April 19, 2007 P&Z Minutes
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 35 of 47
Siddoway: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 07-004. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: My only discussion on this is that establishment's been there for a long time and
that fact that he's come forward and requested a CUP to operate it as has always been
operated seems to be almost a moot point, but, nevertheless, it's best that he be in
compliance and I think that CUP should be granted without question. Any other
comment? Okay. Could we get a motion to forward -- no, to act on this application.
Moe: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I
move to approve file number CUP 07-004 as presented it the staff report for the hearing
date April 19th, 2007. And I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate
findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission
hearing on May 3rd, 2007.
Rohm: We have a motion.
O'Brien: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 07-004. All those in favor say
aye. Opposed same sign? Thank you for coming in. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 18:
Public Hearing: RZ 07-006 Request for a Rezone of 4.38 acres from an
R-B to an R-15 zone for Bellabrook by J.E. Development, LLC - 300 S.
Locust Grove Road:
Item 19:
Public Hearing: CUP 07-005 Request for a Conditional Use Permit
approval for multi-family residential use in a proposed R-15 zone for
Bellabrook by J.E. Development, LLC - 300 S. Locust Grove Road:
Rohm: All right. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on RZ 07-006 and CUP
07-005 and begin with the staff report.
Watters: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the application before you is a
request for a rezone of 4.38 acres from R-8 to R-15. Conditional Use Permit for a multi-
family development in a proposed R-15 zone and approval of private streets within the
development. The property is located at 300 South Locust Grove Road, approximately
a quarter mile south of East Franklin Road, on the east side of south Locust Grove
Road. To the north of the site is an LDS church and associated properties, zoned C-N
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 36 of 47
and RUT in Ada County. To the east is rural residential properties zoned R-1 in Ada
County. And commercial property zoned C-G. To the south is rural residential property,
zoned R-1 in Ada County. And further to the south is Woodbridge Subdivision, zone R-
4. And to the west is commercial property that is zoned L-O and rural residential
property, zoned R-1 in Ada County. There is an aerial view of the site. There is an
existing house and associated out buildings on the site. The applicant is proposing to
construct 34 multi-family residential units, consisting of attached two unit and four unit
structures at a gross density of 7.76 dwelling units per acre in an R-15 zone. Each of
the units is proposed to have a two car garage with a 20-by-20 parking pad in the
driveway. A proposed multi-family development is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan future land use map designation of mixed use community for this property. Access
to the site is provided from South Locust Grove Road. The applicant is proposing to
construct private streets within the development, with 27 foot wide street sections, within
a 37 foot wide cross-access easement, with rolled curb and gutter, and a five foot wide
attached sidewalk. Because the proposed street width does not allow for on-street
parking for visitors, staff is recommending that the sidewalk be removed from the
internal side of the street around these two four unit structures and the road widened to
allow for parking on one side of the street on the external side. A 25 foot wide
landscape buffer is required along South Locust, as shown on the landscape plan. 27.7
percent of usable open space is provided on the site, with walking trails, a large grassy
open area, and a gathering courtyard in the center here that will help to create a
centralized community and include seating, shade trees, and community artwork. A
pathway is proposed leading from the residential portion of the development through the
common area here and a ten foot wide multi-use pathway will be constructed along the
Five Mile Creek at the northeast corner of the site. Elevations have been submitted for
the buildings on this site. These are the two unit structures proposed along the south
boundary. These are the front and rear, left side and right side elevations. In the center
here you will see the colors for the materials that will be used on them. This is a two
unit structure proposed at the northeast corner of the development. Right there that
leads into the common area. This is the right side elevation. This is the side facing the
common area. The left side. And the elevation facing the street. And these are the
four unit structures. This is the front elevation. Rear. Right side and left side. As you
can see these are attractive buildings that incorporate at least three different material
types, varying roof lines, windows, and recessed entrances, among other things. This
slide shows elevations of the site from Locust Grove Road from east and from
northeast. This slide shows elevations from the southeast, north, Locust Grove
entrance, and an overview of the gathering area. And the last slide here shows an
isometric view of the site from the southeast in relation to the surrounding properties.
Besides requiring conditional use approval in an R-15 zone, multi-family developments
also have to comply with specific use standards regarding site design, common open
space, site development amenities, architectural character and landscaping. Staff has
reviewed the subject application and found that the proposed development does comply
with the standards listed in the UDC. A written letter of testimony was received on the
application from Ronald Hodge, President of the Woodbridge Subdivision Homeowners
Association. Staff recommends approval of the subject application based on the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 37 of 47
findings listed in Exhibit B and the conditions listed in B of the staff report. Excuse me.
