March 1, 2007 P&Z Minutes
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 1, 2007
Page 17 of 37
Moe: Is there someone that would like to make a motion at this time?
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I
move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number PP 06-064, as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 1 st, 2007, with the following
addition: That fencing, perimeter fencing, be required along the west boundary of the
subdivision, as well as the south boundary adjacent to Ustick Road. The second
addition would be that they clean up the lot lines on Lot 6, Block 1. And I believe that
the changes necessary for the -- to address the frontage issues are already addressed
in the staff report. So, that's -- I'll end with that as my motion.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Moe: It has been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council approval of PP 06-
064 with all additional items as noted. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed
same sign? That motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: At this time I would like to welcome Mr. Chairman to the meeting and I will let you
take over now, sir.
Rohm: Thank you. And I apologize for my tardiness. As I understand that we -- the
next item on the agenda is scheduled to be continued.
Moe: We are going to go ahead and do Baraya now and, then, we will go and continue
everything afterwards.
Item 11:
Continued Public Hearing from January 4, 2007: AZ 06-061 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 95.57 acres from RUT to R-8, R-15 and R-
40 zones for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc - 3935 West
Franklin Road and 280 South Black Cat Road:
Item 12:
Contin-ued Public Hearing from January 4, 2007: PP 06-062 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 118 single-family building lots on 26.41
acres in the proposed R-8 zone; 216 single-family building lots on 38.26
acres and 1 school lot on14.98 acres in the proposed R-15 zone; 2 multi-
family lots on 13.01 acres in the proposed R-40 zone; and 30 common lots
for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc - 3935 West Franklin
road and 280 South Black Cat Road:
Rohm: Okay. All right. Well, good. At this time I would like to open the Public Hearing
on continued Public Hearing from January 4th, 2007, for AZ 06-061 and PP 06-062,
both items related to Baraya Subdivision and begin with the staff report.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 1, 2007
Page 18 of 37
Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commission Members. The application before you is
the Baraya Subdivision. The applicant is requesting annexation and zoning of 95.57
acres from RUT to R-8, medium density residential, for 28.17 acres; R-15, medium high
density residential for 54.13 acres, and R-40, high density residential for 13.26 acres.
The applicant has also submitted a preliminary plat for the subject property, which
proposes 334 single family residential lots -- get that there. Okay. Twenty-eight
common lots and one school lot in the proposed R-8 and R-15 zones. And two multi-
family and two common lots in the R-40 zone. The subject property is generally
located, as you can see on the Powerpoint presented here, south of Franklin Road and
east of Black Cat Road. Right there. To the northwest there is the approved Silver
Oaks Subdivision. There we go. Zoned R-15 and L-O. To the north, south, east and
west are residential -- residential zoned properties under the jurisdiction of Ada county.
Access to the site is proposed from three public streets that connect to Franklin Road
and Black Cat Road. A residential collector roadway, South Glen Canyon Avenue,
which is right here on this slide. It's proposed near the east boundary of the property
and divides the property along the proposed zoning designations of R-15 and R-40.
South Glen Canyon Avenue aligns with the public street approved in Silver Oaks
Subdivision to the north. South Fritz Way is also designed to intersect with Franklin
Road and that's over here. And provide additional access to the property. Capital Reef
Drive is the proposed public street which intersects with Black Cat Road and that's over
here. This public street will also serve as a primary access to the future school site. As
previously stated, the applicant proposes 334 residential lots. The lots will range in size
from 3,300 square feet to approximately 9,000 square feet and approximately 10.25
acres will be set aside for the future multi-family units over here at the east. The
applicant has applied 16 percent of the site to meet the open space requirements.
