2008 02-07Meridian Planning and Zoning. Meeting February 7, 2008
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of February 7, 2008, was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Moe.
Members Present: Chairman David Moe, Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner
Joe Marshall, Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay and Commissioner Tom
O'Brien.
Others Present: Ted Baird, Machelle Hill, Caleb Hood, Bill Parsons, Scott Steckline and
Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay -Vice Chair X Tom O'Brien
X Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall
X David Moe -Chairman
Moe: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the regularly scheduled
Planning and Zoning meeting for February the 7th, 2008. I'd like to call this meeting to
order and ask the clerk to call roll.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda:
Moe: Thank you. Next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and there will
be one change to the agenda tonight. Item No. 4, the applicant is still working with staff
on the design and whatnot and that will be continued to the next meeting on the 21st of
the month and we will continue that in order when we get to that point. There are no
other changes to the adoption of the agenda, so can I get a motion to accept the revised
agenda?
O'Brien: So moved..
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve the revised agenda. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 3: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of January 17, 2008 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 7, 2008
Page 2 of 21
Moe: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and on that we have the meeting
minutes of our January 17th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Are there any
discussions or changes to those minutes?
Rohm: I have none.
Newton-Huckabay: None.
Marshall: None.
Moe: Okay. Can I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda?
Marshall: So moved..
Newton-Huckabay: Second..
Moe: Who was the first?
Newton-Huckabay: Joe.
Rohm: Joe.
Hewton-Huckabay: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: I got it out before you finished. I'm sorry.
Moe: Okay. Not a problem. Just didn't hear you there. Okay. It's been moved and
seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same
sign? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from January 17, 2008: CUP 07-022
Request for a Conditional se Permit for a medical office in the O-T zoning
district that does not meet the criteria of the Downtown Meridian Design
Guidelines for Meridian Eye Care by Dr. Dan Thieme - 125 West Cherry
Lane:
Moe: I will go ahead and open this next one. I'd like to open the continued Public
Hearing for the Meridian Eye Care Center, CUP 07-022, for the sole purpose of
continuing it to the regularly scheduled P&Z meeting of February the 21st. Can I get a
motion to do so?
OBrien: So moved..
Rohm: Second.
Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission
February 7, 2008
Page 3 of 21
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue CUP 07-022 to the regularly
scheduled meeting of the 21st of February. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same
sign? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Moving right along. I don't know that there is too many people out here that
haven't been here before, but at this point I do need to just kind of give you a brief
description of what we are going to do here this evening. Basically, I will open a
hearing, at which time staff will, then, give a brief explanation of the project. After that
point we will ask the applicant to come up and respond to those comments and give any
other comments they would like to in regard to their project. They have a ten minute
time frame to do such. After that there are sign-up sheets in the back. If you have
signed up to speak, we will call you one at a time, whoever is signed up. After we have
gone through that list I will ask if there is anyone else that would like to speak and you
will be more than welcome to come up and do so. You guys will have three minutes to
make your comments and at that point, after all that testimony has been given, then, the
applicant will have a chance to come back up and rebut anything that was discussed
before that. It's pretty simple and we will get going here.
Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from December 20, 2007: RZ 07-020
Request for Rezone of 10.1 acres from R-4 to R-40 zoning district for
Selway Apartments by Meridian Apartments, LLC -west of N. Goddard
Creek Road and north of McMillan Road:
Moe: So, I now would like to reopen the continued Public Hearing for RZ 07-020 for the
-- for a request to rezone of 10.1 acres from R-4 to R-40 zoned district for Selway
Apartments and start with the staff report, please.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application
before you tonight is a request to rezone of ten acres from R-4, medium low density
residential, to R-40 high density residential. The site is located on the west side of
North Goddard Creek Way, approximately 500 feet north of West McMillan Road and a
quarter mile east North Ten Mile Road. Directly north of the site are single family
homes, zoned R-4. To the east are single family homes, zoned R-4. To the south is
vacant land approved for future commercial development, zoned R-4. And to the west
are single family homes, zoned R-8. As part of the Lochsa Falls planned development
approval in 2002, this area was conceptually approved fora 171 multi-family unit
development as a use exception. It is important to note the City Council. approved the
Selway Apartments CUP for the site on December 18th, 2007. The site is currently --
the site is currently designated high density residential on the city's Comprehensive
Plan land use map and zoned R-4. The applicant's request would bring the site into
conformance with the city's future land use map and conform more closely to the
previously approved density for the site at 17 dwelling units to the acre. Staff is
recommending approval of the requested rezone and with that I stand for any questions.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 7, 2008
Page 4 of 21
Moe: Are there any questions of staff? Okay. None? Would the applicant like to come
forward?
