2004 07-01
ßÐ'¡(
CITY OF MERIDIAN
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Thursday, July 1, 2004, at 7:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
1.
Roll-call Attendance:
X David-Zaremba X David Moe
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Michael Rohm
--LChairman Keith Borup
Adoption of the Agenda:
2.
3.
Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of May 20, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting: Approve
B. Approve Minutes of June 3, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting: Approve
4.
Recommendation: VAC 04-003 Request for a Vacation of utilities,
drainage and irrigation easement on the interior lot line of Lots 22 and 23
of Packard Acres Subdivision No.2 by Packard Estates Development,
LLC - south of East Ustick Road and east of North Locust Grove Road:
Recommend Approval to City Council
5.
Public Hearing: PFP 04-006 Request for a Preliminary/Final Plat
approval for the re-subdivision of Lot 14, Block 1 of Woodside Creek
Subdivision No.1 into two building lots on .32 acres in an R-8 zone for
proposed Woodside Creek Subdivision No.2 by Woodside Properties,
LLC - 1115 North Ten Mile Road: Recommend Approval to City
Council
6.
Public Hearing: AZ 04-011 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.8
acres to R-8 and L-O zones for proposed Alexandria Subdivision by
Lonnie Johnson - 4205 North Locust Grove Road: Renotice to July 29,
2004
7.
Public Hearing: PP 04-017 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 27
single-family residential and office building lots and two (2) common lots
on 9.8 acres in R-8 and L-O zones for proposed Alexandria Subdivision
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda - July 1, 2004
Page 1 of2
All materials pres_d aI public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to docoments and/or bearings
pi.... contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 all..", 48 hours prior to Ibe public meeting.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
by Lonnie Johnson - 4205 North Locust Grove Road: Renotice to July
29,2004
Public Hearing: CUP 04-015 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for reductions to the minimum requirements for lot
area, rear building setbacks, street side setbacks and minimum street
frontage for proposed Alexandria Subdivision by Lonnie Johnson - 4205
North Locust Grove Road: Renotice to July 29, 2004
Public Hearing: AZ 04-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.82
acres from RT to C-C zone for proposed Wrinkleneck Project by
Wrinkleneck Partners, LLC - northwest comer of East Overland Road
and South Locust Grove Road: Continue Public Hearing to September
2,2004
Public Hearing: AZ 03-036 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19.7
acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Salisbury Subdivision No.2
by Earl, Mason & Stanfield, Inc. - south of West Ustick Road and west of
North Meridian Road: Recommend Approval to City Council
Public Hearing: PP 03-012 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 81
building lots and 11 other lots on 19.7 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
Salisbury Subdivision No.2 by Earl, Mason & Stanfield, Inc. - south of
West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: Recommend
Approval to City Council
Public Hearing: CUP 04-016 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for reduced lot frontages, lot sizes and block
lengths that are less than the 500 foot minimum in a proposed R-8 zone
for Salisbury Subdivision No.2 by Earl, Mason & Stanfield, Inc. - south
of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: Recommend
Approval to City Council
Public Hearing: CUP 04-014 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for modification of an existing CUP in an L-O zone
of Meadowlake Village Continuing Care Retirement Center (CCRC) by
Touchmark of the Treasure Valley, LLC - south of East Franklin Road and
east of North Eagle Road: Recommend Approval to City Council
Public Hearing: AP 04-001 Requesting an appeal of the decision of the
Zoning Administrator to approve the fence waiver of Christine Close by
Steven Christensen / Kent Scott - 3425 North Coachman Avenue:
Applicant withdrew application
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda - July 1, 2004
Page 2 of2
All materials presented aI public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring acconnnodalion for disabilities related to docoments and/or hearings
plea.. contact Ibe City Clerk's Office at 888.4433 all"", 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meetina
JULY 1. 2004.
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order Thursday, July 1,2004 at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Keith Borup.
Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay,
Commissioner David Zaremba, Commissioner Michael Rohm, and Commissioner David
Moe.
Others Present: Chris Gabbert, Jessica Johnson, Steve Siddoway, Brad Watson, Brad
Hawkins-Clark, Wendy Kirkpatrick, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X David Zaremba X
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X
X Chairman Keith Borup
David Moe
Michael Rohm
Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to begin our regularly
scheduled meeting for Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for July 1st. Begin
with roll call of attendance.
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Item 3:
Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of May 20, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting:
B. Approve Minutes of June 3, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting:
Borup: The first item is that of minutes of May 20th and June 3rd. Any comments or
motion?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we accept the Consent Agenda.
Rohm: I'll second that.
Borup: Motion and second to accept the Consent Agenda comprising of the minutes.
All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
Juiy 1, 2004
Page 2 of35
Item 4: Recommendation: VAC 04-003 Request for a Vacation of utilities,
drainage and irrigation easement on the interior lot line of Lots 22 and 23
of Packard Acres Subdivision No.2 by Packard Estates Development,
LLC - south of East Ustick Road and east of North Locust Grove Road:
Borup: The first item is that of a recommendation from this Commission. It's not a
Public Hearing, but this is on VAC 04-003, request for vacation of utility drainage and
irrigation easement on the interior lot lines of Lot 22 and 23, Packard Estates
Subdivision No.2. We'd like to start with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Good evening. Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the
Commission. This is -- as you stated, is a recommendation. The ordinance does not
require a Public Hearing before the Commission for these vacations. However, we do
pass on any recommendation that you have for the Council's consideration during the
hearing. The application is pretty simple, really. It's regards just the one interior lot line
that was platted a couple of years ago in Packard Acres Subdivision No.2, which is
outlined in black here. Ustick Road is on the north of the screen. Wingate Lane is a
private lane that runs down and is adjacent to the east boundary and the application is
for these two -- these two lots that are here in the northeast corner of this subdivision
and what's shown here is, actually, taken from a record of survey that adjusted the lot
lines. Earlier this year they felt that the shape of the lots wasn't working for them, so
they came through -- this is an administrative approval process to adjust lot lines after
this body and the Council have approved them and they are recorded and so what you
see here is -- this dark line here is the new north boundary of this Lot 22, I believe it
was, and, then, Lot 23 and this diagonal line was the original platted lot line between
these two lots and since they changed the lot line, of course, the easement that was
normally platted when this -- that needs to be vacated. There are no utilities in it to my
knowledge. If you have any questions of the applicant, Pat Tealey is here tonight, but,
essentially, that's the request is to vacate utilities, drainage, and irrigation easement
between these two lot lines. It was five feet on either side of the line, so a ten foot total
width. We just put our standard recommendations in there as far as the conditions, that
they get letters of relinquishment from any utility companies who may have on record
that they have that for their use and we also recommended that prior to an issuance of a
certificate of occupancy -- neither one of these two lots have COs on them at this point.
I believe they have both been sold, but they don't have occupied houses and we -- so
we are just asking for a new easement on this new lot line and other than that staff is
recommending approval of the vacation.
Borup: Okay. Comments, questions from any of the Commission?
Zaremba: Yes. Brad, your last statement, you're asking for a new easement that would
follow the new lot line? Is that what you said?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Zaremba: So that there would still be a solution in any drainage issues?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 1, 2004
Page 3 0£35
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Zaremba: That seems fair. And, then, the other element is getting letters from the
utilities saying they don't need it.
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Zaremba: Sounds good to me.
Rohm: Makes sense to me.
Borup: Okay. Do we have a motion?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council --
Borup: Well, just -- yeah. Okay.
Zaremba: We have no hearing to close, so --
Borup: No, there as not a hearing to close. Yeah. It would just be a recommendation.
Zaremba: A recommendation. Okay. I'll begin again. I move we forward to the City
Council recommending approval of VAC 04-003, request for a vacation of utilities,
drainage, and irrigation easement on the interior lot line of Lots 22 and 23 of Packard
Acres Subdivision No.2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC, south of East Ustick
Road and east of the North Locust Grove Road, to include all staff comments of their
memo for the hearing date of July 1, 2004, received by the city clerk June 23, 2004.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5:
Public Hearing: PFP 04-006 Request for a Preliminary/Final Plat
approval for the re-subdivision of Lot 14, Block 1 of Woodside Creek
Subdivision No.1 into two building lots on .32 acres in an R-8 zone for
proposed Woodside Creek Subdivision No.2 by Woodside Properties,
LLC - 1115 North Ten Mile Road:
Borup: Next item is Public Hearing PFP 04-006, request for preliminarylfinal plat
approval of a re-subdivision of Lot 14, Block 1 of Woodside Creek Subdivision No.1,
into two building lots in an R-8 zone for proposed Woodside Creek Subdivision No.2.
