I wouldn't be surprised if all of us do.
Marshall: Yeah. I'd like to address that elephant right about now. So, supposedly we
have an agreement to dezone -- in this case it would be annexing -- do we go about de-
annexing pieces of property?
Baird: None of that is before you tonight. That's totally within the purview of the City
Council. All the arguments that have been made on that need to be repeated when this
does become before the City Council for the DA modification. I will probably ask
planning staff to add -- add to my opinion here, but, really, your focus is -- this is a
request for a preliminary plat in that zone and it presumes that the Council will amend
the DA to allow it. So, you're sort of the cart before the horse here. It's a very unusual
situation. So, you're looking at it in a vacuum. Just preliminary plat approval
requirements. That's why staff recommends approval, because it does meet those
requirements for the zone, but, again, that's only if that DA is changed and that's a big if
and, unfortunately, the way that this is set up you can make recommendations to the
City Council with regard to the DA, but the matter is not officially before you for any
particular action and I will look to planning staff to make sure I adequately characterize
the decision before you tonight.
Yearsley: Just for staff, is that correct?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, that is correct. One other -- just
to elaborate just a little bit further on what counsel has guided you on is their proposed
townhomes are a principally permitted use in the zone, so at this point, even though our
staff report to you says it's proposed for 36 townhomes, the use isn't approved for the
site yet. As counsel said, it's really -- tonight it's really just a preliminary plat. It's a two
lot residential subdivision and keep in mind that the Mowerys, who got up and testified,
they -- they own the home -- they are part of the application before you this evening.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 16, 2014
Page 21 of 29
So, just wanted to go on record and let you know that they are all interrelated here.
They need to work together and come up with a solution here.
Freeman: Mr. Chair, if I may.
Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall -- or Freeman.
Freeman: I have a follow-up question for you. The comment that we are looking at in a
vacuum -- and I think I understand the situation that's before us, why staff is
recommending approval. We have got an R-8 zone here. However, as a commissioner
the DA does figure into how I would address this project and I'm wondering is that going
to be appropriate for me to address the fact there is a standing DA, even though I
realize I don't have any control over the DA, this project is R-8 zoned with a DA
attached to it and that DA would have some impact on how I would proceed here
publically.
Baird: I think you're free to proceed on that basis.
Freeman: Okay. Thank you. With that I can proceed, unless somebody else wants to.
Yearsley: Go ahead.
Freeman: Okay. I'd just like to start by saying to the applicant I like your project. It's a
quality project. If this was in -- if this was an R-8 zone not attached to the DA that it's
attached to I would be saying I recommend approval of this project. However, I also
understand that because it was attached to a DA, the DA -- and we run across this all
the time where we attach an approval to a DA to limit what might otherwise be allowed
to be done on that property, in this case an R-8, but we are intentionally limiting it, so
they can't do everything an R-8 might allow them to do. It's limited. And I have heard
the testimony and I would say that those of you who have testified and those of you who
have written these letters, you did an excellent job of highlighting an issue at hand,
think the situation we are in, the cart before the horse situation, what's before us is -- it's
kind of an unintended stepping stone, if you will. An R-8 was allowed for that particular
use, but I don't think in this case my opinion is an R-8 zone other than that particular
use, or an R-8 zone here in this particular place, given this development, it's not
appropriate for this location and because of that I would be recommending denial of this
application. Again, I like your project, I just think given the particular circumstances of
this R-8 zone and a legal DA that's attached to it, I -- I would not be able to recommend
approval. It is not in the right place.
Yearsley: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman. I was on the Commission when this previous proposal came
through for the assisted living and it was very strongly stated at that time that it is only
for the assisted living that the R-8 is being accepted and so if, in fact, that's not the
same development that's occurring, I wouldn't be in support of this project, other than if
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 16, 2014
Page 22 of 29
it were to go back to its previous zoning and along with the preliminary plat request for a
rezone to -- and have it all reheard again. But I know from personal involvement that
that project was only approved because of it being an assisted living development. So,
would -- I wouldn't be in favor of moving this forward without revisiting that issue either.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Miller: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Miller.
Miller: I second what these guys say. I don't have a whole bunch to add to it, other
than I do like the project, too, and I appreciate staff working on those parking
requirements and stuff. I think there is some really good stuff that's happening in there.
Also what all these people have to say are some very valid points and it just seems like
you're putting a square peg in a round hole at little bit at this point.
Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: Mr. Chair. Again, I really like the project. I do. It's a gorgeous project. It's
the wrong location and we really -- back in '08 I was here for that. That -- that was
stipulated in the development agreement specifically because this was an improper
place for an R-8 zone, we didn't think it was appropriate for an R-8 zone. But that was
the only way we could get the assisted living center there. That was the only thing --
only way we could allow that. And so that's why it was stipulated in the development
agreement specifically that it would be an assisted living center. I'm not sure exactly
how we stated that, but it could be de-annexed or dezoned or whatnot. That doesn't
make sense now, but whatever -- the purpose of that was to say we don't expect any
other R-8 project on this piece of property and so I also would recommend denial.
Yearsley: Thank you. I, actually, have a little bit different take. I actually live across the
street, so I understand the issue that you guys see and I walk by there every day. I like
the project and I actually think the location is a fairly decent location given the
constraints that there are. That being said, given the conditions that were put on the
original agreement and the -- from what I can see -- and it may not be the case that the
residents -- or the adjacent residents were not really brought into the fold with this and
had their issues heard, I, too, am in -- won't be in agreement of this, just because of
that. Like I said, I do like the project, I think it's -- it's well done, it's well developed, but
given the existing development agreement and the issues that the homeowners have
concerns with I -- I will recommend denial as well. So, with that --
Freeman: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to
recommend denial to the City Council of file number PP 13-039 as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of January 16th, 2014, for the specific reasons stated, that
their development agreement would not allow this sort of development on this piece of
property.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 16, 2014
Page 23 of 29
Rohm: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to deny public hearing PP 13-039. All in favor
say aye. It's unanimous. Motion has been denied. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
D. Public Hearing: CUP 13-017 Connections Credit Union at Ten
Mile by Connections Credit Union Located Southeast Corner
of W. Pine Avenue and N. Ten Mile Road Request: Conditional
Use Permit Approval for Two (2) Drive-Thru Establishments
(Multi-Tenant and Bank; Each with aDrive-Thru)in a C-C
Zoning District
Yearsley: And thank you guys for coming and testifying as well. So, we have one last
one. It is public hearing for CUP 13-017, Connections Credit Union. Let's begin with
the staff report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The last item on the
agenda this evening is Connections Credit Union at Ten Mile. The subject property
consists of 2.24 acres. Is currently zoned C-C within the city and is located on the
southeast corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Pine Avenue. In 2003 this property
was platted with the Courtyard at Ten Mile Subdivision. At the time that it came through
was approved for a mixed use development that consisted of the multi-family to the east
and, then, five commercial lots here. In 2010 Mr. Eddy came forward and rezoned the
property to the C-C zoning district, so that he could develop the southern portion of the
commercial lots with his C store. That currently is in place. In 2010 the -- Steve Eddy
or the previous developer came through and, actually, did a property boundary
adjustment and reconfigured the parcels in what you see here this evening, at least the
south portion. The north portion is actually approved for two lots. In this exhibit you see
three buildable lots. Last week City Council did act on a development agreement
modification for this site in which they approved two paths to develop on this north
portion of the development, consistent to the city plan that's before you this evening.
So, I did want to go on record and let you know that the DA has been -- at least been
through the hearing process to move forward with development on the site. As you can
see here the applicant has shown how Steve Eddy's will interface with this development
on the concept plan as well. And I think that bodes well with giving you abig -- a clear
picture on how all three of these drive-thrus are to function on the site. So, moving
forward, at this time the applicant will only be proposing to develop the western lot at
this time with a bank. The drive-thru is on the east end of that building. All the access
points that you see depicted on this concept plan were approved with the platting of the
property in 2003. So, those are constructed, they are in place, and they are operating
as allowed under city approvals and, of course, ACHD's approval. With the property
boundary adjustment the applicant did realign the cross-access for the development
and currently there is a shared access driveway constructed between the two
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 16, 2014
Page 24 of 29
developments, which both properties have the right to use. There is a reciprocal cross-
access agreement. So, it's our proposal this evening -- we are not requesting any
additional cross-access with the development either. There is no development at this
time proposed for the eastern portion. The applicant is merely requesting the CUP for
the drive-thru on that site just to basically market the property moving forward. Although
because the proposed drive-thrus are within a 300 foot radius of an existing drive-thru,
i.e.g., Steve Eddy, and, then, a residential district to the east, the UDC requires the
applicant to come before you and ask for approval of a conditional use permit. As
