October 6, 2005 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 60 of 85
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in flavor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Thank you all very much. And as earlier requested, we have gone well past
our 9:00 o'clock traditional break and we will take a break at this paint and reconvene --
let's make it 15 minutes.
(Recess.)
Item 15: Public Hearing: AZ 05-042 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.63
acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Medford Place Subdivision by Dyver
Development, LLC - 3335 South Eagle Road:
Item 1G: Public Hearing: PP 05-043 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 29
single-family residential building lots and 8 common area lots on 8.57
acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Medford Place Subdivision by Dyver
Development, LLC - 3335 South Eagle Road:
Item 17: Public Hearing: CUP 05-044 Request for approval of a Conditional Use
Permit for a Planned Development for Medford Place Subdivision that
includes reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size and street
frontage by Dyver Development, LLC - 3335 South Eagle Road:
Zaremba: All right. We will reconvene our meeting this evening and let the record show
that all Commissioners are again present and I will open the public hearings for AZ 05-
042, PP 05-043, and CUP 05-044, all relating to Medford Place Subdivision and we will
begin as usual with the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The subject applications
are for annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, and Conditional Use Permit for a
planned development consisting of 29 build-able lots and eight common other lots on
8.57 acres. The site is located, as you can see, on the overhead on the southwest
corner of Eagle and Victory. The adjacent properties are pretty much rural residential
as you can see around. Across the -- across Eagle Road the city did recently approve a
two-lot subdivision. The existing single-family house is going to stay and, then, they are
proposing some assisted living. They are capable of self-preservation, a retirement
community there on the south side of Falcon Drive. There is a future elementary school
planned in this location. Messina Hills Subdivision -- this aerial is a little bit old. You
can see the overlay of the actual lots in Messina. Some of those homes are there
today. That was Maxfield Subdivision. I'm sorry, I forgot the name of that, but Maxfield
Subdivision there. Pretty much everything else around it is still rural residential, zoned
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 61 of 85
RUT in Ada County. Just a couple of things on the proposed development. The
applicant is proposing 22 single-family lots. All of those lots -- I guess I should note, first
off, before I get too far looking at the plat, the original preliminary plat, the one that you
had in your packet, did have a street that aligned with Falcon Drive. Subsequent to the
transmittals going out, ACRD met with the applicant and at least one neighbor in this
area, about their concerns about Falcon Drive and traffic in the area, specifically getting
in and out of Falcon Drive. The entrance into this subdivision has subsequently been
moved to the south property line or just near the south property line, so my comments in
the staff report were based on this revised drawing changing that street location and
some other minor changes that are also called out in the staff report, but I did just want
to make you aware of that. So, the 22 single family home lots are, basically, on the
west side of the main north-south road in the development all on this side and, then,
when you get to the northwest corner of the development, the multi-family -- or multi-
family units, seven of them along Eagle and -- six along Eagle, I guess, and one along
Victory Road, four-plexes, so there is 28 multi-family units, for a total of 50 dwelling
units on the eight plus acres. There were a couple of things that in the staff report were
called out as needing clarification. I guess just to jump to the chase, the staff is
recommending that the action by this board be a couple of things, I guess, or at your
discretion based on the public hearings and how you feel about this development. Long
story short, the applicant submitted a rezone application -- annexation application far a
zone that does not allow multi-family dwelling units. So, the city cannot approve this
development as submitted. So, the options you have are to either limit them through
the planned development ordinance to a maximum of 20 percent of the site being used
for multi-family or to have -- require the applicant to submit a new application, if you like
this design, basically, for an R-15 zone for the eastern portion of this site and came
back before you, because we do need to notice those neighbors that it is a higher zone
that's being requested. Basically be the same development, but the zoning and city
ordinance just does not allow it as proposed. So, with that -- and without getting into
some of the other tot lot and private open space and dumpster locations, I guess I will
leave staff comments at that, unless you want me to go into further descriptions on
those.
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, questions or further knowledge you need at this
point? All right. Thank you. We will ask for the applicant to come forward, please.
Amar: Thank you, Mr. Commissioners and Madam Commissioner. For the record, my
name is Kevin Amar. Address 36 East Pine in Meridian. And I'm here tonight
representing Medford Place Subdivision. It is a 29-lot subdivision, 50 dwelling units.
