April 29, 2004 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 43 of 100
Borup: Okay. This would probably be a good time to take a -- we will take a short
break at this time.
(Recess.)
Item 9. Continued Public Hearing from March 18, 2004: RZ 04-002 Request
for a Rezone of 7.48 acres from L-O to R-15 zones for proposed Rock
Creek Subdivision by Treasure Valley Development -east of North
Linder Road and south of West Pine Avenue:
Item 10. Continued Public Hearing from March 18, 2004: PP 04-005 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval for 52 residential building lots and 1 common
lot on 7.48 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for proposed Rock Creek
Subdivision by Treasure Valley Development -east of North Linder Road
and south of West Pine Avenue:
Item 11. Continued Public Hearing from March 18, 2004: CUP 04-006 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development consisting of a
mix of residential and commercial uses with reductions to building setback
requirements for proposed Rock Creek Subdivision by Treasure Valley
Development -east of North Linder Road and south of West Pine
Avenue:
Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our meeting this evening and begin with our next
hearing on RZ 04-002, PP 04-005, and CUP 04-006. All three of these are Continued
Public Hearings from March 18th for proposed Rock Creek Subdivision by Treasure
Valley Development. We'd like to start with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. I'll start out
with just a brief overview that will touch on all three and, then, go through the Rezone
plat and CUP in particular. The site is currently zoned limited office. The
Comprehensive Plan does designate the property as high density residential. The
property is bounded by Meridian Friends Church to the east in this rectangular parcel
here Pine Street on the north, there is Pedmont, Navaro, and Clarinda Subdivisions on
the north side of Pine Street. Union Pacific Railroad, a 200 foot right of way that abuts
the south and Tramore Subdivision apartment complex is here and I think a couple of
the Commissioners will remember that. Roundtree Subdivision was proposed on the
south side of Tramore. The senior apartment complex is on the north lot and that's
complete and occupied today. The southerly portion for Roundtree Subdivision was
denied by City Council, as noted in the staff report a couple. of months ago, and the
reasons for the denial are outlined in the staff report, but, essentially, it comes down to
three things. One was the concerns about the senior complex and the high density
apartments and the traffic -- particularly the density and the traffic that would be
associated with the apartment complex on the same -- essentially the same parcel as
the apartment complex that was -- that was one of the issues for denial. Another one
had to do with open space and the way the floor plans were proposed on Roundtree
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 44 of 100
was that they did not have a private usable area within each unit that was a hundred
square feet or greater. Council was concerned about that. They also had concems
about the elevations and just the general design of the units. In essence, that's -- that's
the reasons for Roundtree's denial and I did outline in the report some of the -- how that
inter-relates with this proposal and, for the most part, staff finds that the reasons don't
apply as much because of the -- there is some separation of the senior complex, but I
certainly don't want to state that, you know, there aren't some things for the Commission
to still consider tonight, in particular the density is exactly the same, but since the
Comprehensive Plan calls for high density in this area, it is adjacent to a railroad track, it
does have an urban collector on the north side of it, Pine Street, which does have bike
lanes. You do have Linder -- or, I'm sorry, the high school within walking distance.
There are several factors that staff feels that high density is appropriate for this area
and the comp plan supports it, so -- generally, the plat -- well, I'll just touch on the
Rezone, I guess, first here on item number nine. They are proposing to Rezone it from
the current limited office to R-15, 15 dwelling units per acre. We have recommended to
staff that a portion of the north end of the project not be Rezoned to R-15, because they
are proposing two non-residential lots and we have been recommending that the use try
to match the zone as much as possible, rather than having -- having the R-15 be an
underlying zone for commercial office -- or commercial or office uses. We are
recommending that stay the same. That's, essentially, the Rezone request. The aerial
shows you, kind of, the Nine Mile Creek that bisects the property, continues on here to
the north and west, so that does present somewhat of a design challenge for the
applicant and, as you will see, they have proposed just a one crossing of that. Here is
the beginning of the apartment complex that's shown there. As far as the Preliminary
Plat is concerned, they are proposing 92 dwelling units that are all located within four-
plex structures. There are 23 multi-family lots, two commercial lots or office lots, I'm
sorry, here on the north and, then, one common open space lot, which is, essentially, all
parts of the project that are not buildable lots have been proposed to be put within one
common lot. That is a slight change from the original plan that was submitted to the
city. This is a revised plan that came through after the Roundtree Subdivision was
denied. They did remove two buildings. Other than that, largely, it's the same. Their