That was findings in D. That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions.
Rohm: Thank you, Sonya. Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come
forward, please.
Nickle: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Shawn Nickle, 148 North 2nd
Street, Suite 101, in Eagle, here tonight representing Bellabrook Subdivision -- or
Bellabrook Condominium Development. I'd like to thank staff for their extra added
attention that they gave to us regarding this project, getting it designed in a way that
would meet the codes, Comprehensive Plan, and also provide for a better overall
development. Those black and white plans are rather difficult to understand, so,
hopefully, you guys got a chance to see those colored elevations that were up on the
screen. I do have large boards here that I can show you if you'd like to look at those. I'll
try to be brief and not ramble on too much. As staff has indicated we are asking for a
rezone from R-8 to R-15 and a Conditional Use Permit for the multi-family condominium
development. The property is on four point -- or includes 4.38 acres. The
Comprehensive Plan for this area is mixed use community, which allows up to 15 units
to the acre. Our proposed density is 7.76. Again, staff has indicated we are asking for
34 individually owned units. We are providing parking to each of the -- to each of the
units. We will provide two covered and two outside off-street parking for a total of four
parking spaces per unit. Staff also indicated that are --
Siddoway: Can you point those out. That's what I was just trying to figure out.
Nickle: Could we get the other colored plan up there? The black and white is kind of
hard to --
Watters: Which one, Shawn? I don't have a colored one. The files are too large. I
have problems getting them in the presentation.
Nickle: Right there. That will work. That one back there. One back. Sorry. Thank
you. Okay. So, to answer your question, Commissioner Siddoway -- I'll kind of go
through this. This is the private road. The units here, as you can see, we have -- there
is driveways that go back to a garage and this unit here. Two garages here. And a
garage beside -- that's the four unit plan.
Siddoway: So, there are two garages that face the front street --
Nickle: Yeah.
Siddoway: -- and a garage on each side in that case? Okay.
Nickle: And the way this was designed by -- by doing the private road -- we initially had
proposed a service drive. And to help with addressing and fire concerns, we did go the
private road route. So, what you actually see here is a multi-family development that is
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 38 of 47
designed more with the look of a single family residential development with the private
road. We tried to design it so it wasn't completely garage dominated, so you have got
garages up front here, but, then, you have garages on the side. These two unit
concepts have the garages on the side and, again, there is that four unit development,
two on the side, two in front, and so on. So, it was nice that we were able to get four
parking spaces off side -- or off street, even though it's a private street, for each of the
units.
O'Brien: I have a question on --
Nickle: Yes, sir.
O'Brien: -- on the left side of the -- of the picture, you have a single unit there. And,
then, your other diagram it showed units nine and ten. Is that a single unit or is that two
units there?
Nickle: This is two units right here.
O'Brien: Two units? Okay. It just shows --
Nickle: Right.
O'Brien: -- side by side, instead of head on.
Nickle: Right.
O'Brien: And that is the end of the flood plane?
Nickle: No. If we can go to the next map. Sorry. The other way. Yeah. Either of
those. This indicates the flood plane and the floodway line.
O'Brien: So, the backyard, if you will, of those -- of that section nine and ten, does that
have much slope down?
Nickle: It does -- it's a gradual slope, but right here -- here is those units that you spoke
of, sir, and this area right here is all outside of the flood plane or the floodway.
O'Brien: And that's a park, I guess, or --
Nickle: And that's the grassy area that will be one of our amenities. Then, we have the
pathway that goes down to the future regional pathway and along the creek.
O'Brien: I'm just -- it's kind of strange to put a unit isolated like that in a park and
pathway area. It seems like it would be kind of -- not much privacy. It's just a thought or
concern.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 39 of 47
Nickle: The common area within the development encompasses 45 percent of the site.
