2008 03-06Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting March 6, 2008
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of March 6, 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: Bill Nary, Ted Baird., Nancy Radford, Caleb Hood, Bill Parsons, Scott
Steckline and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Tom O'Brien
X Michael Rohm -Vice Chairman X Joe Marshall
X David Moe -Chairman
Moe: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the regularly scheduled
Planning and Zoning meeting for March 6th, 2008.. I'd like to call this meeting to order
and ask the clerk to call roll, please.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda:
Moe: Thank you. Next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and,
Commissioners, believe it or not, we actually have another change to the agenda
tonight. Item No. 9, which is CUP 08-002, for Sonic Southern Springs, they are still
working with staff on some issues and they would like that continued to our next
meeting of the 20th of March. When we get down to that point in the agenda we will
make that continuance. Other than that, no other changes, so if I can get a motion to
accept the agenda as revised.
O'Brien: So moved..
Rohm: Second..
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to accept the adoption of the 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 February 7, 2008 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 2 of 80
B. Approve Minutes of February 21, 2008 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
. 08-001 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Daycare
Center from an existing home in an R-8 zoning district for
Blairmore Pre-school and Daycare by Annette Reed - 3150 N.
Blairmore Way:
Moe: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. On that agenda there are three
items, which would be the February 7th., 20.08, Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting minutes. Also, the February 21st, 2008, Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting minutes. And, then, the third item would be the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 08-001 for Blairmore Pre-school and Daycare..
Is there any discussion or questions? Could I get a motion to accept the Consent
Agenda as noted?
O'Brien: So moved.
Marshall: Second.
Moe: It has been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.. Opposed same sign? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Next item on the agenda, before we get started, if there is some folks out here
that have not been to our public hearings, I want to just kind of give you an overview of
what will happen. I can see lots of faces I have seen before, so you have heard it
again. Basically, what will happen, I will open the Public Hearing, at which time staff will
go over the -- and review the projects in whole and, basically, with the conditions and
whatnot that they put on the project and just give a brief overview of the project. After
that the applicant will have 15 minutes to, basically, come up and explain and kind of
sell the Commission, per se, on the project. After they have done their presentation --
there are sign-up sheets in the back, if you wanted to speak to any of the projects
tonight, you could sign up out there. Each person signed up will get three minutes to,
basically, explain their views on the subjects, after which time all the people on the sign-
up sheets are done, if there is anyone else in the audience that would like to speak to
that, they will be given the opportunity and three minutes as well. After all that is done,
then, the applicant will be given time to rebut any comments that were made in the
public portion of that. That's pretty much that in a nutshell.
Item 4: Public Hearing: AZ 07-016 Request for Annexation and Zoning of
224.29 acres from RR to R-2 zone (45.14 acres) and R-8 zone (179.16
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 3 of 80
acres) for Castle Rock by Providence Development Group, LLC -south
of East Amity Road and west of South Eagle Road:
Item 5: Public Hearing: PP 07-020 Request for Preliminary Plat approval
consisting of 794 residential building lots and 86 common /other lots on
181.1.1 acres in proposed R-2 and R-8 zones for Castle Rock by
Providence Development Group, LLC -south of East Amity Road and
west of South Eagle Road.:
Item 6: Public Hearing: PUD 07-001 Request for approval of a Planned Unit
Development for deviations from district requirements to provide an
opportunity for exemplary site development for Castle Rock by
Providence Development Group, LLC -south of East Amity Road and
west of South Eagle Road:
Moe: So, at this time I would like to -- I would say reopen -- well, no, this is a new one,
then. Open the Public Hearing for AZ 07-016 and PP 07-020 and the PUD 07-001 for
Castle Rock and hear the staff report, please.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. As you noted, the project is
familiar, although this is a brand new Public Hearing, noticed as such for this meeting
tonight. Here in just a second I will run through some of the changes that have occurred
in the recent past to the project. Just to -- to reorient you again, the site is located on
the west side of South Eagle Road between Amity and Lake Hazel.. The property
consists of 224.29 acres. It's currently zoned R-R in Ada County. Now, that 224 acres
is the entire annexation area and I will get into the breakdown here in just another
second. The adjacent land uses are to the north.. There is a portion right here that's
approved for White Bark Subdivision. They haven't broke ground as far as I know, but
that was approved for zoning of R-4. There is some other rural residences in agriculture
in the area zoned RUT in Ada County. To the east is Eagle Road. On the other side of
Eagle Road some single family homes on large rural parcels. Most of it's being used for
agricultural purposes, zoned R-R in Ada County. To the south are some single family
homes on large rural parcels, again, zoned R-R. To the west are single family homes
on large parcels, zoned R-R and R-1. The existing Black Rock Subdivision was a
county subdivision approved on the bluff there. That is building out today. The
Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is shown on the map. This is the
designation that was in effect at the time that the applicant submitted the application.
As you can see, there is about -- it's about half and half. It's about 104 acres, roughly,
of the low density residential, which is the green, and about 120 acres that is medium
density. So, more of the yellow -- kind of shows up as orange on this map. Variety.
So, not quite half and half on the future land use map. The applications include three.
There is an annexation and zoning, again, of 224 acres. The applicant is requesting
two zones, an R-2 zone of 45 acres and the R-8 zone includes 179 acres. There is a
preliminary plat that consists of 794 single family residential building lots. Now, this is
the original or the old preliminary plat. I'm going to just quickly move to the revised one
while I read you some of the updated information. Again, 794 single family residential
Meridian Planning & zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 4 of 80
building lots on 182 acres in the proposed R-2 and R-8 zoning districts. So, if you
notice, we went down from 224 acres to 182 acres. So, about 40 acres is the area of
the Black Rock which is not being re-subdivided or part of the subject preliminary plat.
There is also a planned unit development for deviations from the R-8 district
requirements pertaining to lot size, street frontage, and building setbacks. Now, here is
the history that I promised you. And a lot of this was also in the staff report that staff
prepared. I should mention I'm pinch hitting this evening for Sonya, she's -- she's out of
commission and so I am going to be presenting her projects this evening. But this was,
for the most part, in her staff report that she prepared, but I'm going to read it into the
record. The project was originally heard by the Commission on December 6, 2007. At
that meeting the Commission recommended denial of the project to the City Council,
primarily because the density didn't meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the
Commission wanted larger lots on the perimeter. Prior to the Council meeting revisions
were made by the applicant to the plans to reflect some of the Commission's concerns
as follows: The number of building lots was decreased from 847 to 789. Open space
was decreased from 41.6 acres to 38.84 acres. And the overall density of the plat was
reduced from 4.65 dwelling units per acre to 4.33 dwelling units per acre. The density
of the platted area designated for low density residential was originally 4.48 dwelling
units per acre and the revised plat depicted a density of 3.5 dwelling units per acre.
Now, I don't expect you to memorize all these. In fact, I gave you a handout with this
exact same information, just detailing the changes in density between the three versions
that we will go through and, hopefully, the applicant can help explain some of the
changes, too, as this is progressed. At the Council hearing on January 22nd, 2008, the
Council reviewed the revised plans and voted to remand the project back to the
Commission. Since that Council meeting the applicant has revised the plans again.