proposed density is 12.3 dwelling units per acre. The amenities that they are proposing
as you -- as you enter in off of Pine, there is a common open space lot here just north of
the Nine Mile Drain. There is another common lot here just south of the Nine Mile
Drain. And, originally, staff had concerns about a lack of usable open space on the
north side of the drain. They did add and increase that to provide this in the revised
plan. There is also some other open space I think there is a better layout that's shown
here. You can see there is some green area around each of the four-plex buildings,
along with trees. The amenities that are in these two open space lots I mentioned are
playground, a tot lot here on the south, and a picnic and barbecue area on the north
side of the drain. They are also proposing to extend afive-foot wide pathway from
Tramore, which is already there. It exists today. Extend that to the east. Those are
proposed areas for usable open space. We had asked for a specific calculation tonight
and I was told verbally. We will ask the applicant to address the Commission, but -- that
it's about 10.3 percent of the site is open space and that -- that does not include the
Pine Street street buffer, nor the Union Pacific landscaped area that they have shown
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 45 of 100
here. The elevation -- the proposed elevation has a common stairwell that is in the
middle of the building and that, of course, serves the upper two units. There is two units
on the bottom, two units on the top. The materials are shown there, but if the applicant
could just address that as well, the' building materials that they are proposing to use
here, because that was a critical piece of the denial for Roundtree Subdivision, so we
wanted to be clear with that. Let's see. I think there are just six or seven specific items
in the staff report that I wanted to point out. The first one is on Page 7, Item Number 3,
that we have asked for a new legal description, as I mentioned, that retains the L-O
zoning on the north end. The second item I want to point out on page eight, special
consideration A, as a part of the planned development, they have proposed to reduce
the side setbacks. The R-15 requires -- would require a 10-foot side setback far atwo-
story structure and they are proposing it to be five, so it would be 10 feet between
structures. The city has approved that 10-foot separation before, the International
Building Code does support that, but that is a reduction that they are asking for a part of
the project. If the Commission could just bear that in mind, thinking about the amenities
that they are proposing.
Zaremba: I'm sorry to interrupt, but I'm going to interrupt. I think the other times that we
have agreed to that, we have added a stipulation that no fencing be put along the
property line between the buildings and the thought there is preserve a ten foot wide
area that the Fire Department could get through with ladders and stuff if they needed to.
Has that been discussed with the application or should I take that up with the applicant?
Hawkins-Clark: I would probably do that. We did not raise that in the staff report, nor
have I talked with the applicant about it.
Zaremba: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: Usually, of course, these four-plexes, it's fairly uncommon to separate
them with fencing internally. You will have the perimeter, but -- yes, good thing to raise.
Zaremba: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark Let's see. On the bottom of page eight, there is also reference to the
emergency access for the site and as you may recall with the Roundtree Subdivision
there was adriveway -- 25 foot wide driveway connection that's proposed between the
two projects shown right here on the west property line. The Fire Department does
require, obviously, as well as police, that there be that second access. They are
proposing I believe it's 48 dwelling units on the north side, so that would be with the
single point of access off of Pine, so we have recommended that they have a second
point of access that is fire rated, fire approved, before they could start any buildings on
the south side of the Nine Mile Drain. Mainly for discussion sake, I included this
paragraph D, a point about interconnectivity and I will just go back to the vicinity map.
It's a little bit difficult to see here, but, again, here is the Meridian Friend's Church and
here is the subject property. Idaho Avenue stubs to the Friend's Church here and
Broadway Avenue stubs to the Friend's Church here on the south side of the drain.
Meddian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 46 of 100
Both ACHD and city staff think it's pretty unlikely that Idaho Avenue will be extended as
a public street, because of its close proximity to the office parsonage that is on this site.
That is not the case on the south side of the canal where Broadway may provide some
better connectivity, both for the existing Tramore Subdivision, as well as for these
others. Now, the applicant has not proposed to have either a driveway stub or any kind
of public street on their east boundary. They have got units along this entire boundary.
Mainly we wanted to just raise that for the Commission. If you saw that there were
some advantages to having this project be able to get out both to the east and to the
west, that opportunity is there. Since we don't have an application before us on the
Friend's Church site, of course, we don't know how that -- how that will work, but I
wanted to raise that. The ACHD has not required it. The applicant is not proposing it.