Bachman: Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Lisa Bachman,
JUB Engineers, 250 --
Moe: Would you push your microphone down a little bit, so --
Bachman: Yes. Can you hear me?
Moe: Thank you.
Bachman: 250 South Beachwood Ave., Suite 201, Boise, Idaho. 83709. Staff did a
really good job at presenting the project. We are requesting to rezone the property to
R-40, which was a condition of approval of the Conditional Use Permit that was
approved a couple of months ago and I don't really have anything much else to add,
other than for requesting to rezone the property to R-40.
Rohm: What was the reason for the continuance on this? I --
Moe: As I understand it was posfiing.
Rohm: Oh, it was posting.
Bachman: Right. We did not .post the site by the time that it was due, so we did go
ahead and take care of that.
Rohm.: Okay. So, basically, that was the only hitch in the process?
Bachman: Correct.
Rohm: Okay. I don't have any questions.
Moe: As far as the staff report, any problems with anything in that?
Bachman: No issues.
Moe: Okay. Anyone else have any questions? Thank you very much,
Bachman: All right. Thank you.
Moe: Okay. We do have some folks signed up. Linda Ohlman. From the audience
she's not coming forward. Jim Ohlman. I'm sorry. Jim? Okay. Jim has nothing. I will
note on the sign-up sheet both Linda and Jim are against the Selway Apartments.
Sandy Freeman. Nothing to say. And she also is noted as against. Jim Freemen.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 7, 2008
Page 5 of 21
From the audience he has nothing. And he is also noted as against. Is it Glen? Yeah.
Glen, come forward.
Tiderman: Good evening. My name is Glen Tiderman. I live at 2432 West Los Flores
Drive in Meridian, Idaho. I do have some things. First of all, I would request that this be
denied, simply for the purposes if the CUP approval is not -- or this change of -- change
of zoning is not required for the CUP to continue on. There is a solid rationale for this,
for the two maps matching,. I understand, but that rationale is about six years too late.
We feel that this should have been done in 2002. At this point all of the adjacent
housing is in. There are no new developments that would be directly next to this
apartment complex and I myself as one of the -- as one of the residents here have
become somewhat of a -- kind of a spokesman. I am concerned that if this is changed
to R-40, that although I understand Rudene and JUB will not be able to change the
density beyond 171, that I'm concerned that in future years under different city
governments a different owner may, in fact, try to push that R-40 or push higher than 17
that's -- that's approved.. So -- so, for the fact that it's going to be real clear here very
shortly what's going to be there and the city maps are not going to be something that
will be referenced by future owners, I think that this is an unnecessary thing. And for
the peace of mind of the people who live there, let's try to keep this 17.1 and -- or not
the possibility of jumping up to a much larger -- a much larger density. Thank you.
Moe: Any questions? Okay. One more sign up. Chris Fries. Okay. From the
audience he has nothing more to say and he's noted as against as well. Again, that's all
that's signed up. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak on
behalf? Okay. I see no one. Would the applicant like to come back up?
Bachman: Lisa Bachman again. JUB Engineers. 250 South Beachwood, Suite 201. I
have nothing, really, to say about the -- to rebut. This was a condition of approval for
the rezone, so either way we were required to apply for the rezone and that's what we
have done, so either way is fine with us.
Moe: Thank you very much. Okay.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Yes, sir.
Rohm: I move that we close the Public Hearing on RZ 07-020.
O'Brien: So moved.
Newton-Huckabay: Second..
Moe: How about a second?
O'Brien; Oh, Second. Second. I'm sorry.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 7, 2008
Page 6 of 21
Moe: It has been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on RZ 07-020,
Selway Apartments. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Any other discussion?
Marshall: Well, is there another zoning density that would even fit that, to even allow
those? I think it was required because that zoning density is absolutely required, isn't
it? Is that --
Moe: We can ask staff that.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Marshall, you are correct, the two zoning
designations that we have are R-15 and R-40 and since we are at 17 units -- you know,
our density is 17 units to the acre, R-40 was the logical zoning district to go with.
