2005 09-15
Meridian Plannin and Zonin
Se tember 15 2005.
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of September 15, 2005, was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Zaremba.
Members Present: Chairman David Zaremba, Commissioner Keith Borup,
Commissioner Michael Rohm, and Commissioner David Moe.
Members Absent: Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay.
Others Present: Ted Baird, Tara Green, Ann Canning, Craig Hood, Josh Wilson, Joe
Guenther, Mike Cole, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Keith Borup X
Wendy Newton-Huckabay X
X Chairman David Zaremba
David Moe
Michael Rohm
Zaremba: Good evening, everybody, and welcome to this regularly scheduled meeting
of the Planning and Zoning Commission of Meridian for September 15th, 2005. We will
begin with a roll call of Commissioners.
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Zaremba: Next item is adoption of the agenda. And we will proceed through the
agenda in the order that it's printed, but for those of you that would be interested, let me
give you a little warning. Items 7, 8 and 9 that relate the Pinebridge Subdivision, there
are a few items of that still need to be clarified and straightened out and that will be
tabled to January 19th. I'm sorry. That needs to be straightened out with ACHD. So,
Pinebridge will be tabled to January 29th, 2006, and no substantive discussion tonight.
Items 10, 11 and 12 relating to Irvine Subdivision, they had some issues that need to be
worked out with Idaho Transportation Department, so we will not be discussing that one
tonight. It will be continued to October 6th, 2005. And the rest of them we will heard
tonight. So, unless I hear any objection, we will assume the agenda adopted in order.
So be it.
Item 3:
Consent Agenda:
A.
Approve Minutes of August 4, 2005 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
B.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: MCU
05-001 Request for a Minor Modification of a Conditional Use
Permit to allow model homes to be constructed with zero lot
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 2 of 57
frontages for Paramount Subdivision No.9 by Paramount
Development, Inc. - south of Chinden Boulevard between North
Meridian Road & North Linder Road:
Zaremba: Next item is the Consent Agenda, which consists of minutes of our August
4th meeting and Findings and Conclusions of Facts on MCU 05-001. And I have one
comment on the minutes and I would ask other Commissioners if they do as well. On
page 43 of 57, the very bottom paragraph, at the end of the line -- or, actually, in the
middle of that paragraph, there is a statement where I'm quoted as saying are we ready
to have a 300 foot right of way and, actually, that should be straight of say, rather than
right of way. It's a straight-away. That's my only change. Any other Commissioners
have any? Okay. Now, let me ask staff -- actually, that's a legal opinion. What we
have prepared in our packets for the Findings of Fact with a corrected signature sheet,
we don't need to call that a change, do we?
Baird: Mr. Chair, I would just point out for the record that we substituted signatures to
reflects the --
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. In that case, I would entertain a motion to approve the
Consent Agenda with the minutes as amended.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we accept the Consent Agenda as amended.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIES: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 4:
Presentation:
Manager:
Idaho Powers 75-year plan, Kip Sikes, Planning
Zaremba: The next item on our agenda, we are very pleased to have another in our
series of educational presentations and we have been doing this on our second
meeting, the third Thursday of every month, throughout the year, and have been
fortunate to have some very informative people and this time we are extremely fortunate
to have Mr. Kip Sikes, who is the planning manager for Idaho Power and he is going to
tell us some about what he does in planning and how far out they look and we will look
forward to his presentation. Mr. Sikes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15. 2005
Page 3 of 57
Sikes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. I'm real pleased to
be here this evening, because I have a real strong affinity for the City of Meridian, as
you will see in just a moment, there is a strong likeness in the location in Meridian
relative to Idaho. And go ahead with the next slide, please. And here is kind of what I
mean. They are similar in that Meridian is kind of in the middle of everything that goes
on here in the Treasure Valley. There are a lot of things that maybe are outside of their
borders, but that impact it and affect you and transportation, infrastructure, growth, and
that's what our job is to development at multiple levels. For Idaho Power, part of our
scope of area of impact goes ~- and put up the next slide and it will become apparent.
We deal with the western north American electric grid. This is part of my environment,
in dealing with what goes on throughout northwest Canada, throughout the western
United States, and this affects what happens here in Idaho. So, again, it's very similar
to what goes on in the Treasure Valley with you folks. Go to the next slide, please. If
you kind of zoom down a little bit, you will see a little background or backdrop for a
setting as to why we plan the way we do. This is kind of an outline of Idaho Power
service territory. We serve eastern Oregon, as well as southwest parts of Idaho and
what's interesting to a lot of people is most of the resources -- Idaho is a net importer of
energy, rather than many of the western states. We have neighbors on all of our
borders, just as the city here has neighbors on all of its borders. The similarities are
really quite striking. Next slide, please. So, what I want to kind of show you with that
back drop a little bit, is what we refer to as kind of a conceptual or ultimate build-out. It's
an approach that we take to planning that's a long range, visionary development in an
area, so that we can have kind of a road map for the infrastructure requirement as
growth occurs, but what too often we find ourselves doing, as the City of Meridian, we
find ourselves close or just barely able to keep up with the growth curve, so trying to
stay ahead of that and just as well, in our case, keep the lights on and in your case help
development prosper, as well as the residents in the city, all of those things end up
being a balancing act and we use kind of a similar approach. Our build out planning
process -- general statements are sort of blocked, these here. The path forward is best
found by working back through time in projects from the ultimate scenario. So, we try
and look out 75 years or longer into the future as kind of the ultimate build out, saying
this is the scenario and it's not much different than any other things, but the horizon time
frame we looked out is significantly longer than most planning organizations within the
valley. But that conceptual or an ultimate build out, gives us, really, some direction, but
it's not the end point in our planning process. We no more believe that that's exactly
what it will look like by the time we get there than anyone else does. But it does allow
us to evaluate scenarios and the impacts of change will bring and that's, really, what
planning is all about. It's just one of those components of our overall planning process.
Next slide, please. So, our planning process really is to develop a strategy to
accommodate growth as it occurs and locating new infrastructure -- most of Idaho
Power's infrastructure is what I would refer to as essential infrastructure, such as
transportation, roads, water, sewer, all of those elements you have, you cannot sustain,
support, inhabitants growth, any of those things without the proper infrastructure in
place. So, that's why it's so critical for us to take a long-term view of things and figure
out where this is going, so that we don't get caught short, as all of us do from time to
time, because we don't think full growth, we do react to it, but we are planning for it. So,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 4 of 57
a lot of those things that do drive us are societal, economic, technical -- there are many
different options in play. A plan is nothing more than something that will be wrong and
you have to adjust to it as we will see a little bit later. Next slide, please. What we
really try and assess, then, are the drivers of growth and we can do economic
forecasting, we can do lots of different approaches to it, but what we have found, the
elements that are essential for growth to occur really kind of are composed of these
types of drivers, is you can't have population increases without economic development,
without transportation with that industry -- all of these things, really, are interdependent.
But the one thing that is apparent is there is only so much land and that becomes
oftentimes the constraint. More money can buy more water, more this can buy more of
that, but there was only so much land created however long you want to believe ago
and that's what we are all faced with. Next slide, please. So, when looking at that, kind
of a perspective of what we see across the Treasure Valley in looking at population and
load, when we first started doing some of these studies, I wanted to believe -- I looked
at this and came to the realization of where we are headed, but realized that maybe I
will be long in the grave by the time we get there. The existing population of the
Treasure Valley is somewhere in the neighborhood of 500,000 people. Just slightly
under that, I believe, right now. Our projection for the Treasure Valley in approximately
75 years, this is our median estimate of about 1.6 million people. Our bookends went
up to 3.2 million for the highest growth scenario, which is very unlikely to occur, down to
about 1.1 million on the low growth estimate. But there are other natural constraints,
that, again, I will talk about a little bit later, kind of a renewal in the case cycle that
happen. The existing, from electrical terms for Idaho Power, population isn't what we
plan for, it's the electrical infrastructure and the energy use that we have to supply. So,
the existing load in the Treasure Valley is about 1,800 megawatts. And I'm not going to
try to explain what a megawatt is, just think of it as something similar to people, but it's
an electrical unit. Our build for the Treasure Valley at this 1.6 million population is about
7,000 megawatts. The existing entire Idaho Power service territory that I showed on
that previous slide is 3,000. So, what we project in the long term is almost one and a
half times the load in the Treasure Valley as the entire Idaho Power service territory is
today. Now, that's something, you know, that you have all been dealing with, too,
watching Meridian grow over the years, is -- the easiest way to think about it is it's about
one-third done, as one of the ways that I like to look at it. Next slide, please. Now, what
that starts to bring for us is when we map out where this load can exist on the
landscape is we end up, you know, kind of playing kindergarten -- I have a kindergarten
student and, you know, drawing circles, squares -- it's all kind of land based and this will
become more apparent when we talk about land use maps that you're all familiar with.
But at build out there is a significant amount of infrastructure. The yellow diamonds on
here are what are existing and all the hollow ones are what are yet to be built. Next
slide, please. Similarly, we can't just kind of build a substation to serve that amount of
land, we have to connect it with transmission lines. So, this next slide demonstrates
kind of one possible scenario, like playing dot to dot and connecting all of those
substations, so that electricity and energy can actually flow to the consumers. And,
again, this is a significant amount of addition of transmission infrastructure above and
beyond what exists there currently today. Next slide, please. So, kind of -- continuing
to narrow our focus in a little bit closer to home here, as we look at the Meridian area,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 5 of 57
the existing population and load for the area is approximately 57,000 people in the City
of Meridian. Our existing load within kind of the defined footprint of the City of Meridian
is about 225 megawatts. Again, one of those meaningless numbers. But, again,
relative to where we see things going, our build out projection is roughly twice that, up to
125,000 people. Now, Compass's population forecast and the demographic advisory
committee I'm a member of, the 2030 estimate for population is approximately 92,000
people for the City of Meridian. So, our longer-range look shows more than that here.
But, again, kind of back into the metrics I like to use, well, it's about half done for the
time horizon that we are looking at. Now, I have got to make an engineering joke here,
because, you know, is the cup half full or is the cup half empty. The engineer would say
the cup is twice as big as it needs to be. But I don't want to imply that about the City of
Meridian needing to shrink its area of impact by 50 percent and, then, you're done. But
some of the interesting statistics that we see out of our demographics, as well as that of
Idaho Power's data, is over the last four years roughly 80 percent of the new customer
hookups we have had within the City of Meridian area are all residential. So, when you
look at the demographics of the type of growth that is occurring, I'm not explaining
anything new to anybody here, it's predominately residential growth within the City of
Meridian. And we are connecting currently approximately 2,000 customers per year in
the City of Meridian. Now, let's see if this map works out. I'm winging this, as I always
do. If there are roughly 2.2 people per household, that's roughly an increase of four to
five thousand in population per year within the City of Meridian. I don't know if that jives
relatively close with what you're counting as well. Next slide, please. So, how do we
plan for this type of growth? Well, we take a look -- we build it from the bottom up.
Again, kind of from the land base. One of the things I'd like to point out this is renewed
cycle of development. As we see farmland turning into subdivisions and later, 50, 75,
200 years from now what is it going to be, that's just a natural occurrence of growth and
development. If you go to a city that is 2,000 years old and the size of the city hasn't
changed, but the character has, but it's been built and rebuilt many many times and
that's kind one of the things that you see is a redevelopment or in-fill development and a
recycling of the use of the land as densities goes up and you get into a constrained
system. One element here within the Treasure Valley that has been apparent, but will
not continue to last forever, is there is plenty of land to develop and transition from an
existing use to a new use. Once that is used up, the cost of the development, called
green fill development -- maybe that's because the fields are green when they get
developed. I'm not sure. But, you know, once that's consumed it becomes more
expensive to develop, so it changes the nature and the type of development, the
density, the community, the culture. If you go into a large major urban area, the culture
is definitely different than the small towns that we have all grown up with here in Idaho.
Next slide, please. So, this is probably not much different looking than the map right
before it. This is basically the land use-zoning plan from Meridian. And this is kind of
where we start at looking at our development, as we look at what types of zoning, what
types of development is permitted, and, then, we translate into future estimated loads.
Next slide, please. So, for us -- I realize on the projector here, I apologize; it's very
difficult to read these numbers from here. If anyone is distinctly interested in them, we
can show them to you later or make those available. But what we do is we look at the
type of zoning and how much land is being utilized. But for us it really get back to that
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 6 of 57
final column is load density. Now, load density to us translates into square footage of
land into electrical energy demand and that's what we have to provide in our planning, is
to be able to meet that electrical demand. So, depending upon what type of
development you put on the ground, you can maybe see the numbers here a little bit
better and, if not, I can put my glasses on and look at my real small ones and I can give
you an example. For low.density residential development, which is three units per acre,
we are looking at a number of around 4,000. For commercial development for the same
footprint, we are looking at a number of about 22 to 23 thousand, almost six times more
electrical usage for the same land base. So, you can see why it is so important to us to
understand what will be built where, so that our infrastructure can provide that service
and, as you all know, the types of developments on the given land really dictates the
nature of the community and what's going on there. Next slide, please. So, I'm going to
jump, again, back out to kind of a real high level, I apologize, on the overhead, right in
the center -- I didn't bring a laser pointer with me. Right in this area here is Meridian
proper, the downtown core area, of the City of Meridian, to get things in perspective.
The horizontal line up near the top is along Chinden and the freeway is kind of running
down through just barely below the middle of the page, just for frame of reference. Over
on the right-hand side, or the east side, if you look towards the very far right of this map
you can kind of see the Flying Wye interchange breaking out. So, that's a frame of
reference. This diagram here shows -- over here is the Flying Wye, so here is Meridian
proper. This diagram here shows basically our existing electrical system infrastructure
and transmission lines. This is McMillan Road right up along through here. We have a
substation providing service here, called Locust Grove. This is -- Ten Mile substation is
a relatively new substation, just energized within the last year. Over here is Black Cat
Substation, I believe at Franklin and Black Cat. Stoddard Substation is relatively new
south of the freeway for us. The existing Meridian Substation. And over here on the
eastern boundary is our Cloverdale Substation, which, actually, provides some service
into this end. Next slide, please. Here I have taken the liberty to kind of point some
things out, knowing that they wouldn't be real apparent or visible, but what I have circled
here are kind of the end fill development required to support and sustain the growth.