Within that we do have 27 percent usable open space as defined by your code,
including that grassy area here, which is just going to be an open area. There is not
going to be any play equipment in there. It will just have the pathway that runs through
to the east. And, then, we have a common gathering area in the center of the
development with public art and a pathway through that. Twenty-five foot buffer along
Locust Grove Road. That is all included in that 45 percent overall. The gathering area,
grassy area, pathways, all account for that 27 percent of the usable open space. We
are providing fencing along the west, south, and a portion of the east of the
development. We do believe this is an excellent area for this type of development. As
you know this is a mixed use area that includes, as staff has indicated, a church to the
north. Single family residential to the south. Office commercial to the west. You have
the police station across the street and down. Water Tower. You have city parks within
a mile and a half -- or, excuse me, within three-quarters of a mile. Downtown is a mile
and a half from the site. We are adjacent to that regional pathway. There is industrial
to the north along Franklin. It's a definite mixed use area. We believe -- and this is not
a high density development by any means, at 7.7 dwelling units per acre. We feel that
multi-family development in this area does provide diversity in housing type and also
does provide for a mixed use, which is envisioned by your Comprehensive Plan. Again,
I have elevations here that are colored if you would like to see them, if you would like to
take a look at those up close that I can pass around if you'd like to see. Oh, if you have
got them, great. I'll just show them to the neighbors, if they'd like to look at them as
well. Again, staff did an excellent job at analyzing the requirements for the multi-family
development. I won't go into any detail, but they are in your staff report, unless you'd
like me to answer any questions regarding those. Those have to do with open space
area ratios, parking, maintenance and care taking units and things like that. So, that's
all I have as far as my application. We do -- we are in favor of the recommended
conditions of approval, including the revisions that staff has indicated in there, some of
which we have taken care of already, but we are in agreement with those conditions, I
will stand for questions.
Rohm: Thank you, Shawn. Any questions of the applicant at this time?
O'Brien: One more.
Nickle: Uh-huh.
O'Brien: On that flood plane area where you have some trees, et cetera, I mean how is
that really going to be used. Are you not going to have any picnic areas or anything like
that in that area? Because the common area seems like it's awfully small for the
number of units you have in that. Will that be able to support --
Nickle: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner O'Brien, this area right here, again, is all -- is
completely outside of the flood plane. It is going to be grass and landscape. So, it's an
open area for frisbees, football -- it's -- this area down within the flood plane is going to
be more of a natural area with the pathway going down to the future regional path. We
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 40 of 47
are going to construct that path. But we are counting this area right here as -- it
becomes a usable recreation area, in addition the gathering area that's more of a --
more of a social type of amenity.
O'Brien: So, I guess I don't know -- and maybe someone else could help me out here
as far as what size does a development area have to have before they have a plan area
or park -- mini park in this case, to support that.
Nickle: Yeah. Mr. Chairman and Commissioner O'Brien, your staff report -- I can give
you the page number, but it -- Sonya does go through an analysis of the open space
and I think she does a really good job at indicating -- on a multi-family development like
this each unit has to -- is required to have a certain amount of open space provided.
So, this design that we have does provide for that, in addition to the amenities that are
required by code.
O'Brien: Okay.
Nickle: So, I believe, staff is comfortable with the open space that we have.
O'Brien: Okay.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway.
Siddoway: Shawn, I'm just curious. Your primary motivation for going private streets
instead of public, was it in order to get the difference that ACHD will allow with a public
street or what was your reason for it not being a public street?
Nickle: That is the reason for the -- originally for the service drive. As you know, most
multi-family developments, apartment complexes, things like that have the service drive.
Those are causing some confusion with fire and police getting in there with addressing
and so by doing the public -- the private streets, it does allow that addressing and those
safety concerns. But to answer your initial question, using drives and private roads
does help with those widths and those right of way requirements by ACHD.
Siddoway: Okay.
Nickle: And, in turn, that helps for a better design on these type of developments.
Siddoway: Okay.
Rohm: Any other questions of this applicant? Thanks, Shawn. Okay. Jerry
Cunningham. That's quite all right. Ma'am, would you like to come forward. Please
state your name and address for the record.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 41 of 47
Jordan: Christie Jordan. 1702 East Bowstring. Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Commission, I own one of the properties in Woodbridge that is directly north of this
proposed development and I just have a few concerns that may be addressed in the
staff report. I glanced through it, but didn't have time to read it in its entirety. I'm just
concerned that the CUP 07-005 is not accepted, but that the rezone is accepted, will
that potentially open the property up to multi-family rental type development, apartment
development. And I'm just concerned -- or want to know if it's going to be guaranteed
that this property will be sold as individual units, as opposed to being a large scale
apartment rental complex and just because of the fact that I feel that that could diminish
our property value. And those are my major concerns. I think -- I had some concerns
about roof heights, that type of thing that I believe that they have addressed with some
of the revisions to plan with the hip roofs and things, so -- thank you.
Rohm: You bet. Thank you. Mr. Cunningham.
Cunningham: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Jerry Cunningham. 1974
East Bowstring. I not only live in Woodbridge Subdivision, but I also own three acres
that are adjacent to the property that actually show the R-1 there. So, this is the section
of property right here. And, first of all, I'd like to go on record as saying I hope that Ross
does build here, because I really like the drawings he's put together. They have been
very nice. I think they are pleasing and would actually fit in with the community very
well. I don't understand why there would be a request for a change in density, given
that they are proposing a development that's 7.7 per acre when it's already zoned eight
units per acre. Don't understand why you would grant that. My third point is that I'm
concerned about the private road. The other design that you looked at last time and
approved, that wasn't here, because it left a nice city access -- sorry. You want me to
be right close to it. The last drawing -- do you guys have copies of the last drawing that
was proposed when this was originally changed from an R-1 to an R-8?
