2014 06-191.
F
53
El
EIDIAN�-- MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
I ®AHC COMMISSION MEETING
AGENDA
City Council Chambers
33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, June 19, 2014 at 6:00 p.m.
Roll -call Attendance
_X Macy Miller
O Scott Freeman
X
X Patrick Oliver
_X Steven Yearsley
Joe Marshall - Chairman
Adoption of the Agenda Approved
Consent Agenda Approved
A. Approve Minutes of June 5, 2014 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
Action Items
A. Continued Public Hearing from April 17, 2014: RZ 14-003
Kinsley by DL Evans Bank Located Northeast Corner of N. Ten
Mile Road and W. Pine Avenue Request: Rezone
Approximately 3.42 Acres from L -O (Limited Office) and R-15
(Medium High -Density Residential) Zoning Districts to the C -C
(Business Community) Zoning Districts Re -Notice and
Continue Public Hearing to September 4, 2014 Planning and
Zoning Commission Meeting
B. Continued Public Hearing from April 17, 2014: PFP 14-001
Kinsley by DL Evans Bank Located Northeast Corner of N. Ten
Mile Road and W. Pine Avenue Request: Preliminary / Final
Plat Approval of Three (3) Commercial Lots on Approximately
2.61 Acres in the Proposed C -C Zoning District Re -Notice and
Continue Public Hearing to September 4, 2014 Planning and
Zoning Commission Meeting
C. Continued Public Hearing from April 17, 2014: CUP 14-002
Kinsley by DL Evans Bank Located Northeast Corner of N. Ten
Mile Road and W. Pine Avenue Request: Conditional Use
Permit for the Following: 1) A Drive-Thru Establishment Within
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — Thursday, June 19, 2014Page 1 of 4
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.
300 Feet of a Residential District AND 2) Extended Hours of
Operation in Accord with UDC 11-2B-4 in the Proposed C -C
Zoning District Re -Notice and Continue Public Hearing to
September 4, 2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
D. Public Hearing: AZ 14-010 Archer Farm Subdivision by Archer
Farm Properties, LLC Located 4660 N. Meridian Road Request:
Annexation and Zoning of 5.2 Acres of Land with an R-8
Zoning District Recommend Approval to City Council
E. Public Hearing: PP 14-010 Archer Farm Subdivision by Archer
Farm Properties, LLC Located 4660 N. Meridian Road Request:
Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Twenty (20) Building
Lots and One (1) Common Lot on 4.93 Acres of Land in a
Proposed R-8 Zoning DistrictRecom mend Approval to City
Council
F. Public Hearing: AZ 14-009 Castle Creek Subdivision by
Northwest Ventures Located 2432 E. Amity Road Request:
Annexation and Zoning of 6.97 Acres of Land with an R-8
Zoning District Recommend Approval to City Council
G. Public Hearing: PP 14-009 Castle Creek Subdivision by
Northwest Ventures Located 2432 E. Amity Road Request:
Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Nineteen (19) Building
Lots and Five (5) Common/Other Lots on 6.58 Acres of Land in
the R-8 Zoning District Recommend Approval to City Council
H. Public Hearing: CUP 14-001 Regency at River Valley Phase 2
by Lars Anderson, Project Engineering Consultants Located
East of N. Eagle Road and North of E. River Valley Street
Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Multi -Family
Development Consisting of Ninety -Six (96) Dwelling Units on
3.52 Acres of Land in the C -G Zoning District Approve —
Prepare Findings for Approval for July 17, 2014 Planning and
Zoning Commission Meeting
I. Public Hearing: RZ 14-004 Citadel II Self -Service Storage
Facility by Citadel Storage, LLC Located East Side of S. Eagle
Road and North of E. Easy Jet Request: Rezone of 5.44 Acres
of Land from the R-4 (Medium Low -Density Residential
District) Zoning District to the C -C Zoning (Community
Business District) Zoning District Recommend Approval to
City Council with Modifications
J. Public Hearing: CUP 14-007 Citadel II Self -Service Storage
Facility by Citadel Storage, LLC Located East Side of S. Eagle
Road and North of E. Easy Jet Drive Request: Conditional Use
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — Thursday, June 19, 2014Page 2 of 4
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.
Permit for a Self -Service Storage Facility Consisting of
Thirteen (13) Buildings on Approximately 4.8 Acres of Land in
a Proposed C -C Zoning District Recommend Approval to City
Council with Modifications
K. Public Hearing: AZ 14-008 Shallow Creek by Steve Arnold
Located Southeast Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E.
Franklin Road Request: Annexation of Approximately 6.61
Acres from RUT in Ada County to the R-15 (Medium High -
Density Residential) Zoning District Recommend Approval to
City Council with no Modifications
L. Public Hearing: PP 14-008 Shallow Creek by Steve Arnold
Located Southeast Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E.
Franklin Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting
of Eighteen (18) Buildable Lots and Two (2) Common Lots on
Approximately 5.84 Acres in the Proposed R-15 Zoning District
Recommend Approval to City Council with no Modifications
M. Public Hearing: CUP 14-005 Shallow Creek by Steve Arnold
Located Southeast Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E.
Franklin Road Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Multi -
Family Development Consisting of Sixty -Eight (68) Dwelling
Units (17 Four-Plexes) on Approximately 5.84 Acres of Land in
the Proposed R-15 Zoning District Recommend Approval to
City Council with no Modifications
N. Public Hearing: PP 14-007 Timbergrove by Steve Arnold
Located West Side of N. Centrepoint Way and North of E.
Ustick Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of Twenty (20)
Buildable Lots and Three (3) Common Lots on Approximately
4.28 Acres in the C -G Zoning District Recommend Approval to
City Council with Modifications
O. Public Hearing: CUP 14-006 Timbergrove by Steve Arnold
Located West Side of N. Centrepoint Way and North of E.
Ustick Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a
Multi -Family Development Consisting of Eighty (80) Dwelling
Units (20 Four-Plexes) on Approximately 4.28 Acres in the C -G
Zoning DistrictRecommend Approval to City Council with
Modifications
P. Request for Approval to Create/Change New Development
Application Forms/Checklists by City of Meridian Community
Development Planning Division Approved
Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — Thursday, June 19, 2014Page 3 of 4
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 2014
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of Thursday, June 19, 2014,
was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Joe Marshall.
Present: Chairman Joe Marshall, Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Macy
Miller and Commissioner Patrick Oliver.
Members Absent: Commissioner Scott Freeman.
Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Justin Lucas, Bill Parsons, Sonya Watters
and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll -Call Attendance:
Roll -call
Scott Freeman X Macy Miller
X Patrick Oliver X Steven Yearsley
X Joe Marshall - Chairman
Marshall: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to welcome you to the
regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for June 19th, 2014.
And I'd like to begin by asking roll.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda
Marshall: Thank you. All right. First thing on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda
and I would like to point out, since -- Items A, B, and C are requesting a continuance
and we are going to address that with the applicant and decide whether or not to
continue that at this time. Other than that, I have no other changes to the agenda. Any
comments, questions? No? Then could I get a motion to adopt the agenda?
Miller: So moved.
Yearsley: Second.
Marshall: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say
aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of June 5, 2014 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 2 of 79
Marshall: All right. The Consent Agenda is the first thing here. I have the minutes of
the June 5th, 2014, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Any additions,
comments corrections? None? Then could I get a motion to approve those minutes?
Miller: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Mr. Chair? Go ahead.
Miller: So moved.
Yearsley: Second.
Marshall: I have a motion and a second to approve the minutes of June 5th, 2014,
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That
motion also carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Marshall: All right. We are now to our Action Items and as I just previously mentioned,
Items A, B and C we are going to open those and hear a request for a continuance. So,
anybody waiting to hear -- or address the Kingsley by D.L. Evans Bank, that will not
probably be opened for public discussion tonight. That will be a continuance hearing.
And before we begin with any of the other items I'd like to explain a little bit of how the
process works. All right. So, in the back are some sign-up sheets and anybody willing
-- wanting to testify -- willing to -- I will take anybody that's willing to testify, if you would
go back and sign your name on one of those sheets, it's just beneficial to us and helps it
and I will call those names in order when that time comes. The first thing I will do is ask
for the staff report. Staff will give a full report of how each project relates to city code,
ordinances, things like that. Their take on that. Then I will ask for the applicant to come
up. The applicant will, then, be given 15 minutes to provide any additional information
they -- they deem necessary. Then I'm going to go to those sheets in back where you
have signed your names and I'm going to call everybody up one at a time in order and
I'm going to give you three minutes each to speak. All right? Unless, of course, you're
speaking for a large group, which I will ask for a show of hands or some other method to
show that you're speaking for a large group. All right? If you're speaking for a large
group, please, indicate so when you come to the mike and you will be given ten minutes
to speak. All right? Then the applicant will, then, be given an opportunity to come back
and readdress any issues brought up during the public testimony. Commissioners may
ask questions at anytime of anybody testifying and after we are done we will close the
public hearing, hopefully deliberate and render a decision or recommendation in many
cases. And that's how the process is going to work.
Item 4: Action Items
A. Continued Public Hearing from April 17, 2014: RZ 14-003
Kinsley by DL Evans Bank Located Northeast Corner of N. Ten
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 3 of 79
Mile Road and W. Pine Avenue Request: Rezone
Approximately 3.42 Acres from L -O (Limited Office) and R-15
(Medium High -Density Residential) Zoning Districts to the C -C
(Business Community) Zoning Districts
B. Continued Public Hearing from April 17, 2014: PFP 14-001
Kinsley by DL Evans Bank Located Northeast Corner of N. Ten
Mile Road and W. Pine Avenue Request: Preliminary / Final
Plat Approval of Three (3) Commercial Lots on Approximately
2.61 Acres in the Proposed C -C Zoning District
C. Continued Public Hearing from April 17, 2014: CUP 14-002
Kinsley by DL Evans Bank Located Northeast Corner of N. Ten
Mile Road and W. Pine Avenue Request: Conditional Use
Permit for the Following: 1) A Drive-Thru Establishment Within
300 Feet of a Residential District AND 2) Extended Hours of
Operation in Accord with UDC 11-213-4 in the Proposed C -C
Zoning District
Marshall: Okay. So, I would like to start by opening the public hearing for D.L. Evans
Bank, RZ 14-003, PFP 14-001, and CUP 14-002 and I would normally ask for the staff
report, but I'm pretty sure they are going to tell me they are requesting a continuance.
So, I'm going to ask for the applicant to come up and explain why the need for a
continuance. And I'm going to have to ask for your name and address for the record,
please.
Lauerman: Okay. Denise Lauerman. 462 East Shore Drive, Eagle.
Marshall: Thank you, Denise. And so why is your project requesting a continuance?
Lauerman: They just need more time to work with the homeowners association on the
drive that gets them into the development. So, they are looking for a September 4th
date and that should give them enough time to smooth everything over.
Marshall: Commissioners, any questions? Now, I believe that -- that date that far out is
probably going to require a renoticing and you're prepared to do that?
Lauerman: Yeah. Yes, we are.
Marshall: All right. Commissioners, any thoughts, comments?
Yearsley: No. As long as it's renoticed I'm -- I think that sounds good.
Marshall: Okay.
Hill: Mr. Chair, they have already paid the fees for the renoticing --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 4 of 79
Marshall: Wow.
Hill: -- with the clerk's office. So, it's just a matter of doing the noticing for that day.
Marshall: All right. Thank you.
Lauerman: Okay. Thank you.
Marshall: So, Ted, I was going to ask do I need to open this to anybody that wishes to
address it?
Baird: No, Mr. Chair. I would just see if the Commission wants to entertain a motion to
continue to that specific date.
Marshall: Thank you. I appreciate that. So, Commission, thoughts. Anybody like to
make a motion?
Yearsley: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue AZ 14-003, PFP 14-001 and CUP 14-
002 to September 4th, 2014.
Marshall: Thank you, Commissioner Yearsley.
Miller: Second.
Marshall: Thank you, Commissioner Miller. All right. We have a motion and a second
to continue RZ 14-003, PFP 14-001 and CUP 14-002 to the September 4th, 2014,
regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
D. Public Hearing: AZ 14-010 Archer Farm Subdivision by Archer
Farm Properties, LLC Located 4660 N. Meridian Road Request:
Annexation and Zoning of 5.2 Acres of Land with an R-8
Zoning District
E. Public Hearing: PP 14-010 Archer Farm Subdivision by Archer
Farm Properties, LLC Located 4660 N. Meridian Road Request:
Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Twenty (20) Building
Lots and One (1) Common Lot on 4.93 Acres of Land in a
Proposed R-8 Zoning District
Marshall: All right. On to Item D. We are at AZ 14-00 -- 14-010 and PP 14-010, Archer
Farm Subdivision, and I'm going to ask for the staff report, please.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 5 of 79
Watters: Thank you, Chairman Marshall, Members of the Commission. The first
application before you consists of an annexation and zoning and preliminary plat
request. This site consists of 4.93 acres of land, is currently zoned RUT in Ada County,
and is located at 4660 North Meridian Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the
north, east and south are single family residential properties in Solitude Place
Subdivision, zoned R-8, and to the west is North Meridian Road and across Meridian
Road is land approved for single family residential dwellings and Amber Wave
Subdivision, zoned R-15. A Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for
this site is medium density residential. The applicant is requesting annexation and
zoning of 5.2 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district. A preliminary plat is also
proposed consisting of 20 single family residential building lots and one common area
lot on 4.93 acres of land for Archer Farm Subdivision. The proposed gross density of
the subdivision is 4.06 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the medium density
residential future land use map designation. The average lot size is 7,758 square feet.
There is an existing home, barn, and accessory structures on the site that are proposed
to be removed. Access is proposed via two existing stub streets in Solitude Subdivision
at the east and south boundaries. No access is allowed via North Meridian Road. A 25
foot wide landscape street buffer is required along North Meridian Road. There is an
existing seven foot wide attached sidewalk along Meridian Road. The Unified
Development Code requires detached sidewalks along all arterial streets. However,
because the sidewalk is relatively new and was constructed to allow safe pedestrian
access to the school site to the north and it is seven, rather than five feet in width, staff
is not recommending the sidewalk is removed and replaced with a detached sidewalk.
A six foot tall fence exists along the northeast and south boundaries and a new six foot
tall matching vinyl fence is proposed along the west boundary along Meridian Road.
There is an existing irrigation ditch that crosses this site, but is required to be piped.
Conceptual building elevations were submitted for future homes in this development,
with building materials consisting of architectural shingles, board and batten and lap
siding with cultured stone wainscot. Because homes on lots that back up to North
Meridian Road will be highly visible, staff is recommending the rear or sides of
structures on these lots, incorporate articulation through changes in materials, color,
modulation and architectural elements, horizontal and vertical, to break up monotonous
wall plains and roof lines. Written testimony has been received from Kevin McCarthy,
the applicant's representative. He is in agreement with the staff report as written. Staff
is recommending approval with a development agreement and conditions in Exhibit B of
the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have.
Marshall: Commissioners, any questions of staff?
Yearsley: Mr. Chairman?
Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: Sonya, is there an existing access to that property now off of Meridian Road?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 6 of 79
Watters: Chairman Yearsley, I believe there is. Well, I know there is. There is an
existing access to the existing home. That will be removed and access will not be
allowed to Meridian Road when this develops.
Yearsley: Okay. So, they will fix -- they will replace that section of sidewalk and curb
and --
Watters: Yes. Uh-huh.
Yearsley: Okay. All right. Thank you.
Marshall: All right. Any other questions, Commissioners? All right. Could the applicant
please come forward. And, again, I'm going to ask for your name and address for the
record, please. Thank you.
McCarthy: You bet. My name is Kevin McCarthy. Address 9233 West State Street. As
Sonya mentioned, we are in agreement with the staff report. It's a fairly straight forward
site. There is two public road stubs to the project and we are, essentially, connecting
those two roads and as mentioned we are not going to be making a connection to
Meridian Road, it is going to be just new curb, gutter and sidewalk through there. So,
really don't have much to add and I will be happy to answer any questions you may
have.
Marshall: All right. Commissioners, any questions? No? Thank you very much, sir.
McCarthy: Thank you.
Marshall: All right. I only have one person signed up, Angela Robinson? Roberson?
Robertson: Robertson.
Marshall: Robertson. I apologize. Actually, I can read it now that you have said it.
Makes perfect sense to me.
Robertson: I'm Angela Robertson. I live at 181 East Copper Ridge. So, that's the big
lot that's right next to where it will pick up, if you guys can see that on your map. When
we bought our property in 2012 to build our house there, our road sign says court. It
says Copper Ridge Court. So, that would be a dead end cul-de-sac is how it was told to
us. So, coming through there kind of -- you know, we are not big on that idea, but
another part of the idea that we aren't big on is that coming off of Meridian Road you will
have kind of a straight shot if there is a lot of traffic backing up to come through their
curve and get onto McMillan Road, which is going to cause a ton of speeding traffic.
have two young children, two and five, and we -- you know, we like the idea of a cul-de-
sac and I -- and it's just that traffic flow coming through. That's our main concern.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 7 of 79
Marshall: Thank you, Angela. Commissioners, do you have any questions for Angela?
Angela, you're right on the court that's going to be -- the idea is that would connect
through and that would --
Robertson: Yes.
Marshall: -- make your street come through.
Robertson: Yes. We have a fence there right now that goes all the way through and,
then, there is the farm.
Marshall: Thank you, Angela.
Robertson: Uh-huh.
Marshall: Appreciate that.
Robertson: Thanks.
Marshall: Is there anyone else? Angela is the only one signed up to speak. Is there
anyone else that would like to address this? No? All right. Commissioners -- well, I
need to ask the applicant to come back up and readdress -- if you'd like you can choose
not to, but --
McCarthy: I will try not to waste your time, so, again, Kevin McCarthy, 9233 West State
Street. We understand the concern there that the road is platted to continue at that
point, so if it's meant not to extend through there there would have been some kind of a
common lot or some separation there, but it was clearly said at that point to be able to
provide access to this property. So, that's all I had to add.
Marshall: Thank you, sir. Any questions?
Miller: Mr. Chair, I have a question.
Marshall: Commissioner Miller.
Miller: Are you opposed to putting a speed bump or something in there just to kind of
help slow traffic?
McCarthy: I don't -- I don't think we would be. No, not at all. It would just be working it
out with the highway district I think to make that happen.
Miller: Okay.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 8 of 79
Marshall: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: Quick question. When you went to talk to the residents around this, did you
have a meeting to discuss this and what was the reaction?
McCarthy: We did. We had one attendee and you heard from her and so that she --
they attended and told us what -- and we appreciate them showing up, but this is the
plan we chose to go with, so --
Oliver: Okay. Thank you.
Marshall: Thanks very much.
McCarthy: Thank you.
Marshall: At this time, Commissioners, I would entertain a motion.
Miller: Mr. Chair?
Marshall: Commissioner Miller.
Miller: I move to close the public hearing.
Yearsley: Second.
Marshall: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on AZ 14-010 and
PP 14-010, Archer Farm Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Marshall: All right. I'd like a quick opportunity to address this and, then, I'm going to
ask for your comments as well. Again, I do believe the original intent was to include this
as part of the larger subdivision. The city required and absolutely requires that
connectivity for EMS and fire, that you can't have one way in and no way out. It would
be too long a cul-de-sac. We have distance requirements and the original cul-de-sac
abutting this was required because the street was not continued at that time and you
had to have something to turn around and come back out. Personally, I think the
subdivision seems to fit with all the surrounding houses. I really don't foresee a lot of
people taking a cut through there to try to eliminate the corner there at McMillan and --
and Meridian. It does get backed up in the morning, but I think most of that traffic tends
to be going down to the middle school and cutting through the subdivision would cause
them to get -- go another direction than what I think a lot of that is intending to go to. Or
out towards Eagle Road. I think speed bumps are probably a little bit of a problematic
issue. I know ACHD has had a problem with them in the past, because of snow
removal, snow removal equipment and EMS doesn't tend to like them either.
Personally, I would not be in favor of speed bumps and other than that I'm in favor of the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 9 of 79
project. I feel for you, Angela. I really do. I understand your concern there, but I do
believe this was part of the intent all along and this was originally going to go this way in
the original plan. So, those are my thoughts. Commissioners?
Miller: Mr. Chair?
Marshall: Commissioner Miller.
Miller: I tend to agree with everything you just said. I appreciate the applicant's
willingness to look into the issue of speed bumps, it may or may not be advisable by
ACHD for the reasons you listed, but I certainly appreciate the willingness to look into it.
think it's a good layout. I think it makes sense. I'm in favor.
Marshall: Commissioner Oliver?
Oliver: The only thing I have to offer is that I have been in this community for 40 years
and knowing where this is, I hate to see us lose part of Meridian's heritage, which is the
Starkey farm and I understand that this meets all the requirements and that's fine, it's
just that it's kind of sad to see that we lose part of what we are known for, especially
right now we are in the Meridian Dairy Days, that was part of our history, and to see that
barn and that house being lost is really sad for our community and, unfortunately, it's
going to happen, but that's just my feeling that having grown up here it's really a sad
day to see us lose that part of what we were and to see how we are going to change,
so --
Marshall: Appreciate that.
Oliver: Thank you.
Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I don't know if I have anything new to add. I think -- I agree with everybody
else. It's a good design, it's a good layout, and, you know, it was intended to be moved
-- you know, continued through since we don't want access to Meridian, so I'm -- that's
all I have.
Marshall: Well, then, I await a motion.
Miller: Mr. Chair?
Marshall: Commissioner Miller.
Miller: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend
approval to the City Council for file numbers AZ 14-010 and PP 14-010 as presented in
the staff report for the hearing date of June 19th, 2014.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 10 of 79
Yearsley: Second.
Marshall: I have a motion and a second for approval. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
F. Public Hearing: AZ 14-009 Castle Creek Subdivision by
Northwest Ventures Located 2432 E. Amity Road Request:
Annexation and Zoning of 6.97 Acres of Land with an R-8
Zoning District
G. Public Hearing: PP 14-009 Castle Creek Subdivision by
Northwest Ventures Located 2432 E. Amity Road Request:
Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Nineteen (19) Building
Lots and Five (5) Common/Other Lots on 6.58 Acres of Land in
the R-8 Zoning District
Marshall: All right. Now I have got Castle Creek Subdivision. AZ 14-009 and PP 14-
009, Castle Creek Subdivision by Northwest Ventures and I'd like to ask for the staff
report, please.
Watters: Thank you, Chairman Marshall, Members of the Commission. The next
application before you is a request for annexation and zoning and preliminary plat. This
site consists of 6.58 acres of land, currently zoned RUT in Ada County and is located at
2431 East Amity Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north are future single
family residential properties in Messina Meadows Subdivision, zoned R-8. To the east
is also single family residential properties in Messina Meadows Subdivision, zoned R-8
and a rural residential property zoned RUT in Ada County. To the south is East Amity
Road and a rural residential, agricultural property zoned RUT in Ada County and to the
west is rural residential properties zoned RUT in Ada County. The Comprehensive Plan
future land use map designation for this property is low density residential. The
applicant is requesting annexation and zoning of 6.97 acres of land with an R-8 zoning
district. A preliminary plat is also proposed as shown, consists of 19 single family
residential building lots and five common lots on 6.58 acres of land for Castle Creek
Subdivision. The proposed gross density is 2.89 dwelling units per acre, consistent with
the low density residential future land use map designation for this site. The average lot
size in the proposed development is 8,045 square feet. The R-8 zoning is requested
rather than the R-4 district for relief from dimensional standards due to the irregular
shape of the parcel and the large area along the northeast boundary of the site, which is
covered by an irrigation easement for the Ten Mile drain. All of the building lots along
the northeast boundary have a substantial easement up to 40 feet wide in places for the
drain. A license agreement should be obtained from the irrigation district for lots that
encroach within the easement area. A portion of this site along the drain lies within the
Meridian flood plain overlay district. Prior to development occurring in this area a flood
plain permit application is required to be submitted and approved by the flood plain
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 11 of 79
administrator. There is an existing home on the site that is proposed to be removed
prior to development. Access is proposed via one public street access to East Amity
Road. Direct lot access to East Amity is prohibited. A stub street is proposed at the
west boundary for future extension and interconnectivity. A connection to the east over
the Ten Mile drain is not required on this site, as Messina Meadows Subdivision
northeast of this site is required to provide a connection to the property to the west of
this site. You can see that here in the sort of lighter area here. The master street map
contained in the ACHD South Meridian Transportation Plan does depict a north -south
residential collector street along the west boundary of the site. Because a collector
street is already planned east of this site with Messina Meadows Subdivision to Ustick
Road and a stub street will be provided from Messina Meadows to the parcel to the
west, for connection to Ustick Road, staff and ACHD do not feel a collector street is
necessary to be provided on this site. A 2b toot wide lanascape street Dutrer is requirea
along Amity as proposed. A total of 1.36 acres or roughly 20 percent of common open
space is proposed, which is over twice the amount required. As a site amenity the
applicant is proposing an additional five percent open space over the required amount
of ten percent. A segment of the city's multi -use pathway system is designated on this
site along Amity Road and along the northeast boundary of the site along the Ten Mile
drain. The pathway along the drain is being constructed with Messina Meadows on the
east side of the drain. The parks department is allowing the five foot wide detached
sidewalk required along Amity Road to satisfy the pathway requirements. Staff is
recommending a ten foot wide multi -use pathway is constructed at the southeast corner
of the site from the sidewalk along Amity north to the future pathway to be constructed
in Messina Meadows here. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for future
homes in this development, with building materials consisting of architectural shingles,
three different types of siding with stone accents. Because homes on lots that back up
to East Amity Road will be highly visible, staff is recommending the rear or sides of
structures on these lots incorporate articulations through changes in materials, color,
modulation, and architectural elements, horizontal and vertical, to break up monotonous
wall plains and roof lines. No written testimony was received on this application. Staff
is recommending approval with a development agreement and the conditions in Exhibit
B of the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have.