So, like I said in the beginning, we are really close to 50 percent of development from
our existing projection or forecast and in accomplishing that we had a number of
existing facilities and transmission lines in the area. Well, as the City of Meridian has
expanded its area of impact and growth spreads outwards from the city center proper,
these new facilities -- there is a transmission line here heading up towards Eagle and
Star, a new substation, and the one thing I want to point out -- this is kind of the fun
thing that you don't often get to point out mistakes to yourself, but this is work in
transmission. Right now, just as you update your comp plans, we update our plans as
well. We show a dot here for a potential future substation and a transmission line a mile
west that doesn't line up. Well, in our process we are through is this really illustrates we
don't know exactly where these things are going to end up, other than in many
instances if we can acquire the land and let it be known into the future a substation is
required in this area and get a long standing conditional use permit to protect that
location, as well as the transmission corridors to serve it and, then, everyone that's
coming into the area is aware that something may not be there today, but it will be
required in the future. So, that's, really, one of our hopes in communicating with the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 7 of 57
public through these processes is to make it an open forum so people can see and
understand the impacts and the consequences of the decisions that we are all faced
with, because, you know, I'm not going to say this in a negative sense here, since I'm
hopefully here on good terms, but we react to the decisions you make here and we
have to, because we do have an obligation to serve the customers. So, with that I will
stand for any questions or--
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Rohm: I think you're doing a great job.
Sikes: I have seen your job and I don't want it. I can also saw you don't want my job
either.
Zaremba: That was very helpful and I do appreciate it. You have answered all of my
questions before I asked them and I can see that there is a massive planning effort
going on there as well and you made the point right at the end the objective is to
preserve the possibility to expand later into the -- I know you don't build everything
today, because you don't need it today, but the planning to be able to build it later and
not have road blocks, I really appreciate that. Thank you very much.
Sikes: And thank you very much.
Moe: Thank you. Just one observation. For you to actually answer all his questions
before he asks, that's a great deal.
Item 5:
Continued Recommendation from September 1, 2005: VAC 05-011
Request for a Vacation of Irrigation Easements for Bonito Subdivision by
Dave Evans Construction - 3041 East Copper Point Drive:
Zaremba: Thanks. All right. We are ready for the next item and I will open the
continued recommendation for VAC 05-011 relating to Bonito Subdivision and this is not
a Public Hearing, we will have a briefing from the staff and, then, comments among
ourselves and, then, make our recommendation to City Council.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bonito vacation, as I stated before, was tabled so
that it could allow staff to get the right information. The Nampa-Meridian Irrigation
District's attorney had signed a relinquishment and sent it over to Public Works and
Planning Department did not receive a copy. But we did receive a copy from the
Nampa-Meridian Irrigation superintendent saying they needed the easement. So, this
has been clarified and cleared up. If you notice the easement has just been relocated,
so they do have access to their facility. Everything has been taken care of as far as we
have seen. Public Works has agreed to this and we are just looking for a
recommendation for approval of this to send onto City Council.
Zaremba: Commissioners?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 8 of 57
Moe: I have no questions.
Zaremba: Okay. In that case we ready for a motion.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move that we recommend approval to City Council of file number V AC 05-012
as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 15th, 2005.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 6:
Continued Recommendation from September 1, 2005: VAC 05-014
Request to Vacate Ada County Highway District Right-of-Way for Dorado
Subdivision by W.H. Moore - northwest corner of Eagle Road and
Overland Road:
Zaremba: Next is also a continued recommendation and this is VAC 05-014 relating to
Dorado Subdivision.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The Dorado
vacation is for vacation of easement on Eagle and Overland Roads. This show the
proposed Dorado Subdivision, which would acquire this right of way for their future
expansion. There has been detailed and very strenuous discussions between ITD and
ACHD that the city does not have an opinion about, because it's -- the deal is between
the two agencies. We tried to just basically wait until all the dust had settled in order to
make this recommendation. The city's recommendation is let both the agencies work it
out, so we are going to recommend approval based on the fact that ACHD and ITD
have come -- have appeared to come to a resolution, they just need to finish working
some situations out between the two agencies and so we are just looking to forward this
on with a recommendation of approval.
Zaremba: Would it be appropriate to add a condition that at this stage we would be
willing to recommend approval, but that it needs to be resolved before it actually goes
before the City Council?
Guenther: This is just a recommendation --
Zaremba: Or is that the way it's going to happen?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 9 of 57
Guenther: This is a recommendation, for ACHD holds the final hearing for the actual
vacation of this easement -- of this right of way. And their hearing is at the end of this
month. The -- for the Dorado Subdivision it's fairly central for them to move this on, so
that they can get through with this, because we can't actually accept and finalize the plat
until they own that section of right of way, whatever the dimensions of the right of way
may end up being. So, that's what we are just saying, is we are going to let ITD and
ACHD work that out and, then, have, obviously, until the end of the month in order to do
that before ACHD's hearing on the vacation.
Zaremba: So, it doesn't necessarily need to be resolved before City Council hears it
even?
Guenther: No.
Zaremba: Okay.
Baird: Mr. Chair--
Zaremba: Mr. Baird.
Baird: -- and Members of the Commission, if I could just add to that. The city's
recommendation can be made regardless of who has the jurisdiction. The city's looked
at it, they don't have any issues with vacating it, so the staffs recommendation is not
based on whether it's ACHD's jurisdiction or ITD's. However, we do have some comfort
that we have heard from ACHD and they are relatively confident that it is within their
jurisdiction and that that will be worked out. So, I think you can make your
recommendation with some confidence that the applicant has that well in hand.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, a motion would be in order.
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number VAC 05-014, as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 15th, 2005.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 10 of 57
Zaremba: All right. The remainder of our meeting does consist of public hearings and
some of you may have heard this, but for those of you who don't come to our meetings
very often, I will run through our procedure a little bit. Our professional staff and the
applicant have already spent quite a bit of time together. So, we begin with a
presentation from our professional staff. They identify for us where the project is, what
the project is. They compare all of the works that have been brought to them to both
the Comprehensive Plan and up until now the planning and zoning ordinances and
effective today there is a new Unified Development Code, which they also compare
things with. And their judgment is not really whether the project is nice or bad, their
judgment is whether it complies with the law and sometimes there are still some
questions that are a little vague in the law and that's sort of what our job to interpret
before we make a recommendation to the City Council. So, the process is the staff will
make their presentation about the project, identify any issues that are still remaining as
far as the law is concerned to be resolved with the developer before we make a
recommendation to City Council. After the staff has spoken, the developer can respond
to anything that has been raised or tell us anything extra that they feel we need to know.
We allow the applicant or developer 15 minutes to make their presentation and that
includes any supporting staff that they have, engineers or architects or something, in
those 15 minutes. After that we do open it to the public. That's you. This is your turn to
tell us what you think about this project, what you think needs to be considered that may
not have been considered, what else we need to think about before we make our
recommendation. We do ask that you limit your remarks to three minutes, so that our
meetings don't go on and on forever. And, actually, we do offer this. If there is a
spokesman on any subject and an example of that would be a president of a
homeowners association, and we have them identify themselves as a spokesman for
many of you, we do give that person ten minutes. Then, we ask those of you that have
signed up and the spokesman has spoken for you, when I call your name if you would
just raise your hand and say Mr. So and So spoke for me. If you have something that
you think was missed, please, do come forward and add it. But if all you want to do is
support what's already been said, we will know what you mean. We do ask any
remarks that you have, since it was important enough for you to come down tonight, it's
important that we hear it and that the recorder hear it and get it on. So, please, only
speak when you're at the microphone and when you come forward do identify yourself
first with your name and your address. We appreciate that. So, individuals will have
three minutes, a spokesman will have ten minutes, and that's on the assumption that
some of the individuals are giving their time up to that spokesman. During that time the
applicant will take notes on the issues that you raise and since it's their project, they will
have the final word. They will have ten minutes to explain or help or propose any
changes that will satisfy any issues that have been raised during the public testimony
and, theoretically, we will, then, close the Public Hearing and deliberate on it and make
a recommendation to City Council where they will also have a Public Hearing on the
same subject.
Item 7:
Continued Public Hearing from August 4, 2005: AZ 05-013 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 120.15 acres from R1, RUT, C-G and I-L
zones to C-G, I-L and L-Q zones for Pinebridge Subdivision by Pinnacle
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 11 of 57
Engineers, Inc. - east of North Locust Grove Road and south of East
Fairview Avenue:
Item 8:
Continued Public Hearing from August 4, 2005: PP 05-015 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 55 building lots and 7 other lots on 120.15
acres in proposed C-G, I-L and L-O zones for Pinebridge Subdivision by
Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - east of North Locust Grove Road and south of
East Fairview Avenue:
Item 9:
Continued Public Hearing from August 4, 2005: CUP 05-020 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for commercial /
office / industrial and multi-family uses in proposed C-G, I-L and L-O
zones for Pinebridge Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - east of
North Locust Grove Road and south of East Fairview Avenue:
Zaremba: So, that being said, let's begin with one that we are actually not going to
discuss. Open the Public Hearing -- or reopen the continued Public Hearing for AZ 05-
013, PP 05-015, and CUP 05-020. These all relate to Pinebridge Subdivision and the
request is to table that to January 19th, 2006. That is a long time out and there are a
few items that perhaps staff will discuss, but -- well, let me start with staff, please.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair. You mentioned we do have a request of the applicant to
continue or table, as it may be, this application. They are still working, as noted in the
letter from the applicant dated September 12th, they are still working with ACHD on the
extension of Pine Avenue, basically, is what it comes down to, and being compensated
for Pine Avenue. A long story short, Pine Avenue is not currently in the district's 20-year
plan. The developer does not want a condition put on them at this time until that gets
put in the CIP, so they can be reimbursed for whatever they construct above and
beyond what's required for the development. So, they are working with ACHD. They
believe that they can have that resolved by the end of this year, so they are ready to be
heard the first of next year here at the city. So, that was what the request is. The
reason that we have -- we asked six weeks ago, so when you said last on the agenda,
as we continued to this, as was mentioned, we do have a new UDC that goes into effect
today and staff would prefer not to have to go back, because this is grandfathered in, as
it were, with the old development ordinance. Have to pull that out of the closet and work
off of that in four months, so I do have a new letter from the applicant. He didn't change
the date on it. It's basically the same letter that he sent earlier this week, with the one
sentence that says he's willing to be evaluated under the new Uniform Development
Code. So, we will be looking for some supplemental information from him in the next
couple of months, we will bring that before you with some of the new design standards
and things. They do have a multi-family component within this development and we do
have some specific design guidelines that they haven't provided enough information, but
that's -- without getting into it too much, I guess staff would request that we do table this
application and re-notice it, because it's been -- it would almost be a year by the time we
get to January '06 that they submitted, give it new file numbers, and, basically, start
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 12 of 57
over, not charge them any additional fees, except for the additional hearing fee to re-
notice and things. With that I will stand for any questions you may have.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Borup: I think that makes sense. The only other question I would have is do they have
hopes that it will be taken care of by January? I mean how reliable is that date? What-
- I suppose it's just as reliable as today's date was, uh?
Hood: Yeah. They are hopeful. There is no guarantee. They are working with Gary
Inselman and the legal staff at ACHD. They have a document that they have got
drafted up already. The problem is they cannot effectively sign that until these things
happen or until at least it's -- it's on the radar. I don't think there is any doubt that this
portion of Pine will be in the 20 year work program the next time it's updated, it's just
that ACHD can only update their CIP every so often and the calendar just didn't fall right
for this development. So, there is no guarantee and the letter does say if we don't have
this worked out by the first of the year, we will withdraw our application, or we will press
forward and we build it at our dollar completely. So, I think the first of the year we will at
least have a hearing on this and we can move forward. There will be a staff report; we
can evaluate it at that point.
Borup: So, it sounds like they have a conceptual agreement, then. They are just
waiting for the time.
Hood: Yes.
Zaremba: And, actually, in support of that, the city's transportation planner Steve
Siddoway and the Meridian Transportation Task Force are in favor of ACHD changing
the designation of Pine Street and getting it into the capital improvements plan and onto
the 20 year work plan.
Borup: I would think so.
Zaremba: So, the Transportation Task Force is pushing the same agenda and,
hopefully, that will happen. So, we, actually -- and I will have the attorney listen, if you
would, please, Mr. Baird, and correct me if I don't do this correctly. I, actually, would like
to have two motions. One would be to close the current three pubic hearings. Then, we
will follow that with a motion to table the same public hearings to January 19th, with a
direction to staff to do three things: To provide new file numbers, to evaluate the new
proposal under the Uniform Development Code, and to have all of the levels of re-notice
accomplished, with the cost for that being paid by the developer -- or the applicant I
mean. So, the staff would entertain those two motions, please.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 13 of 57
Rohm: I move that we close the public hearings on AZ 05-013, PP 05-015, and CUP
05-020.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we table AZ 05-013, PP 05-015, and CUP 05-020 to the regularly
scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting of January 19th, 2006, with the following
provisions: That the applicant provide new -- or the staff provide new file numbers, that
the developer will be evaluated based upon the Unified Development Code, and that the
developer will pay for all re-noticing for this project. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 1 0:
Item 11:
Item 12:
Continue Public Hearing from September 1, 2005: AZ 05-038 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 38.5 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Irvine
Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC - southeast corner of Ten Mile
Road and Chinden Boulevard:
Continue Public Hearing from September 1, 2005: PP 05-037 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 200 building lots and 21 common lots on
38.5 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Irvine Subdivision by Dyver
Development, LLC - southeast corner of Ten Mile Road and Chinden
Boulevard:
Continue Public Hearing from September 1, 2005: CUP 05-039
Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single
family detached residential units and single family attached residential
units in a proposed R-8 zone for Irvine Subdivision by Dyver
Development, LLC - southeast corner of Ten Mile Road and Chinden
Boulevard:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 14 of 57
Zaremba: Okay. Next is Irvine Subdivision and I will open the continued public
hearings AZ 05-038, PP 05-037, and CUP 05-039 and entertain a motion to continue
those to October 6th.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Yes. I move -- I move the public hearings for AZ 05-038, PP 05-037, and CUP
05-039, be co!1tinued to the regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting of August
the 6th, 2006.
Rohm: October 6th?
Moe: October 6th. What did I say?
