HomeMy WebLinkAboutBanff Subdivision CUPOctober 3, 2005 CUP 05-036
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING October 6, 2005
APPLICANT Landworks, LLC ITEM NO. 6
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from August 18, 2005 -- Request for a Conditional
Use Permit / Planned Development to allow reduced lot sizes, setbacks, frontage and
minimum ground floor square footage for Banff Subdivision -- 675 South Linder Road
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted:,
Emailed:
COMMENTS
See previous Item Packet / Minutes
See attached Staff Comments
�, D Date: 6� Phone:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
STAFF REPORT P & Z Commission and City Council
Hearing Dates: August 4, 2005, 04
Continued to August 18, 2005
Continued to October 6, 2005
TO: Planning &Zoning Commission �, �, •
FROM: Joe Guenther, Associate City Planner
Michael Cole, Development Services Coordinator
SUBJECT: Banff Subdivision
• PP -05-032
21 Single family residential lots and 7 common lots on 2.91 acres
*Amended to 18 Single family residential lots and 7 other lots August 4, 2005
*Amended to 16 Single Family residential lots and 5 other lots Sept 16, 2005
• AZ -05-033
Annexation of 3.02 acres with proposed R-8 zoning
• CUP -05-032
A Planned Development for reduced lot sizes, setbacks, reduced building
square footage and lot frontage requirements in an R-8 zone
1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The applicant, Landworks, LLC, has applied for Annexation and Zoning (AZ) and Preliminary
Plat (PP) approval of 21 building lots and 7 common/other lots on 2.91 acres, *Amended to 16
Single family residential lots and 5 common lots, dated September 16, 2005. The site is located on
the west side of Linder Road approximately one-half of a mile south of Franklin Road. This site is
currently residential with two outbuildings and one single family residential building. The site
has not been previously platted.
On August 4, 2005 the Meridian Planning Commission held a public hearing on the matter of
Banff Subdivision. Several concerns were addressed and the applicant requested continuance to
redraw the site in an attempt to appease the Commissions concerns. On September 18, 2005 the
Planning Department received a revised Preliminary Plat dated September 16, 2005. This staff'
report is based on the revised plat submitted by the applicant for the continued hearing of October
6, 2005.
2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
The subject property is within the Urban Service Planning Area. The subject applications (AZ CUP, and
PP) were submitted concurrently to the Planning Department for review. Staff has provided a detailed
analysis and recommended conditions of approval for the requested annexation and zoning and
preliminary plat applications below. Staff is recommending denial of the proposals dated September 16
2005 for Banff Subdivision submitted as AZ -05-033, CUP -05-032, and PP -05-032 as outlined in this
report.
BANFF SUBDIVISION
CUP -05-032/ PP-05-032/AZ-05-033 PAGE 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
3. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS
a. Site Address/Location:
675 South Linder
NE % of SE'/ 3N1W14
b. Owner:
Mel Lacy
675 South Linder
Meridian, Idaho 83642
c. Applicant:
Conger Management Group
Landworks, LLC
405 S. 8th Street STE 290
Boise, Idaho, 83642
d. Representative: Dave McKinnon, Conger Management Group
e. Present Zoning: COUNTY R-1
f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Medium Density Residential
g. Description of Applicant's Request:
1. Date of preliminary plat (attached as Exhibit Al): August 4, 2005
Date of REVISED preliminary Plat (Attached as exhibit A1.1): September 16, 2005
2. Date of CUP site plan (attached as Exhibit A2): June 14, 2005
3. Date of landscape plan (attached as Exhibit A3): June 14, 2005
h. Applicant's Statement/Justification:
Dave McKinnon, Conger Management Group has submitted a statement of purpose with the
application, dated June 13, 2005. The applicant has made amendments to the site plan due to
Meridian City Staff concerns and has addressed the north/south stub street, lot sizes, and
shared accesses in response to City of Meridian staff, ACRD staff, and neighbors concerns
with the submittals dated August 4, 2005.
From the applicants request for continuance: The amended site drawing includes another
design for the north/south stub street, the lot sizes have increased to a minimum of 4,053
square feet, reduced the common lot/amenity lot square footage and the original home site but
added one more open space lot at the western end of Block 2.
4. PROCESS FACTS
a. The subject application will in fact constitute an annexation as determined City
Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11 Chapter 16, a
public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter.
b. The subject application will in fact constitute a preliminary plat as determined by City
Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 12 Chapter 3, a public
hearing is required before the City Council on this matter.
C. The subject application will in fact constitute a planned development as determined by
City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 12 Chapter 6, a
BANFF SUBDIVISION
CUP -05-032/ PP-05-032/AZ-05-033 PAGE 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter.
d. Newspaper notifications published on: July 18, 2005, August 1, 2005
e. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: July 8, 2005
f. Applicant posted notice on site by: July 26, 2005
5. LAND USE
a. Existing Land Use(s): R-1 Ada County —Residential
b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: Single Family Residential Subdivisions with
an R-4 designation in the City of Meridian. There is a school site immediately west of the site.
Large lot single family residential lots South and. West of the site off of Waltman Court are
within Ada County.
c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning
1. North: Unplatted Ada County R-1, Unplatted Meridian City R-4
2. East: The Landing Subdivision, Meridian City R-4
3. South: Unplatted Ada County R-1
4. West: Whitestone Estates Subdivision, Meridian City R-4, School Site
d. History of Previous Actions: N/A
e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities
1. Public Works
Location of sewer: From Linder Road right-of-way
Location of water: From Linder Road right-of-way
Issues or concerns: The sewer in Linder Road gravity flows to a private lift
station in the Landing Subdivision. The applicant shall have to install any
upgrades to the lift station that are required to meet the capacity of the extra
sewage being generated by this development.
2. Vegetation.: Applicant shall contact City Arborist for tree mitigation.
3. Flood plain: NA
4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: Tiling and relocation of existing agricultural irrigation
ditches will need coordination with Settlers Irrigation District.
5. Hazards: None Identified
6. Proposed Zoning: R-8 — with Planned Development
7. Size of Property: 2.91 acres
8. Description of Use: Single family residential
f. Subdivision Plat Information
1. Residential Lots: 16
2. Non-residential Lots: 0
3. Total Building Lots: 16
4. Common Lots: 5
BANFF SUBDIVISION
CUP -05-032/ PP-05-032/AZ-05-033 PAGE 3
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
5. Other Lots: one of the common lots is for future development to the north
6. Total Lots: 21
7. Open Lots: N/A
8. Residential Area: 1.30 acres new residential/.41 existing
9. Gross Density: 5.50 units per acre
g. Landscaping
1. Width of street buffer(s): 20' on Linder Road Lot 1 Block 1, Lot 10 Block 2
2. Width of buffer(s) between land uses: 0' with 6' solid fencing
3. Percentage of site as open space (PP and PD applications):
8.6%: 10,696 square feet
4. Other landscaping standards:
h. Conditional Use Information
1. Non-residential square footage: 979 square feet
2. Proposed building height: Less than 35'
3. Percentage of site devoted to buildable lots: 1.7 acres
4. Percentage of site devoted to landscaping: .21 acres
5. Number of Residential units: 16
i. Planned Development — Lots 2-6, 8, 9, 11, 12 Block 1, and Lots 2-7 Block 2 of Banff
Subdivision dated September 16, 2005
j. Amenities — Lot 2 Block l will have additional landscaping with a picnic shelter area.
Lot 10 Block 1 Pathway connection to school site.
1. Proposed and Required Residential Standards
Planned Development standards apply to all lots of Banff Subdivision as shown below:
Setbacks Proposed Required
Front Living Area of 15 15
Front Accessed Garage 20 20
Side 3 5
Rear 10 15
Frontage 45.3ft 65ft
Lot Size 4,053 6,500
k. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.):
All roadways have been designed according to ACHD standards and will be public streets,
the Meridian Fire Department has deemed Banff Street to be a minimum width of 29 -feet
back of curb to back of curb to allow onstreet parking on one side of the street.
For a detailed report on the public streets and access points to public streets, the staff report
from the Ada County Highway District has been included with the packet of information.
BANFF SUBDIVISION
CUP -05-032/ PP-05-032/AZ-05-033 PAGE 4
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
6. AGENCY COMMENTS MEETING
On July 15, 2005 staff held an agency comments meeting. Further meetings were held with the Meridian
Fire Department on July 27, 2005 to address the redesign of the Preliminary Plat dated August 4, 2005.
Staff did not present the amended design at an agency meeting but was informed by Meridian Fire of the
parking status of Banff Street.
7. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS
In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, `medium density' is defined as areas including single-
family homes at densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. Staff finds that the requested
zoning designation, R-8, is in accordance with the 2002 Comprehensive Plan and Future Land
Use Map, which designates the land to be "Medium Density Residential". However, the 6.19
dwelling units per acre proposed with the preliminary plat are not consistent with previous
Commission and Council actions and generally do not conform to the goals, objectives, and
action items contained in the Comprehensive Plan for the immediate vicinity.
Staff finds the following 2002 Comprehensive Plan text policies to be applicable to this
application (staff analysis is in italics below policy):
Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services (Chapter
VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1)
When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the
subject properties. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands
proposed to be annexed in the following manner.-
Sanitary
anner:Sanitary sewer and water service will be extended to the project at the
developer's expense.
+ The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Rural Fire
District. Once annexed the lands will be under the jurisdiction of the Meridian
City Fire Department, who currently shares resource and personnel with the
Meridian Rural Fire Department. Fire and Emergency Medical Services will be
provided by Meridian City Fire
• The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Ada County Sheriff's
Office. Once annexed the lands will be serviced by the Meridian Police
Department (MPD).
• The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained
by the Ada County Highway District (ACHD). This service will not change.
• The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #2. This
service will not change.
• The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This
service will not change and the Meridian Library District should suffer no
revenue loss as a result of the subject annexation.
Municipal, ,fee -supported, services will be provided by the Meridian Building Department,
the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian
Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Department, Meridian Utility
Billing Services, and Sanitary Services Company.
• Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent
parcels (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 1)
BANFF SUBDIVISION
CUP-05-032/'PP-05-032/AZ-05-033 PAGE 5
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
All of the properties adjacent to the subject site are designated,for medium or low density
residential uses on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use .Map. The applicant has
proposed single family residential products for the site. However, the immediate neighbors
are in an Ada County Residential -One (R-1) zone that requires a minimum of a one acre lot
size. Staff has spoken with the applicant as to a proposed redevelopment plan.for the one -
acre site north of the proposal which is anticipated to become an enclave parcel with little or
no redevelopment potential. Staff feels it is not in the best interests of the City of Meridian to
limit the redevelopment opportunities on this property.
Subdivisions in the immediate vicinity are in the 10, 000 square foot range for building lots in
accordance with the R-4 standards.
The proposed 4,053 square foot lot range is 62% of the required 6,500 square -foot minimum
for the R-8 development. Staff feels that there is not enough transition for the immediate
vicinity.
Support a variety of residential categories (low-, medium-, and high-density single family,
multi -family, townhouses, duplexes, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of
providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities (Chapter VII, Goal N,
Objective C, Action 10).
The subject property is designated Medium -Density Residential on the Future Land Use Map
which identifies this area as an appropriate area for medium -density residential
development. This proposal meets the Comprehensive Plan definition of medium -density,
with a gross density of 5.5 dwelling units per acre. Staff is not supportive of the design as the
minimum standard for single family attached housing is a 4,000 square feet,for lots which
share a common drive.
Although the revised site layout improves the redevelopment potential of the property north of
the site, staff is still concerned about the design of the subdivision. Staff feels the proposed
design does not provide a transition from very low density to medium high density. The lot
sizes less than 4, 000 square feet more closely resemble an R-15 development (minimum 2,400
square foot lot) which does not fit into the medium low density neighborhood.
Develop policies and incentives to encourage infill and contiguous development. (Chapter V
Goal I Objective A Action 8)
The subject property has a unique design due to limited property width at the connection to
Linder Road and is surrounded by existing large lot developments. This proposal would be
the first development with urban densities in this area and it does not meet the standards to
be classified as infill development. Staff has encouraged the applicant to work with adjacent
property owners for developing an overall site plan for how the immediate vicinity will
develop and show the transition from one property to another. The site does not class for
infill development as it is surrounded on two sides by undeveloped properties.
• Apply design and performance standards to infilling development in order to reduce adverse
impacts upon existing adjacent development. (Chapter VII Goal V Objective A Action 11)
Staff foresees negative impacts on surrounding development due to the width of the street
section, lack of parking for the size of lots, further reductions of lot sizes in order to
accommodate parking, the lack of a redevelopment plan for the properties to the north and
BANFF SUBDIVISION
CUP -05-032/ PP-05-032/AZ-05-033 PAGE 6
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL. (208) 884-5533
south, and the amount of reduction of lot size from the R-8 bulk standards as listed in MCC
11-9-1 . The site has an existing residence which is proposed to be retained as a residence,
the brick and historic fa(ade would be considered an accent to the site.
Staff finds that the proposal is not harmonious with the surrounding areas and does not meet the
goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
a. Zoning Schedule of Use Control: Meridian City Code 11-2-1 lists Planned Development
modifications as conditional use in the R-8 zoning district. Single Family Residential uses
are permitted in the R-8 zoning district
b. Purpose Statement of Zone: R-8 Medium Density Residential District: The purpose of the R-
8 district is to permit the establishment of single- and two-family dwellings at a density not
exceeding eight (8) dwelling units per acre. This district delineates those areas where such
development has or is likely to occur in accord with the comprehensive plan of the city and is
also designed to permit the conversion of large homes into two-family dwellings in well-
established neighborhoods of comparable land use. Connection to the municipal water and
sewer systems is required.
c. General Standards: According to MCC 11-17-1, the City should impose any condition(s)
deemed necessary to insure compatibility of the development (CUP) with other uses in the
vicinity and such additional safeguards as are necessary to uphold the intent of the
ordinance.
aW.1►/:\ a16*3 fl
a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation
As noted above, the applicant is proposing to subdivide the subject site into 16 single
family residential lots. Each of the fifteen new building lots contains a minimum 4,053
square feet. The proposed new building lots range in size from 4,053 square feet up to
5,484 square feet. These lot sizes meet the minimum standards of an R-15 development
which is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
The proposed development will constrain redevelopment of the surrounding properties.
Staff has concerns about developing any of these properties individually without a
conceptual development plan for the area.
The applicant has more closely taken staff advice on design of the roadway system to
facilitate connection to the parcel north of the site. The design presented on September
16, 2005 still is not allowed under the Meridian City Code and Lot 7 0£ Block 1 would
need to be amended again.
The applicant has requested reduced frontages and reduced lot sizes which would require
more on -street parking. All housing types are proposed as single family residential and
the applicant has submitted several elevations of the proposed units.
The applicant has requested all of the property be zoned R-8 (Medium Density
BANFF SUBDIVISION
CUP -05-032/ PP-05-032/AZ-05-033 PAGE 7
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT, QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
Residential). The applicant has indicated a gross density of the proposed subdivision at
5.5 gross dwelling units per acre. If the area of the largest lot (17,745 square feet) is
removed from the calculations the gross density rises to 6.0 dwelling units to the acre.
Higher density projects using the planned development standards are required to
incorporate larger transitional lots with a mix of products to buffer the neighboring
properties. The site is not large enough to accommodate a wide range of lot sizes, Staff
feels that there is no transition from high density to the very low density lots required to
buffer the neighboring properties from anticipated problems.
Due to the number of planned development requests for exceptions to the dimensional
standards, lack of transitional lot sizes, the medium -low density character of the
neighborhood, the lack of on street parking, and the possibility of impeding future
developments, staff is recommending denial of Banff Subdivision.
ANNEXATION & ZONING ANALYSIS: The site is a substandard Ada County property with
no public services. The site is surrounded by undeveloped properties and cooperation and
integration of other parcels is in the best interest of the City of Meridian at this time. There are
several immediate issues for public services, mainly emergency services on Linder Road which
will be remedied in the near future when Linder Road is improved and the Black Cat Sewer trunk
is brought through along the Kennedy Lateral. Currently Linder Road provides the only
arterial/collector connection for over 700 homes south of Franklin Road. Either the Linder Road
overpass or the extension of West Waltman Street would solve this problem and staff anticipates
the road improvements to eventually happen although no timeline has been set.
Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the outstanding issues
of the proposed development with the Zoning Ordinance, staff believes the applicants proposal is
premature at this time. Staff feels that this design more closely resembles an R-15 development
which could be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan designation of medium density
residential. Please see Exhibit C for detailed analysis of facts and findings.
