2005 03-03
-
Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meetina
March 3. 2005.
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Zaremba.
Members Present: Chairman David Zaremba, Commissioner Keith Borup,
Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner David Moe, and Commissioner Wendy
Newton-Huckabay.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Machelle Hill, Bruce Freckleton, Joe Guenther, Anna
Canning, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Keith Borup X David Moe
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Michael Rohm
X Chairman David Zaremba
Zaremba: Good evening, everybOdy. We will call to order this regularly scheduled
meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for Thursday, March 3rd, 2005, and
we will begin with a roll call of attendance.
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Zaremba: The next item is the adoption of the agenda and if I hear no objection, I will
assume that the agenda will go forward as stated.
Item 3:
Consent Agenda:
A.
Approve Minutes of February 3, 2005 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
Zaremba: The item following that is the Consent Agenda, which consists of the minutes
for February 3rd, 2005, and I have one change, so I will move that off the Consent
Agenda and we will deal with it as a separate issue. And my comment is on page 48,
the third line down, I am credited as saying: I have four grandchildren, which is not true.
Somebody else made that statement and I'm not sure who it was, but it was not me.
Rohm: I don't think I do.
Zaremba: The statement is: I have four grand children. I have a 21 year old son that
does live under my roof and we kind of are like ships passing in the night. Anybody
remember making that statement?
Rohm: It wasn't me.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
March 3. 2005
Page 2 of 89
Newton-Huckabay: That was somebody who was testifying.
Borup: Yeah. It wasn't from the Commission.
Zaremba: Okay. We will, then, identify that as unidentified audience member. I just
know it wasn't me. Okay. And that's the only comment I have on the minutes.
Anybody else have any comment on the minutes of February 3rd?
Newton-Huckabay: J have none.
Rohm: None.
Zaremba: 'will entertain a motion.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move we approve the minutes as amended.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: It has been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 4:
Continued Public Hearing from February 17, 2005: AZ 05-001
Request for an Annexation and Zoning of 156.49 acres to R-8 & L-O
zones for Bainbridge Subdivision by Brighton Properties, LLC - SWC of
Chinden Boulevard and North Ten Mile Road:
Item 5:
Continued Public Hearing from February 17, 2005: PP 05-002
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 429 building lots and 35 common
lots on 155.44 acres in proposed R-8 and L-O zones for Bainbridge
Subdivision by Brighton Properties, LLC - SWC of Chinden Boulevard
and North Ten Mile Road:
Item 6:
Continued Public Hearing from February 17, 2005: CUP 05-002
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development
consisting of 428 residential building lots, one church lot and 35 common
lots located in a "mixed-use neighborhood center" designation on the
Comprehensive Plan for Bainbridge Subdivision by Brighton Properties,
LLC - SWC of Chinden Boulevard and North Ten Mile Road:
Zaremba: Okay. We are ready for the Public Hearing portion of our meeting and' will,
for those of you who don't come to these meetings very often, describe our procedure.
The applicants and our professional staff have already spent quite a bit of time together
on each of the subjects that we are going to cover tonight, so we will begin with a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 3 of 89
presentation by our profesSional staff, who will describe where the project is and what
the project is and, then, we will run through any issues that are still remaining that they
haven't been able to resolve with the applicant. When they are concluded, the applicant
will have an opportunity to come up and testify to anything else they think we need to
know about the project or to discuss the issues that our staff has raised about that
subject. We allow the applicant 15 minutes to do that, including any other professional
people they might have brought with them as back up. FOllowing that is the open
opportunity for the public to speak and we feel that if you felt it was important enough to
come down here this evening and express your opinion, we want to make sure we hear
you, so we do ask that you only speak when you're at the microphone, We will go down
the sign-up sheet, but, then, we will also ask if anybody else has anything to say.
During the time that you're speaking the applicant will make notes about what you're
asking about and have an opportunity afterwards to explain or clarify anything that they
can. We ask that you limit your remarks to three minutes. That's partially so with all the
items on our agenda we don't end up being here until 1 :00 o'clock in the moming and
we . find we don't do our best thinking at 1 :00 o'clock in the morning, so we want
everybody to have our best thinking. So, we do ask that you limit. Also, we know a lot
of you are not accustomed to public speaking, but, please, don't be afraid of the
microphone, speak up, we do need to hear you. And our recorder also needs to hear
you, so that it gets recorded for the record. And weare going to try something new
tonight. If you hear a ding from over in this corner, it means that the recorder is not
hearing you or us and we need to correct that to make sure that everything gets
recorded. At the conclusion of the public testimony, then, the applicant will have
another ten minutes to address any of the issues that have been raised and discuss
them and, then, the Commission will discuss and, hopefully, make a recommendation to
the City Council whether we feel they should approve or deny the application. We have
a handy dandy little light system. If you will keep an eye on that? When it's green you
have time to talk. 't will, then, flash yellow and that means please conclude within about
15 seconds and, then, the red light will come on, which is the end of your testimony and
we will try and stick with that. If somebody identifies themselves as a spokesman for a
group and there are other people that say, yes, that's our spokesman and the other
people are not going to speak and an example of that would be the president of a
homeowners association, we do allow that representative of a group more than the
three. Ten minutes. Up to ten minutes. 'f you don't need it, that's fine. And as always,
anybody can step up and just say I agree with what Joe said before me and, then, if you
need to add a point or two, that makes it go faster, but we know what you mean when
you refer to somebody before you. That being the case, let's move forward, then. I will
open the Public Hearing -- we, actually, have three related items four, five, and six on
our agenda, continued Public Hearing for February 17th, AZ 05-001, PP 05-002, and
CUP 05-002. These relate. to Bainbridge Subdivision and I will comment that even
though this is a continued Public Hearing, when it did come up on our agenda for
February 17th, both the applicant and our staff asked for a delay to review some
changes and we took no public testimony, so if you're here for those items, you have
not missed anything, we are starting fresh tonight. And we will begin with the staff
report.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 4 of 89
Canning: Chairman Zaremba and Commissioners, just a quick update on a couple
things. Steve had -- and his wife had their fifth child on Monday and -- a baby boy,
Jonathan Bennett and Josh and his wife J.C. had their first and second baby earlier this
morning just after midnight.
Zaremba: Must be twins.
Canning: So -- yeah. Both four pounds. One's in ICU overnight, but, otherwise, doing
well. And Craig is sick and in the hospital, but for a bit, but we expect him out Soon.
So, I have been demoted to an associate planner tonight. I have done my best to get
caught up on all these applications, but if you have questions, please, question me, and
I will do my best. All right. This application is south of Chinden, between Black Cat and
Ten Mile. Thank you. It's the first major development to go forward in this section. The
application actually includes a portion of these two lots as well. I will talk about that a
little bit more. But on the other side of the street we have Verona Subdivision and, then,
you see part of Lochsa over here. There is nothing on the site right now, except this out
parcel that has a residence on it. This is the proposed layout. They have what will
function as a residential collector that comes from the half mile on Chinden down to Ten
Mile. There is a park centrally located. They are working with the city to dedicate the
park at this time. It's, I believe, seven and a quarter acres. And there is a small
residential park as well. This actually shows the parks a little better. There is a
Proposed church site to the north of the property and, then, there is kind of an
unidentified parcel at this time that's about nine acres in size and I will go through that in
a little bit. The proposal also includes 389 single-family residential lots and that was at
the last Count. The applicant may have an update on that. There are 22 common lots
and the one church lot that I proposed and, then, the one lot to be developed or
redeveloped in the future. And those two lots up at the north end are proposed for L-O
zoning. The remainder of the property is proposed for R-8 zoning. The density -- gross
density is about 2.56 dwelling units per acre. If you take out the church lot and the -- it
goes up a bit to 2.67 dwelling units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan designation for
the lower portion where the residences are is medium density residential and, then,
there is a neighborhood center designation with a mixed-use regional commercial
district on it that comes through the top portion of the property. You may have noticed
at the beginning of the staff report that Craig explains the reason why that application
was tabled, as we did have some concerns that the neighborhood center concept was
not being met. We know that it's an issue that we need to go back to and look in the
whole north Meridian area and so rather than address it with this application, that the
applicant has just decided to remove those land uses and that's why you have the large
property to be redeveloped and, then, the -- no development shown over here, is we
intend to kind of figure that out later. This proposal allows for that to be decided later.
And that's why they redrew and submitted different annexation descriptions. The
applicant is requesting a planned development to allow for reduced frontage
requirements and, then, block lengths that exceed 1,000 feet. The proposed amenities
in exchange for those reduced standards are a 7.5 acre open space park that will
potentially be dedicated to the city, the homeowners park, which is 1.37 acres and,
then, on those there will be -- well, they haven't specified any tot lots, basketball courts
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 5 of 89
or -- but they may provide a private community center and pool in the area and they just
have asked that those be considered at a later time. They do provide, in addition to the
park space, they do -- the total open space does equal ten percent, but' want to explain
that a little bit, because it probably doesn't look like it from now. The applicant is not
required to put street buffers on this residential collector. They have voluntarily done
that. We do allow those to count toward the dedicated open space. There is an issue,
though, that the annexation boundary does not go to the edge of the proposed
landscaping, so we do -- Craig does address as an issue of concern that -- because we
don't have control over what happens in the county, we'd like to see that annexation
boundary include the landscape buffer, especially if they want it to count toward the
open space. And, then, within the subdivision they are proposing a five foot parkway
that separates -- they have got an extra wide street section and with that they have
added a five foot parkway between the back of curb and the sidewalk and they are
asking that that be included as part of their open space. They have calculated the full
length of the residential roadways, they have subtracted 20 feet for each lot to account
for the driveway. Staff did point that out as an option for this development and I just
want to go on record tonight, though, as I'm not -- I'm willing to go with it, because that's
what the staff report said, but I do want to look into it, because I'm not sure if we need to
only count 50 percent of that area or the full area. But it was originally raised by staff,
so I'm willing to go with that decision at this point, but may change my mind on that
issue. We need. to do some research -- additional research. There is -- a big issue that
I think I'll let Bruce concern -- or I think I'll let Bruce address, I'm sorry. Mr. Freckleton.
And that's that there is no sanitary sewer system to this area, so it cannot be served at
this time, so it does raise the question of whether annexation is appropriate at this time.
Staff has suggested that the applicant enter into a development agreement as part of
this annexation and the contents of that right now, as proposed, would be -- we have
asked the applicant to provide a legal description of the Johnson property that will
become a county enclave, so that we can have that description available when we
choose to annex the property. And the development agreement will also state that the
applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer and water service
extension and, then, all future uses -- again referring to the area -- particularly this
parcel, that they will be subject to the City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time
and that all future uses on Lots 2 and 3, Block 15 -- again up here -- shall be required to
obtain Conditional Use Permit approval from the city and that relates back to the mixed
use regional designation from the Comp Plan does require conditional use approval for
those items for anything. I'm going to now address some of the special considerations
that Craig pointed out in the staff report. The first one I already mentioned, it's that the
landscape buffer on Broadbent Avenue is actually not included in the annexation
proposal. And, then, the second one I wanted to highlight again was the -- measuring
the -- the internal streets and point out the parkway there. One of the things they
wanted to do was measure the -- they said all setbacks would be measured from the
property line and in the event that that property line may be on the -- that the sidewalk
may cross over that property line, Craig just wanted to point -- make special reference
to the point that they need 20 feet as measured from the edge of sidewalk to their
garage, so that there is room there to park a car and so that it's not hanging over into
the sidewalk. The out parcels, the one I already -- the Johnson I already referenced,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 6 of 89
that we are asking for a legal description of that property. Craig has noted concern that
because we are only taking portions of these lots that are up here, we are kind of
chipping away at what is -- the remainder will be a county property and so we are
creating out parcels in the county and his concern was the development of those
properties. Once this becomes city property, any development on those parcels would
have to be denied annexation before they could be built on, unless it were a single
family home. I mean any other type of permit does require that it come to us first. But
homes could be built on that. All right. Moving on. Craig has asked for a micro-path --
Zaremba: I'm sorry. Do you mean homes plural or --
Canning: Singular.
Zaremba: -- one lot that would be one owner?
Canning: Well, there is a couple -- yeah, I think there is three different lots up here that
will be created, but --
Zaremba: So, it matches -- one will be three?
Canning: Yeah. Not likely, given the value, probably, that was paid for that property,
but -- let's see. In lieu of this micro-path Craig has asked for a stub street in this
location and he has left a little room, he said if it -- well, I thought he had left a little
room. This is a potential school site. The applicant is concerned if it is a school site, he
doesn't want to have a stub street there and he would rather have the micro-path there.
Similarly, Craig has asked for a stub street to this property and, again, this is a potential
charter school site, so the applicant has said in both cases he's in favor of the stub
street, if schools aren't going to be in those locations. I'm almost done. Okay. And that
was all. The one issue I didn't mention is that the church normally on the light office
would be principally a permitted use, but, again, the reasons for requiring the conditional
use for that item is because the Comprehensive Plan says anything in the mixed use
regional should come before you for a Conditional Use Permit. And with that I think I
will turn the microphone over to Bruce Freckleton to address the sewer issues and,
then, we will answer any questions.
Freckleton: Thank you. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the situation with the
sanitary sewer is this property falls in what we call the North Black Cat Trunk service
area and at this point in time our City Council has directed our staff to begin design for
the lift station. They have allocated funds for that. However, they have not allocated
any funds for the construction of that lift station in our current budget. If they wanted to
shift some money, put another project off, that certainly is their prerogative, but at this
point in time we do not have funding for construction. So, I just wanted to point that out.
And so any approval of this project should be subject to that sewer system being
available in that area. So, I'll leave it at that, unless you have any questions.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 7 of 89
Zaremba: I would have a question that's kind of a follow-up to that, I think. If building
the sewer is not in the budget now and it may be another year or two before it got into a
budget, I'm guessing, and annexation and zoning never expires, but their preliminary
plat and any CUP may potentially expire before they can do anything, am I correct in
that?
Freckleton: Under our current code that's correct.
Zaremba: What effect does that have on the applicant? It means they have wasted
their effort at the moment?
Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, there is provision for time
extensions. Right now the code just has -- allows one single time extension. However,
the revised code that you all are considering next Thursday does have different
provisions for time extensions that could potentially be in effect at the time this needs
one and that would be basically -- if you're asking for more than one time extension, we
can grant one, but you also can be subject to new -- to new rules and standards that are
in place, And, then, my -- I forgot to show you elevations. I'm sorry. They have
submitted some proposed elevations for the property and my other associate planner
reminded me that I forgot to mention that staff is recommending approval with the
conditions noted in the staff report.
Zaremba: Thank you. Any further questions from Commissioners?
Moe: Mr. Chairman, yes. Anna, a couple things, did we get any indication from ACHD?
I understand they had a hearing last night or the night before. Did they take any
exception to this project?
Canning: The applicant will have to answer that question. I'm sorry.
Moe: Okay. We can do that. Then, one other question I have in regards to the -- to the
park. You stated they are negotiating that the city will take over that -- that portion for a
park?
Canning: Yes. My understanding is that the negotiations have gone quite far, but,
again, the applicant can give you a better update on that than --
Moe: My concern is is basically on the Comprehensive Plan map there is parks on both
sides of this development and whatnot and in larger form, if I recall, and I know that in
the past the city hasn't really wanted to take on such smaller parks to have to take care
of maintenance, so I was kind of surprised when I read that in the report, so -- thank
you. That's it.
Newton-Huckabay: I have a question. So, none of -- if we recommend approval, none
of this development can even begin until -- none of the lots; correct?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 8 of 89
Canning: Correct.
Newton-Huckabay: Wouldn't it be a little premature to try to move this through with the
other issues, such as the property to the north, if they can't begin development anyway?
Canning: That's why we give you the big bucks.
Newton-Huckabay: I forgot my shirt.
Canning: Just for the record, the Commissioners get a shirt for their efforts up there.
That's about it. And they don't even get a turkey anymore.
Zaremba: We are concerned citizens that volunteer our time.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I do have one more question. Bruce, what is the -- what is the
time line, then, as far as it going back to Council for approval for dollars to extend the
sewer lines? From today until two years from now or where are we at?
Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moe, there is ongoing discussions regarding the
service area. I wish I had a clear answer for you on that. I really don't. There is studies
that are being done and we haven't formulated recommendations and -- we are not
quite there yet, so I don't have a good answer for you.
Moe: I guess the only other question I was -- what kind of distance are we speaking of
connections on this? As in miles or what?
Freckleton: Yes.
Moe: Thank you.
Freckleton: Miles.
Moe: Thank you.
Borup: My only thought is we were just talking about the sewer and everything; I would
be interested in hearing what the applicant has to say. I'm sure that's very much in their
interest and they have probably got a lot of information already.
Zaremba: We are ready. If the applicant would care to come forward, please? I failed
to mention, everybody, when you come to the microphone, if you would, please, begin
by stating your name and address.
Turnbull: David Turnbull, 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. I have a small
Powerpoint presentation. I will give you a copy for the Clerk for the record. Thank you,
Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission. I want to just give you a brief
overview of the Bainbridge project, as Anna has already done. Go to the next slide,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 9 of 89
Anna. It's a total of 389 home sites in the current submittal, 70 acres are yet to be
designed, that's the area between Chinden and the residential collector road. We are
contracting with a design firm out of Seattle to do some further design work on there.
You will probably see some different densities in that area and I will talk about that a
little bit more. We have designed in a seven and a half acre neighborhood park, a 1.4-
acre commons park that's back in the southwest section of the neighborhood and, then,
we have the 4.4-acre church site. Here is the neighborhood park that Anna pointed out.
Here is the commons park. If we could go to the next slide. I just want to point out this
is a schematic -- I have had some very extensive discussions with Doug Strong, your
Parks Director, and we had the Land Group come up with a preliminary design. This
area right here shows an overlay of the soccer field, just so that you get an idea of the
dimensions of this property. I think somebody asked the question about whether this
was a small park. The city has a policy that neighborhood parks in the seven to seven
and a half acres or something, they are very much interested in and Commissioner
Strong has -- Director Strong has indicated that interest. There was some issue in the
staff report that wasn't really brought up here, it's not a condition, but the police
department expressed a concern about on-street parking. Well, we have designed in
this some parking within the park area, so -- there is also the issue of tot lots and other
amenities. You can see right here we have a tot lot designed in here, we also have
tennis courts designed in here. As far as future amenities -- could you go back one,
please, Anna? We plan on doing a community center, but it will be in this portion here
north of that residential collector, so that will be coming forward in a future submittal.
And, then, if you could forward one more, Anna, to the commons lot. This is not
proposed to have any internal parking, that's just a small one and a half -- 1.4-acre park
that would be a walk-in park for the surrounding residences. So, we don't see that as a
destination park. We will have a variety of housing options. Even in this first phase we
have home sites ranging from 6,600 square feet up to 18,000 square feet. We
anticipate homes ranging from 1,500 to 5,000 square feet. So, we will have a variety of
housing options for different income levels and all demographics. In the future
preliminary plat that we will propose in that area, between Chinden and the residential
collector, you will see even more variety, with the patio homes and town-homes,
perhaps, in that area. So, just wanted to give you that overview for the overall project,
but as Anna said, we -- I think there has to be some more debate on the concept of the
neighborhood center, particularly in that location, and for those of you who weren't on
the Commission at the time that that was adopted, I was pretty heavily involved in that,
Commissioner Borup was on the Commission at that time, but I believe if you go back to
the record, it would indicate that those neighborhood centers were allowed to be
included in as a way of incentivizing, but not necessarily requiring, and that also the
locations could be subject to change. So, that's just a debate we need to have at a
future time and, as Anna said, we have left that area open for that discussion. We are
not proposing any development in that area at the current time. Staff issues. First, I
wanted to answer the question about ACHD. They did approve this yesterday at their
commission hearing, their noon commission hearing. I already talked about the regional
neighborhood center designation. I talked about the parking for the neighborhood park
and the commons park. The stub street to Lot 3, Block 15, as Anna pointed out, we are
okay with adding that, provided we don't do a charter school in that area. If we do do a
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page10of89
charter school, we don't think a stub street there is appropriate, so we would like to have
that to be a conditional condition. Is that right? Okay. And also the stub street into the
45-acre Christensen property. I know that the school district has been talking to the
Christensen's, interested in acquiring that site for a middle school site and so if the area
back there is ball fields or whatever that they put in with their middle school site, we
don't think that a stub street is appropriate for that area and we would, instead, do a
micro-path connection to that area. Let's see. Anna addressed the landscape buffer on
the north side of the residential collector. We can expand our annexation area, if you
prefer to include that area, so that the landscape buffer would be within city limits. The
sewer that Bruce has mentioned -- I have been in quite a few discussions with City
Council, they did authorize the design of that sewer line. I believe the intent is to move
forward with that. It's not unlike some other developments that have been approved
subject to sewer availability, so for that -- us, that's not a real issue and I, actually, think
it helps the city in designing it's sewer line, so that it knows street layouts and so forth,
so they can prepare for that. In fact, that line will have to connect further to the east to
eventually serve -- is it Silverleaf project, Bruce? Yeah. So, I think it's helpful to know
these road alignments, so that they can factor that into their design, which Bruce
mentioned has already been contracted for. Let's see. Other than that, we are
comfortable with the conditions. We appreciate the recommendation for approval and
I'll stand for any questions.
Zaremba: Did ACHD make an opinion on the two stub streets, whether they should be
stub streets or micro-paths?
Turnbull: They were not required by ACHD.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: Mr. Chairman -- it sounds like that you're comfortable with the sewer situation.
Turnbull: Yes.
Borup: To proceed ahead?
Turnbull: Yes.
Borup: There may be some ambiguity there.
Turnbull: Yes.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Any other questions? Thank you.
Turnbull: That's it?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3. 2005
Page110fS9
Zaremba: Yeah. For the moment.
Turnbull: Okay.
Zaremba: This would be the opportunity for testimony from the public, if you have
opinions on these subjects. We have a sign-up sheet for Items 4, 5 and 6, all of which
have nobody signed up. So, if I don't see anybody waving their hand or moving toward
the microphone -- okay. Apparently those of you that are here are not for this subject.
So, that means the applicant doesn't need to respond to any of your questions.
Commissioners?
Canning: Chairman? Chairman?
Zaremba: Where is that voice coming from? Sorry, Lord.
Canning: If the Commission wishes to approve this application, the two items I have
noticed that need to be referenced in the motion would the annexation boundary with
regard to the landscape and the stub streets. I believe all the other conditions of
approval are okay as is.