We'd like to open this hearing and start with the staff report.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 1,2004
Page 4 of 35
Kirkpatrick: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, this application is for a
preliminary and final plat for an existing lot in Woodside Creek Subdivision No.2. The
subject property is located on North Ten Mile Road about a half mile south of Cherry
Road. I will go ahead and show you the plat. The applicant's proposing to subdivide an
existing lot. It's Lot 14, Block 1, of the recently approved Woodside Creek Subdivision.
It's the large subdivision lot in the southwest corner of the plat. The only comment I
really have is that the two lots that they are proposing do not meet frontage
requirements for this zone, so in order to meet frontage requirements they will need to
do a common drive to access the two lots. Otherwise, they need to come in and ask for
a variance from dimensional standards. That's my only comment. Otherwise, staff
recommends approval. Let's see if there is another detail of the subdivision. Are there
any questions of staff?
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Zaremba: Just one. I already promised I wasn't going to ask very many questions, but
it's not turning out that way. My assumption is that in taking access internally they are
giving up access to Ten Mile Road?
Kirkpatrick: Correct.
Zaremba: Do we need to specify that in writing that they are abandoning any claim to
such access?
Kirkpatrick: That was actually handled through the original subdivision.
Zaremba: Okay.
Kirkpatrick: They have lost their access --
Zaremba: So, they have already given that up?
Kirkpatrick: Correct.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: Okay. Is there anything the applicant would like -- would you like to do your
presentation?
Brown: For the record, Kent Brown, Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland. The
existing house that was located on the original lot, where we are at with Woodside
Creek, we are in construction. We are building that internal loop street right now and as
a part of that approval we will put in the landscaping and all of the improvements,
including sewer stubs to our future lots. If we could have handled this with the previous
plat we would have, but since we didn't have the right number of lots in the first one, we
are back to re-subdivide this larger lot. Initially we thought we could leave the house in
, Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
Juiy 1. 2004
Page 5 of35
its location and we have since moved the house and it's located on Lot 8 in the original
plat in the northwest corner and it has been moved and we are agreeable to the
conditions. I think there is a condition that speaks about the house moving and we have
already moved it, so it's kind of a -- doesn't really apply, but other than that we are in
agreement. Any questions?
Borup: Questions from the Commission? Okay. Do we have any other testimony on
this application? Seeing none, Commission?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing be closed.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Is there some discussion? These two lots were one lot with a house right in
the middle of it and that house now has been moved off the property and they are
splitting the lot.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: All right. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council
recommending approval of PFP 04-006, request for preliminary/final -- if it's a final, do
we need to forward it or do we actually do it?
Borup: Yeah. It still goes to City Council.
Zaremba: All right. I will start over again. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City
Council recommending approval of PFP 04-006, request for a preliminary/final plat
approved for the re-subdivision of Lot 14, Block 1 of Woodside Creek Subdivision No.1
into two building lots, .32 acres, in an R-8 zone for proposed Woodside Creek
Subdivision No.2 by Woodside Properties, LLC, 1115 North Ten Mile Road, to include
all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of June 3,2004, received by the
city clerk June 2, 2004.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6:
Public Hearing: AZ 04-011 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.8
acres to R-8 and L-O zones for proposed Alexandria Subdivision by
Lonnie Johnson - 4205 North Locust Grove Road:
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 1. 2004
Page 6 of35
Item 7:
Public Hearing: PP 04-017 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 27
single-family residential and office building lots and two (2) common lots
on 9.8 acres in R-8 and L-O zones for proposed Alexandria Subdivision
by Lonnie Johnson - 4205 North Locust Grove Road:
Item 8:
Public Hearing: CUP 04-015 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for reductions to the minimum requirements for lot
area, rear building setbacks, street side setbacks and minimum street
frontage for proposed Alexandria Subdivision by Lonnie Johnson - 4205
North Locust Grove Road:
Borup: Okay. Our next items on our Agenda, six, seven, and eight, stated has been re-
noticed, so I assume there is some problems with the application or --
Kirkpatrick: There was a noticing error. We had the incorrect number of lots given us
by the applicant, so we have to re-notice, but tonight we will need to table and assign a
new hearing date, so we can do the re-notice.
Borup: Okay. All right.
Kirkpatrick: So, you will have to look at your schedule and figure out when we
reschedule it for.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman. Wendy, what is the time lag for a re-notice? Does it take two
weeks? Ten days? Three weeks? Okay. So, it has to be at least--
Kirkpatrick: We should consult Jessica on that. I believe it's two weeks.
Johnson: Ten days to post.
Kirkpatrick: Oh, ten days to post.
Johnson: And, then, 15 for the hearing notices in the mail before the hearing date and,
then, in the paper we publish it two weeks -- yeah. Two times -- it's confusing. The
week before -- on a Monday before and, then, a Monday two weeks before that, so -- in
the paper.
Zaremba: Minimum of three weeks; right?
Johnson: Oh, yeah.
Kirkpatrick: And I assume the applicant wants to get on the agenda again as quickly as
possible, so we will -- I think August 5th is fairly full at this point.
Johnson: August 19th is very full, too.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 1, 2004
Page 7 of35
Zaremba: Uh-huh.
Borup: What is July 29th? We don't have anything on the 19th? I mean the 29th?
Don't we already have a meeting scheduled for the 29th? Was that just going to be a
workshop or --
Zaremba: We were trying to avoid putting hearings on that. That was going to be a
workshop and discussion.
Moe: The 29th?
Zaremba: The third Thursday of this month. The fifth Thursday.
Moe: I thought that was a hearing?
Kirkpatrick: I believe we decided a while ago to not do the hearing on the 29th.
Johnson: Yeah. I don't have an agenda for it or anything, unless we want to do a
special meeting and table some of these to that.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Steve, you had some additional information?
Siddoway: I was just going to say at one of the last meetings the Commission did
approve a special meeting on the 29th, because we had such a large number of
applications. Those applications did not end up being complete in time to go on the
29th slot, so that's what happened. We didn't end up with the number of applications
complete on that deadline date that we had originally anticipated, so while we did go
ahead and get the pre-approval for that special date, we wound up not having as many
-- any projects to put on it.
Borup: That makes more sense, because I thought we had hearings scheduled for then
originally. .
Rohm: And the agenda for the first Thursday in August is already full?
Zaremba: The 5th is pretty full.
Borup: Well, we have got ten -- ten hearings. I haven't analyzed how many projects.
Zaremba: Well, I could go either way, since we have no other items, put this on the
29th or --
- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Juiy 1, 2004
Page 8 of35
Borup: We just need to -- we don't need to decide that right now, we just need to do it
before the end of the meeting.
Kirkpatrick: Yeah. That's -- I think the applicant is here, probably, to get that hearing
date.
Borup: How about our second one that has the deferral? Are we looking at establishing
a date for that tonight? Also Item No.9?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, that's correct. However, the reason that that's being
deferred is because we are waiting for a Conditional Use Permit to go with it.
Borup: Oh, that's right.
Hawkins-Clark: And we have not received that. So, it would be too early -- the 29th
would be too early for that one.
Borup: Okay. The reason for the re-notice on this was -- Wendy, the applicant put the
wrong number of lots down?
Kirkpatrick: Right. The number of lots on the application was one lot fewer than the
actual number of subdivision lots on the plat.
Borup: Residential lots.
Kirkpatrick: Residential -- correct. Residential lots.
Borup: So, it wasn't a --
Kirkpatrick: When we do a notice, we do it off of the application form.
Borup: I mean it wasn't a common lot or utility lot or --
Kirkpatrick: No. If it was a common lot we would -- we would have gone ahead with the
hearing, but because it was a building lot we try to be consistent, make sure we re-
noticed it.
Borup: Right. Okay. Well, we have got --
Newton-Huckabay: We have one hearing on the --
Zaremba: No. Steve just said everything that was anticipated for the 29th went away or
is -- doesn't go away, it's later.
. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 1. 2004
Page 9 of35
Borup: Six. We have six actual separate items. I mean, you know, ten numbered, but
six -- six actual because of, you know, several on the same one. One of those is a text
amendment and most of the others are small subdivisions. Some commercial.
Rohm: Sometimes small, doesn't necessarily mean short.
Zaremba: It doesn't make it easy. You're talking on the 29th; right?
Borup: Yes. No. The 5th. August 5th.
Zaremba: Oh, I'm not considering adding anything to the 5th.
Borup: Okay.