Rohm: I do not.
Cunningham: The reason I ask is because it did have city streets and it left access to
the property to the east, which given the current -- the current design, the only access
that would be there for either of the two property parcels that I'm speaking to, either the
one that I have or the one that my neighbor owns, it's a 50 foot stretch. So, not having a
hundred foot of frontage is a limitation to doing any development behind this
development. Did not have any access. So, it has to stay a private road. And I'm
concerned long term about isolation. Like as you drive down Ustick, you still find little
pockets of three acres here and two acres there and one acre here and I'm hoping that
the -- that the Commission is taking that into consideration as you change zoning and
look at different developments before you. And my last point is that I would encourage
the Commission to have a development agreement, since these two zoning -- rezoning
requests within a six month period, I guess I'd like to see that the Commission hold the
developer to a particular plan and that that's agreed to. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. Yeah. Come on back up, Shawn.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 42 of 47
Nickle: Again, Mr. Chairman, for the record, Shawn Nickle. And thanks to the
neighbors for -- for showing up. To answer the first lady's question, our intent -- and it's
throughout our proposal and application -- is that these are going to be individually
owned condominiums. Your staff report has conditions -- the requirements to come __
for coming back and the procedure we have to go through to change those and that is
our intent. These are going to be a high quality residential multi-family development.
As you can see from the elevations that have been submitted, they are not your
standard apartment complex type of building. Therefore, they are going to be marketed
towards the individual ownership. To address the gentleman's question, if we could go
back to -- I guess maybe the site -- the vicinity map of the area, Sonya. That's perfect.
And the gentleman indicated -- and I believe he owns this property right here and, then,
there is a separate ownership of this property with the flag. He is correct in that we are
changing our application and we no longer have a public road and that public road did
stub to the eastern boundary. However, he is in no different circumstance than he was
in the last time our application was approved, because he is still a landlocked parcel
back here. This parcel in front of him does have a 50 foot wide flag that he does have
access to -- or that this property does have access to and a public road could be built in
there that would, then, provide access to that back property. That was all taken into
consideration and we met many times with staff to make sure that they were
comfortable with the way this was designed while we were proposing those private
roads and staff has indicated that that is an acceptable way to leave these properties,
that they are convinced that they do have proper access for future redevelopment of
those -- of those outparcels. I think that's all that was addressed. I'll stand for any
questions.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of this applicant?
Siddoway: Are you able to meet the conditions of the fire department as presented in
the staff report with your private road?
Nickle: Yeah. We -- Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Siddoway, we designed this around
Joe's comments, police comments, and your staff comments. And, yes, they do meet
all the -- all those.
Rohm: Question of staff before you sit down, Shawn. The staff report indicates that
you're going to remove the sidewalk on one side of the street and to widen that street
somewhat. Will the additional width now make that roadway acceptable to Ada County
Highway District or is it still not in compliance with --
Canning: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, it would make it close, but not
quite. But ACHD is looking at coming up with some different standards trying to reduce
those a little bit, but the fire department generally is not supportive of any reduced
widths. It's a little different on these multi-families, they have a little different feel about
it. It still wouldn't meet public street standards.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 43 of 47
Rohm: Okay. That's the question. Thank you. Okay. That's all.
Siddoway: Follow-up question for staff. Anna, have you verified that there is enough
width in that frontage to accommodate a public road in the future?
Canning: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway, it is
50 feet. However, that would put -- it would -- there wouldn't be any land use buffer to
the -- to the -- they could do a reduced street section and move part of that right of way
into the landscaping, so that there wasn't directly the road on the back of Woodbridge.
We did look at this issue and Mr. Cunningham -- thank you. I was a little surprised
when I saw on the records that we did have a landlocked parcel back there.