Marshall: Appreciate that. Thank you.
Rohm: I guess a follow-up question to that is if this application is for 17.1 units per acre,
would the applicant, then, have to come back before the Commission and the city if, in
fact, they wanted to change their application to a higher density at a later date?
Parsons: Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, that would be correct.
Rohm: Okay. That's what I thought.
Moe: Okay.
O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, talking to the attorney, he said that if we put this say in the DA,
development agreement, then, they would not be able to -- in the future would not be
able to change that, so, basically, it's grandfathered in? No?
Baird: Mr. Chair, sort of a backdoor way of asking the question of staff. I made a
presumption that is in the development agreement. I think that's what -- what planning
staff is saying and they'd have to go through a process to change that. Mr. Chair, do
you mind if we get a confirmation from planning staff if that's a correct assumption?
Moe: Go ahead.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I believe as part of the CUP it
was -- the PUD was allowed as a use exception, so I would -- would agree that it was in
the development agreement to allow no more than 171 units.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 7, 2008
Page 7 of 21
Moe: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: I have a question and a concern on this. If -- let's say given the
times we are in that this project falls apart and never makes it to build out and so they
decide to sell the property and we have zoned it R-40 and we don't really -- the property
is zoned R-40, somebody comes in and wants R-40, because it's zoned R-40, what
grounds are we going to have to deny an R-40 development based on, well, we zoned it
that, because of the project before that fell apart. Because R-40 is not an appropriate --
I'm going to have to agree that that would be an inappropriate zoning --
Parsons: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, the applicant -- or let's say that scenario
did happen.
Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh.
Parsons: First of all, they'd have to come into planning staff and they'd have to modify
the current DA on the site and the CUP on the site allowing that to increase that amount
of density. So, with planning staff and them having to go through that, I don't think staff
would be in favor of that in recommending that sort of project. You guys acted on the
CUP back in September. The site's pretty constrained with what they are proposing
with 171 units, so it would be pretty difficult to increase that density.
Newton-Huckabay: But the CUP doesn't belong -- belongs to the applicant, it doesn't
go with the property.
Parsons: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, if they don't establish that use, the CUP
wouldn't -- the one that you approved -- or the City Council approval wouldn't go
forward.. But they are still approved for 171 units regardless of the --
Newton-Huckabay: Regardless.
Parsons: Regardless.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, if it's -- let's say that Selway Apartments goes away, the
property is zoned R-40, are we handing the property owner legal grounds to enforce
through an R-40?
Parsons: Technically, yes, they could come through the city and modify -- like I said,
modify those -- the Conditional Use Permit for the site and modify the DA. But, again,
wouldn't -- it would be hard for staff to really support that.
Rohm: Well, it still has to go through the approval process.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 7, 2008
Page 8 of 21
Hood: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission that could potentially happen on
any site in the city. I mean anyone with a rezone could .rezone to an up -- or up zone
their property and potentially get some other project that isn't yet in the works approved
anywhere. What staff asked is -- and Mr. Tiderman eluded to it earlier, when -- and, in
fact, this is a good example. We have 17 dwelling units per acre approved on a site
that's zoned R-4. If you look at our map today you see R-4 and, in fact, a lot of the
people that live in that neighborhood did and felt misled, because they saw R-4 on a
map, when, in fact, there are 171 units approved for this site. So, staff felt it was --
although it may be a little bit late and we should have done this later, that was -- or
earlier in the game, this was a way to kind of clean it up at this point and make sure that
there isn't any confusion as we go forward that says, hey, this is a higher density than
pretty much everything else that's around it. So, that's why staff required it. Whether
this gets approved or denied, again, what's really the overarching approval for this site
is that development agreement and the Conditional Use Permit that allows a maximum
a 171 units on this site today.
Moe: Does that answer your question?
Newton-Huckabay: Yes.
Marshall: It answers mine. It answers my questions.
Moe: Any other questions? Any other comments? I need a motion from someone.
Rohm: Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Yes, sir.
Rohm: I'd like to move to forward onto City Council recommending approval of RZ 07-
020, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony for the hearing date of
February 7, 2008, to include the staff report as written.
Marshall: I second that.
