Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 5, 2002Meridian Planning & Zoning December 5, 2002 Page 49 of 74 Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner. Zaremba: I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 10 on our agenda, RZ 02-007, request for a rezone of 2.83 acres from R-4 to L-O zones for Meridian First Baptist Church by Meridian First Baptist Church, 428 and 506 West Pine Avenue, to include all staff comments. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 11. Public Hearing: ZA 02-002 2, Supplemental Yard and encroachments to setbacks Associates: Request to Amend Zoning Ordinance 11-g- Height Regulations, to allow architectural in residential developments by Wardle & Borup: The next item is Public Hearing ZA 02-002, request to amend zoning ordinance 11-9-2 on Supplemental Yard and Height Regulations to allow architectural encroachments to setbacks in residential developments. This is by Wardle & Associates. Open the hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. What's before you tonight is a request to amend our Zoning Ordinance to allow encroachment into setbacks of two feet into the front, side, rear setbacks for architectural structures, such as covered patios, porches, pop-out windows, could be fireplaces, and the like. It also states that an uncovered balcony could project four feet onto a rear yard setback. In addition to that, the -- it also requests that we allow for 15-foot front yard setbacks for both side entry garages and living areas. A recent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance already makes provision for living areas to be built up to the 15 feet, but does not -- it excludes garages and this would propose to allow that for side entry garages only. We would point out -- we have met with the Fire Chief and the Building Inspector, we do believe that the requested zoning amendment is in compliance with the Uniform Fire Code, the International Fire Code, and the Uniform Building Code, the International Building Code, it's not in violation of any of those Uniform Building Codes that are applied to developments. In general, we do not have any major objections to the request. We like the idea of encouraging the use of front porches and the like closer to the streets. There are some recommended modifications to the proposed ordinance language on Page 2, I believe, that Jonathan Wardle is here tonight with the proposed Meddian Planning & Zoning December 5, 2002 Page 50 of 74 write-up that incorporates all those changes. The one item for additional consideration, as we met with the Fire Chief, was his concern over increasing the possible spread of fire between structures. It was particularly an issue for him in situations where the city has already reduced side yard setbacks for two-story structures to allow to be just simply afive-foot -- as opposed to a five-foot per story setback. If you, then, take atwo- story building with afive-foot setback, that would be 10 feet between the buildings. If you then allow atwo-foot encroachment on each side, it could potentially be six feet between b uildings. I f you t hen a dd a fence b etween t he two p roperties, i t b ecomes difficult for them to access a second floor if they need to with a ladder. That's the worst- case scenario that he's playing out in his mind. One solution to that would be to restrict the use of fences in areas -- in situations where those reduced setbacks are granted on the sites. I know that the applicant has prepared a presentation with lots of pictures that will help you to visualize this a little better, so I think with that I will just stop, stand for any questions, and then we can go from there. Borup: Questions? Centers: Yes. I h ave o ne q uestion, M r. C hairman. Y ou s ay y ou m et w ith t he F ire Chief? Siddoway: Yes. Actually, Joe Silva, who is the Deputy Fire Chief. Centers: Okay. Yes Deputy Fire Chief but he wasn't prepared to give you an amended letter? His letter still stands? I mean -- you know what I'm saying? He didn't give you an amended letter stating that -- I mean he still feels that it would be a high potential fire risk? Siddoway: He does. Centers: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Any other questions? I don't know, Steve, do you want to answer this or maybe the applicant -- several of the letters of support mentioned that this would bring us closer into compliance with other cities in the valley. Is that your understanding? Siddoway: It's my understanding that the City of Boise does allow these architectural projections into the setbacks. I don't know what other cities do. Just ask the applicant to address that. Borup: Okay. Centers: That was one of my questions. Borup: Mr. Wardle. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 5, 2002 Page 57 of 74 Wardle: Good evening. For the record, my name is Jon Wardle. My address is 50 Broadway Avenue in Boise. Just to startout,lhavea handout andl'llstateforthe record the additions by staff we are in agreement with and those are included in this handout, so it's complete. What we submitted, as well as what the staff recommended, be amended to that, so I'd like to give this to you before I start. Borup: When you say you agree with, do you mean the changes that they had recommended? Wardle: On Page 2. All right. I did put together a PowerPoint presentation, just so we weren't d eating w ith j ust b lack a nd w hite h ere. I t hink s ometimes i is a l ittle h and t o visualize what were attempting to accomplish with this. I had also provided some graphics. I'm not sure if those were given to you in your packets, but as part of the application there were some exhibits included -- those are the exhibits. Great. I don't know how in depth you want to go in this. I would like to just show you a few pictures of where this is in practice and also, for the record, we were just discussing it, the City of Garden City -- and I'm not sure if it's by Conditional Use or not. They do allow three- foot setbacks, so six feet between structures and they have allowed fencing down the middle of those as well in at least one case. Borup: Single-story ortwo-story? Wardle: Actually, it's a combination. The one project I'm thinking of is down at the river at Glenwood, just south of the river, I think it's called Rivers Place, they have both two- story and single-story, but all the setbacks in there are uniform and they are three feet from the property line, six feet between structures. Steve, if we could go to the third slide there. Right there. Probably the big issue -- and you're going to see a lot more of these. We