2004 08-05
8.
fct L
W
CITY OF MERIDIAN
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Thursday, August 5, 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
......A....- Chairman Keith Borup
Adoption of the Agenda:
2.
3.
Consent Agenda:
MCU 04-003 Minor Modification of the Conditional Use Permit to allow
reduced side yard setbacks to certain lots in Keziah Subdivision in a R-
40 zone by LC. Development, Inc. - south of East Fairview Avenue and
west of North Locust Grove Road: Approve
4.
5.
Public Hearing: PFP 04-007 Request for Preliminary Final Plat approval
for 3 single-family residential building lots on .89 acre in a R-4 zone for
Woodward Estates Subdivision by Eagleson Place, LLC - southwest
corner of South Crestwood Drive and West 12th Street: Re-Notice to
September 16, 2004 Meeting
6.
Public Hearing: AZ 04-017 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 29.69
acres from RUT to R-4, CoN and L-a zones for proposed Leeshire
Subdivision by SWI Associates, lLC- 5603 N. locust Grove Road:
Recommend Approval to City Council
Public Hearing: PP 04.024 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 89
building lots and 20 common lots on 29.69 acres in proposed R-4, CoN
and L-a zones for proposed Leeshire Subdivision by SWI Associates,
LLC - 5603 N. Locust Grove Road: Recommend Approval to City
Council
7.
Public Hearing: CUP 04-026 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
mixed use Planned Development consisting of single family residential
and commercial/office uses with reductions to the minimum requirements
for lots size, side yard setbacks and minimum street frontage for proposed
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda. August S, 2004
Page I on
AlI_erial, pres-.J at public meotinll" ,ball become property of the City ofMeridiBn.
Anyone desiring aecommOdaiiOll for disabilities related to doCUDleDl> andlor beariogs
pI...e contact the City Clerk', Office at 888-4433 at least 48 bours prior to the public meeting.
14.
15.
16.
9.
Leeshire Subdivision by SWI Associates, LLC - 5603 N. Locust Grove
Road: Recommend Approval to City Council
Public Hearing: RZ 04-008 Request for a Rezone of. 23 acre from R-8 to
proposed O-T zone for Larry Knopp by Larry Knopp - 713 North Meridian
Road: Recommend Approval to City Council
10.
Public Hearing: CUP 04-019 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
retail and professional office use in an existing building in the proposed 0-
T zone for Larry Knopp by Larry Knopp - 713 North Meridian Road:
Recommend Approval to City Council
Public Hearing: CUP 04-020 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
pharmacy in an L-O zone for Medicap Pharmacy by Larry Knopp - east
of North Ten Mile Road on north side of West Cherry Lane: Recommend
Approval to City Council
11.
12.
Public Hearing: CUP 04-023 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for a mixed-use development consisting of 120
multi-family units, 28,660 square feet commercial/office space and 3.43
acres of open space on 10.05 acres in a CoG zone for proposed Sadie
Creek Subdivision by FOLIO, Inc. - 2935 N. Eagle Road: Recommend
Denial to City Council
Public Hearing: PP 04-023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 30
residential four-plex lots, 7 commercial lots and 8 common lots on 10.05
acres in a C-G zone for proposed Sadie Creek Subdivision by FOLIO,
Inc. - 2935 N. Eagle Road: Denied
13.
Public Hearing: PP 03-046 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 214
residential lots and 39 common lots on 46.40 acres in a proposed R-8
(PD) zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial
Development, LLC - east of South Black Cat Road and north of West
Franklin Road: Re-Noticed to August 19, 2004 Meeting
Public Hearing: CUP 03-070 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for residential subdivision in a proposed R-8 (PD)
zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development,
LLC - east of South Black Cat Road and north of West Franklin Road:
Re-Noticed to August 19, 2004 Meeting
Public Hearing: CPA 04-002 Request for Text Amendment to allow
applicants to request an L-O zoning in areas designated as residential
which are located along arterial streets and section line roads and also
allOw applicants to request that property with a Public/Quasi Public
designation to be rezoned to a zoning district that is compatible with
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda . August S, 2004
Page 2 on
All material, preseøted at public meetin!!" sbaU become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone de'iriog accommodation for disabilities related to doCUD1eDI> and/or beariug,
please CODtact the City Clerl<', 0111.. at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
adjoining zoning districts and land uses upon redevelopment of the
property by the City of Meridian Planning and Zoning Department:
Recommend Approval to City Council
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda . August S, 2004
Page 3 of3
All_erial, presented st public meetings ,ball beeöme property of the City ofMeridisn.
Anyone desiring accommodetion for disabilities related to documents andlor beariogs
pi.... contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 boors prior to the public meeting.
Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meetina
Auaust 5. 2004.
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order 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: Jill Holinka, Jessica Johnson, Anna Canning, Brad Hawkins-Clark,
Craig Hood, Bruce Freckleton, Steve Siddoway, 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 of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, August 5th. Like to start
with roll call attendance of Commissioners.
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Item 3:
Consent Agenda:
Item 4:
MCU 04-003 Minor Modification of the Conditional Use Permit to allow
reduced side yard setbacks to certain lots in Keziah Subdivision in a R-
40 zone by L.C. Development, Inc. - south of East Fairview Avenue and
west of North Locust Grove Road:
Borup: Before we start, I would -- do need to make mention of one item, that's Items 14
and 15 on the agenda, that's for the Chesterfield Subdivision. That project is needing to
be re-noticed. The notification was not included in for annexation, so there is an
annexation also included. So, that will not be heard tonight. It did not have full
notification. So, that will be re-noticed and, of course, in the papers and the mailings --
and mailings will be going out again and everything. So, anybody that's here for that,
there will not be anything on Chesterfield. Okay. The first item is -- this is just a
modification of a Conditional Use Permit, MCU 04-003, modification of Conditional Use
Permit to allow reduced side setbacks, certain lots, in Keziah Subdivision in an R-40
zone by LC Development. This is not a Public Hearing, but we like a staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. This item is
a minor modification to a Conditional Use Permit for Keziah Subdivision, which came
through the city as Locust Grove Place Subdivision. It's located on the west side of
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5. 2004
Page 2 of 108
Locust Grove Road just behind the auto wrecking yard. The project is largely built in
terms of the infrastructure. There was a Conditional Use Permit when this came
through early last year and that Conditional Use Permit allowed for the private road
street system and some -- and some setbacks that are different than the code. The
zoning ordinance gives the Planning and Zoning Commission the authority to approve
changed setbacks, either yea or nay. There are no required findings for this in our
code. Basically, it's -- an applicant can come to you to request a change of setbacks.
There are no notices done, so, essentially, it's looking at public life safety issues, as well
as esthetics and whatever else the Commission, you know, wants to take into
consideration. So, this tonight is -- the request is -- as it was submitted to us is just to
change one of the setback dimensions and that's for the side yard and, let's see, I
guess you're not going to be able to make it out too well. There was some coloring
done on this slide. There is some green outlined lots and, then, there is a few purple
outlined lots, if you can make those out, but, essentially, all of the green outlined lots are
-- were and today are platted as attached unit dwellings -- attached dwelling unit lots.
So, they all have zero lot lines in between them and the application here tonight is to
request - the developer is asking to have the flexibility to build on those lots with three
foot side setbacks, instead of the zero. So, in other words, instead of building an
attached unit on both lots, one lot would be built with a detached unit, the other lot
would be built with a attached unit, and they would have six feet in between the
structures. Each one would have three feet to its property line. The application and
staff report I think help to explain a little bit -- as I was explaining to staff, there is an
increased demand for the detached units, as compared to the attached. I was told that
this does not mean that the entire project is going to be detached, but it does give the
developer the option to market them as such. The purple outlined lots are the ones that
would remain attached and, then, there are several scattered throughout that were
originally platted as detached units. So, hopefully, that gives you a little bit of the
reasoning for the application. What they are requesting has been reviewed by the
deputy fire chief and the building official. The three-foot side setback would require a
special firewall construction, fire-rated wall construction, to go that close to the
structures. If they chose to do that, that would be something that would be tracked
through the building permit process. But it does meet the International Building Code as
long as they construct those walls in that manner. So, on page three of the staff report I
noted that -- just to clarify that the P&Z Commission hearing asking the applicant to
clarify the proposed eave overhang allowance or if there is any other potential
encroachments into that three feet setback, or if that's a foundation measurement
versus an eave overhang measurement. So, we'd like to get that clarification. And,
then, also, if approved, the building department would be informed of these specific lots.
The fire department submitted a condition that any building setbacks must be per the
building code for both one and two story construction, so -- so, for the main application,
that was all that staff had to -- on our report. We did receive on the staff desk tonight a
letter that was just submitted today. To be honest with you, I have not had a chance to
review it. It appears to request an additional modification to the setback. So, I guess
we will -- if -- I would need time to review this and I'm assuming that the Commission
will, too, if you haven't seen it, so -- thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5. 2004
Page 3 of 108
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any questions from any of the Commissioners?
Zaremba: I had a comment. I appreciate your anticipating one of my questions and
mentioning that no storage or fences would be allowed in the middle area. And I agree
with you, I'm interpreting the letter received by the clerk on August 4th as asking
something different than the way I interpreted the notes from staff. So, we will ask the
applicant about that.
Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward?
Centers: Lee Centers, representing LC Development, 325 Meridian Street.
Borup: Anything you'd like to add to this?
Centers: Just to give you a little history. When we went through the original CUP, we
weren't requiring attached units, we just thought it was a good mix. After we got going
we were having ten to one more requests for unattached than we are attached. So, we
are asking for the flexibility to separate these units. It already needs a firewall as it is.
We would separate them. Be no less than six feet. Most cases it will be six to ten feet.
Borup: Okay. Clarification on eave overhang. Did you have that?
Centers: The eave overhang we would cut back to between six and eight inches.
Typically, on a gable end it would be 12. So, we are going to cut it back a little bit
farther. You know, our idea is to have as much separation in thereas we can.
Borup: So, you're saying eight inches maximum?
Centers: On each side. Yes. To clarify the letter, there was one thing that I noticed,
after reading the CU, there is four corner lots, the setbacks are measured from the back
of the sidewalk to the front of the garage is 20 feet.
Borup: You mean in this development --
Centers: Yes.
Borup: -- or per ordinance?
Centers: No. This PUD.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: The living space is 15 feet from the back of the sidewalk to the foundation. On
those four corners lots, I want to clarify that the ten feet side yard is from the back of the
sidewalk to the living space. Since the other two are measured that way, it could be
interpreted differently. I wanted to clarify that.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 4 of 108
Borup: That's what you were trying to clarify in the letter?
Centers: Yes.
Borup: Okay. Yeah. And that was the only thing that I think I saw that was -- isn't that
what you had noticed, Dave? That was, really, the only thing that was -- asked anything
different?
Zaremba: Well, the sentence that caught my attention, in the third paragraph, it says Mr.
Centers is requesting that all detached and attached patio homes be allowed a
minimum side yard setback of zero feet and that doesn't sound like it should apply to the
detached ones. The way I'm interpreting what the staff was saying is that the detached
would have three feet on each side of them. There would never be a time when a
detached as a zero.
Centers: The only time that would occur is there are a few common lots that are
grassed with no structures on them. To be allowed to zero that side, which it still would
be a firewall --
Borup: Next to common lots, then?
Centers: That's common lot only.
Zaremba: Only the ones that are next to a common lot.
Centers: And with no structures. And, then, on the other side, the closest we would
come to the property line is three feet. It's -- you know, the whole subdivision is allowed
to go from zero to five and what we are trying to do is shift this around, just so people
come in, we want that lot and we want an unattached house on there, and we can
accommodate that with this flexibility.
Zaremba: Okay. And let me ask staff for clarification on that. I understand and I'm
comfortable with the request of having the flexibility of having it either be zero attached
and the few that are next to the common lot or three. My question to staff is: This is not
a range where they have the choice of allowing anything between zero and three, is it?
It's got to be one or the other. As what Mr. Centers just asked, I interpret it as saying
they could have a two foot setback and it's within the zero and three.
Centers: Can I clarify that?
Zaremba: Sure.
Centers: The only time we would have a zero is if it's attached to another unit as drawn.
Zaremba: Or the ones next to the common area.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 5 of 108
Centers: And only next to a common area where there is --
Borup: No buildings.
Centers: No buildings.
Borup: So, you're saying in no case, other than the zero attached, would there be any
buildings closer together than six feet?
Centers: That's correct.
Zaremba: Okay. So I --
Centers: And in that -- as near as I can tell, that's only going to happen probably in two
or three lots. A lot of them are going to -- if we can shift them around, a lot of them are
going to have ten feet between them, which is our desire.
Zaremba: But I just wanted to make certain you weren't thinking that you could --
Centers: No.
Zaremba: -. have a choice of any range between zero and three. It's either zero or
three is the minimum or greater than three.
Centers: That's right. Or greater. A lot them will still remain to be five.
Zaremba: Let me ask a question. Staff has commented that the -- where there is
adjoining three feet setbacks for a total of six feet between buildings, that your plan is to
put gravel in there?
Centers: If it's a landscape lot, I would be concerned, you know, with that closeness,
you know, it would be tough to get vegetation to grow through there. So, there wouldn't
be a parallel fence and it would be landscape -- landscaped, but in a perma bark, perma
rock.
Zaremba: Okay. So, it's not just regular old gravel that gets dusty and --
Centers: No. No. No. It's a landscape rock.
Zaremba: Something attractive.
Centers: Yes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 5 of 10B
Borup: Anything else? Brad, I had a question on the setbacks. Is that correct for this
development, that setbacks are measured from the sidewalk and not the property line?
Is that your understanding?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, we were just looking at the approved preliminary plat,
which shows the setback to be measured from the right of way. I did not -- I did not see
-- I guess I'm hesitating to give you a one hundred percent sure answer here from the
staff desk, but -- I mean what we are looking at is the preliminary plat and, to be honest
with you, I didn't review that when I wrote the staff report, but, normally, the ordinance is
you measure setbacks from the property line. In this case, if what Mr. Centers is asking
is to be measured from the back of the sidewalk, then, essentially, the setback is larger,
which, of course, is fine.
Borup: Well, no, back of sidewalk, the setback would be less.
Hawkins-Clark: Oh, I'm sorry. This one -- yeah. I'm sorry. We had another issue just
come up yesterday where the property line was actually in the sidewalk. So, I'm sorry, I
was -.
Borup: Yeah. On a detached. That's probably a detached.
Hawkins-Clark: It was a detached. Yeah. I'm sorry. So, normally, unless the planned
development specifically said that they can get reduced setbacks in those locations, It's
going to have to be from the property line.
Borup: And was your understanding, Mr. Centers, that you did, under the CUP or under
the planned development, you did have reduced setbacks, that it was --
Centers: They are reduced. It's 18 and a half feet on the front yard setback.
Borup: From the property line.
Centers: From the property line.
Borup: So, your sidewalk is a foot and a half from the property line, then?
Centers: Yes. Which is typical in a PUD like this or even a -- in a PD.
Borup: Okay. So, that was part of the --
Centers: It is. Yeah. It's reduced setbacks.
Borup: Okay. That was my question for staff, if that was--
Centers: Typically, it's 20 feet from the property line.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
AugustS, 2004
Page 7 of 106
Borup: That was -- and we don't have a copy of those -- of those requirements from
when the subdivision was originally approved.
Centers: But after we started laying this out, there is four corner lots on the inside block
that we need -- it says ten feet from the corner. Okay. I'm trying to clarify that it's ten
feet from the back of the sidewalk --
Borup: Right. This is the front portion.
Centers: -- same as it is on the front of the sidewalk.
Borup: Okay. Well, I would think if -- if the front is, indeed, from the sidewalk, the staff --
Brad, you probably have no problem with that on the side either? I mean that would be
being consistent, assuming that the other is.
Hawkins-Clark: I agree. It would be consistent, but I disagree in that it's not been
specifically approved that way. So, I -- you know, I can't sit here and change the City
Council's decision on the planned development.
Borup: Right. Oh, I see what you're saying.
Centers: You know, I don't think it was an issue. It wasn't made an issue. There is a
number of lots that the backyard is, what, 12, 13, 14 feet. There is a number of them
that have reduced setbacks in the backyard that is less than normal also.
Zaremba: Let me ask a question of staff, if I may. If we were to act on this tonight and
later you were able to look something up and resolve whether or not there is, in fact,
something in writing that measures it from the sidewalk, instead of the property line, or
doesn't do it that way, and Mr. Centers wanted it that way, would that be another
variance application or --
Hawkins-Clark: That would be a modification to the Conditional Use Permit, but I think it
would be different than this one.
Zaremba: And true or false, it still isn't actually addressed in this modification; right?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Zaremba: So, even whether we approve or disapprove this, that still needs to
be resolved, but we wouldn't be really taking a stand one way or the other by acting on
this.
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. You would be acting on the three foot --
Zaremba: Only.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
Augu't 5, 2004
Page 8 of 108
Hawkins-Clark: -- only. Correct.
Zaremba: And not whether the outside property lines are measured from the sidewalk or
the other. So, that's an issued that needs resolution, but our acting doesn't prejudice
that one way or the other; is that correct?
Hawkins-Clark: That's my understanding. Right. I think we would -- staff would need to
just respond to Mr. Centers after looking at the application to see if those street side
setbacks on those four corners that he mentioned are allowed to be reduced as well. I
mean they are ten feet and it's just a question is it -- where is it measured from. There
is a difference of a foot and a half, which may not sound much, but the inspectors need
to know where they are measuring from, so --
Zaremba: Right.
Borup: Do you understand what we are talking about here?
Centers: Yes, I do.
Borup: And your application is for the side setbacks, so the application really isn't to
change the other, but it sounds like it may be good to get a clarification, so you don't run
into a problem down the road.
Centers: Yes.
Borup: And if there is a conflict, then, maybe do another request for modification.
Centers: Okay.
Zaremba: Then, my only other question still on what's allowed within the setback
between the buildings, we didn't discuss any other potential encroachments. Are you
thinking there might be air conditioning units or anything else between the buildings?
Centers: Not on that side. They are on the opposite side.
Zaremba: Not on the three foot side.
Centers: No. No other encroachments.
Zaremba: Okay. Those are all of my questions.
Borup: Mr. Moe?
Moe: Did we talk about the overhangs?
Borup: Yes.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
August 5,2004
Page 9 of 108
Moe: In those areas?
Centers: We are going to cut them back to at least eight inches.
Moe: Okay.
Borup: They said it would be a maximum of eight inches on each building.
Moe: Okay.
Borup: Okay. Mr. Rohm, it looks like you got a question.
Rohm: Well, only that I think that it should be noted somewhere that the air conditioning
units, if there -- if there are any, would not be in that thoroughfare. I think that should be
required if, in fact, we grant the --
Newton-Huckabay: I don't think we can place any requirements or conditions.
Moe: We cannot put any conditions on this hearing. All we can do is answer to the
modification in this application only. No additional conditions can be put on it.
Zaremba: Well -- and I'm comfortable that the applicant has clarified that. I don't think
it's to their benefit to put anything in between the buildings anyhow.
Borup: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, if I could just make one more point. On the zero lot
line next to common areas -- and Mr. Centers did call about this a couple days ago --
whether or not that's deemed an allowable change under this type of application I think
is questionable. The Commission is permitted to change setbacks -- I mean to approve
reductions in setbacks through this process, but in a case where the zero is requested
next to a common lot and not another unit, I think that that would be something that is
beyond what the scope of this ordinance allows and that it would probably change -- it
needs a requirement -- it would change the Conditional Use Permit and --
Rohm: Were they not allowed that zero setback adjacent to common areas in the prior
application?
Centers: Brad, at Walnut Grove we had a single family in there that we were allowed to
zero -- you can't have any protrusions, windows, you know, unless they are fire
windows, but we were -- oftentimes you're allowed to zero out.
Hawkins-Clark: But the way that the first Locust Grove was approved, said that you
could do zeros where there was a common wall.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
Augu't 5. 2004
Page100f108
Rohm: I think that answers the question.
Borup: So, against the common lot was never addressed, then, you're saying?
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Zaremba: I think we have discussed that with other ones and the zero along the
common lot was not approved.
Newton-Huckabay: I would suggest since there is question on that, that we act only on
this before us and the letter will have to be handled separately to avoid confusion or
problems down the road.
Moe: I would agree.
Borup: Okay. Are we ready for a motion?
Zaremba: Let me double-check and see if there was a reference to the --
Newton-Huckabay: Because I think the zero on the common lot was in the letter
that we just got.
Zaremba: But it's not in the staff notes.
Newton-Huckabay: No, I don't believe it is.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, we did see in their application here where they were
approved for a zero lot line contiguous to the pathway common lot, which is down here
at the south end of the project right here. The Wardles, who submitted this application
on behalf of the LC, did include that specifically in their plan, that they be allowed to do
zero along that common lot, but, then, it says all other setbacks apply.
Rohm: Well, then, this application wouldn't be a modification to that anyway.
Hawkins-Clark: Not for that specific pathway lot. Correct.
Rohm: Well, we just wouldn't act on any other lots, other than those which were already
addressed.
Borup: Okay. Do you understand where we are going? Okay. Thank you. Somebody
ready for a motion?
Zaremba: I believe we are. Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve MCU 04-003, minor
modification of a Conditional Use Permit to allow reduced side yard setbacks to certain
lots in Keziah Subdivision in an R-40 zone by LC Development, Inc., south of east
Fairview Avenue and west of North Locust Grove Road, to include all staff comments of
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
August 5,2004
Page 11 01108
their memo for the hearing date of August 5, 2004, received by the city clerk July 29,
2004, with no changes.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Do we want to add on the eight-inch encroachment or have
we got that part of the testimony?
Zaremba: I could comment that on page three of the staff notes, paragraph one, the
question posed there has been answered by saying that the overhang will be reduced
and there will be no other encroachments into the three foot setback area.
Borup: Is that your motion? Same second?
Moe: Same.
Borup: All in favor? Any opposed.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5:
Public Hearing: PFP 04-007 Request for Preliminary Final Plat approval
for 3 single-family residential building lots on .89 acre in a R-4 zone for
Woodward Estates Subdivision by Eagleson Place, LLC - southwest
corner of South Crestwood Drive and West 1 ih Street:
Borup: Okay. Next item is Public Hearing PFP 04-007, request preliminary/final plat
approval for three single-family residential lots on .89 acres in an R-4 zone for
Woodward Estates Subdivision by Eagleson Place, LLC. We'd like to open this hearing
at this time and start with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. The
application before you is a combined preliminarylfinal plat, which, as you know, they can
do for four lots or less. The property has already been annexed and zoned in the city,
so -- and there is no other development agreement or entitlements with this property.
The size, as the application noted, is .89 acres. It's here right at the -- as you enter the
Crest Wood Estates Subdivision off of West Franklin Road, it is approximately a quarter
mile east of Linder Road. The aerial photo is -- shows that the property is vacant. It did
have a tennis court on it at one point, which is an amenity for the subdivision. It does
not have that now. And, then, south of the subject property is another one-acre parcel
that is used as RV and vehicular storage area for the residents -- the homeowners of
the association. Fenway Park Subdivision is to the east and, then, Crest Wood Estates
No.1 and Crest Wood Estates No.3 also abut the property. The rest of the subdivision
is all built out. So, here is the preliminary plat that was submitted with the application.
Pretty straight forward. They are simply asking to create three new single-family
detached residential lots out of this current parcel. The lot sizes for each are over the
8,000 square foot minimum. The frontage on Crest Wood and the frontage on 12th
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 12 of 108
meets the 80 foot minimum as well. There were just two site specific -- or special
considerations, I'm sorry, that staff wanted to point out and those start on page three.
One of those is the Parkway and the median improvements. There is an existing seven
foot wide parkway that is on the north side of the subdivision and there is also a one
hundred foot long island that is here on the east side of the subdivision. Now, neither
one of those landscaped areas are actually on this owner's property. They are in the
right of way and they are not even owned by the homeowners association. They were
not kept up -- very well maintained at the present time. ACHD will not maintain them
and since they are off site and the land is already annexed, the city really can't require
the applicant to improve the landscaping, but mainly we wanted to use this opportunity
as just, I guess, an encouragement, if the Commission wants to do that, to try to enter
into a license agreement with the highway district to -- since a new homeowners
association is being formed as a part of this, that if they could, you know, just take that
into consideration.
Borup: Brad, do you have any idea who was originally supposed to maintain that? Was
that part of one of the two subdivisions -- part of the original Crest Wood? Was that
what it was?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Yeah. I believe it was Crest Wood, not Fenway. Those are the
two there, but it's not platted as a common lot. You know, a lot of times these islands
are plaited as a common lot in a subdivision. It's--
Borup: So, it's ACHD property, then?
Hawkins-Clark: It is.
Borup: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. There is no trees -- I can't say this one hundred percent sure. I
don't believe there is any sprinkler system to it either, so a little difficult to do too much
in there. But at this point, yeah, as the main entrance to the subdivision it's just a little
bit of an eye sore. And, then, the second item that we wanted to point out was that the
CC&Rs submitted with the application are for the Center Valley Homeowners
Association, which is just -- it is the name -- it's the homeowners association for Crest
Wood. Why it has a different name I was unable to determine that, but since the City of
Meridian does not regulate CC&Rs, approval of Woodward Estates does not approve
the legal arrangement between Crest Wood and Woodward Estates and -- but should
the Commission and Council require inclusion of the vehicle storage parcel, we do
recommend that reference be made in the CC&Rs that addresses how that vehicle
storage area will be maintained. There is the same situation. Again, that vehicle
storage area is immediately south and there is a pretty wide -- and, actually, I think we
have a photograph of it. This is a shot looking north on 12th and this gravel area here is
adjacent to the storage and, then, the subject property is up here where these large
trees are. There are five large trees on this property. Other than that, the conditions
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
Augu,t 5,2004
Page 13 of 108
that staff recommended are pretty straight forward plat conditions for both the
preliminary plat and final plat. I have nothing further to add.
Borup: Okay. Questions from any of the Commissioners?
Zaremba: I did have a question. The two drawings that I had with my package, one of
them is entitled preliminary plat and the other one does not have a title, is the untitled
one the final plat? The smaller one doesn't have a title. At least not that I saw. What
brought that to my attention is that the numbered paragraphs on the two are almost
entirely different. They don't refer to the same things. And I notice that, because
paragraph on -- paragraph eight on the preliminary plat says that they can remove those
trees and I guess my first clarification is the one that I think is untitled, is that the final
plat?
Hawkins-Clark: That's correct.
Zaremba: Okay. Then, your note is asking that paragraph ten be deleted off of that.
That's fine. But I would ask whether we should add a note of our own at the end of your
site specifics that says that any existing trees that are removed need to be mitigated,
since on the preliminary plat it says they may remove them. Paragraph eight on the
preliminary.
Hawkins-Clark: I guess, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, the mitigation is
normally going to be if there was some required landscaping and I don't know -- these
trees would be on private build-able lots. They would not be common lots or in required
landscaping. I mean, technically, none of these three lots is required to do landscaping
by our ordinance.
Zaremba: Okay. So, the trees could be removed without mitigation?
Hawkins-Clark: If you could continue -- I'll just verify that with the ordinance. I believe
that's right. I'll look that up.
Zaremba: If that's true, then, I will not mention it.
Borup: Yeah. That sounds right. Yeah. That sounds correct.
Rohm: My question is, though, if, in fact, that lot was previously one of the amenities of
the previous subdivision, is it -- how can you take it out of being an amenity to the
previous subdivision and develop it into usable lots for an additional application?
Borup: I think at the time this subdivision developed there was no amenities required. I
don't believe it was done under a PUD.
Rohm: So -.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5. 2004
Page 14 of 108
Borup: So, there was no amenities required, that was just something the developer
chose to do. And, then, the ownership was turned over to the property owners.
Rohm: Is there a way we can validate that?
Borup: Well, it's not a PUD.
Rohm: The original development was not a PUD?
Borup: Right. Just an -- I believe it was just an R-4 subdivision.
Hawkins-Clark: I did verify and, no, it was not required as an amenity of the subdivision
originally.
Rohm: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: It's not even a lot in Crest Wood. It was not a part of their plat at all.
Rohm: Well, you had just mentioned in your staff report that it was an amenity and I was
just curious how an amenity would be vacated. But, thank you, you answered the
question.
Borup: So, it was not part of Crest Wood? How about the vehicle parking, the RV
parking? Is that --
Hawkins-Clark: It's not either.
Borup: But they are both annexed properties?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Borup: Unplatted.
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Borup: Little different.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I think this will fix that up.