Rohm: Personally, I think that would give us good cause to go ahead and meet on the
29th and, then, we can --
Zaremba: We can do the workshop.
Rohm: -- do our workshop and hearing this for this applicant and, then, we are kind of
taking care of two things and moving forward in a positive direction. That seems
appropriate to me.
Borup: That's one way to force us to come to the workshop.
Rohm: Bingo. That's what I was thinking.
Borup: All right.
Zaremba: All right. I can make a motion along those lines, then. Mr. Chairman, I move
that we table AZ 04-011 and PP 04-017 and CUP 04-015 to our meeting of July 29th
and that that meeting date requires all types of re-notice.
Rohm: I'll second that.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9:
Public Hearing: AZ 04-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.82
acres from RT to C-C zone for proposed Wrinkleneck Project by
Wrinkleneck Partners, LLC - Northwest corner of East Overland Road and
South Locust Grove Road:
, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 1, 2004
Page 10 of35
Borup: Okay. I don't know we had any -- do we even have anybody here for this one?
We didn't. Oh, you did. Okay. The 29th will be the new date, which looks like that
would be the earliest that we would be able to get it in. Okay. Next item, No.9, has
requested deferral.
Zaremba: If we defer that to September 2nd, which I believe was suggested, does that
need re-noticed also or can --
Borup: We just wondered what time frame is going to work.
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. I did talk with the applicant -- well, I received an e-mail from the
applicant and they are close to having their Conditional Use Permit application
complete, but it's not been submitted to our office to my knowledge, so we really would
like to have the Wrinkleneck annexation and the Maverick Conditional Use Permit
together, since it's the same property. If the Commission is open to it, I think I would
say it's to assume that we would receive it within a week and so, therefore, it would
take, you know, at least the 45 days, so you would be safe to put it at the earliest on the
second meeting in August, but probably the first one in September. And if by -- for
some reason the Conditional Use Permit is lagging further than that, you could either
hear it on the September meeting or you could continue it again.
Borup: Do we have any idea how we are doing on the second meeting in August? We
don't even have -- I mean that would just be the number of applications coming in, so I
assume all those that we thought were going to be on the 29th we are going to be
shifting into August?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Yes. Both August meetings have very full agendas.
Borup: Okay. So, it sounds like September probably makes more sense, then. Is that
a motion that --
Zaremba: September 2 sounds good to me. Are we opening this hearing and
continuing it or are we tabling it like the other one and it would require re-notice?
Hawkins-Clark: Staff's recommendation we be to open it and continue it, I think.
Borup: I think that makes sense on this one, rather than going through the trouble to re-
notice. Okay.
Zaremba: If you care to open the Public Hearing.
Borup: Yeah. I'd like to open Public Hearing AZ 04-012 at this time.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue Public Hearing AZ 04-012 to our
meeting of September 2nd, 2004.
. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Juiy 1, 2004
Page 11 of35
Moe: Second.
Borup: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10:
Item 11:
Item 12:
Public Hearing: AZ 03-036 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19.7
acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Salisbury Subdivision No.2
by Earl, Mason & Stanfield, Inc. - South of West Ustick Road and west of
North Meridian Road:
Public Hearing: PP 03-012 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 81
building lots and 11 other lots on 19.7 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
Salisbury Subdivision No.2 by Earl, Mason & Stanfield, Inc. - South of
West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road:
Public Hearing: CUP 04-016 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for reduced lot frontages, lot sizes and block
lengths that are less than the 500 foot minimum in a proposed R-8 zone
for Salisbury Subdivision No.2 by Earl, Mason & Stanfield, Inc. - South
of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road:
Borup: Thank you. Okay. Next public hearings are AZ 03-036, request for annexation
and zoning of 19.7 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for the proposed Salisbury Subdivision
No.2, by Earl, Mason, & Stanfield and Public Hearing PP 03-012, request for
preliminary plat approval of 81 building lots, and Public Hearing CUP 04-016, request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for reduced lot frontage, lot
sizes, and block lengths. I'd like to open all three hearings at this time and start with the
staff report,
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman. Staff -- we outlined a lot of background on this
application since you have spent quite a bit of time with it in the past, so I -- unless you
would prefer, I was just planning to kind of hit a few of the highlights and, then, allow the
applicant to basically address the Commission with some of the modifications, but in a
nutshell what happened is that this Commission recommended approval of Salisbury
Subdivision No.2 in February of this year and after the hearings at the Council, the
Council recommended denial of both the annexation and the preliminary plat and I
included in the report the reasons for those denials. Then, at the request of Mr. Wood,
the developer, the Council decided to not adopt the findings for denial and, instead, was
convinced that there had been enough discussions with the neighbors in the area that
they wanted to give them another shot, but because of the additional lots and some
street configuration changes, the difference in the plat was enough that they weren't
comfortable proceeding, so they remanded it back to you. So, I think in a nutshell that's
what has happened. There have been several discussions and there is a little six-page
letter -- I don't know if you got it in your packets, but that basically goes through the
various ends and outs that the developer took, particularly with Salisbury Subdivision.
. Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
July 1. 2004
Page 12 of35
So, the main difference -- well, there is two. One is that you have a new application
before you this time that you did not have last time in February and that is a planned
development application and the reason that they have that is that they are proposing
lot sizes that -- and frontages that are below the R-B minimum and so they have
requested a planned development for that and they have added an amenity. So, that's
new. And, then, the other big difference is the additional lots and street difference.
They have changed the configuration of the street a little bit. The main point, I guess,
on page two is that of the five reasons that the City Council denied this project, they
really were not explicit as to the last two, number four and five. The minutes from that
City Council meeting reflect a little bit of discussion, but, essentially, they came up with
saying number four, the proposed R-B, is not reflective of the City of Meridian's vision
and, number five, annexation is not in the best interest of the City of Meridian, given the
nature of the development. So, unfortunately, staff really doesn't have any additional
information on those two reasons for denial, other than to say I think that because the
Council did choose to remand it, that maybe that's a sign that they felt that there had
been enough changes that the annexation may be worthwhile. So, I will just touch
briefly here on the plat itself. Just as a reminder where we are talking about, Ustick
Road runs here. Cedar Springs Professional Center that had the car wash and the
coffee kiosk and the office buildings, that's located here at this yellow -- and that's
Venable on the north side of Ustick and, then, Venable on the south side continues
here. All Ada County property on the south side of Ustick, not been annexed. You do
have Salisbury Lane Subdivision, which is here, and, then, Landsbury Subdivision,
which is below that. They are connected here. And, then, Clearbrook Estates is under
construction right now. This map doesn't show it, but it has been approved, it has a final
plat, and it does stub here at the southeast corner. And, then, on the south side you
have Waterbury Park Subdivision. And those are all zoned R-4 and have right around
three to a little over three dwelling units per acre on average in those surrounding
subdivisions. The request for you tonight is to an R-B zone for these 19 acres. Staff--
we had provided our analysis there in the report and the Comprehensive Plan. We did
feel it substantially complied. The neighbor -- future neighborhood center, which would
be, actually, on both sides of Ustick, would generally be here on the north side with
Venable Lane or at least something similar to Venable that would come as the main
north-south street through that center and we do anticipate -- the Comprehensive Plan
anticipates higher densities and non-residential uses and so the R-B we felt was a good
transition between the R-4 zoning that's south and east and the higher density center.