PRELIMINARY PLAT ANALYSIS: Preliminary Plat Application (PP -05-032):
Plat: The preliminary plat provides one section of residential products with a narrow range of
small lots with approximately 4,500 square -foot lot sizes. These lots would all require
modification to the bulk standards of the zoning ordinance as listed in MCC 11-9-1.
Special Considerations:
Stub Streets: The applicant is proposing one % stub street with a future connection to the
north and one stub street to the south. The stub street to the north will need to be amended to
provide full easement access to the property to the north. A full conceptual layout of the
vicinity would show the full interconnectivity of the future road system.
Existing Residences/Buildings: The site contains an existing home and two outbuildings
used for residential storage. The home is historic in nature and will be retained on a larger
sized lot to be incorporated into the neighborhood. This home will need to be connected to
City of Meridian services.
Arterial Street Buffer: MCC 12-13-10-4 requires a 25 -foot wide street buffer along classified
arterial roadways. On the submitted landscape plan, the applicant is proposing to construct a
25 -foot wide street buffer along Linder Road, to be maintained by the Home Owners
Association.
BANFF SUBDIVISION
CUP -05-032/ PP-05-032/AZ-05-033 PAGE 8
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ANALYSIS: CUP Application (CUP -05-032):
Reduced Standards: As stated earlier, the applicant is requesting modifications from standard
ordinance requirements for street frontage, lot size, setbacks and minimum building square
footages.
Lot Size: The applicant has requested reduced lot sizes; the submitted preliminary plat has
lots that (with the exception of the existing home lot) are all below the 6,500 square -foot
minimum size. The proposed lot sizes range from 4,053 square -feet up to 5,484 square -feet.
Lot Frontage: The minimum requested street frontage is 45.5 feet. There are 11 lots at
approximately 52 feet of frontage and 4 -lots with approximately 46 feet of frontage (65 -feet
is the minimum for the R-8 zone).
Setbacks: The applicant's submittal dated September 16, 2005 requests that this development
have a front setback of 20 feet. The standard front setback is 15 feet to living space only and
a minimum front setback of 20 feet to a garage entry way. Interior side setbacks are
requested with respect to the design of the homes at 3 feet non -living space to non -living
space, creating a 6 foot separation between garages and 7 feet between living space, creating
a 14 foot separation between homes. All other setbacks (rear and front) shall be the required
setbacks for an R-8 district as listed in MCC 11-9-1.
Amenities: MCC 12-6-2.A.3 requires two or more amenities to be provided as part of each
planned development or as appropriate to the size and uses of the proposed development. The
proposed open space is 8% of the site, 5% minimum is required and 10% is required to be
considered an amenity. The applicant has included additional road buffers in this calculation
and has not reduced the open space figures by the proposed future driveway easement on Lot
2 Block L Landscaped open space means land exclusive of streets, street buffers, required
buffers, and driveway cuts. No drainage lots, required street buffers, or canal buffers have
been included in this calculation. The applicant is counting the additional lot to connect to
the school as an open space lots, a pathway connection into the school site is proposed but the
school has not commented on interconnectivity (a chain link fence currently exists with no
gates. Lot 2 Block 1 shows a seating area with a picnic structure as the main amenity.
Elevations: The applicant has submitted six front elevation drawings for the proposed
dwelling units included with the PD. Staff believes that the dwelling units will be too
compact to be compatible with the adjoining uses, if the buildings are constructed as shown
on the submitted elevations they will encompass the entire building envelope and available
yards will be significantly reduced in a neighborhood with 10,000 sq/ft to 2 -acre sites.
b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Denial of CUP -05-03/ PP-05-032/AZ-05-033 for
Banff Subdivision as presented in the staff report dated September 27, 2005 based on the
Findings of Fact as listed in Exhibit C as attached to this report. Staff has prepared findings
consistent with this recommendation.
10. PROPOSED MOTIONS
Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation for Approval
I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Numbers CUP -05-032/ PP-05-
032/AZ-05-033 for Banff Subdivision and direct staff to prepare findings and conditions for approval as
BANFF SUBDIVISION
CUP -05-032/ PP-05-032/AZ-05-033 PAGE 9
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
defined in the public hearing of October 6, 2005.
Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation for Denial
I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Numbers PP -05-032/ AZ -05-033 for
Banff Subdivision as presented in the staff report dated September 27, 2005 with the Site Plan dated June
14, 2005 and Preliminary Plat dated September 16, 2005.
Planning and Zoning Commission Denial
I move to deny File Number CUP -05-032 for Banff Subdivision with the attached findings as
defined in the public hearing of October 4, 2005.
11. EXHIBITS
A. Drawings
1. Preliminary Plat — Dated August 4, 2005 prepared by W&H Pacific
Preliminary Plat — Dated September 16, 2005 prepared by W&H Pacific
2. CUP Site Plan- Dated June 14, 2005 prepared by W&H Pacific
3. Landscape Plan- Dated June 14, 2005 prepared by W&H Pacific
B. Legal Description
C. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance
BANFF SUBDIVISION
CUP -05-032/ PP-05-032/AZ-05-033 PAGE 10
A. Drawings
1. Preliminary Plat (dated: August 4, 2005)
'i
Banff Subdivision
Drawings
EXHIBIT A
NF
I f"q
01
>
77
3-
0
I.
4
L
f
. . .... ... . .
OUP
PRELIMINARYPLAT
--- --- ------
... ... ....... ..... ..
. .......
Banff Subdivision
Drawings
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT, QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
1.1 Preliminary Plat (Dated: September 16, 2005)
1
t
jl f
oOfrrl,rlOfflir:ffr f
151�� � 6�r1� iltf�i9i
Ifl 1
Banff Subdivision
Drawings
EXHIBIT A
1ANDW WS, µC
_
PRELIMINARY PLATH
8
- f'- I- 77'r-.-
-,
Banff Subdivision
Drawings
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF .MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
2. CUP Site Plan (dated: June 14, 2005)
Banff Subdivision
Drawings
EXHIBIT A
icccjl�;c�cc,w�cc�c�
--
f
icccjl�;c�cc,w�cc�c�
--
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
3. Landscape: Plan (dated June 14, 2005)
_..._.....-............ ......
-
....................._... ----....
. n m - ---- _ m..... •__
_— �_. GONAF.R MANAGEMENT GROUP
FIANFP SUBOMSION
.�LANDSCAPE PLAN
Liz,
_......__....•.._........—„�•:�:rcr:e-f9' •Y'�'" �IIIj �u;"
-- --------------- .. . ........ -
Banff Subdivision
Drawings
EXHIBIT A
B. Legal Description
VOR
Aga I to sw N
ODSSP �v G
GAP
`fpJd
'au ajamn
Sf)N1&V3'S JO SISv8r
z Lb "L l£Z J6'6f!
1„ 8a,MOON
� a N
96*Z61 3„BO,f'O-OON
p er ^v M„BO,zr�.QQS
., to w o 0 oa
z rn va
U)awwd w¢ F q
oa X U U cc a
C p Uj
UN o ” N a
a cc
En r] O w
CO
to
t, ry� a �- �- �6 wCJ u>
U A E
Coto -j ro to
LA
tD a ” Z
Few
rn
� F
6'Z 61
Ogg
�yh
Y�O
Se
m
1
2
Banff Subdivision
EXHIBIT B
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
PARCEL DESCRIPTION June 14, 2005
Project. 675 S. Linder Purchase Legal (Description
Project No.- 32707
A parcel of land being lots 15, 16, and 17 of the Vaal Hees Subdivision recorded June 10, 1948, Ada
County Recorder records, located in the SE 1/4 of the NE' /4 of Section 14, Township 3 North, Range I
West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows:
COMMENCING at the E 1/4 corner of said Section 14, said corner being marked by a found 5/8"
rebar/cap P.L.S. 4431, corner record #103143079;
Thence North 00133'08" East (record: North 00"06' West), coincident with the east line of Said. Section,
14, a distance of 339.92 (record: 340.00) feet to a point, said point being South 00"33'08" West, 2317.47
feet (record: South 00°06' East, 2318.00 feet) from the NE comer of said Section 14, said NE corner being
marked by a 3 1/4" brass cap, corner record #98117244;
'T'hence North 8912'31" West (record. Notch 89°49' West), 25.00 feet to the westerly right -of. -way line of
S. Linder -Road and the southeasterly corner of said lot 17, said comer being marked by a set 5/8" rebarh:ap
P.L.S. 8726, and said corner being the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence continuing North 89°12'31" West, 639.85 feet (record: North 89°49' West, 640.50 feet) to the
southwesterly corner of said lot 17, said comer being marked by a set 5/8" rebar/cap P.L.S. 8726;
Thence 'North 00°33'44" East, 197.94 feet (record: North 00'04' West, 198.00 feet) to the northwesterly
corner of said lot 15;
Thence South 89"12'35" East, passing through a found 1/2" rebar/no cap at 0.16 feet, a total distance of
639.82 feet (record: South 89°49' East, 640.40 feet), to the westerly right-of-way line of S. Linder Road
and the northeasterly coaxer of said lot 15, said comer being marked by a found 1/2" rebar/cap P.A.T.
4347;
'.i7.tence South 00°33'08" West (record: South 00106' East), parallel to, and offset 25.00 feet from the cast
line of said Section 14, coincident with the westerly right-of-way line of S. Linder Road, a distance of
197.95 (record: 198.00) feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING,
The above described parcel contains 2.9075 acres, more or less.
"Together with and subject to covenants, easements and restrictions of record
Banff Subdivision
EXHIBIT B
C. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance
1. ANNEXATION FINDINGS:
According to Ordinance 11-15-11, General Standards Applicable to Zoning Amendments, both the
P&Z Commission and Council are required "to review the particular facts and circumstances of each
proposed zoning amendment in terms of the following standards and shall find adequate evidence
answering the following questions about the proposed zoning amendment."
The following is the list ofstandards.found in 11-15-11 and analysis by staff.
A. Will the new zoning be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan
and, if not, has there been an application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment;
See Comprehensive Plans and Policies as listed in the Banff Subdivision staff report item #7
above. Staff does not support the zoning and finds the proposal in conflict with the
Comprehensive Plan.
B. Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be rezoned in the future;
Staff does not anticipate that the applicant intends to rezone the subject property in the future.
C. Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be developed in the fashion that
would be allowed under the new zoning —for example, a residential area turning into a
commercial area by means of conditional use permits;
Staff finds that single-family residential uses are allowed within the requested zoning district of
R-8. Medium Density Residential permits the establishment of residential uses and is designed to
protect the integrity of residential development by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible
nonresidential uses. The accompanying plat demonstrates the land is proposed to be developed
with lot sizes, housing types and other dimensional requirements that conform to a higher density
residential district. The proposed zoning designation is not consistent with the existing residential
neighborhood.
D. Has there been a change in the area or adjacent areas which may dictate that the area
should be rezoned. For example, have the streets been widened, new railroad access been
developed or planned or adjacent area being developed in a fashion similar to the proposed
rezone area;
Staff finds that residential developments to the north and east have been developed with much
larger single family residential lots than the proposed subdivision proposal. Development in the
area is limited by available services and is dominated by large lot residential subdivisions.
Based on the ACHD Long Range 2030 proposal, Linder Road is anticipated to eventually be a
three lane roadway abutting this site. However, Linder Road between Franklin Road and 1-84 is
not currently included within ACHD's Five Year Work Program or in the currently adopted 20 -
year Capital Improvements Plan for roadway improvements.
Banff Subdivision
EXHIBIT C
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT, QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
Banff Street is designed to provide stub connection to the property ,south of the site and for
driveway accesses from the north. Staff supports the revisions to the road layout to more
adequately provide public street connection to the properties to the north.
E. Will the proposed uses be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be
harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the
general vicinity and that such use will not change the essential character of the same area;
Staff finds that the requested zoning and proposed density is more dense than the anticipated
range for a medium density urban project in this vicinity. Based on the Comprehensive Plan, staff
believes that the existing parcels in the area (south and north and east) have already developed
with much lower densities. Allowances for alternate products and designs are encouraged, and
staff believes this could become a quality product in a high-density neighborhood or along a
neighborhood center as a transitional product. Staff also finds that the proposed zoning/uses can
be designed and constructed in a manner that will be harmonious with, and appropriate in
appearance with, the existing and intended character of the surrounding area with an alternate R-8
proposal without amending as many bulk standards as requested.
The existing character of the area will change as this is the first parcel the vicinity of the school
site under proposal to develop. Staff finds that the proposed zoning and higher density uses will
adversely change the essential character of area. Staff recommends that the Commission and
Council rely on staff's analysis, public testimony received and any comments submitted from any
other agencies or departments regarding whether this property should be annexed as proposed.
F. Will the proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring
uses;
Staff anticipates that the proposed residential uses will create issues of concern as outlined in this
report. The number and size of homes on this small of a property would require a larger road
section in order to have enough parking to satisfy the neighborhood. Single -sided street parking
at this location is not encouraged. Also anticipated is the creation of a higher density enclave in a
predominantly very low density region of the City of Meridian.
The Commission and Council should rely on any public testimony (oral and written) when
determining whether or not the proposed zoning and subsequent uses will be disturbing or
hazardous to the existing or future neighboring uses.
G. Will the area be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as
highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water,
sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed zoning amendment
shall be able to provide adequately any of such services;
On July 15, 2005, a joint agency/department comments meeting was held with representatives of
key service providers to this property. Based on the joint agency/department meeting and other
comments received from agencies/departments, staff finds that the public services listed above
can be made available to accommodate the proposed development. The Commission and Council
should reference any written and/or verbal testimony submitted by any public service provider,
regarding their ability to adequately service this project.
H. Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and
services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community;
Banff Subdivision
EXHIBIT C
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
If approved, the developer will be financing the extension of sewer, water, local street
infrastructure, utilities and irrigation services to serve the project. The primary public costs to
serve the future residents will be fire, police and school facilities and services. Staff finds there
will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed zoning and
subsequent development will not be detrimental to the community's econoinic welfare.
I. Will the proposed uses not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and
conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general
welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors;
Staff finds that the proposed annexation and the development of single-family homes on this site
may create nuisances that, because of the vast differences in lot sizes, may be detrimental to the
general welfare of the surrounding area.
Staff recognizes the fact that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of this subdivision;
however, staff does not believe that the amount generated will be detrimental to the general
welfare of the public. Staff does not anticipate the proposed annexation and subsequent uses will
create excessive traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors.
J. Will the area have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to
create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets;
The applicant is proposing to construct one public street stub to the south of the property and a
connection to the north on Banff Street. The street section was amended to be a 29' roadway
section back of curb to back of curb. The Meridian Fire Department has required similar designs
to provide a 29' road section back of curb to back of curb and restricts these roads to one side of
street parking. The designed proposal has a sufficient number of homes that staff anticipates the
need for on street parking which could create an impedance for emergency services and interfere
with interconnected traffic.
K. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major
importance; and
There are some mature trees on this property. Any existing trees larger than 4" caliper that are
removed should be mitigated for, per the Landscape Ordinance. Staff has not seen the mitigation
Plan and is not fully confident that if required to mitigate the size and location of the proposed
landscape lots would allow for full mitigation of lost trees. Staff finds that the proposed
development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural feature(s) of major
importance if developed under these conditions.
Staff recommends that the Commission and Council reference any public testimony that may be
Presented to determine whether or not the proposed development may destroy or damage a
natural or scenic feature(s) of major importance of which staff is unaware.
L. Is the proposed zoning amendment in the best interest of the City of Meridian. (Ord. 592,
11-17-1992)?
The R-8 zoning amendment would provide lots that are similar in nature to existing subdivisions
in the very general vicinity. Staff finds that all essential services are available or will be provided
by the developer to the subject property and will not require unreasonable expenditure of public
Banff Subdivision
EXHIBIT C
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
funds through a standard R-8 design. Staff feels that the design with the proposed elevations
more closely resembles a standard R-15 development and does not fit the character of the
neighborhood. Staff does not recommend lot sizes that would be invasive to the properties to the
north and east of the subject property but the lot sizes should be transitional in nature and allow
additional residential densities and product opportunities for the general vicinity. There are
several parcels in the near vicinity which are yet to be developed. Staff would anticipate a
concept plan to be developed for this area in its entirety. The conceptual plan would address the
concerns of the overall lot size, interconnectivity, and transitions of the projects with relation to
final build out of these parcels. Subdivisions of medium -low density have already been built to
the north, south and east and this is a logical expansion of the City limits for a similar design. In
accordance with the findings listed above, staff finds that annexation and zoning of this property
would not be in the best interest of the City.
