May 6, 2004 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6, 2004
Page 7 of 52
Zaremba: And since this is a different record, I will only restate my objection on the
basis of both esthetics and what i perceive to be a safety issue and leave it at that.
Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, with that being said -- and I appreciate your comments.
Mr. Chairman, I recommend approval of MCU 04-001, including all staff comments
dated April 29, 2004, for the hearing date May 6, 2004. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY.
Item 6. Continued Public Hearing from April 15, 2004: RZ 04-006 Request for
a Rezone of 16.1 acres from R-4 to R-8 zone for Sutherland Farm
Subdivision No. 4 by Sutherland Farm, Inc. -east of South Eagle Road
and north of east Victory Road:
Item 7. Continued Public Hearing from April 15, 2004: PP 04-009 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 79 single-family residential building lots & 8
common lots on 16.1 acres in proposed R-8 zone for Sutherland Farm
Subdivision No. 4 by Sutherland Farm, Inc. -east of South Eagle Road
and north of east Victory Road:
Item 8. Continued Public Hearing from April 15, 2004: CUP 04-009 Request
for modification of the original Conditional Use Permit for a Planned
Development to allow the elimination of five office lots and the addition of
47 single-family lots in addition to the 32 residential lots previously
approved fora total of 79 single-family lots for Sutherland Farm
Subdivision No. 4 with request for reduction to the minimum
requirements for lot size, street frontage and front yard setbacks by
Sutherland Farm, Inc. -east of South Eagle Road and north of east
Victory Road:
Borup: All right. Thank you. Next we have Items 6, 7, and 8, continued public hearings
from April 15th, 2004, RZ 04-006, PP 04-009, and CUP 04-009. All three of these are
for a request for Sutherland Farms Subdivision. Again, these are continued public
hearings and we'd like to start with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. I'm pitch
hitting for Steve Siddoway tonight on this, so I will try to kind of hit the highlights of his
staff report that you have received. The first item, number six, is for the rezone and
what is shown on the slide is the full boundaries of Sutherland Farm Subdivision.
Original -- their existing approved preliminary plat and as you can see, they have started
development already. They are phasing from Victory Road going north, but they also
have frontage here on Eagle Road. Silverstone -- the Silverstone development is to the
north. The Ridenbaugh Canal is between Silverstone and Sutherland. So, the piece of
Sutherland Farms that our -- that is the subject of all these three applications, is here in
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6, 2004
Page 8 of 52
the northwest portion of their project that fronts on Eagle Road. They have an R-4 zone
today on the full 120 plus acres and they -- item number six is proposing to rezone just
a portion of that 16.1 acres to the R-8. And as outlined is Steve's report, staff is
recommending approval of the rezone. The Comprehensive Plan is medium density
residential, so it does allow the R-8. This shows you the approved preliminary plat,
which was a mix of uses. They had an office development that was approved on the
Eagle Road frontage, that came in several hundred feet, and what they are proposing to
do is take these five office lots that were approved and, essentially, change those to a
residential -- medium residential use, instead of the office use. No changes to the -- to
the entry collector street. They are proposing this open space area that was shown
here along the Ridenbaugh Canal, as you will see on the next slide, to shift to the south.
But that's the area for the plat that they are proposing to change. Here is the
preliminary plat that was submitted and, as you can see, they are still maintaining the
office lots that have the Eagle Road frontage, proposing largely attached dwelling units.
There are -- let's see. What do they have? They have -- they are adding 47 single-
family residential lots, for a total of 79 in this section. The open space area in this
revised preliminary plat does come to, I believe, just over 20 percent of the area. They
have this central feature, which is a -- about a two acre park that they have, again,
shifted from the Ridenbaugh. They are maintaining some open space for the public
multi-use pathway that would ultimately become the cities and maintained by the city
parks, but they are now shifting houses that would back up to that regional pathway,
whereas before this was largely just open space. So, I think that's probably the main
change in terms of the layout. Again, the addition of these attached units here. The
applicant does submit atwo-page response to Steve's staff report, which I don't know if
the Commission --did you receive that in your packets?