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: Motion and a second to continue these to October 6th, 2005. All in favor say
aye. Any opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 13:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-041 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.15
acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Woodburn Subdivision by Centennial
Development, LLC - 840 West Ustick Road:
Item 14:
Public Hearing: PP 05-041 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 47
single family residential building lots and 10 common area lots on 10.15
acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Woodburn Subdivision by Centennial
Development, LLC - 840 West Ustick Road:
Item 15:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-042 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for Woodburn Subdivision that includes
reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage and
setbacks by Centennial Development, LLC - 840 West Ustick Road:
Zaremba: Okay. Now, we are ready for one we are really going to deal with. I will
open the public hearings for AZ 05-041, PP 05-041, and CUP 05-042, all relating to
Woodburn Subdivision and we will begin with the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The subject site is located
on the west side Venable Lane, approximately 600 feet north of Ustick Road. It's
outlined in purple in the overhead. It is just west of a future school site here that was
platted with Baldwin Park and south of the approved Sienna Creek Subdivision. You
can actually see an outline of that plat there and the lots within that subdivision. The
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15. 2005
Page 15 of 57
site has not be previously platted and is designated mixed use community and medium
density residential on the 2002 future land use map. There is a neighborhood center
shown on the Comprehensive Plan approximately this half noon location here. A
portion of it -- a large portion of this site is within that mixed-use designation. I will flip to
the next slide. There has been a car wash, convenience store type business right here,
approved by the city with a development agreement for that site, so part of that
neighborhood center has been approved. To the south of the subject site is still rural
residential, zoned RUT in Ada County. The same with the west of the site, there are
some large parcels still in Ada County, zoned RUT. The subject annexation, zoning,
preliminary plat and Conditional Use Permit include 47 build-able lots and ten common
lots. This is the landscape plan. It depicts pretty well the common areas, the build-able
lots. There are 24 attached lots here. This is a grouping of five town-homes. There is
a grouping of three, three, and four and four. So, different number townhouses on the
interior, with the exterior lots being single-family detached lots. The gross density of the
subdivision is 4.63 dwelling units per acre. The planned development includes a
request for reductions to the minimum lot size for primarily the townhouse lots, although
a lot of the detached lots also do request some deviations from the standards, including
minimum lot size, the street frontage, and the setbacks of the R-8 zone. As amenities,
the applicant is proposing open space in excess of 13 percent of the site, playground
equipment here in the middle of their large open space area, and a picnic area on Lot
13, Block 3, as well. With the internal pathway system, there are detached sidewalks
and the micro-paths and pathway through their large open area in the middle of the
project. Access to the development is proposed off of ~- this is Venable Lane down to
Ustick Road, proposed from the east, and a stub street that was approved with Sienna
Creek Subdivision from the north. That will be extended into the site as well. There
weren't really a lot of changes for staff in the report. Just a couple to mention, originally
the landscape plan did show a tot lot more over in this location. After discussing with
the police department, we recommended that the tot lot be moved more centrally to this
open space area, that way patrol can -- patrol in the neighborhood can have eyes more
on that tot lot from all directions, makes it more visible and accessible, even to the entire
subdivision. The other change that we had is a fairly new one. The first time I have
written it into a staff report. In conjunction with ACHD's new standards for parkway
strips -- it's hard to tell at this scale, but the detached sidewalks we do require an eight
foot detachment parkway between the back of curb and the face of the sidewalk there.
So, they were showing -- five is what's been standard for a long time and just working
with ACHD and the root systems of trees, we have enlarged those for these different
classifications of trees. So, those were the two changes that I just wanted to point out.
I will show you an elevation of one of the townhouse lots quickly. Each townhouse will
also contain an element of architectural relief, such as stucco finish, brick or rock, and
includes some vinyl shutters. Staff is recommending approval of AZ 05-041, PP 05-
041, and CUP 05-042, for Woodburn Subdivision, with the conditions of approval as
noted in the staff report. And I will stand for any questions you may have.
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Okay. Thank you. In that case
we are ready for the applicant. And while he's coming forward, I forgot to mention we
have this handy light system. When the green light is on you have time to talk. The
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15. 2005
Page 16 of 57
yellow light will come on warning you that it's time to conclude. And when the red one
comes on we ask that you discontinue. Thank you very much. Mr. Nickel.
Nickel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Shawn Nickel, 52 North 2nd Street in Eagle,
representing the developer and the Woodburn Subdivision. I'm not going to add too
much at this point to staff's presentation. Craig did a good job. We are fine with
relocating that tot lot. I think that's a good idea to get it more centrally located, to
provide better connection with the pathway system to that central location. The rest of
the conditions of approval as recommended to you by staff are acceptable to my
developer. This is sort of a continuation of the Sienna Creek Subdivision. Different
developer, but same concept. More of a mixed housing type with the single family
detached and those attached units towards the middle. Keeping in mind that the
Comprehensive Plan does call this area out as medium residential at three to eight units
to the acre. So, the 4.6 is -- I think is a good -- a good density for our application. So,
with that I'll stand for any questions you have.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Great. Thank you.
Nickel: Thank you.
Zaremba: We do have a couple of people signed up to speak, but first let me ask if
there is any representative speaking for a group on this issue? Okay. Shane Baker,
please.
Baker: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. Shane Baker. I live at 707 West Ashby Drive,
the neighborhood adjacent. Could I ask clarification from staff about the zoning of those
adjacent neighborhoods? Cedar Springs?
Zaremba: We, actually, ask them. You ask us and we ask them, but if staff would
comment. I believe some of them are R-8.
Borup: I think Cedar Spring is R-8. Did you say you're in Cedar Springs?
Baker: Yes.
Borup: But you don't know what your zoning is?
Baker: No.
Borup: Okay.
Baker: It's not contiguous with Cedar Springs, but I consider it adjacent in my definition
of the term. My back window would look out on the development.
Zaremba: Well, our staff report always has what's around it and I'm not finding it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 17 of 57
Borup: Right. That's because it's not contiguous.
Baker: I signed up to comment on -- specifically on AZ 05-041. I guess my comments
are really relevant to CUP 05-042. That is I don't see anything in the applicant's
proposal that would suggest that we -- that the commission or the city should allow any
reductions to the requirements for lot size, street frontage, or setbacks as stipulated in
the existing zoning. So, this constitutes an increase density from the surrounding
subdivisions, I think, and I don't see anything really in the proposal that would warrant
that in terms any kind of amenities or considerations that would offset the negative
aspects of increasing that and giving a variance against the existing zoning. So, I would
be opposed to the proposed Conditional Use Permit as currently stated. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Also signed up is Katie Baker. Her husband spoke for her.
They are in agreement, which is good. Those are the only ones we have signed up,
although there is an opportunity, if somebody did not sign up, to speak if you wish to. If
not, we will ask the applicant to return, please.
Nickel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Again, Shawn Nickel. I
appreciate the neighbor's comments. And just to explain the concept of planned
development, first of all, the -- our proposed density is 4.63 dwelling units per acre and
we are asking for the R-8. Cedar Springs is at 4.3 dwelling units per acre. So, density
is --
Zaremba: Give us those numbers again slowly, please.
Nickel: 4.3--
Borup: Both sets of numbers.
Nickel: 4.68?
Borup: 6.3 is what the staff report says.
Nickel: And 4.3 on Cedar Springs. Sienna Creek was 4.43. And Baldwin Park I didn't
have a chance to calculate. But it's up there as well. Around four units to the acre. The
purpose of the PUD, you know, is to provide for reduction in the lot sizes in exchange
for usable open space amenities, things that are not found in typical subdivisions that
would meet the base zone. So, with the PUD that we are proposing, we are providing
13 percent open space, along with a pathway system, a tot lot, and a picnic area as our
amenities. So, that's the trade-off for allowing the reduced frontages and lot sizes. And,
again, we are doing that to try to meet that mixed use -- or mixed housing type and to
get that density up to what the Comp Plan anticipates. So, that's, for the record, and for
the neighbors.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 18 of 57
Nickel: Any questions?
Zaremba: Any questions from the Commissioners?
Borup: No questions.
Zaremba: While you're standing there, we just confirmed with staff that one of the ideas
about the neighborhood center is that it's kind of an expanding radius of transitions,
there being commercial retail in the middle of it and, then, a little bit higher density about
the location where this project is. And, then, the next circle out would be a little lower
density. Am I interpreting that correctly?
Hood: That's correct. And without making the neighbors' upset, that is this -- I mean
this density I think is a good transition. Staff personally, if you would just look at the
Comp Plan that way, probably even higher densities would be more consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. But we thought this was a good transition, being that there
already were established subdivisions, to not go to that eight dwelling units that the
Comprehensive Plan is looking at as a goal in this area and so we thought it was a
pretty good compromise, getting them up to a little bit higher than what is around there,
but it's not quite as high as what was envisioned back in 2002, so --
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Nickel: And, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, just to follow up, we did meet with staff
during the design of this to see if we were -- to make sure we were on the right path, to
make sure we didn't want to try to incorporate some higher density or maybe some
commercial and this was kind of the way we all decided to go, including the staff. So,
that's a result of that plan you see in front of you.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Nickel: Thank you.
Zaremba: Commissioners, discussion?
Borup: Lot sizes, you know, got reduced, but as far as density and compliance with the
zone and everything else, it's right in there.
Moe: I thought that's just fine.
Zaremba: Okay.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the --
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15. 2005
Page 19 of 57
Moe: I move that we close the public hearings on AZ 05-041, PP 05-041, and CUP 05-
042.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIES: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move that we recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 05-
041, PP 05-41, and CUP 05-042 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date
September 15th, 2005, preliminary plat dated July 10th, 2005, and site plan dated July
10th, 2005. End of motion.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 16:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-036 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.30
acres from RUT to a R-8 zone for Larkspur Subdivision No.2 by
Larkspur LLC - 200 and 205 East Rosalyn Court:
Item 17:
Public Hearing: PP 05-035 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 50
building lots and 4 common lots on 10.30 acres in a proposed R-8 zone
for Larkspur Subdivision No.2 by Larkspur LLC - 200 and 205 East
Rosalyn Court:
Item 18:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-038 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for reduced minimum lot size, frontages and
setbacks on 10.30 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Larkspur
Subdivision No.2 by Larkspur LLC - 200 and 205 East Rosalyn Court:
Zaremba: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-036, PP 05-035, and
CUP 05-038, all relating to Larkspur Subdivision. And we will, again, begin with the
staff report.
Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Larkspur Subdivision
is proposed east of State Highway 69 or South Meridian Road as it's known south of
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15. 2005
Page 20 of 57
Overland Road, surrounded by an existing neighborhood Meridian Greens on the east,
a currently developing neighborhood Larkspur Number One on the north, approved I
think a couple years ago. Some vacant land and rural residences on the west and also
some vacant land and rural residences on the south. The applicant has proposed 49
single-family housing lots on 10.30 acres, for a gross density of 4.75 dwelling units to
the acre. The original submittal did have 50 building lots on it. The applicant met with
residents of the neighborhood and in response to their comments did make a couple
changes and it was also in response to some changes that ACHD required. But they
did reduce the building lots, create some larger lots along the eastern side of this
subdivision adjacent to Meridian Greens and the road ended up taking a little jog and
that caused them to shift open space around a little bit. We could get into it here on the
plat. And this is the original submittal, just to make that clear, that as submitted with the
application, the road actually took the slightest jog to the east. The open space lots are
here and here, but they are substantial open space lots. There are some other -- some
small ones. And, then, they had this thing that's sometimes called a snoopy up there
was a fire turnaround and, then, stubs to the west and south. And, then, also a
connection to Rosalyn Court. The revised plat, in response to ACHD's comments, the
applicant did provide a stub to the west, a future connectivity, under the snoopy. By
carrying some larger lots over here, the road now takes an ever-slight jog to the west.
What that did was reduced these open space lots by a few square feet. In response to
that the applicant did create an open space lot here, eliminating a building lot to create -
- to keep the over ten percent open space, and hoping to kind of create an entrance to
the -- kind of a green entrance to the subdivision there. They did retain the existing
stubs to the south and west as well. One feature of the subdivision is that there are
some larger lots platted around existing homes one what is currently the terminus of
East Rosalyn Court right here in this cul-de-sac. There is an existing home -- there are
three existing homes. Those that have larger lots platted around them. This lot platted
around this home here is the largest at over two acres. And, then, also some lots here
and it has some larger lots platted around them. The planned development, the
applicant has asked for reductions to the minimum lot sizes, minimum frontages, and
minimum setbacks in the R-8 zone. The planned development does not include those
larger lots with the existing homes on them. The applicant has limited the planned
development to the new lots being -- the new homes being created. The amenities he
is proposing with the planned development is the -- more than ten percent usable open
space of the subdivision. Also in this area there is a gazebo and a barbecue community
gathering type area, is another amenity, and, then, there is also a pathway system that
moves through the subdivision and provides a connection to Larkspur Number One,
which ultimately connects to a multi-use pathway located kind of in the northeast
quadrant of Larkspur Number One. Just a couple of comments on the staff report and
the conditions therein. The application was noticed as Larkspur Number Two and is
referred to as Larkspur Number Two, but for submittal of final plat we have asked that
the applicant call it Larkspur Addition -- scratch that. Okay. We won't get into that,
then. Also, the applicant did need to make some minor revisions to the landscape plan
and illustrates how the landscaping was going to function on this lot here that connects
to Larkspur Number One and also how the slight loss in square footage on these lots
would affect how those open spaces function. Also, in order to -- we have asked that
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 21 of 57
the applicant provide common drives on these two lots in order to -- for those to function
properly. They don't meet the frontage requirements. The applicant has asked for
reduced frontage requirements as part of the planned development, but we do ask that
a common drive be provided on those two lots in order for them to function. And I'd like
the applicant to address what ACHD's comments were about the vacation or what
happens to the open -- to the former right of way on East Rosalyn Court. As East
Rosalyn is reconstructed and extended, there -- we end up with these kind of half circles
of former cul-de-sacs that would still be ACHD right of way. We would like to see those
vacated and included in those lots with submittal of the final plat.
Zaremba: Excuse me. Is that a separate process that needs to occur or is it part of the
same application?
Wilson: That goes through with ACHD. That's a process through ACHD. With that, the
application has been submitted with densities that are consistent with the R-8 zone, with
the planned development, and the requested reductions to the planned development
standards, the application is consistent with Meridian City Code and staff has
recommended approval and I will stand for any questions.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Yeah, Josh, in regards to Larkspur One, what -- do you have any information as
far as what the lot sizes were up on that for average in Larkspur One?
Wilson: I don't have any hard numbers, other than that they were very similar to what's
proposed here.
Moe: Well, the reason I ask that is I know that when we had discussions on that project
before, I am sure we are going to hear a lot of the same comments tonight, because we
are abutting an R-4 zone and, quite frankly, this being an R-8, we have got some rather
small lots that are abutting, you know, the larger section up there. So, I was just curious
what those were. Thank you.
Wilson: I would ask the applicant to address that. They'll have a pretty good idea.
Moe: Good idea. Thank you.
Zaremba: Any further questions? In that case, we are ready for the applicant, please.
