HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 16, 2003 P & Z CommMeridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 33 of 114
Borup: Okay. I think that's a good point. I don't know if every half mile was in -- is that
their plan?
Centers: If it is, it's a bad plan. I don't know mind saying that publicly.
Borup: Okay. The meeting is -- or the hearing is closed. Do we have a motion?
Centers: Yes. Mr. Chairman I will just move right on here. Item 7 on our agenda, I
would like to recommend approval for CUP 03-046, it's a request for a Conditional Use
Permit for a branch bank facility with drive-thru lanes in an L-O zone for Idaho Central
Credit Union by Idaho Central Credit Union. At the east side of South Locust Grove
Road and south of East Overland Road, including all staff comments from their memo
dated October 13`h and our hearing date today, October 16th. In addition, as the
applicant has agreed, additional requirements would be parking out on the west side of
the subject property will stub to the proposed new lot. Also a shared access agreement
on the south drive shall be supplied. End of motion.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 8. Public Hearing: AZ 03-024 Request for annexation and zoning of 17.5
acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Glacier Springs Subdivision
by Tuscany Development, Inc. -north of East Victory Road and east of
South Meridian Road:
Item 9. Public Hearing: PP 03-028 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 52
building lots and 8 other lots on 17.5 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
proposed Glacier Springs Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. -
north of East Victory Road and east of South Meridian Road:
Borup: Okay. The next item is Items Number 8 and 9 and I'm assuming that's why we
have a few of the people here tonight. Public Hearing AZ 03-024 and Public Hearing
PP 03-328. Both of these are for the Glacier Springs Subdivision by Tuscany
Development. I'd like to open both hearings at this time and start with the staff report.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, this application is for the
.annexation and zoning of 17.5 acres. It's currently located in the county and zoned
RUT, Rural Urban Transition. They are proposing a rezone to R-8. There is also an
application for a preliminary plat for 52 building lots. The property is located on Victory
Road west of Locust Grove Road. It's directly to the east of Observation Point
Subdivision and to the west of Kachina Estates, which is a county subdivision. The lots
range is size from 7,824 square feet to 21,357 square feet. I'll go ahead and show you
the plat. The applicant is proposing 5.5 percent of the subdivision to be devoted to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 34 Of 114
open space. Because this is a straight Preliminary Plat, rather than a Conditional Use
Permit and Planned Development, they are only required to meet the five percent open
space requirement. The Comp Plan designates this property as medium density and
the R-8 zoning designation that they are asking for does comply with the
Comprehensive Plan. I'll go through a couple of the issues with the subdivision. Block
2 of the subdivision, which is the long block on eastern side of the subdivision, exceeds
the maximum block length of 1,000 feet. Staff is recommending that the applicant be
required to provide a stub road to the east and to the second issue, ACHD has
requested the applicant move Trinidad Road, which is the entrance road off of Victory.
The applicant needs to address how open space is going to be impacted by that road
shifting and how -- and they also need to submit new plans showing that. We don't
have a copy of the plan showing how that will change and staff recommends approval of
the subdivision. We feel it meets the Comprehensive Plan and are there any questions
of staff?
Centers: Mr. Chairman. Yes, I do have a question of staff. The stub street that you
want the applicant to put in to the east is that adjacent to the RUT zone -- five-acre
parcels are they? Are you saying stubbed to the five-acre parcels?
Kirkpatrick: Let's see. I think in my staff report I described where a couple places we'd
like for it to stub.
Zaremba: Page 6 Paragraph 1. That was a question I had also.
Kirkpatrick: You can see Kachina Estates there on the east side of the subject property.
Basically, we -- we are assuming at some point that there is at least the potential for
Kachina Estates to redevelop.
Centers: You want to stub about in here?
Kirkpatrick: Right. I think you would want to stub --
Centers: Whatever. Are these five-acre parcels?
Kirkpatrick: Those -- yes. It's an RUT five-acre subdivision.
Centers: I don't think those will ever be developed. I think you're going to have to have
those four homeowners get together and say we will sell our 20 acres to Mr. Developer
but that's neither here nor there. What is the minimum lot size for R-4? Refresh my
memory. I mean you have it quicker than I can look it up.
Borup: Eight thousand. Eight thousand.
Centers: And these lots sizes were 7,500 to 17?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee[ing
October 16, 2003
Page 35 of 114
Kirkpatrick: They are requesting R-8. Their lot sizes range from 7,824, the smallest
size, to 21,000.
Centers: Right. Which -- and in the staff report Idon't -- I can't tell you which page -- or
maybe I read it where the applicant was -- why did he go R-8? Maybe the applicant
needs to address that. Why did he apply for R-8 when he meets the R-4 requirements
on the minimum lot size? Almost.
Borup: Yes. He has -- he could do it by losing one lot.
Centers: Yes. The applicant is going to address that. He's shaking his head and on
page two of the report, isn't -- surrounding property, isn't it adjacent to Meridian Greens?
For the record, I'd like that inserted up there at the top.
Borup: Just right up there, Jerry.
Centers: Yes. I know where Meridian Greens is.
Kirkpatrick: Meridian Greens is that subdivision to the north. The north and to the west.
Centers: Yes. It happens to be the oldest, mast prominent subdivision in the City of
Meridian.
Kirkpatrick: Okay. Duly noted.
Centers: And I can't believe it was overlooked. Were they notified?
Kirkpatrick: Everyone within 300 feet of the boundaries of the subdivision would have
been notified.
Centers: Was there a community meeting? Okay. That's all I have for right now.
Thank you.
Borup: Anything else, Wendy?
Kirkpatrick: No, there is not.
Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation?
Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, for the record my name is Steve
Arnold I'm with Briggs Engineering. Address is 1800 West Overland Road, Boise,
Idaho. 83705. I'm here tonight representing Tuscany Development on the subject
subdivision that we have before you tonight. Some of the questions that Commissioner
Centers brought up I will address further on in my presentation, but I will go briefly
through the site and some of the specifics of what we are doing there and, hopefully, it
that answer some of the questions. We are proposing 52 building lots on 17.5 acres.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 36 of 114
There are eight common lots. Our density is .97 units per -- dwelling units per acre.
The Comp Plan does call for quite a bit higher than that. The .97 units per acre are
consistent with the R-4 zoning. Average lot size here is 9,670 square feet. We are
proposing the required buffer along Victory and, in addition, we are adding to that
landscaping with -- a nice landscape approach into the sub to try to create something
nicely. Now, as you know, we are moving the entrance. We will comply with ACHD's
requirement to move that in a safe location. Ironically, I used to work with ACHD, I used
to place these entrances and I assumed that this was a safe location. I will be out there
investigating where they are asking us to move it, just to make sure that is safe, but we
will comply with all of ACHD's requirements for the location of that entrance. We are
installing fencing along Victory Road. The fence is proposed to be a five-foot high vinyl
fence on top of a three-foot high berm. We are proposing the same fence along the
east boundary of the subdivision. Currently, along the west boundary of the site we --
there is already a vinyl fence. At the north property line we are going to be proposing a
wrought iron fence. Again, that will be five foot. We are providing pressure irrigation as
required by the city. It will be designed to Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District standards.
Sewer is currently existing -- let me get the light pen here. The sewer has been
constructed from this point through the subdivision down this road and down out to
Victory Road here. That was constructed earlier I believe this year. That sewer was
provided to Tuscany Lakes Subdivision. This design has basically been predicated on
that sewer construction, so this -- we did meet with the Public Works Department.
There was a preliminary layout presented to them to show how the subject subdivision
could be laid out based on the sewer installation. We are providing -- or proposing
reduced street sections here in this cul-de-sac, this cul-de-sac and the cul-de-sac up
here to the north. Those will be 29-foot street sections within 42 feet of right of way.
There are two existing structures located, oh, approximately in this location and down
here. Those are eyesores. They are proposed to be removed, along with all the
weeds. The request in response to Commissioner Centers' comment for the R-8 zone
is for dimensional standards only.
Centers: Minimum house size. I was just writing that down right?
Arnold: Not minimum -- not minimum house size. It's for dimensional --
Centers: It will allow you to go to the minimum house size.
Arnold: It would allow a minimum house size, less -- I believe it's 1,301.
Centers: Yes. I just wanted to see if you knew. You do, and you do.
Arnold: Did I pass that test?
Centers: Yes. You did.
Arnold: Thanks.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 37 of 114
Centers: But I thought that might be it, so you can go to the minimum.
Arnold: And, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, no, that's clearly not the case and
I'm -- I will present to you tonight the design, the layoff, and how it relates to your Comp
Plan and the planning principles. I do have the developer -- and employee of the
developer is here tonight to talk to you about the proposed value of the homes, the
proposed house square footage, but we are not doing the R -- and I will go on record
tonight, we are not doing the R-8 zone for the 1,301 square foot house size.
Centers: But it would allow you to and --
Arnold: I will let him address that, but --
Centers: Okay. I will pose that for him.
Arnold: Pose that for him, please.
Centers: Thank you.
Arnold: But I did pass my test.
Centers: Yes. You always do, Mr. Arnold.
Arnold: Thank you. Just to give you a brief project history, we did have a precon with
the staff. We showed the proposed development. We believe we have made this
comply with some of their requests. That was on August 14th. August 15th we
submitted the application and as questioned earlier, we did hold a Public Hearing. I
personally notified properties within a 300 notice. The Public Hearing was held at the
Meridian Fire Department. It was last night. We had five people show up no one from
Meridian Greens. We had a representative over here for -- oh, it's not -- it's --
Centers: Observation Point?
Arnold: Observation Point, but 41 LLT or something, that company that he represents.
We had the property owners -- the five-acre subdivision from here this lot owner. This
property owner was absent. However, I do have a letter that was written and I hope the
property owner -- the other property owners here to attest, but basically, there is letters
written about the subdivision. They weren't signed, but they were delivered to me. I
don't know if they made it into the city's packets, but I will hand them out real quick right
now if I may.
Centers: Well, excuse me, they are from different people and they are not signed?
Arnold: I hope -- that is correct.
Centers: You hope that is correct or it is correct?
Meritlian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 38 of 114
Arnold: No. It is correct and I hope that someone's here tonight that will attest to this
being sent, but I was supposed to deliver that to the Commission tonight at their
request.
Centers: Let me ask you, Mr. Arnold. You know I'm not bashful.
Arnold: Good.
Centers: Did you send a notice to all these people adjacent to your property line?
Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, within 300 feet, the same mailing notice
that the city uses, I used to notice all the property owners.
Centers: Well, those are within 10 feet.
Arnold: Correct. Yes.
Centers: So, your answer is, yes, all of these people got noticed.
Arnold: My answer is, yes, all those people got it.
Centers: Okay.
Zaremba: Well, are all those properties developed? Is there somebody on each of
those properties?
Arnold: I can speak -- I know there is someone here at this -- there is building going on
here, there is building going on here, and, then, my memory fades. There is an existing
house --
Borup: But he said the developer came also.
Arnold: The developer's representative for Observation Point did attend the meeting.
