November 2, 2006 P&Z Minutes
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 38 of 53
14. Continued Public Hearing from October 5, 2006: RZ 06~008 Request for a
Rezone of 8.96 acres (Lots 41-45, Block 49, Lochsa Falls Subdivision No. 12)
from R-4 to C-N zone for Lochsa Falls Office I Commercial Addition by
Farwest, LLC - south of Chinden Boulevard and west of N. Linder Road:
15. Continued Public Hearing from October 5, 2006: MCU 06-002 Request for
Modification of the approved Conditional Use Permit / Planned Development to
remove the requirement for detailed Conditional Use Permit approval for
development on Lots 41-45, Block 49, Lochsa Falls Subdivision No. 12 for
Lochsa Falls Office I Commercial Addition by Farwest, LLC - south of
Chinden Boulevard and west of N. Linder Road:
Rohm: At this time I'd like to continue the Planning and Zoning meeting for November
2nd, 2006, and begin by opening Item RZ 06-008 and MCU 06-002 for the sole purpose
of continuing these items to the regularly scheduled meeting of December 21 st, 2006.
Moe: So moved.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Items RZ 06-008 and MCU 06-002 to
the regularly scheduled meeting of December 21 st, 2006. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 16:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-047 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.3
acres from RUT to L-O zone for Waverly Place Subdivision by Vacation
Village Villas, LLC - 2510 E. Magic View Court:
Item 17:
Public Hearing: PP 06-049 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6
multi-family residential building lots consisting of 24 multi-family units, 1
clubhouse building lot and 3 common / other lots on 5.3 acres in a
proposed L-O zone for Waverly Place Subdivision by Vacation Village
Villas, LLC - 2510 E. Magic View Court:
Item 18:
Public Hearing: CUP 06-030 Request for a Conditional Use Permit
approval for a multi-family development in a L-O zone for Waverly Place
Subdivision by Vacation Village Villas, LLC - 2510 E. Magic View Court:
Rohm: The rest of you must be for this next item. Okay. With that, at this time I'd like
to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-047, PP 06-49, and CUP 06-030 and begin with
the staff report.
Watters: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Commissioners. The applications before you
are an annexation and rezone, preliminary plat and Conditional Use Permit request for
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 39 of 53
Waverly Place Subdivision. The property is 5.3 acres in size and is currently zoned
RUT in Ada County. The subject property is located at 2510 West Magic View Drive,
approximately a half mile east of Eagle Road and a half mile north of 1-84. If you look
up here on the overhead property, it's right there. We have Eagle Road over here and
the interstate down here. The property is bordered on the west by Woodbridge
Subdivision, an existing single family residential development zoned R-4. On the north
by Greenhill Estates Subdivision, an existing single family residential development
consisting of one acre lots zoned R-1 in Ada County. And on the east and south by
existing rural residential properties on five acre lots zoned RUT in Ada County. The
applicant is requesting that this property be annexed and rezoned to the L-O, limited
office zoning district, for multi-family residential use. The UDC requires a Conditional
Use Permit for multi-family uses in an existing L-O zone, which the applicant has also
applied for. The Comprehensive Plan designation for this property is office. The office
designation provides for low impact businesses and office uses, but does not support
residential uses on property that is not yet zoned as office. Because of this staff does
not believe that the requested multi-family use complies with the Comp Plan designation
of office. The applicant is also proposing a preliminary plat for six multi-family
residential building lots consisting of 24 units and three common area lots, including a
clubhouse lot on 5.3 acres of land. All lots meet the minimum dimensional standards of
the L-O zone. The gross density of the proposed subdivision is 5.1 dwelling units per
acre. The average lot size in the proposed development is 21,585 square feet. With
each of the dwelling units being between 1,500 and 2,000 square feet. The applicant is
proposing 16.36 percent open space with landscape common areas and a 2,000 square
foot clubhouse. A ten foot wide landscape street buffer is required along East Magic
View Drive and along the interior local public streets. A 20-foot wide landscape buffer is
required on the west, north, and east property boundaries adjacent to residential uses.
This is an aerial here. If you look on the overhead, it shows the existing properties.
This is a copy of the proposed plat right here. Access to the site will be provided from
the extension of East Magic View Drive and a proposed internal public street. This is
the site plan here. It shows the building footprints on the lot. Landscape plan. And
proposed elevations for the unit. They all have garages proposed with each unit. And
this is an elevation of the proposed clubhouse building. Staff is recommending denial of
this subject application based on the comments previously stated and those stated in
the staff report regarding compliance with the Comp Plan and the Findings of Fact as
listed in Exhibit D. That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff?