And when we first acquired this property we approached the city and were actually
approached by some of the neighbors thinking that this area -- my pointer is a little weak
tonight. But this area in here would be an ideal spot for some sort of commercial or light
office and was informed that -- that the Comprehensive Plan is for medium density
residential, up to eight dwelling units to the acre and the city would in no way support
light office. So, we are proposing -- and have met with the neighbors on numerous
occasions -- a residential zone, but maintaining this transition from Eagle and Victory
which, admittedly are busy, highly traveled areas, with a multi-family unit and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 62 of 85
transitioning into a single family detached unit in this area. In the neighborhood meeting
-- we had a neighborhood meeting and, then, met with the neighbors an various
occasions to discuss this project and have here tonight three of the neighbors who -- I'm
going to speak far them and they can correct me if I'm wrong -- I believe are primarily
concerned -- they were the ones that requested the relocation of the access from ACHD
and we did comply and the primary concern, I believe, is the traffic, which we all
understand is an issue. Overland Road -- or, I'm sorry, Victory and Eagle are slated to
be improved. They will follow the Cloverdale and Victory intersection improvements and
is on the ACHD five-year plan and is actually a funded project. So, it is in the process of
being signalized and improving this road, as well as Victory, far abetter -- now it's just a
four way stop. It will be a signalized intersection. As I stated, we had a neighborhood
meeting and we probably had a dozen neighbors there. But I believe after speaking
with them and talking about our intent and the type of the building we were doing and
the type for the four-plexes, which I da have a picture, that satisfied many of them and --
thank you very much. This is, actually, a picture for the four-plex, so when you look at it
it looks mare like asingle-family dwelling. There is an entry point at this location and,
then, from there there is a vestibule inside that you can enter into the actual units or go
upstairs and enter into the other units. Our intent was to create more of a residential
feel, rather than a commercial or amulti-family feel and is this what we are proposing to
build out there. There may or may not be a door there, but it will be the same -- the
same look. It will have porches an it, on the four-plexes, and the balance of the project,
the single family homes will also be strongly encouraged to incorporate that same porch
design, so it gives more of the -- the old town -- people sitting on their porches and
enjoying the neighbors and the whole area. We have 5.8 dwelling units per acre. We
have got 19 percent total open space, which is almost two acres. Twelve percent is
actually usable open space. So, it exceeds the five percent. We have requested a
PUD with this application and in the PUD one of staffs comments was with respect to
this tot lot in this location and I'm referencing the colored map now. They were
concerned that the tat lot was from the rest of the project. We are, actually, proposing
two separate tot lots, one in this location and one in this location, to provide areas in
both the north and the south. And, then, another comment was also this pathway that
would connect to the future school site, which we are also proposing a pathway to
connect the future school site. So, I believe all the concerns with respect to the staff
report -- we are in agreement with the staff report. When we submitted the PUD, we
submitted it as an R-8 PUD and did not realize that you were not allowed, in any event,
to have multi-family ar a four-plex unit. We have met with Craig and staff and came to
the determination -- and I believe staff said it best -- that they would rather the
application stay the same and submit for an R-15. In doing that, my proposal would be
to -- with the development agreement still limit the density to the density we have here.
We are not trying to increase the density within an R-15, we are just complying with the
applicable rules for this project. I believe with that I would stand for any questions.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 63 of 85
Borup: Just a quick question on the rezone area. Unless I misunderstood, Craig, do
they have the option of just zoning the property on the perimeter, the R-15, and leaving
the other R-S? Was that your intention, then?
Amar: That was our intent and I'm sorry I wasn't clear.
Borup: Okay.
Amar: So, the area that has the four-plexes would be the R-15, the balance would
remain at R-8.
Borup: Okay.
Amar: But I know the neighbors will be concerned that somebody may come in and not
do four-plexes and do something else. My intent would be to put that in the
development agreement and limit it to the density of whatever it is, 5.83 units to the acre
and we still have the same project.
Borup: And with the same style of four-plex.
Amar: Correct. And that can be referenced also.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members --
Zaremba: Yes, Mr. Hood.