Let me go into some of the issues that were brought to you tonight and I will be brief on
that. One of the first ones was block length. I measured between Trinidad Drive here
and this first intersection here basically less than 1,000 feet. It was approximately 1,000
feet. The stub street issue and the reason for providing the stub to mitigate block
length, Idon't -- it shouldn't be an issue. We did meet with the property owner here and
the property owner located here -- we will provide a stub street, if that -- we met with
them, they want the stub street, we will do it.
Borup: You say they do or if they do.
Arnold: They do. They wanted it.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 39 of 114
Borup: Oh, they do want it.
Arnold: We will provide it. It was not something that was required by ACHD, but you
know, that's what these neighborhood meetings are all about, we met, they wanted it,
and so we will give it to them. There was no opposition about that. Gravity irrigation,
that was an issue that we brought up with the neighbor -- at the neighborhood meeting.
I'm here tonight to go on public record to reiterate basically, what we promised to them.
One of the issues was currently these properties are draining towards a gravity irrigation
ditch along our eastern boundary. We committed to them -- and I'm here tonight to
commit to you and go on record that we are going to work with them, we are going to
pick up their tail water, essentially, we will pick it up in a pipe and channel it up here to
the Ten Mile Creek. Just to confirm to our neighbors that we met with last night that is
something that we intend to commit to. One other issue about gravity irrigation. You do
have a condition in here, I believe it's Condition 11 it speaks about tiling all ditches. The
Ten Mile Creek, it's a fairly substantial irrigation facility in Tuscany Village and other
developments that was allowed to remain open. I know it's a generic statement, but that
is something that we don't -- we are asking that it not be required to be tiled.
Borup: Is that open in Meridian Greens?
Arnold: It is open in Meridian Greens. It is open in Tuscany Village, which was just
more recently approved this year.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, if I can just speak to that issue. Ten Mile Creek is classified
as a natural waterway and our ordinance specifically talks about natural waterways
being exclusive.
Borup: So, it's automatically included.
Zaremba: I thought it wasn't required on that, so --
Arnold: Another issue. The entrance location, we will -- we are going to work with
ACHD. I -- this is something that I should know and I will make sure that we coordinate
with them. We will get that in safe location. We did have a conversation with the
property owner of Mr. Campbell here to the south. His biggest concern is that we don't
line it up with his house, so we are committed to work with that property owner, so that it
doesn't line up, he doesn't have headlights, and it's not a nuisance to him. We are -- we
are willing to relocate this entrance. My bad -- I thought I was safe there, but I need to
go relocate that.
Zaremba: I don't remember seeing it, but what was their issue, is it the distance from
other entrances to the two roadways, the one to the right of one and one to the left of
you or was there some kind of a rise or a dip in the road that --
Meridian Planning antl Zoning Commission Mee[ing
October 16, 2003
Page 40 of 114
Arnold: Commissioner -- Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, it's not so much the
distance as there is the sight distance, the elevations in the road and being able to
visibly see a car coming at the speed limits that are out there.
Zaremba: So, it's not all level right at that point.
Arnold: Correct. I mean, as a matter of fact -- and I stipulate, we are -- we are moving
some dirt here to bring down and fill in this hole down here. If you have been out to the
sight, there is quite a little pit, along with five foot weeds, which are kind of nasty and we
plan on -- we have committed to the property owners we are planning on trying to clean
that up here sooner than later. Common lot that was brought up to provide for the
sewer. We will comply with that. I think when we end up relocating this entrance, we
are going to end up doing some modifications down here and we will provide that
common lot. We are requesting the approval of 52 lots here on 17.5 acres. We are
asking that -- for the R-8 zone. The only reason -- and, again, I want to go on record,
it's not -- it is not for the minimum house size. It is for lot dimensional purposes only.
We have designed the streets here to mitigate the impact on our subdivision, along with
the neighboring parcels. We think we have a very nice design here. I'm going to leave
some time for the developer to discuss the house size, the house value. I'd like him to
address that before this Commission tonight. We envision the subdivision to be very
similar to the Mesa lots in Bear Creek Subdivision. I think we have got before you
tonight a quality subdivision within -- essentially, kind of an in-fill piece of property, it's
between an existing subdivision to the west and to the north and east. I think what we
have provided to you tonight is a quality subdivision and I think based on this
developer's past history, I think what you will have here is a nice product in the future
and I will stand for questions.
Borup: Mr. Arnold, back on the -- a little bit on the design. You had -- you said you are
going to design the street stub in, would that be correct?
Arnold: We are -- what we committed tonight and we have discussed with the property
owner is to stub a street here to the east to one of those five acre parcels.
Borup: Okay. Okay. I assume a 50-foot right of way?
Arnold: Fifty-foot right of way.
Borup: So, then, that 50 feet that you're losing, are you going to be -- you are still going
to be having 52 lots? Are you going to be reducing the size of the other lots?
Arnold: We may end up losing a lot or two.
Borup: Okay. Well, I don't think you will lose -- that's what I wanted to get to. If you --
assume you're going to lose one lot. You got 24 feet left over. You take -- you take
those, divide it into the remaining lots, and every one of your lots along that street are
over 8,000 -- well over the 8,000. You got one lot left, Lot 19, that's under that, and you
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 41 of 114
got a 14,000 foot lot on one side and a 9,300 foot lot on the other side. A little bit of
redesigning and your whole subdivision could comply with the R-4 zoning.
Arnold: We could, but at this point I don't want to commit to -- obviously, our goal would
be to try to keep as many lots as we can.
Borup: Right. I understand that. If you're going to do the stub street anyway, the only
way you can keep the same amount of lots is to reduce the size further from what you
have already got; isn't that correct?
Arnold: There are some options that we can play around with some of these lots up
here, but we are going to end up -- when we provide the stub, there will be some
reduction. I don't see a great deal, because we got --
Borup: Well -- but, then, you said earlier you might lose a lot or two.
Arnold: We could lose, but my goal is -- obviously, the developer is going to be pushing
me to not lose a lot.
Borup: I just thought that sounded like an easy solution to me is you could go with the
R-4 zone, you got the stub street, you'd lose one lot, everything is over 8,000 feet, you
don't have to worry about having different zoning than the adjoining subdivisions.
Arnold: You know, I guess when it comes down to zoning, it is -- the zone is compatible
with the Comp Plan and --
Borup: Oh, I understand.
Arnold: And, you know, I think the major concern with the compatibility of uses is not so
much the zoning and the size, as the house value and the size of the houses.
Borup: I understand.
Arnold: And the developer will speak to that.
Borup: That's what I was going to say. Maybe we will let him talk to that. It just looked
like that might save some hassle.
Centers: But I had one other question. I wanted you to elaborate, Mr. Arnold, on your
rationale for R-8 was due to lot dimensions? Wasn't that it?
Arnold: Right.
Centers: Maybe elaborate on that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 42 of 114
Borup: Yeah. The frontages along these lots here are all 78 feet, instead of 80. That's
what I'm saying. If they do a stub street, they have got more than enough room to make
all those lots over 80 and over 8,000 feet.
Centers: Right.
Mathes: I have a question. Where do you suppose ACHD wants that entrance? On the
top of the hill or on the bottom of the hill or in the middle of the hill?
Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Mathes, they have told us, essentially, to move it
100 feet to the east.
Mathes: In the middle of the hill.
Arnold: Well --
Mathes: And that's safe?
Arnold: I have not gone out there and done those -- the ACHD test to verify it. I'm
assuming they -- they still know what they are doing about stuff and that it is a safe
location. Maybe that's not a safe assumption, so I will --
Mathes: Probably about as safe as Thousand Springs entrance onto Victory.
Arnold: I can't comment on that.
Zaremba: I just had one question. One, I commend you for having the neighborhood
meeting. That was a very good idea. The owners of the larger lots over here that came
and -- they didn't have any issue with how many lots backed up to their lots?
Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, no. Ironically, that -- I mean that was --
the only -- and there is the representative of the Observation Point here tonight. The
only concern they had -- and in the letter that's unsigned and I hope that one of those
persons is here tonight to attest to the letter, the only concern they had was about they
are wanting to leave this property owner, John -- and I forget his last name -- wants to
leave the ditch open for esthetic reasons. North of this portion they agree to have it
piped and want us to -- they want us -- and I'm going on record tonight, we are going to
pick up their tail water, their historic tail water and we are going to work with them, we
are going to put a fence up there, as stated. But that was their only concern. It wasn't
lots at all. I mean they are -- it was a very pleasant neighborhood meeting. No one
threatened to change my gender, which was nice.
Borup: Well -- and the -- you have less lots bordering the western boundary then the
adjoining subdivision. That's probably the factor there, too.
Arnold: We have much more lots --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 43 of 114
Borup: No. I mean these lots -- you have fewer lots on your side than the adjoining
subdivision does.
Arnold: Mr. Chairman -- and that was purposely done. We knew that some of the
concerns with Observation Point would be the lot sizes backing up to them, but that's
two fold and we have got some -- we needed lot depth there also, because we do have
some cut and fill that we are removing there, so we need -- we need the distance, we
need the larger lots there. So -- and those are on the cul-de-sacs. Those will be the
mare expensive lots. I mean there was same consideration given to existing and
neighboring subdivisions.
Borup: Any other questions from the Commission? You said there was a representative
of the developer here?
Arnold: Yes. He's here and I should leave some allotted time to him to speak to cost.
Schultz: Good evening, Commissioners. Matt Schultz. I'm with the Westpark
Company at 660 East Franklin here in Meridian. Happy to be here tonight and, like
Steve said, we are happy we had the neighborhood meeting last night. We were able to
flush out some of those issues that always come before you about irrigation and fencing
and berming and I feel it was a successful meeting, especially with regard to the people
to the east of us and like Steve said, we do plan on working with them to provide the
screening and the ditch tiling that they requested. As far as the -- the owner to the
south of us on Victory Road, he was very concerned about -- there is a high accident
rate right there, because it is a very abrupt hill that just drops right off. I, actually,
located that entrance where it was. I thought that was a good spot, up on the hill, as
opposed to down, because you could see both ways. Having looked at -- it's actually
staked out there right now, there is a spot where the driveway is a hundred feet, where
ACRD wants to move it and the hundred feet is a better spot. It's better and you can
see both ways perfectly -- you can see down the hill and you can see what's coming.
That is -- 100 feet over I believe is the best spot. ACRD is requesting it. We will comply
exactly with what ACHD requested, because they are the experts and we want -- we'd
rather have the ball in their court on that one. You know, let's just cut to the chase. You
guys are concerned about lot -- or, excuse me, house sizes and house prices and the
whole reason for going an R-8, like Steve said, it would allow us to go below an 80.