Borup: Well, it will on this property, but not on the storage lots. Or I assume they
originally -- they may not be now, but at one time they were under the same ownership
and this would have been the time to correct that. Did staff have any discussion on that,
on the other -- on the storage lot?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, actually, yes, we did. And the ordinance says that if
these parcels were a part of the parent parcel and were broken off and were never
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5. 2004
Page 150f108
planned correctly, then, they -- they really should fix that illegal split. The discussion
that I guess we had at the staff level was all of the utilities are in, the sidewalk is in, curb
and gutter is in, the parcels are -- they are contiguous and they are owned by the same
homeowners association. I think you -- it's, I think, up to the Commission if you want to
direct the applicant to include this as a part of this plat, to fix the illegal split, that is
backed by the ordinance.
Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Shall we get the applicant up? Would the
applicant like to come forward and make their presentation?
Scelecy. Claudio Scelecy, 3226 Garrity Boulevard, Nampa, for--
Zaremba: Can you pull the microphone a little closer?
Scelecy: I'm sorry. Claudio Scelecy, 3226 Garrity Boulevard, Nampa, for Eagleson
Place, LLC.
Borup: And, then, you're representing --
Scelecy: Eagleson Place, LLC.
Borup: Eagleson. Okay.
Scelecy: Yeah. This was -- at one time it was -- it was two tennis courts and they were
always locked and never being used, because of the liabilities that the homeowners
association had with them and so they decided to turn them into home -- residential lots
and to use the ground in a better fashion than they had. There was grass there. It was
maintained at the time and during the course of taking the lots out there was -- the
sprinklers were taken out, but there is irrigation to the site and sewer and water will be
brought in from the existing sewer and water lines.
Borup: Okay. Questions from any of the Commissioners? I would be interested in a
comment on the storage lot, then. They were both under the same ownership right now
and, apparently, that is not -- neither one of these two parcels were part of the original
subdivision; is that correct?
Scelecy: Yes. Maybe the homeowner's association president could answer these
questions better.
Borup: Okay. So, your interest is just in this parcel --
Scelecy: That's correct.
Borup: -- and subdividing this parcel?
Scelecy: That's correct. I don't have any interest in a storage lot at all.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 16of10B
Borup: Yeah. Well, I assumed that.
Newton-Huckabay: Would he give us the answer to the landscaping area?
Borup: Well, let's go ahead and ask.
Newton-Huckabay: Are you guys willing to enter into an agreement for landscaping?
Scelecy: Well, I can't -- I was concerned -- sorry. What I was expecting to happen is
that the homeowners who will be building on these lots will be taking care of their
frontage on the north side and on the island I should probably let Cory Makizuru answer
about that -- about that, because I don't -- I don't know what to tell you about the island.
Borup: But it's your intention that these three lots would become a part of the existing
homeowners association?
Scelecy: Under the -- the only respect that would be that they will be supplying the
irrigation water.
Borup: So, then, you're saying that if the other homeowners association started
maintaining that island, these homeowners would not be included in that?
Scelecy: Could you repeat the question, please?
Borup: On the maintenance of the island, if the other homeowners association started
maintaining the landscape in that island, then, you're saying that your -. these three lots
would not be included in that?
Scelecy: In the island?
Borup: Yes.
Scelecy: The island was always being maintained until the tennis courts were taken out
by the existing homeowners association.
Borup: Okay. But you're saying you don't even want to be part of that -- the irrigation,
you don't want to be part of any other maintenance?
Scelecy: That's correct. That's all we had entered into in talking with the homeowners
association.
Borup: Okay. Maybe we can get some clarification from the homeowners present. Any
other questions?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5. 2004
Page 17 of 108
Makizuru: Corey Makizuru, Crest Wood Estates. I'm the president of the homeowners
association. You had some questions?
Borup: Your address, too.
Makizuru: 937 West Crest Wood.
Borup: Okay. I think the question -- well, now two questions. One, maintenance of that
-- of the island, the other island and, then, also the storage lot.
Makizuru: As a matter of fact, the island itself has always been maintained by the
homeowners association.
Borup: Okay.
Makizuru: At the point where the tennis court area was removed, the irrigation system,
basically, was severed at that time. As we took a look at our irrigation system, the lines
actually ran under the -- under 12th Street and we had a breakage over last summer at
that island and when we tried to determine where the break was, it actual occurred
under 12th Street. So, basically, as we have been talking about the sale of the
property, as soon as we get the home into the property, it's our intention to run our
irrigation system back under that island again. But, again, we would have to tear up
12th and we have been in contact with ACHD to actually remove that island. But we
didn't want them to remove the island until we were ready to put our irrigation system
through, so we can run water to those three lots.
Borup: So, you may be removing it you're saying? Or ACHD may be removing it?
Makizuru: Well, we have been in contact with ACHD and requested --
Borup: And how did they receive that?
Makizuru: They -- at this time they are unable to do that.
Borup: Okay.
Makizuru: But if they felt if the homeowners association was agreeable to do it on their
own, at their own express, then, they wouldn't have any problems with it.
Borup: Oh, really? Well, if you're talking about putting another line in there, you're
probably better off looking at boring under there, rather than digging up the street, I
would think.
Makizuru: Yeah. Correct.
Borup: They do a pretty good job on that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5. 2004
Page 18 of 108
Makizuru: And, therefore, when the tennis court property was there, as well as the RV
park, it was homeowners' responsibility to maintain -- you know, the maintenance of that
property.
Borup: So, what -- is this the only common area that the association is maintaining?
Makizuru: No. We currently have about three different common areas.
Borup: Okay. So, what's your feeling about this new subdivision not being a part of that
maintenance?
Makizuru: Well, I need to correct Claudio. I believe they will be a part of the
homeowners association, therefore, a part of our Center Valley Homeowners
Covenants and, therefore, entitled to all of the rights and privileges that every
homeowner within our subdivision would have.
Borup: Okay. They would be able to park in the area and --
Makizuru: Correct.
Borup: -- then, they would be paying their share of the homeowners --
Makizuru: Correct.
Borup: -- maintenance dues? All right. I was -- that's, really, what I was getting at and
surprised that it wasn't that way already.
Makizuru: Yeah.
Moe: Question I have. So, somewhat it's intent, than, you'd rather not have the island
out in the street, but, yet, you're looking to get irrigation back into the property. Would
you, then, be looking to ACHD to work a licensing agreement for the area to the north of
the property?
Makizuru: We are going to get water to the property somehow, you know, and we are
going to try to find the most efficient, effective way to do that. If we can work with ACHD
for that to occur, great. I don't really have any specific ideas of how we are going to do
that. We did have water to that property when the tennis courts were there and once
we removed it, again, all of the irrigation system was all torn up.
Moe: Thank you.
Borup: How about the RV storage lot? What's your intention with that area?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5. 2004
Page 19 of 108
Makizuru: Again, the RV storage spot is maintained by the homeowners association. It
is an area where our homeowners utilize for storage of vehicles or boats or so on.
Yeah, when --
Borup: Did you realize that was not part of the subdivision, it's an unplatted area?
Makizuru: No, I wasn't aware of that.
Borup: Okay. Are you open to maybe taking care of that at this.-- this would probably
be the opportune time to maybe correct that?
Makizuru: And I would need to take a look at what we would need to do to make those
corrections. Correct.
Borup: Probably the best thing, Brad, is maybe they can sit down with staff to see what
needs to happen there for the storage lot to --
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. That would be -- I mean, bear in mind, that what we are talking
about tonight is strictly a survey and it really has no bearing on the enforcement of other
aspects of the zoning ordinance. That doesn't mean that those can't be enforced, it's
just that the plat isn't the time to do that. But certainly staff's happy to meet with them to
talk about what's involved with including -- essentially, it's getting the survey -- another
survey drawn up that adds a fourth lot to this plat and that Lot 4 would be the storage
area.
Borup: Okay. Questions from any of the Commissioners?
Zaremba: It sounds like if that's going to be the route, though, this application needs to
be amended.
Borup: Well, but I think what Brad is saying is -- I don't know this is a requirement we
can put on this application. I guess it would be voluntary on their part, my
understanding. Any other questions?
Zaremba: No.
Makizuru: Thank you very much.
Borup: Do we have anyone else here that would like to testify on this application?
Scott: Commissioners, my name is Rod Scott, I live at 184 Southwest 12th. Actually,
the pictures that were shown, my house was kind of looking at the storage facility down
there and the concerns that I have are, one, the maintenance of the whole area. When
we first moved in to that area there was a nice grassy corner, a park-like area with
tennis courts. Very pretty. It was nice coming into the facility. It was maintained very
well. They took care of the lawn, they took care of the tennis courts areas. The storage
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 20 of 108
area was maintained and in the past two years since -- a year and a half, two years
since they went in and took out the tennis courts, they severed the irrigation lines,
because that center island was maintained. It's gone downhill, it's gone to weeds.
Repeatedly myself and lots of the neighbors have had to contact Meridian Weed
Enforecment to get things taken care of and even looking in the pictures that are shown
there, if you can see the weeds around the storage facilities are about this high all over
around there. It's not being maintained now and there is just some real concerns also
about adding more housing into the area. The elementary school that was built four or
five years ago in the area is already overcrowded and had temporary classrooms in
place. The--
Borup: You realize this is three houses they are talking about here?
Scott: I know. I know. But, you know, the traffic up and down the street is already -- we
have already passed a petition to try and get speed bumps put in on this street and, you
know, this whole corner has gone to nothing, you know, but weeds, because it wasn't
maintained and they are not even maintaining the storage facility, you know, and if you
put in the housing, you know, they haven't been maintaining whatthey say that they are
going to maintain now and there is just, you know, concerns by quite a few of the
neighbors that it's just going to get worse. And I believe there is only four trees left on
the property, because I believe one was cut down when they took out the --
Borup: So, your concern is if houses get built on there and yards put in, that the weeds
are going to get worse?
Scott: Well, no. My concern is the maintenance of all of the things around.
Borup: Of the storage area?
Scott: The island, the storage area, and everything else that hasn't been maintained and
was maintained quite well until they went in and tore everything up and, then, didn't
make any attempt at all to -- to maintain the area for the last year and a half, you know
and -- you know -- you know, they are going to build the houses there, yes, I mean that
could be a plus, you know, I'll give you that. However, you know, they are not
maintaining -- you know, we have to look at the storage area, too, that's not being
maintained and there is just concerns of the way things have gone. People have
concerns, you know, about the property values, you know, the way it's just gone
downhill and it was a common area, just like all the other common areas that they
maintained, they, you know, failed to maintain that and it's just -- there is just some
concerns that, you know, if this goes on -- you know, what most of the neighbors would
like is just to see it maintained again back at the level and put back into the level it was,
because that was one of the reasons a lot of people moved in, they moved into the
subdivision, there was a park-like area there and that's gone and it wasn't maintained
and it wasn't taken care of and there wasn't any effort made to. So, you know --
Borup: Okay. All right.
Mendian Planning & Zoning
August 5. 2004
Page21of108
Zaremba: I'm not sure where the subdivision lines are, but it sounds like you're in a
different homeowners association.
Scott: We are in Fenway Park, which Fenway Park is on the opposite side of the street.
This property fronts Fenway Park. Starts at the corner of 12th, just slightly passed the
corner of 12th and all of Fenway Park, basically, looks -- the houses, you know, face the
storage facility and the beginning of the subdivision and the houses all right down
through there are Fenway Park that look at the storage facility, that corner area and
everything, is what they look out at when they look out their front windows and come out
their -- come out of their doors.
Borup: Okay. Thank you, sir. Do we have anyone else?
Stenzel: Good evening. My name is Amelia Stenzel, I live at 163 Southwest 12th. We
are the property right next to the storage units on the southwest side. Just some
background about our house, we are about 1,250 square feet and we were recently
appraised in February for 118,000 dollars. I want to know -- I can't answer the question,
but maybe you guys can, what the size of these homes are going to be that are going
in? Are they going to be smaller than ours? We are the smallest house in the
subdivision as it is and as smaller homes go in, what's going to happen to our property
value? Also, what the approximate values are going to be, really, if that's what happens
to the rest of us as we move in. I did prepare some words, so bear with me. Recently--
last night, in fact, we spoke with a lot of our neighbors on what's going to happen with
this, with the zoning change. Many of us had hesitation to the point that about 17 of us
had households on Southwest 12th, Crest Wood, and Cambria, all signed a petition
asking not to change the zoning. Not necessarily say don't build, but just change the
zoning on it, since the zoning -- if you go out to -- if you go out to adaweb.net, it talks
about what R-4 stands for and an R-4 allows there to be four homes -- four dwellings
per property. That does include if it's a single family -- or all single family, but detached,
nondetached, and duplexes. I know right now they're saying that they want to put that
in there, but in the future if there is an R-4, that's going to allow somebody else to go in
and tear these down and put in duplexes, which will bring down our values.
Borup: That's not correct.
Stenzel: Is that what I'm not reading?
Borup: Right. And what is your property zoned?
Stenzel: We are in R-2. From what I understand from the stuff that we pulled up, we are
R-2.
Borup: I would be very surprised, but this is not approved for duplexes or any of the
multi-family --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 22 of 108
Stenzel: Do we know the sizes of these homes or anything about what's going to
happen to us?
Borup: Well, that's not part of the application, just the zoning. Right now it doesn't have
any zoning.
Stenzel: Well -- and that's what J guess -- that's what I'm kind of worried about is what's
going to happen in the future for us, because we live right next to it. Especially, if this
storage unit gets taken care of.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup?
Borup: Yes.
Hawkins-Clark: If I could just clarify. There is no zoning request change. It's--
Stenzel: So -- okay. Taking it to zoning as an R-4.
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. It is already R-4 and as well as the rest of -- all of the yellow
that's zoned on the map is all R-4, so anything that is yellow is the same zoning and,
then, it changes.
Stenzel: Okay. Then, I was given misinformation when I was --
Borup: So, the only -- the request is to take an unplatted vacant lot and put three lots on
it. Yes.
Stenzel: I guess -- I guess, then, the end of that, then, is to say that I would really hope
these are going to be nice homes, so that our values don't get taken down. I look back
at -- we moved into that subdivision, we bought the first property right there, because
we wanted to have that first property, and I look at that and if hOmes go in that aren't
going to be nice, granted, it doesn't look right now, but if it doesn't look nice, that's going
to bring down the rest of us and we all worry about that, because Fenway Park is kind of
surrounded, as you can tell, by everyone else and we get a lot of say in what happens
there and the other estates don't have to necessarily drive down 12th Avenue and look
at it. So, I guess that's it. If there is any questions.
Borup: Questions? Thank you.
Stenzel: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify in this?
T.Stenzel: Hello. My name is Troy Stenzel, I also live at 163 Southwest 12th Avenue.
My main concerns -- and I hope that - you guys had mentioned the CC&Rs going with
this storage unit and I hope that if you allow this that you do allow in the CC&Rs that the
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 23 of 108
homeowners association will take care of the garbage that gets routinely dumped in this
storage area. The homeowners have done nothing --
Borup: We need to clarify this maybe one more time for people. We are talking about
these three lots on this one parcel and that's all that's before the Commission this
evening.
T.Stenzel: Yes. I just -- since you guys had brought up the CC&Rs and the storage
facility --
Borup: Yeah. That's another thing that we are not -- part of the application is the
covenants either. That's up to -- each subdivision has their own.
RStenzel: Sure. Well, that's --
Borup: Anything else? Thank you. Is there anyone else that has anything new they'd
like to add?
Haycock: I'm Scott Haycock, 633 West Barrett. It's my understanding that Crest Wood
Construction, Cortland Walker, has some sort of deposit for these three lots. My wife
and I are interested in building a house on those -- on one of them. The house would
be comparable to the ones in the subdivision, 15, 16, approximately, square foot
houses, single family, like it says. We just want to come and tell that that is what we
would like to do and that is our plans and we'd like to see that happen.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else that has any comments or
testimony? Seeing none, Commissioners?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup -- I'm sorry. Could I just clarify one thing --
Borup: Yes.
Hawkins-Clark: -- before you close the hearing? The city ordinance for R-4 does
require a minimum 1,400 square foot homes.
Borup: Right. For the other lady that had a question on that. So -- and that -- oh, how
did a 1,250 foot home get in there?
Hawkins-Clark: Good question.
Borup: That might have been done before that ordinance went into effect, because I
think it was smaller at one time. I think your house got in before the ordinance changed,
so, yeah, they will all be 14 or larger. Thank you, Brad. Was there -- Commissioners,
any questions for any of the applicants or are we ready to move on?
Newton-Huckabay: I have no questions.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5,2004
Page 24 of 108
Borup: Any discussion? Motions?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on Item 5.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Newton-Huckabay: I just didn't understand -- I wasn't following the conversation on the
storage lot very well, so I just wanted to get clear on that before we have a motion on
approval.
Borup: Well, the storage lot is owned by the other association.
Newton-Huckabay: I understand that, but why are we discussing it with this application?
We can't do anything with it or put any requirements on it; is that correct? Or we can
just make a suggestion; is that the way the --
Hawkins-Clark: No. Actually -- actually, the -- it goes back to the original platting of this
whole area and at one point, of course, this was all just one parcel, presumably, and so,
then, they created Crest Wood Estates off of that parcel and they -- then, they created
Fenway Park, but they left these two parcels out of both of those subdivisions and that's
not something that the city would allow today. How it got through that process -- I mean
I can't explain exactly, but the fact is we know today that that happened, that's not
platted land and the ordinance says you can't just go and break off pieces and so that's
the basis on which the city can say we need -- we want this original parent parcel
cleaned up and the plat formed.
Newton-Huckabay: So, would we deny this application with that? 1--
Hawkins-Clark: Well, I think the option for the Commission would be -- you certainly
could, but another option is to ask them to -- require them to incorporate -- in order to
comply with the ordinance, which says you cannot do illegal splits, to clean this up they
would come back with a revised preliminary/final plat and they could still do a
preliminary final plat, because it would still only be four lots. And, then, it would have to
be re-noticed, because it's adding a lot -- actually, it's not a build-able lot. Yeah. It's
adding a new lot, so it would have to be re-noticed as a four-lot subdivision, instead of a
three-lot subdivision.
Borup: So, you're saying we can't just continue it and allow them to make that correction
or --
Hawkins-Clark: That's correct.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 25 of 108
Borup: They would need to go back on a new application is what you're saying?
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. Our planning director's opinion on it is -- the acreage changes,
so we need a new legal description.
Borup: Right.
Hawkins-Clark: And the number of lots changes and both of those factors involve
submitting a new -- essentially, a new application that says the correct number of lots,
the correct acreage.
Borup: So, if we don't clean this up now, when would the opportunity be?
Hawkins-Clark: Probably never. The question that staff struggled with is the -- the
advantage to doing that and the enforcement, of course, in terms of -- if the main
concern is the landscape -- the landscaping ordinance can be enforced today,
regardless of how the plat goes through. I mean --
Borup: I understand you're struggling with this. It really doesn't serve much of a
purpose to try to enforce it at this point. It's not going to really make any difference.
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. In terms of the survey itself, you know, just getting the lot in
there. I mean --
Borup: Yeah. It's not going to have really any effective difference as far as the
subdivision is concerned. They are going to be operating the same as they are.
Hawkins-Clark: Correct, so --
Zaremba: So, are we convinced that it was legally annexed?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: So, after all that, it sounds like we are leading towards maybe just leaving it
alone?
Newton-Huckabay: Well, if it serves no real benefit, if it doesn't impact the way they
upkeep the property or the way they develop it or anything like that, I don't think we
would hold it up. That would be my opinion.
Borup: Okay. Thoughts by any of the other Commissioners?
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 26 01108
Rohm: I think the whole thing should be cleaned up as one parcel being developed as
four-lots and address all issues that have been brought before the Commission tonight
by the concerned public. That's -- I think that's the right answer. It may not be what the
developers would like to see right now, but the three lots to be developed and leave the
question of the RV park and island still out there hanging is not what we are here for. I
think we should try and clean the whole thing up as one.
Borup: I think staff's thought was -- is that going to accomplish anything. I mean the
landscaping ordinance can handle the landscaping already. We already have weed
ordinances.
Zaremba: It would clarify any future legal questions should the current storage lot
eventually want to be subdivided into two more lots or something like that. It would be
clearly identified as a legal lot, because of the platting of all four pieces, instead of the
requested three.
Rohm: I think it would preclude them from doing just that, if, in fact, you brought that
fourth lot, if you will, into this application, they wouldn't be able to come back at a later
date and divide that into three build-able lots or however many and abandoned the
storage and right now there would be no -- there is nothing that we could do to stop that
if we approved this application as made and it seems like by combining all of that
undeveloped property into a single application addresses all those issues.
Borup: So, what would the Commission like to do?
Moe: Brad, I've got one more question. I'm a little bit confused, because, basically, in
your special considerations you bring up staff recommends reference be made in the
CC&Rs that addresses how the vehicle storage common lot pertains to the Woodward
Estates property owners. What exactly was your intent there as -- what are you looking
for?
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, I think the thinking there was just a note of
encouragement. The city has no role in this CC&Rs, you know, I think it was just to
clarify for these new lot owners that will be purchasing, what exactly their rights are as
coming into this subdivision as actually a new subdivision and I think it was -- since
there are -- since they are proposing to use the only part -- the only way that they are
proposing to be coordinated is with the irrigation system and the application didn't
address, well, do these lot owners also have access to the storage, et cetera.
Moe: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: And so we were just -- they don't have to, of course. I mean the city is
not going to get involved with that, but I think for the benefit of the future owners of
Woodward Estates, so they know what -- do they have a right to access it or not.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5. 2004
Page 27 01108
Borup: The homeowner's association president said that was their intention, that they
would have all the same rights and obligations of the existing homeowners in the
association.
Zaremba: Okay. I would have to say that I support Commissioner Rohm's instinct to
clean this up now by requiring that this application come back as a four lot application
with the other questions answered.
Rohm: I think that it should be.
Borup: Then, I think it's time for a motion and move on.
Rohm: So, would that just be a motion to deny this application and -- or to continue it or
-- I guess --
Zaremba: I think the director has expressed that that would be a significant enough
difference that it isn't just a modification to the current application, so my instinct is that it
would need to be denied.
Moe: We are going to get an opinion.
Zaremba: We may get a further explanation of that from the director.
Canning: Start using my name in vain. Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission,
you don't have to deny it, we can just re-notice. You can just have them modify the
application and we can re-notice it, rather than -- if you deny it, then, they will have to
submit a new application and fees and, in all honesty, I don't think it would be warranted
collecting new fees, other than for the re-noticing. So, I think we can just do it with a
change in the application and re-notice, so --
Zaremba: Should we reopen the hearing, then, so that we can continue it for that
action?
Canning: Yes, you should. You might want to ask the clerk how soon they could --
I'm sorry, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, we are in a quandary here,
because you can't table to a date uncertain and you can't remand it back to yourself.
Borup: Well, we can probably -- we can table it to a -- continue it to a certain date.
Canning: To a date certain and, then, it will just be on -- the applicant will need to get
the revised preliminary plat done by that date.
Borup: And we will ask them that and make sure that works for them.
Zaremba: I think we discussed another time that going through the re-noticing process
is a minimum of three weeks, if not four.
Mendian Planning & Zoning
Augu,t 5,2004
Page 28 of 108
Canning: Yes. I would think that you would want to go out at least --
Zaremba: Should give them sufficient time to --
Canning: -- four weeks, probably.
Zaremba: So, if we made it the second meeting in September, that would give them
time to revise the plat and the application as necessary and --
Borup: So far our first meeting in September is pretty light.
Zaremba: The first meeting has seven applications.
Newton-Huckabay: That's not light.
Borup: There is two more to come, then. Right now we have four,. with three projects.
Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, I just counted seven.
Borup: Okay. It's not on the draft.
Canning: I'm sorry.
Borup: It's not on the draft agenda. There is seven items, but the first three are roll call
and agenda items, but --
Canning: I was --
Borup: But she said there was two more. The clerk said there is two more coming.
Canning: Okay. I have got three more.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, maybe we should reopen the hearing and, then, get some input
from the applicant as to when they'd like to have it re-noticed.
Moe: I agree.
Borup: Ready for a motion.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we rescind our closing of the hearing, therefore,
reopening it and I would also comment that I'm not aware that anybody that spoke at
that hearing has left the room, so I believe that everybody interested in this subject is
aware that we are reopening it.
Rohm: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page290f10a
Borup: Motion and second to reopen the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Okay. Maybe you ought to come up and see if -- we are looking at -- we
definitely would be able to do it the second meeting in September.
Scelecy: What day would that be?
Moe: The 16th.
Scelecy: The 16th? Okay. I'll see if I can get with the surveyor and see if they can get
set up by then.
Borup: Is the 16th of September enough time for you?
Scelecy: Five weeks?
Borup: Yeah.
Scelecy: I think we can probably make it. If we can't, can we move it back to another
time?
Borup: Yeah. We would have to -
Zaremba: Continue it again.
Borup: We'd continue it again, which may be -- it may not necessarily be the next
meeting, depending on how full that agenda is.
Scelecy: Okay.
Rohm: Unless you'd just as soon continue it to a date beyond September 16th tonight.
We don't have to go to the 16th; we can continue it on to October 7th.
Scelecy: The sooner the better, if we can do it on the 16th.
Rohm: And that's what we presume, so --
Borup: Okay. We will go with the 16th.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, just to point out, that staff would need a revised plat to review
at least ten days before that.
Borup: Right.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
August 5. ZO04
Page 30 of 108
Scelecy: Okay.
Borup: So, it would be the same plat you have now, you just need to include the storage
area in that.
Scelecy: It has to be surveyed and boundary put in by the surveyor. It's going to take a
little --
Borup: Right. But that one should have existing property pins and existing lot lines all
around it, doesn't it? It shouldn't be that difficult.
Scelecy: It might. Yeah.
Borup: It's got lots on all three sides now.
Rohm: I think from discussion, we would also like to have you address the island more
specifically, if you can, in the revised application.
Scelecy: In the CC&Rs? In the CC&Rs, probably.
Rohm: Well, we don't address CC&Rs ourselves, so if you --
Borup: Well, they could make mention that -- we could make note that it's included in
the CC&Rs.
Rohm: Very well.
Scelecy: We'll do it that way, then.
Rohm: Okay. Yeah. That would be appreciated.
Scelecy: Okay.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Ready for that motion?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue the Public Hearing on PFP 04-007, to
our meeting of September 16th, with the expectation that three things will happen. That
the fourth piece of property that is currently a storage lot will be included in this
subdivision; that there will be an explanation resolving the care of the island in the
middle of the road, and that a new plat drawing be provided ten days before that
hearing.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
August 5. 2004
Page 31 of 108
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6:
Item 7:
Item 8:
Public Hearing: AZ 04-017 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 29.69
acres from RUT to R-4, C-N and L-O zones for proposed Leeshire
Subdivision by SWI Associates, LLC- 5603 N. Locust Grove Road:
Public Hearing: PP 04-024 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 89
building lots and 20 common lots on 29.69 acres in proposed R-4, C-N
and L-O zones for proposed Leeshire Subdivision by SWI Associates,
LLC - 5603 N. Locust Grove Road:
Public Hearing: CUP 04-026 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
mixed use Planned Development consisting of single family residential
and commercial/office uses with reductions to the minimum requirements
for lots size, side yard setbacks and minimum street frontage for proposed
Leeshire Subdivision by SWI Associates, LLC - 5603 N. Locust Grove
Road:
Borup: Okay. Our next Public Hearing consists of the Leeshire Subdivision application.
I'd like to open these hearings, Public Hearing AZ 04-017, request for annexation and
zoning of 29.69 acres from RUT to R-4, CoN and L-O zones for the propose Leeshire
Subdivision by SWI Associates, at 5603 North Locust Grove Road. Also Public Hearing
PP 04-024, request for preliminary plat approval of 89 building lots and 20 common lots
on 29.69 acres. And Public Hearing CUP 04-026, request for a Conditional Use Permit
for a mixed-use development consisting of single-family residential and commercial
office uses at the same location. Again, I'd like to open all three hearings at this time
and start with the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The proposed
Leeshire Subdivision is located on the west side of Locust Grove Road, about halfway
between Chinden and McMillan Road. It is contiguous with the recently approved
Saguaro Canyon Subdivision, which is not showing up on our database yet with the
color as annexed, but we have outlined it here for you. It has been annexed and the
Leeshire project uses it as its point contiguity to be eligible for annexation. It consists of
just under 30 acres and the proposal is for 89 building lots, two of which are
nonresidential, as I will show you in a minute, and 20 common lots. You can see the
Comprehensive Plan here. This yellow color is medium density residential in the
Comprehensive Plan. That stands for a density of three to eight dwelling units per acre.