Revisions made to the plat since the Council meeting are as follows: The number of
building lots has increased from 789 to 794, a net decrease from the original plan of 53
lots. Open space increased from 38.84 acres to 39.86 acres, a decrease from the
original plan of 1.74 acres of open space. The city park was relocated from a central
location within the development in the medium density designated area to the west
boundary of the plat adjacent to Black Rock Subdivision and the low density designated
area. And the overall density of the plat area increased from 4.33 dwelling units per
acre to 4.38 dwelling units per acre, a decrease in the original density of .7 dwelling
units per acre. The applicant has also made some revisions to the design guidelines for
this project. Since I didn't have a chance to go through those today, I would ask maybe
that the applicant highlight not only the major changes that I just mentioned with the
park and some of the larger lots on the bluff, but maybe go into some of those details
with the changes to the design guidelines, too. I think Sonya has incorporated most of
those into her staff report, but I was not aware of what those changes were. So, I'm
going to explain -- the Council did remand this back to the Commission and ask for the
Commission to specifically consider or review the following items -- and it's not
necessarily limited to these items, but this is what they were hoping you would maybe
give them some insight into. Make a new recommendation based on the revised plat.
Consider the traffic impact of this development on Eagle Road between the site and the
interchange, specifically the Eagle-Victory intersection. And I may just pause there for
one second. We did get a memo or a letter from Gary Inselman at Ada County Highway
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 5 of 80
District thanking the applicant. They did make a 300,000 dollar donation to, hopefully,
keep and facilitate the intersection improvements at Eagle and Victory, to keep that
intersection in the plan for 2010 is when it's scheduled to be reconstructed and
improved. So, they did make a substantial donation to the highway district in that
regard.. And number three is to consider not only the maintenance, but the ownership of
the coved areas and who has the right to do or not do what within the covered areas. I
think that was a concern also of the Commission at the last hearing, so they seemed to
have some similar concerns there. And number four was reconsideration of the revised
densities in relation to the Comprehensive Plan and recently approved south Meridian
area plan. And, finally, consider requiring South Carlyle Way to stub to the east
boundary across the Ten Mile Creek for interconnectivity upon future development of
the property across the creek. So, Carlyle is this road right here and it currently
terminates right there into this T intersection. They asked the Commission to look into
that. I don't think Sonya made a formal recommendation on that. I will maybe want to
develop the presentation if the Commission wants staff to maybe give some more
analysis on that, I can try to -- we can maybe walk through that together. So, a
summary of the proposed streets, the entrance into this site is from an existing street
that was constructed for the Black Rock portion of the subdivision, with the intent that
the remainder open space area that's platted in the county would some day be re-
subdivided and also use Taconic Drive, that is the only access into the site at this time.
I mentioned there is a project that's been approved up here. They have not constructed
anything yet. The fire department is limiting the amount of homes that are -- that access
this road to 50 overall and that does include the Black Rock, until some other secondary
access can be provided somewhere, so -- I'm getting a little crazy with the pointer. But
to some other location, they want to have some other way in there. So, we would be
limited to 50 and that's included in the staff report as well. The landscaping., there is
21.7 percent or 39.86 acres on the site proposed for open space, including an 8.8 acre
park proposed to be dedicated to the city, which is right here. There is a development
agreement that staff is proposing for this project. It's on pages 11 and 12 of the staff
report. I'm not going to run through all of those. It basically ties the applicant to the
things that they are proposing and also is consistent with the conditions that staffs
looking for regarding some things, such as multi-use pathways, that number of 50
homes, things like that. So, I won't spend any time really going through those. And,
then, some -- some older history on this site. Back in 2006 there was an application
submitted to the city for a project called Black Rock Castle Greens and it was the same
acreage, 224. The gross density was 3.61 dwelling units per acre. That application
was denied by the City Council. And,, then, I already mentioned that Black Rock was
previously platted in the county. I do have some elevations. Actually, before we jump
to elevations let me just real quickly go between the three plats. There isn't a lot of
change that I can tell between what you reviewed and made a recommendation on,
which is the plat that's on the screen now, and the next one, which is the one that the
city was looking at when they remanded it back. And the applicant can sure help me
out if I'm off base or miss something that's -- that's certainly more important. The main
difference that I can see is the homes that are directly on the down side of that bluff --
oops, went the wrong way -- have increased in size, as well as some of the other lots --
it kind of transitions as you -- as you move in. I don't really see any other -- and this is
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 6 of 80
kind of how I figured it out, I was just kind of going back and forth like that and those
were the main changes that -- the main change that I saw between the first two. So, if
you have any questions we can sure -- maybe could direct those to the applicant, since
we didn't, as staff spend much time on that revised plan either. It was sent to the -- to
the City Council and what we are focusing our attentions on for this staff report is, in
fact, the revised plat, which, again, where the park was here, it's now moved into this
location. In the staff report, too, Sonya has -- and I think the applicant even provided
average densities or average lot sizes, excuse me, for the lots that are within the two
Comp Plan designations of low and medium. So, they have broken it out to what the
density is there. There is the landscape plan. You can see some of the cooing
concepts. It shows up I think a little bit better, maybe, on the site plan. Here is some of
the build to setback lines. Again., I'll let the applicant spend more time if they have seen
fit to explain their concept -- overall concept for this development. We went through a
lot of that last time. Some alley-loaded product here. There is a product exhibit that
has been submitted. There are -- I thought there was a number of -- the applicant's
proposing to construct custom homes on the seven lots in the R-2, so the seven that are
up on the bluff, basically, with the Black Rock lots. The applicant is proposing four
different types of single family detached dwelling units within this development to
promote diversity and choice in housing type. So, that's what the other colors are on
here are those remaining product types and I'm going to just quickly -- again, a lot of
these, if not all of them, are the same elevations that we looked at before, if there are
some changes now on the design guidelines, again, hopefully, the applicant can help
me out a little bit with those, but these are your -- the Legend series. Cottage series
here. Village or alley loaded. We have received some letters of testimony on this
project. A few from the applicant. Larry Wickham and Debbie Wickham have both
provided letters. Jerry Smith. Russell Fulcher submitted a letter, as well as another e-
mail this evening, which you should probably have. I had on my desk, so you probably
should have a copy of that.. And Martin Fabricius, yes, and I'm sorry for butchering your
name. Fabricius. So, we received those letters. And as I mentioned, we also received
revised comments from the Ada County Highway District, which I briefly mentioned in
the memo. Staff is recommending approval of the subject project and I will stand for
any questions you may have.
Moe: Thank you very much, Caleb. Any questions at this time for staff?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I have one.
Moe.: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Caleb, you mentioned about the 300,000 dollar donation to Ada
County Highway District and your words were that it would, hopefully, keep the project
on the plan. Do we have any confirmation that it will continue to keep the Victory and
Eagle Road project in the 2009 plan?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I did not get that impression from
the memo that Gary signed here. I can -- it says this will go a long way in providing
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 7 of 80
ACRD incentive to begin the construction of this project in 2010 as currently planned..
It says: While ACRD cannot insure the timing of a project beyond the current budget
year, the donation helps, so --
Newton-Huckabay: Is it a donation in the sense that ACRD could use it on another
project if they so choose?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I don't know that that's the case.
The applicant would probably --
Newton-Huckabay: They are going like this.
Hood: They are shaking their heads no. So, I don't know that information, but, yeah,
they are indicating no.
Rohm: Good question, though.
Moe: Any other questions?
Marshall: I do. You were saying that there is -- the development to the north is called
White Rock?
O'Brien: Black Rock.
Marshall:: No. No. To the north. It was White something.
Hood,: White Bark.
Marshall: White Bark. I assume that's up in this area up in here you`re saying?
Hood,: Correct.
Marshall: Will there be connectivity? Will this --
Hood.: Yeah.. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Marshall, there is interconnectivity through that
stub street and eventually that will go up to Victory Road. So, when the two projects are
built out there will be interconnectivity between the two.
Marshall: Amity Road.
Hood.: Amity. Excuse me.
Marshall: And White Bark is under construction now currently?