2. PRELIMINARY PLAT FINDINGS
Sections 12-3-3 J.2 and 12-3-5 D read as follows: "In determining the acceptance of a proposed
subdivision, the Commission and Council shall consider the objectives of this title and at least the
following:
A. The conformance of the subdivision with the Comprehensive Development Plan;
Staff finds that the proposed application is not in substantial compliance with the adopted
Comprehensive Plan. Staff does not support the proposed layout as a practical solution in the
south Linder Road area which has been dictated by previous developments as medium low
density development. Please see Annexation and Zoning Analysis.
B. The availability of public services to accommodate the proposed development;
Staff finds that public services are available to accommodate the proposed development. (See
finding "G" under Annexation and Zoning Analysis for more detail.)
C. The continuity of the proposed development with the capital improvement program;
Because the developer is installing sewer, water, and utilities for the development at their cost,
staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds.
D. The public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development;
Staff recommends the Commission and Council rely upon comments from the public service
providers (i.e.- police, fire, ACRD, etc.) to determine this finding. (See finding "G" under
Annexation and Zoning Analysis above for more detail.)
E. The other health, safety or environmental problems that may be brought to the
Commission's attention.
The proposed design creates a unique situation for properties to the north and south. A
subdivision design for this area would incorporate these properties into an overall developed
concept for this area. However the proposed design will force constraints on the existing lots for
future development. Banff Street does not extend services to the south and only serves traffic
concerns.
Banff Subdivision
EXHIBIT C
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT` STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
Staff is not aware of any health, safety or environmental problems associated with the
development of this subdivision that should be brought to the Council or Commission's attention.
ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. Staff recommends that the Commission and
Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the
proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which staff is
unaware.
3. CONDITIONAL USE FINDINGS
The Commission and Council shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each
proposed conditional use in terms of the following and may approve a conditional use permit if
they shall find evidence presented at the hearing(s) is adequate to establish (11-17-3):
A. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and all yards, open spaces,
parking, landscaping and other features as may be required by this ordinance;
As part of the Planned Development (PD) the applicant is requesting relief from the standard
street frontage requirement, lot size requirement, standard setbacks and minimum required first
floor square footage, as required by Meridian City Code. See Conditional Use Special
Consideration #1 above for detailed analysis.
Staff finds that the subject property is not large enough to accommodate the requested use and all
other required features. Although the site is large enough to accommodate all of the features
required by ordinance, the applicant has asked, through the Planned Development, to modify
numerous specific development standards for 15 of the 16 single family residential lots. The
narrow nature of the north connection of the property creates a unique situation which could be
addressed through normal R-8 standards with fewer lots and incorporation of other contiguous
properties. Staff recommends that the considerations for the planned development as proposed be
denied.
S. That the proposed use and development plan will be harmonious with the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan and in accordance with the requirements of this Ordinance;
Staff finds that the proposed single-family residential subdivision, with a gross density of 5.5
dwelling units per acre, is in accordance with the 2002 Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use
Map, which designates the site to be "Medium Density Residential". However, the lot sizes in
the general vicinity are at a much lower density and are severely constrained as to future
development due to the concerns presented in this report. This proposal may not be harmonious
and appropriate at this time. Please see Annexation & Zoning Analysis "A" above.
C. That the design, construction, operation, and maintenance will be compatible with other
uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general
vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area;
Please see Annexation & Zoning Analysis "E" above.
D. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not
adversely affect other property in the vicinity;
Banff Subdivision
EXHIBIT C
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely upon public testimony, staff's analysis,
and other agency comments when determining if the proposed uses will adversely affect other
properties in the vicinity.
E. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services
such as highways, street, police, and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,
water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed conditional
use shall be able to provide adequately any such services;
Please see Annexation & Zoning Analysis "G" and "H" above and any comments that may be
submitted to the City Clerk regarding this project.
F. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for
public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the
community;
Please see Annexation & Zoning Analysis "H" above.
G. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment, and
conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or general welfare
by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors;
Please see Annexation and Zoning Analysis "I" above.
H. That the proposed use will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so
designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets;
Please see Annexation & Zoning Analysis "J" above. The Commission and Council should
review any comments received from the ACHD provide for this project when determining this
finding.
Y. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic
or historic feature considered to be of major importance.
Please see Annexation & Zoning Analysis "K" above.
Banff Subdivision
EXHIBIT C
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 13 of 98
supporting staff that they may have of engineers or architects or whatever, will have a
total of 15 minutes to clarify anything that was unclear from the staff, respond to things,
tell us a little bit more about the project. Following that we open it to the public
testimony and did I mention that the applicant has 15 minutes to do that. We, then,
open it to public testimony and whether you're for or against, we ask that you come
forward and, please, come to the microphone and begin by stating your name and
address and, then, make any remarks that you think we need to know about for the
record. We do ask that you limit your testimony to three minutes, so that we get through
these meetings without going to 1:00 o'clock, hopefully. And if you find that some
previous speaker has said what you had to say, we always appreciate if you would just
say I agree with Joe who spoke a few minutes ago, we know what you mean. We do
have a provision that if there is somebody who is a spokesman -- and the example of
that would be the president of a homeowners association that's neighboring a project
that we are talking about. If that person identifies themself as speaking on behalf of a
group of people, we do allow them ten minutes to speak and, then, we ask that the
other people that they are speaking for do not make further comment, unless they have
something that we totally left out. Then, at the conclusion of that portion of the evening,
the applicant gets a final opportunity to come back up and respond to any issues that
have been raised and we ask that that be ten minutes, including any supporting staff
that they have. We have a handy light system here, When the green light is on you
have time to speak. It will go to yellow and you should begin to conclude and when the
red light is on we ask that you do conclude or turn your remarks over to somebody else.
Then, the Commission will deliberate and we may ask further questions, either of the
applicant or public or staff, and the end result is intended to be a recommendation that
we will make to the City Council where there will be another very similar hearing. And
the City Council does not always come out with the same results that we do, so if you
came to this hearing, I recommend that you go to that one as well.
Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from August 4, 2005: AZ 05-033 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 3.02 acres to R-8 zone for Banff
Subdivision by Landworks, LLC — 675 South Linder Road
Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from August 4, 2005: PP 05-032 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 21 single-family residential building lots
and 7 common area lots on 2.91 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Banff
Subdivision by Landworks, LLC — 675 South Linder Road:
Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from August 4, 2005: CUP 05-036 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit / Planned Development to allow reduced lot
sizes, setbacks, frontage and minimum ground floor square footage for
Banff Subdivision by Landworks, LLC — 675 South Linder Road:
Zaremba: And that being said, we are ready to open the public -- continued Public
Hearing for AZ 05-003, PP 05-032, and CUP 05-036. All of these relating to Banff
Subdivision at 675 South Linder Road and we will begin with the staff report.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 14 of 98
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Banff Subdivision is a 3.02 -acre annexation, with
a 2.91 -acre subdivision for an amended 17 single-family residential lots. The original
request was for 21 building lots and seven common lots and it was amended to 17. As
stated, the subdivision is on South Linder Road, just north of Waltman Court Lane and
there is several other R-4 subdivisions in the near vicinity, as well there is the -- I
believe it's a middle school or an elementary that's to the -- it's an elementary
immediately to the west of the site. The site is currently a single-family residential lot for
one existing home with several out buildings. The back portion is vacant. It is fairly flat
ground. The proposal that is in front of you is for a planned development with this
application. There is several issues that needed to be raised that are detailed in the
staff report. The first being that planned develops do not allow for perimeter setbacks to
be amended. The applicant has requested ten -foot rear setbacks. However, 15 foot is
what the ordinance says and that is what -- they are not eligible in order to ask for the --
I'm losing my words here.
Zaremba: Setback.
Guenther: They can't ask the setback to be amended on the perimeter of their lots,
essentially, is what it amounts to. The second standard is that the flag lots that are in,
essentially, the northwest corner of the property have been designed with a five-foot
common drive style lot design. The standards that are listed in the Meridian city
ordinance are designed so that homes that are two homes, which is what is in the
northwest corner, need to have 15 foot of flag lots on road frontage and with that they
have added two other five foot common lots to provide for future access to the property
north of the site, as well as an easement in this location across their common lot for
future development of the one acre site. This one -acre site is a county property and it is
not located in the City of Meridian's annexed area at this time. As well as the property
to the south, which even though this is a small parcel and is bordered by the City of
Meridian, is not considered by our ordinance to be an in -fill parcel. This is a -- this does
not meet that classification and the allowances that go along with an in -fill parcel do not
apply to this site. The second, I guess, key issue to look at is the roadway is proposed
to be 29 feet back of curb to back of curb. The Meridian city fire has a policy that they
measure roadway that need to be 29 feet front of curb to front of curb. So, even if this
subdivision was approved, it would have to have an amended street section that that
would be wider in order to accommodate the Meridian city fire concerns. Currently, with
the 28 -foot roadway, the Meridian city fire has said that there will be no parking on this
street. So, the entire roadway would be designated no parking. The other major
concern is that most of the subdivisions in the area have developed at between three
and 3.2 dwelling units to the acre, where this subdivision is proposed at a little bit over
six dwelling units to the acre, even with the larger sized lot for the existing single family
residence. With that I will try and keep this short. I'm sure you have questions, which
will answer. The issues that I have just detailed for you are the reasons that staff is
recommending denial on this subdivision. It just does not qualify for several of the
issues that are key for this type of a neighborhood. The neighborhood is predominantly
very large lots and county lots. The properties to the -- about 200 yards to the south of
this site are all low density residential, as well as across Linder. The avenue lot size is
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 15 of 98
greater than 10,000 square feet. With the lot sizes that were originally proposed, they
were over half of what the R-8 standards are, which is 6,500 square foot lots and they
originally brought in roughly at 3,100 square feet per lot. With that staff felt that this is
just asking too much of the planned development standards, which are usually brought
in for a type of a mixed use and not just an alleviation of the box standards as set forth
in the Meridian city ordinance. And I'll stand for questions at this time.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Moe: Not at the present.
Zaremba: All right. Thank you very much. In that case, we are ready to have the
applicant, please.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Dave McKinnon, 735 South
Crosstimber. You guys have before you a 22 -page staff report and you just heard Joe's
staff report as well. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for this product tonight and so I
think we need to talk a little bit about the design and there is a few other slides I think
Joe probably has. Do you have the elevations as well, Joe, and the slides for a couple
others. The product type you're looking at is more of a cottage product type, more the
smaller house on a smaller lot. And there is another one. You can scroll through those
real quick.
Guenther: That's the last one.
McKinnon: Is that the last one? Okay. You're looking at a product type that's small.
Right now, as many of you know, the housing market in Meridian is going through the
roof and not everybody can enter the market right now with a 200 to 300 thousand -
dollar house. Your Comprehensive Plan says to encourage the type of housing that will
allow people to have home ownership and one way to do that is to provide smaller lots.
One of the reasons for the rising house prices in the City of Meridian is not necessarily
the cost of construction, but also the value of land. In the last six to seven months the
value of land in Meridian has almost doubled, if you're trying to purchase land for
development. So, that automatically equates into higher prices for selling homes and so
one of the things we are trying to do with this site is provide a nice product that would be
viable in this area and be affordable to people that complies with the Comprehensive
Plan-and-joe, if you can go back to the overall site plan. It was the first slide. Keep on
going. There we are. That's great. When we first dealt with this piece of property, we
looked at this piece of property and the property to the north. Both of these properties
were on the market and they were being marketed together by a real estate agent. We
went and looked at the properties, made an offer on both properties and the property
owner to the north decided they did not want to sell. They decided we would try to work
with the property owner to the south, the Banff property you see in front of you. It's a
long narrow piece of property and they'd like to do something with this piece of property,
we'd like to develop this piece of property, but as you can see, there are some
constraints with this. It's 197 feet wide and 600 -- I mean almost, that's just over 90 feet
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 16 of 98
in length. Long and narrow. The property to the north is 66 feet wide. Almost one acre
in size and it also runs the full length and we are trying to decide whether to make those
work with this piece of property and how do we develop this piece of property, as well
as provide for some sort of access to this piece of property to the north. We met with
your staff, had a pre -application meeting and we discussed a number of different issues
that Joe brought up tonight. In fact, after we had the pre -application meeting we
modified our design a little bit. Joe, can you go to the first design we submitted? There
we go. The first design we submitted did not provide any access to the north in this
location. It provided access through an easement to the property owners to the north,
because staff and ACHD said in the future the homeowners to the north will not have
access to Linder. They have asked us to provide access to this property owner on the
north and so we provided a cross -access easement at this location, which puts it behind
the garage so they can come in on this property and, then, access back to get off of
Linder. They won't have access to Linder, it's a narrow piece of property, and they don't
want them to have access right next to our access. After meeting with ACHD and the
City of Meridian, they said we are to provide access to the north. City staff also
requests we have this stub street to the south. A couple weeks ago this was supposed
to be heard in front of you and staff called us up, as Joe pointed out, and you pointed
out, Commissioner Zaremba or Chairman Zaremba. We worked closely with staff. Staff
called us in and said we have some changes we want you to make and let's talk about
those before it goes to the Commission and, then, if we can make those changes, we
can probably go to the Commission with some sort of agreement in hand. Joe, can you
go to the application we have got now? The meeting with Joe, Joe said it's too dense,
let's take some of those out. One of the reasons for taking those out is to make these
lots bigger. All the lots. If you remember from the first slide that we were just looking at,
these houses will all turn north -south, just like this area. We have turned them east -
west. They have gained in length. And we have also got a little more width. These lots
are a little bit bigger in size. We also provided two common lots that would be deeded
to the property to the north in the future, so that they would have public street frontage,
because as of right now the house that's located on this site, there is no way to gain
access to this rear part of the property, because they can't take access off of Linder.
But if they do take access off of Linder to get to this house, they would have to pour a
driveway all the way to this point in order to develop back here. So, city staff said,
please, make a connection here. We have provided a key connection there. We felt
the reason -- the best way to do that is to provide them public street frontage with a five
foot wide common lot, which is what you can do for a flag lot where there is four or more
-- three or four coming off of a flag lot. So, that's the reason for that. Work at the school
district and their staff, they supported us having a pathway through here. In working
with this site we wanted to keep this house in the location that it's at, so in order to keep
that house together, they would bring the road in and jog it around and put an open
space area right here. Joe, do you have the landscape plan? If you can flip back down.
Putting in a landscape target, they would pull into this subdivision, the first thing you see
is not houses, but you, actually, see a landscaped area. There was also provided a
picnic area, a covered area in this area. It's now shown on this plan. But a covered
picnic area so when you pull into the subdivision this is what you see, you don't
automatically see houses. We thought that would be a nice design feature for
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 17 of 98
something a little bit smaller. As far as the design of the road goes, Joe talked about
that a little bit. We have worked with ACHD and they have worked with Joe Silva at the
fire department. Joe Guenther is absolutely correct when he points out that the fire
department wants a 29 -foot street section that's flat, doesn't include curb, we can
accommodate that. I have met with Joe and I have also met with ACHD. The 29 -foot
street section and the 42 -foot right of way, you end up with a foot and a half of right of
way behind the sidewalk. If you widen that roadway of 29 feet flat, before face of curb
and face of curb, you end up with one foot behind sidewalk right of way. ACHD is
happy with that. We are happy to make that accommodation as well. With that, we had
-- and after working with Joe Silva on this, we asked that we could have parking on one
side of the street, which meets the fire department's guidelines and it meets the
requirements for the city. The reason why we went with the 29 -foot street section is
because this is a very small subdivision, we felt that bringing a 36 or 33 foot road
system for something that's very small and services a very few number of lots would be
overkill. We had a smaller subdivision, it creates more of a small neighborhood feel,
which is what this is, it's more of a cottage product than a standard housing product.
Joe, if you can go back to the current. Another thing we discussed with your staff, with
Joe, before we resubmitted this was -- we talked about the standards for attached
housing. Under the R-8 zone in the new zoning ordinance, 4,000 square feet is all you
need for attached housing. In talking with staff we felt that detached housing was more
appropriate than attached housing and that the lot sizes would be similar. We have
provided elevations that can work on these smaller lots -- on these smaller lots and still
be detached, rather than providing duplexes on this lot. Individual homeownership
without having an attached wall was thought to be preferable by both us and staff, so
that's the reason why we still got the smaller lots, but they would come very close to
meeting the standard for that. This is, obviously, a planned development, so we are
asking for some reduction in the lot sizes and lot frontage. Joe pointed out correctly that
on the Comprehensive Plan -- on the plat we have asked for a ten percent -- a ten -foot
rear lot line. However, if you see this little note right here, it says a 15 -foot rear setback
is typical. We are more than happy to accommodate a 15 -foot rear on the perimeter of
the subdivision. That was our intent in the first place and we had discussions with our
engineer about having a ten -foot setback on the rear at one point, he didn't take it off,
but we are not requesting a ten -foot setback. A 15 -foot setback still works with our
elevations and that's what we have actually shown on this submitted preliminary plat.