Moe: Okay. I# has been moved and seconded to approve RZ 07-020 for Selway
Apartments to move onto City Council. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed same sign?
Newton-Huckabay: Aye.
Moe.: That motion carried..
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY.
Meridian Planning ~ Zoning Commission
February 7, 2008
Page 9 of 21
Item 6: Public Hearing: RZ 07-023 Request for Rezone of 0.62 acres from R-4
to an R-8 zone for Blackstone No. 2 by Landmark Engineering and
Planning, Inc. - 4700 W. Aspen Creek Street:
Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from December 20, 2007: PFP 07-004
Request for Combined Preliminary /Final Plat approval of 3 residential
lots on 0.59 of an acre located in the R-4 zoning district for Blackstone
No. 2 by Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. - 4700 W. Aspen
Creek Street:
Moe: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing for RZ 07-023, the rezone of .62
acres from R-4 to R-8 for Blackstone No. 2 and also open the continued Public Hearing
of PFP 07-004 for Blackstone No. 2 and start with the staff report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is the
Blackstone No. 2 project, located at 4700 West Aspen Creek Street on the southeast
corner of Black Cat Road and Cherry Lane. The applicant has applied for a rezone of
.62 acres from R-4, medium low density residential, to R-8, medium density residential,
and a combined preliminary/final plat approval of three single family residential building
lots with a shared common driveway. The majority of the development surrounding the
site is zoned R-4, if you look up here at the zoning map. An aerial of the site. The
applicant is requesting the rezone approval to an R-8 zone to comply with the density
requirements of the UDC and allow the three lot project to go forward as proposed. At
the December 20th, 2007, hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission continued the
project to allow the applicant time to submit a rezone application to the planning
department, because the site did not conform to the density requirements of the R-4
zoning district. The Commission felt this was a unique situation where you have a
project that complies with all of the dimensional standards, however, could not meet the
density requirements. The Commission determined rezoning the property to an R-8
zone was to allow the project to conform to the UDC. It was also discussed by the
Commission to stub the common driveway to the county parcel south of the proposed
development. Several of the Commissioners were concerned where future access to
the county parcel and the possibility of ACHD restricting access to Ten Mile in the future
if and when said parcel were to develop. Staff is requesting the Commission to decide if
stubbing the common driveway and providing cross-access to the parcel to the south is
required. At the previous hearing staff had recommended approval of the preliminary
plat for two buildable lots and denial of the final plat, so the project would conform to the
density requirements of the R-4 zone. Staff is now recommending that the RZ and
preliminary and final plat application be approved with conditions listed in Exhibit B of
the staff report. And I stand for questions.
Moe: Are there any questions of staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come
forward, please.
Riccio: Good evening. My name is Lenny Riccio. I'm with Landmark Engineering and
Planning., 332 North Broadmore Way, Nampa, Idaho. Previously -- last time we~ were
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 7, 2008
Page 10 of 21
here is about in December and we had a unique situation with the property that we were
developing, The Commission found it as a unique station as welh It was based upon
the hardships of the property. The property met all the -- the plan met all the
dimensional requirements, met everything regarding the zoning., except the density
requirement. As a result, the Commission recommended continuing of the hearing in
order for us to catch up with an R-8 zoning designation. We agree with the staff report
for approval of three residential lots and, as previously indicated, though, that this site
with approval tonight will be -- may be zoned R-8, nonetheless, that these homes and
lots will comply with the R-4 zoning district. In addition to that it will be in conformance
with the original Blackstone plat. And with that I ask for your approval tonight. Thank
you.
Rohm: Thank you.
Moe: Any questions? Okay. Thank you very much. We have three people signed up.
Lenny? Pardon me?
Newton-Huckabay: That was him.
Moe: Oh. Chris Todd. Okay. From the audience he said he's done. Paul? There is
no reason for you to come back up either. Actually, is there anyone else in the
audience that would like to speak to this hearing? Okay. We have no one.
Rohm.: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Yes.
Rohm: I move that we close the Public Hearing on RZ 07-023 and PFP 07-004.
O'Brien: Second.
Moe: It has been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on RZ 07-023 and
PFP 07-004. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? I was -- would like to see -- not necessarily an official
stub, but some way to potentially provide access to the south property.