The proposed gross density of this project is 3.26 dwelling units per acre and is in
compliance with the density required by the Comprehensive Plan. The surrounding
green color to the south and to the east is low density residential, which means less
than three. There is also a neighborhood center to the north, which doesn't directly
affect this project. You can see the aerial photo here. The properties to the north are
mainly rural residential and agricultural land up in here. To the south there is Larkwood
Subdivision, rural residences, and a church. They are all zoned RUT currently in Ada
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5. 2004
Page 32 of 108
County. To the east there are rural residences. Vienna Woods Subdivision to the
southeast and Dunwoody Subdivision to the northeast. And as I mentioned to the west
is the recently approved Saguaro Canyon project. 'have looked into some of the
densities of the surrounding projects. Saguaro Canyon, which was recently approved to
the west, has a gross density of 3.29 dwelling units per acre. Vienna Woods No.2,
which is the phase that's closest to the project here, has a gross density of about 2.27
dwelling units per acre. About one unit per acre less than the proposed Leeshire
project. Larkwood Subdivision has about two acre lots in it, as does the Dunwoody
Subdivision. This is the proposed plat. Locust Grove Road is on the right-hand side.
You enter from the center of the project. There are two large lots here, one on the
north, one on the south. The large lot on the north would be proposed for future office.
The large lot on the south for future neighborhood commercial, and I have kind of
looked at this project in three sections. That would be the first section. The second
section are these smaller lots in here. One second. That middle section has a -- is
proposed to have a mix of attached and detached homes. The lot sizes range from
5,900 square feet to 8,000 square feet. There are 23 lots right in the center here that
are served by alleys and the remaining 35 lots in this section all front-loaded. The back
section of the project, back here, has larger lots, 28 single family lots that range from
9,500 square feet to 14,000 square feet in size and, then, one large lot here for the
existing residence, which is just over an acre. The application is for a planned
development. The requested zoning is R-4, but as part of that planned development
they are requesting the use exception for the office and commercial uses. Ordinance
allows you to request no more than 20 percent of the land area in a use exception. This
is just under ten percent of the land area. They are also requesting reduced side
setbacks for the properties in what I call the middle section, to allow for zero lot lines or
attached units and they have also requested a reduction of the lot frontage requirement,
which would typically be 80 feet down to a 50-foot minimum frontage. Most of my
discussion or issues to be resolved are -- begin on page 11 under special
considerations in the staff report. The first item is actually -- I don't believe needing any
resolution. Staff's not requesting a change; it's more for the Commission's awareness.
That has to do with the street side setbacks for the properties that are adjacent to the
common lots in -- that run east west on the streets in the middle section. They are ten
feet wide. On other projects we have talked about increasing the size of those to be at
least 15 feet, so that -- with a five feet setback. From that line there is still 20 feet from
the right of way. In this case they are detaching the sidewalks and including, not only
the buffer area, the street buffer, but the full sidewalk and then -- to behind it within the
right of way. So, even with the ten-foot common lot beyond right of way, those street
side setbacks end up being about 24 and a half feet from the curb, so we feel like they
are still meeting the intent of that ordinance and are requesting approval of that as
proposed. The second item deals with interior side yard setbacks. They have
requested the zero lot line, zero for -- in order to attach units. We will support that, but
with these caveats, only one side lot line can be made a zero lot line, so that there can
be no more than two attached in a row and the line adjacent to the street buffers or the
common lots cannot be a zero lot line, they have to have a setback. The third item is
the existing trees. There are several existing trees on the property, mainly surrounding
the existing house. Based on the -- this is a color rendering that was submitted
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 33 of 108
separately from the landscape plan. The landscape plan does not depict those existing
trees and we were questioning how many of them would be removed, because there
were significantly less trees shown on that plan than on the landscape plan, so we are
asking the applicant to clarify the trees that would be removed versus saved tonight at
the hearing. The fourth item deals with amenities. They are proposing several
amenities for the project. The first includes a ten-foot multi-use pathway that enters the
project and goes up and stubs to the north. During initial discussions with the applicant
we had requested that pathway to match the Comprehensive Plan. You can see where
this hatching represents the multi-use pathway and needs to cross through -- over the
project. In recent discussions with the parks department, we have determined that this
may not be the best route. We do have in Saguaro Canyon a multi-use pathway that
follows the South Slough -- or South Slough -- I believe this is the North Slough. And it
continues along the North Slough from this point on. Discussions have been the fact
that we would look to get this property when it develops to bring the pathway and stub it
at this location, knowing that it will require future discussions and negotiations with the
existing homeowners here in order to ever extend and connect that pathway through.
But by doing so, it follows an existing natural feature, rather than going through an area
that's basically undefined here. So, that's up for discussion tonight. They have
proposed it to go through, but we are questioning whether that's really the correct
location right now. The other amenities that are proposed include a tot lot and/or a
basketball court. They are not depicted on the actual landscape plan, but they are
depicted on this plan with the basketball court and a tot lot in these locations. They are
also proposing passive recreational amenities such as picnic benches and/or a gazebo.
Those are not depicted. We are asking the application that they clarify their intentions
tonight regarding the amenities, because we need to tie those down as to what
specifically the required amenities will be as part of the planned development. I have
noted that in condition of approval number three. I have got a placeholder there under
the Conditional Use Permit for required amenities. We need to have the Commission
clarify what the required amenities are after the presentation tonight. Moving on. Item
five is fencing. They are requesting that they be allowed to do six-foot fencing along the
back of the common lots coming into the project. Staff does support that, with the
understanding that they will taper down to three feet tall maximum within 20 feet of the
road that they are intersecting. Item number six is a new stub street. Staff is requesting
that Midnight Haze Lane, which is this road right here, be stubbed to the south to allow
for connection to any future redevelopment of the property to the south. If I go back,
there are two large five-acre lots in this location and it would stub to that location there.
So, that it -- it would basically remove one of these lots and in order -- staff does support
relocating that lot to the west end of this row of lots. That does have the effect of
reducing the open space for the project to just below ten percent, but the -- only five
percent is required and they have at least two other amenities that they are going to be
doing. So, staff does support them being able to keep the lot that they would otherwise
lose by putting in the stub that we are requesting. Item number seven is the street
buffers out in front along Locust Grove. The city is requiring 25-foot wide landscape
buffers. Let me go to -- and along the entryway they are proposing 20 feet - 20-foot
buffers for landscaping and just as a point of clarification, we would like to make sure
that these buffers are built and planted as part of the initial subdivision improvements
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 34 of 108
and that that construction does not wait for the office commercial lots to develop. The
final item deals with SSC, the trash company that -- for the city. They did have some
concerns with logistics of trash pickup in here, because some pickup was alley loaded,
some pickup was street and I believe the applicant has met with SSC and is ready to
address that tonight. There have been several letters, e-mails sent in from adjacent
residences. As I understand it, the main points of contention are two items. There may
be others and I don't speak for everyone here, but I believe the main issues include the
office and commercial designations along Locust Grove and, then, the density of the
project in relation to other subdivisions in the area. So, with that I will stand for any
questions.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Rohm: Good presentation.
Borup: None at this time?
Zaremba: I second that it was a good presentation. I have a couple of questions on the
notes and these are more in the nature of typos, but just to make sure that I'm
understanding. On page seven, under site specific conditions, paragraph three refers to
Sanitary Service and the second to the last sentence says they will be subject to
sanitary sewer latecomer fees. Paragraph four, the subject is water service, but if you
turn the page to page eight, the first line says, again, this development shall be subject
to sanitary water -- sanitary sewer latecomer fees. My question is is that just a typo as
a redundancy or are they subject to water main latecomer fees?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, that -- that is a typo. It should say
water latecomer fees.
Zaremba: Okay. So, there are water main late newcomer fees?
Freckleton: Correct.
Zaremba: Okay. We will change that one.
Freckleton: Latecomer fee.
Zaremba: Latecomer fees. Then, actually, Steve, you answered my question. There is
a typo on page 12, paragraph five, fencing. The last sentence there says such fencing
should taper down to three feet minimum and, as you described it, that word should be
maximum, so I would make that change. And that also changes page 13, paragraph
four, for the same reason, the word minimum should be maximum. Then, my other
question is, actually, a little more substantive than just a typo. On page nine, paragraph
12, you reference the CC&Rs and I would -- since it's being referenced, I would add a
sentence at the end of 12 that says that the City of Meridian does not approve, regulate,
or enforce CC&Rs. Just to clarify that. Any objection to those comments? Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5. 2004
Page 35 of 108
Newton-Huckabay: Can I ask a question? Isn't there a neighborhood center, just for my
own -- on Locust Grove now south? Was it between McMillan and Ustick?
Siddoway: Between McMillan and Ustick. It is at the entrance to Heritage Commons
Subdivision.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Didn't we approve a bunch of commercial light office lots?
Siddoway: There have been several office and neighborhood commercial lots along
Locust Grove on the west side between McMillan and Ustick.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Anyone else?
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, to finalize, I would show that they have provided some floor
plans and elevations of the types of homes they intend to construct on the smaller lots
in the project and I'll just let them speak for themselves, but did want to present them as
part of the public record. I think that's it. Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Mr.
Nickel?
Nickel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. For the record, Shawn Nickel,
52 North 2nd Street in Eagle, here tonight representing the developer for the
subdivision. I'd like to thank staff for a very thorough analysis of the applications that
are before you this evening.
Borup: Maybe just for the public's information, the sheets that were passed out is the
sheet that's on the screen and, then, also their housing elevations that we saw earlier.
That's what the Commission is looking at now.
Nickel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As staff indicated, this is an application request for
preliminary plat, annexation and rezoning to R-4 and a PD -- a Conditional Use Permit
for a PD application for the 29.67 acres, 89 total lots or total build-able lots, which, as
staff explained, two of them are office commercial at the entrance to the subdivision off
of Locust Grove and the remaining 87, including the existing house would be residential.
The density of this subdivision as stated is 2.93 dwelling units per acre for the whole
site. If you take out the commercial and office, it's 3.26 dwelling units per acre. That is
compatible with the density that was approved in the Saguaro Subdivision. As you look
at this design, we do have a stub street to the west into that subdivision, so we are
providing access to that. We also have a future stub street to the north and in the
proposed -- or the corrected stub street to the south that staff talked about. He also
stated the different types, again, the office and commercial, we have got the middle
portion, which is the attached and detached optional zero lot lines, alley loaded product.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 36 of 106
The developer builder is going to get up after me and he's going to kind of explain in
mOre detail to you those -- those product types. I did provide you in that packet the
display that staff had put on and, again, he will go through those in a little more detail
after I'm finished. And, then, final area, the existing single family dwelling of the
property owner and, then, the surrounding larger development, which as you -- if you
know your PUDs -- or your PDs, we try to provide a diverse type of product. In this case
you have both office and residential within the planned development. The average lot
sizes for this subdivision are 8,724 square feet and that's if you included the existing
house, which is on about a 58,000 square foot lot. If take that away, it's an 8,146
square foot average lot size. This development does meet the intent of your
Comprehensive Plan, which calls out this area as a medium density residential. The R-
4 zone is a low-density residential designation, which we do meet that is outlined in your
staff report and in the proposed Findings of Fact. The open space that is provided,
there are 20 common lots located within the development. They total 3.54 acres or 11.9
percent of the site. Within that 11.9 percent is 3.05 acres, which is 10.3 percent that is
actual open space that meets the intent of the PD ordinance. So, it's usable open
space. The amenities -- to clarify those that staff brought up, again, we have the two
large open space areas with pathways. There is going to be benches located in this
area, more of a passive use area with full landscaping and, then, this larger park over
here. There is going to be a full size half court basketball court, a tot lot located right
here, and there will be scattered picnic tables and benches along the rest of the portions
of the park. In addition, we have a pathway that meanders and connects these two
areas right here. In addition to that, the subdivision does have detached sidewalks
throughout and so, in essence, what you're getting is you're getting a subdivision that
provides pedestrian access throughout the subdivision located along all the interior
streets, detached, landscaping, pathways down to those parks and, then, throughout
the subdivision. Regarding these special considerations that staff brought up, I think we
have addressed each of those. I'll go into them very briefly. Number one was regarding
the side setbacks and staff did a great job of explaining those, so I'll just stand for any
questions you have on that one. The interior side setbacks, we do understand that we
are -- if we attach units or attach structures, they will be only attached two at a time, as
opposed to any type of rowing. The existing trees that staff spoke about on the existing
-- or near the existing dwelling will either be retained or relocated on the site. That will
be addressed in the final landscape plan that submitted the final plat for staff's review. I
already discussed the amenities and if you have any further questions on that, I can
bring that up. I also have some pictures of some -- of the amenities that we propose.
We are okay with the fencing recommendations and, again, at the final plat stage you
will have a fencing plan that will be part of the final landscape plan that we will submit
for staff's review. The stub street, we did meet with staff and ACHD and are fine with
that stub street location and that will be revised. We will probably revise that prior to
City Council, so they will see exactly what that configuration looks like. Again, the street
buffers that --
Moe: That lot will, then, be relocated down?
Nickel: Yes, sir.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5,2004
Page 37 of 108
Moe: All right.
Nickel: That's the proposed location. Regarding the street buffers, that's fine with staff's
recommendation of the construction of those street buffers. And, then, the final was the
trash company and I just handed staff a late approval letter from SSC, approving our
application with some conditions of approval that we would be happy to meet for them.
We are in agreement with all of staff's recommended conditions of approval. We did
hold a neighborhood meeting out on the site prior to this meeting tonight. I'll stand for
any questions you have about what I spoke of. Again, the developer and builder is
going to get up and kind of explain the product type to you. And that's all I have.
Borup: Questions from the Commissioners?
Zaremba: You have covered a lot of the areas and I appreciate that.
Nickel: Try to.
Zaremba: You're probably aware we have received quite a large number of letters
concerning this and I guess that many of these people are probably here for this very
subject. You mentioned holding a neighborhood meeting. Could you review for us
maybe some of the issues that were brought up in the neighborhood meeting and what
resolution you brought them to, if any.
Borup: And maybe attendance at that meeting.
Nickel: Yeah, Mr. Chairman. We did get the list from development services staff for the
radius of the subdivision and that was what we used to mail out, in addition to -- I
believe we got the representative from the Vienna Woods Subdivision. I believe only
five -- five members of the neighborhoods showed up out at the site. We discussed --
we showed them this layout, which hasn't changed too much, other than the proposed
stub street, from what -- what you have in front of you. We discussed some of the uses
that could be seen on those -- on that commercial and office -- on those pads or on
those lots. We talked about the open space and pretty much the gist of it. There was
no real concerns brought up at that meeting. It was more an informative type of
meeting at that time.
Rohm: When was that meeting?
Nickel: I'd have to look in my file. I can get you that. It was probably a month, month
and a half ago.
Rohm: I guess the point is is there appears to be a lot of concerns now that the
opportunity for resolution would have been better if those would have been handled
prior to tonight's meeting.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5,2004
Page 38 of 108
Nickel: May 19th was the meeting. Again, we are not required to hold a neighborhood
meeting, we felt -- and this was before we knew there was any opposition, we felt that it
was appropriate to hold a neighborhood meeting and we did. And, again, only five folks
showed up.
Rohm: Well, just speaking for myself, maybe you're not required to, but from this
Commissioner's perspective, it is in your best interest to hold those and keep very good
notes, so that you can present findings that are congruent to the thoughts of the
developers and the neighborhood as a whole.
Nickel: And, Commissioner, I believe we did -- we did do that.
Moe: In the regards to the CoN and the L-O, what exactly are we anticipating seeing
come before us in that?
Nickel: I believe -- and I'll have to turn to staff. I believe any use that we propose will
have to come back for some sort of review, whether it's a Conditional Use Permit, it will
come directly to you, or if it's a principal permitted use, I believe it goes to design
review.
Siddoway: As a conceptual planned development, technically any use is required to
come back for a detailed CUP.
Moe: Okay.
Nickel: And I guess to -- we don't have any specific uses in mind at this point.
Moe: Okay.
Zaremba: I would comment for those that don't come to these meetings very often,
when we use shorthand, CUP stands for a Conditional Use Permit and what it means to
you is there would be notification of a Public Hearing.
Borup: So, in other words, there would be another Public Hearing for any of the office
use or commercial use.
Nickel: Correct.
Borup: Any other questions?
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: Then you said there would be some information on the --
Tepola: Good evening. My name is Barry Tepola, SWI Associates, 4700 North
Cloverdale, Suite 214, Boise. This project, in the conceptual design standpoint, had a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 39 of 108
lot of considerations for the neighbors from our perspective. We knew that the
neighbors would be concerned with value, we knew the existing property owner and he
was expressly concerned with the value and the size of the homes and the value of that
property from the standpoint of completed neighborhood. So, we had to make some
commitments to him as well, which we continued and are making in this consideration.
In the packet that was delivered to you, we had some additional subdivision conditions.
We want to make sure that everybody understands the product going in here is not a
starter home product. You can't have ten to 14 thousand square-foot lots and access
them through a starter home subdivision. The homes in the front are going to end up
being high amenity, high quality homes that are designed for a mix of families and move
down and move ups. There is a number of requests that have come out there for
smaller lots, the people that don't want to have to maintain a large lot, but want a high
quality, high amenity home. That's what these are looking to do. And on the front
loaded streets that you can see here, the driveway accesses are going to be ribbon
drives to the extent that they come up within 20 feet of the garage, which shows right
along here. Right there. And you can see in the front to the extent we can have them in
here, we will also do the same. The reason we wanted zero lot lines on these is in
order to attach the garages in the back, since we plan on having a lot of garages
located in the rear of the property. Attaching the garages on the property line allows us
to have the flexibility of removing any dead space between the two units. Our CC&Rs
will also provide that there will be a maintenance easement across each lot line to
maintain the size of that zero lot line. Would you go to the alley, please? Same
consideration comes with up on the alley loaded. As you can see here, the rear alleys
will have a minimum 20-foot driveway between the alley and the garage. It leaves
plenty of room for the people to be able to back out their vehicles, wash their vehicles,
and there will be no parking in those alleys. The alleys are going to be 20 feet wide;
there will be a ten-foot setback minimum from the point of the alley to a fence along
here, which will provide for utility access as well. So, the corridor is going to be open.
Each of the homes on the back will have lights on the back of the garages, which will be
on a photostat control, so it will help with security and open lighting. The front of the
property -- the front of the homes here are setback at a minimum of 15 feet. We haven't
asked for any variance. It will be coming 15 feet from the property line or the back of
sidewalk. Now, what we have done here is the back of -- the property line is right
behind the back of sidewalk. We have come over the street design, a five-foot planting
strip, and a four foot detached sidewalk. So, within that, the property line will be just
behind the detached sidewalk. So, in that case the minimum setback will be 15 feet, but
our goal is to vary it. Our goal on the product is to have architectural features on the
front of the homes, including stone, stucco, various items like that. We are not going to
allow any vinyl siding in the project; it is all going to be hard board, cottage lap, or
something similar. So, it's going to end up with a high quality, high amenity type of
product. Our initial designs in these homes, even on the alley and the smaller lots, are
going to be minimum 1,600 square feet and we have got home designs up into 2,500
square feet and 2,700 square feet. So, they are not going to be small, inexpensive,
starter homes. The other aspect we talked about was in the common areas. Our
common areas are not used as storm drainage areas. Our common areas are going to
be usable, they are not going to have any storm drain retention on them, they are going
Meridian Planning & Zoning
Augus15,2004
Page 40 of 108
to be available for the street use. They are not going to have -- our storm drainage
system in this, our water level is so low down below the ground our main aspect is
getting through the hard pan, which our storm drain trenches will allow us to do and we
still have plenty of room under there to maintain it. In addition, we are going to have --
each of the lots are going to come up with a landscape plan. It will have the front yard
landscaped. It will also have -- the rear yard will either have to be landscaped or they
will have to provide a grading plan and the homeowners are going to have to be able to
administer that, so we don't have any water issues running from lot to lot. Okay. I'll
stand for any questions.
Borup: Questions from the Commission? Are you anticipating on these smaller lots
something comparable to Heritage Commons? It sounds like from what you presented -
Tepola: They are going to be larger lots. Heritage Commons has smaller lots, it will be
there in concept with the same architectural flair. We are going to be the builder on
those smaller lots. We are going to have country French, cottage, bungalow, and
craftsman exteriors on them. It's going to have a mix of exterior and -- exterior looks on
them. So, we are going to be the builder and we are in control of that.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: I was glancing at Mr. Freckleton to see if he concurred with the storm water
retention plan.
Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, most definitely. Upon review of the
report from the geo tech on this project, he does indicate that there is a pretty significant
impermeable layer down roughly four or five feet. Soils below that impermeable layer
were free draining pit run materials and they did not encounter any water when they did
their test holes. So, I wrote probably a little more than I usually do, as far as soils and
groundwater in this one, but the thing I wanted to just drive the point home was that
there is that layer down there and the potential for perched water is really great. So,
they are just going to have to be very careful when they do their engineering and I have
confidence that they will be able to do that and have a good result. So, in the report
from the geo tech, there were a couple of documents that were included that I thought
would be very beneficial to have the applicant include in their CC&Rs, just to try and put
the information out to the perspective home builders and home buyers, so --
Tepola: I'd like to clarify on that point, because that is a request of us to the geo tech to
supply those. Those are important aspects and they will be part of the CC&Rs and they
will be part of the contract process with each individual builder and buyer.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: Commissioner Rohm.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 41 of 108
Rohm: I don't have any questions of the applicant, but I just have a comment to you
before you open this to public testimony. I think that something that might not be a bad
idea in this particular application is to go ahead and take a recess here for about 15
minutes and give the applicant and the concerned citizens an opportunity to have an
open discussion amongst themselves and see if there is some of the issues that,
obviously, still remain that can be handled, as opposed to taking testimony from each
individual -- and not opposed to testimony at all, but I think the best way is to come to
resolve before, rather than us try to figure out the right answer after testimony. So, I'd
like to see if we could just take a 15 minute recess and give you an opportunity to talk to
the people that are in the audience and see if you can mitigate some of the concerns
before testimony -- additional testimony.
Tepola: I'd like to bring up one comment that came in on this. We did have a meeting
out on the site, we did meet with the people that were out there, their concerns -- their
concerns were on the value of the homes going in there. Their concerns were in the
starter home market. The people that we did meet with, that's what we discussed. We
did converse with the Vienna Woods board of directors, two members -- and I'm willing
to talk with him, but I just want to lay that out. We didn't receive the e-mails or the
concerned information until 4:00 o'clock this afternoon and that's why I'm saying I would
like to -- I would like to have that opportunity to be able to talk to them, because I think
that's important, but I kind of got blindsided at 4:00 today, so I didn't get a chance to do
this ahead of time.
Rohm: Well -- and out of respect to both sides, I think that that gives everybody an
opportunity to get their wishes heard by the appropriate people and so with that being
said, Mr. Chairman, if you don't have any objection, I'd like to have a 15 minute recess
and we will continue.
Borup: Do most of those here to testify on this feel that would be beneficial? It doesn't
sound like there is anybody here that is interested, Commissioner.
Rohm: Fair enough.
Borup: Well, most of what I read in the letters there were many concerned on lot size,
which -- I mean this is the application and design that's before us now. I don't think we
are going to be here to redesign the plat, unless there was some other issues, too. I
think it's beneficial that, you know, we have got an idea on the homes and the quality of
the project and that type of thing. These arguments here are the same ones I
remember hearing at Heritage Commons, all these little small homes going in. A year
later after the homes went in the complaint I heard is the prices were too high, so a lot
can change in one year.
Newton-Huckabay: Can we ask what is the price point on one of these homes? What is
the price point on one of these homes?
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
Augu't 5, 2004
Page 42 of 108
Tepola: Well, if you look at a 160,000 dollar house -- or 1,600 square foot house, you're
looking at 175 to 180 and you work up from there and 2,700 square foot is going to be
250, 270. You know, that's on the product in that middle section. You go to the other
section, the back -- the one-third west side of the project and the price is open. It's
going to be custom homes going in there and the price is going to be open. The
minimum square footage will be the same, but I don't think you're going to have
anybody putting a 1,600 square foot house on a ten or 12 thousand square foot home
site.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the -- the main concern in the hearing is probably on
the homes, but I'm still a little bit confused -- or I'm still -- I'm just still questioning the
light office and the commercial use in there and just exactly why are you anticipating
that you really wanted to go that route, as opposed to developing other homes in there.
My concern to that is is because of the fact we already have a neighborhood center
down on Locust Grove and we are already over capacity at that point for the Comp Plan
in that area. So, I'm just wondering if some of the folks in here are a little bit concerned
on what that element is going to be and I realize it's going to have to come back for a
CUP, but I'd kind of like to get an idea of what the reasoning for that was.
Tepola: Well, the reasoning is because of the existing property owner. He retains those
two parcels. So, the use of those -- we can put some restrictions into a development
agreement or we can talk about the actual zoning on those. His primary desire is to
have professional office. He has a couple of kids who have graduated or are graduating
from school and will have some professional businesses and he would like to have an
office location for them and that's the primary. If it gets to be the commercial that's an
issue, then, we are willing to convert a commercial parcel to an L-O parcel. But
anything other than that we would have to get concurrence from the existing property
owner.
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: I agree with Commissioner Moe. I don't really think office this close
to the neighborhood center down -- in the block south is -- I think we are going to have
more lots -- a lot more office than we have need for in that area. I'm not sure need is
the word I'm looking for, but --
Tepola; Any further questions? Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Are we ready to continue on or do we need a break? We have got a
request for a short break at this time. We will try to make it about five minutes.
(Recess.)
Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our meeting on the Leeshire Subdivision
application. We have had the report from the staff and the applicant; we'd like to now
open the meeting for testimony from anyone else. When we have a crowd of this size,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5. 2004
Page 43 of 108
we do need to follow some of the rules that we have and one of those is the three-
minute limitation. Otherwise, we would be here all night. The other thing that we have
made available -- and I don't know if this group is organized to that extent, if we have a
spokesman here that would be speaking for the group or a large group, we are able to
allow that person some extra time. Is that an issue here tonight? Do we have a
spokesman for -- it doesn't look like it. Everyone is on their own. Okay. A lot of times
the homeowners association will have a spokesman for that. Okay. So, those
representatives are going to be speaking for your whole subdivision and no one from
your subdivision will be testifying, then? Okay. I was trying to give you some extra
time, but if others are going to be testifying, then, that kind of negates that. So you
would be speaking for them? Well, okay, there is some of the testimony saying they
will. We will take that as it comes up, then, I guess. We would like to go ahead and
begin, then.
Porter: Darwin Porter, 5780 North Locust Grove. Would it be possible to put a map up
of the area that shows all the way out to Chinden? I want to thank the Commissioners
here for their time tonight. I know you're going to be here a long time. I live directly
across the street from the proposed Leeshire plat -- platted subdivision -- or subdivision
here. Let's see. Right there. That's my little homestead there and as we were listening
I heard some terms I'm not quite used to. Alley loading product. Out in our area we are
used to terms like chickens, chukars, alfalfa and pheasants and so one of our main
concerns that at least for my wife and I -- and we, actually, are representing two other
families here tonight, is the density of the subdivision. We have lived in this particular
spot for about six years now. When we saw a similar subdivision come in, Vienna
Woods, awhile back and it was one of our concerns then and a lot of the issues were
addressed with the Vienna Woods Subdivision, in that we got larger lot sizes buffering
the immediate rural ranchettes and I would like to ask for something similar to that with
the Leeshire Subdivision. In going back here to -- I don't know if there is a little larger
map here, but we have got a lot of rural subdivisions around here. You have got
Banbury to the north, you have got Spyglass that are one acre lots a half mile away, you
have got Dunwoody. We talked about that. Shandee is another one that's got one acre
lots and, then, there is a lot of one acre there on Jericho Road, which is just to the north
of the proposed plat. Going to commercial real estate space, the Leeshire entrance is
not listed on the Meridian future land use plat as being a commercial location. That's a
concern. And also that it's in the center of a mile section. I think it would create some
excess noise and some traffic. Also, the working hours of commercial or retail space is
-- can be objectionable and I know that it would be, you know, ideal if we had dental or
medical in there, but you just -- I did some research and I went over to Austin Creek,
which is at the corner of McMillan and Eagle Road and they have a mixed use set up
there where they have got four buildings and in the five years that that's been there
there is still a total of five spaces that are unleased and if that's on one of the busiest
streets in the state of Idaho and they can't lease that, I question whether or not they will
be able to lease that. Now, if they have family members, that's another thing, but I can -
- I'm concerned about that and, then, it may be becoming something that would be
significantly objectionable being straight across the street from us. I would like to see
the commercial space eliminated and I would like to see a six-foot grassy berm placed
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 44 of 108
there that would be similar to the Vienna Woods berm, a fence, and I would like to see
some larger lots like you see on the north side of Vienna Woods there to buffer the
other --
Borup: That would be your three minutes.