Rohm: I don't think so.
Hawkins-Clark: Dated April 15th.
Zaremba: I don't recall seeing that.
Hawkins-Clark: It was addressed just to Steve Siddoway, so I wasn't sure if the
Commission had received this or not. We can certainly get that to you for your review.
But I will just touch on the five or six main issues that were outstanding and I think the
bottom line is tonight, I believe, that the applicant is agreeing to -- to all of the staff --
proposed staff conditions. The main -- there was some concern about -- from the police
department about access -- sort of public surveillance into this open space area, since it
is backed up to residential houses or with residential lots and what the police chief has
asked for, as I understand, from Mr. Fluke, is for this -- some of these lots to just get a
little bit narrower, so that they can have access from more directions into this central
area. There is a sewer easement that is platted that runs north and south here that kind
of bisects the open space and they are proposing a grass Crete type design for that, so
that vehicles could actually get in there. It would have to be the 14-foot minimum for the
Public Works Department. There would be man holes, et cetera, in there, so that's one
of the issues that the police department was looking for and they feel that if they can get
that grass Crete, they can, if necessary, get vehicles in there. So, that was one of the
reasons for the request to reduce the frontages, which the applicant's going to also
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6, 2004
Page 9 of 52
address tonight. There is a shared driveway that's down here in the southwest corner
that has four dwelling units on the south side. The public street comes here and, then,
they have their driveways accessing off the south. The staff report had recommended
that the lot to the north also take access and 1 think originally was to make that a private
road, since the ordinance says you can only have four lots on a common driveway and,
then, if you go more than that, you have to pump up your design standards, et cetera, to
a private road. The applicant would prefer to keep that as a common driveway. There
is an emergency connection also into this from Sutherland Farms Phrase Three up here
in the northeast corner, that there would -- bollards shown originally on phase three up
here, those would be removed and the connection extended into this phase, so that
would provide the secondary access into this for emergency. This is the primary, of
course, down here on the south off the collector road. Here is the layout of the
landscape plan that they propose. And I will just -- one other thing, just touch on the
planned development reductions that they are asking for. They are summarized on
page two of the staff report, dated May 6 -- or for the hearing date of May 6. Excuse
me. And the three areas that they are asking for exceptions to are the front setbacks for
living areas and side entry garages, they are asking to go from 15 to ten. The minimum
lot size they are asking to go from 6,500 square foot for detached, to 5,000 detached.
For attached units going from what was originally approved -- because this property
does have a planned development already on it that was approved with the original plat,
so they did get a couple of reductions a couple of years ago and now they -- with adding
the attached units they are proposing to decrease the lot size by about 200 square feet
again to 3,700 square feet for attached units. They originally were 3,829. And, then,
the third exception that they are asking for is minimum lot frontages. The prior planned
development was the same as the ordinance, 65 feet for detached. They are proposing
50. And, then, the attached units of 40-foot is the attached minimum in our code and
they are proposing 37. Are there any questions?
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman. Brad, I have two questions on slightly different subjects. One
is this emergency access, which is identified up here, and I did have a question about
whether there were going to be bollards. I did think I remembered from phase three that
they were there. In approving this, though, we can't make the modification to phase
three to remove the bollards from phase three, can we? Even though it makes sense
they shouldn't be there, can we, as a condition of this one, say that the bollards won't be
there or just make a gentleman's agreement to not put bollards on --
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. I guess the bottom line to your question, Commissioner, is
correct. I mean on a different phase, yeah, I guess the question is are the bollards
technically on the property line or are they within this phase or not, but if the applicant
could address -- I'm not even sure if Sutherland Phase Three is final platted, so --
Zaremba: I agree with not having them there, but I, like you, recall that it was a
requirement. Second unrelated question. When it was envisioned that this would be --
as Irecall, this portion was going to be developed to L-0 standards or something like
that, that would make Silverstone north of it, which I believe is all C-G, not have so
much of a transition requirement or buffer requirement. If this gets changed to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6, 2004
Page 10 of 52
residential, I'm not sure I see that it would be fair to require Silverstone to handle the
buffer zone. I would think because this one is changing, whatever buffer is needed
between residential and C-G should be this project's responsibility. That's a question,
not a statement.