Hood..: They have received preliminary plat approval. I have not driven out there. I do
not know if they are leveling ground or have begun any type of construction out there.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 8 of 80
Marshall: But they are ahead of this project.
Hood: Yes.
Marshall: Okay.
Moe: Thank you. Any other questions?
O'Brien: I have one, Caleb. Is there -- when is the plan for widening Eagle Road from
Victory to Amity Road? It seems like that's still going to be the bottleneck.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner, if you can give me a minute, I don't have that off the
top of my head. I can sure look it up in ACHD's report. I'm sure it's there. Let me just
look it up. And the applicant may even know. I will get that information for you.
O'Brien: Okay. Thanks.
Moe: Any other questions?
O'Brien: No further.
Moe: Would the applicant like to come forward, please?
Armstrong: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Jerry Armstrong.
701 Allen Street, Meridian, Idaho. And I'm currently the vice-president of planning and
land development for Provident Development Group. I'd like to start our presentation in
kind of explaining to you that the last time we were before you your recommendation
was for denial, because we had requested that you move it onto City Council. We got
some of the monetary issues straightened out, so we got a time extension on our -- on
our land take down. So, we are back before you to work through and try to solve some
of the design issues. So, what you see this evening is a solution that has evolved from
your comments and so we have incorporated all those in -- in this new design, as well
as tried to incorporate all the comments that we received at the Public Hearing before
the City Council. So, going from the original plan that you saw, we have gone -- we
have reduced the density from 848 lots down to 794. So, that gives you a total units per
acre from 4.66 to 4.38. We have decreased some of the open space and that was
because of the desire to have larger lots around the perimeter. In addition, we have
added an additional housing type, which are custom homes, so that the custom homes
will be adjacent to those homes that are built up on Black Rock based on the
neighborhood comments. We have also updated the design guidelines to reflect that,
as well as instead of two signalized intersections, which we had one at Taconic and
Amity and Eagle, we have worked out the deal with ACRD -- and I'll give you more
information on that -- at Amity and Victory, which was a desire of the City Council. In
addition to that, we are adding front yard landscaping on all the lots. So, this is what
you saw the last time we were in front of you. I wanted to share with you the major
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 9 of 80
change -- change was the objective of the parks. They wanted the neighborhood park
more centrally located to the entire square mile. So, we moved the neighborhood park
from this location here over to here., which is exactly a half mile, half mile. And the other
thing it does is it -- these large homes up on Black Rock visually will be more separated
from the rest of the development. In addition to that, the comments that the parks had
in the early one was that we had houses along one side of the park, so we removed all
those houses from direct backing up to the park. In addition, the park went from seven
acres up to 8.8 acres, which is a larger contribution the city. So, we removed 54
buildable lots. We have placed the larger lots along the perimeter for transition. So, all
these in this color that you see, we just didn't do it on one side of the street, we did it on
both sides of the street. That's why they have this color -- are all quarter acre lots.
Next. In the Comprehensive Plan the other issue that was brought up last time was the
density that we maintain outside of the Black Rock community in this green area less
than three units per acre.. That was your recommendation from this body. We did that.
We are down at 2.98 acre -- or units per acre in this area. And we moved that park into
that area. In addition to that, what we have proposed is down here, which is 614 acres
in this area, which comes out to a density of five units per acre. So, the overall density
is 4.3. Just so, you know, if you take this green area here at three units per acre, which
is allowed,, plus eight in this area here, the total allowed in our development is 1,246.
So, we are only asking for 794 overall. You remember the coving concept, which we
are retaining that concept, so we can have more open space and more variety of
housing and facade modulations. So, we have retained that in this design. You will see
those green areas in here as part of our coving scheme. So, what it does is it gives an
appearance of more open space. What does coving do? It adds curb streets, a variety
of setbacks, facade modulation, increased open space, as well as decreasing roadway
and maintenance costs. We have got about 25 percent less roadway than we had in
the first proposal that we brought to you. We have reduced public utilities for more
efficient delivery and it actually promotes more sustainable development. These cove
areas we were discussed as being -- they will be landscaped by the developer prior to
closing of any of the homes. All cove areas will be owned and maintained by the
individual property owners. The cove areas will also receive special attention in the
CC&Rs, which we control. As well as weekly monitoring by the property management
firm to insure the upkeep of these unique lots, because it really affects the appearance
of the community. Here is a new diagram. This shows this cove coming up around
here and you can see what that does, it really adds to the overall open space of those
streets, so the houses are not right along the street. The other thing it does is it gives
you a variety. We colored in the garages in the yellow color, so you can see the variety
of -- of how they are located on the side, as well as the brown, which are the front --
front porches on all the homes that will set in this -- this space. So, you can see you
really get a variety in the -- in the street scene. Landscaping -- sod and sprinklers will
be installed in the front yard prior to closing of every house in the development. The
homeowner will be responsible for a minimum of one tree and five shrubs in the front
yard within 30 days of closing, as required by CC&Rs. We will also offer an entire
variety of full landscaping packages. On the architecture, we are offering
comprehensive design guidelines, which are a part of our development agreement, so
we can't change those. We have housing diversity. We now have the four distinctive
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 1D of 80
housing types with the emphasis on front porches and corner elevation, as well as the
facade modulation. The custom home sites, as I'm showing in this diagram, are
outlined here. They are approximately one quarter acre lots around the perimeter. I
believe that was the direction that we were given from this particular body to do that, as
well as embedding this neighborhood park, so we have more open space. And within
the custom home series we will have two different kinds of housing types or
possibilities. The Hubble Signature series, as well as custom builder partnership, so
people can go in there and do a -- custom build their homes. They will be a higher end
product with upgraded architecture, a minimum of ten percent brick and stone accents
are required. A minimum of three material types on all the front elevations. Living
spaces and porches will be extended towards the street beyond the garage, so that the
garage is not dominant. Cottage lot architecture includes fireplaces, bay windows, and
other architectural features. This is -- it shows you some of the typical elevations of that
product. The Legend neighborhood, which is shown here in the yellow, is right here and
it's around these open spaces, so it faces out into all open areas within the Legend.
This is a typical Legend neighborhood where it's predominately -- you will see porches
out in front of the garages. It will have special architectural features such as columns
and balustrades and they will all have porches out on the front of those homes. As the
distinctive lifestyle floor plan, we will have unique and upgraded architecture. We will
start at 1,200 square feet to 3,500 square feet. Upgraded corner lot elevations. So, all
corner lots will be required to have pop-outs, as well as upgraded elevations facing any
open space and those will all be sitting on the larger lots. This is an example of the
elevations showing different materials. This is the vertical siding, the horizontal siding,
as well as the board and bat, with shutters and, then, you see some of the features on
the columns with the -- with the stone. On the corner elevation we will have the pop-
outs of the porch wrapping around the side. We will have the chimneys exposed on the
outside of the house, as well as windows in the end wall, as well as pop-outs of bays on
the housing. On the Cottage neighborhood -- this is a whole new series for us, so this
neighborhood will be located right in this area here on the street cooing. This is a
typical Cottage neighborhood.. Again, the house and the living space and the front
porch will come out in front of the garage. And this -- our entirely new series we will
start at 900 square feet to 2.,400 square feet, with patios and living spaces all extending
towards the street beyond the garage plane, with extensive facade modulation and a
variety of architectural styles. The key to this -- if you look at a typical street scene, we
noted that the garages are in the yellow, so they are really set back from the street and
as you move down the street they are not all lined up in a row. You can see that the
living spaces are all punched out in front of that garage space, so you have unique
architecture out in front of the garage space itself, so all the living and porches will
extend out in front. These are the typical elevations. Those portions here are the part
that sticks out in front of the garage elevation. The traditional Village is our alley-loaded
series. This will have a unique architecture. Again, the porch is facing the street, so
you get a better scale. Living spaces are oriented to the side yards and we will offer
single and two story plans. As you can see in this plan, the living unit is all off to the
side, so it's into the side yards. Transportation is really key. What we have agreed to is
by the 50th lot we will have the access through White Bark Subdivision. I think that was
a question you all had., which will go to Amity Road. The site is located within bicycling
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 11 of 80
distance, three miles, of the major employment and commercial developments on Eagle
Road. We have on-site recreational opportunities, which will actually reduce the vehicle
trips per day generated by the development. We have the possibility of the shuttle
service being operated by St. Luke's. We have met with them and other major
employers in the -- in the vicinity. It's also -- we are providing a future Valley Ride
transit stop that will be located on Eagle Road. This shows you what we have agreed
to. We have agreed to fully pay for the Eagle -Taconic full signalization intersection at
the 400th lot. We will install at the 127th lot an interim signal at Eagle and Amity. And
our latest negotiation was a 300,000 dollar voluntary contribution to insure that the
construction is done in 2010. They don't get the 300,000 unless they build it in 2010.