Porter: Is that me?
Borup: Yes.
Porter: Thank you for your time.
Borup: Thank you. We just -- yeah, just as fast as people can come on up, we will keep
listening.
Dvorak: Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Tom Dvorak, I live at 5489 North
Beethoven. I'm the vice-president of Vienna Woods Subdivision. We have 226 lots, so
I'd request a little lenience in the time as a consequence of that. I realize some of our
members are here tonight, but by no means are all 226 members, whom I speak on
their behalf here. Primarily, we have two concerns about this subdivision. We think that
Darwin Porter did a pretty good job in creating some nice livable space for us in terms of
the larger lots buffering the ranchettes as he talked about and we'd like to see that
continue. We feel that two aspects of this proposed subdivision are a real break from
that. Those two aspects being, namely, one, the commercial development along Locust
Grove and, two, what's been referred to as the middle section here, which involves
probably about a third of the actual acreage here, but by my count about 59 of the total
lots. First, I'll talk about the smaller lot sizes. My concern with the smaller lot sizes is
it's all well and good to talk about the pro forma for the sale of these lots and how many
dollars that's going to generate, but what happens if that pro forma is not met, if those
expectations of the developer are wrong for some reason, if there is a hiccup in the
economy? Where do those lots go? Well, lot sales are simply a matter of demand and
supply and if there is not the demand that's predicted for those, the price is going to go
down and the CC&Rs that I was listening for, which I didn't quite hear, I think there was
a goal of stone siding, other nice appearances on the side of these things, but I didn't
hear specifically that there would be restriction or a requirement of those, like I heard
against vinyl siding, for instance. And, in any event, the city doesn't enforce CC&Rs,
the developer can change those at anytime. So, with these smaller lots, if they don't
sell, those are going to be the first things that go and they are going to be starter homes
in there. It's just a simple matter of economy -- economics if these plans don't work out.
Those lots are not consistent and in harmony with the surrounding area. There are
people that have been living there for a long time, like Darwin Porter, who have been
working to keep that harmony and keep that consistency. This is a break from that and
that's something that zoning laws are designed to protect. Secondly, with respect to the
commercial and retail space, I want to make a point here. I was listening to Mr.
Tepola's presentation and I noticed something very interesting. When Commissioner
Newton-Huckabay asked him about his analysis for these commercial lots, he didn't
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
August 5,2004
Page 45 of 108
exactly give a direct answer in terms of, well, here is the market absorption for these
type lots, he said it was a requirement of the property owner. He has a vision of his kids
coming back from professional school and setting up shop there and that's a nice vision,
but, again, is that really going to happen. What's going to happen if suddenly there is a
hiccup and plans for his own sons or professionals to use that space don't work out?
What's going to happen to those lots? Well, again, economics is going to drive it. Well,
we have already heard from Mr. Porter about some of his studies on the other lots in the
other subdivision that borders McMillan and Eagle Road of commercial lots where there
is five -- five units that have not been filled in commercial space. Again, it's a simple
matter of demand and supply. In an ideal world, if all works out according to pro forma,
that would be great. But I just heard about a pro forma and some absorption analysis
for the residential lots. I didn't hear any of that kind of talk for these commercial lots.
These commercial lots seem to be a demand of the property owner that the developer
agreed to just get the rest of the property to develop. And moving back on the
commercial lots, too, this -- the Heritage Commons was brought up as an example of
what this aspires to be and I liked Heritage Commons when it originally went in to some
degree, but as I was driving down here from Vienna Woods, I looked at the four
commercial buildings that are going up and what I noticed was that the view of Heritage
Commons, especially the common area, is now blocked. All you see from the road are
basically the four box structures going up there, the commercial buildings in the front of
that, and while that development may be something the Commission was experimenting
with, we don't think that the end result is something that we want at this location that's
directly in front our subdivision. We would like to preserve the residential character of
our subdivision and we would like to keep with larger lot sizes and transition to smaller
lot sizes towards the west. In fact, this just seems to be the reverse of that, it has the
largest lots, which would seem to be the lots that should be closest to the large lots on
the west end and the smallest lots on the east end. And so I would like to just note for
the record the objections we have on behalf of the Vienna Woods Subdivision, its 226
members, primarily to the commercial designation here, but also to the smaller lot sizes.
Thank you.
Borup: Thank you.
Battazzo: My name is Dan Battazzo, I live at 5306 North Larkwood. That's right here.
The reason that I point that out is because I have some specific and different objections
to this process. I appreciate what Commissioner Rohm brought up in terms of the idea
of a 15-minute break, but I would more appreciate a specific request to continue this
matter to allow a meeting to take place to include all of the people who are going to be
affected here. So, that's the first thing I'd ask. The second --
Borup: Did you attend the other neighborhood meeting?
Battazzo: I knew nothing of the other neighborhood meeting and I'm sure I'm outside of
the technical radius that is required for me to be invited. The second thing that I would
ask is that not shown on this map, but material to me is that stub road that comes out of
that subdivision and what I'd like to acknowledge -- like to ask you to acknowledge here
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 46 of 108
is that we can't really close our eyes to the fact that there is going to be development on
those two larger lots, which, by the way, is an exception to what we were told in the
CC&Rs and by the developer when we moved into that subdivision, which included
those two larger lots, and that 44 acres or so that is just to the south bordering Locust
Grove and McMillan, all of us know that's going to be developed as well and what I'm
asking you to do is to continue this matter and take this thing up as one composite plan,
because nickel and diming it and having this thing creep into different development
zones is problematic for all of the residents as well. My concern about the density in the
middle there, when you keep spouting off about the 3.25 average number of homes per
acre, is that the peak density looks to me to be closer to eight or ten. That's material to
me and if you use that as an excuse to extend that same sort of planning to those areas
to the south, this thing all of a sudden looks like something very different. So, I really
appreciate the attitude you have shown tonight in terms of looking forward and asking
about what's going to happen on various other lots when you were dealing with the
previous subdivision and when you have deal with this one as well and what I'd like for
you to do is to exercise more of the planning part of this thing and maybe take a little bit
more time to have some people have an opportunity to look at the composite plan for
this entire area, rather than just each bit, one little section at a time. Okay? Thank you.
Borup: Thank you.
Miller: Chairman Borup and Members of the Commission, my name is Mark Miller, I live
at 1906 East Dunwoody Court. I have notes from six other citizens on my street asking
that I speak for them tonight. I also was the homeowner's association president until
the end of April. I'd request some extra minutes in accordance, if that's okay with you.
Borup: Are these people here tonight that you're speaking for?
Miller: No. People I have notes from.
Borup: Okay. Continue. Let's see if we can get some of the information.
Miller: Okay. I'll try to be brief and I appreciate Commissioner Rohm's statements also.
I think it would be appropriate to have a meeting with everybody. As the president of
the homeowners association, I was never notified of any meeting just across the street
from this area. We were never notified and our viewpoints have never been heard until
we heard about the meeting tonight. I guess our first issue that we'd like to speak to
has already been initially addressed, is the appropriateness of the size of the lots that
are adjacent as we increase lot size out towards our lots and in Dunwoody Subdivision
and in Eagle that it just doesn't seem like a reasonable transition in terms of lot size. I
suppose if you think about the consideration -- and maybe you can put up -- can you put
up the actual plat of the lots for us? Notice that the park area and large home lot is kind
of in the back, but the only cul-de-sac home is the large lot. It just seems a little odd if
you review the whole subdivision outline, it certainly would be better and maybe more in
the favor of all the other neighbors that you reverse that and put the larger lots up where
it would buffer our side and put the smaller lots around this area by the park, so that
Meridian Planning & Zoning
Augusl5, 2004
Page 47 of 108
they could all access the park. It seems like the park has very limited access in this
subdivision as well. We should have larger lots buffer our subdivisions as was required
in Vienna Woods. Also, we'd like to oppose the commercial use. Again, there is vacant
areas in -- just in nearby -- next to Eagle Road and so we are unsure of the future of
that, possible smells and other issues that come up from whatever is put in there in
terms of food services has not been fully delineated. Also, the other thing we wanted to
bring up is that -- is the safety of children in this area and this has not been addressed.
This whole area is rural, so across the street from this area there is no sidewalk. The
children that are in Dunwoody and the children in Vienna Woods go to the same school,
so tend to play together and these children have to walk where there is no sidewalk
along a street that's fairly empty now to get to each other's homes. My child, an eight
year old, is one of them and now with this subdivision going in and cars turning right and
left out of here, is a real safety issue. The other issue is because of the rural nature, the
bus pick up for the children is on Locust Grove Road right in front of here and with all
these cars turning in and out and I have children there, I'm a little bit worried about the
fact of the road. I called Ada County Highway District to find out what the plan for the
road was. There is no plan on widening Locust Grove Road in the next five-year or 20-
year plan and the quote from the staff member there to me was everyone knows what
we need in north Meridian in terms of roads, but there is no funding for what we need.
I'm concerned about my safety. I have triplet boys, one of them is deaf, and the safety
concerns, obviously, become more and more of an issue. Dunwoody Subdivision is a
deaf child area and I don't know how that affects somebody else's development across
the street, but when it comes to safety issues, I think it's a real problem. We also
request that appropriate landscaping and berms be put in front, just as was required at
Vienna Woods, so that the area generally matches, it doesn't become a hodgepodge of
different types of small subdivisions, but that there is some continuity in the area that
would keep land values and appropriateness -- I don't think any of us opposes
development, but just realize that in the style of this development, what's good for the
Lee property, this kind of generally large property, at the other end is also good for us.
We would like to have the larger lots on our side and have the smaller lots on his side, if
you require the same density there. The final couple of issues are schools. My child,
which is eight years old, and my children who are going to be going to school soon, are
already in an overcrowded school at Discovery. This is a school that will also be
applied there, as in Heritage Commons. Razzberry Crossing and Copper Basin, the
school is already overcrowded and I'm sure you could probably discuss with the
Meridian School District those issues, but we talked to them today and they still are
unaware of how many kids are going to be overwhelming the school, which is another
issue. I had to avoid the third road construction on Locust Grove, which, of course, isn't
a widening today, which has been delayed over a month what was planned. Our road
has been ripped up at least two -- at least three times, I think, in the last year that we
haven't been able to use it for reasons unknown, but none of them are to make traffic
flow better, as far as I can tell. The sewer flows better, but we have no sewer, we are
on septic. The other question is the multi-use path. I would ask the Commissioners not
to change the multi-use path. We have all been favorable for a greenbelt around
Meridian that was accessible to all residents. The change that they request will actually
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 48 of 108
decrease the access of Dunwoody Subdivision residents to such a greenbelt and put it
very far out of our reach and we would request that that not be approved.
Borup: Okay. Thank you,
Miller: Thank you.
Borup: I guess we don't have anyone else, Commissioners. Okay.
Weiser: You do. My name is Bill Weiser, 1842 East Dunwoody, and I was not aware of
a meeting until Darwin Porter gave me a map and told me what was going -- planned to
be put in there. And when I saw that I just -- it hit me in the gut, it's like you got to be
kidding. This has no character of anything around the existing subdivisions. Even
Vienna Woods was oppressed, but now it's looking pretty darn good compared to this.
And Dan Battazzo brought up a good point of the macro planning in this whole area and
I think that's an excellent suggestion. And I'm going to dwell on the macro planning
and, you know, it's a careful balance between the landowner, his developer, and zoning
and you got to reach a balance. But if you look at here, we have got, obviously, very
dense housing in the front and blatant surroundment of the existing home with a park,
for pete sakes, in his backyard and larger lots and I speak from experience, when these
homeowners move in and have to pay dues to mow his backyard, there is going to be
some way who approved this and you guys are going to have to answer to that. So, 1
know it's kind of a gray area between zoning and what the owner wants to do, but think
about the people that are going to live there and what they are going to feel ten years
from now when they are paying to mow his backyard and the disparity between the size
of lots here just, you know, shouts like there isn't any planning in this little square, so I
beg you to apply your zoning rules and capabilities to direct this development in a better
direction for this area. Also, just traffic. With that many houses and homeowners going
to work in the morning, I think they are going to be lined up trying to get out of that one
road, because turning onto a 50 mile an hour road takes a little time when cars are
coming and you got potentially 120 cars trying to get out of that one little road between
two commercial properties. Perhaps two roads onto Locust Grove would be a better
suggestion for traffic and maybe some advisement from the Ada County Highway
District would be warranted here. So, anyway, I hope we are just at the beginning of
working through to bring this plan to a better fit for what we are trying to do out here in
the northeast corner of Meridian, which used to be farmland, which I still help farm hay
in my backyard and when I see this -- and, by the way, this used to be a very nice horse
barn and arena that went downhill over the last 12 years and so any development is
better than what it is now, but I don't think this is. So, thank you for listening to what I
had to say tonight.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else?
McMillan: Commissioners, my name is Skip McMillan, I live at 2037 East Comisky
Court, Vienna Woods. Mr. Dvorak and Mr. Porter pretty well covered most of the points
that I was going to make or a lot of them. The only thing I can add is I, too, am opposed
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 49 of 108
to the commercial development. I do wonder what type of buildings, what would they
look like if they would go in there. That's a question that I would have. Also, Locust
Grove and McMillan is not in the ACHD five year widening plan. I have a concern with
traffic. Even now the intersection of McMillan and Locust Grove is pretty well backed up
in the mornings out there, but -- my mind went blank here. My concern, too, if the
commercial development is allowed in this area, then, will more follow right on down
north or south down Locust Grove? I would also like to see the lots in the middle
portion be equivalent to the lots in the west portion, the larger lots in the back. I think
that's about alii have to say. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you.
Olsen: Hi. My name is Drew Olsen. I am on the board of directors for Vienna Woods
Homeowners Association. Would you, please, put that Comprehensive Plan up?
Thanks. I live in the product that is right here and I have some concerns, because I am
very close to Locust Grove, but one of my major concerns is really not some of the
micro managing or the micro problems that we have been looking at, but the macro
problems. Or not problems, but issues, shall I say. When I moved into Vienna Woods I
reviewed the Comprehensive Plan and I took a look at what we are looking at here now
and I see that this is zoned for no commercial, not industrial, all the way down the line.
And that was what led me to make one of my decisions to move into this neighborhood.
I felt that Meridian had a good plan for the future, I thought they knew what they were
doing, I put a lot of thought into it, had professionals and engineers go through this and
figure out where neighborhood centers should be, where commercial should be, and
how housing should be broken down by density. Seeing this opposed, I question that at
this point. I see a lot of deviations from what more or less I bought as a bill of goods
when I moved into Meridian into this neighborhood and that's one of my major concerns.
I'm very concerned about the density of the homes and also about the commercial.
That's really my two main issues. It's completely out of sync with the existing
architecture, so to speak, of the area, as everyone else has said. You don't have to be
a rocket scientist to look at this and just use common sense and say why are they going
to stick a couple of commercial buildings here when they don't need them. I understand
that the owner has an idea that some day his sons or daughters may graduate and may
choose live next to him and make their way there, but, in reality, that very -- may well
not happen and I think we all know that. They seem to have a lot of goals that they are
looking for. They have goals for their architecture, they have goals for what buildings
will go in there, they have goals for where they are going to put a stub street, or maybe
they are going to put a basketball court there instead or maybe they are not sure of
what they are doing there. Well, all I see is a lot of goals and no real concrete --
concrete plans that they are putting their finger on right now. Everything is pie in the
sky at this point. And I think that Meridian did well in originally building this plan and
making a Comprehensive Plan, a plan for the future, but I am very unhappy with the
thought that they could deviate from that plan into a hodgepodge type manner,
especially into transition area here between Eagle and Meridian, this is an area where I
think that we can slowly move to, you know, a different type of neighborhood where
there is one acre or two acre lots, but we are going to take a step backwards if we go
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5. 2004
Page50of108
ahead and allow these smaller lots and commercial building in this space. Thanks for
your time. I know you all have a thankless job, because I'm on the board of
homeowners, too, so good luck.
Borup: Mr. Olsen, maybe just -- Mr. Olsen?
Olsen: Yes.
Borup: Just a quick question. I understood your testimony on the commercial, you feel -
- do you feel as strongly on office -- on the office space as you do on a neighborhood
commercial?
Olsen: I do. And the reason as was brought up by Mrs. Newton-Huckabay when she
said why do we need another one, we have got one right down the road, it's well
planned, everything has gone according to plan. Now, we want to mess with the plan
that we finally -- looked like things are going good on.
Bo~up: Okay. Thank you. The only other question I had was you said you had looked
into the Comprehensive Plan when you moved in and, then, was that your
understanding that was from three to eight lots per acre and that -- in the
Comprehensive Plan in that area?
Olsen: Well, that's a great question.
Borup: Your statements seemed to contradict each other. You said you looked into it
and you understood what the Comprehensive Plan said and this is at the bottom end of
the Comprehensive Plan, but, then you said it didn't comply with it, so I --
Newton-Huckabay: I think he was talking about the office --
Olsen: I'm talking about the commercial and the office space as not listed on there. But
also you bring up a great point in that the three to eight density -- the average density. I
think the key word there is average. When you take a look at their subdivision and,
obviously, it's very hugely skewed by the big lots in the back and that's where they are
getting their average.
Borup: That is true.
Olsen: It's ridiculous. I mean I could make a subdivision and I could put my own house
on acres at the back and have a bunch of those crammed together in front and I would
meet your average requirements. That's what I feel is being done at this point.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Olsen: Thanks.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5. 2004
Page 51 of 108
Borup: Do we have anyone else that had anything new to add?
Lee: For or against?
Borup: Well, we have had a lot of against. Do we have somebody for a for?
Lee: My name is Grant Lee. I live at 5603 North Locust Grove Road. If you're not going
to give me more time, tell me now, so I can adjust myself. I'm one of the few people for
here, so thank you for the additional time. I was here not too many months ago for
Saguaro Canyon, which bordered my property. At that time I talked about the Larkwood
Subdivision, which was built by Darwin Porter's dad and the Dunwoody Subdivision.
The first two developments were built under a new concept that was a one acre split
concept, but the developers kind of skewed around that and got one and a half and two
and three acres out of that deal, which was not entitled, and immediately thereafter
those subdivisions were approved when I approached the same authorities and they
said, no, we made a mistake, you can't do that. Now, we have two subdivisions that
want to hold us to their standard that should not have been approved, but were
approved. On Locust Grove -- we have on McMillan and Locust Grove a man that sells
rain gutters and has three or four trucks. That's a commercial use. We have ball fields,
the LDS church, we have a commercial horse facility, even Darwin Porter rents his
pasture out to a couple of horses in front. Next door there is a large shop and arena for
Del's Towing, the alternative high school, and a church at the far end. In this same
square mile as Dunwoody and Vienna Woods across the street, each of the three sides
has office developments. Now, it's been mentioned that the Austin Creek side, oh,
there is a couple of vacancies there, five vacancies. Well, whoop dee do, they just built
the fourth building. Give them time to rent it, please. The reason they built the fourth
building was the other three buildings justified building the fourth. Mr. Galloway, our
dentist, lives in Dunwoody across the street. He has his dental office surrounded on
three sides by Bristol Heights Subdivision. Austin Creek on a side and ball fields on
another side, and there is office space -- those two both take up approximately two
acres apiece, which is what I'm asking for, for limited office is what we asked for. One
of the staff planners changed one of the lots, for whatever reason, to commercial. Yes,
I do have sons that are in chiropractic school, yes, I have a son in Time magazine,
financial planner, and doing quite well, thank you, yes, I'd like to have limited office
space that matches the three sides. Now, somebody that says I live in Dunwoody, I
want my office in the same square mile, bounded by nine homes, but I don't want you to
have office, I don't agree with that. Now, you say, well, Heritage Commons has office
space. That's fine. Heritage Commons is another subdivision. Does that mean we are
not going to have anymore subdivisions in our property? Do I get just a little more time?
I want to share with you traffic congestion, property values dropping, noise increase,
home density, similar future high density developments, being incorporated into the City
of Meridian for high taxes, reduced privacy, the placement of the proposed subdivision
just doesn't fit. I personally would like to see nothing smaller than acre lots in this area.
This is what Darwin Porter wrote six years ago against the Vienna Woods Subdivision.
Have property values gone down? Darwin, I'll buy your place for what it appraised for
six years ago. Darwin's meeting with three of his neighbors, each of whom have five
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5. 2004
Page 52 of 108
acres, he's planning on subdividing that property and so are they. Where are they going
to funnel 60 homes? Through the stub street into Vienna Woods? They talk about
berms and landscaping in front of our property, how about replacing the dead trees that
have died over the years in front of your property on your berms? You want a higher
quality of life? Be annexed, hook up to the sewer and water that runs in front of your
street.
Borup: Let's address this project, not to the neighbors.
Lee: Okay. Darwin says this should be ideal for medical and dental. I agree with that.
We plan to retain the ownership of that, we plan to retain the ownership of the lots in the
rear portion of the property surrounding our home. Our lot size has been cut down from
two and a half to a little over one acre. Is there a park near our property? Yes, there is.
Should it be in front of Darwin's property? No, I don't think so. He says what's good for
the Grant Lee family should be good for him. Well, join the club. Put in sewers, gutters,
all the things you don't want me to mention and you can improve your quality of life. Is
there an extra danger for kids? There is danger with any subdivision. You voiced that
concern six years ago. What have you done in your subdivision to address that
concern? I had Steve Smith approach me. I had Sam Thompsen approach me. I have
had -- Sam Thompsen lives in Vienna Woods. I have had several people approach me
to develop our property. The people that I chose, yes, were willing to work with me to
accomplish my goals. For 30 years I have had rental properties, about a 3D-mile drive.
It would be nice to have some rental properties in my front yard. Is limited office a sin?
It's on three sides of that square mile already, should it be on the fourth side, along with
the rain gutter man and the ball fields and the churches and the schools? I think that's a
compatible use. Did Vienna Woods turn out okay? Sure, it did. Did Larkwood and
Dunwoody turn out okay? The fact that they all sold shows that there was a need for
that and I think if my property had been allowed to develop in that same aspect 12 years
ago, we wouldn't be standing here today. But I'm faced with the issues that we have.
All I asked when Saguaro Canyon was passed was that whatever you allowed for
Saguaro Canyon you allow for my subdivision. I was neutral to that, I remain neutral,
and I ask that you stand with what I perceived was that commitment was that what you
approve for Saguaro Canyon would also apply to my property. Thank you,
Commissioners.
Borup: Thank you. Mr. Nickel, did you have any final comments?
Nickel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Very briefly just to address some of
the concerns of the neighbors. Regarding the neighborhood meeting, Commissioner
Rohm, we did send out 22 letters. That list was provided to us by the city. Included
within that was the Vienna Woods Homeowners Association. We did not get a name or
an address for any of the other association groups in that area. Of those 22 letters, four
people showed up to the neighborhood meeting. Mr. Lee did a really good job of
bringing up Vienna Woods. I was the land use planner when Vienna Woods went
through the county and I heard the exact same things when Vienna Woods went
through. As far as economics and marketing -- and market with this subdivision, same
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 530f108
thing was brought up for Vienna Woods and I think it turned out to be a very nice
development, so I don't know why we wouldn't be allowed the same opportunity to
prosper in that way. Regarding the stub street to the south, that was a recommendation
from your staff and from ACHD. We did not initially design that stub there, but we were
asked to put it in by those -- by both agencies. With regards to safety, safety and traffic
are always a concern whenever any type of new development goes in. The gentleman
was right, the Locust Grove improvements are not in the five year work program, but as
you know from years of doing this, that work plan is updated every two years,
depending on future approvals and future development along certain corridors. So, just
because it's not in that five-year work program today does not mean it will not change in
two years, depending on the safety aspects. And if I do recall, there was a stop light
recently put in at Locust Grove and Chinden. Very briefly regarding the Comprehensive
Plan. That was a plan that was approved and recommended for approval by this body
and by the City Council. Again, Mr. Borup -- Commissioner Borup did bring up that that
designation or that density was a three to eight dwelling unit per acre density and that's
-- again, we are on the low end of that three -- three to eight unit range. Regarding the
single access issue, the fire department is limiting us to 50 building permits until
Saguaro Creek -- or Saguaro Canyon provides that access to us on the west and, then,
we can get the rest of our building permits. So, we have to have that second access on
-- On the west side of our property. In addition, it's my understanding that the Jericho --
the Jericho stub, which we are providing a stub to the north, is in the process or the
design process and so you're probably going to see an access to the north sometime
within the next year from our property to -- out to Chinden. Regarding the commercial
designation versus L-O, as the developer did bring up, we would be more than happy to
change that commercial to an L-O and have L-O on both sides. Again, you heard from
the property owner who is going to retain those lots and his intentions are for office
uses, so we would be more than happy to commit to that through the L-O zoning and
get rid of the C-N altogether. Regarding the amenities, those amenities are a
requirement of the PD application, so if we are saying we are doing basketball courts,
tot lots, open space, berming, landscaping, buffering, pathways, we have to do that as
part of our application. And, then, finally the density -- if you take out the commercial
lots and just focus on the attached and detached smaller lots, it's 4.5 units to the acre.
I'll stand for any other questions you may have.
Newton-Huckabay: Are you saying this middle section?
Nickel: The middle section is 4.5. If you want to strip out everything else and just look at
that middle section, It's 4.5 dwelling units to the acre.
Newton-Huckabay: That's actual?
Nickel: Actual.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5. 2004
Page 54 of 108
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? You're thinking, Commissioner
Zaremba:
Nickel: Mr. Chairman, could I bring up one more thing --
Borup: Yes.
Nickel: -- that I forgot to bring up and you reminded me by flipping through your packet.
There is a sheet in that packet that I handed out earlier to have some addition -- that's
entitled additional conditions of approval and that's something that the developer builder
is agreeing to not only put in the CC&Rs, because we know those can be changed, but
also as conditions of approval through the PD to require that upgrading of sidings and
roofs and landscape and everything that he talked about. So, I think it was brought up,
you know, we are saying -- we are talking a good talk now saying we are going to do
this. We have provided some additional conditions that we are agreeing upon on our
own to put in this development and you can, if you like, put it as a condition of approval,
attach it to the PD, in addition to us putting it in our CC&Rs and our architectural review
committee. Thank you.
Borup: And it looks like these are the same items that was mentioned in the testimony
as far as material and that type of thing. Okay. Thank you.
Nickel: Thank you.
Borup: Mr. Siddoway, any final comments? Commissioners?
Newton-Huckabay: Do we need a motion to close the hearing?
Borup: If that's what we want to do.
Newton-Huckabay: I make a motion that we close hearing -- the Public Hearing on AZ
04-017 -- do all three of them? PP 04-024 and CUP 04-026 for Leeshire Subdivision.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the three hearings. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Okay. Would we like a little discussion first? I think right off, you know, Mr.
Nickel mentioned that they are not opposed to deleting the CoN zoning.
Zaremba: Changing it to L-O?
Borup: Changing it to L-O.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
Augu't 5, 2004
Page 55 of 108
Zaremba: I don't know if I have anything to add, but I guess I will discuss a quandary
that I had as I went through this project in preparation for the meeting and further
reinforced by testimony from both sides, actually. I'm a well-known advocate of greater
density. I think there is some benefits to it, both in the future of public transportation
and the provision of public services within the city and I'm very much in favor of greater
densities. That being said, I'm very much in favor of them closer to the interstate, closer
to Old Town area -- this area out here is not anymore very much farmland. It is
developed with larger properties and this is actually an in-fill property. We usually think
of those as being downtown and being a, you know, 16th of an acre parcel, but it does
have development around it and it is in-fill and I struggle to justify this kind of density. I
like having a variety of products available within the City of Meridian and I don't have a
problem with there being an area where the project is all larger properties. That being
said, I have both opinions. I said it wasn't going to be very helpful. I could go either
way.
Moe: Well, you're a lot of help there.
Zaremba: Yeah. Sorry.