Hawkins-Clark: Sure. Yeah. The ordinance does talk about the buffer between land
uses as being from the property -- from a shared property line, so between two different
types of uses and it does require the higher intensity use to put their -- put the buffer on
their side. The Silverstone plat is complete and those kind of buffers would just happen
lot by lot. So, as Silverstone lots develop on the north of this project, if -- typically, you
know, you would see those buffer requirements to just be dealt with case by case.
Zaremba: But the Silverstone people assume that this area is office buildings, not
residential. Or is there a --
Hawkins-Clark: A portion, correct. The entire area was not -- they were previously
approved for -- as you can see, some of it was residential under the original approved
preliminary plat, but, you're correct, I mean there is a couple hundred feet here where
they were anticipating office and beyond that there was this open space here that was
separating them.
Zaremba: I'm just -- as much as I like this project, I'm saying I don't think it's fair for
Silverstone to have to bear the results of the change. Is that a fair statement or is there
anything we can do about that?
Hawkins-Clark: Sure. I mean they were certainly noticed as part of this process, so I
think that's probably a good item for discussion for the Commission. You know, they do
have, bear in mind, the Ridenbaugh easement is --
Zaremba: Pretty wide.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. It's 80 feet.
Zaremba: Plus a roadway on both sides of it, so it's -- it is a pretty good size buffer all
by itself. Okay. Those were my only questions.
Borup: Anyone else? I had -- back to the original approved plat. Did we -- have they
increased the number of lots and the density of lots on -- in the area that was previously
approved? I'm having trouble following exactly what happened. I mean, you know, all
these lots and this lot became a part of the residential; is that correct?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct
Borup: So, has the size of these lots changed?
Hawkins-Clark: I believe they --
Borup: I didn't have an original plat to compare it to. That's why I --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6, 2004
Page 11 of 52
Hawkins-Clark: Right. I believe there were some slight reductions. Certainly, the
reason that they are asking for the R-8 is because the gross density went above four.
Borup: Well, yes.
Hawkins-Clark: Befon= they were below. Each of those -- that particular section I would
have to check. You know, I think they are probably pretty similar, because they do have
still some detached units.
Zaremba: My recollection was that the area that you're talking to just east of the current
application was --
Borup: No. Well, the current application has this area included. This area here is east
of the current application. So, they are taking -- correct. They are taking this R -- this
residential area, combining it with this office area, and making a new residential area.
Zaremba: Okay. I was missing part of it. Because, I do remember this as being fairly
high density.
Borup: Yes. But it looks like they have even increased it beyond what it was originally.
That was my question.
Zaremba: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: Just to answer that question, Commissioner, I think they were
previously about 50 feet frontages and they remain about 50 feet frontages. Fifty foot.
Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Would the applicant like to make their
presentation?
Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, thank you. My name is Darin Fluke
with JUB Engineers, representing the applicant in this matter. I think I'll just make a
couple of general observations, try to answer your questions, and, then, I have just two
specific requests on the conditions of approval, so I will make it brief. Could we see the
old plat, please, Brad? I just want to point out that it is by way of a general observation
that we did have a planned development approved for the entire boundary that you see
here, the mix of land uses from detached single family up through attached single
family, multi-family, office, and general commercial, all within the bounds of this project.