That was our negotiation with them and we have that in letter form. Just so you know,
other than those improvements, in addition to that, 794 houses in here based on current
impact fees, will give to the Ada County Highway District almost 2.1 million dollars on
top of all the other improvements that we are doing. Open space amenities at 39.86
acres of open space that does not count the coving. The city park is larger at 8.8 acres,
which is an outright donation. Village green, other pocket parks, gazebos, this is a
walk-able, health oriented community. We also have the Beasley Lateral linear park, as
well as we have committed to landscape barriers along Ten Mile Creek and along the
spine road leading up to Black Rock. We are also providing recreational opportunities
for all ages. This is our trail system and connectivity. You can see along here the
green we have committed to a ten foot wide regional path. Originally it just came down
to here and stopped. It was the desire of the Council to go ahead and wrap that on
around. So, we have committed to extend that clear to Eagle Road in case this property
doesn't get developed for awhile. We have -- the key to this neighborhood park -- and
we have worked with the parks department -- is to make it centrally located to the
overall square mile. There will be unique opportunities, based on topography not found
at other Meridian parks. We have some 30 to 40 foot drop off here. The one that they
saw during this last snow storm was the opportunity to turn this into a sleighing venue
for young people, as well as skiing. This is the total amount of money that that's worth
at 8.8 acres at today's cost of 125,000 per acre. We are donating a total of 1.4 million
dollars and we will include all the turf and sprinkling system. In addition to that, with the
794 lots, we will create at 1,384 dollar impact fees per lot, we will be donating to the
parks 1.1 million dollars in addition to that just in impact fees. So, more than pay for the
development. We have these landscape buffers again that we have committed to along
Taconic on the spine road, as well as the separation here at Ten Mile Creek. This is a
typical neighborhood park, pocket parks, other amenities. The other question was what
were we doing for this connection. We have agreed to put in a 42 foot wide access
easement in favor of the Fulcher family, so they have connection across that creek in
the future to connect that land, so they don't have to go out onto Eagle Road. We would
like to thank you for your favorable consideration and we will just open it up for any
questions. We agree with the staff report and their recommendation for approval.
Thank you.
Moe: Thank you, sir. A couple questions I have got for you. I was kind of curious on
the coving and the landscaping, per se, on the -- on the outside of the sidewalk area,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 12 of 80
you're saying that that would also be the homeowners' responsibility to take care of as
well?
Armstrong: Yeah. You want to go back to that -- can we go back to the cove -- yeah.
Right now the way it is in any development is if you have a sidewalk out here -- this is a
traditional kind of -- it's always up to the homeowners to care for that land that's in that
public right of way. So, that doesn't change. It's the same.
Moe: My biggest concern is you're going to have larger areas there and you're going to
have one neighbor to the other isn't going to anticipate doing their mowing at the same
time and so you're going to have -- that's going to look kind of rag tag all the time over
there and I noted in your presentation you said that you guys are going to review that,
but that's going to be kind of tough for --
Armstrong.: Well, we are going to manage that with the property management and the
other thing, just so you know, it's just like having a large lot on quarter acre lots, they will
have lawns just in front of them that looks just like that. It's the same depth. So, the
point of it is, you know, I live in -- in Riverside Village, which has this similar concept
where we have the deeper lots like this, you know. I only mow on Saturday, because I
can't afford to hire anybody, and my neighbor mows on Tuesday and the other one
mows on Friday, but it all blends together, it all looks really nice. You know, we won't let
these people let their lawns go un-mowed for a week and they just all tie together in the
landscaping. We are going to be landscaping it, so it all does flow and tie together.
Moe: Other than you have made the comment that the homeowner will be responsible
for the tree that goes in the front of yard, so that tree could actually be on the outside
portion in the cove area, as opposed to back on their yard area as well?
Armstrong: They can. We will go ahead -- we are going to landscape everything in this
cove area. There is the cove line right there, right up to the house. We are going to go
ahead and landscape that area there. What we said by that is -- is that when that house
closes, that landscaping has to be in. That's what we are saying. In other words, they
can't close on their house without that landscaping.
Moe: No. I understand. I guess where I'm going -- I'm going a whole different direction
and that is you get too many trees out there on the outside of the cove and give it a few
years to start growing and whatnot, and I think some of the aspect of the cove was so
you can kind of see through the neighborhood, but at that point you got trees in the way,
so, you know, fire and police are going to have a hard time reviewing what's going on in
the neighborhood as well if you have so many trees out there on the outside area of the
cove. That's where I'm going at.
Armstrong: But the whole point of it is this front yard here is not any -- any larger than --
than what you would like to see on quarter and half acre lots. I mean it's the same
situation. You're going to have trees out there and you're going to have lawn out there.
It doesn't change that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 13 of 80
Moe: Okay. And, then, one more that I have. You mentioned the -- the 42 foot
easement -- the right of way for the Fulcher property. Is that where the Carlyle --
Carlyle Way is that goes across?
Armstrong: Yeah. Here is Carlyle right here.
Moe: Right.
Armstrong: And it's right there.
Moe: Okay.
Armstrong: So, that was one that was on this list of the five or six items that the City
Council had --
Moe: That's correct. That's what I was checking. Okay. Anyone else? Mr. Marshall?
Marshall: I just have a question. Back to the coving again. I'm kind of a fan of coving,
but I am concerned about the ownership of this when it gets back out of the right of way.
If you're back behind the right of way, that's now on private property and it's supposed
to be a public sidewalk. So, will the right of way move back behind the sidewalk or will
there be a permanent easement on the sidewalk that allows all the public right of way or
something?
Armstrong: Well, the way -- the way Ada County Highway District works today, whether
it's a traditional neighborhood or not, whether it -- whether that sidewalk sits in a right of
way or not, the homeowner is responsible for keeping the snow off that and the upkeep
of that sidewalk in front of their home.
Marshall: I realize that.
Armstrong: Whether it's in the right of way or it's not in the night of way, so -- so --
yeah. It's basically a license agreement with the property owner and they take all the
liability and responsible if -- if there is -- if it heaves up or anything like that, they have to
replace it.
Marshall: Right. But --
Armstrong: Whether it's in the right of way or not.
Marshall: As a neighbor I have a right to walk down that sidewalk --
Armstrong: Absolutely.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 14 of 80
Marshall: -- because it's in the public right of way. But when it gets into somebody's
private yard, they can kick me off of it.