Amenities will include multi-use pathway along the canal. Parkways, two community
park areas, as you can see right here and right here, which will include tot lots and a
pool with changing room. Staff would like to provide the Commission with some
background information on these applications now. In May of 2006 the applicant
submitted annexation and zoning and preliminary plat applications for this site. At that
hearing the Commission recommended approval of the project. However, in July City
Council voted to deny Baraya. Their basis for denial fell upon the lack of conformance
of the proposal with the anticipated outcome of the Ten Mile specific area plan. The
applicant requested reconsideration of City Council's decision to allow for redesign of
the project and apply the Ten Mile standards and Council subsequently remanded the
project back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The subject applications before
you were again heard on January 4th, 2007, just a couple of months ago. Planning staff
recommended denial of this project, as staff believed the project was still inconsistent
with the goals of the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan. At the hearing the
applicant requested continuance to meet with planning staff to allow for redesign of the
project to apply the Ten Mile standards. Staff believes the revised proposal before you
this evening is more compatible with the goal and policies of the existing
Comprehensive Plan, the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan, and the Unified
Development Code. There are a couple issues to mention here. At the Public Hearing
on January 4th, 2007, the Commission requested that the applicant revise the
subdivision to conform to the Ten Mile specific area plan. The Commission also
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 1, 2007
Page 19 of 37
requested the applicant provide planning staff with sample elevations of the product
type to be constructed and development guidelines for the future owners of the multi-
family property. The applicant has stated the renderings of housing product will be
available to staff and the Commission tonight. As planning staff has not had the
opportunity to evaluate these elevations and the development guidelines, staff
recommends approval of the proposed Baraya Subdivision only if the Commission
believes the applicant's development and -- development guidelines are suitable and
the building elevations provided this evening meet staff's design requirements as listed
in the staff report. And that is all staff has, unless the Commission has questions.
Rohm: Are there any questions of staff at this time?
Siddoway: Only one.
Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway.
Siddoway: I see on the notes under compliance with the Ten Mile plan, you have yes.
So, do I understand correctly that staff -- the applicant has met with planning staff to
review the plans based on the updated Ten Mile specific area plan and it's found to be
in compliance?
Hess: Chairman Rohm, Commission Members, Commissioner Siddoway, staff has met
with the applicant and -- on January 11th, in fact, and we reviewed the submitted plans
and we do feel that -- that the new plan does conform with the Ten Mile standards.
Siddoway: And just out of curiosity, did you include long range planning staff that's
working on the specific area plan in that discussion?
Hess: Chairman Rohm, Commission Members, Commissioner Siddoway, again, yes,
we -- we did meet with Peter Friedman, he is the comprehensive planning manager for
the Meridian planning department and he is the one who develops those sample
guidelines -- the design standards that are in the analysis section of the report. And he
provided them to the applicant that day.
Siddoway: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Any other questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward, please?
Schultz: Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Matt Schultz, 2127
South Alaska Way in Meridian. It's a good thing I didn't come later. I thought it was
going to be late tonight, but you guys went quick, so I'm hustling. It's good to be back
and good to have a positive staff report after it's been about seven weeks since we were
last in front of you and I know Mr. Rohm wasn't here, so I'm glad we got a full
Commission here tonight and maybe just to bring us back up to speed of where we left
off real quick. We did have some focus -- I know we kind of -- we worked together to
get some focus for the lot -- left the last hearing on kind of an area of concern was just
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 1, 2007
Page 20 of 37
kind of the area -- the R-15 area didn't have the mix or the type of housing and maybe
density is one component of that, maybe alley-Ioadeds was one component of that, and
we took the staff report, the hearing, into consideration, went home that night and
worked the next few days and kind of reworked two main points. One was we created a
distinct R-8 zone, where as before we were all R-15, and that more closely matches the
Ten Mile plan, which shows medium density here and, then, medium high around here
and, then, high over here. So, we went back and created an R-8 zone to follow right
through here and all we had to do was revise one little block and we hit it. I mean it was
a pretty simple change to make that R-8. We went into this area here -- we used to
have a bigger park, we split that into two. This has a nice tot lot, it has some slope.