mentioned in my staff report, the drive-thru lanes proposed for the bank site is in
compliance with the UDC. Typically when we have drive aisles that exceed one
hundred feet in radius we require adrive-thru lane or an escape lane. In this particular
case the way the architect has designed the site you get a lot of queuing here on the
end cap here, so, essentially, this internal drive aisle here becomes the de facto escape
lane, so folks enter the site, see that cars queued up and they can make an informed
decision without entering the drive-thru and, then, able to get to the parking area. So, in
this particular case we feel competent that they do comply with the UDC drive-thru
standards. For the eastern portion of the site we have recommended a modification to
the site plan. Because there is no end user we are concerned with how this drive-thru
could function with two drive-thru lanes and not have the appropriate drive-thru -- or
escape lane if you will. But because of the dimensions that the architect has depicted
on the plan, staff is confident that they could -- this could function as a single drive-thru
lane and the by-pass lane could be accommodated as well next to that or somewhere in
that vicinity without much modification of what you're seeing here. So, rather than it
being a stacking lane, this outer drive lane becomes an escape lane. So, there aren't
really any modifications or a revised concept plan before you this evening. This is what
we are recommending to you this evening. As you can see here the applicant's
landscaping is pretty minimal at this point. They wanted the opportunity to work with
staff through the CZC and design review process moving forward. I would make
mention to the Commission that the width along both street frontages, Ten Mile and
Pine, are required to be 25 feet in accordance with the UDC. The dimensions -- as
dimensioned on the site plan it does comply with the 25 foot required. So, the plantings
are on the plans, but the appropriate landscaping depicted on the plan are in place
consistent with the UDC. One of our recommended conditions before you this evening
is because of the high standards of development on the Steve Eddy site or Fast Eddy's
site, excuse me, we have placed a condition on this conditional use permit that they
provide landscaping equal to or better than what Steve Eddy has done on his site. So,
we want to have that consistent development moving forward and the applicant appears
to be in compliance -- or in agreement with that condition as well. There aren't specific
elevations for you this evening. The applicant did propose these elevations for the site,
so building materials look to be brick, glass, and stone accents with some metal
accenting. There are some variations in roof forms and modulations and wall plains, so
our staff is confident that the proposed sample elevations in the photo is consistent with
our design guidelines. Further, this DA is also part of the record in the development
moving forward as well and also with the development of the eastern pad site staff
envisions a consistent design theme, which not only this building, but also Steve Eddy's
moving forward. Staff has not received any written testimony on this application and,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 16, 2014
Page 25 of 29
again, we are recommending approval of both drive-thrus before you this evening and
I'd stand for any questions you may have.
Yearsley: Are there any questions? I actually have one question. And will you go back
to the previous slide? I realize we don't know what's going to be at that other facility,
but if that becomes a fast food restaurant would they not have their ordering facility in
the alleyway potentially and would that cause an issue? Just as a thought. And I don't
know. And I guess they may to come back for, you know, a conditional use amendment
or something like that based on that, but I was just looking at that issue.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I will try to address your site
circulation of how that drive-thru would interact with the others, but also go to what the
UDC requires.
Yearsley: Okay.
Parsons: So, essentially, it's a good point. Certainly a fast food restaurant has more
trip generation than say a bank drive-thru or even Steve Eddy's convenience store. But
if you look on the -- how they have laid out the site is Steve Eddy's comes along the
back and enters out this way. The bank drive-thru is situated so cars entering here will
go this way. If this is a fast food restaurant it would be opposite moving of the two other
drive-thrus, so it would enter from this driveway instead of this one. So, in essence,
yes, you could get some queuing in this area here --
Yearsley: Okay.
Parsons: -- but in our opinion we still think there is enough queuing lanes there to
support a single drive-thru use. The only caveat to that is the UDC groups drive-thrus
as one. It doesn't say this is a restaurant drive-thru use, this is a bank drive-thru use, it
clumps all of them as one definition. So, that's what's before you this evening.
Certainly if it is a fast food restaurant there will be a lot more traffic in there than what
you would see otherwise, but, unfortunately, code doesn't give us those tools to say yes
or no, whether it's -- I think it's your body, if you think it should only function with one,
that's certainly within your purview of the conditional use permit tonight. I would
mention that the submitted site plan for you this evening also calls out that adrive-thru
may or may not happen on the site. So, through that DA modification they did build
some latitude into that, saying that there may be a drive-thru, there may not, but, again,
it is in your purview this evening if you feel it's appropriate to only have two drive-thrus --
or asingle drive-thru on the site, you could certainly recommend that change as well.