Particularly, that's all in the flood plane and the flood -- you need to not talk from the
audience, sir. I'm sorry. But there is a piece of property there, but most of that is in the
floodway and the flood plane. So, the development potential of that, as in all of this
property here, is severely limited by that flood plane. It's a rather wide flood plane and,
you know, ACHD has a drainage basin here, because this is a very large natural drain
and you can -- you can see it coming through Woodbridge as well with their open space
system through here. So, a large portion of that is not developable or has limited
development potential. So, we felt that it wasn't necessary to accommodate a lot of
traffic. They could do flag lots and get four units back there, might be appropriate, but
we thought that there was really limited to this upper plateau as far as development
potential. You know, we may have been mistaken in that, I'm not sure, but that is how
we looked at it. There is always a question of when a private street goes in, that
connecting another property to a private street, it isn't necessarily appropriate. When--
but in this instance the private street accommodated the multi-family use. So, it's the
circle we kind of go in every time we have a multi-family development. We like to get
interconnected ones, but these multi-family developments tend to be designed around
private streets, rather than public streets.
Rohm: Thank you.
Canning: Did that answer your question, Mr. Siddoway?
Siddoway: Thank you.
Rohm: Any other questions before we close the Public Hearing?
O'Brien: I have a question for staff. About this development agreement, you know, I
noticed in the -- in this report that you didn't think one was required and I guess I just
hesitate the fact that it was zoned from an R-8 to an R-15 -- I don't understand the logic
from that -- it just seems like it leaves it open for something else outside of the -- outside
of what's in that agreement.
Canning: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, Commissioner O'Brien, the --
the R-8 does designate up to eight dwelling units per acre, but it is for single family
homes. It's not -- it does not allow multi-family development. So, in order to ask for
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 44 of 47
multi-family developments such as this, they had to request a higher designation, so __
and they would not have been able to meet the dimensional standards for single family
homes in the R-8 zone, too. But with regard to the desire for a development agreement,
that may very well be appropriate and is probably something that Council would be in
favor of, in all honesty. With the R-15 developments, they are very site specific. You
need to know what unit you have got, you need to have it placed on that lot in a very
particular way. So, that may be a very appropriate suggestion as put forth.
O'Brien: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Shawn, did you want to come back up?
Nickle: Mr. Chairman, again, Shawn Nickle. I apologize, I was going to address that. I
think that's a fair question by the neighbor and we would be more than happy to enter
into a development agreement to lock us into that site plan that we have shown you, if
you're not comfortable with not having one. And, then, staff did explain why we have to
ask for an R-15. We are actually under the R-8 density, but the multi-family is only
allowed in the R-15 and above, so --
Rohm: Thank you, Shawn. Okay.
Moe: Just one question. A little information for me as far as changing that, though, if
they would have done a PUD, would that not have needed to go to an R-15 at that
point? I'm reading these days.
Canning: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Moe, that's a very good point. The PUD as
we have changed it in the Unified Development Code, though, specifically says you
cannot ask for a PUD for the sole purpose of waiving requirements. So, they weren't
able to go the PUD route on that one and they didn't have a mix of types of product, so
they were not able to ask for a PUD.
Moe: Well, when I need some sleep I'll start reading these, so I can find that.
Canning: It will work.
Moe: Thank you.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing for RZ 07-006 and CUP
07-005.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on RZ
07 -006 and CUP 07-005. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion
carried.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 45 of 47
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman -- did you want to take a poll or anything?
Rohm: Just if any individual Commissioner has some final thoughts and certainly this is
the appropriate time to exercise that right. Commissioner O'Brien, do you have any final
thoughts?
O'Brien: No, I don't. I think I had my question answered and part of the concern of that
was leaving it open for someone else to be in the zone for the R-15, instead of R-8, that
there might have been some conflict, I don't know, downstream, but I don't see that,
based on the area here. So, I'm good with it.
Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Siddoway?
Siddoway: I'd actually just like to commend the applicant for bringing a product that has
a residential character and quality similar to a large -- you know, very large residential
home -- it's a four-plex, but the way it's -- it's not just a large box and it's not all -- it's not
all garages on the front, it's got some good articulation and I think it will fit in well. So,
with that I will make a motion to recommend -- after considering all staff, applicant, and
public testimony, I recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers RZ 07-006,
CUP 07-038 and PS 07-002. That's -- with -- there is no PS on here. The PS is a
private street application. Is that needed?
Watters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Siddoway, Commissioners, private streets do
not require Public Hearing notice. They typically run -- they are typically approved at
staff level, but because the other applications that were accompanying it require a
Public Hearing, it accompanies those applications.
Rohm: So, we just have the rezone and the CUP.
Siddoway: On the agenda. Okay. There is a separate private street application. So,
on the RZ and CUP, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 19th,
2007, with the following modification. I recommend that RZ 07-006 be required to enter
into a development agreement that would incorporate the site plans and elevations as
submitted and presented tonight. End of motion.
O'Brien: I second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending
approval of RZ 07-006 and CUP 07-005, to include all staff report, with the
aforementioned modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion
carried. Thank you, folks, for coming in.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.