As long as the number of units remains consistent how it is proposed at the 12.3
dwelling units, I think staff is supportive of the way they have it. Obviously, keeping in
mind that we have required that second connection out through the Tramore apartment
complex. Let's see. Then, two more -- two or three more items to point out. On page
ten --
Zaremba: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. Brad?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
Zaremba: I was going to ask when you were done how likely Roundtree is to resubmit
some kind of an application, but your statement that you made just now that you want
the second access to be through the Tramore property -- is that what you said? We are
not looking for this second access to be an eventual access through Roundtree's future
proposal?
Hawkins-Clark: Well, I'm sorry, that would be the case. I mean Tramore is the name of
the subdivision to the west and it's atwo-lot subdivision.
Zaremba: Okay. So, the Roundtree --
Hawkins-Clark: Roundtree will be on part of Tramore's --
Zaremba: -- is part of Tramore --
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Zaremba: Okay. So, it would be the southern portion of the Tramore --
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Hawkins-Clark: -- that this would gain access to and not their current existing parking
lot?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 47 of 100
Zaremba: Thank you for that clarification.
Hawkins-Clark: On Page 10 we make a reference there on sub point Roman numeral V
about the trees on the property and there is very few on -- if any, on the south side of
the canal. There are eight ash trees on the north side that are pretty good size and the
city arborist has gone out to the site, has looked at them, feels that they are in good
shape and would have to be mitigated for. The applicant's proposing to take all of them
out and replace them with the same amount of calipers that they have. There is, I think,
250 caliper inches of trees that would be removed and the code says if you take 250
inches out, you got to put 250 inches back somehow. We have not gotten that
information from the applicant, if they have proposed the full mitigation. I did want to
point out that the -- Elroy Huff, the arborist, have deemed those to be decent trees.
Then, I wanted to go back to the amenities. In terms of visual access, the Police
Department, Chief Musser, has made a comment on this application about public
surveillance of these two open space sites and so we have recommended to enhance --
to enhance that, that the side elevations of this building here, this building here, and this
building, so three of the -- three four-plexes -- I'm sorry. Four. This one as well. That
those side elevations have windows that can provide sort of that visual access to the
open spaces, so it's not just a blank wall. Actually, we do have site elevations here that
I can put up on the overhead, so you can see those. This is the proposed right
elevation. We haven't seen a floor plan, so it's unclear as to whether ornot -- you know,
what kind of rooms these are, but we just wanted to raise this for the Commission, that
probably it should be located in either a living room or kitchen within the units to provide
that access that the Police Department's looking for for safety.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, Brad, you're saying there should be windows on the second
floor that are --
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Zaremba: -- that are usable, as opposed to -- well, the little high ones, but at least one
window that -- on the second floor.
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Yes. It would be both floors. Right.
Borup: Because they are separate units.
Hawkins-Clark: While we are looking at this elevation, it might be helpful to just mention
that the -- as part of the planned development CUP application, one of the reductions
that they are asking for is the rear setback to be 12 feet, instead of 15. This is only on
the interior lots, though. The whole perimeter would still have 15-foot rear setback. On
the interior ones this balcony, which is, I believe, six feet by about 10 -- and I will ask
them to verify that, but that would encroach into that rear setback, so you would be
looking at -- in those rear yards, you know, about eight feet of free space that is
unencroached. The code outright allows four foot encroachment for balconies that are
Meddian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 28, 2004
Page 48 of 100
unroofed, which these are. They are basically asking for an additional two feet beyond
what the code allows. The code would say you could -- on an unroofed balcony you
could come out four feet into your required rear setback and they are proposing to come
out six feet. The bottom units have patios, which are just pads, there is no structures on
those. Those are 10 feet -- 10 feet deep. That -- there is basically two exceptions that
they are asking for. One is the rear setback to be 12, instead of 15, and, then, the other
is the balcony overhang to be six, instead of four.
Zaremba: Brad, again, if the balcony dimension is six feet by ten feet for 60 square
feet, that doesn't meet the hundred square feet of private space, which is the reason
that the City Council turned down Roundtree.
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. There is some usable space in the front of the unit.
Zaremba: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: And I may have that balcony dimension wrong, so I will just ask Mr.
Clever, who is representing the applicant tonight, to clarify that.
Zaremba: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. I think those are the main issues that are somewhat outstanding
that we are asking for some feedback from the applicant on tonight. The pathway, as I
mentioned, I will just -- right now they are not showing the pathway to go full to the east
boundary, so we will be asking for that. We have asked for that in our staff report. Are
there any questions at this time?
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners?