So, the R-B was recommended there or was recommended for approval to you. So,
that's the rezone request. And, then, here is the preliminary plat. Maybe I'll talk from
this -- from this one. This slide here is actually the landscape plan, but it doesn't have
the contour lines and maybe is a little easier for you to read. Again, there is one
existing stub street to the property and that is from Salisbury Lane Subdivision here. It's
called Sedgwick. And, then, Clearbrook Estates, which I mentioned is under
construction, is down here. So, it's pretty reasonable to assume that they would have --
at the time of construction for this you would probably have Indian Creek built, so they
would likely have both of these stub streets available. So, they have proposed to come
in off Sedgwick and, then, your street system here is laid out a little different in that
before this continued to the east and it -- the testimony that we received from the
. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 1, 2004
Page 13 of35
neighborhoods was that they felt that that would encourage much more pass-through or
cut-through traffic, so the developer modified that to not have a straight through to the
west. It's a little bit more circuitous. They have adjusted these blocks and, essentially,
have R-4 size lots around the perimeter where there is existing subdivisions. Those are
all over the 8,000 minimum square foot in the R-4 and they also have the R-4s here on
the west side of this new street. And, then, as you go to the west you get the smaller R-
8 size lots and that is these blocks that are over here on the west. The amenity that
they are proposing -- well, they have three, actually. The first one is that they have over
ten percent of open space, which counts as one amenity. The second amenity that they
are proposing is a gazebo, which was submitted here. This is the proposed gazebo that
they had in their application. This would be located down here next to the South Slough
and, then, the third amenity is to ten-foot wide hard surface pathway that would be a
public pathway. Clearbrook Estates is constructing it to this boundary and, then, they
would pick that up and continue it on to the west. So, those are the three amenities that
are proposed with the planned development. And, again, they are requesting a 4,550
square foot lot size as a minimum, 50-foot minimum lot frontages, and a minimum block
length of 300 feet. Five hundred is what the code says. This Commission and the
Council have recommended approval of the less than 500 and in this case you really --
you have this lot -- this block here and this one's a little over 300 and this one's a little
over 300. Staff supports it, because we think that the -- rather than having a cul-de-sac
in here, which might be what you end up with to get over the 500, we think this 300 is a
good number, it provides for multiple ways to get to the lots for emergency services,
rather than a cul-de-sac. Then, I will point out two of the items under special
considerations on page ten of the staff report. We have several listed there, but I think
most of those got discussion at the last -- at the last hearings regarding the construction
entrance, how you're going to move the construction traffic around in here. The storm
water swale design. They did add the properties down there in the southwest corner.
There is an existing sewer trunk line that comes across here and in a common lot --
both of these common lots on the north and south sides of the new street. So, then, I
think that brings me to number five, the fifth special consideration on page eleven, and
that has to do with Venable Lane and how that will function and I think -- I've had
several discussions back and forth with Scott Stanfield, their engineer, as well as Mr.
Wood, the developer, and ACHD about this private lane and, actually, as late as today I
just got some more information. If you recall -- go back here. Venable Lane, actually, is
-- it is a private lane, but in terms of, excuse me, ownership, it has -- it's split. It's 40 feet
wide, but it -- 20 feet was under private ownership and that's the 20 feet on the west
side and 20 feet was a mystery before, but there was some research done and in,
apparently, 1909 there is a deed that Ada County Highway District does have that it was
deeded to the public in 1909 and that is the eastern 20 feet of Venable, which starts
here at Ustick and runs 60 rods, which is -- before they started using feet was an old
survey term that the 1909 deed references 60 rods in length and, at any rate, that is
now, apparently, a public right of way, 20 feet on the east side, according to the deeds
that were given to me by the highway district. They are now recognizing that they have
that. So, the big question, then, became at our last hearing does Venable Lane turn
into a collector, since it's right on the mid mile in this whole mile, it's on the mid mile,
and, if so, is it the whole length that serves as a collector or is it only part way down?
. Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
July 1. 2004
Page 14 of35
Should this subdivision provide access to that or not. As you can see on the south side,
there is no way to get across the slough. You will never see a bridge or a culvert
crossing there, so the nearest point of access is about 500 feet to the west and here is a
stub street here coming out of Waterbury, which does not stub to this project. So, at the
end of Venable there is no way to cross the South Slough and so all that to say what
staff is recommending is in the future we envision a -- when this parcel develops on the
north side, Venable or some other public street that may not have that name, but
hopefully would, would come down at least 500 to 800 feet, so that you have an
intersection on Ustick where you can access to the north or where you can come to the
south and, then, you would have a future east-west street that would come probably
right in this area. So, this Venable Lane has a large, deep ditch that provides a little bit
of a challenge to cross, but what we are recommending in the future is that when you
see these come in there would be at least one east-west connection across that lane
and across the ditch, so that you can get all of this future development to have some
way to move east and west out going on to Ustick Road. The plat that is here on the
slide -- let's see. Go back here. Does not show a stub street to Venable in this location
and they do show a pedestrian connection and that would allow -- should Venable
maybe become a pathway in the future, it may allow some pedestrian access to that or
it may also get pedestrians a way to cross east and west, but not necessarily cars. And
there are certainly a lot of pros to just having people funnel to the north. They have two
stub streets to the north and, you know, staff is supportive of this design. I think the way
that I laid it out in the staff report, wanted to just present the issue and let the
Commission give your recommendation to the City Council as to whether or not you
think a stub street should be provided. If there was, obviously, it would not connect to
Venable, the main purpose for it would be to continue further to the west and to serve
this area. So, the plat that was circulated actually shows a stub street like this -- this is
the landscape plan, which is the April plat, and, then, this plat is the June 24th plat that
is the most recent and that does not have the stub street. So, I think that's really
probably the main, as far as Venable goes, the item for discussion. And, then, of
course, the rezone and the plat and the planned development, they are also there for
your discussion tonight, so -.
Rohm: Brad, is the 20 foot dedicated right of way on the -- on this line here or is it slid
over in the other half of Venable.
Hawkins-Clark: No. You were correct the first time.
Rohm: The first time? So, it's adjacent to this land itself?
Hawkins-Clark: It is.
Rohm: And is this developer going to develop that portion of Venable?
Hawkins-Clark: They have no control over that land.
. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 1, 2004
Page 15 of35
Rohm: Well, with it being -- if it's public right of way, wouldn't it -- shouldn't it be
developed as part of this project, if it's public right of way?
Hawkins-Clark: Well, Commissioner, bare in mind it's only 20 feet wide and the
highway district will not accept dedication of right of way that's less than 40. That's their
policy, so what can you do with it is the question and --
Borup: It sounds like they have a deed to it, but not necessarily a right of way
established, is that -- would that be correct? They have been deeded the property, but
that's -- but that has not been designated as a public right of way.
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. I mean that may be somewhat semantics. You know, right of
way is, essentially, land held in ownership by the highway district and --
Borup: But not what they would consider a legal --
Hawkins-Clark: Not an improvement street section. Right.
Rohm: Okay. That's--
Zaremba: But that would answer the other question about whether there should be a
ten foot landscape buffer if this is public property, then, the ten foot landscape buffer
should happen; is that correct?
Hawkins-Clark: The subdivision code does require -- it does not allow double fronted
lots, so, yes, you have these lots that are along their west boundary that have frontage
on the new internal local street. If this became a street, they would be double fronted
and, therefore, would have to have some common lot to separate them, so they would
not be able to access out of both their front yard and their back yard. However, I think if
-- we did receive a revised staff report from the highway district, which, essentially,
supports this. They have no intention of ever improving that 20 feet. And should you
require this developer to do a ten-foot buffer on land that is not anticipated to be a public
street is, I guess, for you to decide, but it doesn't seem to make much sense.
Zaremba: Okay. One other question. You have referenced several times the
preliminary plat dated 6/24/04. The copy that I'm looking at has no western stub street
that has that date -- what you're showing, it doesn't have this stub street. Am I looking
at the --
Borup: That's the same one I have.
Zaremba: It's dated 6/24/04 and I would guess from having read ACHD's comments,
that ACHD was satisfied with the stub street going to the north and not the west one.
. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 1. 2004
Page 16 of35
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. That's correct. My apologies. I think we -- our assistant must
have pulled an older plat, so, yeah, the one that is on the slide is not the one that's
dated 6/24.
Zaremba: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: The one that's dated 6/24 is the one that the staff report's based on and
does not have the stub that's shown there.
Zaremba: It does have the one that goes north, it does not --
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Zaremba: -- have the one that goes west.
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Zaremba: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: This is the one we are to make consideration off of, then? So, this
paper was the correct one?
Zaremba: Yeah. And the staff report correctly references this as being 6/24/04. I'm
just saying that we need to consider the one we are holding, not the one that's on the --
Hawkins-Clark: On the slide. Right.
Zaremba: Okay. Okay. I didn't have any other questions. ACHD seemed to be
supportive of this configuration.
Borup: Yeah. And probably more than that. They said they support the applicant's
proposal. In fact, they have concerns if we had done otherwise. That was on page four
and five on the ACHD --
Zaremba: On the ACHD report?
Borup: Yeah. Okay. Any other comments or questions? Anything else, Brad, that you
had?
Hawkins-Clark: No.
Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation?
Stanfield: Scott Stanfield, Earl, Mason, Stanfield Engineering, 314 Badiola in Caldwell.