have got one project currently under development and another one that's going to be coming in front of you and these are front door porches and this is in an alley in one of our projects. We have got some variety in depths here, but these are -- I these are 12 feet to the front of porch and I think minimum of 12 or a minimum of 10. It's b etween 1 0 and 12 feet t o t he front o f t he p orch a nd t hen t here i s a n additional setback there the next one, Steve. This is actually a side entry garage. They projected the -- the front of the porch bumps out. It's a15-foot setback and on the right-hand side is a garage with a side entry. Let's go ahead to the next one. This we have -- you can see the garage is actually in front of the living space, but the porch bumps out in front of that garage, so you're given another protection out there. Let's go to the next one. And this is an example of what I was talking about with a second story balcony, allowing that setback. I don't know that this one encroaches too much into the setback, but it allows some flexibility as well. Let's go to the next one. This is probably the issue that was covered most in the ordinance and the staff comments. What we are talking about are these projections. On the picture on the left, that's afireplace, adirect-in fireplace the picture on the right that's also adirect-in fireplace. These are two story structures. There is ten feet between them and the two-foot projection there. Let's go to the next one. Same thing here two different structures here. What we have is actually a fence on the -- the one on the right, a fence behind that direct fireplace vent. The one on the Meridian Planning & Zoning December 5, 2002 Page 52 of 74 left we have two yards with a fence down the middle and with a direct fireplace vent. Let's go to the next one, Steve. Right here are a couple bump-outs with both windows and seats. On the left, there is a window, a bay window, as well as a fireplace vent. On the right -- I had a hard time trying to figure out what this was, but it's on the second story and I think they bumped out in a bathroom. Let's go to the next one. This was a good point raised by staff. This is a side entry garage. This garage is 15 feet from property line. Staff recommended that we put windows in those a nd I t hink that's a great suggestion. It's going to add some -instead of having a blank wall there, you will have a nice feature of a window and all the ones that we have been involved with we require those windows. We found out that a lot of people just put blinds in there or some other type thing. This here -- you both have a living space and a front porch in front of the garage. The last one same thing here where you have living space and porch in front of the garage. What we are really trying to accomplish here is some flexibility in the design, with all these features, to give some flexibility to both the builders and in some cases the lots are a little bit smaller lots that allows them to do some things that adds some variety to these structures. One thing that wasn't -- that wasn't addressed in our amendment and it wasn't brought up to me -- I didn't really think about it myself until someone mentioned it, and it's on the third page of my handout there and what would be the fourth column over, where it says interior side, five feet per story. I personally have been in here with two applications, both Conditional Use Permits in the last year, we will have another one coming forth, and there have been a variety of these asking for deletion of that additional five feet per story. A couple of pictures that we showed you tonight were two-story structures, 10 feet apart. I want to note that it's not in violation of the Uniform Building Code or the Uniform Fire Code, as well as the International Codes. It wasn't -- we didn't request this, but we put it forward to your consideration to do with as you might to eliminate that requirement for the additional five feet per story in the R-4, R-8 and R-15 zones, just allow a five foot setback period and not have an additional setback per story. Just for note, we have discussed this with the Building Contractors Association, with a number of builders, as well as other developers and the City of Meridian and they are all supportive of this. I think it will add some variety to the structures, instead of having just blank walls you will have some undulations and other design features such as that. I put this forward for your consideration to adopt what is on this three-page document, as underlined or scored through. This does include the staffs comments. W e are supportive of the comments that staff made and also put for your consideration the elimination the requirement for the additional story per additional floor -- or additional five-foot setback per story. I'll stand for any comments you might have. Centers: Mr. Wardle, does this application come forward based on a recent application approved by the Council and this Commission? A project? Wardle: It does not. It's something we have considered for sometime. It's one -- another project we are working in, we have looked at it, it doesn't relate directly to any one project, we just feel that it would be beneficial to the entire city, instead of going, Conditional Use to Conditional Use, to provide some opportunities for all that are building homes. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 5, 2002 Page 53 of 74 Centers: And then relating to the Chairman's comment and neighboring cities to the east, Boise doesn't have asimilar -- you mentioned Garden City, a subdivision that they had allowed it, but what is Boise's present requirement? Wardle: Mr. Centers, this very much reflects what the City of Boise allows. Centers: Day in and day out or on a CUP? Wardle: Day in and day out. Centers: You don't have their guidelines handy? Wardle: We looked at Boise City's guidelines and kind of looked at what they had and this is almost verbatim. I don't know if Commissioner Borup has that much experience with these types of things in the City of Boise. I can provide a copy to staff tomorrow, but what the City of Boise allows is similar to what -- very similar to what we are asking for here. Centers: Including the side setbacks? You know, I tend to agree with the Chief and then your picture, wow, you know, how are you going to get in there? It looks like those two buildings -- if you had a good fire in one, you're going to have a fire in the other one. I mean it's going to be too hot and you're going to have a fire in the other home. Does Boise go along with that? Wardle: Boise does. Boise does not have arequirement -- an additional setback requirement i n w hat you call your s Ingle-family zones, w hich would b e R 1-A, R 1 -- I should say R1-B and R1-C. It's five feet, doesn't really matter how many stories you have, if you get into amulti-family situation with apartments, they do require an additional setback, but in your single-family residential it's five feet. Centers: Even with the two stories? Wardle: Even with the two stories. Centers: Five feet period? Wardle: Five feet period. Borup: In all zones? Wardle: I would say it's the R1-B and R1-C zones. I don't think the R1-A, which is like two units per acre, that - I couldn't tell you for sure, but I know most definitely in R1-B and R1-C it's five feet -five foot setback on the interior sides. Mathes: When the homes are this close do they require a firewall? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 5, 2002 Page 54 of 74 Wardle: They don't. Actually, the Uniform Building Code and the Uniform Fire Code will allow you to go to a three-foot setback with six feet between structures with no additional fire penetrations required. You wouldn't have to do anything with you windows you wouldn't have to increase the size of the wall, if I'm not mistaken. I have got it right here. Kind of hard to read and it took me a lot of time to go through that, but that's the -- Centers: So let's jump back to Boise. You said two units per acre. Wardle: Yes. Centers: If you had -- maybe that jumped right over my head. If you had two units per acre -- Borup: That's what he's saying they don't have it reduced on those. Wardle: I think it's very similar to your R-2 and your R-3 zones that you have here, seven and a half feet. In those -- in that type of density people like a little more space, they are not -- they don't fill the footprint, let's put it that way. With a project like -- that we have done -- that we have proposed in the past, you use up a lot of that space, because you're dealing with smaller lots, so in the less dense zones -- Centers: I think it's very attractive what you can do. I really do. Are you able to -- the side setback is a big thing to you, more so than the front and rear; correct? Wardle: The five-foot -- Centers: You wouldn't be able to live without the side setback, if that were eliminated? Wardle: You mean the bump outs? Centers: Yes maintain the present code for side setbacks and give you front and rear and then you satisfy the Chief, too. Wardle: Actually, if you read closely the Chiefs letter, the very last sentence says -- Centers: Yes comply with the -- Wardle: I don't want to discount his concerns. Centers: Right. Wardle: Based on my experience -- Centers: But it's the side setbacks you really want? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 5, 2002 Page 55 of 74 Wardle: Well, I think it's the combination of all those. I don't know that -- Centers: What you're saying is you would like that reduced -- the two-story, five-foot per story, you would like that eliminated. Wardle: Correct. Centers: To five feet period. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? If I may,' Mr. Centers, I believe it's not so much the -- that the side setbacks are the most important, it's just that the side setbacks are the only thing being contested. I think the front and the rear are very important to them as well, but we are not contesting that at all. The only issue that's being contested is this separation on the side, so that's why it's being addressed more. Centers: Yes and that's why I'm zeroing in on the side setback, if they can live without any change in the side setback, would they still be happy or fairly happy. Wardle: I think we'd like it all. Centers: Well, I know that. That's why I said fairly happy. Wardle: Fairly happy? Borup: I was thinking more of the aspect of design and just on small lots and that's my question, is how much this is necessary is an R-4 zone. Centers: That my thought, too. Borup: On a small lot the side yards are not usable space for a homeowner. The more the building can inject into that or use up that space, the larger their backyard is and that's where the family wants to spend their time, not -- the side yard really has -- Centers: Yes. I agree. There was one project that I was thinking of recently approved - - or afew months ago, where it probably, with the small lots and the neighbors don't use their yards anyway and the side becomes wasted, where it probably would be very helpful, but I just couldn't see the need in an R-4. Borup: That's my only question on -- Centers: Is R-4 and R-8 and R-15. Wardle: Maybe we can compromise in R-8 and R-15. Borup: Well, Ithink -- does the idea of the projections in the R-4 still make sense? I think the only question we've got here is the five-foot per story, in my mind. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 5, 2002 Page 56 of 74 Centers: Yes. Borup: You know, the side entry garages, which you can't --aside entry garage on a 50-foot lot is not going to work anyway. It's not going to happen so these narrow lots with side entry garages aren't a factor anyway. It's got to be the larger lots to do that. You've got to have a turning zone but having those with a 50-foot setback, again, that allows maybe a little more room in the back yard. Centers: What had the staff thought about five-foot per story? Did you want to leave that in place? Was that -- without me re-reading this? Siddoway: Well, it actually wasn't addressed initially in the proposal, so it's not addressed in the staff report. It just kind of came up tonight. Centers: Do you want to address it now? Siddoway: Sure. I certainly think there could be a problem with it, if we allow it to be fenced down the middle. If we leave it as five-foot per story per the current ordinance, you know, they can always still request it as - as he mentioned, several other projects have requested and been approved for that reduced setback through the Planned Development process. You know, that would still be available, and then we could put other conditions like the fencing in those conditions of approval. Centers: The Fire Department's letter was not based on knowing that, the five-foot per story being eliminated. Wardle: That's correct. Like I said, that was a very last minute thing that was brought up to me this evening, so -- Centers: Right. Wardle: If I can defer to David Turnbull, who both develops, builds and has a little more knowledge on this than I do if you're through with me. Borup: Well, we may have some more questions, but go ahead, Mr. Turnbull. Centers: It doesn't look like you're going