Hood: -- of the Commission, Ijust -- just a couple things. One, with the rezone
application, just so the applicant knows, typically that rezone will go to the center line of
the roadway, so if that's the way that the Commission is leaning, if you could just make
that clear, that we need a new legal description with the -- the zone should go to the
center line of the roadway. The second thing that Iguess I -- just so this will make the
next hearing that much quicker, this is the only elevation that you did submit and I was
curious if this is the front elevation and, in fact, if the front is towards Eagle Road or if
this is towards your internal and if, in fact, either way, what does the back look like, I
guess, because one of them is going to be facing Eagle Road, so what our people -- the
majority of the people that are driving by are going to be seeing -- is it this elevation or is
there another elevation?
Amar: This elevation, actually, will be seen by the interior streets. This property is
unique in that the elevation of the property is significantly lower than the -- bath Eagle
and Victory. So, that from Eagle and Victory, especially up in this corner, although they
are two story dwellings, I mean they won't appear to be two story, just because the --
right now the property is about eight to ten feet below the road. With the future road
improvements it will be four to six feet below the road, which still means your building is
only going to be seeing a portion of it and what we have proposed is to screen this
access with trees and different things. So, our intent is that we don't want a lot of vision
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 64 of 85
to the four-plexes from Eagle. I can get elevations of the rear, but I really hope that we
don't even see the rear of the elevations from this project. We will be fencing it with a
six foot vinyl fence and, then, also putting those -- that landscaping and so, hopefully --
obviously, you're going to see them, but it will be less obtrusive than a two story
dwelling on the road.
Zaremba: Let me ask the mechanics. I, actually, would be interested in seeing an
elevation of what are the -- the people on Eagle going to see and if that's the back, then,
that isn't this, but it sounds like there is a mechanics of -- I guess I'm not talking about
mechanics. A timeline. If you apply to actually make this portion of it the R-15 and we
want to keep all of it together before it goes to the City Council, I would assume, we are
at some point going to continue our current discussion and where do we think we are
going to continue to, and at that time could you bring a rear vision -- or an Eagle side
vision, is what I would ask for. So, the first question to you is can you do that by the
time we hear it again?
Amar: Yes, I can.
Zaremba: And the question of staff is when is that likely to be?
Hood: Tomorrow.
Amar: Okay.
Hood: No. No.
Amar: If you can get it done my tomorrow, I will have the --
Zaremba: In the morning? I have an appointment in the afternoon
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, we anticipate if the applicant can get us
that rezone application by the 15th -- or, actually, the 14th of this month, which is next
Friday, the first of December would be that hearing. So, if we have a complete
application -- which we anticipate -- a rezone application is pretty -- you have the
application pretty much filled out already, so a new legal description would need to be
prepared, but we anticipate December 1st, if you can continue the other two items to the
December 1st hearing and, then, let that rezone catch up, we can, again, hear these
items or the continued items and any rezone application on the 1st of December.
Amar: And that's --
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rohm: That's acceptable?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 65 of 85
Amar: That's acceptable. The thought with bringing it forward still tonight was that
notice has already gone out to the neighbors, so we might as well have our discussion
tonight.
Zaremba: Sure.
Amar: One thing I did not mention was with respect to fencing. I mentioned it briefly on
both Victory and Eagle. That will be a six-foot vinyl fence, a solid fence, and, then,
adjacent to all the common areas will actually be a four-foot vinyl -- solid vinyl fence. I
know that was a topic of discussion in the last hearing and I didn't want that to be a
question in this hearing.
Zaremba: Okay. Commissioners, any other questions? All right. Thank you.
Amar: Thank you.
Zaremba: Also signed up is Bob Aldridge. Thank you.
Aldridge: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Bab Aldridge, 3300
1=alcon Drive. Let's see. I don't have a pointer.
Zaremba: Here, you can use mine.