We are going to need some help from you tonight. We have tried to work with staff.
Staff asked us to make the changes. We have made those changes. We were hoping
to come to you guys tonight with a recommendation from staff for approval after they
asked us to make those changes. We made those changes and we are still at
loggerheads with them. We think we have got a product that works with the city. The
Comprehensive Plan calls for this property to be R-8. In order to get eight units per
acre on -- or even six units to the acre you have to go to a smaller lot size. On the
Comp Plan it says three to eight units per acre. We fall within that. The property to the
north -- Brad, can you turn the overhead on? I gave Brad an overhead -- just a real
quick layout. That's not it. That's Justin's house. Thanks, Brad. We decided to see
what it would look like if we went ahead in the future and the rest of the redevelopment
for the property to the north. In the staff report there was some discussion that we are
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 18 of 98
not providing access to the north. In the future the existing residence would be able to
take access off of this location, the easement we provided back to this house. We have
been able to show that this could redevelop into four lots. Remember that these lots are
only 66 feet deep. There is no more width to them. So, we had them coming off of
what is an existing drive. We can't provide for that. That existing drive is not part of our
project. We can't provide access off of that, but in the future they could redevelop that
way. And Lots 1 and 2 could redevelop, coming off of the flag lots from our subdivision.
They have no other way to access that in back, unless they were to bring the driveway
through here or driveway down and, then, reduce those lots from 66 feet wide to even a
narrower section, almost making it impossible to build. So, we feel that it actually allows
for the north area to redevelop, provides a stub street to the south that ACHD wanted us
to have. In meeting with city staff, one of their comments from a couple weeks ago was
to remove that. ACHD would have nothing of that. They wanted to have the stub street
for interconnectivity. So, we ask for some help from you tonight as to what you think is
appropriate here. It is a narrow piece of property. It's long and narrow. The property
owner to the north does not want to sell the property and the owner to the south does
not want to sell. We don't want to be left hostage to requiring them to come in with us
and we don't want them to feel hostage to us that they have to come in and develop
with us at the same time. We think this is a product a little bit different and different is
sometimes scary, but we think that this product is, actually, something that would sell
very well in Meridian. It's directed towards not all the -- the smaller families, but towards
professional couples and to people downsizing. We don't see a large number of people
with children in this area and for the professionals that don't want to have to come home
and take care of a large yard. A high amenity product without having to have a huge
yard to take care of and a lot of house to take care of. With that I'd ask for any
questions that you have and I'd also ask for any suggestions that you might have to help
us to get through this tonight and see what we can do to make this piece of property
work for the development that would be a benefit for the City of Meridian.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Rohm: I think that was a good presentation. I don't have any questions at this time.
Moe: I just want to verify a couple things. You said that as far as a 15 -foot setback, you
will comply to that?
McKinnon: Absolutely.
Moe: As well as the 25 foot road section?
McKinnon: The 29 foot flat road section face-to-face.
Moe: Face-to-face. You can do that. I'm a little bit -- the five foot common drive with
the flag lots, with the road through there, can you kind of go through that one more time.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 19 of 98
Guenther: Sure. Commissioner Moe. We had one recently that only had four homes
accessing the common drive. The minimum paved surface of the common drive is 24
feet. They are proposing 20 feet, each flag lot being five feet. So, even so, it would not
meet the standards of the ordinance and there is specific roadway standards for
common drives that are called out in our ordinance, which must be met.
Moe: Okay.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we have the depth on those
two lots. Those are the longest lots -- the lots up on the west end, those are the longest
lots, and we can abide by that 24 foot driveway surface for that. We just need to drag it
out into this area a little bit further west and we have the width to accommodate that.
We are more than happy to agree to that.
Moe: That would be a 24 -foot?
Guenther: They would have to meet the standards of the ordinance for the minimum
road frontage on a common lot with a minimum of a 24 -foot paved surface. And that
would also have to be approved by the fire department and it's such a long common lot
that the police department would also need to review that.
Zaremba: Help me understand. There were two elements, though, weren't there? The
paving needs to be 24 feet wide, but does a flag have to be ten feet wide, which means
if there is four flags in here, it needs to be 40 feet wide?
Guenther: Correct. But this is only two flags. There is only two lots actually using
those access points, which --
Zaremba: And those two lots are the ones that would develop on the next property, not
this property.
Guenther: That's correct. And for a two lot flag lot it needs 15 feet of road frontage.
Zaremba: Okay.
McKinnon: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, we can't design for that
and, then, not provide them access. If the city is asking us to help give them access,
we have to provide a way to do that and we will try to do that within the ordinance. We
can accommodate the 24 -foot wide asphalt. You're asking us to provide it, but, then, at
the same time saying you can't provide it, because, then, you won't meet the ordinance
and so we are in a Catch 22 there.
Zaremba: Okay. Any further questions at this time? All right. Thank you. I believe we
will move on to the public testimony.
McKinnon: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 20 of 98
Zaremba: Thank you. Signed up we have Jerry Hiatt or Hinath. Please come forward.
Hiatt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. I'm Jerry Hiatt.
represent my mother at 755 South Linder, the five just south of this three acres. In the
audience I have my wife and my brother, who I am also speaking for at this. I don't
know whether this is Banff or Baniff. I think it should be Banitt. You talked about EI
Gato a little earlier. I think it ought to be called EI Ghetto. We are putting an R-4 in the
midst of R-1 and R-4. It's an R -S request. We have R-4 and R-1 all the way around.
It's -- I don't think we should be building no Garden City slum in the middle of Meridian.
Mrs. Brown talked earlier about being number 74 on her sheet from Money Magazine,
believe it was. This will put you down about three million in 74 for developments like
this. So, I'm definitely opposed to it in every aspect of it. And I have got some other
reasons in here and I would just like to read it to you. I have got copies here if you want
to read along. Or we can give it to the planner and you can get it later. It's your choice.
Zaremba: If you have enough to --
Hiatt: I have amended that.
Zaremba: If you could give one to the clerk, please.
Hiatt: I will get my spectacles on so I can read. I oppose the development on the
grounds that as an adjacent neighbor the survey markers have never been identified to
us. Are they developing their property or are they encroaching upon and developing
what is our property? Surveyors have been all over Mrs. Hiatt's property, on the five
acres. Another developer had given her or her representative, which is myself, the
courtesy of identifying where the property lines are at. Several stakes have been
placed from the recent survey about 12 feet north of the existing fence line and 3.02
acres that are there should be developed on what is theirs and that fence should be put
in there prior to any development. He talks about the size of the lot and setbacks, so is
that -- the size of the lots based on where the fence line is or is it based on the plat?
Because the -- out front on the property line, the drive into the back has been platted
and staked. The actual property line between 755 South Linder and 675 South Linder
has not -- the pins have not been put in the ground. Out through the pasture out back
there was three stakes out there and those three stakes have been removed. So, when
we went to the Public Hearing meeting -- the local community meeting that they had, my
brother was there, he asked them what the deal was on the property lines, and the
comment was that, well, we do have some concern in area and the other comment was
we don't know what's going on. So, we would like that clarified before anything is
planned and approved.
Zaremba: Can I interrupt you for just a second, sir? Sorry.
Hiatt: Sure.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 1$, 2005
Page 21 of 98
Zaremba: You mentioned that you were speaking for the other -- are you acting as a
spokesman and they are not going to speak?
Hiatt: The next two people on the -- yes.
Zaremba: Okay. In that case we will give you a total of ten minutes, only three of which
have elapsed.
Hiatt: Thank you. The issue of who replaces the fence. The fence ought to be put in
prior to any development. There is also the problem with irrigation rights. This is the
fourth time we have had to deal with a developer in this area and this is the last side
that's open for development. Each time we have lost irrigation and had to fight for the
irrigation on this five acres. It needs to be retained as provided by the Nampa -Meridian
Irrigation District. The next comment, of course, I have already made concerning R-8
versus R-4 and R-1. And my last comment on this is concerning the number of houses.
The allowance of reduced lot sizes, reduced setbacks, frontages and minimum floor
space should be kept out of this neighborhood. Although affordable housing should be
made available, this is not the way -- or the subdivision to do it in. The gentleman used
the word cottage. That's a nice term. You know, it's a good marketing term, but I just
don't think it dwells in this area. I agree that there should be affordable housing, but I
just don't think this is the place to put it. There are much larger lots and homes
surrounding this development. The integrity of the neighborhood should be maintained
by maintaining similar lot sizes and square footage of lots and dwellings that are in
existence in the surrounding neighborhood. The main -- we need to maintain the
property values of the existing houses. We need to attract buyers in that area of the
same economic level. The tax base for the future of Meridian would be jeopardized.
The property values would not accelerate in that area and the existing neighborhoods at
the same rate as they would if it was a similar housing put in in this three acres as what
is around it. So, I have no qualms with them developing the three acres, but it should
be reduced to an R-4 at least. There is also the problem with the fire department on
means of egress in this area. They are already -- South Linder is the main arterial in
that area. There is already 700 houses down in there. There is no other exit out of
there or entrance into that. And those issues need to be resolved before more housing
is put down in there. So, I understand talking to the planner today that in the future
there is going to be an egress out to Ten Mile Road down Waltman and until that's
done, though, I think everything should be tabled because of safety issues. Any
questions?
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, questions?
Borup: Mr. Chairman. I do have one question on the fence. You said that the survey
markers are 12 feet north of your fence -- your mother's fence?
Hiatt: When we seen -- when they were first put out in the pasture we seen three
markers out there with flags on them. They have been taken down and it was
approximately 12 feet north of that -- of the fence.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 22 of 98
Borup: So, you're not sure if that was their property line or not, then?
Hiatt: Not sure, but that was where the flags were.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you, sir.
Hiatt: Thank you.
Zaremba: That covers everybody who was signed up and anybody who was not signed
up care to add anything that has not been discussed? Commissioners, do we wish to
have some discussion or are we ready for the applicant to respond?
Moe: Probably the applicant. I will have a couple questions for him as well, so --
Zaremba: Okay. If you care to return.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. It looks like there
are a few things to talk about. It's a nice opportunity, I'm glad the neighbors were here
tonight to bring up some of those issues. Let's start directly with the survey. When we
had our neighborhood meeting the survey was not complete. We had a site design that
we worked through at our office and we presented that at the neighborhood meeting.
The surveys weren't complete at that time and so at the neighborhood meeting we didn't
have an answer for where the surveys were. As you well know, I'm not a professional
land surveyor, but we have had a professional land surveyor go out there and survey
this property. The plat that you have in front of you tonight is representative of the
property lines as determined by a professional licensed surveyor. So, as far as the
property line, I have to rely on the professional that we have hired to do that. They are
licensed by the state and that's the best we can do to answer that question is, yes, this
does comply with the boundary lines. As far as where locations of fences are, as many
of you are well aware, fence lines do not necessarily depict property lines and if there is
any discrepancy there, I do have to rely on the professional opinion of a professional
land surveyor. What you see in front of you tonight is representative of that.
Borup: Question on the fence line, then. The survey line that's -- you believe is correct
is north of the fence line that is there?
McKinnon: What you have in front of you tonight -- I can't speak to --
Borup: I'm talking about where the fence is in relation to this.
McKinnon: I'm not sure where the fence is in relation to that. I wasn't out there when
they did the survey, as far as where pins were placed and where the flag is done for the
property, I'm not sure. What I do know for sure is that the plat that you see is
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 23 of 98
representative of this and that the boundary and -- when the topography map was
created for this, the house and all of the buildings were within the property line and
that's what you see represented on this map in front of you tonight. And so that's what
the plat is based on as well. One of the other comments that he had was the fence.
We are more than happy to have the fence put up prior to development. That's typically
a standard of the City of Meridian to require a fencing program prior to, so that
construction debris and construction workers lunch material doesn't fly across the
fences. That's usually a problem and the city has addressed that by the fence code by
requiring that. We are more than happy to abide by that as well by having the fence up
prior to construction. The idea that we would block the irrigation on this property -- there
is irrigation rights in the state of Idaho. We are required to provide irrigation to pass to
and -- to and through our property. I understand that very well. We will endeavor to
make sure that nothing happens. We have been working with Nampa -Meridian
irrigation about this situation already. We have had a meeting with John Anderson and
we have also discussed the pressurized irrigation system working off a loop system with
the elementary school, so -- rather than require a new pressurized irrigation pump
station for this area. We could improve the lift -- the pump station that the school is
using and, then, hook off of that to come around. Their pressurized irrigation system -- I
see Commissioner Moe looking at me a little bit. Their system loops around the
outside. They'd provide a stub to us if we upgrade where they are dragging their water
from. So, we have had some discussions with Nampa -Meridian. We understand the
irrigation issues in this area. The R-8 versus R-4 -- could you show a -- go back one
more -- there we go. Perfect. There is an R-4 subdivision right here. The average lot
size in this subdivision is just under 6,000 square feet. It's an R-4 subdivision. I have
got a map -- I didn't -- don't actually have it with me, but it's not a well detailed map.
These lots right here are 5,000 square feet. Actually, 5,009 square feet. Some are
5,008 square feet. Those are substandard for the R-8 zone. The discussion is that this
entire area is predominately larger lots. Kiddy -corner from this property the majority of
these lots in the subdivision are substandard R-8 lots in an R-4 zone. It was handled as
a planned development. It was Blue Marlin. Several of you were on the commission
when that came through. It's a W.H. Moore project. These are very small lots. On
these very small lots they also had reductions in the amount of home sizes. A lot of lots
within here were designated as having 1,100 square feet, some 1,200 square foot,
some 1,300 square foot minimums. They were all different colors, if you remember that.
These are small lots in this area. Another thing to point out -- Linder in the future -- and
you can see in the design of this subdivision it's widened out at this location. Linder is
going to be a thoroughfare, there will be an overpass at this location. Just, like the
overpass that's going to be under construction soon at Locust Grove. In the future
Linder will be widened and it will be expanded to include this overpass. The large lots
are not easily as marketable next to a large thoroughfare. The smaller lots, people
recognize that you will have some of that. We have provided a buffer. The existing
house, plus a long drive in with landscaping to buffer those people in the future in
having to listen to the traffic as this widens. ACHD does not include this small portion of
land from here to here in their 20 year work program. However, this portion of Linder is
in the 20 year work program and this portion of Linder is in the 20 year work program.
ACHD typically will only purchase right of way if it's in their 20 year CIP. They stepped
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 24 of 98
forward and said we recognize that that may have been a problem. We will pay you for
the right of way there. We do want to include that as part of our 20 year CIP. So, they
have stepped forward in the staff report you have in front of you tonight saying, yes, we
would like to purchase the full 48 feet from centerline. Right now it's a two-lane road. In
the future this will be a 96 foot right of way and they want to purchase this right of way
now, even though it's not part of their CIP, they haven't exactly detailed what the
funding will come from, but I do realize that they'd like to purchase that at this time,
rather than wait into the future and take care of this. This is going to be a wider road.