The project before you tonight modifies that slightly, gets rid of some square footage of
office uses and replaces that with some attached and detached single family dwellings,
so it's not that large of a change. In the context of the overall project, all the numbers
still work. The open space actually increased through this -- through the change by
about 3,900 square feet. So, about the size of one of the lots. It got a little bit bigger
and we think it got a little bit better. It got more centrally located and more usable from
the previous application. So, just in response to your questions that you had, the
Chairman is correct in stating that this is number three right here, that's about a couple
of days away from being recorded right now. The boundaries of the current application
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6, 2004
Page 12 of 52
come over to here and come along here. So, essentially, what we did is a mirror image
of this and just flipped it over and sort of fit it to the topography of the site. To do that
we had to work around an existing sewer line that comes down here to serve the project
and comes all the way down. That line is about 25 feet deep and so it wasn't going to
be easily moved and that does serve this whole project by and large, so -- if we could
just see that -- the new plat, Brad. So, like I said, what we did is, essentially, took this
and just flipped it over and added lots there and moved the open space down into the
middle. I think we have addressed all the issues with staff. The reason that we asked
to be tabled three weeks ago -- in the letter that Brad referred to was my response to
the issues that we found as we went through the preliminary plat with the other
agencies, including the police department, the Fire Department, and the others. We
made some changes, we skinnied these lots down a little bit, so that we got wider
pathways into here. You will notice in the staff report that they do ask to widen these
paths up to 15 feet as well. That's going to require knocking the frontages down on
these and I'll get to that in just a minute. They also want to widen this pathway up here.
We show a pathway connection going to this path along the Ridenbaugh. They also
want to connect that path to this office lot, which we are not opposed to, but we do need
to pick up a little bit of room here and so we might as well talk about that now. On page
12 of your staff report, condition number ten, limits the frontages on detached units to
50 feet and 5,000 square feet in area and on the attached units, 37 feet of frontage and
3,700 square feet in area. Because we need to pick up those additional frontages
there, we'd like to just knock those numbers down just a little bit. On the attached units
we'd ask to go to 44 feet of frontage and 4,400 square feet. Really, that only affects
these three lots and if you want to write the condition to that effect, that's fine with us. It
just seems easier to knock it all -- to just say 4,400 square feet with 44 feet of frontage
is the minimum for detached units. As far as the attached units go, they are showing 37
feet frontage along here, because that's the way the numbers work when it's laid out.
Thirty-six feet actually makes more sense, because we try to keep it at even numbers
and if we need to pick up some area here anyway, we'd like to just go ahead and define
34 feet as the minimum frontage, with 3,400 square feet as the minimum for attached
units. Again, that won't affect all the units, it will probably just affect this tier right here
and I doubt that they will have to go down to 34, they will probably be 36. And by doing
that, we can meet all the other conditions that you see in your staff report for making
those pathways wider and dealing with the concerns of the other agencies.
Borup: So, you would not be adding any additional lots you're saying?
Fluke: That's correct. That's just an effort to not lose any lots. With this issue of the
bollards, if I remember right, I don't believe that it was a condition on the final plat of
Sutherland Number Three and so I don't think we are running into any procedural
difficulties there. We had, in fact, offered it up on number three, thinking that it made it
work better. Really, whatever the city wants we are happy to do in that regard and so
we are happy to leave the bollards out there. And, then, finally with regard to the
questions about buffering next to Silverstone, I would just point out that those buffering
requirements are keyed to land uses, not zoning designations. The previous application
had approved all uses that were allowed in L-O and our narrative talked about having
not only office uses, but multi-family as well. Apartments. You know, not knowing into
the future what they might want to build, they left their options open and all of those
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6, 2004
Page 13 of 52
uses were allowed and so, really, you don't change anything for Silverstone now,
because when those lots develop, they are going to have to react to what's on the other
side as far as land use goes, not zoning designation, and they would have had to have
done that previously anyway. So, that's just the cost of doing business. They always
knew that something was going to go in there. And I think we do have a really effective
transition that -- with the Ridenbaugh in there, not only is it wide horizontally, there is
also some vertical relief there of about 30 feet -- well, 20 feet, I guess from the toe up to
the top of bank on that and so there is a good separation between those two projects.