Sargent: Ron Sargent, 1771 North Wildwood Street, Boise, Idaho. I guess to begin
with, maybe I'd like to sort of address the type of buyers that we get for our
communities. We have been building these type of communities for about ten years in
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 22 of 57
the Treasure Valley area and we find that about -- even though we don't do an age
restriction, we find that about 70 or 80 percent of our buyers are seniors and a lot of
people are downsizing, because they don't want the large yards to do a lot of the
maintenance that's required there. And because of that we have also included in our
developments smaller homes that are about 1,200 square feet, that are two bedrooms,
two baths, and a lot of reason we have done that is we found that quite a few of our
buyers have been single women that are typically widows or living on their own for one
reason or another and it seems like that becomes a much better product and affordable
product for them. So, that's the -- kind of to set the background a little bit of the type of
buyer that we get in our homes. I'd like to also address the questions about ACHD and
the vacation and that is a totally separate process. We have to do a separate
application to the highway district to ask them to vacate some property. When we met
with them for the tech review, what they suggested that we do is a license agreement to
do landscaping in the right of way, so -- but, frankly, if the desire of this city is to ask for
a vacation, we could request that of the highway district, but we have not investigated
that at this point in time. I guess the other -- also, there is a question about Larkspur
Number One and the size of lots and just on average the size of lots in this next phase
that we are proposing -- and I don't have the actual numbers in front of me -- are
probably larger and it's just because of our I guess recent experience that that's the type
of other subdivisions that we are starting to find have a desire for slightly larger homes
and also the fact that along the east side of our subdivision that's adjacent to Meridian
Greens we created larger lots there to accommodate a request that came from the
neighborhood association. I guess what I'd like to do is, first, we had a neighborhood
meeting in -- I think it was August 24th. We had about 12 to 15 people that attended
and in the change that we have made in the plat was to accommodate some of those
requests that came out of that meeting. First of all, it's in the northeast corner of the
subdivision, which is up in this area in here. The way that the terrain slopes, there is a
little bit of a slope transition between our property and Meridian Greens and one of the
neighbors requested that we build a retaining wall to make sure that we -- that that's
slough off and we have agreed to do that and we have ~- when we have our engineers
take a look at that, we will determine how we should create that retaining wall. The
other thing is that the neighbors at the meeting, along these lots here on the east side,
request that we have a 25-foot setback and we did that and because of the setback, as
Josh mentioned, we had to move the road further to the west and which made these
common lots smaller and so we created another common lot right here, so that as
people entered the subdivision from this direction there will be some greenery and some
landscaping that people will see when they first come into the subdivision. Also, they
asked that the -- yeah, that these lots be bigger and we have done that, we have
reconfigured these lots and all along there, as you can see compared to some of the
others, are larger size lots we have in there. All of our two bedroom, two bath homes
we have moved over towards the western portion of the subdivision away from Meridian
Greens. I guess we see this density as a good transition from the R-4 over to a very
busy highway on Meridian Road and we think that, you know, residential for estate
homes along Meridian Road is probably not likely. We see this as a beginning of a
transition to move from that R-4 to that heavily traveled area. At our neighborhood
meeting I guess they wanted to address and is probably the most difficult, is one of the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 23 of 57
major concerns that was brought up was the fact that because we are going to be
building smaller homes that it's going to decrease the value of the homes in Meridian
Greens and there is a real concern about that and so I tried to do some research and
present some data or try to kind of show the impact on our communities, you know, it
had in other neighborhoods and how they'd last over a period of time, because what we
do is we set the homeowners association and the homeowners association maintains all
of the yards, both the front and the back in doing mowing and landscaping and because
of that the exterior of the homes in the community, I think it's proved the test of time. I
guess to begin with I'd like to show you some comparisons and I know to try to look at
value is a very difficult thing to do, because it depends on the quality of construction and
the type of finishes, the size of the lot and some other factors, but I think this is at least
a beginning point. I look at some comparison of homes that sold in Meridian Greens
since March of this year, up until the end of August, and also look at some at contract
pending on some homes that are for sale to try to at least give some comparisons. I
guess I'd ask --
Zaremba: We can ask staff to project that up on the screen.
Sargent: This is not showing up very well. What I did is these are the homes that are
sold over here and the date in the left-hand column, the address, and, then, the price
per square foot that they actually sold at. And as you can see they vary considerably,
because of a lot of factors I had mentioned before about the different types of
workmanship, a single story, two story, and a number of other issues. And, then,
towards the bottom of the sheet, the next group shows there is two contracts pending
and these are the prices that they would close at if they -- if they close at the asking
price. And, then, down at the bottom there is -- we only found through multiple listing
three homes that were for sale and those are the asking price and see the highest is
129 dollars per square foot and what we are looking at is the homes that we would be
doing in Larkspur Subdivision Number Two would be about 120 to 125 dollar per square
foot range, which is, on a square footage basis, is comparable to what we have seen
homes on sale for in Meridian Greens area. The other thing is I think there was a
concern at the neighborhood meeting about the deterioration of the neighborhood,
because they are smaller homes and they won't be kept up and so what I have done is I
have got some photographs to project that shows some of the existing -- or some of the
subdivisions that we have built before and a couple of the homes that we are doing
recently. This one is not very clear. This is Serrano Subdivision and at the bottom we
did construction on this -- we did -- 1995? Yeah. It's spring of 1996 and it doesn't show
very good on the overhead, but they are in good shape, the shrubbery is maintained
very well and so this is a project that's about nine years old that is -- I think it's held up
really well over a period of time. "The next slide. This is the Serrano Subdivision and I
think a similar type of situation. We did this in the fall of '97. We did the construction
and build out on this and once again, you know, I think the test of time has been that it's
held up its quality very well. And then -- the next one, Josh. This is one that we did in
2000 ~- in the year 2000 at King's Gate off of Ustick Road in Boise and, once again, like
I say, this is to show the quality of the upkeep and the landscaping has been very good
over that period of time. And, then, this is a couple of the more recent homes that we
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 24 of 57
have done and this is near the corner of McMillan and Ten Mile Road near Bridgetower.
This is one of the units and, then, I have got a second one and over time what we have
done is we have sort of changed the looks. We tried to bring the living space out closer
to the street, push the garage back a little bit, so the garage doesn't dominate the
streetscape and these are more of the type of homes that we do where it's adjacent to
Meridian Greens. So, I guess I'd stand for any questions. Thanks.
Zaremba: You may have mentioned it, but to clarify, these are all detached; right?
Sargent: Yes. Yes. Excuse me. What we found is that for our buyers they do not like
attached dwellings. They prefer that they be detached and the sense of having the
independence and not having a common wall with the potential to hear their neighbors.
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners?
Moe: Yeah, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sargent, as far as the homes on the east side, are
those projected to be a 1,200 square foot home?
Sargent: No. None of those. Those are more in the 1,800 square feet in that vicinity.
The 1,200 we are doing more towards the western end of the proposed subdivision.
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Okay. It sounds like the people that you're intending to market to, although
they may be wanting to down size, are not wanting to cheapen, that they may want to
have an upscale smaller house.
Sargent: I guess that's a good way to describe the type of buyer that we tend to have
received over the years. The thing that we like about this location, too, is that versus
the common areas here sort of in the middle of the subdivision and, then, there is a
pathway system that goes here onto a common area up in Larkspur Number One and,
then, onwards to a pathway up to Southern Springs, which is on the other side of
Calderwood Road, there is to be a retail commercial development and so that's within
easy walking distance and we think for, you know, our type of buyer, that that would --
that's going to be a really nice feature and be attractive to walk to to food services and
maybe doctor's offices and that sort of thing.
Zaremba: Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you. Okay. We do have quite a
few signed up and, hopefully, you will be patient with me as I attempt the names, but let
me, again, begin by asking if there are spokesmen that would come forward, please.
We have at least one. Sir, if you would come forward.
Watson: Chairman, my name is Victor Watson, I live at 1069 East Cayman in Meridian
Greens. I appreciate the chance to address the Commission. Sorry to disappoint you,
because I don't have ten minutes worth to discuss. I'll take a few minutes and I'd also
like to turn just a minute or two over to my neighbor Mr. Jim Rosetti, who has a petition
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 25 of 57
for the Commission as well. Recently, a year or so ago, the Meridian Greens
homeowners association attended a Commission meeting and agreed to and could
condone the building of the Alzheimer's care center on Calderwood in this area that we
are talking about. We did attend that proposal. We did not comment on the Larkspur
One Subdivision. To my knowledge we weren't aware of it, that is, that it was going to
take place. Could be wrong, but I was not aware of it and so the homeowners
association never addressed the Larkspur One Subdivision. But we are, of course,
aware of the Larkspur Two and if I might say Larkspur Two. I don't recall the new
name. But the Larkspur Two Subdivision and we do have a few concerns which I'd like
to outline for you. As you know, Meridian Greens is a consistently desirable, highly
regarded neighborhood that is well established. We have a minimum 2,500 square foot
requirement for homes. We are adjacent to the Alzheimer's Care Center and the
Larkspur One Subdivision. Meridian Greens, as I'm sure you know, is zoned R-4 and I
believe that we have neighbors -- I think that Observation Point is also zoned R-4. Let
me say up front, Commissioners, that my point here, as the president of the
homeowners association, is not to ask the Commission to deny the proposal to build the
subdivision. That's not our job to do that. On a personal note in my youth when I was
less gray headed, I developed property in the Houston area. Developed apartments.
I'm an entrepreneur, I hope, and a capitalist and we don't want to deny anybody a
chance to develop property. So, that's not the position that we are in here. It's the
current configuration where we have a problem and we are asking -- I'll give my points,
but I'll tell you up front, what we are requesting is that the Larkspur Two Subdivision is
zoned R-4. So, with that we have some concerns and let me use this as a reference.
This is the note that was sent -- or the report sent by Mr. Wilson. I don't have a
publication date that I could find, but it references a hearing date today and I'm going to
use this, if I might, and we will look at a couple of pages. I know you all have seen this,
because --
Zaremba: We will follow along.
Watson: Maybe you have it right in front of you.
Moe: Absolutely.
Watson: Okay. Well, let's use this, then. And I'm not here in any way to teach you
what you're supposed to do. I know that you know. But if we could look at page five in
this particular proposal and I want to talk for just a second about -- I believe it's page
five -- let me go to page five here with you. About a third of the way down there is a
bullet point that says protect existing residential properties and that's one of the charges
of the Commission, as you know, to protect existing residential properties from
incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels. Well, the analysis of the staff -
- and let me read this quickly. The adjacent -- I'm sorry. The applicant proposes a
single-family development. The existing residential properties to the east and the
approved residential subdivision to the north are compatible with the proposed
development. The Meridian Greens homeowners association doesn't agree with that
analysis and we don't see any evidence of compatibility and we would think that the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 26 of 57
staff might say here, one, two, three, four, we think that is compatible. Let me call your
attention to page two, please. Page two, item 3-G, of this reference sheet tells us that
the zoning will be R-8, with a gross density of 4.75 dwelling units per acre. Item 3-H on
the same page just below, quotes the developer of Larkspur Two. This is a quote from
the developer, it says this use is compatible with adjacent properties in the
neighborhood, such as Larkspur Subdivision Number One, so forth and so on. Well, we
find that the assertion of the developer to be true. It is compatible with Larkspur One,
possibly, but it does not address compatibility with the Meridian Greens Subdivision. In
fact, again, we believe that Larkspur Two, as configured, is not compatible with Meridian
Greens. Then if you would turn with me to page five and six of the reference sheet
here. Looking at the last bullet on the bottom of page five -- let me -- the last bullet on
the bottom of page five. It reads -- excuse me -- require new urban density
subdivisions, which abut or are proximal to existing low density residential land uses, to
provide landscape screening or transitional densities, with larger, more comparable lots
to buffer the interface between urban level densities and so forth. The staff -- if you will
turn to the next page, on page six at the top of the page, the staff says -- and the
response, staff recognizes that there are some existing low density residential land uses
to the east and believes that the proposed transition to small lots is desirable for the
city. Well, the homeowners association -- and I have to tell you the vast majority of the
residents of Meridian Greens -- of the Meridian Greens Subdivision disagree with the
staff's recommendation here. We believe that the staff are incorrect. We believe that
they are uninformed and we believe that they don't live in Meridian Greens. If you
would, then, turn with me to page four. On page four, item seven -- item nine, I'm sorry,
of point three. Let me see. Page seven. I'm sorry. Thank you, folks, for a little help
from my friends there. Page seven, if you would, please. Point three. The buffering
from Meridian Greens points out that the developer has proposed a 25-foot setback.
What I say next I cannot tell you with accuracy, because I wasn't at the meeting, but I
was told by one of the folks who attended the meeting, that there was only one person
there who requested the 25 foot setback. But be that as it is, the developer has
proposed a 25 foot setback, larger lots along the eastern boundary, and a smaller
number of lots per acre. Again, the staff report supports the modification to the plat as
an appropriate transition from the R-4 zoning to the east to the proposed R-8 zoning on
the site. We believe that at first appearance the buffer appears to be acceptable, again,
as long as you don't live in Meridian Greens. Additionally, the 25 foot setback we
believe is patently unacceptable without major landscape modifications along that buffer
zone. Ten feet is just ten more feet. And, then, on page eight, item ten -- now the
recommend -- I assume it -- two things. One, says recommend and one says denial. I
assume we are dealing with a recommend to approval and we simply don't agree with
the staff recommendation that there be approval for the R-8 zoning. To conclude, we
find that the current configuration as it is planned here is objectionable and we do
believe that if the proposal as written, as proposed, is approved, that there could be a
consequence -- in fact, that there will be a consequential ruining of property values in
the Meridian Greens Subdivision. If I might now have a minute for Mr. Rosetti to
present the petitions? Thank you, Commissioners.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15. 2005
Page 27 of 57
Rosetti: Good evening to all of you. My name is Jim Rosetti. I live at 2316 South
Montego Way in Meridian Greens. And I'm here this evening to give you a petition that
the homeowners association decided to pass around. I'd like to read that petition to you
and that petition we feel there is an important link between this process that's taking
place tonight, because there is over 400 people that have signed that disagree with the
process of rezoning this particular parcel of ten acres next to Meridian Greens. So, let
me read that to you. Whereas the taxpaying citizens of Meridian have learned -- and
Meridian Greens have learned that the Planning and Zoning Commission is considering
an application for the development of the Larkspur Subdivision, phase two, which plot is
adjacent on its east to existing Meridian Greens Subdivision, an R-4 zone, on its north
to Larkspur Subdivision, phase one, which is an R-8 zone, and in close proximity to the
Alzheimer's assisted living center, a commercial zone and there by existing Observation
Point Subdivision, another R-4 zone. Whereas, point two, that Larkspur Subdivision,
phase two, is incompatible with the R-4 of Meridian Greens and Observation Point
Subdivision, creating a significantly higher density residential neighborhood and causing
a deterioration of these adjacent and nearby property values. And whereas the
resulting size and arrangement of residential housing in Larkspur Subdivision, phase
two, will create an unattractive surrounding for Meridian Greens residents and due to
insufficient rear setback requirements will have Larkspur residents in such proximity to
Meridian Greens' property lines as to destroyed the privacy of existing Meridian Greens
residents whose property abuts Larkspur and, whereas, the incompatible Larkspur
Subdivision, phase two, does not include a buffer zone to protect the integrity and
quality of abutting properties of higher value in the Meridian Greens Subdivision. Now,
therefore, the residents -- we, the residents, property owners of Meridian Greens
Subdivisions, do hereby petition the City of Meridian and its Planning and Zoning
Commission to deny the application for development of Larkspur Subdivision, phase
two, in its current configuration as signified by their signatures on this document. And I
was also in attendance -- Mr. Sargent mentioned the neighborhood meeting that took
place. I was at that meeting and there was one individual that went after the meeting to
talk to him about setbacks and those types of things. That, to me, did not constitute an
error of -- a neighborhood meeting with all the folks. He specified everything that he
was going to do in the subdivision and we told him what our thoughts were, but,
basically, he did not change anything at all, except for the one lady's comments about
the setback along the fence. Thank you very much.
