2007 01-04
Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meeting
January 4. 2007
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of January 4, 2007, was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Vice-Chairman David Moe.
Members present: Keith Borup, Wendy Newton-Huckabay, David Zaremba, and David
Moe.
Members absent: Michael Rohm
Others Present: Ted Baird, Sharon Smith, 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 Steve Siddoway
o Michael Rohm - Chairman
Moe: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the City of Meridian Planning
and Zoning regularly scheduled meeting of January 4th, 2007, which would be the first
one of the new year. Along with welcoming you folks, I'd also like to welcome Mr.
Siddoway to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Good to have you, sir.
Siddoway: Thank you.
Moe: At this time I'd like to go ahead and ask for roll call, please, of the Commissioners.
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Moe: Thank you. Next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and there is a
couple of items that we want to change before we go with the adoption of the agenda.
First items would be items number 11 and 12, which are Blackrock Castle Greens
Subdivision and Items 16 and 17, which are Sagewood Subdivisions, we'd like to move
those to the front of the agenda. Staff has a request that both those hearings be
continued and we will act on those at that point. Also included would be we'd like to
move Item No.1 0, which is the RZ 06-012 for the rezone for Cherry-Linder rezone up in
front of Item NO.8. No. 10 is going to be an item that won't take a lot of time and we'd
like to get that one up above the longer hearing. So, having said that if I could get a
motion to accept the agenda.
Siddaway: Mr. Chairman?
Mae: Yes, sir.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 2 of 61
Siddoway: I move that we approve the agenda as amended.
Borup: Second.
Moe: It has been moved and seconded to accept the agenda. All those in favor signify
by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 3:
Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of November 16, 2006 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: MCU
06-004 Request for Modification of the existing Conditional Use
Permit to remove 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:
Moe: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. Those items being the approval
of meeting minutes of November 16th, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and,
B, the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval of MCU 06-004 for
Razzberry Crossing Subdivision. Can I get a motion to accept those or does anyone
have any questions or comments?
Borup: So moved.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Moe: It has been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in
favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I believe I need to abstain, as I did not participate in those --
in the hearings, so I won't be approving those minutes.
Moe: That has been noted. So, that would be three to one approval of that.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSTAIN. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Okay. Having done that, before I open the first Public Hearing, for some of you
folks that have not been here before I just kind of want to go through kind of the -- how
we do this here. Basically, we will open a hearing, at which time we will, then, ask staff
to give its report for that hearing, after which we will, then, have the applicant come up
and at which time they will have ten minutes, I do believe it is, to explain their position
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 3 of 61
on that project, at which time, then, we will have -- the public has their opportunity.
There are sign-up sheets in the back. If you have signed up to speak you will have your
three minutes to come up and do that. I don't know that it's going to be this way this
evening, but if there was a group of folks that was in opposition or had comments to
make on a certain project, if you had a spokesman for that group they would be given
more time to give testimony at that point. And after all the public testimony is given and
that would be either signed up or we will also give anyone that hasn't been signed up
the opportunity to speak -- after that, then, the applicant will have time for rebuttal on
those comments. At that time, then, the Commission would act on that hearing.
Item 11:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-059 Request for Annexation and Zoning of
224.26 acres from RR to R-2, R-4 and R-8 zones for Blackrock Castle
Greens Subdivision by Providence Development - west of S. Eagle
Road and south of Amity Road:
Item 12:
Public Hearing: PP 06-059 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of
644 residential lots and 31 common lots on 224.26 acres in the proposed
R-2, R-4 and R-8 zones for Blackrock Castle Greens Subdivision by
Providence Development - west of S. Eagle Road and south of Amity
Road:
Moe: So, having said that, then, I would like to now open the Public Hearing for -- if I
can get the right one here. That would be AZ 06-059, Blackrock Castle Greens
Subdivision and PP 06-059 for the same and ask staff comments.
Lucas: Thank you, Commissioner Moe, Commissioners. I just want to give a brief
explanation as to why we are requesting these -- these hearing items to be continued to
the date requested. I sent two memos regarding this project. The first one discussed
how we had not received ACHD comments and in that first memo staff requested that
the hearing be moved to January 18th, which is just two weeks from now, but after that
we received just yesterday, actually, another e-mail from ACHD indicating to us that
they were going to hold an evening meeting for this Blackrock project on January 24th,
which was after the 18th, and ACHD, basically, in their comments asked us to hold off
on moving forward on this project until their commission had a chance to look at it and
in the past the Commission -- this Commission has decided to wait until ACHD had kind
of made a decision on a project before moving forward. For one thing, it gives staff an
opportunity to get all the comments necessary to properly analyze the report and
present -- and present all the details necessary at the hearing. So, staff has requested
that this Blackrock Castle Greens project be continued until February 15th to allow a
time for all the comments to be heard by both staff and ACHD.
Moe: Any questions of staff? Okay. Well, then, can I get a motion to continue the
Public Hearing AZ 06-059 and PP 06-059 to the regularly scheduled Planning and
Zoning meeting of February 15th, 2007.
Siddoway: So moved.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 4 of 61
Borup: Second.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Moe: Could I have that seconded? It has been moved and seconded to continue the
Public Hearing AZ 06-059 and PP 06-059 for Blackrock Castle Greens Subdivision to
the regularly scheduled meeting of February 15th, 2007. All in favor signify by saying
aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 16:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-058 Request for Annexation and Zoning of
38.01 acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-8 zone for Sagewood
Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC - 4435 S. Meridian Road:
Item 17:
Public Hearing: PP 06-057 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of
115 single-family residential building lots and 6 common/other lots on
38.01 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Sagewood Subdivision by M & H
Development, LLC - 4435 S. Meridian Road:
Moe: I would now like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-058 and PP 06-057 for
Sagewood Subdivision and hear the staff report.
Watters: Thank you, Commissioner Moe, Commissioners. Basically, Sagewood
Subdivision is also being requested to be continued for the same reasons as the
previous application. We do not have a report from ACHD yet. They did order a traffic
impact study for this project because of its size. That is going to a meeting -- a tech
review meeting next week at ACHD and, then, they are planning on having a public
meeting in the evening towards the end of the month, probably the 24th. So, the staff is
asking that this project be continued until the February 15th meeting, because the
February 1 st meeting is quite full at this point, so -- does the Commission have any
questions?
Moe: Any questions?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Siddoway: I would just ask is the February 15th meeting filling up or are we going to
worry about that yet?
Moe: Actually, I'm just reviewing that and right now that would be the earliest we would
want to see that --
Siddoway: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 5 of 61
Moe: -- come before us, so --
Siddoway: Thank you.
Moe: -- having said that, then, I would like to get a motion to continue the public
hearings on AZ 06-058 and PP 06-057 for Sagewood Subdivision to the regularly
scheduled meeting of February 15th, 2007.
Newton-Huckabay: So moved.
Siddoway: Second.
Moe: It has been moved and seconded to continue the Public Hearing AZ 06-058 and
PP 06-057 to the regularly scheduled meeting of Planning and Zoning for February
15th, 2007. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion
is carried,
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 4:
Public Hearing: CUP 06-039 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
drive-thru window in a C-G zone within 300 feet of a residential use for
Dickey's BBQ Drive- Thru by Cooper Industries - 2845 E. Overland
Road:
Moe: All right. Next item will be Public Hearing CUP 06-039, request for Conditional
Use Permit for Dickey's BBa Drive-thru and hear the staff report.
Watters: Thank you, Members of the Commission. The application before you is a
request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru establishment within 300 feet of an
existing residence in a C-G zone. If you look on the overhead here, here is the vicinity
map. The property is outlined here. The property is generally located a quarter mile
west of South Eagle Road on the southwest corner of East Overland Road and South
Bonito Way at 2845 East Overland Road, within Bonito Subdivision. Directly across
Overland Road here is an existing residence to the north. It's zoned R-1 in Ada County
and it's within 300 feet of the proposed drive-thru facility. To the west of the site is
vacant commercial property, zoned C-G. And to the south and east is commercial
property in Bonito Subdivision. The Unified Development Code requires Conditional
Use Permit approval for all drive-thru facilities within 300 feet of an existing residence.
Here is an aerial map showing the property. Residential subdivision across the street
there. Here is a site plan. The proposed drive-thru window is located on the west end
of the building. The landscape plan. And here is elevations of the existing building.
The staff is recommending approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit as stated
in the staff report subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B. That's all staff has, unless
the Commission has questions.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 6 of 61
Moe: Commissioners, any questions? Would the applicant like to come forward,
please.
Anderson: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Eric Anderson with BRS Architects,
representing the applicant on this particular project. I have reviewed the staff report and
we agree to comply with the conditions listed. If you have any questions from me I'm
more than happy to answer them.
Moe: Commissioners, any questions?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Moe: No questions.
Anderson: All right. Thank you.
Moe: Okay. I see no one signed up. If there is anyone that would like to speak to this?
I see none.
Siddoway: I'd move to close the Public Hearing.
Borup: Second.
Moe: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on
CUP 06-039. All in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Yes.
Borup: After considering all testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 06-039 as
presented during the hearing of January 4th, 2007. I further direct staff to prepare
appropriate Findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting hearing on January 18th. End of motion.
Newton~Huckabay: Second.
Moe: It has been moved and seconded to approve CUP 06-039. All those in favor
signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. Thank you very
much.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 7 of 61
Item 5:
Continued Public Hearing from November 16, 2006: CUP 06-035
Request for a Conditional use Permit for a drive-thru establishment within
300 feet of another drive-thru facility and a residential district for Southern
Springs Building A by BRS Architects - 1760 S. Meridian Road:
Item 6:
Continued Public Hearing from November 16, 2006: CUP 06-036
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru establishment within
300 feet of another drive-thru facility and a residential district for Southern
Springs Building B by BRS Architects - 1800 S. Meridian Road:
Moe: Okay. The next hearing will be No. 5 and, Commissioners, we are going to open
both five and six together, but when we do that, when we do make motions, they will
have to be motions separate. So, therefore, I would like to open CUP 06-035 and CUP
06-036 for Southern Springs Building Six A and Southern Springs Building B and have
the staff report, please.
Watters: Thank you, Members of the Commission. There are two Conditional Use
Permit applications before you for drive-thru -- excuse me -- for drive-thru
establishments on properties adjacent to each other in Southern Springs Subdivision.
The first is for Building A, which is requesting approval for two drive-thru
establishments, one on each end of the building, within 300 feet of a residential district
and within 300 feet of each other, as well as another concurrently proposed drive-thru to
the south on the south side of Building B. Both of the buildings have received certificate
of zoning compliance approval for the building shell, but not for the drive-thru windows
and has been constructed on the site, but have not yet received occupancy. The
subject properties are located at 1720, 1760, and 1800 South Meridian Road on the
east side of South Meridian Road south of East Overland Road. If you look on the plat-
- on the vicinity map here, the subject property is outlined in black. To the north are
commercial properties in Southern Springs Subdivision, zoned C-G. To the east and
south is vacant and developing commercial property, zoned L-O and C-G. Further to
the east are residential properties in Running Brook Estates Subdivision zoned R-4.
And to the west is developing commercial property zoned C-G and residential property
in Elk Run Subdivision zoned R-8. The Unified Development Code requires Conditional
Use Permit approval for all proposed drive-thru facilities within 300 feet of a residential
district and within 300 feet of another drive-thru facility. Here is an aerial view of the
property. Here is the site plan. If you look at the building here on the north end, that's
Building A. The drive-thrus are proposed on the north and the south end of the building
as shown. Building B is right here. There is one proposed drive-thru window on the
south end of this building right here. The landscape plan site. And these are elevations
for Building A. These are on two separate presentations here. Bear with me. Here is
the site plan for building B that shows the location of the drive-thru window. Landscape
plan. And elevations for Building B. Staff is recommending approval of the requested
Conditional Use Permit as stated in the staff report, subject to the conditions listed in
Exhibit B. That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions.
Moe: Commissioners, any questions?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 8 of 61
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Yes, sir.
Siddoway: Sonya, do the residences that are within 300 feet, they are the ones to the
east on the other side of the canal?
Watters: To the east, yes.
Siddoway: And do any -- none of the proposed speakers face those residences? They
face north and south?
Watters: Correct.
Siddoway: And is there existing fencing along that canal?
Watters: I believe that there is with the Southern Springs Development. I think it's six
foot vinyl, I believe, and landscaping as well.
Siddoway: Okay. That's all.
Moe: Any other questions?
Borup: One.
Moe: Yes, sir.
Borup: Yes. In staff comments it had some concern with stacking. Is there still some
concern on that?
Watters: No, not really. The applicant has redesigned the site plan a little bit. They
have worked with the police department to satisfy some of the police department's
concerns with the property and the police department is satisfied with their revisions.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Moe: No other questions, would the applicant come forward.
Thompson: Good evening. Joe Thompson with BRS Architects here representing our
client. I did want to clarify one thing about the buffering to the east that was brought up.
What we have is -- this is our site, This was the canal you're talking about. This is also
part of -- I don't know if it's part of the subdivision, but it's commercial and it's right now
empty and right along here is that fence that was discussed and some evergreen pine
trees as well. That was required as part of the subdivision approval. Other than that, I
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 9 of 61
don't really have anything to talk about on it. Staff did a good job, so I'll stand for
questions.
Moe: Okay. Any questions, Commissioners?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Siddoway: You're in agreement with all proposed conditions of approval?
Thompson: Yes.
Siddoway: Okay.
Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. Well, again, there is no one signed up. If there is
anyone that would like to speak on this hearing, you're more than welcome to come up.
Seeing none, then, Commissioners?
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I'd move to close the Public Hearing.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Moe: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing CUP 06-035
and CUP 06-036 for Southern Springs Buildings A and B. All those in favor signify by
saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES, ONE ABSENT.
Newton-Huckabay: Two motions?
Moe: Yes. They need to be separate motions, please.
Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
approve file number CUP 06-035 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of
January 4th, 2007, with no modifications to the condition of approval. I further move to
direct staff to prepare an appropriate Findings document to be considered at the next
Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on January 18th, 2007.
Borup: Second.
Moe: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to approve CUP 06-035 for Southern
Springs Building A. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 10 of 61
Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
approve file number CUP 06-036 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of
January 4th, 2007, with no modifications to the conditions of approval. I further move to
direct staff to prepare an appropriate Findings document to be considered at the next
Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on January 18th, 2007.
Borup: Second.
Moe: It has been moved and seconded to approve CUP 06-036 for Southern Springs
Building B. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 7:
Public Hearing: PP 06-063 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 14
building lots on 18.7 acres within the C-G zone for CentrePointe
Subdivision No. 2 (North) by W.H. Moore Company - NWC of Ustick
and Eagle Roads:
Moe: Next item will be the Public Hearing for PP 06-063 for Centre Pointe Subdivision
No. 2 North and we will hear the staff report, please.
Hess: Thank you, Commissioner Moe, Members of the Commission. The application
before you is the Centre Pointe North Subdivision. The applicant requests preliminary
plat approval for 14 commercial lots on 18.7 acres within the C-G zone. The proposed
subdivision does not include 8.33 acres previously approved for Kohl's Department
Store and 31.37 acres approved under Centre Pointe Subdivision NO.1. The entire
Centre Pointe marketplace development is zoned C-G and totals 59 acres. Centre
Pointe North will be the final phase of the Centre Pointe marketplace development.