We think we have designed a really attractive project here. We are going to use one
builder on this whole thing -- or one builder is going buying the whole thing and going to
build the whole thing, so it will be a nice looking project, with a nice looking product in
there, and we would just ask for your approval.
Borup: Questions for Mr. Fluke?
Moe: Actually, would you -- I didn't catch your -- the change you wanted to make on
detached units. Could you go over that one more time for me?
Fluke: On detached units we just asked that the frontage go down to 44 feet and the
minimum area to be 4,400 square feet.
Moe: And the other was 34 and 3,400?
Fluke: Correct.
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: So, at this point, other than that, you're saying that you're in agreement with all
staff report items?
Fluke: That's correct. I think all the issues have been resolved.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: You answered my questions.
Borup: Okay. I think -one more question
Newton-Huckabay: It's just a general question, why there are no stub streets linking
these subdivisions together, like most of the other developments that come before us.
Fluke: Well, it's all part of the same project. They are connected by way of that
residential collector that goes through the -- could we see the whole project view again,
Brad? This is a residential collector that comes in and connects everything in the
development. There are other streets coming up from the south. Two different product
types. The developers wanted to keep these two as separate as they could and so
what we did was provide that as a secondary emergency access. With this being a
divided road there, with this median, essentially, you have got to ways in, if one of those
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6, 2004
Page 14 of 52
were to be blocked. So, that was the compromise with the Fire Department on that.
So, really, there is nowhere for a stub street to go. You're not going to go north against
the canal. You're not going to go to the west because we don't necessarily want these
people driving to get here anyway, they can walk when there is a pathway connection
here.
Newton-Huckabay: I was talking about to the east.
Fluke: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Where your emergency access is, why there,wasn't a stub there
Fluke: Right. That's why.
Borup: Okay. All right. Thank you. Do we have anyone else here to testify on this
application?
Larsen: Chairman Borup, Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, my name
is Cornell Larsen, I'm here tonight actually on another matter, but since the Silverstone
issue came up, I have been involved in that project for quite awhile, so I thought I'd
speak to some of your concerns. Along the south side of Silverstone most of the lots in
here have been developed or are in for a permit at this point in time. There is a
Limelight Studio going right here. We have in for a permit for this portion here. We are
before you tonight for atwo-lot split in this area on this portion. All the other lots along
here, with the exception of this one on Eagle Road and one right there, have been
developed next to Sutherland Farms, so there is only two lots that might be adjacent to
Sutherland Farms and it appears they want to keep these as commercial office uses, so
most likely they would be fairly compatible along there. Wouldn't see too many issues
regarding that. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Borup: So, you're saying the buffer issue would not affect anything in Silverstone,
because they have already been either built or approved?
Larsen: Correct. And, in addition, there is -- I believe there is a 50 foot or a hundred
foot canal right of way there, plus Silverstone's provided an additional ten feet along
there on their additional plat for -- I mean on their plat for landscaping buffer at the base
of the slope of the canal and we can't really do too much on the slope of the canal,
unless you get a license agreement and they just -- we just recently paid to line that
canal along there, so that there was no water infiltration down on the property below
Sutherland Farms, so we have taken all the precautions to make sure that it is weed
free as best we can along the canal facility and still landscape properly.
Borup: Okay. Does that answer your question, Commissioner?