Borup: Maybe just one. The property to the south of this, I mean I realize there is
nothing developed there, but is that the same property we -- that there was an approved
development?
Watters: I believe they denied that. Yeah. City Council denied that.
Borup: City Council denied that?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 40 of 53
Watters: Uh-huh.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please.
McKay: Becky McKay with Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aiken, Suite B. I'm
representing the applicant on this particular application. It seems like lately I have had
all the tough ones. This is a small parcel. It's about 4.68 acres. This is in a particular
area that on your land use map -- Comprehensive Land use map is this ring around
adjoining Greenhill Estates, Woodbridge, is designated for L-O. In the interior it is
designated regional mixed use. Now, I did attend a lot of the meetings that took place
concerning the land use map and when the new Comprehensive Plan was adopted.
There was substantial discussion about this particular area. Everyone was quite aware
that the five acre lots with the single family dwellings on the substandard rural street
was going to change. With St. Luke's facility and all of the spin-off medical
developments, the motels, the C-stores, drive-in establishments that are taking place
out there, this whole area was going to change in character and I have been told from
people who were on the committee that it was their desire to, obviously, protect the
existing Greenhill Estates residents and the potential single-family developments that
would take place to the west from having a drive-in establishment in their back yard or
some massive huge multi-story type structure and, therefore, they designated this
particular area that this lot is in as L-O. Now, in your Comprehensive Plan it defines the
L-O zone and in that definition it does not specifically state residential. But in the
Uniform Development Code, under the limited office designation, it does allow for multi-
family residential as a conditional use within the L-O zone. Staff indicated in their report
that they believe that only applied if the L-O zone is existing, not that one can petition
for a rezone and annexation to L-O and, then, have an accompanying Conditional Use
Permit and preliminary plat, which is what's before you this evening. I guess I tend to
disagree, because I have had applications in other municipalities where we went into
and requested L-O and had multi-family. So, I did look at some of the other
municipalities' definitions of L-O. This is Boise City's. Very similar. Mirrors Meridian.
And that's the jurisdiction that I did go in and do multi-family development within an L-O
zone. It's not that unusual. Just like Meridian, within the L-O designation, it allows for
multi-family as a Conditional Use Permit. I looked at the city of Star, pretty much the
same. Definition mirrors Meridian. Does not specifically say residential in the definition
of the Comprehensive Plan, but yet allows for it in the L-O zone as a conditional use.
So, I guess one thing I'd like the Commission to consider is the Comprehensive Plan is
a guiding document. Everyone knows that. I mean it's a -- it is a fact. We use it for
guidance. However, it is not set in stone. It is not the implementing tool that we use,
the UDC is. So, I guess our contention is if multi-family is inappropriate within an L-O
designated area, then, why within the most current document that we are using in
Meridian does it allow for multi-family as a conditional use within the L-O zone. This
particular project is small in stature. As Sonya indicated, we have -- we are coming
before you with six multi-family lots, 24 units under a Conditional Use Permit. We did
submit elevations. The site plan -- the site plan you're looking at we are proposing all
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 41 of 53
public streets. We are hooking into Magic View Drive here. The connection to
Woodbridge is already established. That's only an easement, though. Ada County
Highway District has asked us to dedicate that particular section as right of way,
because it's an existing public street within an easement, which is very unusual. We will
have a split entrance, a loop around the structures. The particular structures will -- they
are attached. There are four units per building. We have what we call the A structures
and, then, the B structure here in the center. And I'd like to show the Commission that.
Sorry, that one's a little tattered. We folded it and it was the only large one we had. I'd
like to pass these out to the Commission, so they can take a good look. These are
going to be what we call luxury condominiums, they will be probably between 250 and
350 each. They have all a two car garage. They are very very attractive. My client
spent a lot of time, a lot of money, working with Glancey Group to come up with these
elevations and site plans. They will be stucco and masonry on the front. Two car
garages. Staff did indicate in their report -- wanted us to address the 80 square feet
required for the private open space for each particular unit. These will have a patio.
Each unit will have a patio on the ground floor. They are not a two story unit, they are
primarily a single level unit, but they do have a bonus room. So, these units here you
see in the middle have a bonus room up here. I know that the Commission reviewed an
application on the property to the south, the Conger project. That particular property,
they had asked for a Comprehensive Plan map change. This project was brought to us
about the same time the Conger project started the process. We held off to watch what
had happened -- what was taking place with that particular project. It was my belief that
a Comprehensive Plan amendment was not appropriate. I have always -- I typically
don't go in on -- you know, and ask for map changes on a parcel by parcel basis. We,
obviously, try to avoid that from a planning perspective. So, we kind of sat back and
watched. My prediction to my client was the application would not get approved. And,
obviously, it did get through the Commission. There was substantial opposition from the
neighbors, too. A lot of them that opposed it -- that particular project are here tonight in
support of this one, which makes me feel good and says a lot for this particular project.