Sometimes 80 works, sometimes it doesn't. I believe there is a 74-foot minimum,
instead of 78. At absolute minimum, I'd like to go down to a 70, even though an R-8
allows you to go to a 65, because when we do put a stub street in and do some other
things, I'd like to have a little bit of flexibility. These lots will still probably be at least
7,500, if not 9,000. Good size and we feel that these lots -- I mean I can't be exact on
the market, but if the market continues like it -- I mean these lots will probably sell
between 50 and 60,000 dollars and the homes going on them will probably be between
180 and 260. Probably. I mean I can't guarantee that. Yes, the R-8 does allow to a 13
-- down to a 1,300, but that's not the reason for us coming in here and doing this. The
whole reason for an R-8 was to allow a little bit of flexibility in the frontage, which I don't
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 44 of 114
believe dictates house quality. An 80-foot lot and 70-foot lot, you can put anice -- very
nice home on -- on that size lot. We knew we might get some opposition from
Observation Point and Meridian Greens, because of the R-8 zone. I believe it's kind of
in semantics. I know it does allow down to 1,300, but I believe we are going to have a
quality subdivision that's -- it won't be as expensive as Observation Point, but it will be
close. It will be a nice product. We are doing Bear Creek. We are doing Tuscany. We
believe we have got a good standard going and we want to maintain that in our -- in our
developments. Quality landscaping. I know there is some concerns and I can't
guarantee that there won't be a -- I literally don't see there being anything less than a 16
to 17 hundred square foot home. Even that I would doubt would happen. Just the
market is really demanding that we get a bigger size home right now for the price and
that's what happening that's driving it up. From what I have seen in developments that
we are doing, like at Bear Creek, it's just amazing to me what the square footage is
doing out there. It's going through the roof, so --
Centers: We can't -- the city can't puf minimum price limits on your sales prices.
Schultz: No.
Centers: We can't require any of that. An R-8 zone allows you to go down to 1,000
square feet. Did you know that?
Schultz: I did not.
Borup: A percentage of them.
Centers: Right.
Borup: But we can put arestriction --
Centers: If you don't disperse the square footages of the homes in an R-8 zone, you're
limited to 1,301. If you mix them up, you can go down to 1,000 and it's different
percentages. One thousand is the minimum. That's the only way we can control a
neighborhood is by the zone. You're not going to promise me that you won't build a
1,301 square foot home, are you?
Schultz: Yes, I will.
Centers: We can't make it a requirement, I don't think.
Schultz: I can offer it.
Centers: Well, you have the R-8 zone. If the market becomes stagnant for this price
range home and a year from now the developer says I got to get these sold, I'm going to
build 1,300 square foot homes and I'm going to just pop them and get them out of here.
You could do it.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 45 of 114
Borup: Except for you're not going to do that on a 50,000-dollar lot.
Centers: I don't know what he's paid for the land and that's a figure that we can't pin it
on them either, Chairman Borup. We don't know that. He's got an R-8 zone and he can
do what he wants with it. That's the bottom line. That's the only thing we can control
and your point was excellent. Hey, you're going to put the stub street in, you're going to
lose a couple lots anyway, go to 80 feet.
Borup: Well, Iwas -- I was mistaken. The plat shows 74 in the front and 78 in the back.
I was looking at the back measurement, so I think there is a typo on the plat here.
There is enough to get them all well over 8,000 feet, but maybe not 80-foot frontage.
Centers: What I look at is your -- I haven't even heard the neighbors, but I know why
they are here, you know, because they spoke earlier on another issue. Oh, they are
here for that one and it's just obvious to me that, you know, you're asking far an R-8
zone adjoining Meridian Greens and Observation Point, which is R-4 and very nice
subdivisions. You're going with an in full, then, you're asking to stub at the city's
requirement, you're asking to stub right into Observation Point.
Borup: It's there.
Centers: Yeah. It's there. I mean you have to. I know that. You're not going to be a
good neighbor to them, as far as they are concerned, because you're R-8 and they are
R-4 and they are going to be driving through our neighborhood, you know, so --
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I wanted to point out because this
is an annexation and rezone, through a development agreement we can address some
of these issues. You could do restrictions on home size and on lot size through a
development agreement.
Centers: So, would you be okay with minimum 1,500 square feet?
Schultz: I would right here tonight say 1,500 square foot minimum is okay and through
the development agreement --
Centers: And we can cover that in a --
Kirkpatrick: Through the Development Agreement.
Schultz: Development agreements, they are fine. It's going to be an extra piece of
paper we have to process, but we have a preliminary plat as well, but I understand your
concerns about if I get the right zone and, you're right, say in three years it all goes
down, who knows. Property is going to change hands and it will still be zoned and --
Centers: Oh, I know. Right.
Meridian Planning antl Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 46 of 114
Schultz: -- somebody could come in and say I meet the zone, give it to me. There are
a lot of people coming in with 40-foot wide lots now and 55-foot lots in R-8s and they
are putting some real narrow stuff. We are not doing that.
Centers: Right. Right.
Schultz: We are going something different, but --
Centers: I know that.
Schultz: But, you're right, technically and legally that is a possibility and through a
development agreement we could further control that to this, so you guys can get a
defined plat. We are going to make some slight -- I think the adjustments we are
making are minor enough that you could recommend approval with the conditions we
make those changes with some consideration to -- I'd like to be able to go down to a 72
foot minimum lot width --
Borup: So, you're plans are still to keep the same number of lots?
Schultz: Trying but we may not. It's going to be the same or less is what it's going to
be. You know, I can't gain. I doubt we are going to keep it. We might lose one. We
are going to move the road a hundred feet, the entrance over. We are going to meet
landscaping requirements of five percent, one way or another we are going to do it. An
interesting fact that Steve pointed out to me is that green you see up there along the
Ten Mile Drain, we can't count that as open space, because there is no pathway on it.
We are not proposing a pathway on it, because it really kind of goes nowhere. Meridian
Greens doesn't have a pathway. If -- you know, if we wanted to, we could put a little
short loop pathway around there so people could enjoy the nice, natural -- I mean there
is some beautiful trees back there, there is a nice, natural waterway, and we could
count that as open space, if we put a pathway and I -- and if it comes down to it and I
need to get it, we will put that in. I just don't -- I think it's a little bit of a waste, since it
would go nowhere, but in Tuscany Village, we are doing a pathway. I'm open to a
development agreement, if that's something that staff can work with us on and here
tonight to say we will do a 1,500 square foot minimum. I still think it will be higher than
that, but that would be a minimum. You know, the market's going to -- it's going to push
it up there, and if that would address your concerns, I'm happy to agree to that and if
there is anything else you'd like to discuss, I'm here to answer any questions you may
have.
Borup: Anything else from the Commission? Thank you. We may have some questions
at the end.
Schultz: Thanks.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 47 of 114
Borup: Okay. Do we have anyone that would like to testify on this? Now is your
opportunity. Come on up.
Berg: Yes. My name is John Berg. I live at 788 East Trinidad in Meridian Greens.
Right here. First of all, I'd like to take exception to the adequate notice of the
community meeting. I have a copy of the letter that was dated October 7th, which the
meeting was held October 15`h. Now, I don't know about your schedules, but stuff from
the city comes and -- you know, dated September 3rd, which --
Borup: First of all, they are not even required to have a neighborhood meeting, so --
Berg: I understand.
Borup: -- so that's something we appreciate them doing, so --
Berg: Right but I take exception to the -- I take exception to his comment that
everything is hunky dory and nobody showed up to say anything negative about it.
Borup: Okay so noted.
Berg: Okay. I have a concern about the project. Trinidad Drive comes down this
direction. On the plat, which I understand is preliminary, we have Trinidad Drive, we
have Trinidad Drive, we have Trinidad Drive, and we have Trinidad Drive. You have
both -- two east-west sections of Trinidad Drive.
Borup: Before you spend much more time on that, because I did read your letter.
Berg: Right.
Borup: Do you realize that all these street names need to be approved by the county
street name committee?
Berg: I understand.
Borup: And if they think there is a problem or a safety problem or a confusion problem,
then, those will be changed.
Berg: I understand but I think it goes -- I guess I would say why would you even put
together a preliminary when it's obvious that those wouldn't work. I have concerns, of
course, about the lot size. I have 4/10ths of an acre right here and we are looking at
substantially less in the neighborhood all around -- you know, all up and down this side.
R-4. Urban rural transition. I agree with Commissioner Centers, it just seems natural to
make this R-4 and, you know, theh, we can -- then, when they bring the development,
then, we can argue about what restrictions you put on the development for house size.
To go R-8, I don't think there is anybody in this room, other than maybe two individuals,
that think that this is -- should be R-8. The sewer line that they put in this summer, you
Meridian Planning antl Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 48 of 114
know, I watched them came in and put that in and I made calls to the city and calls to
Ada County and I couldn't get any answers in terms of what was going in or if anybody
knew of any -- of what that was going in. I assumed it was sewer, because of the type
of pipe. He said they met with the city and they laid out the sewer line in anticipation of
this. I guess my question -- and I will plead ignorance here, is that why wasn't there any
kind of community involvement if we are going to place sewer line in terms of a
proposed project --
Borup: Because all they needed was just a sewer easement.
Berg: Okay. Okay. I appreciate that. I have concerns about Lot 27 and what is going
to be done with it. I assume the city -- or the sewer runs through there. Is that going to
be a green lot? Is that going to be a building lot? If it's a building lot, I guess I've got
concern, because they can't -- I assume they can't build over the top of the sewer.
Borup: Right. No, that's not a building lat.
Berg: Okay. I guess I would be concerned with what exactly they are planning on
doing with that, so would my neighbor right next door, whether or not that is going to be
a -- what type of a park. You know, I guess he addressed the issue of all the vinyl fence
along Observation Point, but there is some of us that have vinyl fence, I guess, up in
here and just what his designs are there, so I think we have a real vested interest in
terms of what goes in right outside our back door and whether or not -- and whether or
not my -- my gate that I have on my property, ycu know, how that would -- how that's
going to play into that subdivision.
Borup: Okay. We can show you the plat. That is on the plan designed with drainage --
as adrainage area, a storm drain, but has lawn, sod, and landscaping around it. It
would be maintained like you see in the other subdivisions with grass and landscaping.
There it is right there. Yes.
Berg: I guess I would -- you know, obviously, when I bought my home -- built my home
five years ago, I wasn't naive enough to think that a 15 acre parcel was going to be just
empty. At one time it was farmland. For the past five years, there hasn't been a drop of
water on it and we have had to fight to keep the weeds down. When a fire broke out -- I
came home and there was -- see the Meridian Fire Department putting out a fire here,
very concerned about the fact that there was -- there was weeds, dry weeds, and the -- I
understand that the developer has probably had it under option, but they have done
very little to upkeep that property. As I say, nothing on it. We are not naive enough to
think that nothing is ever going to go in there, but we would hope that it would be
something that is contiguous and compliments the surrounding properties and the
subdivisions of Meridian Greens and Observation Point -- Observation Point was very
accommodating to the residents of Meridian Greens in designing theirs, so that it was a
nice fit. I don't think this is a nice fit.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee[ing
October 16, 2003
Page 49 of 114
Borup: Okay. Did this answer your question on what was going in here? This is all
landscaped area.