Aldridge: I'm right there. And I'm probably the most affected neighbor in terms of
partially the vision line, but especially the traffic. I have been living there for over 20
years now and our problem is right here. When I come out in the morning there is traffic
stopped from here clear back dawn passed Tuscany. I get in when somebody lets me
come into that solid line. That was our concern and that's why when initially the ACHD
requested a hearing, which would have been held yesterday and, then, had a meeting
with staff and with the developer and we felt that moving the road down here would
alleviate a lot of that problem, because we were really concerned about people coming
to this and trying to come across and merge into this traffic that right now is stopped and
when the light comes in is going to be moving at a fair rate of speed and we think that
will alleviate a lot by having that road. So, that was my major concern with the project
and we wanted to make sure it was kept. We also want to urge the Commissioners to
continue to look at the traffic problem on Eagle. Right now the intersection's going in --
and that's in the five year plan, but the only road improvements between Victory and
Amity aren't scheduled until 2011 -- until 2017 and that's increased to a three lane road.
So, we are considerably out and only to a three-lane road. You have got five heavy
lanes of traffic coming from the north, funneling down -- you're approving a lot of
projects on out south. The Kingsbridge, for example, is breaking ground right now just
over across the road. It's been approved on its first phase. So, there is going to be a lot
of traffic on Eagle and there has got to be an overall plan to affect that put in place. I
think between ACRD and the city they are going to have to figure out what's going to
happen with Eagle Road or we are simply going to go right back to having massive
problems like we now have north of the freeway. And so that's, really, the second part
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 66 of $5
of coming before you is to request that you look at that as you go through other projects
and as you interact with ACRD. We do like the design. I was one of the neighbors that
thought it should be some sort of office, et cetera, that -- you know, for 15 years at least
I thought that's where it was going to go, but we understand that bath ACHD and the
city simply don't want that to happen, they believe it should be residential. And so if it's
going to be residential, we think this is a good design and a good use of the property.
Be happy to answer any questions.
Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you very much. Let"s see. That
covers everybody that was signed up, although if somebody else would care to speak --
sir, come forward.
Hartenstein: Thank you. My name is Mark Hartenstein. I had attempted to live at the
southeast corner, which is 32 South Eagle Road, which is a piece of property my family
has purchased about a year and a half ago. I currently live at 601 Beacon Street, just
for the record. I plan to move to that corner location and operate a law practice and do
a home office and live in the back. I found the location so noisy that I thought it would
be impossible to live there. I bring that to your attention partly because we are trying to
figure out what to do with the corners, since we don't think it's suitable for residential.
And I know as you probably may or may not be aware, we will be coming back before
the Commission sometime in the next few weeks -- I think on the 17th as part of this
Eagle Road Alliance, thinking that the area should probably be offices and possibly
some neighborhood or community retail and I would like to comment on Bob Aldridge's
observation. There is an enormous amount of development going on south that's
largely residential, It will contribute a lot of additional traffic coming toward that
intersection and the intersection is already extremely busy, extremely backed up and I
urge the Commission and any notes that can go back to ACHD to try to get higher --
move up the priority of moving that road from two or three lanes to five lines certainly as
far back as Amity and certainly in as short of time frame as currently planned. And I
think with that that's all my final comments. If you have any questions I would be glad to
address them.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Thank you. Anybody else care to add
anything? Yes. Come forward.
Krasinski: Good evening. My name is Chantelle Krasinski and I live at 3475 East
Falcon Drive. I'm the last house on Falcon Drive. And Ijust -- my only comment -- the
previous speakers have echoed my ideas on traffic and I have spoken before the
Commission before about that. The only thing I would like to add is if we are going to
go with a zone of R-15 there, I would just be concerned as you continue to approve
things on the south side of Victory, that that doesn't become the norm. I think R-15 is
appropriate if -- I think that the four-plexes look nice that that right there on that busy
intersection, that makes sense to buffer, you know, the residential, but I just wouldn't
want that to become the standard as we move forward and go along south there of
Victory. So, that would be my only comment. Thanks.
Meridian Planning ~ Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 67 of 85
Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions?
Borup: I agree with that.
Zaremba: Anybody else care to comment? Okay. Mr. Amar.
Amar: Thank you. I will be very brief. I appreciated working with the neighbors. It's
actually been -- at the ACHD meeting I think it was Mr. Aldridge said this is the easiest
controversial meeting I have ever had. Something to that effect. It improved the
project. Listening to the neighbors actually did help and we have moved the traffic away
from their drive and I do appreciate their help and think we'd like to continue forward. I
know we have got to make another application with the R-15 zoning, if that's your
decision and that's what I have requested this evening.