It went to the Council, the Council did deny it. I kind of talked to a council member after
the -- after the meeting, just kind of asking him, you know, what their reasoning was and
his comment to me was we did not feel a Comprehensive Plan map amendment was
appropriate just for this particular project and site specific development and we -- I
believe he said that there are other mechanisms within the ordinance that would allow
for the multi-family development of -- you know, if it was good quality and we liked it, to
take place within an L-O designation. So, it is my belief that the L-O zone is not
intended strictly for limited office only, that there are other components that can go into
that area. This is a mixed use area and the Commission and the Council are always
asking us to try our best to provide more balance in our developments, mixing
residential and office and commercial and not just straight commercial or straight
residential. I think this type of a condo or multi-family component in this area is going to
be very beneficial. The hospital is located there. We are seeing offices. They intend
this to be empty nesters, seniors. This particular project is going to be what they call
the insolated concrete forms that will be used or an Energy Star program. So, it's going
to be -- as far as from what I have been -- it's been described to me is leading edge.
They are two bedroom units and we feel that this will be very complimentary to this
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 42 of 53
area. And, obviously, I think the neighbors are in agreement with that. Even though
there are 24 units, my client is proposing a 2,000 square foot clubhouse, so that the
residents will have an area to gather, have meetings, have functions, and so forth. And
I think that -- that's pretty impressive, because typically with a project of this small
stature we do not see very many amenities, at least not ones to that extent. As far as
the density in the particular project, I think our gross density is 5.1 dwelling units and our
net is 6.4. I think that a project that looks as good as this will be a really good
component in this neighborhood and the Conger project was different than this one. It
was more like townhome type lots, very skinny lots, alley loaded and so forth. This one
is something that we have never built in Meridian. It's been talked about, but I have
never had, obviously, the option of being involved in a project that looks this nice. Does
the Commission have any questions? I'm getting tired. This time change is wearing on
me.
Rohm: Any questions of the applicant at this time? Doesn't appear so. Thank you,
Becky. Okay. We have a number of people that have signed up for this project and
they appear all to be in support of it and you're certainly welcome to testify. Typically,
testimony that we receive brings additional information to the Commission that wasn't
brought up in the application testimony. So, each of you are certainly welcome to
testify, but I would ask that any testimony would be -- would bring something additional
like to the project that wasn't brought up in the application testimony. So, with that
being said, I will start out with -- is it Larry Halstead. Would you like to testify or were
you just in support of the project? From the audience he says he's just in support of the
project. Carmen Halstead? Same thing? Okay. I think rather than go down through all
of the names, I think the way I'd like to proceed is there are a number of people that
have signed up and I'm not trying to deviate from that, but if there is somebody that
would like to come testify at this time, please, come forward one at a time, please.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, my recollection is that Mr. Nary has commented that we do
need to read each name for the record.
Rohm: Oh, we do need to--
Nary: That's correct. At least make note of all of those that are in support.
Rohm: Okay.
Flecker: Okay. Members of the Commission, my name is Jim Flecker. I live at 538
South Thornwood Way, Meridian, in Woodbridge. I was here some months back
representing Woodbridge, as I am tonight, along with Gene Fox, who will be the
representation of the Woodbridge Subdivision. On the Conger project, which is
adjacent to that -- we don't have a map up there, which we may need of that area, but
I'm going to try to make this brief. But we were opposed -- in opposition to that
particular project for a lot of good reasons that I don't want to get into totally, but,
basically, it was an R-9 situation, not good for transition, not good to fit the overall plan
here and the city did deny that project and we were there for that. They indicated that
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 43 of 53
they were interested in more medical oriented or things that fit with the medical type of
things and, certainly, this is, actually -- I don't think they are going to officially designate
it as seniors, but, obviously, two bedroom condo, high end like that, fits it. Now, I'm
speaking in favor of this, because at Woodbridge this is exactly what we want. We
would like to see the rest of the property -- let's see, where is this little dealy here. If I
can figure out how to use it. Is that it? Okay. Yeah. Oh. Okay. Okay. This property
here. This is the property that was in question before. Okay. The Conger project that
we did not want. This particular project here is what we are talking about. Now, we --
Woodbridge is really thrilled with this. This is a great transition. We have got a 3.5 or
so per acre here. You're going to a five per acre as a senior type of thing. There is
some other things that are really watching -- watching this thing, because this could end
up with some -- perhaps some senior housing, things that really tie into that medical.