Brad did a real good job. In fact, I was able to cross a lot of things off my list, because
he addressed them quite well. I have got to apologize for that plan. Christy called me
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Juiy1,2004
Page 17 of35
today in a panic, said e-mail me something for the presentation, so I, obviously, grabbed
the wrong one, sent it to her, so I apologize for that, Brad. With that said, I will just key
into some of the items -- outstanding items. First of all, if I could point you over there to
the display over there that Mr. Wood is putting up, you can really see our layout a little
bit better than on the blue line. What you see before you and on this color rendering is
a result of numerous discussions with Mr. Snodgrass, the neighbor to the east, and
probably about 40 people from the neighborhood to the east also. I don't see any of
them here tonight, I don't think, so, hopefully, that's a good sign that we listened to their
concerns. The main item, we did pull the road down to the south, so we don't have a
direct connection to those folks and the fire department and ACHD was amenable to
that. We increased the lot sizes on the easterly half to be more conducive to what those
forks currently own and possess. With that said on the westerly half we went quite a bit
denser than what we proposed before and went with the narrow lot frontage and the
narrower or a smaller square footage and you can see we added some pretty generous
open spaces, common areas, that will be owned and maintain by the HOA in a
manicured, consistent basis, just a visual corridor for people walking around and they
can enjoy and use. We have added the gazebo and if you look at the map you're going
to see two little squares north and south of the gazebo, those are permanent picnic
benches that Mr. Wood will put up also, so it's kind of a picnic usable area and will
connect to the pathway system. So, that's the general changes that you have seen.
Venable -- Brad was correct, there was a 1909 deed that Jeff's attorney dug in deeper
and ACHD dug in deeper and that, indeed, there is this document out there. In fact,
ACHD's report requires as a condition in their request that we -- I believe the word was
exchange the right of way. The bottom line is what that means is that they want Jeff
Wood to go through the vacation process for that portion, north to south, adjacent to his
west boundary and, actually, vacate that, get rid of it, take it off the books. Just costs
him the application fee of 600 bucks to the highway district and goes through a Public
Hearing process and it will revert back to Mr. Wood, because that 20 feet back in 1909
turns out to actually be part of the overall mother parcel, if you will. So, it doesn't split
half and half to each owner, it will go to Jeff Wood, the current parcel owner. At that
point what do we do -- we didn't include it in the plat now, because it's public right of
way, but it won't be by the time we get to final plat and the question is what do we do
with it.
Rohm: That's a good question.
Stanfield: Yes. And we can do several things with it. I think the developer Jeff is
proposing to landscape it and probably even continue our pathway north to south. It
would make a great pedestrian connection to the hopeful future neighborhood center to
the north. At this point we don't envision deepening our lots along that tier. There is no
reason to do that, they are generously deep enough and I think it would behoove
everybody and be a good public use to turn that into a pathway lot. One thing that may
hamper that is Mr. Semanich, who I think by now he owns Venable Lane, the other 20-
foot to the west. The documents indicate that that 20 feet, a good portion of his 20 feet,
may actually fall within the Flack Drain. If we vacate that, turn the whole thing into a
pathway, then, until he has a stub street provided from his north, which is going into
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Juiy 1, 2004
Page 180f35
development, he's got that to option to a developer, he may not have access, so there
should be some consideration to Mr. Semanich to be able to use that until such a time
that he has an improved stub street. I just don't want to cut him off and vacate it and put
a pathway through there and expect him to drive down the middle of the drain, so I think
that's an issue we can resolve and, obviously, each day we will learn more and more,
but I suppose ultimately that will be dedicated to Jeff by the time we submit our first final
plat to ACHD and we would agree to turn that into a pathway at the appropriate time,
recognizing Mr. Semanich's needs.
Zaremba: Excuse me. While you're on that subject, that would, then, just become a
common area lot and maintained by the homeowners association?
Stanfield: Yes, it would be, but the question would be can we include it in our final plat.
It's another lot that would be created above and beyond the preliminary plat. No. No, it
wouldn't. We have that green lot on the southerly portion.
Rohm: Somewhere in there?
Stanfield: Oh, look at this. Is that a pointer? Right here, which is a pathway connection
to Mr. Semanich's piece. We could extend our lot and just wrap it around north to south
and that wouldn't increase our lots.
Zaremba: Same lot and block number and it would become an L-shaped lot.
Stanfield: Correct. I suppose that would work. So, we would meet the number of lot
requirements that's before you tonight. I think that's a good solution to that. I think in
the staff report the staff was concerned about what we were going to do with these right
here and currently I believe it's a graveled pathway that actually comes through here
and according to some of the neighbors, they use that quite a bit to walk down here to
the unimproved slough. In my opinion, I don't think a gravel roadway there would look
very pleasant, so if it would be acceptable to public works, we would take the grass
crete approach and dress it up and make it pretty and just not in the best interest of
anybody to leave it graveled, so if it's okay with others, given the thumbs up, we would
offer to grass crete that so it's more usable. I think the reasons the Council gave for
denial, items four and five that Brad touched upon; I think that was the result of items
one through three. With those results before us, well, the obvious conclusion is that it
does -- it's not in the best interest of the city. So, I think they are all tie in together and
I'm quite confident by the time we get to the Council we probably won't have any
neighbors there either. Really hunkered down and poured over the legal staff, ACHD,
and all the neighbors. So, with that I will try and answer any questions you may have.
Borup: Questions for Mr. Stanfield?
Rohm: My only question is when you went through your redesign process, I would
presume that you took the Mark Snodgrass letter and tried to incorporate the concerns
the best that you could to resolve those issues?
Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
July 1. 2004
Page 19 of35
Stanfield: Correct.
Rohm: And that's -- the resulting plat here is taking that into consideration?
Stanfield: Correct. That's pretty much -- we used that as our checklist in all our
discussions with Mr. Snodgrass.
Rohm: And I think just as second to that is if there are people in the audience that
would like to speak to that same issue, then, I'd feel more comfortable that all of his
concerns in the letter were addressed.
Stanfield: Sure.
Rohm: So, the only person that could speak to that is someone other than yourself.
Stanfield: Correct. I would be probably more biased.
Rohm: Right. Right. Okay. Good.
Stanfield: That's a polite way to put it.
Rohm: I don't have anything else.
Borup: Did the -- I don't have a -- of course, information on the original plat. Did the lot
count stay about the same?
Stanfield: No. The lot count actually went up, Mr. Chairman. It actually went up.
Borup: Because of the smaller ones that were --
Stanfield: Correct. Because of the smaller lots.
Borup: Because these other increased quite a bit in size.
Stanfield: Yes. The other one's to the east. Yeah. But our actual lot count went up
and our open space went up from I think five percent to 15 percent. Odd that your open
space will go up drastically and your lot-count would go up, maybe about eight --
Hawkins-Clark: Nine.
Stanfield: It's been such a long time. So, I think it will benefit everybody, really, at the
end of the day.
Borup: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Juiy 1. 2004
Page 20 of35
Zaremba: I think the only question that I have that needs some discussion is the
construction traffic plan -- or I forget how that was phrased, but something -- if there is
only one access at the time, what can you do about construction traffic?
Stanfield: Well, I go back, Commissioner, to if -- if -- I can't remember the name of it.
Indian Rocks Street, if it's not improved -- I should have drove by there to check the
condition and maybe Mr. Wood knows, but we fully believe it will be improved by the
time we get there.
Borup: They have been working on it for a couple months.
Stanfield: Yeah. And from my experience we are a ways off from starting construction.
We have to get through Council and get through our design phase. I'd like to tell Jeff
that would take me a couple days, but it's probably going to take me at least a month
and, then, city review. But with that said, the Venable Lane, quote, right of way, to the
north-south will technically still exist during construction, because the plat won't be
recorded and a vacation won't be complete, so providing that we can maintain that and
leave it in a good condition and water it frequently so as not to disturb the neighbors and
leave it accessible to the neighbors, I think that's an excellent construction traffic
approach.
Zaremba: Sounds good me.
Borup: Okay.
Rohm: Thank you.
Borup: Any other questions? Commissioner?
Newton-Huckabay: I wonder why there is not the west stub street to connect into. That
is not the correct plan; right?
Stanfield: Correct, Commissioner. Your hard copy --
Newton-Huckabay: Because you just said they are getting ready to develop the land to
the west of there. Would it not be beneficial to have another street running into that,
what I assume is going to be more additional development.
Stanfield: I'll clarify that, Commissioner. If I can find one -- right about up in here. This
is the area that Mr. Semanich has optioned to a developer, all the way up to Ustick.
And that development team has met with the city and they are proposing at least one
east-west connection here. Mr. Semanich -- I believe it's in a trust. He owns roughly
seven acres right here. I think that line is actually down here. He has seven acres right
in here. Currently provided a stub from the south. Granted, there is a -- the slough is in
the way and I believe the city will require and the developer has agreed with Mr.