Moe: I guess I'll just chime in. Quite frankly, looking at the development and whatnot, I -
- quite frankly, the only thing as far as the R-4 and whatnot and the layout and whatnot,
it does meet requirements of the Comp Plan. My biggest concern has been the CoN
designation in that area, due to the fact we do have the neighborhood center right down
the road. It was brought up earlier when we were discussing, I guess, going light office
in that area might tend to be somewhat of a buffer between the subdivision and such, so
I'm not so sure that the light office would be such a bad idea, but I am definitely in favor
of getting rid of the CoN designation for sure.
Borup: I think at first glance I had some concern on looking at -- at the density and the
lot sizes. The alternative to that in an R-4 zone is to have what's often referred to as the
cookie cutter subdivisions with every lot exactly minimum 8,000 feet. The number of
lots -- the density comes out about the same, you know, that 3.26, that's about what we
see in most R-4 zones, but they are all 80 by 100 lots, no variety, number of homes
going in comes out about the same. I don't know if this is the best place for it or if there
is a market for it, but whether there is a market for it is probably not up to us to
determine. Commissioner Rohm, do you have a comment?
Rohm: Only that in -- as kind of support of Commissioner Moe's comments on the
commercial development portion of this project, if, in fact, you took that out of the project
altogether and just put in residential lots, the transition from the large lots across the
road to this subdivision would be more obtrusive than by having the commercial lots,
their -- to offer up that buffer and so even if we can get rid of the CoN and just go to the
L-O, then, you have that transition and it breaks it up a little bit, so that you don't have
the small residential lots right adjacent to the larger lots of Vienna Woods, so -- and that
-- I think I'm in support of that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5. 2004
Page 56 af 108
Borup: Okay. Are we to the point for a motion?
Newton-Huckabay: I'd just like to say I don't -- I don't think the commercial lots work in
this part of the -- with the neighborhood center. I feel like we are not getting the
essence and spirit of the Comp Plan, if you will. And I think the green area being limited
to the west side of the property, I don't think that that is also -- I can't think of the
analogy. I would like to see it moved more into the middle of the subdivision where it's
accessible by all of the residents who live there. I think that's one feature of Heritage
Commons that makes it appealing is that you have the green, if you will, in the middle of
the development. I think something similar to that would -- would work better in this part
of town.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Well, I'm not much closer in my personal struggle. The one difficulty that we
often face is that at this level our responsibility is a little different than the City Council's
responsibility. We are pretty much tasked with deciding whether something meets the
ordinances and meets the Comprehensive Plan and this does. I have not seen any
analysis. The Comprehensive Plan does not include a light office in this area, but our
ordinances for planned developments include a 20 percent use exception, which means
even though the Comprehensive Plan designates this as a residential, that use
exception allows -- it would allow the L-O and the CoN, but I agree with the others, if this
is going to go forward, I think only L-O should be there. And I guess my struggle is at
the Planning and Zoning Commission level our biggest task is to decide whether this
has met all the rules and it probably has. Any other opinions on that?
Rohm: I think that's exactly right --
Newton-Huckabay: Can we compare this to other developments that have come
through that have been denied by City Council?
Zaremba: We certainly can. We help the City Council by anticipating their objections.
Newton-Huckabay: The one that was supposed to be on the agenda tonight, Chestfield
Borup: Chesterfield.
Newton-Huckabay: Chesterfield.
Zaremba: Essentially met all the rules and they --
Newton-Huckabay: And it was extremely dense like this. The green space was -- I felt
at the time ill placed throughout the development. I think we have a similar situation
here.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
Augu't 5, 2004
Page 57 of 108
Borup: In that part I think we do. I think the other one didn't have much variety in the lot
size was all part of it.
Moe: That was one of the reasons why they brought it back to us, was the fact that --
Borup: There was no diversity?
Moe: That's correct.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, there was the diversity, because you had the open space
issue with that one. And I see a lot of similarities of this development to that
development.
Rohm: Well, personally, I think that the City Council could act on this after our actions
tonight and provide direction to us one way or the other if, in fact, they see it differently
than the specifics of the Comprehensive Plan and, from my perspective, the proposed
development meets the ordinances as written on the books and as part of the
Comprehensive Plan and I hesitate to anticipate what City Council mayor may not do.
And if the City Council wants to remand it back to us, that is certainly their prerogative,
with their goals and objectives, but I don't feel comfortable anticipating what those might
be. Are we ready for a motion?
Borup: I think so.
Zaremba: Well, I was going to comment that even if we move this forward to the City
Council -- well, with approval or denial being recommended, there will be another
hearing before the City Council and notice given to everybody. But my suggestion was
going to be that perhaps another neighborhood meeting might be in order before it gets
to the City Council. There are subjects, maybe, that could be discussed and maybe
some common meeting ground met or satisfaction on both sides. I'm not making that a
requirement, but just a suggestion.
Borup: As long as you're making suggestions, if that is done, I would say that mailing list
should go out to the two homeowners associations, either president or secretary.
Zaremba: Yeah. And, then, if they would notify their association members of a time and
place and if one of the homeowner associations has a community clubhouse -- I'm not
aware of that, but if one of them does, if you could offer that for the meeting, might even
be helpful.
Rohm: I suspect that everybody is aware of what's happening here and will be readily
available for attendance.
Zaremba: In that case, Mr. Chairman, if you like, I will make the motions.
Newton-Huckabay: Were you going to add this --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 58 of 108
Borup: I think Commissioner Rohm was started on one or was he?
Rohm: No. No. I -- Dave, he's our motion man.
Zaremba: I'm reviewing the notes provided by the applicant.
Moe: The only thing before you would make your motion, I would request the one thing
we really haven't talked about was the condition in regards to amenities as to what we
were going to want to require in the amenities.
Zaremba: I actually wrote down the list when the applicant --
Moe: So, it will be two of those listed.
Zaremba: Yeah.
Moe: All right. That's great.
Zaremba: Pathways and benches, basketball court, tot lot, and picnic benches.
Moe: Okay.
Zaremba: In the two areas.
Moe: Perfect.
Zaremba: Or some in one and some in the other.
Moe: Uh-huh.
Zaremba: Okay. That being the case, Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City
Council recommending approval of Item 6 on our agenda, AZ 04-017, request for
annexation and zoning of 29.69 acres from RUT to R-4, C-N, and L-O zones for
proposed Leeshire Subdivision by SWI Associates, LLC, 5603 North Locust Grove
Road, to include all staff comments of their memo -- their revised memo for the hearing
date of August 5th, 2004, with the following change in regard to annexation and zoning
that there be no C-N zone and that that become an L-O zone, so that there are -- all
properties adjoining the street, Locust Grove, are L-O designation.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Anyopposed? Three ayes. One nay.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5. 2004
Page 59 of 108
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending
approval of Item 7 on our agenda, PP 04-024, request for preliminary plat approval for
89 building lots and 20 common lots on 29.69 acres in proposed R-4, C-N, and L-O
zones for proposed Leeshire Subdivision by SWI Associates, LLC, 5603 North Locust
Grove Road, to include all the staff comments of their revised memo for the hearing
date of August 5, 2004, with following changes: On page eight, this is part of paragraph
four, which begins on the previous page, but the first sentence on page eight shall be
changed to read: This development shall be subject to water main service latecomer
fees. That's a change from the word sanitary sewer, becomes water main service. On
page nine, paragraph 12, add another sentence at the end of that paragraph that says:
Thß City of Meridian does not approve, regulate, or enforce CC&Rs. And, then, add a
paragraph 13 that references the applicant'S additional seven points that they are
agreeing to, it says Leeshire Subdivision additional subdivision conditions that was
provided at the hearing tonight. Does the clerk have a copy of that? Okay. So, I will
include that by reference. End of preliminary plat.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending
approval of Item 8, CUP 04-026, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a mixed use
planned development consisting of a single family residential and commercial office
uses with reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size, side yard setbacks, and
minimum street frontage for the proposed Leeshire Subdivision by SWI Associates,
LLC., 5603 North Locust Grove Road, to include all staff comments of their revised
memo for the hearing date of August 5, 2004, with the following changes: On page 12,
paragraph five, next to the last sentence should read: Such fencing should still taper to
three feet tall maximum, instead of minimum, within 20 feet, et cetera. On page 13,
under site specific conditions, paragraph three, will read: Two amenities are required for
this application. The amenities in the two separate open spaces are pathways and fixed
benches and basketball court, tot lot, and picnic benches. Paragraph four will be
changed, the second sentence reads: Such fencing shall taper to three feet tall
maximum, instead of minimum, within 20 feet, et cetera. And I again reference for
inclusion in the CUP the applicant's seven points provided to the meeting tonight.
Moe: Is that number nine?
Zaremba: That -- this would be on page 14, adding a paragraph nine, referencing the
seven points made by the applicant entitled Leeshire Subdivision additional subdivision
conditions.
Rohm: Second.
Meridian Planning 8< Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 60 of 10B
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY.
Borup: All right. Thank you. Appreciate everyone being here tonight. We are going to
take another short break.
(Recess.)
Item 9:
Public Hearing: RZ 04-008 Request for a Rezone of .23 acre from R-8 to
proposed O-T zone for Larry Knopp by Larry Knopp - 713 North Meridian
Road:
Item 10:
Public Hearing: CUP 04-019 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
retail and professional office use in an existing building in the proposed 0-
T zone for Larry Knopp by Larry Knopp - 713 North Meridian Road:
Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our meeting this evening and start with our next
project, Public Hearing RZ 04-008, request for rezone of .23 acres from R-8 to proposed
OT zone Larry Knopp at 713 North Meridian Road and Public Hearing CUP 04-019,
request for a Conditional Use Permit for retail professional office in an existing building
on the same property. And we will open both public hearings at this time and start with
the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This property is
adjacent to the Old Town area on Meridian Road in what is shown as Old Town on the
Comprehensive Plan. The property is outlined in black. It's located right here. It is
directly across from the Farmers and Merchants Bank building that is currently under
construction on the east side of Meridian Road. City Hall where we are here tonight is
on this lot kitty-corner to the northeast. The lot is .23 of an acre. It's currently zoned R-
8, as are the surrounding properties. The request is to rezone the property to Old
Town. The Old Town zone does comply with the Comprehensive Plan designation,
which is also Old Town. Before us tonight, in addition to the rezone, is a Conditional
Use Permit. The Conditional Use Permit is for an office retail remodel of the existing
home. This is an aerial photo. The existing home sits on this lot right here. The
surrounding uses to the north. There is an existing residence that's still in residential
use to the north. To the south is the American Legion Hall. I mentioned the Farmers
and Merchants Bank project. And, then, in the rear are additional existing residences.
The Conditional Use Permit is requested to convert the existing home to office retail, as
I mentioned. The Conditional Use Permit is required in the Old Town zone for all office
and retail uses. What you see before you is the proposed site plan. Meridian Road,
again, is on the right-hand side of the screen. This area here is the existing home. This
area here is the existing garage. And this area is the proposed expansion of that
garage. The rear of the property is proposed for the parking. This is an elevation. The
top is a rear elevation. The bottom is a front elevation as you see it from Meridian
Road. You can see the elevation of the existing house and the converted garage. They
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 61 of 108
are proposing to connect it by a breezeway to avoid requiring a planned development
on -- for two separate structures on a lot. They are joining them to make a single
structure. This would be the side elevation. You can see the front of the existing home
facing Meridian Road here. And this is the expansion area for the existing garage that
would be converted to office or small retail. The main issue on this project is the
question of how close should the building be allowed to be built up against Meridian
Road. We know that Meridian Road will be widened in the future. The exact right of
way needed is somewhat in question. We have currently -- we are currently
undertaking the Downtown Transportation Management Plan, as discussed with the
Commission last week. Within about six months we will have the final answer. In the
meantime, staff feels that we need to preserve the corridor for what could be future
expansion of that area. I'm going to go back to the site -- or the aerial photo for a
second. I did go out and take a look at the existing setbacks of homes along the street.
They are fairly consistent with the typical setback line approximately 28 feet measured
from the back of sidewalk. That same point is about 23 feet from the existing right of
way or 18 feet from the right of way as requested by ACHD at this time. Staff is
proposing that that new addition to the structure only extend forward as far as that
building line that's already established along the street, as described, in order to
preserve that corridor for future road widening. As an alternative, if the applicant does
wait until that transportation plan is done to pull building permits, we would allow them
to move that structure to within ten feet of what is, then, determined to be the right of
way line and there is a condition proposed currently to that effect. I would mention that
the historic Preservation Commission has looked at the existing home. This is the
home as seen from Meridian Road. You can see the house structure here and the
existing garage. Same two structures from just a different view. This is the rear of the
property. There is a carport on the back of the garage. This is the back of the home.
And turning and looking at the neighbors to the - to the west, you can see that there is
some landscaping that buffers between this property and the adjacent property. Under
the special considerations there are five items. The first one is the setback issue that I
just described. The second is the request for a revised plan. I did try and rectify the
proposed site plan with some measurements that I took on site and found several
discrepancies. I do believe the applicant has come with a new plan tonight, but staff
has not reviewed that plan at this time. There is a condition in here requesting a revised
plan at least ten days prior to the next hearing and they have somewhat preempted that
by submitting it tonight. The third item is signage, just clarifying that no free-standing
signs are proposed and none are approved for this project. The fourth item is
alternative compliance. Technically, with the residential use to the north, a 20-foot
buffer would be required along the -- its north property line. We are supporting the
proposed alternative compliance, which does have some buffer between the parking
area and the property line with trees and I don't know if the neighbor is -- to the north is
in the audience tonight, but would welcome any comments as to the appropriateness of
that. The Commission and Council did support a similar alternative compliance on the
Strickland Subdivision a couple of blocks north of here. The last item is the trash
enclosure. There is no trash enclosure shown on the site plan and we have asked that
one be included on the revised plans. With that, I will stand for any questions.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 62 of 108
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Would the applicant like to make
their presentation?
Knopp: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is Larry Knopp, 355 South
3rd Street in Boise. I'm the architect representing the owner this evening. Hopefully,
you got a revised site plan that I tried to address the concerns and the staff comments
and I couldn't get it in any sooner, I had some issues that I had to address and get down
on the project, but I'd like to go through them item by item to address them, so that we
have covered those and, then, I guess we will get into the setback issue. But, first of all,
I'd like to just give you a history on what's happened with this project. As everybody
knows, it's across the street. It's a residence that's been rundown, neglected, not taken
care of. It was bought by the current owner. He analyzed the project to see what would
be the best direction, the best approach, the best use. We had the historic group out to
look at the house, because there was some thoughts that there was some historic value
in it. They went through it. The house really doesn't have anything. It has a little bit of
woodwork on the staircase, that's about it. I think one stain glass. Because we were
looking at that period of time of demo-ing it and doing something else with the site, but
after analyzing and putting some numbers together on it, the owner decided that
probably the best use at this point in time would be to go ahead and remodel the
existing structures that are on it. So, that's basically what we are proposing.
Borup: So, are there any of the staff's conditions you have any concerns on?
Knopp: No. We have met all the staff conditions and concerns, hopefully, in the revised
site plan that we show you with site drainage, trash enclosure, there is some -- also
some issues with Ada County Highway, they want certain improvements made in the
alley. They would like two feet additional of the right of way on this property, some
landscaping, paving and, then, some radiuses improved on out to Broadway. So, we
are willing to do that also.
Borup: What about condition number three on the setbacks?
Knopp: That's the only one that's --
Borup: Okay.
Knopp: -- that's a concern and that we would like to try to get ironed out tonight. The
reason we are adding -- like I said, the house, mainly, is conducive to office use. You
have got a first floor and a second floor and there could be either one user in it or two
users on the -- one user on the first floor, one user on the second floor, and we
anticipate that it's office use, because it really doesn't lend itself to anything else. Now,
on the existing garage it's slab on grade, it's a single story, it's built five feet from the
south property line, we would like to extend that out to Meridian Road and the Ada
County Highway District, I have talked to them, they have got five feet of right of way. I
thought the original right of way was at -- behind the sidewalk, but it isn't, it's five feet,
and as you can see on the revised site plan, I have modified and changed it and I have
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5. 2004
Page 63 of 10B
also incorporated the new five feet that ACHD is asking for on the right of way and I
think, then, I'm coming out with the addition on the garage to -- and I'm allowing another
five feet behind that. So, I believe the intent of the project and what we are asking for
as far as the expansion on the garage, meets the Old Town designation and setbacks, it
gives us the area for streetscape, sidewalks, at that area of the garage. The rest of the
house stays the same, the setbacks farther, so we have a breakup down the
streetscape, which I think will turn out really nice. We are going to tear off the front --
the front addition has been -- which is this portion -- has been added on at some date
later than the original house. We are going to tear that off completely and put on a
single roof entry, covered entry, to add character to it, but also -- which is this entry.
Restore the existing windows that are framed in up above on that addition and redo the
entire house, siding, trim that's needed, new roofing, and bring the house up to decent
standard as far as the construction goes. So, from what I can see, the only thing is the
front setback criteria on the garage. And I guess what we are asking and the approach
that the owner is taking is that all the square footage that he can get out of it, so he can
lease -- and also I'd like to cover the parking. I have set up the parking so that the
house is office parking and the garage and the garage addition would be more of a retail
and it meets it. So, the car parks that I have set for this project and what I have drawn
and the square footages, will meet the ordinance, city ordinance, or as far as the
parking requirements go. So, it wouldn't if the whole project was retail, but it just -- it
won't happen and I think the staff did a good job by stating that the parking and the use
has to match and be consistent and that's what we are trying to do. So, the setback on
the garage is all we are --
Borup: Maybe we can ask staff a question. Mr. Siddoway, the Meridian -- or the
Downtown Meridian Transportation Plan, is that -- what's the status of that?
Siddoway: The status is that the City Council approved the contract on Tuesday of this
week, just two days ago. We are waiting for a memorandum of understanding with
ACHD. As soon as we receive it, the contract will be signed and executed. Our kickoff
meeting is scheduled for the 17th of this month and should be completed within six
months of that start date.
Borup: So, Larry, it looks like you have anticipated an additional ten feet beyond the
existing right of way.
Knopp: That's true.
Borup: Is that a -- I'm assuming we have got a 50 foot right of way there now or what is
the existing?
Knopp: It's 35 feet on the east, I believe, and 30 feet on the west.
Borup: So, we are 65 now?
Knopp: Right.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
August 5. 2004
Page 64 of 108
Borup: You're saying another ten on the west?
Knopp: ACHD is asking for an additional five on the west.
Borup: And you have allowed for another five just in case you're saying?
Knopp: That's correct.
Borup: Well, that's what they were saying right now, but they haven't put their input into
the plan yet.
Knopp: ACHD?
Borup: Yes.
Knopp: Yes. They have reviewed it.
Borup: No, I mean -- not in your plan, in the Downtown Transportation Management
Plan. I mean -- yeah, we are talking about something -- did they -- how about across
the street?
Knopp: Farmers and Merchants?
Borup: Yeah. Did they take any additional right of way there?
Knopp: No. Not that I know of. That's what ACHD told me when I called them and
talked to them, because I have had some extensive conversations with them because of
this issue.
Borup: So, what you have allowed for here would allow a maximum of 75 feet?
Knopp: Correct.
Borup: Okay.
Knopp: And I guess the approach that I'm taking and that the owner is taking, because I
think you have got the comments from ACHD, they haven't established it in their five
year plan and in their reply back on this, they think it's more in the 15, 20 year range,
and I had talked to Mr. Siddoway and I had indicated to him that if it's ten years from
now, that it gets done even at that. What we are asking for is that the owner have the
right to receive rental income on that additional square footage and use of the property
for that ten years or whatever it is, before and if whatever happens with North Meridian
Road.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
August 5,2004
Page 65 of 108
Borup: Well, that -- yeah, that may be a good point, but, then, you're also tearing down a
retail building and he's going to expect to be compensated for that, rather than bare
land. Whereas planning for it now would avoid that.
Knopp: Well, I think I'm meeting the code and the ordinance right now with the setbacks
and, like I said, I have had extensive talks with ACHD and to the best of my knowledge
what Meridian is wanting or trying -- the approach they are taking on North Meridian
Road and what ACHD is looking at and their approach to it, is two different things. And
I guess -- I guess also -- I'll let the owner address this, but I mean if -- if the City of
Meridian or whatever is anticipating that it's going to go through and it's going to be a
shorter, rather than a longer term, then, probably buying that additional right of way or
whatever is needed, needs to be done now, instead of, you know, five, ten years from
now.
Borup: Well, we have enough for -- more than enough for a three lane road right now,
don't we? Sixty-five, plus there was seventy-five?
Zaremba: Well, the issue, as Mr. Knopp mentioned, is the disagreement between
Meridian and ACHD about what that road's going to be. I serve on Meridian's
transportation task force and for the five years that I have been on it, we have been
telling ACHD that Meridian Road needs to be a four or five lane road and that they need
to stop focusing on Main Street and Meridian as a one-way couplet, each being one
way, so that they shove more traffic up and down Main Street. The recent marketing --
downtown marketing study that Meridian paid for has identified Main Street to be much
more pedestrian friendly. Well, in order to move the traffic off -- not only stop the
increase of traffic on Main Street, but move current traffic off of Main Street, Meridian is
going to have to bear more of the load and I'm assuming that the outcome of the study
that has not started yet is going to have to address that in a manner that Meridian is
going to have to -- Meridian Road is going to have to be widened something in the
neighborhood of four or five lanes and --
Borup: Four lanes would require how much right of way?
Zaremba: I don't know. That's a good question for Mr. Siddoway. But I -- the difficulty is
there are people at ACHD that have invested in this one-way couplet idea and are not
listening to the alternate suggestions that are being made. I'm sorry to put it that way,
but when you contact ACHD and ask them what their plans are, they do not include
what Meridian has been asking for for some time and -- you have identified that this is
an issue that, unfortunately, shouldn't be your problem, but it is.
Newton-Huckabay: How many square feet of retail space are we debating over?
Knopp: I believe the breakdown is on the front sheet as far as what we are talking about
square footage on the garage.
Borup: Eighteen by eighteen.
Mendian Planning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 66 of 108
Newton-Huckabay: Not on the whole -- no, whether -- if you get the additional front -
Knopp: I think there is like 200 square feet, somewheres around in that neighborhood.
Zaremba: Not to re-engineer a project, but is there any chance of adding that retail
space on the back of the garage, instead of the front?
Knopp: It won't give us the parking, then.
Zaremba: You would have to probably lose a parking space or two and that wouldn't be
adequate, then?
Knopp: Right.
Borup: Well, 75 feet is plenty for four lanes.
Knopp: Four lanes. That's what Meridian -- or that's what ACHD has told me. Right.
Borup: What's their minimum for four lanes? Or do you know?
Knopp: No. But their -- their reply on July 14th -- and that's why I said, they weren't
taking any additional -- they only were asking for five feet on the west from us. They
had enough on the east and that was enough to give them their -- the four lanes that
they anticipate. But I think -- like I said, Meridian -- the City of Meridian has been
looking at five or six lanes, I think, and so, therefore, you know, we just -- we are at the
dilemma of -- you know.
Borup: That sounds like it gives you 70 feet.
Knopp: Yeah.
Newton-Huckabay: Maybe we should continue the Public Hearing and --
Knopp: And, hopefully, this project is an in-fill project that is cleaning up an existing
residence, turning it into something that is within the Comprehensive Plan and what Old
Town is and what you're looking for, you know, and pedestrian friendly and I'm not using
and asking for the total width of the lot, it's the width of a garage that -- you know, it's --
and it doesn't sound like much, but if you add what that income .could be over the next
whatever years -- and I'm assuming it, because the improvement's not in the plan and,
Commissioner Zaremba, you probably know more about thiS, since you're on the
transportation board -- you know, I don't know what, but everybody I talk to says it's not
going to happen, you know, any sooner than ten years and ACHD is telling me that it's
15 to 20 years. Well, no, they are telling me 15 to 20 years and so -- and what we are
saying is is if we take that income for ten years, that's a pretty good return on what we
are asking.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August5,2O04
Page 67 of 108
Borup: I understand. Okay. It sounds like that's the only issue. Thank you.
Knopp: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone here to testify on this application? It looks like this is the
owner, I assume? Come on up.
Churchill: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Lance Churchill, I'm an officer
of Trustee Services, which is the trustee of the trust that owns this property. It's known
as Meridian Road Investment Trust. I'm speaking here tonight on behalf of the
beneficiaries of the trust. As mentioned, this building doesn't have any great historical
significance, basically, in its components, but when this property was purchased by the
trust last year we quickly learned from the Meridian Historical Commission this, actually
-- the original plan for the trust was, actually, to raze this property, but we were
approached by the Meridian Historical Commission, Tony Hickey, others, even the
previous mayor, over saving this property, because it actually is the home of Meridian's
first mayor when it was built in 1900. Mayor John Anderson lived in this property and
it's in the Anderson Subdivision, so they said please do anything possible you can to try
to save this structure and renovate it. So, rather than razing it, they looked at that and
determined, you know, what's the most cost effective way to go and they tried to,
obviously, maximize square footage available to make -- not razing the structure, but
rehabilitating the structure, which is going to cost over 100,000, a viable project. And
that's why we came up with the plan that's before the Council today and we believe that
it is a plan that creates, basically, a very attractive project from what was a neglected
and derelict house that fits well into the Old Town historical district. The issue, as you
know, is whether or not this several hundred square feet is worth fighting over or
whether it should be denied to the owners of the trust and as Mr. Knopp pointed out,
when you deal with 700 square feet of rentable space over decades, it adds up to a lot
of income potential in the property. But be that as it may, as I understand from
everyone I have heard from tonight and even from the Planning Commission, the plan
as proposed, with the extension of the garage, complies with all existing ordinances that
are in place today and complies with all existing setbacks in place today. We more than
comply with what ACHD wants. And to deny us -- or the trust legal use of this space
now, is, in fact, I don'! think permissible and I think the attorney would probably agree.
We are complying with what the law says and, you know, I hate to quote some of the
Commissioners tonight, but after listening to some of the previous debate,
Commissioner Zaremba said -- and I quote: The only duty of the Commission here
today is to see that a project meets the ordinances, meets all rules. Commissioner
Rohm said he wants to only see if a specific plan meets all the ordinances on the books.
That's what it does. We meet all the ordinances on the books. We don't think it's fair
that we should be penalized for something that may never come about or if it's going to
come about it's in ten years or 20 years down the road. If the. city wants the property
now, then, take it now, do what it has to do, but don't deny us the use of the property for
20 years and, then, somewhere down the road say now we are going to take the
property from you. So, all we are asking for today is that the plan be passed as
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 68 of 108
proposed, because we comply with all the laws on the books today and we don't want to
be asked to meet a higher standard than presently exists or some future standard that's
an unknown. Thank you. Any questions before I sit down?
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify? Okay. Commissioners? I
guess if there is any discussion it's really just on one item.
Zaremba: Well, I certainly like the project and appreciate the thought they have put into
it and I also agree that until ACHD comes around to what I suspect Meridian is going to
want, we do have to go based on what is the actual fact today, not what we hope is
going happen. I would support it anyhow. My only issue to get over is giving up the
extra space of the garage expansion.
Borup: Okay. Let's have a motion, then.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: I -- to answer Commissioner Newton-Huckabay's question about whether I'm
opposed to that or not, I would like to see staff ask that the garage not extend beyond
the current front of the other buildings. But I also agree with the applicant's point that
the conditions as we see them today don't necessarily justify that requirement. Does
staff have a further comment on that?
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, I could try and shed some light on
what the condition is -- what the ordinance is today. If you look for the minimum
setbacks in the Old Town zone in the ordinance it says see district regulation for
corresponding use proposed. The general interpretation we have taken is that there are
no specific set setbacks and that's why Old Town is always a discussion as to what the
setbacks should be. The setback is at the discretion of the Commission and Council
and is not specifically spelled out here. If you were to take an interpretation -- I'm not
necessarily proposing this, but that you go by use and say, okay, if it's an office use you
go with the L-O setbacks, well, then, it would be a 30-foot front setback and if you went
with a commercial designation for CoG, as the smallest at a 15-foot front setback, it
doesn't -- they say they are meeting the setbacks, but it doesn't say in here it's a five
foot setback, it just says see corresponding use. And so it is at the Commission's
discretion and I would just point that out. That's all. Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Do we need more discussion or are we ready for a motion?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5,2004
Page 6g01108
Zaremba: Well, okay, let me propose something for discussion, that we forward this to
the City Council leaving the staff comments the way they are and between now when it
gets to the City Council -- well, okay, the traffic management plan is not going to be any
closer to completion by that point, so there is nothing -- nothing new to be gained. Well,
I would take guidance from the other Commissioners, about how strongly anybody else
feels about the setback of the garage building.