And I think older folks, this is very advantageous. And for this area here and here, it's
speculative right now, but I will tell you that your -- how you go with this tonight will
make this maybe possible or possible. So, seriously consider this. And we would be
very much in favor of what's coming down. This is a very nice one. We already have
multi-family housing right here approved under L-O. Okay. That's already been
approved. I saw the paper on that myself. It was signed February of last year by the
mayor, Mayor Tammy de Weerd. And there is offices in here, along with some multi-
housing right here. Why I remember that, because that got through without us even
talking about it. I don't even mean about the quality of that. But this would not be an
unusual thing to do. Now, respectfully, Council has -- or staff said, you know, hey, on
technicalities maybe this doesn't fit. I don't agree with that at all. I think Becky spoke to
that and I would respectfully say technicalities fooey. This is a win-win situation. We
are standing here, the developer wants it, it's good for the neighborhood, the
neighborhood wants it, the north neighborhood there I have heard are very happy with
it. I have heard nobody -- everybody wants this thing. This is a great thing for an area
that could be very very contentious. So, what we have got is a win-win. So, I ask that
you folks just go do the right thing, approve this thing. Thank you very much. Any
questions?
Rohm: Thank you. Celeste Fox. From the audience she said she's going to defer to
her husband and would you like to come forward, please.
Fox: Good evening. My name is Gene Fox and I live with my wife Celeste at 518 South
Woodhaven, which is -- if I can -- right there. So, you can see that we are in a great
juxtaposition to this project, so -- a few months ago I stood before you as a
representative of the Woodbridge community in opposition to a project proposed by the
Conger Group for property at Wells and Magic View. Our objection to that project was
based primarily on the density and we felt that the R-9 density which they requested
would have had a long-term detrimental effect on the Woodbridge community. The
Planning and Zoning Commission approved that project by a vote of five to nothing.
Now, while we were opposing the Conger Group, we became aware of the project
presented to you this evening by Mr. Jones. My wife and I and others began a
campaign to encourage him to bring his project forward. We are pleased to give it our
support, because Mr. Jones and his associates have spent considerable effort trying to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 44 of 53
develop a harmonious project that will blend with and not detract from that which
already exists. We support this project and not the other, because the impact on the
Woodbridge community will be significantly less. This proposed density of R-5 is
approximately half that of the Conger project. In addition, the architectural design,
quality of construction, and landscaping are more in tune with the nature of the adjacent
communities of Woodbridge and Greenhill. Had the Conger plan been similar to this
proposal, I would have supported it and I am on record as having stated that. I
encourage you to, please, give your blessing to this application. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Dawn Mitchell. From the audience she says that she's been
spoken for. Rich Allison. And from the audience he says he has nothing additional to
add. Is there anybody else that would like to testify in this application?
Pearcey: Good evening, Commissioners and young lady. My name is David Pearcey
and my wife Betty Pearcey, we live at 675 Wells Street in Magic View Subdivision, Lot
No.7, just south of -- across Magic View from the project and I'm in -- we are both -- I
and my wife are definitely in favor of this project. We feel it will benefit and help us, the
whole community, and back in '93 I and my wife was on the committee of -- when they
first started the committee for the Comprehensive Plan. It will show on the records.
And they told us at that time that -- we were told that if everybody in the Magic View Sub
signed a letter -- and the letter should be on record -- stating that we wanted to change
all our property to L-O, that we would just have to bring it up before the committee and
shouldn't have any problem, so we signed the letter. The letter is on record someplace.
Supposed to be. And so that was our intention and I know the talk was -- they wanted
to have it for -- kind of hold that area back in there for a lot of doctor's offices and things,
but back in that area I would probably be 95 or 100 before they ever got any -- any
office back in there, because it's quite a ways back. But this project would really -- well,
to be honest, it would help me. So, whatever you folks come up with, that will be great.
Appreciate it. Thank you very much.
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Is there anybody else that would like to testify to this
application? Okay. Thank you. Let's see. Before we ask Becky to come back up, I'd
like to get comment from the Commission. Commissioner Moe, do you have thoughts
on this application?
Moe: Well, I guess what I would tell you is that I, too, quite frankly, think this is a very
nice project and when the property to the south came before us, they were all right, we
did unanimously approve that at the time and it got to Council and they had denied that,
as far as for the Comprehensive Plan amendment on that project, that's probably why
that they did deny that. But, quite frankly, I do like this project a lot and I really have no
negative comments about this project.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Borup.
Borup: I agree with what's said. The only comment I would have is I -- I really don't see
the difference between allowing the property -- allowing multi-family in existing L-O or
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 45 of 53
making the change right to start with. I think the end intention is the same and in my
mind I don't think it's any different and it just makes sense to me.
Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Borup. Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Thank you. To me the guiding factor would be the intention of this area
overall to be a mixed use area. I don't have any problem with designating this as L-O
and at the same time establishing it as a multi-family residential area. It looks to me to
be a good project. Several times the project that was offered by Conger Management a
little bit south of this has been mentioned and my recollection of that is we sent them
back for redesign several times and finally ended up with something that we couldn't
find a reason to deny. I feel definite about this one. I think there are reasons to
approve this. I think it would be a good addition to the area. I'm particularly attracted to
having Magic View completed and connected. I think that would be very helpful to
everybody in that area. I personally would be very much not in support, but enthusiastic
about this project. And particularly if it's going to be condominiums. I think we need to
be doing a lot more of those in Meridian. It's sort of a new thing and this is only the
second residential condominium project that's been presented to us, but it certainly is a
good thing in other places.
Rohm: Thank you.
Borup: I just -- the other thing I didn't mention -- the other thing that makes this different
-- at least for his Commission, is to have representatives from both neighborhoods here
and all of them are in favor of it. Normally when -- when -- if they don't have any
objection we don't see them. The only people we see are those that are opposed to
something, even though others may be in favor, they don't usually bother expressing
their views. So, this is very unusual to see a turnout of the neighborhood, too.
Rohm: Thank you.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, if I may -- and not to be a kill joy on this
party, but staff was recommending denial and feel I need to bring up a few additional
points. I don't think that the project is a project that wouldn't be a great addition to the
city, but for the Comprehensive Plan designation for the property. There are some
other things. I'm not going to dwell on that too much. I want to get into the specifics,
though, in Sonya's report that she wrote regarding the design and the zoning that's
being requested. There are quite a few issues with the way it actually lays out on the
plan. Land use buffers and the stub street -- I particularly want to call the stub street to
your attention, too. There is a stub street here. It's not on the applicant's property, but
when this parcel develops extending that stub street you will double front -- have a
double fronted parcel here. So, there are some design issues. And I guess I bring this
up, because for us it's fairly early in the evening and our upcoming hearings are going to
be into the wee hours of the night, so I think these issues should be discussed tonight.
If the applicant, in fact, had a chance to look at some of those things in the staff report,
there aren't any conditions for approval. Based on going down the line, it sounds like
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 46 of 53
you guys are moving towards that. I would prefer to have those discussions this
evening, if the applicant's all right with that, because, really, our hearings -- we are not
going to make them -- through them, the upcoming hearings, we just have too many
things going on. So, I really think the merits that -- the specific details of this project
need to be discussed if, in fact, you're all in favor of this project in this location, that's
your prerogative, but there are some UDC requirements of the L-O zone for multi-family
projects that the project does not comply with if we disregard the Comp Plan and all
that. So, I would like to -- I'll let Sonya kind of -- if she wants to walk through that, but
there are some pretty significant changes. Again, L-O to residential requires a 20 foot
wide buffer. Now, it's a residential use, but the way the UDC is written is between an
L-O zone and a residential zone, you provide a 20-foot wide buffer. The common
driveways. There is a unit adjacent to a common driveway that's not proposing to take
access, so how does that -- how does that work out? There will be five units that would
be adjacent to a common driveway. Things like that that need to be -- rather than
continuing this to bring that staff report and have a discussion again with a possible
another continuation to look at the final plan, I just think it would be a good idea
anyways to go through the actual design of this project and we can explain what the
design issues are regarding the project. Not elevations, I think that it really is a nice
looking project, but there are some constraints when you apply the UDC requirements
to this site, so -- if that's what you would like to do, not to put Sonya on the spot too
much. I can kind of help her out a little bit with that, but we tried to, in the staff report
list, essentially, the changes that we are looking for, although not in condition form. It
really is the UDC requirements and the impact it would have to the site as laid out. So,
with that I just -- I just wanted to add that and, again, I think that's -- with it not even
being 10:00 yet, I'm sure these folks have other things to do with their evening, as I
would rather be home, too, but I'm looking at the upcoming agenda, I think it's great to
just get this out on the table tonight, discuss it a little bit more, and maybe we can save
ourselves some really long nights in the upcoming future.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, maybe while they are presenting their -- their report, I would be
interested in the property to the east. Is that what the testimony was, that it was
approved for multi-family? Is that -- be able to comment on that? And, then, the other
question I'd have: Is there anything that would prevent this from being annexed as an
R-15.
Hood: Commissioner Rohm, Commissioner Borup, the -- there is two different issues.
One is the property that was shown as L-O on the other side of Wells is actually shown
as commercial on the Comp Plan. Multi-family is a use that's specifically talked about in
the Comprehensive Plan as being allowed in areas designated as commercial.