to have a lot of competition for the microphone. Turnbull: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is David Turnbull, my address is 12426 West Explorer Drive in Boise. This ordinance revisioh is a result of conversations that I and I think a number of other builders and developers have had with your staff over a couple of years, actually. This goes back a little while. We have all pretty much been in agreement that, you know, it would be nice to have some consistency between jurisdictions. We develop a lot in Boise and Meridian and we have a lot of builders that build with us that build both in Boise and Meridian. It becomes a Meridian Planning & Zoning December 5, 2002 Page 57 of 74 little bit confusing when you have one set of standards over here and one set of standards over here, so that the plan you developed over say, for instance, in our Harris Ranch project, can't necessarily be built over in our Heritage Commons project in Meridian. The Heritage Commons project may be the one that Commissioner Centers was thinking of. It was a project that was approved last spring that is just being paved out now and construction will begin soon. We did request in our Conditional Use Permit for those reduced setbacks but as we did that, you know, every time we do those things, it -- you know, it just came back to the conversation that I have had for a couple of years with the staff is why don't we get something done about this in the ordinance. We finally -- I finally called Mr. Wardle and I said let's get something on the table and let's see if we can get this thing resolved. It's important to us, because it provides consistency with us and the builders and the city between jurisdictions in which we build. If it's important, as Mr. Borup -Commissioner Borup can understand. If you have developed a set of plans and they work in one city, but don't work in another, that becomes a costly venture to change those every time you move between cities. It's important to cost effective construction, quite frankly, and it's also -- and it's important to create more interesting and esthetically pleasing architecture with your building. I think you can see by incorporating some bay windows and some projections, instead of, you know, if you have a rule that just says your setback is this, then the builder will tend to maximize to that setback and you will have a flat wall across that setback. That's not only on the interior side yard setbacks, that can be on the corner side yard setbacks and so you're notable to create a p rojection with a bay window or a f fireplace or something like a porch or something like that. It would create boring architecture, in my view. It's also a necessary component -- we have come forth and I'm Co-Chairman of this North Meridian Area Planning effort. This is one of the components that would be an important part of that effort, we have just chosen to bring this forward a little early now and get this on the table and see if we can get it adopted. It really doesn't affect us right now, because, like I said, the projects that we have approved in Meridian have had those setbacks approved with a Conditional Use Permit, we just think it would be -- make sense to have them available without a Conditional Use Permit. There was some confusion about difference zones between Boise City and Meridian City. Essentially, the equivalent zones to an R-4 and R-8 in Meridian would be the R1-B and the R1-C in Boise and in the R1 -- I believe -- and I --without having the code here in front of me it's hard to say. Like Mr. Wardle said, those R1-A is more like a -- in Boise City is like a large, large lot subdivision so it's not really applicable to the R-4 or the R-8 that you have in Meridian. I don't know if -- does Meridian have a density less than R-4? Siddoway: We do have an R-2 and an R-3. Turnbull: Okay so the R1-A would still be similar to those. It is not only permitted in Boise City and Garden City, it's -- you know, as was mentioned before, it meets all the fire codes. It meets all the Building Codes and the Fire Codes and I think that if it's been a problem in Boise City, it would have been revoked by now. You know, I know that Fire Departments have to state their concerns, they always do. As I told Mr. Siddoway before the meeting, if they got their way we would be building streets a hundred feet wide and probably have 30-foot setbacks. We go by what the codes say, Meridian Planning S Zoning fkcember 5, 2002 Page 58 of 74 the Building Codes are crafted with the public safety in mind, and so we feel like that, if it meets the code, then there is no reason not to allow it. That's what I would present to this Commission. If you have any questions for me I will be happy to answer them as best I can. Centers: Very good. Borup: Apparently, there has not been a concern from Boise Fire Department on -- Turnbull: We routinely build homes just like you saw in those pictures. A lot of pictures came from our Harris Ranch project. Borup: My thought was if there is a major fire, does 10 feet make any difference on the next building? Centers: I don't think they have experienced it. Right? Wardle: I can't remember ever seeing a news report of one fire -- of fire spreading from one house to another house in the Treasure Valley in -- well, I cannot remember when, so -- Rohm: I wasn't there, but I'm not sure that the setback is specific to fire only. I mean there is esthetics that is involved in setbacks as well. To your comment about consistency between jurisdictions, I don't know that that's necessarily germane either. I mean in my mind, if Meridian wants to have a separate set of standards for their development from that which is available to you in Boise, then, that's as it should be. That's why each community has their own personality and those are just general comments about -- in reference to your presentation, but -- Turnbull: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, I don't disagree with that. I would say that when we are talking about setback issues, for instance, in a Boise City R1-A, if they require a greater setback, it's not because of fire considerations, it's because they have created a large lot subdivision ordinance and they may have chosen to go with greater setbacks for reasons other than Fire Code issues. It has nothing to do with Fire Code, because it meets all the uniform or International Building Code Requirements. I guess I would also say in answer to your question, we have been encouraged -- and I think we have, with planning staff here is some real vision for what it wants to create in the Meridian area. That is to create something different and than what we saw through the '90s and part of that would have a new urbanism appeal and to get many new urbanism appeal, these are the kind of requirements that are necessary to make that happen, which you don't have these kinds of code modifications. You will see less, rather than more, and you won't get what the city staff has been trying to encourage us to build, you will get less, so -- Rohm: I like the offsets for sure. I mean that adds character to the structure and doesn't appear to be a significant compromise to the intent. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 5, 2002 Page 59 of 74 Turnbull: I would say this is a picture of our Harris Ranch project and I was telling Mr. Siddoway -- or Mr. Freckleton, actually, before the hearing started, I'm not more proud -- I couldn't be more proud of what we have created here. I mean it's compact lots -- those are 32-foot wide lots that you see right there, those are 22-foot wide homes, and, yet, they are very interesting and they are very functional. They are not little homes. Those are 1,800 to 3,200 square foot homes and they work very well but it's not for the guy that wants a big back yard either. It's for the person that wants a minimum of yard maintenance and provides other amenities where they can go play in a park or a tot lot or somewhere else, instead of having everybody have their own park in their own back yard. It's a different concept than m gybe w hat some p eople want, but it is a viable concept. The people that live in here, you would be hard pressed to find a for sale sign in here. They move into it, they love it. Rohm: It seems to me that this ultimately boils down to an issue on the R-1, R-2 -- and I don't - I'm new to the Commission, so you will have to bear with me here a little bit. It seems to me that the smaller lot subdivisions this would be more applicable to and the larger the lots become, the less applicable the setback Variance request would be. Is that kind of the gist of the thing? Turnbull: That's correct and we haven't requested it in your larger lot subdivisions, we are only talking about R-4, R-8, and R-15 here. Rohm: Okay so it's specific to zones within the residential? Turnbull: Yes. These are zones where you get quarter of an acre lots or smaller Centers: Okay. Zaremba: I would first state that I'm very much in favor of the increased densities, I can think of a lot of the transportation needs, even a few of the North Meridian Area Meetings and we do need to be going, one, towards greater densities and, two, towards greater variety of product, if that's what you want to call it. My discomfort is probably at the R-4 zone. We keep whittling away at the size of the lots and the size of the houses by allowing smaller lots, but reducing the setbacks so we can get still the same size house on a smaller lot. I'm not swayed by the argument that we should come down to the level of Boise just to make the two jurisdictions equal. I could be convinced to do this, probably, in R-8 and R-15, but I'm very uncomfortable packing any greater density into R-4, particularly when you consider the development gets a 25 percent, you know, increase at the point of development and I think the open space is important. It's only one argument to say this was a fire issue. I think it's also an esthetics issue. The space between the houses in an R-4 zone is important to preserve. If you need it denser, I don't have a problem saying it should bean R-8. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Meddian Planning & Zoning December 5, 2002 Page 60 of 74 Zaremba: You seem to resist wanting to go to a higher zoning just to get more houses in a smaller space and my feeling is rather than keep chipping away at R-4, just call it an R-8 and -- Siddoway: Iwas j ust g oing topoint out that t hat could work, g iven t hat a I of of o ur residential areas on the Comprehensive Plan are medium density residential. By definition, that corresponds to an R-4 or an R-8 zone so someone interested in doing this could request an R-8 zone, where someone wanting to do something with the wider setbacks could do an R-4. Zaremba: Which is why my suggestion would be that we leave R-4 alone and I could support this kind of idea for R-8 and R-15, I believe. Borup: And I had some of the same concerns about the R-4, but sitting here and listening, I was thinking about it, and your concern about chipping away on R-4, that's not going to change that. It's minimum 80-foot frontage and 8,000 square foot. That's not changing, unless someone's requesting a Planned Development on that. Centers: Right. Borup: So the lot sizes aren't going to get any different. The only thing it would add is making larger houses, I guess. Centers: That's what Iwas -- and I was thinking the same thing, the forest for the trees. Give them R-4 give them R-2 -- what's the other one R-3? Yes. What are you going to do, build a 10,000 square foot house with overhangs and they have a 10-foot sidewalk - - or setback? No, you're not. I don't think that's going to happen. I think it's just a common sense thing. Borup: And the other thing that probably it's going to affect what's developed is the marketplace. Centers: Exactly. Borup: If the homebuyers don't like the 10 feet between two-story homes, they are not going to buy there, and there is a lot of people that don't. You can't force them to do that, as long as there is competition out there for them to go somewhere else. I think the developers realize that and to do a project that doesn't sell doesn't happen the second time, usually. Centers: I agree with Commissioner Zaremba that high density in projects like this would be nice and reduce traffic and what have you, but, totally, it's a marketing situation. Can you get them to buy it? I mean those have probably done well, but if it were a -- you know, 75 percent of the development around Meridian and Boise, then, no, I don't think there is that much demand for it, is there? No, there is not so it's -- you know, it's limited and -- but in thinking about it, too -- and I'm sitting here thinking about Meridian Planning & Zoning Oecem6er 5, 2002 Page 61 of 74 the Fire Chief, the side setbacks and the staff will agree. I don't always agree with them, but in this case, if the staff feels -- and that's why they are paid -- if the staff feels that they would support this and they agree with it, then I have got to support it. That's what they are paid to do. Now, where it's an opinion thing, their opinion against mine and I don't agree -- I don't think this is an opinion