Marshall: Commissioners?
Miller: Mr. Chair?
Marshall: Commissioner Miller.
Miller: I have got a question. If you could go back a slide. It looks like there is a house
up there to the north that might take access through there. Maybe you touched on that.
Is that getting cut off and, if so, how do they get to that house?
Waters: Commissioner Miller, it's part of the adjacent development. Are you speaking
about this one right here?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 12 of 79
Miller: Yes.
Watters: That's part of the Messina Meadows development and it is being removed.
Miller: Okay. Got you. Thank you.
Yearsley: Mr. Chairman?
Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: Sonya, how are they going -- you know, for emergency access for a
turnaround, what are they proposing since it's not being developed to the other side, are
there any cul-de-sac or hammerheads to be designed there to meet emergency
access?
Watters: Commissioner Yearsley, Commissioners, the fire department has agreed to
not have a turnaround if the applicant provides an additional roadway width up to 36
feet for maneuvering. They believe they could use the common driveway here as a
turnaround. I have been informed that ACHD is requiring a turnaround anyway, but I'm
not sure that it meets fire department standards, so they are requiring in the staff report
that the road be widened a little bit. A couple feet.
Yearsley: Okay. So, the common driveway is going to be required to be 36 feet wide?
Watters: No. No. Just the street. The public street.
Yearsley: Okay. But didn't you say with the fire department they needed --
Watters: The fire department is requiring as a condition of approval that they add an
additional two feet to their current roadway width --
Yearsley: Oh. Okay.
Watters: --to 36 feet.
Yearsley: Okay.
Waters: It's 34 currently.
Yearsley: Okay.
Marshall: Sonya, I would ask is that back to back or face to face?
Watters: Commissioner Marshall, I believe it's back to back.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 13 of 79
Marshall: Thank you. All right. Commissioners, any other questions? All right. I'd like
to ask the applicant to come forward, please. And, again, I'm going to have to ask for
your name and address for the record, please.
Yorgason: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, for the record my name is Dave
Yorgason with Tall Timber Consulting, here representing Northwest Ventures, the
owner of the property. Thank you for allowing us to take a few moments to present to
you this little site. The site is small. It's only six and a half acres. It's a one phase
development, about -- well, it is 19 building lots and a few common lots. It's a small
parcel. It's an irregular shaped parcel. It has some large burden on the parcel. For
example, just to help staff just a point of clarification, the irrigation easement is actually
up to one hundred feet from the center line of the Ten Mile Canal, not just 40. It's 40
plus the 60. And so there is a significant burden, but we know with the irrigation district
they are allowing for a partial encroachment, because they don't need 40 feet, they just
don't ever relinquish easements at the irrigation district. So, they will allow for partial
encroachment of fencing, landscaping, as long as we give them adequate room along
the canal. I can go into more of that later if you like, but we have resolved that with the
irrigation district and, again, there is a significant burden on this site as we tried to make
this thing pencil. Also as a point of reference coming from the northwest corner of the
site is a future sewer trunk line. We have worked closely with the Public Works
Department, as well as with the neighbor to the north, Brighton Corporation, that's
phase five in Messina Meadows, which was recently approved -- the final plat was
recently approved here by the city, so we have been working with them. There is
already an easement in place or will be at the final plat stage to tie that sewer trunk line
together, which enables more already planned for developments for South Amity.
Again, the site has significant open space, about 28 and a half percent open space. We
understand not all of it is usable, but there is a significant amount through there. There
was some discussion going back and forth about pathways, where to have them, where
to not and we agree with the decision that -- the recommendation to have the pathway
there on the east side to tie into the pathway on the north side. As a point of reference
that home on the north of the canal, Councilman Miller, that home has already been
removed. We are requesting annexation, rezone to an R-8, and a preliminary plat. Just
like Messina Meadows is an R-8 to the north, we are asking for the same zone that they
are, just so we can have some relief on our lot dimensions. We are still underneath the
-- the density requirements in the low density zone in the Comprehensive Plan.
apologize. I mentioned to staff we had some discussion this morning with regard to the
staff report. I thought I sent an e-mail to you this afternoon. It did not go through and
feel embarrassed about that, but shared with her since that time that the short of it is
this: We agree with the staff report. However, we do ask for your consideration of one
item and we really don't want this project to slow down. We are really ready to move
forward on this project to enable the sewer expansion out in that area. But the
conditions -- Condition 1.1.2A -- it references the frontage of the lot requirements for the
first two lots on the east side of the entrance road Lots 2 and 3. We understand and
agree with the decision by staff that the first lot being Lot No. 2, Block 2, must have a
minimum of 50 feet of frontage. We are fine with that. However, the road does take a
bend at that point. We can see that it's not a full 90 degree bend, but there is certainly a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 14 of 79
turn in the road and if there could be at least a little bit of relief on Lot No. 3 we would
ask for your consideration. I think this Commission knows me well enough -- at least
some members of the Commission do -- that if I feel strongly about something I will
stand here and give my best sales pitch. But we do just ask for your consideration as
that would be helpful for us, because, otherwise, we have to minimize the lot frontages
on the other lots further to the west just to accommodate and we think it will make a
better project, more consistent with what's on the other side of the canal and
surrounding area by keeping our lots the size that they are. So, again, our request
would be consideration to still allow for Lot 3, Block 2, to have the minimum frontage, so
the condition would be changed to just say Lot 2 is required to have the minimum
frontage. I think I addressed -- oh, one other comment. There was a discussion about
turnaround. I have had a lot of discussion with ACHD on this issue and we received
written comments back from Christy Little and Gary Inselman at Ada County Highway
District. They are not requiring a full fire department standard turnaround at the end,
but they are requiring a modified turnaround for their vehicles at the end of the road -- at
the end of our western boundary there. With the sewer easement that we have running
to the north it will utilize almost entirely that area, so we will have maybe 20 feet is all to
the south of the road. As the remainder of what's known as the hammerhead to enable
the turnaround of their vehicles and that will not dramatically impede that far western lot,
so we still find that buildable as is and so our request is not -- is just to agree with the
staff report as written, both for the highway district and for the fire department, as we
believe that resolution has been resolved. I think that's it for my presentation. Stand for
any questions you may have.
Marshall: Commissioners?
Yearsley: Mr. Chairman?
Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: Just for my clarification on the screen that far northwestern little triangle,
that's not a lot, is it? Correct?
Yorgason: Mr. Chairman, Chairman Yearsley, that entire lot, both the green and the
yellow, is one lot. What it is trying to show there is that will be our storm drainage
retention lot.
Yearsley: Okay.
Yorgason: So, that smaller triangle would be more of a sand window, if you will. A
slightly depressed area. The site all drains to the northwest corner, but we cannot
discharge all of our water to the drain ditch, obviously, so we have to retain and meet
the highway district requirements. So, that's the purpose of that lot and the balance,
most of which we can, we will have grass and landscaping through there.
Yearsley: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 15 of 79
Yorgason: But the smaller triangle is sand.
Yearsley: Okay. And, then, back to your request. The Lot 2 you're saying will meet the
50 foot frontage requirement, but you're saying you want relief for Lot 3; is that correct?
Yorgason: Yes, that is correct. We can do that. And if we have to we will find a way to
make both lots meet the minimum frontage requirements, but just ask for some relief on
Lot 3.
Yearsley: Now, you have to indulge me, because it's kind of hard to see the plans that
we get. What is that -- what is the frontage there now; do you know?
Yorgason: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Yearsley -- sorry, you used to be Chairman
Yearsley. One of those lots is 33, the other one is 39 feet and I'm sorry I'm going to
guess Lot 3 is the 39 feet. In my mind maybe it doesn't matter a whole lot. We have to
move the lot lines, we got to make sure Lot 1 has at least 50 feet --
Yearsley: Right.
Yorgason: -- and, then, the balance would be Lot 3. Again, it's just consideration.
Appreciate your --
Marshall: I'm sorry, I'm going to carry this a little farther and consider me a little dense
guess. You have got one is 33, one is 39, it appeared all those most northern lots were
in around 60 feet -- 62 feet and I appreciate the fact that this is -- the future land use
map dictates this is -- well, suggests that this should be low density and personally I see
low density are R-2 or R-4 and I know you're asking for R-8 and that is to be able to get
those two lots and still meet the code of R-8. What frontage are we requiring on -- since
I'm talking to you, I assume you know what they are requiring -- what the city is requiring
specifically on those two frontages.
Yorgason: So, as I read the staff report they are requiring -- the staff report, Chairman
Marshall. The staff report required 50 feet of frontage for those two lots. Lot 2 and Lot
3.
Marshall: To meet the code for R-8. Yeah.
Yorgason: R-8. Yes.
Marshall: And that's the only reason we are asking for an R-8, isn't it? Otherwise, this
meets R-4.
Yorgason: Mr. Chairman, again, we are not trying to press the issue entirely, except
maybe -- and you can refer to staff if you like, but my understanding is if the street had a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 16 of 79
90 degree bend we would be granted that variance down to I think it's 30 feet of
frontage. This is not a full 90 degree bend, therefore, it's 50 feet of frontage.
Marshall: And I'm going to clarify with counsel for just a second that it's not our purview
to be able to grant that variance, that's City Council only; is that correct?
Baird: I see Sonya grabbing her paperwork. She might have a better answer than I do
at this point.
Marshall: Thank you.
Watters: Chairman Marshall, Commissioners, the code requires that lots be a minimum
of 50 feet frontage -- street frontage in the R-8 district unless they are on approximate
90 degree angle or on a cul-de-sac. The frontage of this lot is not 90 degrees and it's
not on a cul-de-sac. That's the reason for the requirement. The applicant hasn't
requested an official variance on this, but that is the reason for the requirement in the
code.
Marshall: And, Sonya, I do believe the variance goes into City Council; is that correct?
Watters: That is correct. I might mention, too, the -- the rest of the lots there -- you
probably can't see, but are anywhere from 62 to 64 feet in width. The minimum
requirement in the requested R-8 district is 50.
Marshall: So, I would ask you this: What is the minimum frontage requirement of R-4?
Watters: Sixty.
Marshall: It's 60. So, everything here meets the R-4 requirements, except for those two
lots.
Watters: I believe so.
Marshall: So, I'm still curious as to why they are asking for R-8.
Watters: Actually, the -- actually, the minimum lot size in an R-4 is 8,000 square feet
and there are a few lots that are under that.
Marshall: Okay.
Watters: Most of the lots are under that.
Yorgason: Mr. Chairman, that is correct. It's for the -- to meet the minimum size lots
out in this area. Again, we think we are asking for the same zone that's to the north.
Messina Meadows is R-8 and they are in the same -- much of their site is in the same
low density residential. I know that I'm not here to stand and argue with the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 17 of 79
Commission tonight. I do know that low density typically refers to density, not so much
of zoning, and so it's more of a question of having homes and its traffic impact in the
area, which we do comply with all that.
Marshall: Right. In fact, you're below the R-4, four units per acre.
Yorgason: We are less than three. That's correct.
Marshall: Yeah.
Yearsley: Mr. Chair, can I ask -- Sonya, now just so I clarify, if it was on a 90 degree or
a cul-de-sac that minimum width can go down to 30 feet; is that correct?
Watters: That is correct, Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: Okay.
Marshall: Commissioners, any other questions?
Oliver: Mr. Chairman, I had one other question.
Marshall: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: The lots that are close to the Ten Mile drainage, are you going to, as a
developer, fence that or is that up to the individual homeowners?
Yorgason: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Oliver, it will be a requirement to have a
fence along the rear of the lots a certain distance from the top bank of the canal and the
city has requirements as far as the four foot or six foot open style fence. We are
probably leaning towards the four foot solid, but we will comply with city code and that
would be our responsibility.
Oliver: Thank you.
Yoragson: Just the same as a regular development.
Yearsley: Mr. Chairman, I apologize.
Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley. Not a problem.
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver reminded me. So, going back to that easement with
the irrigation district. The homeowners they can have fence and landscaping within
that, but no dwellings; is that correct? Or what is the requirement in that -- in that area?
Yorgason: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Yearsley, that is correct. Fence and
landscaping, but no buildings. So, if you can -- you need to identify -- you can see the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 18 of 79
dotted line on the back of those lots, we have actually placed -- the conceptual homes
we have provided through this staff here is part of our staff report. They fit on these lots
with standard setbacks -- standard front side setbacks, though they maybe can't put
their extended patio or something out there. They can have more grass and trees back
there.
Yearsley: So, like a shed with a wood floor, is that considered a dwelling or -- I'm not --
I apologize for the -- just making sure -- understanding what is acceptable and what's
not.
Yorgason: Chairman and Commissioner Yearsley, that's actually under the
determination of the Nampa Irrigation District.
Yearsley: Okay.
Yorgason: So, I think they are going to say no.
Yearsley: Okay.
Yorgason: But that's a later stage once we have a signed license agreement with them
at that time.
Yearsley: Okay.
Yorgason: But typically they don't want to see structures in their easement.
Yearsley: Well, I just want to make sure if -- what potential home buyers buying that
property they know exactly what they are getting into is my concern.
Yorgason: And, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Yearsley, this is actually very similar to
what we did at the Jack's Place Subdivision and a few others I have done recently here
in the city wherein the irrigation easements were quite burdensome on a small in -fill
parcel and we went through the process and signed license agreements with the
irrigation district. So, we will follow the same process we did there --
Yearsley: Okay.
Yorgason: -- and we will put references in the CC&Rs at a later date to give notice to
the homeowners.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you.
Yorgason: You're welcome.
Marshall: Thank you. We appreciate that. All right. So, at this time I would like to call
up anybody that would like to speak to this project, since I have no one signed up.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 19 of 79
Would anyone like to speak to this? No. So, I'm afraid you're not going to get any
chance to address any issues, since there were none. So, at this time --
Miller: Mr. Chair, I move we close the public hearing.
Marshall: Thank you, Commissioner Miller.
Yearsley: Second.
Marshall: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on PP 14-009 and
AZ 14-009. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Marshall: Commissioners, who would like to address?
Yearsley: Um --
Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I'm sorry. You know, I think this is a -- you know, given the piece of property
-- the problems there is associated with it, I think it's a good layout. I think it's a good --
good fit for the area compared to what's going on around it. You know, there were
some concerns on the turnaround, but I'm, you know, glad that they have worked that
out with ACHD and the fire department. I'm kind of split on what to do with those two
lots on the corner. I don't know if that's our purview to modify that or if that's got to be
City Council. I will let that --
Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley, if I could -- I'm going to ask you, Ted, is -- that
variance, I believe, goes to City Council, doesn't it?
Baird: That's correct. As Sonya mentioned. So, you could certainly give your input, but
they would have to show the hardship and establish that it's pretty close to 90 degrees
and, therefore, that they would -- should be entitled to it, but it's the Council that grants
that. But if you have an opinion feel free to put it on the record.
Marshall: Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. That makes my job a lot easier. You know, I don't know if I, you
know, have an issue with it, you know, because it is fairly close to a 90 and, then, it's a
45 -- you know, you still have issues with a turn or a bend on trying to get the frontage
to work out, so I don't know if I have issues with reducing that down to the 30, so I will
leave that as my comments. Thank you.
Miller: Mr. Chair?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 20 of 79
Marshall: Commissioner Miller.
Miller: I have similar feelings. I think it's a great layout. There has, obviously, been a
lot of thought that goes into it. It sounds like the turnarounds have all been worked out.
I think it's cool. I'm in sixes on the -- those two lots up there. I don't think I have an
opinion to recommend one way or the other either. I can see both sides of that
argument. Part of me says it's -- there is no real reason you can't accomplish it, then,
let's stick with the city code. But I don't have an opinion on that I guess strong enough.
But I'm in favor of the project for sure.
Marshall: Thank you, Commissioner Miller. Commissioner Oliver?
Oliver: I'm in favor as well. I see no problems.
Marshall: Okay. I have to admit early on it's -- I don't care what happened in the past
and what was approved in the past. I'm here now and I'm looking at this and the future
land use map says this is low density. So, I was concerned about that. It is low density.
It's being billed as low density. I have reservations about approving an R-8, because if
it doesn't build out like this -- now, I know that's addressed and staff -- staff has
conditions -- tried to reassure me that it's in the development agreement, it will develop
like this, and I'm going to ask you, Mr. Baird, is there any way we could put in the
development agreement that an R-8 is rescinded if it doesn't develop like this?
Baird: No. It's really hard to conditionally zone. It has to be zoned a particular way.
I'm trying to think of instances where I might have done this in the past and I just can't
see where it would be workable. So, what you will need to do is try to tie it to the plan
that's been presented, put in specifics about the number of lots, the size of the lots, and
tie it to this plan and if it develops any differently, require them to come in and modify
the development agreement and that way it comes back to you and -- comes back to
the City Council and they will look at what was approved and why it was approved and
we think that should give you reasonable assurance that it should develop the way that
it's being proposed.
Marshall: Thank you, sir. All right. I'm in favor of it developing the way it is. There is
some hardships here with the -- with the irrigation district easement. It does -- the
density is right at -- about that three units per acre and I find that's very appropriate in
this area, especially based on what the future land use map indicates should be in this
area. I am still a little confused as to why we are doing R-8 and R-8 actually doesn't
seem to give us anything to me, because they all fit -- everything here fits R-4, except
for the two lots that they are going to have -- well, no. They are slightly less. That's
right. Okay. They are slightly less than 8,000 square foot because of the larger rear
lots. But the dwelling units per acre is still below R-4 and -- well, I am going to
recommend a positive motion on the variance for the two lots under 50 feet. I don't
know if 33 -- if they could have done one little lot line adjustment there and -- at just the
end there and split that. I don't -- 30 feet -- 33 feet should be plenty. I have seen a lot
of flag lots in the past. We allow it around a 90 degree bend and, really, I think that
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 21 of 79
solves the problem and as long as the building pad is -- is significant enough to allow
the houses there, which, obviously, it is considering that the irrigation district easement
is far behind it on those two lots. I am in favor and I would even recommend in favor of
the variance, so that's where I'm at.
Yearsley: Mr. Commissioner?
Marshall: Mr. Yearsley.
Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and no public testimony, I move to
recommend approval of -- or approval to the city of file number AZ 14-009 and PP 14-
009, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 19, 2014, with no
modifications.
Miller: I will second that.
Marshall: I have a motion and a second to approve AZ 14-009 and PP 14-009. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
H. Public Hearing: CUP 14-001 Regency at River Valley Phase 2
by Lars Anderson, Project Engineering Consultants Located
East of N. Eagle Road and North of E. River Valley Street
Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Multi -Family
Development Consisting of Ninety -Six (96) Dwelling Units on
3.52 Acres of Land in the C -G Zoning District
Marshall: All right. Got my paperwork mixed up with yours. I was just grabbing your
papers and taking them away. All right. At this time I would like to open the public
hearing for CUP 14-001 for Regency at River Valley phase two and ask for the staff
report, please.
Watters: Thank you, Chairman Marshall, Members of the Commission. The next
application before you is a request for a conditional use permit. This site consists of
3.52 acres of land. It's currently zoned C -G and is located at 2600 North Eagle Road, at
the southeast corner of the property. I would note that the property that's highlighted
here on the map is actually the larger parcel. This applicant is only purchasing the
southeast corner of this site. The map is slightly off here. It's down here. And this
reflects a little better. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is vacant
undeveloped property, zoned C -G. To the south are apartments in the first phase of
Regency at River Valley, zoned R-40. To the east are single family residential
properties in Red Feather Estates Subdivision, zoned R-4. And to the west are
apartments, again, in the first phase of Regency at River Valley, zoned R-40. This
property was annexed in 2003 with a development agreement as an annexation
pathway for Red Feather Estates Subdivision to the east here. The Comprehensive
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 22 of 79
Plan future land use map designation for this site is mixed use regional. A conditional
use permit is requested for a multi -family development in the C -G zoning district. The
development is proposed to consist of three apartment buildings as shown here with 32
units each, four stories in height, with a combination of 21 bedroom units, 52 two
bedroom units, and 24 three bedroom units for a total of 96 dwelling units on 3.52 acres
of land. Access is proposed at the east boundary right here via the future extension of
North Records Way and via two accesses to the south to the first phase of the
development and near the southeast and southwest corner of the site. Staff also
recommends cross -access is provided to the north at the northwest corner of the site
here. As part of ACHD's approval for the Village project south of this project, Center Cal
was required to extend Records Road north from River Valley to Allys when the right of
way could be acquired. The right of way was recently acquired and Center Cal is
anticipated to begin construction in the fall of this year. The applicant will not be
required to make any improvements to records abutting the site if they wait for Center
Cal to extend the road. If the applicant chooses to extend the road themselves sooner
and proceed further with development, they will need to construct the road to ACHD
standards. A 20 foot wide landscape street buffer and detached sidewalk is required to
be provided on Records Road as proposed. A tot lot with play equipment is proposed at
the northwest corner of the site. Staff recommends a minimum of two pathways are
provided to the south for pedestrian connectivity to the large common area and
clubhouse and pool and other amenities in phase one. Conceptual building elevations
were submitted for the multi -family and garage structures as shown, consistent in
design and materials with those in phase one. Written testimony received on this
application -- we only got one letter of testimony from Randy Rinlisbacher, the applicant,
in response to the staff report. He requests the following changes: To condition
number 1.1.4 in Exhibit B of the staff report he requests removal of the requirement for
a rubber playing surface to be provided. They had proposed this. That is the reason
staff included that provision. Staff is okay with the change. We have no city
requirement that requires a rubber playing surface. So, that's fine to be stricken.
Condition number 1.1.10, the applicant requests the requirement for cross -access to be
provided to the north at the northwest corner of the site to be removed. Because this
site is within a mixed use area staff feels interconnectivity should be provided to the
commercial property to the north with this site. Condition number 1.2.16, the applicant
requests removal of this condition. Staff agrees this condition was inadvertently put in.
It is not applicable to this development. It's applicable to adjacent -- development
adjacent to state highways, which this is not. And last condition number 7.1.6 they
request modification to the requirement for bridge plans for the crossing of the South
Slough at Records Road to be submitted for review and approval by ACHD prior to plan
approval and signature on the final plat. The applicant will need to work with ACHD on
this as this is their requirement. The city cannot change their requirement. Staff is
recommending approval of the conditional use permit with the conditions in the staff
report. Staff will stand for any questions at this time.
Marshall: Commissioners, any questions of staff?
Yearsley: Mr. Chairman?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 23 of 79
Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: Sonya, can you -- can you on that -- the request for 1.1.10, can you show
kind of where we are talking about where the cross -access easement is supposed to
be?
Watters: Yes. Can you see my little arrow over there, Commissioner Yearsley?
Yearsley: Yes.
Watters: Oops. Right there.
Yearsley: Okay.
Watters: So, if you look at the larger parcel, this is -- it's currently a single family
residential home right up here fronting on Eagle Road. The rest of the property is
vacant, but it is zoned C -G.
Yearsley: Okay. And, then, on 7.1.6, are we -- are you saying that that needs to stay in
place or what -- help me -- explain that I guess a little bit for me.
Watters: Yes. Commissioner Yearsley, this is a condition by ACHD. This is not a city
condition.
Yearsley: Okay. And, then, on this one here I am assuming that the -- the shaded
hatched is flood plain or is that --
Watters: That is the easement for the South Slough.
Yearsley: Okay.
Watters: Finch Lateral.
Yearsley: Okay. All right.
Watters: And that has -- that was tiled with the first phase of development.
Yearsley: Okay. That's -- that was all I had.
Marshall: Commissioners, any other questions?
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Marshall: Commissioner Oliver.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 24 of 79
Oliver: I have one -- I'm not sure how to ask this the right way, but it's 7.1.6 in reference
to the bridge. That bridge is only going to be there because of that development?
Watters: No. Commissioner Oliver, this is one of our mid mile collector streets. Allys
Avenue currently exists to the south of Ustick Road down a portion of the way and
Records currently exists at the Village project. The owners and developers of the
Village were required as part of their development to extend Records to the north to the
terminus of Allys Street for connectivity and access also to their development.
Oliver: Okay. Thank you.
Marshall: Anyone else? Sonya, I have a question real quick. Looking at this landscape
plan, I was for some reason under the impression that the slough here was tiled and it
appears the landscape plan is showing it open in portions. Is that correct?
Watters: Commissioner Marshall, Commissioners, that is not correct. It was tiled with
the first phase of development.
Marshall: All right. So, what exactly is being shown here?
Watters: Are you asking about the grayed out area?
Marshall: Yeah.
Watters: That is the easement area.
Marshall: No. No. Inside that, the dark area inside the --
Watters: It's landscaping.
Marshall: Okay. Shrubs.
Watters: Shrubs.
Marshall: Shrubs. All right. Thank you. I appreciate that. At this time, unless there is
any other questions. No? At this time I'd like to ask the applicant to come forward and
I'm going to ask for your name and address for the record.
Rindlisbacher: Good evening. I'm Randy Rindlisbacher with the Regency at River
Valley. 11650 South State Street in Draper, Utah.
Marshall: All right. Did you have anything to add to the staff report?
Rindlisbacher: Well, she did a great job of explaining what we are proposing. I guess
maybe if you want me to comment on some of these things that we have asked to have
changed to the staff report.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 25 of 79
Marshall: Please.