This is one of those areas we mentioned before that has some slope issues. We felt
that would be more conducive to just leaving open. And we reworked this whole area to
provide more townhomes. We didn't put any alley-loaded lots in at that time, so when
we came to the meeting a week later, one of the first things on Mr. Friedman's list of
Saraya design considerations was deemphasize garages. We chose to do that. There
is different ways to do it. You can do some side entries. We chose to do it with some
alley-Ioadeds in these three areas here, which is a fairly easy thing to do, but at the
same time it really kind of changed the whole mixture greatly. In fact, we got 20 percent
of our whole site is alley-loaded, which is -- we used to have zero percent in the last
one, so that's a big change. We have got a lot more townhomes. In fact, I wanted to
kind of -- kind of just to summarize our percentage of -- kind of cut off over here, but this
will work. So, we have 87 townhome lots, 14 percent 100, 112, 18 percent, 50 foot lots,
60 foot lots. This is actually an old one. No. This one doesn't have the alley-loaded
lots over here. So, if I wanted to put this one up. Essentially of the product types of
townhomes, alley-loaded, 40 foot, 50 foot, 60 foot in front, not anyone type has over 30
percent. So, we have got -- and none of them have less than ten percent. So, we have
got a good mix. You can see from this color exhibit we put together to kind of
emphasize that mix and this is the zone boundary. It's got a great mix. I mean it's -- I
mean it's something that from a production home builder standpoint, okay, it kind of
slows us up, but at the same time provides good architectural differentiation, it provides
good price point differentiation, it provides just a good wide range of mixes to appeal to
a lot of different type of home buyers that may want to move in here in this area. So, we
feel like from a mix standpoint it's exceptional and an improvement on what we had
before. It truly is. Kind of jumping into the staff report, I want to kind of hit just a couple
brief things. On page four there is an issue about seepage beds along these alley-
loaded lots. Because we have a ten foot setback allowed in the front of those, which I
like for alley-loaded lots, it creates a good architectural feel. There is a DEQ issue that
comes up. We won't -- for seepage beds. We won't put these seepage beds on those
roads. So, as far as Public Works is concerned, we are going to mitigate that with our
engineering design. I lost everything.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Just a real quick one. Do you have your elevations here?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 1, 2007
Page 21 of 37
Schultz: I do. I do. That's part of my -- very shortly I will be there, the elevations.
know you're anxious and we will get there.
Moe: There you go.
Schultz: I wanted to hit some points -- just so you know, the staff report generally is
very thorough. We agree with 99 percent of the things in there. There is just a few key
points I need to clarify. Along this regional pathway we built a pathway in there with --
under a licensed agreement between the city and Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District.
It's a ten foot regional pathway. They don't like trees in that. We are going to try to get
threes along the back of these lots, but definitely they are not going to want them on the
other side of the path up against the canal, because they get in there occasionally, have
to clean it out, and that's why we did not show trees, because we have been through
this before. So, we are going to do all we can to get trees in there, knowing that
Nampa-Meridian may prevent us from doing that. I like trees if they will let us. And
that's on page 13. We had some minor street frontage issues up on these lots here at
the end of the cul-de-sac, which we could resolve easily with our final plat. Or even a
revised preliminary plat for City Council and that's not an issue, we can -- we appreciate
staff pointing that out. And, then, last, but not least, there was a condition we go meet
with the police department, which I went and met with Lieutenant Stowe yesterday. We
just got the staff report last week. We, basically, clarified in our landscape plan that
there is open fencing along all pathways and behind these tot lots, which is probably
just an oversight on our part, that's what we had intended. We didn't move -- there was
a tot lot over in the corner we moved to the center, which he wanted. And he had some
concerns about this road here and we agreed to work with ACHD on the stop signs on
either side of this road, be two way, and this one will be a four way stop. I wrote a letter
-- I don't know if that got into the record or not. And I will hand that in right now if it
didn't. It's just a letter to -- back to Lieutenant Stowe outlining what we agreed upon and
he e-mailed me back and said it will look great. As far as the elevations, one thing I
found out in going to work with architects, they don't -- they move at their own pace, so
we have a lot done, but we don't have everything done for this hearing, because they
can't be rushed and they have three months backlogs and that's just how they work.
So, I mean -- did we get the projector working? Unfortunately. Can I hold them up in
front of the Commission? I'll be creative here. These are some pictures -- and these
will be in this area here of the 50 and 60 pictures. These are by CSH Homes in the
Ventana Subdivision. Brand new architectural renderings. They have got good
emphasis, architectural differentiation, colors, porches. That's one. These are all on 60
foot lots. The difference is the two car and a three car, going between a 50 and a 60.
So, that's the difference. These are attractive. These are attractive homes. They
provide something different on every one of these. There is only so many ways you can
do a house, but I think this is a good attempt at doing -- trying to break up the monotony
that sometimes comes into our subdivisions. This is in Ventana up on the -- Meridian
Road north of McMillan. Did you get them? Keep going from here on. And I'll leave
these for the record after I'm done, just to enter into the record, so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 1, 2007
Page 22 of 37
Rohm: One of the things that in the hearings down the road, you might bring those in
pdf format or jpegs, because our folks can put those on the screen in that format. Might
try that.
Schultz: We just got these -- the renderings yesterday, that's why we were quick
enough to get them in there, but I appreciate that advice. As another version, if you can
go to the next one, please. Different use of architectural materials. I'm going to go over
the Baraya design guidelines in the report that I know are here. We got handed these
at our January 11 th meeting and we felt that we could comply with those.