It's going to be a bigger project. It's not different from here. The lot sizes within the
subdivision towards the rear are larger than the lots within the subdivision that's already
been approved by the City of Meridian. Now, as you know, I worked for the city of
Garden City for four and a half years. This is not Garden City. The project and the
product type here is something very different. We are not talking about a lower amenity
product type. People are getting more and more discriminatory in their purchasing of
homes. You recognize that the people that are purchasing newer homes are not
purchasing lower quality homes in Meridian and Boise area, they have moved out to the
Nampa area or Caldwell areas and the Kuna areas where the price of land is lower and
the price of land, just for these lots, will push up the value of these homes. They are
going to be nice smaller homes. I can't guarantee you they are going to be large
homes, because they are on small lots, but they will be nice homes and they will be
representative of those drawings and elevations that we submitted to you tonight. We
know that there may be some issues that you have and we want your help on this. If
you have some suggestions for us, some things that might make it more tenable for you
and for the city, we are open to those. We tried working with staff, we have worked with
ACHD and we have worked with the fire department. We have had discussions about
the one way in, one way out with your staff at Linder Road -- has only one way in and
one way out right now and we understand that and in the future it may not be the best
idea to put a public school on a one way in, one way out. We don't believe that a three
lot -- I mean a three acre subdivision will add the extra pressure. I believe we are on
the brink right now that no extra development can happen in this area until Waltman is
extended in the future. With that I'd ask if you have any questions. We ask for your
support tonight and your suggestions that we can move forward to City Council with this
project.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Well, you pretty much answered all the questions that I was going to ask you, but,
then, that just brings up a couple more in your comment of suggestions and I really do
have a real problem with the amount of lots that you have got in here and the size of
these lots. I mean you have made the point that the R-4 caddy -corner there was small
lots, even for an R-8, but we are down into 35 and 36 hundred square foot in this
development here, when minimums, you know, for an R-8 are 6,500. Now, you have
got a couple, you know, over there on the west side that are getting close, but I think
when staff discussed trying to reduce some lots to make this a little bit more appealing
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 25 of 98
to an R-8 zone, I think it was more than four lots that they were looking for reductions on
and that's a big concern of mine in this thing as far as what you have already discussed
making the changes and whatnot, I'm glad to see that, but for an R-8 in these such
small lots, I think we are -- I think we are going to crowd everything in here and I realize
that it's zoned for the R-8 right now, but have you guys looked at all to reduce any of
these lot sizes again?
McKinnon: Joe, can you go ahead and flip back to the site plan that we have got right
now? We have talked about that and taken a look at it and I don't know if I did a great
job of explaining myself in the discussion we had with staff. Under the new
development code, the Unified Development Code, that has recently been discussed by
you and approved by you and recommended to City Council to approve, under the
development code --
Moe: Keep in mind it has not been approved.
McKinnon: It has not been approved. But this is the discussion that we had with staff.
Was that under that code -- and the old code was very similarly written. This part didn't
change a great deal. For attached housing you could have 4,000 square feet and 4,000
square feet and that would meet code for the R-8 zone without a planned development.
We both felt that it would be more appropriate and a better product if it was detached
from each other and we felt that if we were to push those lots closer to that 4,000
square foot in size, that it would be better to have detached, which is a better product
typically, it's a better ownership product, people would rather purchase a detached
home than an attached home. So, we said let's move these closer to that 4,000 square
foot number. If we removed this lot, we could widen each one of these lots out, it would
exceed 4,000 square feet in size. We could reduce the open space here. Drag these
lots over. We would lose one net lot -- one lot, essentially, in the net. These could be
moved over. These could be expanded to, essentially, 4,000 square feet. I haven't
done the math on the north side. On the south side we definitely have done the math.
It's a lot easier down there to make it work. By losing one lot these would all be pushed
to be 4,000 square foot lots, which would match for attached housing. We were asking
detached housing on the same lots and having reduced setback between the two on the
non -habitable side.
Moe: But as far as a PD, are you anticipating the open lot as part of the amenities in
the PD?
McKinnon: Under the PD ordinance there is a number of different amenities that can be
required. One's a pathway to public open space, which is a park, which is right here.
This area is included as an amenity with the picnic area. It can be -- it will have to be
squished a little bit. The requirement for a PD is if you want to count your open space
as an amenity, it's a ten percent open space requirement. This piece of property is not
asking for the ten percent open space requirement amenity. In fact, on a three lot
subdivision there is no -- a three acre subdivision there is no requirement for open
space. Only subdivisions in the City of Meridian that require open space are those
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 26 of 98
subdivisions that are five acres in size or larger. This is smaller than that and so
providing open space, it's not the ten percent area, that's why we have got the picnic
shelter in this area. So, it would be squished a little bit further. We don't want to squish
it too much, but you could take 20 feet here, incorporate that between each one -- see if
can do some quick math here. These are about 76 feet deep. Is that right, Scott?
Seventy-eight feet deep. If we take an additional ten -- 20 feet here, that's 78, 1,400
feet, one, two, three -- it would probably be in the neighborhood 15 feet we would have
to squeeze that in order to get those lots all to 4,000 square feet. So, It would reduce
that, but we can draw that up and see how that works.
Moe: Or take another lot off to the north side.
McKinnon: We could possibly do that as well. We can redraw that and come back to
you with those drawings. We just feel that a detached product is a better product than
an attached product for ownership and marketing as well.
Moe: I have no more questions.
Zaremba: I will have to say there are elements of it that I like, but I will give you the
couple of things that I struggle with and some of them are brought up by staff and also
by the neighbor. Can you go to a larger area view? Like that. Yeah. Thank you. The
logic to me, if it were possible to develop -- it's difficult to deal with these small parcels
and I realize it gives you a tough challenge and it gives us an awful lot to chew on. One
of the struggles is isolating this little property just north of you and you have made some
accommodations for that. Logic would be that in the far future when Linder actually is
being used as an arterial and crosses the freeway and stuff like that, that it would make
more sense for all of these three properties -- my light is not working very strongly, but
the three properties that are neighboring each other -- actually, to access off of this
street, as opposed to off of Linder -- it seems a little premature to try and shoehorn this
subdivision into a spot that could develop much more favorably not only for the future
residents, but also for the current residents, if the whole picture were looked at. And
that also brings me to the subject -- and I'll ask Commissioner Borup to comment on this
as well. My recollection is that when we were discussing this subdivision, which is Blue
something. Blue Haven or --
McKinnon: Blue Marlin.
Zaremba: Blue Marlin. I thought Blue Marlin was the commercial on Eagle and Ustick.
McKinnon: Yeah. That's the marketing name.
Borup: Blue Horizon.
Zaremba: This is Blue Horizon.
Borup: Yeah.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 27 of 98
Zaremba: We had the discussion about there only being one way in and one way out
until now and, as I recall, we went ahead and recommended approval of Blue Horizon,
based on that it was imminent to have a second connection somewhere, either to the
east off of -- I think there is a stub street under this compass mark, but also one here.
Or to the west connecting -- I forget what the name of that street is, but -- or that within
a couple of years, since they were setting aside space -- and I think they even
contributed to it, to get this intersection going. And I will ask Commissioner Borup
whether he agrees with me on that. I think the instinct of the Commission at the time
was to say -- we were kind of holding our breath to approve Blue Horizon, with the
thought that we would not really discuss any further growth in this area until there was a
second way out. Was it that firm or did we go that far?
Borup: I don't remember going that far, but I think we anticipated there would be --
Zaremba: By now.
Borup: Well, I thought to the east was what we thought was most likely in the shorter
term.
Zaremba: Yeah. Well -- and where I'm going is my discomfort with even adding one or
two houses more, when I feel we are way beyond -- typically -- I mean this is a cul-de-
sac and the rules usually are 50 dwelling units on a cul-de-sac and we are -- I'll take the
word for it that we are up to 700 at the moment. It may sound minuscule to say we are
not adding that many more, it's a small percentage, but it's getting a little scary to isolate
that many people with only one two lane entrance and until those improvements are
made, I, for one, am very uncomfortable discussing further development in this area. I
don't know if I'm the only one that feels that way, but -- you know, if we do take the
responsibility to make sure that public safety is available to anybody who is likely to
move in here and the end result to me is that I kind of think it's premature to even annex
this at the moment.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, help me through this process in my head, if you would. I
understand a little bit about emergency services and, obviously, you have a better grip
on it than I would. I'm trying to think of what type of catastrophe that could happen that
would block Linder that would be -- that would -- you say that you're uneasy right now
as to adding more to that. What type of catastrophe is it that would concern you in the
future? For instance, is it a traffic accident that would block people from getting in and
out of their homes or is it a life safety issue of people having to exit if there was a
massive fire in the south end of this heading north. I'm trying to understand the reason
for that. I have looked at the fire department's comments. I don't believe there were
any comments from the police department to this. I notice it was more Planning and
Zoning. But help me out with it. I'm trying to understand the --
Zaremba: A fire in the area where the word Linder is would be a very difficult
proposition. I'm also well aware that even though they don't happen very often, this is
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 28 of 98
an earthquake area and I have seen the surprise devastation that they can cause. And,
hopefully, that will not happen. They are very scary when they do. But I think it's kind of
our responsibility to be prepared for them.
McKinnon: Joe, can you go to the aerial really quick? The thought just occurred to me.
Oh, it doesn't quite show it. The school site in the back of that -- just over. There we
go. I'm a little bit familiar with Whitestone Estates Subdivision up here, with the access
further to the north in this location. There is this -- it looks like a stub. It's actually not a
stub, it's a sewer connection to the school. This was a sewer easement that runs
through here. It's bollarded off. And when it extends with the sewer easement -- if you
remember, sewer easements -- and, Mike, you may want to jump in on this and help me
out -- the sewer easements are built so that you can drive a vehicle over those. There
is a secondary access back around the school site. The school area is paved around.
Vehicles can drive and park on that pavement in that area. There would be a
secondary access to this location for emergency vehicles. And so if something were to
happen at this location, there is a secondary road -- or secondary means of emergency
access to get to this location and to this location, if something were to happen south of
this access point. And so I remember we were dropping my kid off -- I have one child
that went to Peregrine and we used to drop off here, rather than rotate all the way
around. I have a friend that lives in Whitestone Subdivision and we'd stop by, but there
is secondary emergency -- and, Mike, help me out with that. Your sewer easements are
typically built with gravel over the top or asphalt so they can support a vehicle?
Cole: Are you asking, Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Yes.
Cole: Typically, yes. If a sewer main is run through an easement, we will have a gravel
access road for maintenance of the sewer main. This particular easement here, I'm not
aware of what the status is. I'm not familiar with each and every easement in the city.
But, general, yes, there are access roads over that for maintenance of the sewer line.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Let me ask staff a question, if I may. It's been mentioned
that -- is this road that's along here, is that Waltman, as well as --
Guenther: Yes. That's Waltman Court.
Zaremba: Portions of it.
Guenther: But this over here is where the mixed-use development for the Ten Mile
interchange occurs. It's immediately west of the large lots, Connie Subdivision, in the
southwest area of this site.
Zaremba: So, where I was going with that, if there is discussion of punching that road
through to Ten Mile, is there any thought of a time frame? Would it wait until the
interchange is done, which is several years off to --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 29 of 98
Guenther: That would come in a part of that mixed-use development for all of that
undeveloped agricultural ground at that time and a connection through to Waltman
Court would be a long-term solution. The most, immediate would be Commercial in the
location at the stub here, which would be the one coming across north of the Waltman
Court -- I think it's Waltman Court Subdivision, which was approved last fall.
Zaremba: Okay.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it sounds like there is a few
things that we still probably ought to work out with staff. I have got your comments,
Commissioner Moe, about reducing the density. I think that I saw some nods of some
heads as you were making those comments from the Commission.
Borup: Maybe you could remove two lots, one on the north, one on the south.
McKinnon: We can absolutely draw something up to see if that works and we will do
that and we'd like to come back to you and have a little more discussion about -- and
have some timing discussions with Mike and with Joe and with ACHD concerning when
the -- a secondary access to this area comes in and have a better answer for you. So, I
guess we would ask at this time for a continuance to be able to draw some different
designs up, come back to you, and make a few changes. We will make the change to
the property to the north, make that 24 feet wide, and make the road section 24 -- and
the 29 -foot face-to-face, other than back-to-back. And we currently show that the -- we
will make sure that the plat's corrected to show a 15 foot rear setback instead of the
request for a ten. We will make those changes and have a chance to meet with your
staff. If we could have a couple weeks to do that. As far as the changes to the plat,
those are pretty quick drawings to make. It's moving some lines. And we can try to
make that work and that's, actually, going to help us with our elevations, if it was a wider
lot to work with, and we will probably have some additional elevations that will fit on
some wider lots, to ask for a continuance at this time, so we can continue to work with
staff and make some changes that you suggested at this time.
Zaremba: I certainly think that's reasonable. Let me throw one question into the mix,
then. If you are able to consider and perhaps accomplish the suggestions that
Commissioner Moe made -- let's see, can we actually go to a site plan? That's fine.
Would it not, then, make more sense -- and, again, I'm thinking way off into the future
and property that's not actually your property, but not only this narrow one right to your
north, but the two that are north of that, I'm sure ACHD would like them to lose their
access to Linder at sometime, too, and where I'm going with that is what if instead of --
my light's dying. Here it goes. Instead of this being a 24 foot driveway, could it be a 29
T intersection, so that it -- you actually have a stub south and a stub north and a T
intersection there, instead of a driveway. You're losing another five feet off of what you
have already agreed to shuffle, but --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 30 of 98
McKinnon: If we are losing a property to the north, it would give us some more to play
with on the north side. So, there may be some possibility of widening it there. The
bigger concern I have with that -- if you can flip back to the aerial. Okay. Great. This
property owner at the neighborhood meeting had to put in an emergency vehicle
turnaround on his property. He wasn't really happy about it when he was annexed into
the city and he was very adamant about, you know, this is -- I'm trying to see how this is
going to develop in the future. ACHD granted this access point here. It accesses this
property and this property. ACHD's major concern with this driveway was the location
of the driveway that we are proposing. They have to have an offset. This piece of --
this driveway meets the offset requirements when compared to this driveway. So, the
little piece in the middle --
Zaremba: It is far enough away?
McKinnon: It is.
Zaremba: Okay. Okay.
McKinnon: In addition to that, Commissioner Zaremba, I -- Joe, flip back real quick. I
think it would actually go right to that house, if it was stubbed right there at that location
it would go right through that house. But I guess we could move the stub in a little bit
different location connected with the cul-de-sac. But we can play with the design of
that. I think there is an area that we can design off of to see how that would go.
Zaremba: Okay. Let's see. If we continue this for applicant and staff to work together a
little bit more, is there anything that staff would want to add right now?
Guenther: Well, clear direction of what we are looking --
Zaremba: Say again.
Geunther: Staff would like the Commission to give us some clear direction as to what
you guys would like to see at this site and what you would feel comfortable approving
prior to going with that direction.
Zaremba: Yeah.
Moe: So, I guess my --
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe put a number of things in order.
Moe: I would anticipate pretty much your concerns about the road width. The flag lot
road section through there be taken care of. The perimeter or the setback to the 15
feet. I'm looking for possibly at least -- at least a minimum of one lot per side of that
road to go away. I want to get some larger lots in there. I would really rather not lose
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 31 of 98
any of the open space, if at all possible, in that north side. That's where I want to take
the one lot out. Is there anything else?
Guenther: Commissioner Moe, when staff did have discussions with the applicant there
was several other things that were brought up that Mr. McKinnon did say. We did look
at the option -- and staff had recommended that they make all of their lots a minimum of
4,000 square feet, as that is the minimum lot size that is called out in the city code. As
well as we had made a recommendation that they either stub to the north or provide
also a connection of a minimum 20 feet in this area for future roadway connections. We
understand that there is an existing garage there where the potential connection for the
roadway would happen, but staff would still feel more comfortable with having a public
road service to this site, rather than having the flag lots in the first place. What staff's
recommendation to the applicant was that the -- at the last time we met after the original
recommendation, was to provide either a large hammerhead type of a structure there
with a very narrow common lot that would be for future access to that site or something
along that method, which we never had the discussion about this type of a design. This
is not something staff had commented on with this -- with this applicant.
Moe: Before you go farther, in regard to the Chairman Zaremba's point in regards to
T'ing the road there at the end, would that be accepted to staff as well?
Guenther: That was staffs recommendation to the applicant almost to a T.
Moe: All right. Well, if it was to a T, then, I would anticipate that that's what I would like
to see.
McKinnon: Commissioner Zaremba, Members of the Commission, ACHD had a
problem with the T, where is it going to, it's going to a 66 foot wide lot. They want the
access to the south. The city didn't want the access to the south. We were stuck
between a rock and a hard place. The city staff report says we don't recommend the
stub street to the south. ACHD required that. What we did on the north side with the --
this -- I guess the quasi -stub there, the common lots, was try to provide frontage for
those lots without having to provide a full street to that property. It's 66 feet wide. It's
not a huge property to develop and if you have a full 29 -foot street section running back
into it, there is not a great benefit to ACHD or to the city, for that matter, to provide a
larger street section back there. We have discussed that option with ACHD and they
felt this was a good compromise for that.
Borup: Yeah. It's not a real practical property to develop. It's not something you're
going to run a roadway down, obviously, from Linder and -- and I -- it looked to me like,
you know, the proposed development sketch is probably the only practical way to even
try to do anything with that. But, you know, it's going to depend on the property owner if
that's something they even want to do.
McKinnon: Well --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 32 of 98
Borup: Has there been any discussion with the property owner to the north? Is that
something they would be looking at long term?