Zaremba: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Brad, I did have one other. I thought I was
understanding the drawings correctly and this appears to repeat that. Is there a
necessity for there being no intersection here? Normally, I would think there would be
some cross-vehicular access in that area.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Commissioner Zaremba, Members of the Commission, there is a
pedestrian access. They have also proposed a trash enclosure in that area that would
serve these units that would you know make that difficult. That's certainly a design
issue that is up for the commission's discussions. I don't necessarily see the -- you
know, the benefit or need for it, since they -- ACHD has approved a curb cut for these
two office buildings. They will have some separation and you don't have much of a
turning distance if you were to put a vehicular connection across there. It's a pretty
shallow distance to make the turn. I -- I don't necessarily see the benefit of it, but --
Zaremba: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 49 of 100
Borup: Okay. Anyone else? Thank you. Would the applicant like to make their
presentation?
Ralphs: Members of the Commission, my name is Rod Ralphs, I'm here on behalf of
the applicant Treasure Valley Development. I'm at 850 Franklin, Suite 406, here in
Meridian. If it pleases the Commission, I have some handouts for you this evening, if I
could hand you those first. Okay. What I'd like to do first, if we could, is go to the slide
that reflects the handout that we just provided. What I'd like to do is go through here
and describe some of the issues raised by staff and, of course, any questions that you
might have. We have got 92 units going in there, that's 23 buildings, and we do want to
keep the lighter limited office on the front. Really, the only change we are looking at is
going R-15 on the back. We are proposing 3,000 square foot buildings -- they are
approximately 3,000 square foot up here, in keeping with what you already have for the
Comprehensive Plan and for the proposed use for this site. As we get in here, we'd like
to also point out some of the open space. As staff indicated, we are not counting the
berm area along Pine, nor are we counting in down here along this lateral as part of our
open space and, yet, we still exceed the ten percent of -- one thing I would point out.
Here we have this trash area and if you look on your handout it shows it a little bit
better. If we were to explore interconnectivity right there, we would actually lose one of
the trees, there is one of the established trees there. Out of the three trees that we
believe are salvageable out there, putting that driveway there would actually take one of
those out. The remaining two trees constitute about 95 inches and, then, we can
mitigate the rest with some additional landscaping. I wanted to go down through some
of the amenities that staff pointed out. On the original plat that was suggested, we had
the tot lot or play area here south of the Nine Mile Drain. Point out to the Commission
and the Nine Mile Drain is what is characterized as a natural water feature, so we will
not be tiling. However, if you will look at staff comments, we would be looking at staffing
down here with a -- or, excuse me, tiling this lateral down below. What we have
proposed on the initial application was putting the tot lot over here to the south of the
Nine Mile Drain and the concerns for visual and public surveillance by the police chief
are certainly -- certainly valid and so what we have asked is that we would put the
barbecue and picnic area, along with the tot lot, next to each other. We just want to --
as we get ready to go into the development on this, we don't want to be married to the
north or the south, we want to be able to keep that open. We will put those two
together, but we want to be able to have that option to either put it on the north south
side. We are right now is this current configuration -- we are particular to this one,
because, obviously, you have fronts of units that are able to look right into this area
along that public surveillance. Also, even though this tot lot here is in the center and
you have got this green open area around it to protect them from traffic and, you know,
darting out into traffic, we do have an area where traffic would be coming and going and
they would also be able to keep an eye on there for the little ones playing in the area.