Zaremba: Thank you. Would you hand the petition to the clerk, please.
Rosetti: I will.
Zaremba: It will be put into the record. To clarify for the group --
Rohm: Yes. Could you give me the minimum lot size in an R-4 zoning? Just--
Wilson: Until today it was 8,000 square feet.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 28 of 57
Rohm: And what is it ~-
Wilson: I'm sorry.
Rohm: As of today --
Wilson: It still is 8,000.
Zaremba: And if I'm correct, the building footprint was 1,400 square feet or something
like that, an R-4 as a minimum? Are you answering or --
Rohm: Well, I guess that's the answer, but --
Wilson: Director Canning is going to pull up the new code, but the minimum lot size in
R-4 did stay R-8 and -- the minimum lot size in R-4 did stay 8,000 square feet. In the R-
8 zone that the applicant is proposing, the lot sizes were reduced for what it is today.
But the R-4 did stay the same. For a single family detached house in the R-8 zone as
of today the minimum lot size is 5,000 square feet, as opposed to 6,500 in the old code.
Rohm: That was the follow up. Thank you.
Zaremba: Just a moment while we are dealing with the new technology.
Wilson: Chairman Zaremba, in the R-4 standard the minimum lot size is 8,000 square
feet. Minimum street frontage is 60 feet. Minimum rear setback is 15 feet. And, then,
the side setbacks are five feet. And that is the R-4.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Let's see. Mr. Watson wanted to ask one more
question -- or Mr. Rosetti. Please do it at the microphone and I will give you one
minute.
Rosetti: Josh's comments that he made to you on page four, I believe it is. It says that
the proposed is 4,100 square feet and the required is 6,500 square feet in an R-8.
Wilson: That would be per the straight R-8 zone. Yes.
Rosetti: And they are asking for a variance from the R-8 to even a lower square footage
for the lots?
Wilson: Yes. That's part of the planned development.
Rosetti: 4,100 square feet?
Zaremba: Part of what was discovered in the old ordinance is that the theory behind an
R-8 is theoretically you should be able to get eight dwelling units to the acre.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 29 of 57
Rosetti: Yes, but--
Zaremba: If you provided that lot size, the 6,500, did all the setbacks, took the streets
out, the open space out, you could not get more than three and a half dwelling units no
matter what you did. So, in the new development code the reason -- the number is
actually closer to what they are asking for. This is comparing to the old development
code for R-8.
Rosetti: The 4,1 OO?
Zaremba: The theory is that they ought to be able to mathematically be able to get
eight on there, even though I believe in this case they are only asking for 4.6 or
something like that.
Rosetti: Along that edge.
Borup: No. No. The total development is 4.75.
Zaremba: Let me go on with the list and I will call everybody's name. If Mr. Watson or
Mr. Rosetti spoke for you, would you, please, just raise your hand at your place and I
will record that into the record. If you have something separate from what they have
said to add, please, do come forward. Bonnie Jacobsen Massa. I don't see anybody
moving. Okay. Charlene Vance. She's been spoken for. Okay. Thank you. Gene
Vance. Also spoken for. Thank you. Joseph Massa. I don't see. Okay. I believe it's
Marissa Hansen. Spoken for. Thank you. Maureen Howell. Spoken for. Thank you. I
appreciate that I can actually read these names this time. Sometimes people sign in
with a scrawl that I can't read. So, thank you all. Sally Stelson. Also spoken for. Okay.
Thank you. Is it Marta Merkner? Please come forward.
Heitner: I'm Rita Heitner and I live at 767 East Kingsford Drive in Meridian Greens. I
am single. I am a widow. And I like being where I am. If you want to down size, go
further out. Don't be in this area. Most of the people that -- well, not most, but a lot of
the women that live in Meridian Greens are my age and they are single and they
maintain their yards, it gives us something to do. We enjoy it. The only reason
developers want to squeeze more houses in is because they will make more money that
way. The schools are already overcrowded. We can't afford -- well, please, God, the
bond election will go forward and they will be able to build more schools, but Mountain
View was only opened just recently and it's already 20 percent over its estimated
capacity. It's terrible to be squeezing so many people into such a limited area and I
violently object. And I'm not saying it very nicely, but I do object and why should we
have to have people squeezed in such a close area. That's not the nature of the
subdivision of the area of Meridian where we live. We are happy in our area. We love
Meridian. We just don't think that more traffic and more people is necessary. Thank
you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 30 of 57
Zaremba: Thank you. Susan Fulmer. She has been spoken for. Thank you. D.J.
Klosmore? I'll let you repeat it. Say it correctly, please.
Chesmore: I'm David Chesmore and I live at 560 East Antiqua Drive in Meridian
Greens Subdivision. I just had a couple things to bring up and, first of all, I searched for
over a year before I found this subdivision. I didn't even know it existed and it is very
unique with the way the houses are -- with the separation. It's a very unique place to
live in Meridian and it's a special subdivision for the city. And I only had one question
for the developer and I wanted to know where he got his information for the price per
square foot on the houses that were sold. I'm a realtor and I keep track of our
subdivisions for my own good and I find it's more around 118 dollars -- or a dollar
eighteen, I'm sorry. I'm nervous. 118 dollars a square foot in our subdivision and I just
was interested in seeing where he got his facts for what he found on --
Zaremba: We will ask him what his source was.
Chesmore: Yes.
Zaremba: Thank you. Lori Bauman. Spoken for. Thank you. Lou Bauman. On the
microphone, please.
Bauman: My name is Lou Bauman and I guess I envision --
Baird: Address.
Bauman: 917 East Martinique. I envision between 7:00 and 8:30 -- if you take a look at
the map, Colder would be loaded with the people from this subdivision, this new
subdivision, running down the block with their vehicles to 3rd Avenue and 5th Avenue to
go east on Overland. They are not going to take Meridian between that period of time,
because it's blocked all the way back to Kuna. Traffic is the -- the impact on our
subdivision. And that's the way it is. That funnel would go right straight out to our area
and it would be very crowded. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Gary -- is it Phillips?
Phillips: I'm Gary Phillips, I live at 332 East Calderwood Drive in Running Brook
Estates. My comments are pretty much what his are going to be. On here -- I'm not
sure where Meridian Road is on here and if there is an access from Meridian Road into
this subdivision -- into Larkspur Number Two.
Zaremba: Here is a slightly larger view that shows that Rosalyn Court from Meridian
Road comes in and they are extending that. It's currently a cul-de-sac and that's what
the discussion was about, extending and giving up some right of way.
Phillips: So, there will be another access?
Calderwood, then?
Everything will be coming in off of
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 31 of 57
Zaremba: Correct.
Phillips: Okay. That was my only concern. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you, sir. Okay. If you were standing behind Mr. Phillips when he
signed up, it may be Rawley -- is it Rawley? Okay. Same subject, but thank you.
Okay. Joseph A. Massa, Senior. Did I see a hand come up? It sounds like the
Massas may have been here and, then, had to leave for some reason. Sorry about
that. Okay. Marlene Massa also. Okay. Robert Hansen. Spoken for. Thank you.
Donald A. Nicholson.
Nicholson: Donald A. Nicholson, 456 East Amalie Court, Meridian Greens. I concur
with the statements made by the representative of the homeowners association, but I
have several questions that I would like to have clarification from the developer. First of
all, he didn't give any indication of resale values of the properties that he's developed in
other locations that are similar to the ones that he's proposed. Did give an indication as
to the construction cost, but did not give any indication of as to resale values. Did not --
and did not give any indication as to whether there would be any covenant requirements
or restrictions as to types of improvement, landscaping, and those sorts of things on the
properties that they proposed. And in closing I would say that he cannot guarantee who
will purchase the properties and how they will take care of those properties, unless
there are some restrictions and that would have an impact on the value of surrounding
properties and I would just say that I am opposed to the high density residential housing
proposed and would prefer that they view and consider densities at the R-4 level.
Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you, sir. Donald Nicholson. I don't see any action. Okay. Marvin
Nelson. Been spoken for. Thank you. Brenda Nelson. Okay. Spoken for. Thank you.
Mary Alice Dual. Diehl. Spoken for. Thank you. Pamela Deliben. Close. Spoken for.
Thank you. Paul Diehl.
Diehl: I'm Paul Diehl, 2569 South Abaco Way. A couple things. A number of those -- in
Meridian Greens there is a lot of homes that are not just the minimum size, which was
explained a little while ago for zoning four. For example, my lot is .42 acres. There is
half acres, even one acres, in Meridian Greens. You know, larger lots. The other thing
is that I think when you compare construction costs of today versus my home was built
in 1996, there is a big difference in construction costs. So, the thing you have to be
very careful on, because my house isn't 122 dollars a square foot today. If I had to
rebuild it it would be. But I don't -- I think you have got to be careful about that. And the
last thing is square footage is only one indicator. There are many other indicators of
values of homes and properties. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. The last name is Howard, first name is Newell, maybe. Sir?
Spoken for. Thank you. Jackie Update -- Updike. Sorry.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 32 of 57
Updike: I'm Jackie Updike and I live at 2973 South Andros Way in Observation Point.
But I also own properties in Meridian Greens at 2208 Southeast 5th and I own a bare lot
on Trinidad. The lot on Trindad and the lot that my home sits -- that my house on
Southeast 5th Way is on, both of those are about a half-acre. And I guess my thought
as I heard the applicant presenting his case to today is that the home that he describes
is very very typical of either a rental property that investors would buy or a first time
home buyer would buy. Not that either one of those type of properties are bad in the
right place, but they do tend to diminish the value of properties like those in Meridian
Greens. I also own a mortgage brokerage in Meridian. I'm currently a mortgage broker,
I own Countryside Mortgage. And so I can tell you that the clients that I work with, that
property is very typical of what a first time home buyer or what the California investors
that are moving in would buy. So, I do really believe that that would hurt the values of
Meridian Greens.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Baird: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Yes.
Baird: If I could remind the audience to, please,' refrain from responding to comments, it
will move things along and keep it fair for everybody.
Zaremba: Thank you. I appreciate that. Gregory Swanson.
Swanson: My name is Greg Swanson. I live at 1706 Southeast 3rd Way in Meridian
Greens. Just to add a couple issues here. Again, we are looking at the question of
higher economic use or higher developer profit. In respect to Meridian Greens, as
everyone is well aware, it is a unique parcel on the south side of the freeway and I was
here when they -- and spoke on the Larkspur One and my concern from the tenor of
that -- the staff reports and the comments on Larkspur One was exactly what has
happened here is it's oozed into this analysis, that Larkspur One became the foundation
for comparable property moving into Larkspur Two and that was a concern that I had
that it would bootstrap. I think we need to remember that there were some other issues
that were being developed in Larkspur One and the discussion around the buffer zone
and the retail aspect on Meridian Road and a number of people spoke and my
recollection was that, you know, no one really objected to development -- economic
business development as a buffer zone there on Meridian Road and for housing to be in
that interim space between Meridian Greens. And so based on that I would be very
cautious about just taking Larkspur One as the basis for analyzing into Larkspur Two,
because there was other conditions and discussions about the Alzheimer's unit and how
that would minimally impact Meridian Greens. The traffic is a concern. No one can get
out at 8:00 o'clock in the morning without a ten-minute wait or so. It's very difficult. And
now we are going to funnel right down to Southeast 3rd Way those other individuals. I
believe that just because there is another opening on Meridian Road that, based on
observation, it will just back up the traffic further and they will still come through. So,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15. 2005
Page 33 of 57
there needs to be some planning for that traffic load. And has there been a traffic load
calculated as to what that's going to do with the maximum peak traveling times?
Zaremba: ACHD usually does that and we will ask the applicant when they come back
up what the results of that were.
Swanson: And my comments are not to deny development there, it's simply an R-8 --
or, excuse me, an R-4. There is no reason why R-4 wouldn't go in there and be
profitable for a developer also. It's happened in Observation Point. It's happened in the
surrounding developments in the last little addition to Meridian Greens. Thank you.
Zaremba: Let's see. This could be Jack R. Petes. Who signed up after Jim Rosetti?
Anybody know you were standing -- oh, here he comes. Thank you. John Porter.
Porter: John Porter. I live at 2650 South Andros Way. I do live in Meridian Greens, like
the vast majority of everybody here. As a current recommendation for the subdivision is
an R-8, I am opposed to that. I do recognize that the developer is trying to develop that
property more consistent with Meridian Greens. A lot of people have mentioned the lot
size. My lot size is closer to half an acre. That's an R-2 in my book. An R-8 or beyond
that, not even close to commensurate with the surrounding developments. Another
consideration I know that I wish that our development had had pressurized irrigation.
Perhaps I missed it or perhaps that's a standard in development nowadays to require
the pressurized irrigation be included in that. Go forth from there. I think a big redesign
could happen. The property could be redesigned correctly for an R-4 and I think it
would be, you know, very consistent with Meridian Greens. But as it sits right now it's
too dense and not -- one other item I was thinking, he mentioned that his target market
is retirement people. He can't guarantee that. Nobody can guarantee that. It's a free
society. And the reason I don't see that being his -- the ultimate people moving in there
is the places that he has developed inside Boise city limits has public transportation
access, whereas Meridian Greens, right, you basically have to have your own vehicle.
We can't guarantee that there is always going to be that public transportation to Boise to
that area, so -- thank you for your time.
Zaremba: Thank you. Shirley Pierce. A name close to that. No. Polly Pierce. Okay.
Both spoken for. I was looking over here. I'm sorry. And could be -- the last name is
White. The first name starts with a B. Boyd? Okay. Spoken for as well. All right.
Thank you. That's everybody who has signed up and we do give the opportunity if you
did not sign up and have not been spoken for, if you would just come to the microphone.
We will start with this gentleman here and, again, give your name and address, please.
Colson: My name is John Colson. I live at 2575 Southeast 5th Way. A couple of the
things that have been addressed is the difference in the lots, Meridian Greens being
oversized R-4, these being about 4,000 -- even the minimum of 8,000 that's not a
transition going half the size of the lots. That's a huge leap. Second thing, the data --
I'm also a realtor. The data on the sales price is so incomplete. I recognized two of
them as being repossessed and one that was so undersold I was shocked. It looked
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 34 of 57
like he picked the lowest value houses there. That 118 is very accurate. The third
thing. Price per square foot is not a valid way to judge whether that place would be
comparable with ours. I can confidently say, not knowing where any of you live, that I
can use statistical price per square foot to say every one of your houses are the same
value. It's not hard to do statistically to manipulate. And, four, being a realtor, a
subdivision like that in Meridian right now, it would be real easy to just market it in
California and load it up with investors. I guarantee it could load up really fast. That's
not the kind of community that we need next to Meridian Greens. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. I saw a couple other hands. In front. Bruce.
McCoy: Bruce McCoy. I live on 2117 South Retriever in the Sportsman Point
Subdivision. I have a concern. When I walked into this meeting, this Commission had
just voted to approve the Woodburn Subdivision, based on staff's recommendation that
in spite of the -- some of the, I guess, objections from people in the audience, based on
staff's recommendation the transition in the City of Meridian from lower density lots to
higher density lots to commercial settings is what the city desires to have. In that case,
I believe the transition was from an R-6 to an R-8. In this case we are talking about an
R-4, bigger lots, to an R-8 variance. I find it to be a pretty great variance. And in this
case these lots in back of the subdivision, there is no streets between them. So, I have
a problem with that. I think that's inconsistent. I think this Commission runs into a
danger of establishing inconsistent and a bad precedent -- inconsistent decisions.
Thanks.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Howell: Hello. I'm Maureen Howell. I live at 432 East Mable Court in Meridian Greens,
Adjacent to Larkspur section one and if the fence that they have put in is any indication
as to construction that they are going to do of the homes, the fence is a very nice fence.
The way they have constructed it -- it's my understanding that they would bring in top
soil to put a good base for the fence and also to bring it to a level of my property. They
have come in and they have put in a fence that is just in the ground as it is and it's very
uneven and they have also covered some of my sprinkler heads that are on my property
and they have told me that they would be raising their heads and I just feel like if this is
any indication of what the construction is going to be, we are in a lot of trouble. Thank
you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Sir.
Slade: My name is Jim Slade. 8723 Wichita Drive in Boise. I'm the real estate broker
that did the statistical analysis for this company. I'm a 15-year lifetime top producer in
the Boise market. I sit on the ACAR board of directors. I have been on the professional
standards committee for over ten years and have been the chairman of the grievance
committee. I'll stake my career on the validity of the statistical analysis that I did for this
company. Secondly, this company has absolutely no intent of selling anything to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 35 of 57
investors. They are sculpting their CC&Rs to, in fact, discourage investors from being
part of their development. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Did I catch everybody? One more.
Rice: I'm Jim Rice and I live at 425 Amalie Court. I guess I'd just like to reiterate to the
consistency of what has been done surrounding Meridian Greens, on the east border
and the south border, that just doesn't not fall within the realm of the consistency of how
development has evolved. And also, two, is I did -- the property is not completely zoned
into the city at the moment and I believe it still belongs to the county and I don't know if
this is an issue, but we pulled something off the internet and it was in regards to some
EPA fines and violations against the developer on phase one and I don't know if that's
maybe some information that you guys would like to look at. I brought an extra copy,
but my concern is the type of developer that's in there now and some possibilities of
what's going to occur in the Larkspur Number Two. So, I oppose --
Zaremba: If you want to give that to the clerk, it will be entered into the record. Sir,
come ahead.
Spier: My name is Charles Spier. I live on 2485 South Avaco Way. I will be an over-
the-fence neighbor to this new development. Today I looked over the proposal and I'm
a little bit confused. In there the R-8 description calls for 6,500 square feet and it's
proposed 4,000 square feet. That's in the documents in this building. And the minimum
square footage on houses for R-8 is supposed to be 1,301. This has several homes at
1,166. Five or six or eight of those homes. The other thing, the minimum street
frontage in R-8 is 65 feet. This developer proposes 15 feet. I'd hate to be driving a big
five truck onto a property and a particular property with such a narrow frontage
immediately adjacent to mine on the revised plot. That's not near enough for safe
maneuvering of fire trucks and moving around hoses and the like. The other thing is
they allow 35-foot housing height and at my back property line that's more than a 45
degree angle right in my backyard. Privacy was something I guess I better enjoy in the
next few months, because it's going to be gone if that's done. I attended the August
24th meeting at the Ramada I believe and we tried to get some information from the
developer. I specifically asked in two or three different ways if it's going to be owner
occupied and he assured me it was. In their documents they have a very clear
paragraph on leasing requirements and leasing is defined as renting as well. That's
totally in conflict with what the developer told us. The one last thing is that to our south
Kuna is the fastest growing community in the state of Idaho, I believe, percentage-wise.
And having lived around there for many years, I know what happened to Eagle. Eagle
was the fastest growing community. Eagle Road is a disgrace to zoning entirely. You
can't build enough roads -- you can't build yourself out of a zoning problem. You can't
build roads to solve a lack of mass transit. What we have here on Kuna Road is the
same formula. We have a nice little series of white picket fences of the people and put
the zoning people's name on it, as well as the deceased.
Zaremba: Thank you, sir. Anyone else? Okay. One more.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 36 of 57
Lowman: Guy Lowman. 2018 Southeast 5th Way, Meridian. Meridian Greens. Most
everything has been said here tonight that can be said that I can think of right now, but if
you go across the road, Meridian Road, over to Bear Creek Subdivision, I think it's
called, and take a look at some of the cars on blocks out in the front yards, some
smaller homes, that's what we will have next door to us and I, for one, don't want it.
Thanks.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any discussion before we have Mr. Sargent come back?
Borup: I have one comment. Yes.
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: I think it may be pertinent and this would -- this would be from staff and we have
addressed this in the past, but I thought it may be time to review the definition of
compatible. You use that in your staff report and it was made reference to and I'm not
sure if -- if all the Commission understands -- if we are all talking about the same
definition. I know we are not talking about the same definition a lot of people in the
audience are referring to, but as far as the definition used in planning and in the report, I
just thought that that might be pertinent to maybe refer to, to elaborate on a little bit.
Zaremba: Director Canning.
Canning: Mr. Chair -- or Commissioner Borup. Sorry about that. There are a couple of
different compatibilities that are typically discussed. One is the concept of a compatible
land use as far as not being -- a word just escapes me. A nuisance. Thank you. A
nuisance. And in that case, such as like a meat packing plant behind your house, would
typically be termed, really, an incompatible use. The concept of whether residential is a
compatible use with residential, some communities just say flat out, you know,
residential is compatible with residential. Our Comprehensive Plan does talk a little bit
about buffering to rural or very low density residential. Now, in that case they are not
talking -- they are talking about lots that are one to five acres, probably, in size and
providing some transition. A transition from medium density residential to medium
density residential, staff does generally determine if that's compatible. Does that
answer your question, Mr. Borup?
Borup: Yes. Thank you.
Canning: Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Sargent. I lost track of him. There he is. I see you have been taking
notes.
Sargent: Yes. Commissioners, let me see if I can try to address a number of these
issues that were brought up. First of all, Mr. Watson, we apologize about Larkspur
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 37 of 57
Number One. We had five neighborhood meetings and we tried to include as many
people as we could in that and we certainly wanted the representative from Meridian
Greens to be there and we did address the issues with the patio homes, as well as the
assisted living, the Alzheimer's and the limited office in that. I guess I -- this issue of
density and compatibility, I guess, is -- I think probably the most key one in place and I
guess -- and I was really trying to present our case that we build quality homes that are
compatible with other quality homes and the way we build is on smaller lots with less
maintenance. And we feel that that's compatible and that's what he's trying to do with
some of the numbers that we put together today. And those MLS numbers were a
summary, simply, of a lot of data that came off the MLS, so I didn't want to, you know,
present to the Commissioners each and every page of that, I was trying to summarize
as best I could, to show that, you know -- and even if the average price, which has been
suggested by a number -- a couple different realtors here tonight was 118 dollars a
square foot, we, for new construction, are in a similar category to that. And I know there
is a lot of differences that take place with the type of finishes, whether or not the home's
on a large lot, whether it's two story, age that it was built -- there is a lot of factors that
go in there, but it's at least the -~ the price per square foot is at least a basis to do a
comparison on and that's what -- the point that I was trying to make tonight. I guess the
other thing that I guess I'd like to address is we do have -- because it is a conditional
use, we did put together a set of CC&Rs and in our CC&Rs we don't allow people to
work on their cars in the front yard or to put them up on blocks. They have to -- and
because we do the maintenance as part of the homeowners association, the yards are
kept in nice shape. I think within our CC&Rs we have a statement that you can't have a
motorhome parked in front of the home for more than -- I can't remember exactly, but I
think for 48 hours. So, we don't let people just come and park their motorhomes in the
street and just leave them there indefinitely or in their driveways. So, within our CC&Rs
we also have restrictions on changes to the exteriors of the homes, so we can control
the architectural quality of what takes place in those homes at sometime in the future as
well, that the homeowners association have the opportunity to review any changes that
take place in there. The other -- and this is probably the most important thing that we
have done is this spring during the month of May and June, in a number of our
communities we started to get a lot of interest, because we did have smaller homes that
we were providing people, of investors that were coming in and wanting to buy the
homes for rental property. Well, that happened in one of our communities and we went
to our lawyer and we put together a program now that we are doing everything we can
to exclude investors and renters that come into the community and we have in our
CC&Rs a clause that addresses that and we also in our escrow agreement we have a
clause, which I didn't bring this evening, that says that anybody that signs this earnest
money agreement is going to live in the house and is not going to be renting it out,
except to some close member of the family and our lawyer went through and defined
what that would be. It could be a son or a daughter, some other close member of the
family, they could -- they could rent the home to. So, we tried to make some flexibility in
that for the families. I guess Mr. Nicholson discussed about the resale value. I didn't
bring any data on that, but I think the -- you know, the communities that we have done
in the past, their values held up very well. We haven't had any complaints from any of
our buyers that they haven't been able to sell at a reasonable price. And, you know, we
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 38 of 57
can't guarantee some of the things that -- that are going to be done, but I think that's
why I've tried to bring the photographs tonight to show what has happened in some of
the communities that we have built, you know, six, seven, nine years ago, so that the
communities aren't deteriorating, it's because of the way that we have set up the
CC&Rs and the way the homeowners associations have operated. Trying to figure --
talk about the rental property in here. Talked about Larkspur One again. And Mr.
Porter brought up the issue about pressurized irrigation. Yes, we are required to put
pressurized irrigation in the development of the subdivision. Mr. Colson brought up the
118 dollars per square foot and the issue about the rentals. And Mrs. Howell came in
and talked about the fencing. We did put in good quality fencing. I apologize to her.
We didn't realize that the sprinklers heads had been covered up and that, you know, we
still have a lot of fill dirt to put in there. It's always an issue, because the city wants us to
put the fences prior to getting a building permit and once we get the building permit and
start working on the lots, then, we level from the street back to the fence and so a lot of
those gaps that are in the fence will get filled in as we do the development and do the
build out as we go along. I'd like to address Mr. Rice's comments about EPA. The EPA
came into Boise this last spring and fined a number of developers. Our fine was 4,600
dollars, which was one of the lower fines that we heard about that the EPA gave out.
Most of them were in the six to ten thousand dollars range and what -- and there is -- it's
a long report, there were a lot of issues that we had in there that dealt with how we dealt
with our documentation, that we had to have it on site, which we did not at the time. We
also had to upgrade every time there was a rain storm, we were not doing that correctly
and so there is a number of documentation items in there, but we certainly do
everything we can to live up to the EPA requirements as they go along. I guess one
thing I would say about -- I mean the R-4 zoning does have a 15 foot rear yard setback,
I mean we are willing to go with a 25 foot setback that was up against Meridian Greens
to try to accommodate what we thought was some of the requests that came out of the
neighborhood meeting on the 24th of August. I guess I'm always confused on how to
deal with that, because there seems to be a wide variety of requests that come in and
some of it we had a hard time, you know, being able to accommodate everybody's
desires. Let me see if there is any other -- I think those are -- I guess I'll stand for
questions.
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions?
Borup: Just one at this point. The plans that you have submitted are all single story.
Are you intending anything other than single story and maybe especially along Meridian
Greens, anything other than single stories along there?
Sargent: No. We definitely want to do single stories. Oh. And that's, actually,
something else that was brought up, is that the first time home buyer, the -- we are
definitely -- because we primarily sell to seniors, we do not want to build a two story,
even a bonus room over the garage doesn't seem to work very well. And I was trying to
think who had brought up the issue about -- Mrs. Updike talked about the first time
buyer. In about 300 of these type of homes that we have built in various communities
throughout the Treasure Valley, we probably have in the neighborhood of ten to 15 first
Meridian Planning 6: Zoning
September 15. 2005
Page 39 of 57
time buyers. It just seems like a smaller lot with a smaller yard doesn't attract the first
time buyer for some reason or another. We just -- on our first project that we did these
type of homes, we thought we were going to get all first time buyers, we got none. I
think the youngest person that moved into that first community was 65 years old.
Borup: So, not a lot of school children there either.
Sargent: No. The impact on the school district is fairly minimum and then -- and that
brings up another issue is with traffic. Because we primarily get seniors that are buyers
and we can't guarantee that there are not going to be some younger people in there,
because we don't do an age restriction in our communities, but what we found is that
most of them travel at off peak hours, so they are not -- you know, typically they are
retired, they are not trying to go to work at 8:00 o'clock and returning at 5:00 o'clock at
night when the peak travel times are. They tend to travel more in the mid morning, mid
afternoon type of time frames.
Zaremba: Thank you. While you're here let me -- one thing that somebody said about -
- I think it was Bear Creek having cars up on blocks and stuff.
Borup: I believe that's Elk Run across the street.
Zaremba: Ask Director Canning a question. Am I correct that the -- one of the things
that happens in a city that's growing is every time you reach one stage things start to
happen that weren't happening when you were a smaller city and sometimes there
aren't ordinances to cover them in general and not specifically to this project, but to the
entire city, we need to not have people putting cars up on blocks in their front yard and
Director Canning mentioned to me earlier today that the Mayor has asked -- not only the
Planning and Zoning Director, but a committee of directors, I believe, to put together
some ordinances about home maintenance and property maintenance that Meridian
has never needed before that, of course, would apply to this property, as well as
everybody's property. Is that true or can you expound on that a little bit?
Canning: Yes, sir, I can. The concern came up when we have been hearing the stories
about bus loads of California investors and I think one of the people tonight testified
about it as well, and so we have been hearing anecdotal evidence about a lot of these
properties being purchased for rental properties and the Mayor is concerned that she
did ask the directors to work on some property maintenance ordinances. We don't have
a time line yet, so I can't give you an idea of when they will be done, but it is something
that's on the radar screen and we will be looking at. With the Mayor's sense of urgency
it is probably much sooner than I will be ready for it, but we will work on it, so --
Zaremba: And these would be enforceable regulations for the entire city?
Canning: Yes. It wouldn't just pertain to rental properties, it would be everybody's
property. There would be certain standards established for the maintenance of those
properties -- of any property within the city.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15. 2005
Page 40 of 57
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Moe.