Moe: Okay. Well, I know that was one of the main issues that we discussed the last
time and at the time I probably was in agreement, but I'm not sure because of the fact
that they got access off Black Cat for that property there, I'm not sure why any of the
three there would need to go anywhere south, as opposed to just going out on Aspen
Creek. So, I'm not -- I'm not really sold that we need that south access. That's my
opinion. Would other members of the Commission like to --
v
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 7, 2008
Page 11 of 21
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Yes.
Rohm: I like this design very well.
.Moe: Okay.
Marshall: I'm sorry, maybe Icould -- being new here, maybe somebody could catch me
up as to why the access to the south is so vitally important.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, don't go using such big adjectives, because I --
Marshall: I'm sorry.
Newton-Huckabay: -- vitally important it was not.
Marshall: I apologize. Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: But nice to have it is.
Marshall: Access for the homeowners there or --
Newton-Huckabay: The property to the south is an Ada County -- Ada County parcel or
sewer district parcel or something like that.
Marshall: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: That isn't a part of either one of the -- of the development around it
and the only access is onto Black Cat and I felt like given how close the Thorn Creek
street access to Black Cat is, plus the Sun Fish access to Black Cat and, then., add
another driveway --
Marshall: Understand.
Newton-Huckabay: -- a lot of the access is on to an intersection and if there would be
any way that we could potentially provide a catalyst to remove an access to Black Cat in
the future that would be my preference. But also not -- I don't believe the driveway is
wide enough to be anything other than a private drive.
Moe: That's my other concern is now you're bringing more traffic into where you have
three homes right there driving into it, just to get down into the south portion. I think
you're causing more of a problem than anything.
Newton-Huckabay: So -- well, I won't create a barrier. I just -- I think it would be a good
idea to have some -- some access to that property.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 7, 2008
Page 12 of 21
Marshall: I have to agree that I like the thought of trying to limit the accesses to Black
Cat. I think that's a very good thing to pursue. But I do also think that creates quite a
problem for the homeowners there on that one lot.
Newton-Huckabay: It is a touchy piece of property.
Marshall: Yeah. It is.
Moe: I guess I have one question of the Commission that I have been thinking about,
for the simple fact the -- I mean this -- this project does bode well to go the R-8, so they
could get this other lot -- this other home in there and whatnot. But my concern is we
are now making that an R-8 and just like you made comment earlier, if for some reason
this was not to develop and we now have an R-8 designation in the R-4, the rest of the
neighborhood, would we not be concerned that maybe we should put a restriction that
it's this development is the R-8?
Newton-Huckabay: I don't think we can do that, Mr. Chair.
Rohm: I think that the --
Newton-Huckabay: In a DA?
Rohm: I think that the preliminary/final plat in itself lays it out that it's -- they are being
approved for three lots, they are not being approved for anything beyond that.
Moe: Good enough.
Rohm: So, that's my --
Moe: Mr. O'Brien, any thoughts?
O'Brien: Well, only regarding the drive there. I believe that ~I recall Commissioner
Siddoway mentioning that the burden on access from that particular lot that is in
question below those -- that plat is on the burden of that -- the people who own that and
it's up to them to put any kind of access they feel necessary to provide whatever they
put in there and that would have to be further -- far enough away from the intersections
not to create a problem either. So, of course, if I remember correctly, he said it's really
not an issue or a need to put a drive there to connect that lot.
Moe: Okay.
O'Brien: That's all I have.
Moe: Well, if there is no more comment, could I get a motion?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 7, 2008
Page 13 of 21
Rohm.: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Mr. Rohm.
Rohm: I'd like to -- after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to the City Council of a preliminary plat associated with file
number PFP 07-004 and RZ 07-023, as presented in the staff report for the hearing
date of February 7th, 2008, with no modifications. End of motion.
O'Brien: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve we move onto City Council RZ 07-023
and PFP 07-004 for Blackstone No. 2. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from January 17, 2008: AZ 07-020 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 21.81 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for
Chalet Marseilles by RC Meridian Partners, LLC -NWC of E. Ustick
Road and N. Locust Grove Road:
Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from January 17, 2008: PP 07-027 Request
for a Preliminary Plat approval with 3 residential building lots and 1
common lot in a proposed R-15 zone for Chalet Marseilles by RC
Meridian Partners, LLC -NWC of E. Ustick Road and N. Locust Grove
Road:
Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from January 17, 2008: CUP 07-023
Request for Conditional Use Permit for 122 multi-family dwelling units in a
proposed R-15 zone on approximately 21.8 acres for Chalet Marseilles
by RC Meridian Partners, LLC -NWC of E. Ustick Road and N. Locust
Grove Road.:
Moe: At this time I'd like to open the continued public hearings on AZ 07-020, PP 07-
027, and CUP 07-023 for Chalet Marseilles and start with the staff report.