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Okay. Seeing none, Commissioners?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6, 2004
Page 15 of 52
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that these three public hearings be closed.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending
approval of Item 6 on our agenda, RZ 04-006, request for a rezone of 16.1 acres from
R-4 to R-8 zone for Sutherland Farms Subdivision Number Four by Sutherland Farms,
Inc., east of South Eagle Road and north of East Victory Road, to include all staff
comments of their memo for the hearing date of May 6, 2004, received by the city clerk
May 4th, 2004, with no changes.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending
approval of Item 7 on our agenda, PP 04-009, request for preliminary plat approval of
79 single family residential building lots and eight common lots on 16.1 acres in
proposed R-8 zone for Sutherland Farms Subdivision No. 4 by Sutherland Farm, Inc.,
east of South Eagle Road and north of East Victory Road, to include all staff comments
of their memo for the hearing date of May 6, 2004, received by the city clerk May 4th,
2004, and, again, with no changes.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor'? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending
approval of Item 8 on our agenda; CUP 04-009, request for modification of the original
Conditional Use Permit for a planned development to allow the elimination of five office
lots and the addition of 47 single family lots, in addition to the 32 residential lots
previously approved, for a total of 79 single family lots for Sutherland Farms Subdivision
No. 4, with requests for a reduction to the minimum requirements for lot size, street
frontage, and front yard setbacks by Sutherland Farms, Inc., east of South Eagle Road
and north of East Victory Road, to include all staff comments of the staff memo for the
hearing date of May 6, 2004, received by the city clerk May 4th, 2004, with no changes.
Moe: Uh -- yeah.
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission
May 6, 2004
Page 16 of 52
Zaremba: I'm sorry. There was a change on page 12. Thank you for that correction.
We didn't discuss this, but let me phrase it this way: On page 12 of the staff notes,
paragraph ten, we will say that attached units may have a 34 foot frontage, minimum lot
frontage, and that attached units may have a minimum lot size of 3,400 square feet and
that three of the detached lots may have a 44 foot frontage and those same three
detached lots may have a 4,400 square foot minimum lot size. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9. Public Hearing: PFP 04-004 Request for Preliminary Final Plat
approval of 2 building lots on 2.3 acres in an I-L zone for Haztech
Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - 475 North Linder Road:
Borup: Okay. Our next item is Public Hearing PFP 04-004, request for preliminary/final
plat approval of two building lots on 2.3 acres in an I-L zone for Haztech Subdivision by
Pinnacle Engineers. I'd like to open this hearing and start with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, this is a
preliminary/final plat request. The property is located on the west side of Linder Road,
south of the railroad tracks. There is an existing day care facility on the east side of
Linder Road. Franklin is about a quarter mile to the south. The property has been
annexed. It is zoned light industrial. Their request tonight is strictly for a -- essentially a
lot split. City of Meridian code does not allow for one-time divisions, other than through
a plat. We are a little bit different that way than some otherjullsdictions in the valley, so
the reason that this is before you is -- is for that reason, there is no other mechanism for
them to split a parcel. As you can see, there is a line that's shown on the base map that
shows that there are two parcels there today. They did do a record of survey that
divided that. However, the city doesn't recognize that record of survey as creating legal
buildable lots. So, the staff report is before you. We did received written comment that
I think was on your desks this -- as you got into the chambers this evening, dated today,
May 6, from Dave McKinnon Pinnacle Engineers. As you can see there, the majority of
stafFs recommended conditions they are in agreement with. I will just go to the plat
here quickly. There is a private road that runs along the south boundary of this site that
was approved a year and a half or so ago under a separate miscellaneous application
that went directly to City Council. That applicant at that time was this property to the
west for -- Marcon is a company that stores cement barricades and they needed to have
a -- basically, a storage facility for those and so they came in needing access into that
area and this was approved. As you can see, it does lie wholly on this -- the plat that's
before you tonight. It's 24 feet wide and it was approved as such. It's already built.
They would propose to take access off that private road for this rear lot, which is the
only one that doesn't have a building on it. The front one does have the Haztech drilling
company building today. Let's see. I guess we didn't put in the landscape plan. There
was a few comments on the landscape plan that I had made. We -- since the final plat,