Borup: So, what was on the screen was incorrect, it's not really L-O?
Hood: No. No. It's -- the difference is --
Borup: The Comp Plan designation is different.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2,2006
Page 47 of 53
Hood: Exactly.
Borup: Okay.
Hood: Everything on the inside of this is commercial and the designation for
commercial in the -- what we are looking for in commercially designated areas actually
talks about multi-family being something. Now, that project has not been approved.
What has been approved is the L-O zone with a concept plan that shows multi-family.
That will come back before the board for approval if, in fact, they decide to put multi-
family four-plexes on there.
Borup: Okay.
Hood: But they do have a concept plan that did show that. Is that the only -- is that the
project to the east you're referring to?
Borup: Yes.
Hood: Okay.
Borup: Thank you.
Hood: Sonya does have a staff report up. We can put it on the screen, we can kind of
go through them real quick.
Watters: I previously mentioned that on the preliminary plat, that the UDC requires a
20-foot wide buffer adjacent to residential uses. So, that will be required along the west,
north, and east property boundaries. Detached sidewalk, curb, and gutter are proposed
within the development adjacent to the public street. There will be trees planted within
the parkways. I'll just kind of scroll through these here. There is several multi-family
standards that the projects have to meet on these. Setbacks. Buildings have to provide
a minimum setback of ten feet, unless a greater setback is otherwise required by the
UDC. The building envelope shown on the site plan appear to meet the minimum
setback requirements stated. The service areas -- the site plan doesn't show trash
receptacles. We need this included on a future plan. Private usable open space.
Minimum of 80 square feet is required for each unit. I believe the applicant addressed
that, that patios would be provided on the ground floor of these units. Developments of
20 units or more have to provide the following: A property management office. A
maintenance storage area. A central mailbox location and a directory and map of the
development at a convenient location. This development does contain more than 20
units. These requirements are applicable. However, the applicant has not shown those
on the plans that were submitted. The UDC also requires multi-family developments
have to provide parking. Two parking spaces in either a covered carport or a garage.
The applicant is proposing garages on each of the units. I believe they are two car
garages on each of them. The applicant is nodding her head yes. The UDC also
required multi~family developments between 20 and 75 units provide three amenities
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 48 of 53
from separate categories, like quality of life, open space, and recreation. The project
complies with these standards as submitted and they are proposing walking trails for the
recreation, a grassy area of at least 50 by 100 feet in size for the open space
requirement and a clubhouse with a fitness room for the quality of life requirement and
also an additional amenity, a children's play structure for the recreation. The proposed
project does meet the open space requirements. They have submitted elevations.
They appear to comply with the architectural standards. A certificate of zoning
compliance will be required prior to issuance of building permits for the multi-family units
and clubhouse building proposed within the development. Anything further to add on
that, Caleb? Yeah. Caleb previously mentioned the common driveways proposed.
Currently as the site plan shows, it does not meet the UDC requirements for common
drives or private streets. So, there will have to be some revisions made to those access
points. Also, the plan, as I mentioned earlier, that landscape buffer is required 20-foot
wide around the perimeter of the development adjacent to residential. That will affect
the layout of the project, so it will change somewhat. Substantially, probably. That's all
I have. If you have some questions.
Rohm: Sonya, not to put you on the spot here. I think it's difficult to be able to point out
every single UDC that this project mayor may not be in compliance with and I think it's
probably safe to say that the staff report's recommendation for denial was based
primarily on its Comprehensive Plan assessment, not on UDC, and it seems to me that
if we wanted to move this project forward with the stipulation that it has to be in
compliance with all UDC and the applicant comes back addressing all those issues
within that -- within ordinance, then, we have got something that's workable on -- from
both perspectives and -- because I don't, myself, think that I'd like to make a motion that
quotes the UDC verbatim line by line and it would lose any essence at that point. So,
it's -- I think that that would be my recommendation is that the applicant come back with
a response that complies with the UDC and we have already stated that our
assessment of the Comprehensive Plan give us the prerogative of moving it forward.
Does that make sense?
Watters: Yes, Chairman Rohm, if I may have a little input there. Staff's pretty much
sole recommendation for denial on this was because of the Comp Plan designation.
Staff doesn't necessarily have a problem with the transition between the single family
residential -- you know, the proposed multi-family and the commercial uses to the east.
All the conditions that I talked about and that are applicable to this project are contained
in the staff report, so those are on record and --
Rohm: Okay.