One of the other amenities that we had that was not mentioned was we were going to
be putting in a horseshoe pit. It's an active outdoor recreation site that could be used as
another amenity. We have no objection to extending this path over here where it stubs
into Tramore, all the way across here. Then, also stubbing it to the east property line,
so that some day as they go -- as they develop that next piece, that that would be
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 50 of 100
available. I believe that's what we have got in the way of amenities and wanted to just
make sure -- we have got the tot lot, we have got a barbecue pit, we have got walking
paths and, then, we also have the horseshoe pit. One of the things that staff indicated
is that we are asking for aconditional -- or a variance on the setbacks and staff had
indicated that that was 12 foot on the interior, but we'd also like to have 12 foot on the
exterior lots as well. Now, what we propose -- if we can put that side elevation and just
show where those balconies are. What we have got here is we have got the 60 square
feet here in the back and as Councilman Zaremba was pointing out, that would be 60
square feet. Then, we would also have a seven by nine foot area here in the front porch
that they would also be able to use for their private space and that would exceed the
hundred square feet combined. Down on the bottom where we have the patio slab, that
would be approximately a 10-by-10 square foot slab and they would have that, plus the
entire access to the back area of that building on the ground floor for a private area. I
wanted to touch a little bit on the construction materials as well. What you see here is
you have some vertical boarding here. This would be shakes. If you could go back to
that color rendering, I think that would help a little bit more. Thank you. What we would
have here for architectural effect is you have a cedar shake look here that would be a
different color. You would have lap siding down here on the lower and you have the
vertical board here. I appreciate Council pointing out that we do have in the elevation
some side fencing. However, we would not have that and that would be in keeping with
the Fire Department and the police have asked for security sake, getting in between the
buildings, and, then, also accommodate the five foot setbacks that we have on the
sides. They would have ten feet to go back in there. Then, we would adjust the
landscaping also, so that there would not be any interruptions if they needed to get back
in there. I believe I have addressed the emergency access. The tot lot play area, we
also wanted to point out that with this Nine Mile Drain remaining uncovered, we will be
putting in a six foot, noncombustible fence that would be visible -- or a non-sight
obstructive type fence through there that would allow people to see through it, but it
would also keep the little ones out. It would be noncombustible material and it would
wrap around these areas here where the Nine Mile Drain still remains exposed. By
combining all the open space that I spoke of earlier and that, again, is excluding the
berm area and, then, also the area down there along the lateral, we are about 35,119
square feet. You can see that on the handout I gave you, to put us at right at 10
percent we would be at 32,000. We have added some more square feet as open space
to be used. We have visited with ACHD about our interconnectivity issues. Gcing back
to the other concern about what is going to happen with Broadway and Idaho Streets,
we don't know what's going to happen. One of the applications you can see that
property -- if we could go to that one that would show that area there to the east. Okay.
Great. I have not personally been out on this side of the road, but instead of looking at
it coming and stubbing all the way through, another use would be for someone coming
in there and just wrapping this around. ACRD, with the visits we had, if we maintain this
connectivity and go up through and use the Tramore -- and I'll call it Tramore No. 2 or
Roundtree, just to avoid confusion, but we will have that emergency access going from
the west into Tramore and, then, there would be another crossing over here going over
the drain. Now, that's option one, and, of course, that's our preferable option. That
would be an asphalt road that would be wide enough and that would be easy access for
Meddian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 51 of 100
emergency service vehicles and personnel. One of the other things that we had
discussed and would be available to us as another option would be improving this canal
area back here for access by emergency services and that can be and I understand it's
been done historically, but don't ask me which project. I believe that's it. Let me just
take a quick look at the notes I was taking during the park here. As Council -- or,
excuse me, as the Commission will note, we do have windows there on the side
elevations and we certainly can add a larger window in that upper story if you want to
make that as part of the conditions.
Borup: Does the interior floor plan accommodate that?
Ralphs: I understand those are bedrooms upstairs, so yes. I believe that's it, Members
of the Commission. I would certainly answer any of your questions at this time. We just
feel that this proposal is within keeping of the Comprehensive Plan. High density is
allowed. We have allowed for traffic connectivity and flowing. We have reviewed it with
ACRD and we feel it's in keeping with what you have got in place for the
Comprehensive Plan for this area. I have nothing further, so I'll field any questions you
have.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Zaremba: I do have one. Along the Nine Mile Drain is there any easement for anybody
like Nampa-Meridian to have an access to that or --
Ralphs: Certainly. That would be a part on the plat and there would also be gates. We
would work with Nampa-Meridian on that, making sure they would have gated access to
that. We see things like that. For example, like the Ten Mile Drain in other areas where
we have had to fence it.
Borup: Mr. Ralphs, you had mentioned that you are requesting 12 foot on all the lots,
so that's different than what your application states. Is that what you're saying?
Ralphs: That's correct. We are going 12 feet on all the rear line setbacks.
Borup: And is there a reason for that?
Ralphs: That is to accommodate the extra docking area that we need to accommodate
the privacy space.
Borup: Well, don't those setbacks refer to the building?
Ralphs: Right. There is the other fine print that says that we are only allowed to
encroach a certain distance into those setbacks with an overhang and that's where we
are going with that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 52 of 100
Borup: So, that's why you're asking for the 12 feet, is because of the overhang, not
because of the building proper?
Ralphs: Well, the building ties into what the overhang is. The buildings come back off
the property line 12 feet and, then, we have the overhang of six. Really, what we are
doing there is we are not only asking for a change from the 15 to the 12, but, then, we
are also asking for a Variance for the -- instead of four feet overhang, asking for six.