I thought that was applicable at the moment.
Moe: Yeah. A couple of things. First of all, I want to ask staff a question. I'm a little bit
-- I'm a little bit confused here, basically, on the future land use map this property,
actually, looks like it is to be zoned in an R-4 and, actually, portions of Meridian Greens
looks like in R-8, so I guess we are doing a little bit of cross-over here from my map
here. I was kind of curious about that. Are we definitely zoned R-8 in this area or
should I just read that as a low density to medium density?
Canning: My understanding is the applicant has asked for a bump up in -- the step up
in the density from low to medium, to meet density.
Moe: Okay. That takes care of that question. And, Mr. Sargent, have you -- I realize
you said you have already increased the size of some of the lots on the east side of the
property? Would you entertain increasing those any larger? I'm very concerned about
the size of those lots and I'm kind of one that likes to see some transition here and we
are going from the larger lots down into -- I will tell you first off, I like the development, I
like the way its transitioning down, but I don't like those east lots at all.
Sargent: I guess I'd asked -- maybe we could make the lots bigger, but could we give
up the 25 foot setback rear yard, because in an R-4 it's a 15 and so -- you know, it's --
this is kind of ~- a little bit of some of the dilemma that we sort of get into is you give up
on one thing and you gain something somewhere else. I mean I guess I would ask that
-- just that question.
Moe: I guess what I'd probably have to tell you is before legal counsel tells me to keep
my mouth shut, I can't really give you direction in design.
Sargent: Okay. Yeah, we would entertain making some of those lots bigger as well.
Moe: Okay.
Sargent: The reason they were designed the way they were is because we have units
that we have already designed that I showed you the photographs of that were at
Verona Subdivision Number Two that -- with the windows out front and the garage
sitting back and so those lots were designed for that type of home being in there. But
we look at the possibility of doing something larger in there.
Moe: Thank you.
Zaremba: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you, sir. Any further questions for staff?
Any further comments from staff?
Wilson. No.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 41 of 57
Zaremba: Okay. Discussion?
Rohm: Well, Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I think the people in the audience have spoken very well to their concerns about
this development and primarily it's lot size. There was other issues as well, but the
number of lots adjacent to their properties and the transition seems to be rather abrupt
and I think that I would tend to agree with what these folks are saying today and
probably transition -- not as many lots along that east line would be in keeping with a
better transition and I don't think that you're ever going to see this develop at five -- or
half acre lots and have it all R-4 with, actually, ending up with two lots per acre. So, I
think that transition is the key here and maybe -- the developers were a little bit
overzealous. in their transition and possibly it would be in keeping with trying to have
better communication between existing homeowners and the proposed development if
they would revisit this and come back with an alternate plan that takes into
consideration testimony tonight. Seems to be the right solution in the short run.
Moe: I thought you were ready to say something.
Borup: I guess maybe a couple things. Just -- you know, I guess a lot of my comments
have to be based on watching Meridian grow for the last 35 years and seeing what's
actually happened when new subdivisions come in, not what people speculate's going
to happen. And nothing's guaranteed there either, but you can look back and see what
has happened and especially different concerns and whether those concerns are
realized or not. The comment Commissioner Rohm mentioned on transition. The other
aspect that really wasn't brought up, other than it was kind of referred to on the
adjoining subdivision, is that the other part of the transition we are looking at here is the
development on Meridian Road and I believe that was discussed at previous meetings,
that there is going to be some type of commercial development on Meridian Road. That
makes a more abrupt transition to go from a commercial development to R-4. I'd rather
have a gradual transition between them. And I think that's part of what we need to look
at, too. The other thing that -- it seems to me that the impact of properties abutting back
property lines to back property lines is much less than properties on the same street.
When you have got a neighbor across the street from you that's got smaller homes and
the cars on the street or whatever it is, people driving down the street looking at buying
a home, I mean they don't know from one side of the street to the other, even in an
established neighborhood, even if it is a different subdivision. The perception is it's the
same subdivision with houses on both sides of the street. There is very little interaction
from -- along back property lines between the neighbors. You're driving through one
subdivision to the other. The major access from this subdivision is out Rosalyn to
Meridian Road, assuming they are turning right towards the freeway and that's -- and
that's the dominant traffic pattern. I just don't see the incompatibility concerns. And it's
based on what I have seen happen in other areas.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15. 2005
Page 42 of 57
Rohm: And I believe those points are well taken and this parcel of ground is in
transition on both sides. You have got commercial to the west and you have got low
density residential to the east and it's an art to make that transition where its compatible
on both lines, both east and west, and I -- my comment was that even though it is
difficult, maybe there could be a little bit more work to make that transition more
compatible to the east and that's not to say that there hasn't been effort and it's not an
easy task and this certainly is --
Borup: Your definition of compatible is something different than the city --
Rohm: Well, I guess part of what my concern is is that you have lots that are less than
the minimum of an R-8 abutting lots that are significantly greater than the minimum of
an R-4 and so with that in mind, there appears in my mind to be a little bit of a friction
there and it seems to me that -- I'm not asking them to transition to R-4 standards, but I
think that there is a give and take here that the developer has even suggested that he's
willing to revisit that and I don't want to speak for him, but I believe I heard him say that
he is willing to revisit that and I think that that -- as far as the ebb and flow of discussion
here, that's the primary concern. And if, in fact, that can take place before this is moved
forward, then, everybody wins.
Borup: To which they would approve the same size lots abutting a one-acre
subdivision.
Zaremba: My comment would be that --
Borup: I was just thinking about the consistency of this Commission.
Zaremba: I'm sorry, Commissioner Borup.
Borup: That's all.
Zaremba: My comment would be that this application doesn't really come as any
surprise to me. I feel when Larkspur One was submitted we actually had a preview of
what was likely to happen here. There was some discussion about how it would
eventually connect to Rosalyn, that it would be similar to the southern portion of
Larkspur One. There is some slight difference, though, in -- if you picture the roadway, I
believe, for Larkspur does something like this, it comes down along here and, then,
does an S to get to where it connects here. The smaller lots on here don't actually back
up to any house. That's a canal and open area. As I say, this -- the application just as
it's presented is not really a surprise to me. However, if the developer is willing, along
this east line, to lose a lot or two to be a little closer in compatibility to the ones that back
up here, I wouldn't have a problem supporting that idea as well. Much of the project I
very much like and as has been pointed out, as a transition from the R-4 to the
commercial, which is very reasonable to assume will line Meridian Road, an R-8 is to
me reasonably compatible and a good transition. The question is do we want to deviate
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 43 of 57
this far from the R-8 standards even and along that east property line I could support
asking the developer to lose a lot or two. Anybody care to make motions?
Rohm: I think that --
Borup: The hearing is not closed yet.
Rohm: -- a continuance, with the assumption that the developer is willing to bring back
something that takes into consideration testimony heard tonight, that will be the motion
that I would propose, if, in fact, there is concurrence from the developer that that's
something that's doable.
Zaremba: The Pubic Hearing is still open. We certainly can ask him.
Borup: If you're just talking about losing two lots, that can be done without a redesign of
moving streets or anything.
Zaremba: Mr. Sargent, would you -. I believe you indicated earlier this is something you
would consider, but can you confirm .-
Sargent: I guess the specific thing of making some of the lots larger along the east
side, I think there is a way that we can do that and maybe lose one or two lots in there.
And I guess the -- when I look at the zoning, I -- yeah, we will try to get -- I guess the
idea is the R-4 is an 8,000 square foot lot, is that the new --
Borup: That's the same as it's always been. It hasn't changed.
Sargent: The -- I guess the --
Zaremba: Not to interrupt, which I am doing, but I don't think we are asking you to go to
8,000, I just think a little bigger than 4,000 for some of those.
Sargent: Okay. Well, most of the lots along the east side, I believe, are 5,100 to -- I
think most of them are --
Rohm: I think they are 6,600.
Sargent: Yeah. 6,500, somewhere in the vicinity, is what you're talking about, I
assume.
Zaremba: 6,500 would be what the R-8 zone asks for anyhow. That would be
reasonable.
Borup: The new R-8 zone is 5,000.
Zaremba: The new R-8 zone is --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 44 of 57
Rohm: Exactly.
Sargent: I guess from my perspective, I'm willing to do that, because it's very specific
and it's something that I can sit down with a designer and work on coming up with a
floor plan that fits in that configuration. I guess the -- you know, we had the
neighborhood meeting, I guess I had heard that there was a desire -- and there was a
number of people there, maybe I misunderstood it, that there was this desire to have
this 25 foot setback. So, I went back and redesigned the plan based on that, but -- and
some of the testimony tonight seems like that -- Mr. Rosetti said that it only came from
one person. And so I guess when I look at this long list of issues, by going to the R-4
and some of the things with traffic and some of those issues, I can deal with the lot size,
I don't know if I can deal with all the other things that have been -- all the other
testimony that's been here tonight. I mean there is a number of specific things I can
address. I guess that's -- that's the part I -- that's the part I get confused on is all the
other, you know, traffic issues, you know, that come up that -- you know, I don't know
whether or not I can --
Zaremba: We, of course, are having a struggle with that all over the city. The
Comprehensive Plan does envision that there will be -- it's rural and I guess it has been
even farmed recently in this area, but the Comprehensive Plan certainly envisions that
that's going to change. That will result in traffic. That will result in a few more people
going to the school, probably, even if most of these are seniors, but that would be true
whether it was R-4 or 4-40. So, I'm --
Sargent: And I just to kind of follow along with the issue on the school, is that with the
smaller lots and the number of homes that we have sold, we have only sold to two
families that have had children, you know, in approximately 300 some units. So, you
know, with the larger lots, the desire to have along the eastern part, there is -- you
know, my impression with the larger lots, that we'd probably end up more likely to have
families because of that, but, that's fine, I mean we don't have any disagreement with
that.
Rohm: I think it's safe to say that we, as a commission, are not here to redesign your
subdivision. I want -- that needs to be said first and foremost, and --
Borup: That's what we just did.
Rohm: Not -- what I'm suggesting at this point in time is that -- that you possibly go
back and revisit the issue with -- can they have one more community meeting to discuss
the -- and it's a single issue. I agree with your comment that you can't go back and
revisit every other issue, but I think we have encapsulated the overwhelming concern of
the -- of the testimony here and that the transition lots between the R-4 and this
development as the primary issue and if we can continue it for just that one discussion, I
think that that probably will suffice and, then, you don't have to revisit the balance and if
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 45 of 57
you come up with something that's workable with your neighbors and acceptable with
your people, then, we --
Zaremba: And the discussion would be is it -- are they interested in trading the 25-foot
setback for wider lots or -- you know, I assume that's what the discussion would be,
but --
Rohm: Exactly. Okay. All right. With that being said, Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Well, Mr. Sargent, does that time frame work for you okay?
Sargent: I guess I didn't -- I guess I don't understand. So, the next --
Borup: Well, we haven't done anything. Commissioner Rohm was talking about having
-- he's talking about having another neighborhood meeting, rather than working it out
tonight, but -- to discuss just strictly the lots along the eastern property line would be the
only issue.
Zaremba: Let me propose a suggestion. We typically take a break about 9:00 o'clock
and we have gone well passed that. If we took a ten or maybe even 15 minute break
and had the neighborhood meeting right here. Would anybody be interested in that or is
that uncomfortable for you?
Sargent: That's fine.
Zaremba: Okay. There may be a solution that could be proposed. I propose we take a
15-minute break. We will reconvene at 10:00 o'clock.
(Recess. )
Zaremba: Okay. We will reconvene after the recess and it appears the recess has
been productive, but I'd like to suggest that we continue these three items to the end of
this meeting and proceed with Items 19 and 20 and, then, we will come back to this
issue. So, I would entertain a motion to continue Items 16, 17 and 18 to the end of
tonight's agenda.
Borup: So moved.
Zaremba: Is there a second?
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 46 of 57
Item 19:
Public Hearing: RZ 05-018 Request for a Rezone of 71.24 acres from I-L
to C-G zone for Crossroads Shopping Center, Presidential
Subdivision and Reagan Subdivision by the City of Meridian -
southeast corner of Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue:
Zaremba: I will open the Public Hearing for RZ 05-018 regarding Crossroads shopping
center for a rezone and we will begin with the staff report.
Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application
before you is an application by the City of Meridian to rezone 71.24 acres on the
southeast corner of Fairview and Eagle Roads from an I-L, a light industrial zone, to a
C-G, general service and retail commercial. The site -- the proposed boundaries of the
rezone consists of Presidential Subdivision and, then, what is known as Crossroads
shopping center, which is an un-platted parcel. It still has a -- it's just a -- it's not a lot in
the recorded subdivision, it's a parcel. Within Presidential Subdivision it has been re-
divided as Reagan Subdivision. This includes that as well. The adjacent roadways are
Pine Avenue on the south, Eagle Road on the west, Fairview on the north, and, then,
Records Avenue on the east. And, then, the entire parcel is adjacent to this Crossroads
residential subdivision that is zoned -- zoned R-4, Crossroads Subdivision is. A little bit
of background on this piece of property. It actually goes back to the '80s. The
development on here was originally developed as what was called a planned general
development, a provision that does not exist in Meridian city code anymore. What it
was was a mix of industrial and commercial uses. Since that time the nature of this
area has changed and as you are probably well aware, as part of that planned
development -- it's similar to a planned development that we have now, as there are
uses that are specified and, then, specifically disallowed. As part of the I-L zoning it did
allow commercial uses and some industrial uses. As you're probably well aware, it has
-- the east side of Eagle has developed almost -- well, exclusively in a commercial
nature. The shopping center. We are starting to see some new activity in terms of
restaurants on this portion of the property. The planned general development also
included portions west of Eagle Road. Those have developed more in an industrial
nature. You have the Food Services of America, another food -- another -- I think it's
Tri-City Meats. And you have some other industrial uses in there. And, then, you have
the commercial on the corner of Eagle and Fairview, that, once again, developed under
that provision in that planned development that would allow some commercial uses.
The City of Meridian has applied to rezone this land, to bring it more in line with the
development that has happened on it. The property is almost completely developed.
There are some properties here in Presidential that are still vacant. But the city would
like to bring the zoning in line with the present and anticipated uses. The 2002
Comprehensive Plan future land use map does show this as commercial, not industrial,
and the city would like to bring the zoning in line with that. I will say we received one
call -- if you recall, this winter a hotel company did propose to put a hotel on a piece of
property against Crossroads Subdivision. It was actually several of these properties
here. I did receive a call from somebody that lives in Crossroads that was directly
adjacent to that, concerned that with this rezone to C-G now that that would be an
Meridian Planning & zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 47 of 57
allowed use. The Conditional Use Permit that you as a Commission recommended
denial on, would, then, be a permitted use and would be built. The new Unified
Development Code that takes effect today does have specific use standards for hotels
and one of those is that if the hotel property adjoins a residential property, it is still a
conditional use. So, to allay those concerns, if they came in with the same proposal --
and it's my understanding that that hotel has since been moved elsewhere. They
decided to try some place that would work a little bit better. But say another one came
in and it would be a conditional use, just like it was before, and the public and the
Commission would have an opportunity to review that. With that, I think I'll stand for any
questions.