Armstrong: No. No. This -- this sidewalk will remain public -- in the public realm.
Marshall: Okay. As long as it stays within the public right of way --
Armstrong: Right.
Marshall: -- I can understand that. But once it's on private property -- I may be wrong,
but I think they have a right to kick me off their private property. If they don't like my
dog, get off my property.
Moe: Mr. Marshall, I think we have a comment from --
Baird: Mr. Chair and Commissioners and Commissioner Marshall, ACRD does have a
provision that they would require license agreements to be in place -- in fact, we are
doing a similar thing with the new City Hall construction across the street. Part of the
public sidewalk is going to be on land that is actually not in the right of way and in order
for us to build that sidewalk, ACHD needs to see that license first, so that it will be open
to the public. So, we are anticipating that same requirement would be applied to these
sidewalks. It's a good question.
Armstrong: Absolutely.
Moe: Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you very much.
Armstrong: Thank you.
Hood: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Yes.
Hood: Maybe before you open this up for the rest of the public's testimony, . I can
answer Commissioner O'Brien's question about Eagle Road, when that was going to be
widened. In ACHD's staff report, it says Eagle Road between Amity and Lake Hazel is
planned in the CIP to widened to five lanes between 2019 and 2027. So, there is some
horizon time out there.
O'Brien: I was talking specifically between Amity Road and Victory.
Moe: Victory -- it's got the Ridenbaugh Canal to Victory is in 2009. And then, again, the
section between Amity and Lake Hazel is further out. It doesn't have the section further
to the north in the staff report.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 15 of 80
Moe: Thank you, Caleb. On the first name on the sign-up sheet would be Martin
Fabricius. When you do come up, if you would state your name and address., I would
appreciate it.
Fabricius: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Martin Fabricius.
My wife and I own five acres in the Upiano Subdivision, which borders on this area. Our
address is 1800 East Suzan Drive. I'm not an accomplished public speaker and for that
apologize. As you have noted before, I have been writing letters on this issue. I got
kind of caught up this time and didn't have the seven day required waiting period and
that's why I'm here this evening. If you read my letters you know I am very much
opposed to any development in this area. I think I have even stated that if I had my way
there wouldn't be another house built in the entire valley until we got on top of this -- this
infrastructure problem we have. I hear a lot of promises being made on what's going to
be done with these roads, but it's a long ways down the road and as I look at that first
map, I don't understand all the number of units and the size of units and all that. I'm
sorry you lost me on that. But I see a lot of units in that proposed development that are
going to spill out onto Eagle Road and to Amity eventually. As I look there now, those
roads probably appear pretty much like they did in the 1930s and 1940s, except maybe
some blacktop and a few stop signs, and if you go out northwest of Meridian where
there has been extensive development out in that area, I don't see any road
improvements out there. I just don't see them, folks. They are not there. And what we
end up with is a lot of crowded roads. We keep adding more lanes to our freeway and
by the time developments like this come in we will have to be looking for another
freeway somewhere else. I guess other than being opposed to it, my property in the
Upiano Subdivision consists of five acres, as are all tracts in there, and the value to my
property is the open space and the view. And anything that's done in here is going to
detract from that. And I have already been down the road on this property on a couple
of issues, not -- we moved there in 1993. Shortly thereafter there was a proposed
gravel pit and asphalt plant right across the fence from us and, of course, I had to
oppose that. We hired a lawyer. I was out 3,000 dollars, as were most members in the
community. And Imade apromise -- it wasn't a threat. I said the day you start turning
dirt for that asphalt plan, you're going to be in court. And I meant every word of it. And
think what -- how I'm going to have to approach this thing here is because we can't
subdivide in Upiano Subdivision unless there is agreement among all the property
owners. So, I'm stuck with my five acres. I keep livestock there and I can only imagine
what's going to happen when my cows get down there along the fence between the
subdivision. I have been through that once before. I had to move once before because
of this. I used to live over east of Meridian. And so I guess what I will have to do, if this
thing is going to go forward, I'm going to have to have my place appraised as is and,
then, I'll have it appraised after the fact and I'll probably just end up in court on it.
Apparently I don't have any recourse. I think that about sums up my comments.
appreciate your time. Thank you.
Moe: Any questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Next name is Pat Fabricius.
Okay. Thank you. From the audience she defers her time. Next name would be Carol
Jarvis.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 16 of 80
Jarvis: My name is Carol Jarvis. I live at 1875 Susanne Drive., which is at the end of
the Upiano Subdivision and butts up against this property about 700 feet. I have been
wondering -- I notice that there is a line across the -- this line that comes across here.
Moe: There should be a pointer here at the mike for you.
Jarvis: Okay. When I -- I happened to be -- and found out that that was the line of the -
- where the Meridian city area of impact ended. Has that changed? I mean I have to
assume it has, if you're dealing and making changes and you're making -- you're
approving things south -- south of that line. Do any of you know has that been
changed?
Moe: I do believe it has changed, yes. But we will get staff to ask that after the
question.
Jarvis: Okay. I also wonder -- I have been wondering for quite some time how many
lots there are in -- in -- that have already been approved, because every time you see a
field, you know, if not -- something's not going on there, you don't know if it's still in
private ownership, but I went to Planning and Zoning and got some maps and found
that along Victory between Locust Grove and Meridian - Kuna, there are almost 700 lots
in there and possibly more that are in the progress -- process of -- have been approved
and are to be built on in the not too distant future and right along Amity between Locust
Grove and Eagle Road there is several hundred more lots there that have already been
approved and some -- most of them have not -- only part of it has been -- actually
houses built on. Some of it's in preparation, some of it is just sitting there, it has not --
the ground has not been -- you know, they haven't even begun to put in streets or
anything. But that accounts to several hundred more lots. And., then, along -- at least a
hundred along Eagle Road on the east side and there is -- almost all of the area that
you're just looking at right there -- not all of it. There is two areas that are not -- and one
of them maybe is a park, so, anyway, that -- that's been my question. How .many lots
are we going to have subdivided and people still -- I mean -- and they are just keeping
them go a head and putting in hundreds more, so -- I had some other points, but that's
my time, I'll abide by it, even though the man who was presenting did not abide by his
15 minutes.
Moe: Thank you very much. The next name on the list is Ray Eggleston.
Eggleston: Commissioners, my name is Ray Eggleston. I live at 12728 West
Merchison Street, which is the Rock Hampton Subdivision. I'm on the planning and
zoning committee, so I meet a lot with the Ada County Planning and Zoning. We have
taken into account also that there are a number of lots there that are already going to be
filled and fulfilled for the school districts in that area. Our concern is not only the
housing itself being substandard -- if you go in through any of Hubble developments --
know people live in them. I have repaired some of the houses. I have got 43 years of
planning and zoning development experience. What our concern is is not today, it's not
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 17 of 80
only the lots that are available, but the housing in this subdivision, being small lots, 46
foot wide. Those coved areas., which are going to end up being parking lots, because
they don't have the area for car parking. You have a two car garage. Most of the
people are going to end up using those as storage areas, like most people do. You're
all going to end up -- I get nervous when I talk, so -- and also a part of our concern is
later down the road is a low priced, low standard subdivision. If you go through any of
their subdivisions around our area there. What's going to happen down the road when
they end up being -- low income families are going to move in there, because of the
price of the homes. They are going to have a lot of children. Those front yards are
going to end up being .playgrounds for the children, which is going to make an access
for the roads. Another concern we have is down the road what's going to happen when
they turn into being rental houses, because if you look at the other subdivisions, which
my sister lives in one, the majority of the houses in their subdivisions that aren't empty
are rental homes. The subdivisions are going downhill pretty bad... And this is on Maple
Grove and Lake Hazel. This is our main concern is what's going to happen to the value
of our property within the area. We live in an upscale neighborhood.. We were told at
the time when Black Rock went in there and was at the City Council, they were told
when that was approved that this was going to be all up-grade homes. And we went by
that. So, nothing was ever said... Now that it's becoming Hubble Homes, which is a
lower standard even below Corey Barton -- and being a builder I know so -- this is our
testimony and this is the representation of Rock Hampton Subdivision planning and
zoning committee. Thank you..