Zaremba: Let me finish Director Canning's thought first, though. The two items that you
mentioned, do those need to be part of the development agreement on page 11? I
guess --
Canning: I believe the schools and stub streets; the issue was brought up with the
preliminary plat application. The annexation boundary probably needs to be with the --
well, it could be -- it could be the preliminary plat also. I don't know that they are worthy
of a development agreement condition. They are probably okay just in the preliminary
plat.
Zaremba: So, if we add those to site specific conditions, that, actually, would end up
being on page 17. Okay.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I do have a question for the applicant. Please enlighten me. I -- why do you
want -- what is the value of moving forward with a project, full well knowing that it can't
move forward until the sewer is developed and you have no concrete date when that
may come to fruition? I mean help me with this.
Turnbull: Chairman Zaremba, Commissioner Rohm, I have had some extensive
discussions with Brad Watson, the director of Public Works, with Charlie Rountree,
Commissioner in charge of the -- the liaison to the Public Works Department. City
Council did direct Public Works Department to go out and get this project designed. We
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
March 3. 2005
Page 12 of B9
believe it's with the anticipation of getting that project constructed in the near future.
Obviously, they had set their budget already for the year, so as Bruce Freckleton
mentioned, they don't have it in the budget this year, but that, you know, the new budget
year starts in another six or seven months, so we believe that this project will move
forward. So, it will take some time between getting approval and, going forward and
getting our construction plans drawn, and those kinds of things. So, we don't think it's
premature. In fact, I think you will find that you have approved other projects between
Meridian Road and Locust Grove Road without the sewer there, contingent upon that
North Trunk sewer line being constructed. It's not any different than --
Rohm: Don't get me wrong; I'm not opposed to it, I just -- I was just curious, but thank
you.
Turnbull: Okay.
Zaremba: My summary would be you're aware of the risk and you're willing to take that
risk; is that --
Turnbull: Absolutely true. I have already taken it.
Rohm: Thank you.
Canning: Chairman? I have a little more information for you. On page 15, site specific
condition number two, that's the one that we have made to be modified to say like a --
something to the effect that in the event the 45 acre parcel and Lot 3 are developed to
schools, stub streets would not be required and, then, we would have the micro-path
required, but --
Zaremba: He offered a micro-path.
Canning: Yes.
Zaremba: Which he's already proposing, but--
Canning: Well, he's not proposing a micro-path to the -- Lot 3.
Zaremba: Okay.
Canning: And, then, the -- having the boundary of the subdivision -- could be a
preliminary plat condition. It's discussed in the preliminary plat section, so --
Zaremba: Okay. All right. Commissioners, any further discussion? Then are we
prepared to close the Public Hearing?
Rohm: I think so. Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on Items 4,
and 6.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3. 2005
Page 130f89
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Okay. Any discussion or thoughts to be presented?
Newton-Huckabay: I just would have preferred to see the whole project, given that
there is no urgency with the sewer, other than I would think having your development at
the beginning of the sewer design will probably help design the sewer, I agree with that
completely. Are the issues of the property to the north so complex that they couldn't
have been resolved and put all this together?
Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, this is a long-standing
point to which Mr. Turnbull and I have agreed to disagree and we have looked through
the minutes and I think it's a case of -- I don't see the flexibility that he sees and so we
have agreed that we will all get together and discuss this, but it needs to be part of a
larger conversation, because of some other issues. One was when Paramount went in,
it was such a large planned development that it was able, through the use exception, to
really modify the nature of the commercial uses that were originally envisioned for the
area and it has and will have an effect on the surrounding mile section and so that's one
thing that we feel we really need to look at. And, then, just different access
requirements from ITD, different things that have happened through the development of
a lot of the north Meridian area, we feel we really need to look at the remaining parcels
quite closely and consider what the appropriate uses are. In addition to the fact that we
have had an annexation request from the property from the north side of Chinden and
that -- so, we -- there is a lot of issues we need to look at that were beyond the scope of
this one and we thought that the discussion on the north part of this would be an
important part for that discussion as well. So, we wanted to do it altogether.
Newton-Huckabay: You did want to do it altogether, but --
Canning: On the north part. I think that the southern part is fine to consider on its own.
I just -- we were just primarily concerned about the uses along Chinden and --
Rohm: So, possibly by delaying that we will make better decisions down the road?
Canning: Yes.
Rohm: Okay. Good.
Newton-Huckabay: That's the only question I had.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 140f89
Zaremba: Just to clarify for me, is it your assumption that whatever is decided on the
currently blank parcels would not affect what happens on what we have before us?
Canning: No. I think -- well, I think what you have before you is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and will integrate well with -- the way that Broadbent Avenue is
designed there provides an automatic transition to whatever may be on the other side of
that street, so I think that that, as designed, we can -- we can do pretty much anything
up there and -- and should have a fine development.
Zaremba: Commissioners, you need to talk through the microphone. What we say
needs to be on the record.
Newton-Huckabay: They were trying to decide who was going to make the motion.
Zaremba: Oh. Okay. That means that I will entertain a motion.
Borup: Okay. We are still in discussion, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make sure maybe
some of the things -- was it -- and am I accurate stating that the applicant agreed on the
landscape easement north of Broadbent would be included in this annexation?
Zaremba: They would --
Borup: Their landscape easement would be included?
Zaremba: Yeah.
Canning: It's a lot. It would be a lot.
Borup: It would be a lot. Okay. A landscape lot shall be included as part of the
annexation? Would that be correct wording?
Canning: Yes, sir.
Borup: Okay. That was the only question I had.
Zaremba: Are you volunteering to make the motion? Commissioner Borup?
Borup: I'm just seeing how many motions we had here. I don't think we have anything
affecting the first one on an annexation, do we?
Moe: No.
Borup: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending
approval of AZ 05-001, request for annexation and zoning of 156.49 acres, with the staff
report of -- for hearing date March 3rd, 2005, with -- as written in the staff report.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 15 of 89
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of PP
05-002, request for preliminary plat for the same hearing date of March 3rd, to include
all staff comments, with the following changes: Under site specific conditions,
preliminary plat, page 15, paragraph two, where it talks about in lieu of the micro-path. a
stub street to the 45 acre potential school parcel to the west shall be provided if the
property does not become a school site. And, then, the next sentence, provide a stub
street to the north through Block 15, unless that property becomes a school site. Does
that need to be clarified anymore than that? I don't know.
Zaremba: I understood that.
Borup: Okay. And, then, on page 16, part of paragraph five, it discusses the
landscaping on the north of Broadbent Way, they do not lie within the preliminary plat.
I'd like to add either at the end of that bullet point or the end. of that paragraph, that the
landscaping lot for the landscaping on the north side of Broadbent shall be included in
this application. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: You have got one more.
Zaremba: Oh, Commissioner Borup, you're --
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval
of CUP 05-002, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development on the
same project of the March 3rd date, to include all staff comments of the staff memo,
dated March 1 st. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries as well. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3. 2005
Page 160f89
Item 7:
Continued Public Hearing from February 17, 2005: CUP 04-056
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for two separate drive-up windows
in a C-C zone for Jade Plaza by Sundance Investments, LLP - 3679 East
Overland Road:
Zaremba: I'd like to open the Public Hearing for Item 7. This is CUP 04-056, a
continued Public Hearing from February 17th, a request for a Conditional Use Permit for
two separate drive-up windows in a C-C zone for Jade Plaza by Sundance Investments,
LLP, 3679 East Overland Road and, like the previous issues, when it came up for
hearing on February 17th, the applicant had requested a delay, which we did until
tonight. So, once again, there was no testimony and we are beginning. Nobody's
missed anything. We will begin with the staff report.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thought it wasn't on. This is a request for one
drive-thru window. The request for two was -- the reason for the delay was for the
redraw of this site. This is in Silverstone Business Campus. It is a principally permitted
use for a restaurant, but all drive-up windows require a Conditional Use Permit to be
heard. The site is right off of Overland Road and the existing landscaping along
Silverstone Way, Overland Road, and Jade Road -- or Jade Avenue on this site, is all
existing. The only thing that is being approved tonight would be internal landscaping
that we have reviewed and it would comply with our landscape ordinance. It's difficult to
see, but the portion right down in here, this is a separate parcel that will be coming
through for future uses, most likely through a CZC or it was part of a one-time division
that occurred on this property, which was a portion of the certificate of zoning
compliance that is in progress as well on the site, and in order to be -- try and be quick
here, this is a fairly straight forward standard condition of approval for this type of a use
and if you have any questions I will answer them. Staff is recommending approval.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Moe: No, sir.
Borup: None.
Zaremba: Okay. Would the applicant like to speak, please?
Larsen: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, my
name is Cornell Larsen and I'm here tonight representing Sundance Investments. My
address is 210 Murray in Garden City. We are in concurrence with the staff report's
conditions of approval and I would be happy to discuss any issues on the project that
you might have. I really don't have any comments on it. And I would like to take a
minute after you have had discussions or questions and speak in favor of the project
following mine on Item No.8.
Zaremba: Any question?
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 17 0189
Borup: I don't have any questions. This is another project in the business park and --
Zaremba: He's only here because of the drive-up window.
Borup: Right.
Zaremba: I see no -- it's not near any residences or anything.
Newton-Huckabay: What's the restaurant?
Larsen: One of them is a Chinese food restaurant and the other one is a sandwich
facility. There will be one on the -- better get my directions straight. The south end --
that goes from the south end up to the north end and, then, there will be another one
over in the corner that would be a drive-in sandwich facility.
Moe: I guess the only other thing I would say is that I like this plan much more than the
-- the previous one that we did see --
Larsen: Thank you.
Moe: -- with the second drive-thru.
Zaremba: All right. Well, thank you. We will invite you back up in a minute, but in the
meantime --
Larsen: Thank you.
Zaremba: -- I think -- is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak on this
subject? We do have a sign-up sheet that has no one signed up, but this would be an
opportunity if you have an opinion. Okay. Hearing none --
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move that we close the Public Hearing for CUP 04-056.
Zaremba: One moment. Let me ask Mr. Larsen a question. You said you wanted to
make further comments about the next item. Did you want to make that during this item
or do you want --
Larsen: That would be fine.
Zaremba: Or did you just want to be invited back?
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 18ofS9
Larsen: Either way. The next item is one that's out in Silverstone as well and since I
have been involved in that project for some time, I just wanted to say that the next item
would be a very nice-looking building and I hope you will approve that as well.
Nary: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: I think the record has to match the item that we are talking about, so --
Larsen: Okay. I will come back.
Zaremba: I'll invite you back to speak on that one. Thank you.
Larsen: Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Moe, proceed with --
Moe: I just made a motion to --
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? The Public Hearing is closed.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Okay. Great. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending
approval of CUP 04-056, to include all staff comments of the hearing date March 3rd,
2005, and received by the city clerk February the 25th, 2005. End of motion.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Zaremba: It has been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 8:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-003 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
credit union facility with a drive-thru in a C-C zone for Westmark Credit
Union by Westmark Credit Union - SEC of Eagle & Overland Road in The
Silverstone Corporate Center:
Zaremba: Okay. We are ready for the next item, which is Item 8. This is a Public
Hearing, CUP 05-003, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a credit union facility
with a drive-thru in a C-C zone for Westmark Credit Union by Westmark Credit Union,
southeast corner of Eagle and Overland Road in the Silverstone Corporate Center and
we will begin with the staff report.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 190f89
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The previous Item No.7 was here. Item No.8 is
here, also in Silverstone. This is a request for a 3,477 square foot credit union, Again,
the request is only for the conditional use for the drive-up window, which is in this
location. It will be directionally controlled by signage on the site as per condition and
the applicant's request in their discussion with Craig Hood, who is not here tonight.
This, again, basically, is standard conditions of approval. I didn't see anything in there
that would be extraneous or odd for this type of a site and if you have any questions I'll
do my best to answer them.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Moe: No, sir.
Zaremba: Okay. In that case, we'd like to have the applicant come forward. I'm
guessing that would be Mr. Larsen again.
Moe: No.
Zaremba: No, it's not. I'm sorry.
Zabala: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Tom Zabala and my
work address is 565 West Myrtle Street in Boise, here this evening representing
Westmark Credit Union. We have had the opportunity to review the staff's conditions of
approval and we take no exceptions to that and we recommend -- or would appreciate
your favorable consideration this evening. Are there any questions?
Zaremba: Questions from the Commissioners?
Moe: No, sir.
Zaremba: Thank you very much.
Zabala: Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Larsen does appear to have something to say,
Larsen: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, I am -- I'll give my testimony
on the proper item now, but we are in support of this new building out there. It's a nice
addition to the Silverstone Campus and we would like to ask that you favorably approve
that conditional use as well.
Zaremba: Thank you. We do have one other person signed up. Matt Schaffer,
Schaffer or Scheiffer. Okay. Mr. Schaffer says no comment and he is marked as being
in the for -- in favor column. Those are the only people signed up. Anybody else care
to testify. Commissioners?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3. 2005
Page 20 of 89
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing for CUP 05-003.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second, All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Yes. I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of CUP 05-
003, for the hearing date of March 3rd, 2005, with the transmittal date of February 25th,
2005. End of motion.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9:
Item 10:
Item 11:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-003 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of
76.72 acres to a R-3 zone for Kingsbridge Subdivision by Vision First,
LLC - 4070 South Eagle Road:
Public Hearing: PP 05-004 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 130
single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 76.72 acres in
a proposed R-3 zone for Kingsbridge Subdivision by Vision First, LLC -
4070 South Eagle Road:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-004 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development consisting of single-family residential lots in a
proposed R-3 zone with reductions to the minimum requirements for street
frontage and request to exceed the maximum block length allowed for
Kingsbridge Subdivision by Vision First, LLC - 4070 South Eagle Road:
Zaremba: Next on the agenda we have three related items, nine, ten, and eleven. So, I
will open all three public hearings. This is AZ 05-003, PP 05-004, and CUP 05-004, all
relating to Kingsbridge -- Kingsbridge Subdivision by Vision First, LLC, at 4070 South
Eagle Road and we will begin with the staff report. There are plenty of seats down in
the front, if anybody that's hanging out in the hallway would care to have a seat. I'm
sorry. Go ahead.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 21 of 89
Canning: That's okay. I wasn't ready. Chairman Zaremba, Members of the
Commission, just to give you a brief background again, this is the Kingsbridge
Subdivision, which came before you last year and in the fall of 2004 they did prepare an
annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, and Conditional Use Permit for the same
property, the same 76 acres and in that application the proposed lot sizes were below
the 8,000 square foot minimum of the requested R-4 zone and the gross density was
about 3.1 dwelling units per acre. On September 16th your Commission voted to
recommend denial of the annexation and the Conditional Use Permit and, then, you
voted to deny the preliminary plat. Then, in October the applicant's request for
reconsideration of a revised plat that included 18 fewer lots and increased minimum lot
size was not acted on by the Planning and Zoning Commission, so it went on appeal up
to the Council. The Council did consider the applicant's appeal and the -- so they
considered all three applications, but they did ultimately deny all three applications after
the Public Hearing on December 14th. So, that's just to get you caught up a little bit.
The findings for denial were approved on January 4th and the basis for the denial was
the lack of transition between the project and the large parcels around it and, again, it's
an unusual situation where we have a number of five and ten acre lots that surround the
property and, then, one acre lots in the Dartmoor Subdivision. The other reasons were
the amount of traffic that would use the existing street, Dartmoor Street. The proposed
density was too high. And it was not in the best interest of the city at that time. Let's
see if we can get an overall one. There is an overall one, In response to the City
Council's denial of the previous application, they have revised their plan and have done
the following items: They include more traditional lot sizes at the project perimeter.
They have increased all the project perimeter lot sizes, as you can see, and I can go
back on some of those zoomed ones. And the applicant's letter goes into more detail
on some of these lot sizes and I'll get to that, I'm just trying to -- I'm going to go through
the staff report first and, then, I want to get to the applicant's most recent letter, dated
March 1 st, because I think that that best summarizes some of the details of the
application. The gross density is significantly lower. They have come back with a
request for an R-3 zone, instead of the R-4 zone. The minimum lot size, I believe, it
states in the staff report 12,000 square feet, but I believe it's actually up quite a bit
higher than that. And the estimated additional traffic on Dartmoor is less than 300
vehicle trips per day, based on the new layout. Just to remind you, this portion of the
property on the Comprehensive Plan is designated as low density residential. The
southern portion, as shown here that connected to Eagle Road, is designated as
medium density residential. The applicant has request -- or has provided a -- submitted
a planned development to request reduced dimensional standards and those are,
instead of a 90 foot minimum for a lot frontage requirement, they are requesting a 60
foot minimum. Those are on non-cul-de-sac properties. And, then, instead of a 40 foot
minimum on cul-de-sacs or approximately 90 degree curves, they are requesting a 30
foot minimum. For block length, instead the one thousand foot maximum, they are
asking for 1,325 feet, approximately. There are just two blocks that exceed the
maximum thousand foot block length. And, then, of the 130 proposed lots in the original
application, there are 25 that did not meet the minimum street frontage requirement for
proposed R-3 zone, so it is about a fifth -- only a fifth of them didn't meet the frontage
requirements. All of the lots requiring reduced lot frontage are internal to the
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 22 of 89
subdivision and are not on the exterior boundary. In exchange for those proposed
modifications to the R-3 standards, the applicant is providing the following amenities:
Over ten percent open space, a community park on Lot 10. I think I have a -- there we
go. I believe this is the community park here. And on -- that's on Lot 10, Block 1, and
that contains a swimming pool, a barbecue area with picnic tables, and a tot lot. There
is another park that has a water feature, benches. Then, there is a walking path along -
- within that park and, then, along the tree lined corridor. The landscape buffer is on the
corridor with Kingsbridge -- along Kingsbridge Drive, which is this one here, and it goes
down and, then, out to Eagle Road. And that has a detached sidewalk and, then, a
walking path on the south side of the Ten Mile feeder canal, which is here. Small open
space pockets, bridge and monument sign, and, then, ornamental streetlights. Under
the special considerations on page nine, I did want to point out that -- that the applicant
is proposing three stub streets to the adjacent properties and Craig notes that he's
generally in favor of the stub streets, but I think that he wanted one shifted
approximately 50 feet east, so that it could -- would better match up with redevelopment
of the property that it was stubbing into. And, then, the existing residence is on this lot
right here. We are having -- it's -- there is a large residence on that property that
currently takes access off of Zaldia Lane, that in the past this property, because it was
in Ada County, was served by BFI. BFI is willing to go down county private lanes.
Once the property is annexed, it would be serviced trash collection by SSC. SSC is not
willing to go down county lanes. So, we have required that this lot bring their trash out
to this property -- it seems like such a minor detail, but this is the only one we haven't
come to an agreement with as far as staff is concerned. And I know the public will have
other concerns tonight for your consideration, but they need to get this trash out to this
street, so staff wants to see that this property actually has ownership of a portion of this
common lot and I believe the applicant is concerned about not having control over the
maintenance of the landscaping in that area. So, staff feels that this could still have a
landscape easement on top of it for now, that would go away upon redevelopment, but
for the time being the applicant could have access to this, just for the sake of putting
trash out on that street to be picked up by SSC. And, then, finally, the applicant has
made a number of commitments in the letter that is dated March 1 st, 2005, and we do
recommend that if the Commission chooses to make a favorable motion on this -- or a
favorable recommendation on this application, that you include those conditions -- or
that you include that letter in the conditions of approval as additional commitments by
the applicant and that would be under the Conditional Use Permit for the planned
development. Craig has not recommended a development agreement. I think he has
tied this to the Conditional Use Permit. The -- you may want to ask for legal advice on
whether that should be in there or in just the conditions of approval. I'm going to go
ahead and go through that letter now. You can ask him later. He perked up when he
heard his name, but now I'm not going to let him talk. The applicant -- let's see. The
first thing that they address in their letter was just how they went about meeting with the
property owners and as you get to the last paragraph on that first page, it is concerning
the properties -- and this is the revised layout that you're looking at on this screen. They
removed I believe five of the lots on this -- and the applicant might be able to help me
out or correct me later, as the case may be. They removed a number of the lots in this
area to increase the minimum lot size from just over 12,000 square feet, they are now
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 23 of eg
between 15 and 16 thousand square feet, so a significant increase in the square
footage. That did reduce the total number of lots from 130 to 125, excuse me, build-
able lots. And it reduced the overall project density to 1.63 dwelling units per acre and
increased the average residential lot size to 17,200 square feet. The applicant and the
neighbors also worked on a number of issues related to the perimeter lots and the
height of the house sizes. They came to an agreement that approximately one half of
the perimeter lots where there were existing residences close by, that they would limit
the height of those lots to single story, but, then, on the other half they would be allowed
to .do two story. And those Jots are detailed in that letter. The third issue is in regard to
an off-site improvements that the applicant has agreed to and that's to construct a
concrete sidewalk, curb, and gutter in Dartmoor -- and let me see if I can -- so, along
Dartmoor Drive. And, again, these are off-site improvements. They have agreed to do
a concrete sidewalk, curb, and gutter extending along the north side of Dartmoor Drive
from the Kingsbridge sidewalk at the current end of Dartmoor Drive to the school bus
stop at the Eagle Road entry, together with a painted crosswalk from the Gideon cul-de-
sac to the north side of Dartmoor Drive, a painted stripe delineating a pedestrian
walkway on the south side of Dartmoor Drive. They have also agreed to install a vinyl
privacy fencing, extending along the entire north property line of Kingsbridge and install
either a five-foot wrought iron or six-foot vinyl privacy fence on all other project
perimeters. They have proposed a 25-foot rear yard setback on all perimeter lots and
those -- that would be done through the CC&Rs. And they have -- well, if you adopt that
-- if you adopt these conditions, then, it would be a condition of this approval. It wouldn't
just be in the CC&Rs. And they have created in a new five-foot landscape strip south of
the six foot vinyl fence to install on the southerly lots abutting Zaldia Lane. And, then,
Zaldia Lane is down here at the southern end of the project. And, then, let's see, they
grade the 20 foot buffer strip along Zaldia upward to the fence line and there is just
some very particular items here. Again, I just wanted to emphasize that these are --
these are items that the applicant has voluntarily agreed to do that -- in their discussions
with the neighboring properties. These were not city imposed conditions of approval.
So; I think with that I will try to stay out of trouble and leave it at that and I'll let the
applicant -- I know they have a prepared presentation for you as well.
Zaremba: Any questions from the Commissioners to staff at the moment?