Rindlisbacher: The cross -access to the north -- especially because it's so far up in the
west corner, we have found that on other projects we have built in the past it tends to
open up a little more -- we have more problems with crime, as it's kind of a darker,
further back access, rather than accesses out on the public way. We do have the
access onto Records Road and, then, two accesses onto River Valley. So, three total
accesses to streets. We felt like that is adequate and we understand why -- why staff is
requiring that. We are asking that be removed. It sounds like the rubber play -- I think
removing the rubber playground is -- we are okay there, as that's not part of the code
requirement. The Center Cal -- having us submit the bridge plans to ACHD -- I spoke
with Mindy Wallace with ACHD. She understood our -- our request. She asked me if
wanted her to reissue an entirely new staff report and I said, well, let's -- I don't want to
make you do that if it -- if we are not going to have a major impact. She said, really, the
intent is -- is Center Cal is going to build their first, they will submit the plans. If you
build it first you will need to submit the plan. So, she said she would make a note in the
file and we said we are fine with that. So, we could probably just remove that from our
request here with the city and just leave it -- be happy with what ACHD is adding to their
staff report, so I think we are okay there.
Marshall: All right.
Rindlisbacher: Any other questions for me?
Marshall: Commissioners? No. Thank you.
Rindlisbacher: Thank you.
Marshall: All right. Randy, you are the only one signed up to testify tonight. Is there
anyone else who would like to like to testify to CUP 14-001 at this time? Seeing no one
there, I'm not going to ask Randy to come back up and rebut his own testimony, so
would entertain a motion.
Miller: Mr. Chair, I motion to close the public hearing.
Yearsley: Second.
Marshall: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CUP 14-001.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Marshall: All right. So, Commissioners, thoughts, comments?
Yearsley: Mr. Chairman?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 26 of 79
Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: You know, I have driven by that quite often and saw the apartments next
door that they have already built. They look very nice, very professionally done. I think
this will be just the next phase and don't see an issue with the -- with the project. So,
think it looks good.
Marshall: Thank you, Commissioner Yearsley.
Miller: Mr. Chair?
Marshall: Commissioner Miller.
Miller: I second that. I see no problems on that northwest entry. It looks to me like we
are talking about a few feet. It seems -- my guess would be that we stick with the staff
report and require that. It seems like that will help future development that way and it
seems like a good idea to keep the connection there. I'm in favor of the project.
Marshall: All right. Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I have no comment. Everything seems fine.
Marshall: I, too, am in favor of keeping the access to the north for several reasons.
One, we often want high density development to be by commercial, so that people can
get a little bit more of a downtown feel, be able to walk to work or bike to the store, that
kind of thing, close by. Relatively across the U.S. we are a relatively lower crime area
and as a city we have gotten into a habit of asking for cross -access and full access to all
of the surrounding properties and it seems to work quite well for us. It is an advantage
to both EMS and, you know, the police, ambulance, fire, things like that, and it allows
residents more areas to get in and out of their -- their facility, rather than clogging one
entrance. I know there is a couple entrances in through phase one, but this allows two
ingress -egress to phase to that are independent of phase one. So, I am -- I am also in
favor of removing the 1.1.4 and 1.2.16. And I appreciate the fact that ACHD was able to
clarify that enough and on 7.1.6 on the -- and I believe that was the city's understanding
also that whomever chooses to develop Records Avenue there as it moves forward is
going to have to build a bridge there, so --
Miller: Mr. Chair?
Marshall: Commissioner Miller.
Miller: After considering all staff and applicant testimony, I move to approve file number
CPU 14-001 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date June 19th, 2014, with
the following modifications, which would be to remove Condition 1.1.4 and to remove
Condition 1.2.16.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 27 of 79
Yearsley: Continue with your motion.
Miller: Do we need to remove that last --
Yearsley: No. No. There is -- we need to --
Miller: Oh. And recommend staff to prepare a Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law
and order for the hearing date of July 17th, 2014. Thank you, Mr. Yearsley.
Yearsley: I will second that.
Marshall: I have a motion and second to approve CUP 14-001. All those in favor say
aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
I. Public Hearing: RZ 14-004 Citadel II Self -Service Storage
Facility by Citadel Storage, LLC Located East Side of S. Eagle
Road and North of E. Easy Jet Request: Rezone of 5.44 Acres
of Land from the R-4 (Medium Low -Density Residential
District) Zoning District to the C -C Zoning (Community
Business District) Zoning District
J. Public Hearing: CUP 14-007 Citadel II Self -Service Storage
Facility by Citadel Storage, LLC Located East Side of S. Eagle
Road and North of E. Easy Jet Drive Request: Conditional Use
Permit for a Self -Service Storage Facility Consisting of
Thirteen (13) Buildings on Approximately 4.8 Acres of Land in
a Proposed C -C Zoning District
Marshall: All right. Now we have -- I'd like to open the hearing for RZ 14-004 and CUP
14-007 for the Citadel II self-service storage and ask for the staff report, please.
Parsons: Thank, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Next item, as you
mentioned, is Citadel II self-service storage facility. It's a tongue twister this evening
guess. And this site is located on the east side of Eagle Road just north of Easy Jet
Way. This property was before the Commission and Council in 2002 and received a
planned unit development for either an office complex or multi -family development and it
was zoned R-4 because of that use exception. So, although you see a low density
residential designation on this property, it was approved for commercial and/or higher
density uses in 2002. If you look at the surrounding developments to the north we have
the Silverstone business park zoned C -G. To the east we have Sutherland Farms
zoned R-8. To the south is an L -O office park and, then, across Eagle Road is another
residential subdivision zoned R-4 as well. Currently this property is vacant with no
structures on it and it does consist of two parcels. The applicant is rezoning it from the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 28 of 79
R-4 district to the C -C district consistent with the future land use map of mixed use
community. In the staff report I raised to your attention that typically in a mixed use
development we envision multiple uses occurring on the site. But if you have looked at
the amount of commercial that's in the area and the adjacent residents is you can see
the -- this is actually a transitional use and actually blends in with the surrounding
developments as far as a transition between the office and the residential and the more
intense commercial to the north as well. The self service storage facility will consist of
approximately 73,000 square feet of storage -- enclosed storage buildings, so there is
no outdoor storage proposed for this site, it will all be contained indoors. There will be
12 of those buildings and, then, one primary office building there located in the
northwest corner of the site here. As part of this development the applicant is required
to construct a ten foot multi -use pathway along the north boundary, which will tie into
the adjacent subdivisions to the east and also allow pedestrians to cross at the mid mile
next to the fire department and enter into the pathway constructed within the EI Dorado
business park. I will get into that a little bit more as I get into my presentation as far as
that crossing there, but I did want to at least get that out on the table as well. The
applicant has shown a rendering of how this would look from a street view, so you can
see here is the landscaping proposed along the perimeter of the development along the
east boundary and the south boundary of the existing six foot vinyl fencing. Because of
these -- these buildings are low profiles they will only stick up above the existing fence
approximately two and a half feet or so, so staff feels that the additional landscaping
along the south boundary -- the east boundary -- you can see the tree tops there, those
are the trees that they are proposing there along the south boundary. The applicant is
not required to put any fencing in or any additional landscaping, because of the existing
fence and because of the office use there. If you have ever driven that site you will
notice that the office park is actually -- developed some landscaping along that
perimeter as well, so that should also help screen some of that south side as well and
there is also an existing building there that will help screen that as well. Staff has
recommended additional landscaping and a solid gate along the southeast corner of the
development -- or, excuse me, southwest corner of the development here to help
screen the office part from the interior of this site and I will get into that a little bit later in
my presentation, too. The one other unique item about this item for this project is that
the applicant is choosing to use water wise landscaping. That is allowed under the
UDC. Staff has required a condition that they comply with those requirements, so the
applicant will have to work with staff and enhance this landscaping a little bit more in
order to comply with those requirements, but to staff's knowledge they are in agreement
with that condition as well. Again, here is an exhibit -- typically with these types of uses
the applicant -- the specific use standards in the UDC requires a 25 foot landscape
buffer between the self storage use and the residences along the east boundary. In the
UDC the applicant -- the applicant can seek City Council's waiver to reduce that buffer
from a 25 foot requirement. In the application submittal the applicant did provide some
written agreements from six of the adjacent homeowners along the boundary that were
in support of not only the use, but also the reduced buffer if the applicant landscaped
the plan as shown in front of you this evening and based on that written testimony and
those agreements, staff did condition the applicant to comply with that requirement and
we were in support of that ten foot buffer adjacent to the residences and they have also
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 29 of 79
provided an exhibit on how that would look and be viewed from the adjacent residences
as well. This is similar to what they did with the previous Citadel project that they
constructed on Chinden Boulevard. Here is some samples photos of the existing facility
that they want portrayed as well. I'm not sure what exactly what happened to my
elevations, but I did want to go on record that staff has recommended changes to the
submitted elevations with this application. From our standpoint this site is surrounded
by a developed office park, developed single family homes, and a high quality -- high
quality business park. So, although this project is approved on Chinden Boulevard, it's
not within the same context as this property. So, staff feels in order for this project to
better align with our design standards in the UDC we have recommended some
changes to the elevations and those requirements are conditioned in the staff report. I
did receive written testimony from the applicant. He does have -- he opposes some of
the conditions that I mentioned to you and you should have his written testimony as part
of your packet and I will just summarize what he's requesting this evening. If I can go
back to the site plan here. Currently with the development of that eastern property the
residential property, there is a common lot right here located adjacent to the northeast
boundary of this development and at the time that this Sutherland Farms came into the
developer that developed Sutherland Farms controlled this property and so when that
common lot was constructed some of those -- some of the landscaping and the fencing
was built on this property. Now that the owner -- now that we have a new owner the
applicant and the HOA is going to have to work together to relocate that fence on the
boundary line. So, in my condition of approval to you I have requested that I receive
written confirmation that the HOA is in agreement to relocating the fence. We don't
want to hold the developer hostage with the HOA, so staff is recommending that we
modify that condition to read just that they should coordinate with the HOA. Rather than
requiring written documentation, staff is asking you to modify that condition and that
would be specifically 1.2.2, bullet number one I believe. And it, basically, just -- just
change that to coordinate with the HOA and strike written documentation. The other
item is in regards to the requirements for additional land -- or building -- or design
changes to the building elevations. Staff's recommended change was that this portion
of the building adjacent to the pathway staff has required that they add another 20 foot
wide hardy plank panel there to break up the amount of metal seen from that view on
the pathway and, then, along the entire west boundary, if you can follow my cursor here.
So, we start in the northwest corner here and transverse this whole west fagade here
and even wrap it around here along the business park. We are asking that they install a
decorative cap on top of the split space box, we are asking that these two parapets be
widened from the 25 feet that they propose to 50 feet each, so this would be increasing
-- double the size of these and, then, also provide an accent band in between that, so
either mix it up with a different material, color, texture, a different block material -- just to
add some more accenting to that. Staff feels that those changes are made to this -- to
these elevations as presented to you this evening that this project would, indeed,
comply with our design standards and, therefore, we are not -- we are asking that you
not modify staffs conditions at this time. The other issue the applicant had problems
with was the pedestrian crossing along -- across Eagle Road. If you have driven that
site you know right in there there is a fire station and there is actually an emergency
signal that kind of goes to red if the fire department needs to get access to Eagle Road
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 30 of 79
and so in speaking with our fire marshal we thought there might be an opportunity for
the applicant to work with staff, ACHD, to see if we could either have that be dual
purpose light and so if pedestrians were crossing there they could actually hit a button
or signalize and, then, change that to say watch for pedestrians. At this point we don't
have an answer for that, so we are not making the applicant do anything, we are just
asking them to have that conversation with us, work with us moving forward to see if we
can come up with a logical solution. One issue might -- maybe one solution may be to
just put a sign on top of that that says watch for pedestrians across the -- across Eagle
Road there or pathway connection, watch for pedestrians and just place a sign right on
top of that emergency signal. So, again, we don't have those issues worked out yet.
We are not making the applicant do anything, we are just asking them to work with us if
and when there is a solution moving forward. And the last item the applicant wants to
discuss is the director had approved alternative compliance to reduce the amount of
parking required for this site. In my staff report I said that there would be five parking
stalls and the applicant is requesting that they be allowed to do four. Because of the
size of the office building staff is amenable to that change, so moving forward we can
support that request or reduce it from five stalls to four parking stalls. Other than those
changes staff finds that this project does comply with the Comprehensive Plan and the
UDC and we are recommending approval of the project. I will stand for any questions
you have.
Miller: Mr. Chair?
Marshall: Commissioner Miller.
Miller: I just one clarification. On the issue 1.2.19 your recommendation is to keep that
as recommended in the staff report; is that correct?
Parsons: That is correct. We haven't -- again, we haven't made them do anything, we
just want them to have a conversation with us.
Miller: Okay. Thank you.
Yearsley: Mr. Chairman?
Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: Bill, on the landscaping on the back side between the two properties we are
just looking at trees -- there is a fence -- we are going to put trees with some ground
cover so we don't get weeds and, then, the building; is that correct?
Parsons: Chairman, Commissioner Yearsley, that is correct. The agreement reached
with the homeowners or at least the documentation that I read through and how it's
conditioned is that the applicant has agreed to do trees every 20 lineal feet and, then, in
between those trees two shrubs and, then, perma bark and weed barrier and, then, you
would have the six foot fence and the back of the building and the back of the building is
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 31 of 79
not all metal -- it's predominately metal, but there will be hardy plank accent panels on
the back of that as well to kind of blend in with the adjacent residences.
Yearsley: Okay. Because I guess my only concern is the continued maintenance of
that back piece, because it -- you know, no one can see it and it ends up being a big
weed mess back there would be my concern. So, I guess with that -- I think it's -- that
answers my question. Thank you.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Marshall: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: You had another photo up there -- a picture that you put there, the Citadel with
the fencing. Keep going. Right there. So, is that kind of what they are thinking about
doing with the homeowners side or that will just be on the Eagle -- Eagle side?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Oliver, that would be the Eagle Road side.
Oliver: Okay. And facing the homeowners side would look different in working with the
homeowners.
Parsons: Yeah. I believe the applicant has a pretty detailed presentation for you, so
think he can kind of explain and show you how that would look from the resident side.
Oliver: Great. Thank you.
Miller: Mr. Chair?
Marshall: Commissioner Miller.
Miller: I actually have a question. In that picture it looks like that has banding on it in
the CMU. Is that correct? It looks like there is some lighter tan bands in it. Am I crazy
or --
Parsons: Commissioner Miller, that is -- that is not correct. It's a single block.
Miller: Okay. Weird screen then. Okay.
Parsons: Skewed.
Miller: It looks like a defined row, so it looks like there is a different color band.
Marshall: No further questions of staff? Then at this time I would like to ask the
applicant to come forward. I'm going to ask you to give your name and address for the
record, please.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 32 of 79
Conger: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Jim Conger, 1627 South Orchard
Street. I'd like to thank you, obviously, for the opportunity to present tonight. Bill has
been kind enough to get my presentation up. What I wanted to start -- and Bill indicated
what's important is this isn't our first project in Meridian. This would be the second, you
know, as far as being in the City of Meridian with the Citadel storage project. Our
design basis -- there was a lot of effort, time -- obviously it's not cheap construction that
has been put into this and do the approval process in 2013 the facility has been almost
running for a year. And that is what we based our design on. It's the brand of Citadel
storage and so on and so forth as far as the look and the design. When you come up --
you pull up it's kind of like the golden arches, you come to the same facility at either
location. Moving in to -- on this one, obviously, is our Citadel II storage that we are on
board for approval tonight. This is a similar parcel. It's five acres like the last project.
It's in -fill in nature. We are the last development. I would like to note that we are
actually a mixed use. We are just the last component of the original approval from
2002. So, the entire commercial area has two to three different types of uses on it. In
fact, we are one of the last parcels. There is a small little wedged piece to the south of
-- of the commercial as well. We are in general agreement. As Bill noted, we do have
issues. We had the one clarification and, then, the exceptions. First I will talk on the
clarification, which is the -- B.1.2.3, the 25 foot landscape buffer, we are in agreement
with the buffer. We planned around the 25 feet. We just want to make crystal clear as
we did in our application it's 20 foot common area and it's a five foot right of way that we
are apparently going through the license agreement process with the highway district.
Now, following up with the exceptions to the staff report. We are not going to beat on
item B.1.2. Bill indicated the adjacent HOA issue, we do have fence encroachment, we
are going to take care of that. We are okay with the staffs change, so I won't belabor
that any further. Next item would be 1.2.19, which was the crossing between the
highway district and the fire. We are I guess okay with the staffs recommendation. It is
a condition of approval that doesn't have to be satisfied. So, I guess I'm saying that out
loud. It's a condition that we can't or won't have to satisfy, because we can't. So, I
won't belabor that a minute longer either. Go into the architectural portion of -- of this
project. You can see the Building L, there was a 20 foot requirement, which is the --
what's circled in blue was one more. We already had Building L split into the segments
centered with the 25 hardy planks, so we already have five locations. This would be a
sixth location. We are not seeing the esthetic advantage to this. We understand the
pathway. From a vehicular standpoint you cannot see this clearly from Eagle Road.
You won't -- you won't be able to see this portion and, then, as you can see below
went down from the public street, which is this side and, then, from the private parking
lot you aren't able -- with the vertical difference and all the vegetation you can't simply
see this part of the facility. Our design elements have the block wall right here, then, we
go into the metal, then, we go to the stuccos, just -- you know, the hardy plank -- I mean
all the way around and, then, we go back to stone at that end. We don't see the
advantage for the cost that that would bring. We would rather spend money
somewhere else in the facility and there is plenty of places to do that. So, we are
respectfully requesting that to -- to not stay as a condition and we will discuss that
further I guess at the end. On the next item we will hit with esthetics is kind of the big
one. It's 13.1.2.513, which is the west elevation, which is the Eagle Road. We
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 33 of 79
understand Eagle Road. We don't see a lot of difference between Chinden and Eagle
Road. We respect both of them. They get a lot of traffic. So, our -- our design
elements, you know, as I noted we worked extremely hard getting all these elements in
the first go around through the city and getting our brand, if you will. The CMU walls are
split face. They provide that textured element and I will show that in an upcoming video
as well. And I think, Commissioner Miller, you were correct, those are accent mortars in
those walls, they are -- they are not regular mortar that blend in. That is very
specifically designed as a darker mortar to accent and pull. The walls as you will see
better in a video that I'm about to play for you, at the top has the top cap. We just do
not want -- I mean our goal at the end of the day is to blend with the environment. We
do not want to be the most noticed building on Eagle Road. We want to blend in. We
like our mortar accent. We think we achieve the look -- well, we know we achieve the
look. We think we achieve the UDC and what the city is after with our accent mortar
and our effort to just being seamless and clean, timeless, clean architecture. We are
not trying to be Disneyland or any other type of top cat program. With that said, we did
hear staff's early comments and you will see our office design right here. Without
discussing much with staff, that was one area we thought we could do better. This
design is a little hard for you to read, but that is the new office design. We went with
more of a barrel roof, which you will see is on our first facility and we actually did the
pop out as you can see on this part of it right there, We to kind of come at Eagle Road,
to give another element. So, we heard staff loud and clear. We don't agree with the
cornices, the top cap, the bands -- colored bands, not colored bands, but we heard
them and we thought we could do better with the office and that was only submitted
back in with my letter as far as the office design. So, that is within the last week and
redesigning it for the last three weeks, but we just submitted it back in last week. So,
we heard loud and clear Eagle Road to get a little better. We think the only place we
could be better is with our office and the changes you see here with the barrel roof are
significant economically, but we felt them to be as a good point out of the staff and we
went to work on that. I'm going to leave Eagle Road and really go to the gates of the
facility, which is B.1.2.5C, all gates shall be of solid material. We respectfully request
that that's not possible with our entry gate. There is not an entry gate on a typical
storage unit. We have people coming out, people coming in, they need to see what's
coming at them. We believe the way we have orientated this, whether we are straight
on or not, we would still be having to have an open gate. It's really not an option from a
functionability and safety standpoint, but we do not see any line of sight from Eagle
Road. You will barely be able to clip it their depending on -- you know, hopefully, our
office will be so staggering they are looking at the office anyhow, but they are also
driving 40 miles an hour. We definitely -- I mean I hate to be so brazen it's almost not
up for debate, but an open type fencing has to be at the front gate. We request an open
gate as well on the back, but we could respect the city if we need to put some
ornamental sheet metal of some sort to the exterior of this gate to make it solid. You
will see in the video I'm about to play our units they are pretty spectacular on the inside.
It's all inside storage. We don't really want to hide much, because it's all pretty
spectacular. With that we don't -- I guess we really don't have a choice on the entry
gate. We could listen to you on the -- on the emergency gate, although we feel it should
be open and viewed. Moving into -- we will stick slide seven here. The ultimate plan for
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 34 of 79
the parking -- actually, staff already committed for. We think it may have just been a --
counting them up wrong, because I did the same thing twice. The way the handicap is it
actually looks like two stalls and it's really one stall. But ours is great. We won't belabor
that an ounce. I think at this time if Bill would just play the video for me. What I did was
-- we know you don't have time to go look at every project when it's done. I thought we
would bring the project to you and kind of run through it. We are going to start at the
office, our entry, the office, the barrel roof, the gas station type design, just everything.
Our developer is extremely picky when it comes to architecture.
Lucas: Jim, would you use the pointer for us up there?
Conger: Love to.
Lucas: The restore ink at the top, turn it on an arrow, rather than a -- it's a button at the
top.
Conger: I got it.
Lucas: There your go. I think we are --
Conger: It's a minute thirty. It won't be too long. Again, our entryway, our office. You
will see the mortared -- textured mortar. You can now see our blocks. We do have the
block wall, you know, the tops, the parapets, we just don't have the colored accent
bands and don't want it. You can see our water wise landscaping, environmentally
sound methods that we are requesting in this proposal as you heard from Bill. Here we
are coming in the entry. It's kind of clean. You can see our wall, it's very textured. You
can see our open gate facility, but that -- that split face block does have the top cap.
Going in our facilities are clean. This facility has almost been operating a year. This is
the first time the owners even seen this video. He didn't know I took it. It wasn't prep'd
for it. We are coming up, just showing how clean the system is. We are going to
actually turn the corner and show you our ten foot setback from the residential
neighbors, which is what we are also requesting. You can see the trees, the
landscaping, the perma bark, how clean it was. I think one last time I'm coming in just
to show you how clean the facility is and kind of bring you coming out, you know, one
final look and, then, we will exit to the facility. Again, our block walls, the spectacular
office, everything somebody should be looking at when they are driving up Eagle Road,
there is our open gate, our four parking spots and just the clean office. Everything is
clean. Everything has got a complete purpose from the one employee's parking spot in
the back. I think that hopeful is -- my whole point of that was to give you our design
thoughts and elements that went into the first facility. We want our second facility to not
only be as wonderful, but identical. We did add some additional things on Eagle Road,
so it probably is a step up from Chinden. We have been functioning a year. There is no
neighbor complaints. We think we are a wonderful addition to the neighborhood and a
wonderful addition to the last little in -fill parcel. I think the fun little things to note -- LED
lighting, water wise environmental friendly, clean architecture and things of that nature.
With that I will stand for any questions.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 35 of 79
Marshall: Commissioners?
Miller: Mr. Chair?
Marshall: Commissioner Miller.
Miller: I have got one question. Did you use a quadcopter to take that video?
Conger: Yes, we did.
Miller: I thought so.
Conger: In a very windy day.
Miller: It was good.
Marshall: Anything else, Commissioners? I did have one question. You keep saying
that we wanted it to be identical to Chinden, but yet you completely changed the office.
Conger: Yes. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it is. We completely
changed the office, but we went back to the barrel roof. We thought Eagle Road
needed -- couldn't take a rectangular building, needed the pop outs and things of that
nature to kind of -- from what we heard from staff. So, we went back to the barrel roof.
We were never happy with that office. That's why we heard staff and went back. But,
yes, we are looking for the same brand and same look if someone pulls up and says
that's Citadel or that's Citadel.
Marshall: All right. Thank you.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Marshall: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: So, I will address the question and answer earlier. You are working with the
homeowners association in regards to the fence, the way it will look? Butts up against
their subdivision, so you will get a different look than what we are seeing here.
Conger: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Oliver, we just have the tie in for that fence. Is
that what you're indicating? Where it comes onto our private property?
Oliver: Yes.
Conger: Yes. And that is our storm drain lot. So, that is actually going to be the start of
our ten foot reduced setback area that we are also landscaping and I think you will hear
from some neighbors hopefully next after me that are in support of the project, but want
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 36 of 79
to make sure we secure that, you know, people on the -- that regional pathway do not
walk up in there. So, yeah, we will have to modify their fence a little bit and we will
actually put a gate that's locked, we will only open it when we go to maintain our ten foot
strip, which will be maintained on a regular basis. You can see from our other facility
we don't let weeds grow and we don't like dirt and tumble weeds building up.
Oliver: Thank you.
Marshall: No other questions? Thank you, sir. Mr. Conger.
Conger: Thank you.
Marshall: Appreciate it. All right. I do have two people signed up to testify. I'd like to
call up Ed Williams, please. Mr. Williams, I'm going to ask you to give your name and
address for the record, please.
Williams: I'm speaking for four other residents.
Marshall: All right.
Williams: If they could raise their hand or --
Marshall: Yeah. If -- are they here?
Williams: Are they here?
Marshall: Yes.
Williams: One is and the other three aren't. I have their names. Do you need their
names also and addresses?