McKinnon: You know, I don't believe they came to our neighborhood meeting. We
have asked the real estate agent that was representing both the sellers at that time to,
again, approach them to say we would like to purchase that and we have asked her to
approach them and the answer was, no, they did not want to sell at this time. In some
of the discussions we have had, the property owner to the north that had that cul-de-
sac, the turnaround, there was some discussion that maybe he was wanting to
purchase the back half of that property.
Borup: That looks more practical.
McKinnon: That would be something that, you know, we would be fine with as well, but,
like I said, it's a 66 foot wide piece of property to drive the driveway the full length this
way, even if it's a ten foot wide driveway, then, you have a 55 -foot deep lot. Take a 20
foot front setback and, then, you take a 15 foot rear setback, which you can't reduce, as
we discussed tonight. All of a sudden we have got a 20 wide building lot and that's not
much to build on. And so we think that that one alternative we put up there probably
provides the best alternative. There is, obviously, other alternatives, but we think that
that's probably one of the best alternatives to redeveloping the property to the north.
Guenther: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Yes.
Guenther: As staff we don't make recommendations on how off-site parcels are brought
into this city or what their width is or anything along that line. Our main concern is
leaving that out, because there is no way that ACHD is going to give that property
access to Linder and this is our one shot at redeveloping that property. If it doesn't
redevelop it will probably stay a once acre tiny parcel, with a driveway access to Linder
for who knows how long. And that is -- that was the purpose that staff was looking for
either some sort of stub connection to Linder -- regardless of how wide it was, that's -- I
mean, obviously, that's the purchase that we are looking for.
Borup: But that's also why you're purposing two access points.
Guenther: No. They are proposing to put an easement here. Staff's recommendation
was to either provide a jog in the road and bring it up here and redesign some of the
portion back here, so that they can provide lots in the rear of that, or something along
that line.
Borup: That's what I was saying, you're proposing two access points.
Guenther: No. This could go away as far as we are concerned, because this driveway
cut actually cuts into their open space. So, in the future this lot -- this home here is
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 33 of 98
going to have a driveway across what is the amenity for the rest of homes in this
subdivision.
Borup: So, you're saying if there is access at the rear, then, the easement in the front
can go away?
Guenther: If that's what the applicant chooses. Like I said, we are not --
Borup: As far as staff is concerned it could.
Guenther: It could. As long as they come together with some sort understanding of
how that parcel is going to have public street frontage for redevelopment that's not on
Linder
Zaremba: But that's part of my struggle. Should we even accept this problem without
some coordination or an area plan, really, for these three properties? Is it in the best
interest to annex -- best interest of the City of Meridian to annex this problem at this
time without seeing a plan for those whole three properties?
Borup: Well, every time we annex something we do. We don't look at the adjoining
properties. And there is also -- you know, this is always an issue. Really, this is a little
more difficult because of the size and the location of the existing buildings, but there is
always the adjoining properties and always the stub streets that's -- that's included in.
It's the same issue, only this is just a lot different.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: From my perspective it seems that if the applicant were to make the changes
that Commissioner Moe brought up, that really addresses the primary issues of this
development as a whole, if they get the 4,000 square foot lot minimum, reduce the lots
on both north and south of the roadway by one, the back lot line setback be 15 feet, and
29 foot roadway and a 24 foot roadway to the back portion of the one acre lot, that
seems to me to address all of the issues that are --
Borup: In the staff report.
Rohm: -- are within the staff report and the parcel that is one to the north -- north of this
66 foot wide, they just developed that and I don't personally think that that parcel will
redevelop yet again in the near future. So, it seems logical that to provide access to the
back half without having a fully developed roadway is the most appropriate. That's --
Zaremba: Okay.
Rohm: -- my position on this.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 34 of 98
Zaremba: It sounds like consensus is --
Borup: I agree with that. I agree with Commissioner Rohm.
Zaremba: -- to continue this to a future meeting for the purpose of applicant and staff
working out those details and staff providing a report with conditions for approval. Is
that what we are --
Rohm: That's what I would support.
Zaremba: Okay. Do you want to pick a day?
Guenther: Mr. Chairman, it would have to be a minimum of a month, because we do
need to take this to comments meeting for at least -- and I'm not sure when the next one
is. We only had one last week and they are only once a month.
Zaremba: And it needs the ten days to go out to staff again, there would be -- I'd call
these changes --
Guenther: Yeah. And we would need to send this -- we would need to transmit this to
ACHD, obviously.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, this is just more of a cautionary I guess comment. It is within the
purview of this Commission to make some suggestions based upon the staffs report.
On this particular project, although it's a fairly small project, I mean one of the
requirements is -- because there is a conditional use requirement, is that there is
compatibility with the neighbors. As long as in your next hearing you're going to hear all
public testimony all over again and all from the neighbors -- because in redesigning this
project up here you have changed it significantly from the neighbors' comments, but yet
you haven't made any findings that it's compatible and I think this is the danger and
that's why I'm saying a cautionary statement. It's the danger of this Commission
designing the projects for the applicant as how to get them approved when you have to
make a finding that it's compatible with the neighbors who have already -- the only
neighbor that testified says it's not compatible with the neighborhood. So, I would just
caution you on this project, as well as others, in, essentially, putting yourself in the place
of the applicant. You can certainly say we agree with the staff report. We would
suggest that we are not in favor of this based on it. If you want more time, as Mr.
McKinnon asked in his early comments, to go back and redesign and come back to you,
that's fine. I just would be cautious on this one and others to redesign the project to this
degree again and make sure that you're going to take the neighbors' comments again
and that we are going to have a full hearing a second time. But in other ones -- I didn't
find a spot to interject, but the level of redesign is probably not in your best interest as
Commissioners to make objective decisions later as to whether this is an appropriate
project in the best interest of the city, because at this juncture, from Mr. McKinnon's
standpoint, if he meets all of our criteria, potentially indicated your pre -approval without
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 35 of 98
seeing it. So, I would not recommend that you -- to design them to this degree, merely
give recommendations, allow them the opportunity to redesign if they wish, or make a
decision based on what you have in front of you. But if you want to set this over, I'd just
make sure it's clear for the neighbors you're going to have a full-blown hearing, you're
still going to have to make findings on whether they are compatible and you're going to
hear whatever they want to say in regards to this project.
Zaremba: Yes. I appreciate that and I was even considering whether we would insist
that there be another neighborhood meeting. There is enough redesigning goingon
and we have asked that in the past. And I certain)
aring
would expect to hear from everybody again and III leave a t t up Public
Ilthe Bother
Commissioners whether we would want to ask for another neighborhood meeting once
they have gotten together with staff and come up with a different agreement.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Like I say, I do appreciate Mr. Nary's comments. They are very much
appreciated. I, for one, am not a designer, so, therefore, I wasn't designing, but what --
I did want to make sure what everybody understands is -- is that this area is zoned R-8
and the whole point is to try and get within the R-8 zone requirements and as far as I'm
concerned, he's not near that at the present time, in my opinion. So, therefore, number
one, I would like to have you guys have another meeting, neighborhood meeting, if, in
fact, you're going to redesign and, yes, I would hope that the public that did speak
tonight and others would come back forward and speak again on this once they see the
redesign and, hopefully, in the neighborhood meeting they will be happy with what is
presented and, hopefully, this project can go forward. So, therefore --
Zaremba: Let's discuss timing. The choices would be September 15th, which is --
Moe: I would anticipate the 6th of October.
Zaremba: Or the 6th of October.
Moe: Yeah. I think that would probably be the way to go. What do you think?
Borup: Well, either the 15th or the 6th. Does the 15th meet the time criteria?
Zaremba: It's less than a month from now.
Borup: Right.
Guenther: I would request a little bit more time than a month.
Borup: That leaves the 6th, then.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 36 of 98
Moe: Okay.
Borup: I mean -- yeah. The 6th.
Zaremba: So, if we continue -- the question was if we continue it we don't need to
renotice; right? Even if the changes are significant, it's still the same application, the
same Public Hearing?
Borup: The street's not going to move, is it?
McKinnon: We are reducing lots, it shouldn't have to be renoticed.
Zaremba: Okay.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, since the recommendation is to
reduce lots, not increase them, and because this was the open hearing an opportunity
to come here, you can continue it without having to renotice. If, certainly, the
Commission believes there is a need to, you can certainly recommend that or direct that
as well to renotice it, too, so that's within your discretion.
Moe: Okay. Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move we -- what do I move to do here? I'm figuring that out here. I'm just trying
to figure out where I was here. Move the Public Hearing on AZ 05-033, PP 05-032, and
CUP 05-036 be continued to the regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting of
October 6th, 2005, and I would also request a renotice of all three hearings.
Borup: Even though that's not necessary?
Moe: Yes, I do.
Zaremba: And did you want to include in your motion suggesting another neighborhood
meeting?
Moe: Yes. And I would also like to have another neighborhood meeting required prior
to our hearing date.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 37 of 98
Zaremba: Thank you all very much. We have reached 9:00 o'clock, which is
traditionally time for us to take a break. We will take ten minutes and reconvene.
(Recess.)
Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from July 21, 2005: AZ 05-030 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 5.1 acres to R-8 zone for Windwalker
Subdivision by Beckit Development, Inc. — 2770 South Locust Grove
Road:
Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from July 21, 2005: PP 05-030 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 24 residential building lots and 4 common
area lots on 5.10 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Windwalker
Subdivision by Beckit Development, Inc. — 2770 South Locust Grove
Road:
Zaremba: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we will reconvene our meeting and let the
record show all Commissioners that were here before our break are here again. And
we will open the continued Public Hearing for AZ 05-030 and PP 05-030, both related to
Windwalker Subdivision, and the purpose of continuing this until this meeting was for
the single subject of discussing the ten foot -- ten foot setback, excuse me, around the
perimeter of the property and -- we will begin with staff comments.
Guenther: Mr. Chairman, you also have to open CUP 05-036, which is on the front
page.
Nary: No, that's --
Zaremba: 036 is Banff. Yeah.
Guenther: Oh. Okay. Sorry. This doesn't have a CUP associated with it.
Zaremba: This does not have a CUP. Thank you. So, we are referring to AZ 05-030
and PP 05-030.
Guenther: That's correct.
Zaremba: And does staff have comments for us?
Guenther: Staff has one comment and that is that the applicant has delivered to us an
indication that she met individually with every owner that she possibly could and they
are still amenable to going to the ten foot side yard setback, which would be the rear
setback of the other two subdivisions, and staff still supports the design as presented
with the conditions of approval.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
APPLICANT Landworks, LLC
CUP 05-036
August 18, 2005
ITEM NO. 10
REQUEST Continue Public Hearing from August 4, 2005 - Conditional Use Permit /
Planned Development to allow reduced lot sizes, setbacks, frontage and minimum
ground floor square footage for Banff Subdivision - 675 South Linder Road
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
COMMENTS
See previous Item Packet / Minutes
See attached Staff Comments
OTHER:
Contacted: UW AVlp Date: ��� Phone: �s
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CENED
AUG 12 2005
P & Z Commission and City Council
Hearing Dates: August 4, 2005,
continued to August 18, 2005
Planning & Zoning Commission
Joe Guenther, Associate City Planner
Michael Cole, Development Services Coordinator
Banff Subdivision
• PP -05-032
21 Single family residential lots and 7 common lots on 2.91 acres
*Amended to 17 Single family residential lots and 7 common lots
• AZ -05-033
Annexation of 3.02 acres with proposed R-8 zoning
pity of Meridian • CUP -05-032
�'fty Clerk Office
A Planned Development for reduced lot sizes, setbacks, reduced building
square footage and lot frontage requirements in an R-8 zone
1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The applicant, Landworks, LLC, has applied for Annexation and Zoning (AZ) and
Preliminary Plat (PP) approval of 21 building lots and 7 common/other lots on 2.91 acres,
*Amended to 17 Single family residential lots and 7 common lots. The site is located on
the west side of Linder Road approximately one-half of a mile south of Franklin Road.
This site is currently residential with out buildings and one single family residential
building. The site has not been previously platted.
2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
The subject property is within the Urban Service Planning Area. The subject applications (AZ
CUP, and PP) were submitted concurrently to the Planning & Zoning Department for review.
Staff has provided a detailed analysis and recommended conditions of approval for the requested
annexation and zoning and preliminary plat applications below. Staff is recommending denial of
the proposals dated August 4, 2005 for Banff Subdivision submitted as AZ -05-033, CUP -05-032,
and PP -05-032 as outlined in this report.
BANFF SUBDIVISION
CUP -05-032/ PP-05-032/AZ-05-033
PAGE. 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT". QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
3. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS
a. Site Address/Location:
675 South Linder
NE % of SE % 3N1W14
b. Owner:
Mel Lacy
675 South Linder
Meridian, Idaho 83642
c. Applicant:
Conger Management Group
Landworks, LLC
405 S. 8" Street STE 290
Boise, Idaho, 83642
d. Representative: Dave McKinnon, Conger Management Group
e. Present Zoning: COUNTY R-1
f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Medium Density Residential
g. Description of Applicant's Request:
1. Date of preliminary plat (attached as Exhibit Al): August 4, 2005
2. Date of CUP site plan (attached as Exhibit A2): June 14, 2005
3. Date of landscape plan (attached as Exhibit A3): June 14, 2005
h. Applicant's Statement/Justification:
Dave McKinnon, Conger Management Group has submitted a statement of purpose with, the
application, dated June 13, 2005. The applicant has made amendments to the site plan due to
Meridian City Staff concerns and has addressed the north/south stub street, lot sizes, and
shared accesses in response to City of Meridian staff, ACRD staff, and neighbors concerns
with the submittals dated August 4, 2005.
4. PROCESS FACTS
a. The subject application will in fact constitute an annexation as determined City
Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11 Chapter 16, a
public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter.
b. The subject application will in fact constitute a preliminary plat as determined by City
Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 12 Chapter 3, a public
hearing is required before the City Council on this matter.
C. The subject application will in fact constitute a planned development as determined by
City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 12 Chapter 6, a
Public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter.
d. Newspaper notifications published on: July 18, 2005, August 1, 2005
e. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: July 8, 2005
f. Applicant posted notice on site by: July 26, 2005
5. LAND USE
BANFF SUBDIVISION
CUP -05-032/ PP-05-032/AZ-05-033
PAGE 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
a. Existing Land Use(s): R-1 Ada County —Residential
b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: Single Family Residential Subdivisions with
an R-4 designation in the City of Meridian. There is a school site immediately west of the site.
Large lot single family residential lots South and West of the site off of Waltman Court are
within Ada County.
c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning
1. North: Unplatted Ada County R -l., Unplatted Meridian City R-4
2. East: The Landing Subdivision, Meridian City R-4
3. South: Unplatted Ada County R-1
4. West: Whitestone Estates Subdivision, Meridian City R-4, School Site
d. History of Previous Actions: N/A
e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities
1. Public Works
Location of sewer: From Linder Road right-of-way
Location of water: From Linder Road right-of-way
Issues or concerns: The sewer in Linder Road gravities to a private lift station
in the Landing Subdivision. The applicant shall have to install any upgrades to
the lift station that are required to meet the capacity of the extra sewage being
generated by this development.
2. Vegetation: Applicant shall contact City Arborist for tree mitigation.
3. Flood plain: NA
4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: Tiling and relocation of existing agricultural irrigation
ditches will need coordination with Settlers Irrigation District,
5. Hazards: None Identified
6. Proposed Zoning: R-8 — with Planned Development
7. Size of Property: 2.91 acres
8. Description of Use: Single -Family Residential
f. Subdivision Plat Information
1. Residential Lots: 18
2. Non-residential Lots: 0
3. Total Building Lots: 17
4. Common Lots: .5
5. Other Lots: 2 of the common lots are for future development to the north
6. Total Lots: 25
7. Open Lots: N/A
8. Residential Area: 1.41 acres new residential/ .42 existing
9. Gross Density: 6.19 units per acre
BANFF SUBDIVISION
CUP -05-032/ PP-05-032/AZ-05-033
PAGE 3
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
g. Landscaping
1. Width of street buffer(s): 20' on Linder Road Lot 1 Block 1, Lot 10 Block 2
2. Width of buffer(s) between land uses: 0' with 6' solid fencing
3. Percentage of site as open space (PP and PD applications):
7%: 9,345 square, feet.
4. Other landscaping standards:
h. Conditional Use Information
1. Non-residential square footage: 979 square feet
2. Proposed building height: Less than 35' ofR-8 standard
3. Percentage of site devoted to buildable lots: 2.7acres
4. Percentage of site devoted to landscaping: .21 acres
5. Number of Residential units: 18
i. Planned Development — Lots 3-15 Block 1, and Lots 1-9 Block 2 of Banff Subdivision
j. Amenities — Lot 2 Block 1 will have additional landscaping with a picnic shelter area.