Canning: I forgot to mention. Staff is recommending approval of this application and
there are numerous letters with -- expressing concerns with this application and
primarily it is the density. There is one letter of support from one of those surrounding
neighbors in your packet as well that I wanted to point out, because sometimes they
don't come to testify, that I just wanted to note that there was one letter of support and
now I will answer any questions you may have.
Zaremba: Those were in our packet. I did see the one is support and several opposed.
Okay. The applicant -- thank you.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 24 of 89
Canning: And it's going to take me just a second to get ready for -- I guess it's not for
you. Is it for you? Are you doing the slide presentation? Okay. It will take me just a
second to get it prepared for them, Commissioners.
Nary: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mrs. Canning had raised one issue about the letter of the 1 st and if this
Commission was going to give a favorable motion, whether it should be part of a
development agreement or part of the conditions of approval and my recommendation if
the conditions in the letter are acceptable to the Commission and part of the motion for
approval, if there is one, that we make that part of a development agreement, rather
than just conditions of approval, so that it's clear that those are continuing obligations
that go with that development and whatever development goes on that property, that all
of those improvements are going to be made.
Zaremba: So that the proper format would be to attach this to the annexation and
zoning and have a development agreement that references the applicant's letter.
Nary: Yes.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Elliott: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Ken
Elliott. E-I-I-i-o-t-t. I am legal counsel for the applicant Vision First, LLC. Our address is
661 South Rivershore Lane, Suite 120, Eagle. 83616. It's good to be back here before
the Commission this evening on this project. Our goal in coming back to you is to
develop a planned community offering a range of lot sizes and home products to meet a
wide variety of age groups, family sizes, incomes, who wish to move into south
Meridian. The Commission may recall this is our first project in Meridian. I will say we
have learned a lot since the hearing last September, based on our meetings with
neighbors and the rather pointed comments of the City Council members at our hearing
in December. The city planning director even encouraged us to change the name of the
project to try to clarify that this is a re-filing. However, we are proud of the name
Kingsbridge, we are even prouder of the project that we have now before you tonight.
The name was chosen for the prominent bridge that we plan to build crossing the Ten
Mile feeder canal and, historically, it's also a small village located immediately adjacent
to the Dartmoor Nature Preserve in England. So, we thoughtit was an appropriate
name for a new community next to Dartmoor. Our new plan for Kingsbridge has
dramatically changed from the preliminary plat presented to the Commission last
September. I have given you a table, page one in your packet, that details the revisions
to the plat. You will notice a considerable evolution from the original plat denied by the
Commission back in September, to the revised plat that we, then, presented for
reconsideration where we had down-sized it by 18 lots. That was, then, appealed to the
City Council. Finally, the current preliminary plat before the Commission this evening is
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3. 2005
Page 25 of ag
based on direction we received at the City Council hearing in December. The results of
that hearing are that we eliminated 95 more lots from the project, we increased
perimeter lot sizes on the northern tract to an average of one half acre in size, perimeter
lots on the R-8 zoned or designated tract on the south to an average of 16,000 square
feet. Several of the City Councilors said they look at our property as an island
surrounded by rural development, in contrast to the isolated pockets of rural land that
are surrounded by city as it grows through annexations. We still believe our original plat
of 237 lots, with 11 percent open space, community pool, park, park and other
amenities, was consistent with the future land use map designation of low density
residential and the R-4 zoning recommended last fall by the planning staff. However,
we have also come to appreciate that our property is somewhere unique, because of
the large number of clustered rural residences on acreage lots surrounding the site. We
believe in strong communities, with elbow room, parks, and walking trails, that
encourage neighborliness and promote an atmosphere in which parents can raise
healthy, well-adjusted kids, and the remaining difference, I think, in our prospective and
that of some of our neighbors, is that we strongly believe that these goals can be
achieved on 10,000 square foot lots and in a well-planned neighborhood with a strong
homeowners association and not just on one acre lots. You will doubtless hear from
several remaining opponents tonight. From our conversations with the neighbors, we
believe that a silent majority -- or, at the very least, a quiet one third to one half of the
Dartmoor residents are now satisfied that we have done a reasonable job of addressing
their concerns. We are hopeful that we have gained the quiet support or at least neutral
acceptance of many of those neighbors who spoke loudly in opposition last September.
My letter to the Commission, dated March 1 st, has now been detailed by the planning
director and it confirms our agreement to additional changes that were not reflected in
the application. We have deleted the five lots on the southern tract. We have
designated 22 of the perimeter lots for single family dwellings or single story dwellings,
rather, and we have listed a group of amenities that were requested by the Dartmoor
neighbors for pedestrian safety and for the buffer between our neighborhood and theirs
and we will agree to whatever form of condition or development agreement that we are
directed by the city to confirm that. I understand you will hear testimony this evening
from Brady Turner, who is the new president of the Dartmoor association. I'm hopeful
that he will be willing to acknowledge the differences of opinion among the Dartmoor
neighbors and that they are no longer a united front opposing the project. However, the
letter that Mr. and Mrs. Tumer wrote to this Commission on February 21 st, and it's in the
record, gives little indication that any compromises were made to address the
neighbors' concerns. The letter says that we have not adequately reduced density in
the current design, that our project is distinctly urban in character and that we failed to
consider the City Council state of preference for much lower density, specifically,
Councilman Bird recommend that if something came in approaching R-2, he would
support it. Mr. urner has the right to his opinion. He certainly is entitled to express that
this evening, I just don't think his opinion is supported by the facts that are -- that will be
demonstrated by our application. Let's look now at the revisions we made to the project
since last fall. The number of residential lots have nearly been cut in half from 237 to
125. The average lot size has nearly doubled from 8,400 to 17,200 square feet.
Essentially, we are almost up to the 18,000 square foot minimum required for the R-2
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3. 2005
Page 26 of 89
zone. The minimum lot size has increased from 7,000 square feet to 12,000 square
feet. The range in lot sizes has -- is now between 12,000 up to over 33,000 square feet.
The gross density per acre was -- as staff mentioned, just over three per acre, 3.09 in
the original application, we are now down to 1.63 dwelling units per acre. Page four of
your packet is a table of residential projects approved by the city over the past couple of
years south of Overland Road, extending from Linder Road on the west, to the city's
area of impact boundaries on the south and east. There is a consistent pattern of gross
densities in the range of 2.5 to three dwelling units per acre on R-4 zoned land. To our
knowledge, Kingsbridge, with its gross density now proposed of 1.63 per acre, will be
the lowest density residential project in the City of Meridian. 1.63 is well below the two
units per acre maximum called for in the city's R-2 zone, which is the lowest density
rural residential zone found in the zoning ordinance. Back to the chart. Our total daily
vehicle trips, because of the reduced density, have been cut from 2,268 down to 1,235.
Because .of that reduced density and the reconfiguration of our streets, the daily trips
through Dartmoor projected are reduced from 800 to less than 300 vehicle trips per day.
The number of density of the lots around our perimeter generated considerable
discussion at both the Commission and City Council hearings last fall. We listened and
we have responded to the concerns of our neighbors. The total lots on our north
boundary we have cut from 22 to ten. Total number of lots on the east boundary from
16 -- actually, that's incorrect. It's down to eight, rather than just ten lots. The south
boundary along the Ten Mile feeder canal from 20 down to eight. And those along
Zaldia reduced from 12 to six. We have also enhanced the landscaping along Zaldia
Lane in response to the neighbors' concerns to the south. This is a diagram of a cross-
section showing the way we plan to grade up the 20 foot buffer strip from Zaldia Lane
up to the property line, adding an additional five feet of relief, then, a six foot vinyl fence
on top of that berm at the property line and conifer trees 20 feet.on center all along the
south side of the fence, rather than inside the backyard of each lot, as we had originally
proposed. We expect to hear testimony from property owners on Selatir Place that the
one half acre lots all along our northern and eastern boundaries do not create a
harmonious transition from the rural one and five acre lots to the north and east. As I
mentioned earlier, we have more than tripled the lot sizes along our eastem boundary
from 7,000 to over one half acre. I'd like to show a quick Powerpoint presentation here.
It's coming. This illustrates the view of our half acre lots from the three closest
backyards on Selatir Place. We have drawn large houses with 60 foot wide by 40 deep
footprints, full two stories in height, with roof peaks at 32 feet. These illustrate 4,800
square foot homes, probably among the largest that would be built in Kingsbridge and,
yet, they still have 80 feet clear between the homes on the one half acre lots. Basically
each house has two 40-foot sideyard setbacks, even with the large footprint. The
closest backyard on Selatir Place is 450 feet away from the nearest Kingsbridge home
and we will get to that in just a moment, I believe. Here we go. That's the Johnson
residence, about 450 feet. Further north the Lavigne backyard is more than 600 feet
from our nearest house or more than two football fields away. If -- and I hope when the
city approves annexation of the Kingsbridge property, the adjoining five acre lots on
Selatir Place would be entitled to apply for prompt annexation and zoning for three
dwelling units per acre or up to 15 homes on each of those five acre parcels. Now, the
present owners may have no plans to redevelop within their lifetime and that's certainly
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 27 of 89
their choice. If that's the case, their rural lifestyles will be preserved by the five acre lots
that they purchased. The nearest new home in Kingsbridge will be in the case of the
Johnson residence, about one and a half football fields or in the case of the Lavigne
residence, more than two football fields away. The number of lots adjoining the rural
lots has been cut in half from ten to five. For comparison, we also prepared a
prospective view of the ten houses that would have been built if our previous plat had
been approved. And, frankly, we see a great improvement and, frankly, an
understanding for the concern expressed last fall. The difference in openness and
vistas between the two densities is traumatic and we firmly believe we have created a
harmonious transition that's sensitive to the lifestyles and the property values of the
adjoining property owners. We have been in touch with three potential builders for our
project. Scottsdale Homes, SH Homes, and Moose Creek Builder. These are three
quality builders active in the Meridian and Eagle markets and these are samples of the
types of homes that we would expect to see in Kingsbridge. There is no mention of a
one acre lot in any of the residential districts in the city zoning ordinance and we must
presume that the city considered and rejected such a land expansive development
pattern for its future residential growth, keeping in mind the cost of extending public
water and sewer to those one acre lots and the inevitable sprawl as the city grows.
Meridian's Mayor pointed with pride last fall to the explosive growth of the city's
employment base, particularly as a direct result of Silverstone and EI Dorado. The
projection is that 14,000 jobs will be located in those two business parts by the end of
2005 and we just want to create a vibrant community that addresses a small portion of
the city's housing needs south of the freeway, in close proximity to the major job
centers, while being sensitive to the existing rural development on the adjoining county
properties. We respectfully urge your recommendation of approval of the three
applications and thank you for your consideration.
Zaremba: Thank you. Questions from the Commissioners for Mr. Elliott? All right.
Borup: I do have just one, Mr. Chairman.
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: I refer to your letter on single story homes. You say -- I think you state that
single story homes on adjoining lots in close proximity. Do you have a definition of
close proximity, what -- how many feet are you considering close? I saw your
demonstration here --
Elliott: Up to about 100 or 150 feet. We--
Borup: Something close to 150 feet.
Elliot: One slide we missed for the presentation tonight is the designation of those --
there are many copies I think here in the audience, but anywhere there was an existing
house close to our perimeter, we designated a single story to --
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 28 of 89
Borup: So 100 feet?
Elliott: It may even be slightly more than 100 feet, but it's -- there is a clear line of
demarcation between the ones that are close and the ones that are not close and that's
what we tried to show, the closest one on the eastern boundary is about 450 feet. In
Coons Hollow we have two northwesterly home sites, they have their building
envelopes by plat at the northern ends of their five acre lots, the two easterly ones are
at the south end of the lots, so they are far removed, six or seven hundred feet from our
boundary.
Borup: Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. This would be time for public testimony and I do have the
sign-up sheet. Let me ask first, though, is there a spokesman for a homeowners
association? And are you speaking on behalf of many people? We will start with you,
sir.
Turner: Good evening. My name is Brady Turner. I live at 3678 South Caleb Place in
Meridian. I have been asked to speak for all Dartmoor homeowners this evening. I
understand that I have ten minutes; is that correct?
Zaremba: Yes.
Turner: Okay. We recognize and thank the applicant for the good progress that they
have made in reducing the density and enlarging the perimeter lots to help ease the
transition. However, our primary concem is they have not gone far enough. The
current proposal is only a one step density reduction from the previous proposal, from
R-4 to R-3. The applicant states that their project is low-density rural residential zoning.
However, R-3 is rural medium density residential district, not low density. Section 11-2 -
- or 11-7-2-A of the city code states R-2 rural low-density residential district. The
purpose of the R-2 district is to permit the establishing of rural, low density, single family
dwellings and to delineate those areas where predominately rural residential
development has or is likely to occur. The proposed development is entirely surrounded
by rural properties one acre and larger. Even at R-2 zoning the minimum lot size is 58
percent smaller than the largest surrounding property. I'm not sure where Mr. Elliott got
his information, but at our homeowners meeting last Tuesday evening, all of the
homeowners of Dartmoor Subdivision agreed that R-2 zoning and not R-3 zoning is
compatible with the surrounding properties. The Dartmoor homeowners association
and all homeowners continue to stand unanimously in opposition. Our feelings are
supported by the City Council in previous application hearings. Councilman Rountree
stated, quote: We have an enclave, but reverse to the kinds of enclaves we typically
deal with, the city surrounding a rural area, and in this case we have a rural area
surrounding the city. The applicant stated that they meet the density conditions for R-2
zoning. If they meet the R-2 density requirements, then, we ask the project be zoned R-
2. Councilman Bird previously stated, quote: I think this setting, with the rural around it,
I just can't go for the density. Now, if it was R-2 or something like that, I probably could
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3. 2005
Page 29 of 89
support it. Commissioner Zaremba, you stated last time before we were -- before that,
quote, you were comfortable with low densities as we go towards the exterior of the city,
particularly as they surround existing low densities. In this case the property is
completely surrounded by low-density rural properties. There is no future city
annexation path from Kingsbridge. Moreover, it is on the fringe of Meridian's
Comprehensive Plan, which stops with the properties on the east side of Selatir Lane.
This will be the first annexation by the city into this section of Ada County. You have the
opportunity tonight to create a rural buffer between the cities of Meridian and Boise and
avoid the urban sprawl that spreads from city to city in so many metropolitan areas. We
proposed at the City Council hearing on the last application that Kingsbridge be
developed and marketed as executive homes, drawn from the executives and
professionals working in the Silverstone, EI Dorado business parks, St. Luke's Hospital,
and other Meridian businesses. This would give Meridian an opportunity to attract
homeowners who would otherwise live in Eagle due to the lack of this type of executive
home in Meridian. Mayor de Weerd has previously stated, quote: I also agreed with the
testimony that this is an opportunity for the executive houses. She further stated, quote:
Those jobs coming in do provide some opportunity for housing that currently doesn't
exist. This is certainly an opportunity to provide choices in our city for different housing
stock. The type of housing that surrounds it in this rural area-- and it is a city's area of
impact, so it is supposed to be urban, but since the homes that surround this are not
very -- excuse me -- are very nice, high quality homes, it doesn't make sense trying to
urbanize this area that is very rural. We all know how congested Eagle Road is. I don't
need to remind you of that. I work at Hewlett-Packard and what used to be a 12 minute
commute for me is now 35 minutes and that's on a good day, if I'm lucky. And Eagle
Road is only going to get worse. The applicant, we feel, with a little creative marketing,
can use this to their advantage and provide an opportunity for the executive home buyer
to look closer to their place of work and not have to traverse some of the most heavily
congested roads in the state of Idaho. Schools in this area are already over capacity.
R-2 zoning would help to reduce the impact on schools. We believe that the R-2 zoning
would be compatible with the surrounding acreages, create a transition between Boise
and Meridian and attract executive home buyers working in Meridian to live in Meridian,
as opposed to Eagle. We would support this proposal at R-2 zoning with larger
perimeter lots as transition. We do not support this development at R-3 zoning. We
have a number of secondary concerns, some of which have been addressed by the
applicant. We still remain concerned about the volume of traffic along Dartmoor Drive.
Of course, reducing the zoning to R-2 would have the greatest impact on reducing traffic
volumes along Dartmoor Subdivision. We would also like to see the applicant make Ivy
Way Drive, which is right here, between Kingsbridge Drive and Maryvale Way a cul-de-
sac. This would further deter traffic from coming down Dartmoor Drive and it would be a
simple plat change. To insure safety of the pedestrians from both Dartmoor and
Kingsbridge Subdivisions, we would like to see sidewalks installed along both sides of
Dartmoor Drive to Eagle Road. Since these proposals are all off site and cannot come
under a development agreement, we respectfully ask the city, as a condition of
approval, to enjoin the applicant to negotiate a contract with the Dartmoor homeowners
association to construct these sidewalks at applicant's expense prior to the completion
of phase one of Kingsbridge. The applicant has offered to install vinyl privacy fencing
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 30 of 89
along Dartmoor Drive to the cul-de-sacs, but is apparently under the impression that the
homeowners do not want that. I believe there is confusion on this point and we have at
least one homeowner that would like to reopen discussions on that point. We thank the
staff for the recommendations to prohibit construction traffic along Dartmoor Drive or the
ditch riders access to the Ten Mile feeder. However, since the recommended placement
of the signs at the entrance -- at the entrance to Kingsbridge Subdivision, construction
traffic will have already driven through Dartmoor before seeing those signs. We feel this
needs to be addressed further. One option would be to install speed bumps just to the
west of Kingsbridge on Dartmoor drive to further discourage construction traffic. We
also feel that this needs to be a condition of approval. The applicant has offered to
restrict some of the perimeter lots to single story homes in the CC&Rs. We feel this is a
wonderful concession, we really like this. However, we feel that many people don't read
the CC&Rs prior to building their homes. We would like to have those lots restricted on
the title deed and the plat as well. We are concerned that the development of this
property will reduce the irrigation tail water flowing off the previously irrigated land into
the Dartmoor pond, which has been used for our fire suppression and irrigation. We are
also concerned about the location of the storm water basin, roughly at Newbridge Drive
and Benter Way, that is right about there. The general slope ofthe land slopes down in
this direction and down in this direction from the holding pond. We are concerned also
that there is no holding pond on the 20 acres to the south of the Ten Mile Lateral.
Historically, our water -- storm water and drainage has been piped across the Ten Mile
Lateral in a feeder pipe, roughly about here, into a ditch that is, then, fed into the
Dartmoor irrigation pond. We need a guarantee that the storm water runoff from the --
within Kingsbridge will be contained within Kingsbridge and will not contaminate our
irrigation or domestic water, nor will runoff flow across any Dartmoor properties which
are at a lower elevation. I don't have time to discuss the remaining recommendations
that was in the staff report. We thank you for a lot of the excellent recommendations
that you had made. We would request and agree with Mr. Nary that the city enter into
a development agreement with the applicant to insure that these recommendations are
fulfilled. In closing, while the applicant has stated that they met with the homeowners,
what was unsaid was the proposal for their review was submitted on January 14th and
the meeting with the homeowners did not incur until January 26th. Based on the
comments made by this Commission and by City Council, it was the homeowners'
understanding that it was your desire that the applicant would meet with the surrounding
homeowners to resolve outstanding issues prior to submitting a new application. We
were very disappointed that this did not happen. We feel that there is still a number of
issues that need to be resolved before providing our support for this project. However,
this hearing deadline did not allow sufficient time to allow continue ongoing negotiations.
We are, therefore, asking this hearing be continued to allow time for the homeowners
and the applicant to resolve these issues and come to an agreement that both parties
can support. Thank you for your consideration.
Zaremba: Question for Mr. Turner?
Borup: Yes. I had one. I don't know if we have ever heard -- how many residences are
there in Dartmoor?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 31 of 89
TUrner: There are 15 -- there are 15 homes in Dartmoor.
Borup: Okay. And do you know what the square footage would be of the smallest
home?
Tomer: The CC&Rs require a minimum of 2,000 square feet.
Borup: Two thousand. Okay.
Turner: I be.lieve my house may be one of the smallest and it's currently 2,400 square
feet.
Borup: All right. Thank you.
Turner: You're welcome.
Zaremba: Any other Commissioners? Thank you. Mr. Turner spoke clearly and
eloquently and we understood his points. We have quite a number of people signed up
and I will go through the list, but if you are a person who signed up and Mr. Turner was
speaking for you, would you, please, indicate that. We understood what he said. Let
me begin with -- I believe it's Lisa Becker?
Becker: Lisa Becker. Anna, could you, please, put up the map that shows our
property?
Canning: It will take just a moment.
Becker: Okay. Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Lisa
Becker. I reside at 3421 South Selatir Place in Meridian. I have three issues that I want
to talk with you about today. The density of the transition lots. There is no landscape
buffer along the east side. And there is incompatibility with the land use in the existing
area. I can show you where we live. We live on five acres right here. I wanted to talk a
little bit about the lot size comparison. This is a scaled representation of our lot. It's 5.4
acres. This is what they want to put beside it. Half acres. I don't consider that
transitional density. What we are proposing is one-acre transitional density. This is a
representation of one acre scaled to size compared with our lot. The Comprehensive
Plan states that new urban density subdivisions which abut low density residential land,
use landscape screening or transitional densities with larger, more compatible lots. So,
I think we need to talk about what larger, more compatible lots look like. I don't feel a
half acre is a larger, more compatible lot up against five acres. And they do that in the
Comprehensive Plan to buffer the interface between urban level densities and rural
densities. Kingsbridge has actually provided neither a landscape buffer or larger
compatible lots against our property. I agree with the comments earlier. Mayor de
Weerd stated that she would like to see a high-end executive development in this area.
I talked with the developer about the beauty of the lots that would be adjacent to us.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 32 of ag
One acre lots would have an unobstructed view of the mountains forever, looking out
over our five acre pastures. He could actual get prime price for that. So, we are
proposing that you combine Lots 5 and 6 -- he has five and six into one acre lots and
Lots 3 and 4 into one acre lots along the southeast edge of the property. We are
proposing that he provide landscaped buffer. Currently, the only buffer that's there is
the irrigation easement and it's just a weedy fire hazard. So, we ask that you follow the
Comprehensive Plan, which talks about how new zoning must be harmonious with the
current development and just to give you a feel for the -- the feel of that area, they are
basically surrounded completely by five and ten acre lots. Dartmoor has the smallest
lots, they are one acre, but, basically, it's surrounded all by five and ten acre lots and its
home values are between 350 and a million dollars. So, that's the feel, that's the
character of the area that we want to preserve. Appreciate your time.