Hood: Mr. Chair? And I may just -- my comments -- wasn't trying to get where we are
writing conditions of approval for this tonight. I did want to get the applicant's thoughts,
though, on specifically I thought maybe the 20-foot wide buffer around the perimeter, if
that's something that -- if they can, in fact, bring back a project that meets all of these
standards listed in Sonya's report in condition form, we can bring that back to you and
it's a quick hearing. What I didn't want to have is, you know, a big discussion about
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2,2006
Page 49 of 53
private drives and we can't meet this requirement and the land -- you know, this 20 foot
wide buffer, we can't meet that one, we can't -- so, I would just like that applicant to -- if
she feels comfortable, you know, just maybe talking about some of these, hey, this is an
issue in our plan, it doesn't address this and we can't meet this requirement or, yeah,
okay, we can change, we can modify our plan, we will bring it back to you in a couple
weeks and we will meet the UDC requirement. That was my intent with having -- not to
have you try to cite ordinance and we come up with conditions of approval tonight, but,
really, any issues that we brought up in the staff report that they also have an issue with
compliance, maybe we could work through that tonight I guess was my intent, so --
Rohm: And I think that's a good thought, Caleb. With that being said, Becky, would you
like to come back up and we will ~- I guess the first question that I have is you probably
know the UDC as well as -- better than most of us and I guess my question is of you is
are you going to have any problems bringing this project in line with the UDC?
McKay: Mr. Chairman, I think that we can make some minor modifications that will
satisfy the staff. Right now on our perimeter we show 15 feet. Therefore, we are -- we
have got to find five feet on each boundary. So, that's, you know, minor, not a lot of
discrepancy. As far as the common driveways, those were designed by the architect,
so I will need to get with my client, get back with the architect. The architects take a
little bit of -- you know, they are looking for esthetics, so the specifics in the UDC
sometimes go under the rug. But we will get with the architect and I believe that we can
make some adjustments that will satisfy the requirements of the UDC.
Rohm: Okay. I guess my next question would be if we were to continue this to a date
certain when -- how long do you think it's going to take you to go through this process?
McKay: Well, I have got to deal with an architect, so I would say you better give me a
month. Two weeks goes by like that.
Rohm: Well, I -- and I think that just in fairness to you and fairness to our staff, if a
month is the minimum, how about six weeks? Can you live with pushing it out until after
the first of the year, maybe, or --
McKay: Thirty days should be adequate. Typically, Mr. Chairman, we have trouble
within two weeks -- I mean two weeks goes by so quickly.
Rohm: Okay.
McKay: But typically a month gives us ample time to get our coordination together and
make these adjustments.
Rohm: Okay. Our first regularly scheduled meeting of P&Z in December is the 7th.
How does that agenda look?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 50 of 53
Hood: Mr. Chair, I have covered that one. We have 11 items already on that agenda.
The 21 st we have nine right now. It 30 days -- the 4th of January we only have four
right now. The cutoff for that hasn't even occurred yet. However, I think that if 30 days
is what they can say they can have plans back to us, we need to give -- I mean there is
-- the changes I don't think are going to be all that dramatic. But I would like to have a
couple of -- you know, allow Sonya a couple of weeks, anyways, to draft the revised
staff report for approval. I don't want to give her, like the other projects, a day to write
the revised report. I'd like to give her a little bit more time. I'm sure she would
appreciate that right around Christmas. So, 30 days away, you're still talking about the
first of the year, in my opinion, from, you know, today's date. I guess a -- you know, a
couple few weeks to write the report and I think we can give you a comprehensive
report with a recommendation for approval, if that's what you all want on that agenda.
But we will not get through everything on the 21 st or the 7th. I just don't think the 7th of
December is even -- South Ridge, which you saw, we had a packed house here, is on
the 7th. If every one of those people wants to -- all of those want to speak for two or
three minutes, we are going to be here just on that one project and there is ten others
on that agenda. So, it's ugly until the first of the year. I'll just -- I'll leave it at that and I
can show you our agenda if you want to see it, too, but that would be my
recommendation and reference. I apologize if it pushes them out a couple few more
weeks than what is ideal for the applicant, but it is really what's doable for staff.
Rohm: It looks like that's where we are going to be. Okay.
McKay: We take what we can get. And holiday season always throws us a few curves,
so understandable.
Rohm: And I'd just like to say for the record that we appreciate people like yourself
taking the time and coming in in support of projects like this. It helps us move forward
as well. So, I think what we will do, assuming that the balance of the Commission is in
concurrence --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I probably am in concurrence with the direction that you're
going, but before you do that I have one more question I'd like to ask. Mrs. McKay has
hit the major subjects that staff has brought up and certainly there is a forecast of what
they are going to ask for on pages six, seven, eight, nine of their -- one of the biggest
issues -- you have talked about landscape buffer. You have talked about the common
driveways that -- the other one that I think we would probably need to have some
discussion on tonight are -- is the stub street or specifically what is happening with an
off-site stub street that appears to go along your east property line, not having
properties that have two frontages. I would think it would be useful to have a discussion
on that subject as well before we go forward.