Lot 13 Block 1 Pathway connection to school site.
I. Proposed and Required Residential Standards
Planned Development standards apply to all lots of Banff Subdivision as shown below:
Setbacks
Proposed
Required
Front Living Area of
15
15
Front Accessed Garage
20
20
Side
3
5
Rear
10
15
Frontage
43.62ft
65ft
Lot Size
3,585+
6,500
k. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.):
All roadways have been designed according to ACHD standards and will be public streets,
the Meridian Fire Department has deemed Banff Street to be No Parking,
Lots 11 and 12 of Block 1 are proposed to access Banff Street using common drives of 5'.
MCC 11-9-1 requires: Street Fronta_e for one or two lots sharing a common driveway shall
be a minimum of 15 feet.
For a detailed report on the public streets and access points to public streets, the staff report
from the Ada County Highway District has been included with the packet of information.
6. AGENCY COMMENTS MEETING
On July 15, 2005 staff held an agency comments meeting. Further meetings were held with the Meridian
Fire Department on July 27, 2005 to address the redesign of the Preliminary Plat dated August 4, 2005.
BANFF SUBDIVISION
CUP -05-032/ PP-05-032/AZ-05-033 PAGE 4
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
7. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS
In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, `medium density' is defined as areas including single-
family homes at densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. Staff finds that the requested
zoning designation, R-8, is in accordance with the 2002 Comprehensive Plan and Future Land
Use Map, which designates the land to be "Medium Density Residential". However, the 6.19
dwelling units per acre proposed with the preliminary plat are not consistent with previous
Commission and Council actions and generally do not conform to the goals, objectives, and
action items contained in the Comprehensive Plan for the immediate vicinity.
Staff finds the following 2002 Comprehensive Plan text policies to be applicable to this
application (staffanalysis is in italics belowpolicy):
Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services (Chapter
VII, Goal I11, Objective A, Action 1)
When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the
subject properties. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands
proposed to be annexed in the following manner:
• Sanitary sewer and water service will be extended to the project at the
developer's expense.
• The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Rural Fire
District. Once annexed the lands will be under the jurisdiction of the Meridian
City Fire Department, who currently shares resource and personnel with the
Meridian Rural Fire Department. Fire and Emergency Medical Services will be
provided by Meridian City Fire
• The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Ada County Sherds
Office. Once annexed the lands will be serviced by the Meridian Police
Department (MPD).
• The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained
by the Ada County Highway District (ACRD). This service will not change.
• The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #2. This
service will not change.
• The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This
service will not change and the Meridian Library District should suffer no
revenue loss as a result of the subject annexation.
Municipal, fee -supported, services will be provided by the Meridian Building Department,
the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian
Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Department, Meridian Utility
Billing Services, and Sanitary Services Company.
• Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent
parcels (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 1)
All of the properties adjacent to the subject site are designated for medium or low density
residential uses on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. The applicant has
Proposed single family residential products for the site. However, the immediate neighbors
are in a Residential One district with a lot size greater than one acre. The property just north
BANFF SUBDIVISION
CUP -05-032/ PP-05-032/AZ-05-033
PAGE 5
CITY OF .MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
Of the site is currently a one acre site within Ada County. Staff has spoken with the applicant
as to a proposed redevelopment plan for the one acre site which is anticipated to become an
enclave parcel with little or no redevelopment potential and not in the best interests of' the
City of Meridian.
Subdivisions in the immediate vicinity are in the 10, 000 square foot range for building lots in
accordance with the R-4 standards.
The proposed 3,500 square foot lot range is 55% of the required 6,500 square foot minimum
for the R-8 development. Staff feels that there is not enough transition for the immediate
vicinity.
• Support a variety of residential categories (low-, medium-, and high-density single family,
multi -family, townhouses, duplexes, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of
providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities (Chapter VII, Goal IV,
Objective C, Action 10).
The subject property is designated Medium -Density Residential on the Future Land Use Map
which identifies this area as an appropriate area for medium -density residential
development. This proposal meets the Comprehensive Plan definition of medium -density,
with a gross density of 6.19 dwelling units per acre. Staff is not supportive of the design as
the minimum standard for single family attached housing is 4, 000 square foot lot sharing a
common drive. The proposal will have 15 new driveways and 2 lots sharing a common
driveway of 15 feet. The Meridian Fire Department requires 20 feet of minimum paved
surface for each shared driveway of'two homes. The standard for flag lots sharing a common
drive also states that the lot width would be 15 feet wide; with a 5' side yard setback this
design allows the 20 feet of improved surface to meet the safety requirements of Emergency
Services, Furthermore MCC 12-6-2-6 requires a minimum of 9' per common drive aisle.
Staff also feels that the roadway system does not adequately allow redevelopment to the north
for a transitional nature of development from very low density to medium high density. The
lot sizes less than 4,000 square feet also more closely resemble an R-15 development
(minimum 2,400 square foot lot) which does not fit into the medium low density
neighborhood.
• Develop policies and incentives to encourage infill and contiguous development. (Chapter V
Goal I Objective A Action 8)
The subject property has a unique design due to limited property width at the connection to
Linder Road and is surrounded by existing large lot developments which may classify for
infill development. Staff has encouraged the applicant to work with adjacent property
owners for developing an overall site plan for how the immediate vicinity will develop and
show the transition from one property to another. The site may not classes for infill
development as it is surrounded on two sides by undeveloped properties.
Apply design and performance standards to infilling development in order to reduce adverse
impacts upon existing adjacent development. (Chapter VII Goal V Objective A Action 11)
Staff foresees negative impacts on surrounding development due to the width of the street
section, lack of parking for the size of lots, further reductions of lot sizes in order to
accommodate parking, the lack of a redevelopment plan for the property to the north, the
inconsistencies with the Meridian City Code, and the amount of reduction of lot size from the
BANFF SUBDIVISION
CUP -05-032/ PP-05-032/AZ-05-033
PAGE 6
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
R-8 bulk standards as listed in MCC 11-9-1 . The site has an existing residence which is
proposed to be retained as a residence, the brick and historic fagade would be considered an
accent to the site.
Staff finds that the proposal is not harmonious with the surrounding areas and does not meet the
goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
S. ZONING ORDINANCE
a. Zoning Schedule of Use Control: Meridian City Code 11-2-1 lists Planned Development
modifications as conditional use in the R-8 zoning district. Single Family Residential uses
are permitted in the R-8 zoning district
b. Purpose Statement of Zone: R-8 Medium Density Residential District: The purpose of the R-
8 district is to permit the establishment of single- and two-family dwellings at a density not
exceeding eight (8) dwelling units per acre. This district delineates those areas where such
development has or is likely to occur in accord with the comprehensive plan of the city and is
also designed to permit the conversion of large homes into two-family dwellings in well-
established neighborhoods of comparable land use. Connection to the municipal water and
sewer systems is required.
General Standards. According to MCC
deemed necessary to insure compatibility
vicinity and such additional safeguards
ordinance.
9. ANALYSIS
11-17-1, the City should impose any condition(s)
of the development (CUP) with other uses in the
as are necessary to uphold the intent of the
a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation
As noted above, the applicant is proposing to subdivide the subject site into 18 single
family residential lots. Each new building lot contains a minimum 3,571 square -feet. The
Proposed new building lots range in size from 3,571 square -feet up to 5,486 square -feet.
These lot sizes meet the minimum standards of an R-15 development which is not
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
The site has not incorporated the one acre lot to the north and does not allow for adequate
redevelopment which would leave the City of Meridian with a future infill parcel which
will be very difficult at best to develop.
The lots are requested to have reduced frontage and reduced lot sizes which would .
require more on street parking. However, the road section does not meet the minimum
standards for width of roadways to all any on -street parking. These lots are proposed
single family detached products with the elevations submitted with the packet. All
housing types are proposed as single-family residential.
The applicant has requested all of the property be zoned R-8 (Medium Density
Residential). The applicant has indicated a gross density of the proposed subdivision at
6.19 gross dwelling units per acre. However, if you take out the area of the largest lot
(18350 square feet) the gross density is 7.25 Dwelling units to the acre. This presented
BANFF SUBDIVISION
CUP -05-032/ PP-05-032/AZ-05-033
PAGE 7
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT_ QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
density may be in accordance with the proposed R-8 zoning district; however the
densities approaching eight dwelling units to the acre are more typical of R-15
developments within the City of Meridian. More standard higher density projects also
incorporate larger transitional lots with a mix of products while using the planned
development standards in MCC 11-2. These standards also do not allow perimeter
standards to be altered and the applicant is not eligible to request a 10' rear setback, must
provide a minimum of 9' of improved surface on a 10' flag lot, and increase the
minimum road width to 29' from back of curb to back of curb as per the Meridian Fire
Department. At a minimum these changes to the plat must be made which would further
reduce the lot sizes.
Due to the number of planned development requests for exceptions to the dimensional
standards, the medium -low density character of the neighborhood, the lack of on street
parking, and the possibility of impeding future developments staff is recommending
denial of Banff Subdivision.
ANNEXATION & ZONING ANALYSIS: The site is a substandard Ada County property
with no public services. These are sensitive properties which neighborhood concerns and
the best interest of the City of Meridian are not to be taken lightly. The site is surrounded
by undeveloped properties and cooperation and integration of other parcels is in the best
interest of the City of Meridian at this time. There are several immediate issues for
public services, mainly emergency services on Linder Road which will be remedied in
the near future when Linder Road is improved and the Black Cat Sewer trunk is brought
through along the Kennedy Lateral. Currently Linder Road provides the only
arterial/collector connection for over 700 homes south of Franklin Road. Either the
Linder Road overpass or the extension of West Waltman Street would solve this problem
and staff anticipates the road improvements to eventually happen although no timeline
has been set.
Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the outstanding
issues of the proposed development with the Zoning Ordinance, staff believes that this is
a location which does not work for the proposed single family residential products. Please
see Exhibit C for detailed analysis of facts and findings.
PRELIMINARY PLAT ANALYSIS: The preliminary plat provides one section of
residential products with a narrow range of small lots. The site complies with the
medium density calculation as required under eight dwelling units to the acre and
proposes a standard single family residential product on lots which would all require
modification to the bulk standards of the zoning ordinance. The applicant has proposed
a standard design for a lot configuration on a property which has the ability to develop
outside of an infill situation. Infill products are given further consideration, for higher
densities and smaller lots, but this site has two frontages of undeveloped Ada County
parcel ground which could be included in future development and is not considered an
infill project.
Staff feels that this design more closely resembles an R-15 development which would not
be required to obtain a planned development. The R-15 lot size (min 2,400 sq/ft) and
under the future unified development code would not require street frontage, lot size, or
minimum dwelling size deviations.
BANFF SUBDIVISION
CUP -OS -032/ PP-05-032/AZ-05-033
PAGE 8
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the outstanding
issues of the proposed development with the Zoning Ordinance, staff believes that this is
a location which does not work for the proposed single family residential products. Please
see Exhibit C for detailed analysis of facts and findings.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ANALYSIS: Based on the policies and goals contained in
the Comprehensive Plan and the general compliance of the proposed development with
the Zoning Ordinance, staff believes that this is not a good location for allowing a
reduced lot design for single family residential products. Please see Exhibit C for detailed
analysis of facts and findings.
Reduced Standards: As stated earlier, the applicant is requesting modifications from
standard ordinance requirements for street frontage, lot size, setbacks and minimum
building square footages.
Lot Size: The applicant has requested reduced lot sizes; the submitted, preliminary plat
has Lots 3-12 and 14-15 of Block 1 and Lots 1-7 of Block 2 below the 6,500 square -foot
minimum size. Therefore, a modification to the standard R-8 lot size of 6,500 square -feet
is applicable. The proposed lot sizes range from 3,571 square -feet to 5,486 square -feet.
Lot Fronta e: The minimum requested street frontage is 46 -feet for standard lots and 5 -
feet for flag lots. There are 14 lots that are at 46 -feet of frontage (65 -feet is the minimum
for the R-8 zone) and 2 lots that propose to use a 5 -foot flag lot (street frontage for one or
two lots sharing a common driveway is 15 feet). Staff is not supportive of reducing the
frontage for these lots as it provides no practical use to these lots where the property
depth is minimal and creates a hazardous situation for future public access to the property
to the north of the site.
Setbacks: The applicant's submittal August 4, 2005 requests that this development have a
front setback of 20 -feet. The standard front setback is 15 -feet to living space only and a
minimum front setback of 20 -feet to a garage entry way. Rear and interior setbacks are
requested with respect to the design of the homes at 3 -feet non -living space to non -living
space with a 6 -foot separation between garages and 7 -feet between living spaces creating
a 14 -foot separation between homes. The applicant has requested a 10 -foot rear setback
which is not allowed under 12-6-2-5 along the periphery of the development.
2. Amenities: MCC 12-6-2.A.3 requires two or more amenities to be provided as part of
each planned development or as appropriate to the size and uses of the proposed
development. The proposed amenities for the subject planned development include: The
proposed open space makes up 7% of the site, 5% minimum is required and it. takes 10%
to count open space as an amenity, The applicant has included additional road buffers in
this calculation and has not reduced the open space by the proposed future driveway
easement (which is not supported by staff). Landscaped open space means land exclusive
of street rights-of-way and street buffers, except for right-of-way specifically dedicated
for landscaping within a subdivision. No drainage lots, required street buffers, or canal
buffers have been included in this calculation. The applicant is counting the additional
lot to connect to the school as an open space lots, a pathway connection into the school
site is proposed but the school has not commented on interconnectivity (a chain link
fence currently exists with no gates. Lot 2 Block 1 shows a seating area with a picnic
structure as the main amenity.
BANFF SUBDIVISION
CUP -05-032/ PP-05-032/AZ-05-033
PAGE 9
CITY OF MFRIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
Elevations: The applicant has submitted six front elevation drawings for the proposed
dwelling units included with the PD. Staff" believes that the dwelling units will be too
compact to be compatible with the adjoining uses, if the buildings are constructed as
shown on the submitted elevations they will encompass the entire building envelope and
available yards will be significantly reduced in a neighborhood with 10,000 sq/ft to 2 -
acre sites.
b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Denial of CUP -05-03/ PP-05-032/AZ-05-033 for
Banff Subdivision as presented in the staff report dated August 18, 2005 based on the Findings of
Fact as listed in Exhibit C as attached to this report. Staff has prepared findings consistent with
this recommendation.
10. PROPOSED MOTIONS
Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation for Approval
I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Numbers CUP -05-03/ PP-05-032/AZ-
05-033 for Banff Subdivision and direct staff to prepare findings and conditions for approval as defined in
the public hearing of August 18, 2005.
Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation for Denial
1 move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Numbers CUP -05-03/ AZ -05-033 for
Banff Subdivision as presented in the staff report dated August 18, 2005 with the Site Plan dated June 14,
2005 and Preliminary Plat dated August 4, 2005.
Planning and Zoning Commission Denial
I move to deny File Number PP -05-032 for Banff Subdivision with the attached findings as
defined in the public hearing of August 18, 2005.
11. EXHIBITS
A. Drawings
1. Preliminary Plat -- Dated August 4, 2005 prepared by W&H Pacific
2. CUP Site Plan- Dated June 14, 2005 prepared by W&H Pacific
3. Landscape Plan- Dated June 14, 2005 prepared by W&H Pacific
B. Legal Description
C. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance
BANFF SUBDIVISION
CUP -05-032/ PP-05-032/AZ-05-033
PAGE 10
A. Drawings
L Preliminary Plat (dated: August 4, 2005)
- ----------
IF--- - ------
14'7dAaVN14V1792id
--: . -pj�
Banff Subdivision
Drawings
EXHIBIT A
w Ili
Banff Subdivision
Drawings
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
2. CUP Site Plan (dated: June 14, 2005)
Nv7d RLIS i
Banff Subdivision
Drawings
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
I Landscape: Plan (dated June 14, 2005)
--- .--
77
I Am
NV7d3d1fJ5GNb'7 moi;
— -- —
hY7�5»11(7Hf7.: jytlE'E
_._. .,,..____ _...__� _.._ u ^. . � _ _ _—_ _ i,,.,,,•, __rJ+wp•HJ 1N3:Y3•]YN4'yY ya ,� ., �
All
li;4
a y
g 3 GGG y � gg"
y{ yq Aj$
ligp .i @gSk i r [t P �6
it
�e9 �jy�7� 1RR39T�iiv��1! 1... { j.
bis i:� �f�i7ailOr
ili Bila
,
110 "
F
7
Banff Subdivision
Drawings
EXHIBIT A
B. Legal Description
�J
yE'i0R T Q a -0
0
Cq
CO
M 213aNI7 'S
SDMI21yaff .30 SISYS
0
N 96'L61
f1 �5 M" SO. FF.QOS a
CO
to oLn
VUjowxnd w�q
�WaXE-¢ [n "a
rt
Cc
o F4a �
LU
G]Gj��h7 7� ^i CD ^ !1 Q
CO
DI m
z ct) 0 N vi LOU W)
(ozW dAE' �� -1 Q G1
CO
U .Y,
w G7
Q rte.
e a
w
� ,b6'L6L
3„ bt,,FF.QON
w ;
d�
s
3
Banff Subdivision
EXHIBIT B
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
PARC:.lil, i)l+::iCRIPTION .lune 14, 2005
Project: 675 8, Linder Purchase Legal Descr-iption
Project No: 32707
A parcel Orland being lots 15, 16, and 17 of the Vail Hees Subdivision recorded June 10, 1,948 -Ada.