Zéremba: Thank you. Bob Becker. You're welcome to state that you agree with the
previous speaker. Is that what you're indicating? You wouldn't disagree with your wife,
would you?
B.Becker: There may be only one -- there may be one point.
Zaremba: Please state your name.
B.Becker: Could you bring up the picture of the surrounding property -- our properties?
Bob Becker. I reside at 3421 South Selatir Place.
Zaremba: Thank you.
B.Becker: Our lot's right there. This lot right here, this is 2.71 acres. That was a
requirement as a buffer lot when they put in this subdivision right here, which is called
Bremerton, and these are one acre lots and they put a 2.71 acre buffer lot between
these larger lots and our subdivision and these one acre lots. So, I don't think it's
unreasonable to require one acre lots back here against a 5.75 acre lot, a 5.41 acre lot.
A 5.41 acre lot. I'm sorry. This is the 5.75. This is the 5.4. This is the 5.41. Thank
you. Any questions?
Moe: Yes. One. If, in fact, you had acre lots there, would you be opposed to do two
story homes in that area, then?
B.Becker: No.
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
B.Becker: Anything else? Thank you.
Zaremba: Frank Shoemaker.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 33 of 89
Shoemaker: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Frank Shoemaker. I
currently am building a home approximately right there on Zaldia Lane. Five-acre
parcel. Address is 4497 Zaldia Lane. The developer proposes a 50 percent ratio of
homes along the area right there. I believe there is a ratio to -- as a transition period for
Dartmoor. On this side in here he has 22,000 square foot lots. That's approximately a
ten percent ratio. Down here on Zaldia Lane, the south end, he has 16,000 square foot
lots, which is approximately a seven percent ratio. He argues that because that area
there is zoned medium density, which it is not, it is in the Comprehensive Plan as a
future consideration. I guess currently it's RUT zoning, rural urban transition, one home
per five acres, with one home per one acre with city services extended. Because of the
high density and the medium density he proposes against our five and ten acre lots
there, he proposes at least over 17,000 square foot -- or 16,000 square foot lots. That
area is no different than that area or that area. We should be the same, no matter what
the conclusion is, on these perimeter lots, we are perimeter also. The developer -- we
have asked for one level homes and the developer has -- has identified I think three or
four homes right through there as one level. However, there are two lots right here, I
believe Lots 8 and 10, that he does not designate and we would appreciate those to be
one level homes also. Because my house is right here and Phil's are right there, so that
is a direct view of our property there like so. If he would like to move some two story
down here on South Eagle to buffer the extensive traffic noise, that would be -- that
would be all right. In conclusion, I would like to say that the -- as stated here earlier this
evening, the City Council suggested estate size lots. The lots that are proposed are not
estate size lots. It appears to me the developer is more concerned with satisfying the
needs of the Dartmoor people, because the perimeter people, as you can see, they
have a 50 percent ratio that backs up to them, we have a ten percent and a seven
percent ratio abutting the transition area, which I don't think is correct, but I do
appreciate the one level homes. Thank you,
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: I have a question of Mr. Shoemaker.
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Shoemaker: Yes, sir.
Borup: You had made a statement on estate size lots?
Shoemaker: Yes, sir.
Borup: What is the definition of an estate size lot?
Shoemaker: Something bigger than what we have, I guess. I guess it's in the minds of
the -- I would think they should be -- I would like to see one acre lots, personally.
Borup: But where is that definition?
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
March 3. 2005
Page 34 of 89
Shoemaker: The definition of estate size lot?
Borup: Yeah. It says -- that's what I was just trying to -- you're stating that it's in the
mind of the beholder.
Shoemaker: Yeah. Right. That was the Mayor's statement, you know, estate size lots.
I'm assuming it would be something close to a one-acre parcel size and not something
that's a high density.
Borup: So, is the consensus that Meridian does not now have any subdivisions of
estate size lots?
Shoemaker: That is exactly right. Everything is over in Eagle. That's where the estates
-- that's one acre and the estate size homes are over there. Meridian, we have the high
density in-fill projects and --
Borup: So, Meridian Greens and some of those fine subdivisions like that would not be
considered --
Shoemaker: There is some portions of Meridian Greens that are very nice and they
have almost one acre lots I think on the south end of that project, but on the interior of
that project, when it first started, those were the small lots also.
Borup: South end are 15, 16, I believe --
Shoemaker: They are large enough to have detached shops approved on them, so --
but -- any other questions?
Borup: Okay. I have none.
Newton-Huckabay: I just have the same question that Mr. -- or Commissioner Moe had
for Mr. Becker. If you had a one-acre lot, would you want a one-story house?
Shoemaker: I guess there is give and take every place, but I'm going to hold tight with
the one level homes, because I don't -- I think the - depending upon the setback,. the
way it is right now, those lots on the south end of the project, you know, they butt right
up to that buffer zone and landscaping in a two level house. Driving down Zaldia Lane
or the view from my front yard, two story -- big two story homes would have to be built
there. If it's on acre lots -- I would prefer to have one acre. I would prefer to have one
level homes, as to the two story, period. I think the reason we have two story homes in
the majority of our subdivisions is because the lot sizes are so small that it dictates in a
certain price category that you have to have that two-story configuration.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So--
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 35 of 89
Shoemaker: I prefer one level. No.
Zaremba: Thank you. Jeff McKee.
Newton-Huckabay: Can I ask a question?
Zaremba: I'm sorry. Hang on, Jeff. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I have so much paperwork in front of me on this project, so you will
have to forgive me. Was there not -- was it along Zaldia Lane that there was going to
end up being approximately 11 feet height --
Borup: Yes. Five foot berm with a six-foot fence.
Newton-Huckabay: Five foot berm and a six fence along all of Zaldia Lane --- or the
property -- is that -- yeah. Okay. Okay. Thank you. We can continue. I was done.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Jeff McKee. All right. Thank you very much. Marked in
the column for against. Sharon McKee. Thank you. Okay, Also marked in the column
against. Jean Marie Patteson. All right. Thank you. Catch up on my paperwork here.
Michael -- and it looks like it starts with an R. It might be Reef. All right. Thank you.
Also marked as against. Tim Rule. R-u-I-e. Also Renee Rule. Neither appear to be
here at the moment, but they are both marked as against. They are also Dartmoor
residents I'm told. David Lavene or Lavigne. I'll let you pronounce it when you get here,
sir.
Lavigne: Commissioner and Commission, thanks for your time. My name is David
Lavigne. It is pronounced Lavigne. 'live at 3317 South Selatir Place, which is located
right there. And I have to say I concur with everything that Mr. -- Brady said and went
through in his presentation. He did a great job. And there is a couple points that I
wanted to go over. One of them was -- and still seems to be the major consensus is the
density surrounding the RUT zoning of Ada County, the transition -- the lack of transition
lots and one of the points I wanted to bring up about it was Mr. Elliott kind of brought up
in his proposal is we are now at 1.6 homes per acre, which has come quite a ways from
what he was originally -- the original proposal was and I appreciate that and -- but if you
look at -- I have looked at all the surrounding properties and you look at all these
exterior properties, they are all five, ten acres, and ten acres and one acres, if you total
all those properties up, you got about 115 acres. There is actually 31 homes on those
acres. That means there is -- the density for that surrounding area is .27 homes per
acre. Okay. We got 1.6 compared to .27. That's six times the density of what's there.
So, that's pretty extreme. And you talk about there is 50 percent transitions between
Dartmoor and proposed half acres -- there is ten percent of transitions, but that's six
times the density of what is currently right there right now. Sure, there may be some
future changes down the road, somebody might redevelop something or somebody sell
their parcel off, but this is what's here now, this is what we are looking at. So, that's
kind of what I wanted to bring up. And I'm sure everybody's seen some of the articles in
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 38 of B9
the Statesman just recently in last Sunday's paper, some of the issues and whatnot, and
I can't believe that annexing this property is something that's actually going to be good
for the City of Meridian right now. As Mayor de Weerd had said in our December 14th
meeting, she said I think this is a great development, but I think you need to find
someplace else in Meridian to put it. So, I agree with those comments and that's all I
have to say. Thanks.
Zaremba: Thank you. Tammy Cook. Okay. Was already spoke for. And that would
be probably R. M. Cook as well. Okay. I believe it's Tim Petsch -- possibly. P-e-t-s-c-
h. Okay. The last three are -- I mentioned are all marked as against. Lisa Petsch also
marked against. Thank you. Bradford Deadman. Close?
Deadman: My name is Bradford Deadman. My wife and I live on 3644 Zaldia Lane.
Right here. I'll never be able to hold this steady. Right at a pinpoint. Right at the back
of this five acre plat. As usual, I regularly print up my remarks, but as you have seen
twice now, I -- the recent comments I hear are driving me in a more urgent direction.
The first one is I was quite uncomfortable with comments Ken Elliott made regarding the
silent majority, in the hopes that one third to one half of Dartmoor would be in support of
this project. Also the attack on Brady Turner. He tried to -- he tried to debase Brady
Turner's credibility as a proper representative of his neighborhood and I feel that's
unjust. One thing that I'm quite curious about is on page four of the packet that Ken
Elliott provided you, he cites that there is an example here of where there is several
other subdivisions that were built along this model where there weren't opposing
neighbors. I'm quite curious if -- and although I'm not asking you to refer to it, unless
you wish, but I'm quite curious if, indeed, all the perimeter property owners showed up
in opposition to those other projects that were cited. On the slide referred to regarding
David Lavigne's property on Selatir, there was a remark made that his home is two
football fields away from the closest comparable lot. And, of course, as David indicated
earlier, his property is right here. Well, I pretty clearly see on the same map -- or the
same slide that there is a home right here, another one right here, with adjacent
properties right here. So, I almost feel that it's a bit unfair to compare -- in an effort to
devalue David Lavigne's argument that his home is in too close proximity --
approximately two football fields, when, indeed, there are several homes closer.
Moving onto what I really came here to talk about. My efforts along Zaldia have been to
talk to several of my neighbors. Along the Zaldia property here, of course, I have talked
to Phillip Shoemaker and Frank right along here -- or, excuse me, Phillip and, forgive
me, gentlemen. I have spoken with my other neighbors here, here -- or, excuse me, the
owner of both of these properties is here this evening. I have spoken to a gentleman
that owns property along here, Bott Lane, it's been very interesting -- in fact, that we are
working way, as you know for the night here, we have worked our way slowly around
Dartmoor, around Selatir -- we haven't spoken to Terri yet, but that's coming up. All the
way around to Zaldia and the same argument continues, that we are all in support of
good subdivision development. We are all in favor of a one acre plat. We are all in
favor of one level homes as a perimeter. The one thing that if -- I guess I'm done. But I
just want to let you know that we are all still in that same position again. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 37 of 89
Zaremba: Thank you.
Deadman: Any questions for me?
Zaremba: Donna Rich. Okay. I can't make out the next one, but it might be Kelly
something or other. Somebody who marked neutral. Okay. Do you care to speak?
Rich: I do. Thank you. Kava Rich and I live at I live at 663 East Lake Creek in
Observation Point, which is fairly close to the proposed neighborhood. I speak to you
tonight as a proposed buyer in this area. We have had many homes south of the
interstate and we are very interested in staying in south Meridian, mainly because of the
traffic that is found on the other side of the interstate. I am looking forward to
purchasing an estate size property. Commissioner Borup, I do not know what the
criteria for an estate size property is, however, in this section of Meridian I would think
that the neighboring comments of the one acre lots would be appropriate for an estate
size. That happens to be the size that I would like to build on also. We have done
some extensive looking out -- we have been trying. to find some lots to build on and
there is just not much to be found in south Meridian. To find any estate size property
you have to go to Kuna and I'm not interested in living in Kuna. I love Meridian, I love to
live in Meridian, I do not want to move to Eagle or Kuna to find a lot size that I need to
build an estate where I can raise my three boys, which need at least an acre to run on.
Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions from the Commissioners? Thank you. Tim
O'Brien. All right. Thank you. Marked as against. Must be Theresa Turner. I assume
Mr. Turner spoke for you. Okay. Also marked as against. T. Wallace. Thank you.
Marked as against. And Lori Wallace. Same. Okay. Rich Schuttsman. Is that close?
It begins S-c-h-u-t-t-s-m -- I'm not sure what follows that. Thank you. Rich and Brenda
both. Rich. I'm sorry. Okay. Phil Allen. Okay. Lori Allen, then.
Allen: Well, I gave you a plat -- my name is Lori Allen and I live on Terri Drive. Right
there. And my neighbor is sitting behind me and he will probably speak, too. He's right
there. Kingsbridge has made some progress, some superficial effort to appease us so
we would go away and quit arguing, perhaps, but the bottom line is it is still way too
dense and an unsolicited speaker came from some other neighborhood and came to tell
you that she would buy the property and I'm a realtor and I know there are many other
people who would be more than interested in acre properties. So, I hope that you will
try to make that work and put acres on at least the perimeter and maybe the half acres
on the inside and we could serve a lot of people that don't have that kind of property
right now. Thank you. Oh, one more thing. That map does show you how dense it is
when you superimpose his project on top of that. Like that it doesn't show you. And,
then, he goes back to the plan that just shows his plan without this landing area. So, I
put them together and hope that you can see how busy it gets, Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. I believe we are looking for Lee Moncarr. Please.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3. 2005
Page 38 of 89
Moncarr: My name is Lee Moncarr. (live at 3415 South Terri Drive, about right there.
And, actually, with all the properties around, my house is probably the closest to
anybody and I'm thinking probably out my back door to their back door in this area is
probably less a hundred feet. It's just sad that my house was configured that way, but
my house was probably one of the first ones in the whole area in '74 when it was built.
And spent a year and a half remodeling and adding on. This is way too dense around
here for our area, you know, and that's the same complaint everybody has. If this does
go through, I would surely hope there is a stop sign right here within the next year,
because that's a mess. And I know -- I watch people -- and I have done it myself -- right
here at the bottom of the canal, anytime between like 4:00 o'clock to 6:00 o'clock you go
through Thousand Springs to get over to Victory to get through, because you will sit
there for 20 minutes easy and I have seen people come through Victory and go through
Tuscany to pop out over here on Rome to get out, to get south, because you can't get
through in that area for a good two hours and if this is going through, this should be
kicked open four lanes clear down passed all this, because this is a nightmare for traffic.
I sat last night and watched eight people turn and go through Thousand Springs to get
to Slate Creek to come through on Simms and out Brady's Jewel right there to get
through. And it's just -- it's the same going this way on this, you know, you dump all
these people out here, the traffic is going to be even more horrendous, but the whole
situation just doesn't quit fit. One acre lots would be nice. They are proposing four --
two single level homes right here between us and Aliens, which is neat, but, you know, I
guess I can't help it. If they are going to put a perimeter fence here, a six foot fence,
and, then, have a 25 foot buffer zone to their backyard for another fence, from what I
understand they are having a pathway or walkway along back here, they are going to
pipe that ditch in and that's going to be nice, because we get rid of the weeds factor,
but, still it -- I don't know. I think it all comes down to -- I'm not even going to say.
That's all.
Zaremba: Thank you, sir. Sandy Moncarr. Anything to add? In support of your
husband. Also marked against. Okay. One name that was only on one of these lists
and that is David Seegmiller.
Seegmiller: Mr. Commissioner, Members of the Commission, my name is David
Seegmiller, I live at 4880 Bott Lane. I own a property right here off of Zaldia Lane and
Coons Hollow. I wish to speak to two points. The first is that Mr. and Mrs. Beckhurst
spoke well of the transition and the larger lots. I ask that you consider that along the
southern end of Kingsbridge to the five-acre lots in Coons Hollow Subdivision. The
second point is regarding the 1,200 -- estimated 1,235 vehicle trips per day through the
subdivision. And all of those trips will be directed along Eagle Road. And as was stated
previously, the traffic situation there is not good. At the Silverstone business
development on Eagle Road south, Eagle Road turns into a two-lane road. The
intersection of Eagle and Victory is a four way stop with a flashing red light. There is a
fire station -- rural fire station, which is to be built on Eagle Road, but it's not built yet.
Eagle Road has not been widened yet and an intersection, which is -- well, it will be
widened, has not been improved yet, as well as the remaining two-lane stretch down to
Kingsbridge Subdivision. So, I think as far as the issues relating to emergency
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3. 2005
Page 39 of 89
response and vehicle trips and congestion need to be addressed. Now whether this
subdivision is worthy of approval or not, these are separate issues which regard timing
and infrastructure, which also need to be addressed. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Isn't that project-- that road-widening project getting underway in
2005? 2006?
Zaremba: It sounds like there is a consensus for 2007 on that project. Okay. That was
the end of the list of those that had signed up. If anybody who didn't sign up cares to
speak and nobody spoke for you, this would be the time to come forward.
Kell: My name is Bob Kell, K-e-I-I. I live at 1820 Mace Road, Eagle, Idaho. I am a real
estate agent for Sell-Equity Real Estate and also a partner Kell-Shaller Land
Development. I am representing the two sellers of the two properties here. What we
looked for when we brought this property to the buyer is the larger piece on the north, in
the future Comprehensive Plan was 2.7 houses per acre. The lower part in the future
Comprehensive Plan was eight houses per acre. Right now with their proposal at 1.63
houses per acre is drastically lower than your recommended -- or your future
Comprehensive Plan recommendation. The other thing we look for in land is the
proximity to the freeway. We knew that the Eagle Road and the stop light at Eagle and
Victory would be coming soon and the industrial park there at Silverstone. And we also
looked at other developments in north and west Meridian. We looked at the four and
five and six houses per acre. I think I saw another housing project tonight either earlier
or coming later, 450 houses on 155 acres. This is drastically lower than that. I'd just
like to ask you to approve it. Thank you.
Zaremba: Okay. Anyone else?
Krasinski: Good evening. I'm Chantelle Krasinski and I live at 3475 East Falcon Drive.
We are the neighbors to the Moncarrs right here. This is oUr property right here. A five-
acre property. And we agree that the developer has come a long way. He met with us
after he submitted his new proposal and we had talked to him about one acre properties
around the perimeter -- around the entire perimeter, and he indicated he did not think
that he would be able to sell those and with all the building on the one acre properties in
Eagle and the huge demand for those nice houses and those nice properties, I disagree
that he couldn't sell those. I think he could and it would be a nice transition from the five
acre properties and the ten acre properties and, then, you know, maybe half acre on the
interior or at least an R-2 throughout, like the Councilmember suggested. I think
Meridian is a great place to live, but I know that Eagle is looked at differently I think
because they have the larger property lots and some people do want that. I think the
smaller properties on the interior surrounding the city with public transit might be able to
help those people out and, then, I think as you go out further from the center of the city,
having some bigger properties just gives people more choices and Eagle Road right
now, at the intersection with the four way stop, just isn't set up to handle high density
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 40 of 89
and I don't think it has to be high density. I think we can have the high density closer in
and, then, as we go out we can have lower density and, then, everybody gets a choice
of what they would like for their property. And that's just my opinion. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Anyone else? Sir, come ahead.
Hill: My name is Julian Hill. I live at 12543 West Highland. I'm, actually, in Boise right
now, but I'm only about a mile and a half, maybe, away in the subdivision just south of
where we are talking about. I work as a loan officer for a local mortgage company and I
have probably three or four different families who are expressing interest in that area as
far as wanting to buy properties there and they are under the assumption -- they are
more interested in the one acre parcels, as opposed to the smaller ones. So, that's alii
have to say.
Zaremba: Thank you. Anyone else? All right. Thank you. Mr. Elliott, you have ten
minutes. I assume you have been making notes.
Elliott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not sure I have ten minutes of notes, but I will try
to wrap up quickly. Again, for the record, myna me is Ken Elliott, appearing on behalf of
the applicant Vision First, LLC. This is not a high-density project. We, effectively, are
building at an R-2 low rural density density, which is the lowest called for in the entire
City of Meridian zoning code. Our average density 1.63 units per acre, average lot size
17,200 square feet, that nearly reaches the threshold of the minimum size for the R-2.
The reason we have asked for some flexibility is to allow a broader range of lot sizes.
Our lots now will be a minimum of 12,000, which, as I said, meets the R-3, also a rural
density in the city's code. The executive projects that some of the folks testified and I
commented on, Island Woods, The Island, Two Rivers up in Eagle, they have 8,000
square foot lots. Our minimum lot size will be 50 percent larger than the smallest lots in
those executive projects in Eagle. They also go up to a half acre. We have about 33
lots, about one quarter of our total, will be half acre lots, we think that's a good
proportion to target the executive estate lots. In my view a half acre lot is an estate lot.
I believe that the city zoning code and comp plan support that as a low density, rural
designation within the city. About half of our lots are between 14,000 and 21,000
square feet and, then, only a quarter of them are in the lower range of between 12 and
15 thousand square feet. We think it's important for a vibrant community to offer this
range. We don't want to build an executive enclave for Kingsbridge, we want to have a
variety of family sizes, of incomes, of age groups, we think that's essential to building a
good community that will have that staying power. The prior filing before meeting with
the neighborhood group, we did -- after the City Council hearing we were on a very
short fuse to ask for reconsideration, so we went ahead and redrew the plan drastically
in response to the City Council's comments and, then, sought reconsideration at the
January 4th hearing when recommended, then, that there not be reconsideration, but
that we re-file the application. We had the work done, we went ahead and re-filed it.