McKay: Okay. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, Greenhill Estates -- I think I
was at the hearing when Woodbridge came through and was making a connection up
there off of Beau's Drain. Interconnectivity to Greenhill Estates will probably be
controversial. I want to discuss that with Ada County Highway District. We are kind of
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 51 of 53
seeing somewhat of a trend if that interconnectivity is duplicated somewhere else, as
with the stub street to the west, they are allowing us in certain circumstances to make
pedestrian connections. We have had projects like the Redfeather project where we
ended up with a gate on a public street connection. So, the sensitivity to the
interconnectivity with the acre lots or the five acre lot subdivision, you know, we are --
we see it going both ways. I'm not convinced that that stub street is going to go
through. And I guess I'd like to talk with the highway district and get their feelings, but I
suspect that Greenhill would object to that -- any connection to it. But we will look at,
you know, worst case scenarios also.
Rohm: Thank you, Becky.
McKay: Thank you.
Zaremba: That was it for me.
Rohm: Okay. I guess at this point probably the thing that would be in order would be to
make a motion to continue this item to the first regularly scheduled meeting in January.
But if there are comments from any of the Commissioners that are germane to possibly
giving the applicant some direction from your perspective that you would like to see the
project to include, probably that would be good information as well. So, Commissioner
Zaremba, do you have any additional comment?
Zaremba: Actually not. I think that the staff and the applicant probably will get together
again and discuss the items that are on page six, seven, and eight and the applicant
has already said anybody else they need to discuss it with, such as ACHD, they will
contact them and work with and I think -- I think among the discussion the applicant
knows what direction we are going. Staff knows that we, eventually, would like to see
conditions of approval. I'm comfortable with what's known at the moment.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Borup, do you have any--
Borup: I don't think I have any extra than -- the UDC doesn't seem to talk a lot about
condominiums and I don't know if we have enough definitions and addressing of that or
-- I mean it looks like it's more treated as multi-family, but it's separate ownership and
it's -- there is similarities and there is differences and, you know -- and I'm sure that's
what makes a big difference to the neighbors, too, is the separate ownership, rather
than, you know, normal rental units. You were going to say something?
Hood: I can just answer that question in general. There is, really, only one section in
the UDC that talks about condominiums, because it is just ownership of the unit's air
space, essentially. It's in the short plat section in Chapter 6, I think, of the UDC, and it
does -- it is just an administrative approval, really, because they are multi-family
buildings. Regardless of ownership, they are multi-families in one building. Now, the
ownership of each section of that building is separate. But they are still a multi-family
structure. So, they are viewed the same way in the UDC, because, again, there are
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2,2006
Page 52 of 53
multi-families living in that structure. Ownership does make a difference, however, and
general upkeep, for the most part, just to generalize developments. You know, they
take more ownership in individual condominium units than they would a four-plex, for
instance, but that's how they are addressed.
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Actually, I don't have any other comments, I guess, other than just maybe a
question of staff or a point to make and that is is that I guess the applicant should
probably not just take the staff report verbatim right now, basically, verifying that there
could be other items within your -- your review of the project now to meet the
requirements that you may find something or whatever that would be a requirement as
well and that you just don't take the report as it is. Although it was a great report.
Watters: Commissioner Moe, I did -- I did review it quite thoroughly. There may be
some things added, but for the most part that will be what the conditions will be based
on.
Rohm: All right. With that being said, I would entertain a motion to continue this project
to the first Thursday in January.
Hood: It's the 4th. January 4th.
Rohm: January 4th.
Hood: I would ask, too, in your motion, if you could give them a deadline to submit -- 30
days was discussed, but if you can say by, you know, the 15th of December, give them
45 days or whatever, I mean at least a couple of weeks, so some day to get a plan in
with conditions or work with staff for whatever, but some deadline so we can have a
plan review.
Zaremba: We normally say a minimum of ten days. With that being a holiday season, I
would add some days to that. December 15th would sound right to me. I see the
applicant nodding her head. Therefore, I will restate the motion. I move that we
continue the hearing on AZ 06-047 and PP 06-049 and CUP 06-030 to our regularly
scheduled meeting of January 4th, 2007, with a condition that applicant have final
revisions to staff by December 15th.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Items AZ 06-047, PP 06-049, and
CUP 06-030, to the regularly scheduled meeting of January 4th, 2007. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Folks, thank you for coming in.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.