Berg: Well, yes, but -- you know, Iguess -- yeah, so it's going to be grass and trees, but
what does that mean? Iguess it would also be safe to say that that -- if that is common
area -- that's not a city park, so it's going to be maintained by the homeowners
association, so that goes down to how strong is the homeowners association of these
52 homes -- 52 lots on how well that is maintained.
Borup: Okay.
Berg: Thank you.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: I just had a question, Mr. Chairman. Not a question. You have 4/10ths of an
acre you have about 17,000 square feet.
Berg: Correct.
Centers: You have one of the biggest lots in your subdivision.
Berg: That's why I chose it.
Centers: Yes so, it's not common. We are in agreement on that. It's not a common lot
even in your subdivision. That's large. They have some lots, Mr. Berg, 14, almost 16,
12.7, 14.3, 15.2 -- those are cul-de-sac lots, too, and that's what you have. If we made
the requirement that they can build no home less than 1,500 square feet, which is an R-
4zone requirement --
Borup: Well, that's above an R-4. R-4 is 1,400.
Centers: I meant to say 14.
Borup: Well, they agreed to 15.
Centers: But he agreed to 15. Yes. Right. You have got an R-4 zone sub next to you,
other than some lots would be 74-foot frontage, rather than 80. To me that's not a big
deal and I can see why they did that, because it's an in-fill parcel and the street that
goes up, you know, it -- I will be honest with you, I'll tell you eye to eye, if they put the
stub street in to the east, I don't want to see any further lot reduction in size or come
back with another plat. Iguess I'm speaking my mind right now. If they put that stub
street in, either come back to another plat for approval at this. level, or don't reduce the
size of any of the lots. What we are seeing tonight is a minimum of 74 and that's the
way I look at it.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 50 of 114
Berg: I would have to review and see what the -- what all the other lot sizes are inside
Meridian Greens. I -- you know, I can't answer exactly what ones, especially in the ones
in the latest phase here.
Centers: Well, see, my opinion is it would be very compatible, especially if we tagged
the minimum house size on to the sub of 1,500 square feet, which we could do --
Berg: And I don't know -- what are the minimum house sizes ih Observation Point?
Centers: 1,400.
Berg: In Observation Point?
Centers: Well, they made them higher in the CC&R's. I don't know.
Berg: Okay. Okay.
Centers: But it's 1,400 by the zone.
Berg: Okay. I understand.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Who is next?
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I wanted to make a correction.
The Comprehensive Plan actually designates this as low density residential, but a note
on our Comprehensive Plan land use map allows an applicant to ask for one step up, so
they are asking for medium density residential, but the actual designation for
Observation Point, Kachina Estates, and for this proposed subdivision is low density
residential.
Centers: Did you say that in your staff report?
Kirkpatrick: No. I'm making that correction.
Centers: Oh.
Borup: Go ahead. You need to state your name.
Tisdale: Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Toni Tisdale. I'm at 1357 East
Doberman and we are actually building in Observation Point right now. I was going to
make that correction, because I looked at this map earlier and I noticed that it is low
density all along Victory Road during that mile section. It seems to me -- I'm also a
planner by profession, but I'm here as a citizen and it seems to me that making an
exception to the whims of the developer has gotten the city into some difficulties in the
past and I hate to see that happen at this point. I guess, personally, I just don't want to
see houses of lower value go in there and I know that it could be some smaller homes
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 51 of 114
and if it was -- and I know you can't make it mandatory that they cost a certain amount
of money. At the same time, the neighbors are going to suffer from that, if they are -- if
they do end up being really small homes that are not worth as much money. I just
wanted to make that point, too. I don't know even know of 1,500 is big enough, but I
guess it depends on what's in their CC&R's as well.
Borup: Okay. You'd like to stay to the R-4 standards, is what you're saying?
Tisdale: I would like to see it at R-4 standards. Yes, sir.
Borup: Thank you. Who is next?
Hahn: My name is Frank Hahn and 4919 Cherry Lane, Nampa, and I own a lot in
Observation Point and just from what I have heard, because I just became aware of this
today, but, anyway, from everything I have heard, with them going to the 15,000, which
is above the R-4, but the low density, which was just brought out, it seems to me where
they are between five acres and Observation Point, which is relatively big and fairly nice
lots, should be kept with. That's all I have.
Borup: Thank you.
Marsh: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'm Allan Marsh, I live on 2940 Mesa Way,
which is a five acre parcel behind the proposed development. Right there. Anyway, I'm
so happy to see something go in there. I have lived out there for 12 years, I have been
flooded out with their drain ditches, nobody's taking care of it. It has been a weed
patch. My -- the drain ditch is flooded over. It floods into the pasture. It backs up all of
our sewers. I'm just glad that something is finally going on there and I think the
proposed lot sizes -- I think they are good. I think it's a good blend with Observation
Point with the bigger lots, moving back into the smaller lots back up to my place. I'm
sure my horses won't mind. I'd like to see you approve it. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you.
Zaremba: Sir?
Borup: Mr. Marsh?
Zaremba: The stub street that they are being requested and where they propose to put,
it would stub towards your lot is that correct and you're comfortable with that?
Marsh: That's what he said, yes.
Zaremba: You're comfortable with that?
Marsh: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 52 of 114
Borup: Was that by your request or --
Marsh: Well, he said that they requested a stub street and I said I wouldn't mind it there
at some point in time and who knows what's going to happen in the future.
Borup: Okay. Do we have anyone -- you, sir? Come on up.
Stricklin: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Ron Stricklin. My
wife and I recently purchased a lot and have a home under construction in Observation
Point. We moved out of an area similar to what the developer wants to put in. That's
the reason we moved out to where we at. We moved out of a 1,305 square foot house
into a much larger house in an area where the CC&R's give a minimum of 2,100 square
foot for a single story house. That's the reason we came out here is for that kind of
lifestyle, the low density effect that Observation Point provides. The location, being in
Meridian, it was all part of the package and I just don't think that allowing the R-8
designation in that knew subdivision is appropriate. It does not fit with the area and I
sympathize with the adjacent landowners, having lived near land like that, it's an eye
sore, it's a danger, but I don't think for the rest of the homeowners in the area that it's to
the best effect, so I would urge you to retain the R-4 designation.
Borup: Okay. Thank you, sir. Do we have anyone else or are we through? Come on
up, sir. ,
Logue: Bert Logue. I'm a resident in Observation Point and I guess my concern is from
the R-4 to R-8 is not the here and now, it's what's going to happen and if they are
stubbing out to the five acre parsecs to the west -- or to the east, I mean, you know --
you know, I mean what's -- what are those zoned right now? R-4 or are they --
Borup: They are in the county.
Logue: Will they be zoned R-8 once this goes through as an R-8 or --
Borup: They are in the county right now.
Logue: Okay. It's possible they could be annexed in and, then -- and, then, the smaller
type of units to go in at 1,100 and 1,300 square foot homes off the side. It may -- who
knows when that happens, but what -- it sets us up for that and so, you know -- then,
you have got the property on the other side of Victory that needs to be developed. I just
think that if that's the type of areas to kind of set the tone -- and I realize it's in-fill, but
what I'm concerned about is the fact that where it stubs out to the east into those five
acre parsecs, that -- that that allows, you know, those pieces of property to be, you
know, later on subdivided and a whole lot lower housing and a whole lot different type of
units to go in there, which is definitely going to impact the existing subdivisions, as well
as -- even if you decided to go R-8 and the developer did step up and say, look, I'll go
minimum 1,500, what's to stop the people that are going to be hooking up to that to do
that. I just see that, you know, in the future, five, ten years down the road, it's going to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee[ing
October 16, 2003
Page 53 of 114
be a problem and I think if we leave it R-4, it sounds like the developer can make some
changes and still make his money and build nice homes. It may be a little bit more
difficult and they may not make as much, but it's going to set it up to keep it, you know,
to where it pretty much fits with the -- with everything that's already there and protects
us, you know, down the road after the developer has made his money and has moved
on to bigger and better things. I mean we are the ones who have to live with the fallout
and that's my concern, is that if you zone that R-8, you know, what's going to happen to
that property on the other side and earlier I mean the gentleman who just spoke that
owns the property up at the top where the stub is going to go into, he said that they had
said that they were going to put the stub in there and, if I'm not mistaken, the
representative earlier from the development said that the owners had requested that
they put the stubs in there. So, that shows --
Borup: No. The city requested it.
Logue: The city requested it? You know, that -- I just see it being an opportunity for it to
be much less than what's there and if you go R-8, then, it -- I don't see how -- if
somebody comes back to develop those five acres later, I don't see how you could turn
them down and like Commissioner Centers here says, once it's zoned, it's zoned, you
know. You guys can't control price or what goes on the property. That's what it's zoned
for, so --
Borup: Well, we can control what goes on the property. That's -- we have already
discussed that.
Logue: Right. Well, that's my fear is that down the road that's what happens. I'd like to
see it the way it is and let the developer comply with it in what he has and maybe make
Borup: No. I mean that -- you turned what -- turned around what I said. We can control
what goes on the property. We already had a discussion that a 1,500-foot minimum,
rather 14, which is what R-4, would do.
Logue: Even on the five acre parsecs to the --
Borup: Oh, no, not on those.
Logue: That's what I'm saying.
Borup: Well, you're speculating future. That's not something that even makes sense to
even address right now --
Logue: Well, we know that it's going to grow. Right.
Borup: -- as far as what's going to happen there.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 54 of 114
Logue: I realize that. That's -- you know, again, what happens down the road is what
we have to live and I'm just asking that you guys consider that, because the growth is
going to happen, you know. If they are stubbed in, those pieces of property are going to
get developed. Sooner or later it's going to happen and so I'd just like you to consider
that when you're, you know, looking. That's all I would say.
Borup: Thank you. Did we finish? Was there anybody else?
Sackett: I represent the developer. Gary Sackett, and it's unfortunate that
Borup: You need to --
Zaremba: Which developer?
Sackett: The developer of Observation Point Subdivision.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: What's your name?
Sackett: Gary Sackett.
Centers: Okay.