Marshall: That will work. Thank you. You can read their names --
Baird: Names, but no addresses. That's fine.
Williams: My name is Ed Williams. I'm at 2517 Legal. The other residents -- Kathy and
Bruce Eardley, John Wilson, Gene and Sherry Stucki.
Marshall: Good. Thank you, sir. And the folks back here as well.
Williams: I'd just like to address some concerns. First of all, we are in agreement with
the project, so there is no issues there, but, like I said, there are some concerns and we
would like to see possibly some modifications if they can be approved. So, the first
concern would be the actual initial grading and compacting of that area being so close
to our -- our homes there. I know there were some issues with the Bear Creek One
situation with vibration, foundation cracking, I heard that was quite a -- quite an issue.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 37 of 79
So, I'm not real aware of that, but that would be a concern in how that -- you know, how
they proceeded with that and the reason being -- my home -- I'm at the northern most --
on the northern most property on the eastern boundary and those three -- three or four
homes we are all on fill dirt there. So, all those foundations are real deep. They have
gone down to native to get to those. So, my foundation depth wise, I have like double
stem walls. I'm about five foot deep back there. So, in my opinion that would be real
susceptible to, you know, vibration or heavy equipment. So, I'm not sure of the remedy
of using lighter equipment as we get closer to the homes to grade or whatever --
whatever compaction techniques they would use I'm not sure, but that is a concern. So,
don't know. That's kind of up to planning and how that thing is engineered and, you
know, if you guys can kind of handle that. Okay. The next issue is the setback. We --
we were shown examples of the ten foot setback and the two trees for every 20 feet
and, you know, we just figured that was actually the requirement, but in looking at the
application I noticed on page six on the C -C standards, the setbacks, the landscape
buffer to residential is actually 25 feet and that ten foot is a proposed setback to the
developer. Correct? So, we would like to see that moved out. Anyway, that's -- just to
be -- you know, compromise is fine, you know, it doesn't have to be 25 feet. But, you
know, in our estimation we would like to see like 15 to 20 feet or whatever. If it doesn't
impact him too much, if it could be -- you can, you know, rearrange the dimensions
within the unit or tighten up the road -- I don't know. That's kind of for, you know, them
to figure out. But we would like to see that increased. The other issue was mentioned.
We would like to have no access to that buffer zone there, especially from the canal, the
walk path, that could be sealed off and also from people using the actual, you know,
facility. And, then, the -- the final grade on page eight of the application there is a
depiction there of the residential storage unit, somebody -- a visual -- you know, the
height and everything. And in this -- I don't know if this is just a typical depiction for this
purpose of the visual situation, if that's actually going to the final grade, but if that were
to be the final grade level with our -- our structures, okay, we would lose about two feet
off of our rear fence with our property stepped down in the back. So, if that grade were
to be as shown there, we would lose two feet of our height off our fence. So, the
developer did kind of assure us that it would be -- that wasn't so, but that's why I'm here,
just, you know, seeing if -- if that grade does change from our existing grade, we would
like to see a six foot minimum -- you know, either adding to our fence, a new fence, or
whatever, we would like to see that maintained to six foot height, not just for protection
into our properties there. How am I doing on time?
Marshall: You have plenty of time.
Williams: Okay. As far as the landscaping is concerned -- if we had issues in the future
-- let's say those trees die in three years, I mean do we have any recourse to say, hey,
you know, we want a new tree or maintain or what -- how does -- how does something
like that play out? Is that -- can you answer me now or --
Marshall: I'm sorry, right now we can't answer your question. We are just taking the
testimony and we will try to address it --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 38 of 79
Williams: Okay. So, that's another issue, just how that works, if there are issues with
trees or, you know, that type of a thing. We are -- there is some concern on the -- on
the drainage on that and how that's going to work if -- you know, if -- we are kind of --
I'm kind of a low point back there. There a lot of different elevations there where the
ACHD pond -- the canal, their property. I mean it's really complicated right in my -- my
lot there. So, if that thing -- if it wasn't engineered correctly and a drain clogged or
something, I mean it could be serious -- for me back in that corner and, actually, we
would have the residence also, but kind of especially for me. So, we just -- that would
be consideration to just really -- you know, the engineering has to be really tight on that.
Also two things did come up in the presentation. That fence area that they are talking
about with the HOA, the pond -- so I understand -- so, that's on our -- that's on their
property and has to be moved or -- was that -- I don't know if that was an issue or not. If
you can't talk, so -- anyway. I'd like to have that explained a little further. If they have to
move that or the HOA has to move that, because that also kind of concerns me right in
that corner there, because we have a lot of trespassing in that little -- in that pond area
with people off the path and stuff like that, so as long as they would, you know, maintain
that -- that fence along there just like it is, if it does have to be moved. And there was --
there is -- this is kind of a big thing, but the rear of those units -- I thought I heard that
addressed. What do they look like? Like the fronts? The metal sheeting, the brick or
whatever and ideally -- I mean I know this is probably a lot to ask, but ideally for
protection it would be nice if that -- the back of those units were really all blocked, you
know, in theory or if that metal was kind of, you know, upgraded for safety reasons,
because all you have to do is Google safety -- you know, storage unit explosions,
contraband, there is a lot of nasty stuff in those units, so -- and with not much
protection. So, like I said, that would be a lot to ask, but that would be kind of a safety
concern on that. So, anyway, that's about it.
Marshall: Commissioners, do you have any questions for Ed?
Miller: I do.
Marshall: Ed, can I have you return, please. We have got some questions for you now.
Right now we are going to get some back and forth. Sorry. All right. Commissioner
Miller, if you would, please.
Miller: So, this is going to be in response to the setback thing. It sounds like there was
six letters received that said it was okay with the ten foot setback and I think what I
heard from you is that you're not actually okay with the ten foot setback and you did kind
of a range of you would be okay to 15 to 20 feet setback.
Williams: Yeah. We -- I'm sorry. We did sign that and, then, I did reread it and it says
reduced to ten foot, but I didn't -- we didn't really know that there was a 20 foot -- 25 foot
was the standard under the zoning.
Miller: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 39 of 79
Williams: It was just presented this -- well, you know, this is what Chinden looks like, it's
-- it's ten feet, we can get two trees, we said, okay, that's -- I guess that's -- that's how
it's going to be. So, when I was reading that, like I said, I saw the 25 foot, I thought
well --
Miller: So, just for the record here I want to ask you kind of -- and I don't know if you're
qualified to answer for all six of those letters or whatever. You gave the 15 to 20 foot
range. I can guarantee you they will go with the minimum. I just want to follow up to
find out a little bit what -- what is the range you're okay with on that setback?
Williams: Well, I was hoping for some debate with the applicant and -- to see what can
they live with, what can be, you know, arranged through, like I said, changing
dimensions within the unit. You know, I mean we don't want to take money out of their
pocket, we understand if they have to shrink all the units up, but if something can be
done, what are they willing to go with. I mean ideally -- let's say it was 25 feet, that's
great. I mean I'm sure everybody would like that. There is a reason for the 25 feet.
Miller: Okay. The other question I had -- and I don't know if you're qualified to answer
this one either -- has to do with moving that fence and the HOA -- it sounded like in the
presentation that that was covered through the HOA fees and it sounded like from your
testimony that you're expecting them to cover it. So, I just want to kind of bring that
issue to light, too, so that maybe they can address that. But are you --
Williams: Well, maybe I wasn't clear on that. I just -- this is kind of --
Miller: Okay.
Williams: I thought that concerns my property, too. And I have had people back there
and trespassing and I thought what are they going to do with that fence, you know, what
is it going to look like when they are done. Is it going to be maintained? Is it going to be
six foot vinyl just like it is only have to be moved over or whatever.
Miller: Okay.
Williams: If the HOA is responsible are we going to get into a thing of, well, the HOA
doesn't have any money, you know, or change it, you know. So, I was kind of just
concerned about that.
Miller: Okay.
Williams: In respect to --
Miller: That was all of my questions. Thank you.
Williams: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 40 of 79
Yearsley: I -- excuse me. I have --
Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I have one quick question for you. Bill, can you go to the house view of the
back lots?
Marshall: Perspective?
Yearsley: Yes. Right there. So, on this picture here you're saying that your house is
actually two feet lower than what is being depicted there now?
Williams: The grade back there -- okay. Right at that -- right at the property line there
where you have the arrow --
Yearsley: Right.
Williams: Okay? That -- you know, that's two feet lower.
Yearsley: Okay. So, your fence is higher and, then, it kind of slopes down and goes to
your house.
Williams: No. The grade from the -- from the foundation to that fence line we have
some -- we have a small retaining wall built up there on the very -- by the property line
and, then, the vinyl fence is right there.
Yearsley: Okay.
Williams: Right where you have the arrow right there --
Yearsley: Uh-huh.
Williams: It's -- yeah, it's two feet -- that's not grade. Go two feet below that arrow and
that's where grade is.
Yearsley: Okay. So, it would be a more visual impact to you guys? All right. That's
what I just wanted to clarify what you were saying.
Marshall: Now, you have raised a question for me. When you say you have got some
concrete block to bring it up to grade that the fence is on, is the top of the fence at this
height and your grade from the back of your house goes straight out to the bottom of
that fence and, then, it drops off on the other side or does it drop from your house down
two foot to the bottom of the fence?
Miller: Can you draw what it looks like?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 41 of 79
Williams: My side of the fence -- okay. There is -- there is a little retaining wall about
two feet, then, the fence is down there -- like I said, it's two feet lower. So, in my
backyard I only have six foot of fence right there, I'm already down -- I'm looking at
about four feet of fence, because the other two feet is on, you know, like --
Marshall: Got you. And the retaining wall is on your side of the fence?
Williams: Right.
Marshall: Got you.
Williams: Right. So, that was my point. If this were to be final grade right here, they
would be going up two feet. Okay. So, then, I would have -- from their side it would be
a four foot high fence. Right now it's six feet from their side.
Yearsley: Okay.
Williams: So, my concern -- I mean if they want to change grade, that's not really an
issue, but -- but according to, you know, the gentleman I spoke with, he said that the
grade was going to remain the same. But that's -- you know, that's the only reason we
are here. I mean that's stated, but when this is all said and done if I have a five foot
fence back there and now what do we do, well, you should have addressed that at the --
at the hearing, so --
Yearsley: Absolutely.
Marshall: Thank you, Ed.
Williams: Thank you.
Marshall: All right. I have Mike Darr. Give your name and your address for the record,
please, I would appreciate it.
Darr: My name is Mike Darr. I live at 2631 South Legal Avenue and I also am in
support of this project. I think it's -- I think the way that the applicant has presented his
plan is very appealing to me and to several of my neighbors. So, the only clarification
that I'd like to see would be some simple things and the -- the guarantee that we are not
going to have a lot of lighting come into the backyard, if there is any lights that are going
to shine on our backyards at night in excess and also the size of the trees that are going
to be planted, because they will also need to -- you know, to grow so that we can have
the protection and privacy and so what size tree are we going to start with. That's all
had. Thank you very much.
Marshall: Commissioners, did you have any questions for Mike? No? Thank you,
Mike. All right. I don't have anyone else signed up to testify, but is there anyone else
who would like to? And I'm going to ask your name and address for the record, please.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 42 of 79
Centers: Commissioners, my name is Jake Centers, the owner of the property,
actually. 1979 North Locust Grove is my address. So, I guess I'm going to take a little
offense here to the previous -- not Mr. Darr, but Mr. Ed's presentation that they were
misled about the setback issue. Clearly in the letter it states reduced setback. There
was specific conversation about the options with this property and one of the options --
and it's still on the table -- is I will come back with three story apartments and put those
20 feet off that property line. So, that was the choice that they were presented with was
apartments. Multiple storage, we will hit that setback requirement, or I can come in -- if
you give me the reduced setback, I will come in with storage units, because I own
apartments and I own storage units, so it doesn't matter to me. And everybody that
signed that letter said, yes, we would prefer storage units on this site. We will give you
the reduced setback. So, there was no question that we were talking about reduced
setbacks. It's in the letter and I said, you know, we would do the reduced setback to ten
feet, I will do this on this landscaping, I will make the back side of it look nice.
Commissioner Oliver, I don't know that your question has actually ever been addressed
as to what the back side of the units are going to look like and what it is is it's the metal
siding that you see at the front, that's the 20 foot section of prefinished integral color
hardy plank siding that protrudes off the wall about six inches and it is -- at the height of
the roof just projects right over the back side of that. So, it's not a protrusion up above
the roof line and so that's what the back side of it looks like to get some relief to the
back side of the units. But, anyway, I guess I'm just kind of in shock right now about
that there wasn't clear communication on what we were asking for with this reduced
setback. We did the same thing on Chinden with the ten foot setback, you know, really
it's unusable real estate. Real estate is really expensive and, quite frankly, the project
barely pencils as it is with what we had to pay for the ground in this location typically
you see these storage units out, you know, in farmland. So, we are trying to provide a
service to people that live close proximity to this project. We had to pay a little more.
We are making it look really nice. But we need to be able to use every ounce of this site
that we can use. Giving up ten feet to increase setback takes out a whole row of my
units. So, this stuff gets rented by the square foot and every square foot matters. I
mean this is not -- you know. So, that if we are talking 25 foot setback, we can probably
put the pencils down and we will see you in a couple months with some apartments.
So, I was very clear with the residents in the very beginning of this process about that.
Marshall: Well, we are out of time. Commissioners, do you have any questions?
So, I do, sir, and -- sir, you have already testified. So, your proposal was give us what
we want or we will give you something you really don't like?
Centers: Hey, it's -- I gave them the option as to what the possible uses for this
property were. Right?
Marshall: I appreciate your --
Centers: We heard previously that apartments were a potential use for this property.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 43 of 79
Marshall: I understand that.
Centers: So, I was trying to work with the neighbors and say what would you guys
prefer. That's how it was phrased with the neighbors.
Marshall: If they took it the way I did I would be very offended. Just letting you know,
sir.
Centers: Well, that didn't appear to be the case when we had multiple meetings and
none of this discussion was taking place at that point.
Marshall: As you approached me as you presented to me, sir, you said either give us
what we are asking for or I'm going to bring something in that you really don't like and
I'm offended by that.
Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall, I agree. I was offended as well.
Miller: What offended me was you said you didn't really care what went there. It's one
or the other. It means you're not invested in the community.
Centers: Oh, well, hey, time out. I mean I'm born and raised in this community. Built a
lot of property, take very good pride in what we do here, so I am not -- I take offense at
that. So, I didn't mean to offend anybody here. I was just simply -- look, I was trying to
work with the neighbors on this to say what would you guys prefer. We can do
apartments. We can do storage units. But in order for this to pencil as storage units I
need to be able to use the maximum amount of property that I can use, which means I
need to get the reduction of the setback. So, it was not a threat, it was not meant to
come across like that. I don't feel it did. I went door to door at least on two occasions to
the neighbors to have specific one-on-one conversation with them. We had one, maybe
two, but for sure one neighborhood meeting to talk about it. So, I just want to be clear
that I was not trying to be misleading to anybody at any point along this process. I was
trying to be accommodating and trying to work with the neighbors like we always do and
come up with a project that would, you know, fit within the neighborhood and that we
would get along. So, I know how this works. I mean you show up and you got a lot of
opposition, probably not going to get your project approved. So, I'm sorry if I -- I'm just
a little upset right now that we are here in public hearing and we are getting some of this
that, well, I didn't know what I signed stuff.
Miller: I have got one more question.
Marshall: Commissioner Miller.
Miller: Can you go back to the site plan of this? So, I'm trying to find a middle ground
here. It looks like that last drive aisle is a little bit bigger than the rest. The range that
they gave you was they would be comfortable with 15 to 20 feet. If you gave them
another five foot could you make this project pencil out?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 44 of 79
Centers: I'm not sure what difference that the five feet makes to them. It makes a huge
difference, you know, to us. I mean, like I said, it's -- it's all by the foot. You know, am
willing to forego the entire project over a five foot setback, you know, I don't know. I'm
just pretty frustrated that we are to this point after all the work I have done and meetings
and signed off and we do all this extra stuff and, then, now -- you know, I feel like I'm
getting reneged on here to be asking, you know, sign off -- have an agreement and,
then, now being asked for, you know, additional footage, so I guess I'm not totally
prepared to answer that question right now.
Miller: Okay. Thank you.
Marshall: Commissioners, anything else? No? All right. Thank you, sir. No, I'm sorry
sir, you have had your opportunity to testify. I can't have any testimony from the
audience. I'm sorry. And I'm going to have to ask the applicant to come back up and
address anything here.
Conger: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Jim Conger. 1627 South Orchard
Street. I will first address, Mr. Chairman, your kind of question on the threat, because it
clearly was not -- what we did at the start of this project is -- this property was being
purchased by this land developer no matter what. Typically speaking you see us in
front of you a lot with residential development. We do not buy the property until we
have the approval. This property was purchased. This developer does own
apartments. This developer does own the Citadel storages. It's going to be developed.
We knew it could get approved either way. It was a pretty expensive per square feet
piece of property. When we go through an approval process such as we are going
through we will spend anywhere 25 to 35 to 40 thousand dollars. We wanted to be
crystal clear that we had neighborhood support with this reduced setback or we weren't
going to do the project. We would not go spend 40,000 dollars to get in front of you and
have a roll of the dice, because you can't give up the five feet. It will lose a row and we
will have to do a different project, because this one will not pencil. As I said earlier, the
other facility is on five acres. It's 81, 83 thousand square feet. This facility is on the
same five acres and we are -- we are all a little flustered, so I'm not recalling. We are at
-- how many square feet, Bill?
Parsons: Seventy-five thousand.
Conger: Seventy-five thousand. We are 8,000 square feet less, same amount, different
price point, because we are on Eagle Road. So, I guess I want to be crystal clear this
process went through the neighborhood meetings of zero threats, it was simply we don't
want to spend 40,000 dollars to come here and gamble, we will do apartments and we
are fine with that. We did the ten foot setbacks on our previous facility. Again, we
would be coming in with three story apartments, because of the price of land and we
would go with the normal setbacks identified by the UDC. So, clearly no threat, we just
did not waste 40,000 dollars, which we may have, but we will get through the night, we
will go to Council and, then, we will have to decide, of course. So, with all due respect,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 45 of 79
definitely went through it with no threats and as you can see we did submit -- 1 have
hard copies I can give you of the six individuals that did sign. It definitely is reduced. It
is definitely clear about the two -- two inch caliper trees. I know it was identified what
would be allowed or what size trees would come. So, I guess quickly addressing the
neighbors, grading and cracking, we are definitely light construction compared to
Walmart. We definitely are used to doing in -fill type scenarios. We very much value
that concern and have the same concern. So, we have done our soil tests, we did the
geotech, we own the property, we know what we have to deal with, light construction.
Again, that setback of ten foot, I am shocked as well. This agreement was signed. I am
not sure all parties are being represented by one individual. He says they are and we
will respect that, but that has not been the case. As far as block off the back common
area and keeping people from the regional pathway, I have already indicated before the
meeting that that would be acceptable. Our grades will match his fence. So, I think the
grade was a big discussion. Of course we are going to have to match their back
property line. His house is two foot elevated. I don't see the concern for drainage if he
is truly two foot elevated. But, again, our units aren't matching his house. Our units in
grade and file will have to match the back of the property and so it's zero issue. Again,
we are just coming back in, this is the last -- one of the last components of the multiple
uses and I think if I could go, Bill, to my PowerPoint really quick and I will conclude my
program, so I will go to my -- thank you. I will go to my slide nine. What I propose to
give you tonight is what we would like for a proposed motion. Again, our issues are only
clarified where we wanted the 20 foot wide landscape buffer in bullet one. Just a
clarification. We do -- would like to delete Section B 1.2.2, the fourth bullet item, which
is the HOA. Staff already modified that one. There is no issue. Staff already indicated
that's changed. The applicants coordinate. I say delete it. It's a condition that doesn't
have teeth, so that would be fine as far as those two. North -- well, this one would be
modified per staff. North building elevation in B.1.2.5A, that additional 20 foot hardy
plank, we don't see the advantage esthetically to that, so we have asked to delete that
section A, B and C. We do believe in our architecture that you saw in our video -- our
grouts, our top caps, everything of that nature that we have submitted on this was built
in the 2000 -- from the 2013 approval, so both of those. The gate -- we still -- in this
case I'm asking for the removal of the solid material. I can see a few -- if you want to
debate it, certainly on the emergency I would stand to your guidance on that. And, then,
the alternate compliance staff already -- already said four, so I don't need to belabor
that. With that I will stand for any questions.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Marshall: I'm sorry, who is asking -- Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: Thank you. I have one question for Mr. Conger when you're ready. In regards
to the storage units that will buffer up against the homes, the question was brought up
as far as -- if they need to be reinforced and whatnot. I assume that fire code has
already taken care of those units, that that's under fire code, that they are structured a
little bit differently; is that correct or not correct?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 46 of 79
Conger: Yes. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Oliver, yeah, we do have fire code to
adhere to. We do have very strict requirements for what can be stored in them.
Everybody says, well, you don't know what's stored in your facility -- no one has a
bigger investment than our owner in the sums of several -- and, then, a few more million
past that. No one wants the unit blown up. So, they are monitored, they are, you know,
looked at on a regular basis, basically, but, yeah, they -- we have got all the building
permit process, we have to go through the fire code process.
Oliver: So, the structure is the same for all of them, it's just that fire code deems that it's
-- it's built in a certain way. It's not built differently from the ones that border the homes
versus the ones --
Conger: Right. Mr. Chairman. Yeah. Commissioner Oliver, yeah, that is correct. It --
the fire code is the same whether it's a front unit or the back unit, it goes through the
same checklist.
Oliver: Thank you.
Conger: Thank you.
Marshall: Commissioners, any other questions?
Yearsley: I just have one.
Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. One of the other comments was the lighting and
making sure that we try not to light the backyards. Can you address that one as well?
Conger: Yeah. Commissioner -- Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Yearsley, yes, we are --
definitely hear that loud and clear and very cognizant of that in any of our projects. Like
indicated, we are using LED, which is a little sharper. Everything is the down lighting.
The lighting inside the facility that we have done and will do on this one are all,
basically, on the units themselves, they are not pole -- nothing pole driven. We do have
a requirement for street lights along Eagle, that's a different story, but, no, there will be
no up lighting and lighting stays within the drive aisles period.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Marshall: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: Again, going along those same lines, it was regards to the landscaping of the
trees, well, what happened if the trees died or something of that nature in the
landscaping, would you take care of that situation or would that just be something that
would stay?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 47 of 79
Conger: Well, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Oliver, yes, you know, we do have product,
landscape guys, we maintain it and replace it. We have a commitment to these trees in
the back. Now, if one keeps dying over and over and it's evident someone's been
Rounduping it or something that's usually a different story, but that only happens in odd
occasions, but does happen. But yes.
Marshall: I think that's it. Thank you, sir.
Conger: Thank you for your time.
Miller: Mr. Chair?
Marshall: Commissioner Miller.
Miller: I move to close the public hearing.
Yearsley: Second.
Marshall: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on RZ 14-004 and
CUP 14-007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman?
Marshall: I am --
Parsons: Bill.
Marshall: Bill, how are you doing?
Parsons: See my head bobbing around here.
Marshall: Yes, sir, Bill.
Parsons: Just for clarification and ease of your motion, my planning supervisor and
have discussed that we would be in support of striking the HOA requirement and also
the requirement for the coordinating on the ped connection -- or ped solution with ACHD
or at least for that crossing along Eagle Road. As the applicant stated, it's a condition
that he can't comply with or it's just going to run with the land and never be done.
Nothing is going to come forth -- happen with it. So, it is a condition you can't comply
with. It makes no sense. So, we are in agreement with that. One additional item that
heard this evening -- I know my recommendation in my staff report stated that we want
two solid gates. I think I am amenable to allowing the open gate for the entrance and,
then, solid gate up against the office park as testified by the applicant, that he would be
willing to work with us on that. So, I'm amenable to that change, too. As far as all the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 48 of 79
other requirements to the design I think, again, staff is staying with their
recommendation in the staff report.
Marshall: Thank you, Bill. Commissioners, any questions? All right.
Yearsley: I --
Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I want to just verify with legal. At this point the 25 foot setback on the back or
the ten foot setback or the reduced, that is not into our purview at this point; is that
correct?
Baird: That's correct. That's a variance matter for the City Council to decide.
Yearsley: Okay.
Baird: You can certainly give your opinion.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Miller: Mr. Chair?
Marshall: Commissioner Miller.
Miller: This is kind of surprising for me, because I hate the concept of a storage unit,
just because we as a society have so much stuff we can no longer keep it in our
houses. That is ridiculous to me. That being said we need it. There is a use for it. You
can capitalize on it and it's good. This location seems appropriate for it. I appreciate
the dialogue that's happening. It sounds like it needs to be worked out more. That
being said, I do -- I don't like the way it was approached and I can respect that it was
just a conversation here and that I'm sure -- you know, tempers are a little bubbly right
now. I can see how the situation may have been presented as you have this option or
this option, not you have this option or this, you know, storage unit which has a 25 foot
setback as well. You were just presented that as a storage unit with a ten foot setback,
but ultimately it's the homeowners that get to decide if that's okay or not and if it wasn't
presented to them at the time it's hard for them to know that and so my suggestion to
you guys over here would just -- if you can present them their entire option you can
mitigate this situation from happening. That being said, for the homeowners, based off
of this one testimony it sounds like the storage unit might still be the preferred option,
even with that setback. They said they are good with 15 to 20 feet. That's five foot. It
seems -- I know it's by the square foot, but that seems like it's an okay middle point.
would like to be able to see that work. It sounds like everything is good, other than the
esthetics, which I'm also going to oppose, because I actually would like the esthetics, for
hating storage complexes as much as I do, this is the nicest looking storage complex I
have seen. The one piece that I do agree with is that the block can be wider. I don't
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 49 of 79
necessarily agree with the banding either in it, because right now it looks nice, it looks
modern and contemporary. I don't like it being compared to a McDonald's, but I don't
think it does compare to a McDonald's. I think it looks nice. I think it's a nice
development. Overall I think the neighbors would like it, it's just this one sticking point,
which we really have no say in right now, other than a recommendation and my
recommendation on that would be to move that to a 15 foot buffer. If that can pencil
out, that's great. If it doesn't, then, that's better than a denial. You guys can make that
decision. That's my opinion on it.