Centre Pointe North is generally located at the northwest corner of Ustick and Eagle
Road intersections. To the east we have the Smitzger commercial subdivision. To the
south Centre Pointe Subdivision No. 1 right here. To the west a residential subdivision
Champion Park, which is zoned R-8. Staff would like to provide the Commission with a
little background information related to these applications. In November of 2005 the 59
acre Centre Point Marketplace development received approval for three access points
onto Eagle Road. Two are right~in, right-out only accesses and one is a full driveway
access. One of the approved right~in, right-out access points falls within the subject
subdivision and that's the northernmost one right here. In October of 2006 the applicant
was granted approval to modify the existing development agreement for the Centre
Pointe Marketplace development to allow construction and commencement of
prinCipally permitted uses in that C-G zone without detailed CUP approval. The
applicant Winston Moore submitted a master site plan, which is shown on the
Powerpoint presentation right now, which defined building layout and pad locations for
the development. As per the conditions of approval for said development agreement
modification by City Council, the applicant was required to supply three public gathering
areas with continuous internal walkways on the site and one of the gathering areas --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 11 of61
one of these gathering areas is proposed within Centre Pointe North and I have here on
one of the slides a gazebo that is proposed on this site. There are several issues to
mention here. Staff has not approved the submitted landscaping plan. The primary
reason for this is that the applicant proposes a 35 foot wide landscaping buffer along
Eagle Road where 15 feet of the buffer is to be located within Eagle Road's right of way.
City code requires landscaping buffers in entirety to be located outside of rights of way.
However, in June of 2006 the applicant applied for and was granted a variance from
these standards for Centre Pointe Subdivision No.1, which is just to the south of this
subdivision. And this allowed the applicant to count adjacent ITD right of way towards
the landscape street buffer width. The landscaping buffer was approved at 20 feet, with
15 feet constructed within the right of way. The Commission should note that the
applicant has not yet, but is preparing to also submit a variance application, which
proposes the same reduction in landscaping for Centre Pointe North and the staff has
also received the applicant's response to our staff report. While the applicant would like
to eliminate cross-access between several of the commercial lots, staff is still supportive
of this interconnectivity and asks the Commission to uphold this condition. Staff is also
aware that a family care center will be constructed on Lot 3, Block 1 and that's this large
one here, due to the expectation of substantial traffic volumes this type of use may
bring, staff believes that a small knuckle or a cul-de-sac or some other turnaround
should be provided at the terminus of Centre Pointe Way, which is, essentially, stubbed
at this point. Other than those issues, staff finds the preliminary plat application to
conform to the Comprehensive Plan policies and the UDC, as well as the development
agreement in effect for the site and we recommend approval of the subject application.
So, that is all staff has, unless the Commission has questions.
Moe: Any questions of staff at this time? Seeing none, would the applicant come
forward, please.
Seal: Good evening. Jonathan Seal, W.H. Moore Company, 1940 Bonito, Meridian. If
we can put the -- Amanda, the other -- the concept plan up.
Hess: Sure.
Seal: Just very briefly again, just to give you a very -- little bit more information on it.
As I mentioned, this is the platted areas that we are looking at right now. We have
come to you for this already. This portion is complete. In fact, this road is complete up
to this point. As Amanda said, we did receive approval for 20 feet of landscaping here
and as I will mention, I will be coming back for a variance in this. I originally was
thinking that the variance that applied to this would also apply to this portion up here,
but have been advised otherwise. So, we will come back in for a variance so -- on that.
I think as far as the landscaping plan not being approved, we -- I have instructed The
Land Group to go ahead and resubmit a landscape plan that would reflect the
conditions that were requested, so we will provide that prior to City Council, so that's not
an issue in there. As I mentioned, this is -- this is generally a concept plan. And, again,
when we -- when I had the previous hearing I have discussed about this is the intended
I think layout of the buildings. They may vary somewhat in size or configurations, but,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 12 of 61
generally, this is going to be how the parking will be constructed. Again, we see
probably office or some type of quasi-retail back here and possibly the same thing here,
with probably banking or some type of retail up in this area. This happens to be The
Family Fun Center up here, which we have talked about in the past presentations. In
fact, they are getting ready to submit their certificate of zoning compliance. It's a family
oriented facility and we think it's going to be a great addition to the community. One of
the things -- and the reason that we asked for elimination of the cross-access along
these particular lots -- we don't have any objection to it in this -- in this portion -- is
because I think with the Family Center we would like to isolate the parking to here and
not potentially have people down here that might have businesses and maybe have
some of these up here and utilizing it. So, we simply ask that, essentially, we don't have
cross-access, but we can restrict it to this particular area. Again, we don't see that as a
major issue, but we also don't think it's a major issue not to have cross-access. If you
look at these two particular lots right here, the way we have it designed -- and this will
be an ACHD street at this end -- we will have an access here. So, these two will
certainly share this already. So, we are, really, only talking about the Family Center.
With respect to the turnaround up here, a couple things. There was a couple comments
in the city -. in the staff report about wanting to do a turnaround up here, doing some
type of easement. The distance from here to here is 140 feet. From here to here is 120
feet. The fire department -- in fact, I have the code and I can provide it to you, but the
fire department has said anything under 150 feet is not required. The other thing is, too,
it just -- it simply adds more expense to it, instead of finishing our curb and gutter, taking
it to this point and barricade it, we have to do some type of turnaround that will,
eventually, be torn up. Given the very short distance from here to here, I think,
hopefully, if somebody pulls up here and they can see with the barricades here and
everything that this is not a through street and, hopefully, they can figure out that they
shouldn't be going down here. So, we'd simply ask that that be eliminated, that that
street be brought up to here and, again, that street will be continued at some point when
ACHD gets the rights through here to connect to an easement they have up here to
Wainwright, which comes back out onto Eagle. The final one that we had -- and I don't
know if Amanda talked about it -- is the fire department wanting to talk about radius
turns in this particular area. Again, in my letter I mention these are our concept plans.
These buildings may change in configuration and size. I don't think materially, but they
will change and so we simply ask that that requirement be eliminated. So, we will
address that as we design these specific buildings when we know, in fact, what the size
and configuration will be. Other than that, I think those are mainly my comments and
they are repeated a couple times of this publiC turnaround, because it was mentioned
several times in there. So, again, it's, essentially, a cross-access easement. You're
going to have it here. We ask that it be eliminated, so the Family Center can be -- I
guess you could say segregated, eliminating the turnaround and, again, any type of
concerns on the turning radius the fire department had we can address as we submit
these buildings and as we know specifically how they are going to be. With that I would
be glad to answer any questions.
Moe: Okay. Any questions, Commissioners?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 13of61
Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman. A question on the -- on the cross-access agreements.
You're saying -- I mean I understand what you're saying, the one for the Family Center,
but the rest of those from that point south would all have access agreements?
Seal: Commissioner Borup, we can -- I mean I think it's already -- it's almost implied
there, because you only have one drive lane there and this plat ends right there
anyway. So, we are really only talking about these two particular lots.
Borup: But how about on the previous plats? They all did, didn't they?
Seal: You know, I don't -- to be honest with you, I don't recall off the top of my head.
don't see it as a problem. Whatever it was, if it was in here we didn't have concern. I
think it's mainly with concern with this. And, again, it's not a hill worth dying for, but I
don't think it's a major issue either way. So, again, we are just simply asking with this.
You know, we don't have the cross-access. We are providing cross-access to the rest.
We already have cross-access to everything. We usually -- we provide it to all our
tenants and I suspect here and whatever was approved, obviously, we didn't have a
problem with it, but to be honest with you I don't recall.
Borup: I'm assuming it was. Is that what staff recalls? Everything else has it, hasn't it?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup, I don't recall the -- there being a specific
requirement for shared access or cross-access on those lots on the west side of the
plat. That Centre Pointe Way I think is what it's called now. I think it was called Sadie
Creek the first time around, maybe. Whatever that public street is north-south, it is just
a local commercial street, it's not a classified roadway, so, generally, staff -- at least this
planner has in the past -- if it's not a classified roadway, hasn't required them on a
regular basis anyways, cross-access. So, I do not remember that being a specific
requirement of Centre Pointe South if you will.
Borup: Well, I'm a real advocate of cross-access agreements, but, then, I guess if that's
the case, it wasn't required previously, has staff changed their position? Why are we
asking for it now?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the reason it's changing is because I
wrote the first one and Ms. Hess has written the most recent one. I think it's -- you
know, it's a legitimate concern and requirement. It's nothing in code per se, so there is
some human aspect to that and it's purely up to the Commission. It does make some
sense to me, too, and in retrospect maybe some cross-access would have been made
sense there in the south, but I don't think it's -- either way, as Mr. Seal has stated,
either way I don't think it's -- at least from my perspective -- and I'm going to back off
after this comment, but either way I don't think it's worth spending too much time over it.
We are not going to put up too much of a fight, so that's alii have.
Borup: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 14 of 61
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Hucakbay: I was just wondering if there is any other access into this site if the
main entrance were blocked for a fire truck or the driveway.
Seal: For which particular building? I'm sorry.
Newton-Huckabay: Where the Family Center is supposed to be.
Seal: Oh, the family Center. Okay, Commissioner, the way this is designed -- and
Cornel Larsen is working on it -- it's designed such that the fire department can pull out
of this access. I guess that's a question if it's blocked -- no, I guess, quite honestly, they
couldn't, but if it was a stand-alone type building and it only had access anyway and it
was blocked, I guess you would be out of luck, you know, quite honestly, so, again, I
don't personally think, either, it's something worth spending a lot of time on. I don't want
to waste the Commission's time on this. I just simply think if it isn't critical we would
simply ask that at least for that one it be removed.
Moe: Mr. Seal, on that one there it looks like you actually have two entrances into that
lot there. Is that incorrect?
Seal: This is the plat -- we have one here and, then, this is the family center right there.
Yeah. Well, this landscape plan is not accurate with the site plan. So, no. And it's
going to be revised anyway, so --
Moe: So, it will just have one access point?
Seal: If we can go back to the concept plan, please. Mr. Chairman, yeah, the way I
think it's designed -- and, again, the Family Center I think has one access up here and,
then, we have one down here. I don't recall -- they are working on the site plan right
now and I haven't seen the most current. They may very well have one here, but I can't
tell you for sure.
Moe: Okay. So, as I'm looking at that right there, then, it kind of looks to me like you'd
almost have to have a cross-access on the two southern lots.
Seal: Uh-huh. I don't have an objection to that. I mean the most southerly lot may very
well become just simply one lot anyway, so --
Moe: Commissioners, any other questions?
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Yes, sir.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 15 of 61
Siddoway: One question that I have is does the roadway to the south -- okay. This is
the area that we are talking about for the plat and this internal road will be built with
development. One thing that I'm wondering, just on the plat below it -- has this been
constructed up to it? Is this the -- was this likely the only way in to this -- to the area --
the lots within this plat initially?
Seal: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Siddoway, this road right now, which is called
Centre Pointe Way, which is an ACHD road, is completed to this point. In fact, the only
thing that I have left right now is some -- some punch list items on it and, then, it will be
dedicated. In fact, it will be dedicated now if I could have paved my approaches, but it
got too cold. So, it's done to this -- this is all -- this is complete and this is complete. All
of this is complete already. And, then, as they say with this phase -- and we will go
ahead and construct this access. These accesses off of Eagle Road are in place
already. In fact, all the landscaping, everything else is in. I hope that answers your
question.
Siddoway: And the northern most access in from Eagle Road will be constructed to this
point before this project is built. There is not -- this won't be its only access in?
Seal: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, the plan, at least the way I have it envisioned is we
will submit, because we have a legal lot over here and we have a legal lot over here and
we are entitled to construct one. We will probably be constructing this building, quite
honestly, at the same time we will be constructing this. I am doing the construction
drawings right now and I would anticipate starting this in probably late winter and I
would anticipate that this would start late winter. They hope to have this open in
November of this year and we would certainly have this completed by that point, so I
think one would coincide with the other.
Siddoway: And, then, my final question would be -- I'm searching for the fire
department comments. Does the fire department still have concerns about the turning
radius?
Cole: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Siddoway, as Jonathan was mentioning the
measurements I pulled out the site plan and scaled it off. It's pretty rough on this site
plan whether it's 140, 150. I might issue a -- maybe just a change to that comment that
upon final plat if the stub road exceeds 150 feet as measured by the fire department,
then, a turnaround will be dedicated at that time, When the final plat comes in it's a
much more precise surveying document and the length of that road could be very
accurately determined at that time.
Siddoway: And is that ~- is that the turnaround at the northernmost point or is that the
turning radius issue that was talked about earlier?
Cole: That would be the turnaround point at the very northerly point that Mr. Seal's
pointing at there.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 16of61
Siddoway: Okay.
Cole: The radius issue would be him asking to -- to do that with each individual
building. It's generally when that would be done anyway. This is a concept plan. To
put radiuses around these conceptual buildings would be wasted engineering, because
until you know the size of the buildings you're really not going to know the radiuses and
the fire department looks at those -- Rich Green is our commercial fire reviewer.
Siddoway: And those turning radiuses wouldn't normally be reviewed during a
preliminary, that's a site development issue, is it not?
Cole: On a commercial building, yes. They are looked at on residential subdivisions,
because the road layout is pretty set in stone with a preliminary plat.
Siddoway: Okay. Thank you.
Moe: Any other questions, Commissioners? Thank you very much.
Seal: Thank you very much.
Moe: Again, we have no one signed up, but if there is someone who would like to
speak to this issue, please, come right up. Boy, no one wants to say anything. Thanks
very much. Commissioners?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, do we want to close the Public Hearing?
Moe: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close the Public Hearing PP 06-063.
Borup: Second.
Moe: It has been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on PP 06-063. All
those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Okay. Commissioners, I would assume you have all received Mr. Seal's
response to the staff comments and we have gone through those as well. Anyone have
any opinions on them?
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for legal counsel, if I may.
Moe: Yes, sir.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 17 of 61
Siddoway: Ted, is there any problem with approving a plat that shows a 20-foot
landscape buffer, assuming that they are going to get a future variance from City
Council?
Baird: Mr. Chair and Commissioner Siddoway that is an item that has to be put off for
Council. I think staff has made mention of the fact that it does require a variance and
that those items bypass this Commission. So, as noted in the conditions of approval, I
think that it's -- it's assuming that that will -- that will be handled at the Council level. So,
your action, your recommendation, doesn't need to be concerned with that.
Siddoway: Okay.
Baird: And it looks like somebody is looking for that mike over there to add to that
comment.
Hood: I was just going to -- thank you. I was just going to add, Mr. Chair, Members of
the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway, 1.1.4 does not assume that the variance is
going to be approved. In fact, it requires a full 35-foot wide landscape buffer outside of
the right of way right now. So, if, in fact, the applicant wants to get something less than
what the ordinance requires, they do need to obtain that variance approval, so --
Siddoway: Thank you.
Moe: Is there any strong opinions one way or the other in regards to the -- both the
cross-access situation, as well as the turnaround at the end of the street?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: I would be in favor of leaving the cross-access to the south. The
turnaround on where the road terminates, I don't -- I agree with the applicant on that.
And, then, the radius of the fire department.
Moe: Okay. On the cross-access, you mean just the two southern lots or all three of
them have cross-access? Or Block 1, number 3 -- two and one are the three in
question and what Mr. Seal is saying he doesn't have a problem with one and two
having cross-access, but the one with the Family Center is he would rather not have
cross-access to that down to the south.
Newton-Huckabay: That was the one I was referring to was the Family Center cross-
access to the south.
Moe: To have cross-access to the south. Okay. Mr. Siddoway, would you have an
opinion on those items?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 18 of 61
Siddoway: I would -- I would prefer to see the cross-access continue to the south. On
the turnaround to the north I believe that could be held off to the final plat and that a
turnaround would be required if the ordinance required it based on the length of that
stub when the final plat comes through.
Moe: Okay. Commissioner Borup, would you have any comments?
Borup: I think one of the -- one of the important reasons for the 150 feet is for the fire
department and that -- oftentimes that may assume there is homes or businesses or
buildings on that 150 feet roadway. Here we don't have that. So, I -- I would think in
this case it would not be necessary. I think that's why sometimes it's good to look at
things on a case-by-case basis. There is no -- there is no buildings that would access
that roadway, at least the way the design is indicating. So, I don't think that's an issue.