Sackett: When Observation Point was in its developmental stage, Meridian Greens was
very actively involved in seeing what we were doing over there. Our first proposal had
lots along the north side that were -- I think they were 10, 1,100 square foot lots across
there. They looked at them and said, well, would like those to be a little larger, so they
are closer to the -- similar to the ones that they back up to to Meridian Greens. We
expanded those, we added two more feet to the frontage of those and expanded them
and now they are 12,648 square feet all across there and felt that that gave a very
compatible to Observation Point, but, then, we didn't back up and start plugging little
9,000 square foot lots in the middle of that either. Those were some of the smaller lots
and as we went further into the elevations and so forth of the Observation Point
Subdivision, they are 13, 15, 16 17,000 clear up to 23,000 square foot lots, so Meridian
Greens had an issue of those initial ones that were right up against Meridian Greens
and we accommodated that. That wasn't our token large lots and, then, boom, we were
going to put a whole bunch of little guys out there and go to the 8,000 potential limit that
we could do, which made it a substantial project that I think coexists very well with
Meridian Greens. Now, the Glacier Springs shows a little strip of them that they
expanded out, but the reality is that those lots that they expanded, the elevations have
to go up substantially. They have the back yards above where their house is going to
sit. They have got to go -- they have got to be bigger, but they are not necessarily more
value lots. They go up in the air and, you know, we have lots like that and they are not
going to be the easiest lots to sell in the subdivision, because people don't usually want
their yard higher than their house. That, to me, doesn't seem to buffer the issue of -- it
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2D03
Page 55 of 114
would be no if they just stuck 8,000 square foot or 7,000 square foot lots bordering
Observation, just having one set of lots that are a little larger and the rest are small lots,
is a concern to the value of the subdivision of Observation Point. It doesn't appear to be
as compatible with the values. Our minimum square footage is 2,100 on a single level
there. There is not a home under 2,800 square feet in Observation Point and our
average values and 350,000, with only 20 percent of the subdivision developed. Now,
since we have a lot of work left developing that subdivision, we don't need a negative of
a smaller subdivision with view lots that look right down into lots that are substantially
smaller than the lots in Observation Point. It just stacks up another obstacle just to
continue to developing such a nice subdivision looking down and having so many small
lots, Iwould -- we would like to see it remain R-4 and even R-4. We would -- then, if
they came back and showed us a subdivision, we would still have issues if they were
still at the minimum of 8,000, we would be going, well, we want them to be comparable
to our 12, 13, 14,000 square foot lots, not have the opportunity to be able to come clear
down to 6,500. Even if they were R-4, we still would look at it and say we'd like them to
be larger, just as Meridian Greens, but -- we were happy to be an R-4 subdivision, but
they still wanted even larger lots and we went clear up to 12,600 on the border of
Meridian Greens. Even if they moved it to R-4, we'd still want to see good, large lots
there that made it compatible with Observation Point and Meridian Greens, and so, you
know, we would -- I also have a home to try to sell that's right on the corner of the stub
that would go into their proposed Glacier Springs Subdivision. It's on a 13,000 square
foot lot and it's a 2,850 square foot single level home and on that street as it continues
into the Glacier Springs, those are tiny -- those are small eight -- you know, seven,
8,000, 9,000 square foot lots. Much smaller. They are ding ding ding lined up right next
to that home that's there. We have the potential of someone looking at that and going,
gee, I don't think I want to buy that, it being right next to such small homes. You know,
we would like to see R-4 and compatibility that's comparable to Observation Point and
Meridian Greens.
Borup: Mr. Sackett, were you at the hearings when Observation Point went through this
Commission?
Sackett: No, I was not personally.
Borup: Okay. Some of the things you said reminded me of quite a bit of that meeting
and just about every argument that's been made here tonight was stated about
Observation Point.
Sackett: To uphold it and make sure --
Borup: No. No. They were complaining about the size of the lots, it's going to
downgrade Meridian Greens, Meridian Greens doesn't want these small homes next to
them, it's going to hurt our home values -- I mean on and on and on, the same
argument, other than the zoning, was made. I just thought that was an interesting
observation. It would be interesting to get the minutes and review that again, but --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 56 of 114
Sackett: You're probably exactly right and when I look at the --
Borup: Mr. Sackett, you're not getting on the tape.
Sackett: Oh. As I look at the lots that run across Meridian Greens and the lots that run
across --
Borup: Right. There is one less and Meridian Greens, the neighbors weren't happy
about that.
Sackett: Yes. They are just -- they might be a hair smaller. Some of them actually
have larger frontage than the Meridian Greens Subdivision.
Borup: I don't think so, from what I remember, but --
Sackett: Well, if you went across and just count them --
Borup: Yes. There is one less.
Sackett: --they are pretty darn close.
Borup: Observation Point had one less lot.
Sackett: Right so, I know they pushed to --
Borup: Well, you added one more lot. You took out one lat.
Sackett: Right. We wanted to have --
Borup: But I'm saying the same statements made here tonight were the same thing that
was made about Observation Point when it was before this Commission.
Sackett: But I would imagine that Meridian Greens would have had substantial
opposition had we made large lots just across the border of Meridian Greens. Then,
went back to the minimum of 8,000 on the rest of the subdivision. I would imagine they
would have been livid to have seen that happen and that's what I -- what it appears
Glacier Springs is going by saying they have a few lots along the border that are larger
and, then, all the rest are the smaller lots, with the potential of an R-8 being even
smaller, and they have somewhat acknowledged that if they have to do the stub street
and pull a lot out, they are going to make up for it and still keep their 52 lots, if not more.
Centers: Mr. Sackett -- but a long of times, you know; if it meets the R-4, that's where
we are obligated and we have made concessions a number of times on adjoining
properties, you know, to make the lots more compatible with the adjoining lots, but, you
know, I had a question for you. Tell me how long you have been marketing lots in
Observation Point.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
,Page 57 of 114
Sackett: Two years. I have been there for two years. I think they have -- they received
final plat in August of 2002.
Centers: Okay.
Sackett: So, they started somewhat marketing them before that, but they weren't
allowed to sell any of them.
Centers: And you're only 20 percent sold out.
Sackett: That's correct.
Centers: So, it could be that there is a market for a smaller home.
Sackett: Well, there certainly is a great market for -- I would agree there is a great
market for the smaller homes and they are built --
Centers: My paint is the market dictates --
Sackett: Absolutely.
Centers: -- and at the time Observation Point went in there, they had probably high
hopes for selling all those lots within a year and having it build out within two and that,
obviously, hasn't happened, so it -- you get where I'm coming from?
Sackett: Oh, sure. Certainly. I don't know exactly what their time frame of when they
would have the development completed or sold and, you're absolutely right, the market
creates the demand and they meet it. I think they are, with their huge project at
Tuscany just up the road, there is another subdivision that just went in just a little bit
further -- they certainly are meeting that demand and I would just object to having the
smaller lots right up against a subdivision that's made a substantial commitment to
larger lots that certainly make -- is a lot harder work to sell and develop out and takes a
substantial amount of financial wherewithal to be able to do that and stretch it out as
long as it takes. They haven't backed up and said, oh, well, we are going to just lower
our lots and start blowing lots out. We have -- we have maintained the sizes of our
homes and our minimal values that we are committed to, 500, 700,000-dollar homes
being up on the top rim of that subdivision. I don't know if those people are --
Centers: But that could change tomorrow.
Sackett: Certainly, it could.
Centers: Because you're still in control of the homeowners association, you can change
those CC&R's tomorrow and you can build 1,500 -- 1,400 square foot homes in there
tomorrow, if they want to, because you control the homeowners association.
Meritlian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 58 of 114
Sackett: That is correct.
Centers: You have the R-4 zone and the minimums.
Sackett: Right.
Centers: So, to tell us that you're building 24, 2800 square foot, that's great, that's
fantastic, but you can change that tomorrow.
Sackett: It is very true that we could do that. We also have shown precedence in the
subdivision that we developed in Boise next to Centennial High School that is in its third
phase and they have been going at it for, you know, eight or nine years that they have
never relented and lowered values of lots, they have stayed committed to what their
plans were. Thank you.
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you, Mr. Sackett. Do we have anyone else? Okay. Mr. Schultz, would
you like to come on up. I'm going to ask you a question before you start.
Schultz: Thank you. Matt Schultz again.
Borup: Would you like to make it easier for us?
Schultz: Can I at least respond to the concerns as the people brought to you, the best I
can?
Borup: Well, yes. No. I'm just -- I'm still -- I'd like to get back on that one thing I talked
about earlier and I'm thinking if -- you know, you talk about putting a stub street in, you
had made a statement earlier that you felt that the plat as it stands could go on through
to City Council with having the stub street; is that, essentially, what you had said? Yes?
No?
Schultz: Yes.
Borup: Okay. I'm thinking, you know, if you're talking about keeping the same amount
of lots and redesigning, then -- I mean that's going to be a little bit more of a redesign of
the subdivision. I know you're saying it's not, but something is going to have to -- if
you're talking about putting a stub street in and taking that extra footage that you have
left over and spreading it down the street. I can see where you could have every lot in
here be the 8,000 foot minimum and you would be complying with that part of the R-4, if
maybe not the frontage. That's -- I wanted to put in your head to think about. Go
ahead.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 59 of 114
Schultz: Thank you, Commissioner Borup. Maybe I'll start with your statement first and
I'd like to maybe step through and -- I took some notes as people come up and I'd like to
satisfy some of their questions that maybe weren't able to answered or whatever, that I
can answer more -- better for them. We are still asking for an R-8 zone to allow us to
go down to -- we will stick with the 7,400-foot minimum, but if you put a stub street
through, which I thought was -- it's becoming a liability. My generosity is becoming a
liability here, but you actually have to allow for more setback on those corner lots, so
you don't generally gain it back, you don't just give up 50, you give up, really, 80,
because you have an extra 15 feet on each corner lot.
Borup: You're right.
Schultz: So, that's what happens when you punch through a stub street. It's really one
80-foot wide lot that you're --
Borup: Yeah. I wasn't accounting for that. You're correct.
Schultz: The setbacks, and that's what happens. I have done this -- with all due
respect, I have been through this a few times that this happened to me. If I could just
step through the responses. The first gentleman -- I may not get these in order and
they may be a little disjointed, but I kind of took some notes and one gentleman had a
question about that back lot and the drainage and the landscaping and all that. That's -
I think the landscape plan that we submitted may not reflect how nice that could be. We
usually submit some minimums, because the city makes us bond -- if we put extra in
them, they make us bond for it, but it's kind of a liability, even though we are going to
put in nice stuff, because we think nice landscaping sells lots and we like to do that. It
will be a dry pond. It won't be -- it will be dry, unless it rains really hard for a couple
hours and, then, it will have some water and it will perc out within 24 hours.
Borup: I understand.
Schultz: So, I think it's an asset to that lot to be behind that. It will be a nice, quiet,
open space back there. As far as the weeds on the property, I will be honest, I drive by
the site and those weeds really -- I can focus on other projects and we -- it is under
option. We don't technically own it, but we are going to go over there this weekend, if
not Monday, and blade off those weeds with some construction equipment that we have
just right down the road. I talked to my contractor today about that after our meeting
last night with the adjacent owners who were concerned about that eyesore. What we
are, essentially, asking for is an R-4 -- we will commit to an 8,000 square foot minimum,
but we'd like to go down to a 74 foot minimum width, not a 70 like I said earlier, we will
go with Mr. Centers suggestion that we stick with a 74.
Borup: Well, you don't have anything less than that now.
Schultz: I don't think we have anything less than 74. Right, and so we will kind of hold
with that, if we punch a street through. As far as -- I had to chuckle when I heard him
Meridian Planning antl Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 20D3
Page 60 of 114
say 9,000 -- a little 9,000 square foot lot. I don't know, but where I come from 9,000 is
not bad. I mean it's a nice lot that you can put a 300,000-dollar home on it if you want
or 400,000, I mean, really, you can. You might be going straight up, you know, double
decking, you know, a couple thousand square feet on each floor, but you can do it. It's
passible. We don't think 9,000 square foot is small. We have good sizes of our lots
along their boundary that are compatible with Observation Point. Some of them are
bigger than theirs, some are smaller, but I think it's agood-- it's a good, compatible --
we laid it out that way and that's the way it works out. Back to the 74 foot minimum. On
the curves and cul-de-sacs, we would like to go to a 40-foot width on those, but we will
hold a 74 minimum. Lot sizes are developer choice within the parameters of the zone
that we ask for. They chose to develop large lots that sell maybe one every three or
four months. From what Icon -- I drive by it every day and it's just not moving very fast.