Marshall: Thank you, Commissioner Miller. Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I have to admit I'm glad I don't have to vote on the setback, too, at this point.
Given the testimony that I have heard today I'm trying to calm down a little bit. You
know, when I initially saw this project I like the idea, I like the concept. I didn't -- you
know, I drive Eagle Road every day, so I will be seeing this every day and I think it will
be a good project. It's understandable. At this point I would recommend that the
applicant go back to the owners and work out whatever they would like to work out and
come up with a unified -- you know, something that will work for both of you. You know,
would hate to see it get killed because of the setback. So -- but I think we tried to
address most of the comments that were here today and that is as the homeowners,
you know, come back for the City Council meeting as it comes forth, so -- but I do agree
that with the conditions for making the block a little wider along Eagle Road I think it will
break up the metal fascia a little bit better. So, that's kind of where I'm at.
Marshall: All right. Well, to start with I'm actually -- don't know what an additional five
foot of setback is going to give you when you're actually closing it off completely. It's
going to be closed off for security purposes, things like that, so I -- you know, this is only
a recommendation to City Council on the setback there. If it were 25 foot maybe there
would be a difference, but ten foot -- and, to be honest, taking 25 foot out of that really
takes a lot of floor space and it probably wouldn't pencil out. I get that. Commissioner
Miller, I respect your taste in architecture, you are a fine architect, and I like your opinion
in most cases. In this case I'm not a modern -- in fact, I actually -- I do like the new
version of the office, I like the one on Chinden. I like the arched roof, all that, I'm just
not fond of the wall as much. But I'm not -- you know, block looks nice and I like the
banding on the block, but I agree by expanding it out to 50 as opposed to 25, 1 think it
would look significantly -- it would significantly improve the block and as opposed to
having just long bands of the corrugated metal. I appreciate the fact that we have --
again, that's taste and things like that and a lot went into that. What staff is doing is
their recommendation is based on committees that have developed how they would like
to see architecture developed and thank God they don't leave it up to me, because I
would mess up architecture something fierce. But, yeah, everything would look the
same and would all be bland. But there was committees that went into this and
developed the guidelines for that and staff's recommendation is trying to keep within
those guidelines and I appreciate that and I do -- I do very much like expanding the
width of the block to be able to break that up some more. I don't know about additional
bands and the letter in response talked about color bands and I don't know if that was
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 50 of 79
necessarily what was intended, maybe misinterpreted, but simply a different type of
broken face block or something that would look a little bit different in a band of
something somehow to mix that up and I appreciate what they are doing, that is what
the guidelines that were developed by committees were trying to do and so I'm not the
expert in that area, so I'm going to drop it there. I do appreciate the fact that -- there is
nothing you can do about explosion proof, things like that. I do appreciate you
addressed the two inch caliper trees in back. Drainage overflow, the designs have to be
stamped and approved by ACHD, by city -- by engineers and it has to show that
drainage will not affect you or they will end up being liable, so I'm pretty confident that's
going to be taken care of. Vibration -- year, you're not building a facility the size and
structure of Walmart where you're driving piles into -- this is a much smaller structure in
that regard and while there probably will be a small amount of vibration when they are
putting down the pavement and the like, it shouldn't be anything close to what a large
facility like Walmart or something like that should do. I would like to see some writing
and I would recommend not striking and provide written documentation, even trying to --
-- please forgive me. Thought I had that off. I would like to see some written
documentation as to trying to work with and coordinate with the homeowners
association on what's going to happen there. I agree it's private property, you can
remove the stub or whatever, but I would like to see some neighborly movement there
and try to say, hey, this is what we are likely to do. We are taking this property back, so
what would you like us to do with this fence. How much of it do you want us to remove?
I appreciate you putting in the fence there -- in there and maybe some written
communication, either through e-mail or whatever, so documentation that we are trying
to communicate and would appreciate that. That's my feeling on that. I think it's just
simply a good neighbor issue. That's all it is. I thought I turned it off. Yeah. I think
most everything has been addressed there. Again, I am going to reiterate, though, I
don't like the fact that anything might be addressed that you either give us what we want
or we are going to bring in something that you really don't like. Yeah. And we can turn
all of that down, too. So, you know, I know you can request three story apartments
there. That's going to be requested and the city also has the opportunity to turn it all
down. So, I'm just saying I don't -- I think we as citizens -- and that's all I am. I'm a
citizen. I'm not paid to be up here. I'm a neighbor trying to do the best I can trying to
help us all out. I do have some land planning experience and structural design
experience and this is about being neighborly and trying to work out what's best for all of
us and while no one person gets to win all the time and everything goes their way, it's
about trying to work together to get the best city that we can and that means being
neighborly and helping each other out and I do appreciate what some of the neighbors
had to say about, well, I know that's -- that's going to be expensive property and that's
going to be hard to get it to pencil in and we understand that and we are willing to work
with you and I do appreciate that. So, that's all I have to say.
Miller: I have got one question.
Marshall: Commissioner Miller.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 51 of 79
Miller: And I'm going to stick up for them just a little bit here, because that band I think
will ruin the look if -- and it's a little thing. I would hate -- you know, they are not going to
stop the project from going forward because of a band of CMU, but I will put my two
cents in, but I think that the band is a bad idea. I think the width does need to be
widened, but since that's looped into one of these things I don't know how to handle that
in a motion. But that's my two cents. If we have to accept it as it is and go forward.
Marshall: Actually, if you were making the motion, Commissioner Miller, you could
remove simply that portion of the verbiage that you would prefer to see out, then, that's
your choice.
Miller: Is that -- I mean that's not really my role, because that design --
Marshall: Yeah. Well --
Lucas: Mr. Chair, do you mind if I weigh in?
Marshall: Please.
Lucas: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, you know, design is one of those things
where there is some nuance to that and our code recognizes the nuance and
sometimes people have a different opinion. If the Commission decides to remove that
requirement for banding, it's totally within your purview and staff will take that back
forward to the City Council, just like any other condition of approval and I don't believe
that significantly modifies staff's, you know, recommendation. The banding. I would like
you to be, you know, pretty clear in your recommendation on the design elements. If
you disagree with the banding, then, remove it. If you disagree with the decorative cap
remove it. If you agree with the width, include it. And so if you can hit those items kind
of item by item it's just helpful to staff when we are making our -- taking forward your
recommendation to Council that we have those things clearly stated and we bring the
design forward. We do our best to represent what the code requires, but certainly that's
why we bring it to you is for your input, your expertise and for you to make those
recommendations to the Council. So, I thank you for looking at that so carefully.
Marshall: And, fortunately, for me it's going to have to be one of the three of you
making that recommendation. Somebody here is going to have to make that motion.
Miller: Can I talk about it with you guys a little bit?
Marshall: Sure.
Miller: The only design criteria that I think needs to be modified is the width of the CMU.
think pretty much everything else is going to take away from the esthetics of the -- the
clean water and I know you're not into modern, but it is good to have variety in a city.
dig it. I don't dig storage units, so it's very weird for me to stick up for it, you know, like
say, it's -- you don't want to call attention to it either and this is a really nice way to make
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 52 of 79
it clean and simple and you're not going to notice it. It's not going to be an eye sore.
My two cents, the only thing that needs to be modified is the width of those.
Yearsley: So, now just so I understand, the banding is, basically, just color block in the
middle of the --
Miller: That's right.
Yearsley: Okay.
Miller: And it sounds like they have got variation in their grout. I don't buy into that it
looks like a stone wall or anything. It's a CMU wall. But they are okay, too, sometimes.
Marshall: Commissioner Miller, what about the top cap? I think that will do the same
thing. I think you just want it to be the plain -- it's plains colliding. I think it sets anything
you mess with that and it's going to make it look like something it's not and it's just --
Yearsley: You know, I think I'm okay with not having the band, but I would prefer to
have the top cap on it.
Miller: I will push on that one. I can understand that.
Yearsley: Okay.
Miller: Okay. You want to go?
Yearsley: I'll --sure. Mr. Chairman?
Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: At this time I would -- after considering all staff, applicant, and public
testimony, I move to recommend file number AZ -- or RZ 14-004 and CUP 14-007 as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July -- June 19th, 2014, with the
following modifications: Delete Section 1.2.2 and delete Section 1.2.19. On Section
1.2.513 to remove the accent banding and, then, on Section 1.2.5C to have the entry
gate be open, but have that south entrance to have a solid entrance gate. Is that clear?
Miller: We are also modifying the parking; right? No? Okay.
Yearsley: Yeah. That one does not have to do with us.
Miller: Okay. I second that.
Marshall: I have a motion and a second to recommend to City Council approval of RZ
14-004 and CUP 14-007 as modified in the staff report. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed? That motion carries.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 53 of 79
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: Mr. Chairman?
Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: Do you mind if we take ten minute -- five minute break?
Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley, I was about to recommend that we take about a five
minute break and -- just a few minutes here. Be right back.
(Recess: 8:27 p.m. to 8:37 p.m.)
K. Public Hearing: AZ 14-008 Shallow Creek by Steve Arnold
Located Southeast Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E.
Franklin Road Request: Annexation of Approximately 6.61
Acres from RUT in Ada County to the R-15 (Medium High -
Density Residential) Zoning District
L. Public Hearing: PP 14-008 Shallow Creek by Steve Arnold
Located Southeast Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E.
Franklin Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting
of Eighteen (18) Buildable Lots and Two (2) Common Lots on
Approximately 5.84 Acres in the Proposed R-15 Zoning District
M. Public Hearing: CUP 14-005 Shallow Creek by Steve Arnold
Located Southeast Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E.
Franklin Road Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Multi -
Family Development Consisting of Sixty -Eight (68) Dwelling
Units (17 Four-Plexes) on Approximately 5.84 Acres of Land in
the Proposed R-15 Zoning District
Marshall: All right, ladies and gentlemen, I think we still have a couple more projects to
get through, so we are going to try to wade through those this evening if we can and so
I would like to put us back on track here and I would like to open the public hearing --
call us back to order and open the public hearing on AZ 14-008, PP 14-008, CUP 14-
005, all for Shallow Creek by Steve Arnold and I'd like to ask for the staff report, please.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Next project before
you is the Shallow Creek project. The applicant is asking to annex and zone the
property with the R-15 zoning district to develop 17 residential lots with 68 four-plexes.
The property is currently zoned RUT in Ada County and consists of approximately 6.61
acres of land. Surrounding this development we have R-40 to the west, which is
basically an ACHD detention pond. To the north we have vacant commercial property
zoned C -G. To the west we have county parcels zoned RUT and it's actually a pasture,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 54 of 79
there is horses on the ground and, then, to the south we have an LDS stake center
that's currently zoned C -N within the city. Here is the arrow on the site. You can see
here that there is not much developable area. In my staff report I did mention that this
site is within the flood plain and also the flood way and so if you're looking at this aerial
you can see this line, the dirt area would actually be flood plain and, then, the
undisturbed area would be the floodway as depicted here, or at least as it's shown on
the FEMA map here. So, any -- as Sonya mentioned in her previous development -- or
presentation to you, any work or anything -- construction on this site will have to get not
only the city's approval, but the -- also the Army Corps of Engineers because of the Five
Mile Creek running through this site. So, as I mentioned to you, the site will consist of
18 buildable lots and two common lots. The site does consist of approximately 3.85
acres of open space and the main reason for that is because of the floodway on the
site. And as I get to the landscape plan you can see what the applicant is proposing to
do to create an amenity for this development moving forward. Density on this property
is approximately 11.6 dwelling units to the acre, which is consistent with the requested
R-15 zoning designation. Like the previous development, this is a mixed use
community designation on our future land use map. Again, because of the topography
on this site and the site constraints due to that floodway and flood plain, it's really not
feasible to develop this site with anything more than a single use and that's what the
applicant is proposing this evening. One access is proposed via Locust Grove and,
again, because of those site constraints staff is not recommending or requiring any
cross -access to the adjacent properties. Here is the landscape plan. As I mentioned to
you we are looking at approximately 3.85 acres of open space. All of these units will be
four-plex units, approximately -- approximately between 800 and 1,000 square feet.
Unit mix includes two and three bedroom units. As presented to you this evening the
site is deficient a few parking stalls. When the applicant submitted their site plan they
did not take into account the required parking for the clubhouse amenity and so in
speaking with the applicant he assures me that he can accommodate additional parking
on the site and not really disturb the design as presented to you this evening and the
project is conducive to meet all parking requirements of the UDC. A planned amenity
for this site would be the clubhouse. There are various sitting areas along -- throughout
the development. The applicant is actually proposing 11 bike racks planned throughout
the development as well to handle additional overflow for biking -- bike parking. The
applicant is extending the ten foot multi -use pathway through this development as well,
which is an amenity. Again, there is an abundance amount of open space which also
counts towards an amenity for the development as well. So, as I mentioned to you
previously, the applicant will have to get city's approval and the Army Corps of
Engineers for any improvements or enhancements to those areas and staff has
recommended that that change happen prior to submitting of a final plat. My
recommendation this evening would be that we change that language to say prior to city
engineer's signature on the final plat that they have those approvals in place. That
gives them a little latitude to work with those entities moving forward. Here are the
proposed elevations. The applicant is proposing a mix of wood siding materials with
banding. Two different elevations for this site. Currently as shown on the site plan the
applicant intends to construct the same building form on this site, but play with a mix of
materials on it to give it a different look. Because we do not want monotonous
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 55 of 79
development in the City of Meridian, we have conditioned them to provide three different
designs -- keep the same building form, but provide three different designs, play with
those materials and mix them up on each facade to give the four-plexes an individual
look and I think I have -- I have some elevations -- some color elevations from his other
developments within the valley that demonstrate what we are seeking as part of our
recommendation this evening. So, you can see here some of the mix of material on the
units and how he played with colors. And, then, in particular this unit -- or at least the
four-plex area in the lower right-hand corner here you can see how each fagade has a
distinct elevation with different building materials and I think that's what we are looking
for, that mix, give each unit -- each entry a different look, so that it looks more
individualized and less like an apartment complex, but more like a townhome
development. In the upper left-hand corner is the carports that they are proposing.
There is a condition in the staff report that those carports be color match to compliment
the development, so we will look at that at design review. And, then, here is the
proposed clubhouse. Again, we have a condition that requires them -- as presented to
you this evening you can see they are only proposing one mix of siding material. We do
have a condition that they incorporate additional siding materials on this to compliment
the development as well. Here is the proposed sitting areas or gazebo areas
throughout this development. Staff believes this will blend in with the development, as
well as enhances it. So, we have required that they comply with not only the open
space that they are proposing, but also the amenities that are presented to you this
evening as well. I have received written testimony from the applicant. He is in
agreement with all the conditions in the staff report. To staff's knowledge there aren't
any outstanding issues before you this evening and I'd stand for any additional
questions you may have.
Marshall: Commissioners, any questions of staff?
Yearsley: Bill -- or Chairman.
Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: On the plat itself are those individual lots that they are on?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Yearsley, that would be -- well, that is correct.
Each four-plex would be on its own lot and, then, the clubhouse will be on its lot. So,
that's why you get 18 buildable lots, but 17 four-plex dwellings.
Yearsley: Okay. So, with that could the four-plexes be sold off to individual owners?
Parsons: They could and staff has a condition in the staff report that the entire
development be managed by one -- one entity, one HOA.
Yearsley: Okay. That's all I have.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 56 of 79
Marshall: Then I'd like to ask the applicant to come up, please. And I'm going to ask
you to state your name and your address for the record, please.
Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, for the record my name is Steve
Arnold. I am with A -Team Land Consultants. Address is 1785 Whisper Cove, Boise.
83709. And I have not prepared any elegant report. I think Mr. Parsons is a better
public speaker than me and I don't care to put anyone to sleep, but what I would like to
elaborate more on is the building and some of the intentions that we have for the
building fagade. If you can pull up the color renderings are great. And, then, our plan
with what we are doing in the Five Mile Creek floodway. I believe we are going to come
back and do another LOMAR, which will revise the flood plain and which will pull out all
the buildings out of the flood plain, so there is not a flood insurance requirement. I'm
working on a project between Five Mile and Cloverdale that is also on the File Mile
Creek and we are going to try to enhance it as much as the Army Corps of Engineers
will allow. That being said, I know there was a condition in some of the -- the deciduous
trees. We remove -- you know, we will comply with staff requirements on that.
However, if anything grows in there we are not going to removed it. Hopefully we can
get -- you know, it's an issue I have with the Army Corps is, you know, all throughout the
valley we have got trees and stuff in the floodway that change and, then, as soon as
development comes in I can't enhance it with additional landscaping. But I will work that
out with them. These buildings -- they are a pinwheel type design, so each entrance
and each unit is, basically, it's own entrance. They can be very easily condo'd, but for
financial reasons we are just platting the individual building right now to allow for -- a lot
of these are older, retired people who will buy the whole unit and, then, rent the other
three as income producing property, so they are highly maintained. I know this isn't a
decision or a reason for the decision body, but these are a high rent -- they are between
925 to 975 rental units. The insides are -- there are fireplaces, nice facades, granite.
The maximum height of these are 28 feet. They are allowed to go 35 feet, but we tried
to make them blend in as more of a single family type of a unit or a townhouse type unit.
The developer of this unit -- they have a patent on the actual footprint and the
architectural design. Each unit has a single level and, then, an above -- one bedroom
above with a bathroom, so you don't have different -- different owners living above you.
So, each unit it's own second story. There are no second story balconies, so when we
do back up to existing single family or whatever, they don't have people looking over
into their backyards. The color scheme -- I just found out tonight that staff is
recommending three. Our client uses six different color schemes throughout the
development. There is -- he's done other projects -- I think McMillan and -- or McMillan -
Linder area, so this is a similar project that the Commission has seen before them. So,
that being said I will stand for any questions.
Marshall: Commissioners, any questions?
Yearsley: Mr. Chairman?
Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 57 of 79
Yearsley: So, from what I understand the owner is planning on selling these individual
units off; is that correct?
Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Yearsley, I don't know or he doesn't know,
probably, what he's going to do in the next five years, but he likes to have the ability to
sell one or two of the units off to owner -occupied investor type. So, it -- no, I believe it's
initial intention is to hold and rent.
Yearsley: Okay.
Arnold: But we want to have the ability to sell off an individual unit.
Yearsley: Okay.
Arnold: And that's the only reason that we are platting.
Yearsley: Right. Thank you.
Marshall: Any other questions? Thank you, sir. Appreciate that. All right. I do have a
couple signed up for this. I'd like to call Helen Sharp, please. And, Helen, I'm going to
ask you to give your name and address for the record when you get to the mike, please.
Sharp: Helen Sharp. 2170 East Springwood Drive, Meridian.
Marshall: Thank you.
Sharp: And looking at the schedule here or the -- I'm a little concerned to the little
strings that I would bring up parking when there are other issues that are maybe going
to be brought up by other members of the subdivision and we are the Greenhill Estates
just west of the subdivision and since we use Locust Grove a great deal we want to
make sure there is no parking. My question to the -- those responsible for the building
of this -- if they have got 68 units are they allowing for that much parking? We saw one
shelter there, so to speak, of one parking avenue and we know what happens when
there is no parking for the people that live in the units, they want to park on the street
and, of course, there is no parking on Locust Grove, because of the traffic and all. I'd
like to see them work a little bit more and I'm surprised that they contact those of us in
the subdivision surrounding them as to what our thoughts were about this. I'm going to
relinquish my time, because I know there are others that are going to speak on issues
I'm concerned about and that's low income, the water, the sewer situation, the
annexation, of spot annexing. I'm not in favor of that, or course. And, of course, we that
live in that area would like to see it remain just residential and I don't mean apartment or
multiple unit. Thank you.
Marshall: Any questions for -- no? Thank you very much. All right. I'd like to call Dale
Sharp up. And, Dale, although I assume you may have a similar address, I'm going to
ask you to state it for the record, please.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 58 of 79
D.Sharp: 2170 East Springwood Drive, Meridian. I'm not in favor of this project
development. What we have now is single family residents and our Greenhill
Subdivision stretches from practically Locust Grove up to Eagle Road and, then, we
have the subdivision south of Greenhill estates -- that buts up against the Greenhill
Estates, that's all single residents. Now we are proposing that we have 68 units there,
four-plexes, and contract and he's saying that they might sell these off, you know, so
that they can rent them out and sell them off and all we have is just a mess going in
there. There is no guarantee that it's going to be one owner. It's just not compatible
with what we have now and people come in our subdivision, they say, boy, we really like
this, what we have, and we don't have businesses, except for a small portion up on
Eagle Road on the corner of Eagle Road and Franklin and, then, over on the other side
there is some business over there, but down here it's all single residents and I'm not at
all in favor of this.
Marshall: Commissioners, any questions? No? Thank you, sir. All right. I'd like to call
John Duncan, please. And I'm going to ask for your name and address for the record,
please.
Duncan: My name is John Duncan. I live at 289 South Thornwood Drive and my
questions are what assurance do we have that these apartments will not become low
income, because -- and will they be maintained. There are several examples of
apartments in the Boise area that have the -- been let go and drag down the
surrounding neighborhoods, like Allumbaugh and Phillippe. Let's see. And, then, if this
-- this is approved what's to say that the nine acres do not become high density housing
as well? That separates where these apartments are and my house. Let's see. As far
as the siding -- we just saw the pictures of it -- they already look cheap. There is no
rock, no accents, no brick, nothing like that to make them look more valuable. And my
final question is how would the Council members like to have that in their backyard.
Okay? Thank you.
Marshall: Any questions, Commissioners? All right. Thank you. Mary Ann Duncan
crossed her name off, so did she want to testify or not? From the audience she says
not at this time. All right. Is there anyone else that would like to address this project?
Your hand's up. Please come on up and I'd like you to give your name and your
address and tell us what your thoughts are.
Tullup: Brad Tullup. 1821 East Franklin Road. And I happen to be the one that has the
horses to the west, which is really nice -- you know, people have kind of lost what
Meridian is all about. You know, they move here because we have all this and, then,
people come in and try to change it all. Now, I'm going to wake you guys up to a whole
bunch of stuff on this project that you're going to be really interested in. That was all
flood plain. Eddington owned it. Nothing was ever supposed to be built there, because
it was all flood plain. That is in the corner next to where the church is and Nathan
West's house. They put ten foot of fill in there. Now, I seen truck rolling in and this
goes clear back when Kelly Fulfort hauled it in for Superior and they had a project going
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 59 of 79
on out at Mountain View High School. That whole area there -- all that dirt they wanted
a place to put it. They bought that lot just to put all the fill in there. They started hauling
fill -- probably 80 belly dumps in there and I raised the question how are you guys able
to do that when I put a dump truck of dirt down there and I get all kinds of nasty letters?
Well, they told me they had all the permits and everything. So, I called the City of
Meridian and tell them what's going on and they said they don't have any permits.
What are you talking about? So, they go out there, take video cameras, everything,
pictures, shut them down, everything ceases for about a month and, then, all of a
sudden everything comes back and they start hauling dirt again. How that was ever
able to be filled in the first place just blows me away. I went to a FEMA meeting tonight
in the courthouse at Boise, brought this up to Jerry, who was in charge of all that, and
he said, well, if that's Ada County they can't do that, but if it's City of Meridian they can.
Well, it's still Ada County and they did it. So, I don't understand how that was ever able
to happen. So, that's the history of this project. They took and did a study, forced part
of the flood plain over on our property, because the study they did. Now, Ada County
did the Franklin Road widening. They have raised the road four foot where it had a dip
or the natural runoff of all that if it flooded, went across Franklin Road and kept going
down. Previously Mr. Barry filled all that where it was Madden's ranch the four 80 acres
over next to Balsilite. If that floods now with them putting all the fill in there, it's going to
back up and flood me out. And my question to the new owner was who is going to pay
for it when that happens. Now, when Ada County did the widening of Franklin Road
they took and said because they are raising that they are going to put X amount for the
bridge. Well, I told them I want them to sign a piece of paper that they are liable if I get
flooded out, they doubled it. So, I guess that's my concern to get to that point. So,
there is a history of it. Now -- I guess I'm running out of time. But the other concern I
have is fencing for our horses, stuff like that, if this project proceeds, because that's a
real concern, because we own to the middle of the creek. Okay? And they own to the
middle of the creek. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time.
Marshall: I appreciate that. Did you have any questions? Anyone? No? Thank you
very much. Appreciate it.
Tullup: You bet.
Marshall: All right. Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this? Yes. Please
come on up. And, again, I'm going to ask you to state your name and address for the
record.