Semanich as he moves down here and plats this, he will improve a street stub to him
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 1, 2004
Page 21 of35
also. So, there is just this roughly -- and Mr. Semanich can correct me -- I think just
seven acres right in there. So, with that ACHD and I believe your staff agreed that there
wasn't much use to put an east-west connection at that point.
Newton-Huckabay: So, there will be one to the north and one to the south?
Stanfield: Correct. Correct.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. An east-west connection on the north at some point and an
east-west connection on the south.
Stanfield: Correct.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I'm following you. Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Does that conclude? Thank you. Do we have anyone else
that would like to testify on this application? Seeing none. No. We have got one.
Wood: Good evening, my name is Jeff Wood, 1282 East Braemere. I just wanted to
clarify one point about Indian Rocks Road. That should be paved at the end of this
month, so we should have two access roads in there, you know, well before the
construction phase.
Borup: Okay. It looked like they have got the sewer line in and all that.
Wood: Yeah. The sewer is in, the utilities are in, they are just waiting for the final
paving now and I spoke with the engineer from Briggs and he thought that it would be
finished by the end of the month.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Wood: Be happy to answer any other questions.
Borup: Thank you. Okay. Commissioners, we had no other testimony.
Zaremba: Well, then, that doesn't require any rebuttal from the applicant.
Borup: No. That's what I felt.
Zaremba: I don't know whether this is a question or just to state my surprise, but I think
I have actually been given the answer. I was surprised to see that open space counts
as an amenity. Is that because they are providing above and beyond what the
requirement is and it's the excess open space that counts as an amenity?
Hawkins-Clark: That's correct, Commissioner. If it's -- if they were just meeting the
code, which is five percent, it would not count as an amenity.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 1, 2004
Page 22 of35
Zaremba: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: And, actually, even if they provided 9.9 percent open space, it would
not counted as an amenity, they would have to provide ten or above. Ten percent of the
gross-area. And that open space, you know, needs to be passive or active, but
certainly available to the residents, you know, in some fashion, not, you know, hidden
back and like counted as part of the ditch. In this case they actually -- they are not
counting the channel itself in that calculation, so it will have a pathway in it, so we have -
- you know, we have certainly considered that usable open space and -- but, yes, I was
surprised, too. The larger area, if you didn't notice, there is a large like 70 foot wide lot
here that's behind these lots and, then, a -- like a 50-foot wide common lot here that
flares out and, then, they have a common lot here, too. So, you have an irrigation ditch
that will be piped that will run through this common lot all the way through the project
and -- but it will be piped in, so you will be able to have grass over it and things like that,
so --
Zaremba: Great. Thank you.
Hawkins-Clark: I guess the one other thing, if I could point out, if they vacate the
Venable Lane -- at this point that is not part of their annexation legal description, so that
they would have to come back separately at a later date to annex that property. Does
that make sense?
Rohm: They can't amend their preliminary plat at their final plat and add that to it and,
then, it would be included in the annexation process? Is it possible that that --
Hawkins-Clark: Well, it's possible to do that from a survey standpoint, I suppose, but
not -- you know, not from an annexation standpoint.
Rohm: I was going to ask you about that. That 20-foot just seems to be in limbo still.
It's kind of like going to be a subdivision of its own.
Gabbert: Commissioners?
Zaremba: Since the hearing is still open can I ask the application for --
Borup: Yeah. Let's do that. Go ahead.
Gabbert: Commissioners, I just had a real quick question for the applicant or Brad.
Brad, has that -- has that vacation process been initiated yet or -- it's my understanding
from where we are currently at, ACHD owns that 20-foot right of way currently and the
applicant, upon completion of such a vacation hearing would -- I mean that land would
accrue back to this property, but it seems like what we are discussing now is a future --
is approving a plan of somebody else's property, that 20-foot, you know, being made
into this walking path and in my experience highway districts are -- when they say one
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Juiy 1, 2004
Page 23 of35
thing, it's nice, but what they do is another. Vacation of easements and right of ways
takes a lot of consideration, so I just wanted to caution the Commissioners perhaps in
their decision on conditioning such approval of a plan upon the successful vacation of
that lot, because otherwise, we are doing something with somebody else's land.
Rohm: I think that's like saying don't hold your breath.
Zaremba: Well, my question was going to be -- and I think according to the preliminary
plat that we have, we are not considering that 20 feet. It's outside of what we have
been provided, so even though the applicant has offered some suggestions for what
may happen to it, I'm not basing my decision on that.
Gabbert: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that that 20 feet wasn't in this conversation
today.
Zaremba: My question for the applicant, then, would be would you rather have us move
this ahead and come back later separately about that 20 feet, whenever there is some
resolution, or would you rather have us continue this until you can add that 20 feet?
Stanfield: The first option.
Zaremba: I suspected that, but --
Stanfield: I feel the darts hitting me in the back of the head right now.
Zaremba: Just wanted to hear it from you.
Stanfield: And that's precisely why we didn't want to put it in this application, to keep
them separate. It's a three -- I talked to ACHD today and it's going to take about a
three-month process to go through the vacation and it is in their staff report. It will be a
condition upon final plat. So, again, don't hold your breath is always true, but at least
it's in their record and we will initiate that ASAP. We will take the first option.
Zaremba: Great. Thanks.
Stanfield: Thank you.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move these three public hearings be closed.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the hearings. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
Juiy 1. 2004
Page 24 of35
Zaremba: Let's see. Brad, would you think through real quick, is there anything we
need to change in the staff report? It seems to me agreements have been made and I
haven't heard anything we need to change.
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Zaremba, that's correct, I think the only -- well, no, that's
in there, too. So, yeah, I did not make any notes.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: Did we get clarification -- I'm sorry. Clarification on Lot 2, Block 4? I guess I'll
ask you that. There was -- and the staff report had a question on the frontage on Lot 2,
Block 4.
Hawkins-Clark: Oh, right. Thank you. No, I -- is it possible now that the hearing's
closed to have that addressed by the application or -- because I -- I guess I'm not
worried that much about it, it's just that the scale on this plat was such that it was
definitely below the 50, but --
Borup: That's -- yeah. I went through the same -- do you want to just maybe mention to
Brad and --
Zaremba: Maybe have a private conversation at the table --
Borup: We could reopen the hearing, but that may be faster if you just would let him
know. No, you go ahead and let him know.
Zaremba: While he's doing that, Mr. Chairman, you were referring to page 12--
Borup: Yes.
Zaremba: -- paragraph seven?
Borup: Right.
Zaremba: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: So, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, it sounds like they
would be able to meet the 50 foot minimum frontage as proposed.
Borup: Okay. So, it may need a slight adjustment either way. They will be taking care
of it it sounds like. Okay.
Zaremba: Okay. Well, the current statement just says the applicant shall insure that it
meets the 50 foot requirement by the final plat and it sounds like they have agreed to do
that, so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Juiy 1, 2004
Page 25 of35
Borup: Well, yeah, that's true.
there.
So, that wouldn't even be -- that wouldn't be any change
Zaremba: Simplify it. We'll just leave it alone. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move that
we forward to the City Council recommending approval of AZ 03-036, request for
annexation and zoning 19.7 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Salisbury
Subdivision No.2 by Earl, Mason, and Stanfield, Inc., south of West Ustick Road and
west of North Meridian Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing
date of July 1, 2004.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending
approval of PP 03-012, request for preliminary plat approval for 81 building lots and 11
other lots on 19.7 acres in a propose R-8 zone for Salisbury Subdivision No.2 by Earl,
Mason, and Stanfield, Inc., south of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian
Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of July 1, 2004.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending
approval of CUP 04-016, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned
development for reduced lot frontages, lot sizes. and block lengths that are less than the
500 foot minimum in a proposed R-8 zone for Salisbury Subdivision No.2 by Earl,
Mason, and Stanfield, Inc., south of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian
Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date July 1, 2004.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 13:
Public Hearing: CUP 04-014 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for modification of an existing CUP in an L-O zone
of Meadowlake Village Continuing Care Retirement Center (CCRC) by
Touchmark of the Treasure Valley, LLC - south of East Franklin Road and
east of North Eagle Road:
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July1,2004
Page 26 of35
Borup: Thank you. The next item is Public Hearing CUP 04-014, request for
Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for modification of an existing CUP
in an L-O zone of Meadow Lake Village Continuing Care Retirement Center. Like to
open the hearing at this time and start with the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This application is
for the project called the Continuing Care Retirement Center or CCRC is often how it's
referred to in shorthand. It is part of the Meadow Lake Village project, which you know
is on the south side of Franklin Road, between it and the freeway, near St. Luke's. You
can see the vicinity map on the wall. This is an earlier aerial photo, There has since
been construction of the first phase of Tuscany Lakes -- or Tuscany Lakes. I'm sorry.