Moe: Thank you very much. Dan -- is it Licksberry? Okay. From the audience he said
he's been spoken for. Justin Thiel.
Thiel: My name is Justin Thiel and I live at 2308 East Hyper Drive. I am a resident of
B-lack Rock Subdivision. I was -- I have come here in opposition and I was going to
address three points. The first one is going to be roads and traffic. That's already been
belabored to this point. The second one was going to be schools and as a personal
note, when we purchased our lot in Black Rock we began the -- you know, the pursuit of
schools for our children and once we identified the school we contacted the school,
which was Lake Hazel Elementary. They told us that school was full and to contact the
district. So, we contacted the district, the district says we can -- we can bus your child
to the next closest school, which is anothertwo -- I think two miles down the street. So,
you will drive right passed the school that's in your district -- or your district or boundary
and to the next one. Of course., that wasn't acceptable to us, so we kept our kids in
Boise School District, so -- my wife's a teacher, so she can take them to her school.
But, anyway, a project this size generates enough kids to have its own school. It has
enough roof tops to generate a build out population almost the size of the city of McCall
and three times the size of the Horseshoe Bend -- of Horseshoe Bend. Just the city.
So, there is that many roof tops and that many people are going to be living in this area.
And I have a question as well. If you go to the -- the website, we have this south
Meridian comprehensive plan, the majority of that plan in that area shows low density.
There is a small area for medium density right there. What I'm wondering is the
Commission works awfully hard on these plans, why would we deviate from the plan if
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 1'8 of 80
this is what you have decided upon? So, clearly, low density is not being addressed by
that particular plan. Pretty much everything else that I was going to address has been
addressed and I just hope that you guys will deny the proposal. Thank you.
'Moe: Thank you very much. Don Cantrell.
Cantrell: Council members, I`m Don Cantrell. I guess I'm still -- anyway, I live there at
3000 East Lake Hazel. I have got the 30 acres here and I got these two lots here, as
well as this. So, my property butts up to this portion here. I did notice that the lots did --
had grown previously to the last. My concern, once again, was -- is people over here,
as we all know, we got the soccer fields. During the soccer on Saturday I anticipate
from my housing going down to Eagle Road approximately to get to this point from here
to hear is about a -- oh, about a 35, 40 minute stop, just because all the kids and all of
the traffic. Once again, the traffic issue for me is really considerable, because
everybody seems to come down Meridian Road down -- down to Lake Hazel, down to
here, which everybody -- excuse me -- down over to here, which everybody is doing
about 50 plus. Trying to get out of my parking lot in the morning is quite something
different. Once again, at this point you got a stop light and so everybody that comes
down here in the morning -- and there is an awful lot of traffic. I'm usually in my parking
stall there for, you know, three to four minutes trying to come out. At that particular
given junction, they are speeding to get to the stop light and, then, when I pull out to fihat
point they are -- they are usually going around me, because they are in a hurry to get to
work. If, indeed, if we are talking about another 800 homes -- I have been in Meridian
since we have had 4,000 people. We went from, what, 4,000 to 72,00.0. So, you guys
have had a lot of infrastructure here. I tried to move out as far as I could, hoping to
alleviate most of the issues here, but, once again, they are here. With that being said,
right here, which I have cattle out in here, when the soccer kids are out -- or if people --
they come over here and park, they walk their dogs. The dogs are out there, usually
chasing my cattle.. I got to get down on my four wheeler and chase the dogs away. I
had requested, if, indeed, if this ever has the potential of coming in, to have a fence line
along the property, so I didn't have the concern with the dogs, as well as the children
getting into the pasture and in the horses for the liability concern. As we all do know
that there is 1,564 homes for sale in Meridian right now. If, indeed, if we have got twice
as many as what's being considered here, how many more homes does that put on the
market as we speak? As well as, once again, the concern of the traffic. Where it used
to take me five, six minutes, 17 to 22 minutes most mornings now. The last snow storm
we had it was a 47 minute drive from here to Eagle Road because of the traffic. I thank
you for your time.
Moe: Thank you very much. Tim Foster.
Foster: Good evening. My name is Tim Foster. I live at 2678 West Crossland Drive in
Meridian. I own a lot in Black Rock Subdivision. And Mr. Thiel brought up the south
Meridian Planning and Zoning recommendation, the new map, which I was under the
assumption on February 22nd or 29th when the City Council met, that they actually
approved this newer map, which if that would be the case, then, pretty much anything
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 19 of 80
you wanted to do in there was -- is not -- you know, doesn't fit within what they had said.
But another thing that I wanted to point out that has really bugged me. And I know it's
the age old thing that money talks. They are putting out donations for this and
donations for that and point out how, oh, we did this for you guys and -- what, as
homeowners, can we do for you guys, then? I mean if that's the case -- money really
shouldn't matter. If they want to donate, that's great. You know, I'd love to have people
donate for the cause to do this or that, but they are donating with stipulations and, oh,
now we -- oh, you got a bigger park, so that's even more money. Well, yeah, okay, and.,
yeah, you're going to get all these taxes from them because of it, but, you know, I don't
say, oh, hey, you know what, I'll give you a hundred dollars if you don't do this and -- it's
the same thing. And in big businesses today it's -- you can't do that anymore. You can't
go, oh, well., here., I'll take you out to dinner, I'll get you this. It's not allowed, at least in
my line of work. We are frowned heavily against that. It's a big ethics thing. This to me
sounds like another big ethics deal. You know, if -- if they want to give a donation, that's
great, you know, and I love the fact of the park, I love the fact that they want to give this
to Meridian, because we can all use more parks, but to use it as a bargaining tool is --
you know, it's not right. It's -- you know, Bridgetower where I live now, we have got a
big park, we -- you know, we take care of it, but they didn't say, oh, you know, we will
give this to you guys if you give us our -- you know, what we want. They take care of it
themselves, so -- and as for the cooing aspect, which is a great idea, I do agree with the
concept of it, but the enforcing thing is one that really concerns me, because, you know
-- and, like I said, I live in Bridgetower, we have extensive CC&Rs on -- you know, you
can't have trucks or this or that out and I have a neighbor that will not move his big utility
trailer out of his driveway, even though it's against our CC&Rs, he's not going to move
it. Who is to say any of these guys in there are going to listen to what, you know, the
management company has to say? You know, I would hope all of them do, but, you
know, if -- if my neighbor won't listen to ours, what's going to make, you know, all these
people listen to theirs? So, if -- if by chance this -- this P&Z recommendation or the new
plan isn't correct, I'd like to know, but that's pretty much all I have. Thank you.
Moe: Thank you very much. Well, I don't have any clue there. Any idea? Well, I`II tell
you what, I can't read the name here, so if there was someone else that had signed up,
please, come forward and tell me who it is and, if not, if there is anyone else that would
like to speak, just raise your hand and we will take you one at a time to come up and
speak. It starts with a J. That's all I can tell you. No one else to speak? Yes, sir, come
forward..