Hensman: Melanie Hensman. I live at 145 South Thornwood Drive in the Greenhill
Estates. I think it's very appropriate that we are having this public hearing preceding
Meridian Dairy Days and the history of Meridian. And three years ago when my
husband and I were looking at property, we were very specific in our location. I was
raised in McCall. I'm a county gal and he was raised -- from Colorado and we looked
and looked for pieces of property which had a wetland, which had open fields, large
trees, and a community that was welcoming and our property -- if I may use this pen?
May I? Okay. Our property --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 60 of 79
Marshall: I think you have to touch the color at the top. Clear at the top of the machine.
Hensman: This?
Marshall: Clear at the top of the machine. Touch a color.
Hensman: Oh, a color. Thank you very much.
Marshall: Doesn't seem to be working. I think I gave you poor advice. Oh, there it is.
Hensman: I think -- okay. So, this is where I live. On an acre and it's a beautiful
country home. We have this acreage here where we have constant wildlife. Geese.
Ducks. To my understanding there is also a fox and skunk. You know, we smell that
often. My concern that I want to address today is the wildlife and how this is going to
impact it. This Five Mile Creek, okay, that runs here, we have a drainage here from that
and, then, we also have this other drainage that the previous speaker spoke about if this
drains or floods, it will create some issues for him. That is our concern, too. That is my
concern, too. I really wanted to state if there has been a study on the wildlife, because
will tell you as I drive out past this, specifically in the spring, early summer, my children
-- my small children have mentioned to me where are all those geese that used to lay
their eggs up in the high pasture before the landfill was put in place and there used to
be lots of geese in here and now because of the backfill, okay, or filled with dirt, that's a
better word -- now I'm having to go to different locations, you will see them over here,
you will see more of them right up against the street and also into his property more.
So, they are not nesting in this open grass field in the flood plain as much, so that is my
concern when you talk about bringing in more housing. So, I would like to address that.
Marshall: Commissioners, any questions? Thank you.
Hensman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners.
Marshall: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like to address this
project? Well, then, I would like to ask the applicant to come back up and ask him to
readdress any of the issues that he feels he'd like to address.
Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, for the record again Steve Arnold,
A -Team Land Consultants.
Marshall: Thank you.
Arnold: I guess I will start with the flood way and flood plain first and, then, they -- it was
back in about 2008 the previous owner did do a letter of map revision and there is a
letter of map revision revision filed with FEMA that went through the city. It did go
through the correct channels. It may have appeared that it stopped and started, and I
am not privy to what had occurred back in '08 on the property, but I have -- I have
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 61 of 79
personally researched the LOMAR and it was done per FEMA's code and the City of
Meridian's codes. Addressing the value of these apartments, I mean the -- I -- not just
that it's my client that I'm working for, but I can't think of any other nicer apartments in
the valley that have been done. I can cite several projects that, you know, the
neighborhood could take a look at and they are a high end product. He gets a high rent
and, therefore, it's expected that the property and the maintenance of the facility is
maintained. Should any one unit be sold off for whatever reason, it would all be
mandated and controlled over one homeowners association, just like any other
subdivision would be. As far as the use, I think we are adjacent to two fairly major
arterial roadways. I think it's a compatible use for what has been approved and what's
existing in the area. I apologize if I didn't include the neighborhood associated further to
the east -- or, yeah, further to the east. Honestly, I didn't think that there would be any
concerns with this property being as far away as it was and I was aware of a storage
unit going in between, so I -- you know, there is, eventually, going to be an even further
buffer. Parking. If -- these sites that my client builds, because they are higher end, you
don't get a lot of parking. We are meeting all the parking requirements of the city and,
then, we are going to add additional parking. So, we don't anticipate any parking out on
the street. It's not allowed, for one, and because it is mandated by this association
you're not going to have a bunch of extra cars that are there. I mean these are usually
two unit -- there are two unit apartments, so we don't expect more than one to one and
a half cars per unit, so I think parking is addressed through city code and what staff is
recommending. I guess with that I would stand for any other questions that the
Commission might have of me.
Marshall: Commissioners?
Yearsley: I have none.
Marshall: Well, thank you, sir. Appreciate that. So, with that, Commissioners, could
get a motion?
Miller: I move we close the public hearing.
Yearsley: Second.
Marshall: I have movement and a second to close the public hearing on AZ 14-008, PP
14-008 and CUP 14-005. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Marshall: All right. Thoughts. Would anybody like to begin? Commissioner Miller.
Miller: Mr. Chair. While I appreciate the comments from the neighbors, I want to make
a few points. This is still in a relatively downtown area. There is going to be where
development happens, so we try to control the type of development that happens. And
it is next to residential areas, but it's also next to industrial areas where there is workers
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 62 of 79
and one of the things we try to do is give places for those workers to live, so that they
don't have to drive and commute. I think that this does that well. I think it's a good
intermediate development to go from these nice, residential areas to the more industrial
areas. I don't think it will decrease any property values. If anything, right, I think it will
make your guys' lots more desirable. That's a very nice neighborhood you guys are in,
I'm very familiar with it. I don't think it's going to impact that in my guesstimation here.
think they did a good job with the layout if -- if it can work. I understand the concerns
about the wetlands and how is it possible to do this, but that's not really our question to
answer either, there is engineers that say whether it's possible or not and I'm sure they
have gone through those venues. Personally I think it's a good solution for the area. It
can't stay vacant forever and it provides places and density, which is what we try to do
in the city. That's my take on it.
Marshall: Thank you, Commissioner Miller.
Yearsley: Mr. Chairman?
Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: Bill, I'm going to put you on the spot. That nine acres to the east of that, what
is that designated on the future land use map, do you know?
Parsons: This one here?
Yearsley: Yeah.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Yearsley, I'm not a hundred percent sure, but
know it could either be commercial or mixed use community. It's one of those. And Mr.
Arnold, the applicant, did state that correctly, you see this small sliver of C -G property
here, there is actually a development agreement on that property that allows for the
storage facility, so that will be something in the future, unless changed or modified. So,
at this point I would bet -- I'm pretty -- almost positive -- I can go look at the map over
there real quick if you give me about two seconds to address it, but I believe it's mixed
use.
Yearsley: Well -- and that's -- as long as -- what you're saying is that, basically,
adjacent to them is platted or designated to be storage units, so -- okay. That's what --
just wanted to clarify that. You know, I understand living and wanting to keep it the way
it is. However, it is in the downtown portion of the city and it's -- you know, development
pressures are increasing and it is going to increase. You know, I don't know if you were
aware that you're going to have storage units basically buffering you and these homes,
so -- I like the layout. I like the situation of how the units look. You know, I always still
don't like the fact that they are to be sold off, even though there is going to be one
homeowners association. Being the president of our homeowners association I realize
they don't have any teeth and so anybody that doesn't want to do improvements it's
really hard to get them to make those improvements. That being said, it's not a big
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 63 of 79
enough -- it's not something that would make it for me to reject this development.
Overall I think it's a good layout. It's a good design. There are portions I don't like, but
can't use that as justification to deny it, so -- thank you.
Marshall: Thank you, Commissioner Yearsley. Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I would have to be in agreement that it's kind of interesting, because when we
moved out to our new home 20 years ago we were in the country and we had a lot of
wildlife and we loved it, it was beautiful. But, unfortunately, Meridian grew and it just
grew all around us and we lost a lot of that country feel. Unfortunately, that's what's
going to happen here and with the picture that was just up there that -- with the
possibility of storage units going in and whatnot, this is just something you can't control
and it is going to change. So, I believe that the units look good for that area and I have
seen that area a lot and I think it would be an improvement of what's there right now.
Marshall: Thank you, Commissioner Oliver. All right. Let's see. I moved to this valley
in 1979 and I don't know, maybe -- I know a few of you have been here as long, if not a
little longer, and know the valley maybe even better than I do. I remember a time when
there was -- it was quite a drive between Meridian and Boise. It was going to the big
town and things like that and I appreciate your comment earlier, Commissioner Oliver,
about we are kind of losing some of that. We are. But, you know what, one of the
reasons I love Idaho is we try to keep the government out of our lives as much as
possible. We use it as much as we need and that means we are kind of a land use
state. So, you can go buy a piece of land and do anything you want with it, unless --
and this is pretty much statewide, within guidelines and the laws, unless the city sits
down and sets up a plan, says this is what we want to see in the future and we set up
these guidelines, these ordinances and a future land use map, this Comprehensive Plan
of how -- and we have spent years and years, committees, hundreds of people working
on it, all kinds of committees -- in fact, that's how Mayor de Weed got -- became mayor,
she started out working committees saying, geez, here is how I'd like to see Meridian
improve and she kept doing different committees and moved up and now she's our
mayor. And so that plan is in place and that plan really does suggest this or
commercial. It's a mixed use area. It does have -- now, again, as Commissioner Miller
pointed out, I am not a geotechnical engineer, there is a lot of hands in this pie, the EPA
and FEMA, all kinds of things, and I am sure there has been a geotechnical engineer
hired to make absolutely certain that this is appropriate to build on and they have to
prove that they are not going to flood everybody else out. There is where FEMA is
going to come in. That's -- and if it happens there is a lawsuit ready to happen. I have
to rely on those engineers and their best judgment and when all -- all the paperwork has
been filed and it's appropriate I have to rely on that. So, personally, the growth is
coming, like it or not, and that's why if -- no matter how you want to see it grow you get
involved with some of these committees and help shape how we want to see it. It's kind
of sad to see some of it, but it's going to happen and so that's why -- I think that's why
all of us have volunteered to get up here and try to help out and hopefully have some
little say in how it develops. Personally I am -- I am in favor of it. I do like the location
for a little higher density. That's what the city said and I have agreed with some -- going
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 64 of 79
over the Comprehensive Plan I agree that's the proper location. I'm sorry, but there will
be more and more that impinge on your lives and it will no longer be the country that it
was. It's just not going to be. But we are trying to do the best we can to make it
develop in a manner that's more appropriate than if we took a hands off approach,
because then it's going to develop in all kinds of ways you don't want and I'm glad
Meridian has been so proactive in that and that helps guide us. That's the only reason
we are here and it guides us, tells us what we can and can't do and we try to follow
those guidelines and in this case I think it meets those guidelines and personally I think
it's appropriate. Thank you.
Miller: Mr. Chair? After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to City Council of file numbers AZ 14-009, PP 14-009 and CUP
14-005 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 19th, 2014, with no
modifications.
Yearsley: Second.
Marshall: I have a motion and a second to approve AZ 14-008, PP 14-009, and CU --
well, recommend approval to the AZ and PP and approve CUP 14-005. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. And thank you for your testimonies.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
N. Public Hearing: PP 14-007 Timbergrove by Steve Arnold
Located West Side of N. Centrepoint Way and North of E.
Ustick Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of Twenty (20)
Buildable Lots and Three (3) Common Lots on Approximately
4.28 Acres in the C -G Zoning District
O. Public Hearing: CUP 14-006 Timbergrove by Steve Arnold
Located West Side of N. Centrepoint Way and North of E.
Ustick Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a
Multi -Family Development Consisting of Eighty (80) Dwelling
Units (20 Four-Plexes) on Approximately 4.28 Acres in the C -G
Zoning District
Marshall: All right. I would like to open the public hearing for PP 14-007, CUP 14-006
for Timbergrove by Steve Arnold and ask for the staff report, please.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This project will be
pretty similar to the one you just acted on. It is the same developer, the same applicant.
The only difference here is it's within annexed and zoned property and commercially
zoned and it's located adjacent to the Centrepoint shopping center along the back side
of that Kohl's shopping center. Originally when this property was before you it was
envisioned for single story office or commercial uses there to provide a transition from
the Champion Park Subdivision to the west and, then, the more intense shopping --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 65 of 79
commercial shopping there that's currently constructed. The applicant is here tonight to
discuss again another preliminary plat and a conditional use permit to develop this site
with 20 buildable lots and 80 multi -family units. Again, these units will look similar to
what was previously discussed or presented in the previous application. As you can
see here this property was annexed in '03. It's been vacant since that time and so the
applicant is here trying to find appropriate transition between not only the single family,
but also the intense commercial development. Here is the site plan slash preliminary
plat. Again you are looking at roughly approximately 4.28 acres, currently zoned C -G in
the city. Density on this site is approximately 18.7 dwelling units to the acre, so it is a
little more intense than the previous project. As you can see here open space, as far as
it's fairly reduced compared to what the previous project was, but that has to do with the
fact that there is really -- the only encumbrance on this site is just how long and linear it
is and the concept plan and the landscape plan that the applicant is presenting this
evening does comply with the open space requirements for the multi -family
developments. One unique aspect of this development is how -- you can see how at
least it provides some of that transition to the adjacent single family attached homes on
the west boundary and north would be pointed to the west -- or to your left-hand side
here. The applicant's actually tilted the buildings at an angle, so although some of these
buildings would be ten feet from the shared property line, by choking that building you
actually create these open pockets between the unit to kind of -- to build a mass
relationship, so you don't have this large four-plex up against single story duplex if you
will, or single family attached project. So, the director has approved alternative
compliance to allow a portion -- allow a ten foot landscape buffer here and allow some
of that tilting or angle to those buildings here to allow additional landscaping along the
west boundary to provide that transition to those adjacent residents. As you heard from
the applicant, all of these private patios will be on the single story -- on the single level,
so they will not be overlooking that adjacent neighborhood. It's planned that way
specifically. In working with the applicant and staff we wanted to make sure that the
back of these residents did not look -- or folks weren't entering the back of these
residents and creating a visual blight or safety concerns with residents coming home
from work late in the evening having to walk to the rear of the buildings. With having
such a narrow corridor it's -- there is some safety concerns on the police department on
how to handle that. So, the applicant has designed all of these -- these at least along
the west boundary to have no entrances. All the entrances will be either from the front
or the side to also reduce the impact to the adjacent residents, but also use some of the
CPTED standards that we have in our ordinance as well. One of staffs concerns in the
staff report is we are requiring a denser and a landscape buffer along this portion. This
is adjacent to the Kohl's development and we feel that's an important -- not only open
space, but also a nice buffer or landscape buffer to give some of these residents privacy
and quiet from the loading areas from the intense commercial shopping center. One
item this evening -- we did receive written testimony from the applicant. He is in
agreement with all the conditions, but he's also working with Winston Moore Company,
which owns the property or subsidiary of this -- this property and they are retaining the
commercial lot here to the south of this boundary and so I have a condition in the staff
report that is requiring the driveway to be -- or cross -access to be granted to that parcel,
so that we don't get additional curb cuts. In receiving that written testimony staff is
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 66 of 79
recommending that they actually construct a driveway to that south boundary and we
want you to modify that condition to require them to actually construct that prior to
occupancy of the first structure, so we can insure that is constructed so when this
property to the south develops they will have the right use the curb cut. One other
unique aspect of this development is currently the applicant is requesting three curb
cuts to Centrepoint Way. There is actually three there currently, two are being removed
and reconstructed and to allow for the two new ones, and all of these three curb cuts
will now align with the commercial shopping center to the east to avoid some of those
conflicts in the future when we have that collector street punch through to the north and
give us that backage road from the Eagle Road. Going into the elevations again here,
it's pretty typical as to what I described here. All the conditions that I have mentioned in
the previous presentation apply here. We want a mix of building materials and color
variation in this development as well. The other unique aspect to this development is
adjacent to Champion Park is a stub -- is a micro path stub to this development, if you
can see my cursor here I'm kind of highlighting that there is a circular motion, but we
want to make sure that that connectivity remains as part of this project for a couple
reasons. One, it provides access for those folks to get to the commercial shopping
center as envisioned under some of our mixed use standards and, two, if you recall -- if
can go back to the aerial here real quickly, you can see that the city has a
neighborhood park that was developed with the Champion Park Subdivision, so if we
block that off and don't require any pedestrian connectivity, folks living out here will have
to -- will be forced to go down to the collector road, enter the arterial and, then, go back
into the subdivision. So, it's something that staff really feels it's an important amenity to
this development. We want to make sure that that's enhanced and that's kept open to
not only provide that connection to the commercial development, but also the city park
there. The proposed amenities for this site -- the open space is approximately 76,000
square feet, so it's not a lot, but what the applicant has done is tried to centralize that
open space along that micro path lot to enhance that and keep visibility on that micro
path lot for the police department. They are, again, proposing a clubhouse with this
development. Those elevations are typical to what you saw again and, then, there is
actually sitting areas and plazas throughout the development. This landscape plan
shows a tot lot, but the applicant has actually swapped that out for a plaza. So, it's
conditioned that they provide details of that. So, there is a lot of passive open space
here and, again, it's based on the testimony from the applicant. Its intended use is like
the more passive use of open space. As presented to you this evening this plan does
comply with the specific use standards for the multi -family development and the design
criteria and we feel this is a good transitional use between the single family homes and
the commercial development and staff is recommending approval of the project and I
will stand for any questions you have. One last item, though, just to touch base. Mr.
Jonathan Seel actually submitted written testimony on this project, again, mentioning
the cross -access and, then, also in the staff report the way I have described them,
maintaining a 30 foot wide landscape buffer along North Centrepoint Way, I have
described the southern portion of it. He felt it may lead to confusion that it would be
required on this boundary and that's not the case. The intent with the condition is to
design a 30 foot landscape buffer along North Centrepoint Way. So, I'm asking that we
just add that verbiage to my condition, just add west boundary of North Centrepoint Way
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 67 of 79
and we will make it clear on record that the 30 foot landscape buffer is to happen
between the central driveway and the southern driveway. Other than the written -- the
one last item that Jonathan brought up in his public testimony was how to transition
between the multi -family use and the commercial lot. Currently as you have heard on
previous projects this evening we typically require a 25 foot landscape buffer between a
commercial lot and a residential use. Now that commercial is no longer planned
theoretically when this lot to the south develops it would require a 25 foot wide
landscape buffer under our ordinance. One thing you're not acting on this evening, but
moving forward as we go to Council we -- they do have to amend the development
agreement to put a site and so our recommendation going forward to City Council will
be Council take action on that reduced buffer and, then, through the amended
development agreement we would have a provision added to that addressing that
landscape buffer. So, nothing as part of our purview this evening, I just wanted to get
that on record that he did submit written testimony as to the requirements or wanted
some relaxed standards on that landscape buffer, but, again, Council will be taking
action on that. So, this concludes my presentation. I will answer any questions you
may have.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Marshall: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: If I could ask real quick, I may have missed it, but looking at Centrepoint Way --
that's a good view. That that is the road that is -- goes behind Kohl's and all of those.
So, that road right there with those development -- those homes being developed there,
what will be a barrier to kind of give them some privacy or will there be anything along
there that -- will that be all opened up?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Oliver, currently right now, based on the plan
submitted and what you're acting on this evening -- if I can get to the landscape plan
here, is this would be -- there is nothing separate -- there is no physical screening
barrier. The only requirement we have -- we are requiring again a 30 foot wide
landscape buffer for this portion, which is adjacent to Kohl's and, then, when this
roadway was constructed with the Centrepoint Subdivision at the time the city acted on
that application this roadway only required a ten foot land use buffer and that was
installed with the development and construction of that roadway. So, the applicant has
received approval from the director to allow that portion of those ten foot landscape
buffers to remain, so that's the screening. A ten foot landscape and the buildings will be
right to the street. I mean that's what we get here. So, we felt the Centrepoint -- so,
you're actually going to have a ten foot buffer and a 30 foot buffer, a collector roadway,
and, then, the other side of the road you have a ten foot landscape buffer that was
installed behind Kohl's. We felt that was adequate transition for this development and
we actually sacrificed the landscaping along North Centrepoint Way to actually get
greater landscaping adjacent to the single family homes on the west boundary. That
was our compromise, our trade off.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 68 of 79
Oliver: I guess the only thing I look at is, like we said earlier, this could be one person
buy all of these or it could be several people. What about these kids that are in these
homes and there is nothing here to -- that's my concern, so -- I guess I will address that
with the applicant. Thank you.
Yearsley: Mr. Chairman?
Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: A couple of things. Is -- Centrepoint Way is actually an ACHD roadway; is
that correct? Okay. And, then, the homes to the west, they look like they are duplexes,
kind of a condo -type townhome; is that correct?
Parsons: In our ordinance we define it as single family attached, but, yes, there are two
units.
Yearsley: Okay. So, the development to the west actually anticipated something there
and kind of provided their own transition as well, is kind of what I see. Okay. That's the
only two questions that I had. Thank you.
Marshall: Bill, I also have a question. Can we go back to the plat there? Preliminary
plat. Right there. Okay. This is our landscape and everything here. Purpose of the
entrance exit at the stop sign there -- which is on the far right; right? What would
happen if I recommended that wasn't gone -- that was gone and the entrance actually
come in from the commercial side? I think you have got an opportunity -- I think it's the
same landowner and -- could this survive until that piece of property develops with the
two entrances only? The problem is once you develop that commercial -- it's C -G -- you
have got a 25 foot buffer, you can push that commercial right up to the -- the street out
there -- push it right up out there, have the parking behind and your entrance -- people
in the commercial should come in and out of the commercial lot. Right now they are
going to be coming in from a residential site around. Those people in that apartment --
it's not really appropriate to me. If the apartments have been pulled out there -- if that
exit -- is there enough room to get that exit next to that intersection? I don't know how
much room there is -- I don't believe there is an island or anything there. Is there?
Could that -- could that just be moved to the other side of the property line? Do you see
what I'm suggesting? I don't believe there is any island there or anything. It's getting
pretty close and I don't know what ACHD would allow, but I think it would be definitely to
the benefit of both the commercial property and the residential property if we were a
little more inclusive with everything and if we kind of plan that out.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, I know the staff report that we received from ACHD liked the
current locations, because they did align with the curb cuts across Centrepoint Way. In
speaking with both Mr. Seel and the applicant, there is a possibility that you could share
the driveway on the shared boundary, but wouldn't put all the driveway on this piece.
mean that's another -- you could split the baby on the property boundary, 12 and a half,
12 and a half, and do that and, then, by default it's cross -access, because you have half
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 69 of 79
the driveway constructed on the other -- I think the developer and -- both the applicant
and the developer is here, maybe they can come up with a solution on how they want to
handle that.
Marshall: I will address it with them as well. I just wanted to see what the city's take on
that was, so just -- all right. Thank you. Any other questions of staff? All right. At this
time I'd like the applicant to come back up and address this project and, again, I'm going
to have to ask your name and address for the record, please.
Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, again, for the record my name is
Steve Arnold, I'm with A -Team Land Consultants, 1785 Whisper Cove, Boise. 83709.
Let me jump right into the driveway, because that was a concern, and, then, the
screening and -- along Centrepoint Way. The problem with moving the driveway is the
further you go south, then, we start getting into encroachments with the intersection.
ACHD has some pretty strict guidelines about offset from that signal. I also used to
work at ACHD and based on the traffic volumes that are going to be projected on this
road, we are going to like keep that driveway as far north as possible and we do need to
align it with as much across the way as we can, so, honestly, even shifting it on the
shared property line I would be worried that we wouldn't meet ACHD's offset and, then,
there is some natural conflicts that occur by offsetting it slightly like that you get drivers
unexpectations of turning conflicts in the center of the road there, so I wouldn't
recommend that we -- it doesn't hurt our project. I don't think it would comply with
ACHD and it might hurt things more from traffic congestion. Going to the screening
along Centrepoint Way, you know, I gave earlier testimony about our other project, that
there is -- these are typically not renters with children, but you got to plan for that.
don't recommend boxing it in with a fence. There is individual screened off patios for
each unit in the back of those. Those could be enhanced or even closed in a little bit
better to keep the potential for younger children from going out into the roadway, but we
-- as Bill has mentioned, we are doing an alternative compliance to try to beef up the
screening along Centrepoint Way. I will give you a little bit of background about the
layout of this site. Originally we had probably four or five driveways off of Centrepoint
and we oriented the drive aisles east -west. What that did, though, is it didn't give
continuity throughout the subdivision and a sense of better place. You know, it also
separated my clubhouse, the amenities, and having been at -- I know with aligning
driveways this main center drive aisle, it aligns with the main aisle way out through
Centrepoint. And if you notice some of the thought that went in there, I aligned my
common area with that main drive, so that when you come into the site you get a feel of
-- you know, it's not just a complex of multi -family units. Originally I had proposed a tot
lot, but, again, because of the -- and I wasn't aware with this client, but because of the
type of people renting in the subdivision there is very few children, so what he opted to
do is to do kind of a gathering and sitting area, something that would be more utilized by
an older group of people that are renting and not so much kids that -- the tot lot would
just be sitting there. At my neighborhood meeting one of the concerns was the linear
nature of the way the buildings were set. So, in working with staff and some ideas that
we came up with we did try to alter the buildings a little bit -- stagger them so we could
get a little bit of a wider landscape area in between and just like staff was
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 70 of 79
recommending, you know, some of the concerns was that the multi -family adjacent to
the duplex lots -- so, what I also did is -- if you can see, I tried to line up each single unit
lines up individually with a townhouse across the way, so if you didn't know it was a
four-plex you're, basically, looking at another unit almost identical in the back as a
townhouse unit. I got to go -- to the platting issue, I -- the idea of platting is really to
create a value out of it. The people that buy off the individual units, they typically will
live in one of the units and, then, rent the other three out and they are very highly
policed, along with the maintenance and agreement that goes into these and that's
something the attorneys can review as we go into the platting, but there is a significant
amount of teeth that go into this to make sure that it's all uniform and maintained
uniformly. I would not -- as a matter of fact, I am trying to figure out from the client -- my
wife and I also do real estate, but if I could plat -- what I'd like to do is plat each unit --
because of the city requirements it doesn't have roadway frontage, I could technically
plat each unit to be it's own townhouse, so that each unit could be owned individually
and, then, all maintained by one association. Again, the common areas and the outside
building and the fagade. That's what I would like to gear this towards. Where I'm
having a little bit of a hiccup is with financing -- FHA and conventional financing. So, I'm
hoping to work through that and perhaps some day I would be back here replatting each
of the units, not just condo'ing them. You know, because of the site constraints and the
parking requirements here, you know, I have worked quite a bit with staff. We probably
had a half a dozen layouts on this. I think we have come up with a fairly good solution
to a narrow piece of property and I think with the driveway locations I don't know that I
would really mess with that and we have agreed with staff and the developer to the
south we will pave that and that seemed like it made good sense and, then, we don't
have to rip out landscaping in the future. So, with that I will stand for any questions
Commission has.