Meadow Lakes Village down in this portion of the project. I have put in here the
approved conceptual planned development plan for the entire project. You can see in
the center this complex of buildings is what is known as the CCRC or Continuing Care
Retirement Center. It is just south of the golf course and is surrounded on the south
and east by the phase one building lots. Back in about 2000 the first phase of the
CCRC was approved with this plan. This is the plan that went through for approval.
They are modifying it somewhat and so given the revised buildings, new setbacks, and
more refined building heights and things, we felt it appropriate to come back through
this body. So, that was the original. This is the current proposal. What we have is on a
multi-building, multi-story project. This area is surrounded by a loop road that
completely surrounds the project. Within that road the site is approximately 13 acres.
The CCRC is proposed to be developed in two phases. The first phase would consist of
34 units of assisted living. The assisted living is down in the south central portion of the
project. It would have two senior apartment buildings. The one on the east and the one
on the west. Each of those buildings have about 60 to 70 units each or 120 to 140
apartments total for phase one. And, then, finally, in the center, the building that
connects them all, is the lodge, which is a commons area for the residents. Phrase two,
then, adds the remaining two buildings for senior apartments, with another 60 to 70
units each and an additional 30 of assisted living down in the south area. The items
that staff feels need discussion are identified under the special considerations on page
five, the first being build height. We thought it would just be good to clarify this for the
record. I will show you the proposed elevations for the project. They are pretty nice
buildings we believe. But this is an L-O zone and just for the record, the maximum
height in the L-O zone is 35 feet. I have spelled out on page five both the eave height
and the peak height for the -- for all of the proposed buildings. Technically, the project
just does not require a waiver or variance, although we can go through this -- because it
is a planned development. The top of the building walls in all cases, except for the
actual clock tower, which you see on the right there, the top of the building walls is
below the 35 feet height, but the peak height is sometimes much taller than that,
because of the steep sloped roofs and things. So, when they get to building permits,
the UBC defines building height different than our planning and zoning code does and
goes to the mid point of the roof. The mid point of the roof does exceed 35 feet, so we
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Juiy 1, 2004
Page 27 of35
are proposing approval of the building heights as proposed and are simply stating so
and clarifying that in the staff report.
Moe: I'm just curious. We are going off the UBC, not the International?
Siddoway: Oh, it's International Building Code now. I'm sorry.
Moe: Okay.
Siddoway: I did put UBC in my report, but it is International Building Code. Thank you.
Moe: Just wanted to make sure.
Siddoway: The second item is fire lanes, You can see -- we have got the lope road all
the way around and, then, parking areas north and south and, then, some fire lanes that
weave between the buildings here. Because of the height of the buildings, the fire
department does require that all fire lanes be 26 feet wide and not just a 20-foot wide
fire lane. The plan does show 26-foot wide fire lanes, but the fire marshal may require
that these internal ones swing a little closer to the buildings to meet his needs for
access to the buildings should a fire happen. There is a condition of approval that
requires them to meet with the fire marshal to make such final adjustments prior to final
approval, but I don't see it as an issue that would significantly alter the layout. I just
bring it up, because it is something that does need refined. The third item is parking. I
have provided a detailed parking analysis under analysis item A on -- beginning on
page two. In short, staff does support the parking as proposed. Since it does not tie
directly to our parking requirements per code, we have asked the applicant to address
for the record their anticipated parking needs based on their experience with these
projects in other areas. The final item is setbacks. Since they are modifying the
setbacks from what was originally proposed, they have shown on their plan the
minimum setbacks the face of every building and we are proposing approval of the
setback as proposed on the site plan and I believe that's all I have. I would show on the
landscape plan, which is the next one, you can see it brings out the buildings that are
specifically part of phase one. Again, phase two would add on the second wing of the
assisted living facility and, then, the apartments on the two edges. So, what you see
here will be phase one and, then, at ultimate build out it would look like this. And I will
stand for any questions.
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Okay.
Rohm: I do have a question. The phase one of this overall project, is it pretty well built
out?
Siddoway: The residential portion, yes. And when they came through for the -- when
they came through for the planned development last year that modified -- they also got
approval to continue forward with future phases of residential without requiring
additional CUPs. Originally, every phase had to have it's own Conditional Use Permit.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 1, 2004
Page 28 of35
Currently they are proceeding with additional residential phases without the conditional
use process, but all of the commercial and non-residential uses are going through this
conditional use process.
Rohm: Where I was going with that question is were all the property owners in that
phase one, then, noticed for this application or just those within 300 foot of this phase?
Siddoway: I don't believe the individual homeowners within the project were noticed by
the city, because we go off of the ownership of the assessor's data, which would be --
and Meadow Lake Village technically owns the land. They have held neighborhood
meetings, however, and we can let the applicants share that information with you.
Rohm: And that's ultimately where I was going with this and I think the applicant
appears to be ready to address that, so --
Siddoway: That's good.
Borup: But I think that is correct. Doesn't Meadow Lake keep ownership of the property
and they are leased --
Siddoway: They did keep ownership of the property and, actually, our noticing was
based on the full -- I can't remember if it was the full project or this lot. Either way, it
was noticed through to even these lots all the way out into -- I believe it's Edgeview
Estates and I know when they did their neighborhood meetings, they also included the
folks in Montvue Subdivision. So, they went far beyond the actual 13-acre site.
Borup: Okay. Yeah. We do have some clarification. They -- that purple outline was
what they used as the 300 feet line. So, they went clear to the neighborhood there to
the right and all around.
Siddoway: Yeah.
Borup: So --
Rohm: Thank you.
Borup: They went way beyond what we are looking at tonight. Okay. Would the
applicant -- is there anything they'd like to add to the presentation?
Billing: Good evening. My name is Joseph Billing, I'm the vice-president of architecture
for Touchmark and just would be happy to address any of the comments from -- nice to
see you again. It's been a few years since we have been here last. So, I guess a
couple concerns I heard. One was on the height issue and I guess our thinking on here
is that these are larger buildings and what we are trying to do is really -- maybe if we
could go back to the site plan. Really, in the center of this community here we feel we
can step the height up in scale without really affecting the residential scale around here.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
July 1, 2004
Page 29 of35
We are a two story building here and we are stepping the ends of these buildings back
down to two stories. But, essentially, it's kind of a function of trying to get some of the
density on there to satisfy the project and so that leads to the three story building and
ultimately some --
Borup: So, the building and peak heights as stated in the staff report, that works for
what you proposed, doesn't it?
Billing: Right. Right. Yeah.
Borup: Okay.
Billing: And, then, the -- certainly the issue on the fire lanes, we will be talking with the
fire department on that and the architects that are working on this have had
conversations with them as well and I think the only other issue, maybe, is on the
parking.
Borup: Yes.
Billing: And what we have found in the communities is that even though we are targeting
-- trying to get a more active adult, younger crowd, typically, the average age in these
communities is about 83 and especially in the more apartments style homes we end up
with a lot of single folks and usually single women who tend to out live us, so by that
time, usually. they are -- they are down to one car and oftentimes they find that after
being there for about a year they, in fact, give up the car that they do have, finding that
we do provide transportation to shopping or doctor's offices and those kinds of things
and kind of being a self -- a self-contained community there, really, you know, have the
beauty shop and the dining and sort of all the needs there, so they kind of find that they
really don't end up driving as much as they thought they did. In the lodge homes, the --
kind of our apartment style homes, right now we submitted a range of -- I think it might
have been as high as 60 to 80 on there -- 60 to 70 per building.
Borup: The staff report says 60 spaces --
Billing: The number of apartments homes.
Siddoway: Yeah. Sixty to seventy units per building.
Billing: Right. So, where we are right now in the design process is we are at 60 and we
have about 70 spaces underneath the building, so we are at about 1.25 per unit and we
have found that works pretty well for us. I mean, obviously, you know, we want to
attract our residents and if we can't provide parking, that's a marketing concern. So, we
do address that. But in typically all our communities we find anywhere from 1.25 to 1.5
and that 1.5 on the higher end would address guests and staff and so I'm kind of
addressing my concerns more for just what's directly under the building as parking for
those units as right now to 1.25 per unit ratio.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
July 1, 2004
Page 30 of 35
Rohm: What's the standard for an apartment complex outside of this type of
development? Just the standard --
Siddoway: The standard apartment complex would require two spaces per unit.