Siddoway: Matt, one thing I'm noticing is that all your elevations you're showing so far
have some brick, stone, and/or stucco on them; does that--
Schultz: Absolutely.
Siddoway: -- fall in line with what you're saying?
Schultz: Absolutely. If we could go to the next one, please. That house there --
actually, the three car version -- and the two car would fit on a 40 foot wide lot. It could
be a version of an alley-loaded lot, too, with some different variation. That is, actually, a
little bit narrower house, a little more efficient, probably about 1,600 1,700 square foot.
Cute house. I mean there is nothing wrong with it. I mean as we get a little smaller, we
kind of lose opportunities to do lots of different things in the front, but I think it's a good
attempt to breaking up, compared to some of the facades I have seen around the valley.
If you could go to the next one, please. We are getting into the -- now, this -- we weren't
able to get to the alley loaded renderings, but this was the townhome concept. It's a
work in progress right now. It's -- we are under contract with Hansen Design Group,
Lars Hansen. He's an architect. He used to work for Eaglewood Homes. And try to
provide some variation in color. We can even provide variation in some of the stone,
stucco, within -- these are a four-plex attached unit that allows some efficiency in our
design, allows different price points with -- and still allows the 30 or 40 foot backyard in
how we have laid them out. So, we are still maintaining some private open space and
that's something we sacrifice when we go to the alley-loaded, we lose some of that
private open space. But everybody is different. Some people don't want that, some
people do. So, what we proVided within Baraya is a good mix of everything. And this is
a work in progress. We are going to continue to refine this. I mean it's not going to get
built for probably another year and the market is evolving and we are improving and we
are looking for some feedback as well. I know everybody's got a different opinion on
looks and what's good, what's bad, and this is just one version of what we could do that
we' have been working on. We wanted to show progress and before Council we will
have renderings of the alley-Ioadeds, but we wanted to show you that we are working
on it. Architects aren't and they are not easy to get going fast, like we move fast, so I
think all in all, with our renderings, with our lot mix, with the conformance to both the
existing and the proposed comp plans -- we have been at this for a year. We have
been around the block two or three times now. But I think it's all been worth it. I think
the fact we have got an elementary school site in the site plan is a good thing. I think
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 1, 2007
Page 23 of 37
the high density, which is something that was asked that we provide design guidelines
for, I guess we are hanging our hat on the -- it's going to have to come back through at
least a Conditional Use Permit. They will have to subject themselves to the full R-40
zoning ordinance and the full Ten Mile area specific plan design guidelines, whenever
those do get adopted. I think those are still in progress right now, if I'm correct. Right in
there. It hasn't officially happened yet. But we are going to subject that high density
portion to whatever everybody comes to a consensus on at that time. Right now we are
kind of not sure what that consensus is, so it's a little premature for us to say what's
going to go in there exactly, but we know it will conform to whatever standards you have
in place at that time when they do come forward with that Conditional Use Permit, which
is probably a couple of years out, I would guess. It's not going to happen this year,
probably next year at the earliest. So, I don't think we are trying to get anything by on
that. We are -- you know, it's a blank slate right now in that area for the higher density.
So, I'm glad we have a positive staff report. Last time we didn't have any conditions to
act on. Today we do. And we have made some great progress and I'll stand for any
questions.
Rohm: Thank you, Mr. Schultz. Any questions for the applicant?
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: You spoke of -- that you had guidelines for design?
Schultz: One of the things that -- I think it's in your staff report, if -- do you know what
pages that's on, Amanda? It's in the staff analysis. She put it in here.
Borup: Section 10.
Schultz: Page 12.
Hess: Page 12.
Schultz: In the middle -- there was a -- and it's a reiteration of that and that was handed
to us at the January 11th meeting by Mr. Friedman, your long range planner. So, as
we go down, he says provide a variety of housing types. We do that. Provide a variety
in design and avoid monotony. I think with our variety of housing types, along with
some other architectural features, we are overcoming that. And as you go down it, the
only thing that I think may be a little redundant is provide for pedestrian connectivity. I
think we have done that in our site design, so to state it again may be a little redundant.
And, then, develop guidelines for the future owners of the multi-family property. We can
take a stab at that before City Council. Like I said right now, I think some of that stuff is
up in the air and we are going to subject that section of our property to whatever
guidelines everybody approves and adopts in the Ten Mile planning area revision,
which is going through the system right now, so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 1, 2007
Page 24 of 37
Siddoway: SO, if we struck the bottom one, which is that you have to develop
guidelines, could the rest be incorporated into a development agreement, in your
opinion?