Marshall: Commissioners?
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Marshall: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: If I could ask you just one more thing. And if you're not going to fence that at
Centrepoint, is it a buffer that rises up higher with shrubbery and trees or what would
that look like? That would give us some separation between Centrepoint and those
backyards.
Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Oliver, the -- it's currently sodded. I mean our
ideal situation would be that we don't go do berm and, then, resod over the top, but just
add additional screening and additional landscape buffering. Like I said, they each --
the back of the unit or the patio that would back up to that has a fenced off -- on
believe two or three of the sides that would block, you know, essentially, the back porch
of that from the Centrepoint Way. We would be -- certainly entertain additional
screening or, like I said, additional fencing if we need to. I don't want to put a six foot
fence there, because I don't want to box those guys in. I would like to have the ability
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 71 of 79
that they can sit out and, granted, you're just watching traffic, but it's better to look at
traffic than I think the back of a fence. So, I would be open to entertaining anything on
that. I do need to bring up one thing. Typically when I have a neighborhood meeting I
like to adjust and adopt to what's being requested and I was in the situation where I
think it may come up tonight about the pathway that connected. It was brought up that
the -- it was not the preferred option to connect the pathway and my open space there
centrally located -- I had a neighbor to the south of the pathway suggest that it should
be further to the north. I had a neighbor to the north of the pathway suggest that it
should be further to the south, so I'm going to leave that to your decision. I mean
personally I think it makes for a nice entrance feature that when you come in you're
hitting that common open area that doesn't affect our site layout or density, so I think I
would answer that, too. But there was some neighborhood concern there and I didn't
change anything, because it was win -lose situation. We did modify some of the open
space to the south that is south of that common lot. We tried to shift more of that to the
north to provide additional buffering to the townhouse units to the west. So, I went
longer than I thought I should, but -- sorry. I will stand for more questions.
Miller: Mr. Chair?
Marshall: Commissioner Miller.
Miller: I have got more of just a comment. I don't think it affects my opinion, but it might
help Mr. Oliver's concerns with the buffering. The houses on the lower edge of the
screen, they don't enter from the back side, where the ones on Centrepoint you enter it
from Centrepoint. I think if those were kind of similar where you don't enter a house
from Centrepoint where if you walk out the front door you have a busy street right there,
which right how is not very busy, because there is nothing down here. But there will be
and so maybe if you're not entering the house from the busy street and it was more side
entrance like you have on the other side of the aisle -- I don't know if that could work. I
don't know if that helps the situation, the feelings. Personally I don't have any
objections to it, but I can see the -- you know, if you have kids or something, because
you are going to get renters with kids in there. For what that's worth, I guess, that's fine.
Just a comment of how that might be able to be addressed.
Marshall: Any other questions from anyone? All right. Thank you, sir. Appreciate that.
I do have one person left. I had several and they have been crossed off, but I have one
person still signed up, David John. If you would give your name and address for the
record, please, I would appreciate it.
John: Yeah. David John. 3338 North Justin Avenue, Meridian. I back up to the
proposed complex here. There is a little confusion about the micropath that was
referred to. It's my understanding with the HOA of Champion Park that that actually is a
utility path, a utility easement. There is a pump that's located in that area. There is also
some electrical boxes and things of concern, liability reasons for us living in Champion
Park. That area also has been a problematic area for teenagers hanging out at night.
The people that live adjacent to the area have had problems with kids hanging out back
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 72 of 79
there. What was mentioned by Steve earlier, you know, for people living in the Timber
Grove place to walk over to the park, it's really not that far to walk up to Ustick and
around the corner if you want to go over to the park. As far as the use from people in
Champion Park, it really does not get used as a pathway very often. We are concerned,
as, you know, Champion Park residents as far as the liability, it's my understanding
there is going to be a structure built over the pump that will actually be a little housing
thing. That will actually abut or actually encroach out into the pathway, so it's going to
actually make it kind of hard to navigate through there. That, combined with the
transformer. So, it's my understanding that the HOA with Champion is getting bids to
close off that -- that portion of that fence and, then, also put like a wrought iron fence
across the front of it to protect, you know, our investment and things from happening in
that area. As far as the setbacks, I just had a question why we are 15 feet in Champion
Park and why that is required to only be ten feet. That patios in the back of the units
that will be abutting up against us in Champion Park, Justin -- my question was whether
it's going to be fenced. I know Steve mentioned the ones that are going to be out on
Centrepoint are going to be -- have some fencing around the patios. Will the ones back
to the west -- will they have some fencing around the concrete patio? And, then, the
other question is is what kind of rules and regulations that they are going to have as far
as pets and will there be any dog runs or anything like that allowed in the backyard and
on the property. That's all I have got.
Marshall: Commissioners, any questions?
Miller: I have got a question for you.
Marshall: Okay. Commissioner Miller.
Miller: Just want to clarify. It sounds like your preference would be to not have that
connection path between the --
John: Actually, it was really never designed to be a pathway through there. It's more --
it's a utility easement --
Miller: Okay.
John: And, yeah, it's -- it's a problematic area and it opens up a big liability to
Champion Park.
Yearsley: Can I follow up on with that question?
Marshall: Sure.
Yearsley: Is there a pathway there now or is it just grass?
John: There is -- there is an asphalt pathway that kind of winds through there and, then,
there is grass and, then, there is quite a few big trees, but on one side of it there is a big
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 73 of 79
transformer box enclosure and, then, on the other side there is this pump that's part of
our neighborhood, part of Champion Park and there has been some problems with that.
They have had to put a lock on it and there is going to be a structure built over that,
which will encroach out onto that path.
Yearsley: Now, is that pump an HOA pump or is that a city pump?
John: As far as I know it's part of ours -- Sam, do you have an answer to that? Okay.
All right. I'm sorry. I don't know that for sure.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you.
John: Okay.
Yearsley: That's all I have. Thank you.
Marshall: Thank you very much.
John: Thank you.
Marshall: Real quick I'd like to address staff for just a second. Justin? Bill? Real quick
would like to ask you guys -- I got a feeling that that's probably a little more than just a
utility corridor. My guess is that looks very familiar to what we have always required
and, to be honest, looking at that Google it looks like it gets quite used, there is quite a
trail out from behind --
Lucas: Yes.
Marshall: --in the dirt.
Lucas: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, we can pull up the plat on that, but it
certainly looks like it was approved as a micro path connection, which is a future use,
and as you can see it appears to get some use. There is a -- kind of a goat trail running
through there, connecting over to the Kohl's area. So, staff would just simply stand by
what's stated in the report, that we believe it should be continued and connected to
provide connectivity between the two neighborhoods and so I don't -- you know, we can
do some research on that and look at what the HOA is proposing to do in that area, but
any, you know, fencing permits or other things that they pull, we would review at the
time and see if it complies with our standards.
Marshall: Right. I'm guessing that that is real typical of what we require elsewhere and
would not allow to be fenced in any way, shape or form --
Justin: Yes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 74 of 79
Marshall: -- is my guess. So -- that will all be on the plat. All right. Was there
someone else who would like to address this -- all right. And, again, I'm going to ask
your name and address for the record, please.
Seel: Jonathan Seel. W.H. Moore Company. 1940 Bonito. You probably weren't here
when I first started this, but I started this project Centrepoint when it was a field. In fact,
that home had burned down that was there at the time, so I'm very familiar. So, a
couple things. As far as the pump goes, we first put it in, the Settlers Canal runs right
along Ustick and, then, they jogged off from, essentially, our west property line and went
back to a point to service the Champion Park Subdivision. So, that's where that came
in. The exact location of it I can't speak to that, but I do remember us addressing that at
that point. On the question of the setback, where an individual asked about why the 15
on theirs and ten on ours. When we originally developed this Champion Park
Subdivision in that area that -- those lots that bordered ours were going to be storage
facilities. After we went through many of our approvals, they came and said, well, the
market has changed, so we would like to do duplexes and we said, well, that's fine, but
we shouldn't be penalized because you have now decided to go from -- from storage
facilities to duplexes, hence, the reason why we have the ten foot setback. I requested
that in one of the trial admin agreements. It's also very interesting in the pathway,
because I came in from these commissions. Awhile ago, City Council, actually we
modified a DA for a possible apartment project north of here, also within our project and
at that point the pathway came up and our comment was we are not -- we were never
aware of any pathway discussions when we did our improvements and, in fact, most of
the neighborhood there when we had a meeting said we really don't want it and we said
which ever way you want it. We don't have a dog in this fight. If you don't want it that's
fine. If you want it, that's fine. But we don't know where it's going. So, anyway, so
think it comes back to the same thing here. When we did the approval there was no
discussion about a pathway into Centrepoint and I'm not sure how that would have
served, because we could have office buildings in there, so I don't know if that needs to
be revisited on that. Again, on our side it can -- we are indifferent to what -- the other
thing I thought I'd do is give a little bit of history. When I first started this there was
discussion about multi -family within our project and, of course, the comment at that time
was why would you have any type of residential in ours when you have got it all to the
west there, that we had to come back and modify something at a later date. Our vision
was that that would be probably some type of back office use, maybe tire stores or
things like that. Well, the reality six or eight years now later is we have had no interest
-- absolutely zero interest in any type of use there. So, the option now as we recognize
it is either it would have to be this type of project, such as a multi -family, if you want to
call it, development or it will continue to be a weed field. It's not that we wouldn't want
office, there just simply isn't a demand for it. So, we really think that this is a good
transitional use from it. The other thing I will speak to is the driveway. Commissioner
Marshall, I understand your concern with the driveway and the volume of traffic going
into what is commercial, but the reality is is this lot is very small. If this was a five or ten
or 15 acre development where you could have a 50,000 square office building, I could
see a very valid concern with the amount of traffic, but in reality it might be a small
dentist office or a very small office and the volume of traffic going in that drive lane will
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 75 of 79
be minimal at best. So, I don't think it's going to be intrusive. So -- and as Steve Arnold
said, we really can't adjust that, because that lines up with the driveway right across
from Kohl's and so there is no way we can do that, so -- anyway, obviously, we are in
support of the project. We think it would be a good project and we think it would be an
excellent transition and, honestly, I guess it is the most viable -- probably the only option
we have, other than a weed field. So, thank you.
Marshall: Commissioners, any questions?
Miller: Yes, sir, I have got a question.
Marshall: Commissioner Miller.
Miller: I have got a couple questions, actually. Two of the things that were brought up
that I didn't hear addressed were fencing on those back patios that are adjacent to
those duplexes and the dog runs and allowances with that. Can you address those,
too?
Seel: Yes. Commissioners, I am not involved in the development or design, so I can't
speak to those.
Miller: Okay.
Seel: What I'm speaking more is representing the landowners and the interest of us in,
hopefully, seeing something going through. So, regrettably I can't really speak to their
design. I wouldn't be -- I would be getting a little bit off the reservation as they say on
that. So, Mr. Arnold could certainly speak to that.
Miller: Okay. Thank you.
Seel: So, I'm sorry I can't answer that.
Marshall: Commissioners? Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like
to address these items? No? All right. Then, I'm going to ask the applicant back up.
Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, again, Steve Arnold. To address
the dog runs and the fencing in the rear, no, we would say not just no, but heck no to
dog runs. The -- based on Idaho law and federal law we can't prohibit a comfort animal
and I can't say that there won't be any dogs, it's not going to be something that is
encouraged and as you can see from the hotel here in Meridian they are being
challenged for just that very thing. So, we would not encourage the use of pets, but we
cannot by law discourage them. The fencing there adjacent to the west boundary of our
site, there is already a six foot vinyl fence there. There was some discussion with the
neighborhood and it wasn't brought up tonight, but we -- we entertain an additional --
guess a two foot lattice on the top, if that was the direction of the Commission tonight.
But I -- personally, I would be a little bit worried that it would be boxing us or them in and
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 76 of 79
so I think there is adequate screening adjacent to our western boundary as it sits.
think that addressed most of the questions. I will stand for additional --
Marshall: Commissioners? No? Thank you, sir. All right, Commissioners, I'm looking
for a motion.
Miller: I move we close the public hearing.
Yearsley: Second.
Marshall: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on PP 14-007 and
CUP 14-006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Marshall: All right. Commissioners, anyone want to take a shot at addressing this?
Who gets to be first?
Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall -- or Commissioner -- Chairman. Sorry. It's getting
late.
Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: You know, I think it's a good transition. You know, I understand
Commissioner Oliver's concern being so close to a roadway. However, the nice thing
about it is the roadway is there before the apartment, so people more than likely if they
don't want to live there they won't live there, you know. So, you know, those apartments
may not be very desirable to live in. I did like Commissioner Miller's comment about
moving that entrance -- entrance to the side instead of not having an entrance off of the
roadway side. I kind of like that just for the fact that they don't have to walk all the way
around the building to get access, since they can't park on the street. But other than
that I think it looks good. I understand the neighbors concern about a pathway, but it
looks like the pathway is there, it looks like it's being used. I like the fact that it's in the
open space, so it doesn't feel like you're sneaking between somebody's home or
somebody's apartment. So, I would prefer to see that -- that pathway be -- or the open
space be next to the pathway entrance, just for more comfort feeling of getting through
that -- that piece of property. So, with that I'm in favor of the project.
Marshall: Thank you. Commissioner Miller.
Miller: As I mentioned the same feelings, I can see how that was once upon a time
intended to be offices, but now that it's all built out as it is I don't see a single office
surviving back there. I wouldn't put my business there, just -- it's overshadowed. So,
think it does make a lot of really good sense to transition that from housing duplex to
multi -family to business. I agree with may or may not be the most desirable, but I bet
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 77 of 79
you you will find people that find it convenient to live there. I'm in favor of the
development. I think you guys have done a great job.
Marshall: Commissioner Oliver?
Oliver: I agree with pretty much everything that's been said, it's just that I wanted to get
those particular -- my particular interest out of just having a safe environment for
children to be in, so -- but I do agree that it is a good transition. So, I think it will work.
Marshall: I had one comment. I kind of wish the residents had stayed. I would have
liked to encourage them if they were having problems back in that pathway that maybe
the police department could give them some ideas on how to clear that up and eliminate
some of that congregating -- you know, whether it be some type of lighting or something
there that -- to help them out. To be honest, I think houses are going to help that,
especially the front of a house right there is going to probably -- maybe no eliminate, but
at least it would decrease the tendency for teenagers to congregate right in that area
and I can see why and I understand why they might. Other than that, I like the project
and I am all for it.
Yearsley: So, Commissioner -- or Chairman? It's getting bad. After considering all
staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend to the City Council of file
number PP 14-007 and CUP 14-006 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date
of June 19, 2014, with the following modifications: That Condition 1.2.2, bullet one,
reference the 30 foot buffer on the west side of the north of Centrepoint Way and
Condition 1.2.1, bullet number two, add: The applicant shall construct a 25 foot wide
driveway to the south boundary of the commercial lot as a development prior to
occupancy of the first structure and, then, the reduced landscape buffer will be -- well,
guess that's -- that's all I have.
Miller: I second that.
Marshall: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of PP 14-007 and
approve CUP 14-006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
P. Request for Approval to Create/Change New Development
Application Forms/Checklists by City of Meridian Community
Development Planning Division
Marshall: All right. I would like to open the public hearing for the request for approval to
create or change new development application forms and checklists by the City of
Meridian Community Development Planning Division. Please.
Lucas: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Just to clarify, this is not a
public hearing, it's just an information item before you. Whenever we make a semi-
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 78 of 79
major modification to our checklist we bring it for you -- before you for your approval, but
it's certainly not a public hearing. So, the -- just so you know, the only modification we
are making to the checklist is just requiring some utility drawings per our Public Works
standards. The reason it's before you is because it's an addition to the checklist that
hasn't been there in the past. It's something that we have been requiring somewhat
informally already, but we thought we should put on the checklist and make it official.
And that's all I have for you tonight. And I will certainly stand for any questions.
Marshall: So, were those changes the ones on the copy that were blacked out that
were highlighted, but blacked out so we couldn't see them?
Lucas: Yes, Mr. Chair. I think maybe the copies you received, the highlighting actually
blacked out the language, so if you want the specific language I can probably get it for
you, but it says something to the effect of you're required to submit the drawings per
Meridian city standards.
Marshall: That's the second time you have explained it to me today and I appreciate it
very much. Commissioners, do you have any questions? No?
Yearsley: Do we need to approve that or -- at this point or do we -- is that just for
information that --
Lucas: If you could go ahead and approve it I think that would be appropriate.
Yearsley: I make a motion that we approve the changes to the checklist.
Miller: I second that. It's a good addition.
Marshall: I have a motion and a second to approve the modifications to the checklist to
make it a little clearer for all those who might use it. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed? Therefore, that motion carries.
MOTION CARRIES: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Marshall: Could I get a motion?
Miller: I move to adjourn.
Yearsley: Second.
Marshall: I have a motion to adjourn and a second. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Marshall: We are adjourned.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 19, 2014
Page 79 of 79
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:00 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
ATTEST:
oco" '4�k'
JAYCEE HOLMAN, CITY CL RK
III 14
DATE APPROVED
QO��So AUGUST
z
,�' City of
�./1't E�'�
ID�
IDAHO
a �
SEAL v
�yrfB°f the TAE ASu���r
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: June 19, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 3A
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE:
Approve mintues of June 5, 2014 Meeting
MEETING NOTES
{�pvwi�l
vnM�sy Y0
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian Manning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: June 19, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 4A
PROJECT NUMBER: RZ 14-003
Item: Kinsely
Continued Public Hearing from April 17,2014: Rezone of approximately 3.42 acres from L -O (Limited
Office) and R-15 (Medium high density residential) zoning districts to the C -C (Business Community)
zoning district by DL Evans Bank - NEC of N. Ten Mile Road and W. Pine Avenue
MEETING NOTES
COt1sl-% ii C.�2 7 k?C NOh C4P, ',�Dr
'sy/rerill `f D
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: June 19, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 4B
PROJECT NUMBER: PFP 14-001
Item: Kinsely
Continued Public Hearing from April 17,2014: Preliminary/final plat 3 commercial lots on approximately
2.61 acres in the proposed C -C zoning district by DL Evans Bank - NEC of N. Ten Mile Road and W. Pine
Avenue
MEETING NOTES
Cori;f7-i,itx.e- ¢- ;Pe1ll+ °Ce--j9v
,5 Y/P;q k', 41-0
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: June 19, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 4C
PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 14-002
Item: Kinsely
Continued Public Hearing from April 17, 2014: Conditional Use Permit approval for the following: 1) a
drive-thru establishment within 300 feet of a residential district AND 2) extended hours of operation in
accord with UDC 11-2B-4 in the proposed C -C zoning district by DL Evans Bank - NEC of N. Ten Mile
Road and W. Pine Avenue
MEETING NOTES
Nn -t! rI t.,Ce -f ile7 A,�-N-c,-,- ic> I —'y _! 4
:5 y / ky-) yy-1 q -0
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: June 19, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 4D
PROJECT NUMBER: AZ 14-010
Item: Archer Farm Subdivision
Public Hearing: Annexation and Zoning of 5.2 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district by Archer Farm
Properties, LLC - 4660 N. Meridian Road
MEETING NOTES
Te -C VMMCAA Approume -/-o CIC
m�,1-5y Lf -0
6-�,+ fi>- C/C -7 -,:73 ol - / Y
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: June 19, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 4E
PROJECT NUMBER: PP 14-010
Item: Archer Farm Subdivision
Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat aproval consisting of 20 building lots and 1 common lot on 4.93 acres of
land in a proposed R-8 zoning district by Archer Farm Properties, LLC - 4660 N. Meridian Road
MEETING NOTES
' �1 cGovnm� /-} Pp ✓ava-Q -6 cI '
Irn 1 y `f -D
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: June 19, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 4F
PROJECT NUMBER: AZ 14-009
Item: Castle Creek Subdivision
Public Hearing: Annexation and zoning of 6.97 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district by Northwest
Ventures - 2432 E. Amity Road
MEETING NOTES
Arpro VA.A� 4 '��
S yIrn&7
C/C 7-o10 -lcf
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: June 19, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 4G
PROJECT NUMBER: PP 14-009
Item: Castle Creek Subdivision
Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat consisting of 19 building lots and 5 common/other lots on 6.58 acres of
land in the R-8 zoning district by Northwest Ventures - 2432 E. Amity Road
MEETING NOTES
lccor4trlerld 4pi'rova.P '`C
5 y / pyl W
57Ci+ CIC '7—tea —/Y
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: June 19, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 4H
PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 14-001
Item: Regency at River Valley Phase 2
Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit for a multi -family development consisting of 96 dwelling units on
3.52 acres of land in the the C -G zoning district by Lars Anderson, Project Engineering Consultants - e/o
N. Eagle Road and n/o E. River Valley Street
MEETING NOTES
,+top V'0 oe-4
R -e -P axf� FF(! L
M�
7-17- l Lf ' 15y, -L -D
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: June 19, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 41
PROJECT NUMBER: RZ 14-004
Item: Citadel II Self -Service Storage Facility
Public Hearing: Rezone of 5.44 acres of land from the R-4 (medium low density residential district)
zoning district to the C -C (Community Business District) zoning district by Citadel Storage, LLC - east side
of S. Eagle Road and north of E. Easy Jet Drive
MEETING NOTES
.5 Y/ 0"/7? Y�o
Ste+ --G k- C 1 C 7 -al,;t -/ L/
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: June 19, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 4,1
PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 14-007
Item: Citadel II Self -Service Storage Facility
Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit for a self service storage facility consisting of 13 buildings on
aproArnately 4.8 acres of land in a proposed C -C zoning district by Citadel Storage, LLC - east side of S.
Eagle Road and north of E. Easy Jet Drive
MEETING NOTES
�� co►� WrcnoC Apo rwa t --v C/C
Sc+ 1c -7-a.) -/L/
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: June 19, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 4K
PROJECT NUMBER: AZ 14-008
Item: Shallow Creek
Public Hearing: Annextion approximately 6.61 acres from RUT in Ada County to the R-15 (Medium High-
density residential) zoning district by Steve Arnold - SEC of N. Locust Grove Road and E. Franklin Road
MEETING NOTES
ca n vn ,Of-o✓a c%
O� S
h� nn s y Z/_D
Ll
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: June 19, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 4L
PROJECT NUMBER: PP 14-008
Item: Shallow Creek
Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat approval consisting of 18 buildable lots and 2 common lots on
approximately 5.84 acres in the proposed R-15 zoning district by Steve Arnold - SEC of N. Locust Grove
Road and E. Franklin Road
MEETING NOTES
<t ow ww,-c(- 1*0p"vim
t"D ,,,#
W I h o /h P",7/SV V --D
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: June 19, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 4M
PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 14-005
Item: Shallow Creek
Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit for a multi -family development consisting of 68 dwelling units (17
four-plexes) on approximately 5.84 acres of land in the proposed R-15 zoning district by Steve Arnold -
SEC of N. Locust Grove Road and E. Franklin Road
MEETING NOTES
?CtZM Aro pr -,r)L, P "-�D O/e
rjC
,> ryjVA)P'0k;f7�PfU' t�j nrilsy
def _v a Ic -7-aa-/q
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: June 19, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 4N
PROJECT NUMBER: PP 14-007
Item: Timbergrove
Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat approval consisting of 20 buildable lots & 3 common lots on
approximately 4.28 acres in the C -G zoning district by Steve Arnold - west side of N. Centrepoint Way
and north of E. Ustick Road
MEETING NOTES
k4a Omff w� Apr ro✓VIP � �C
60 / rriCwU c5V/rn/»
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: June 19, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 40
PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 14-006
Item: Timbergrove
Public Hearing: Conditoinal Use Permit for a multi -family development consisting of 80 dwelling units (20
four-plexes) on approximately 4.28 acres in the C -G zoning district by Steve Arnold - west side of N.
Centrepoint Way and north of E. Ustick Road
MEETING NOTES
Z0_0"1ww?,,t Arpv-nvc,,0 -b 42
l
1 C -7Lf
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: June 19, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 4P
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE:
Approval to Create/Change New Development Application Forms, Checklists by
COM Community Development, Planning division
MEETING NOTES
Ar p m
q -t)
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
�E IDIANRC--
IDAHO /
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kristy Vigil, Assistant Planner
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
City Council Members:
Keith Bird Joe Borton
Luke Cavener Genesis Milam
Charlie Rountree David Zaremba
RE: Request for approval to create/change new Development Application
Forms/Checklists
DATE: On Commission Agenda June 19, 2014
CC: City Clerk, Legal Department
Per UDC 11 -5A -3B2, the Planning Department is requesting approval from the Planning &
Zoning Commission to create/change a new specific development application forms (checklists),
as follows:
• Change multiple checklists to require engineering plans/drawings for projects. The
checklists changes require a hard copy and an electronic copy of the plans/drawings.
Please see attached checklists.