Billing: And, then, I think sort of the other end of that is the nursing home standard is
one per five units on --
Borup: Per five beds.
Billings: Yes.
Siddoway: One per five beds. I think that's right.
Billing: It's hard to know exactly where we are. We are independent, but, then, we also
have the assisted and so it is sort of a blend there.
Rohm: Well -- and your comment about your own marketing, if you don't provide enough
parking, it's going to be harder to --
Billing: Yeah. We don't want to shoot ourself in the foot. And I think the other thing we
can do, too, is as we bring in the future phases there is room to adjust that, so if we did
need to expand some underground parking either further out or under some of that
courtyard space -- it gets a little bit more expensive for us, but if we found, hey, we
really need to have, you know, 1.5 spaces, we could accommodate that.
Rohm: You mentioned something about staff parking.
Billing: Uh-huh.
Rohm: What's the number of staff do you anticipate for this when it's fully built out?
Billing: Yeah. It depends a little bit on the function. These buildings here actually don't
have any staff, other than some housekeeping, and the lodge building will have some
administrative staff. We do have a parking area back here, I think about ten spaces. I
think we have about 70 some up front here. I can't remember off the top of my head,
but I think there is about 70 up here. There will probably be about 15 staff members
working at peak capacity in this lodge and that may be -- and, of course, we have some
dining service, those kinds of things. In the assisted we probably for this 60 ultimate
beds that we will have there, we will probably have -- probably about 20 staff on the full
shift there and what we are proposing -- so we do have parking up here, but we also
have off-site over here we have an area that's designated for the maintenance yard and
RV storage and we are also thinking that we would have some staff parking over there if
we needed that as well.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 1. 2004
Page 31 of35
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I can clarify those numbers. The senior apartments, like he
said, are at an approximate rate of one per unit or I guess one per -- 1.25 per unit. The
staff report proposes a minimum of at least one per unit. The assisted living facility,
which is in the rear, has 41 spaces adjacent to it in the rear right down in here and,
then, the lodge itself has 60 spaces in the front and an additional six spaces at the
service entrance.
Billing: And the -- typically, most of these assisted residents will not drive at all, so that
40 spaces we feel pretty well would handle staff and guests as well. We also, Steve, I
think have parking along the perimeter right there, but I don't know that count off the top
of my head, but I'm --
Siddoway: Yeah. I haven't figured that. I did make those counts into some ratios. The
41 spaces that serve the assisted living facility come out to be about one space for
every one and a half units. If you compare that to our nursing home type use, we only
would require one space for every five beds in that situation. So, that does seem fine.
And, then, the lodge has one space for every 450 square feet, approximately.
Billing: One thing if I could add, too, that kind of drove some of the rethinking on this
design here was really trying to get the parking underneath these buildings, having a
nice boulevard, tree-lined entry drive up front here, some parking back here, but, really,
not turn these courtyard areas into parking lots and that was kind of an important design
feature, that we wanted to really maintain these as green spaces, open spaces, and not
turn those into parking. So, we tried to do that.
Zaremba: I have a question that's a little bit sideways from this same subject. The other
day in the Idaho Statesman there was an article, essentially, about baby boomers, but it
mentioned that many seniors are beginning to look at small electric cars. The example
they gave was similar to a fancy golf cart. Are you thinking of having any
accommodation for people that would not have a, quote, real, unquote, vehicle, but
would have those and possibly need to have a way to charge them?
Billing: Right. Right now -- and I'm going to let somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I
think we had outlined in the original that we would not have golf cart traffic and I don't
know if that's currently still our thinking, but, yeah, certainly as gas prices go up and
these gem cars are becoming more popular, I think that's something that, you know, we
probably -- probably would not include or provide for in the first phase, other than they
do get one parking spot with their units, so if they wanted to park that electric car there.
Borup: But where would they charge it, I guess, would be the question.
Billing: Right. Right. We would have to have those provisions. I mean --
Newton-Huckabay: An extension cord to the living room.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 1, 2004
Page 32 of35
Billing: Yeah. I mean, again, it's kind of the thing that we really, you know, because we
build these ourselves and, then, own and operate them and are in it for the long haul,
you know, if that's what they tell us they want, then, yeah, we will figure out some way to
accommodate that. It's an interesting question and maybe something that we do want
to talk to the electrical engineer about, saying what would that do to our service capacity
if we did want to provide that.
Zaremba: Think about for the future.
Billing: Yeah. Yeah. Definitely. Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Any other questions from any Commissioners? I think it's a wonderful
project. It's nice to see it moving along.
Billing: Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Unless we had -- unless there is anything else anyone wanted to add.
Question any of the Commissioners may want answered? Okay. Let's continue on.
Zaremba: No other testimony, then, I guess. Mr. Chairman --
Borup: Yeah. Everyone here was with the project. Okay. I didn't think we had any
other public testimony.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing be closed.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Before making a motion I would make two comments. One is that we
regularly hope for and ask for applicants to bring us variety and one of the things that I
include in that variety is height. I not only have no problem, but I appreciate the
elevations that you have provided. I do agree that when we go over our stated height
limits it should go through the CUP process, but -- to give us a little design review on tall
buildings, but I appreciate that you are doing that and I think this is an appropriate place
to do it and appreciate the elevations. The other is I think the staff report mentioned
that the original approval was a conceptual project and we have encouraged the staff to
ask for concepts and help us by seeing the concepts to be able to see whether the
zoning that's being asked for is correct and so forth. So, in support of applicants
providing concept plans, we also have to know that it doesn't carry the weight of plat or
a CUP, that when it's presented as a concept we have to allow flexibility, otherwise, in
the future applicants are going to resist presenting concepts. So, my concept -- my
comment on that this is I appreciate that you originally presented the concept, to me this
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 1, 2004
Page 33 of 35
is not materially different, you're proposing a different configuration, but you're not
proposing that, instead, you have an airport or an auto mechanic shop, you're
proposing, essentially, the same thing as the concept, just a different configuration and
that being said, my personal opinion would be to appreciate that, and move it forward.
Rohm: Well said.
Zaremba: In that case I'll make a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City
Council recommending approval of CUP 04-014, request for a Conditional Use Permit
for a planned development for modification of an existing CUP in an L-O zone of
Meadow Lake Village Continuing Care Retirement Center, CCRC, by Touchmark of the
Treasure Valley, LLC, south of East Franklin Road and east of the North Eagle Road, to
include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date July 1, 2004, received by
the city clerk June 24, 2004.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Thank you. Would any of this help anybody or could you use that again?
Newton-Huckabay: It was a lot of paper to sort through. I really did, actually. I thought
it was a great presentation.
Borup: Commissioners, anything else we need to --
Zaremba: Gee, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we ought to take a break before we deal with
Item 14,
Item 14:
Public Hearing: AP 04-001 Requesting an appeal of the decision of the
Zoning Administrator to approve the fence waiver of Christine Close by
Steven Christensen / Kent Scott - 3425 North Coachman Avenue:
Borup: It might be a good idea. Yeah, I guess we do have Item 14. That could have
been -- probably do need to mention that Item 14 has been withdrawn. The applicants -
Zaremba: Do we need a motion to accept their withdrawal or is that automatic?
Borup: Let's go ahead and do it, then, we are --
Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we accept the applicant's request to withdraw
AP 04-001.
Rohm: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Juiy 1. 2004
Page 34 of 35
Borup: Motion and second to accept the withdrawal. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Anything else we'd like to -- that we need to bring up -- brought up tonight or do
we see each other on the 15th?
Rohm: Just the shirts.
Borup: Supposedly those were ordered, weren't they?
Hawkins-Clark: I believe I forgot them.
Borup: They are sitting there in the office?
Hawkins-Clark: In the office. I think they have arrived, yeah. It's -- Anna left out of town
and we kind of had a quick exchange, but I believe they are here, so --
Borup: So, we can stop by and pick them up, all those that are really anxious.
Rohm: Well, I had to iron this one yet again.
Borup: Well, my recollection it's the same shirt.
Zaremba: We never clarified whether the new ones were wash and wear or not.
Moe: So, it isn't correct that we have to wait as long as it took us to make a decision on
the shirt? Okay.
Rohm: I move we adjourn.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Meeting adjourned at 8:41.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:41 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
AP~~
_LL~I ð'-1'
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Juiy 1, 2004
Page 35 of35
KEITH BORUP - CHAIRMAN
DATE APPROVED
ATTEST'
-"11\5104