Sylvester: Hi. My name is Tom Sylvester. I live at 1910 South Marshwood Place in
Meridian. My concern is if -- do we have the picture of -- that shows the driveway, the
entryway to the subdivision that shows the landscaping there? When you -- when they
had the elevation of that, it shows about a nine foot berm with -- with heavily wooded
screens that go down both sides of that, so that it kind of shelters the -- or obscures the
homes from the -- from the street view. I went and drove down that -- up and down that
a little bit ago. The berm is about three feet from the -- from the ground level up, so it's
about a third of the height that shows in the -- in the elevation of it. And the trees are
about one-third of what it showed in the picture as well. My concern is that the whole --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 20 of 80
the whole subdivision is going to be like this. That what they -- you know, it's a big song
and dance here and shows what a great subdivision it's going to be with the cooing and
with the park, but as I deliver around the valley, what I see Hubble promise and what
the actuality of it is are two different things. These subdivisions don't age well. In 20
years it's not something that -- that I don't think most people look back on with a lot of
pride in their neighborhood. I don't know why we have to put that there. I don't see the
attraction. It's been -- it's been shot down and shot down and shot down and they keep
trying to make it better and each time I think the things they do are better, but I just wish
we could put a stake in the heart of this thing, because I don't think it's something that
Meridian could be proud of. And I think that what they are advertising is not what they
are actually coming through with. That's all I have.
Moe: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to make a comment? Yes.
Taylor: My name is Tim Taylor. I live at 1488 East Blue Tick in Meridian. I have a lot in
Black Rock Subdivision and I have also done quite a few subdivisions as a developer. I
have a couple of questions to start with. Are -- are all of the lots required to have the
landscaping in place before they close? So, all phases, all lots? Great. And
understand that the developer is going to do the landscaping in the coved areas. Those
are good things. Is there still a traffic lot planned for the entrance off of Eagle Road? A
traffic light? Okay. And I suppose that won't be there until they widen Eagle Road in
2027.
Moe: Are you going to address us or are you just --
Sylvester: Sorry. Sorry. My -- my other concern is, as Mr. Foster brought up, the --
the ability of the management company to monitor and -- and I guess enforce the
maintenance of the landscaped areas and the homes themselves, this developer does
have a good track record in their ability to have a management company that does that.
So, that is a huge concern. And other than that, I think they have made great progress
with their -- their homes and the design and the architectural materials. I think they
have made good strides in requiring that the landscaping is in place, but I have a
concern that they won't be able to manage that and control it, so is that a promise to get
it approved and, then, we end up, like other subdivisions of this developer, where even
though things are in the CC&Rs, they aren't enforced and we end up with a -- a
subdivision that our city could not be proud of. That's all.
Moe: Thank you. Anyone else in the audience that would like to come forward? Okay.
Great. Would the applicant like to -- you have already been up, sir. You can't come
back up. Would the applicant like to come up, please.
Hood..: Mr. Chair, while the applicant's coming forward., if you want me to I can answer
a couple of the questions that were kind of directed at staff during that time.
Moe: I would like that, if you, please.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 21 of 80
Hood: There was a question on the aerial that was up about the dotted purplish blue
line and., in fact, this area is outside of the city's area of impact. We have a couple of
other applications with Ada County trying to add some area to our area of impact, but
properties do not have to be within our area of impact to annex them, they just have to
be contiguous. So, this parcel is eligible for annexation, although it is not currently in
our area of impact. We are negotiating with Ada County. And, then, the Comp Plan
designation that the other gentleman -- and, I'm sorry, I didn't catch your name, but the
City Council just this last Tuesday did amend the future land use map and added more
low density residential to this site than what is currently shown on this map. However,
the applicant did submit their application when this was the Comp Plan that was in
effect. So, we evaluated it based on this plan and not the -- not the Comp Plan map
that was approved by resolution on Tuesday.
Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Armstrong.
Armstrong: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission; again, Jerry Armstrong. I
would like to address the Fabricius, I believe it was, talking about the ACHD and the
traffic problems out there and the number of units that are going to Amity. Just know
that the Ada County Highway District commissioners are the ones that approved and
recommended approval of this project. They are the stewards of the road system in
Ada County and they have approved of this project. Carol Jarvis had a concern about
the area of impact and I think staff explained that, that our property is adjacent to
annexed property, which is the White Bark Subdivision. Therefore, we can be -- request
annexation into the city. Also, the purpose of the area of impact, just so that everybody
understands that, that's an agreement with Ada County, which allows the city to go into
the planning phase or provide a Comprehensive Plan. You have done that. The
Comprehensive Plan that we are under, currently vest under, was approved by this
Commission and by the City Council in October of 2006. The other issue that was
talked about was whether or not it complies with the -- the newer Comprehensive Plan
that was just adopted on February 19th of '08 and I think we have a -- this is the south
Meridian study that was approved just February 19th, fihat's just last month, two, three
weeks ago. If you look at our property on the low density, you take 180 acres that in the
green, there is three units per acre allowed in this study. For the 44.27, which is
medium density, which is .reflected in the yellow, includes 44.27 acres. We are allowed
up to eight units per acre. And that's 354 units. So, the total is 894. Again, the number
of the housing units that you are allowed on the total land mass in this area under your
current one is 894. So, the number of trips -- and the issue is why you approved this
Comprehensive Plan was to limit the number of housing units on the roads in this area.
We comply with that. We are actually under, so it allows other people -- for you to
improve -- increase densities in other parts of this area in there. Ray Eggleston brought
up the issue of the school district. And could we have that other map? If you will notice,
within this one mile section that's shown here, right in here, just north of our site right in
here is designated a future potential school site. Within this one mile area here the
Meridian School District is providing for a new elementary school and the comment that
was made was our subdivision will take up an entire school. That's not true. According
to the Meridian School District, this one school will service all the approved units that
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 22 of 80
you have approved within that square mile. If it's -- if it goes out to that same density
that you allow on the ground and that's the way they plan schools. There is supposed
to be a new elementary school in every square mile. So, I think that takes care of that
issue. Also, Mr. Eggleston brought up the idea about the cooing being parking lots and
there wouldn't be adequate parking. In each of the driveways at all the houses there will
be two car parks in the driveway area, there will be two at the street curb side, so that's
four. Every house will have a minimum of a two car garage. That's two more. That's
six cars. Some owners will opt for a three car garage and it pushes it to .seven.. Also at
the ends of our streets we will also allow for additional parking.. So, there is no need to
have parking lots on this site. The other issue that he brought up is -- was a previous
ownership of this ground had made a commitment for a different style of housing and,
obviously, if that were financially feasible, they would have moved forward with that
project. Instead., they sold it to us. Justin Thiel brought up the idea of roads and traffic.
Again, I believe those are under the purview of Ada County Highway District and they
have recommended approval. He also brought up the school site. I think we have
addressed that. We have addressed the latest Comp Plan. Again, Don Cantrell
brought up the same kinds of traffic issues and ACRD and, again, those are the people
that they need to get in front of to lodge their complaints about traffic congestion in this
area, because they are stewards of those -- those funds and we are contributing again
2.1 million dollars in impact fees to help with solving the traffic issues in this area. The
other issue that was brought up, let's see, here was -- I think we have just about -- oh, it
was a traffic light at Taconic and we are committed through the development agreement
to provide that signalization at the build out of the 400th lot. So, we are committed to do
that -- that light. There is no way to get out of that. The other thing that I wanted to
bring out is what's unique about this project -- the reason we proposed the design
guidelines -- and those become a matter of regulatory for the City of Meridian., we are
signing a development agreement, which includes those design guidelines, so we are
committed to do those. They can withhold building permits on us, they can do all kinds
of other things if -- if we don't comply with those design guidelines and with the
development agreement that we are about to sign for this. So, we have committed to
these design guidelines and the higher quality of architecture within the development.