Community Development . 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, ID 83642
Phone 208-884-5533. Fax 208-888-6854 . www.meridiancity.org
C�
E IDIAN--
{DAHO
Planning Division
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION
Application Checklist
Project name: File #:
Applicant/agent:
All applications are required to contain one copy of the following:
Applicant
Description
Staff
�
Completed and signed Development Review Application
Narrative fully describing the proposed request
Legal description of the subject property (Lot, Block, and Subdivision name if located in a recorded
subdivision OR a metes and bounds legal description of the property if not in a subdivision)
Recorded warranty deed for the subject propertyj;
Affidavit of Legal Interest signed and notarized by the property owner (if owner is a corporation-
z
submit a co of the Articles of hico oration or other evidence to show that the person signing is an authorized agent)4`.
Scaled vicinity map showing the location of the subject property
Approved site plan that is proposed to be modified
'
Scaled site plan showing proposed modification(s)
Written confirmation of parcel verification from Community Development. Please emailAld
the project name, parcels number(s), and a vicinity map to,
communitvdeELIogmen eridiancLty.org to obtain confirmation
AA!
Fee
},
(2). -sets of cone tual a ,. rin lans includ' i e Sizes and profiles ;1
(1) Disk with electronic version of the conceptual engineering plans in,a fozmat,that .,
complies with the specifications for project Drawings Bund at: x
www.meridianci .or ` ublic works/autocad standards/index.as
Additional Requirements for Commission Approval
rea
Pre -application meeting notes (All applications that require a public hearing are required to conduct a pre-
u
lication meeting with the Planning Division)w
application
Neighborhood meeting sign -in sheet (Applicants are required to hold a neighborhood meeting to provide,
an opportunity for public review of the proposed project prior to the submittal of an application.)
Z „": ii
Commitment of Property Posting form signed by theapplicant/agent
x'
Electronic version of the approved site plan and site plan with proposed modifications in
pdf format on a disk with the files named with project name and plan type (i.e. approved
_.
site plan, modified siteplan)
The Director may approve or deny specified minor modifications, provided such modifications were not the subject
of review during the original public hearing and will not adversely impact adjacent properties (see UDC 11 -5B -
6G2). All other modifications shall be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing.
APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED UNLESS ALL APPLICABLE ITEMS ON THE CHECKLIST ARE
SUBMITTED. THIS APPLICATION SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE (NOR WILL A PUBLIC
HEARING BE SET) UNTIL STAFF HAS RECEIVED ALL REQUIRED INFORMATION.
Community Development ■ Planning Division ■ 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Ste. 102 Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: 208-884-5533 Fax: 208-888-6854 www.meridiancity.org/planning
(05/21/2014)
C � f1ENZI!IAN�--
AH
Planning Division
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ■ Application Checklist
Project name: File #:
Applicant/agent
All applications are required to contain one copy of the following:
Applicant
Description
Staff
�
Completed and signed Develo ment Review Application
Narrative fully describing the proposed project
Legal description of the subject property (Lot, Block, and Subdivision name if located in a recorded
subdivision OR a metes and bounds legal description of the property if not in a subdivision)
Recorded warranty deed for the subject property
Affidavit of Legal Interest signed and notarized by the property owner (If owner is a corporation,
submit a copy of the Articles of Incorporation or other evidence to show that the person signing is an authorizedagent)
Written confirmation that a traffic impact study or change of use is not required, or has
been accepted for review by ACHD. Please contact Mindy Wallace at 387-6178 or Christy
Little at 387-6144 for more information
Scaled vicinity map showing the location of the subject property
Pre -application meeting notes (All applications that require a public hearing are required to conduct a pre -
application meeting with the Planning Division
Neighborhood meeting sign -in sheet (Applicants are required to hold a neighborhood meeting to provide
an opportunity for public review of the proposed project prior to the submittal of an application)
Commitment of Property Posting form signed by theapplicant/agent
Written confirmation of parcel verification from Community Development. Please email
the project name, parcels number(s), and a vicinity map to
communitvdevelopmenieridiancLt,or to obtain confirmation
Fee
Note: Only one copy of the above items need be submitted when submitting multiple applications
AAAitinnol rnmrirPmPntc fnr fnnrlitinnal iise Permit applications:
'Applicant l
- --- -- - - - - - -
Description
Staff
li
Site Plan—*1 copy (folded to 8'/2" x 11" size)
Plan must have a scale no smaller than 1 " = 50' (1 " = 20' is preferred) and be on a standard
drawing sheet, not to exceed 36" x 48" (24" x 36" is preferred). A plan which cannot be drawn in
its entirety on a single sheet must be drawn with appropriate match lines on two or more sheet.
The following items must be included on the siteplan:
• Date, scale, north arrow, and proposed project name
• Dimensions
• Name, address and phone number of owner(s), applicant, and engineer, surveyor
or planner who prepared the site plan
• Existing boundaries, property lines, and dimensions of the lot
• Relationship to adjacent properties, streets, and private lanes
• Easements and right-of-way lines on or adjacent to the lot
• Existing and proposed zoning of the lot, and the zoning and land use of all
adjacent properties
• Building location(s)
• Parking, bicycle parking facilities, and loading areas
• Traffic access drives
Community Development ■ Planning Division ■ 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Ste. 102 Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: 208-884-5533 Fax: 208-888-6854 www.meridiancity-org/planninp-
(0512112014)
Community Development ■ Planning Division ■ 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Ste. 102 Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: 208-884-5533 Fax: 208-888-6854 www.meridiancity.orp-/planning
• Open/common spaces
• Refuse and service areas
• Utilities plan, including the following:
Sewer, water, irrigation, and storm drainage (existing and proposed)
• Calculations table including the following:
➢ Number of parking stalls required and provided (specify handicap and compact
stalls)
➢ Number of bicycle stalls required and provided
➢ Building size (sq. ft.)
➢ Lot size (sq. ft.)
➢ Setbacks
➢ Easement locations
Reduction of the site plan (8 '/2" x 11 ")
Landscape plan — * 1 copy (folded to 8 'h" x 11" size)
Plan must have a scale no smaller than 1 " = 50' (1 " = 20' is preferred) and be on a standard
drawing sheet, not to exceed 36"x 48" (24" x 36" is preferred). A plan which cannot be drawn in
its entirety on a single sheet must be drawn with appropriate match lines on two or more sheets.
The following items must be included on the landscapeplan:
• Date, scale, north arrow, and project name
• Dimensions
• Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the developer and the person and/or
firm preparing the plan
• Existing natural features such as canals, creeks, drains, ponds, wetlands,
flood lain, high groundwater areas, and rock outcroppings.
• Location, size, and species of all existing trees on site with trunks 4 inches or
greater in diameter, measured 6 inches above the ground. Indicate whether the
tree will be retained or removed.
• A statement of how existing healthy trees proposed to be retained will be
protected from damage during construction
• Existing buildings, structures, planting areas, light poles, power poles, walls,
fences, berms, parking and loading areas, vehicular drives, trash areas, sidewalks,
pathways, stormwater detention areas, signs, street furniture, and other man-made
elements.
• Existing and proposed contours for all areas steeper than 20% slope. Berms shall
be shown with one -foot contours.
• Sight Triangles as defined in 11-3A-5 of this ordinance.
• Proposed landscaping with tree locations only
• Proposed screening structures
• Calculations of project components to demonstrate compliance with the
requirements of this ordinance, including:
➢ Number of street trees and lineal feet of street frontage
➢ Width of street buffers (exclusive of right-of-way)
➢ Width of parking lot perimeter landscape strip
➢ Buffer width between different land uses
➢ Number of parking stalls and percent of parking area with internal landscaping
➢ Total number of trees and tree species mix
➢ Mitigation for removal of existing trees, including number of caliper inches
being removed
Reduction of the landscape plan (8 '/2" x 11 ")
Building elevations showing construction materials
Electronic version of the site plan, landscape plan, and building elevations in pdf format
submitted on a disk with the files named with project name and plan type (i.e. site plan,
landscape plan, elevations, etc.). We encourage you to submit at least one color version for
Community Development ■ Planning Division ■ 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Ste. 102 Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: 208-884-5533 Fax: 208-888-6854 www.meridiancity.orp-/planning
presentation purposes.
If applying for approval of a public school, provide additional information as required by
the Public School Facility supplemental checklist per §67-6519. _
(2) Sets of conceptual eagimmri�.pians, including pipe sizes and profiles, in a format that
complies with the �atiens"foi�p edt Drawings found at:
www. `eri ' c' .grgbLlig ff9Lkg/autoq@As /indx.
(1) Disk with electronic version of the conceptual engineering plans hi the forinafspeci ied`
above
Director may require additional information concerning the social, economic, fiscal or environmental effects of the
proposed conditional use. Once an application is accepted, staff will contact you to let you know how many
additional sets of plans are required. All plans are required to befolded to 8 % "x 11 "size.
APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED UNLESS ALL APPLICABLE ITEMS ON THE CHECKLIST ARE SUBMITTED. THIS APPLICATION SHALL NOT BE
CONSIDERED COMPLETE (NOR WILL A PUBLIC HEARING BESET) UNTIL STAFF HAS RECEIVED ALL REQUIRED INFORMATION.
Community Development ■ Planning Division ■ 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Ste. 102 Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: 208-884-5533 Fax: 208-888-6854 www.meridiancit�org/planning
(:�/-WIERIDIANt, --
IDAHO
Planning Division
SHORT PLAT ■ Application Checklist
Project name: File #:
Applicant/agent:
All applications are required to contain one copy of the following unless otherwise noted:
Applicant
Description
Staff
Requirements for all Short Plat Applications
Completed and signed Development Review Application
Narrative fully describing the proposed project including the following:
➢ A statement of conformance with all requirements and provisions of the UDC
➢ A statement of conformance with acceptable engineering, architectural and
surveying practices and local standards
➢ Note if there are existing structures (buildings, tot -lots, fencing) or not on the site
(If building(s) exist, are the building(s) part of the plat, or are they to be removed?
If no building(s) exist, when is construction anticipated to begin?)
➢ Note the approved annexation/rezone ordinance number and development
agreement recorded instrument number (if applicable)
Legal description of the subject property (Lot, Block, and Subdivision name if located in a
recorded subdivision OR a metes and bounds legal description of the property if not in a subdivision
Recorded warranty deed for the subject property
Affidavit of Legal Interest signed and notarized by the property owner (If owner is a
corporation, submit a copy of the Articles of Incorporation or other evidence to show that the person
signing is an authorized agent)
Scaled vicinity map showing the location of the subject property
Approval of the proposed subdivision name from the Ada County Surveyor's office
Plat - 4 copies in final plat format (folded to 8 1/2' x 11" size) (dimensions of 18" x 27" per
Idaho Code)
The following items must be included on theplat:
• Approved plat name
• Year of platting
• Section location and coup (situate statement)
• North arrow
• Scale of plat (not smaller than 1 "=100')
• Streets and alleys with widths and bearings
• Street names
• Consecutive numbering of all lots in each block, and each block numbered
• Each and all lengths of the boundaries of each lot including curve and/or line table
• Exterior boundaries shown by distance and bearing (heavier lines than streets and
lots) including curve and/or line table
• Description of survey monuments
• Initial point and tie to at least two public land survey corners or, in lieu thereof, to
two monuments recognized by the City Engineer or County Engineer or surveyor
• Existing and proposed easements (show graphically on theplat)
• Pertinent notes for easements, restrictions, dedications, etc.
• Basis of bearings
• Land Surveyor signed seal
• Land Surveyor business name and address
• Legend of symbols
• Adjacent platted subdivision names
Community Development ■ Planning Division ■ 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Ste. 102 Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: 208-884-5533 Fax: 208-888-6854 www.meridiancitv.or lanning
(05/21/2014)
Community Development ■ Planning Division ■ 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Ste. 102 Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: 208-884-5533 Fax: 208-888-6854 www.meridiancity.org_/plannina
Reduction of the plat (8 '/2" x 11 ")
Signature sheet of the plat (4 copies)
Written confirmation of parcel verification from Community Development. Please email the
project name, parcels number(s), and a vicinity map to
communi deELMmen gridianci .or to obtain confirmation
Fee
Applicant ,
Description
Staff
,
Additional %6 uirements for Short Plat (Not required for Condominium Plat)
Pre -application meeting notes (A pre -application meeting is required to be held with the
Planning Department prior to application submittal)
Meridian Fire Department approval of plat (stamped copy of plat or letter of approval)
Applicant's engineer is required to submit a signed, stamped statement certifying that all°'''
'
street fmish centerline elevations are set a minimum of three feet above the highest
established normal groundwater elevation
Landscape plan — 3 copies (folded to 8 '/2" x 11" size)
Plan must have a scale no smaller than 1 " = 50'(1" = 20' is preferred) and be on a standard drawing
sheet, not to exceed 36" x 48" (24"x 36" is preferred). A plan which cannot be drawn in its entirety
on a single sheet must be drawn with appropriate match lines on two or more sheets.
The following items must be included on the landscapeplan:
• Date, scale, north arrow, and project name
• Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the developer and the person and/or
firm preparing the plan
• Stamp/signature of a landscape architect, landscape designer, or qualified
nurseryman preparing the plan
• Existing natural features such as canals, creeks, drains, ponds, wetlands,
floodplains, high groundwater areas, and rock outcroppings
• Location, size, and species of all existing trees on site with trunks 4 inches or
greater in diameter, measured 6 inches above the ground. Indicate whether the tree
will be retained or removed
• A statement of how existing healthy trees proposed to be retained will be protected
from damage during construction
• Existing buildings, structures, planting areas, light poles, power poles, walls,
fences, berms, parking and loading areas, vehicular drives, trash areas, sidewalks,
pathways, stormwater detention areas, signs, street furniture, and other man-made
elements
• Existing and proposed contours for all areas steeper than 20% slope. Berms shall
be shown with one -foot contours
• Si ht Triangles as defined in 11-3A-5 of this ordinance
• Location and labels for all proposed plants, including trees, shrubs, and
groundcovers. Scale shown for plant materials shall reflect approximate mature
size
• A plant list that shows the plant symbol, quantity, botanical name, common name,
minimum planting size and container, tree class (1, 11, or III), and comments (for
spacing, stakin , and installation as appropriate)
• Planting and installation details as necessary to ensure conformance with all
re u. ed standards
• Location and drawing/detail of all proposed fencing
• Calculations of project components to demonstrate compliance with the
requirements of this ordinance, including:
➢ Width of street buffers, lineal feet of street frontage, and number of street trees
➢ Residential subdivision trees
➢ Acreage dedicated for common open space
➢ Number of trees provided on common lot(s)
Community Development ■ Planning Division ■ 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Ste. 102 Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: 208-884-5533 Fax: 208-888-6854 www.meridiancity.org_/plannina
Only subdivision applications for property within an industrial, commercial, TN -C or O -T district which meet the
requirements set forth in UDC 11 -6B -SAI or condominium plat applications for property in any district where no
new development is proposed may be processed as a short plat.
APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED UNLESS ALL ITEMS ON THE CHECKLIST ARE SUBMITTED.
Community Development ■ Planning Division ■ 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Ste. 102 Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: 208-884-5533 Fax: 208-888-6854 www.meridiancity.org/planning
IDIAN*
E--
IDAHOO
Planning Division
CERTIFICATE OF ZONING COMPLIANCE
Application Checklist
Project name: File #:
Applicant/agent:
All applications are required to contain one copy of the following unless otherwise noted:
Applicant
Description
S �f
Completed and signed Development Review Application
Narrative fully describing the proposed use of the property, including the following:
➢ Information on any previous approvals or requirements for the requested use (i.e.,
applicable conditions of approval or Development Agreement)
Recorded warranty deed for the subject property
Affidavit of Legal Interest signed and notarized by the property owner (If owner is a corporation,
submit a copy of the Articles of Incorporation or other evidence to show that the person signing is an authorizedagent)
Scaled vicinity map showing the location of the subject property
Civil Site/Dimension Plan — 1 full size co (folded to 8 '/2" x 11" size
A photometric test report for any light fixture(s) with a maximum output of 1,800 lumens
or more (see UDC 11-3A-11)
Copy of the recorded plat the property lies within (8 '/2" x 11 ")
Co of address verification letter from Development Services. See attached request form
Site Plan—* 1 copy (folded to 8 '/2" x 11" size)
Plan must have a scale no smaller than 1 " = 50' (1 " = 20' is preferred) and be on a standard
drawing sheet, not to exceed 36" x 48" (24" x 36" is preferred). A plan which cannot be drawn in
its entirety on a single sheet must be drawn with appropriate match lines on two or more sheets
The following items must be shown on the siteplan:
• Date, scale, dimensions, north arrow, and project name (scale not less than 1"=50')
• Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the developer and the person and/or
firm preparing the plan
• Parking stalls and drive aisles
• Location and detail of bicycle parking facilities
• Trash and/or recycling enclosures location
• Detail of trash and/or recycling enclosure (must be screened on 3 sides)
• Location and specifications for underground irrigation (Pressurized irrigation can only be
waived if you prove no water rights exist to subject property)
• Sidewalks or pathways (proposed and existing)
• Location of proposed building on lot (include dimensions to property lines)
• Fencing (proposed and existing)
• Calculations table including the following:
➢ Number of parking stalls required and provided (specify handicap and compact stalls)
➢ Number of bicycle stalls required and provided
➢ Building size (sq. ft.)
➢ Lot size (sq. ft.)
➢ Setbacks
➢ Easement locations
Reduction of the site plan (8 '/2" x 11 ")
Landscape Plan — * 1 copy (folded to 8 '/2" x 11" size)
Plan must have a scale no smaller than 1 " = 50' (1 " = 20' is preferred) and be on a standard
drawing sheet, not to exceed 36" x 48" (24" x 36" is preferred). A plan which cannot be drawn in
its entirety on a single sheet must be drawn with appropriate match lines on two or more sheets
The following items must be included on the landscapeplan:
Community Development ■ Planning Division ■ 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Ste. 102 Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: 208-884-5533 Fax: 208-888-6854 www.meridiancity.org/planning
(0512112014)
Community Development ■ Planning Division ■ 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Ste. 102 Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: 208-884-5533 Fax: 208-888-6854 www.meridiancity.org/plqnniU
• Date, scale, dimensions, north arrow, and project name
• Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the developer and the person and/or
firm preparing the plan
• Stamp/signature of a landscape architect, landscape designer, or qualified
nurseryman preparing the plan
• Existing natural features such as canals, creeks, drains, ponds, wetlands,
flood lain, high groundwater areas, and rock outcroppings
• Location, size, and species of all existing trees on site with trunks 4 inches or
greater in diameter, measured 6 inches above the ground. Indicate whether the
tree will be retained or removed
• A statement of how existing healthy trees proposed to be retained will be
protected from damage during construction
• Existing and/or structures, planting areas, light poles, power poles, walls, fences,
berms, parking and loading areas, vehicular drives, trash areas, sidewalks,
pathways, fire hydrants, stormwater detention areas, signs, street furniture, and
other man-made elements
• Existing and proposed contours for all areas steeper than 20% slope. Berms shall
be shown with one-foot contours
• Sight Triangles as defined in 11-3A-5 of this ordinance
• Location and labels for all proposed plants, including trees, shrubs, and
groundcovers (trees must not be planted in City water or sewer easements or within five feet of fire
hydrants). Scale shown for plant materials shall reflect approximate mature size
• A plant list that shows the plant symbol, quantity, botanical name, common name,
minimum planting size and container, tree class (I, II, or III), and comments (for
spacing, stakin , and installation as appropriate)
• Calculations of project components to demonstrate compliance with the
requirements of this ordinance, including:
➢ Width of street buffers, lineal feet of street frontage, and number of street trees
➢ Residential subdivision trees
➢ Acreage and percentage dedicated for common open space
➢ Acreage and percentage dedicated for qualified open space
➢ Number of trees provided on common lot(s)
➢ Mitigation for removal of existing trees
• Planting and installation details as necessary to ensure conformance with all
required standards
• Design drawing(s) of all fencing proposed for screening purposes. Include height
and material
Reduction of the landscape plan (8 '/z" x 11")
Building elevations showing construction materials – *I co (folded to 8 ''/z" x 11" size)
Reduction of the elevations (8 '/z" x 11 ")
Electronic version of the site plan, landscape plan, and building elevations in pdf format
submitted on a disk with the files named with project name and plan type (i.e. site plan,
landscape plan, elevations, etc.). We encourage you to submit at least one color version
If applying for approval of a public school, provide additional information as required by
the Public School Facility supplemental checklist per §67-6519
Fee If this project had prior approval on a site plan, reduced fees may apply)
For applications requiring a change of use or new construction we recommend you contact
the Ada Cou2.tl Hi hwa District at 208) 387-6170 to determine any fees or requirements
(2� Sets of conee� iA��.fiizes >j #n;
complies wifih the 4M c' aUoris for pt tt Drawings found at:
judex
(1) QW-
�vv telco ft 'Oft tint s t is rW . .i>�# uo.fa
�.
above.
Community Development ■ Planning Division ■ 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Ste. 102 Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: 208-884-5533 Fax: 208-888-6854 www.meridiancity.org/plqnniU
IDIAN*--
VE,
IDAHOO
Planning Division
PROPERTY BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT
Application Checklist
Project name: File #:
Applicant/agent•
All applications are required to contain one copy of the following unless otherwise noted:
Applicant Staff
� Description 0
Completed and signed Development Review Application
Narrative fully describing the requested property boundary adjustment
Le al descri tion (metes and bounds) of the new property boundaries and closure sheet
Recorded warranty deed for the subject property
Affidavit of Legal Interest signed and notarized by the property owner (If owner is a
corporation, submit a copy of the Articles of Incorporation or other evidence to show that the person
signing is an authorized agent)
Scaled vicinity map showing the location of the subject property
Existing recorded plat in which the subject property lies (8 ''/2" x I I") (if applicable)
Existing Record of Surveys used and/or referenced (8 ''/z" x 1 I")
Record of Survey (18" x 24" paper copy)
Electronic version of the Record of Survey in pdf format submitted on a disk with the files
named with ro'ect name andplan type.
Written confirmation of parcel verification from Community Development. Please email the
project name, parcels number(s), and a vicinity map to
communi -velopmen&
MeridianELtL,orgto obtain confirmation
Fee
(1 'low? 16merbMevers1ott J&Q mptual: in a format
cxlies with thy.s
1 puna
i#+e�vr►rkgJrrtc>ciaci AgftqM1!.M
Property boundary adjustments are allowed for the adjustment of property lines between existing properties, and to
allow for the reduction in the number of buildable lots. A property boundary adjustment does not vacate the platted
lot lines or easements of a recorded subdivision (UDC 11-6B-8).
APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED UNLESS ALL ITEMS ON THE CHECKLIST ARE SUBMITTED.
Community Development ■ Planning Division ■ 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Ste. 102 Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: 208-884-5533 Fax: 208-888-6854 www.meridiancity.org/planning
(05/21/2014)
E IDIAN*--
so���
Planning Division
ANNEXATION/REZONE ■ Application Checklist
Project name: File #:
Applicant/agent:
Application is required to contain one copy of the following:
Applicant
Description
Staff
�
Completed and signed Development Review Application
Narrative fully describing the proposed project
Legal description of the property to be annexed and/or rezoned
• Include a metes and bounds description to the section line of all adjacent roadways, stamped and signed by a
registered professional land surveyor, with a calculated closure sheet
• Scaled exhibit map showing the boundaries of the legal description in compliance w/ the requirements of the
Idaho State Tax Commission Property Tax Administrative Rules IDAPA 35.01.03.225.0l.h
• If requesting more than one zoning designation, include a legal description for each zone along with an overall
annexation/rezone boundary description. Also include the boundaries of each different zone on the map
*Note: When also submitting a Preliminary Plat application, a separate legal description is required for the
boundaries of the plat, excluding property to the section line as re wired or annexations/rezone
Recorded warranty deed for the subject property
Affidavit of Legal Interest signed and notarized by the property owner (If owner is a corporation,
submit a copy of the Articles of Incorporation or other evidence to show that the person signing is an authorizedagent)
Scaled vicinity map showing the location of the subject property
Pre -application meeting notes (All applications that require a public hearing are required to conduct a pre -
application meeting with the Planning Division
Neighborhood meeting sign -in sheet (Applicants are required to hold a neighborhood meeting to provide
an opportunity for public review of the proposed project prior to the submittal of an application)
Commitment of Property Posting form signed by the applicant/agent
Written confirmation of parcel verification from Community Development. Please email the
project name, parcels number(s), and a vicinity map to
communi develo men eridianci .or to obtain confirmation
Fee (Please call the Planning Division to calculate correct fee. Applications with
incorrectfees will not be accepted.)
2 Sets of conceptual engineering plans including pipe sizes and profiles
(1) Disk with electronic version of the conceptual engineering plans in a format that
complies with the specifications for project Drawings found at:
m '' ci ub'c t ads 'de.
Note: Only one copy of the above items need be submitted when submitting multiple applications
Arlditinnnl Requirements for Annexation/Rezone Annlications:
- -Applicant --
- --- -
Description
Staff
(�)
If this application is not accompanied by a plat, conditional use permit, or planned unit
development application, submit a conceptual development plan and elevations for the
property (also submit an electronic version of the plan(s) in pdf format on a disk with the file named
with project name and plan type i.e. conceptual development plan, elevations]).
APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED UNLESS ALL APPLICABLE ITEMS ON THE CHECKLIST ARE SUBMITTED.
Community Development ■ Planning Division ■ 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Ste. 102 Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: 208-884-5533 Fax: 208-888-6854 www.meridiancitv.orgiplanning
(0512112014)