Moe: Well, I guess my opinion, quite frankly, I would like to -- I would like to see it
somewhat go as per staff's recommendation, but, at the same time, I do think we are in
a situation where this could be years away and so, therefore, I don't know that we are
doing much more for the property owners by holding them back for that period of time.
So, I guess my opinion is I think that the special consideration by staff probably should
be taken out and we go from there.
Borup: Okay. Do we have a motion to that effect?
Moe: Are you going to make that motion?
Rohm: No. I think you're right on track, Commissioner Moe.
Borup: Is that a motion, Commissioner Moe?
Moe: I'm working on that, sir.
Borup: All right.
Moe: I'm not complete. Sorry. Go right ahead.
Zaremba: All right. And I will make a stab at it and if staff or other Commissioners
disagree with me, I will make an amendment. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to
the City Council recommending approval of Item 9 on our agenda, RZ 04-008, request
for a rezone of .23 acres from R-8 to proposed OT zone for Larry Knopp by Larry
Knopp, 703 North Meridian Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the
hearing date of July 15th, 2004, received by the city clerk July 12th, 2004, with no
changes on the rezone.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending
approval of Item 10 on our agenda, Cup 04-019, request for a Conditional Use Permit
for a retail and professional office use in an existing building in the proposed OT zone
for Larry Knopp by Larry Knopp, 713 North Meridian Road, to include all staff comments
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 70 of 108
of their memo for the hearing date of July 15th, 2004, received by the city clerk July
12th, 2004, and referencing the applicant's site plan with a revision date of 7/12/04.
Staff comments to include the following changes: On page seven, under special
considerations, paragraph one can be deleted. On page eight, under conditions of
approval, paragraph three can be deleted. I believe that's the only changes.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 11:
Public Hearing: CUP 04-020 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
pharmacy in an L-O zone for Medicap Pharmacy by Larry Knopp - east
of North Ten Mile Road on north side of West Cherry Lane:
Borup: Next item is Public Hearing CUP 04-020, request for a Conditional Use Permit
for a pharmacy in an L-O zone for Medicap Pharmacy, again, by Larry Knopp. I'd like to
start with the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is an
application for the Medicap Pharmacy. It is a proposed Conditional Use Permit for a --
about a 4,600 square foot retail pharmacy in Lynwood Plaza, which the Lynwood Plaza
project is outlined on the screen. It's on the north side of Cherry Lane. The Conditional
Use is required, because the proposed pharmacy includes a drive-thru and all drive-
thrus require a Conditional Use Permit. Retail pharmacies as a use are not listed in the
schedule of use control. Medical clinics are an approved use -- or a permitted use and
retail stores are a prohibited use. This is a retail pharmacy. To -- in order to clarify the
use and to gauge whether it's appropriate or not in this location, the applicant has
submitted a letter stating that the retail portion of this would be limited to
pharmaceuticals and related items, such as crutches or medical supplies, but that
general merchandise, such as groceries, toys, seasonal items, things you might see in a
Walgreen's pharmacy, for example, will not be sold. As such, staff does find that the
use is closer to a clinic than a retail store, in harmony with the intent of the L-O zone.
Special considerations on this project are on page four of the staff report. Before I get
to those, though, let me use this aerial photo to talk about surrounding properties.
Directly north of the project is Devlon Place Subdivision. Directly south is the Haven
Cove Subdivision. To the east is Sunnybrook Farms. And to the west is Sunburst. All
of which are zoned R-4. This site plan shows how they intend to develop the entire
property. The project that's before us tonight sits in this location. The project has been
platted into this configuration previously. That final plat has not been recorded or was
not at the time that I wrote the report. Until such time as that plat is recorded, the
project is only eligible for a single building permit and would just simply point that out.
Here is the project, zooming in on just that southwest corner. You can see the retail
pharmacy building in this location, the entrance off of Cherry Lane, and the associated
parking. One question that we have under special considerations is the project extent.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 71 of 108
We will need to make sure that there are full improvements to the -- to full width drive
aisles and that the access is fully improved, because they don't completely sit on this
specific lot and I just need to make sure that we are clear on what the boundaries of the
project will be as constructed for this. The second item deals with a Nampa-Meridian
Irrigation District easement along the west boundary of the. project. There is an
easement for the irrigation district. I'm going to flip forward and show you the ditch.
That's looking north along the project's west property line. That ditch will be tiled or
piped as part of the subdivision improvements and there is an easement associated
with that ditch. The site plan as you see includes trees along that west property line and
there is a required 20-foot buffer between land uses here for the pharmacy use and the
adjacent residential subdivision. We feel that buffer is especially important, given the
drive-thru use. The drive-thru would enter at this location and drive along the north side
of the building and, then, exit here and out. However, Nampa-Meridian does not usually
allow trees in buffers and so we have asked the applicant to address this issue at the
hearing tonight and verify what, if any, trees would be allowed. I do believe just in the
last week a revised landscape plan has come in for the plat showing no trees along that
boundary. I believe Nampa-Meridian is opposed to them. So, the question is how do
we deal with some alternative compliance in that area in order to provide the buffer for
the project to the neighbors to the west. The trash enclosure that's proposed up at the
top of the screen also sits in the -- that same Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District
easement and just have requested that they verify that they are able to get a license
agreement for that. Item number three deals with Settlers Irrigation District. There has
been comment submitted on behalf of Settlers Irrigation District. They are stating that
they own a facility that runs along the south boundary of the property parallel to the
Cherry Lane and have issued their own conditions of approval for a license agreement
and associated fees that the applicant is disputing and have asked them to address the
status of that discussion as part of the hearing. Item number four deals with the micro-
path connection. I'm going to go to a photo -- where is it? Here. This photo is of a
micro-path in Devlon Place Subdivision that connects to the northeast part of the project
in this location. It follows the sewer line that you can see coming in right there. The site
-- this site -- overall site plan does not show any connection to that micro-path and we
are asking that they connect to it. The proposed layout for the parking -- just a second.
There was an issue with the layout of how this project would interface with the future
project to the north, especially with this trash enclosure. Some proposed parking
spaces were backing into that and we have just asked them to clarify how that will be
addressed with the future phases. The last item deals with landscaping. There are
several required changes to the landscape plan detailed in condition number two. They
require some additional width in the parking planter in this location, in this location,
adding a couple of trees to the street buffer along Cherry Lane, enhancing the buffer
between land uses, and proposing alternative compliance if Nampa-Meridian does not
allow the trees. And with that I will stand for any questions.
Borup: Questions for Mr. Siddoway? Okay. Mr. Knopp, would like to -- anything you'd
like to add?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5.2004
Page 72 of 108
Knopp: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Larry Knopp, 355 South 3rd Street,
Boise. I'm the architect representing the owner developer in this matter this evening.
Lynwood Subdivision is in its final stages of final plat and approval and so we have had
two or three developers -- or at least two developers on this project and it's changed
hands and so we have had some miscommunication. We have been trying to work with
the developer, with the staff, and I think we have solved and resolved all of the issues
that staff has discussed this evening. I believe I have submitted and, hopefully, you
have received their revised site plan and so I believe that we changed and addressed
all the items that are -- that staff had and I think we are in compliance with that at this
point in time on the revised site plan. What I'd like to do -- Mr. Siddoway, if you could go
back to the subdivision showing all five lots and buildings? Yes. That's the one. We
have moved the trash enclosure from this area up to this area. We have deleted that
car park to allow enough backup room in this area. We have expanded that parking -- a
landscape aisle, by reducing this one a little bit. We have increased that one to meet
the standards by -- we had some area down in here, so that we meet the revisions that
the staff was asking on the landscaping.
Borup: Yeah. And we have got a copy of the new plan showing the revised --
Knopp: But I guess the only issue now is -- and what I'd like to also clarify is that this
pharmacy is strictly pharmaceutical, they don't sell retail, it's all medical related. The
drive-up window facility is strictly for pickup of medication. There is no speaker on it, so
it's a direct verbal between it, so we don't have any noise generating from this use and
so I think it should be very neighborhood and user friendly from that aspect. We also
have revised and submitted for the final plat and we can go over that with staff.
Hopefully, they have a copy of it, because we have made all the modifications and
changes on the trees and moved them out of the easement, because Nampa-Meidian
Irrigation does not allow trees and root systems to interfere with their ditch system, so,
hopefully, we have got that taken care of. So, if you have got any questions, I will try to
answer them for you.
Moe: What's the status of the Settlers Irrigation?
Knopp: That I do not know. You will have to ask the developer. He's here this evening.
He's been in discussion with Settlers. I think they have got a resolution to it, but he
would have to address that.
Borup: Okay. Unless there is any question on the -- on the buffer to the west -- I think
when this project first came before us, it was a retirement home development. Years
ago. Something like that.
Knopp: I believe also right now that the developer and Planning and Zoning have come
to an agreement on redoing the fence on the west side to help mitigate and buffer that
west side in regards to and concerning the fact that we can't put any trees in that area,
because of the --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 73 of 108
Borup: That's what your site plan shows. New fence --
Knopp: Yeah.
Borup: -- on the whole west side. Okay. Thank you.
Knopp: Thank you.
Borup: Commissioner Moe, did you want to know about Settlers?
Moe: Yes, I do.
Borup: Okay.
Wyman: Yeah, Commissioners, members, my name is Jon Wyman and I'm
representing Lester Back Development, LLC, and they will be purchasing this property
from Oakwood Enterprises, LLC. The only problem we have with the Settlers situation
is that their entire irrigation system is in the right of way for ACHD. so, what they were
asking us to do is is come in and establish that right of way for them legally and pay for
that, which we don't use Settlers canal, we don't have any of their easement on our
property, so we don't see any reason for us to solve that problem for them. So, that's
our issue with that. We do have a license agreement with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation,
however, for their portion of it. Any questions?
Borup: The Rutledge Lateral is owned by Settlers?
Wyman: Nampa-Meridian.
Borup: Oh, Nampa-Meridian is --
Wyman: Yeah.
Borup: Okay.
Wyman: Exactly.
Borup: Well, then, so Nampa-Meridian has a -- has an easement along Cherry Lane
also?
Wyman: They do. Yes.
Borup: So, they have got parallel access?
Wyman: They have got parallel lines there, but we are not serviced by Settlers, we are
serviced by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5. 2004
Page 74 of 108
Borup: So, Nampa-Meridian is next to your property and, then, Settlers is out in this
area?
Wyman: Right. Right. When the highway department expanded that road, they actually
piped those ditches, but they didn't, I guess, settle the east question, so --
Borup: Thank you.
Wyman: Thank you.
Borup: Did that answer your question, Commissioners? Okay. Do we have anyone
else to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners, any concerns?
Zaremba: I think most of mine have been answered. Mr. Chairman, I move that the
hearing on Item 11 be closed.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Let see. I think rather than go through the staff memo and identify the items
that the applicant has agreed to, I will just reference that the applicant has agreed to
them and reference the new site plan that's been given to us. If that's acceptable, I will
make a motion.
Moe: Please do.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending
approval of CUP 04-020, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a pharmacy in an L-O
zone for Medicap Pharmacy by Larry Knopp, east of Ten Mile Road on the north side of
West Cherry Lane, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of
July 15th, 2004, received by the city clerk July 12th, 2004, with the comment that many
of the staff comments have been addressed in the site plan provided by the applicant
with a revision date of August 2, '04, received by the city clerk August 5, 2004, and this
is actually a landscape plan, but we assume the plat will be brought into compliance
with the landscape plan that we are looking at.
Rohm: I'll second that.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
August 5,2004
Page 75 of 108
Item 13:
Public Hearing: CUP 04-023 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for a mixed-use development consisting of 120
multi-family units, 28,660 square feet commercial/office space and 3.43
acres of open space on 10.05 acres in a CoG zone for proposed Sadie
Creek Subdivision by FOLIO, Inc. - 2935 N. Eagle Road
Public Hearing: PP 04-023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 30
residential four-plex lots, 7 commercial lots and 8 common lots on 10.05
acres in a CoG zone for proposed Sadie Creek Subdivision by FOLIO,
Inc. - 2935 N. Eagle Road:
Item 12:
Borup: The last -- I think our last item for the evening, Public Hearing CUP 04-023,
request for Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for a mixed use
development, consisting of 120 multi-family units, 28,660 square feet commercial office
space, 3.43 acres of open space. This is in a CoG zone for proposed Sadie Creek
Subdivision and joining that is Public Hearing PP 04-023, preliminary plat on the same
project. I'd like to open both hearings at this time and started with the staff report.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Before staff goes, I would like to make a comment on the agenda there is a
typo. The correct file number for Item 13 is PP 04-021.
Borup: Okay. So noted. Thank you. And the rest of our paperwork does say that, just
the agenda was --
Zaremba: And the description is correct. Everything else is correct, except the file
number on the agenda.
Borup: Mr. Hood.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the subject ten acres is located, as you
can see on this vicinity map, on the west side of Eagle Road, approximately 900 feet --
or 600 feet south of Ustick Road within Section 5, Township 3 North, Range 1 East.
This site was recently annexed into the city as part of AZ 03-018, which was processed
as the Kissler/Cobbs/Eagy/Ruwe annexation. One of those parties to that application
originally withdrew from that application. That is directly to the north of the subject
parcel. So, the city limits currently kind of go around and across Eagle Road. The
properties to the north and south are currently not within the city boundaries. The
subject site is designated as mixed use regional on the Comprehensive Plan land use
map and is currently zoned CoG.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
August 5,2004
Page 76 of 108
Borup: Could you clarify for me, again, on which of these parcels are already annexed
and which ones aren't?
Hood: Bruce is -- yeah. That's the one --
Borup: That is not.
Hood: That property owner is here this evening and he withdrew -- originally was part of
the application, but, yeah, those two parcels there --
Borup: To the north of the --
Hood: -- to the north of the dark black. Yeah. The one directly on the corner.
Borup: Between this and Ustick are -- were withdrawn?
Hood: Yes.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Hood: So, this site, as you can see on this map, the -- I'm sorry, there is no legend with
this, but the brown color -- all four corners of the intersection of Ustick and Eagle Road
are designated as mixed use regional on the future land use map and, like I said, this is
currently zoned CoG. This mixed-use designation is intended to provide for a
combination of compatible land uses that are typically developed under a master or
conceptual plan. With the annexation and zoning there was a conceptual plan
submitted showing how this property may develop. That is something that's not
required within the annexation and zoning, but it is something to help this body and the
City Council kind of get a feel for the anticipated development of the property. The
existing land uses in this area, as you can kind of see from this map, are real similar to
another application that was on the agenda this evening. It does still have somewhat of
a rural feel to it, although Eagle Road that is adjacent to it and there are 40,000 plus
cars a day driving by. There is a single-family home on an agricultural lot. That one
that we just previously discussed, it was going to be annexed and withdrawn, that's
zoned R-1 in Ada County. To the south is also an agriculturally -- currently used for
agricultural purposes and zoned RUT in Ada County. To the east is the Kissler part of
that annexation, currently zoned CoG in the city. To the west are single-family homes in
Carol Subdivision. About half of those homes have been annexed and hooked up to
sewer and water. The other half are waiting -- when those homes are sold they hook up
to sewer and water and are annexed into the city. So, it's about 50-50 right now the last
time I checked. There is an existing single family home, as you can see on this, located
near Eagle Road, and some outbuildings that the applicant is proposing to remove. The
submitted preliminary plat proposed to subdivide the existing ten-acre lot into 30 multi-
family residential lots, seven commercial lots, and six common lots. The applicant is
proposing to construct a public street access off of Eagle Road located near the south
property line. The applicant is proposing two public street stubs, one to the north and
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
Augu5t 5,2004
Page 77 of 108
one to the south. You can see the -- thank you, Bruce -- the public street coming in
and, then, T'ing to the north and south. Access to the multi-family developments is
provided by the access drives on the western approximately three quarters of the site.
Access is provided to the multi-family units via drive aisles. And so a majority of those
lots do not have frontage on a public street, but they all do have access to that common
drive aisle. The submitted Conditional Use Permit requested detailed approval for the
30 multi-family buildings, each containing one four-plex structure, for a total of 120 units
on about seven acres of the ten acres. The site plan also shows a conceptual layout
that includes seven commercial office buildings on the remaining about three acres near
Eagle Road. Each use or building within this conceptual area, which is Lots 1 through
7, Block 1, on the preliminary plat, will be required to obtain detailed CUP approval prior
to construction. So, right now we don't have any elevations or uses that are proposed
for that approximately three acres and all of those buildings will have to come back in
for Public Hearing. The applicant did not request any deviations from the standard
dimensional standards in Titles 11 and 12 of city code. However, there are some --
some of the requirements that have not been addressed according to code, specifically
land use buffers and I'll touch on that in just a moment. The applicant is proposing to
construct picnic tables and a volleyball court, a basketball court, and tot lots as
amenities for the PD. Here is a floor plan for the multi-family buildings. They are
upstairs-downstairs units. Each unit accesses from a separate side, all four sides. I
don't want to rush through this, but it is late at night, so I'm going to kind of breeze
through the rest of the presentation and hit on some of the outstanding issues. Here
are the floor plans. I'll let the applicant talk a little bit more about that. This is the
conceptual site plan approved with the annexation and zoning of this site. I do want to
just stop here for a second and -- if I could use that, Bruce. The subject site is in this
location here. Carol Subdivision would be here. This shows a buffer, transitional use,
multi-family residential, commercial office area. Just pointing that out there, that's pretty
close -- this line isn't exact. The multi-family line comes somewhere in area. It is
conceptual. I just want to show the cross-access, cross-access stub is showing here, a
public street stub, another cross-access point showing here to the north, one to the
south here, and one to the south there. So, I won't dwell on that too much, but just
some of the findings made in the staff report was based on this conceptual layout for the
entire annexed area. Now, some of the outstanding issues, access to Eagle Road, I
guess, is going to be probably the biggest one for the applicant and access in general to
Eagle Road I imagine a lot of the people here tonight will comment on as well. As noted
in the staff report, site specific condition number two on page ten, staff would like to
restrict this access point to be right-in, right-out only, and temporary. Once access is
provided to the site via Ruwe Way to Ustick Road, which, again, there is only that one
property, so when that property develops, access to Ustick Road is available, and this
access to Eagle would go away. The applicant is definitely dressing this up as a main
entrance into the site, with landscape islands and that type of thing, so just -- that one's
kind of a point of discussion, but staff hasn't included a condition. Did get a
correspondence from ITD on Monday. They have not acted on this application yet. The
applicant has told me they have a submittal in for an access permit. ITD in their letter
says they don't have one. Two different departments. They did send -- their comments,
though, did talk about access to the type four roadway. You can review those. They
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5,2004
Page 78 of 108
should be in your packet. It basically says, you know, unless you have a half mile of
frontage, if you -- you know, access will be looked at the state highway on a type four
roadway on a case-by-case basis and be temporary only, when a frontage road or other
means to public streets are provided. Some of the reasons for staff's recommending of
the right-in and right-out and temporary are in the staff report, so I won't belabor that
anymore. You did receive an e-mail as well from Walt Williams about access. I just
want to make sure that that's in the packet and on the record, his concerns about
access to the highway. And I would like the applicant to also address in their
presentation the partial right of way that occasioned -- I talked with the applicant out in
the hallway before this hearing and it's hard to see on here, but the actual property lines
of the subject site goes about 12 feet south of the center line of the roadway. So,
approximately three-quarters of the roadway is on their site, with the remaining quarter
being on the southern property line or the southern property. So, the remainder portion
of that roadway would either have to be constructed or dedicated or something like that.
So, again, I just wanted the applicant to clarify exactly how that's going to happen and,
then, right in this location it actually goes below that and kind of dips up and across the
center line, actually, of the roadway. So, they wouldn't be able to -- without the southern
property owners approval, construct that portion of the roadway. So, just some
clarification. And in keeping with that access theme, site specific condition number four
on page ten, again, there is only -- currently only one access proposed. The Meridian
police department is opposed to any development west of this public street until there is
a secondary access into this site. If this entrance is right-in, right-out only, and they are
coming here, it can be very difficult to service this site, so they are going to restrict that
to development of this side, which leaves I think probably about 12 units -- I forget how
many are actually in there. Tiling ditches, site specific number seven, page 11, the
applicant did not originally request to leave the irrigation ditch on the southern part of
this property open. I haven't seen any plans. I believe the applicant has a drawing or is
going to address how this irrigation ditch is going to be dressed up to be sort of an
amenity. The City Council will need to approve any waivers of the standard requirement
to not tile irrigation ditches, laterals, or canals. Landscaping. I did make a requirement
for an additional five-foot landscape buffer along this driveway. It kind of makes this
loop roadway, which is a drive aisle 25 feet wide between the back of stalls with parking
for each of the units on the front side and, then, loops around primarily for the fire
department, but there are some parking as Well here for this unit. This is shown right up
to the property line here. Staff requested a five-foot wide landscape buffer. Code
requires five feet between all drive aisles, parking lanes, et cetera, edge of property
lines. What should have happened -- and this is the larger screw-up on my part, is a
landscape buffer between land uses. They are providing a 3D-foot wide landscape
buffer abutting the single-family residences to the west. I forgot, this guy is a single
family residence still, he is not zoned commercial, he did not get annexed into the city
and staff is requesting that this Commission require the applicant to provide the full 20-
foot wide buffer between all the structures and the drive aisles along this entire property
line. Some of them, as you can see, there is some common open area, you don't really
run into problems until you get here. This building -- some of them actually go down to
five, six, seven feet to the property line, so I'll let the applicant address that. Also these
two roadways right here I believe show less than the 20-foot on the southern property
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
August 5. 2004
Page 79 of 108
line. The rest of it's a roadway and that would not be applicable. I do want to apologize
to the Commission for missing that part of the code and to the applicant and to the
property owner to the north, but I did want to make that a point. These buildings here,
since they will be required to come back in for future CUP approval and, then, certificate
of zoning compliance approval, that landscape buffer can be addressed at that time. If
this parcel has developed with commercial uses, that buffer will not be as wide. If this
building comes in and this is still a single family residence, they will be required to put a
25-foot wide landscape buffer there, so -- but, again, that will be addressed at the time
of further development of the commercial area. The amenities and open space, I
believe, are the last thing I want to talk about. In the staff report I did make note that
there were no amenities shown on the plan. There are some common areas shown and
the applicant in their letter says -- you know, again, stated what type of amenities, but I
did want the application to further clarify how those amenities will layout on the site.
That's site-specific condition number six on page 19. The applicant did submit
calculations on open space and staff believes that the open space requirement per city
code is being met, so the first sentence of site specific condition number five on page 19
can be deleted. It's about 12 percent of this site is going to be open space. That's it for
staff's concerns. I did just, again, want to go on the record; we did receive a
correspondence from ITD on August 2nd regarding interim access and their policies.
Also, a letter from Greg Eagy, dated August 4th. I believe the Commission should have
both of those correspondences and attachments for the ITD letter. Just briefly, some of
the things that were brought up by a neighbor in a phone call and an adjacent neighbor
came in and talked with me the other day. Public street stubs to the north and south
and the location thereof, staff is -- this is a note in the staff report, but this seems to be
an adequate location -- in fact, a pretty good location for a stub street, it can meander in
and around based on what they want to do here, so I don't think this binds this property
owner to - in fact, we want to see it probably jog a little bit, so you don't have a straight
raceway. And, then, the access drives here. The applicant has shown the extension of
both drive aisles in the commercial area, along with the sidewalk adjacent to those.
Fencing was also a concern. The applicant did propose originally the perimeter fencing.
There is a recommendation there for temporary construction fencing if no permanent
fencing is installed. So, those are some of the concerns, aside from the use of multi-
family and commercial that I just wanted to point out, staff is recommending approval of
the applications with the conditions outlined in the staff report and the changes that I
have just requested. So, with that I will stand for any questions.
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Craig I was -- go ahead. You were
too slow.
Zaremba: I was. I don't always have to be first. I try and give other people the
opportunity to talk.
Borup: I was interested in the concept plan. I think when this application -- the
annexation was before us there was a lot of discussion about a concept plan, but I don't
think this Commission ever saw one, so I take it that was developed after it left this
Commission, before it made it to City Council; is that correct?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page BOof10B
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, that's my understanding, too. Brad
Hawkins-Clark was, actually, the planner on this, but there was not a conceptual plan
submitted with the original application. Like I said, it's not a requirement of an
annexation application, but--
Borup: It was very strongly recommended.
Hood: It's strongly suggested by staff and the City Council. Really, they don't like to
give just blanket approvals for commercial zones without kind of knowing --
Borup: I think we made that as an understanding when it left this Commission.
Hood: Yes.
Borup: But one of the things I remember there was a lot of discussion on and I may be
remembering not completely, but that we are talking about an L-O zone to the west.
Hood: There was -- and I don't have the minutes and wasn't privy to the City Council
meeting, but that's always a -- when you have single family homes adjacent to mixed
use developments, what is a good transitional use between those higher intense uses.
Some of the path decisions -- you know, landscaping is always nice. A transitional use
such as storage units, which the applicant is proposing there as a transitional use, they
have storage units, individual storage units for the tenants, so indoor storage
transitioning into that multi-family. So, there is a landscape buffer, that transitional use,
which is a low intense use and, then, your more intense multi-family with the higher --
higher and highest intense, other than industrial commercial uses near Eagle Road. So,
I guess based on past applications that have been approved by the Council, storage
units, landscaping, are those type of things that kind of get you to those transitioning,
other higher intense uses, so --
Borup: I think they left the meeting with -- understanding what -- what the preference
was at that time, but also I think some of them made the statement they understood
that, but if anything else was proposed, that would be seeing it, so this is it it looks like.
One other -- one final question. The Eagle Road study that ITO made reference to, was
that the existing one from several years ago or are they working on a new one?
Hood: No. There is a new one in the works right now. It has not formally been adopted
and it's still in draft form.
Borup: They threw the old one out the door, then, or--
Hood: I'll let Anna speak to that.
Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, for about the last year ITD has
been working on an Eagle Road corridor study. They have done a number of public
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August5,2004
Page 81 of 108
open houses and had quite a bit of public participation. They hired an out-of-town
consultant -- well, I guess he's actually in town. Kiddleson. But they did some -- they
did do a draft document, they have been taking comments in on that and on
Wednesday they will do the presentation of the draft document to the public agencies
and, then, the open house is on -- I'm sorry. The public presentation to -- the
presentation to the public agencies is Tuesday and the open house for the public is
Wednesday. So, they are moving forward with more than an initial draft document at
this point, but -- and that section does have a -- it calls for a landscaped median and
then -- some of the key points are a landscape median, a ten foot pathway, and
pedestrian path separated from the street and there is, actually, a bike path on the
street, too, I believe.
Borup: Okay. So, they have made some changes from their initial study, then? Thank
you. That's what I was -- Commissioner Zaremba, you had --
Zaremba: Yes. Actually, on that subject of access to Eagle Road, in anticipation of ITD
wanting to limit access to it, I agree with staffs proposal that any current access be
temporary, but I would add to it a question, also anticipating that some day Eagle Road
would be a transit corridor, as well as a vehicle corridor, at the location where we are
saying there is a temporary vehicle access, which would go away as soon as there are
other ways to access this property, could we ask that at that location there be a
permanent pedestrian access? I think the sidewalks along Eagle Road are going to be
desirable to be pedestrian access.
Hood: I believe so, the way I see this playing out. I mean you're going to have right of
way for the street dedicated all the way to Eagle Road, so you will have a public street --
unless it's vacated and that would be back before the City Council and they would
actually have to vacate any right of way. But the right of way will be there. I mean you
will have 54 feet plus for any walkway and maybe even a bus pull out. Now, it's 55
miles an hour and ITD probably isn't going to lower the speed limit there, but you will
have, you know, a 50-foot corridor that will be, you know, paved out there and look like
a public street, except for barricades or however ACHD is going to, you know, shut -- or
ITD will shut that access off. So, that should be preserved. Now, the application or a
future abutting property owner could apply to have that vacated, but we could make that
a condition that, you know, it stays in perpetuity and that -- you know, that it--
Zaremba: At least as a pedestrian access.
Hood: For a pedestrian access.
Zaremba: Yes.
Hood: And the sidewalk will tie in. I mean it will be stubbed to Eagle Road. So, I think
that's -- yeah.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5. 2004
Page 82 of 108
Zaremba: Okay. And, then, one other comment. On page 12, your paragraph nine,
about fencing, thank you very much. That's it.