Schultz: Absolutely. And I would expect that. I would expect -- I even think that
pedestrian connectivity might be a little redundant, because, our site plan already
provides for that connectivity and if there is any connectivity problems, we'd like to just
fix it in our site design, but I don't think we do. We have got ample connectivity, so -- so,
yeah, I think within the development agreement it should say, you know, the high
density section shall be subject to a Conditional Use Permit and be subject to the Ten
Mile specific planning area design guidelines in force at that time and, then, that would
cover it.
Siddoway: One more question?
Rohm: Absolutely.
Siddoway: The area with the regional pathway, do you have any land that is outside of
the easement or is it all Nampa-Meridian easement?
Schultz: I was thinking about that today. You know, we did have site design. We were
told we could put the pathway within the easement and we did. The lots that back up to
that are, I believe, 100, 105 feet deep. And that's where the Ten Mile -- or Black Cat
trunk is in the ground and the road's in front of it already, so we are kind of fixed on that
alignment, but based on the easement that we granted last July and -- that thing's all the
way to the freeway now and through the site. That road is fixed and -- but we have got
plenty of room. And, like I said, we are going to push to get trees where we are not
shown at the back of the lots here, not necessarily on the other side of the pathway,
because I know they won't let us. We have tried in the past and it just hadn't worked.
Siddoway: The section you referenced earlier on page 13 of the analysis, not the
conditions of approval, I'm trying to figure out if there was a condition of approval that
requires those trees and if so --
Borup: 1.2.14.
Siddoway: Is it?
Schultz: Yes. In here. It's Exhibit B, 1.2.14. It, actually, says on one side of multi-use
pathways, which I did not notice until just now. So, we will put it in the west side, if we
have to go to blows with the Nampa-Meridian to do it. We are going to push for it and
they should let us. There is a five foot gap there, at least, that we should be able to
plant a tree and it shouldn't encumber their ability to access that ditch and maintain it.
So, we are going to push for that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 1, 2007
Page 25 of 37
Siddoway: SO, are you okay with the wording as proposed, then, since it's only on one
side?
Schultz: I am.
Siddoway: Okay.
Rohm: Commissioner Borup?
Borup: That probably answers my question, then, You had went through several --
several items on the staff report and this was the only one that I saw that --
Schultz: Was a condition.
Borup: Well, it was a condition that wasn't already addressed -- I mean that you weren't
already handling. Is that -- is that true?
Schultz: Yeah. I mean -- and I even said I'd do it if Nampa-Meridian will let me. But,
yeah, that's the only one. Like I said, the staff report is very clean for me and we can
comply with anything in there.
Borup: So, what's your options if Nampa-Meridian won't?
Schultz: Come back and beg for forgiveness from you guys and explain that we tried
and show you our documentation and proof and --
Borup: Okay.
Schultz: -- you know, that's all we can do, I guess, at that time. We are going to get
after it right now with our license agreement and that will -- that process will determine if
they say yea or nay. We will do it early, so it's not something that will hold up the final
plat. We will do it now, even though our first phase is going to be in this area over here.
Borup: Do you have a maintenance road -- on which side?
Schultz: They are going to have it on the opposite side. They will have a maintenance
road on the other side. It's not pedestrian accessible. It will be fenced off just for them.
So, they should allow it. I really don't see them --
Borup: They should. Yes.
Schultz: They should.
Borup: Okay. That was alii had.
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, do you have any questions?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 1, 2007
Page 26 of 37
Newton-Huckabay: Not any questions per se. I don't really care for the rendering of the
townhomes. The big garages out front. They also -- like the same thing, different color.
The elevations of the home, they are fine. And the alley-loaded you don't have yet?
Schultz: We don't have that yet. He's working on it as we speak. We will take your
comments into consideration and we will revise those rendering of the town homes as
we go to City Council. I'm not going to -- I want to continually strive to evolve those
things and that was, actually, a second generation. I told them the first ones weren't
going to fly and he provided that and, well, okay, we will see how that goes. It's an
improvement and will improve from there. I mean we just need to provide that feedback
that you didn't like it and I will pass that on the first thing tomorrow morning to him.
Newton-Huckabay: At all.
Schultz: At all. You were very stern about it.
Newton-Huckabay: And, then, I don't really understand the development -- staff did not
include a DA provision which requires the applicant to develop guidelines for any future
multi-family property. We didn't see that. You're proposing --
Schultz: I'm proposing, instead of making us provide those, that we condition that a
Conditional Use Permit be required before any development happens and that that be
subject to the Ten Mile design guidelines.