Borup: So, that the plat that you submitted that shows that setback, is that a 15 foot
setback that's depicted on the plan now, the dotted line?
Ralphs: I believe it's 12. Just one other comment to add, that by going 12 on the back
we were able to add another five to the front and give a little more separation from the
street and the parking area.
Borup: What are the building sizes?
Ralphs: I'm sorry. What?
Borup: The size of the building.
Ralphs: The size of the buildings are -- I've got that down here. The total size of the
building -- that's a great question, because I --
Borup: The dimensions are what I was looking for
Ralphs: Okay. Total footprint is about -- is 4,324. Excuse me. That would be 35 by
70. Yes. If I can, I'd just present to the Commission the different measurements of the
units. The upstairs unit is two bedroom, two bath of 984 square feet. Then, the bottom
units are a three bedroom, two baths, at 1,178. If you take those numbers and you
double up the -- each floor, you come up with 4,324 square feet per building.
Zaremba: Let me ask each -- each four-plex would be under one ownership? One
person would own a whole four-plex?
Ralphs: Yes. That would be the expectation.
Borup: Well, I'm not understanding why the necessity to ask for a reduced setback on
the perimeters, unless the building sizes are changing. You have 29 feet of setback
available now. No. That's not correct. Yes. Yes. That is. Which gives you -- which
gives you 15 and 14.
Ralphs: Fifteen and 14. I'm going to defer to the engineer here for a moment, if that's
all right.
Borup: I'm refer-ing to the rear setback
Meddian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 53 of 100
Clever: Nathan Clever of Leavitt Associated Engineers, 1324 1s1 Street South, Nampa.
The building -- the purpose for the setbacks that we requested are we have the stairs
that you can see at the -- can you go to the side profile again, Brad. Thank you. This
side profile does not show the stairs going down. They protrude another three feet past
the front. When we went and looked at laying out these -- this subdivision, we looked at
several other -- several sites and they all showed no open space in the front. We are
looking at parking five feet there was the building. We did see a couple that have
greater setbacks in the front. Our hopes were that we would be able to obtain 12 to 15
feet in the front and put 12 foot in the back. That -- allowing that would give us more
open space, it would be quieter for the residence inside and pull them off the street, and
so they are not in apartments right on top of each other.
Borup: So your feeling is that the residence would rather have their private open space
in the front of the building, rather than behind?
Clever: Our feeling was that it gave abetter -- it made a nicer residence for them and
we tried to add in additional amenities and open space to provide for them recreational
facilities so, the answer would be yes.
Borup: Okay. I just -- maybe that's me. I think that having a private open space out
near the parking lot isn't very private.
Clever: That is a good concern. One of the -- all of us barbecue. One of our ideas was
to put in the amenity of barbecuing to draw the residents from their homes, so
everybody wouldn't have a barbecue on the back patio, that they would go use the
community barbecue.
Borup: So, you're proposing the front setback to be what?
Clever: We are asking for 12, but, most likely, build 15, because the stairs are going to
be sticking out three feet from the top.
Borup: Okay. Which leaves you 14 for the back.
Clever: One moment, please. We do have the home -- the home plans with us. Let's --
I just want to verify that the home is 35 and not 37 feet deep, because it seems there is
a discrepancy of two feet, obviously, like you pointed out. It is 37 four inches.
Borup: Okay. That's different than what was stated but it's 70 the other way?
Clever: That's correct.
Borup: So, which open -- which size building was the open space calculated on?
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 54 of 100
Clever: It was the same identical building, 60 foot -- 60 by 100 square foot, balconies
on the top and an additional nine by seven in the front.
Borup: Okay. All right. Maybe I spent too much on that time.
Clever: Oh, I probably apologize for misleading you.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Did you finish your presentation, Mr. Ralphs?
Ralphs: I believe that's it, unless the Commission has any other questions for me.
Rohm: I think where Chairman Borup was going with that square footage deal, is that
the 37 by 70 versus 35 by 70, are you still -- do you still have the required ten percent
open space.
Ralphs: Yes, we do.
Rohm: Isn't that where you were going with that, Keith?
Borup: Well, part of it. Really, where I was going was -- I didn't see the necessity of
asking for a reduction when it fits the way it's -- we thought it was designed now.
Obviously, you know, there is another two feet, so that does make a difference.
Ralphs: Okay. Thank you, if there are no further questions.
Borup: Okay. Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Seeing none,
Commissioners?
Newton-Huckabay: I have concern on the accesses to this property. It doesn't seem
like usable --
Borup: The one additional to the west?