I'm conflicted on the cross-access. I'm a strong proponent of that, but the main reason
that it's usually necessary, I feel, is entering onto a busy roadway. This is not that case.
I don't see where entering out on Centre Pointe is probably going to cause a delay for
people, so I'm a little undecided, especially without knowing what we did to the south.
It's -- I like to see things be consistent within the same project, too. And I'm not sure
whether we are consistent here or not. I can see the comment on -- maybe not wanting
to have overflow parking from the Family Center to the others, but, hopefully, that's not
the case. If it is they don't have enough parking -- enough parking there anyway. So,
that's an overall problem that needs to be looked at if there is -- if there is that problem.
I guess I used a bunch of words to not say anything for sure, didn't I?
Moe: Well, I think we are probably all kind of working that same angle a little ways. I
guess myself I have no problem with cross-access to the two southern lots. I mean
cross-access to all three wouldn't really hurt my feelings at all, but at the same point
with the Family Center I don't know that there is really a need for the cross-access down
into the other two southern lots. But, again, I'm not set either way on that. And in
regards to the turnaround, I, too, don't -- I think that, basically, if people traveling to the
north and they do have a turnout that they can make if they see the barricades up and
whatnot, so I'm not so sure there is a real need for a turnaround at that point either, so --
and, then, Mr. Seal had the other point in 3.3 in regards to the turning radius down at
those buildings and whatnot. I would agree until the -- the plan is developed and we
won't know what size buildings are going to go there, I'm not so sure that there is a
need to worry about that 3.3 either.
Siddoway: I would agree with that.
Moe: I would see that 3.6 is very similar to the 1.1.8. So, that would be addressed at
that point. So, having said all that, then, would someone like to make a motion so we
can go forward?
Borup: Have we reached a consensus on what we feel each of those items need to
say?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 19 of 61
Moe: Well, I think what I'm hearing, quite frankly, is that we'd probably pretty much like
to keep the cross-access in place, but the turning radius could go away. Or do we want
the turning radius to be determined after the final plat has been submitted?
Newton-Huckabay: That's what I --
Borup: Isn't that -- I mean that's an item that's considered at that time anyway, isn't it?
And if there is a problem it wouldn't be approved.
Newton-Huckabay: So, we just strike 1.1,8?
Siddoway: We'd just strike the second sentence of it.
Borup: And then -- and, then, delete all of 3.3?
Moe: I would at this time until the plan is developed, so you know what size building is
going to go in that location.
Borup: Or just add that provide an updated plan at the time of -- of final building
design?
Siddoway: Yeah.
Moe: Yeah, That would be good.
Borup: Oh, that's what the applicant said down at the bottom.
Moe: He has noted it down there below, so -- well, do we have someone that would like
to make a motion?
Newton-Huckabay: Are we eliminating 3.6 altogether or --
Moe: Well, 3.6 is, basically, right in line with 1.1.8. They are both on the northern --
Borup: Yes. I just wrote down just delete 3.6.
Moe: Right.
Newton-Huckabay: That's what I just did.
Moe: Pardon me?
Siddoway: Yes.
Borup: Are we waiting for --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 20 of 61
Siddoway: A motion?
Moe: I'm waiting for someone to give me a motion.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, after considering all testimony, I move to recommend approval to
the City Council of file number PP 06-063 as presented in the staff report with the
following modifications: On 1.1.8, to delete the second sentence, so just leave the first
sentence, construct a public stub street to the north and 3.3 add at the end of that first
sentence to -- that the plan would be -- would be presented and addressed during the
design of each building. And delete 3.6. End of motion.
Siddoway: Second.
Moe: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to approve PP 06-063 to include all staff
comments and comments -- revised comments from Commissioner Borup for Centre
Pointe Subdivision NO.2. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign?
That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 10:
Public Hearing: RZ 06-012 Request for a Rezone of 1.69 acres from an
R-4 to a C-C zone for Cherry Linder Rezone by Darren Blaser - 1440,
1516 and 1528 W. Cherry Lane:
Moe: Next item, as we mentioned earlier, we are going to move Item -- within the
agenda Item No. 10 up above here and that will be opening RZ 06-012, request for a
rezone of 1.69 acres from R-4 to C-C zone Cherry-Linder rezone and hear the staff
report, please.
Lucas: Thank you -- excuse me. Thank you, Chairman Moe, Commissioners. As was
just stated, the applicant has applied for a rezone of 1.69 acres from R-4, which is the
medium low density residential designation, to C-C, which is the community business
district designation. The applicant intends to construct one retail building on this site
and retail buildings are not allowed uses within the R-4 zone, thus the applicant has
come in to consider this rezone. The subject property is located at the northeast corner
of Cherry Lane and Linder Road, as identified here on the PowerPoint presentation.
There is three home sites currently at this location and this is the area that is proposed
to be converted to C-C. Just a quick analysis of the surrounding area. To the north you
have the Christ Lutheran Church, which is zoned L-O. There is, actually two churches
near this property. The Christ Lutheran Church, actually, is to the north and east. The
property that the church owns to the north is currently vacant and the church sits right
on the eastern side of this site. And to the south you have the Cherry Lane commercial
-- Cherry Lane commercial developments, which there is one existing right here and this
large C-C portion is currently vacant, it sits right next to the school, the Meridian Middle
School. And to the west you have the Linder Road and Cherry Crossing commercial
development zoned C-N, which is this area right here, and there is also commercial
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 21 of 61
development on the corner. As you can see, the entire area is, basically, commercial or
L-O and on the Comprehensive Plan this -- these parcels are designated also
commercial. Let's move on to the aerial photograph. This just shows those three home
sites. There is one existing home here and one here and one here. And various trees
and outbuildings on the site. A lot of these trees are pretty large and will mostly like
need to be mitigated for if, indeed, the building is constructed on this site as proposed,
Here is the site plan as -- a conceptual site plan as proposed by the applicant As you
can see, there is one access point proposed to Cherry Lane and also two cross-access
points, one to the church property to the east and one to the church property to the
north. Staff is supportive of this single access. It's, actually, a positive thing. It's going
from three accesses for those home sites into just one access at this busy intersection.
The exact location of this access has -- will be determined at the time of submittal of the
certificate of zoning compliance for this proposed building and ACHD, obviously, will
have -- will be able to identify to the applicant exactly where that access needs to go.
They have their offset requirements from the intersections. The street buffers required,
as shown here, are 25 feet on both Linder Road and Cherry Lane and the street buffers
as discussed in the staff report must be as required by the UDC, exclusive of any right
of way, whether that be existing or future right of way that ACHD may require at the time
of certificate of zoning compliance for the construction of the proposed building. I think I
did mention that this area is commercial on the Comprehensive Plan. I just wanted to
clarify that. And I wanted to go back to that zoning map and discuss a little bit about
why staff is supportive of the C-C designation. The other three corners, as discussed in
the staff report, are C-N. It would be this corner -- this corner here and this corner. And
there was -- staff, as they looked at this, considered that, well, this corner should also
be C-N. But after doing a little bit deeper analysis, three reasons were identified why
this corner would be -- really would be okay as C-C, rather than C-N. The first of those
factors was that unlike the other three corners this proposed development is not directly
adjacent to residential uses. The other three corners all have residences directly
adjacent to those developments, which is one of the factors that can lead to the C-N
zoning. Second, there is a significant amount of property already zoned C-C in this
area, so it wasn't like this -- like zoning this area C-C would be completely out of
character with the surrounding zoning districts. And the third is that when describing the
C-C district, both the Comprehensive Plan and UDC specifically discuss that C-C district
should have direct access to arterial streets and in this case this -- it's safe to say that
this does have direct access -- it will have direct access to Cherry, which is an arterial
and also has -- it doesn't have an access point, but it fronts Linder, which is another
arterial. And based on that, staff was supportive of their requested to go to C-C. And
just as a clarification, the difference between C-N and C-C is not all that significant
when it comes to the actual regulation. The landscape buffer requirements and a lot of
the other standard requirements are very similar, if not the same. Along with that staff
has included in the staff report various development agreement provisions that we felt
were necessary to insure that this was developed once approved for this zoning
designation in an orderly fashion and also in a way that it would benefit the city. I'll just
highlight some of those development agreement provisions. The first is that -- just
insuring that the applicant will only be allowed to construct one driveway access to
Cherry Lane. Staff felt that that's imperative, that if this was rezoned to commercial we
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 22 of 61
really only want to see one access point into this property. It's not very large, most likely
only one building is going to fit there, and so that one access point is viewed as
sufficient and imperative that only one access point be allowed into the site, The
second is that the applicant shall submit a recorded copy of a cross-access agreement
granting cross-access to the church site to the east and to that vacant church area to
the north, as is shown on the conceptual plan here and also right here. And at this time
maybe the church wouldn't like to take access or doesn't -- wouldn't want to construct
that or extend it, but we feel that in the future that may be something that the church
would want to do and staff would be supportive of making sure that that is left open as a
possibility if the church were to ever redevelop or if someone were to buy that land and
create a commercial development there it would be nice to have that availability for
cross-access, especially on this busy arterial. And the same with to the north. Most
likely there will be an access off of Linder when this area develops and we'd like to see
the ability to move through these commercial or office developments without having to
get back onto the arterial and, then, go back into the other development. The other
thing that staff points out in the staff report in those development agreement provisions
is that the building be generally consistent with the elevations as proposed and staff,
actually, added quite a few -- kind of design requirements that we -- that we felt would
be important, especially on this busy intersection. A lot of it comes straight out of the
UDC administrative design review guidelines, just talking about type of materials being
allowed to -- on this site. And other things such as texture and making sure that there is
enough windows not only on the front, but on these -- on these elevations that face to
the -- to the east and to the west. Other than that, staff is recommending approval of
this rezone application as presented in the staff report and I stand for any questions.
Moe: Commissioners, any questions at this time?
Siddoway: I have none.
Moe: Okay. Would the applicant like to come fOlWard, please.
Caparelli: Bill Caparelli representing Darren Blaser, the owner of the property.
Basically, we agree with the --
Moe: Would you, please, put your address--
Caparelli: Yes. We, basically, agree with the -- all the conditions that the Planning and
Zoning and what we have talked to the Ada County Highway District also, so --
Moe: Okay. Would you give me your address, please.
Caparelli: My address?
Moe: Yeah.
Caparelli: 2309 West Mountain View, Boise, Idaho.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 23 of 61
Moe: Thank you very much. Commissioners, any questions of the applicant? Thank
you very much. Well, there is no one signed up. If there is anyone else that would like
to speak to this? Seeing none, Commissioners, can I get a motion to close the Public
Hearing?
Newton-Huckabay: So moved.
Siddoway: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-012 for
Cherry-Linder rezone. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign?
That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Yes, sir.
Siddoway: After considering all testimony I move to recommend approval of -- to the
City Council of file number RZ 06-012 as presented in the staff report for the hearing
date of January 4th, 2007, with no modifications.
Borup: Second.
Moe: It has been moved and seconded to approve to send onto City Council approval
of RZ 06-012 for Cherry-Linder rezone. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed same sign? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 8:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-061 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 95.57
acres from RUT to R-15 and R-40 zones for Baraya Subdivision by RMR
Consulting, Inc - 3935 West Franklin Road and 280 South Black Cat
Road:
Item 9:
Public Hearing: PP 06-062 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 320
single family lots, 15 common lots and one school lot on 82.15 acres in the
proposed R-15 zone plus 2 multi-family lots and 2 common lots on 13.42
acres in the proposed R-40 zone for Baraya Subdivision by RMR
Consulting, Inc - 3935 West Franklin road and 280 South Black Cat Road:
Moe: I now would like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-061 and PP 06-062 for the
Baraya Subdivision and stand for the staff report.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 24 of 61
Hess: Okay, Commissioner Moe, Members of the Commission. The application before
you is the Saraya Subdivision. The applicant is requesting annexation and zoning of
95.57 acres from RUT Ada County to R-15, medium high density residential, for 82.12
acres, and R-40 high density residential for 13.43 acres. The applicant has also
submitted a preliminary plat for the subject property, which proposes 320 single family
residential lots, 15 common lots, and one school lot within the proposed R-15 zone.
Two multi-family and two common lots on 13.42 acres are proposed in the R-40 zone.
So, this will be the multi-family area over here and the rest of it, zoned R-15, will house
the 320 single family homes, plus the school. The subject property is generally located
south of Franklin Road and east of Black Cat Road. To the northeast there is the
approved Silver Oaks Subdivision zoned R-15 and L-O. To the north, south, east and
west are residential properties still under the jurisdiction of Ada County and as you can
see they are zoned RUT and R-1. Access to the site -- wrong way there. Sorry about
that. Access to the site is proposed from three public streets which connect to Franklin
Road or Black Cat Road. A residential collector roadway, South Glenn Canyon Avenue,
is proposed near the east boundary of the property right here and divide the property
along the proposed zoning designations of R-15 and R-40. South Glenn Canyon aligns
with the public street approved in Silver Oaks to the north. South Fritz -- this access
right here is also designed to interface with Franklin Road and provide additional access
to this property. Capital Reef Drive is the public street which intersects with Black Cat
Road and will serve as the primary access to the future school site, which will be here.
As previously stated, the applicant proposes 320 residential lots. Lot sizes will range
from 3,500 square feet to over 8,600 square feet and approximately 10.25 acres will be
set aside for the multi-family units. The applicant has applied 12 percent or 11 point -- if
J can find the landscape plan. There we go. 11.25 acres of the site to meet common
open space requirements. Amenities will include a multi-use pathway, parkways, a 25
foot landscaping buffer along South Glenn Canyon Avenue, that residential collector
street right here, and a community park area that includes a pool with changing rooms,
a tot lot, and two half basketball courts and that's located down here. Staff would also
like to provide the Commission with some background information related to these
applications. In May of 2006 the applicant submitted annexation and zoning and
preliminary plat applications for this site. These applications were brought before the
Planning and Zoning Commission in June and they proposed 406 single family
residential lots, one office lot, and 23 common lots within the R-8 and L-O zoning
districts. And I don't have a slide for that, so we will go back to the aerial. At that
hearing the Commission had actually recommended approval of the project. However,
in July City Council voted to deny Baraya. Council's basis for denial fell upon the lack of
conformance of the proposal with the anticipated outcome of the Ten Mile area specific
plan. The applicant requested reconsideration of City Council to allow for redesign of
the project and apply the Ten Mile standard, where Council subsequently remanded the
proposal back to Planning and Zoning and these are the applications you have before
you today. So, the applicant has submitted a revised preliminary plat, which staff
believes is generally compatible with the goals and policies of the existing
Comprehensive Plan. However, Council requested under these previous annexation,
zoning, and preliminary plat applications that the applicant wait on adoption of the Ten
Mile plan and, then, design a development which is consistent with that plan. The
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 25 of 61
applicant elected to redesign the project before adoption and submit new applications
as was -- as soon as possible. This is the first application to be submitted and reviewed
under the draft Ten Mile area specific plan. Staff believes that this development should
closely conform to the development plan for the area. I will snap to the slide here, This
slide shows the Baraya Subdivision with the underlying draft Ten Mile plan. Let's see.
Staff believes this development should closely conform to the development plan for the
area, setting the tone for the development around the interchange. Staff believes that
the requested zoning of R-15 and R-40 and gross density of 4.57 dwelling units per acre
and the subject preliminary plat is not consistent with the Ten Mile specific area plan,
which explicitly called for residential densities substantially higher than that provided by
the applicant. Staff believes that a mixed zoning designation of R-8, R-15 and R-40 for
this site is more appropriate. Staff further believes that integration of additional
moderate to high density product types are warranted within the medium high density
land use designations, in addition to those proposed detached single family units and
attached townhouses. Now, as you can see -- I'll explain this proposed Ten Mile draft
here in just a little bit. To the north here we have what is proposed to be medium
density residential. This is a pathway, park area. To the south here this is what staff
believes is not consistent with the plan. This area is designated medium high density
and staff is looking for densities higher than the applicant has proposed. The high
density area right over here does comply with what the applicant has proposed. Let's
see. Staff believes that the applicant's representative Matt Schultz was a stake holder
in the creation and development of the Ten Mile plan, was fully aware of the proposed
land uses of medium density residential, medium high density residential, and high
density residential for the subject property. If the applicant's representative had no
intention of substantially conforming to each of the aforementioned land uses, there
would have been ample opportunity during the charrette process to request that these
changes be made and this is not the case. So, it is for these reasons staff is
recommending denial of the subject application. To meet the city's development goalS
for the area, the applicant should be required to submit a new development plan which
is substantially consistent with the Ten Mile area specific plan. That is all staff has,
unless the Commission has questions.
Moe: Okay. Commissioners, do you have questions of staff at this time?
Siddoway: Just one, Mr. Chairman.
Moe: Yes, sir,
Siddoway: Do you, by chance, have the proposed collector circulation system out of the
draft Ten Mile plan?
Hess: Commissioner Siddoway, I have not included that in the slideshow presentation,
but I do know that the collector that is proposed -- I think it was South Glenn Canyon
Avenue, does line up. You can kind of see it looks like it follows along the division of
the zoning designations there.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 26 of 61
Siddoway: Okay. Thank you.
Moe: Any other questions, Commissioners? Okay. Would the applicant come forward,
please,
Schultz: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Matt Schultz with RMR
Consulting at 2127 South Alaska Way in Meridian, here representing this application of
Baraya Subdivision. Excuse me. Just recovering from a little bit of cold and a little bit of
screaming for the Broncos. I come before you tonight without any conditions for
approval, so I recognize that procedure would have it that I need to convince you to at
least instruct staff to give some conditions of approval, instead of a flat out
recommendation for denial, so we can come back, hopefully, in two weeks and talk
about it and move it on at that time. In talking to another applicant, I guess, it's not the
first time this has happened, but I was a little surprised. You know, I would have
preferred having conditions -- some outrageous conditions of approval, at least to have
them, but, nevertheless, here we are. I did not know what exactly would be presented,
so I had some packets made up that had some information that I believe is very relevant
to convincing you to at least consider this with conditions of approval. So, I'm going to
pass that out. While we are waiting, just to review where we have been and what we
have been doing for the last nine months, this project was approved by this Commission
back last say June. It had -- it had all single family detached residential lots, except for
some L-O, about 4.3 to the acre. As you are aware, there was a discussion about do
we wait for the Ten Mile plan, which had just kind of been started or to move forward
and this Commission said move forward. By the time we got to Council there was two
things going on and I respectfully disagree with the assertion that there was some
anticipated outcome on the Ten Mile plan, that that's the reason I got denied. The
reason I got denied was I heard from the council members going back and forth about
what if there was a bunch of industrial that comes out of it, which wasn't the case, but
there was a what if, because nobody knew. And the second issue was -- that clouded it
that night was the lack of a sewer easement, which it just clouded the night. It wasn't a
good night to not grant an easement at that point and so that solidified that we wait.
Well, what happened was we asked -- we said here is your easement, we want to
participate in the Ten Mile plan, please, reconsider. They waited until we got to the Ten
Mile plan and, then, voted to reconsider and I asked for a remand back to the Planning
Commission so we could bring forth our new plan after taking into account all the
changes that came out of -- and we were an active participant in that plan. A lot of the
things you see on the comp plan is because we proposed them, you know, so there is --
we are making a case that we do conform to not only the existing, which staff agrees
with, they do agree that we conform to the existing comp plan, but also the proposed.
So, the big changes that we made were we swung this collector road over here. It used
to run along the property line, so we are going to build a full 70 foot right of way, 20 foot
landscape buffers on both sides, a beautified median down the middle. We are going to
road trust for half the signal that lines up with Silver Oaks I believe it's called. We set
aside that area on the east for some higher intensity use. During the charrette it was
discussed of at least 12 to the acre. We came back and said, well, look, you know, let's
do something high there, so we said R-40. We don't know what density it will come in
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 27 of 61
at, but we set that aside. It provides a good access not only for us, but for future to the
south and also future to the east. Another change that's pretty obvious is where we
used to have between 60 and 90 lots, the school district woke up and the first time they
said, no, we don't want school out here. Well, once they saw that there is some higher
density uses in residential they said that's a pretty good shape for a school, we'd really
like you guys to set that aside for us and we gulped and said, okay, we will do that. And
in Wendell Bigham's words, I'm going to have to beat you up. You know, we sell it to
them, but we are not going to get what we paid for it. This will be a gift at some level to
the school district. That's just the way it works. They just don't have the money to pay
what the private sector pays, but they want it set aside and we have agreed to negotiate
and that's just the way it goes. So, this change and this change -- that took out about
30 -- about 25 percent of our building area that we used to have. We moved some
open space into here that is now more central to what's left. It is centrally located to this
access road and this access road. By the way, this tree lined boulevard is where the
Black Cat trunk is already in the ground. A 36-inch line right down here. They are that
far along and heading for the highway right now. So, that has been put through the site
in an alignment that works for us. What we did was a -- if you can go to the comp -- the
proposed comp plan, please. Yeah. Number two in your sheet is what it is. We have --
the existing comp plan has medium this way on this half and the other half is mixed use
regional. We still have about half of it being medium, but it's on the north now. We are
surrounded by medium high and high, whereas before there was mixed use regional
over here. This was all medium below us. And this was medium high and industrial.
Well, that industrial, if it is approved as proposed, will move way to the west. That
mixed use regional has become medium high and high density. That's -- we kind of
didn't know what was underneath that blanket, so to speak. You know, it could have
been a lot of different things. What the consensus of the charrette was it should be
medium high and high. We proposed this location and that's why the line is drawn
there. The charrette -- the people, they drew some interior roadways for effect, just to
show how things might connect, and that's how that line got drawn on as a division
between two zones. So, here we are surrounded with medium and it's an odd position
to be in where I have R-8 and I am below its density. I mean I don't know how many of
those you guys see, probably not a whole lot. But that's where I'm at right now. So,
how do I buffer myself on all four sides, how do I transition myself, how do I do all those
things and still get high density and that's what we feel that we have done with the mix
of lot -- and still provide a good mix of lots that we have. If you can go to the mix of lots,
please. Right there. So, what we have done is we have provided -- this came from the
first iteration where we wanted some townhomes buffering to the east, we have done
some -- some 4,000 square foot lots going east to west. We have intermixed our five
and six thousands -- we have some good slope in this area. It's conducive to having
some wider lots. And we continue that kind of mix idea, instead of having segregated
zones. It's just like when we have R-4 and R-8 lots in one subdivision and the applicant
asks for R-8, even though there are bigger lots. Well, the same thing here. We have R-
8 lots and R-15 lots, we are just asking for R-15, because that's the smallest common
denominator. So, we are asking for a blanket zoning, instead of having a segregated
zone, it's a mixed, R-15 and an R-40 over here. So, we feel like we have got a healthy
mix, instead of segregating we believe it's healthier to intermix them and have a blended
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 28 of 61
zone. Let's talk about density. I'm an engineer by trade, so I'll get right to the numbers
and don't go crosseyed on me, because I kind of went overboard on the numbers, but I
think it's important to introduce them for the record and show some scenarios. If you
could put number four up, please, Caleb. Number four. So, what I did was -- I wanted
to focus on the area that was just the residential R-15. Disregard the school, that's the
school. Disregard the R-40, that's R-40. Let's just focus on the residential R-15. We
have got 17.4 percent open space. That's a looser density. That's a high percentage of
open space. Pretty high percentage of roads. Usually between 20 25, we are right in
the middle. And, then, the rest of it is my building lots. Well, here we are, we are at five
to the acre. Our average square foot of our lot is 5,200 square foot. That's our
average. Now, I'm laying my cards on the table here, because usually I'm hiding my
smaller averages, but here I'm promoting them, because I'm getting beat up for having
too -- too -- not nearly enough density. So, I'm going to go through some scenarios
here for us. As we go -- let's just say we are going to add some lots and get up to that
eight, we'd have to add 200 lots within that 64.67. My average would be 3,200 square
feet. So, obviously, we are talking about an attached product, because we don't build
on 3,200. At least in Meridian. I haven't. I'm sure you could do it in Boise, maybe, with
some houses that -- but what we are talking about is an unattainable -- for me and the
product that we want to build, which is a single family detached product, where people
still have some yard, while still promoting some density, five to the acre with this much
open space isa really -- it's a step, it's a good step in the density direction, but it's not a
huge leap that I might get penalized for by the market and by the politics as we move
forward to City Council, but five to the acre, if you compare all the plats you have
approved, is pretty high with that much open space. It's a pretty high density. So, if you
could go to the next one, please. Number five. I'm going to roll through these pretty
quick. So, I just wanted to -- it's the same -- it's the same thing, but I extrapolated for
net. Net being minus the road right of way. Net might be minus the road and the
common lots. So, I'm at 8.4 net density right now. 8.4. If we went up to eight I would
be a 13.6. I just -- with a single family detached product, which is really what I want to
do, and maybe that's the gist of it, maybe staffs saying I need to do attached product to
get them up there -- I have done a layout, just so you know, with all 40 foot lots -- all
40's, which would be a terrible blend, it wouldn't be a very wise thing to do, but I pick up
40 lots. I'm up to 5.5 to the acre. There is just not a whole lot of increase by going
tighter on those bigger lots than I have. So, I like the mix more so than something
extremely tight. The next one, please. Number six. So, my suggestion to the
Commission -- and maybe it's to staff through you -- instead of messing with the
residential, which I believe is an excellent mix. I really really like what we have. Let's
hold the R-15 zone density, which is a really respectable five, and let's say 20 has got to
be the minimum in the R-40. That will give me a blended gross of 7.5 to the acre for
what I'm submitting, plus an elementary school. You know, that's in excess of that. I
mean that's -- I have had to do this before where staff in Boise has said, look, for your
multi-family we want a minimum -- we don't want anybody to come in here and dilute --
we want to put people where the services are, so -- and I have seen that happen and
that will give us the density that maybe we are striving for, but if this Commission says,
no, Matt, 20 is the max -- because I think R-40 will allow between 15 and 25 with good
open space, good amenities. I mean it's not something we do. It's not something we
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 29 of 61
are striving to do and we want to do, it's something that the Ten Mile plan suggested we
do, we agree, we are going to set it aside to either sell or figure out how to do it
ourselves, it's not something we do, it's not something we think is going to go right
away, it's just our contribution to the plan, that R-40, as a diverse mix and as a good
buffer to higher intensities to the east. Number seven, please. So, if -- if we do hold 64
acres of R-15 and 13 acres of R-40 at 20, we will have 167 R-8 style lots, I'm saying
over 5,000; 153 R-15 lots, which is under -- under 5,000, and, then, the R-40 units
which 20 to the acre, that's what that would yield, that's where I get my -- you know, my
580 units, 77.68 acres, 7.5 units to the acre. I have -- this is definitely an R-15, because
I have 71 percent of my site that's not R-8, so it needs to be an R-15. R-15 and R-40.
Excuse me. You know, we -- that's what it really needs to be, based on its location.
One more and, then, I'm done with the stats. I really got out of control, but I thought it
was important to show this. I wanted to compare the current Comprehensive Plan over
that 77.68 acres. Half of it, medium density residential, half of it's mixed use regional.
In the proposed Ten Mile update, about half of it is medium density and the other half is
split between medium high and high and this was the -- the gross acreage. Now, when
I look at the net acreage -- if I add up all my R-8 building areas and all my R-15 building
areas and my R-4 building areas, I'm really kind of meeting this thing to a tee. It was
surprising when I ran the stats and it came out that way. That wasn't my intent just to
design something like that, it's how it came out, that I have half my lots at R-8. I have
half my -- you know, this is pretty close, within four percent of R-15 and I really think
statistically, graphically, intensity in a mix, I think it's a good plan. And I wanted to point
out one more thing. If you can go back to the overall landscape exhibit, please, as far
as buffering. That will work. Thank you. These roads here on the south property line,
you don't see that very often. It's not a very efficient thing to do to extend your roads up
to a property line. It's more efficient to curl them up here in back of your lots up to the
property line. I did that. Staff recommended that way back when and I thought, you
know, that's a good -- not only do we have a good mix of lots, but that's a good buffer
with a landscape pathway, a park, I have got a road, it opens up the visibility to this
pathway. It's costing a lot of bucks to extend these roads that much further. It takes
away my density to extend it. That's more road I built that could have been lots. But as
you can see I'm kind of caught in the middle of providing all this open space, providing
all these roads and still haven't hit this high density and a good mix and I really believe
that this Commission -- and I believe staff -- we have staff comments -- other staff
comments or conditions from your other departments and staff's pretty much already
wrote the conditions, they are just not officially there. I believe there is enough there to
pretty efficiently come back in two weeks, hopefully, with staff recommendations for
approval with any conditions they may want that allows us to vote on this in a way that
moves us forward and treats us with some of the respect that comes with somebody
that's done this twice, have been doing it for nine months, we were directly involved in
the process, we added -- we brought this collector to the table. We worked closely with
the parks department, we are working closely with the school, we are working closely
with ACHD, we have done a lot here. This isn't an amateur effort, this is a very
professional, fined tune -- this is probably a 15th generation design that may not have
all the multi-family that somebody might think is appropriate, it is a mix that works for us.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 30 of 61
So, we hope with that that you can at least get us to come back and go from there. So,
I will stand for any questions.
Moe: Any questions, Commissioners?
Borup: Has there been any thought on -- I mean I'm sure there has, because you have
gone through a lot of scenarios -- on what type of lot size and product would even be
possible to do under the higher density?
Schultz: Our smallest lots are these on the east side where we have some attached
townhomes on -- I think it's 30 -- it's been so long -- 32 and 35 foot wide lots that are
attached, zero lot line, and it's not a product that we believe the market will embrace in
this location, at least in Meridian for awhile. The market goes towards that and that's all
there is.
Borup: A 30 foot lot is going to be two story, pretty much.
Schultz: I was down in Vegas and there is some three stories.
Borup: Well, right. I mean a minimum of two.
Schultz: I saw three stories down there. So, there is ways to get the house people
want on a smaller lot, I just don't know if we are there yet. And this is like a step, not a
leap, towards the density that we are seeking in areas where we have transportation
and this is one, that we -~ if you're going to put density I think this is the section to do it.
Borup: Well -- and that's what I was wondering, any product less than 32 feet you're
looking at two or three story buildings.
Schultz: Well, for sure, and it's all -- unless you do an alley loaded, it's all garage and
it's -- it's nothing that we really want to have to do yet. It's coming some day. Maybe
my kids. I don't know. But it -- maybe in five years. I don't know. But we'd prefer not to
be the ones that -- and you might see some of that as we move south -- as we move
north. There might be some of that product, it's just not what we are proposing.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Maybe while the applicant's here -- excuse me, Mr.
Chairman.
Moe: Go right ahead.
Borup: Question from staff on what -- and that's -- what does staff visualize on the
medium high density area as far as product type and lot size?
Hess: Commissioner Borup, if you turn to page six of your staff report, our draft land
use plan, briefly gets into -- it's a summary of what they are looking for, The medium
high density residential district would like to see dense family housing types, like row
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4. 2007
Page 31 of 61
houses, townhouses, condominiums, and apartment buildings. Even apartment
buildings and complexes to meet that density requirement. And I guess I would like to
also make another comment based on the applicant's -- some of the applicant's stats
and whatnot. It looks like he was showing you statistics based on the entire 64 acres of
residential subdivision. Staff doesn't really have a problem with densities and the lot
mixes that are north of that line. That meets the R-8 standards, that meets what we are
looking for as far as the Comprehensive Plan tells us. It's this area down here where it
needs to transition a little better to those smaller lots and possibly even provide an
apartment complex or something that will give us that higher density in this area. So,
we are not looking for, necessarily, higher density to the north or maybe even -- maybe
even to the southwest here. It's at the Commission's discretion, but we would just like
to see a little more conformance, especially in this area here. I don't know if there are
any other questions you have. I don't -- did I answer your question, Commissioner
Borup?
Borup: I think so. Well, I mean that's what you already said in the report, just increase
the density and the only way to get that is what you stated is, essentially, apartment
buildings.
Hess: Provide row housing, more -- a lot of -- sorry, Commissioner Borup. A lot of this
area -- Matt, sorry, you're a little in the way there. A lot of these here are not attached
units. These clearly meet the R-8 standards. Let me go back to that -- that lot mix.
Right here. These are single family detached units. This area could, obviously, in
staff's opinion, be developed at a higher density.
Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may. Commissioner Borup, I haven't been that involved with the
Ten Mile plan, so I don't pretend to know all of what each of these residential districts
are requiring, but I don't think what staff is looking for there is all 30 foot wide lots
throughout the subdivision. I mean it is a mix of housing types and getting some
diversity in there. I hope all the lots aren't the average lot size and they aren't just all --
just for density sake to make them all 35 foot wide lots. I mean that's not what we want
to see. It is more that mix, a diversity in transitioning to the higher density. So, just to
clarify, that's what we don't want. What it is is what -- how Amanda kind of described it,
but it isn't just all 30 foot wide lots.
Borup: Well -- and a 30 foot wide lot is going to be a 22 foot house on a detached
product.
Schultz: Can I respond to the comment?
Borup: That's why I wanted to ask that while you were still testifying.
Schultz: This area right here is a real challenge for us. We have a great deal of slope.
We intentionally made these lots a little bigger, a little wider, we have a third dimension
here that's hard to see -- and, in fact, it's impossible to see unless you go out there and
look and you know how to read the topography. But we have -- we tried to pre-engineer
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 32 of 61
some of this stuff in this area. Our density, obviously, is getting diluted by a lot of open
space down here. The only other place where we could tighten them up is here. But,
again, an apartment complex anywhere down here is not what we want. We have got --
we have got whatever you want to call it there, whether it's an apartment or condos or --
we don't know. I honestly don't know what's -- that is our area that we believe is
adequately buffered. I think anywhere else is not adequately buffered. I believe it's not
-- with the collector roads and how people will interact, these are not the places for it.
But that's just our opinion and I don't want to -- back to my point about -- if we want to
get our density up, this is where we get it. We get it over here in the R-40 and that's
where you get it.
Borup: You know, just look at -- it looks like there is about 11 feet of slope from this
point to this point.
Schultz: From here to here on the --
Moe: Mr. Schultz, I -- if I could. You know, you have made the statement that you guys
are not wanting to get into a situation of doing apartments and whatnot. However, with
the Ten Mile plan -- I mean those ideas were put out there and they are still on the table
to be developed.
Schultz: And we have got it. We have got apartments in our site.
Moe: But, again, that would be for the next portion of development, not where you're at
at the present time.
Schultz: That is our acreage that has been purchased and is under our ownership and
we are submitting. That is ours. That is not owned by anybody else. So, we'd much
rather put more of what we do over there, but it's not what the Ten Mile plan suggested.
So, we -- we, actually, offered up the collector road here, knowing that this could do
something other than single family -- I, actually, proposed about six or seven to the acre
in here and they came back and said, no, we want something else. I said, well, that's
not what I do, but I will set it aside. I'll leave it there as a future use and we will get
something back out of it, it's just not what we do. Another point about this area down
here. this drain continues on at this angle. There is also a good deal of slope from here
down to here. There is a good amount of vertical buffering, as well as the road
buffering, as well as our density buffering going on. I think we are about buffered to
death down here for anything else that's coming and I believe we are very well blended
with what we have. I believe there are compatible uses in here. So, if we are worried
about blending for myself, I'm not. If we are worried about blending to the south, we
have got tons of buffering and elevation and the road. So, that maybe moves us over to
here. If we put a high density down here that blows out my traffic study, you're talking
about another collector -- this is a very finely tuned study plan. Lots of controls
involved. There will be a collector to Mr. Siddoway's point coming from Ten Mile,
crossing about down here -- or it might be up here, who knows, curving back over and
that will be a primary east-west access for this higher intensity, with an outlet to the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4. 2007
Page 33 of 61
north, with another outlet to the north and a third outlet out to Black Cat. The primary
collector road is going to come down through and interconnect with what we have
provided as the foundational road for the area.
Moe: So, it also -- you were involved in the charrette and whatnot. In regard to the plan
and whatnot, when it came to this area in here I am kind of curious, were your thoughts
known that you did not want to do any type of, you know, high density within your
portion of this area and any thoughts that came to mind within the charrette on that?
Because at the present time it sounds like it was pretty much --
Schultz: I've got the charrette here if you'd like to see it. Interesting conversation. This
was the result of the charrette at the end of September. I think that was when we went
through the week long intensive -- and we submitted about three or four plans during
that time and we were very quick and very proactive in our coordination with the
recommendations that people were throwing out every day, you know, can do you this,
Matt, can you do that, can you change this, and we said, yes, here is what it looks like,
So, we were very responsive and very intensely involved in that and what came out of it
was -- it's interesting, because we did participate that this follows our exact road. I
mean we were -- we were really providing the template for them to draw all of these
lines in the charrette. We provided this collector. We offered to build that. They knew
there was a road down over here, they knew -- you could see the results are a school,
which came out on that last day of the charrette. I was still pushing for some higher
density residential over there and they said that's a good place for a school. Okay. It's
a school. But as you can see instead of high density, this used to be medium high.
This used to be medium high over here and it's just -- the city has taken this and
tweaked it, taken off of these little sketch, artistic renderings of how streets mayor may
not connect. It was -- you know, this is a 2,000 acre plan they did in a fairly short
amount of time. So, there was -- it wasn't surveyed, it wasn't an exact plan, but it was a
good -- it was a good plan for the money. For the amount of money that was spent it
was a good plan. So, even though they had a plan, they drew some roads in that didn't
necessarily follow -- this never followed ours, but they fit it through and it provided a nice
-- you know, looks good, nice boundary. What we are saying is is here is medium
density residential, here is medium high density residential, I have an entire site of
medium high residential zoning. I have a blend of single family detached, higher
intensity, plus some high density residential over here, which will be our highest and
most intense buffering will be to Ten Mile Road. Ten Mile Road will be our highest
intensity buffering. That's where we put our higher types of use, The rest of it we felt
that we went above and beyond with our buffering, went above and beyond with our lot
mix, and went above and beyond with our density, which, like I said, I'm not sure that
only five -- five units to the acre gross density with 17 percent open space and if you
really look at the stats I think you will find that this is a step of density up from average.
It's not a leap.
Moe: But, again, you are not planning to develop the eastern portion, this R-40?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 34 of 61
Schultz: We are -- I am not right now, because I don't do multi-family. If my client came
to me and said, Matt, could you do that I would say I'd recommend you to somebody
that does do that. I mean me personally. My client will own that property and will want
to do something with that. He is -- he paid good money for that property and he's going
to want to do something with it. Either he sells it to somebody that does do it, or he
does it himself. Something will happen to it. Our primary goal is to do this product first.
This may come at the same time, it may come later, I'm not sure. I do not know right
now. But our focus is -- is the detached product. That's what we do best.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Yes.
Siddoway: Hi, there. I was involved in the charrette. Haven't been as involved since,
then, but for me the Ten Mile specific area plan is so much more than densities. Most
of the discussion in the -- does it comply, does it not comply, so far has centered around
density, but there are entire sections of that plan that deal with design standards and a
quality of the place. Have you -- one, have you submitted design standards for your
project. Could you talk about what -- what makes this a special place, because, in
short, the whole reason the Ten Mile specific area plan was done was because this was
supposed to be something special, something -- something amazing, to be quite frank
with you.
Schultz: Right.
Siddoway: And when I look at the plan I still see a fairly standard subdivision just with
some high -- you know, higher than usual densities. Could you talk about the quality
aspects a little bit?
Schultz: Yeah. We are blessed here in Treasure Valley with high quality builders, you
know, that we do a lot of quality product and we do feel like we have a great sense of
place and destination in terms of our linear and central open space, which are great
amenities and really attract people. We are really -- you know, let's face it, the school --
an elementary school in a neighborhood is a great thing, too, and that's a lot of usable
open space we are not even talking about. The people that are attracted to -- I know,
myself, I'm attracted to that. I don't know how everybody else feels about that. We do
have a diversity of product types and, let's face it, what attracts people to certain
locations is do you have to buy a 400,000 dollar house or can I get one for -- in the
hundreds still in Ada County and that's hard to come by. So, we are looking to still
provide some -- some diversity in the market product as well to get people to want to
come here, varying types of people in the long term, as this does develop out over the
next -- I don't know how long it's going to take, ten years -- five, ten, you're going to get
a lot of mixed uses out here of commercial and employment and this is just one facet of
that -- of an overall plan that hasn't developed over -- even longer than ten years,
because this is 2,000 acres we are talking about. But, yeah, as the pieces come
together this is one component of that. Back to the discussion we had last June where
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 35 of 61
we were talking about if this is mixed regional or not, does every site need to be mixed
use regional and all those aspects of what makes mixed regional within every
application that comes forward or can one site have a component, the next site have the
other component and the pieces become the greater whole. You know, we really -- as
far as the design standards of the homes and what are they going to have and do they
have, you know, the things that people want. We have not got to that level of detail,
because, one, I'm not going to make excuses, we are still under the current comp plan
technically. I know that's no excuse, but we are. Technically we are. We do not known
when our new one is going to get adopted. It could be a year, it could 18 months, it
could be -- who knows if they even will adopt it as last proposed. Maybe they will,
maybe they won't. We do believe this is a good -- it does still conform to it and there is
nothing -- it's not like we are saying -- you know that the Comp Plan -- we are waiting for
this to get adopted because the current one shows industrial and we are looking to do
residential. We are not waiting for that to happen. It's -- the pieces are there for us to
move forward and I believe the greater good items that we have -- that we have offered
to bring to the table, along with our diversity -- and if it is a condition of approval that we
bring back elevations specifically for design review, then, please, make that a condition.
We just -- we just want to be treated with conditions like we feel it would be appropriate
and go from there. Right now we don't have any conditions.
Moe: Any questions, Commissioners?
Borup: I guess I need to ask one that's been -- I have been questioning since the very
beginning and that's the definition -- and I'm not familiar until now with the term medium
high density. Has that been in the Comp Plan previously?
Hess: Commissioner Borup that might be a really great question to ask your fellow
Commissioner Steve Siddoway. He was very involved with the Ten Mile plan and he
could probably better answer that question.
Borup: Is this the first time that's --
Hess: This, in fact, is,
Borup: -- this has been used for the Ten Mile plan?
Siddoway: It is. The medium high is a new designation that came up in the discussions
for this -- for this area.
Borup: And what's that definition? Is the 12 per acre --
Siddoway: Yes. It's an average target density of 12 per acre with a range between
eight and 15.
Borup: Okay. As stated in the staff report that is the definition? Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 36 of 61
Siddoway: Even the definition of medium density for the Ten Mile specific area plan, I
believe could be more density than the current comp plan as well. So, the definitions
that you see in the staff report reflect designations that are specifically being proposed
for this area.
Schultz: And I'll admit that threw me off. I was going to point out that I think medium
density is defined incorrectly here, based on my ignorance of what the Ten Mile plan
was proposing for medium density. Because it says it's above when R-8, which is
medium density, only -- you can at best get up to about six at best. And so R-15 must
take off from where R-8 leaves.
Siddoway: Actually, I don't think that's true. The medium density is defined -- is an
average of six, with a range between three and eight.
Schultz: What I'm telling you is your dimensional standards don't let you get there --
Siddoway: Oh, the dimensional standards.
Schultz: -- they don't let you get to an average of six and that's where we kind of hope
for all these higher densities, but the reality is that you can't quite get there from here.
Siddoway: Yeah. I know what you're talking about.
Schultz: So, it's tough.
Newton-Huckabay: Do we have a pointer? Mr. Chair? Okay. The conversation has
been a little circular for me, so I just want to be clear. Is this the problem area right
here?
Borup: As far as staff, yeah.
Siddoway: Everything--
Hess: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay --
Siddoway: Everything below the black line.
Hess: It is staff -- or at Commission's discretion where -- what they want to do with this -
_ this southern area? If you feel the density is fine in this area, then, that's up to you to
decide, but I mean --
Newton-Huckabay: I'm sorry, I'm getting distracted with all the ambient --
Hess: Oh, that's fine. That's totally fine.
Newton-Huckabay: Can you start over?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 37 of 61
Hess: Like Caleb was stating, this is -~ this is ~- this is kind of a fuzzy line, so it would be
at your discretion where you would want to set that line to be. If you felt that it maybe
wasn't appropriate to necessarily have higher densities in this area, maybe more over
here, then, that could be something that you decide, but, yet, it would still generally
comply and at least mostly conform with, you know, what the Ten Mile plan is looking
for. So, we are just looking for kind of a step above what they have offered, something
that better compiles, because right now we don't feel it does.
Newton-Huckabay: So, right here and right here.
Hess: Where -- do you see the black line?
Newton-Huckabay: The black line.
Hess: That is, actually, the dividing line. Let me go back to --
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Somebody -- people keep pointing here and here to the
orange and blue lot.
Hess: These are actually -- this is all the same designation right here.
Newton-Huckabay: I understand that. I'm just trying to identify what piece of the part
below the black line that the applicant and staff are not agreeing on.
Hess: All of the area underneath the black line is designated medium high and if you
notice over here we have got higher density -- or higher square footage lots, single
family detached units over here. Lots of single family detached units in this area that
don't necessarily meet the high -- the medium high density definition. So, we are just
looking for something different, something that would bump up that density, because
right now we don't see single family as achieving that.
Moe: Commissioners, if we don't have a specific question to the applicant right now,
what I would like to do is go into public testimony, because we do have others that
would like to speak to this -- this hearing, so anything else for the applicant right now?
Okay. Having said that, then, there was no one signed up, but if there is someone that
would like to speak to this hearing, please, come forward.
Brown: For the record Kent Brown, 150 East Iron Eagle is my business address, with
Bailey Engineers. Since being with Bailey we have seen this piece of property three
times. Once before with this applicant and once before with another. The previous
applicant before Mr. Schultz, you know, kind of debated whether having that higher
density and a little more intense use was something that would be approvable beyond
you and not necessarily that he couldn't build it and in this version that we are going
forward with, we have met numerous times with staff and have tried to make any
changes that they have come up with. From the original submittal there used to be a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 38 of 61
smaller piece up here, because they felt that there needed to be a road that went east-
west. We negotiated and worked with them and said, well, maybe that road should be
here, because of the topography on the site. Again, there is -- you're going uphill to get
to Franklin Road and from an engineering standpoint that topography of this site makes
some of the things that are being asked a little more difficult. This higher density that's
being asked at this time wasn't really ever brought up in the pre-apps that we have had.
We have met with Amanda, we discussed about dropping a lot up here, because it
might be kind of difficult for a common driveway to access back in here. We did that.
We added another lot in here, but as Commissioner Borup brought up, there is like 11
feet here. We were seeing 14 feet from where a house would sit here to where the
backs of this is. There is a ridge that runs in this area and the larger lots that are in this
area are generated because of the topography. Now, Commissioner Borup and
Commissioner Moe being construction type people, you have grading issues when you
have one house that's sitting up high and a house that's sitting below and trying to keep
drainage out of each other's lots. To do that what we end up doing is making the lots a
little deeper and trying to provide some width in there so that they can get the drainage
around the buildings and not into these buildings and that's why some of that's taking
place. And this one issue I think that has kind of been overlooked is we have this open
space, which is a natural feature that runs through the site, is a regional pathway and
we have provided connectivity to it. That is something that makes us kind of a gem
along the pathway of this regional path that will go through this area and can take these
residents down further. In our discussions with staff that's one of the reasons that we
put the park so close to it is that it would be a gathering place within the development
and, obviously, that's located in the area that they are asking for some higher intense
uses. We have tried to buffer along the south. There is also the Williams pipeline that's
further south that is also being used as a pathway. I think that with the site and the way
that we have done this, we have tried to move along and do different things. If you want
to give us direction as to how you might want to see something else -- I mean I guess
we have townhouses here, if you want to direct that we put another row of townhouses,
we could probably only do that in this location, because when you get into here that
becomes difficult with the topography again. Apartments in that kind of situation also
would be rather difficult. I don't know if I need to wrap up, because you beeped at me,
but I can.
Moe: Please.
Brown: The transition down here, overall what we have tried to do and I think that the
one that shows the overall density and the lot sizes, we have tried to have a blend. As
the numerous applications that come before you, everybody talks about blending. An
apartment type of user is different than a single family user and generally viewed as
detrimental to your home values. Taking an area and just saying, okay, we are going to
have apartments here and that's what's going to bring the density. The things that I got
from Mr. Schultz's presentation is that overall with this R-40 that's here we can bring the
density to what would be anticipated for the area and at the same time make what's
working with the site and with the topography work. I will stand for any questions.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 39 of 61
Moe: Any questions of the Commission? Thank you very much, sir. Anyone else in the
audience that would like to speak to this? Okay. Having one, would the applicant want
to come back up?
Borup: There is nothing to rebut.
Moe: Pardon me?
Borup: There is nothing to rebut.
Schultz: Just real quick I'd like to -- I don't have a lot to say. Kent said a lot of stuff, I
have said a lot of stuff, but I do want to say that we have not ignored anybody during
this. We really thought we were a go until Monday. We thought we were going to have
staff -- at least staff conditions. We didn't find out that the recommendation was for
denial until Tuesday, two days ago. So, this is nothing that we have -- you know, they
said denial, we have been saying no, no, no all along. This is -- like Kent said, we have
been working along thinking we were making the revisions we needed to make until
Monday that we got the actual staff report and it said it. So, we had two days of hustle,
but it hasn't been enough, apparently, to convince staff to see that other way, but I do
think we are right there to where we can at least get conditions of approval and those
conditions may be something that doesn't work, but at least we have some conditions to
work with. So, thank you.
Moe: Thank you.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I move to close the Public Hearing.
Moe: I would assume we are not going to close the Public Hearing, because we are
going to have to --
Borup: That depends on which direct we are going for the motion.
Moe: If you were going to close it, I'm assuming that -- well, if you're closing you're
going to probably deny this, because if you close it you're not going to be able to do
anything but deny it or approve it that way it is, so we need to have discussion first.
Borup: I would like do that, too,
Moe: So, having said that, anybody have anything to discuss? Mr. Borup, do you have
any questions, sir, or comments?
Borup: Well, I -- I guess, first of all, I like the variety of lot sizes, I think that's what we
said last time. That was without the benefit of the Ten Mile study and we have that now,
but -- and I have got to agree with Mr. Schultz's comment on -- the density does
average -- I mean it's -- the percentages do come close to the original percentages, only
they are mixed through the area, which I do like. There is a difference between putting
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 40 of 61
lines on a flat piece of paper and looking at the topography and I can see some
problems in complying with that in this area south, This area here would be very difficult
to meet the density. There is a lot of -- there is a lot of grade differential. If the
Commission felt that something needed to be done, you know, it could be done over in
this area. That's a fairly level area and that would be an area that density could
increase, but I think -- I don't know what kind of product you could build on doubling the
density in that area. I mean you got to work within the constraints of the property that
you have.
Moe: Okay. Mr. Siddoway, would you have any comments?
Siddoway: I do. While I agree with most of the comments to Commissioner Borup in
relation to the plat, if this was a plat specifically, this is also an annexation and one of
the main questions is -- you know, is this in the best interest of the city for a variety of
reasons. I commend the applicant for the changes that have been made from the
original submittal. It does -- it does come further into compliance with the Ten Mile
specific area plan, but for me it does not go far enough and I will try and explain that a
little bit. A large block of single family, detached, garage front houses on smaller lots
doesn't have the showcase appeal to me that this area is striving to become. For me to
be comfortable annexing it I would want at least proposed a whole series of design
standard guidelines from the applicant to show what makes this something special,
something of a showcase to match this area. I look at the buffer along the south and I
ask, you know, are we -- is buffering the right thing? Are we trying to isolate, segregate,
are we -- or should there be more thought put into the transitioning, the integration with
the overall area and what the areas around it are. I lean towards wanting a revised
development plan with some very specific design guidelines that are in harmony with
the spirit of that Ten Mile comprehensive plan and, again, I think that this is on the right
track, it just doesn't go far enough for me to be comfortable with it. For me the two
options would be, one, deny it and move on or, two, when is the hearing for the
Comprehensive Plan amendment -- is it February?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Siddoway, for the rest of the Commissioners, the
earliest we could have it before the Planning and Zoning Commission is April -- I think
it's the 7th, maybe the 4th, but six months from the last one. We had one in October, so
it will be April.
Siddoway: Okay. Well, I mean that pretty well sums up my current feelings, so I'll stand
there.
Borup: I think Steve hit on one of the thoughts I had. We are talking about a plat that's
not been adopted yet.
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, do you have any comments?
Newton-Huckabay: Overall I generally don't -- other than I agree with Commissioner
Siddoway that some elevations would be nice. I haven't spent a lot of time with the Ten
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 41 of61
Mile area plan, other than the short introduction that we received to it and as luck would
have it, I, actually, was traveling the first time this came before the Commission and the
second time this came before the Commission and so this the first time I have seen this
and so I feel at a distinct disadvantage there regarding the past submittals of it. I kind
like the mix of the smaller lots and the bigger lots within it. In two dimensional I could
say, well, why don't we just put more houses right here, but remembering back to this
area, there is a lot of variation in the land out there, so I mean if it doesn't work and it's
not practical, it doesn't work and it's not practical. So, I don't necessarily think adding
more in here is going to make that -- I kind of like the way that this whole thing right here
appears to me like it would look. You get a combination of the smaller and the larger
lots. I kind of like that particular area and I think that bumping the minimum over here to
me seems a fair compromise. So, I guess I'll end my comments there. I guess I would
be somewhat on the fence. 1--
Moe: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: I would be -- I would hesitate to deny it flat out. I guess I should
say that. I would hesitate to deny it flat out. I think it would be reasonable to ask for
conditions. I would think that if staff and applicant have the time and to -- you know, get
together over a table, they should be able to come up with some kind of compromise on
that.
Moe: Okay. Well, because I have been here the other times it's come before us and
the last time it was here I do remember that I was very much in favor of the project and,
then, it went to City Council and City Council denied it -- or, basically, turned it down,
basically waiting on the Ten Mile plan and to see what came of that. So, when I started
reviewing this the other day I, quite frankly, wondered why this was back before us,
because of the fact the Comp Plan change has not come before us and I don't -- I don't
-- I guess my concern is is that if, in fact, we were -- we were ready to approve it as it is
noted today, all it's going to do is turn right back around and come right back, because
Council I don't think is going to act on it until the Comprehensive Plan changes have
been reviewed and accepted and gone forward. A couple things within that that I -- that
I'm concerned about is is I think that although you don't do a lot of high density
construction per se in apartments and whatnot, you know that that is something that is
wanted. I know you have got the R-40 over there, but you're not planning to develop it
and you're looking possibly to sell it off and so, you know, it's -- I'm just not getting a lot
of confidence that you're willing to do something in the R-40 area right there and so,
therefore -- and I do understand that that's not what you guys do, but I guess -- so,
tonight, I guess I'm saying that there are components of this project I do like, I do like
the mix, but at the same point it's -- it is not meeting what has been developed so far in
that comp plan and so I have a hard time -- I'd have a hard time approving anything
tonight. But I'm not sure I want to deny it either. I think if they could work with staff to
basically -- I realize you want to get going on this thing, but I think working with staff
through the process and seeing what happens.
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 42 of 61
Moe: Yes, sir.
Borup: A couple things -- thoughts I had with the others. I think that's right, I had the
same feeling that if this was approved as is I don't think City Council would be looking at
acceptance again. I don't know that they necessarily need to wait -- or maybe ask that.
Are they waiting for the adoption of the Ten Mile area or are they just looking at
something that's going to substantially comply with it? Or do we know? Maybe--
nobody knows what City Council is thinking. Is that what you're saying? Either way --
either way it would be a tough sell, probably. I have been thinking about what
Commissioner Siddoway said about the vision for the area and I -- I don't know how well
that's put down on paper, but -- and I'm assuming that the applicants would like some --
if we could give some suggestions on things that would make it -- that the Commission
would feel that it would be in more compliance that they would be looking for any
suggestions. So, that being said, I guess I do have one suggesting thinking about
talking about the concept and the look of the area and I don't know if that -- but an area
-- and I'm not sure where it would be. The topography here would make it difficult and, I
don't know, maybe down there, but some -- some alley-loaded product. Those can be a
little narrower lots on detached, but you can have some -- or get some pretty good
density on a row house type effect and doing those narrow lots with front loaded
garages turns out to be real ugly product on a narrow lot, because all you have got is
garage and a front door. The only way to get a nice architectural design is with an alley-
loaded -- alley-loaded product and you can have some beautiful product that way. I
guess not necessarily telling them what they need to do, but that would get the density
up partially. I think it's -- I think it's real close and something that would have some of
that is something I would be completely in favor of. I mean it's -- in my mind real close
now, but that would -- that would get the density up in those areas in at least part of that
area that would be practical. That would be my suggestion. I don't know if you have
looked at -- I don't know if the applicant's looked at something like that or not, but you
can have some design doing that, so --
Schultz: The meeting is not closed -- or the Public Hearing?
Borup: Right.
Schultz: Could I ask a question real quick?
Moe: Sure.
Schultz: If we are talking about alleys, that's, obviously, an option in today's market and
we do have some alley-loaded product that we could use. What percent -- we are
looking for a little bit of direction of what percentage -- we, obviously, can't do all alleys
with the geometry and things like that, you need some front loaded. What percentage is
a good percent? We are just looking for a little direction, because we can -- we want to
work with staff if they will work with us. We don't want to just throw the whole thing
away. We'd like to make some -- we can make some revisions in certain areas and
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 43 of 61
hopefully that could be met with one more variety of product -- alley-loaded product.
One more component. I don't think you go all alley, I don't think that's --
Borup: No, that's not what I'm thinking. I was thinking this area down in here and
maybe some row houses alley loaded. You can have some nice designs.
Schultz: And alley-loaded product is not a problem as long as we are not doing that
little thing, because there is a misconception about density with the current alley
regulations with the fire department and ACHD and we -- setbacks, we -- there is a
possibility of getting more density if there would be some flexibility in those things.
Borup: I was thinking in the medium high density area.
Schultz: Right. But we are going to be, you know, a little bit higher, but it's not going to
be spectacular.
Borup: No. I meant in the geographical area where the alley loaded could be.
Schultz: And that's something we can do. I don't want to throw the whole thing away,
though, I don't think you throw it all away.
Moe: I don't know that I could give you, you know, any percentage per se, but I think
the main -- the most important thing is is that you can work with staff, but, basically, on
the area -- the southern portion to bring up the density and that's, basically, what they
are looking for.
Schultz: And as long as we can have this public forum and discussion that that is
exactly what we are looking for, then, we feel like we have accomplished something
tonight.
Moe: Well, again, tonight staff has already made the statement they don't have a lot of
problem with the northern portion of this property, it's just that they were looking for
higher densities to the south to make for up for it and I, too, agree with Mr. Siddoway,
you know, some elevations and some standards that you're looking for and whatnot, I
think are going to be very valuable to bring this thing a little closer to reality.
Borup: You can have some alley-loaded product without front streets on them or where
the -- what the design in front of the house would be on a parkway, something like that.
Schultz: I have done that and that goes back to these conflicting regulations on how
wide that needs to be. You're almost better off with a street in, because of -- but you're
right, I have done some fronted alley loaded on open space and at first people go, well,
what are you doing, but it, actually, when you see it, it looks nice.
Borup: Very nice.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 44 of 61
Schultz: It's different. And that's something we could do in this area around the park or
whatever.
Borup: And that's what came to my mind when Steve was mentioning the vision for the
area. I don't know if that was ~- I don't know if that was one of the things, but when I
started thinking about an area to be unique and different, that would go towards it.
Schultz: We just don't want to go down in denial. Hopefully we can move -- go back
and talk to them, come back here whenever it's practical to come back. I'm not so sure
Council's waiting to adopt that plan to approve this, they mayor may not. It's hard to
read into their minds on any given night what they are going to do. It all depends on
how the presentation goes and the response and they do what you do. They make a
decision based on the testimony presented.
Hood: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Yes, sir.
Hood: Commissioners. Since this is an open forum -- and just -- we'll kind of just, you
know, use it for working with the applicant and we'd kind of just like to get some input
and we are just thinking out loud, too. Maybe -- maybe get some MEW lots or some
lots that aren't fronted on a public street, but there is a private street in the rear, maybe
fronting some along the drain, the Perdham Drain, having some front doors and that's
different, we don't -- I can't think of any project in the city where your front door would,
actually, be there and, then, you have a private street in the rear loading the garages. I
mean that offers -- it's the same product type, but it's a little bit different flavor, you can
kind of use that as --
Schultz: The only fixed point we have is I got a sewer line that's 36 inches in the ground
right now. That easement was granted. It's in the ground. So, I am fixed here. You
know, that's one thing I cannot move.
Hood: So, the easement, though, is -- I mean it's 30 feet wide or so?
Schultz: Yeah. The sewer needs to fall within -- I guess technically you could put it in a
future easement, but ideally they want it in a public right of way for access purposes and
things like that.
Borup: Yeah. They want --
Schultz: Especially a 36 inch line. I mean that's something you have got to really have
some room for.
Hood: But rather than a public street, maybe a private street there and you could run
the private street -- I mean it's still just pavement and then --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 45 of 61
Schultz: The private street versus alley issue is something that, you know, I have never
really wanted to dive into fully, because it complicates things with ACHD and -- but
alleys are something that we could do with a MEW facing onto some open space. That
is definitely something we can do. I just don't -- I don't want to get up here and design
at the podium, because it could take all night. But I do definitely want to come back and
show you something different that's, hopefully, based on the input we received that
would meet your approval.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Yes.
Siddoway: And, staff, do you feel that there is room to work with -- what exists north of
the line that we have been talking about with some modifications -- and modifying
what's south of the -- that line in a way that will bring this into compliance with that draft
plan in your mind or is it too far off or -- I'm just wondering what your thoughts are. Do
you feel like there -- I think we are ready to make a motion for continuance to work with
staff and I'm wondering if you feel that's reasonable.