We fully intended and, in fact, did meet with the neighbors two times after that, we felt
that we had responded to all the neighbors' and the City Council's concerns in
drastically redrawing the plan and that's why we presented it to the neighbors after filing.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 41 of 89
All the surrounding lots are in the county. They are on septic tanks, they are on wells,
they were all built before the tremendous growth occurred that has happened south of 1-
84 in the past ten years. The city's plan and the city's area of impact agreement with
Ada County contemplates that there will be a large amount of urban development south
of the freeway and we think that with the reduced density to 125 lots we have created a
harmonious transition from the existing rural lots to the more urban densities, both south
and west of our project. The comment that the Mayor made in December that this was
a great development that should be put elsewhere referred to our 200 lot -- 219 lot
project. Rather than moving to another location, some property that we didn't own, we
opted, instead, to cut 95 lots from the project. Lori Allen referred to that as superficial
progress. We have gone from 237 lots, the project that the Commission saw last
September, down to 125 lots, 112 of the original lots are gone, only 125 are left. That's
just about 50 percent of the project that's gone. Our average lot size, again, was at
8,400, now it's 17,200 square feet. The traffic arguments, we think that, in fact, our
project is in the right place at the right time. 'f we develop one acre lots all the way to
Kuna, the traffic on South Eagle will just get worse and there won't be enough houses in
close proximity to the job centers to house all the people who are going to be moving to
the city. ACHD has the canal crossing north of Victory Road on Eagle in its immediate
construction program, I believe it still is 2005. Once that's completed they have funding
for the improvements of the Victory and Eagle intersection. We will be building frontage
improvements all along our Eagle Road frontage. We are creating additional width of
Eagle Road for a left turn pocket southbound and for decel and accellanes northbound
at our main Kingsbridge entry. In response to the concerns about water quality and
quantity, the ground water issue, we have a letter in that packet that I presented to the
Commission from our project engineer Gordon Bates of the Land Group that addresses
those concerns. We think that it's a lot more responsible and compatible now that urban
services are adjacent to our property, to extend public water and sewer through our site
and develop an urban project, rather than one-acre rural lots with another 57 or 75 wells
and septic tanks put in the ground. We think it will be much better long term for all of
the rural residences in the surrounding area if this project is put on public utilities, which
is what we propose. If there are any specific questions from the Commission to our
engineer, Mr. Bates is here and available to answer those questions.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions you would direct to the engineer? Questions
for Mr. Elliott.
Moe: Yes. I do have one. Based on your -- the hearing with City Council, was there
any discussion with your group whatsoever about doing any perimeter one acre lots and
whatnot to try and do some transition? You know, going from the five down to a half-
acre, you know, that's quite drastic as well. I mean I was just curious, was there any
discussion at all with your developers?
Elliott: We discussed going up to one half acre around the entire perimeter, which when
we met with the Dartmoor neighbors a year ago they were more than happy to accept.
We -- the project that the Council objected to had 8,000 square foot lots on the east and
north and south boundaries. All of those have now tripled. So, we haven't gone up to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3. 2005
Page 42 of ag
one acre. We don't think that's an affordable or responsible way to develop land that's
served by public water and sewer, but we think that half acre lots are great executive
home sites and will meet the portion of the market that will be able to afford those.
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Commissioners, do we need discussion before we close the Public Hearing
or are we ready for that?
Borup: I'd like some discussion, but it can be after the hearing is closed.
Zaremba: Does staff have anything to add?
Canning: Yes. I did want to say one thing. I was out of the room at the time, but I
believe a statement was made about not being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
designation. It is consistent with the low-density designation. I poured through the
Comprehensive Plan for some idea of the estate residential. There is no definition of
estate residential. There is a discussion of ranchettes, which would be one acre or
larger, but there is nothing in the land use policy that refers to ranchette housing within
the city limits. Now, there is other discussions about the community as a whole. So, I'm
not sure where to guide you on that issue. My recollection of the City Council hearing is
that there weren't any specific sizes mentioned. I believe the range was -- that was
generally discussed was a half acre to an acre and that's just my -- my recollection of it.
I didn't go back and research the minutes. I have to tell you that I think requiring one
acre of this entire area would not be consistent with the -- with what a city is and what
the City of Meridian is. I know that Eagle has a different view, but I think it's important to
state that.
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners?
Rohm: I think, Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearings on all three
items, nine, ten, and eleven.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? The
Public Hearing is closed.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Discussion?
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 43 of 89
Rohm: Looking at this map, which was entered into testimony, I see that there are
some stub streets to the adjacent properties. Well, stub streets are placed in a
proposed development with anticipation that as the adjacent properties are next to
properties that have been brought into the city, they, too, then, have an opportunity to
develop themselves. I'm not saying anyone individual or any of you will be developing,
bot these stub streets are placed within a subdivision, so that those options are made
available and I think that it is unlikely that this will be the end of development in that part
of the city and I support you folks in trying to maintain a rural feel to your properties, but
I also believe that transition can't be -- remain everything as it is, because -- otherwise,
you would end up with five acre parcels throughout this property, just as the parcels that
are divided that each of you live on currently and --
Zaremba: I'm sorry, we can't -- the Public Hearing is closed.
Rohm: In any case, I wanted to make these comments, because transition is a difficult
thing in many areas and I think that by taking a look at this proposal versus what had
been brought before this Commission before, has significantly altered the proposed
development, from my perspective, and in my view does address transition. So, that's
my comments on this at this time.
Zaremba: Thank you, Commissioner Rohm. I would have to say that I perhaps take a
slightly opposing view to that. And, again, based on the same demonstration that we
have been given and I think the reason I feel differently about this one, the majority of
subdivisions that we get are around the edge of the city, as is this one, but their
perimeters are current -- currently farmed farmland. The difference that I see in this
project is it's really an in-fill. It already has developed land around it. It's no longer in
the middle of farmland that may eventually develop exactly the same way as the
proposal is. The majority of people that have spoken have indicated that they have no
intention of breaking up their house and I realize we hear that even from large parcels of
farmland, people will come and say, you know, my 100 acres is next door to this and I'm
never going to sell it and, then, two months later we get a proposal for them. But I think
the difference on this one is that it actually is in the middle of developed land. Yes, five
acres and one an acre and, you know, five and a half acres, are large developments,
but this is an in-fill to that and I see some room for treating this subdivision differently
than we would one that's surrounded by currently farmed farmland.
Rohm: Then I would say, then, why have stub streets. I'm--
Zaremba: I would question that as well. They don't go anywhere.
Rohm: If, in fact, they are never going to go anywhere, why would you put a stub street
in that -- I'm -- it appears to me that a stub street is put in with the intent that it affords
the possibility of future development down the road and so if, in fact, you're putting the
stub street in, then, that -- with the assumption that there is still that potential and --
anyway, that's as I view it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 44 of ag
Zaremba: I certainly see your point. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Director Canning, you made a comment earlier about you don't
think that's what the city is about. Could you expound -- I didn't really follow the vein of
your statement there.
Canning: This is -- cities are about being urban and one-acre lots are not urban. There
are issues associated with providing services, it's difficult, it's expensive, it's expensive
for the city to maintain, especially for ACHD to maintain roads at those kinds of
densities. In my professional planning -- planner role I don't think that one acre lots are
suitable for a city. Now, I understand that the city wants a variety of the housing product
type and when this application first came in I suggested that they go with half acre to
three-quarter acre lots in recognition -- and that was going against my grain in all cases.
If you usually hear me in a pre-app I don't say that kind of stuff. But I recognized in this
case that it was important. But in my estimate that -- this is your decision to make, but I
just want to caution you against going for a full one-acre subdivision. It's not something
that's really contemplated in our -- I don't believe it's contemplated in our
Comprehensive Plan. I have looked through it and --
Zaremba: Would we be able to guess if this were not annexed and it remained in the
county, what density would the county approve?
Canning: The county will not allow this property to develop unless it's denied
annexation by us, because it is next to the city limits of Meridian, They will not allow
development, unless it is provided urban services. So, they would be allowed one unit
per five acres. That plan to develop at one unit per five acres would have to include a
redevelopment plan at urban densities of three units to the acre.
Zaremba: I didn't understand that last sentence.
Borup: Yeah. They have done that in the past where they wanted it to be able to
redevelop at three acres, so -- I mean three per acre. Normally they'd require the house
put to one side, so in future redevelopment you could have the additional lots.
Zaremba: They would allow currently only a density of one house on five acres, but you
would have to so position that house that it --
Borup: And, then, the design of the subdivision.
Canning: Exactly.
Zaremba: Okay.
Canning: And regarding stub streets, since you asked me a question.
Zaremba: Yes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 45 of 89
Canning: Remember, that this is forever. These lot patterns are forever. These aren't -
- you know, now even though that the folks living in these five acre lots may want to stay
there for five, ten, 15, 20 years, 30 years from now we are going to be wishing we had
stub streets and I can tell you that much. I mean it's -- these decisions you make last a
very very very long time, so --
Rohm: Thank you.
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup, you appear --
Borup: I do have some thoughts and I don't -- some of them are questions. I -- you
know, the large lots in Eagle, I know a good number of those are not on sewer. Some
of them may be and some that are and I think that's already been discussed, that the
city ordinances don't really even discuss one acre lots and I think because of that it's
just -- it's not something that's practical for city water and sewer. Comments on effect of
surrounding developments -- this is from looking at other projects that we have had
come before us and seeing the experiences over the years, but there is a big difference
between impact on a development that has access through an existing development
and another one that abuts the backyards, much lessor impact, if any, when it's the
back of the properties that are adjoining them. I don't know if this was -- I guess this
has been alluded to, but I think that a land owner or applicant should have some
expectation that the Comprehensive Plan will be followed on property that they
purchase or look at purchasing. It's been stated the north property is low density, which
is up to three units per acre. The other is medium density, three to eight. We are not
even discussing anything of that density now. And I guess -- and I need to just mention
some of my personal experience. I live in a one-acre subdivision, surrounded by five
acre subdivisions, so -- not surrounded, but on -- across the street are five acre lots.
Over the years that has changed and -- you know, I now -- I landscaped the whole acre
and it's a job to mow and garden and that whole thing. A lot of the people in our
subdivision half of theirs is weeds, some of them have pastures, a couple of them have
horses that's got nothing but dirt. The same thing in the subdivisions across from us,
five acres, were all just pastures with the -- and that's it. But what's happened now is
most of those five acres have now become very high density subdivisions, 45 foot lots,
with office buildings near our subdivision. That's how -- that's how the five acres have
developed. You know, when we -- in our neighborhood we were expecting to be -- we
thought we were in a rural neighborhood. I'd love to see a subdivision gone in there of a
third to half acre lots, rather than -- rather than 4,000 foot lots. And, then, finally, just -- I
hear a lot of interest from people calling me, asking about lots, and the biggest interest I
hear is in the third to half acre. They want a large size lot where they have got room to
play, room for a yard, they don't want their neighbors right up close, but they are not
really looking to maintain an acre lot and all that that entails. Twelve to eighteen
thousand foot lots I think there is going to be a lot of demand for and a lot of -- and it's
going to be upper end homes that are going to have an interest in that type of thing.
That's alii have got to say.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3. 2005
Page 46 of eg
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: A couple of comments as well. Based upon what this subdivision was originally
to what it is now, you know, doing my review of this project, you know, they have done a
very credible job of reducing the size of this project down, based on some of the Council
comments and whatnot. I do believe they have done a good job, but bringing it down
into -- into a size that, quite frankly, it does meet the Comprehensive Plan requirements,
if, in fact, we do annex this into the city and based also on the applicant's letter of
additional items that they have agreed to take care of in regards to single story at the
perimeters and whatnot, I think they have gone a long way to try and please the
neighborhood. I realize that some of you aren't going to be happy, but I do believe that
they have done a credible job with the plan, so I will be recommending an approval.
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I -- I don't think any of the people who live around this development
are being unreasonable in wanting one acre development around the perimeter. I think
this is probably - though I have to say it, probably one of the nicest developments that's
come before us in the year that I have been on this Commission, with these elevations
that they are showing, the type of development they want to create, and the lot sizes,
but I always have to fall back on would I want to live on my five acres next to a half acre
lot. Probably no. I would be in favor of recommending looking at the feasibility of
putting a three-quarter to a one acre lot on the perimeter of the development and I
would say on the south -- the southern most portion and along the lane, that one you're
already getting over eleven feet of height, in essence, that natural and final barrier. I'm
not so sure that one acre lots going into -- and given the Comprehensive Plan density in
that area, but I do think -- I would agree with the neighbors on the one acre on the rest
of the perimeter. So, I will be voting recommending denial on this project, based on
those statements. End of comments.
Zaremba: Well, I would comment that I'm not sure that we necessarily need the City of
Meridian to cross Eagle Road south of Victory yet. Even if it were a county in-fill project,
I think it would develop to the densities that are compatible with the property around it. I
agree with those that have said there is a place for large lots in a neighborhood like this
and I believe they would sell handsomely. I'm not into the economics of real estate, but
there is a place for them and, to me, the solution to that is to leave it in the county. I'm
not convinced it's in the best interest of the city to be jumping Eagle Road at this point.
It may happen some day, but we have plenty of other places to develop and I think my
opinion on this is that we shouldn't even annex it. I'm not convinced it's in the best
interest of the city.
Borup: I guess that would depend on what type of development we want to attract to
the city and we have had a lot of comments that, you know, a lot of the upper end
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
March 3. 2005
Page 47 of 89
homes are going to Eagle. To me it looks like this is an opportunity to bring some of
that here.
Rohm: I agree with that a hundred percent.
Borup: I mean -- yeah.
Newton-Huckabay: As the project stands?
Borup: Yeah. Yeah. These -- you know, four or five thousand square foot homes are a
decent price tag. You know, the lot sizes are probably comparable to a good part of
Meridian Greens, which is usually the only subdivision that we seem to have to hold up
as an example of what we'd like to see. Observation Point, I guess, is close to that, but
the lots in Observation Point are a lot smaller than these. The same thing with Bear
Creek. It's got a section that's got, you know, half a million dollar -- six hundred
thousand dollar homes, smaller lots than these.
Newton-Huckabay: What are the -- what's the lot size of Bear Creek?
Borup: Well, they have got different sections, but in the teens.
Canning: Chairman Zaremba, this discussion seems to be going toward house price.
You're making me nervous.
Borup: Okay. I understand.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I --
Zaremba: Have we had sufficient discussion to be ready for a motion?
Rohm: I had another question. When making motions, do you have to make the
motions in the order that they are listed as in the zoning first, the preliminary plat
second, and the CUP third? You have to make them in that order?
Zaremba: Yes, I would, and particularly the zoning one needs to be first, because the
other two are not relevant if we deny the zoning. There is no jurisdiction.
Rohm: Well -- all right. But until the City Council acts on it, we -- even at that there is --
Zaremba: That's true. Ours is a recommendation.
Rohm: Ours is a recommendation and my only point was is if there was no consensus
on the preliminary plat, there would be no need to make a motion for the zoning and I
believe that there is not a consensus --
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 48 of 89
Borup: Well, we don't have to have a unanimous consensus to make a motion and a
vote.
Rohm: Well, I was just thinking in terms of the preliminary plat, if we have got it passed,
then, I would go onto the zoning, but -- it's just a question. It doesn't have to go that
way.
Zaremba: I believe I would do them in the order.
Rohm: All right.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chairman, I think we are ready for a motion.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-003,
including all staff comments for the hearing date March 3rd, 2005, including the
transmittal date of February 25th, 2005. And I don't believe there is any changes for the
zoning.
Zaremba: This would be where you would ask for a development agreement that we
mentioned --
Rohm: Okay. Okay. In addition to the staff comments, there is a letter received from
Vision First, received March 2nd, 2005, dated March 1st, 2005, and signed by Kenneth
Elliott. I'd like to have this entered in as recommendations for the development
agreement associated with this development. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor please say aye. All opposed?
No.
Newton-Huckabay: No.
Zaremba: We have three in favor and two against. That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS.
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of PP 05-004, to include all staff comments for the hearing date March 3rd,
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 49 of 89
2005, with the transmittal date February 25th, 2005. Do we need to address this again
or is that --
Zaremba: I don't believe so.
Rohm: Okay.
Canning: I think because it has specific things directed at the preliminary plat, it would
be safest to mention it again with the preliminary plat.
Rohm: Okay. In addition to the staff comments, the letter from Vision First, dated
March 1 st, and stamped as received on March 2nd and signed by the developer
Kenneth M. Elliott, would be included as input for this motion as well. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? No.
Newton-Huckabay: Opposed,
Zaremba: We, again, have three in favor and two opposed. That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS.
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of CUP 05-004, to include all staff comments for the hearing date March 3rd,
2005, and the transmittal date of February 25th, 2005, including all staff comments.
End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed?
No.
Newton-Huckabay: Opposed.
Zaremba: We, again, have three in favor and two opposed. That motion also carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS.
Canning: Chairman Zaremba, before you leave the issue, I'm sorry, there was a new
preliminary plat dated March 2nd. The staff report was based on a different preliminary
plat. Can you just give me a moment to verify with the applicant?
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 50 of 89
Zaremba: Yes.
Borup: I think the difference between the two is there were lots eliminated and some of
those other concessions.
Canning: Chairman Zaremba, yeah, the pictures I have shown you tonight are of the
one that was sent to the neighbors and the one that the letter is based on. But the staff
report had a different preliminary plat date. So, the correct date would be the March
2nd date.
Zaremba: Okay. Do we need to amend the motion to reference that plat?
Nary: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if -- that was the basis of all
the testimony that you have received, so to make it clear from the record that that's what
you have based your decision on, then, that should be part of your motion.
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm, would you care to amend --
Newton-Huckabay: So, everything that we had -- all the copies that we had in front of
us tonight and on the board were the amended one?
Rohm: Right. Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I would like to amend all three motions to include the plat dated March 2nd,
2005.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
That motion to amend carries five to nothing.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: All right. Thank you all very much for your input. There will be another
Public Hearing in front of the City Council on the same subject. And we traditionally
take a break about 9:00 o'clock, which we have passed. We will take about a ten
minute break and reconvene.
(Recess.)
Item 12:
Public Hearing: PP 05-005 Request to amend the Preliminary Plat (PP
02-007) to add seven additional building lots for Heritage Commons by
Brighton Investments, LLC - west of Locust Grove Road and north of
Ustick Road:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 51 of 89
Zaremba: Ladies and gentlemen, we will reconvene and let the record show that all the
Commissioners are present again and we will proceed onto Item 12. This is -- we will
open the Public Hearing for PP 05-005, request to amend the preliminary plat to add
seven additional building lots for Heritage Commons and we will begin with the staff
report.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The request is for actually 27 -- did this get turned
on? Okay. The request is for 27 residential lots. The original proposal had -- okay.
The original proposal is in this location here for 21 lots. The applicant has come back
and made a request for 27 lots. There was an amendment made to the preliminary plat
and that was dated -- it just says January 25. They reduced their lots by one in the
original proposal. This is the original layout for the preliminary plat. This is the new
layout. They did reduce this side by one. There was originally I believe seven lots in --
or eight lots in here and now it's going to be seven lots in there. Like I said, there is 27
lots in this configuration, although they would be reduced by one. We have discussed
this with the fire department and SSC and they brought back comments on the alley-
loaded product and we had, actually, asked them to give us comment on that, based on
how -- their serviceability has been traditionally and they are satisfied with the 16 foot
alleys, based on our conversation last week. At this time I have nothing further to add,
other than staff is recommending approval of this redesign.
Zaremba: Questions from the Commissioners? Seeing none, would the applicant care
to comment?
Turnbull: Thank you, Chairman Zaremba. David Turnbull, Brighton Corporation, 12601
West Explorer Drive, Boise. It seems like I was here some time earlier today.
Zaremba: Well, you look familiar.
Turnbull: Just very simply -- could you go back to the original layout that -- in the
original layout I have always been a little bit troubled with this. This is going to be our
last phase and, you know, I think what I consider a better design dawned on me and so
we brought that forward. Originally we had some alley loaded products here and in
between just five kind of standard front-on garage homes sandwiched in between them.
That part always bothered me. Also, this is a residential collector road here and I don't
think we really want to have parking -- these would be the front of these houses here.
So, we thought it was appropriate to get those aligned more to these local streets, so
that people could park in front of their homes and collector street, really, that's simply
the reason for this adjustment. Plus the fact that the first phase of our -- what we call
Carriage Lane homes proved to be very popular and we'd like to add some more. So,
that's the reason for this request. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you.
Zaremba: Makes sense to me. If something sells, you might as well do more of them.
Turnbull: And we are in concurrence with the staff conditions.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 52 of 89
Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Any questions from the Commissioners?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Rohm: Way too easy.
Zaremba: Yes. We do have some people signed up. I will begin with Rebecca Klaus
Young.
Young: And I'm, actually, going to go ahead and speak for the others that are signed up
on there.
Zaremba: Okay. Let me mention who those are. They are Dan Young and Vanessa
Klaus.
Young: Right. We are the ten acres that's right on the north --
Zaremba: We need your name and address.
Young: I'm Rebecca Klaus Young, 4053 North Locust Grove Road.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Young: Okay. And I'm -- they have it listed as East Lake Street, it is actually Herons
Lane. I don't know how that got on there, but it is supposed to be Herons Lane. I talked
to David a little bit this evening and the only thing that I had a concern about -- and he's
given me the names of who I should actually talk to, but I thought I could address it to
Bruce a little bit -- is that if you guys have any notes that there is a problem with that
sewer line that's going down that road right now. Do you have any of that -- would you
have any of that in your notes or your records?
Zaremba: We have not heard of there being a problem.
Young: Have you, Bruce?
Zaremba: I will address that to Mr. Freckleton.
Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, we did have some odor
complaints. We have -- to our knowledge we have corrected those. We had some
issues with --
Young: Okay. Go ahead.
Freckleton: We had some issues with some timing of the cycling of the lift station
pumps over at Vienna Woods. We have made corrections to that. Part of the problem
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 53 of 89
was the size of the lift station wet well was sized to handle a very large area and with
Vienna Woods and Edinburgh being the only two developments, basically, that were
flowing to that lift station, it wasn't turning over often enough and so the sewage sat
there longer what we wanted it to and you start developing odors when it sits too long
and so we increased the --
Zaremba: Are you saying the problem was not having enough sewage?
Freckleton: Basically, yes. Yeah. That's exactly it. So, we have made some changes
to that. It sounds like maybe we have still got some problems, so we --
Young: It's worse.
Freckleton: -- definitely need to hear from you.
Young: It's worse on our street. The problem being is that the manhole -- the one that
is right in front of our driveway and, then, the next one is up by our mail boxes, which
are up on North Locust Grove -- we are kind of a ways down that, that's a dirt road right
now -- and that's going to be my next question -- and it is -- what I'm fearful of is with the
density of those homes this last -- this last development area here is going to bring them
closer to my house, of course, and I have animals, horses, barns -- I don't want to be at
-- being faulted for that. I want it to be understood that that's where that's coming from.
I don't want to be here trying to get my issues put across at a later time --
Freckleton: Sure.
Young: -- because somebody is thinking it's coming from my property.
Freckleton: Right.
Young: And it's uncomfortable for us, too, so --
Freckleton: Sure. One other thing that we do have in the works is we are building a
sewer trunk that's going to go up there and take that lift station off line and that lift
station is going to go away and everything will flow to the trunk and so the issues that
we have been experiencing with that lack of turnover are going to go away. So,
hopefully, in the very short -- in a very short time frame we will totally eliminate that
problem.