Yearsley: Okay. Well, I was actually thinking that the circulation would be -- the
ordering would be in the back to the alley, but where you said coming from the other
direction I -- that's not as big an issue, then, so -- thank you. Would the applicant like to
come forward? And, please, state your name and address for the record.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 16, 2014
Page 26 of 29
Slichter: Chad Slichter, Slichter Architects. 6611 Ustick, Boise, Idaho. 83704. Mr.
Chairman, Council, Commissioner, it's my understanding that there is actually a deed
restriction on a fast food going on the property, so it would, you know, potentially be a
pharmacy or something of that line, not actually fast food in that other plat. So,
shouldn't have an issue there. I think Bill did a real nice job in doing the presentation.
We don't have any concerns with the stipulations presented, so if you have any
questions I would be more than happy to respond.
Yearsley: Are there any questions?
Freeman: I have none.
Yearsley: No? Thank you.
Slichter: Thanks for your consideration.
Yearsley: I don't have anybody signed. Is there anybody that would like to come
forward and testify? With that I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on
CUP 13-017.
Miller: So moved.
Marshall: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on CUP 13-017. All
in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Yearsley: Any comments? Since there really isn't any outcry against this.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Yes.
Rohm: I think that this is kind of what we expected the balance of that corner to develop
as when we met with Steve Eddy and they put the -- the convenience store, gas station,
combo there, it was presumed that it would develop just as being proposed here, so
don't see any issues myself.
Yearsley: Thank you. Any other comments? No? My one concern sounds like it went
away with the deed restrictions to not have fast food there, so I am in favor of it as well
and with that I would entertain a motion.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 16, 2014
Page 27 of 29
Yearsley: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file
number CUP 13-017 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January
16th, 2014, with no modifications.
Marshall: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the public hearing on CUP 13-017.
All in favor say aye. Nay? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5: Election of Offtcers 2014
Yearsley: Thank you. Two things left on the agenda, really. One is the elections for
2014. I have really enjoyed being the chairman on this and have learned a lot and from
my first meeting to this one I feel like I have done a lot better, so I appreciate your letting
me be your chairman for this period. And I guess is there any discussion for a new
chairman?
Freeman: I have a nomination in mind.
Yearsley: Okay.
Freeman: I'd like to nominate Joe Marshall to be the chairman for the next term.
Rohm: Second.
Marshall: I was going to say, you do understand I may not be here for the month of
February.
Yearsley: Well, that's why we have avice-chairman, don't we?
Freeman: Yeah. We will figure that out in a minute.
Yearsley: So, I guess are you willing to serve as the chairman?
Freeman: He doesn't get a say in this, as I recall.
Yearsley: Oh. Is there anybody that would nominate somebody else?
Freeman: I -- my reason is Joe has been on this Commission for a long time and he's --
he's ahighly regarded colleague. I think it's your last term you're serving and I think it
would be appropriate that you take the chairman seat for your final year.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 16, 2014
Page 28 of 29
Yearsley: I have a -- I agree with that, too, as well, so -- so, with that there is a motion
and a second to nominate or to approve --
Freeman: Approve.
Yearsley: -- approve Joe Marshall as the Chairman.
Freeman: Mr. Chair, I move that Joe Marshall be the elected chairman for the coming
term.
Yearsley: Okay.
Miller: I second that.
Yearsley: Motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Congratulations.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Yearsley: So, with that who wants to be the vice-chair?
Freeman: I have another nomination idea. I nominate Commissioner Yearsley to be
the vice-chair for the coming term.
Rohm: Second.
Yearsley: Motion and a second to approve me as the vice-chair. All in favor say aye.
Opposed? Congratulations.
Freeman: Congratulations to --
Yearsley: To both of us I guess. One last thing. Commissioner Rohm, this is your last
time. Thank you very much for your service and appreciate it. I understand that you will
be potentially coming back next week to receive your awards -- or in February.
Rohm: First week in February.
Yearsley: First week in February.
Freeman: Are we going to roast him?
Yearsley: So -- but I do appreciate your knowledge and your -- your service on this and
thank you very much.
Rohm:, It was a pleasure. Thank you. With that I move we adjourn.
Marshall: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 16, 2014
Page 29 of 29
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Yearsley: We stand adjourned.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:30 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
~~ 6 ,mole
STEVEN YEARSL Y - CH DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
JAYCEE HOLMAN, CITY C RK
/,tip AUGUS~\
0440 I'4+
~`
City o4 _ . i.T~
r/ ~1 lY,O pHC
w
A ~t+ Aj v
~(1+' a°
~6
8 °~ 15e t4E