Coun(y Recorder records, located in the SE 1/4 of the NE'/- ofSection 14, Township 3 North. Range I
West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows!
COMMENCING at [tic E 1/4 corner of said Section 14, said corner being marked by a. found 5/8"
rebar/cap P_L.S. 4431, corner record #103143079;
"Thence North 00°33'08" East (record: North 00'06' West), coincident with the east line of said. Section.
a distance of 339.92 (record: 340.00) feet to a point, said point being South 00"33'08" West, lection
_()0 feet) from the NE comer of said Section 14, said NE corner bek
Leet (record: South 00'06' East, 2318
marked by a 3 1 /4" brass cap, corner record f#98117244;
Thence North 89"12.'31" West (record: North 89°49' West), 25.00 feet to the westerly right -of way line of
S. Linder Road and the southeasterly coiner of said Lot 17, said corner being marked by a set 5/8" rebar/cap
P.L.S. 8726, and said corner being the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence continuing North 89'12'31" West, 639.85 feet (record: North 8949' West, 640.50 feet) to (he
southwesterly corner of said lot 17, said corner being marked by a set 5/8" rebar/cap P.L.S. 9726,
Thence North 00'3344" East, 197.94 feet (record: North 00°04' West,
comer of said lot 15; 198.00 feet) to the northwesterly
Thence South 89°12'35" East, passing through a found 1/2" rebar/no cap at 0.16 feet, a total distance of
639.82 feet (record. South 89°49" East, 640.40 feet), to the westerly right-of-way line of S, Linder Road
and the northeasterly corner of said lot 15, said corner being marked by a found 1/2" rebar/ca.p P.A.T.
43471-
Thence
347;Thence South 00°33'08" West (record; South 0006' East), parallel to, and offset 25.00 feet from the east
line of said Section 14, coincident with the westerly right-of-way litre of S. Linder Road, a distance of
197.95 (record: 198.00) feet to the POINT OF ]BEGINNING.
The above described parcel contains 2.9075 acres, more or less.
Together with and subject to covenants, easements and restrictions of record.
Banff Subdivision
EXHIBIT B
C. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance
I. ANNEXATION FINDINGS:
According to Ordinance 11-15-11, General Standards Applicable to Zoning Amendments, both the
P&Z Commission and Council are required "to review the particular facts and circumstances of each
proposed zoning amendment in terms of the following standards and shall find adequate evidence
answering the following questions about the proposed zoning amendment."
The following is the list of'standards found in 11-15-11 and analysis by staff.
A. Will the new zoning be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan
and, if not, has there been an application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment;
See Comprehensive Plans and Policies as listed in the Banff Subdivision staff report item #7
above. Staff does not support the zoning and finds the proposal i
Comprehensive Plan. n conflict with the
B. Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be rezoned in the future;
Staff does not anticipate that the applicant intends to rezone the subject property in the future.
C. Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be developed in the fashion that
would be allowed under the new zoning —for example, a residential area turning into a
commercial area by means of conditional use permits;
Staff finds that single-family residential uses are allowed within the requested zoning district of
R-8. Medium Density Residential permits the establishment of residential uses and is designed to
protect the integrity of residential development by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible
nonresidential uses. The accompanying plat demonstrates the land is proposed to be developed
with lot sizes, housing types and other dimensional requirements that conform to a higher density
residential district the proposed zoning designation does not comply with the residential
neighborhood.
D. Has there been a change in the area or adjacent areas which may dictate that the area
Should be rezoned. For example, have the streets been widened, new railroad access been
developed or planned or adjacent area being developed in a fashion similar to the proposed
rezone area;
Staff finds that residential developments to the north and east have been develop e"d,with much
larger single family residential lots than the proposed subdivision proposal. Development in the
area is limited by available services and is dominated by large lot residential subdivisions.
Based on the ACHD Long Range 2030 proposal, Linder Road is anticipated to eventually be a
three lane roadway abutting this site. However, Linder Road between Franklin Road and 1-84 is
not currently included within ACHD's Five Year Work Program or in the currently adopted 20 -
year Capital Improvements Plan for roadway improvements.
Banff Subdivision
EXHIBIT C
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 881-5533
Local Street Banff Street is designed to provide stub connection to the property south of the site.
Staff does not feel that this connection is warranted as the property south of the proposal has road
frontage on two collector roads and the dimensions of the parcel would allow its development in
an appropriate manner without the stub street. The property to the north is not adequately
designed for interconnectivity as there are no services being provided as well as a driveway
easement across an open space lot is not the preferred method for connection upon
redevelopment. Staff anticipates the property becoming an enclave parcel which is not in the
best interests of the City of Meridian.
E. Will the proposed uses be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be
harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the
general vicinity and that such use will not change the essential character of the same area;
Staff finds that the requested zoning and proposed density is denser than the anticipated range for
a medium density urban project in this vicinity. Based on the Comprehensive Plan, staff believes
that the existing parcels in the area (south and north and east) have already developed with much
lower densities. Allowances for alternate products and designs are encouraged and staff believes
this could become a quality product in a high-density neighborhood or along a neighborhood
center as a transitional product. Staff also finds that the proposed zoning/uses can be designed and
constructed in a manner that will be harmonious with, and appropriate in appearance with, the
existing and intended character of the surrounding area with an alternate R-8 proposal without
amending as many bulk standards as requested.
The existing character of the area will not change as this is one of several parcels the vicinity of
the school yet to develop. Staff finds that the proposed zoning and higher density uses will
adversely change the essential character of area. Staff recommends that the Commission and
Council rely on staff's analysis, public testimony received and any comments submitted from any
other agencies or departments regarding whether this property should be annexed as proposed.
F. Will the proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring
uses;
Staff anticipates that the proposed residential uses will be hazardous as outlined in this report.
The number and size of homes on this small of a property would require a larger road section in
order to have enough parking to satisfy the neighborhood. Single sided parking at this location is
not encouraged. Also anticipated is the creation of a higher density enclave in a predominantly
very low density region of the City of Meridian.
The Commission and Council should rely on any public testimony (oral and written) when
determining whether or not the proposed zoning and subsequent uses will be, disturbing or
hazardous to the existing or future neighboring uses.
G. Will the area be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as
highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water,
sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed zoning amendment
shall be able to provide adequately any of such services;
On July 15, 2005, a joint agency/department comments meeting was held with representatives of
key service providers to this property. Based on the joint agency/department meeting and other
comments received from agencies/departments, staff finds that the public services listed above
can be made available to accommodate the proposed development. The Commission and Council
Banff Subdivision
EXHIBIT C
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
should reference any written and/or verbal testimony submitted by any public service provider,
regarding their ability to adequately service this project.
13. Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and
services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community;
If approved, the developer will be financing the extension of sewer, water, local street
infrastructure, utilities and irrigation services to serve the project. The primary public costs to
serve the future residents will be fire, police and school facilities and services. Staff finds there
will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed zoning and
subsequent development will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare.
I- Will the proposed uses not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and
conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general
welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors;
Staff finds that the proposed annexation and the development of single-family homes on this site
may create nuisances that would be detrimental to the general welfare of the surrounding area.
Staff recognizes the fact that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of this subdivision;
however, staff does not believe that the amount generated will be detrimental to the general
welfare of the public. Staff does not anticipate the proposed annexation and subsequent uses will
create excessive traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors.
J. Will the area have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to
create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets;
The applicant is proposing to construct one public street stub to the south of the property. The
street section is shown with a 28' section back of curb to back of curb. The Meridian Fire
Department has required similar designs to provide a 29' road section back of curb to back of
curb and restricts these roads to one side of street parking. The designed proposal has a sufficient
number of homes that staff anticipates the need for on street parking which could create an
impedance for emergency services and interfere with interconnected traffic.
K. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major
importance; and
There are some mature trees on this property. Any existing trees larger than 4" caliper that are
removed should be mitigated for, per the Landscape Ordinance. Staff finds that the proposed
development will not result in, the destruction, loss or damage of any natural feature(s) of major
importance if developed under these conditions.
Staff recommends that the Commission and Council reference any public testimony that may be
presented to determine whether or not the proposed development may destroy or damage a
natural or scenic feature(s) of major importance of which staff is unaware.
L. Is the proposed zoning amendment in the best interest of the City of Meridian. (Ord. 592,
11-17-1992)?
The R-8 zoning amendment would provide lots that are similar in nature to existing subdivisions
in the near vicinity. Staff finds that all essential services are available or will be provided by the
Banff Subdivision
EXHIBIT C
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
developer to the subject property and will not require unreasonable expenditure of public funds
through a standard R-8 design. Staff feels that the design with the proposed elevations more
closely resembles a standard R-15 development and does not fit the character of the
neighborhood. The applicant is proposing to develop the land in general compliance with the
City's Comprehensive Plan. Staff does not recommend lot sizes that would be invasive to the
properties to the north and east of the subject property but the lot sizes should be transitional in
nature and allow additional residential densities and product opportunities fox the general vicinity.
Subdivisions of medium -low density have already been built to the north, south and east and this
is a logical expansion of the City limits for a similar design. In accordance with the findings listed
above, staff finds that annexation and tonin of this Dro ert would not be in the best interest of
the Ci
2. PRELIMINARY PLAT FINDINGS
Sections 12-3-3 J.2 and 12-3-5 D read as follows: "In determining the acceptance of a proposed
subdivision, the Commission and Council shall consider the objectives of this title and at least the
following:
A. The conformance of the subdivision with the Comprehensive Development Plan;
Staff finds that the proposed application is not in substantial compliance with the adopted
Comprehensive Plan. Staff does not support the proposed layout as a practical solution in the
south Linder Road area which has been dictated by previous developments as medium low
density development. Please see Annexation and Zoning Analysis.
B. The availability of public services to accommodate the proposed development;
Staff finds that public services are available to accommodate the proposed development. (See
fording "G" under Annexation and Zoning Analysis for more detail.)
C. The continuity of the proposed development with the capital improvement program;
Because the developer is installing sewer, water, and utilities for the development at their cost,
staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds.
D. The public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development;
Staff recommends the Commission and Council rely upon comments from the public service
providers (i.e.- police, fire, ACRD, etc.) to determine this finding. (See fmding "G" under
Annexation and Zoning Analysis above for more detail.)
E. The other health, safety or environmental problems that may be .brought to the
Commission's attention.
The proposed design creates a unique situation for properties along its property lines to the north
and south. A subdivision design for this area would incorporate these properties into an overall
developed concept for this area. However the proposed design will force existing lots to have
extraneous constraints for future development. Banff Street does not extend services to the south
and only serves traffic concerns.
Banff Subdivision
EXHIBIT C
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
Staff is not aware of any health, safety or environmental problems associated with the
development of this subdivision that should be brought to the Council or Commission's attention.
ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. Staff recommends that the Commission and
Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the
proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which staff is
unaware.
3. CONDITIONAL USE FINDINGS
The Commission and Council shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each
Proposed conditional use in terms of the following and may approve a conditional use permit if
they shall find evidence presented at the hearing(s) is adequate to establish (11-17-3):
A. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and all yards, open spaces,
parking, landscaping and other features as may be required by this ordinance;
As part of the Planned Development (PD) the applicant is requesting relief from the standard
street frontage requirement, lot size requirement, standard setbacks and minimum required first
floor square footage, as required by Meridian City Code. See Conditional Use Special
Consideration #1 above for detailed analysis.
Staff finds that the subject property is not large enough to accommodate the requested use and all
other required features. Although the site is large enough to accommodate all of the features
required by ordinance, the applicant has asked, through the Planned Development, to modify
numerous specific development standards for 17 of of 18 single family residential lots. The
narrow nature of the north south connection of the property creates a unique situation which
could be addressed through normal R-8 standards with fewer lots and incorporation of other
contiguous properties. Staff recommends that the considerations for planned development are
denied as requested.
B. That the proposed use and development plan will be harmonious with the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan and in accordance with the requirements of this Ordinance;
Staff finds that the proposed single-family residential subdivision, with a gross density of 6.19
dwelling units per acre, is not harmonious with and in accordance with the 2002 Comprehensive
Plan and Future Land Use Map, which designates the site to be "Medium Density Residential"
Please see Annexation & Zoning Analysis "A" above.
C. That the design, construction, operation, and maintenance will be compatible with other
uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general
vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area;
Please see Annexation & Zoning Analysis "E" above.
D. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not
adversely affect other property in the vicinity;
Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely upon public testimony, staff s analysis,
and other agency comments when determining if the proposed uses will adversely affect other
properties in the vicinity.
Banff Subdivision
EXHIBIT C
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
E. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services
such as highways, street, police, and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,
water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed conditional
use shall be able to provide adequately any such services;
Please see Annexation & Zoning Analysis "G" and "H" above and any cotrnnents that may be
submitted to the City Clerk regarding this project.
F. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for
public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the
community;
Please see Annexation & Zoning Analysis "H" above.
G. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment, and
conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or general welfare
by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors;
Please see Annexation and Zoning Analysis "I" above.
H. That the proposed use will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so
designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets;
Please see Annexation & Zoning Analysis "J" above. The Commission and Council should
review any comments received from the ACRD provide for this project when determining this
finding.
T. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic
or historic feature considered to be of major importance.
Please see Annexation & Zoning Analysis "K" above.
Banff Subdivision
EXHIBIT C
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 4, 2005
Page 56 of 57
Borup: It was perfect. We are spreading the wealth tonight. Any further discussion
needed or are we ready to close the Public Hearing?
Borup: I move we close the Public Hearing on -- see, I'm not ready for this either. CUP
05-035.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we recommend approval to City Council of File No. CUP
05-035, as presented in the staff report dated August 4th and the site plan dated
December 20th, 2004, with the following conditions of approval with Exhibit B and also
include the memorandum dated August 4th, 2005.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 15: Public Hearing: AZ 05-033 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.02
acres to R-8 zone for Banff Subdivision by Landworks, LLC -- 675 South
Linder Road:
Item 16: Public Hearing: PP 05-032 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 21
single-family residential building lots and 7 common area lots on 2.91
acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Banff Subdivision by Landworks, LLC
— 675 South Linder Road:
Item 17: Public Hearing: CUP 05-036 Request for a Conditional Use Permit /
Planned Development to allow reduced lot sizes, setbacks, frontage and
minimum ground floor square footage for Banff Subdivision by
Landworks, LLC — 675 South Linder Road:
Zaremba: Thank you very much. We are shy of being the one that makes the motion to
close the hearing, because everybody expects that same person to make the other
motions. Okay. The chair will open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-003, PP 05-032, and
CUP 05-036, all relating to Banff Subdivision on South Linder Road and entertain a
motion to continue these to August 18th, '05.
Borup: So moved.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 4, 2005
Page 57 of 57
Rohm: So moved.
Zaremba: Okay. Would one of you care to make that a second?
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second.
Newton-Huckabay: August 18th?
Zaremba: August 18th. Yes. Motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
That motion carries.
Canning: I did have a gentleman provide written testimony and I will hand that to the
clerk. I think he will show up on the 18th as well.
Zaremba: Distribute it before the 18th. Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: We didn't have people here for Banff earlier, did we?
Zaremba: No. Nobody left when I announced that we would not be hearing it.
Moe: Actually, there was two people.
Borup: Before the meeting.
Zaremba: We have one more motion to make.
Rohm: I move we adjourn.
Moe: I second that.
Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor say aye. Any
opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:07 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
DAVID ZAREMBA - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED