2006 12-21
Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meetina
December 21. 2006
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of December 21, 2006, was
called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm.
Members Present: Michael Rohm, Keith Borup, Wendy Newton-Huckabay, David
Zaremba, and David Mae.
Others Present: Ted Baird, Machelle Hill, Caleb Hood, Mike Cole, Sonya Watters,
Amanda Hess, Justin Lucas, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Keith Borup
X David Moe - Vice Chairman X David Zaremba
X Michael Rohm - Chairman
Rohm: Okay. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the regularly
scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and we will begin with roll
call of Commissioners.
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Rohm: Okay. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and there are
a number of changes to that agenda and I would like to read those prior to the adoption.
And the first item is Commissioner David Zaremba would like to address the
Commission and we are going to put that first after the Consent Agenda. The second
change is Item 5 on the agenda, PP 06-058 for Jayker Subdivision is going to be
continued until the regularly scheduled meeting -- first one in February. The last change
on the agenda is Item 13 and 14 related to Harcourt Subdivision. This project is going
to be continued until the January 18th, 2007, regularly scheduled meeting of the
Planning and Zoning Commission and those are the only changes to the agenda, so at
this time I'd like to have a motion to accept the agenda as changed.
Mae: So moved.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved seconded to accept the modified agenda. All those in favor say
aye. Opposed same sign?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 3:
Consent Agenda:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 2 of 65
A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
06-038 Request for detailed Conditional Use Permit approval for
office uses in an L-O zone per requirement of the Development
Agreement for Troutner Park Subdivision Buildings "A & B" by
Babichenko, LLC - 503 S.W. 5th Avenue:
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: CUP 06-
037 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a group daycare for
up to 12 children in an R-8 zone for Pammy Cakes Childcare by
Pamela Minshew - 672 E. Baldwin Street:
C. Approve Renewal of Adult Business License for Paul McLeod
with Valley Video - 433 North Main Street:
Rohm: Okay. Okay. The Consent Agenda consists of three items, Findings of Facts
and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 06-038 and Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for denial of CUP 06-037 and the third item is approval of renewal
of adult business license for Paul McCloud and Video -- Valley Video, 433 North Main
Street.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we adopt the -- approve the Consent Agenda.
Mae: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed the same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to turn the floor over to Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, staff, and citizens. I
have a mixture of sad and happy news to announce this evening. I have been pleased
to be a member of this Commission for I think a little more than five years and have
enjoyed my work here. A few weeks ago it became known that City Councilman Shaun
Wardle was anticipating stepping down to take a different position helping Meridian as
well. In the interim I contacted the Mayor, expressed an interest, and have been
appointed to become the next City Councilman. The last part of it is happy, the first part
of is unhappy. That means I won't be a Planning and Zoning Commissioner anymore.
My appointment is effective tomorrow, actually. I will not be sworn in until the 2nd of
January, so, in fact, I can still function as a Planning and Zoning Commissioner tonight.
But the happy part of it is that I will continue my service to Meridian as a City
Councilman beginning January 2nd. The sad part is not being in the comradery of
these people who I have grown to enjoy and appreciate and I have been thrilled to
serve with all of you. I have been thrilled with the support from the professional staff
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 3 of 65
that we have that does excellent work, both Planning and Zoning and Public Works and
everybody else who is behind the scenes and puts all of this together. In my
discussions with the Mayor I think I may have some inkling of who may be replacing me
in this position on the Commission, but it's not my place to announce that, so I won't.
But I -- if it is who I think it may be, I think everybody will enjoy working with that person
as well and will be a fine part of the Commission. But I just wanted to announce that I
will not be coming to these meetings that much, but you all will have a friend on the City
Council. Anytime that you wish to wonder why the City Council does something
different than the Planning and Zoning Commission did, which we often do, I will be
happy to be there and I will happy to listen and hope that I can enjoy being there as
much as I have enjoyed being here and working with all of you. Thank you.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Mae.
Mae: At this point, Mr. Zaremba, it's been a pleasure serving with you on this
Commission. I do appreciate all your help in steering me in -- since I have been on the
Commission and it's been very much appreciated and good luck at Council.
Newton-Huckabay: I concur.
Rohm: And I guess because I'm down here at this end I get to say the last word before
we move on. I can tell you that Commissioner Zaremba has been an excellent servant
to the City of Meridian in this capacity and I have looked to him from the time I joined
the Commission I would say probably four years ago to his insights and his leadership
and I can tell that he will be sorely missed and with that being said we will move onto
the next item of the agenda. Oh, one more thing before we start. There are many of
you that only come to these Commission meetings to address the issue that is before
you on a given night and what I'd like to do is talk to you a little bit about the procedure
and the procedure the way we work our Commission meetings is we open up a
particular project and, then, we ask the staff to give their recap of that project. Basically
they will talk to us about how it adheres to the Comprehensive Plan and to ordinance.
Once the staff has completed their presentation, the applicant, then, will have an
opportunity to speak to that given project and, basically, give their sales pitch to the
Commission for their reasons thinking that we should approve their individual project.
Once those two presentations have been made, the project, then, will be open to the
audience. Anybody that wants to speak on a particular project will be given their time at
the microphone and once all public testimony has been completed, the applicants, then,
will have an opportunity to rebut any comments brought up by the -- in the open
discussion. Once that is done, the project will either be closed or continued or tabled for
further action. But once -- once the applicant makes their rebuttal testimony, it won't be
opened back to the public again. So, that's the way the procedure works.
Item 4:
Continued Public Hearing from December 7, 2006: MCU 06-004
Request for Modification of the existing Conditional Use Permit to remove
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21,2006
Page 4 of 65
the requirement for detailed conditional use permit approval for all
structures within the L-O zone for Razzberry Crossing Subdivision by
Carl and Bonnie Reiterman - 1434,1463,1492,1565 E. Star Drive:
Rohm: And we shall begin with opening up the continued Public Hearing from
December 7,2006, of MCU 06-004 and begin with the staff report.
Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. In February of 2004
Razzberry Crossing Subdivision was granted annexation and zoning approval for 8.1
acres from RUT to R-8 and 3.31 acres from RUT to L-O. At that time preliminary plat
approval was also granted for 34 single family residential lots in the R-8 zone and four
professional lots in the L-O zone. A Conditional Use Permit for a planned development
approved reduced set backs and dimensional standards within the R-8 zone and
established a requirement of securing detailed conditional use permits prior to the
development of the office lots. The subject application proposes to eliminate the
requirement for all four of the office lots within the L-O zone to obtain individual detailed
conditional use permits prior to submittal for certificates of zoning compliance. The
applicants have provided elevations of what the building will look like with the proposal
and they are included in the staff report. Razzberry Crossing is generally located 350
feet west of Locust Grove Road and a third of a mile south of McMillan Road. The
primary access to Razzberry Crossing is by East Star Drive, a local street which
intersects Locust Grove Road. To the north there is -- sorry, technical difficulties here.
There we go. To the north there is Havasu Creek up here, zoned R-8. To the east
Heritage Subdivision, which is still an Ada County residential development. And south
Alexandria Subdivision right here, also zoned R-8. Staff is supportive of the subject
request as the city will still be able to have control over what will be constructed on the
subject property via the certificate of zoning compliance process. But staff will not have
to review and write Public Hearing level reports for each individual building. I have
included in the presentation a slide showing what the proposed elevations submitted by
the applicant are. This building has already been constructed and the rest of the other
buildings will be constructed looking very similar to this. So, based on the policies and
goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the compliance of the proposed
development with the Unified Development Code, staff believes that a modification to
the existing Conditional Use Permit to eliminate the requirement for detailed Conditional
Use Permit approval for these lots should be allowed. And that is all staff has, unless
the Commission has questions.
Rohm: Any questions of staff? Seeing none, would the applicant like to come forward,
please.
Reiterman: Hello, Commissioners. My name is Carl Reiterman, I'm the owner of
Razzberry Crossing. I live at 770 West McMillan Road in Meridian. Anything else?
Rohm: I think only if you have any additional information that you will necessary for --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 5 of 65
Reiterman: We had a neighborhood meeting. In the neighborhood meeting there was
one couple and two women that showed up and they had said that it looked great, they
are tickled to see it going in, and short of having one house and a horse barn there,
everything was great with them. We didn't -- we haven't had any other --
Moe: And you approve of all conditions for approval?
Reiterman: Yes.
Rohm: Thank you.
Reiterman: Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. We have four people signed up to testify to this application and I will just
-- did you want to testify or are you just in support? From the audience he just said he
was in support. Randy Donald. Just in support. Carl Reiterman. Oh. Excuse me.
And, then, Bonnie Reiterman. And all four are in support. Is there anyone else that
would that like to testify to this application? Okay. Seeing none, any discussion before
we close this Public Hearing?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, just a comment. It's very pleasing to know that you held a
neighborhood meeting and that you have come to such agreement. I know when this
project first came through and maybe even a couple of iterations that were ahead of it
came there was a pretty good turnout not so much in favor of it, which is part of the
reason that the requirement to put a CUP on these nonresidential lots was put in the
first place. My feeling is if the rest of the buildings are going to be built the way the first
one was, those who had originally had an objection wouldn't continue to have any
objections and I see no reason not to lift that added requirement. There was a reason
at the time and I think the reason has gone away.
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba, I agree with that and any additional comments from
other Commissioners?
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I'd just make a motion to close the Public Hearing MCU 06-004.
Zaremba: Second that.
Rohm: There has been a motion to close the Public Hearing on MCU 06-004. All those
in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 6 of 65
Zaremba: I would ask one question of staff before we proceed. Exhibit 8, conditions of
approval, paragraph 1.1 does not specify the specific condition, it says site specific
condition XX. Do we know what that number should be that's put in there? Or is mine
the only copy that says that?
Borup: No. Mine says that.
Hess: Commissioner Zaremba, I don't know the specific number, but what I can do is
add that into the staff report when the Findings are --
Zaremba: Okay. That works for me.
Rohm: Okay.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: One moment while I find something here. After considering all staff,
applicant, and giving the public the opportunity to testify, I move to approve file number
MCU 06-002 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 21 st,
2006, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: Staff will supply the
actual reference number that fits in paragraph 1.1 in Exhibit B and I further move to
direct staff to prepare an appropriate Findings document to be considered at the next
Planning and Zoning Commission hearing January 4th, 2006.
Rohm: '7.
Zaremba: '7.
Mae: Second.
Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve MCU 06-004. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5:
Public Hearing: PP 06-058 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 277
residential lots, 1 commercial lot and 27 common lots on 142.97 acres in
existing R-2, R-8, R-15 and C-N zones for Jayker Subdivision by
Treehaven, LLC - north of Chinden Boulevard and west of Ten Mile Road:
Rohm: Thank you, folks. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing PP 06-058 for
the sole purpose of continuing it to the first regularly scheduled meeting of the month of
February 2007.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 7 of 65
Moe: So moved.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Public Hearing PP 06-058 to the first
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of February, 2007. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6:
Public Hearing: RZ 06-011 Request for a Rezone of 10.57 acres from an
R-4 to an R-8 zone for Sundial Subdivision by Gemstar Development -
south of Ustick Road and west of Linder Road:
Item 7:
Public Hearing: PP 06-060 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 30
single-family building lots, 3 common lots and 1 other lot on 10.57 acres in
a proposed R-8 zone for Sundial Subdivision by Gemstar Development
- south of Ustick Road and west of Linder Road:
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on RZ 06-011 and PP 06-060.
Both of these items related to Sundial Subdivision and begin with the staff report.
Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Commissioners. I think before I begin on an
official presentation I should describe a little bit of what happened today. After doing
some research -- further search into the project it became clear that maybe some
documents that should have been looked at early on in the process were not looked at
and these documents -- usually staff will do a search of documents that relate to
previously approved annexations, development agreements, and things like that, but
early on in my search for those documents they weren't available and I wasn't able to
find them, but today after doing a deeper search a couple things came up, including a
development agreement that relates to the original Turtle Creek annexation that was
back from 1994. One of the reasons I didn't find it was it was from 1994 and that's an
older document that's, actually, in the basement of this building, but I did find it today. It
contains some information that would affect staff's recommendation on this project. It
talks about some things that relate to the project. I don't want to go into too much detail.
One of the reasons is that the applicant has informed me after I told him about this
today, they just found out tonight at the hearing. I gave them a copy of these
documents and they would like some time to look at them, obviously, and process that
information and staff would also like some time to process that information and include it
in a more detailed staff report, so that all of the information in the staff report is clear
and that any previous approvals or conditions that were placed upon that property are
included in the staff report. I don't know how much -- basically, what I'm saying is the
applicant is going to get up and request continuance, so I kind of want to let them have
a chance to explain the situation also and make that request without doing a detailed
presentation on the project.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 8 of 65
Rohm: That's fair enough to me. Would the applicant like to come forward, please?
Wildwood: Good evening, Members of the Commission. My name is Susan Wildwood.
Business address is Post Office Box 6502 in Boise and I'm here on behalf of the
applicant Gem Star. I really appreciate Justin digging those out. I tried when we first
were looking at this property, went upstairs, they are not available, came over here,
couldn't be found and Justin, because he's a real digger arounder found the file today.
But the long and the short of it is we have not had a chance, other than Justin handed
these off to us to look at them, digest if at all how it would affect our application and
proposal, so we would really appreciate a continuance, so that everybody has a crack at
looking at it and making whatever appropriate decisions need to be made on this. And
with that I -- I don't think there is any questions, but I would be happy to stand for any.
Rohm: I guess, number one, my first question would be do you have a date specific
that you would like to be continued to?
Wildwood: I think Justin was indicating that he was looking at the middle of February or
the first part of February, either one of those, and they work fine for us.
Rohm: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Do we have a lot -- we have a lot of letters from the public on this
one, so maybe, if there is going to be substantive change to the development, another
neighborhood meeting might need to be held before another meeting.
Rohm: That's where I was going.
Wildwood: Yes. And Members of the Commission, if there are extensive changes
made to the proposal, I think that that is probably appropriate. So, if it's far enough out
it gives us a crack at evaluating what it is, finding out what changes, if any, are
appropriate and, then, going ahead and scheduling another meeting for the neighbors.
We are good to go.
Rohm: Okay.
Justin: Mr. Chair, if I could, I do have a date in mind. After looking at our schedule -- I
do have them in front of me here. Because the Jayker Subdivision was just continued
to the 1 st, that hearing date is looking -- February 1 st, that hearing date is looking pretty
full. I think it would be more appropriate to put this item on February 15th, which would
be the second hearing in February.
Wildwood: That works for us. Thank you, Members of the Commission.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 9 of 65
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Wildwood: Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: I think that Commissioner Newton-Huckabay's comment about the
neighborhood meeting, if you could -- once you have digested this additional
information, if you could schedule another neighborhood meeting I think it would be
appropriate. And with that, Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I guess this is a question both for the applicant and the staff or something.
At the time, if I remember correctly, that the surrounding subdivision came in, that the
reason that this parcel was not include was because of the cell tower and the issue was
the fall zone of the cell tower. We had just at that time written a new cell tower
ordinance, which now I believe has been incorporated into the UDC and is not a
separate ordinance anymore, but what needs to be looked at is do we still need to have
no residential development -- I think it was no buildings within the fall zone and are you
inside of it or outside of it.
Wildwood: Right. Mr. Chairman, if I can just briefly address that, because that's an
important point. We spent a lot of time digging around on this application and the --
currently the proposal is only to develop those lots that are outside the fall zone,
including your recent changes. So, we are actually farther out than originally and that,
actually, is one of the problems. This piece of ground was not included in the final plat
and so it's been very difficult to disentangle what set of rules actually applies to this
particular piece of ground. Was it in the development -- looking at this tonight, was it in
the development agreement, because it was not within the subdivision approvals, which
file is upstairs, and so because it was not within that set of approvals, we had a hard
time, as Justin has just outlined for you, finding out just what we were supposed to be
doing. But I can assure you that what we have proposed has everything outside of that
fall line, including the recent changes.
Zaremba: Cool.
Wildwood: Okay.
Zaremba: And Commissioner Newton-Huckabay just reminded me that that cell tower
is now about half what it was when the original subdivision was done, so --
Wildwood: Correct.
Zaremba: -- that changes the fall zone as well.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 10 of 65
Wildwood: Yes, it has changed the fall zone, but we still have seven years to wait until
they are ready to go. So, we were trying to see if we couldn't move forward on this
thing. But I appreciate the Commission's time. Thank you very much.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rohm: You bet you. Thank you very much. Could I get a motion to continue these
items, please?
Lucas: Excuse me, Members of the Commission. I just did want to make clear that if
changes are made to the plat staff would need those changes by January -- by January
19th would probably be a good date -- a good date just to give me enough time to
process those changes and include all changes in an updated staff report, so that you
would have all the information that's correct at the time of the Commission hearing.
Rohm: Okay. That's good to know and the applicant, I'm sure, is aware of that January
19th date and will have any necessary information to staff for you to write an
appropriate staff report. Commissioner Moe, would you care to --
Mae: Sure. I'd love to. Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Mae: I make a motion that we move to continue the public hearings RZ 06-011 and PP
06-060, preliminary plat, to the regularly scheduled P&Z meeting of February 15th,
2007.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Items RZ 06-011 and PP 06-060,
both items related to Sundial Subdivision, to the regularly scheduled meeting of
February 15th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: And thank you folks for coming in and we will see you back on the 15th of
February. Any of that paperwork will be made available.
Item 8:
Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 2006: RZ 06-008
Request for a Rezone of 8.96 acres (Lots 41-45, Block 49, Lochsa Falls
Subdivision No. 12) from R-4 to C-N zone for Lochsa Falls Office I
Commercial Addition by Farwest, LLC - south of Chinden Boulevard
and west of N. Linder Road:
Item 9:
Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 2006: MCU 06-002
Request for Modification of the approved Conditional Use Permit I
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 11 ot65
Planned Development to remove the requirement for detailed Conditional
Use Permit approval for development on Lots 41-45, Block 49, Lochsa
Falls Subdivision No. 12 for Lochsa Falls Office I Commercial Addition
by Farwest, LLC - south of Chinden Boulevard and west of N. Linder
Road:
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from November
2nd, 2006, of RZ 06-008 and MCU 06-002, both items related to Lochsa Falls Office
Commercial Addition and begin with our staff report.
Watters: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the application before you is a
rezone for Lots 41 through 45, Block 49, Lochsa Falls Subdivision No. 12. The
applicant has requested these lots be rezoned from the R-4, Low Density Residential, to
the C-N, Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District. Additionally, the applicant is
requesting a modification to the existing Conditional Use Permit planned development,
CUP 02-012, to remove the requirement for detailed conditional use approval for future
uses on these lots. The subject property is located on the south side of Chinden
Boulevard, east of Long Lake Avenue, within Lochsa Falls Subdivision. The site is
currently vacant office commercial land. And to the east is agricultural land recently
approved as Knighthill Center Subdivision, a commercial development zoned C-G. To
the north is also agricultural land recently approved as Knight Sky Estates Subdivision,
a mixed use development zoned R-4, TN-C and C-C. To the south are single family
residences in Lochsa Falls Subdivision, zone R-4. And immediately to the west are
future office lots zoned L-O. Further to the west, on the west side of Long Lake Way, is
a future school site zoned R-4. The property was previously approved for office uses on
Lots 42 through 45 and commercial use on Lots -- on Lot 41 through the planned
development for Lochsa Falls Subdivision as a use exception in the R-4 zone under the
old Meridian City Code. The development agreement for this subdivision allows for the
construction and development of 11 office buildings and one commercial building for the
commercial portions of the development. Staff interprets buildings to mean lots, since
more than one building may be built on a lot. Staff is recommending that Lots 42
through 45 be rezoned L-O and Lot 41 be rezoned C-N, instead of their requested
overall C-N designation, consistent with the uses approved in the planned development
and development agreement. The applicant has submitted a response to the staff
report agreeing with the change in zoning from the original request. There is an aerial
view of the property. And that's the plat on which these properties are located. Here is
some proposed elevations for the buildings on these sites -- sample elevations, I should
say. The issues highlighted in the staff report for the Commission are as follows: First,
the lack of a sidewalk and requirement of one along the north side of West Everest
Lane. West Everest is the roadway right there, which these lots are accessed. The
Hastings Development immediately to the west of this site was required to provide a
sidewalk and this requirement will provide a sidewalk connection from Linder Road to
Long Lake Way. Second, staff is requiring 135 foot minimum building setback
requirement, measured from the center line of Chinden Boulevard for structures built on
these lots. The setback consists of a hundred feet for current and future ITD right of
way, plus 35 feet for a future landscape buffer. Seventy feet of right of way was
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21,2006
Page 12 of 65
originally required with Lochsa Falls Subdivision. However, since, then, ITD has
requested that development along Chinden Boulevard, accommodate a one hundred
foot right of way for future highway improvements. Third, staff is requesting that the
hours of operation on this C-N zoned property, which is right here on the east end, be
limited to between 600 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., because of its proximity to residential
properties in a variety of uses currently permitted in the C-N by the UDC. Last, the
applicant had submitted some sample pictures for potential elevations, buildings for this
site, that are very different in design. Staff is requesting the Commission to determine if
the proposed elevations are acceptable or if they would like to see similar elevations as
proposed with the adjacent offices buildings in Hastings Subdivision. These are the
elevations proposed adjacent to the site. They appear to be stucco with some brick or
stone accents on them. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions listed in the
staff report and that's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff?
Mae: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Sonya, I just want to -- you make comment that you're looking for us to make
recommendation in regards to the exterior elevations as far as what would their -- what
they have got planned, as opposed to what's in the other office buildings nearby and I'm
assuming, then, that's part of the -- the ones from the modification to the CUP.
Watters: They are providing elevations now, sample elevations, and they are
requesting that they not go through detailed conditional use approval in the future for
these lots.
Moe: I guess one comment I would -- I would be curious about is what does staff think
about their planned elevations?
Watters: Staff thinks they are all nice, they all have, you know, good design features.
Basically, the staff was just looking for, you know, if the Commission had any, you
know, certain desires they would like to see in that area.
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, since we are on that subject, I think the only desire that I
would like to add is the discussion of whether these are the facades from West Everest
or from Chinden. If the backs of the buildings are facing Chinden, I think they should
have some facade treatment as well. Just a comment. Then, I also had a separate
question and I may need to ask this of the applicant, but I will ask staff to begin with.
Let's see, can you go back to one of the -- whether it's an aerial view or an aerial
drawing of thing. That one will do. That's fine. When the property to the east came
through, we required them to work out a cross-access agreement, since Everest is a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 13 of 65
private street, so that people using Everest could actually access through their property
to Linder and leaving this property could use Everest. Do we know if that cross-access
agreement was ever consummated, shall we say?
Watters: Staff isn't certain, Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Okay. I will ask the applicant. If not, we will put it on the list of things to do.
Watters: Sounds good.
Rohm: Okay. Any additional questions of staff before we have the applicant come
forward? Seeing none, would the applicant like to come forward on this application.
McColl: Commissioners, Brian McColl, 420 West Washington, on behalf of the
applicant. With respect to the last question, the property owner immediately to the east
has approached us and requested that we provide access through Everest Drive and
we have agreed to do so. We haven't drafted a cross-access agreement yet, but that
will be done. There is no difficulty with that.
Zaremba: Thank you.
McColl: With respect to staffs observations, we are in complete agreement that we
would modify our request for a rezone to have the four westerly lots zoned L-O and the
most easterly lot be the only one that's zoned C-N. No difficulty with the sidewalk
condition. No difficulty with the hours restriction. I would like to address for the moment
briefly the status of the, quote, building setback. As it is right now, the Idaho
Transportation Department has in fee a 40 foot right of way from center line. When
Lochsa Falls was annexed, platted, subject to a development agreement, the platting
process provided in addition to the 40 feet, a 30 foot common area that would be --
although it wasn't, I don't think, specifically specified, a 30 foot common area was
available for future right of way should ITD want it. At that point in time when this
project came through that's what they wanted, 70 feet. So, the 40, plus the 30, would
give the 70 feet. And, then, yet another strip or common area lot was in the preliminary
plat and in the final plat for this phase and that consisted of a 35 foot common strip for a
landscaping buffer to comply with the city's requirement that there be that buffer. So,
when this particular phase got platted that's how it ended up. ITD owns 40 feet, there is
a 30 foot common area plat -- or a 30 foot common area strip and, then, another 35 foot
strip. That takes you to the property line of all of these lots, including the two lots that
were relatively recently rezoned by the owner of those lots as Hastings Subdivision and
that's where the property line is. So, if you add those up, 40, plus 30, is 70, and, then,
another 35, takes you to 105 feet to the platted line. In addition to that, then, of course,
there are the setback requirements for the particular zone. I'm not sure how to reconcile
the request for a building setback that is clearly different from the Uniform Development
Code that this city has adopted with the fact that this has been plated already. So, I
didn't want to brush this under the carpet. I think it's probably not appropriate to impose
ITD's current policy in the form of an additional setback, I think for a number of reasons.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 14 of 65
First, the Idaho Department of Transportation has probably had four different
opportunities to put this in the record to make this request and in each case they
declined. I mean there was the two public hearings for the annexation, zoning,
development agreement, preliminary plat, and that was never a condition. Can't be
found anywhere. Again, when this particular rezone was brought and is being brought
now, ITD that I'm aware of has not responded to a request by putting into the record
anything in terms of what it might want in the future. The second reason for probably
not solving the problem in the fashion of making this a condition is -- and it would be
somewhat inconsistent. We already have platted in front of the Hastings Subdivision
those two common lots, one 35 feet for the landscape buffer, and the other 30 feet for
additional right of way and I believe the subdivision that was approved further to the
west, that was not a requirement for that subdivision either. So, we would have this
inconsistency that doesn't really solve the problem. The problem will ultimately be
solved perhaps if ITD does come forward and through the process of eminent domain
seek any additional right of way, whether it be from it's existing 40 to 45 feet to 70 feet
to 80 feet to 90 feet or to 100 feet, they will make the request for eminent domain and
the property, which in this case is going to be and already is the homeowners
association, would respond to the eminent domain by giving it up or disagreeing and
having that battle with them. I don't think it's necessarily the jurisdiction of Planning and
Zoning or City Council to do an end run around that eminent domain process and,
again, were you to do so I don't know what that means. Do we change the lot line?
That's not before anybody. Nobody's requested it. ITD hasn't requested it. If ITD
wants a hundred foot setback, I suspect that a hundred feet on either side of Chinden
Boulevard, despite whatever plans they have for Chinden Boulevard, would end up with
partially a landscape buffer. Well, the landscape buffer is there, as the staff points out
in their staff report, the landscape buffer of 35 feet has already been built and is in
place. So, based upon that I'd stand for questions.
Rohm: Thank you. That was very interesting. Any questions of the applicant from
Members of the Commission?
Borup: I do have a question that -- and I don't know if you know the answer, but you
had mentioned the properties on -- at least on the west. Do you know -- do you know
specifically how the properties on either side were treated as far as the setback, future
buffers, et cetera?
McColl: Commissioner Borup, it's my understanding that the property immediately to
the west, which is now the Hastings commercial or office subdivision, they came in
under Lochsa Falls development agreement that said these lots have been, basically,
set aside for office, but you need a specific Conditional Use Permit. They came in and
it's my understanding that ITD had a letter saying we might want a hundred feet setback
in the future, but despite that letter the re-sub of Hastings went through and there was
no -- I mean I just don't think it's appropriate to call it a building setback. There was no
additional right of way either deeded to the ITD or reserved for lTD. Beyond that,
immediately to the west I guess --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 15 of 65
Borup: So, that property line is less than a hundred feet from the center line?
McColl: That's correct. That's correct. All -- basically, there were originally seven lots
and those seven lots' property line is 40, plus 30, plus 35 or 105 feet from the center line
of Chinden.
Borup: The lots are.
McColl: They are.
Borup: That's what I just asked.
McColl: Oh. Yes. The answer is yes.
Borup: Okay. So, that -- and that's the same as what you're saying --
McColl: Yes.
Borup: -- that you have here, other than the buffer is lacking on both of them, then?
Or could be lacking if there was -- if they had had the 200 foot right of way?
McColl: Yeah. If there was to be a hundred foot right of way, that right of way would
have to be taken from the northerly lot line of all of these lots to the tune of -- if my math
is correct -- another 20 feet.
Borup: Either that or reduce the buffer, the landscape buffer.
McColl: Or reduce the landscape buffer.
Borup: Okay.
McColl: Or have as part of ITD's right of way the landscape buffer.
Borup: Well, I agree that it's not up to this Commission to require, you know, giving up
of right of way and land, but I -- but I disagree that this isn't something we should be
concerned about. This is what we are supposed to be doing is planning and looking to
the future and to prevent problems down the road and having preservation and areas
set aside does exactly that.
McColl: And I agree completely, Commissioner Borup. And I think that when this was
originally approved at that point ITD was talking about 70 feet. I mean we have this
situation all the time, I mean there is lots of properties that have already been
developed and ITD or ACHD's right of way requirements, their policies change and you
see them coming in and --
t
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21,2006
Page 16 of 65
Borup: It would be a lot easier if they'd get their act together and decide what it's really
going to need.
McColl: Yes. Right.
Borup: I agree. Thank you.
Hood: Mr. Chair, before you move on to general public testimony, if there is any, I just
wanted to kind of clarify Hastings, which is the two lot short plat that was -- is directly to
the west. And it is a moving target with ITD and their right of way. It was -- it's been 70
feet for a long time. Luckily we haven't seen too much development along Chinden and
have only required -- Lochsa is one of the few where we have only required 70 feet.
Today was the first time I had actually seen the corridor -- 20-26 corridor study from
Parametrics that is working for ITD, at least putting it on paper officially that they are
looking at a corridor of 100 feet. We have been getting letters for some time now from
them saying, hey, try to leave 100 feet, but with respect to the Hastings project, we
asked ITD to provide comments. Their comments came after the fact. We had our
conditions in place. It was dated like May 6th and the plat was done in April and so they
were just late in getting us those comments. You know, we give them three weeks to
respond and they took four or whatever and so staff would have had a similar or thought
the same condition on those guys if we would have had comments from ITD saying,
please, reserve 100 feet. Now, with the Conditional Use Permit any condition that the
Commission feels is appropriate to move the project forward -- and that's how we kind
of rationalize this 135 foot setback. Now, I agree -- I mean I can somewhat understand
not being in these shoes before, but I can somewhat understand the frustration from an
applicant, too. And reduction of that buffer may be appropriate, but to leave a five foot
landscape buffer when we are going to have 35 on everywhere else in the mile,
because we are getting 100 feet now. You asked, but we didn't answer the question
about Knighthill and Knight Sky Estates, there is 100 feet there on both sides.
Reserved. ITD has not purchased it, but we start counting their landscape buffers on
the back side of that future right of way. So, we are trying to make sure that we aren't
buying buildings of general public -- ITD is not buying buildings in the future and that's
where that requirement comes from. So, just wanted to -- a couple of background
information for you.
Rohm: Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Because the math on this distance from the center line is escaping me, is
ITD asking now for 100 feet from the center line straight across -- I mean their
discussion at one time was they definitely wanted 100 feet when they were near an
intersection, because they wanted to do acceleration and deceleration lanes, right turn
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21,2006
Page 17 of 65
lanes, and stuff. But perhaps when you are halfway between intersections they didn't
need 100, they have settled on that now, they want 100 straight across?
Hood: Again, I saw that map for the first time today and it's still subject to change, but
they are trying to preserve a corridor of 100 feet from mile to mile. Now, that's going to
stop somewhere -- I think the mile between Locust Grove and Meridian may be 70, but,
then, from Meridian to Linder that's when that 100 feet -- and west -- points west will be
100 feet. There is already some constraints further back to the east near Locust Grove.
There is some older subdivisions that only have 70 and they are buying a bunch of nice
homes if you go in there and try to get 100 foot right of way in there, but this is for the
most part undeveloped or underdeveloped and they are trying to preserve 100 feet
along those mile corridors.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. At this time we have one individual that has signed up to speak. Jay
Anderton.
Anderton: Mr. Commissioner, Jay Anderton, 4752 North Sunset Way, Lehi, Utah. I'm
the director of development and representative of Challenger schools, which is the
owner of Lots 41 and 42. We support the applicant's proposal to go forward. We also
have shared a similar concern with regard to the 100 feet setback, particularly in its
commercial use. Our goal would be to have as close to access to Chinden as we can,
so that people can have visibility of our commercial establishment. So, we kind of
concur with -- it's going to be nice to see that buffer reduced. But it is our motion here
or our desire to say that we are in support of the applicant and look forward to your
decision to support. Thank you, sir.
Rohm: You bet. Thank you. There is no others signed up to speak to this application,
but at this time if there is anyone else that would like to come forward now is the time.
Seeing none --
Mae: Mr. Chairman, if at all possible I would like to ask the applicant to actually come
back up. Commissioner Zaremba did ask a question in regards to the exterior
elevations in regards to what the look will be of not just on Chinden, but on the southern
side as well. Can you speak to that a little bit as far as what that is going to look like?
McColl: Unfortunately, I really can't. As the previous individual just testified, they have
purchased two of those lots and when they come in for their -- I mean should this --
should this application go forward, my understanding is that these lots would get the
zones that have been requested, subject to the variety of building forms that have been
submitted as part of the application, then, a particular owner of one of those lots is going
to come in to get their building permit and, then, I think at that point a determination will
be made as to whether or not they are consistent or not consistent. If we wanted to put
in the record that the facade facing Chinden be similar to one of the facades that have
been submitted, I don't think anybody would have any difficulty with that. I mean, to be
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21,2006
Page 18 of 65
frank, Challenger School is going to be building a school there and we don't know
exactly what the school is going to look like, but it would have to have at least a styling
similar to what's in the record now. And with respect to the others, they are not sold and
we don't know who is going to buy them and for all we know they will come in for an
additional re-subdivision, as Hastings did.
Mae: Thank you very much.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, for Mr. Moe's comment, I -- part of the staff comment says it must
comply with the design standards in the Uniform Development Code, which talks about
facades and percentages of the minimum change and that kind of stuff. So, I think the
staff would probably be looking at that when they approve it --
Waters: That is correct, Commissioner Borup.
Borup: Okay.
Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, do you have some thoughts on this
application?
Newton-Huckabay: No.
Rohm: Okay. I guess my thoughts on this is Commissioner Borup brought up a point
that we are charged with the responsibility of good planning to the future and if, in fact,
we are aware that Idaho Transportation Department intends to request 100 foot right of
way each side of center and we grant permission to construct at 70-foot, I'm not sure
that that's fulfilling our responsibilities and I can certainly concur is what the applicant
was saying, too, that at the time that was originally platted, there was no reference to
100-foot each side of center. So, I'm not sure what the right answer is, other than I
don't think we should ignore information that's now available to us that wasn't at the time
that the plat was originally drawn, so --
Borup: So, that being said, what are you saying?
Rohm: Well, I think that just, you know, from my perspective I think that the building
should be moved at least the additional 30 feet off of south of the -- the buffer zone and
that way if, in fact, the --
Borup: So, that would put the -- that would put the building 65 feet from --
Rohm: Well, I'm not very good with math either, so--
Borup: Well, 30 plus 35 would be 65.
Rohm: It would be 135 feet --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 19 of 65
Moe: To the buffer and, then, you're looking at another 30 beyond.
Rohm: Oh, there is 30 feet beyond --
Borup: Well, right now we are a hundred -- was that correct that there is 105 feet from
the center line to the property line? The applicant testified to that.
Hood: Yeah. The applicant spelled it out pretty clearly, 40 feet they own today deed
and 30 feet that Lochsa -- they reserved for a future ITD purpose and, then, our 35 foot
wide landscape buffer in a common lot. So, that's why their lot starts at the backside of
that common lot a Lochsa Falls landscape buffer lot.
Borup: And then -- and, then, on a -- and, then, the setback is either 30 or 35,
depending on whether it's L-O or C-N, isn't it? The building setback on the property
line.
Hood: Front setback -- I'm not sure what it is.
Borup: Not setback. Well, this isn't considered the back?
Hood: It depends on where the front door is, but it may be a rear setback. L-O rear
setbacks probably don't even exist. I think there is a ten foot side, but I don't even know
that there is a rear setback in the L-O. I don't have -- I just went online to try to look at
the UDC online and this computer doesn't have it hooked up, so -- and someone ran
away with our hard copy that was here, so --
Rohm: Yeah. By all means. Might as well let Caleb have it or the two of you could
review it.
Zaremba: What the staff is asking or looking for in their requirements, 1.3 --
Borup: Twenty and twenty-five is what it is, not 30 and 35. At least where I read it --
are you looking on Table 11-2B-3?
Hood: Correct.
Borup: So, that a 20 on the C-N and a -- I mean a 25 on the C-N and a 20 on the L-O?
Zaremba: Well, if I'm doing the math right, then, we are only talking about like a five
foot net difference. What staff is asking for is -- in their paragraph 1.3, that the building
be 135 -- be no closer than 135 feet from the center line. One hundred feet reserved for
the right of way, 35 feet reserved for the buffer. Even if you took the current property
line and you said that the building could be no closer than 20 feet from that property
line, you're at 125 from center line, so we are only discussing ten feet on that example.
My feeling is I think it's wise to reserve that. In other words, go with the staff's request.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 20 of 65
Borup: Thirty-five feet from --
Zaremba: A hundred feet from the center line, plus 35 for the buffer.
Borup: Plus another -- plus another 20 for the -- 25 for the building -- 20 for the
building?
Zaremba: No.
Rohm: No, I think --
Borup: Okay. So, that was the point -- that's where I was trying to get to.
Zaremba: They already have to be 125 feet from the center line.
Borup: But they would need a reduction of -- but, then, they would be in noncompliance
with the setback.
Hood: The setbacks are measured to property line and we are not asking them to move
their property line or that common lot --
Borup: You would allow that 35 -- part of the 35 would be outside of their property line
and part of it would be inside?
Hood: Correct. It would be, essentially, an easement for landscaping. And you can
build right up to that easement. There is not a setback from an easement line. So, that
135 is where they could start construction. If -- the way the condition is worded
currently if that's what you go with.
Borup: Okay.
Hood: There is not an additional setback. We are not that mean.
Borup: Yeah. So, Commissioner Zaremba's comment was, right, just ten feet.
Zaremba: The difference between what theoretically they could have done before and
what --
Borup: So, the building would need to be ten feet --
Zaremba: Farther away from the line --
Borup: Yeah.
Rohm: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 21 of 65
Zaremba: I would support asking for that.
Rohm: Could we get a motion to close the Public Hearing, then?
Zaremba: So moved.
Mae: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-008
and MCU 06-002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers RZ 06-008 and MCU 06-002 as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 21 st, 2006, with the
following modifications to the conditions of approval. On Exhibit B I would add a
paragraph 1.10 that says that the applicant shall complete a cross-access agreement
with the property owner to the east for the use both of Everest private lane by the
neighbor to the east and crossing the neighbor's property to access Linder by this
applicant. And I believe that was the only change. I further move to require the
applicant to submit new legal descriptions for the L-Q and C-N properties as outlined in
the staff report at least more than ten days before Public Hearing at City Council.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council
recommending approval of RZ 06-008 and MCU 06-002, to include all staff comments
with aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-052 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.17
acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Portico Place Subdivision by Portico,
LLC - 1780 E. McMillan Road:
Item 11:
Public Hearing: PP 06-053 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 26
single-family residential building lots and 3 common / other lots on 5.17
acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Portico Place Subdivision by Portico,
LLC - 1780 E. McMillan Road:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 22 of 65
Rohm: Thank you for coming in. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ
06-052 and PP 06-053, both items related to Portico Place Subdivision and begin with
the staff report.
Watters: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the applications before you are
an annexation and zoning and preliminary plat request for Portico Place Subdivision.
The property is 5.17 acres in size and is currently zoned RUT in Ada County. The
subject property is located at 1780 East McMillan Road on the north side of McMillan
Road just east of the intersection of Locust Grove and McMillan. Right there. The
property is bordered on the east by Sheridan Place Subdivision, zoned R-8. On the
west by rural residential properties in Ada County, zoned R-1 and RUT. On the north by
vacant land in Ada County and Sheridan Place Subdivision. And on the south by
McMillan Road and an Idaho Power sub station, zone R-8. The applicant is requesting
that this property be annexed and zoned to the R-8 medium density residential zoning
district for single family residential use. A preliminary plat is proposed for 26 building
lots, consisting of 20 attached units, five detached units, and one existing detached
home and three common area lots on 5.17 acres of land. Here is a copy of the
preliminary plat right here. All lots meet the minimum dimensional standards of the R-8
zone, except for Lot 2, Block 1, which was -- which does not meet the minimum street
frontage requirement of 40 feet. And the applicant has submitted a revised plat that
meets this requirement. The gross density of the proposed subdivision is 5.03 dwelling
units per acre. Lot sizes range from 4,000 to 7,054 square feet, with one large lot of
20,142 square feet where the existing house is located. The applicant is proposing six
percent usable open space with a large landscape common area in the center of the
development with a gazebo, pathways, and parking areas located at each end. A 35
foot landscape buffer is required along -- 35 foot wide landscape buffer is required along
East McMillan Road, because it's an entryway corridor to the city. The applicant is
requesting alternative compliance to this requirement and proposes to reduce the buffer
width to 25 feet on the south side of the existing house. Right here. Due to the current
location of the home the required buffer would be right up to the edge of the existing
structure. In return for the reduced width, 42 additional shrubs and three additional
trees beyond the required amount will be planted along the entire length of the McMillan
Road landscape buffer. Right there. Access to the site will be provided from East
McMillan Road via North Beethoven Avenue. A stub street is provided at the north
boundary of the subdivision for future connectivity to the parcel to the north when it
develops in the future. No on-street parking will be allowed along Beethoven and
parking will only be allowed on one side of Portico Avenue and North Chopin Avenue
due to the width of the proposed street section. Access to the existing house is
proposed to remain temporarily from McMillan Road until the current resident no longer
lives there. An additional access to Beethoven is also proposed for the existing house.
Staff is not supportive of the request to retain the existing access to McMillan Road for
Lot 17, Block 1, because the Comprehensive Plan limits access to arterials. The police
department and ACHD are not supportive of additional access points onto arterial
roadways, other those required for subdivision access. Also, an additional access point
for the existing home would be located approximately 45 feet from North Beethoven
Avenue, the access point for the proposed subdivision. If approved this would
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 23 of 65
potentially create a safety hazard for traffic exiting and entering either of the access
points at the same time. The applicant's proposing two separate landscape plans. The
one you're looking at here is with no McMillan access proposed. It shows a landscape
buffer across where the existing house is and the existing driveway. The second
landscape plan is landscape with McMillan access shown, the cut out for the existing
drive right there. The way they are proposing is to have the existing drive and, then,
also have a little drive access to Beethoven there. Staff was also concerned about how
the attached unit proposed on Lot 7, Block 2, would be accessed by the adjacent
common drive. This one here -- here in the corner. The applicant has submitted a
layout of the lot showing how the proposed lot will be accessed by the common drive.
The applicant has submitted elevations of typical attached and detached homes
proposed in the development. Here is a copy -- let me back up just a second here.
Here is that Lot 7 I was just speaking about. This is the common drive right here. This
is how they propose their driveway to access this house here. These are some
elevations for the proposed attached units. Staff recommends approval of the subject
application based on the conditions stated in the staff report and the Findings of Facts
as listed in Exhibit D. That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff?
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Mae: Sonya, have they answered back in regards to the fencing or are you expecting
them to answer that --
Watters: Yes, Commissioner Moe, they have agreed with all staff conditions, except for
they still want to retain that access to McMillan Road for the existing house.
Rohm: Okay. At this time would the applicant--
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Oh. Go ahead, Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I'm sorry. I need an explanation of something that hasn't been talked about.
In our packet there was a letter from Idaho Power saying -- if you're not looking at it
immediately -- they possibly need to upgrade existing infrastructure in order to provide
electrical service to this development. There is an existing 135 kilovolt line, so Idaho
Power requests a 25 foot setback from the center of the line -- I assume that means the
power line -- to be a no build zone. Do we have any idea where their existing line is and
what that 25 foot setback would mean?
Watters: I don't right off.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21,2006
Page 24 of 65
Borup: I think it's on the south side.
Zaremba: Requesting 25 foot setback from the center of the line to be a no build zone.
Borup: Isn't it on the south side of McMillan?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, we have been receiving that letter on pretty
much every development that's come in and I'm not sure --
Zaremba: Even south of the interstate, right?
Hood: No, they have all been north of the interstate, but it has been a standard letter
now that they are sending to us, so I'm not sure where the existing line is. I think I could
call to see if they can find something. I don't know that we have any documentation
showing where that line is, but they are requesting that 25 foot wide easement. At the
platting process stage we will definitely have to work with them and make sure that
whatever easement it is that they need they get or it's -- that line is relocated
somewhere so where they have good access to it still. But I don't know where it's at
and I don't know what's prompting these letters all of a sudden, but I have not seen
them, but just in the past couple of months on a regular basis they are sending them.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: My only comment on those utility easements is if the utility is to procure an
easement, I would say that they'd to have pay for it. That's -- it seems to --
Borup: Or they could not prepare an easement and not provide utilities.
Rohm: I don't think they have that prerogative. I think that they are charged with the
responsibility of providing service within their area of jurisdiction and that's my
comments on the utility service. Okay. Any other questions of staff before we have the
applicant come forward? Would the applicant like to come forward at this time, please?
Sargent: Ron Sargent, 1883 North Wildwood Street, Boise, Idaho. Commissioners,
maybe just start out with the last item first. Idaho Power -- I guess the -- can you --
Sonya, can you put up the plat that shows the location? The one thing that we do know
that we are going to have to do is right about in this location here there is one of the
high power -- I don't know, you know, the hundred foot power lines are located and we
do know that we are going to have to move that. The power line -- the main power line
runs on the north side of McMillan all the way up to Eagle Road and, then, crosses in
this location to go to the transformer station that's located on the south side of McMillan
in this location. So, in our meetings with Idaho Power so far, that's the only, you know,
major issue that we knew of that we are going to have address at some point. So, that I
guess the location of this one tower was not set back far enough from the center line of
McMillan, so -- and I'm not exactly sure the distance that we will have to move it back.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 25 of 65
Rohm: Is that existing power structure on road right of way or is it on your property?
Sargent: I believe right now it's on road right of way and it has to be moved back onto
our property and that's -- the thing that we noticed is the power poles going eastward on
McMillan are all set back behind -- in the landscape easement, but -- but this pole here
is about another 20 to 30 feet closer to the center line of McMillan than those other
power lines and I'm not exactly sure why it wasn't located back in the same -- in a
straight line with the others, but I know that in our meetings with Idaho Power they have
asked us -- they said that's one of the things they are going to ask us to move that back.
Rohm: That's interesting.
Sargent: Yeah. And I'm not sure that -- I think there was some history in getting the
appropriate easement location when they originally set that power line there, that for
some reason they didn't get enough land far enough from the center line of McMillan to
set it where it should have been set at that time. And I think that was done several
years ago.
Borup: So, you're saying maybe the previous property owner would not grant --
Sargent: I think there were some issues with the previous property owner on what they
would allow -- or where they would allow Idaho Power to set their pole.
Borup: So, now you have got to pay for it.
Sargent: Now we have to fix it.
Rohm: I'm curious. What -- what does that pole in its existing location, what does it do
to prevent you from your development? Does it stop the roadway or the access road or
Sargent: I believe -- let's see, I'm trying to remember. I think it sits in the --
approximately in this location down here. It's very close to the right of way. So, they
want it moved back further into our landscape easement.
Rohm: But as far as your individual lots, does it adversely affect your development at
all?
Sargent: No. It's just -- only if the cost of moving the pole is what -- the impact that we
have.
Rohm: And that's one of those steel structures?
Sargent: Yes. It's a large steel structure.
Rohm: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 26 of 65
Sargent: I guess I'd just go back and say that, you know, we are in agreement with the
staff report and the recommendations, everything except for the access to McMillan
Road and Mrs. Buckley has lived in this house for approximately 30 years -- a little bit
longer. She's 83 years old. She's legally blind and she would like to continue to have
access to McMillan Road, because she has a Ferrari that she keeps in the garage and
she likes to take it out for a spin every now and then. But the reason that she -- you
know, she can't drive anymore. But, basically, she just wants the house to remain as it
is as long as she can continue to live there and, then, when she moves, then, we would,
then, landscape the -- you know, the property here along the front and remove that
access and the main reason is that she -- because she's legally blind she knows where
everything is in her garage and if we eliminate that access we are going to have to
move the garage doors from the south side of the house over here to the west side of
the house and in doing that it's going to be a fairly major disruption for her in the garage
and her ability to find things and know where everything is located. Plus just the
disruption from the construction process. So, she's requested that she can continue to
leave the garage doors as they are on the -- facing the south side of the house and I
have a -- I guess a photograph of the house and where the existing garage doors are at
this time. So, instead -- so we have to move those garage doors to the west side of the
house and she is just requesting that her living space not be disrupted for as long as
she continues to live there. We would do a cash bond with the city, so that the city
would know that the landscaping and the elimination of that access would take place at
sometime in the future when she could no longer live in the house. I guess I'd stand for
any questions.
Rohm: I think that that's a very well intended request. It's easier said than done. I
mean if she had a nephew or something move in and, then, perpetually have the use of
that access to McMillan Road and maybe we'd never get that eliminated and, quite
honestly, just from my perspective, I think that it's part of our responsibility to make sure
we minimize hazards and when you have two access points to a roadway right next to
each other, there is potential hazard and I think that it would be better to address this
now than wait any further down the road. And I'm not sure what any other -- the
balance of the Commissioners thoughts are on this, but --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would comment -- and the question I was trying to decide
whether to save for later as well. Certainly sympathetic to her need to keep things as
they are. I am well sighted and I like for things not to move. I want them to be where
I'm familiar with them and I could certainly be sympathetic with somebody who doesn't
see. In looking at the picture that you passed up and down, I hope she's able to live
there for years and years and years. Thinking future beyond that, it seems like this is a
large enough lot that when she no longer is using it, it would be probably subdivided
again I would think. In the zoning that you're asking for you could probably get three or
four more lots out of it and where I'm going with that is also the landscape buffer. I
agree with for now making the landscape buffer a variation so that it can go around the
house and leave where it is. I do feel there should be a way to work out -- without
making any change in the house or the garage, at least having the driveway come out
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 27 of 65
sideways, that that shouldn't impact her that much, because somebody else probably is
driving her and they will be able to see that. But where I was going with it is even
allowing the alternate to the street buffer now and your offer to bond at least to close up
the driveway later, my thinking would be that we need to discuss bonding to eventually
make that buffer 35 feet all the way along. Your comments probably are not favorable
to that, but you're at least smiling.
Sargent: Yeah. The comment I would have to that is that the -- as you can see from
the photograph it's a brick house, it's an older home, but it's been there and it's well
constructed. I guess we had not anticipated ever tearing that home down. I guess
when Mrs. Buckley no longer lives there our anticipation is that we just turn around and
sell the home at that time and there is a couple of issues -- one is you can see from the
photographs the front door, the front living room window, and a couple of the bedroom
windows face McMillan Road and what we are a little bit concerned about is that
because there is a sidewalk along McMillan people would -- if the buffer -- if the buffer
went to 35 feet it would go within inches of that existing home, people would be able to
walk up and look into the front window of the living room, which we don't think is
probably appropriate. By putting that buffer in there and fencing it, it at least creates
somewhat of a privacy. So, I guess our -- you know, the second issue is if we don't ask
for a variance and the house remains, we are not in compliance with UDC code,
because we only have a few inches as a setback, which I think probably by the time we
get done that would be considered a sideyard setback, as opposed to a front yard,
because I think the -- the front of the house would be on Beethoven and not face
McMillan in the long run. So, that's -- so those are some of the reasons that we are
requesting the variance to be as it is. I guess if at sometime we were to tear down the
house, then, that would maybe make sense than to go to a 35 foot wide buffer at some
point in time.
Zaremba: We may be saying the same thing. I'm very supportive of not messing with
her house at the moment.
Sargent: Yeah.
Zaremba: And not having the landscape buffer or sidewalk come right up to her house.
The way you're planning it for the moment I'm supportive of with a discussion about
which way the driveway goes.
Sargent: Right.
Zaremba: I'm siding with staff on that. But I guess maybe I have a question with staff.
Is there a way to condition this one lot so that if this structure is ever remodeled or
significantly rebuilt, it has to move -- while she lives there I don't see any reason to
make any change, but future if -- I mean some day even a brick house is going to have
to be rebuilt and whether that's another 50 years from now -- the ability to gain back that
full 35 foot buffer, plus the setback for whatever new building, if there is some way to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 28 of 65
stipulate that if changes -- it can stay the way it is, but if changes are ever made, then, it
has to actually move, the house.
Watters: Commissioner Zaremba, I believe we could put that as a condition in a
development agreement.
Zaremba: Okay. Is that something that would be acceptable? I hope we are talking a
long way down the road, but--
Sargent: Yeah. I'm assuming that -- we would anticipate if Mrs. Buckley moves, is that
we turn around and sell the house. The responsibility would maybe fall on future
owners, because we wouldn't anticipate that we would still be owner and --
Zaremba: Well -- and under my scenario the house would be able to remain even if it
changed hands.
Sargent: Right. As it is --
Zaremba: The trigger would be if somebody tried to modify the house.
Sargent: Okay.
Zaremba: And at that point the structure can't be modified, it's got to be moved,
whether it's the current owner or a future owner or whatever.
Sargent: When you use the term modified, is it possible that -- I mean somebody may
want to remodel the north side away from McMillan. I mean is there some modification
to the house? Would that --
Zaremba: I basically mean any other than normal day-to-day maintenance.
Sargent: Oh. Okay. So, any modification. But, then, that would, then --
Borup: Then you couldn't add the garage doors.
Sargent: Right.
Zaremba: I don't necessarily see the need for moving them. I thought I saw a drawing
where --
Mae: If you don't mind, I'm kind of curious -- and can you put up on the screen the
drawing that's showing the proposed secondary access from Beethoven? I guess I'm a
little bit --
Sargent: I think it shows on the plat.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 29 of 65
Zaremba: I think what you were referring to is a drawing that didn't appear to need the
garage doors to move.
Sargent: Yeah. Right there is the access and, then, the west side of the house is
located approximately in this location, so if this access goes away, we would anticipate
moving the garage doors to the west side of the home.
Rohm: From our drawing it looks like you could, actually, access from the west and,
then, circle around and still enter the garage from the --
Sargent: That would only be ten feet wide and if a car is, you know, 15, 18 feet long,
there is not enough room to maneuver to get in there.
Moe: Not even the Ferrari?
Sargent: Yeah. Maybe she could get a motor cycle in there. I don't know. So, any
normal size car -- they could -- because we looked at that of whether or not we could --
you know, somebody could drive down towards McMillan and back -- or back into the
garage and in the end we just -- there is just not enough room. Ten feet isn't enough
room to get a car in there, maneuvered into the garage from the south side, so we --
Newton-Huckabay: Well, how big --
Sargent: Excuse me.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Can I ask a -- is that with the 35 foot landscape buffer or the 25 foot
landscape buffer or no landscape buffer?
Sargent: Yeah. So, we are stubbing it down from a 35 foot buffer to a 25 foot buffer
where -- in the location of where the house is located on the south side of the house.
Zaremba: Well, my personal opinion, if there is going to be a result -- if there is going to
be a resolution sometime in the future, I wouldn't even mind a ten or a 15 foot
landscape buffer now that would allow enough turning room without moving the garage
door.
Newton-Huckabay: That's what I was thinking.
Zaremba: Given at some point we had a trigger that says this whole house has to
move.
Mae: On the plat it shows 19 feet.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21,2006
Page 30 of 65
Sargent: Which is incorrect. That should read 25 feet. I apologize. That was a
mistake on the drawing.
Zaremba: But for the purpose of solving her current residency, I don't mind reducing the
landscape buffer even more, if someday the landscape buffer is going to be 35 feet.
Mae: And I would agree with you. I just -- quite frankly, I'm concerned with the access
to McMillan.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, had I not been interrupted --
Zaremba: Sorry, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I think if you compromise and reduce the landscape buffer to the
amount that you need to get a turning radius into the garage -- so ten, 15 feet --
Borup: Twenty.
Newton-Huckabay: You have 20 feet; correct?
Borup: You could do a 20, I think. You're still tight.
Sargent: Twenty would be tight. What I would recommend -- I guess our preference --
if the access -- direct access to McMillan is denied, I think our preference would be to
put the garage doors on the west side and, then, it just -- then, we eliminate that. I
guess to address the change, I guess as long as the -- you know, the south side of the
house is not modified, then, the reduced landscape buffer would be allowed, but at
sometime in the future if the house is removed or the south side is remodeled or
changed, then, the landscape buffer would have to go to 35 feet. I think we could make
that work. Because, then, it would -- you know, if there is some remodeling that
somebody wants to do in the future and it's on the north side and it doesn't affect the
landscape buffer, such as moving the garage doors or, you know, adding a patio or
something like that, then, we -- you know, that would take place on the side, then, I think
that's something that we could -- that's how I could -- that would be our preference at
this point in time.
Newton-Huckabay: That's the direction I was heading.
Zaremba: Well, my feeling is I -- allowing any remodeling -- my goal was not to extend
the life of this building. Anything that remodels it or updates -- even if you don't allow
the south facade to be changed, extends the life of the building and I was hoping it
would -- that we wouldn't perpetuate that.
Newton-Huckabay: Why?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 31 of 65
Zaremba: Because we want to get the 35 foot landscape buffer.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, he just said they'd put a 35 foot landscape buffer if they
modified the building --
Zaremba: Only if they modified the south facade.
Newton-Huckabay: And remove the garage doors.
Zaremba: I'm not stuck on it, but the distinction between what he's saying and what I'm
saying is if they modify the south facade, which is on the part that faces the street, as
opposed to what I'm saying if they make any modification on the building. There will
come a time --
Newton-Huckabay: So, you're saying if they make any modification on the building,
then, they need to remove it.
Zaremba: Yeah.
Newton-Huckabay: How about if they make any modification to the building they need
to increase that landscape buffer to 35 feet?
Zaremba: That's what I'm saying. Any modification.
Newton-Huckabay: You said move the building.
Zaremba: No. They would have to, wouldn't they? Let me ask staff.
Hood: It looks like it would come right up to the building as it currently sits. I mean it's
hard to tell, but it's like right at 35 feet. So, it would be right to the front door with the
landscaping.
Zaremba: Well -- but, then, if their modification to the building was to put the entrance
someplace else, is it all right for the building to stay a foot from the landscape buffer?
Hood: It would be a nonconforming structure, because it's a lot and it wouldn't meet
setbacks.
Sargent: And the other thing, I guess, is that we are doing, as an alternative
compliance, planting extra shrubs and trees to thicken up the landscape strip along the
whole area, so that I think visually from the street there would be a lot more shrubbery
and trees, you know, even with it narrowing down to 25 feet I think it still meets the
intent of the city to have, you know, a fairly comprehensive landscaping along McMillan,
which is a -- it's not a gateway street, but --
Hood: Entryway.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21,2006
Page 32 of 65
Sargent: Yeah. Entryway street. So, in some ways with the extra landscaping we feel
we are going to make that. I guess the reason I -- I'm a little hesitant is like -- I mean if
somebody was even to put a patio on the back, is that a modification, do they have to
tear down the building and if they go to 35, then, it's not compliant. So, we run into --
Zaremba: To me the purpose is to keep it unchanged for her and it sounds like she's
not going to put a patio on the back, she doesn't want those kind of changes.
Sargent: Well, I guess maybe I'm thinking of it in two items. One is all she's asking for
is that the access to McMillan remain. The narrowing of the landscape buffer is to --
you know, is to keep -- if it's sold to somebody else or -- and, then, they at least have
some privacy in their front living room by having that extra -- by having the landscape
buffer only 24 feet, rather than having a landscape buffer come within inches of the front
of the house. So, we --
Zaremba: And I'm even all right with that. I'm just saying even a brick structure -- some
day it's going to fall down. What I'm trying to do is prevent somebody from preventing it
from falling down. Some day it needs to fall down.
Borup: You need to go back east or in Europe and seen those buildings. Those
homes.
Zaremba: Well, they keep shoring them up and what I'm saying is don't keep shoring it
up. Some day we want the 35 foot landscape buffer.
Rohm: I'd like to just weigh in on --
Zaremba: Maybe I'm the only one with that opinion.
Rohm: Yeah. I'd like to weigh in here for just a moment.
Zaremba: I'll stop.
Rohm: I think that to kind of satisfy some of your concerns is if that large lot is
redeveloped down the road and they try to put additional homes, I think that to that time
make the full 35 foot buffer be a requirement and the house be removed, that makes
sense. But to make the house have to go away if there is any upgrades to the house
itself might be taking it a step too far and I think if we just say, you know what, we are
not going to allow the additional access to McMillan and you put the garage doors on
the west and we will go with the reduced buffer for now, but if that lot ever redevelops,
the full 35 foot would be a requirement. That seems to address Commissioner
Zaremba's concerns, while at the same time eliminating the second access onto
McMillan.
Zaremba: That sounds like a good suggestion to me.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 33 of 65
Sargent: And I think we could live with that, because if somebody comes in, ourselves
or somebody else, to redevelop the lot, the city code is clear that the requirement is a
35 foot buffer. So, the code would -- to be able to redevelop it, add additional lots, the
35 feet would end up being required. '
Zaremba: It may take a little longer for that to happen than I was hoping, but It's a good
compromise.
Sargent: Good. Thank you.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, maybe while Mr. Sargent is still here, I would even go beyond
that and maybe leave it up to -- to the applicant or the homeowner to leave the garage
doors where it's at, if they would choose -- reduce the setback down to maybe ten feet
and allow enough for a turning radius, but I don't know that we need to specify either
way, but I would propose one or the other, whichever they would so choose.
Sargent: If the access is denied --
Borup: I'm saying eliminate the access.
Sargent: Yeah. And if that's the case, we would prefer to put the garage doors on the
west side, because as we have looked at it, it just ends up being really tight.
Borup: So, you'd just as soon not either/or?
Sargent: Yes. We just -- and, then, we put the reduced -- the alternative compliance,
we get our landscaping in, we think that the garage doors moving to the west side is --
would make -- would be a good solution.
Rohm: Thank you. Any additional questions of this applicant?
Borup: No. Let's move on.
Rohm: Okay.There is not anybody that is signed up to speak to this application, but if
anyone would like to come forward now is the time. Seeing none, are there any
questions of staff or the applicant? Okay. Could I get a motion to close the Public
Hearing?
Zaremba: So moved.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item AZ
06-052 and PP 06-053, both items related to Portico Place Subdivision. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 34 of 65
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: And staff. The question is if we were to add that condition that should Lot 17
of -- it looks like this is Block 1, Lot 17. Should that ever redevelop or re-subdivide,
does that -- does that go into a development agreement or can we make that a
preliminary plat comment?
Borup: If it was redeveloped it would automatically have to comply with the ordinance
and the 35 foot buffer would need to be there, wouldn't it?
Zaremba: Well, I think since we have given -- if we are recommending that the Council
give them a variance, we need to make clear that there is a sunset on the variance.
Rohm: At such time as redevelopment occurs.
Zaremba: My question is where do we -- is that a plat issue or is that an annexation
issue?
Watters: Commissioner Zaremba, I think we should do it through a development
agreement.
Zaremba: Okay.
Hood: A note to that effect on the plat I don't think would get through Ada County, so
the best -- in that case you have to pretty much do a development agreement.
Zaremba: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I will attempt a motion.
Rohm: Okay.
Zaremba: After considering all staff, applicant testimony, and giving the opportunity to
the public to testify, I move that we recommend to City Council approval of AZ 06-052
and PP 06-053, to include all staff comments for the report for the hearing date of
December 21 st, 2006, with the following changes: In Exhibit B I would add a paragraph
1 .1.2 that says the applicant will contact the city attorney to write a development
agreement. There is some pretty standard things that go into it, but the point that we
need to add is that should Block 1, Lot 17, ever redevelop or re-subdivide or have any
other modifications to the lot made, at that time a new plat will be drawn that complies
with the 35 foot landscape buffer. Does that make sense or get the point across?
Rohm: Absolutely.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 35 of 65
Zaremba: End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending
approval of AZ 06-052 and PP 06-053, to include all staff comments with
aforementioned modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion
carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: And at this time we are going to take a short break. We will reconvene at 9:00
o'clock.
(Recess. )
Item 12:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-054 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2.40
acres from R1 zone to an L-O zone for Woodland Springs Professional
Park by Morgan Development, Inc. - 1630 E. McMillan Road:
Rohm: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to at this time reconvene the Planning
and Zoning meeting and begin by opening Public Hearing AZ 06-054 related to
Woodland Springs Professional Park and begin with the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. We are moving all the way
one parcel over to the west of where we were on our previous item. It's located on the
northeast corner of Locust Grove and McMillan. It contains 2.4 acres. As you can see
on this exhibit it is currently zoned R-1. Sonya did a pretty good job last time of
describing the surrounding uses and you can tell by the zoning that there are county
zoned properties to the north, back to the west, and, then, south is the Idaho Power sub
station, which shows up a little bit better on this aerial view. There are some rural
residences in the area. Also evident from this aerial is the developing nature of this
vicinity. This is Settler Bridge. This is Sheridan Place. And, the, of course, Portico
Place. So, you can see the lots, but there weren't any homes when this was flown in
2005, so it's rapidly developing. The subject application is just an annexation and
zoning request. I say just an annexation -- it's the only application they have submitted
is for annexation and zoning only, there is not a Conditional Use Permit or a preliminary
plat associated with this request. The applicant did submit a conceptual drawing. They
are asking for an office zoning designation -- excuse me -- limited office zoning
designation. The conceptual plan, as you can see, does show three buildings, parking,
landscaping and, in particular, what I'd like to call out as two access points to the arterial
-- adjacent arterial roadways. Back to the requested zoning. It is designated medium
density. This parcel is designated medium density residential on the future land use
map. However, I'm sure you're all familiar with that resolution 04-0454 which states that
if you have a parcel that's on an arterial roadway and it's less than three acres, you are
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21,2006
Page 36 of 65
eligible to request L-O zoning without having to do a Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment. So, that's the case you have here. They actually have access on two
arterial streets being right at the intersection. In those instances if they are approved,
no ancillary commercial uses are allowed and this Commission has in the passed
placed some similar provisions on properties, saying you are to only be clinics,
professional office type uses and you can't have any retail sales or other commercial
uses on the property. I think I'm going to just jump back to the arterial roadways.
McMillan Road, as was discussed with Portico, is an entryway corridor into the city,
therefore, a 35 foot wide landscape buffer is required. A 25 foot wide landscape buffer
is required on Locust Grove. This intersection is within ACHD's five year work program.
I did speak with a couple of ACHD staff members about this project last week. Kendall
Kemmer is the lead on that project at ACHD regarding the intersection design. They did
submit some comments to staff. They aren't conditions. They did only submit
comments, because there is no development proposed with this application. So, I
wanted to get some clarification from Kendall on what's going on. He told me that they
are looking at a couple of conceptual plans and they are in the process of working with
a consulting firm -- and I can't remember who they have hired to do some of that
preliminary design work, but one of the potential scenarios that they are evaluating is
relocating the Lemp Canal, which currently runs along the south side of McMillan Road
and, then, crosses at a 45 degree angle at the intersection of Locust Grove Road --
relocating that somewhere in here and having it run along the north side of the roadway
and 90'ing it under the road and, then, having it run this way and, then, back across
Locust Grove Road. That's just one scenario. The other scenario that we talked about
was potentially buying all this lot for a drainage pond. There just -- this project is in the
five year work program right now for finish design in 2008, right of way acquisition 2009,
and construction sometime thereafter, usually a year after, so 2010 is when this
intersection -- now, that may be accelerated, that's just the current plan. And, in fact,
Kendall was hopeful that it could be moved up from that timeline. But there are some
questions about what -- how ACHD is going to improve this. Again, they particularly
revolve around that large canal that's there. If anyone has ever driven out there you're
aware that there is huge power lines out there, too, and so that has a constraint of do
you relocate the power lines or do you build on one side of the road or the other to avoid
having to relocate the power lines. So, they are factoring all those different scenarios
and others into a couple of concept plans that they will kick around for awhile, but did
want to make that of note. Pretty much the only -- and I did speak with the applicant's
representative late this afternoon, too, and we talked about it and I believe they are still
in general agreement with the staff report. The one issue that is going to come up is the
staff report allows this access to Locust Grove Road, this is approximately 220 foot,
which is ACHD's requirements for a right-in, right-out to an arterial street. This access
is about 315 or so, which would, actually, meet their policy for an arterial street,
however, there is a public street proposed in Portico Place, which is about 90 feet over
here. So, you have to factor that in, I believe, the public street. It isn't there today, but
when that plat goes through there will be a public street in that location, so for that
reason and it being pretty close to this intersection, for safety concerns didn't make
sense to have that, so staff is recommending that they actually take this drive aisle, stub
it over to the property line, when the parcel -- maybe this one is better -- this parcel
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 37 of 65
redevelops we will get them to reciprocate a cross-access easement and get them over
to that public street that's going in right here. So, that's kind of what staff envisions for
the property. I understand that right now this probably, you know, is not ideal, to say the
least. I'll let the applicant speak to that more from their perspective, but from my
perspective and safety and looking at the benefit of the community and access points,
there are camp plan policies that talk about restricting access to arterial roadways and I
think this is a real instance where that is pertinent. Just a couple real quick of other
development agreement requirements that is included in the proposed development
agreement that I am recommending that this owner-developer enter into with the city.
The other one is that -- that and a cross-access to the parcel to the east and allowing --
limiting the future uses on the property to be principally permitted uses within the L-O
zone, no ancillary commercial uses or other conditionally allowed uses shall be allowed
on this property. Limiting the hours of operation from 6:00 to 10:00 p.m. and that no
more than three office type buildings be constructed on the site. Further, each building
shall have some stucco or stone accents. They did supply these elevations. Pretty high
quality -- visually high quality buildings, which will look good on that corner, if, in fact,
they can construct one, two or possibly three of those in the future. And, then, the
landscape buffers is a 25 foot wide landscape buffer on Locust Grove and 35 foot wide
landscape buffer on McMillan Road. Again, when those buildings get put in. So, staff is
recommending approval of this annexation request to L-O for the 2.4 acres, as noted in
the staff report and development agreement provisions listed therein and I will stand for
any questions you may have.
Rohm: Thanks, Caleb. Any questions of staff?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would ask one-- and this is kind of a general question. As
we find more of these that qualify for L-O under the resolution, eventually, this is going
to show up on a map of city zonings as an L-O. Is there any way to track the distinction
between a standard L-O and L-O that -- because there are some other requirements.
They can't do the auxiliary businesses or commercial retail that might be allowed in a
normal L-O. Twenty years from now who is going to know?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, tracking is always -- probably and
enforcement are two of our biggest, you know, how do you do this and I don't know that
we have perfected the system. Institutional knowledge is great and I -- you know, we try
to keep folks around so they can remember things, but we have -- we have some maps
around the office and where we are trying to go with that is a history map, essentially,
that state, hey, there is a DA on this, at least go see that document. There is really no
way you can write that on a map. As our view progresses we may be able to enter in
something into that and you click on a parcel and it gives you all kinds of information,
you know, that says, hey, there is a restriction for this, that, or the other thing on there.
We aren't there yet, but I imagine it's not going to be too far before we do -- at the click
of a mouse we do have information about parcel -- not only our information, but county
information, other jurisdiction information, and maybe we can even have tied into that
staff reports and findings and things like that. So, we are not there yet. It is right now --
I think all staff is aware to -- you have to do some digging, you have to do some
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21,2006
Page 38 of 65
research and you just can't take L-O zone, you can do this. I think pretty much
everyone in the office has been burned at one time or the other by just looking at the
zoning and saying you can do this and, then, realize there is a development agreement
or the CU required another CU or something to that effect. So, I mean I can't -- again,
we are not -- while we are not there yet, we haven't perfected it, but right now we look at
these parcels and it definitely throws up a red flag if it's less than three acres and zoned
L-O, how did they get their zoning. And, then, we can look for a development
agreement and make sure that that is one of the provisions.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rohm: At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please?
Morgan: Hello. My name is Matt Morgan. 8519 Antelope Drive in Boise. I'd like to
start by saying that we are mostly pretty much in agreement with the bulk of the
comments made by the staff in their report. I wanted to give you a little explanation of
the nature of the business that I do. Ninety percent of the business that I do in my
developments is all presold medical and dental office space. I -- very rarely do I ever do
any shell space. We have just now completed over 60 new dental buildings, of which I
think we are probably doing 70, 80 percent of them here in the Treasure Valley. This
particular site was -- when I bought this site was with -- I have 50 -- 50 percent of it
presold to a dental professional who is up the street at this time, up at that Aspen, which
would be farther to the east on McMillan up towards Eagle Road. He's currently leasing
space there and looking to own his own building. The one that's on McMillan would be
his -- would be his building. The reason I didn't propose a preliminary plat, along with
my annexation and rezone, is I had intended to occupy myself probably half of the one
that is on the -- would be -- I guess looking at that, the east side and, then, I think I have
an oral surgeon who is -- who is interested in one coming in right off of Locust. So, I'm
just -- I tried -- on a project this size it -- I prefer if I can to presell it with my clientele and
the connections with people I'm working with, if I can presell it, then, I can sit down and
iron out the details of the plat more and make sure I get it right for my clients. That
being said, you know, I have no problem at all with restrictions on retail. That's just not
the nature of it. It's medical dental. Related project. Professional that we are looking --
we are looking to do. This type of a location is prime for this kind of project. I don't think
that that type of a parcel of land is -- suits itself very well to residential, obviously, being
a small piece. For an in-fill it's great for L-O. You know, obviously, a person could try to
-- and I would also like the Commission to know that I diligently attempted to buy that 85
foot strip and was told -- the last attempt I was told she'd call the police and get her
attorney and everything else, so we put that on --
Rohm: That would have been a no, then?
Morgan: It was a no. And I sent -- I sent nice ladies over there to do it for me. I never
went. But she got frustrated with the last gal that made an attempt, but she --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21,2006
Page 39 of 65
Zaremba: She indicated that very gently and very kindly, but the message came
through?
Morgan: Yeah. Yeah. So, we haven't bothered her -- needless to say, we haven't
bothered her since. She's an elderly lady. She's in her 80s. Ironically, she doesn't live
there. There is renters in it. But she says that she won't be selling anytime soon. On
other developments that I have done like this, I develop these type of little in-fill projects
all over southern Idaho. We have got a lot of these little projects I have done in Idaho
Falls, Pocatello. We are doing some stuff in Twin Falls now and all over Boise. We did
the Time Square Professional Park on Overland next to the Whitney Fire Station. That
was one of my first developments here. The buildings are higher -- they are high end
buildings. Very attractive buildings that the clientele I have got, obviously, they are
making lots of money off of cleaning our teeth, so they can afford to have nice buildings.
The landscape that I have proposed in these projects is always pretty lucrative. It's
usually in excess of what would be considered a minimal requirement and I provide
more parking in our projects than what is minimum required. So, we are not -- we are
not cramming that density to the maximum that you could propose on a piece of land.
In regards to the ACHD comments that were made, Mr. Hood shared those with me -- I
believe probably the same day he got those. He give me a courtesy call, which I very
much appreciated Mr. Hood and at this time I'm a little nervous with that comment they
made, because I have got guys -- I have got doctors counting on this. I told them don't
count on too much, because I got to get passed the Planning and Zoning Commission
first and City Council, but they are hopeful that this is the location for their facilities to
finish their careers in. At this point I just have to continue, because I don't know what
ACHD is going to do and I will be -- if I can get my annexation and my rezone passed,
then, I will be -- I will be bringing in an application for a preliminary plat in the near
future. I looked at the access on -- the access points are vital for these doctors and
dentists. They would be vital for them. A right-in, right-out on Locust is fine. To lose
that one on McMillan would be very detrimental -- very detrimental for these gentlemen.
With that 85 foot strip there I -- like I say, diligently tried to get ahold of it. I know Mr.
Sargent and I knew what he was doing on his project coming off with the road, it made
sense to come possibly off of Portico and, then, you know, turn and come back to the
west and, then, in that scenario I would have had one more building right there on the
frontage where the 85 feet is and, then, I would have just come into the long drive that
runs east and west. If I can get this project approved and we do this and Mr. Sargent
does his project, the 85 foot strip lends itself to one of two things, two more professional
offices or more of Mr. Sargent's townhomes would be, really, all that would make
sense. The townhomes, obviously, would come off of Portico. What I would like -- and I
have Mr. Frank Lee with me here, who has some other ideas. He's my attorney and I
value his opinions and his opinion on an approach for different solutions. We would like
to have a temporary access off of there in the future with a cash deposit or whatever we
need to do, thinking that in the future that 85 foot strip is probably going to lend itself
mostly to another professional office right there in the front and, then, it could go away
and it could be -- you know, the association could sell where that drive is and that could
be another building sitting just on that side of that parking, east of it, just like the one on
the west, if you look at the little -- little section of parking that I have laid out there next
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 40 of 65
to the access. So, I guess all that being said I think I'd like Frank to maybe discuss with
you some of the other thoughts and ideas that Mr. Lee has in regards to -- for our
concerns about the access. Other than that I'd just like to say I appreciate your
cooperation and we'd provide you a nice project to the city that you could be proud of.
So, thank you.
Rohm: Thank you.
Lee: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Frank Lee. My address is 601
Bannock, Boise, Idaho. I'm legal counsel to Matt Morgan and he asked me to come to
discuss primarily the issue of the access. Caleb produced a very good staff report,
actually, you know, a quality work product and we agree with it in its entirety, with the
exception of their desire to have no access at all onto McMillan Road and there was
nothing, as Matt just explained to you, there is nothing that you would like more than to
continue the drive aisle over to the Portico project and access the public road. Makes
sense all around. But there is a person who owns the 85 foot strip and doesn't at
present want to sell it. That, of course, will change in the future. Eventually that will be
developed and staff has recommended that when that is developed that that application
be restricted such that that road will go through and this project will connect to the road
at Portico. Again, it makes sense all around. As Matt had described, it really is -- will
be a hardship for this project to have a right-in, right-out only at Locust Grove. That's
not very good access, it's not very much access, and if you look at this site, having a
temporary access off of McMillan it's a sensible solution and a sensible way to resolve
these issues now, pending, you know, the future development of this entire area. Staff
cited two reasons why they thought that the right-in, right-out off of McMillan Road
would be inappropriate. One is even though this project is, you know, more than
ACHD's requirement in terms of having an access to a major arterial intersection like
this one, that it is -- you know, it is within 300 feet of the road and, you know, that -- that
meets the standards, but it's still pretty close and, then, there is a -- another public street
that's going on about any 90 feet farther down the road and, again, I'm not going to
argue with the wisdom if we were able to -- to do the connection to go that route, that
makes perfect sense, that option is just not available to us at the moment. And, really,
the medical-dental offices that will be in here in this site -- there is about 14,000 square
feet of office space at build out -- that's not a huge amount of traffic. There will be
people going in and out, but this isn't the -- this isn't a store. These are medical-dental
offices where people who go there will be there for some time and there will not be that
much traffic. And, lastly, we think -- I mean in addition to being able to -- well, actually,
in this issue, in addition to being able to persuade you as to being able to allow us
temporary access, when we actually submit our development plans in the preliminary
plat we will discuss this issue at length with ACHD, who also have -- also has a great
interest in where the access points are, where the roads are, and as the traffic experts
they will have a lot to say about that and we think we can persuade them to allow us this
particular access. Staff cited another reason to me on the phone earlier today that I
don't think he really described in detail tonight and that is that it's his belief that a
temporary access could find itself being permanent by matters of inertia and staffs
concerns aren't -- you know, they are, you know, real issues. People get accustomed to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 41 of 65
temporary accesses and, you know, this could -- this particular access, the solution in
terms of the next door neighbor lady selling the property and us being able to do things
right, might be a few years from now when these buildings are occupied by dentists and
oral surgeons and so on and so forth and Matt's no longer involved in the project, but
we recognize those concerns, but we don't think that should govern the decision,
because I think that we can take reasonable steps to make sure that when -- when the
proper access is being provided that this temporary access will go away. You know,
item number one is -- is that when, in fact, the connection is made over to Portico that --
where access is right there and the 85 feet is a perfect location for yet another office
building and anybody who sees that will see, you know, oh, great, I can get rid of this
access, I have better access over here, and I have a new office building to sell. I think
there will be plenty incentive to have that access removed, an actual incentive, which is,
again, a great incentive to have that great incentive to have something done is to have it
be financially beneficial to do so. We can certainly put the temporary nature of this
access very conspicuously, very openly in the plat, the CC&Rs, where ever else it will
be appropriate, so that anybody who acquires an interest in this site knows that that is a
temporary access and it will go away eventually and that they are ready for it. With that
they can -- we can have the design what it would look like in terms of landscaping and
so on and so forth already prepared and casted out so people know what they are
getting into and they -- if further assurances are needed, like anything else, it just is a
planned expense, you can set aside a reserve fund for it, for the development, so that
when it happens the money is there. Staff has suggested a sunset provision, like, for
instance, you know, eventually this access will go away no matter what -- I'm not sure if
that's necessarily a wise choice, but that's another consideration. But, you know, there
is lots of different ways that you can make sure that something that is intended to be
temporary stays temporary, make sure there is an incentive to eliminate it, make it clear
that everyone knows it's temporary, and if there is a financial impact it can be planned
for. And as long as people know, I think that they will be inclined to actually remove it
when the time comes. And, again, this issue will be, you know, brought before ACHD
when the development plans occur and I'm sure this will be the subject of great
discussion with ACHD. They are the traffic experts, they deal with this a lot, and we
believe that we will be able to persuade them and this committee or commission
shouldn't foreclose that opportunity of having that access if we can certainly persuade
ACHD. Lastly, the city has two of the best municipal lawyers I can think of and they
know how to make things enforceable. So, again, I'm truly confident that we will able to
meet whatever obligations we have in terms of this temporary access truly being
temporary. So, with that I will stand for questions that you might have.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you, sir.
Mae: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Mae.
Moe: I have a couple on your presentation. Am I understanding, then, you're pretty
much in agreement with everything, other than this access point?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 42 of 65
Lee: That is correct.
Moe: Okay. In regards to the access point, in your presentation you made comments
that you're not anticipating a lot of traffic into this site and you also made comment
about that it's a hardship if you don't get it. I would like to know what the hardship is if
you didn't get it, when you're saying you're not going to have a lot of traffic into it.
Lee: Well, that's an excellent question and that may appear to be a conflict, but, really,
it's not. These are dentists, oral surgeons, they are service providers to residents --
nearby residents and having them to be able to get in and out easily is very important
for these sort of businesses and having a right-in, right-out only on Locust Grove makes
it that much harder for them to -- depending on which direction they are coming from, to
get into the site and we think by having a right-in, right-out on McMillan it will be that
much easier for people, they don't have -- if they are coming from a particular way they
don't have to go to the intersection and do a U'ee or do something -- it reduces that
aspect of the traveling. I just don't think that, you know, this size of a development with
these kinds of uses is going to create a high safety hazard in terms of having, you know,
stacked traffic and long periods of wait and people get impatient. That's kind of what I'm
thinking.
Moe: Thank you.
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, since it seems to be the subject, if we go for only one access,
that being on Locust Grove and that being a right-in, right-out, except for the few people
who are able to link a lot of trips together and may be able to approach making a right
turn and leave making a right turn and go someplace, that most people are going to
make a u-turn somewhere, because if they came from the south, they are going to want
to go back to the south. If they came from the north, they want to go back to the north,
which means that the subdivisions to the north of this and maybe in the middle of
McMillan people are going to be making u-turns, in the subdivision to the north they will
be making u-turns -- that creates a safety hazard to me.
Lee: I would agree.
Zaremba: I have no problem with the discussion of making the current access as
depicted onto McMillan a temporary one until there is a way to cut across to Portico.
That, to me, makes sense. One thing -- this is only an annexation, so we are not
discussing the plat yet anyhow, but we appreciate a concept plan with the annexations
and we appreciate that you brought it in, but we do consider them a concept and we
know your plat may look different. What we won't accept is if you gave this as a
concept plan and, then, you come back with an auto shop or a body and paint facility,
that's different than the concept plan. But if you come back with a plan that says, okay,
we can provide for future access to eliminate this access, I agree that temporarily I think
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 43 of 65
you need it. Who knows how long it's going to be before you can use that 85 strip -- 85
foot strip that's between -- and I also agree with you, it makes more sense to cover what
you're depicting with part of a building and go across to Portico. So, I guess what I'm --
what I'm asking staff is -- in the sentence that says vehicular access to this site shall be
restricted to one right-in, right-out driveway on Locust, located at the north property line,
if approve by ACHD, then, the second sentence says: Direct lot access to McMillan
shall prohibited. Can we add to that: Except that it can be -- there can be an access
temporarily until such time as there is access to Portico. I'm not sure how we phrase it,
but it's -- can we even go the direction of discussing that?
Hood: Oh, sure. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Zaremba,
sure, I mean you can modify the conditions however you see fit. The trick becomes the
trigger and this is, what, the third time we have talked about it tonight, but enforcement
tracking -- that lady, I don't know when she's going to sell the property, I don't know
when that's going to be connected. I mayor may not be working for the city when you
remember that that access needs to be closed when that goes across and, even so,
how do we go -- as was mentioned earlier, maybe Mr. Morgan isn't in the picture
anymore, who pays for it? How does it -- and if they post surety today and say we
agree it's 5,000 dollars to rip up the asphalt and put in landscaping, well, if it doesn't
happen for 20 years, that 5,000 dollars probably isn't going to go very far. So, now the
city has to make up the difference for that. There is just a plethora of scenarios where
this could -- the enforcement aspect of making it go away becomes ugly. So, if you
want to go that direction -- and I don't know if legal counsel has any advice about a
good trigger -- and I did talk with Mr. Lee on the phone a little bit about a sunset, okay,
how about five years, then, it doesn't matter if that goes in or not, you get it for five years
and that's a reasonable time in my mind the way things are developing that that parcel
will probably go in five years. But that's not a guarantee. That's easier. We can put it
on the calendar, we can say, this day it's done, we have got money that should cover
that cost, whatever, but, again, that's the trick is an enforceable condition. That's what I
need. I need an enforceable condition that we can track and that's why it's easier just to
say no today and you don't have to worry about it anymore.
Lee: Mr. Chairman, if I could respond briefly to that?
Rohm: Absolutely.
Lee: I understand where staff is going. I mean it's certainly easier to tell us no, but I
don't think it's the right decision. As an attorney I deal with enforceability issues all the
time and I think that the documents can be drafted so that clearly it is the responsibility
of the owners of this subdivision to pay for the removal of the temporary access and the
installation of the landscaping and to do it in such a conspicuous way that it will not be
missed by buyers or their lenders and they will make sure that, like any other expense
that is an unknown expense, they will make reserves. This isn't a bunch of
homeowners, these are professional offices who are -- who buy high end products,
these aren't the shabbiest buildings as you saw from the elevations. These are quality
brick, stone buildings and they are going to care and I think that, really, from my part,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 44 of 65
you know, reasonable steps can be made to have that removed, plus the natural
incentive that comes from the creation of a perfect building site by the removal of this
accessway.
Zaremba: My instinct would be that the property owners would probably trigger it. What
it sounds to me that you are saying is there is a higher use for that little piece of
property -- little piece of land than an access, when there may be another access
available.
Lee: When there is a public road 90 feet down the road, yes.
Zaremba: And I guess what I'm thinking forward to, eventually, when you plat the
property, if you were to make a little section like that on which you're going to put your
access for now, but call that a common lot that's already legally described as a separate
lot, it would be much easier in the future for the future owners of that business owners
association --
Lee: I'll take that one step further --
Zaremba: -- to redevelop that piece and whatever would happen and if it's that way on
the plat I think it would help it happen.
Lee: Exactly. I'm going to take that one step further. That my client Matt Morgan keep
that piece in his possession, so that he can do so when it comes up, because the
homeowners -- because the business owners association would need that land at that
point, so it will be there to assemble it and make it work.
Zaremba: So, I guess the question was also put to our attorney, though, is there some
wording we would need to have to help make that happen?
Baird: Mr. President, Members of the Commission, at your direction, if this is your
desire to do, I'm in agreement that I think that we can make an enforceable provision in
the DA. So, it's really up to you, if you're comfortable with that, coupled with what's
been described as an economic incentive and I think that that, while not really a legal
enforceability issue, it might provide you an additional level of comfort that this is going
to happen automatically, that we can work with the applicant's counsel and make sure
that the language in the DA fulfills your desires.
Zaremba: Thank you. Am I the only one that feels that way?
Rohm: Well, I have some thoughts on this, too, but I think before we move forward, we
should throw it out to public testimony before we try and come up with a solution. There
has not been anyone that has signed up to this application, but at this time if there is
somebody that does want to testify and come forward, now is the time to do so. Okay.
All right. Now, we have gone through that and nobody has stepped forward, so would
one or other of you come forward -- and I have got some thoughts on this as well. From
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 45 of 65
my perspective, I think that full well knowing that you're going to turn this into a
professional plaza, maybe the right solution is to provide a preliminary plat application at
the same time you are presenting your rezone and it would, then, have an opportunity to
have that second -- that lot set aside as part of that preliminary plat, so that it could be
redeveloped at such time that the adjacent property becomes available. That seems
like that might be able to fulfill both the staff concerns and your desire to have that
access to McMillan.
Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may before the applicant responds to that, that only -- not only
does it maybe takes this legal document out of it, but maybe we don't need a DA if that
plat shows it. What it also does is it also gets ACHD to provide us site specific
comments and you will know whether or not that driveway is approved, because they
have to comment on a development application. So, it takes the guesswork out of
maybe ACHD gives you an access or maybe it doesn't. If there is a plat they will give
us conditions for approval and now the offset is no longer an issue, they either tell them,
yes, you get it or, no, you don't and we don't even need to have this discussion if there
is a plat.
Rohm: It in my mind seems like that's the best of both worlds is if you're going to have
a professional plaza development and you know that, then, let's take care of everything
at once.
Morgan: Mr. Chairman, as far as the idea of the individual lot platted right there, I think
that's fantastic. That's an outstanding idea that I will implement into the plat. I want -- I
wanted -- and that's why I invited Mr. Lee to come with me today, because I greatly -- I
greatly value his opinions and how to not only take care of me and get things done right
-- when I leave these projects I don't want these doctors having problems. I want it all
spelled out for them very clearly what they are getting into for in the future. I think
through the CC&Rs and the declaration and that be platted into a common lot of it's
own, I think we could very easily make sure that -- that we satisfy all of these different
concerns and I guess I would ask -- I would like to move forward today with my
annexation and rezone and I will be back -- and I will be submitting a plat inside of 30
days. I have an architect, an engineer, that works on staff for me and so it doesn't take
us long to do it, we are just -- I have just been waiting for commitment from the oral
surgeon and I got a pretty good idea I'm going to get it right after the first of the year or
so.
Zaremba: It's like pulling teeth to get it from an oral surgeon.
Morgan: Literally. Literally. Literally. I think we are going to get it, but -- but, anyways,
I would like to continue today if I could and, then, I will be back in with a plat right after
the first of the year and we will -- we will make that suggestion work. I think that's a
terrific solution. Fantastic.
Rohm: I guess my point, though, going along with what staff is saying, is if, in fact, we
were to submit a preliminary plat along with the rezone application, Ada County would
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 46 of 65
provide site specific comments that would say, yes, in fact, we will allow this McMillan
Road access or, no, we won't and if, in fact, Ada County provides that specific
language, then, we have got everything taken care of without having to have this
temporary access that mayor may not be needed down the road. And is there an
objection to providing a preliminary plat application?
Morgan: Mr. Chairman, the other reason why I didn't provide the -- you know, with the
preliminary plat, I always prefer to do my annexation and rezone first, so in the -- if that
becomes approved, then, I have a project. Otherwise, that preliminary plat, the work I
put into that, becomes basically --
Rohm: An expense that--
Morgan: It's an expense and it's work that we have done that's been in vain. So, I -- it's
always my typical -- my normal practice to just try to move a little slower with the project
and just make sure I obtain my approvals as I go is --
Rohm: I guess -- and, again, my concerns are that Ada County may, through their
objections at -- during that preliminary plat, disrupt your plan that you currently have
conceptually visualized and they would put a stop to it themselves.
Morgan: They might make a pond out of it and I might be done anyway.
Rohm: Well, there you go.
Morgan: Yeah. So--
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would comment that the distance from Locust Grove
currently, the way they are depicting it on the concept, I believe ACHD -- it meets their
current requirements. The issue becomes what happens when -- it starts with a P, the
project -- Portico. What it doesn't meet the distance separation from is Portico. It does
meet the separation from the existing today streets. So, my instinct would say that
ACHD would be willing to work with a temporary arrangement. They would want it to go
away eventually, I'm quite sure. But I think they would be comfortable with it as a
temporary thing if they knew it was going to go away.
Rohm: I tend to agree with you. My concerns are the location of the canal more than
anything to -- that the county would, then, have to provide specific comment as to this
development and the long-term development of that intersection in its entirety.
Zaremba: I guess my comment would be I know we like to have -- like to have
annexations and preliminary plats and even any CUPs all come together so we can
discuss them, but my personal opinion is I'm comfortable on this one that L-O uses
under the resolution that allows them on this property, are acceptable. I don't see much
doubt that we are going to deny that or recommend denial of it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 47 of 65
Rohm: Again -- and I tend agree with that, too.
Zaremba: And in that case I don't have that much problem treating them separately.
The plat still has to go through all these same discussions.
Borup: I agree, I think that the applicant is the one that's taking the risk, so maybe that
should be up to them.
Lee: Mr. Chairman, if I could maybe briefly respond. We have actually been in
communication with ACHD. They are in the process of -- very early in the process of
making some of their decisions and so we are going to be part of what -- you know,
know very much so what ACHD is going to do with this intersection. They can certainly
tell us no in the future and that's a risk that we are taking. We just -- in our discussions
that we have had informally, as well as our knowledge of ACHD and what they value
and what they don't, we just feel like this is something that we can persuade them and
we intend to do so when the preliminary plat comes through, we will -- like I say, we will
have an extended discussion with ACHD and this is a matter that they will decide.
Rohm: Thank you very much. Okay. Any final thoughts, Commissioner Zaremba?
Zaremba: Did we already establish nobody else signed up to speak?
Rohm: Yes. Yes.
Hood: Mr. Chair--
Zaremba: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing AZ 06-054. All those
in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, before you go -- excuse me. Just to follow
that last thought that you had about ACHD and not meeting the offsets, would you not
think, then, that their temporary would be when Portico -- whenever Beethoven, I think it
was, Street goes in, then, that's the trigger for the temporary to go away? I mean if, in
fact, they allow it on a temporary basis, that's what I would think they would allow it until
this road gets constructed, which they have already approved, that makes you -- and
that's going a different direction than what we were saying --
Zaremba: I could actually see a step that if this project gets built first, it could be a full
access. If Beethoven Street in --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21,2006
Page 48 of 65
Hood: Portico.
Zaremba: -- Portico is, in fact, in place before this driveway is, then, this might end up
needing to be right-in, right-out, too, until they can bridge that other 85 feet. I'm not
speaking for ACHD, but just personally, my experience around the country with
transportation and traffic infrastructure, to only have a right-in and right-out on Locust is
going to be very difficult. It does involve, I guarantee you, unsafe u-turns and I think
ACHD would see the wisdom of having some kind of temporary access, other than just
the one right-in, right-out on Locust Grove. I certainly understand why that would seem
to be the right thing to do to only have that one access and not allow any access on
McMillan, but I think it causes more traffic problems somewhere else than it solves on
McMillan and, you know, I could see at some point ACHD saying, okay, if Beethoven is
there, then, this McMillan access has to be a right-in, right-out, too, which does at least
give some other options to people coming and going and, then, the end result is when
that 85 feet is available, then, this does go away. I can't speak for them, but I can see
that scenario. I know I'm not helping.
Hood: No. I mean that helps to understand your thought process and I was just curious
on what -- what you would just -- and, again, I'm not saying that --
Zaremba: But it may be --
Hood: -- you are ACHD, but --
Zaremba: -- access.
Hood: Yeah.
Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Borup, do you have any final comments?
Borup: No, I don't have anything extra to add. I agree with Commissioner Zaremba.
Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Nor do I.
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Nor do I.
Rohm: Okay.
Zaremba: In that case, Mr. Chairman, would you care for me to attempt a motion?
Rohm: Absolutely.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 49 of 65
Zaremba: After considering all staff and applicant testimony and giving the public an
opportunity to testify, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number
AZ 06-054 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 21, 2006,
with the following modification to the proposed development agreement provisions. And
that is under -- let's see. This is, I believe, Exhibit B, paragraph two. I believe I'm on
the tenth bullet down. This is the paragraph that begins that vehicular access to the site
shall be restricted to one right-in, right-out driveway to Locust Grove Road located at the
north property line if as approved by ACHD. That sentence is to remain. The second
sentence is modified. Direct lot access to McMillan Road shall be temporarily
acceptable until such time as there is alternate access provided to Beethoven. Are
there any other wordings that I need to add on -- and there may be an interim period
where Beethoven exists, but there still is not access to an 85 foot strip between the two
properties where the access to McMillan may be limited to right-in, right-out.
Hood: Mr. Chair, maker of the motion, would you also add that -- how does it get
closed part? Is the applicant responsible or like Keith talked about adding it as a platted
lot and retaining ownership and -- that's the meat that we need to be able to enforce.
Who do we go back on to close this. If you can address that somehow.
Zaremba: That when platted that -- I'm still adding to the same bullet. When platted
their area that is being proposed for the access to McMillan will be platted as a separate
common lot to make it more easily divisible when the access to the east is available.
Mae: Is there any provision for a cash bond for that work to be done?
Zaremba: Do we want that? I don't have a problem with that and I'm sure that the
applicant doesn't either.
Mae: They already said they --
Zaremba: Okay. So, let's say: And applicant will bond for any necessary
relandscaping or redevelopment of that one parcel. I'm done.
Moe: I will second that.
Zaremba: Maybe I'm not done. Mr. Hood is --
Hood: I'm just wondering if maybe -- we will take that language and work with it. Would
you mind if legal kind of -- if we just --
Zaremba: I have no problem if staff and legal massage that language a little bit. It was
convoluted.
Baird: And if I may add, Mr. Chair, that there is a desire for some sort of surety,
whether it's a bond or cash. I'm interpreting that motion to allow us sufficient leeway to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 50 of 65
work out those details with the applicant, that it sounds like you do want something
there.
Zaremba: A working it out is acceptable to the maker of the motion.
Rohm: Okay.
Moe: Second agrees.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of ACHD 06-054, to include all staff comments and the aforementioned
additional comments from the motion maker. All those in favor say aye. Opposed the
same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 13:
Item 14:
Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 2006: AZ 06-046
Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.7 acres from RUT to an R-4
zone for Harcourt Subdivision by Great Sky, Inc. - 3465 & 3595 E.
Victory Road and 3432 & 3467 E. Falcon Drive:
Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 2006: PP 06-048
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 61 single-family residential lots
and 6 common lots on 21.7 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Harcourt
Subdivision by Great Sky, Inc. - 3465 & 3595 E. Victory Road and 3432
& 3467 E. Falcon Drive:
Rohm: All right. At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from
November 2nd, 2006, of Items No. AZ 06-046 and PP 06-048 for the sole purpose of
continuing them, once again, to the January 18th, 2007, regularly scheduled meeting of
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Zaremba: So moved.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Items AZ 06-046 and PP 06-048 to
the regularly scheduled meeting of January 18th, 2007. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 15:
Continued Public Hearing from October 19, 2006 (Re-Noticed for
Modification): AZ 06-045 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.556
acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Eastwood Subdivision by Wirt
Edmonds - 4515 South Locust Grove Road:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21,2006
Page 51 of 65
Item 16:
Continued Public Hearing from October 19, 2006 (Re-Noticed for
Modification): PP 06-047 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 24
single-family residential lots and 3 common lots on 7.556 acres in a
proposed R-4 zone for Eastwood Subdivision by Wirt Edmonds - 4515
South Locust Grove Road:
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing from -- the continued Public
Hearing October 19th, due to renotice for modifications of AZ 06-045 and PP 06-047,
both items related to Eastwood Subdivision and begin with the staff report.
Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the application before you is the
Eastwood Subdivision. The applicant has requested annexation and preliminary plat
approval for 24 single family residential lots and three common lots on 7.56 acres within
R-4 zoning designation. The subject applications were scheduled to be heard before
Planning and Zoning Commission on October 19th, 2006. Prior to said meeting the
applicant and planning staff were notified that ACHD refused to grant direct access to
the site from Locust Grove. This ultimately prompted a redesign of the preliminary plat.
The new plan proposes two additional lots for a total of 24 building lots and eliminate
subdivision access to Locust Grove. Eastwood is generally located -- get my pointer
here. On the west side of Locust Grove approximately one-fifth of a mile north of Amity
Road. This whole access to the development will be from East Wrightwood Drive, a
through street provided by Reflection Ridge Subdivision and this is Reflection Ridge
here. This is West Wrightwood Drive. South Corina Avenue connects to East
Wrightwood Drive at the north boundary of the subject property. City staff is supportive
of the proposed street layout. As I was stating, to the north there is the recently
approved Reflection Ridge Subdivision, zoned R-4. To the east Estancia Subdivision
also zoned R-4. South and west are residential estates still under the jurisdiction of Ada
County. As previously stated, the applicant has proposed preliminary plat approval of
24 residential lots, between 8,000 and 22,580 square feet. The average lot size is
approximately 8,950 feet -- square feet. In addition to the required 25 foot street
landscaping buffer along Locust Grove, the applicant has supplied 5.15 percent of the
site to meet open space requirements, including a centrally located common area. That
common area is right here. The site is currently used for agriculture purposes. The one
structure located at the northwest corner -- I guess that's -- no. The southeast corner of
the property is to remain. And that's right here. There are three issues to mention.
First, staff believes that the lot sizes proposed along the southern boundary should be
increased. Staff does not consider locating four 8,000 square foot lots adjacent to one
one acre lot an appropriate transition. A neighbor has voiced concern over this as well.
Second, this property is designated low density residential on the Comprehensive Plan
future land use map. Low density residential areas are anticipated to contain single
family dwellings of densities up to three units per acre. The proposed preliminary plat
includes 24 residential building lots on 7.56 acres for a gross density of 3.18 dwelling
units per acre. The gross density exceeds the range outlined in the Comprehensive
Plan. In order for the project to better comply with the density policies outlined in the
Comprehensive Plan, staff is supportive of eliminating one building lot at the south
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 52 of 65
property line. This reduction in the number of lots from 24 to 23 would not only address
staff's concern over transitioning of lot sizes in that area, but would lower the gross
density of the project from 3.8 dwelling units per acre to 3.05 dwelling units per acre.
And, third, perimeter fencing is not shown on the submitted landscape plan or the
preliminary plat. There is currently existing fencing running along the length of the
western property boundary. Additionally, fences are required adjacent to all common
areas. The applicant has not indicated where permanent -- whether permanent fencing
will be installed around the remaining perimeter boundary or the type of fencing to be
installed around the common lots. The applicant will need to state that tonight. And
that is all planning staff has, unless the Commission has questions.
Rohm: Are there any questions of staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come
forward, please.
McKay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Becky McKay,
Engineering Solutions. Business address 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. I have to keep
thinking before I say my address.
Zaremba: It's not Eagle anymore. Welcome to Meridian.
McKay: No. What you see before you this evening is a small project. Mr. Edmonds
came to us and asked if we could take a look at this for him and his grandson and the
gentleman that owned the property and his wife are good friends of my husband's,
Vaughn James, and so I said, yes, I would be glad to, you know, help you out on this
deal. This particular piece of property, since it is just a little over seven acres, is kind of
-- what we call an in-fill. If staff could go to the vicinity map. As you can see, Reflection
Ridge has been approved here along the north boundary with an R-4 designation and
their first phase construction plans are in the process now -- I think they are probably
underway or getting close to being underway. We have Estancia Subdivision on the
east boundary. Bellingham Subdivision -- this is R-4. Bellingham here right at our
northeast corner. That is R-8. Then, surrounding our west and south boundary we
have what they call East Slope Subdivision, which is primarily acre lots. We have one
lot here that is un-platted and not a part of East Slope. We tried different -- different
layouts on this particular property. I came up with four or five different types of lots in
trying to figure out what was the best fit. We did work with the staff and Ada County
Highway District. Originally they had asked us to put our entrance out here at Locust
Grove, so we designed it in that fashion based on, you know, their input and, of course,
what we desired. Then after reviewing they came up with the idea of what if we could
eliminate that access and come off of Reflection Ridge's collector roadway, therefore,
reducing the access by one and, then, eliminating some of the conflict that could
potentially happen with the other accesses that are established along Locust Grove. My
client said he would cooperate. We tabled the application before you back in October,
went back to the drawing board, came up with something else and redesigned our
project. So, now everything -- we still have the same loop, but everything would go into
Reflection Ridge. One of the challenges with this particular site is, obviously, those acre
lots. In our neighborhood meeting we talked about that. After we had the neighborhood
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 53 of 65
meeting I went back to the drawing board, I widened these lots out as large as possible.
Our widest lots, which are 80 by 101 in depth are along this south boundary. We have
some along here that I think are 110 -- 110 by 74. Now, one of the things that's kind of
strange is up in this area these acre lots are about 150 feet wide by 310 deep. So, they
are narrower and deeper. Because of this un-platted lot, this platted lot here is
unusually wide. It is only 143 feet deep, but, yet, 306 feet wide. So, that's not your
typical acre lot that we see. So, that created, you know, obviously, a problem in trying
to reduce the number of lots that adjoin that. Now, staff has indicated that four lots
adjoin that particular lot, but in looking at the site plan it looks like three and, then, a
small portion right here. So, we have one, two, three and, then, here. Now, I would be
able to, if the Commission would agree, take this lot line, angle it, if that is -- you know, if
three is the magic number as far as trying to minimize the lots backing up to it. Since
this project is so small, R-4 was the zone that we had to go with, because of the low
density residential. These smaller projects -- there is only so much that we can do,
amenity-wise, landscaping-wise, and density-wise. This one was right there at the edge
and trying to make it, as we call in our business pencil. We have a little pocket park
here that's about 6,800 -- or 6,300 square feet. You know, I proposed possibly some
type of, you know, either little bench or sitting area or something along that line. The
entrance here, they were laying this collector right close against this property here, so I
tried to buffer and make this -- kind of enhance, since this becomes our entrance also,
provide substantial landscaping here to kind of enhance and, then, I put a landscaped
lot here. So, that would -- that would kind of facilitate kind of making that look a little
nicer, a little more inviting. We have lots no less than 8,000 square feet. Our largest
lot, 22,580, that's this lot here. There is an existing home on It. The home currently has
two driveways out to Locust Grove. We did proposed from the very beginning that we
would eliminate both those driveways and the garage, luckily, is oriented to the north
and so we worked really hard trying to get enough room to bring a driveway in like that
and eliminate those access points. This is a really nice shop and we designed our lot
lines so that that could meet the setbacks and be retained on the site. This is, like I
said, kind of like an in-fill project and with in-fills there is only so many things that we
can do. There is nothing fancy and, you know, great like the bigger projects. They are
smaller and we are restricted on how we can make these function and make it practical
to develop on them. By I know based on, you know, your Comprehensive Plan it
promotes trying to develop these in-fill areas, try to get driveways for homes off of the
arterials and try to minimize the access points and that's what we have done. Does the
Commission have any questions?
Borup: Mr. Chairman, just -- I don't know if you know the answer to this. Some of the
lots in Reflection Ridge it was an R-4, but some of those look like they were pretty
narrow lots and I don't remember sizes. Do you know what --
McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, I think they had some that were in the
5,000 -- I mean Caleb could probably answer that better, but --
Borup: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 54 of 65
McKay: -- the maps that they showed me had some very small lots and some alley-
load.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Borup, the alley load lots
are -- directly north of this is the collector and, then, on the other side of that is their
open space, kind of common lot. Those lots that are -- that the first build-able lots in
this area here. Minimum frontage is 47 feet. 5,260 is the minimum lot size that they
have to maintain through the PD, so -- I know, because I was talking them this week, so
Borup: These look pretty small, too. Thank you.
Rohm: Any other questions of this applicant?
Mae: Yeah, Mr. Chairman. Becky, in regard to the lots there on the south, are those
planned for one or two story homes, if you know?
McKay: I guess that would be a question to ask the applicant. One or two story? To
answer your question, Commissioner Moe, those are our widest lots at 80 feet wide. An
80 foot wide lot could accommodate a single level home. Also, I did not address the
fencing, as Amanda asked. We wanted to talk with Reflection Ridge to find out what
their fencing style is going to be. We thought it may be nice to have -- we will definitely
have perimeter fencing on the record, but we thought it would look nice and kind of
mesh better with their neighborhood if our fencing was consistent. And I have not
gotten an answer on that at this time. But would it would be, you know, similar to theirs
or the same, if possible.
Rohm: Becky, how about the staff comments on reducing the number of lots along the
south line by one? Do you have any thoughts on that?
McKay: Mr. Chairman, I did go through the staff report with my client. His number one
concern is with a little project like this that's, what, four percent of the lots -- elimination
of one lot is four percent. When we look at these large projects, elimination of one or
two lots is not as dramatic of an impact financially. I know what he paid for this property
and I know where the housing market is and the lot sales are and so I just -- I am
reluctant, sir, to just give away one lot.
Rohm: Just a question.
McKay: I guess we opposed to that and I would like that condition modified. Thank
you.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Pat Sturgis. Or -- did you want to address the Commission?
Sturgis: Okay. My name is Pat Sturgis, 1450 East Pitkin. I submitted a letter to the
board and as you probably realize, we are the owners of the odd-shaped lot. We will
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21,2006
Page 55 of 65
have in this proposed plan three houses against our very backyard. As you have seen,
our lot is not long like the others and to us this would be -- beings we have lived with an
open field back there, Reflection Ridge was not there. This proposed field was not
there -- or this subdivision was not there. It's been totally open and, then, to look at this
plat and we have three houses that will be in back of us is very upsetting. I realize that
it would be hard, maybe, for Mr. Edmonds to change his plan, but anything that he could
do, we would really appreciate. Of course, it would be ideal if he could eliminate one of
the lots and make it bigger, because like Becky stated, we are acre lots in the whole
subdivision. So, it's very hard for us to realize that there would be this many houses in
back of us. As to the fencing, we have spoken to Mr. Edmonds as well. We felt like we
would like to be involved in that decision as well, because, as they stated, our property
is like 305 feet and we really don't want to be looking at a real wall fence for that long
and I guess that it's. Thank you.
Rohm: I'm curious. How far is your home from the property line? Is it, what, a hundred
feet.
Sturgis: Fifty feet.
Rohm: Fifty feet?
Sturgis: Fifty feet.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Moe: While you're still there, what type of fencing would you desire that was on -- that
would be there?
Sturgis: Oh, Ideally I would like -- I have seen what looks like rock, but it's actually a
cement fence. It looks like it's a sculptured rock, but it's cement. But we are willing to
compromise on that as well.
Moe: Okay. And based on your letter that I did read one of the other comments, other
than just losing a lot, was also that possible the homes would be one story, in lieu of
two.
Sturgis: Absolutely.
Moe: You did hear them tonight, they have made that statement they would go with the
single level.
Sturgis: With one. We appreciate that.
Moe: Thank you.
Sturgis: Okay. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21,2006
Page 56 of 65
Rohm: Thank you. Jim Sturgis, did you want to speak as well? From the audience Mr.
Sturgis said his wife has spoken for him. Mine's done that before, too. There is nobody
else that has signed up for this particular application, but if there is anyone else that
would like to come forward at this time and speak, now is that time. Okay. Thank you.
Would the applicant like to come back forward, please?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: While Mrs. McKay is approaching I have a question I would like to ask. I
probably should have asked you earlier. Am I interpreting these to be slope lines, such
that it's a down slope? This would be high ground and this would be lower and lower
and lower?
McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, you're correct. The property does
slope like this. There is approximately six to seven feet of fall from this corner down to
here.
Zaremba: Oh, so it's not like 80 feet drop-off or something?
McKay: No. No.
Zaremba: But it is a slope?
McKay: But it's sloping, yes, sir.
Zaremba: Thank you.
McKay: In listening to Mrs. Sturgis I did consult with my client. He said on these three
lots that back up to here parcel, which is -- I can't read the -- I can't read the numbers
there.
Moe: Eleven, 12 and 13.
McKay: Eleven, 12 -- 11, 12, and 13, that we would put on the final plat that those
would be single story and, then, I did measure off the aerial of her home, it is 56 feet
from the edge of her home to the property line. And, then, we would be willing to --
make sure that these three lots had a 20 foot setback. That would make a 76 foot
separation between homes to home. So, that she did not feel closed in or boxed in by
this urban development.
Moe: I may not have paid attention when you talked about the fencing. What would
you propose between that?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 57 of 65
McKay: In talking with my client he was looking at some type of a decorative vinyl or a
wood fence, something along either one of those. Like I said, I don't know what
Reflection Ridge is doing. A lot of the projects are doing, you know, the different vinyls,
earth tone vinyls. They are typically nice fences. I like their look over the wood. They
hold up a little bit better.
Moe: Thank you.
Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant? I guess not. Okay. You need to come
back up, but --
Sturgis: On that one lot perhaps they could taper it in, because we also put that in as a
consideration.
Rohm: I think that she had actually suggested that earlier, so that -- that the fourth lot is
not touching your lot at all, is that what you're referring to?
Sturgis: Right.
Rohm: Okay. I think that the applicant is saying that they could make those kind of
suggestions.
Sturgis: All right. I wanted to be sure.
Rohm: Okay. I believe that the open testimony is concluded, could I get a motion to
close these public hearings?
Newton-Huckabay: So moved.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on AZ 06-045 and
PP 06-047. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Okay.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Any discussion amongst the Commission before we move for a motion?
Commissioner Mae, do you have any final thoughts?
Moe: Actually, none come to mind. I think that the applicant has made some
concessions in regards to the single story on those south lots and have made
somewhat of a change on the Lot No. 14. So, I think they have made concessions. I
know staff would like to see one lot go away, but I think I would be in favor of the project
with those conditions met.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21,2006
Page 58 of 65
Newton-Huckabay: I have nothing to add.
Rohm: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: I guess my -- what I would add is I don't agree with that. I don't see where
tapering Lot 14 accomplishes anything. The existing house is still 150 or so from where
that is and it just -- it just makes an odd size lot and that layout looks -- it looks more
practical the way it is. I guess if the developer wants to, it's up to them, but that's not
something that I would be in favor of putting a restriction on. Or my other favorite peeve
is the single story. Not unless the other surrounding subdivisions around them are
going to be restricted to single story. The view goes both ways. That's all I have got.
Rohm: And I agree with both of those comments. Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I think considering this is pretty much an in-fill project and good work has
been done on it, I appreciate moving the actual access to Wrightwood Drive -- the
proposed Wrightwood Drive, as opposed to onto the arterial Locust Grove. I think that
was a good move. Each of our zones has rules about heights and setbacks and stuff
like that and we can't actually require an applicant to limit some of buildings to one
story, but they volunteer it in cooperation with the neighbors, I'm happy to accept it and
record that they have volunteered that. Beyond that I agree with Commissioner Borup
that I don't see the value in skewing the property line between Lots 13 and 14, because
I think the houses are still going to be in the same places that they would have been
anyhow and it's much easier to have a straight property line. But since the applicant
has offered, I certainly would take them up on the one story buildings on those three
lots.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. And I would echo those same comments. The applicant
appears to have gone the necessary steps to take consideration of the neighbors and
that's very much appreciated and I think this is going to be a nice development. End of
my comments. With that being said could I get a motion, please?
Borup: Did we close the hearing?
Newton-Huckabay: Yes. I closed the hearing.
Borup: Did we close the hearing? Oh, we did.
Rohm: Commissioner Borup, would you -- we have closed it. Commissioner Borup,
would you like to make a stab at a motion?
Borup: Okay. After considering all testimony, I move to recommend approval to the
City Council of file numbers AZ 06-045 and PP 06-047 as presented in the staff report
dated December 21 st with the following modifications of conditions of approval. In 1.2.3
change the number 23 to 24 designating 24 building lots to be allowed. End of motion.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 59 of 65
Rohm: Okay. Could we get a second or --
Borup: It doesn't look like it.
Zaremba: You avoided specifying the height limitation and the three lots.
Borup: I sure did.
Rohm: Okay. I guess maybe an amendment to the motion or should vote on the
motion as presented first -- or if there is not a second --
Borup: We didn't get a second, so there is no motion to vote on, is there?
Newton-Huckabay: He chose the wrong motion giver.
Baird: Mr. Chair, you currently have a motion on the floor and if there is no second it
would die for the lack of a second.
Rohm: Okay. All right. The motion dies for lack of a second.
Zaremba: Who closed the Public Hearing?
Rohm: I'm sure the Public Hearing was already closed.
Zaremba: No. I asked who did it.
Baird: To make a motion.
Rohm: Oh. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, would you like to make a stab at this?
After having made the motion to close the Public Hearing?
Newton-Huckabay: I would be happy to with some assistance on where to place the
modifications in the staff report.
Hess: Commissioner Members, I have a suggestion. We do need the requirement of a
development now if you are going to be limiting the height of those three buildings to be
single story. As the staff report is currently written there is no development agreement
established.
Rohm: I'm sure she can put that in the motion.
Newton-Huckabay: So, would I just -- the proposed modifications is to have a
development agreement that indicates the homes on 11, 12, and 13 will be single story,
with 20 foot setbacks?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 60 of 65
Hess: Correct.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And one -- okay. 1.2.3. Thank you.
Zaremba: Well, the development agreement would 1.1.3; right?
Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-060 and PP 06-061 as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 21 st, 2006, with the
following modifications to the conditions of approval: As an item 1.1.3, development
agreement, to include the Lots 11, 12 and 13 to be restricted to single story homes with
20 foot rear setbacks. The lot line --
Zaremba: Excuse me. Would you say minimum 20 foot?
Newton-Huckabay: Minimum 20 foot rear setback.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: The west lot line of Lot 14 will be adjusted to the east in a diagonal.
Do I need to try to explain that anymore? To match up the lot line to the south. And
item 1.2.3 to be modified eliminated altogether. Or switched to maximum 24 single
family residential dwellings.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council
recommending approval of AZ 06-045 and PP 06-047, to include all staff comments with
the aforementioned modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 17:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-060 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.01
Acres from RUT to R-8 & R-15 zones for Arch Rock Subdivision by CTD
Development - South of McMillan Road and East of Linder Road.:
Item 18:
Public Hearing: PP 06-061 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 18
single-family residential lots and 2 common lots on 3.73 acres in the
proposed R-8 zone and 8 single family residential lots and 1 common lot
on 1.02 acres in the proposed R-15 zone for Arch Rock Subdivision by
cro Development - South of McMillian Road and East of Linder Road:
Rohm: Thank you, folks, for coming in. At this time I'd like to open the public hearings
on AZ 06-060 and PP 06-061, both items related to Arch Rock Subdivision and begin
with the staff report.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21. 2006
Page 61 of 65
Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the application before you is Arch
Rock Subdivision. The applicants have requested annexation and zoning of 5.01 acres
from RUT to R-8 and R-15, as well as preliminary plat approval for 19 single family
residential lots and two common lots in the proposed R-8 zone and seven single family
residential lots and one common lot in the R-15 zone. Arch Rock is generally located
on the east side of Linder Road, approximately 800 feet south of McMillan Road. The
site is currently vacant agricultural land. To the east and south there is the existing
Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision, zoned R-8. To the west Bridgetower Crossing
Subdivision, zoned R-4. And north residential property still under the jurisdiction of Ada
County. As previously stated, the applicant has proposed preliminary plat approval 26
residential lots between 3,600 square feet and 7,900 square feet. The applicant has
provided 15 percent of the property's open space, meeting the requirements of the
UDC. The majority of the proposed common area is provided in a -- move to the correct
site here. Providing an essential common lot and a micro pathway, which provides
connectivity to Cobblefield Crossing to the south and east. The sole access to the
development will be via Linder Road -- via Linder Road and that's currently here. At this
time alternate access is not an option as no stubs are available to the subject
subdivision from Cobblefield. Arch Rock proposes a public street stubbed to the county
parcel to the north. Arch Rock is dependent upon redevelopment of this county parcel
to provide a secondary access. When that parcel redevelops access to McMillan Road
will be provided to the site through Cobblefield Crossing. Staff believes the proposal is
consistent with the Unified Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan
designation of mixed use neighborhood. The only issue to mention here is the lack of a
fencing plan again. The applicant has not indicated whether permanent fencing will be
installed around the remaining perimeter boundary or the type of fencing to be installed
around the common lots and along the micro pathway. The applicant will, again, need
to treat this tonight and that is all staff has, unless the Commission has questions.
Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come
forward, please?
Ralphs: Thank you. May I approach?
Rohm: You bet.
Ralphs: Members of the Commission, my name is Rod Ralphs, I'm here on behalf of
CTD, which is the applicant for the Arch Rock Subdivision that's before you now. As
staff indicated, the type of development that we are doing here is going to be very
consistent and similar to what is to the south, the Cobblefield One Subdivision. As you
look there on that flier that I handed out to you, the photographs that you see are those
that are in existence in Cobblefield One already, with the exception of the duplex that
you see there on the right-hand side with the red. That is what we are proposing to put
on the attached lots there than run along Linder. Now, that's going to be similar. We
may come back in and there may be some proposed two stories or some other things
like that that we would need to get our approvals on, but those are representative of
product that is already here in existence in Meridian and we just wanted to indicate that
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 62 of 65
we will be doing something consistent with that. As far as the other stand-along single
family residences, those are consistent with neighborhoods to the south and to the east.
The Arch Rock Subdivision is a 26 lot subdivision. We are going to put the attached
homes there along Linder. That serves a dual purpose. Number one, that is where we
are requesting our R-15 zoning, but also by putting it with the attached housing we are
proposing that that would serve as a buffer of sorts to the ongoing traffic there at Linder.
And, then, you have the single stand-alone homes there that go onto the interior. The
one question that was raised by staff -- and, again, we are in complete agreement with
the staff report. The fencing issue. Wanted to direct your attention if you could to the
north boundary. The north boundary right now -- there were the proposed street is, that
will be open. When it is finally redeveloped it will be whatever happens there on the
north side. The fencing there along that common area and that park area will be a
temporary fence, depending on what is the match up with the property to the north.
And, then, you have the two lots there on the northeast. Those will have permanent
perimeter fences that will be consistent in design with what is there on the east and the
southeast side and along the south side there matching with Cobblefield One -- actually,
that's already and existing fence. We wouldn't be adding anything to that. So, that
addresses the fencing issue. I think the only other things that were in the staff report
that were raised by -- I think one of the comments was the Meridian police department
was concerned about lighting on our micro-path there to the lower left -- or, excuse me,
to the lower right and we will put some lighting in there that will be on photocells that will
come on at night, so you will have that lighted path, probably two or three fixtures in
there that would provide lighting and we'd certainly welcome any recommendations from
the Meridian pOlice department to what they would like to have in there. The other
comment I think that was in the staff report regarded the common driveways that are
there on the -- on your left-hand side of the picture. Down there at the bottom, numbers
eight and seven, and also numbers five and six. If in the staff report you will be
directed, those are the ones that have the limited frontage, but we are addressing that
with the required shared driveway requirement. So, staff gave us the recommendation
on how to address that and we followed that. Having said that, if you will look at the
colors and the architecture and the different things that we have done and proposed for
this project called Arch Rock you will see that we are consistent with what's already in
place and it's consistent also and is recommended by the staff and welcome any
questions you might have.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of this applicant? None at this time. Thank you.
Okay. And, once again, we don't have anybody that has signed up to speak to this
application, but if there is someone that would like to come forward, they are more than
welcome.
Bevin: Hello. My name is Tom Bevin. 4202 North Marcliff, Boise. I have the property
north -- on the north boundary and I'd recommend approval of the way it's laid out. I just
have a question on the access coming off of -- is it Linder? And I think we have to
mirror the access across the street from coming off of the development across the street
and to have half of it, so what I'm understanding, is that they have the southern half and,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 63 of 65
then, I'd have the northern half to match up that ACHD driveway into Sridgetower. If I
understand that correctly, then, I'm good with it.
Rohm: Typically that's the way it works, yes.
Sevin: Okay.
Rohm: Each property owner is responsible for their portion of the roadway and the
property to the north, their property line is yours.
Bevin: Yes.
Rohm: Once you move to development, then, you would develop the balance of that
road.
Bevin: Okay. Yeah. And that's what I thought, but I just wanted to make sure. But I
would say I'm all for the development.
Rohm: Okay.
Sevin: Thank you very much.
Rohm: Thank you for your comments. Okay. There is -- again, there is nobody signed
up. Is there anybody else that would like to speak to this application? Okay. Thank
you very much.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we close the public hearings on AZ 06-060 and PP 06-061.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on AZ 06-060 and
PP 06-061. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-060 and PP 06-061 as
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 64 of 65
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 21, 2006, with no
modifications.
Borup: Second.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council
recommending approval of AZ 06-060 and PP 06-061 to include all staff comments
without any modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: One more motion.
Mae: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: You go right ahead. Last one.
Zaremba: I would like to repeat how much I have enjoyed working with the rest of you
Commissioners and with the staff, our professional staff, which has been of great help
to me and everybody else and as I move to being a City Councilman I will treasure the
moments I have spent with all of you and certainly think of you on Thursday nights and
have appreciated your warmth and comradeship and with that I move that we adjourn.
Moe: Well, you're more than welcome to come visit us anytime you want, we will be
here twice a month for sure.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Mae: And I'll second that motion.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the meeting tonight. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: We are done.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 21, 2006
Page 65 of 65
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:40 A.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED:
l
ATTESTE
02 I 0/ I 07
DATE APPROVED