Young: Okay. Well -- and the most important thing was I just wanted it to get on the
record.
Freckleton: Sure.
Young: For that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 54 of 89
Freckleton: I appreciate that.
Young: I think it might be an issue later with these homes next to us, because we are in
a very different lifestyle to theirs, so -- and, then, my next question tonight was just
simply there is going to be a change -- thanks -- where the roads now come out into our
road, that Herons Lane there, instead of two turnouts there is going to be four now,
which I have already worked with Dave on, we are going to get some cluster trees and
some stuff like that, so I think that we can work that out okay, The only thing is is I don't
know what the plans for stop signs or what the speed is going to be in there or -- is
there any of that stuff being addressed tonight? That is going to be a fairly heavy
volume -- what's that?
Zaremba: The roadways are normally ACHD's responsibility,
Young: That's what I'm always told, but -- you know,
Zaremba: Well, give me a little background. Is Herons Lane a private road or is it a
public road or--
Young: Well, it's private now. It's a dirt road right now, but we are working with David
and that is getting put through, it's going to be developed as those homes are
developed and he's been very very good about accommodating us, about trying to give
us a barrier there, but I'm worried about -- I want some kind of restrictions put out there
about the speed, because it's a straight shot from all the back subdivisions to go to the
school across North Locust Grove and we are almost looking at another Eagle Road out
there. I mean the school goes in so many cycles, they have like a morning shift and,
then, the afternoon shift, so you have got four different shifts of parents bringing kids in
and out right there on that corner.
Zaremba: Okay, We will ask for comment on those subjects.
Young: Okay. And so that's all -- I just wanted to know how can I get information on
what are going to be the speed limits set on that road, where are there going to be stop
signs, and such.
Zaremba: That will eventually be ACHD's decision, but --
Young: Okay. Do you how I can get that information, though?
Zaremba: Mr. Turnbull may have some input into what he's suggesting to them.
Nary: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Yes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3. 2005
Page 55 of 89
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if that's going to eventually be a
public roadway, the city has a traffic safety commission that makes recommendation to
the highway district about speed limits based on those types of comments. If she wants
to contact Captain Overton with the Meridian Police Department, he's a member of that
commission, and make those concerns known, so that that can get passed on through
our process with our commission to the highway district.
Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. That constitutes the list of people that signed up.
Anybody else care to comment on this subject? Mr. Turnbull.
Turnbull: As far as the street here, I believe generally speed limits on local streets are
25 miles per hour and there will be a stop sign here at Locust Grove Road initially. I am
-- if the time comes when a traffic signal is warranted, that was placed at the half mile
section, so that -- and lined up with the school property across the road, so that it could
be signalized in the future if ACHD finds that there is traffic warrants for it. And I just
don't have any response for this sewer issue. I think that's in Bruce's court. I might
point out that the sewage is coming from his project, but --
Zaremba: The problem is not enough of it, you know, can you get people to flush more
or something?
Turnbull: Other than that, I think I'm done, unless you have questions for me.
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners?
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on PP 05-005.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of PP 05-005, to
include all staff comments of the hearing date March 3rd, 2005, received from the city
clerk's office February 25th, 2005.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 56 of 89
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 13:
Public Hearing: PFP 05-001 Request for a Preliminary/Final Plat
approval of 5 building lots on 5.28 acres in a C-C zone for Bonito
Subdivision No.2 by Kimball Properties - SWC of South Eagle Road
and West Overland Road:
Zaremba: Thank you. We will move on now to Item 13. This is PFP 05-001, request
for a preliminary and final plat approval of five building lots on 5.28 acres in a C-C zone
for Bonito Subdivision No.2 by Temple Properties, southwest corner of South Eagle
Road and West Overland Road. And we will begin with the staff comments.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is for a re-subdivision of Lots 4 and 5 of
Bonito Subdivision. This was originally platted on a preliminary plat for EI Dorado
Subdivision and was under the final plat of Bonito One Subdivision. This is for two lots.
The two lots are the lot to the south off of Goldstone and, then, the portion of this one
that is off of Tarpin. Actually, I think I might have just transposed those two streets.
The configuration is as shown and this four or five new lots on these two lots. With this
there is an existing approved access to Eagle Road, as well as for Tarpin and
Goldstone. In discussions with the applicant's representative, there is one condition that
we had discussed that would be preliminary plat general requirement number -- I'm
sorry. I thought it was number three, but I'm not -- number six under preliminary/final
plat site-specific comments. The perimeter landscaping, as well as the landscaping
along the -- it will be the western border of this subdivision, was already completed
during the final platting phase for Bonito and so this is redundant. It has already been
completed. And the -- that was the only comment that was made and staff would
support the removal of condition number six. And at that staff is recommending
approval of this preliminary and final plat.
Zaremba: Okay. Let's see. There is a condition six that relates to fencing and
landscape on page four and on page five there is a condition six. So, that's waterways.
Okay. So, you're referring to the one on page four?
Guenther: On page four, the one that reads a detailed fencing and landscape plan of
MCC 12-13 shall be submitted with the following final plat application. This is the final
plat application as well.
Zaremba: Yes.
Guenther: And the final plat for Bonito No.1 was approved and has been installed
already.
Zaremba: Any questions from the Commissioners? Okay. We are ready for the
applicant, please.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3. 2005
Page 57 of ag
Seal: Good evening. Jonathan Seal, 1940 Bonito, Meridian, representing Winston
Moore. And we have read the staff report and with the exception of deleting Item No.
6, we are in agreement. Unless you have any questions, I'll sit down. Go home.
Zaremba: That's way too easy. Can't we ask some questions?
Moe: I have no questions.
Newton-Huckabay: I have no questions.
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup, you look like a question is forming.
Borup: No. I'm clear now. It was the exception deleting number six, but you're in
agreement with deleting it?
Seal: Yes. I was going to actually request that. We have done everything within the
project already, so it's really not necessary, It's just a -- basically creating addition lots.
Everything else is in place, so -- okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. We have no one signed up to speak on this issue. However,
this is your opportunity if there is somebody who came later. I see no one moving in the
direction of speaking. Commissioners?
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on -- let's see -- PP 05-
001.
Zaremba: PFP, actually.
More: Excuse me. PFP 05-001.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor say
aye. Anyopposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of PFP 05-001, to
include all staff comments of the hearing date of March 2nd -- or, excuse me, March
3rd, 2005, with a transmittal date of January the 28th, 2005. End of motion. Excuse
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 58 of 89
me. I am not done. With the following change: Under -- on page four, under the
preliminary and final plat site specific comments, item number six, can be deleted in its
entirety.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 14:
Item 15:
Item 16:
Recommendation: VAC 05-001 Request to Vacate East Manderly Lane
and a 30-foot wide agricultural easement, both being one and the same as
shown on the plat of Larkwood Subdivision, at the north boundary line of
Lot 13, Block 2 for Tustin Subdivision by SCS Investments, LLC -
northwest corner of East McMillan Road and North Locust Grove Road:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-002 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 45.88
acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Tustin Subdivision by SCS
Investments, LLC - northwest comer of East McMillan Road and North
Locust Grove Road:
Public Hearing: PP 05-003 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 115
building lots and 26 common lots on 44.39 acres in a proposed R-4 zone
for proposed Tustin Subdivision by SCS Investments, LLC - northwest
comer of East McMillan Road and North Locust Grove Road:
Zaremba: All right. Again, we have multiple items that relate to each other, Items 14,
15, 16. I'll open Public Hearing for V AC -- well, I'm sorry. Let me ask staff here. Since
this is just a recommendation, do we want to deal with 14 individually? It's not a Public
Hearing, according to the --
Canning: The discussion of the item won't make much sense without all the others.
Zaremba: Okay. Then, I will proceed as I was. We will open the recommendation for
V AC 05-001, Public Hearing for AZ 05-002, and the Public Hearing for PP 05-003.
These all relate to Tustin Subdivision. And we will begin with the staff report.
Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, this is a preliminary plat
and an annexation and zoning and a vacation, as mentioned, for Tustin Subdivision. It's
45.8 acres, currently zoned RUT, and they are requesting R-4. Saguaro Subdivision is
to the west. The name of this one just escaped me. It's not Dartmoor. Larkwood.
Thank You. It's far too late. There is a church just north of the property. And, then, this
was the site of Leeshire Subdivision proposal that was before you earlier this year, but
subsequently denied. The proposed layout brings a road -- two access roads into the
project. There is a lateral across -- or a slough across the project dividing it. There is
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 59 of 89
just one road crossing that. There are a number of stubs -- actually, there is just one
stub street into one of the five-acre Larkwood properties. Then, otherwise, that's the
only stub street to the surrounding properties. They did not stub to the church, which is
already developed. These are out parcels. I did want to point out there is a shop here
that the applicant is proposing to stay and I'll get to that in a bit. There are 115 single
family residential building lots and 26 other common lots and the gross density of the
project is 2.6 dwelling units per acre. They have requested -- this is a straight
subdivision. They have not requested a planned development for reduction in any
standards, so they do meet the R-4 minimum lot standards of 8,000 square feet and 80
feet of frontage. And they have not asked for reduced setbacks either. The property is
currently designated as low density residential on the 2002 Comprehensive Plan and
the proposed density is 2.6 dwelling units per acre, does fit within that Comprehensive
Plan designation. As part of the plat -- and the applicant may have to help me on this,
because I didn't notice the vacation application, but as part of the plat, the applicant is
requesting to vacate East Manderly Lane, which is a private road and a 30 foot
agricultural easement and they are one and the same. And then -- so the -- so that the
owners and the proposed subdivision may not be encumbered by easements that aren't
going to be used. And the easement is on the north boundary line of Lot 13, Block 2,
of Larkwood Subdivision. And I apologize; I did not look this up, so I'm not sure where it
is. I believe it's right here on the north property line, because I think they called me
about that before. So, the only way to -- as you know, the only way to get rid of an
easement that's been shown on a plat is to vacate it through the plat process. Going
through some of the special considerations that were pointed out by -- which of my staff
members having babies -- or second, I guess, babies. Josh. Sorry. If you look on page
ten -- I'm just going to highlight some of them. I think some of them make sense. Like
Locust Grove right of way, you have seen those kind of conditions before and those
kinds of issues, as well as you have the street buffers. The micropaths -- the applicant
has proposed two common lots which connect to the North Slough pathway, yet they
haven't shown sidewalk in those common lots, those connections, so Josh has asked
that they provide those sidewalks to micropath. Block length variance. The proposed
preliminary plat has three blocks which exceed the allowable block length of 1,000 feet.
Those are Blocks 1, 8 and 9, and they have submitted a separate variance application,
which will go up with the preliminary plat to the City Council. I mentioned the existing
shop. The applicant wants to keep the shop. Now, accessory buildings need to be
accessory to a main building, so we just kind of added some conditions in there, making
sure that they understand that there needs to be a house on that property to have the
shop on that property and, then, that accessory structure needs to meet the standards
for accessory structure in our zoning ordinance. We can't tell if it does yet, because
there is no principal permitted structure. So, it's all -- quite literally it's all relative. So,
we just wanted them to be aware of that. I think that was the last item I wanted to point
out. I'm making the applicant's work more tonight to describe their projects, so I will let
the applicant describe some of the other features of the project. With that I'll answer
any questions.
Zaremba: Commissioners, questions? I have one. And that is a letter from Idaho
Power asking that --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3. 2005
Page 60 of ag
Canning: Oh, that's right.
Zaremba: -- that it be clearly stated someplace that their plan is to run power lines up
the west side of Locust Grove and I guess my question is is that something that we
would add to the face of the plat and should that become a note 19 on page 14.
Rohm: Idaho Power is in road right of way, so --
Zaremba: They do, but they want people that are purchasing lots along here to be
forewarned that some day they are going to have these 125-foot poles next to their
property. It may be in the right of way, but that this is in their plan and they don't want
future residents coming back to them and saying, wait, you can't put your poles up here.
Canning: Chairman Zaremba?
Zaremba: But their point was to forewarn people that this is in their plan.
Canning: Generally when we are passing around that kind of warning information, it's
more appropriate in their CC&Rs than on the plat. You should really try and reserve the
plat for things that are related to the surveying and implementation of that plat, rather
than -- in particular if the developer wants to put information on there, then, they have a
little more discretion, but things that we require as the city should be fairly limited. But
you can ask them to put that in their CC&Rs.
Zaremba: Okay.
Canning: That would be a better place.
Zaremba: Good advice. Thank you. That was my only question. If there aren't others,
then, we are ready for the applicant.
Christensen: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Kenny Christensen, 1951
South Southern Way, Boise, Idaho. And I am the developer representing the property
owners. I'm not the property owner, but I do all the development for the owners. And
we are just trying to develop this property and trying to make a nice development. You
know, we are backing up to Larkwood and so you can see on the westerly side I have
tried to make those lots a little larger, plus I also feel that there is a demand for that, as
addressed earlier, there is a little bit of a -- you know, eight, nine thousand is kind of the
standard going throughout most of north Meridian and I'm hoping there is a little bit
more demand for that kind of lot. From a development standpoint it squeezes the
economics, but, hopefully, it will payoff. We are -- you know, just -- it is a standard sub.
We do not have any park per se, but we do have walkways and pathways that could be
conformed to tot lots, et cetera, and part of the reason of expediting this -- there is no
sewer to this site -- as you had discussed earlier, but part of that reason is we need this
plat in place to get sewer through this stretch of land and eliminate the Vienna Woods
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 61 of 89
Edinburgh lift station. So, get rid of smelly problems and have gravity system all
throughout there. But, you know, I don't have a whole lot more to say. We are trying to
do a nice development there. I did go to the Larkwood homeowners association
meeting. They do have some representatives here that they would like to, I'm sure,
stand up and address some of their concerns and questions. But are there any
questions that the Commission has for me at this time?
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: On this recommendation for vacating the easement, do you have letters from
the easement holders that say they have no objection to the vacation?
Christensen: I do not. I believe the homeowner that that -- yeah, he can address that. I
think he would be in support of vacating that. But it does go into a homeowners lot who
is present and he is, I think, representing the homeowners association today and he
could address that.
Rohm: Okay. Well, I just have always felt it's important to give them that opportunity.
Christensen: Correct. And, then, the other property owner that would potentially be a
beneficiary would be where the stub road is going into, that property to the north, and so
they do have access to their back pasture as it is currently, the six acre -- or five, six
acre home right now and if they needed access they do have that road going into their
back property.
Rohm: Thank you.
Zaremba: On that subject, to clarify, the kind of easement it is, there are no utilities in
that easement or --
Christensen: There are not. It was an agricultural easement. I mean it's technically a
county road, but it's -- you know, it's a dirt road that was used for tractors and farm
equipment at one time.
Zaremba: Would you address the -- Idaho Power's concern about eventually building
big poles up --
Christensen: Yes. Actually, big poles would be welcome currently there. They are real
scraggly old wooden with several layers and very low. The larger poles tend to actually
disappear a little better, unless you're right behind one of the big ones, but there is
fewer of them and they are typically a lot higher and so they, actually, are more
desirable from a marketing standpoint and -- but we can place that in our CC&Rs as a
forewarning that that right of way -- you know, the homeowners association cannot
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 62 of 89
impose right -- additional right of way or just larger poles being placed in the existing
Idaho Power right of way, because there is an existing right of way.
Zaremba: Great. That would be helpful.
Christensen: Great. I will make a note of that. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: If it's approved and this goes forward, when are you anticipating. completion of
some of the home sites?
Christensen: As soon as sewer is available. I believe we are scheduled in a second
phase of the current construction project of that North Slough line, anticipated to be
November beginning. So, I would expect construction -- you know, the site work, roads,
a year from now. Or less if that could be moved up. And Bruce can address that.
Moe: Well, then, that was my next question. I note here it says the phase two
extension currently scheduled to commence in the fall of 2005.
Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moe, that is correct. Phase one will begin -- it's --
very shortly, like within a month or so. Phase two -- phase two was held up a little bit
because of easement acquisition, so we needed to get moving forward on the project
and so we have been getting very close to this project with phase one and, then, phase
two will take off as soon as we can get the easements and the developer was
uncomfortable providing the easements to us without having a preliminary plat approved
for the alignment of the sewer through the project. And so we are here tonight to try
and get that process going.
Christensen: Yeah. The proposed alignment is cutting through this pathway, then, this
road up here and, then, through that pathway and access the Vienna Woods and
Edinburgh, which is stinky. Get rid of that. I do live in Vienna Woods and I would
volunteer to flush my toilet three times in the interim.
Rohm: Get that down.
Zaremba: Increase the flow.
Christensen: That's right.
Zaremba: Let's see. I had -- I had already --
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 63 of 89
Moe: I had more than one question.
Zaremba: Go ahead.
Moe: Then, do you have any problem if, in fact, another condition was put on the -- in
regard to the sanitary sewer that no lots -- and no buildings would be built until the
sewer is connected?
Christensen: Oh, yeah. Certainly. Yeah. They usually require me to do some kind of
non-build agreement or something until that occurs.
Zaremba: Yes, Bruce.
Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moe, without having public utilities there, they
would not be able to -- they could record their plat, but sanitary restrictions would
remain in force and until services are available, they wouldn't be able to build anyway,
so --
Moe: I asked the question because of our earlier hearing, that there was a stipulation
put on it. No different. I have no problem with it. I was just trying to make sure I
understood what the difference between the two projects were.
Freckleton: The difference in -- from my perspective is we have got plans that are
drawn and the ones were -- they are out there. It's a timing issue and if you want to add
the comment that it would be subject to sewer availability, that would be appropriate.
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Okay. My other question -- apparently, the ACHD Commission acted on this
last night. Do you have news of what happened?
Christensen: It was on their consent agenda, along with Bainbridge, and they did
approve it as presented.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Christensen: And I may make a note, too. I know one of the concerns -- and this might
be more ACHD -- that the Larkwood homeowners have is connectivity and I'm opposed
to any connectivity to Larkwood as they are and I know it's more ACHD realm, but we
are -- that stub up to the north is not going to a Larkwood lot. It's a six-acre un-
subdivided lot.
Zaremba: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: So, which stub -- that's the only stub street.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3. 2005
Page 84 of ag
Christensen: That was the only stub street. Right.
Newton-Huckabay: Are Larkwood the ones to the north?
Christensen: No. That's a cul-de-sac and I, along with them, would really like to see
that remain a cul-de-sac and I know that's maybe more ACHD's jurisdiction, but for
public record I'm just stating that.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Christensen: All right. Thank you.
Zaremba: We do have a couple people signed up. Dan I believe it is. Battazzo. And
you are representing Larkwood homeowners association; is that correct?
Battazzo: That is correct, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Commission. I'm Dan
Battazzo at 5306 North Larkwood Place and at the conclusion of my comments I'd like
to deliver to you a letter from the Larkwood homeowners association signed by 13 of 19
homeowners in the subdivision, as well as a letter from the Settler's Irrigation District
speaking to one of the issues that we would like to speak to. If I could open by just
commenting on the issue of vacation of that road, that Manderly Lane, which is on the
north side of the proposed development. My home is this one right here and that
roadway used to go from Locust Grove into this farm area and when I built my home I
asked them and did have that vacated across my property, so this dirt road terminates
in a turnaround right here at this corner and serves no particular purpose, other than to
access the former farmland and the six acre lot, which, technically, isn't a part of
Larkwood homeowners -- excuse me -- Larkwood Subdivision, but it is considered an
existing lot as a part of that property. So, I am, in fact, in support of vacating that
easement.
Borup: So, does that lot have its access through the Larkwood Street, then?
Battazzo: Yes. Its driveway -- the driveway of the home on this lot is onto Larkwood
Place.
Borup. Okay.
Battazzo: Let's see. The second issue, which is not addressed specifically in the letter
that I'm going to give you, but has come up during the course tonight and I would like to
address it. We did have an amicable meeting with Mr. Christensen about this
subdivision and let me open by just saying that the Larkwood homeowners are
generally in favor of the proposal as it's been laid out. We do have four concerns that
we have outlined in this letter and one additional one that has not been outlined here
that I would like to speak to. When we did talk with Mr. Christensen about the lots that
border the subdivision, we mentioned the fact that we would appreciate a transition,
which included keeping the height of the homes on those adjacent lots down, proposing,
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 65 of 89
in fact, that they be one story. Mr. Christensen let us you know that those would be his
most expense lots in the subdivision and indicated there is no way that it was likely that
they were going to hold to those restrictions. I would like to point out that the current
owner of this property is Mr. Steve Smith, who also was the co-developer of the
Larkwood Subdivision. All of these lots on the east side of the street facing the foothills
were sold at a ten percent premium to the homeowners with the intent of them being,
quote, view lots, end quote, and given that this subdivision is being developed by the
same owner, we'd like them to hold to the commitments that they made to the
homeowners in the -- when they sold those lots to us that, in fact, they would remain
view lots. We are not opposing the development as a whole, but we would like to make
sure that consideration is given to the height of those homes and the previous
arrangements that were made with those homeowners. The second issue on that
subject is the density of those lots and we have generally agreed to what's been
proposed as well, with the exception that if you look here you will see that the second lot
in the subdivision has three of these smaller lots abutting it and we have requested in
our message to you that the developer remove one of the lots along this line in order to
decrease the density in such a way that these two flatter lots, which, again, were sold
with the same commitments from the original developer of Larkwood, Steve Smith, that
these folks would have some ability to keep their rural setting and since lots are much
shallower front to back, it's a bigger deal to the folks down here that the density remain
lower than what has been proposed up here on the north side of the subdivision. So,
generally, what we are saying is that we are okay with this and we'd like them to take
another look at removing one lot here. We are requesting -- and I think this is in concert
with the developer -- that a six-foot solid vinyl fence be placed between the two
subdivisions. And finally -- and getting probably to the heart of the biggest issue on our
plate and which requires you to keep your planning part of your planning and zoning hat
on, if we could go back to that previous -- I think this works. I think this works. So, this
is Larkwood Place. This is the proposed development. These two lots. I'd like to go on
record as making sure that everybody here understands that although they are
technically not part of the platted Larkwood Subdivision and, in fact, are listed on the
platting maps as un-platted, those lots have attached to them the Larkwood
homeowners CC&Rs and in those CC&Rs -- and I have checked this down at the
county records and we have gotten a legal opinion that, in fact, there are requirements
in those CC&Rs that any further development that takes place on those lots needs to be
approved by the Larkwood homeowners association and, in fact, anything that does
happen in there is, actually, a part of the Larkwood homeowners association's Interest.
That makes it important to us that when Leeshire develops up here -- and we know that
it will be -- and that when Tustin is developed down here -- currently the Leeshire
proposals include going into this -- not Larkwood Subdivision lot, existing lot that is
covered by the Larkwood Subdivision's CC&Rs, it shows a southbound stub. Here is a
northbound stub. It's really important to us that there be no connection to Larkwood
Place. An additional commitment when we purchased our lots on the part of the
developers was that this was a dead end cul-de-sac, you can see that all these lots in
Larkwood Subdivision are one and a half to three acres in general, with the exception of
these two, which are six acre lots. And as you -- you asked about earlier, they have
their homes and their driveways going into Larkwood Place and they use that as their
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 66 of 89
sole entrance. It seems that both Meridian -- or at least the Ada County Highway
District and we think Meridian, based on my discussions with your planners, are
somewhat insistent on having these stubs and this connectivity in here. We didn't like
that one bit. That is out of character with the subdivision that we bought into, but it
seems inevitable that the stubbing is going to take place. If it is going to take place, we
strongly urge you to keep that stubbing in a north-south fashion, the people that move
into this subdivision and move into this subdivision will know it advance that, in fact,
there is connectivity in between and we assume that they will formulate the traffic under
their plans for purchase of their properties. We, too, formulated traffic into our concept
of what our properties would be and as you know, this is a curved street, it's not a very
good thoroughfare, and, in fact, leaves nothing but room for acceleration for a half a
mile before you get to a point where you would enter future -- any development that
might show up back here on these lots or in this area in the future. That's just
completely out of character with what we live on right now. And while this is an Ada
County district -- Ada County Highway District issue, I don't think that you guys can
absolve yourselves of the fact that you have been dealing with how this subdivision
goes in and how this subdivision goes in and what kind of thinking you might have about
what might go on on these six acres. While we are not particularly appreciative of the
idea that higher density housing might, in fact, go on these six acres -- because when
this was sold to us, these were sold to us with the idea that there were pieces of ground
that had two big large pieces of ground, not two subdivisions, back in the back of this
cul-de-sac, we want to make sure that the connectivity takes place in an area where
people expect to have a certain level of density and not where we are expecting to have
a certain lack of density. We can assure you, both from legal counsel that we have
received so far, and from meetings of the members of this homeowners association,
that if it looks like connectivity is going to take place here, the meaning of CC&R will
chance to court court and return to court, because the only way our value of our
property to us, in the end, has to do with living on this low density, low traffic type of
roadway. Those are my comments.
Zaremba: Thank you very much.
Battazzo: Thank you very much.
Zaremba: Questions from the Commissioners?
Borup: A couple, Mr. Chairman. You made reference to a commitment when you
bought your lot. Do you have a copy of that that would be available for -- of the view?
You said there was a commitment that there would be a --
Battazzo: You know, it's not with me, but, in fact, I do have the brochure that was
provided by Mr. Smith and Mr. Porter that explained the difference in price on those lots.
And that was it.
Borup: That there was a view?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 67 of 89
Battazzo: Yeah.
Borup: Okay. That is consistent with other subdivisions, the east -- or the west facing
lots always seem to be priced higher.
Battazzo: You mean the east facing lots are priced higher?
Borup: No. The west facing lots are always --
Battazzo: I see your point. Okay.
Borup: That's -- every subdivision I have looked at, they have always been priced
higher, just because of that orientation, not necessarily because of the view. And I
realize it's a different subdivision and your comment on lot reductions and such, how
does that compare to Saguaro Canyon as far as lot sizes bordering Larkwood?
Battazzo: I can't speak to that with any degree of certainty.
Borup: And you now have the concern with Saguaro Canyon's .Iot sizes abutting your
property it sounds like.
Battazzo: My understanding is that those were worked out with Saguaro Canyon and
Saguaro Canyon worked out with -- in particular the folks on west side of our
subdivision a concession from their original proposal on Saguaro Canyon. They
reduced their lot density.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: I have one question.
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I need to bring my own supplies. I'm using everyone else's. On
these two lots right here, has -- it seems to me you could avoid all problems if -- these
are not Larkwood, just -- I mean is there talk of just developing these into -- splitting
them or something and avoid the problem altogether?
Battazzo: Avoid the problem altogether?
Newton-Huckabay: Any connect -- I would think by trying to develop those yourself,
then, connectivity becomes -- between here and here become a moot point, does it not?
Redeveloping -- to match the size of these lots.
Canning: Commissioner Huckabay, there is no -- the minimum lot size in the county is
five acres, so those properties are ineligible for a split. They would have to be ten
acres.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3. 2005
Page 68 of 89
Newton-Huckabay: Well, where there is a will there is a way. Okay. Just wondering. I
have not been down that far in Larkwood, to the end of the cul-de-sac.
Zaremba: All right.
Battazzo: Thank you. Who would you like to receive this?
Zaremba: The clerk will start with them. Thank you. Okay. Bart Naylor, who is the
Vienna Woods homeowners association president. Bart Naylor escaped before
speaking, apparently. Okay. He is marked as being for and I assume he was
representing the entire Vienna Woods homeowners association as being for. In favor.
Okay. In that case, Mr. Christensen, it's your tum again. Oh, I meant to say, there is
nobody else signed up, but if anybody would care to speak, this is your time. The one
time I forgot to say that and you caught me.
Lee: I can answer some of your questions, but I don't want to take into my few minutes.
Would you like me to answer some of your questions on how that subdivision is?
Zaremba: Start with your name and address, please.
Lee: My name is Grant Lee, I live at 5603 North Locust Grove Road, the 30 acres
immediately to the north of Mormon church. The Mormon church is what separates us
from the Tustin Subdivision. We own the former Leeshire property, which somebody
said is still going to be developed. Anyway, would you like me to answer some of
questions on this?
Newton-Huckabay: That's okay. I don't think my question was valid.
Lee: Okay. Learn how to operate this thing. There you go. Okay. I have got the 30
acres right here. Some of my concerns. Number one, our subdivision, which you good
people passed and was turned down at the next level, we had a park -- a good size park
right here separating us from the Larkwood and that was shot down. I notice this
subdivision doesn't really have a park. One of the reasons ours was turned down was
they said the location was not in the right spot and if you stood at one end you couldn't
see somebody standing two acres away in the other comer of the property. My concern
here -- although I want to go on record as being in favor of this subdivision, my
concerns are that the Dunwoody people that were so much against ours -- and I don't
see any of them here tonight -- you know, if you stand here can you see who is right
here and what's the difference between having a park over here as a buffer and having
18 of the people in Larkwood sign a petition to support that and over here you have no
park, I just want to make sure that when our subdivision comes up again, if the park's an
issue, that you remember that if you approve this without a park, what difference does it
make where we put ours. The second thing on road access, you talk about at the end
of Larkwood these two six-acre parcels, those were the first two parcels before there
was a subdivision. Manderly is a street that fed those. At the time of this subdivision
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3. 2005
Page Sg of 89
that street was vacated and those two -- the cul-de-sac was moved a little further down -
- if you can show the map with the next -- other six acre parcels on there. The cul-de-
sac was moved from this location to this location. If a stub street is put in here and they
are allowed access, that would physically give them access off of Larkwood Place and
access off of this street. My understanding is you can't have double access to a single
parcel of property. If I'm wrong, please, clear that up now. The buffer in the front, they
have a 25-foot buffer. We were required to have a 35-foot buffer. I question the
consistency in the Council. My concern -- the commercial property that's in the front,
the warehouses, that you have to have a house on, we also have similar concerns, so I
will be watching very closely how you treat this property. If a stub street is required here
and a stub street is required here -- in talking to Mr. Battazzo, before he was opposed to
it, we were opposed to it, everybody's making us do it. If stub streets are required for
both of us, there needs to be some kind of a plan as to what you intend to have done
with the properties in the middle that we are stubbing to. I guess my time is up.
Zaremba: If you're preparing to conclude, we will hear that.
Lee: Okay. The Saguaro lots that abut the back of the property are 10,000 square foot
lots. Back here from Saguaro Canyon. I did attend all those hearings. Also, I just want
to make sure that you really understand, from prior testimony at my Leeshire hearings,
that Larkwood, when it was originally developed kind of prostituted the ordinance at the
time. They were the first subdivision, along with Dunwoody across the street, to be
developed under the new cluster ordinance. The concept was for every five acres you
take a one acre lot and you build on it, rather than have a bunch of 3,000 dollar land left
over, they came up with a unique creative idea that sold and that was to take some
other lots in the back and sell a build-able lot, coupled with an agricultural lot that could
not be built on for 15 years and you get rid of twice as much land. When we went and
offered the same thing with our land immediately after -- and attended all of those
hearings -- we were told that, no, that's not the intent of the ordinance, they made a
mistake, and they would not allow anyone else to develop under that ordinance. So,
this is a really unique situation. This subdivision and the sister subdivision, both
developed by Steve Smith, were not according -- did not fit the spirit of the cluster
ordinance and they were the first two subdivisions to be developed under that
ordinance. So, what you have here is an exception that has not been repeated in the
county for these to subdivisions. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Questions from the Commissioners?
Lee: One last thing. You say that the ten acres was a county limit. That didn't stop
Steve Smith across the street from developing his ten acre parcel and spitting it into two
fives and the people next door to him taking their ten acre parcel and splitting it into two
fives. So, when you say you have got six acres here that can't be split, there are ways
around that if you're -- as you pointed -- creative.
Borup: I think what she said you would have to have at least ten to make two fives.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 70 of 89
Lee: At the time that was not the ordinance that was in place and he kind of switched
the names on some things for some property he didn't own and something was shuffled
under the table. I checked that out thoroughly.
Zaremba: Thank you, Anybody else care to testify on this matter? Please come
forward.
Wright: I'm Barbara Wright and my address is 5048 North Larkwood Place.
Zaremba: Would you pull the microphone a little closer to you. Thank you.
Wright: If you could show the map of -- that includes the walking path. Our property is
this one right here where the walking path ends. My question, really, is not to -- about
the subdivision. I was told by Mr. Christensen that there would -- the six foot high vinyl
fence would close off the walking path at our property line. My concern is what's the
future? If that walking path is there is it to be continued by the City of Meridian? If it is,
it will cut a piece of our property from usefulness to us, because there is an irrigation
ditch -- the North Slough goes through across that corner, as you can see, and our
property line goes straight across. So,we have a triangle that's on .the other side of the
ditch that goes for about 15 to 20 feet.
Zaremba: We will ask that.
Wright: Okay.
Zaremba: I think our other question is whether that's intended to be part of the future
regional pathway system or not, so --
Wright: Yes, it is.
Zaremba: -- we will ask about that.
Wright: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Do we know the answer to whether there is a regional pathway
coming through there?
Canning: Sure, This is one of those unusual instances where the pathway was just
kind of guesstimated in this section, because it didn't -- it was trying to get up to the
neighborhood center that's along Chinden, so it's a ways away, it's up above -- let's see
if I can find it. This is Arcadia and this is Jericho Lane. So, the neighborhood center
kind of arcs in this area here and so the pathway was kind of brought in like this and
meant to get up to -- to that neighborhood center, When Saguaro came in they have
got a very solid pathway going to about here, north-south, and, then, a very solid kind of
east-west pathway across where their sewer easement is going. So, we spent quite a
bit of time thinking about this and looking at it. The platting pattern in this area is so
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 71 of Sg
broken up that when Leeshire went in we talked to them and -- and it was difficult to see
the usefulness of trying to bring the north-south pathway through these many many
properties over to this neighborhood center, because we just had so many to go through
and since Saguaro was already in there with a fairly strong north-south one, we felt it
would be better to try and go and connect into the systems that had been put in place
with Saguaro. So, the intent, yes, is to have a multi-use pathway there and that -- of
course, we would not go across that without either obtaining the property or, more than
likely, waiting until somebody wanted to give an easement for that use. So, it's -- the six
foot fence will be there until that issue is decided with the homeowner and we are not
going to send people traipsing across your property without permission. That would be
trespassing, so -- there is a couple other issues that were more directed to Planning and
Zoning than they were to the applicant's proposal, so I will go ahead and answer those.
Mr. Lee's property that -- there is an entryway corridor in the Comprehensive Plan that
ends just at his south boundary. So, you did have a 35-foot buffer, instead of a 25 foot
buffer, as would be applicable in this -- in this development. Regarding the stub street,
we do put a high emphasis on connectivity and interconnectivity in the Comprehensive
Plan and we do require stub streets. We don't require that there be necessarily a plan
in place. It's pretty obvious where they are going to connect, but, again, the decisions
you're making are forever and it's -- to buy a house later on to put in a street just doesn't
happen. So, we are leaving that opportunity available for sometime in the future.
Maybe it's ten years from now, maybe it's 30 years from now, maybe it's six months
from now. But that's -- that's good planning is to leave those stub streets in place, it just
gives you more opportunity to provide that service. There is my preaching.
Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. Mr. Christensen, please.
Christensen: Any questions initially or should I go through and address some of the
points?
Zaremba: Please go ahead.
Christensen: Okay. Thank you. We will start with the easy ones. I am in favor of
putting up a six-foot vinyl fence as requested, buffering between Tustin and Larkwood. I
am opposed to any, you know, connectivity to Larkwood's cul-de-sac, as previously
addressed. The other issue brought up that we don't necessarily have a large park. We
do have an area that could become a tot lot type park, but my intent is to provide
something a little bit different where the parks are -- you know, as Commissioner Borup
mentioned in an earlier issue or project, you know, some people want to have their own
parks in the backyard and put up their own, you know, rainbow play set, et cetera. I'm
trying to provide that on the, you know, westerly portion here. So, that kind of explains
the lack thereof that was pointed out. We do meet the open space requirements,
though, I do believe, as required by the city. One issue, I think, that Dan didn't bring up
was water rights and we are working with Settlers on that. Larkwood has requested me
considering stubbing our pressurized irrigation system to their lots. I know that's not this
jurisdiction, but I just wanted to bring it up, since it was in the letter, I think, that was
presented to you. I'm initially opposed to that, just because it increases my irrigation
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 72 of 89
from 44 acres to 60 acres and it causes me piping up sizes and pump up sizes and the
main issue is -- you know, I have families and friends that live in my subdivision and I
live nearby and I know people in Larkwood and I feel that if we have some kind of
commingHng of homeowners associations and irrigation rights, we are going to get
some taxation without representation and I can see a lot of cobwebs with that, but we
will work through that. My ideal solution to that would be that Settlers, you know, allow
them to build their own pump right there and extend accordingly. But I know it's not
your jurisdiction, I just wanted to bring that up, since it was in the letter, and we will have
a meeting with Larkwood and Settlers Irrigation. I know Settlers has some limitations on
where they can pull water out and so we will work through that. On the issues that I'm
opposed to that were asked for was, one, to move a lot in this location and I feel like,
you know, I have tried to get to a good middle ground and there comes a point where,
you know, if you -- a subdivision has a character and if you throw in a few lots that are
out of character it just doesn't sell well and doesn't show well and if we get too wide in
some of those lots you end up with big side yards that generally aren't desirable to
some people because of mowing and maintenance, et cetera, and, obviously, I mean
it's an economic sting to me also. I mean you lose one of those nice lots and it eats into
the feasibility of this project. And the other one was along the same line and that was
limiting the westerly portion to -- or at least on this portion, closer lots, to single story
houses. Again, those are -- you know, those are going to be nice lots -- I'm trying to
provide, you know, a lot of people sell this home and want to move into this home and I,
actually, want to provide something for -- you know, you get single level and a lot of, you
know, empty nesters go for those kind of things, but to get the economics to work for
families and large families, I'm sensitive to that, because I am of that and, you know, I
live on a third acre, but I could have never fit my home and my desired square footage
on a single level. And so I'd just like to keep that open to the marketplace and let
diversity and the market demand that and that's my personal request. I realize, you
know, different opinions might exist amongst the Commissioners, but I oppose those
two requests, but everything else I think we are in step. Any other questions? Did I
address everything here?
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Borup: I don't think so,
Moe: Yeah. Probably one.
Christensen: Yes.
Moe: In regards to the two story homes, are you saying that you're not going to put any
single story in that area or --
Christensen: I will just let the market demand. I mean I'm sure single story will come
about naturally as they do in any development, but I don't like to -- the more you restrict
something, the less marketability and just -- you paint yourself in a corner and I just
don't like to do that, especially at such early stages.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 73 of 89
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: I, myself, would like to think it would be reasonable to lose a lot
there on the bottom of the west and maybe put a little more green space in the south of
your development. The developments that have, you know, park area are -- they are
nicer and there is so little of that for people in this city.
Christensen: And, again, you know, there is always a difference of subjectivity, of
course, and opinion. You know, I have talked to some people in Vienna Woods who
don't like that big park, because they can't keep it nice, it's a big -- you know, large park,
you know, they have expressed interest in here and, you know, they are involved with
the homeowners association, some of these people, and they see the expense that
some of those parks incur and they -- and, again, it's difference of opinion. I like the big
park in Vienna Woods, too, you know, so -- it's a good place to play football. So, you
know, it's just difference of opinion. I'm just trying to provide something different. You
know, we do provide interconnectivity with walking paths and, again, you know, I'm
trying to do diversity out here, so that's -- yeah. I see your opinion also. Very valid.
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you.
Borup: I think one of the -- we have been seeing a lot more parks lately, but the lots are
a lot smaller. I mean if you have 5,000 square foot lots, you need to have a park.
When you have large lots, my feeling is the park is in your -- around your house. You
have got places for the kids to play. They don't need to go to -- down the street to a
park to have more than 20 feet to do something in.
Newton-Huckabay: It takes more than 20 feet to throw a baseball back and forth. Or a
football.
Borup: That's what I'm saying, we have got some 100 foot lots here. You have got
more than the 20 feet.
Zaremba: Okay. Any other questions, issues from the Commissioners? All right.
Thank you, sir.
Christensen: Thank you for staying up late for me.
Borup: Are we ready to move on?
Zaremba: I believe we are.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we close V AC 05-001, AZ 05-002, and PP 05-003.
Moe: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 74 0189
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Anyopposed? Thank you.
That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: My only comment would be when we get to Item 16, PP 05-003, to make
sure that we reference the revised plat that was received by the City Clerk February
24th, 2005. Any discussion, Commissioners?
Borup: My comment -- I'm liking the direction I'm seeing here. We have -- over the
years we had it where every subdivision that came through was all R-4, 8,000 square
foot, 80 by 100. You didn't have more than two lots that varied from that in the whole
subdivision, you know, and, then, we started getting some variety, the next direction
was all of the small townhouse lots and it looks like that's going to keep going. I find it
rather refreshing to see somewhat of another direction. I mean maybe we are not going
another direction, but we have had two before us tonight that have large lots and I
welcome this kind of development. I think it's another direction for the city to go. Like I
say, I'm -- not just on this -- not just on this application, but pretty much every one that
has come up, I'm generally opposed to restricting two story homes. I don't think -- other
than a very few situations that it is appropriate, especially in a situation where there is
adequate distance. And the same thing on the lot restriction. We didn't -- we didn't do -
- there was already -- these lots are already larger on this side than they were on the
other side of Larkwood. I mean if it's appropriate for the west end, it should be
appropriate from the east side. I guess that's alii have got to say right now.
Zaremba: I would comment that we have had instances where a developer has
volunteered to limit things to one story. The only times that I can think that we have
actually made it a condition where the developer was not volunteering it were not view
issues, they were more security issues for the existing neighbors, where it would be
uncomfortable to have a second story house so close that they were looking in your
backyard and I did not hear that issue raised this time, so we have not, in my
recollection, ever taken the move that we would limit the height just to preserve a view.
I think the basic principal is you have no right to a view through your neighbor's yard.
Borup: Well, in this case there is a non-build-able agricultural lot separating the
residential properties from this subdivision.
Zaremba: Uh-huh. Any other comments?
Newton-Huckabay: I'm batting zero on this one. I have no comments. I'm not getting
any support from any of you people.
Zaremba: Well, what are we missing? You think there should be larger lots than are
proposed or at least along that one side or--
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 75 of 89
Newton-Huckabay: I just think there should be a little more common park area in this
development, but nobody agrees with me.
Zaremba: Well, our leverage on that, usually, with a planned development is that they
are asking for reduced lot sizes and other things, then, it's a trade-off. In this case they
are not asking for anything where we could require such a trade.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I realize that, but we are certainly adverse to, you know,
encouraging --
Moe: You know, I guess I would say that I -- that it's a welcome change to see that they
are not asking for something.
Newton-Huckabay: Yes. That's true. That's true.
Moe: It's refreshing to finally see someone actually do it as per what the ordinance is
requiring. That's -- you know. Exactly.
Newton-Huckabay: Oh, was there an unresolved issue with the out building or garage
or shop or whatever that --
Borup: I think that --
Newton-Huckabay: They had to build a home on it.
Zaremba: And I think that was a requirement that was in the conditions.
Moe: It's already in. Yes. Let's go for it.
Zaremba: I would entertain a motion, beginning with the vacation.
Rohm: Everything's closed?
Zaremba: Yes, we did close the hearings.
Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we forward on -- that we make an affirmative recommendation on
VAC 05-001. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 76 of 89
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we forward on to City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-
002, to include all staff comments for the hearing date March 3rd, 2005, to include all
staff comments dated February 24th, 2005.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed. That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Newton-Huckabay: I have a question. So, if I'm opposed to the development as it
stands now, I can nay on 15; right?
Zaremba: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: I got affirmative --
Zaremba: Yes. That would be the correct place.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward on to City Council recommending
approval of PP 05-003, to include all staff comments for the hearing date March 3rd,
2005, and dated February 24th, 2005, and received March 1 st, 2005, and the amended
plat received February 24th, 2005.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Newton-Huckabay: Opposed.
Zaremba: We have four affirmative and one opposed. The motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY.
Item 17:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-005 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
mixed use three story building consisting of retail, office and residential
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 77 of ag
uses in the O-T zone for Dave Buich by Dave Buich - 641 North Main
Street:
Zaremba: We will now open the Public Hearing for Item 17 and this is CUP 05-005,
request for a Conditional Use Permit for a mixed use three story building consisting of
retail, office, and residential uses in the OT zone for Dave Buich, I believe it is, by Dave
Buich, 401 North Main Street. And excuse me if I didn't pronounce that correctly.
Hopefully that's close. We will begin with the staff report.
Canning: I believe it's Buich. I wish I could say downtown, nice building, go home, but,
unfortunately, I probably need to say more, so I will.