Borup: Questions from the other Commissioners? Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: I just question the prudence of design, putting your -- when this
Sadie Creek Drive is shut off and you access through Ruwe Way, you're going to have
to drive through what will be residential to get to your office.
Hood: I will -- I would like the applicant to further clarify this, but the first phase is going
to be a middle multi-family section. Access to the office, you know, may be temporarily
-- you know, yeah, there is going to be stub streets -- you will have a frontage road, it's
not, actually, going to be a dedicated roadway, but there will be cross-access amongst
the parcels, so you -- from Ustick Road you will have to come down approximately 600
feet, but you aren't driving through residential. The anticipated areas near Eagle Road
up to Ustick will be commercial as well, so you will actually be going through office
commercial, down to this -- you could go through residences to get there.
Newton-Huckabay: It would be one really long parking lot.
Hood: Well, there are buildings along and, then, your parking and, then, more buildings,
then, more parking. So, without seeing a design for the parcel to the north, if they stick
with the flavor here, you have buildings that you see as you're driving down Eagle Road
and, then, a back-age road - a road behind those buildings that ties all those properties
together.
Borup: But right now it sounds like the property to the north wants to stay residential.
Hood: It is currently residential.
Borup: Well, if they want a buffer, so that would indicate that they maybe want to be
residential for the next one hundred years. Or there would be maybe some cooperation
on development. Okay. Okay. Anything else from the Commissioners? Would the
applicant like to make a presentation?
Unger: Mr. Chair, Commission Members, my name is Bob Unger, my address is 6104
North Gary Lane, Boise, Idaho. 83714. And I represent FOLIO, Inc., who is the
developer on this project. Excuse me. First of all, I want to say that I think staff has
done a great job of reviewing the project and has been really helpful in our final design
of what you're seeing this evening. We also appreciate the recommendation of
approval and their conditions. Just very briefly, because, once again, I think we all are
kind of tired and we -- as staff has said, we are proposing 30 four-plex buildings and
seven commercial lots, which will be developed at a later date. Based upon staff's
review of the project and their recommendations, we would be reducing that from 30
four-plex buildings to 29 four-plex buildings, which is actually we would -- well, we can
show it up here. We would be eliminating this building right here. Which would also
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 83 of 108
increase the open space area here by about 16,000 square feet. In reviewing the
project, when the property was annexed this past spring, there was a development
agreement that was signed with Mrs. Ruwe and the city, specifically identifying the type
of development that would occur on the property, has staff showed you earlier. That
conceptual plan was rather vague and empty. What we have put together here pretty
well follows and complies with that development agreement. Met with staff prior to
going forward with this project. They gave us a copy of the development agreement
and also helped review and look at the streets, location of the streets, particularly the
north-south street that ultimately would connect to Ustick Road. So, we feel that what
we have put together here is totally -- is totally in compliance with the development
agreement that was signed this -- this spring. Also, as staff said, we do want to phase
the project. This would be our first phase. Our second phase would be here. And the
commercial development would occur at the last stage. We anticipate probably two to
three years before that would go forward. As far as the roads, once again, these will be
ACHD roads. Rather uniquely, they have required that we build these roads not to
residential standards or the typical standards that we see throughout the valley of 29
foot back of curb roads, they have required us to increase these to 40 feet width of
pavement in a 54-foot right of way, which is -- that's a wide wide street. Very very wide
street. Which we really don't have a problem with that and I'll kind of get into that as we
go on down the road here. We have requested from ITD a full access -- temporary full
access until such time as North Ruwe Way, which is this road, is extended to Ustick
Road and at that time dropping that into a right-in, right-out access. We feel that our
access to Eagle Road is imperative to this project, particularly at this point in time, since
it's the only access that we have. As far as -- if that access is taken away once the
north-south road to Ustick is extended, certainly we are not going to fight anybody over
providing pedestrian access there. I mean that's just logical. Okay? And, like staff
said, we are going right of way to right of way, so, it will be within ACHD's right of way
and ITD's right of way. And, once again, the street -- the north-south street, that's -- the
location of that is pretty close to where staff had recommended the -- to be located and
certainly as it goes to the north when and if the property to the north develops, you
know, they can meander that and probably is a good idea. Utilities are available to the
site. We may have to do some extending to there, but sewer is available. In fact, it's
available from both directions along Eagle Road. And the city just completed a water
extension right down in front of the property within the past month or two. And all other
utilities are there and available to us. What I would like to do is go to this -- our first
design here in the landscaping was only 28 feet -- actually, itwas supposed to have
been 30 feet. Staff's informed us it needs to be 35 feet. We don't have a problem with
that, so no problem in making that a 35-foot landscape strip there. To the west we have
proposed a 30 foot landscape strip all the way along through here and that was a part of
the development agreement that that would occur. So, we put that in there. And also,
as staff reviewed, we have 24 garage slash storage spaces -- buildings, actually. It's
one building, single story, located right there to add to the buffer from the homeowners
to the west of the project. Along the north -- I guess we made the same assumption
that staff made, since there is a single family residence here and all the rest of this
property is open field, we did not put in a 20-foot landscape buffer along this portion of
the development, in that the possibilities -- we feel the probability that the property to the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5. 2004
Page 84 of 108
north is -- some day is going to develop and we would think similar to what we have
here in that your Comprehensive Plan calls for a mixed use in that area. We are asking
for a reduction from the 20-foot to a ten foot landscape strip all along here. We will be
able to move this fire lane over with the loss -- you know, with removing this building, we
have sufficient room to move this fire lane over to accommodate a ten foot landscape
strip there. These commercial properties along here, of course, won't develop for two to
three years and what we have got in our final landscape plan down here is a very dense
planting of trees, shrubs, et cetera, specifically along where the -- where this residence
exists today. So, that is one thing that we would be asking for, a reduction in that 20-
foot width requirement. Can definitely go ten, but 20 is probably going to -- 20 is going
to put us in a situation where we would probably lose one, two, possibly three buildings
in the project. Even if I try to rotate some of these buildings, I don't think I can get them
all squared away in there and we are trying to keep as much open space and landscape
area along here, so that we have a nice appearance coming into the project and up in
through here. Excuse me. This -- all this area up through here would still be
landscaped very nicely. In addition, we are also proposing to put vinyl fencing along the
northern boundary of the property and along the western boundary of the property and,
actually, we would bring it right on down to -- to the street section here. Of course, this
all being right of way, it really wouldn't be advantageous to try to fence right next to the
sidewalk and I don't believe that the gentleman that owns the property to the south has
a real concern about our fencing. We have met with him on a couple of occasions,
reviewing our project, and it's quite likely that he's going to develop his project very very
similar to ours, with -- even with the driveways of the commercial areas aligning with
what we are proposing now. Excuse me. As far as parking, we have provided two
parking spaces per dwelling unit, and for each dwelling unit there is one covered space.
And, once again, I have talked about the garage slant storage units over here. Open
space. Let's see. If I -- Craig, could you put that one up for me, please? Okay. This is
a revised plan that we brought in this evening and as you can see, we have eliminated
this building here and what we are proposing as far as amenities and open space, with
this additional open space, with the loss of this building, we are in excess of 54,000
square feet of open space, which is about one and a third acres, a little bit better than.
The amenities that we are proposing, we have a volleyball court here, we have a large
tot lot here, which would have swings, monkey bars, you know, those type of -- that type
of equipment. Also, in this open space area up here that would be more in the area of a
playground area. We want to leave that grassy, so that the kids can go out there, they
can throw the -- it's large enough where you can go out and throw the football, it's large
enough you can go out and kick the soccer ball around and things like that. But we --
it's designated as an open space, but we also want to designate it as an amenity for use
for the kids and even adults, they can go out there and throw the football and kick a
soccer ball around. Some of the other amenities -- and it's hard to see on this. These
little dots we have got in here are picnic tables and we are providing one picnic table for
every two buildings that can be used by residents. Also, in this open space area here
we are showing a horseshoe pit. Some people enjoy it. So, it's something we can put
in to accommodate that. We had discussed with staff about putting in a basketball
court. We are not sure where we would put a basketball court and it's more asphalt in
an area where we have already got all the parking and driveways and an awful lot of
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
August 5,2004
Page 85 of 108
asphalt, so we are not sure whether we would really be able to put a basketball court in
or, actually, whether we would want to. I guess it would be up to the Commission. If
you really want us to put one in there and eliminate some more green and put down
some asphalt. Let's see. The irrigation ditch. There is a very small irrigation ditch,
comes in right about in this location right here. It's approximately two feet wide and
approximately a foot to a foot and a half deep. .It does provide water to the west. What
we would like to do -- and, Craig, can you move -- can you get this up a little higher, so
they can see this? There you go. Thank you. What we would like to do is we'd like to
turn it into an amenity, something where we can take it to a five-to-one slope on the
banks, we will put river rock here on the bottom of it, the depth would be a foot and a
half. The easement that we would provide, there would be a ten foot easement and,
you know, we could put some plantings along the -- right along the street, between the
street and the ditch itself, because we would just locate it right along the edge of the
street and run it on over there. It provides a very nice amenity. It's not really a
hazardous attraction to children, because it's not - it's not really deep, it's not fast
running, so it really becomes somewhat of an amenity that can be not only appreciated
by the folks within this development, but also the folks in this development when that
does occur. We just think it's a nice thing -- a nice thing to see. It just looks like a little
meandering-type creek and, of course, goes along with the theme of our project, which
is Sadie Creek. So, we would like to see that happen, if -- if the Commission and the
City Council would consider that. Now, I wanted to very briefly go over our building
materials. What we are -- the building materials on this project, we have got -- we have
got a hard board cottage lap siding and, then, we have a hard board one-by-two trim
and also one-by-four hard board trim. The shingles are 20-year asphalt shingles. We
have been looking at vinyl windows and metal exterior doors. We have some photos of
buildings. Actually, this was put together for us by the paint company, because if you
notice it's the same picture, we have got -- we have got the same wide view all over the
place. But we are proposing that the -- we have a variety of colors within the project, so
that -- so that it doesn't look institutional and if I could I would like to just pass these out
to the Commission and -- this is a copy of the bottom center. And the copies came a
little bit dark. So, it really gives you a good view of what these buildings really will look
like. They are not your standard box four-plex buildings. They are very very unique. In
fact, if you look -- you know, if you really look at them, they do look like a large
residential - single-family residential home. We are very fortunate in that the company
that builds these structures for us has an exclusive to these and they are very very nice
buildings and really reflects the type of development that we are trying to put together
here. And as far as -- like I said, you know, we are trying to mix up the colors and really
make this project look more like a single-family development than a multi-family
development. Okay. Let me go to one more thing. We wanted to try to give the
Commission and the neighbors who live to the west an idea of what this is going look
like from their homes. And we have three homes that are adjacent to the project, we
have this residence here, it's a two story home, we have this one here, which is a single
story, and this one as a two story. So, if you look at this view right here, this view is
standing approximately 50 feet from the property line on this property at a height of
about six feet. And this is what they would see from the project. As far as the
structures, they are going to see a little bit of two-story structure right in here. The
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 86 of 108
properties that are two story, that would be these two different views, and those are
done at 16 feet, as if these residents here and here were upstairs in their bedroom,
whatever the case, looking out the window. And it does reflect the -- an extensive
vegetation, the fence, the vinyl fence in both areas. So, we are really trying to make
some huge efforts here to minimize the impact of our project upon their homes. So, one
of the things that we really really want people to understand -- and it's been very hard
for us. This is not the first one of these projects we have done. You talk about four-
plexes, you talk about multi-family and immediately everybody sees the boxes and the
rows of buildings. That's not what we are about. That's not what we are trying to build
here. We have extensive landscaping, we have extensive open space, and a very
unique building design. I wanted to also let you folks know that we have a -- along with
the project there will be a property owner's association. There will be very very very
strict CC&Rs, which will also include from maintenance of the landscaping, the open
space, buildings, and even the drainage of the parking areas. In addition to that, there
will be one property management company that will manage the entire project, instead
of individual property management companies. Although these buildings are all on
separate lots and can be owned separately, that's why we feel it's very important that it's
all managed by one management company who reviews -- even screens the applicants
or the renters who might want to live there. I submitted a -- August 3rd I submitted a
review or a comment sheet, as requested by staff, addressing the site specific and
standard conditions of approval within the staff report. As far as the preliminary plat is
concerned, we concur with staff's recommendations, with the exception of conditions
number two, four and seven. Seven being the tiling of the irrigation ditch and I think I
have explained what we would like to do there and why we would like to do that. I
believe you folks have this comment sheet in your packets. Condition number two,
which -- on the preliminary plat, which discusses the access to Eagle Road and right-in,
right-out movements only and, then, the actual elimination of that access in the future.
As I stated in here, the Eagle Road access is very imperative to the development of this
property and the surrounding properties, because you have to understand not only is
this access for our project, this access will serve the property to the south, properties to
the north, we are looking at a total of better than 40 acres and this one individual access
would be the only access to Eagle Road for the entire 40 acres. You know, we have --
we have submitted the application to lTD. Up to this point ITD has not done very well in
following their policies. We feel very hopeful that we will get access from ITO in that
they have allowed accesses all up and down Eagle Road, we have all seen it, we all
know it's happened and I think they are going to be very hard pressed to deny our
access. Or they can buy the property, I guess. Whatever they would like to do. So, we
really feel that the access there is very important. You know, once again, we are
providing the first of the stub streets to Ustick. These two stub driveways should make
it all the way to Ustick, when and if the properties to the north develop. Condition
number four, really -- I have a real concern with holding off on the development of this
portion of the project until this road goes through. I'm not -- I'm not sure why that's a
recommendation from the police department. I tried to contact the officer who
responded on these, on this project, left numerous messages, have not gotten a
response from him. I've even talked to staff, they are not even quite sure hiS basis for
recommending that only this phase be allowed to develop prior to the connection of this
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 87 of 108
road to Ustick. I could understand, possibly, if he thought that these streets were
narrow streets, and an accident could block the access to the back portion of the
property. I could understand that. These are not narrow streets, these are very wide
streets. And also we have a loop to get around there and if there was blockage here,
emergency services could still get around through there. If there was some sort of
blockage in this area, we still have loops to get around. We also have the same thing in
the commercial. About the only place we don't have connections to get around this
would be here and here. I met with Joe Silva with the fire department. He's the one
that required the fire accesses here and here. We were more than glad to oblige that.
At no time had he ever -- has he ever commented to us that he would only -- you know,
only allow this portion to develop. So, we would ask that that condition be removed. It
makes it very hard to develop a piece of property when the property to the north can
hold us up forever if he wants to. And I believe we have 13 units -- 13 units in there,
would make it very -- financially very difficult for us to do the project and go forward and
provide this housing, which, according to the development agreement and the
annexation and the Comp Plan, this type of development is really slated for this area.
And, essentially, under the conditional use, site specific conditions, I think we have the
same issues on condition 12 and conditions one and two that we have on the
preliminary plat, so I'm not going to reiterate those to you. We think we have got a
really good project here, we have got a project that is in compliance -- pretty close to
being in compliance with city code, with the exception of the three items we have
discussed. We certainly have agreed to make some modifications that staff has
recommended. This project is going to provide, you know, needed housing and also
some needed commercial as recognized by the city when the city annexed the property.
At this point I thank you for your time. We request your approval and I'll stand for any
questions that you might have.
Borup: Mr. Unger, do you have -- has ITD indicated when they would have their
recommendation?
Unger: They haven't. And I have a sneaking suspicion, since they are looking at
changing their policies, they might be dragging their feet on this a little bit. I am going to
contact -- I did not -- I was not aware that there was a meeting next week, a public -- or
open meeting. I am going to contact them tomorrow and get some sort of a schedule
out of them and kind of push a little bit more.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Hood: Mr. Chair? While the applicant's up there, I have a question for him. In the staff
report, site specific number six under the Conditional Use Permit, I asked to clarify the
private usable open space and you and I didn't talk about this a lot, but multi-family
developments do require 100 square feet of private usable open space, so if you could
just present to the Commission any facts you have on that. Thank you.
Unger: Mr. Chair, Commissioners. Right. We did talk about that. Each unit -- each one
of these units will have a ten-by-ten patio. The initial design on these, actually, was
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 55 of 105
eight-by-six, but we will increase those to ten by ten, which will give us a hundred
square feet per unit.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Questions from the Commission at this point?
Zaremba: Yes. Just discussing this area here, I appreciate your willingness to add the
landscape buffer that the staff is requesting, but not to plan when or if the project to the
north might occur, I could see some sense in this being almost a mirror image of it and
this being a cross access, having a landscape buffer would kind of prevent that. Do you
have any vision of what you think might occur to the north?
Unger: Mr. Chair, we don't. We haven't -- we really haven't had an opportunity to sit
down with the property owner to the north and I believe we do -- we have tried to -- you
know, we have tried to get together with him and scheduling. He's out of town or we are
not available, things like that. So, we really don't know what his plans are for his
property. Certainly, I -- I, myself, would think if that property develops it would develop
similar to this and I agree with you in that that would make a good cross-access. I
guess my response to the -- even a five-foot landscape strip, if that property were to
develop and a cross-access were to -- you know, to happen, I think we could remove
the landscaping and make it happen.
Borup: Okay.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, just a little bit of -- I mean staff thought about
that as well. Just with the public street stub here, it's not -- it's a local street, so access
there, it's not adjacent properties if they do develop similarly, will not have to get out on
a major arterial to get there and there is also the stub in the commercial area, so
although there wouldn't be, you know, direct access here, there is a stub here and
cross-access there. I don't remember the exact dimension between these two, but it's
not a terribly long distance. That's why we wanted a landscape buffer and, then,
another cross-access or another stub to the north wasn't required or really even
analyzed that in the staff report, so --
Borup: Thank you.
Zaremba: Okay. Then another question that I think staff raised. It appears that some of
this roadway, actually, is across your property line and perhaps even the canal that you
were talking about making a decorative feature. It sounds like it's across the property
line. Are you making agreements with the owner to the south?
Unger: Mr. Chair, yes, we have. We have been talking with the property owner to the
south. In fact, we have a couple of thoughts and ideas that we are discussing. At bare
minimum we would get an easement from the property owner to go ahead and build the
entire width of the street, including sidewalks, and the small ditch that runs down
through there. And, then, at such time he develops his property or his property gets
developed, then, the easement would actually become a dedicated part of the right of
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 89 of 108
way. Really, he can't dedicate that strip of right of way, because it would -- and staff
and I kind of discussed this -- it would probably constitute an illegal split of his property.
But if he were to grant an easement, then, I know ACHD would go along with that, then,
we would be able to go ahead and build the whole street all the way in and I think that's
advantageous for everybody.
Borup: Okay. Anyone else have any questions?
Moe: Just clarification. You were just talking about in regards to access and whatnot
and you brought up a five-foot buffer. You're requesting a change to a ten-foot; correct?
As opposed to the 20?
Unger: Mr. Chair, that is correct. I think staff -- Staff had commented and I guess where
we got tied up with the five foot, staff had commented that we had to have a minimum of
five-foot across there next to the aisles, but, then, he also needed -- said we needed to
have the ten foot, so that would be a ten foot strip there. I apologize.
Hood: Actually, code would require 20-foot. The applicant's requesting that be reduced
to ten.
Moe: Yeah. Understand. Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, questions? We have had a lot of people
that have been very patient here and we want to make that available to them, but I'd like
to know the feelings -- if any of you are a mind that we would be forwarding this on
without the report from ITD or is that something we'd like to wait for?
Zaremba: I would say the way staff has stated it we are covered. On page ten, under
site specific conditions, preliminary plat, paragraph two, the last sentence is: Place a
note on the face of the final plat stating that unless otherwise approved by the city and
ITD, permanent access to Eagle Road is prohibited, which leaves the opportunity for
ITD to later make that approval and the city, then, would have to either validate the
approval or not, but the option for ITD to report later, I believe, is already covered. I
wouldn't wait for it, necessarily.
Borup: Okay. Just trying to get a feel for that. Let's open the meeting for -- or the rest
of this meeting for public testimony. Who would like to come forward first?
Thurston: Chairman Borup, Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission and staff
members, my name is David Thurston. I live at 1470 Leslie Way in Meridian. My home
is the one that's -- view C as it was explained by Mr. Unger. That's my home. I
represent the homeowners living in the Carol Subdivision and you see all of the
homeowners here. There were more that were here, unfortunately, the time -- the
lateness of the time a lot of them have gone home. The homeowners are here this
evening, because we have more than a casual interest in the proposed Sadie Creek
Subdivision. The number of homeowners in attendance is an indication of our interest
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 90 of 108
and our willingness to participate in the process of developing the land, which lies
adjacent to Carol Subdivision. We are here to express our opposition to the approval of
the Conditional Use Permit for a planned development and opposition to approval of
preliminary plat, which has been submitted by the developer. The homeowners have
met to review the developer's application and the staff report. Based upon our meetings
and many discussions, we have put together a letter, which outlines the issues that
relate to our opposition. We tried to get organized, as suggested by the Commission,
and I think we have done that. A letter has been circulated to every single homeowner
that we could contact in the short time that we had the information we did and I have a
sample of that letter I'd like to distribute to all the Commissioners and here is a folder of
approximately 60 letters that have been signed by the homeowners in the Carol
Subdivision. I'd like to present that to you also.
Borup: You're submitting these as permanent testimony; is that correct?
Thurston: Yes, we are. Every homeowner that has been contacted and presented with
this letter has signed it willingly and to express their opposition to this planned
development. To indulge the Commission, I'd like to discuss the issues that are
represented here and the issues that result in our opposition to the development. First
of all is the lack of transition from low-density residential dwellings to a medium or high-
density multi-family dwellings. The Carol Subdivision is comprised of homes that sit on
one acre of ground each. There is no transition from this one-acre dwelling to what is
proposed by the applicant of 15 dwellings per acre. In the meeting of the annexation
and rezoning, which Chairman Borup recalled, there were homeowners present there
and we talked about the need for a transition and it was suggested by the Commission
that there be transition from low density residential into light commercial and we agreed
that would be a good transition. That would probably take care of our concerns as far
as transition. But to put in this many multi-family units right next to a subdivision which
is already established of one acre per dwelling, it just does not seem to be a good thing
to do for the subdivision that's already there. We propose - we'd like to see a transition
of low density adjacent to the property to the west. The reason why we think this is so
important is because, as explained by the developer, whatever is done here is probably
going to be done throughout the property on the south and that's why all of the
homeowners have signed this letter of opposition is because they know that they will
have these multi-family dwellings also throughout the entire southern property. It has
been indicated by Mr. Unger that there is already discussions on that and that that's
probably what's going to happen. So, we are concerned about having that high density
per acre sitting right next to our low-density residential homes. So, that's our first
concern. The second concern has been touched upon. It's the public street access via
Eagle Road. We believe that this will result in a huge increase of traffic through the
Leslie -- to the Carol Subdivision via the Leslie way. The reason why is the staff has
recommended to be a temporary access to Eagle Road with right turn only and if we
can --
Canning: Sir, there should be a laser pointer up on the podium for your use, too.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5. 2004
Page 91 of 108
Thurston: Okay. If the temporary access to Eagle Road is established, that means any
vehicle that's here in this -- coming out this exit -- exit right here, will be forced to turn
right. The only way they can go to the north, to the east, or to the west is to get to
Ustick Road and what the vehicles will do is they will come out, they'll turn and they'll go
right through Leslie Way. That's the only way they can get through to Ustick without a
permanent access to Ustick. They will have to go through Leslie Way. It's already been
noted in the staff report there is estimated to be 1,550 vehicles that would be coming
out of this Sadie Creek Subdivision. We anticipate more than half of those vehicles will
end up traveling through Leslie way to get to the Ustick Road. We are proposing that
there be no approval of any development in this area until there is a permanent access
to Ustick Road and that's our recommendation to the board and we ask you to consider
that. It's also the same situation when people want to enter the Sadie Creek
Subdivision and they are traveling north on Eagle Road. There is no way to get in
there, except for do a u-turn here and, of course, you can't do that on Eagle Road,
which is very dangerous. What will happen is they will come down and they will turn left
here, get up to Ustick to get into here. So, both ways, entrance and exit, with a
temporary access to Eagle Road, you're going to see a huge amount of traffic through
our subdivision. This is just a simple residential road, it's not meant to be a
thoroughfare, it's just a simple residential road. We have children who play, just like
they do in residential areas. We don't want to see and we don't support a great
increase of traffic through our subdivision, just to benefit another subdivision. So, again,
we say if we could hold off on any development here until there is a permanent access
established on Ustick Road, we would support that very much. The third point that we
bring up I'd like to -- to our opposition is -- and this was mentioned earlier tonight in one
of the testimonies from another subdivision. We would like to see an overall plan that
talks about this entire area. Where are the permanent accesses? Where are the
sidewalks? And consider this whole area as one and not just consider it as one here
and try to anticipate what's going to happen to the north, especially to the north,
because as indicated by this Commission earlier, you can't base decisions based upon
anticipation of what may happen in the future, without some sort of a concrete idea that
that may actually happen. So, we'd like to see an overall plan. This is something we
talked about in the annexation hearings was there needs to be an overall conception
plan on what's going to happen to all the property located in this area. So, we very
much would like to see that plan. We are very willing -- the homeowners are very willing
to meet with the developer and develop that plan. There was a meeting called by the
developer a week ago Wednesday and to have us come down to this building here and
to sit and talk about the development plan and how, you know, we could influence that.
We are more than willing to meet with this developer or any developer about the
development within these properties here. We know that the properties are going to be
developed; we'd just like to be part of that process. Okay. Number four was mentioned
in the staff report, the lack of a landscape plan for the entire development. We also
would like to see a pretty detailed plan of what this proposal is going to be or this buffer
and the landscaping on that buffer. We are very interested in what that -- there is
pictures here. The pictures, unfortunately, show -- or try to reflect what it's going to be
maybe in ten or 15 years, but we are very much interested in what kind of landscape
there will be there and we'd like to have part of the landscape plan. If there is going to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 92 of 108
be a berm, if there is going to be fencing -- and Mr. Unger has already addressed that
there would be fencing there, but a more detailed plan and also the requirements from
the staff exactly what should go into that buffer, because I think right now there is a lot
of talk about -- or a lot of requirements for Eagle Road, you got to have this -- there is
not much requirements in the staff report and maybe it's not needed, but we'd like to
see some requirements of what that berm needs to have -- or that buffer needs to have
between -- on the western end of the property, because that's going to extend all the
way down and probably even along this area here, because you got homeowners, you
know, on the -- totally on the west and totally on the south. Okay. The fifth and the
sixth kind of go together. We don't believe that this proposed development is in
harmony with the Carol Subdivision. Carol Subdivision is an established subdivision,
one of Meridian's oldest subdivisions, having been in existence over 25 years. There
are approximately 45 homes within the subdivision. In the staff report there is a
statement there on page 25, which states: Staff believes that the multi-family building
elevations and pictures are very attractive and should be compatible with other uses,
buildings in the area. We fail to see where there is any multi-family dwellings in this
entire area. In fact, we don't know of any multi-family dwellings off of Eagle Road. So,
we fail to see how this is compatible with what the area supports. I guess if you
anticipate this is going to be multi-family, then, you can probably say it would be
compatible with future development.
Borup: I think he was referring to the design of the buildings. That's how I read that.
Thurston: Okay. And, finally, the last is the concem about the property values and this
is whenever -- you heard it earlier tonight and it's also a concern for us is, you know,
what's this going to do to our property values, to have multi-family not only in this area
here, but also in this area here, every single homeowner is concerned, you know, what
is this going to do to our property values? We are homeowners -- we are not property
owners, but we are homeowners and this is where we live and we want to make sure
that we keep the harmony of the neighborhood that we have and that we keep our
property values. We -- I'd like to restate that we are willing to meet with the developer at
anytime and try to work through some of these issues to come up with a plan or
proposal that would be acceptable to all the parties. I thank you for the opportunity,
appreciate you staying so late for us. So, this concludes my testimony.
Borup: Questions for Mr. Thurston? I don't know if I -- you had mentioned something
about a meeting last -- you were invited to a meeting last Wednesday with the
developer?
Thurston: Yeah. A week ago Wednesday and Mr. Unger sent out a letter and I think the
letter went to all those that were notified and he invited us to come down here to
participate and there was like -- I think there was like 20 or 25 homeowners that
attended that meeting.