Newton-Huckabay: I like the idea of, you know, possibly connecting to Broadway or at
least coming out over here by the railroad. You have to go a long ways to get out of
here.
Borup: Well, I have always had a concern about interconnectivity between
developments.
Newton-Huckabay: It seems like the interconnectivity in the new developments in
northern Meridian are -- appear to be required and, then, maybe we are in an older part
of Meridian and we don't have a requirement to hook up to existing stub streets. Do I
need to repeat myself?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 55 of 100
Borup: No. No. I understand. Part of the concern is we don't -- I mean maybe part of it
is because we don't know how the property to the east may be developed. But -- and
that's one of my thoughts on the reduced setback. I mean we have a deck six feet from
the property line, without knowing what is even going to be developed over there, too.
I'm not so sure -- three feet probably doesn't make a lot of difference.
Zaremba: I would be inclined to defend the access as presently shown going to the
west, not necessarily, again, because of this property, but we know that if there is ever a
new proposal for the Roundtree or Tramore 2 property, they are going to need a second
way out and this is the only option for them.
Borup: I think what the Commissioner was talking about was to the east.
Zaremba: Yes but I thought you were saying to trade, not have the --
Newton-Huckabay: Oh, no. No. I don't think there is enough access to this property.
Zaremba: Okay. Well, I certainly would support having one go to the west. I think it's
Broadway to connect with, but that would, essentially, mean giving up one building.
Borup: Or half a building. It becomes a duplex, rather than afour-plex.
Zaremba: Yes.
Borup: And I'd support that, too, except that my only concern is not knowing how that
property may develop. We have seen a lot of stub streets, as was just shown on the
subdivision to the east, that has the two stub streets that likely may never be used.
Newton-Huckabay: I think they have a better chance of being used if you have another
stub street with the potential to hooking up one of the --
Borup: What I'm getting at is I like the idea allowing for it and preparing for it, but maybe
an option of abandoning it if it would not be used as the adjoining property developed,
rather than have it there going nowhere. I don't know the best way to accommodate
that. I do know once the buildings in place it's too late. Any other thoughts along that?
Rohm: I'd just like to hear the applicant's response to that. Yes, I concur that it would
be nice. I'd like to know what the applicant has to say.
Borup: Okay. Any other discussion, maybe, while we are -- they are formulating
something? Any other items?
Ralphs: I'd just point out that Roundtree is here tonight and we have worked with them
and about using mutual access, at least for emergency vehicle purposes, through those
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 56 of 100
-- using that road. We have connectivity through there and we are going to develop
these projects as best as we can to get --
Borup: No. I think we were talking about connectivity to the east.
Ralphs: Okay. The deal with the east is the interior roads here in Rock Creek are all
private and I'm not the ACHD attorney, but, really, you would be bringing those public
roads and, then, what kind of a transition do we have between Broadway and Idaho
going into a private roadway system. I don't know what hoops would be required to
jump through that. Then, of course, we don't know exactly what the church is going to
do with that back piece. It could be years before anything else happens.
Moe: So, you are anticipating that it going to the west is going to be feasible for an
access road that the Fire Department has required?
Ralphs: That's what our expectation is. We have certainly had the discussions about
coordinating and cooperating with Roundtree's proposal on that as well. I know it's also
in the staff comments that we are not going to be able to do anything on that back piece
until something is worked out to the satisfaction of emergency personnel. That's why
we actually have the two options. Number 1 if Roundtree goes forward, great. If not,
then, we will be working with the Fire Department emergency services for taking care of
that road there along the Nampa-Meridian lateral.
Rohm: So, are you saying that you're not going to develop the back half until the
Roundtree develops?
Ralphs; No. It's -- we can put in -- there are a number of options we can do with that.
Roundtree comes in we have an emergency easement already in place, an agreement
with that property owner, okay, to use that. Now, whether that means for a temporary
access until Roundtree is resolved, either way, that we have refined enough or a good
enough road in there, whether it's gravel or asphalt, again, based on what the
emergency services people tell us we need to have in there, the access will be there
and if, for whatever reason, that one gets shut down, we do have another one there to
the south using that lateral. Does that answer the question? I'm still seeing a furrowed
brow.
Rohm: I just wanted a better understanding. That's good.
Moe: There is a condition we can't do anything -- he's got to be able to have access out
from there.
Rohm: Basically, he's going to have an easement --
Ralphs: And we have already had the discussions with those involved in Roundtree to
put that in place. As has been pointed out here, they are going to need us and we are
going to need them.