We cannot survive in that market. I can't say -- tell you today that we could develop this
with 500 to 700,000 dollar homes, we would probably go broke, and they would
probably fire me if we tried to market it that way. It's not the wise thing to do. We are
not going to go minimum, we'd really blow through it quick, then, but we don't want to do
that. We want to hold to a 1,500 square foot minimum as suggested by Centers, but I
think the market is going to be even higher. The density that that -- that I'm talking
about generates is 2.97 to the acre, which is -- does fall within the low-density range.
Staff mentioned that -- oh. Oops. This is aloes-density zone. No. I think we are still in
the high end of the low density, but we are within that low density -- density of three to
the acre. We didn't really push this one in the R-8. We could have pushed it to an R-8,
probably, to at least four to the acre. We are down at three and that adds up over
acres. That adds a lot of lots. We don't believe this is a negative development for the
area. We believe it's positive. It's going to add some vibrancy to the Meridian fabric of
neighborhoods. It's going to be a little bit different than Observation Point, but I think
difference is good. I think it mixes it up a little bit. We don't want another just an area of
road with hardly any lots going far years and years. That's not what we want. We want
to get families moved in there and we want them to move into a nice subdivision. Like I
said about the stub street, it seems to have become a liability, but we are going to stick
by our word to the homeowner to try for that. We like -- I think we are people of our
word and we are going to stick by it. It's going to lose us a lot, but the city's asked for it,
if you didn't want it, I probably could have finagled my way out of it, maybe, but if he
wanted it, we will provide it. I really think this is a good subdivision. I think that -- with
all due respect to the protestors, I -- there is a little bit of that not-in-my-back-yard
mentality that's pervasive and I don't think this is a subdivision that they should be
arguing against. I think it's a nice positive influence to the neighborhood and I will stand
for any questions.
Borup: Questions from the Commission? While you're here, then, how -- I'm thinking on
the stub street again. After looking at the adjoining properties, how strong does staff
feel about that? I've always been a strong advocate of neighborhood continuity and
interconnection, but I'm wondering about it in this case.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I wanted to point out that a
subdivision you all saw at the last hearing, Soda Springs, it's basically an in-fill project
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 61 of 114
where there are two existing homes that are being removed and they are redeveloping.
I think it's just a little over ten acres. I think there is definitely potential for Kachina
Estates to redevelop at some point. I don't know the value of those homes I don't know
the value of the property. I think there is definitely that potential --
Borup: Well, they are probably not teardown type homes.
Kirkpatrick: I don't know.
Borup: I don't believe so.
Powell: You have to remember -- excuse me, Chairman Borup, Members of the
Commission.
Borup: Please.
Powell: You have to remember that this urban fabric goes on a really long time. I mean
it's not just our life times, it's forever, basically, and as you see in Boise, as the city gets
larger and vacant land supply is in very limited supply -- or vacant land is in very limited
supply, five acres is a big site for Boise City pretty much these days. You know, the one
acres are a little hard to develop. It's not easy to redevelop afive-acre lot, but over
time, if they have got that option of a stub street available, then, it's much easier.
Borup: Well, one -- for one of the lots it is. The other two still have to have access from
the existing road. Okay.
Centers: Yes. That was --
Zaremba: I guess my question is that --
Borup: Well, what I was thinking of, if the stub street wasn't there, they still eliminated
one lot, then, it would be a straight R-4 zone and this wouldn't even be an issue.
Zaremba: Well -- and my question is, I guess, in agreement with the Chairman. You're
defending so hard having an R-8 when you're so close to being an R-4 already that I
worry about why you defend it so hard. If you lost one lot, if this had to be a 51 lot
subdivision or even a 50 lot subdivision, if you were talking about a 52 lot subdivision
and I think you said something like charging 50,000 dollars a lot, if you lost two lots, you
would only have to go up 2,000 dollars on each of the remaining 50 lots and you're
saying that simply makes it unmarketable?
Schultz: No, I'm not saying that.
Borup: But it's --speaking as -- I mean in the marketplace, that's a factor.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 62 of 114
Zaremba: Two thousand dollars on a lot?
Borup: Well, 2,000 dollars is a lot of money to me. I don't know about you, but --
Zaremba: I don't have that in my pocket, for sure, but what I'm wondering is it's so close
to an R-4 --
Borup: Were you going to say something, Mr. Schultz?
Zaremba: -- why there is such a strong defense of R-8.
Schultz: It's what we submitted was an R-8. I hate to change applications in mid
stream and I really believe it's -- all we are talking, really, about is an 80 versus a 74, six
feet, which would seem small from both sides. You say why not move up, I say why not
leave 74, but --
Borup: Well, you would be talking -- I mean if you're at the 8,000 feet, you would need
to be 75.
Schultz: We are talking -- what I'm talking about is we want to -- we will hold an 8,000
square foot minimum --
Borup: Oh, you will.
Schultz: -- lot, but we like the dimensional ability to go down to a 74.
Borup: Okay.
Schultz: To get a little bit extra depth, you make that up. We'd rather sell depth than
width. That seems to be a bigger sell. People have bigger backyards than they do wide
front yards.
Borup: Okay. I didn't understand that.
Schultz: I proposed that. Maybe I didn't speak well, but I think I did propose that.
Borup: Eight thousand foot minimum?
Schultz: Yes.
Borup: Okay. I'm sorry. I apologize. That didn't sink in.
Schultz: I did when I first came back up here to rebut or provide clarification that I would
be willing to do that. It will, really, just give us some flexibility in our design. These
changes do happen, like the stub street we didn't know about until we get to the
hearing. Moving the entrance road. We'd just like a little bit of flexibility to not get
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 63 of 114
locked into exactly 80. Sometimes 78 works better and it's really a shame for two feet
to have to just throw out a whole layout or something. It's mare just you guys are acting
on principal, I'm trying to act on principal, you know,
Borup: Well, no, that was the point I was really originally trying to make, if you get 8,000
foot lots, it's -- and there is no choice on the zoning, other than R-8, because we are not
full 80 foot everywhere, but it's substantial compliance, it's a step above the minimum
square footage that an R-4 zone would require.
Zaremba: If the only thing that doesn't comply to an R-4 zone is the frontage --
Borup: That would -- that's it.
Zaremba: -- can we say that it's an R-4 and go for a variance on the frontage? I don't
know the legality of that. It's a question.
Borup: I don't think so.
Powell: To make -- excuse me. Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission,
variances should only be approved when there is extenuating circumstances where they
cannot develop otherwise. The example I like to use is when there is a rock in the
middle of a lot and so you have to reduce a setback. That rock is an unusual
circumstance. There is no overriding unusual circumstance about this development that
would warrant having a variance to the lot width requirement or the frontage
requirement. You could -- if you don't want to go to the development agreement route,
you could go the planned development route, but, quite frankly, it's going to get you
exactly in the same, it's just going to be recorded as a separate document. We will
reference it on the plat and we will attach those conditions in that Development
Agreement to the physical copy of the plat at the building department.
Borup: How is a Development Agreement modified? I'm back to some of the
statements earlier. If someone wanted to change the square footages later on, what
would --
Powell: By Public Hearing.
Borup: That's what I was getting to. They would have to come back for a Public
Hearing, so --
Powell: Before City Council. I don't believe they come to you, but they do go to City
Council.
Borup: City Council.
Centers: Let me ask you -- we addressed the 1,500 minimum for a single level, I
assume. What square footage would you have in mind, then, for a two story?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee[ing
October 16, 2003
Page 64 of 114
Schultz: You start getting into bonus rooms and everything else, what is technically a
true two story and what's a single story with a bonus room, but, generally, anytime you
do a single story with a bonus room, which, I guess, qualifies as a two story, you're
pushing over 2,000 easy, 1,800 to 2,000 no problem. That's just what the market really
is at right now is a nice size 1,800 to 2,400 square foot home. These could go even
bigger, I'm not saying 1,800 is my minimum, you know, 1,500 is what I'm agreeing to,
but I think it's -- that's what the market demands.
Centers: Well, we have to put a minimum on a two story, unless you're going to build all
single levels. Do you want that requirement or --
Schultz: Oh, no. I don't -- I mean we --
Centers: Well, then, we have to come up with an agreement on a two story.
Schultz: Yeah. We are way below them. I don't think there is any kind of warrants for
single stories, like you do with adjacent -- other subdivisions, but what I have committed
to is a 1,500 square foot -- minimum house square footage, which exceed the R-4 even.
Borup: Yes, but he -- I think Commissioner Centers is saying what would the minimum
on a two story be.
Centers: Yes. Right.
Schultz: A two story? I could offer up a 1,800 minimum on a two story. I don't -- I hate
to get caught up on that, because I really feel uncomfortable, because I --
Centers: Well, then, we ought to go R-4 zone. The Comp Plan says low-density right
there and staff overlooked that.
Schultz: Right but we --
Centers: But you can look at the Comp Plan map, just like I can when I went down
there and looked at it.
Schultz: You're right.
Centers: It says low density.
Schultz: Right.
Rohm: But it also says you can move up one, too.
Borup: Let me ask you, you said this would be comparable to some of the stuff in Bear
Creek. You said Mesa lots, but let me go back to you in the step down from the Mesa
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 65 of 114
from phase two on, are you aware of anything that was built in there less than 1,700
feet?
Schultz: No. No. I'm not.
Borup: And that was 1,400-foot minimum.
Schultz: Like I said, the market is going to push this up here. I know you guys want
commitments in case this the thing sells to somebody in the future and I'm willing to
provide that 1,500 square foot minimum for that, but Ireally -- this is comparable, really,
even the lot widths are Bear Creek Phase 6, which we as selling for 60,000 dollars a lot
right now. Now whether those move -- those aren't on line yet, they are coming on line
here in about a month, but we think they are going to move pretty good. You know, not
too fast, not too slow, but just a nice even pace.
Centers: So, you haven't sold any.
Schultz: They are not available right now.
Centers: Okay.
Borup: Phase 6?
Schultz: Phase 6, they are still putting joint trench in, they will pave it in about --
Borup: They are all -- they are optioned out.
Schultz: They are optioned, they are not sold. They can't transact until we -- but they
are spoken for, let's put it that way.
Centers: Yes.
Borup: Well, Imean -- and sometimes -- and that's why I asked what the historical
situation was in Bear Creek, because I -- they say you can't guarantee the future, but
going by what's happened in the past, sometimes you --
Schultz: It's a mile away to Bear Creek. It's one mile. South side of Meridian. It's a
nice place to live. I'm -- I live in Bear Creek -- or I'm going to live in Bear Creek. I'm
having a house built there. I like the south side. I think this is very comparable. Almost
identical. We are asking for, like I said, 74-foot wide minimum, 8,000 square foot
minimum lots, and I hope you would approve this tonight.