Hess: Commissioner Siddoway, I do think that's a reasonable decision. We still
support our recommendation for this plan to be denial, so if you decide that continuation
is in the best interest of the applicant and us, so that would -- this does not have to be
denied -- then, I would be -- staff would be favorable towards that motion, so --
Moe: If I might just -- I think he was looking for a little bit more -- I realize that you guys
are more than willing to work with them to make changes, because that's what we want,
but I guess I'm understanding you as you're wanting to know whether staff feels there is
room to make this thing work. I mean I'm basing that on your comments that you had
no problems with the area to the north, but you did want some reworking to the south
and so if you can come together with them and work that through, is that something you
think can happen?
Hess: Correct. If they -- Commissioner Moe, yes, if they can make the effort to provide
what we were looking for, we are definitely in support of that, so --
Moe: Thank you.
Borup: And maybe that's one of the questions what I was looking for. But I have got
concerns of trying to do 12 units per acre. It's going to come out looking like an
apartment complex and I don't know if that's the vision for that area or not. Something
with a row house or even a detached row house alley loaded -- I mean esthetically has
a very nice look, but you're talking trying to get 12 units per acre, It's going to be an
apartment complex design.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? And I would just say that while we may not be looking for
the apartment complexes that we have seen around here, there are other versions of
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 46 of 61
apartment complexes and I'll give an extreme example, just to make a point and, then,
back off. But, you know, you can go to New York City and the apartment complexes are
very different. Now, we are not looking for New York City here, so I'm backing away
now, but my point is that the apartment complexes that we have seen would not be the
vision here, but there are certainly other forms of apartments that could be great.
Newton-Huckabay: For example?
Borup: Winding Creek in Eagle would be an example. No. Those are six units per
building.
Siddoway: And they would be multiple story, most likely.
Baird: Mr. Chair, for the purposes of the record, could I recommend that we not have a
give and take from the audience at this point and that we speak to the Chair.
Moe: Yes. That would be fine.
Siddoway: Okay. I'm ready to make a motion, but I am looking for a date.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Siddoway, I guess my first thought -- and I talked to the
applicant, actually, before the hearing even started this evening about potentials for this
application and there is, obviously, some -- we are going to need to communicate and
it's going to need to be revised. Just so you know, our hearings -- the 1 st is not good --
February 1 is not good. January 18th I don't think is even a possibility based on the
discussion so far tonight. That's only two weeks. February 1 st if full. The 15th we
moved two big projects to that agenda. It's not very full per se, but those two projects
we moved tonight are fairly large projects. We do have a couple more that we are trying
to get to the clerk's office this week, so I don't know if that's enough time or not. I don't
know -- I imagine Mr. Schultz will probably be in tomorrow talking with us, but I don't
know how much time he's going to need. You may want to -- you know, we will work
with them, I just don't know if even that's enough time to really get a new plan, bring it to
a comments meeting, see if any other agencies -- you know, ACHD may have
comments if things change. I don't know how much things are going to change, so we
probably need to reroute this to -- you know, again, the highway district, the fire
department, see if they have any -- the police, see if they have any concerns. March
seems like forever, but that may be -- you know, may be a good place to go. So, that's
just my two cents.
Moe: I would anticipate around the 15th of March. You know, I would also say that
probably does another -- another point and that is you're saying the Comp Plan
Amendment is coming up in April, between now and, then, I would probably be wanting
to get a little bit more into that, as well as even talking to some of the Council members
just to get some opinions of theirs, just so I can kind of review that a little bit better as
well, so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 47 of 61
Borup: I would be curious if the applicant feels he needs that much time.
Moe: Would you, please, come up.
Schultz: I don't think I have a choice, but -- I really don't. I mean I'm not going to be __
you know, downplay the amount of work to be done.
Borup: Well, the option would be --
Schultz: We are going to do a great deal of work, but we are very efficient at what we
do and very quick and very motivated. But, at the same time, if it's not practical, then,
it's not practical to us on an agenda. But time is not an issue with us. We are very
motivated and very efficient.
Borup: An option would be to do it two weeks earlier and, then, if it's not ready do a
continuance,
Moe: The 1 st of March?
Borup: Yeah.
Moe: I don't have a real problem with that either. My biggest concern is that you bring
up and it -- perhaps time isn't a real concern of yours, but I'm concerned about time on
staff as well with the other projects.
Schultz: I understand there is a lot of stuff going on. March 1 st is great. We appreciate
it. Thanks.
Moe: Thank you. Anybody have a preference for the 1 st or the 15th?
Borup: The 1 st is almost -- I mean that's almost eight weeks. No. What, a good seven
weeks or whatever.
Siddoway: Have we been putting continued hearings on the second meeting in general,
to hold the first meeting each month for the new applications or new applications are
going on all -- that was two years ago.
Moe: I guess I could probably go with what Commissioner Borup said. I think we could
go to the 1 st and if we have to continue it, we have to continue it.
Siddoway: All right. I'd like to make a motion that we continue Public Hearing -- looking
for the number. AZ 06-061 and Public Hearing PP 06-062 to March 1 st, 2007, with
direction to the applicant to work with staff to bring the development plan into stronger
compliance with the proposed Ten Mile interchange specific area plan and also to bring
forward some specific design guidelines that are in conformance with that plan, so that
what is brought back at that time is more than just a different density plan, it is also -- it
..~-~'~...,.,~
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 48 of 61
also includes the proposed design guidelines in conformance with the concept for that
area.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Moe: It has been moved and seconded to continue the public hearings AZ 06-061 and
PP 06-062 to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission
of March 1 st, 2007, and requesting that the applicant work with staff as noted in the
motion. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion
carries. We will see you back the 1 st of March.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: At this time we are going to take a five minute break real quick and, then, we will
come back and hear the next.
(Recess.)
Item 13:
Item 14:
Item 15:
Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 2006: AZ 06-047
Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.3 acres from RUT to L-O zone for
Waverly Place Subdivision by Vacation Village Villas, LLC - 2510 E.
Magic View Court:
Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 2006: PP 06-049
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6 multi-family residential building
lots consisting of 24 multi-family units, 1 clubhouse building lot and 3
common / other lots on 5.3 acres in a proposed L-O zone for Waverly
Place Subdivision by Vacation Village Villas, LLC - 2510 E. Magic View
Court:
Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 2006: CUP 06-030
Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval for a multi-family
development in a L-O zone for Waverly Place Subdivision by Vacation
Village Villas, LLC - 2510 E. Magic View Court:
Moe: At this time I want to reconvene the hearing and open the Public Hearing -- the
continued Public Hearing on AZ 06-047 and PP 06-049 and CUP 06-030 for Waverly
Place Subdivision and hear the staff report, please.
Watters: Members of the Commission, the applications before you are an annexation
and rezone, preliminary plat, and Conditional Use Permit request for Waverly Place
Subdivision. The subject applications were previously heard at the Commission
meeting on November 2nd, 2006, at which time the Commission directed staff to
prepare Findings and conditions of approval. Staff had not prepared conditions of
approval, because staff is recommending denial of the project. The subject property is
5.3 acres in size and is currently zoned RUT in Ada County. The property is located at
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 49 of 61
2510 West Magic View Drive, approximately a half mile east of Eagle Road and a half
mile north of 1-84. If you look at the vicinity map here that shows the location of the
property. Woodbridge Subdivision is here to the west, residential development, zoned
R-4. We have Greenhill Estates Subdivision, an existing county subdivision, one acre
lots, zoned R-1. On the east and south by existing rural residential properties on five
acre lots, zoned RUT in Ada County. An aerial view of the property. The applicant is
requesting that this property be annexed and rezoned to the L-O, limited office zoning
district, for multi-family residential use. The UDC requires a Conditional Use Permit for
multi-family uses in an existing L-O zone, which the applicant has also applied for. The
Comprehensive Plan designation for this property is office. The office designation
provides for low impact business and office uses, but does not support residential uses
on property that is not yet zoned as office. Because of this, staff does not believe that
the requested multi-family use complies with the Comp Plan designation of office. Here
is a view of the plat that's proposed. The applicant is also proposing a preliminary plat
for six multi-family residential building lots, consisting of 24 units and five common area
lots, including a clubhouse lot on 5.3 acres of land. All lots meet the minimum
dimensional standards of the L-O zone. The gross density of the proposed subdivision
is 5.1 dwelling units per acre. The average lot size in the proposed development is
21,585 square feet, with each of the dwelling units between 1,500 and 2,000 square
feet. The applicant is proposing 16.36 percent open space of landscape common areas
and a 2,000 square foot clubhouse. A ten foot wide landscape buffer is required along
East Magic View Drive and along the interior local public streets. A 20 foot wide
landscape buffer is required on the west, north, east property boundaries adjacent to
residential uses. A copy of the revised site plan that the applicant submitted on
December 15th after the last hearing. Access to the site will be provided from the
extension of East Magic View Drive and the proposed internal public streets. The lots in
the northwest and northeast corner of the development will be accessed by common
drives, extending from the public streets within the development. Since the last meeting
the applicant submitted a revised site plan as shown overhead and a letter stating that
all units will have a two car garage. The site plan has been revised to include a 20 foot
wide landscape buffer along the west, north, and east perimeter boundaries. Trash
enclosures have been added to the site plan. A minimum of 80 square feet of private
usable open space will be provided for each unit as required and two common lots have
been added, so that the adjacent lots to the south and west of the common drives here
will not be required to take access to these common drives. The staff recommends
denial of the subject applications based on the comments previously stated and those
stated in the staff report regarding compliance with the Comp plan and the Findings of
Facts as listed in Exhibit D. Further, staff recommends condition of approval number
1.2.5 regarding private street standards be stricken and a condition of approval be
added that requires the common area lots added adjacent to the common drives here to
meet the UDC standards regarding dimensional standards and landscaping
requirements. That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions.
Mae: Thank you. Any questions from the Commissioners at this time?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 50 of 61
Borup: Question on staffs last comment that it needs to meet -- so, you're saying that
those do not meet the design standards now?
Watters: Commissioner Borup, I should have clarified that a little better. The plan that
the applicant submitted on December 15th shows the -- I got an eight and a half by 11
copy, I didn't get a full size copy. It did show the common lots there adjacent to the
common drives, but I thought that the applicant intended to construct private drives
instead. So, that's what my comments were based on. It was brought to my attention at
this meeting tonight that those were not private drives, that they were still going to be
common drives, but that a common lot had been added to the south side here--
Borup: Okay.
Watters: -- of this common drive and the west side of this common drive, just to
separate it so that those lots wouldn't be required to take access to that common drive.
Borup: So, you're saying the design that we are looking at now is in compliance?
Watters: I can't tell what the width of the common area lots are that the applicant is
proposing. They mayor may not meet our Unified Development -- Uniform
Development Code on that.
Borup: Okay. Then, it sounds like you said staff is still recommending denial.
Watters: We are. Yes.
Borup: So, our motion from last time to prepare Findings for approval did not take
place.
Watters: Staff did prepare Findings and conditions of approval for the Commission.
Staff is still recommending denial.
Borup: But staff still -- okay. That makes sense, because you were recommending it
before.
Watters: Yes.
Borup: Thank you.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Yes.
Siddoway: Sonya, am I remembering right that this is a property that there was a
previous application on about a year ago or is that a separate property?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 51 of 61
Watters: I believe you're speaking of the property directly south of that.
Siddoway: Okay. Okay. But that project -- I don't remember the name, but the -- was
denied by Council because it included residential uses? Are you familiar with that one?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Siddoway, that was solely residential uses in there. I
know Conger Management did the project, but I don't remember the name, but, yeah, it
was -- it was denied. I don't remember exactly why the Council denied it, but I know
there was a lot of neighborhood opposition, as well as staff wasn't -- I think the
recommendation maybe was even for denial, but .- or for approval, excuse me. But I
know that the neighborhood came out in force at that meeting.
Siddoway: Okay.
Hood: And if I may, before the applicant gets up, I was just going through Mrs.
McKay's letter before the hearing and it did mention adding the common lots -- I think
Sonya thought that the common lots were the common driveways and, therefore,
private streets. If she could clarify maybe how wide that landscape buffer is on the
south side -- I guess it's on the north side of Lot 2. North side of Lot 2 between the
common driveway and on the west side of Lot 5 -- five I believe it is. Just with -- and
just for reference, I was trying to thumb through the UDC. I don't see where it says -- it
says any lot that abuts a common driveway has to take access to it. I don't see any
standard that says a one foot strip or a ten foot strip to separate those is required.
Generally, a five foot landscape buffer has sufficed as a separation requirement, so I
don't know what they are proposing, but just as a reference, I don't see that in the code
anywhere, but we have in the past done that, if that property is not taking -- we need at
least five feet, a common lot or some other strip through there, so they don't take
access -- or adjacent to abutting the common driveway.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Caleb, could you use the -- Caleb, could you use the pointer
and point out which area you're referring to?
Hood: Yeah. There is -. this is a common driveway here and, originally, during the first
hearing we noted that this lot, as well as these four units -- so, all five of these -- one,
two, three, four, five would have to take access to it. The applicant has revised the plan
and it has a common lot landscape strip running along the north side of this building,
this unit here, so they won't have to take access. Same situation over here. These four
will take access to the common driveway. This is the one that they want to have a
driveway come off of the street, so there is a landscape strip running right there. And
it's just hard to make out how wide that is on the plan.
Moe: Okay. Any other questions of staff? Would the applicant come forward.
McKay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Becky McKay,
Engineering Solutions, 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. Just to refresh the Commission's
memory everything was already completed at the past hearing. We had neighbors in
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 52 of 61
support of the project from both Woodbridge and Greenhill Estates. I think the president
of the homeowners association did attend and supported the project. The Commission
indicated that they liked the project. The primary concern was brought up by the staff
that there were some outstanding UDC items that they thought it was important that we
modify our site plan to make sure that we could comply with the UDC. I believe
Commissioner Moe's question to me at the last hearing was could we go -- was that
possible for us to bring this into compliance with the items listed in the staff report as
being deficient under UDC regs. We have modified the staff -- or site plan, resubmitted
it to the staff with a letter, which should be in your packet dated December 15th. Due to
the fact that -- that this request for zoning is L-O, we are required to have that 20 foot
landscape buffer around the north, east, and west boundary. We had 15. We did bring
it into compliance. Secondly, the issue was these two common drives that were going
to support these four units at the end, met all of the criteria with the exception of one of
the things in the UDC stated that all lots that adjoin or abut a common drive shall take
access to it. So, staff brought up the fact that this would be the fifth unit -- this would be
the fifth unit, therefore, we were not in compliance. We did provide a separate lot here,
We have one I think that is like four -- between four and five feet on this one and this
one over here is the larger one, I think it went like seven, up to nine, and I came off the
building with like a ten foot setback and, then, I set that common lot there, which,
therefore, created a separate lot, which means this unit or this structure here does not
abut the common drive, therefore, bringing us into compliance. The other issue was the
question about this stub street that's up here in Greenhill Estates. That it is unopened,
unimproved right of way that was on the 1974 Greenhill Estates No. 2 plat. In talking
with the Greenhill Estates neighbors, they indicated they had two of those unimproved,
unopened right of ways, one goes -- abuts the north boundary of Woodbridge and they
said, you know, we already fought this battle before. We were told those stub streets
would not go through. In the Woodbridge situation I guess they put an emergency
vehicle access only, but no improvements were made to that right of way as far as
making it a vehicular public street connection. They said that it is their intent that they
are going to vacate that old stub street, there are trees, landscaping, driveway buildings
__ you know, it's one of those ones that was done so long ago people forget that it's
even there and it almost becomes a part of their lot. So, we overlaid that on an aerial,
submitted that to the staff, and it does not abut this corner based on the assessor map
and that overlay, it is offset from us. So, we don't believe that it would be reasonable
that that stub street would be extended to the south. We have, you know, that
interconnectivity issue with the Greenhill Estates has been fought before and the
neighbors said that they would object profusely with the district and the city if that were
to take place. The staff asked that we indicate the trash enclosure locations on the site
plan. We did delineate three different locations, obviously, subject to Sanitary Services'
approval. The other question was on the floor plans did we meet the requirement of 80
square feet of open space for each unit. We have covered courtyards and covered
patios. We did submit a highlighted site plan to the staff showing how those -- that 80
foot would be satisfied. Lastly, the staff wanted us to indicate on the property where the
management office, maintenance storage area, and central mailbox location would be
located. That will be located within our clubhouse facility. And, then, staff had the
question of do any of these buildings exceed 10,000 square feet. No, they do not. So,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 53 of 61
we have brought this into compliance. I'll stand for any questions that the Commission
may have.
Moe: Any questions of staff?
McKay: Oh, Mr, Chairman, one other thing. To answer Mr. Siddoway's question. The
Conger Management project, they submitted a Comprehensive Plan map Amendment.
That is what the Council had the problem with. They did not feel that they should
change the Comp Plan map for one parcel and it was I believe Councilman Rountree's
statement that they believed that the -. with the L-Q designation on the Comp Plan, it
still allowed for multi-family under a conditional use, therefore, the Comprehensive Plan
map amendment would not be an appropriate procedure, because they believed that
the ordinance allowed for that option. So, that's why we sat back. Mr. Siddoway,
watched that application to see how the Council and the staff approached it and we took
a different direction, therefore, asking for annexation to an L-O with a CU.
Siddoway: Do you remember was the -- the project itself denied or just the --
McKay: Because the Comprehensive Plan amendment was denied, therefore, the
project -- the whole thing went down.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, comment was made by Council that -- regarding medical
offices in that area as well, regarding that Conger project. Most of that they envisioned
for medical.
Siddoway: Right.
Newton-Huckabay: Because it was back where the real estate group is now in that new
Sparrow -- no. Sparrow Hawk.
McKay: I think Commissioner Huckabay is right, with the size of that project it was
larger and I think they said that they would like to see some type of a mix in there. I
believe she is absolutely correct.
Siddoway: Yeah. And I could well be wrong, but I had thought that their comment
regarding office uses as the primary intended use applied to that whole buffer area on
the Comp Plan that shows as office, which would include this lot, but I don't -- that's
what I'm wrestling with. Okay.
Moe: Yes, Mr. Borup.
Borup: You were going to give a clarification of those lot -- individual lot buffers.
McKay: Yes, sir.
Borup: You said four or five and seven or nine. Which is it?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 54 of 61
McKay: Oh, the lot -- it's not consistent -- it's not the same all the way.
Borup: Okay. It tapers.
McKay: It tapers. I'm sorry. I didn't clarify that. That's -- I confused you.
Borup: All right. I understand now, then. The taper was --
McKay: It's a taper.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
McKay: Thank you.
Mae: At this time signed up would be Rich Allison. Okay. From the audience he says
he has nothing further to add. That was it. If there is anyone else that would like to
speak to this hearing, you're more than welcome to come up and speak. Okay. No one
wants to come up. So, what does the Commission feel about this project. I guess--
Borup: I think we made the decision last time.
Moe: I guess my point would be that I, quite frankly, how Mrs. McKay has made the
comment that I made comments that I liked the project and if some of these things were
taken care of that I wouldn't have a real problem with it, I think -- I think most of the
Commission last time was very much in favor of this project in the location and one of
the main reasons was that we were here when the Conger project came up and all the
neighbors were very adamant about the fact that they weren't wanting to see that
project go. But on this project here they were very much in favor of it and they were
excited to see that this would be coming forward. Based upon the fact that they have
gone back and they have made the changes that we felt needed to be made, I am still
very much in favor of this project.
Borup: And I agree. And maybe for Commissioner Siddoway's information, I think that
was the thing that influenced me the most was the comments from the neighborhood.
That was -- there was no -- there was no opposition at all. In fact, we had the
homeowners association president come and testify in favor of -- that's probably the first
time we have ever seen that on something that was --
Mae: Not to quiet anyone up, but does somebody want to make a motion to close the
Public Hearing and, then, we can continue this discussion.
Borup: So moved.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 55 of 61
Siddoway: Second.
Moe: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-
047, PP 06-049, and CUP 06-030. All those in favor signify by saying aye. All those
opposed same sign? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Okay. Mr. Siddoway, do you have any comments on this?
Siddoway: I do have a question for staff. Is it -- is it staffs current interpretation of the
Comprehensive Plan that areas shown as L-O are restricted to office uses and not
necessarily other uses that are conditional in an L-O zone? Sorry. Maybe I didn't say
that right. The area shown on the Comprehensive Plan as office -- I think I said L-O.
The area shown on the Comprehensive Plan as office would be limited to office and not
necessarily uses as defined in the schedule of use control for the L-O zone. Is that
correct?
Watters: Correct, Commissioner Siddoway. The Comp Plan actually says that the
office designation will provide opportunities for low impact business areas. These would
include offices, technology and resource centers, ancillary commercial uses may be
considered, particularly within research and development centers or technological
parks.
Siddoway: Okay.
Watters: It does not speak of residential uses in the office designation.
Siddoway: And my next question would be to legal counsel. Is it within the
Commission's purview to add their interpretation of the office designation to say that it
should include other uses?
Baird: Members of the Commission and Commissioner Siddoway, the code is what it is.
It either has it or it doesn't and --
Siddoway: Well, the code has residential -- you know, multi-family uses as a
Conditional Use Permit in the limited office zone.
Baird: There you go.
Siddoway: What's not -- but the Comprehensive Plan for office lists uses and lease out
residential and so --
Baird: So, you have got -- the Comprehensive Plan is your general guide, the code is
what you have to follow and that's why this has been presented to you as a CUP, so if
you believe that in this L-O zone this particular proposal can be appropriately
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 56 of 61
conditioned, you're being asked to approve it with those conditions. If you don't believe
that it can be conditioned, then, your option would be to deny it.
Siddoway: And just one last point just so I'm clear. By approving this application
tonight we would be directing the Planning and Zoning staff to alter their current
interpretation of the office designation for -- in the Comprehensive Plan to allow for
residential uses in areas other than this specific lot.
Baird: Mr. Chair and Commissioner Siddoway, I suspect that the planning staff has
considered this a little bit more fully and, in fact, the mike was just grabbed by Mr. Hood
and he might have some thoughts to shed on the subject.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Baird, Members of the Commission. Mr. Siddoway, I don't think
this sets any precedent for any future applications. We will not take that into
consideration. I think that's probably something that crosses our minds, but we will look
at it on a case by case and just in this instance, particularly -- or the way that I evaluate
projects like this, if it had existing L-O zoning and they wanted to build an apartment
complex it requires a CU, that's okay, but in my mind you need to get the zoning first,
you look to the Comp Plan and, then, you get the CU. So, the zoning -- the
Comprehensive Plan we look to to get the appropriate zone. If they don't have the
appropriate zoning you have to make that jump to the schedule of use control to get the
use approved in the zone. I don't know if that's making sense or not, but to me with the
annexation is a key component. If this were already zoned L-O, our recommendation
would have been for approval, but because it's an annexation and they are -- you're
jumping from one -- the zoning is correct, but the use that you're putting in there doesn't
tie back to what the text says in the Comprehensive Plan, that's why our
recommendation was for denial and I fully expect that in the future for other properties
that are showing as office on the Comp Plan that that staff will recommend denial of,
unless there is just circumstances that I can't think of now that aren't affected on those
properties.
Borup: So, if we would have approved the annexation and zoning last time without the
project that would have solved that problem if we would have looked at the project
tonight. Is that true?
Siddoway: Well, if it has the same issue, it would have the same issue. Oh. Maybe
not.
Borup: We would have annexed it and zoned it as an L-O and --
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner, essentially, that's -- I mean that's in effect right. The
Council is no longer really approving any projects without a concept plan, though, so to
just say I want L-O zoning and not disclose what you want to build on there, you're
probably not going to get that through. But in theory, yes.
Borup: So, the end result is the same either way.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 57 of 61
Newton-Huckabay: It's splitting hairs. Mr. Chair, can I ask a question?
Moe: Yes, you may.
Newton-Huckabay: I have been noticing I also was traveling on the night this first came
before us -~ this is not a good night for me. So, I wasn't here for the hearing. I have
read back over the public testimony. I just -- I'm not sure where or how I -- if I can go
ahead and vote on this. I'm looking for some guidance.
Baird: Mr. Chair and Commissioners, the same question would be a fair question of
your new commissioner, Commissioner Siddoway, and I think you have seen tonight --
if you have reviewed the staff report, listened to the staff's presentation, listened to the
applicant's presentation, you have all the facts before you to make the decision if you're
comfortable making that decision. If you need more information, we can reopen the
hearing, you can ask for it, but I think you have had a full exposition of the facts on the
record tonight.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I feel comfortable with that. I just wanted to make sure that I
didn't want -- I didn't want to put anyone or myself in a bad situation. I -- personally, I
liked the project that came through on Wells on the south. I think this is a great place
for some multi-family residential in that area. I think with all of the medical offices, the
hospital, I think some high end multi-family residential area .- or residents in that area --
I could see a lot of different varieties of people and professionals looking to live in this
area within certainly walking distance of their home. Regarding, you know, putting the
cart before the horse, L-O zoning first, et cetera, I think that's -- myself personally, I
think splitting hairs and I just -- I feel comfortable with this and I would like us to move
this on.
Mae: Well, would you like to make that in the form of a motion or what?
Borup: Yes, let's do that.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, do I have any changes to the staff report? I did not
make comments or --
Watters: Oh. Excuse me, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Excuse me. Staff did
have that one condition of approval to be stricken. 1.2.5 regarding private street
standards.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, just strike it?
Watters: Strike it completely. I would like a condition in its place. I would like the
condition to read: The applicant shall construct a common drive on Lot 3, to serve the
units on Lot 4 and a common drive on Lot 6 to serve the units on Lot 7 in compliance
with common drive standards. Also provide a minimum five foot wide common area
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 58 of 61
landscape strip on this south side of Lot 3 and on the west side of Lot 6 in accordance
with the UDC standards for landscaping. Just to add to that a five foot minimum width,
if I didn't say that already.
Newton-Huckabay: I'm sorry. A five foot width?
Watters: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, I have got strike comment number 1.2.5 as it's stated
now and restate 1.2.5 or--
Watters: Sure.
Newton-Huckabay: As the applicant will construct a common drive on Lot 3 to serve Lot
4 and a common drive on Lot 6 to serve Lot 7. Excuse me. On Lot 4. Excuse me. No.
You had it right. Excuse me. Lot 3 to serve Lot 4. Lot 6 to serve Lot 7. And construct
a minimum five foot wide landscape buffer on the south of Lot 3 in accordance with the
UDC landscape standards.
Watters: And on the west side of Lot 6. Also the common drives have to be
constructed to common drive standards of the UDC,
Hood: If it's easier you can just reference staff comments and we can --
Newton-Huckabay: All right. I think I'll just do that if nobody is going to be opposed to
that.
Moe: And you'd also just want to make reference to her --
Newton-Huckabay: Is the stub street issue resolved to Greenhill's unimproved stub
street?
Borup: Is that a question for staff?
Newton-Huckabay: It's just a question. I don't know the answer to it.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I can give you my two cents,
Moe: If you would, please.
Hood: It's really not an issue. There is no condition of approval or anything regarding
that stub street, it was just more of an FYI. Staff is assuming that that street does get
extended. That may not be the case, but until ACHD and the City Council act
otherwise, we are assuming that there is another public street on the back side of those
units on the east side of this development. So, it was just more of a, hey, there is a stub
street eight feet off the property line and if that street gets extended you have got,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 59 of 61
essentially, double frontage property. So, resolved or not, no, but to be decided today --
that's issue can't be decided if it gets extended or not.
Newton-Huckabay: So, I don't need to make any comment to it in my motion?
Moe: That's correct.
Hood: As far as I know I don't think there is a condition in the staff report regarding it.
It's off site.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Well, fine. I just wanted clarification on that. After
considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to
the City Council of file number AZ 06-047, PP 06-049 and CUP 06-030 as presented in
the staff report for the hearing date of January 4, 2007, with the following modifications.
Specific reference to staff comments regarding condition of approval 1.2.5 being
stricken and common drive lots and landscaping related to Lots 3, 4, 6, and 7 and the
letter from Engineering Solutions, dated December 19th, 2006. End of motion.
Borup: Second.
Moe: It has been moved and seconded to approve and move onto City Council
recommended approval of AZ 06-047, PP 06-049 and CUP 06-030 for Waverly Place
Subdivision. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Yes.
Siddoway: I'd like to follow this up, though, with one additional question and perhaps a
motion. I think we could avoid this situation in the future if we directed staff to bring
back a Comprehensive Plan text amendment that simply included multi-family in
possible uses for the office district. Is there -- it would still remain conditional uses per
the schedule of use control, but if we would like to be able to consider these without that
snag in the future, I would think that that would -- I would like to see if there is interest in
doing that.
Newton-Huckabay: I agree.
Baird: Or you could go the other way and direct to have the schedule of use control
exclude what you just approved tonight. I mean it's -- one way or the other I think it
begs to be cleared up.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 60 of 61
Siddoway: Yeah. It needs to be -- it needs to be clarified so that they are matching one
way or the other.
Moe: I would agree a hundred percent.
Borup: I still like -- I still like the option of a conditional use. Because, then, you can
look at it on a case by case, because I think blanket statements don't fit every situation
and it's nice to be able to look at the specific situation that is surrounding developments
and neighborhood considerations and everything. I just like to look at it all on each
case. So, I guess what I'm saying, I would support -- I don't know how many times we
are going to see this in the future. This is the first we have had so far. Well, that I can
remember.
Siddoway: And it was the same issue with the lot to the south.
Borup: Yeah.
Siddoway: Which was the reason they had to submit a Comprehensive Plan
amendment.
Borup: But they -- well, even if that would have been approved I don't know that -- there
was a lot of neighborhood opposition on that one. So, are you saying we want to make
that as a motion? How much -- how much is that for staff to do.
Siddoway: I'd like to at least direct staff to come back with an analysis of the pros and
cons of that. I know Anna may have some strong feelings the other way, so before we
direct you to bring it back with that change specifically, if we could at least request some
dialogue from staff on that I think it would be of benefit to this Commission,
Borup: I'd second that recommendation.
Hood: For clarification, do you want us to look at both what Mr. Baird brought up about
amending the UDC or just the ordinance -- or, excuse me, just the Comprehensive Plan
to allow multi-family in the L-O or shall we look at it both ways and say, hey, what
makes sense. Just -- just off the top of my head the problem I see if we add multi-family
into what we want in the L-O zones, we also have a statement like that right now in our
commercial districts. Mixed use allows multi-family. We have no more designation --
why have a Comprehensive Plan, now you're -- the future land use map allows any use
on any designation. So, you're -- essentially, your purpose statement of each
designation are all the same. It's commercial, residential, except for your low medium
and high density, but pretty much your -- all your other designations have the same --
allow the same uses.
Siddoway: The commercial uses are still not allowed in that description of office -- or of
office; correct?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 4, 2007
Page 61 of 61
Hood: Retail uses. Correct. Are not allowed in an L-O zone. Strictly retail. I'm saying
right now that on the future land use map in the text of the Comprehensive Plan it does
talk about multi-family being allowed in C-G, C-C zoned property. For the reasons you
just described, I think it would behoove us to have an analysis of the pros and cons of it
and that's what I would like to see. Again, both amending the UDC or amending the
Comprehensive Plan or just the Comprehensive Plan?
Siddoway: I'm primarily focused on adding it to the Comprehensive Plan.
Moe: I would agree with that. Okay. All right.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close the public -- or we close -- what do we want
to do? We want to adjourn.
Moe: Is there a second?
Borup: I thought we had a second. I'd second it.
Moe: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: We are done.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:20 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
ATTESTE