Newton-Huckabay: And that's a fair compromise?
Borup: It's more than a compromise, I think.
Newton-Huckabay: It seems so to me, but I just didn't really understand --
Hess: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, that does
seem fair. Staff's amenable to that requirement.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. All right. That's all I have. Other than I don't think the not
having all the building elevations doesn't meet the request by staff, but--
Schultz: We tried really really hard. I begged him and tried and he just wouldn't budge.
He gave me half of what I asked of him and I apologize for that and I asked three other
architects and they have three month backlogs, so I mean it was the best I could do.
Newton-Huckabay: But if the rest of the Commission is comfortable with moving it on
what we have seen, then, I will -- it's neither here nor there.
Borup: The thing you have got with the alley-loaded, you don't have the garages in
there, so you have got a lot of flexibility in design and if they are consistent with what
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 1, 2007
Page 27 of 37
they are doing on the others -- the alley-loads can have some very nice front elevations.
When you don't have that garage in there you're not restricted in what you can do.
Siddoway: I like them.
Borup: You can do a lot.
Moe: I think one of the main points that's been made is that he is looking at multiple
components to put on these buildings, not just one -- one type of material and there will
be a lot of blend to it, so that will help.
Newton-Huckabay: My only concern is that townhomes, because it's a huge portion of
that development and I would really be disappointed to see when it's built out
townhomes similar to the renderings we saw tonight.
Borup: These lots are how wide?
Schultz: They are 30 foot attached, so 30 foot wide--
Borup: And you have got 20 feet of garage. So, you only really got ten feet to do
something with, other than garage.
Schultz: And you have seen some alley-loaded townhomes and we are looking at that
as well and as a feature evolution, but we have got a good variety of a lot of things in
here and I guess that's -- in different price points and different architectural features and
trying to balance all that out. We think we have got a little bit of everything and they are
not that bad.
Newton-Huckabay: They are not that great.
Schultz: I'll try to do better.
Newton-Huckabay: But I will go with the Commission on that. If you guys are
comfortable with that, then, I will --
Moe: We still might have somebody in the audience that wants to talk.
Rohm: Well, I have one comment before we open it to the public. Your renditions that
you presented tonight, you know, I think that they point out that you're willing to have
differing architectural blends with each structure that's built, but just because you
present it, that doesn't necessarily mean that that's what's going to happen and I haven't
heard you say -- make a commitment to all of the dwellings will have three different
components to the facial street side.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 1, 2007
Page 28 of 37
Schultz: You know, if Pete would have put that in here, I would have probably said
okay. I'm just -~ I'm going with whatever people want to define as the guidelines. I
didn't know three was the magic number, or, you know, or four or five --
Rohm: And I don't know that I have a magic number, but the thing that I'm always
concerned about is will these are -- the items that you presented for testimony, they are
not a commitment to that, they are just saying, well, this is what we might do.
Siddoway: I propose we make them a commitment to that as part of the development
agreement.
Rohm: Well -- and I kind of think that that's where I'm going with this, is I'd like to see a
commitment to what specifically you are willing to -- to go with, not necessarily just the
elevations that were presented.
Schultz: And I agree. I think there is more opportunity to do things differently than what
was presented. I mean just as good or better or whatever. And I understand your
concern and it's a question I have for this Commission and the Council and maybe the
City of Meridian as a whole. How do we make builders build exactly what we want and
at the same time not spend too many staff resources analyzing every little building
permit application that comes through to make sure it exactly conforms to a written
design guideline. It's a complicated issue and I agree if you say you must do at least
this amount of variety and put those in a development agreement, that's fair. That's fair.
And it's a question to me. How do we -- I'm up here today and in the next three years
my builder may do something that I didn't agree to and that's a concern that I have, it's a
concern that you have, that I don't want to be misrepresented either.
Rohm: Right. And so is it fair to expect two components or--
Borup: What's our definition of component?
Rohm: Well, brick. Stucco. Brick--
Borup: I mean you're looking at some type of masonry surface and, then, a masonite
siding would -- would be two. What would be the third?
Siddoway: Many of those had what looked like shakes or something along those lines,
but not all of them.
Schultz: It's a very hard thing to define in words.
Borup: That's what I mean. It depends on the design. A lot of that depends on the
design of the house.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 1, 2007
Page 29 of 37
Schultz: It's very hard to write down and describe what you want. You know what you
like when you see it. And it's hard to write that down, you know, and so it's a problem I
have, that you have, and we all have in how do we define this.