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions?
Moe: No, sir.
Zaremba: Okay. Is the applicant here? Care to add anything? If you would step to the
microphone and identify yourself.
Simons: I'm Andy Simons with EP Crossings, LLC, and ABC-2, LLC. I'm not the
applicant, but I'm one of the owners.
Zaremba: I appreciate that correction. You're correct.
Simons: We have owned the 11 acres, which is the Presidential Subdivision that -- I'd
call it the southwest corner there on Pine and Eagle. We support the staff's
recommendations here and would like to see you guys approve this and I'll stand for
any questions if you have any.
Rohm: No questions.
Zaremba: No questions. Thank you. We do not have any anybody signed up to speak,
but would any of the people who are here care to comment on this? In that case, I don't
believe we need any rebuttal or anything like that. Commissioners?
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move we close the Public Hearing on RZ 05-018.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15. 2005
Page 48 of 57
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of RZ 05-018,
to include all staff comments for the hearing date of September 15th and with the staff
report dated received September 12th. End of motion.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 20:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-043 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a
private medical practice in a L-O zone for Wigod Medical Practice by
ZGA Architects & Planners - East Louise Drive in Meadow Lake Village
Subdivision:
Zaremba: Thank you for sitting through all of the other testimony to get to this. We are
now ready for Item 20 on our agenda. I will open the Public Hearing for CUP 05-043,
request for a Conditional Use Permit for Wigod Medical Practice and we will begin with
the staff report.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I'm going to be
fairly brief with this one, as this is a small part of a larger development that has already
been approved for medical uses. The site is located immediately across a cross-access
road for -- from the project we saw earlier this year, which was the OB-GYN Center,
another medical use. The only change of significance on the site -- and I have talked to
the applicant and it should be a non-issue, they can address this in the CZC, is that the
landscape plan will not be approved as shown, because this landscape plan is just
undersized and so this will have to be relocated and, then, moved up just slightly and,
then, the tree planters must comply with park standards. Other than that, this
application does have some parking requirements that are a little bit different due to the
UDC and the old code being slightly different. However, through the application of the
CZC those will be non-issue again. So, staff has recommended approval as designed
with just a couple of minor modifications. I'll stand for questions.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant
care to come forward? Thank you also for waiting through all of the other testimony on
the other issue.
Turney: Thank you, Mr. Chair and Commissioners. And thank you for your
consideration. My name is Steve Turney. I live at 4096 East Driftwood Drive, Meridian,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 49 of 57
Idaho. 83642. I don't have anything to add. We have reviewed the conditions of
approval and the amount of space we are talking about for the parking to make that
planter comply is about six inches. So, we are going to go ahead and move that over,
make sure we give the plants the ability to survive and take care of the trees there, so
I'd stand for any questions. Thank you.
Moe: And you accept all conditions of the -- okay.
Turney: Yes.
Moe: No more questions.
Zaremba: Thank you very much. On this issue there is nobody signed up. Would
anybody care to comment?
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: No further comment, no rebuttal needed. Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Yes. I move we close CUP 05 dash -- the Public Hearing on CUP 05-043.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move that we recommend approval to City Council of file number CUP 05-043
as presented in the staff report dated September 7th, 2005, and the site plan dated
June 30th, 2005. End of motion.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries as well. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: I propose that we take another five-minute break and at that point ask
èverybody else to reconvene. We will take five minutes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 50 of 57
(Recess.)
Item 16:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-036 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.30
acres from RUT to a R-8 zone for Larkspur Subdivision No.2 by
Larkspur LLC - 200 and 205 East Rosalyn Court:
Item 17:
Public Hearing: PP 05-035 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 50
building lots and 4 common lots on 10.30 acres in a proposed R-8 zone
for Larkspur Subdivision No.2 by Larkspur LLC - 200 and 205 East
Rosalyn Court:
Item 18:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-038 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for reduced minimum lot size, frontages and
setbacks on 10.30 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Larkspur
Subdivision No.2 by Larkspur LLC - 200 and 205 East Rosalyn Court:
Zaremba: Ladies and gentlemen, we will reconvene again and let the record show that
all Commissioners that were here before the break, all four of us, are here again. And
we will reopen the continued Public Hearing for AZ 05-036, PP 05-035, CUP 05-038, all
of which relate to Larkspur Subdivision. And I would like to propose that we hear from
Mr. Watson as a spokesman for everybody for up to three minutes and, then, we will
hear from Mr. Sargent as a conclusion.
Watson: We appreciate your letting us get a chance to get together. I'm only the
spokesman. I don't -- I'm not their -- I'm not their daddy, okay, so I don't tell these
people what to do.
Zaremba: We appreciate the position we are putting you in.
Watson: And don't hold it against me because I'm the president. This is my last year of
doing this. So, we think we have something that will work out. And I think I understand
Mr. Sargent's position. One was if we had -- if we could have a 6,500 lot, that way,
then, Mr. Sargent would want I think to follow code, which would mean, then, a 15 foot
setback. The other proposition was 6,200 square feet, with a 25-foot setback. And
that's really a sticking point. The other parts that I think that we are agreed -- Mr.
Sargent and we agreed, is that when we get that part of the 6,200,6,500 resolved, then,
there would be a landscaping buffer for ten feet and it would have shrubbery, lovely
trees, a fence, and -- the six foot high fence and the bordering homes, these along this
east boundary, would have 40 year Presidential quality shingles. We are not asking for
shakes. We wouldn't want to do that to anybody. So, that's where we are. The 6,500
square foot, a 15-foot setback, or 6,200 feet and a 25-foot setback. Mr. Sargent, are we
close enough?
Zaremba: Has your group for which you're speaking expressed a preference one-way
or the other?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15. 2005
Page 51 of 57
Watson: Both.
Zaremba: Okay. Either/or would be satisfactory.
Watson: We are both.
Zaremba: Okay.
Watson: Is that okay?
Zaremba: Questions from other Commissioners?
Rohm: No questions.
Zaremba: Thank you. That's very helpful.
Borup: I think the concern on the roof is the look of the shingles?
Watson: There is a -- the Observation Point next to us has what I believe is called a
presidential quality, it's a 40 year composition shingle.
Borup: I'm familiar with that. A 40 and 30? Because you can't really tell the difference
between the two.
Watson: We said 40, but you could convince me either way. I don't know that--
Borup: Visually you can't tell the difference between the two.
Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Mr. Sargent. Yours will be the final word, sir.
Sargent: I guess when I look at this -- when we look at code the rear yard setback is
the 15 feet and the 6,500 square foot plus, besides the 25 feet, I guess I'm willing to
work with the homeowners in providing a ten foot landscape buffer and to review that
with them and they have had some specific requirements in the 40 year roof. And I
guess all I'm asking for in return is a little flexibility in making the lots work appropriately
along that side, because if I just look at the 6,500 feet without doing -- they may turn out
to be that way, but when I sit down and try to configure the lots and accommodate --
you know, the fact that we will probably lose two lots along there, that extra 300 square
feet may be very helpful when I look at the full run of the thing. So, I guess I'm thinking
that the 6,200 square feet is not much in return for getting a landscape buffer, a 25-foot
setback, and the -- you know, the type of architectural shingles that they are asking for.
Any questions?
Zaremba: Thank you. It sounds like the agreement is going forth. I would ask staff if
there is an opinion on what sounds like as being a compromise worked out?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 52 of 57
Wilson: I would say that's up to the Commission's discretion. On the one hand you
have the larger lots, on the other hand you have the large setbacks.
Canning: Chairman Zaremba, unless I misunderstood, I think that they are agreed that
the developer could have both options at this point, just so he can go back and redesign
it. I think that's what's going on. He wants to either do 6,500 -- to have that option once
he sits down.
Zaremba: But there would not be a mix of those two options, but the developer would
noodle it through. One of the other of those options. Is that what we are saying?
Canning: It might be a mix. He might get to the end and find two at the end that need
to be 6,200 and, then, he'd give you the additional setback.
Sargent: Yeah. That's exactly the point is I may end up with a bunch of 65's, but
maybe somewhere along the line I might end up with a couple 62, just to make that run
work and get the lots to layout correctly.
Zaremba: Okay.
Sargent: So, that's why I'm asking for a little bit of flexibility in there.
Zaremba: All right.
Sargent: I'm just asking for a little bit of flexibility in return for providing these other --
these other wish list things that they have asked for.
Borup: So, you're saying the lot size would be 6,200 or 6,500, with the varying
setbacks, depending on which the lot size is.
Moe: Are you basically saying the majority would be 6,500, but we may have to do --
just to even it out to make it work?
Sargent: Right. Yes.
Moe: But you would be working towards the 6,500 to start with and go from there?
Sargent: Yes. I just need some --
Moe: I don't think we need to count that it's got to be two lots or whatever. We are just
trying to make sure that the majority of those lots on the east will go to 6,500 square
feet.
Sargent: Yes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 53 of 57
Borup: Okay. And, then, on the shingles, are you looking at just architectural grade
shingles?
Sargent: With 40 year --
Borup: They have them 30 and 40.
Sargent: Yeah. We have a definition here.
Borup: Yeah. The architectural grade is the one that's got varying -- it's got multi levels
and multi layers and usually some distinction, sometimes, in -- but its multi-layered
effect is usually what's considered the architectural shingles.
Sargent: Yeah. Forty year architectural shingles.
Borup: Or like a 30 year, that's -- and I'm assuming it would be up to you to do what
you would want to do, as long as they look the same.
Sargent: Oh, I see what you're saying.
Moe: But you're saying that you will give them a 40-year?
Sargent: Yeah. We will do a 40-year. We are willing to go with 40 years.
Zaremba: Let's go with that.
Moe: And so just doing an overview, with the 6,500 square foot lots, you're going with a
15-foot setback, along with the ten-foot landscape buffer?
Sargent: No. With the 6,500 square foot lots we are willing to do the whole length of
the east side of Larkspur Two as a 25-foot setback, with a ten-foot landscaping strip.
But some of the lots I'd like to be able to have the flexibility to go down to 6,200 square
feet to sort of make everything fit along that side.
Moe: I got you.
Sargent: But the goal would be to try to get as many to 65 as I could.
Zaremba: Thank you. Let me ask staff. Is that a significant enough change from the
current drawing that you would want us to see it again or is the direction clear enough
that we could make a recommendation to City Council with the instruction that you have
all the drawings 14 days before the hearing.
Wilson: That would -- it depends on your comfort level with -- saying that get as many
6,500 square foot lots as you can, that's kind of a difficult criteria. I mean we can look
and say it's reasonable. The Commission mayor may not agree with that. So, having
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 54 of 57
these come back to you would give you more control over the final product, you know,
leave a little less interpretation on the staff. So, it's kind of your comfort level with us
being able to say, yes, he's got as many 6,500 square foot lots as he could.
Rohm: I'm pretty comfortable with staff, so --
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: May I just make a statement on that. I think that's pretty much why we took the
time to have them work this out. I would like to see -- and I'm usually the one that likes -
- I'm the visual guy, I want to see it all, but this time I think they have worked it out and I
think we should move forward. I do not think we need to continue this hearing any
longer just to see the plan.
Zaremba: Okay. That works for me. I'd entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Moe: No one else is speaking up, so I guess they left that up to me here. Mr.
Chairman, I move that we --
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: -- close the public hearings on AZ 05-036, PP 05-035, and CUP 05-038.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. That motion carries.
Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: A little clarification of staff. I guess I would be curious, you know, as far as to
make these conditions, that would be on the preliminary plat?
Wilson: Yes, it would.
Moe: Okay. So, the AZ is fine and, then, the CUP would be fine as well, it would just
be attributed to the --
Wilson: You will need to add them to the CU as well, because they are specific
reductions to the R-8 standards.
Moe: Got you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 55 of 57
Zaremba: The other comment that I would make is that the staff report on page two
and, again, on the page that is the proposed motions, references both a plat and a
landscape plan of July 14th, 2005. We came in tonight with a plat from August 31st,
2005, and that one is not going to be the approved one either. So, I just -- my comment
is that -- how shall we deal with dates that are in the staff report?
Wilson: That will be the date to reference. That plat will be conditionally approved with
the changes as specified by the Commission.
Zaremba: The August 31 st plat?
Wilson: Yes.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: That was my understanding that --
Moe: No. Mr. Rohm, I think, is going to go forward.
Zaremba: Oh. Okay. So, we are going to reference the August 31st, '05, plat and
changes specified to that. Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of AZ 05-036, to include all staff comments for the hearing date September
15th and received September 12th, 2005. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commission Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of PP 05-035,
to include all staff comments for the hearing date September 15th, 2005, and received
on September 12th, 2005, with the following changes. To start off with, we want to -- all
changes to refer to the plat dated August 31 st, 2005. The first change would be the
majority of the lots along the east line shall be 6,500 square feet. The balance of the
lots to even out the frontage to be a minimum of 6,200 square feet. All homes -- item
three. All homes along that east line to have a 40-year presidential shingled roofing.
Item four. There shall be a 25-foot setback along east line lots and a ten foot
landscaping buffer along that east line.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 56 of 57
Zaremba: I would clarify that that's a rear yard setback.
Rohm: That's a rear yard setback. Correct. I believe that's the end of motion.
Zaremba: And, then, as a comment I would add a condition of final drawings to staff 14
days before the next Public Hearing.
Rohm: Yes.
Moe: I'll second that.
Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of CUP 05-
038, to include all staff comments for the hearing date of September 15th, 2005,
received September 12th, 2005, with the following changes: These are in reference to
the plat dated August 31 st, 2005. Number one, the majority of the east line lots to be a
minimum of 6,500 square feet. The balance to be 6,200 feet, just to even out the lots
along that east line. Item three. All homes along the east line shall have the 40-year
presidential style roofing. Number four. There shall be 25-foot setback along all east
line lots and ten foot landscaping buffer. And, number five, this adjusted preliminary
plat shall be delivered to staff 14 days prior to City Council hearing. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: Thank you all for coming down and participating. We appreciate your input.
Thank you all in your cooperation, both the applicant and representatives and the
individuals for working out a workable solution. It sounds like this is good for the city
and acceptable for the neighborhood and, hopefully, it will be a good addition to
Meridian. As stated, this is a recommendation that goes onto City Council. You will be
notified of that Public Hearing if you're within 300 feet of this project.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2005
Page 57 of 57
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move we adjourn.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor. Anyopposed? That motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:39 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVE~ .~
DAVIDZARE ~ H MAN
ATTESTED'
, 0 L1LJ~
DATE APPROVED