situation, I think we are trying to get uniform here and it's not because Boise has it or Garden City and make it easy -- it does make it easier for the builders, but I think if the staff feels that it makes sense, then let's do it. That's the way I feel about it and they know that I don't always feel that way. Borup: I guess maybe I'm repeating myself, but back to what Commissioner Zaremba said on the R-4. I was thinking maybe it would be appropriate to exempt from that, but I just -- I don't think it's going to come up that often. Most of the homes are probably not going to -it's not going to be a factor and so I don't know why it makes sense to restrict it on something that's probably not going to be a big factor. It could make some interesting designs on some ofthe -- Mathes: I believe I live in an R-4 and I would have gone - I would have moved my house five feet over one way. Borup: That would give you more room on the other side. Mathes: I would have more room on the other side, so I can put an RV, a boat, or a camper. Borup: That is a big factor. Mathes: I wouldn't make a bigger house. Borup: So that ends up with maybe some more room. Mathes: Yes. Borup: And the neighbor would probably do the same thing and you would end up with just as just space between homes anyway. Mathes: Yes. Zaremba: You mean a zero lot line on one side and -- Mathes: No five feet and then you have 15 on the other. Right now, we have 10 and 10. It's kind of hard to get a boat in 10 feet, but 15, and then I could actually back it in. Centers: I guess we are discussing our thoughts, whether or approval or whatever, but I'm in favor of everything proposed, other than that five-foot per story, because it was a last minute thing and I would think the applicant would be better prepared when it goes Meridian Planning & Zoning December 5, 2002 Page 62 of 74 to Council and let them decide that issue. That's the way I feel about it. It was last minute to staff and I put Steve on the spot and -- Turnbull: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Centers, I apologize for that. I guess when we approached this we were trying to create some uniformity. That's just one of the things that was in a table, actually, and not in the text, that we overlooked the strike-through on. It was pointed out when we came into this meeting we forgot to do the strike- through on the table and -- when we were concentrating on the text so my apologies for that. Borup: That was your intention -- Tumbull: Correct. Borup: --originally? Tumbull: Correct so I don't follow -- I don't know how you want to choose to deal with that. If you want to forward it onto the City Council for them to consider it, but not make any action on it yourself, at least as far as that goes -- I don't know how you have to deal with that, but we would be happy to address it in a little bit prepared detail at City Council for sure. Centers: Yes and, Mr. Turnbull, at that time the staff would have commented on it when it's p resented t o t he Council, i f y ou p resent i t t hat w ay, a nd t hey will h ave i t i n t heir comments at that time, which they don't now. Borup: And to me that's probably the only -- in fact, I don't know that it would be -- I don't know. In my mind, it makes a lot of difference for this Commission's consideration whether we would have had it before or had it tonight. We still have a chance to think about it and discuss it, but I don't know -- and I assume staff, when you review these things, it's more -- I mean you sit down as a group on some of these type of things or -- I guess it depends on the application, but -- Siddoway: I was going to say -- never mind. I would -- I think I would address this issue one way or another. If it -- if we take the tact that we are not going to address it here, but staff should prepare a new amended staff report for City Council, with no recommendations from P&Z on that issue. Then, they are likely to remand it back to ask what P&Z's opinion of that is, so -- Borup: That's probably true. Centers: I didn't know they respected us that much. Zaremba: They actually listen to us. Centers: I don't have a problem with that. I don't have a problem with it either way. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 5, 2002 Page 63 of 74 Zaremba: I think my opinion on the five-foot per story setback is I would rather leave it that way and hear each individual exception. I'm not comfortable with making a blanket five-foot setback, regardless of the number of stories. We are, eventually, going to start having three and four and five story projects come. I hope so. We need -- I mean that's the way to get density is to go up and if we have eliminated the five-foot per story requirement, we are going to started having, I hope, some tall buildings, but I don't hope are too close together. Rohm: Well, I think that there is a lot of thought put into it when that variable was built into the ordinance in the first place. I don't think it's -through this meeting tonight is the right way to address the removal of something that has been given a lot of thought in the first place. I think we need to have an opportunity to re-look at that issue and from staffs position, as well as our own. Siddoway: One option would be to continue this to your second meeting this month. That would -- we could -- Centers: Why do we need to continue it? Siddoway: -- you know, address it in the staff report. Borup: And send something onto City Council that's finalized and a clear recommendation. Centers: Let me ask again. Boise City, you know -- and Boise is not God and just because Boise does it, that doesn't mean we have to copy it, but -- but they have staff and --their side setback is five-foot regardless of the story. Turnbull: Correct and -- Centers: In what zone? Turnbull: I know that it is in the R1-C zone, which Harris Ranch is all R1-C and it's got everywhere from the 32-foot wide lotto the quarter acre even half-acre lots. Borup: That's a PUD? Turnbull: Excuse me? Borup: That's a Planned Development, isn't it? Turnbull: But it's all in the R1-C zone. It's all allowed in the R1-C zone but, you know, it's got planning and development for some nonconforming uses, like the commercial retail. Yes, I mean in answer to your question, in Boise within an R1-C zone, which accommodates their -- basically, it's kind of a hybrid between your R-8 or your R-4. I mean it allows anything up to R-8. It's also the zoning for most of what you see would Meridian Planning & Zoning December 5, 2002 Page 64 of 74 be in your R-4, so I never did say Boise was, you know, God, Ijust -- I just said that