Rohm: Well, I guess I don't have a specific answer to that question, but what I was
looking for, more than me telling you what I want --
Schultz: Uh-huh.
Rohm: -- what I'm looking for is you telling me what you're willing to commit to in terms
of multiple components within --
Schultz: Multiple materials types on the facia?
Borup: I think what you're saying --
Schultz: You know, stucco, stone, and --
Borup: Yes. Stucco, stone, some type of masonry.
Schultz: Brick.
Borup: And, then, maybe something along the line of breaking up textures, so you don't
have, you know, large walls of the same material in the front and you can do that and
you wouldn't have to go beyond that and you can do that with --
Rohm: That's as far as we want to go.
Borup: Yeah. Me, too. I think it's -- there needs to be some flexibility for the builder.
Rohm: I don't want to be up here telling them how to construct their homes, but I do
think that we want to give them a feel for what the overall --
Borup: I think we are all comfortable with the -- with the pictures presented, weren't we?
Rohm: Absolutely. Other than the townhouse.
Borup: Yeah. Well -- and those weren't pictures, but -- and I think he -- in my mind I
think you can rely a little bit on what a builder developer has done in the past -- on their
past projects and how they have -- how they conduct themselves there, assuming that
they are going to do the same in the future, if they have done what they said they are
going to do.
Schultz: Can I offer a solution?
Rohm: Absolutely.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 1, 2007
Page 30 of 37
Schultz: These Baraya -- the residential design considerations, which are part of the
staff analysis, third line down says quality exterior, naturally appearing materials,
architectural detailing -- we can add to include at least three materials, including, but not
limited to stucco, stone, or rock on the front. We could add it to that.
Rohm: There you go. If you're --
Siddoway: Stucco, stone, or brick.
Schultz: Or brick. That's what I mean to say. Yeah. Brick. And, then, there is another
one that says provided variety and design and use architectural elements to define
entries. Windows should be designed to create shadows and give depth by protruding
or being recessed. So, there is some more in here that we are willing to hang our hat
on with that little addition to that one line I think would cover us, I hope.
Rohm: That works for me. Thank you.
Schultz: Yeah. No problem.
Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway.
Siddoway: To the townhomes for just a moment. I have to agree with Commissioner
Newton-Huckabay that it looks like a, you know, garage only development with the way
they line up. What I'm wondering is could -- could we -- what if we added a requirement
that the townhome garage be set at least five feet behind the living area and, then, the
living area actually come up to the setback -- it's reverse of what you see now. Right
now the garage is out front and the living area is recessed. What if you reverse those?
Borup: That's one idea. Another idea I just thought of is what if -- we have got ample
depth in our lots to modulate the depth of the front face as well and not have them all
lined up the same. You know, we could offset -- have variation. I'll go back to Lars
tonight -- I'll send an e-mail and I'll say, Lars, here is what we got. We want to put the
living area in front of the garage, what do you think.
Siddoway: With narrow lots I would prefer to see that ten foot living area come forward.
If he has reasons why he couldn't --
Borup: Well, think about it. You have got ten feet. You need an entryway of four feet,
so you got a six foot room.
Schultz: I'm not an architect, but --
Borup: The living area that's left would be a six foot room, basically. Which is
unusable.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 1, 2007
Page 31 of 37
Siddoway: Until you get to the back of the garage. Right.
Borup: So, that's unusable. Unusable space.
Schultz: I would -- I would recommend that you provide a recommendation that we
work with our architect to modulate the front -- attempt to put the living space in front of
the garage if we can before we go to City Council. And we will do that. I mean --
Borup: Well, I think you can, but you'd still only have ten feet to work with, assuming
you want a front door.
Siddoway: Yes.
Schultz: You are a builder, so I know you know that. That's where the modulation
comes in to maybe break that up.
Siddoway: No additional questions. Thanks.
Rohm: Any other questions of this applicant? Thank you very much.
Schultz: Thank you.
Rohm: There is not anybody else that has signed up to speak to this application, but at
this time we will open it to the floor. And we don't have anybody else coming forward.
Thank you. I think at this time a motion to close the Public Hearing is in order.
Siddoway: So moved.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-061 and
PP 06-062. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Discussion? Commissioner Moe, any final comments?