Centers: Thank you.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I wanted to point out that the
proposed density of this development is 2.97 units per acre and so it, technically, does
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 66 of 114
meet the low-density standard. Low density is one to three units per acre and this is
just under three units per acre as proposed.
Borup: So, it's not even a step up.
Kirkpatrick: To -- the R-8 zoning is a step up.
Borup: Right. Okay. Yes.
Centers: But the density it not.
Kirkpatrick: But the density is not and the R-4 zoning is similar, would also be a step up
from low density.
Centers: Well --and what I found interesting is that Meridian Greens is medium density.
Borup: Yes.
Centers: You have to go down there and really look at the colors, but Meridian Greens
is medium density.
Zaremba: So, even -- let me ask you a question. Even if this were nominally an R-8
zone, we can, essentially, solve all of the issues with a Development Agreement?
Kirkpatrick: Correct.
Zaremba: I don't see much of a problem with that
Borup: And, really, the only issue as far as zoning is the frontage, lot frontage.
Everything else -- I mean the lot square footage he's already committed to comply with.
Zaremba: Well -- and I'm just --
Borup: Because the lots will be deeper than the minimum lot.
Zaremba: Even if we went with a request to the neighborhoods said this had to be an
R-4, at most there would be one, maybe two less lots on this property. They have
already agreed to a Development Agreement that would require a larger house size
than R-4 requires.
Centers: And we can't dictate the CC&R's.
Zaremba: I can't see that we could enforce anything better than the R-8 with a
development agreement that they have already agreed to. Even if we made it R-4, it's
not going to be anything different, really.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 67 of 114
Borup: Right, and an R-4 -- and straight R-4 could even have smaller homes,
technically.
Centers: Yes.
Borup: I mean that's not the way the market is going, but it could.
Zaremba: Yes, and I'm just thinking as -- you know, as for traffic, the way it's been laid
out, the majority of people in the new subdivision are going to go to Victory Road, they
are not going to go through -- I don't see it as a traffic issue. The design of Observation
Point, is it, doesn't lend itself to the traffic from this subdivision going through it.
Borup: No.
Zaremba: As a matter of fact, I see more likelihood that Observation Point people are
going to go through this subdivision so it's not a traffic issue. The houses that back up
to Observation and the lots have comparable lot lines on that side. We would not really
gain anything if we called this an R-4. I'm comfortable with an R-8 with the development
agreement.
Borup: Are we ready to move on?
Zaremba: I'm not speaking for everybody, but --
Borup: I mean are you looking for any testimony from anybody else or are we ready to
close this hearing?
Centers: I'd move we close the hearing.
Zaremba: Before we do, I would only comment that we did receive a letter from Jerry L.
Calen, who has not spoken tonight.
Borup: He had a representative here.
Centers: His representative was here.
Zaremba: His representative was here and said, essentially, what he said in this letter. I
just wanted to note for the record that we have seen this letter. In that case, I second
the closing.
Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Okay. All right. Have we discussed it to death or do we need to work out
anything --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 66 of 114
Centers: Well, the two story issue I think needs to be worked out, even though the code
doesn't talk about that and --
Borup: Well, the code says 800-foot minimum on the ground floor.
Centers: Well, I guess my vote is -- or my opinion would be that a two story -- any story
should be a minimum of 2,000 square feet and a single level 1,500 square feet.
Borup: And where do the bonus rooms come in, in your definition?
Centers: That's included in a two story.
Borup: That's a two story.
Borup: Not by Building Department's definition it isn't.
Centers: Anything above the first level is a second story.
Borup: But it depends -- I mean for -- as far as setback requirements, if the roofline
is --
Centers: I'm talking about square footage. You know, anything above the single --
Borup: Well, what I'm saying, you have got a definition that's not already on the books, I
think. Unless someone can correct me there. Which may be confusing to have two
different -- I mean to have --
Centers: Well, you can --
Borup: Or the definition would have to be defined in the development agreement.
Centers: Homes other than a one level shall have a minimum of 2,000 square feet.
Borup: So, you're saying -- well --
Centers: Yes. Homes other than a one level, and 400 square feet --
Borup: I don't think a home of this size is going to be built in there, but a 1,500 square
foot home with a 300 square foot bonus room would not comply, then.
Centers: Right. It wouldn't. Right.
Borup: But if you take the bonus room off and make it smaller, it does comply.
Centers: Right.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 69 of 114
Borup: That's not logical to me because the ground floor is not changing in size.
Centers: Right. I guess, what the thought in mind is trying to keep -- we couldn't get the
applicant to commit, so --
Borup: Well --
Centers: He wanted to bounce around it.
Borup: Well, he said 1,800. What I'm getting at, what you're saying --
Powell: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think the reason that you're
seeing reluctance from both the builders that have spoken recently is because there is
quite a bit of confusion about what constitutes single story versus a second story. One
would think it would be a simple definition. Unfortunately, it isn't and the Building Code
doesn't provide a whole lot of guidance for residential properties either. It's a little more
definitive on commercial properties, but there is a lot of gray area on what constitutes
the second story for a residence
Centers: That's why I wouldn't make it gray, Mrs. Powell. Any home, other than a one
level, shall have a minimum of -- and that's not gray at all.
Powell: It is.
Centers: Not to me it isn't. If it's not a one level, it shall have at least a minimum of.
Powell: And I have to be frank. I'm a little concerned with the way you're going.
Minimum house sizes, in general, are iffy ground. The city has established them and
they have seen to have gone forward. You're providing -- you're establishing a
minimum house size that is quite large and I'm not sure the benefit of it, because there
is no requirement that this builder build --
Centers: The benefit is because of the neighbors that were here tonight, Mrs. Powell.
Powell: But you're not requiring him to build any two story houses, so all you're doing
is, really, encouraging him to build single story houses.
Borup: Well, see -- and that's my only concern, Jerry, is --
Centers: I don't gather that.
Borup: -- is so you can -- with that -- your definition you can have a 2,000 foot home
that would only have a 1,000 foot on the ground floor. Or even less. I mean you can
have atwo-story home with living space over the garage and the upper floor large can
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 70 of 114
be larger than the ground floor and a smaller footprint. I agree with what you're saying, I
think we need -- something needs to be in there. I don't know --
Centers: Well, I see what you're saying, Chairman Borup.
Borup: And I'm still back to the part that's confusing to me is your -- by your definition a
1,500 square foot single level is okay, but a 1,500 foot with another 300 foot on top
would not comply.
Centers: Yes.
Borup: So, I don't know how complicated we want to make it. I --
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: We could have a minimum ground floor size and a minimum total square
footage and that may be more logical, but --
Centers: Yes. Well, minimum single level and ground floor shall be 1,500 feet.
Borup: Yes.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Centers: But I see what you're saying
Rohm: We, through discussion, limited it to 1,500 square feet or larger, as part of the
Public Hearing. Now that the Public Hearing is closed, I don't see how you can -- we
can turn around and raise that to a higher standard without the public having an
opportunity to speak to that.
Borup: Well, I don't think the public is going to mind if it's higher.
Rohm: If, in fact, we are to say a two story house has to be 2,000 square feet or
greater, you would have to reopen the Public Hearing, so that somebody could speak to
that issue, in my opinion. I think it would be just as well to leave it at what was
discussed in the Public Hearing at 1,500 square feet and if they go with the two story
building, then, they will address that as -- as they construct. That was not part of the
discussion during the Public Hearing and I don't think it would be fair to make that a
limitation after the Public Hearing is closed.
Borup: Unless I misunderstood him, I think Mr. Schultz committed to 1,800 feet
Zaremba: For a two story.
Borup: For a two story.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 71 of 114
Zaremba: During the Public Hearing.
.Centers: Yes. He did.
Rohm: And I think we should go that, but I don't think we should go aver what was in
open discussion as part of the Public Hearing. That would be my opinion on that.
Centers: Well, we can certainly go over, if we so choose, and the public -- we know
how the public feels, and the public is the adjoining landowners and property owners in
Meridian Greens and Observation Point that want it to be R-4 and bigger homes. They
want 2,500 square feet.
Borup: I think the public Mr. Rohm's referring to is the developer, I assume
Rohm: They are part of the public as well. I mean we are here to represent not only the
developers, but also the adjacent property owners -- well, all of them, so it's not just the
--just the existing property owners that we are representing here, we are representing
the developers as well.
Centers: I totally agree, and it happens day in and day out, we make it a requirement
and they go to the City Council and they appeal it. You know, the Public Hearing
process doesn't stop here and the developer, if he didn't like our approval, he's going to
appeal the decision to the City Council and they it all the time. They reduce our
requirements or they increase our requirements, so the public is not getting shut out and
especially the developer.
Rohm: Well, you know, each of us has --
Borup: I understand what you're saying.
Rohm: -- our position there and I respect what you were saying about having a
limitation based upon the adjacent property owners' desires and I just think that 1,500
for a single family and the 1,800 that the developer had agreed to, seems more in
keeping with what was part of the Public Hearing and if, in fact, the City Council wants
to --
Borup: And maybe we should have discussed it a little bit more with them. I mean in
my mind there is a difference between the bonus room and the two story and, like I say,
you know, an 1,800 foot straight two story could have a -- you know, could have a 900
or less footprint.
Mathes: How was it worded for an R-4 zone? Or is it?
Borup: I don't believe it is. Two story is not even mentioned in R-4, is it? It's just
minimum square footage and minimum ground floor.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 72 of 114
Kirkpatrick: Correct. It's just minimum square footage
Rohm: And so, in essence, our position here is to put conditions that are greater than
the R-4 --
Borup: Right.
Rohm: -- and I think we have already done that with the 1,500 square foot and 1,800
square foot two story.
Borup: Okay. I was going to say, I think we can't ignore the two story, if it's going to be
1,500 total. I mean a 1,500 foot two story is a pretty small home, basically.
Rohm: Well -- and the developer had agreed to the 1,800, but we are only discussing
200 square foot difference. Maybe that's not a huge issue.
Borup: What are you comfortable with, Mr. Centers?
Centers: Well, I -- I have to read this. It's Section 11-10-2 of our zoning regulations.
Compatibility with existing or proposed developments. All new residential housing
developments in the city shall be designed to assure compatibility with adjacent,
existing, and/or proposed developments. Period. That's what we are trying to do with
minimum square footage. I mean that's -- that may be old as the hills --
Borup: Yeah, and that's been discussed. That means like zoning compatibility, I
believe.
Centers: And you have to nail it down or -- in the development agreement,
Commissioner Rohm or -- as Commissioner Borup stated, you're going to have a 1,500
square foot two story home look like a little box sitting there, you know, so you have to --
Borup: Well, is it getting too complicated to have three sizes, 1,500 single story, 1,800
bonus room plan, and 2,000 two story?