Newton-Huckabay: Marseilles.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. Before you
tonight is the Chalet Marseilles project continued from January 17th. The site is located
on the northwest corner of Ustick Road and Locust Grove Road. During the last
hearing the Commission had concerns with the 50 foot distance between the garages of
the perimeter units. Commission voted to continue the project to allow the applicant
time to revise the site plan and show a minimum of 60 feet between garage spaces.
So, again, the site is vacant here. Locust Grove. Ustick Road. Access will be along
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 7, 2008
Page 14 of 21
this northern boundary line here from Locust Grove. This is the revised preliminary plat
that you all got in your packet. I'd like to point out that the applicant has reduced the
number of units from 122 down to 120 to make that -- to comply with that requirement.
Also in the memo I sent you, staff had referenced some issues with this driveway here.
Potentially a car being parked here could block this access onto the private street here.
So, staff had recommended that the applicant shift the buildings to the west to try to
alleviate that issue -- that concern with the site plan. And so the lower portion of this
slide reflects that the applicant has complied with that and has, indeed, shifted the
buildings and they aligned the 20 foot driveway here as to not encroach or block the
parking pad for that four-plex to the north. At the previous hearing the Commission also
discussed the perimeter block wall and the removal of the directory slash site map for
the site. Staff is requesting the Commission in its motion tonight update the status of
the block wall along the perimeter and the LDS property and the removal of the
directory slash site map on the site. In addition, staff will be modifying conditions 1.2.4,
1.4.1, 1.4.6 and 1.4.16, as they are no longer applicable with the revisions to the site
plan. With the revisions of the site plan staff is recommending approval of the project
and with that I stand for questions.
Moe: Any questions of staff?
Rohm: No, sir.
Moe: Okay. Great. Would the applicant like to come forward.
Fluke: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Daren
Fluke, JUB Engineers, 250 South Beachwood in Boise, representing the applicant on
the project. I think you're all well familiar with the particulars here. As predicted, we lost
a couple of units to make the -- the 60 foot driveways work, but we have done that. I
think we have complied with everything the Commission was looking for. To make the
design work, we lost two units off of this building that was previously afour-plex and it's
not a duplex. We also reconfigured that a little, as Bill mentioned, and shoved the
whole row over and, then, we took afour-plex here -- what was afour-plex here and
moved it to this end and put the duplex down here and we are much happier with the
configuration. That worked out really nicely. So, overall we are happy, we wish we
wouldn't have lost the two units, but you have got the 60 foot drive aisles now and we
think it does everything you want it to do. With regard to the -- the wall, you know, there
was -- there was discussion about that being a block wall and some members of the
Commission were uncomfortable with that. What my clients' preference actually is to
add a decorative concrete wall. It's not actually CMU block, and perhaps the
Commission would just allow us the flexibility to work with staff on an appropriate
fencing for the site. Something more than a vinyl or a cedar fence. But there was some
feeling that that block wall might be too institutional feeling and there is lots of options if
they are willing to go with the stamped concrete, so -- or the decorative concrete, so I'll
just throw that out there for your consideration. And if you had any questions we'd
certainly be happy to take those now.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 7, 2008
Page 15 of 21
Moe: Any questions?
O'Brien: I have none.
Newton-Huckabay: None.
Moe: No? Okay.
Fluke.: Thank you.
Moe: No questions, but I do appreciate you guys making the changes and working with
staff to do so. There is no one signed up. If there is anyone in the audience that would
like to come forward -- no one is coming forward.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: I just want my memory refreshed. Did -- was the Widson property
that owned the little strip of land that prevents the connection be made to Wanda's
Meadow -- or Wanda's -- Wanda's Meadow.
Marshall: Yes.
Moe: Right there.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And, no, it wasn't -- was there any attempt to make an
agreement? I can't remember. To connect. And it just didn't fly. Okay.