Borup: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5,2004
Page 9301108
Thurston: One more question I had. I'm sorry if I go back here again. With the
proposed development on the south side of that property and the proposed use -- or
proposed development of that ditch, correct me if I'm wrong, but that ditch belongs to
the water users, it doesn't belong to Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, because I talked
to Nampa-Meridian about tiling the ditch that runs along the back of my property,
because that ditch comes down here, goes on the back of my property, and, then, goes
out between Mr. Tomzcak's property and mine across the road. I called Nampa-
Meridian about possibly titling that or covering it and they said don't talk to us about it,
talk to the water users. So, I'm wondering if the water users need to be legally notified
that there is going to be some changes or proposed changes to their ditch. And, also, if
there is planned development already taking place on this property to the south, then,
maybe all the property owners should have been legally notified by mail that this was
going to happen. Just a question. Just leave that for you --
Borup: Yeah, there may be something on the ditch. The property to the south is --
apparently may be in the talking stage, but it's premature to notify anybody, because
there is nothing to notify them about.
Thurston: We were able to notify them ourselves, so that's why there is so much of them
in here.
Borup: That's what we usually count on.
Thurston: Well, we tried to do it as best we could. Thank you for your time.
Borup: Thank you. I think Mr. Thurston did a good job and probably represented most
of you here. Does anybody have anything else that they'd like to add to his testimony?
Come on up.
Grant: My name is Steve Grant, I live at 1534 Leslie Way and my property is two lots to
the north of Mr. Thurston's and one of those elevations represents the view that might
be from my yard. I do admire the green grass. That's hard to come by sometimes.
There are a lot of nice things about this development that have been outlined, but I think
there is some fatal flaws in my opinion. This traffic issue is not something that -- it bears
repetition, because, as Mr. Thurston indicated, you know, there are -- how many of the
traffic count is, coming out and making a right, there will be an equal number of -- you
can't get in and out of there without going through Carol Subdivision if it's right in and
right out, because if you come south on the Eagle Road to get out, that's great, but how
are you going to get back in there?
Borup: The staff recommendation was a right-in, right-out. They have applied to ITD for
a full access. Whether it will be granted or not, we don't know.
Grant: I'm just saying that's a major concern, because you can't make a left in there, so
you're going to have to -- as he outlined, go right back through there and if that's the
only access for the south property, which they have already indicated is going to be -- is
Mendian Planning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 94 of 108
already under consideration and talks, then, whatever numbers are in that staff report
are going to be multiplied by at least a factor of two and that's really a big issue and, in
my opinion, one of the things that we really asked for initially was light office at the west
end and I think Commissioner Newton-Huckabay has correctly pointed out that this
whole thing is laid out backwards and if that access is blocked eventually, then, it only
makes sense to flip it and I think consideration ought to be given by the developers to
doing just that. The notion that you would drive through a parking lot and not on that
road, a residential road, I don't think -- I mean everybody is going to take the path of
least resistance, so people would go down Ruwe Way and down to the Sadie Creek
Drive to get to that commercial property and probably not wind their way through
several commercial developments that might exist, even though the access might be
provided. I think there is issues about fencing that have been identified that need to be
underscored. Picking a six year old up that's going to attend school on a school bus,
you can't get a school bus in there with proper turnaround, I wouldn't think. So, you
can't expect a five year old in the wee hours of the morning in the winter to walk all the
way from perhaps the corner of some of those - the corner of that property all the way
out to Eagle Road to pick up a bus, that's an issue that no body's raised yet, but I think is
one that needs to be taken into consideration. So, I think the other things that I might
have underscored have already been covered and I will just conclude my remarks with
that.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. We had one other here.
Eagy: Good morning. I couldn't resist. My name is Greg Eagy at 3055 North Eagle
Road, the property directly to the north. And, first of all, I want to state I got to get this
developed. Okay. So, I want to go on the record with that and I'm for good
development is what I believe in strongly. A couple of the concerns that I have are,
number one, if you look up at the ceiling tile above us, these are two foot ceiling tile,
okay? If you come back over here -- I'm going to step away from the mike. I'll stop
talking here.
Zaremba: There is a handheld that you can use.
Eagy: That's fine. Two, four, six, eight, ten. There is ten feet to the wall. Okay. Ten
feet from the wall is just in front of the projector right there. Put a two story building ten
feet from there. That's not much of a setback. Okay. I just wanted to make that point.
Secondly, one concern that I really have, I -- we own this property right here along
Ustick Road and this parcel that's actually two pieces, two different parcels right there
and there is the house and there is a barn. Right here we have a 140-foot long, about a
seven-foot deep by about 40 feet wide irrigation lake or pond, okay. The tot area is right
here, okay? That gives me some great concern as far as little kids coming over to -- I've
got two little kids myself. I would really strongly like to see fencing along the side of this
property if this does go through, along with the 20-foot setback, okay, from my
standpoint, from a barrier standpoint, but more than anything, I just don't want to have
this on my conscious down the road that -- either that or dry up the pond, maybe, or
something like that. The other thing is this is already zoned commercial on the corner
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 95 of 108
here. This lady has a sign up moving sale, I think she's moving out, so something must
be going here and one of my other concerns is let's say that a Jackson's or a Chevron
goes on this corner or whatever, these people are going to have to transition to maybe
walk over to get some milk, get some beer, or get some whatever, I doubt they are
going to walk out to Eagle Road and go all the way up around the corner if they are
going to go on a walk to get over there. So, I'd like to see some type of flow. We have
no clue when we would put a road through here at this point in time. We have no
developmental plans in our mind, so I just wanted to state that. But I am very strongly
against not having a setback that meets code. Okay?
Borup: Okay. Mr. Unger did -- if I understood it right, say they are proposing vinyl fence
clear along that whole property line.
Eagy: Only the back is all he said.
Borup: No, the whole -- the north.
Eagy: Okay.
Borup: The whole north property line.
Eagy: The only other concern I guess I have is when you look at their in and out, if that's
a temporary road, it's a really wide temporary road and they could pick up their extra
distance by making that road a little narrower going out to Eagle Road if they had to for
our barrier or our distance there. Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Was there anyone else? Okay. Any final comments, Mr. Unger?
Unger: Mr. Chair, for the record, Bob Unger, representing the applicant. And I'll make
this as brief as possible. This is the first time I have seen this letter from the
homeowners association, so I'd just like to comment on it very quickly. They talk about
a lack of transitional usage for low-density residential dwellings to medium density. You
know, we designed this as per the development agreement and the Comprehensive
Plan. If the city wanted some sort of a different transition then that should have
transpired when the property was annexed and the Comp Plan was adopted to allow
the mixed use in this area. Talking about public street via the Eagle Road. I
understand their concern, that people just might -- the right-in, right-out thing, I
understand their concern. I have no idea how many people would do that, probably --
you know, they live there, so they know what's going on, they know that there is -- at our
neighborhood meeting, which we had two weeks -- a week ago, a little over a week ago,
they did -- they were telling us about how people will cut through from Eagle Road over
to Ustick, you know. So, I guess those things do happen, okay? That's why we are --
that's why we are trying to get a full access from ITD until we get the north road -- the
road to the north to Ustick. I mean that's of the -- that's one of the reasons that we need
to have the full access and that's why we requested that and that's one of the reasons
we had concerns about the recommendations of staff, that it would be right in, right --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 96 of 108
you know, right-in, right-out only, because it just really limits the traffic there. And I wish
I had numbers for you. I don't. I haven't any real idea. Fifteen hundred vehicle trips -- I
know that the residential portion of this project will produce about 928 vehicle trips per
day. That's out is one trip, back in is trip two. We have talked about a lack of overall
development plan. We don't have control over the north property, nor the south
property. If we did, we would have brought in a project for the whole 40 acres and we
wouldn't have any problems here. Once again, I think, you know, the Comp Plan calls
for mixed development, so, you know, it could transition that way, north and south
properties. I think we had pretty well addressed the detailed landscape plan, the one
that we did this evening, really did show what the folks on the west side would be
looking at. The trees that were shown in there are not shown at maturity, they are only
shown at about three to four years of growth, so they would even get larger as time
goes on.
Borup: Well, has that plan been submitted anywhere yet?
Unger: This is the one right here.
Borup: That one. But that's the only copy right now?
Unger: That's the only copy right now, but it becomes part of your record, so it's yours.
Borup: Yes, it does.
Unger: As much as I hate to give it up. Probably real expensive. But as far as us not
being in harmony, once again, we are doing what the Comp Plan calls for and
especially what the development agreement calls for and the building appearance really
does take on a single family dwelling appearance. So, appearance wise, you know, we
are better off than your normal box type developments and certainly the density that we
have proposed really isn't as high as we probably could have gone, because we did
want to preserve some open space. I don't know how to respond to their concerns
about reduced -- the loss of value in their property. We have had a real estate
marketing person who has looked at other projects for us and the other projects that we
have done, vacant land, and his analysis was that, actually, the development of the
property actually would increase their property values versus non-developed land next
to them. I don't know if that would be similar in this situation, but I'm throwing that out
there. The ditch, you know, it probably is under the jurisdiction or -- of a water user
association and we will find out who that is and we will work with them. We don't have a
problem with that. It's still Nampa-Meridian water, so Nampa-Meridian still has to
respond on this. Mr. Green, you know, just insisted that maybe flip the road. Really, it
won't work well. In fact, what we have done is actually what staff has kind of
recommended to us, our particular layout and our connections .to the north and south.
The school bus access question is a good question. I'd like to go back to -- these are
not 29-foot roads, these are 40-foot roads. All of our corners are turn-arounds,
everything meets fire vehicle access requirements, which far exceed what buses need.
So, I think we are in good shape there as far as bus access. I think Mr. Eagy -- we have
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 97 of 108
got -- you know, we are going to fence that northern line and everything. As far as
narrowing down the road, I can't, because this is ACHD's requirements. I got to go 40
feet on these and I don't have a choice. As the irrigation, probably I do understand that
and the fencing is going to -- hopefully will protect him from, you know, children getting
over into his irrigation ponds. I don't think he's going to have to drain it. And as long as
there is a fence across there, it's going to make it awful hard for people to cut across
there to the corner in the event that some sort of mini mart or something goes in there.
As long as we have fencing across there, they are going to have to climb the fence.
And I believe that pretty well covers the comments and our response to those
comments. If you have any other questions, I would be more than glad to answer them.
If not, I really thank you for your time and staying up this late and listening to us. I hope
we didn't bore you too much and, once again, we are asking for your approval.
Borup: Any other questions from the Commission for Mr. Unger. Okay. Thank you,
Unger: Thank you very much.
Borup: Okay. Commissioners -- we have concluded the public testimony session. We
gave everybody an opportunity to stand up and no one else did, so, yes, we have
concluded that. You need to -- maybe have to come on up and get it on the microphone
just for a question.
Morris: I'm Linda Morris, I live at 1374 Leslie Way. Earlier I believe staff defined
medium density as three to eight dwellings per acre; is that correct? And I believe the
developer was just talking about they are putting in medium density dwelling right now.
Borup: No. That was your letter that said medium density, I believe.
Morris: Just now he just spoke when he was doing rebuttal. He talked about medium
density.
Borup: Yeah. He was referring -- he was reading the letter here. He was reading off of
this letter, I believe. Is that right, Mr. Unger? Okay.
Morris: Okay. I'm sorry. I misunderstood that.
Borup: Yeah. I don't think their application asked for that. And, yes, that -- it would not
meet medium density definition, I don't believe. Commissioners, what would we like to
do tonight, besides go home?
Zaremba: Well, I have some comments. Well, let me attack one part first and, then, I'll
go where I really intend to go with it. It would seem to me that when we talk about a
backage road or access other than to Eagle Road, the eventual look of this area would
include a back-age road that came from Ustick and somehow looped out to Eagle at this
point. I could see ITO and the City of Meridian approving a full access, probably even
signalized right there, so that those people could make turns any direction and any
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 98 of 108
direction. Same thing up here at Ustick, maybe not signalized, but that would be a full
access. The fact that this is a single property in the middle of this whole project means
that they need access now. I agree with staff that that access should go away at some
point and I agree with staff that if it's going to be there now, it should be a right-in, right-
out, but the eventual plan would be to have it go away and have this be a full signalized
access, I think it's far enough away from Ustick that ITD would go for that. That being
said, I feel that this is a little bit premature at this point to be looking at this project. I'm a
little disappointed that the City Council took a recommendation that we made -- when
we had the annexation and zoning discussion, it was for all of this corner, plus a good
area over here. Based on that, I know personally my recommendation to approve the
annexation and zoning was based on that entire piece of property and based on the
understanding that that entire piece of property would provide a fairly decent concept
plan before the City Council approved it and I forwarded it to the City Council with all of
our recommendation, but with my personal recommendation based on those
understandings and I'm a little bit disappointed that this is not something that the City
Council reminded -- I think they should have remanded it back to us when it got to them
in a different format than we -- than it left us recommended. The annexation turns out
not to be what I thought I was recommending, the concept plan turns out not to be what
I was expecting to recommend, and I feel we need to see a bigger picture of this area
before we can consider that. So, my own personal question is there are elements about
this project that I like, so my question is -- I don't feel so strongly about it to deny it, but I
would like to continue it until we see -- if it sounds like it's immanent that something is
going to happen here, I would at least like to see a plan for that before I personally
agree to this property, based my on disappointment that it even got annexed piecemeal
and I guess that's my position.
Newton-Huckaby: I have to concur with Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I didn't hear what you said.
Borup: She concurs.
Newton-Huckabay: I concur.
Borup: Could we ask of staff -- has there been even any preliminary discussion with the
city on the property to the south? Have they come in for any initial meetings or
anything?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, that property owner, at least that has an
interest, is in the audience this evening and I did speak with them earlier this week, not
specifically about a development, and I do not believe he has been in for a pre-app, but
we talked more about the impacts of approval of this would mean for his project. So, we
didn't get into specifics and we haven't seen anything, but we did talk about how that
would develop based on approval of this subject property. So, yes and no, I guess.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 99 of 108
Borup: Okay. Thank you. So, with that answer, it sounds like to answer your question,
it may be awhile.
Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the -- Chairman Borup, may I? Okay. Just to
give you a little background on some of -- the number of hearings that this went through
at the City Council, it was clear they were -- well, it was clear that the east side of the
property was being annexed -- I'm sorry. It's early. The west side of the property was
being annexed to facilitate development on the east side of the property -- of Eagle
Road. Eagle Road -- the east side of the property is extremely valuable compared to --
well, I don't know, you know, the east side is the right-in, right-out going home traffic,
which is -- always generates more property value than the morning traffic right-in, right-
out. So, it was pretty clear that the annexation was being done primarily to annex the
Kissler property. That was their annexation path. And also that there was not much
cohesion on the east and Mr. Eagy dropping out was evidence of that. They wanted the
annexation; they were very reluctant to do the concept plan. Mr. Strite expressed a lot
of frustration in trying to work with so many owners on a concept plan that met all their
needs. So, I don't see these owners banding together to do a specific plan. I mean
they had the opportunity and they clearly were uncomfortable with a lot of it. The
concept plan that you see was -- the first concept plan that the city's ever approved for
an annexation that wasn't as specific as a real -- laying out the parking spaces and
putting footprints on the buildings, so it was the first time anyone had done anything like
that, it turns out that we got much more specificity on this annexation than we did on the
other two corners. We didn't get anything there. I mean we got the Lowe's layout and
that was it. So, you know, we got something on this one. I would agree, though, that
maybe that the light office use as a buffer was discussed a lot more than it ended up
actually showing up on the concept plan, but that is an approved concept plan. If you
want to deny it, deny it based on what you see before you today, not on them coming
back with a specific plan for the area.
Borup: So, you're saying we have already seen that plan?
Canning: We have already seen that plan and it's been approved by the City Council.
Borup: It may not be much of a plan, but they have done it.
Zaremba: Well, I would say City Council thought they had my approval for that and they
didn't.
Canning: I might also take this opportunity to point out if there is something you want,
you always have the opportunity to wait until you have that. I mean you didn't -- I guess
in the future --
Zaremba: We didn't continue the annexation at the time, because we wanted to move it
along and I felt I was assured that certain things were going to happen, which didn't
happen. So, I guess I'm as much disappointed with myself as trying not to hold up the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5. 2004
Page 100 of 108
process as I am with anybody else, but I -- I would have guessed that this was one the
City Council would have rejected back to us and --
Canning: And then --
Zaremba: I would have liked the opportunity to reconsider the new condition -- or the
new situation.
Canning: And Chairman and Members of the Commission, that may not have been on
at the time. It was the first time that City Council had annexed a property without a real
specific development plan to my knowledge. They have done some little in-fill things
here and there, but this whole corner was the first time they have done large-scale
annexations without real specific development plans. So, it was new for all of us, so
don't be too hard on yourself.
Borup: I think the other corners are proceeding like we visualized, though, so far. This
is the only one that hasn't.
Zaremba: I feel for myself that it's premature for me to recommend approval of this. I'm
not ready to do that, whether we talk about continuation or denial, either way, I'm not so
ready to deny it either, but, on the other hand, if we continue it, we have to continue it to
a specific date and I'm not sure we can do that either. So, I --
Borup: Oh, we can do it, but we are --
Zaremba: There are more than one of us up here, because there may be other
opinions, but I have expressed mine.
Borup: Other comments?
Rohm: I think it's premature myself. It -- not knowing specifically what's going to go in
around it also influences my position on its -- I don't think we are quite ready for it right
there.
Moe: I would also agree with that. Another thing that -- quite frankly, there is a couple
items on the plan that still need work as well as far as buffers and whatnot. I'm not
willing to change that as well. So, the plan is going to have to be changed somewhat to
take care of the 20-foot buffer, in lieu of what the applicant was hoping to go with ten
foot. So, I'm not sure I'm ready to approve it either.
Borup: Well, that's the only thing I would disagree with. I don't have a problem with the
ten-foot.
Moe: I do.
Borup: Unless you assume that the property is going to stay residential forever.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 101 of 108
Zaremba: The property to the north?
Borup: Yeah. I don't think that's a valid --
Zaremba: Forever is a long time, but it still could be many years.
Newton-Huckabay: I don't think that's an issue worth debating.
Borup: No. That's what I say, that's the only thing that I -- okay. Any other comments?
Canning: Mr. Chairman, given the things that were just said, I might remind you that --
let's see, how does this work, you actually deny the -- if you want to make a motion for
denial, it is for actual denial of the preliminary plat, but for the planned development and
the zoning -- for the planned development it would just be a recommendation.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Well, I would take opinions from the other Commissioners as to whether we
are talking about continuation or denial.
Newton-Huckabay: I'm talking about denial.
Zaremba: Okay.
Rohm: Denial.
Mae: Denial.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I'm ready to make a motion.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: I move that we close the public hearings on PP 04-21 and CUP 04-023.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we deny Item 13 -- I'm going to take them out of
order, because usually you do the preliminary plat first.
Borup: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5. 2004
Page1020f10B
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, my motion is that we deny Item 13, PP 04-021 is the correct
file number, request for preliminary plat approval of 31 residential four-plex lots, seven
commercial lots, and eight common lots on 10.05 acres in a CoG zone for proposed
Sadie Creek Subdivision by FOLIO, Inc., 2935 North Eagle Road and I would state as a
reason we feel that this is premature at this time and there are issues that need to be
resolved both with ITD and with neighboring projects before there is enough information
for you us to go on.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend -- forward to the City Council
recommending denial of Item 12, CUP 04-023, request for a Conditional Use Permit for
a planned development for a mixed use development consisting of 120 multi-family
units, 28,660 square feet commercial/office space and 3.43 acres of open space on
10.05 acres in a CoG zone for proposed Sadie Creek Subdivision by FOLIO, Inc., 2935
North Eagle Road, for the reason, essentially, that we did not approve the preliminary
plat and, therefore, a CUP is not appropriate.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Okay. Thank you, everyone for staying with us. We enjoyed the company.
Okay. Commissioners, are we going to handle this last item or do we want to continue
it?
Canning: Chairman Borup, with the background noise we can't hear you on your mike.
You might--
Borup: Can we talk off the record for a little bit?
(Recess.)
Item 14:
Public Hearing: PP 03-046 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 214
residential lots and 39 common lots on 46.40 acres in a proposed R-8
(PD) zone for proposed Chesteñield Subdivision by Centennial
Development, LLC - east of South Black Cat Road and north of West
Franklin Road:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5,2004
Page1030f108
Item 15:
Public Hearing: CUP 03-070 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for residential subdivision in a proposed R-8 (PD)
zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development,
LLC - east of South Black Cat Road and north of West Franklin Road:
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table Items 14 and 15 that would be PP 03-046
and CUP 03-070 until our meeting of 8/19/04 for proper notice.
Borup: Well, she -- when she gives the notice she needs to notify -- there needs to be a
date mentioned in the notification.
Johnson: The soonest we could do it would be the 2nd of September.
Zaremba: Just asked and was told the notification was already in progress.
Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, we already verified with Tara
that we could get it by the 19th. She's doing back-to-back noticings or something like
that.
Borup: Oh, we can get notification for a meeting on the 19th? We have got 15 public
hearings on the 19th.
Canning: What?
Newton-Huckabay: Is that the time we are all wearing our pajamas?
Borup: Well -- I mean I mention that, because I don't think we probably want to hear it
on the 19th. It seems it's different here, that this is being re-noticed not because of a
mistake of the applicant, it's -- the city is the one that dropped the ball. I think we do
have an obligation. I don't know that the 19th is the time to do it. Right now -- what do
we think, we have got seven -- right now there is one, two -- we have three -- we think
five projects on the 2nd.
Rohm: That's a bunch, too.
Borup: Yeah. There is three on this draft and they said -- the staff said there is two
more; is that correct? Someone said that; is that right?
Johnson: Two or three. Yeah.
Rohm: I think we ought to do it on the 19th and just bite the bullet.
Johnson: Actually, I don't think we can on the 19th, because mailings need to be 15
days before the hearing sent to the property owners. Fourteen days from today.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5.2004
Page 104 af108
Canning: Jessica, we verified this with Tara about a week ago, that she was able to do it
on the 19th. So I'm not--
Zaremba: Has the new notice already been posted I think is the --
Canning: I think my understanding was she got it out the day after we talked to her, so
it's already been sent out.
Borup: On the 19th we have seven projects. Fifteen hearings, but seven -- seven
individual projects.
Moe: Well, it sounds like to me it's pretty much already anticipated that it was going to
be on the 19th.
Zaremba: If notice has already gone out noticing the 19th, I think we need to stick with
that.
Moe: So do I.
Borup: It's not on the agenda yet, but --
Johnson: If Tara said okay, we'll go for it, I guess.
Canning: Chairman Borup, Member of the Commission, there are seven projects, but
one's a very simple vacation --
Borup: On the 2nd? You're talking on the 2nd?
Canning: On the 19th.
Borup: Oh, that's what I was just looking at. Yeah. We have got one, two, three, four,
five subdivisions. Is that right? That's what I count.
Canning: Yes. And a rezone.
Borup: Yeah. That's just -- there is five subdivisions on the 19th.
Canning: Actually, four subdivisions and a rezone.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Well, the question is do I need to change the motion and is notice going to be
made for a different date or is the notice already in progress?
Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, my understanding is that the
renotice is already in progress.
Mendian Planning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page1050f108
Borup: For the 19th?
Canning: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Do you need a second?
Zaremba: I have made a motion to that effect. There has not been a second.
Newton-Huckabay: I second that.
Borup: Okay. Motion and second to table until the 19th of August. All in favor? Any
opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 16:
Public Hearing: CPA 04-002 Request for Text Amendment to allow
applicants to request an L-O zoning in areas designated as residential
which are located along arterial streets and section line roads and also
allow applicants to request that property with a Public/Quasi Public
designation to be rezoned to a zoning district that is compatible with
adjoining zoning districts and land uses upon redevelopment of the
property by the City of Meridian Planning and Zoning Department
Borup: All right. Somebody try to remember to bring some food on the 19th, then. Are
we going to be doing Item 16 tonight or would that be--
Canning: I'd like to get it over with. I promise to be very brief.
Borup: Okay.
Moe: That's the second time I've heard you say that. We will hold you to this.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, due to the late hour and seeing nobody in the audience, I
move we close the public hearing on CPA 04-002.
Canning: There is one issue I would like to discuss with you.
Zaremba: Oh, something that needs a decision? I withdraw my motion.
Borup: Okay. I'm sorry. I have not opened the hearing. Open Public Hearing CPA 04-
002 and start with staff comment.
Canning: I did have one issue, because you all did recommend approval on this in the
first form, so I think that we have addressed the issues of the Council with regard to the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5. 2004
Page 105 of 108
confusion between adding the zoning ordinance - or the zoning districts in the codes. I
think we have addressed that and still accommodated the things we wanted to. The
one issue I wanted to point out is the letter from the parks director Doug Strong and he
makes a point worth considering, is that basically we are just trying to say that in some
cases where redevelopment is occurring of public, quasi-public and open space
designated properties, his point is that the appropriate use may be open space. So, he
would rather see it stay with the public, quasi-public open space designation. Now, that
is not what his proposed amendment would accomplish, but that's what -- that's his
point, is that he kind of wants it to keep that public, quasi-public, and open space
designation, so that it makes it easier for him to get a park. So, what he's proposed is to
add the words -- I don't know if you -- I assume you have his memo.
Borup: I don't.
Newton-Huckabay: I don't have it, but I --
Canning: Well -- okay. I'm sorry. It should have gotten down to the clerk's office. He
has proposed some language, but, really, what needs to be added to the public, quasi-
public, language is that just his statement of -- in some cases where development is
occurring, designation as open space for parks may be the most appropriate
designation. If you want to consider that as part of the Comprehensive Plan
amendment, I think we can add that and forward it on without renoticing it.. It's not a
significant change. It's just basically adding something that says, you know, you don't
have to always use this. In some cases maybe it should stay. And that would be true if
it were a medical facility or a public utility.
Zaremba: Well, the current change proposed only allows applicant to apply for a change
in zoning. That means it would go through a review process and whether that decision
was made at the director level or at the Commission level, if it were open space and we
wanted to preserve open space, that decision would be made at that time. And I think
that would be true of -- even if it was a building or -- the question is this doesn't make it
automatic that a zone -- a zone is changed because -- just because the use -- the
current occupant went away, that doesn't automatically change the underlying zoning.
They have to apply for that. And that goes through a decision process that would cover
the parks director's question, as well as any other question, wouldn't it?
Canning: Yes. You could certainly raise the need for a park at that time.
Zaremba: I mean if it were already open space, certainly he'd think about that. Or you
would, if it were your decision.
Canning: It would more likely be there are a couple vacant properties that may be the
more likely case.
Zaremba: Well, yeah, tell --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 5, 2004
Page 107 of 108
Canning: I can't imagine that a church would redevelop and be more appropriate as an
open space. So, it's more likely to be the -- I think we counted two vacant properties
that have a public, quasi-public designation on them, because we had anticipated that
churches were going in there soon and those plans have since changed.
Zaremba: So, if the actual owner of the property came for a request to change the
zoning and it was already a build-able lot, we still wouldn't be able to say, oh, this has
got to be open space, unless we were ready to buy it for a park.
Canning: Yes. That's the real issue, is to do we really need to have funds allocated for
parks and as much as I appreciate the concern of the parks director in wanting to meet
his concerns, I just don't see that we could ever deny someone a rezone based on the
fact that we wanted a park there and, therefore, it was inconsistent with the Comp Plan.
That's the logic you'd have to go through.
Borup: And is the cost going to be reasonable on a section line road? I guess it
depends on what area of town, but --
Zaremba: Well -- and, once again, if an application came through for one of these open
and the parks director said we are ready to buy that, we would consider that as part of
the discussion.
Rohm: I think that's the right answer.
Newton-Huckabay: I agree.
Zaremba: I probably wouldn't change the wording. I mean I appreciate his concern, but
I think it's covered. Personal opinion.
Moe: I would agree.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing on CPA 04-002 be closed.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending
approval of Item 16 on our Agenda, CPA 04-002, request for text amendment to allow
applicants to request an L-O zoning in areas designated as residential, which are
located along arterial streets and section line roads and also allow applicants to request
that property with a public, quasi-public designation to be rezoned to a zoning district
that is compatible with the adjoining zoning districts and land uses upon redevelopment
""I11III
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
August 5.2004
Page 108 of 108
of the property by the City of Meridian Planning and Zoning Department, to include all
staff comments of their memo for the hearing dated June 15th, 2004, with no changes.
Mae: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: That being said, anybody else ready to adjourn?
Newton-Huckabay: I make a motion that we adjourn.
Zaremba: I'll second.
Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Meeting adjourned 1 :26.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 1:26 AM.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
JfJt 1. ~
KEI H BORUP - CHAIR N
îl~IO+
DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
¡::....!Í'<4-