Moe: I know this has been a long long process to get this done and I am glad to see
that we were able to come to some understanding with staff and whatnot on this and we
have had some good discussion this evening. I guess I would be one -- as far as the
renderings that I saw tonight, quite frankly, I would have liked to have seen a little bit
better job of that, the whole presentation part, but I understand your comments about
the architects and what they get done, but I would hope for sure that when you go
before City Council that you have plenty of information for them to look at at that point.
But beyond that I think it's a -- you have done a good job to make the changes and
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 1, 2007
Page 32 of 37
make it work and -- but I probably hadn't chimed in on the townhomes and I would
agree with the other Commissioners, they need quite a bit of work. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I think I was pretty clear.
Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton -- Siddoway. No. Commissioner Siddoway.
Siddoway: You know, I just want to be on the record saying that this whole Ten Mile
specific -- the Ten Mile area is -- the Ten Mile specific area is something special, is what
the Ten Mile specific area planning process has been about. I do commend the
applicant in the revisions that they have made, their willingness to work with staff and
the changes they have made to come in line with the design guidelines that are being
developed. It has come a long ways. This is his third iteration -- his third major iteration
and probably other minor ones in between. But I am favorable with the project. I would
like to see us add a development agreement provision that addresses the design
guidelines that we saw tonight, with the additional language that was proposed, and I
think I will be ready to move on.
Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Borup?
Borup: Nothing more to add.
Rohm: Fair enough. At this time I think we are ready to hear a motion.
Siddoway: I will take a shot at it. Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff and applicant
testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-061
and PP 06-062, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 1 st, 2007,
with the fOllowing modifications: Would add that a development agreement be required
that includes the Baraya -- was it residential design guidelines? Is that the title? That
were presented tonight. That -- I don't have a copy of them in front me, so I don't know
which number it is that needs to have the addition of the stone, brick, or stucco. Thank
you. Okay. The third item, quality exteriors, natural appealing materials, architectural
detailing to include, but not limited to stucco, stone, or brick. I would strike the last
requirement that states that the applicant is required to develop guidelines for the future
owners of the multi-family parcels and replace it with a requirement that the multi-family
lots will require a Conditional Use Permit and must comply with the design guidelines
developed for the Ten Mile specific area plan. Finally, addressing the townhomes, I
would like to request that the applicant work with their architect to modulate the fronts of
those structures, so that it is not just a straight street of garages, to see if the -- to bring
forward the living area, if possible, but to get some differentiation along that street line.
And that would be the end of my motion.
Moe: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 1, 2007
Page 33 of 37
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending
approval of AZ 06-061 and PP 06-062, to include all staff report with the aforementioned
modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank
you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Siddoway: Before we open those other hearings, can we just have some general
discussion about dates? Is that appropriate?
Rohm: Absolutely.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I did -- the second part of your packet
tonight I did include a draft agenda for the next -- be four hearings are on there, so just
to kind of give you -- there are four items on tonight that we need to find homes for and
with the upcoming Comprehensive Plan amendments in April, April just doesn't look
very good. So, the next meeting on the 15th, if I had to guess and we had all four of
those, I think we could probably make it through those. There has been talk and has
been our recent history we seem to have two or three or four that don't post or want
continuation anyways, but if you put all of them on that date, you know, we probably will
be able to get through them. The other option -- I talked to a couple of the Commission
members beforehand -- there is a 5th Thursday in this month, the 29th. That is during
spring break for Boise and Meridian school districts, I believe. Both during that time.
So, I don't know if everyone has plans for then, if we even have a quorum, but just
something to throw out there as another alternative. It probably wouldn't be a very long
meeting. But just wanted to have you look at that and I personally believe that the four -
- the four items, basically, have all put themselves in this predicament and I think we
should treat them similarly and fairly and if we can't put them all on the 15th or the 29th,
our next available hearing isn't until May. So, putting one of those over to May doesn't
seem fair. But I'll leave that up to you guys to --
Siddoway: We do have one that has requested May; is that right?
Hood: Yes. Yeah. Cold Creek has requested that they be continued to -- I'm sorry.
Siddoway: Belhaven.
Hood: Yes. I'm sorry. Belhaven. Yes. They did submit a request to 5/3.
Siddoway: I would agree with that one.
Rohm: As far as I'm concerned, I think we should put them all on the next agenda and
the bottom line is we have had plenty of time to hear everything that is ready at such
time that the hearing opens. So, to put the balance of them at the next hearing seems
to be the best option from my perspective, but either that or move them all to May. And
I don't think anybody wants to do that.