Meddian Planning & Zoning Commission
P:pol 29, 2004
Page 57 of 100
Moe: If they can't do that, then --
Rohm: That's down on the railroad right of way?
Ralphs: Correct. Well, actually, it's along the lateral there. It's aNampa-Meridian
lateral.
Zaremba: It sounds to me like you, basically, have agreed with everything the staff has
requested.
Ralphs: We try.
Zaremba: Am I interpreting that correctly?
Ralphs: We certainly have tried. Yes.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: Okay. Are we ready to move on?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on Items 9, 10, and 11.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Your turn. I'm retired.
Moe: All right. Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of -- excuse me.
Move on to City Council approval of RZ 04-002 for rezoning of 7.48 acres from L-O to
R-15 zones for proposed Rock Creek Subdivision by Treasure Valley Development,
east of North Linder Road and south of West Pine Avenue, with all the staff comments
of the meeting date -- now, we use them both? Where is my other one here? Oh, the
hearing date of April 29, 2004, and received by the Clerk's Office April 22, 2004.
Zaremba: Second
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 58 of 100
Borup: Motion and second. That was with, I assume, all staff -- no modifications to any
staff comments?
Moe: That is correct.
Borup: Okay. All in favor?
Zaremba: I would only note in discussion that staff has suggested that not all of it be
converted to --
Borup: And that's why I brought that up, because --
Zaremba: And it has been agreed by the applicant that a portion of it will -- as staff has
requested, will remain L-O.
Moe: L-O. That's correct.
Borup: And per staff report they are to have a new legal description prior to City
Council.
Zaremba: Right.
Borup: And that's why I brought that up, to make sure that was understood, the two
zones.
Moe: I would include that for sure.
Borup: Yes. Well, it already is. That's what --okay.
Zaremba: Just making an extra point of it.
Borup: Okay. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending
approval of PP 04-005, request for Preliminary Plat approval for 52 residential building
lots and one common lot on 7.8 acres in the proposed R-15 zones for proposed Rock
Creek Subdivision by Treasure Valley Development, east of Linder Road -- north Linder
Road and south of West Pine Avenue, to include all staff comments and conditions of
the hearing date April 29, 2004, and received by the clerk's office April 26, 2004.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 59 of 100
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we fonn+ard to City Council recommending approval of CUP
04-006, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development consisting of a
mix of residential and commercial uses with reductions to building setback requirements
for propose Rock Creek Subdivision by Treasure Valley Development, east of North
Linder Road and south of West Pine Avenue, to include all staff comments and
conditions of the staff -- of the hearing date April 29, 2004, received by the City Clerk's
office April 26, 2004.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 12. Public Hearing: PP 04-003 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 2
building lots on 2.7 acres in an I-L zone for Cafarelli Subdivision No. 2
by Shawn Fickes - 1950 West Franklin Road:
Borup: Thank you. Okay. Our next item is Public Hearing -- this is a new Public
Hearing, PP 04-003, request for Preliminary Plat approval of two building lots on 2.7
acres in an I-L zone at 1950 West Franklin Road. I'd like to open this hearing at this
time and start with the staff report.
Kirkpatrick: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, this application is a
resubdivision of an existing lot in Cafarelli Subdivision. This application is here tonight,
because there was anotice -- well, actually, we didn't post the property when it came up
the last time. It's a Preliminary Plat for an industrial subdivision located in an area with
I-L zoning. There will be two building lots on 2.7 acres and, additionally, the applicant
has revised their plat and there now will be two landscaping lots on the western side of
the subject property. Actually, it's a pretty straightforward subdivision. There is one
issue I want to briefly go through. There is a proposed private road to the west of the
subject property, which is being constructed by SSC and the school district and this
applicant is not participating in the construction cost of that road and we are requesting
that they be required to put up a fence on the western side of the property to restrict
access to the road until they come to an agreement with the school district or the road
becomes a public road, because it's currently proposed as a private road. That's really
the only outstanding issue. The applicant has gone and revised their Preliminary Plat
from when we first reviewed this application and there now is a 25-foot wide cross-
access easement shown on the eastern side of the property. I do -- I want the applicant
to address -- we had requested a vehicle turn around be shown and so I'd like for them
to go ahead and address that, but we do have the cross-access easement shown on
the eastern side of the property. I believe there was a Public Works issue, which Bruce
should go through, and explain. That's it's for my staff report and staff recommends
approval of this application.