Zaremba: Any questions?
Borup: A minor question. Since this is a CUP, you have shown us a picture of the four-
plex, which is wondertul. We have been talking about trying to get something like that in
the city far a long time. But I assume from what you said that the single-family homes
are Craftsman style?
Amar: Yeah. They will be Craftsman style. They will be encouraged to have parches -
- not required, but certainly encouraged and the different architectural relief that that
brings.
Borup: All right. Thank you
Zaremba: I guess this isn't actually an issue for your application and maybe staff would
want to weigh in on this, but I can agree with the consensus of the neighbors that along
Eagle Road that may be more appropriate to be something other than residential. I
don't have a problem with what you're proposing, but I agree that the bulk of the
properties facing Eagle Road are probably going to need to be office or neighborhood
commercial or something like that and I don't know whether staff has forecasting -- I
know that's not what the Comprehensive Plan says at the moment, but as we grow we
learn things that need to change in the Comprehensive Plan. Any opinion from staff?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, I guess I'm somewhat -- I don't know, maybe the attorney
said -- since there is a pending application to discuss that exact issue and this meeting
wasn't noticed to discuss this area -- I mean I certainly can give you a summary of what
that is, but I guess I'm --
Borup: Or we could wait until --
Hawkins-Clark: -- wondering if that's appropriate
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission
October 6, 2005
Page 68 of 85
Zaremba: So, perhaps I'm out ofi line to ask that question.
Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, you're not necessarily out of line, but it
would be our advice that you hold off on that discussion until it's up for discussion on the
17th.
Zaremba: And the point is made, anybody that's interested in that subject, it is coming
up on Monday, the 17th, at 7:00 o'clock. So, I will hold ofF my questions on that and it
didn't apply to this application anyhow, so --
Amar: Then I won't respond.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from anybody? All right. Thank you.
Amar: Thank you.
Rohm: My question really is if we are going to -- if the applicant's going to apply for a
new preliminary plat with an R-15 -- or just a change --
Borup: Just change the zoning is what they need to change.
Rohm: So, then, all three of these can just be continued?
Zaremba: I think so.
Rohm: Okay.
Zaremba: As a group. And to our first meeting in December; is that what we were
suggesting?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, that's what I would recommend and if by
chance we don't have the application, we can just continue it out fior another two weeks
or four weeks or whatever.
Rohm: That will be it.
Zaremba: That would be December 1st.
Hood: But I did just want to make one note that the two applications -- we will need two
new legal descriptions, one far what's remaining on R-8 -- proposed R-8 and one that's
R-15. So, probably the new application -- it may just be easier to have a new
annexation and zoning application with two separate zoning requests, rather than --
because the old one was for 8.57 acres of all R-8 and the new application would just be
for 8.57 acres and four of it's R-8 and four of it's --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 6, 2pp5
Page 69 of 85
Rohm: That's why I was asking if we -- we wouldn't continue something that's not going
to continue.
Hood: Correct.
Rohm: Just close those out and, then, the package would be re-noticed and re --
issued new numbers for the December 1st meeting.
Hood: But just for the annexation and zoning. The preliminary plat and the Conditional
Use Permit can be continued to the 1 st and the other one you can -- I don't know -- what
should we do with the other one? I'm not even --
Rohm: That's why I was asking the question.
Zaremba: Mr. Baird, do you have a --
Newton-Huckabay: Deny it.
Zaremba: We could ask the applicant to withdraw it.
Baird: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think in order to give staff the
maximum flexibility if we continue it, then, they can -- at an administrative level they can
either withdraw it, amend it, supplement it -- does that make sense to you aver there?
I'm getting nods. So, basically, if our action is to continue it, they can make the
appropriate changes and bring it back at that date certain.
Zaremba: So, continue all three as is. Yeah. As it.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we continue AZ 05-042, PP 05-043, and CUP 05-044 to the
regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of December 1st,
2005.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 18: Public Hearing: PP 05-044 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 60
single-family residential building lots and 4 common area lots on 23.9
acres in a R-4 zone for Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision No. 14 by