Moe: That's what I remember them discussing last time.
Newton-Huckabay: I was just trying to -- okay.
Moe: Any other discussion of the Commission? I think, basically, when we met last the
items that we had concerns over they have corrected and so having said that, yes, Mr.
OBrien.
O'Brien: Yeah. As I recall, I think the staff report mentioned something about a --
having to provide a map of the streets and I think the applicant said it wasn't necessary
because of the design of the buildings to have their own individual streets. Is that still a
concern for staff, that that be required., a map of the area as you go into the entrance of
the subdivision?
Parsons: Commissioner OBrien, at the last hearing you guys had discussed striking
that and staff is okay with that. That's why I asked you to give me some clarification
tonight on that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 7, 2008
Page 16 of 21
O'Brien: Okay. Thank you.
Moe: Okay. So, can I get someone to make a motion to close here?
O'Brien: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Yes.
O'Brien: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval of file numbers --
Moe: Mr. O'Brien, we need to close the Public Hearing.
O'Brien: Oh. That's right. Sorry about that. Mr. Chairman, I move to close the Public
Hearing numbers AZ 07-020 and PP 07-027 and CUP 07-023.
Moe: Thank you.
Rohm: Second..
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on AZ 07-020, PP 07-
027 and CUP 07-023. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: I believe that I was the one that voiced the greatest concern with a
block concrete wall or CMU wail and I would be okay with a decorative concrete wall.
And I -- again, I would also not hesitate to say, no, let's go with the vinyl or cedar,
knowing that the neighbors are expecting a concrete wall, so -- and maybe unaware of
a change here, so -- but a decorative concrete wall -- now this was only a six foot wall;
right? It wasn't eight. Yeah. Okay.
Moe: And whoever the maker of the motion is, make sure that there is a point noted
that a concrete or block wall would be -- or that they will work with staff to verify the wall
-- the perimeter wall.
Rohm: You're on.
O'Brien: Whoever that maker may be.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 7, 2008
Page 17 of 21
Marshall: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Yes, sir.
Marshall: My only concern with the fence at this time -- I think the block concrete wall
would be a very expensive, very nice wall. My concern with it is that as they work with
the church to the north, is that somehow if the church is annexed into the city, we were
going to request that access come in to the street there on the north side of the
southeast section and if the church is un -- if they were going to request the church
come up and they were going to do anything the church wanted, because it was going
to go on the church's property, if the church would like that. And I would just want the
church to be aware that we would be requesting during annexation that they access that
road and if the CMU wall blocked their access, they have to have that removed before
they could have access. So, if the CMU was just stopped short enough to allow access
in the future. That's my only concern. Because the church may say we would like it all
the way up to the street and they build it there and, then, they have got to tear part of it
out. That's my only thought.
Newton-Huckabay: So, do we want to haul out a foot distance or -- from the road or are
we just saying --
Marshall: I just want the church to be aware of it, when they go into negotiations with
that wall. I don't know.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Well, I have got to confess, I'm having a little trouble with
verbiage at this point on that, adding it to the motion.
Marshall: Understand.
Newton-Huckabay: Now, was that ahalf -- that was a half road section, right? They are
only building out half of the road on the southeast corner of the north -- the north section
in the southeast corner. Or was it a full --
Marshall: I think that's a full road section, yes.
Moe: It's a full road section.
Marshall: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: The fence was going --
Moe: On their property.
Marshall: Just on side the church property.
Moe: That's correct.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 7, 2008
Page 18 of 21
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So --
Marshall: Which I think is very generous of them to work with the church and whatever
the church would like there.
Moe: I think we just need to put it that they will work with the church to get an access
point, you know --
Marshall: Future access point. When they work with the church just ask for a future
and make sure that at it's future access point it -- yeah.
Newton-Huckabay: So, that our intention as a Commission is that we -- the church to
the north will take access -- what's the street name?
Marshall: I'm sorry, I don't have that --
Moe: Pardon me? Monet.
Marshall: Monet. That's right.
Newton-Huckabay: To take access from Monet when they annex to the city?
Marshall: At a future time?
Newton-Huckabay: At the time they annex to the city?
Moe: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: And., then, we anticipate that they will give up their access that's
where? Is it just on the other side of the fence?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I don't know where exactly you're going
with this, but that is the intent is that eventually they will give up their access points to
Locust Grove. Putting a condition or something to that effect on this property really
doesn't have any effect. It's just to put the church on notice, if by chance they read the
minutes, that, hey, this is expected of you, this is our intent, but (wouldn't -- I would just
caution from phrasing any condition to that effect associated with this property. To take
that a step further, while I have the microphone, if you want, ideally, if they are going to
take access to Monet, it would line up with the same street, the north-south street that
this subject property has. So, if you wanted to specify where a break should go,
something there would be preferable. It's certainly not required.. It would be just a local
street, so they could., as long as they are with current ACRD access policy could just put
it 50 feet back. But that would give some symmetry to that wall, too, and just kind of --
and it would have to taper down, too, because you don't want a six foot wall right at an
intersection, someone having to creep out into the intersection to see if any cars are
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission
February 7, 2008
Page 49 of 21
coming, but it will have to taper down to three feet, both at Locust Grove and at an
intersection like that. So, that -- that -- that is an option for you, I guess, just driving
along side a six foot or pulling out adjacent to a six foot wall sometimes can be
hazardous.
Moe: Mr. O'Brien, do you have questions?
O'Brien: Yeah. Do we -- presuming that the church will own that property for future
development, we don't know, it's just -- right now it's speculative. They may own it now,
but who knows. I'm just saying -- well, we have got that little quagmire thing. I think
putting a notice in the minutes is great, but to whoever owns the property when it
happens.
Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner O'Brien, there is a church there now.
O'Brien: Oh, there is? I thought it was future property.
Newton-Huckabay: No.
O'Brien: Okay. Thank you.
Marshall: My comment -- and I'd like to probably clarify a little bit in that I'm not sure a
condition needs to be set here or anything., I simply wanted to make sure that the
church is aware during negotiations for the fence that we anticipate requesting them --
the church to have access to Monet in the future, so when they are choosing to build the
wall and they -- and the church in the negotiations is aware that we are going to request
that -- the city is going to request that access and that they may not want the wall to go
all the way to Ustick.
Newton-Huckabay: Locust Grove.
Marshall: Or Locust Grove. Excuse me.
Moe: And that's at the time they take annexation and they lose their access to Locust
Grove, they will take access to Monet.
Marshall.: Correct.
Moe: Only.
Marshall: Correct.
Newton-Huckabay: That's our intention. Okay. So, in the context of this motion., then,
do we need to reference that or just get agreement from the applicant that they are
going to inform the church of that? I guess that's where my confusion is. Because I
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 7, 2008
Page 20 of 21
can't put acondition -- I can't put acondition -- as Caleb said, we can't put a condition
on the --
Moe: I just think that the applicant will work with the church when the fence is to be
installed..
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I'm going to give it a shot and if I blow it, just interrupt me,
then. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend
approval of file numbers AZ 07-020, PP 07-027, and CUP 07-023, as presented in the
staff report for the hearing -- am I in the right one?
Moe: Yeah.
Newton-Huckabay: The hearing date of February 7, 2008, with the following
clarification: That the applicant will work with staff and the church property to the north
on the appropriate placement and material to be used for the concrete fencing. End of
motion.
Moe: Do you want to do anything with the directory?
Newton-Huckabay: Oh. And that the property directory is not a required..
Hood: Mr. Chair, before that's seconded or further discussion, for clarification, I think
this is the intent, but I want to make sure. Because this fence is on -- fully on the
church's side of the world, if they say we don't want a fence., one is not required;
correct? That is at the discretion or the option of the developer to put up any type of
fence on the north side of that road; correct?
Newton-Huckabay: Yes.
Hood.: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: But it's only on the north.
Rohm: Second.
Newton-Huckabay: End of motion.
Rohm: Second.
Moe: It has been moved and seconded to approve AZ 07-020, PP 07-027, and CUP
07-023, with the aforementioned changes. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same
sign? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 7, 2008
Page 21 of 21
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we adjourn.
Rohm: I'll second that motion.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:50 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
~ ~ II~
// ~~
~1O~ I~ e°~ ~~
~~
~
DATE APPROVED
~~~-~ _
ATTEST: - a
..
-, ~! ~
~
JAYC E HOLMAN, CITY CL ,~~~<<~~~ ~~~~~~~,,~~`'~~