there is -- you know, if you can borrow ideas and -- Centers: Oh, yes. I totally agree. Turnbull: -- find things in one city, like Commissioner Zaremba said, you know, if you want to achieve higher density, there are things you have to do to achieve that. Now, conversely, if you want to go to the five-story buildings and things like that, those don't fit in these R-4 or R-8 or R-15 zones anyway. That's an entirely different zone that has an entirely different set of requirements. I think what we are addressing here is the kind of -- Centers: Well, I don't think this would be so bad. We pass it as originally proposed without that and then if you had atwo-story, you could go for a CUP for the last five- foot. Zaremba: I would still want to consider those and leave it in there. Borup: Do we want to go through this every time someone wants to do that? Zaremba: Yes. Centers: But then why? Borup: We have done it once or twice Centers: I heard one Council Member tell me directly to my face what he really -- what the person really doesn't like is the CUP's, continually coming back to the CUP's, so -- Turnbull: Commissioner Borup, I think that if you can -- in answer to that question, if you can adopt some kind of standards here that don't require a CUP every time somebody comes in, it's going to cut down your homework, your paper work -- you know. If it makes sense, I guess our argument is we have come through in our last two or three projects and come through the CUP process and we have gotten it approved every time without any decent. I think people have liked what we proposed, all we are saying is if itworks, why don't we just make it a standard that you don't have to go through the CUP process and maybe make it easier on everybody. Borup: Commissioner Zaremba, would you be m ore comfortable if it was exempted from the R-4, just on the setback, but the projections can still stay the same? Zaremba: I still have difficulty with eliminating the double punch of reducing the setback and then, in addition to that, allowing intrusions to take two more feet is very uncomfortable forme. Borup: Those are non-living area projections. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 5, 2002 Page 65 of 74 Zaremba: Yes, but they still prevent the Fire Department from getting their ladders to you and, two, the home owner from getting their mower through the narrow -- if they put a fence in, to narrow down the space. Borup: They don't do a riding mower. Centers: Yes. You can get a mower through, but not a riding mower. Zaremba: You make it difficult to maintain. You know, the smaller it is, and the more tendencies it is to be a dead space, instead of have some attractive beautiful lawn there. I just -- Centers: You know, when we first sat down and started to hear this, I felt exactly the same way, until -- like we had an applicant earlier where you had your mind made up and then you changed. What changed me was just sitting here thinking about it and that's to staff. They feel supportive of this, they are in favor of it, I think we ought to move it to Council and right now I'd like to close the Public Hearing. Borup: Well, I don't know if it matters if we close it yet, but -- Centers: But I've got to do it to make a motion. Borup: What's your feeling on the setback per story, then, when you say move it onto City Council? Centers: Are you talking to me? Borup: Yes, Commissioner Centers. Centers: I'm going right with staff. I'm going to eliminate the five-foot per story, I'm going to make that motion, and we will see where we end up. Borup: Just as originally presented. Okay. Centers: But -- Zaremba: I would state that if I'm going to object to your motion, it would be a very limited objection. I'm still uncomfortable with R-4 and I'm uncomfortable with the -- Centers: The R-4 is -- Borup: You mean the projections in the R-4? Zaremba: Giving up the five-foot per story. Borup: Well, that's what he just stated, that wasn't included. Isn't that what you said? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 5, 2002 Page 66 of 74 Centers: Yes. Borup: That was not included? Centers: Yes. I'm going to include that. Borup: Okay. Centers: That's my -- Borup: To include that in the motion? Centers: Right five-foot, period. Remove the word story. Because I think it's a marketing situation, too. Totally marketing and the R-4 argument, Commissioner Zaremba, it -- if you really think about it, it doesn't really apply, you know, because -- Borup: I don't think too many builders would do that. Centers: Right. You got 8,000 square foot minimum lots. Most of the R-4 lots are even above that and, you know, you're not going to be -- you know, where it's really going to apply is R-8 and R-15. At any rate, I move to close the Public Hearing. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and Second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Mr. Siddoway. Siddoway: I'm over here working it out in my mind thinking about this and I don't mean to muddy this more, but I want to jump over to the R-15 for a minute and just -- the proposed table on the yellow sheet handed out tonight doesn't have a maximum building height in R-15. I assume that's just simply an oversight. The ordinance -- Borup: This table is the existing table, isn't it? Siddoway: For the most part. Borup: Or has it changed? Wardle: That was the table that was found in the Amberstone Ordinance Amendment as provided to me by the City Clerk. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 5, 2002 Page 67 of 74 Borup: Okay. This is the existing -- Siddoway: Well, R-15 is not addressed in the Amberstone Ordinance. Borup: Okay. Siddoway: The maximum building height in R-15 is 40 feet by the current ordinance, so worst case scenario, you know, you figure 40 feet is four stories -- Borup: Well, no, because that includes the roof, doesn't it? Siddoway: No. It does not. The definition in the Zoning Ordinance is to the top of the bearing wall. Borup: Okay. Siddoway: So worst-case scenario is two four-story buildings in R-15 set five foot off the property line. I don't know if you are ever going to see that. Borup: Is that why we have all these two and a half story buildings, supposedly? Well, Jon, we've closed the hearing, but -- unless we open it backup. There is no one else here. Really, most of all this is applied in R-8. Zaremba: Well, exclude R-4. Borup: Because there may be a few cases that it - well, I think Leslie gave a good example of a -- how it can help. Centers: Steve could we -- could we say afive-foot side setback to a maximum of two stories. Above two stories would require --what? A CUP or -- because, you know, that is farfetched, four stories five feet apart in an R-15, but -- Siddoway: In talking with the applicant, they are more -- mostly concerned with the R-4 and R-8 zones where they are truly single-family zones where you would do a project similar to the images you're seeing. I believe it was staff that added R-15. Centers: Okay so leave it as is for R-15, which has the 40-foot building height. Siddoway: You know, I don't mind the architectural projections being allowed in R-15 either, but maybe we should just leave the five-foot per story in the R-15. Borup: I guess -- I thought we were leaning towards -- Centers: Let me ask you -- the way I understand it, Mr. Wardle gave us this, which would be the verbiage that we could approve and send to City Council. Have you proofread it? Is it sendable? Meddlan Planning & Zoning December 5, 2002 Page 68 of 74 Siddoway: I have not proof read it. I received it tonight. Centers: So then we should refer to your notes in a motion and staffs -- Siddoway: That would be fine. I mean we could -- basically taking his word that they have been incorporated. I could skim it over quickly and -- Centers: Do you think it would be fine to just utilize this for the motion? Siddoway: I believe so. I can --give me two minutes to just -- Centers: Okay. Take two minutes, because Ithink -- Borup: The thing that I was just thinking -- has this Commission ever seen an R-15 project? Centers: I can't recall it. Borup: I can't either. Centers: Where is that in the Comp Plan? That little piece that we looked at earlier next to -- Siddoway: Creekside Arbour is one. Borup: They are all apartment complexes. Siddoway: Yes. Borup: No single-family --that's not asingle-family -- Siddoway: No. Borup: -- type of project. We have had those. Either R-15 or R-40. Ithink they have all been multi-family -- same thing, multi-family projects. Centers: Well --and just to keep talking here, because -- before we fall asleep but, you know, all of these ordinance changes that McKinnon has been bringing to us and that type of thing, you know, I'm interested, but I want him happy. I want staff happy and I feel the same way about this. I really do. I'm not here to redraw ordinances and that type of thing, especially when there is no -- not much Public Hearing involved. If the staff is behind it, then, I'm behind it. I have never contradicted McKinnon on any of those ordinances. Maybe a suggestion on verbiage and that kind of thing, but, still, I don't want to be a proof writer either, you know. When he comes before us --and this is the same situation -- you know, I don't want to proof read everything that he's done. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 5, 2002 Page 69 of 74 Tell us what you want to do, let's make a motion, and approve it because it is State Statute that we have to go that way. Borup: Well, that is also part of the charge of this Commission. Centers: Yes. Borup: Is to -- Centers: Is to what? Borup: I believe -- it's been awhile since I read it, but propose changes and originate -- but that doesn't mean -- Centers: Based on staff recommendation. Borup: We would have to sit down and -- Centers: And I'm not going to contradict staff. Borup: All the stuff we have directed them to do, something -- or tried to get them to do -- Centers: Like neighborhood meetings and those kinds of things that affect us immensely. Borup: We could refer to the staff notes, other than the -- other than the chart. That's the only thing that probably -- Centers: All right. Well, Steve is getting comfortable there, I think. Wardle: I did make one error. I changed any and made it -- or I put any instead of the word the. Siddoway: That discrepancy shows up in Item 3 on the yellow sheet. The following encroachment shall be permitted in any front yard. Dave McKinnon had crossed out any and added the word the. That's the only difference I see. Centers: Okay. Mr. Chairman, we will see where we go here. I would like to make a motion on -- get my page -- Item 11, recommending approval to the City Council, Zoning Amendment 02-002, request to amend Zoning Ordinance 11-9-2, Supplemental Yard, and Height Regulations. To allow architectural encroachments to setbacks in residential developments as submitted by Wardle & Associates, including all staff comments and the ordinance shall apply to the three-page yellow sheet as submitted -- or yellow sheets. The last sheet showing interior side, the story -- the word story shall be eliminated on the R-4 and R-8 zone, where the anterior side setback would be five- Meridian Planning & Zoning December 5, 2002 Page 70 of 74 foot, period. One other minor change, in the first page of the yellow sheets, Item 3, at the bottom, the following encroachments shall be permitted in -- cross out the word "any' and insert "the", end of motion. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Opposed? Zaremba: Naye. Borup: Two ayes, one naye, and abstention. I guess that passes. That's not a tie- breaker. That's not a tie there. The ayes have it. We will move it forward onto City Council. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE NAYE, ONE ABSTAINED Borup: One more motion. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Mr. Siddoway Siddoway: As a side note, I would simply point out that yesterday there was a meeting at COMPASS, which Commissioner Zaremba attended, on -- it was an audio conference regarding Planning and Zoning -- running Planning and Zoning Commission Meetings. There was a really good packet of readings related to that exact topic handed out and I have copies for all the Commissioners tonight, which I will hand out as soon as we are done. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. That would be good. Zaremba: I would comment that it was a very good meeting. I felt that Meridian and this Commission run the meetings, with the help of Chairman Bonap, at a very high quality and many of the suggestions that were suggested in the meeting we do. The one t hing I t ook away t hat w e d o a l ittle d ifferently i s i n a sking p eople t o s ign u p t o speak. The suggestion was made that you're not to put them on the spot to say whether they are for or against. Some people really aren't for or against, but just want to express an o pinion or ask a question a nd not m ake that d istinction, just ask who wants to speak and take them in whatever order they you come. Other than that, the Commission and this Chairman is running the meeting in almost every way that was suggested. Borup: So they recommended not asking -- Zaremba: Not asking for or against.