Rohm: My only opposition to what you were saying, Commissioner Centers, was that
you brought up a condition that exceeds what was discussed in the open Public
Hearing. That was -- that's my only concern, is that if, in fact, that was a condition that
you wanted to put on the subdivision, then, that should have been brought up while the
Public Hearing was open. That would just --
Centers: Well, I'm not going to sit up here and argue with you, but we don't have to
have the agreement of the applicant to put a condition on it. Would you agree with that?
Rohm: He should an opportunity to respond --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 73 of 114
Borup: Oh, he's very agreeable, though.
Centers: We do it all the time.
Borup: Mr. Schultz is very agreeable.
Centers: Yes but we do it all the time. We tag something else one and, as I said, they
have the appeal to the City Council. They really do.
Rohm: I think we have discussed this enough. I move that we close the discussion -- I
don't know --
Borup: Well, do we -- unless someone wants to just make a motion. Do we want to
formulate that a little bit? It sounds like the only thing that's maybe up in the air is the
square footages.
Centers: Well, I'll get back on it. I would like to see -- if we are going to have a
development agreement, I think you have got to nail it down tight, tight.
Zaremba: It will cause havoc unless you're pretty specific.
Centers: Any single level home shall be a minimum of 1,500 square feet.
Zaremba: I'm on board with that.
Centers: Any home built above a single level shall be a minimum square footage of. All
two story homes shall have at least a minimum of 1,500 square feet on the ground floor
and then --
Borup: Oh, really?
Centers: -- then you have the maximum. Well -- or whatever. Whatever you decide.
But you better nail it down. You're going to have 1,200 on the ground floor on a two
story, I agree with you.
Borup: That could be a 2,400 --
Centers: If you're going to give him an R-8 zone, this has got to be nailed down. You
know, maybe you're -- whoever has to draw it up, but --
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, one option would be you could
require a minimum footprint of 1,500 square feet and that would address -- that would
address the issue.
Centers: Which would mean the foundation --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October i 6, 2003
Page 74 of 114
Kirkpatrick: The first floor.
Centers: -- would always be 1,500 square feet.
Borup: See, that's pretty large on a two story.
Centers: Yes. Well, if they are going to go up, then, they are going to end up with
twenty --
Borup: -- 3,000 feet, possibly, or more.
Centers: Well, the minimum footprint in an R-4 is 1,400, isn't it? Or is that footprint?
Borup: No. It's 800.
Centers: Eight hundred. Geez.
Borup: Yes. Itjust got complicated.
Centers: Well, you could say -- you could also say that minimum footprint of 1,000 or
whatever you agree on and any single level home shall be a minimum 1,500 square
feet. Then, you wouldn't have to address the two story.
Borup: Oh.
Centers: Right?
Borup: Yes.
Centers: But, I'm with you, 1,500 footprints is pretty -- pretty heavy.
Borup: Well, if you double it, it's --
Centers: Yes.
Borup: Well, yes, for the city -- R-4 is 800 square foot on a two story, and they just
specify the total square footage and that minimum footprint. You're saying -- you're
saying 1,500-foot minimum single level size, with a minimum footprint of 1,000? That
probably simplifies it.
Centers: Minimum footprint of 1,000 if they are going up above a single level.
Borup: Right.
Centers: Right.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee[ing
October 16, 2003
Page 75 of 114
Borup: I can't see very many homes that wouldn't -- I don't think there has probably
been anything built in Bear Creek that hasn't -- that wouldn't comply with that.
Centers: Well, this isn't Bear Creek, though.
Borup: No but that was used as an example. Okay. Well, I think, as you say, if they
have some heartburn over that, they can present their case to City Council.
Zaremba: And, then, for a Development Agreement minimum lot size, right?
Borup: Yes 8,000 feet. That's probably it, isn't it?
Zaremba: Stub street was already in the staff notes; right?
Borup: Yes.
Centers: Yes.
Borup: That wouldn't be part of the Development Agreement.
Centers: Was the stub street in your requirements? I don't think it was.
Kirkpatrick: It was addressed under additional considerations on page six.
Borup: Under -- yes. On the same page -- or same paragraph as the block length.
Kirkpatrick: If we are going to require the stub, we should go ahead and add that as a
site-specific requirement.
Zaremba: I was going to say, it's not a requirement. Okay, and it should become a
requirement.
Centers: Well -- and the revised plat would be available prior to the City Council.
Kirkpatrick: It's 10 days before the -- ten days prior to the hearing.
Centers: Ten days prior the hearing. Which would include that new entrance.
Borup: Anything additional?
Powell: The applicant wanted to know if you wanted to specify that it would be form
Logger's plat -- in alignment with Logger's plat.
Borup: Oh.
Powell: I believe that's the way he's going to show it, so --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2Q03
Page 76 of 114
Borup: I don't know that -- I don't know that we care, do we? I mean the reason staff
wanted was far connectivity and block length, but -- and that was -- block length was
real marginal anyway, so it looks like, really, it's connectivity to the east. I think that
would be up to them to work out their own design, whatever -- whatever works. Unless
any of the Commissioners have any other feeling on that. Okay. Did we work out the
wording there?
Centers: Yes. I think so.
Borup: Okay, are we ready to move on?
Centers: All right. I'll make the -- I'll make the motion, Mr. Chairman. Item 8 on our
agenda, I would recommend approval for AZ 03-024, it's a request for annexation and
zoning of 17.5 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Glacier Springs Subdivision by
Tuscany Development, Inc., north of East Victory Road and east of South Meridian
Road, including all staff comments from their memo dated October 16'h. End of motion.
Powell: Chairman, Commissioner; I believe this is where you would state that they
need to enter into a Development Agreement.
Centers: Oh, in the annexation and zoning?
Powell: Yes.
Centers: Okay. Not the end of motion. The recommended approval is subject to the
applicant entering into a Development Agreement with the City of Meridian, which would
state minimum home square footages of 1,500 square feet for single level homes and
should the builder developer build two level homes, the minimum footprint would be
1,000 square feet.
Zaremba: Always not counting the garage right?
Centers: Yes. That's always the case. The garage is not included and I think that's all
we had there, other than --
Zaremba: The 8,000 square foot lots.
Centers: Well, we address that in the plat, don't we?
Borup: Yes. Oh.
Powell: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission that would all be tied to the
development agreement.
Centers: All of it? Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 77 of 114
Powell: Oh, no, I'm sorry. You're correct. The plat would be revised to -- I'm sorry.
Yes, you're correct.
Centers: Right. Right. Okay. So, that would be the end of the motion, then.
Borup: Mr. Centers, Ijust -- when you read that, I just thought of another worst-case
scenario thing.
Centers: Okay.
Borup: A two story with a thousand foot footprint could have a 200-foot upper room.
So, I don't know how we answer that.
Centers: Well, why don't we make the footprint 1,500 feet?
Borup: Well, you could still -- we could do a 2,000-foot minimum home with a 1,000-foot
footprint. No, that's --
Centers: Because if you have a footprint of 1,500 feet and they do the bonus room, as
you said, for 300 feet, then, you got 1,800.
Borup: Well, yes, that works on a bonus room, but a straight two story --
Centers: A straight two story, 3,000 square feet -- you know, I think the applicant was
talking a bigger home. Bear Creek's size. He mentioned Bear Creek a couple of times.
Borup: So, in that case -- if you want to do a stack two story, you couldn't do it -- you
would be bigger than 2,500 feet even.
Centers: Well, then, are you saying a footprint of 1,250?
Borup: I don't know what I'm saying. I maybe still saying a minimum two stories.
Maybe we still need a minimum two story.
Centers: Okay. Minimum -- yes. I would -- yes. Minimum footprint if going above one
level would be 1,000 with a minimum square footage for atwo-story home above a one
level of 2,000 square feet and I think the staff would --
Borup: Which still doesn't cover the question of a bonus room plan, which that has a
1,500-foot -- if you got a 1,500-foot footprint there shouldn't be any restriction on the
total size, then.
Zaremba: I need a clarification. Why isn't a bonus room a second story? Because it's
not a living space?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 78 of 114
Borup: There are no walls that reach the plate line. It's a truss. Just -- you could have
that same pitch on a truss and not have any living space up there.
Centers: It's storage.
Borup: It's increasing the pitch on a -- on the roof trusses and making living space in
there.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: So, it's still based on a normal wall plate height.
Centers: Well, you know, I'll meet you back halfway. Why don't we just say a single
level 1,500 and with any living space above the single level, square footage shall be at
least a minimum of 1,800 square feet and you don't talk about the footprint.
Rohm: I can live with that.
Borup: Yes. I'm thinking, again, even more -- you know, we are worrying about
something that's not going to happen.
Centers: Yes. Well --
Borup: The homes aren't going to be that small. No one's going to design a house that
would fit the other criteria.
Centers: Probably not.
Borup: It's not going to be a salable property.
Centers: They have to have a fire sale so, does that cover it? Single level homes,
minimum 1,500 square feet. If the builder developer builds a home above a single level,
the minimum square footage shall be 1,800.
Borup: Okay. There is still going to be architectural approval from the developer and --
Centers: Well, I think their CC&R's will probably be --
Borup: Tighter than that.
Centers: -- more than that. They are agreeing, but -- you know.
Borup: Sorry I brought that up again, but --
Centers: No. I'm glad you did.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 79 of 114
Borup: All right.
Zaremba: I think I understood the motion and I'll second it.
Borup: Any other discussion? All in favor? Any opposed.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: All right. Next item.
Centers: Would recommend approval of Item 9 on our agenda, It's PP 03-028, request
for preliminary plat approval of 52 lots and eight other lots on 17 and a half acres in a
proposed R-8 zone for proposed Glacier Springs Subdivision by Tuscany Development.
North of East Victory Road and east of South Meridian Road, including all staff
comments from their memo dated October 16`h, in addition to the stub street would be
required to the property to the east. The revised preliminary plat to be available at least
ten days prior to the City Council meeting. No frontage lots shall be less than 74 feet.
No cut-de-sac lots shall be less than 40 feet, and no lots shall be less than 8,000 square
feet in total. The revised plat shall also show the realigned entrance as required by
ACHD. I believe that covers it.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: And thank everyone for coming. I hope the audience could tell that we do have
the concern of the city as a whole. We -- some of what we are doing is what is by past
experience. We have seen a lot of subdivisions where there are smaller homes next to
it. Bear Creek was the one that was mentioned. They have gat homes within the same
subdivision from 150 to six, eight hundred thousand right in the'same subdivision. They
can be compatible and without -- thank you. Commissioners, are we ready for a break?
We will take a short break at this time and reconvene for the next item.
(Recess.)
(Reconvene at 10:24 P.M.)
Item 10. Public Hearing: AP 03-003 Request for an Appeal of denial to extend
Final Plat approval for Olsen Bush Subdivision No. 2 by R2
Development, Inc. -- west of North Eagle Road, north of East Franklin
Road:
Borup: We'd like to reconvene our meeting this evening. Item Number 10, Public
Hearing AP 03-003. This is a request for an appeal of denial to extend a final plat