Rohm: That sounds pretty good.
Canning: There are a couple of issues we probably should talk about. This is the Shell
station just behind us here as you walk out that back door. It's -- and they are proposing
a three-story building. Come on, building, where did you go? There we go. This is
Main Street. This is Broadway. This is the existing city parking lot right now. They are
proposing a three-story building. They'd have retail on the first floor, office on the
second floor, and residences on the third floor. It will be a total of 8,300 square feet of
ground floor retail, then, 8,460 square feet of second floor office, and, then, on the third
floor will be four residences. You can see the building. There we go. This would yield
a requirement for 71 parking spaces under our current ordinance. The proposed site
plan shows 22 parking spaces, 11 of which are compact stalls, which is a fairly high
percentage for our area of Suburbans. The adjacent city-owned parking lot contains 32
parking spaces. The applicant has applied for a variance for the parking requirements
and that will be heard with this -- or that decision will be made by City Council. I think
on these past ones, though, in Old Town we have asked you if you want to comment on
the variance for the parking, it's certainly something you can feel free to do, we can let
the Council know how you feel about that and there is no standards for Old Town, so we
are just a -- I'm sorry.
Newton-Huckabay: We won't be able to see the creamery from Main Street anymore.
Canning: Okay. Moving on.
Newton-Huckabay: I sorry. I shouldn't have --
Borup: Good try.
Newton-Huckabay: At some point I should probably stop commenting, somewhere
around 11:15.
Canning: The OT district does not have sign standards, so we have made the applicant
detail out what their sign proposal was. That sign proposal is consistent -- basically, the
only sign is in this feature here, I believe, And that was consistent with what the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 78 of 89
regulations are for the Light Office District, which is generally what we look for in the Old
Town. So, it was consistent with that. The only--
Zaremba: I'm sorry. The individual retails that are going to on probably the ground floor
don't want --
Canning: I presume there will be a little bit of wall signage that -- the wall sign, as they
are right now, are only -- L-O allows for no more than 18 percent of the wall area, up to
a maximum of 75 square feet.
Zaremba: Oh. Okay. Your earlier discussion was a freestanding sign; right? Okay.
So; wall signs are permissible.
Canning: The use proposed is 50 square feet in the form of a circle, which is eight feet
in diameter. So, he's only proposing 50 square feet and 75 square feet are allowed.
They have not told us what they plan to do as far as identifying individual retail
businesses in this location. So, they will probably want to do that before they get up to
City Council. And the applicant may have something to add to that later.
Zaremba: We will ask when the applicant gets here.
Canning: Okay. Regarding the architecture, the only comment that staff had is that the
design guidelines that we have been developing for the downtown area, which this
would be a part of, highly encourage parapet roofs, instead of sloped roofs, and that,
really, was the only issue and this has a sloped peaked roof, rather than having a
parapet roof. When the Farmers and Merchants building originally came in next door it
had a -- it had a very suburban look to it with a peaked roof and things like that and
Steve really worked very hard with them to get it, for one thing, to be two stories and,
then, to have a parapet roof. Now, this one -- they called about the design guidelines
before they even, I think, set pen to paper on it and, again, it's the only criticism we had.
We are thrilled to see the three stories and the fenestration is wonderful. The only thing
we were disappointed in, I suppose, was the roof not being a parapet roof. The
streetscape -- when Farmers and Merchants came in next door, they kind of established
a pattern for street lights and the planters and I think we have asked that this application
also continue those standards. And finally -- I already mentioned the variance for the
parking, so those were the only issues that I felt that we needed to bring up as staff.
Got some more elevations, I think. See how much better this one looks without that
peaked roof up here? See? That's all. That's the rear elevation of the building, which I
think is quite nice for a rear elevation. That's what you will see from the city parking lot.
Rohm: And from the creamery.
Canning: And from the creamery. Yes, indeed.
Zaremba: Okay. Questions from the Commissioners? Do we know if the city parking
lot is posted with any parking time limit? No overnight parking or four hour parking?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 79 of 89
Canning: We could have Bruce go right out there.
Zaremba: Right across the street. Actually, I think I have parked there and I don't
remember --
Borup: Ovemight is when no one is using it. That's the best time to be using it, isn't it?
Zaremba: You know, the theory on the city parking lot would be that there is turnover of
vehicles and my concern is that maybe some of the residents might have larger cars
that don't fit into the compact spaces, might park a car there and just leave it for days.
I'm .not sure that's the purpose of the city lot. So, I guess the defense to that would be
to ask the city to put up a no overnight or--
Borup: Or no daytime parking.
Zaremba: -- no more than 24 hours or something like that.
Canning: The applicant may have designated spots for the residences. I'm not sure.
You might want to ask him.
Borup: There is only four.
Canning: Right.
Zaremba: That's true. All right. If there aren't other questions, we will go with the
applicant.
Marshall: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I'm Scott
Marshall, LKV Architects, appearing for Dave Buich, who wasn't able to be here tonight.
Our firm's address is 1735 Federal Way, Boise, Idaho. 83705, We have no issues with
the site-specific conditions or the standard conditions of approval and there is a couple
things I'd like to address that I think that there is question on. The first being the
signage, under special considerations. If you go to the sentence where it ends -- talking
about the eight foot diameter sign on the north elevation, it says the applicant has also
proposed tenant signs in the areas which are five by five on the east and west
elevations.
Zaremba: We are on page five.
Marshall: Yes. So, directly above the doors on the front elevation would be signage for
individual tenants or signage areas.
Canning: Is that correct? Okay. I'm sorry I missed that. I see it in -- plain as day now.
Zaremba: I skimmed over that when I was reading it, too.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 80 of ag
Marshall: The second issue was the architecture of structure. Same page. Item
number two. We are not opposed to changing the roof to be a parapet. Our design
intention was that seeings how it is residential, we wanted to bring a little bit of a
residential feel to it and our opinion was because of the height of it and the narrowness
of Main Street, that we would still be sensitive to the streetscape by having the
businesses on the main floor and, then, providing a little bit of privacy to the residents
as they tuck back. But we can put a parapet on top if you want it. It's not really an issue
as far as our design goes.
Zaremba: Okay.
Marshall: And I think that's it, if you guys have any questions?
Zaremba: Am I interpreting correctly that the residential units actually are set back a
little bit and there is somewhat of a patio -- exterior patio around them?
Marshall: That's correct.
Zaremba: I think that's a great idea.
Rohm: Yeah. 'like that. They are not all sold, are they?
Marshall: Not yet. I think they are still for purchase.
Rohm: Interesting.
Newton-Huckabay: You can still do that with the parapet roof?
Marshall: Sure.
Zaremba: This isn't necessarily a city issue, but I'm always concerned when a gas
station is being removed, with old tanks and stuff. Are you prepared in case there is
any cleanup necessary?
Marshall: Our client is aware of the potential cost and abatement of that, contaminated
soils. I guess he's weighed it out, crunching his numbers, to where it's going to pan out
for him, so --
Zaremba: Good.
Newton-Huckabay: Weren't those tanks just replaced almost a decade ago?
Canning: I do know, Chairman Zaremba, that they did quite a bit of monitoring for the
creamery. We tested that for -- to see if there was any contamination for that and this
would be, I believe, kind of upstream from that and they didn't pick up anything, so the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3. 2005
Page 81 of Sg
chances are if something were really bad on that site we would -- they would have
picked it up when they were doing the creamery and --
Zaremba: We would already know about it. Yeah. Okay.
Marshall: I want to add we have met with ACHD already and they have approved what
our site -- our access to the site is on both Main and Broadway and as well as the alley.
They are requesting us to improve the alley and have it be one way. And as far as the
parking goes for the residences, it's our intention to provide designated parking in the
supplied lot to the residences on the top of the building.
Zaremba: Are you saying they will have specific reserved spaces?
Marshall: Correct.
Zaremba: Okay.
Marshall: To prevent that whole parking -- you know, leaving the camper out in that lot
for four weeks or something, so --
Zaremba: Good. Any other questions?
Canning: Old Town. Nice building. Go home.
Zaremba: Frankly, I, one, appreciate your willingness to invest in our downtown, our
Old Town, we are trying to revitalize it, and I have been very much in favor of seeing
vertically integrated projects come. I think this is the first one that we have actually
seen on paper. So, you already have my appreciation.
Marshall: I'll convey that to our client.
Borup: Yeah. I think it's exciting. I hope it's successful and that we see more of it. The
only, I guess, question I have -- and I'm not sure which way I feel, and that's just on the
exterior design and the parapet and such. I would --
Moe: Leave it alone.
Borup: Leave it alone?
Moe: Leave it alone.
Borup: So, which -- I thought we was going to --
Moe: The way it is I like it.
Borup: Oh, he's saying he likes it the way it is.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 82 of 89
Moe: The way it is.
Borup: Well, the others -- I mean the bank building and the George's Bicycle building, I
think both have it, but they are both two stories, and it looks real good on the two story.
This one has some of that feel.
Zaremba: Well, I think from the ground level the top of the second story is going to look
like a parapet almost and I'm not sure you are even going to see the top of the third
story.
Marshall: That's kind of what our thought was. I mean if you look at how -- if you look
at the front doors in relationship to how big a person would be, I mean --
Borup: And these -- now these things here gives it a little bit of that feel. You know, it's
kind of -- it does get some of that design to it.
Marshall: The other thing that we were considering, too, is the view from the front
elevation, as well as the side, we were considering bringing up and leaving a space on
the top of the roof for individual mechanical units that would serve the residences only.
And, then, the two towers on the ends would serve as cooling tower for the office and
the -- and the retail space. So, that's kind of -- I suppose you could do that with a
parapet wall, too, but that was kind of our thinking.
Newton-Huckabay: Are you using the same kind of brick as they did in the Farmers and
Merchants?
Marshall: That's undetermined. We will be using a brick and a stucco facade and
possibly some ceramic tile to kind of bring that old Main Street look, you know, be
sensitive to it. But as far as coloring and stuff goes, I don't know.
Rohm: Where were the roof top units going to be?
Marshall: Well, we -- the roof -- if you see the side view, it doesn't pitch up in a triangle,
it kind of flattens out, so it would kind of be up at an angle and, then, the top would be
hollowed out to where you could put units up there to hide them.
Rohm: Got you. Hollowed out. That's good.
Zaremba: All right. If there are no further questions, we do have one other person
signed up to speak. Thank you. Jim Zamzow.
Zamzow: Good evening.
Zaremba: Good evening.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 83 of 89
Zamzow: Mr. Chairman. Commissioners. I'm used to being last. I'm Zamzow.
Zaremba: I have the same thing. Zaremba is always last also.
Zamzow: I just have a couple of questions about this.
Zaremba: Officially state your name and address, please.
Zamzow: Jim Zamzow, 1727 Trout Road, Eagle, Idaho. A couple of questions. First of
all, I have to make this comment, because I know you guys have gone through this
before, but it's always amazed me how someone will build a subdivision next to a hog
farm and, then, complain about the pigs stinking. Well, we have had a feed mill next to
this location since 1953 and along with the feed mill goes heavy trucks, loud roller
noises, dust with the grain being unloaded, and that type of thing and while I know that's
not going to be a factor forever in the City of Meridian, it could be a factor for the
residents at the top of this building and I just want to go down on record as saying that
when people move into these very luxurious apartments that there may be some
problems. So, I think -- just like the power lines in the other issue, I think that that
should be addressed and be considered. I like the building. I, too, like to see the
development down there. In fact, we, long term, have plans to do some good things
there, too, if there is some way we could get together with those people that have the
creamery. Is Jay Amyx still alive? Anyway, if they want to park their old vans and stuff,
there is plenty of room back in the back there for that. My concern is the parking with
the city lot. This still isn't an appropriate amount of parking, even with the city lot, as far
as your code is concerned; is that correct? I thought I heard that. Secondly, is that city
lot going to be available for parking for this building in the future, if the city has anything
earmarked for that. That's a concern to me. We don't have enough parking along there
as it is, so I can see some potential problems. Basically, that's alii really have to say. I
just wanted to go down on record as -- I think they should go out and sit there on that
location during our operation and kind of get a feel for it, if they haven't already, so that
they know what's going on there. Plus, it's time you guys kick us out.
Rohm: Good comments.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Zamzow: Thank you.
Zaremba: Any questions for Mr. Zamzow?
Newton-Huckabay: No. But I love the new store on Chinden.
Zamzow: Thank you,
Zaremba: I don't know whether there is a related issue, but in many subdivisions that
are being put in next to something that continues to be farmed, we have a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3. 2005
Page 84 of 89
Right-To-Farm Act statement that's put on the plat. Is there any right-to-mill statement
that we can put on this one or -- Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, no, there is no state law that
maintains that particular use. They certainly are allowed to continue that use, but it
probably would not be appropriate for a plat or a condition, because the use is --
obviously, it can change at any point. But I agree with the testimony, is that certainly is
a potential issue, but I don't know that there is really a way to address that. Maybe Mrs.
Canning has a different thought, but I don't know that there really is a way to address
that. The current use is that. They can certainly see it when they go there to buy an
apartment. The other thing that I was going to mention, Mr. Chairman, probably --
because I think, as Mrs. Canning stated, it has been fairly common for this Commission
to comment on the application for a variance in relation to that, that might be the
appropriate place, if the Commission has some recommendation or suggestions to the
Council in regards to the variance, because, obviously, the parking is an issue that's
been raised by both the Commissioners and at the testimony, so that might be the
appropriate place to make that comment, if you wish.
Zaremba: Thank you. As the first vertically integrated project that we have had, I know
there was parking -- a discussion of the parking and I have forgotten now how -- how
short are they of what we would expect to be in a building with these uses.
Newton-Huckabay: Fifty. Fifty.
Zaremba: Short 50?
Newton-Huckabay: Didn't you say 70 parking spaces?
Canning: Seventy-one would normally be required and they have 22 off-street parking
stalls. And, then, the city lot has 32. So, we are up to 54 out of 71.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, on that note, too, I'm not aware of any discussion at this juncture
that this property has had as to the use of the city parking lot or any cross-use
agreement of any sort or -- there isn't -- I'm not aware that there is any signage currently
on that lot about the usage or the time or turnover or any of those things. Certainly, the
city may need to consider those things, but I'm not aware, unless the planning
department is aware of any discussions that this applicant has had with the city about
counting those spaces or having some cross-use agreement to be able to count those
spaces as usable on a regular basis by the tenants of this property.
Canning: That's correct. You go ahead.
Rohm: I was just going to say that the applicant has made provisions for their residents
and that's -- I think that that's going to be the spaces that will be occupied on a -- on a
continuing basis and the rest of the spaces will be occupied on a come-and-go --
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 85 of 89
Zaremba: Well -- and I'm not sure I have a problem even with the city lot being used by
transient vehicles that are accessing this property. My concern would be that there not
be permanent vehicles taking up space that -- I mean it's a public parking lot and it
should be used for all businesses around there or all uses around there.
Rohm: Yeah. At some point in time it may be something that the city should consider
putting time limitations on those -- that city lot. I mean because right now the people
that work in the buildings could take every one of them and there would be no parking
for customers. Anyway, that's for another day.
Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Commissioners --
Zaremba: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Which it's almost another day, so -
Canning: There is -- the city conducted a parking study of the downtown area. I don't
know if you're aware of that. The gist of the results were that for the most part there is
not a parking problem in downtown. There is a little bit of a shortage just around this
area. The City Hall generates a fair amount of need and, then, the church across the
street when they are having their meetings creates a fair demand. One of the issues is
that -- for planning is, though, is how much parking do you really want to require or plan
for in the downtown area. The idea is to get people on their feet walking, have it be a
pedestrian atmosphere. It is not to be a suburban location that -- where you can get
from your car to the retail store in a few steps. I mean there is just a difference between
the downtown area and a suburban mall location as far as parking requirements. Now,
we haven't gotten that far in our -- in our assessment of the downtown area yet to come
up with different standards for parking, but that's one -- that will be the -- I believe the
only issue, really, for the variance before the City Council and staff has not included that
analysis here, but I just wanted to give you that other information.
Zaremba: Have we gotten comment from Meridian Development Corp on --
Canning: You know, Clair came by and I was in a different meeting to -- the director
came by and I was in a different meeting today and I tried to call him, but was not able
to hook up with him. He said he had one quick question and that's alii know, but --
Zaremba: Okay. Let's see. Is the Public Hearing still open? I don't believe we gave
the applicant the last word, which is typical procedure,
Marshall: Just one more quick thing. We -- there was extensive conversation between
us and the client on the parking issue as well, because, obviously, if there is no parking,
no one is going to come to the building and it's not going to rent and we came to the
same conclusion that they did, is that it's a different -- the nature of the building is
somewhat different than usual, it's not like it's the mall where you -- you would want to
walk to a mall, because the parking lot is, you know, three hundred yards long. So, it
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 86 of 89
was our feeling that it wouldn't be really an issue and that it would contribute more to the
downtown fabric than to having not enough parking, so -- that's it.
Rohm: Thank you.
Zaremba: Are there going to be -- Mr. Marshall? Are there going to be CC&Rs for the
four residents, for instance, a homeowners association or anything?
Marshall: We haven't gotten that far yet. I would imagine so.
Zaremba: I'm just wondering if mentioning that it -- at the present time there is a mill
next door might be useful there.
Marshall: There was a little bit of discussion of that, too, and I think that, you know, it is
an urban setting and so anticipation of noises during the night, sirens, that kind of thing,
I can't speak for everybody, but I know that if I were to buy it I would be aware of
potential noises. It's not going to be like you're out in a subdivision out in Eagle or
something where it's dead quiet. So, that -- it's a good point and I will take it back to the
client.
Zaremba: All right. Thank you. Any other questions from the Commissioners? All
right. Thank you.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we close the Public Hearing on CUP 05-005.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of CUP 05-005, to include all staff comments dated February 24th, 2005, for
the hearing date March 3rd, 2005, and received on March 1 st, 2005, in their entirety.
End of Motion.
Moe: We were not going to make any --
Rohm: No.
Newton-Huckabay: We didn't make a determination on the elevation.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3, 2005
Page 87 of 89
Moe: -- in regards to the parking?
Rohm: Right. No, I think we are just going to leave it just the way it is. End of motion.
Newton-Huckabay: I am so confused now.
Moe: Well, she brought up another good point. Are we going with the elevation as
shown or to staff's comment on wanting to go with a more parapet, because that would,
then, require them to make a change.
Rohm: And I -- I, actually, accepted the applicant's position that the top story is going to
set back in and from the streetscape it looks like a parapet, so I don't think that that's a
huge issue.
Moe: On that note, second.
Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Do we care to give a consensus on the parking variance?
Moe: Well, I -- just a comment that I'm a little bit concerned with, number one, I love this
project, I think this is a fabulous addition to downtown. My concern is -- is you build one
and others will come.
Canning: We are hoping.
Moe: But having said that, I'm a little bit concerned as far as the variance on the
parking -- and I realize we have to do something for parking for this facility, but we are,
then, going to -- we are opening ourselves up to where you gave it to them, now we
want it and we want it and, then, at some point, then, we may have ourselves a parking
problem by doing such. Having said that, I don't really know what I'm trying to tell you,
but I have got a little bit of a concern there, but --
Newton-Huckabay: Well, downtown parking, I would imagine everything would be
driven by demand. Isn't it going to be driven by availability to some extent? There is
only so much space downtown.
Nary: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Maybe to assist the Council, since it's ultimately their call, maybe to assist the
Council, if the Commission has some thought in the fact that there are three different
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 3. 2005
Page 88 of ag
types of uses in this building and it appears from the testimony the discussion was
providing specific designated space for their tenants of the residences in the building.
Maybe if the Commission had some thought to provide the Council some insight as to
your feeling in regards to the office space and the necessity of parking in relation to
those versus the necessity of parking in relation to retail, I think some of the testimony
revolved around the turnover of parking and the nature of trying to create a pedestrian
atmosphere, but maybe by dividing it by the types of uses that might give the Council
some guidance as to how to set some standard for those variances to look at that,
because I think you're right, once you build one of these and it's successful you may
see more of that and that might be of some help to the Council.
Newton-Huckabay: Is that by percentage?
Nary: No. I'm just saying in relation to whatever your feelings are, but I mean they
talked about providing specific designated spaces for their residences and if you feel
that's adequate, then, the Council maybe should know that that is your preference. If
you think that there should be some -- there should be some relationship of the office
uses, because, again, those don't turn over during the course of a day normally, the
same way that retail does, maybe that's part of your part comment to the Council as
well, to give us some guidance between the types of uses, because we don't have
anything in our code currently to address these varieties of uses in one facility like this.
So, that might be a way for the Council to sort of get their arms around your thoughts as
to those uses in relation to the parking, if that makes sense.
Rohm: And I think that all of that is unique to downtown itself, but not specifically to this
project and any comments that I would make about that parking would be in a -- more of
a global nature and maybe suggest to the city that they consider the available
downtown parking that currently exists should have some -- maybe some limitations on
length of parking in a percentage of those, so that there is that turnover availability for
retail, whether it be for this project or any other. But I don't think that there is anything
specific to this project that I would want to -- that I would want to tie the Council to.
Borup: Okay. I would think the owners would -- if they perceive -- if they have a
problem, that they would maybe want to restrict certain parking places to retail only -- to
limit it to the office and let the office park a little farther away, but --
Zaremba: Well, they can do that by designating some spaces as half hour spaces.
Borup: Yeah.
Zaremba: Or something like that.
Borup: And I had the same concern Commissioner Moe does, I think, you know, we
may have some problems in the future, but that's probably the time to address it as
when the next projects come up, it's -- you know, it's good to get one something going
and it would be nice to have that problem later on.
Meridian Planning & Zonin9
March 3, 2005
Page 89 of 89
Zaremba: Well, I think my only concern is the public parking lot becoming de facto this
property's parking lot and my answers to that would be to say probably to the City
Council, yes, I'm in favor of the variance, my suggesting would be the applicant has said
they are going to specifically identify the resident spaces and I suggest that the city do
some signage that requires turnover in the city's parking lot.
Rohm: I think that's well said.
Zaremba: That would be my opinion.
Moe: I would agree as well.
Newton-Huckabay: I agree, too.
Zaremba: Okay. Then, I believe that was a consensus and we are ready for one more
motion.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we adjourn.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: Moved and seconded. All in favor? Any opposed.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: We are adjourned at what looks like midnight 07.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:07 AM.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
Q~~Ap-
DAVIDZAREMB- HAIRMAN
cI I-1Já
DÞ1r-E APPROVED