And I hope that addresses I think all the issues, unless the Commission has other
questions that I didn't cover.
Moe: Mr. Armstrong, one thing that Don Cantrell also brought up, the -- discussing
fencing, that is between the project and his property on -- basically on the south side of
your property.
Armstrong: That was right along here, I believe.
Moe: Yes.
Armstrong: Yeah. We -- well, two things we are doing. One is are providing
connectivity to his property in case he ever chooses to develop it. If he wants fencing
along there, we'd certainly -- we can add that in. But we did all along his property add in
these quarter acre lots.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 23 of 80
Moe,: Anyone else have any other questions?
Marshall: I do have a few little ones. One, back to the landscaping plan. And this is
just, internal and just kind of interesting to me. There is this canal here, right? And you
got a little pond here. And I'm guessing it's been tiled up to the historic outlet up here; is
that correct?
Armstrong: Okay. Let me explain how this works. Currently there is a lateral that
comes in right here. It follows Taconic --
Marshalh Okay.
Armstrong: -- right here and goes right straight up north.
Marshall: Right.
Armstrong.: What we are doing is with the project board of control, it's actually a
lateral --
Marshall: Uh-huh.
Armstrong: -- which is a lot smaller than a canal.
Marshall: Okay.
Armstrong: And we have chosen to relocate that, so it becomes a new waterway and
water feature through the project and will still serve the lands beyond, but we are going
to improve that with natural landscaping. We will have river rock in the bottom of it, but
it flows clear water.
Marshall: It flows a fairly good flow; right?
Armstrong: It's about -- I would say on an average the deepest I have ever seen it is
anywhere from 12 to 16 inches and it's probably, oh, three to four feet wide.
Marshall: Okay. So, you're going to probably have a trash rack here in the pond where
your -- you know, some coverage here where you're going to pipe it, you're going to the
it up to its historical outlet up there. I'm a little concerned about it being right next to a
tot lot.
Armstrong: Well., this is -- right in -- in this area -- yeah, it will be fairly close, but at that
point, if you take that deep water and you spread it out, it's only going to be maybe four
to six inches deep.
Marshall: Okay. My --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 24 of 80
Armstrong: That's the idea of it. We are trying to create --
Marshall: I'm just thinking about three and four year olds in a tot lot --
Armstrong: Sure.
Marshall: That's where you're attracting the little kids.
Armstrong: Sure.
Marshall: I mean older kids are all right, but little kids right next to something that's
pouring in pretty -- I mean a lateral has got typically some decent flow. I mean it's -- you
know, I can wade through it, it's not going to knock me down, but a three or four year old
in a tot lot I'm pretty concerned about.
Armstrong: Well, we could certainly look at relocating that tot lot, if that's the desire of
this Commission.
Marshall: That's just one thing that concerns me there. I have some other questions for
staff for later. Thank you.
Moe: Any other commissioners have any questions for Mr. Armstrong? Okay. Thank
you very much.
Armstrong: Thank you.
Moe.: Mr. Marshall, you said you had a couple questions for staff?
Marshall: I do. Is there -- and I tried to find it in the Comprehensive Plan, but I believe
there was some type of ordinance or something somewhere about the berm size
against the major arterials and collectors and the like and especially considering 20-26
had some very large berm requirements and I can't seem to locate that anywhere. Is
there --
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Marshall, I can sure look that up. I know we have
certain noise mitigation things along state highways. I'll look at along arterial streets
and see what we have. I can recall some fencing standards along arterials and a
maximum berm and slope height. I'll try to find what those are and give you those
numbers here.
Marshall: My thought being that three to five seemed to be fairly low up against Eagle is
-- all right. Thank you.
Moe: Any others? Okay. Well, Commissioners, comments you'd like to make before
we close the Public Hearing or --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 25 of 80
O'Brien: I have a question, Mr. Chairman.
Moe: Mr. O'Brien.
O'Brien: --of staff. Caleb, so I -- I'd like to go through the chronology of events of the
purchase of this property. It seems like the very first time that they tried to obtain
approval for some homes it was like 264, something like that, and I believe it was for
this area right in here. And it was denied. And, then, I think it was after that that they
purchased in Castle Rock and the remaining acres that we have before us today. At
what point do they -- are they granted grandfather rights to the Comprehensive Plan
that was basically put before us before the one that we currently have approved? Is
there something there that -- did they start over again at some point after that first one
was denied a couple years ago or are they still -- it just seems like there is a conflict
between the old Comprehensive Plan and the one we have now or the old designation.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner O'Brien, I think I follow you. This area has changed.
I think it was 2006 that the designation was changed on the future land use map to what
you see today and it was just recently acted on by the Council mid February and, then,
they just approved the resolution this week. You're not grandfathered in with any of
your designations. Those are subject to change. When you come into apply for
annexation or preliminary plat or conditional use permit or anything you want to do on
your property, the Comp Plan map that's in effect at that time of submittal is the one that
-- whatever you're trying to do is reviewed against. So, I don't know all of the
chronology of when things were sold -- bought and sold and I could probably find the
last designation on this property before the one that you're looking at there, but it really
isn't relevant to what's going on today. I'm not quite sure if that's what you're asking or
not.
O'Brien: Yeah. My concern was -- I thought we had approved this last year, but if you
say it just went before Council recently, then, I guess we have to go according to this
plan here now.
Hood.: And maybe I should clarify a little bit more. The Commission did forward on a
recommendation to the Council on south Meridian last year. It just how made it through
the City Council in February. So, there were was some lag time since when you saw
that in November to when they approved it in February.
O'Brien: Okay. Thank you.
Marshall: Chairman Moe, I did have one more question for the applicant.
Moe: Okay. Mr. Marshall. Mr. Armstrong would you, please, come back up?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 26 of 80
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, while he's on his way up, can I -- I just want to ask just a
quick question of Caleb. This still has the step up request in it, though; correct? In the
density on the R-8 side or that -- we are removing that now?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I believe that they had a slide in
their presentation that show that they were right at 2.98 I think was the number in the
low density. I don't remember what the medium was. But it goes up to eight. So,
think they are probably below eight. And that line that's on here isn't an exact line. You
couldn't go out on the ground and figure out exactly where that line is. But it looks like
that's how we made the -- in the staff report a recommendation for approval. It appears
that it is within the guidelines of this density.
Newton-Huckabay: I hadn't seen it, but, then, I didn't before it had a stub up, so -- okay.
Thank you.
Moe: Just go right ahead, Mr. Marshall.
Marshall: Thank you. I -- about the higher density there in the center, on your
application it says -- and I was trying to understand how the -- could we get the slide up
that shows the plan there? In this area right in here. Okay. It states some minor
modifications to the underlying zoning designation are necessary. Okay. Here we go.
This easement allows the neighboring property owner to the west to use, maintain, and
benefit the westerly five feet of their neighbor to the south's property. Okay. I'm
assuming you're saying the neighbor to the east's property, because you're looking at
east-west. So, this guy's going to take the five foot -- the guy to the east's five foot.
Okay. So, as I'm looking at this, you have a plot plan here for a corner lot within that
area that shows the house on the corner directly up against the east property line and it
shows the 16 feet or so -- 15, 16 foot side yards. But when we get to the corner, the
very end down here, the last guy is going to be on that property line or the guy on this
side's going to be on the property line. One side or the other, depending how we
interpret this -- somebody's not going to have a side yard or an extra five feet. I'm not
sure how that works.
Armstrong: Can we have the slide of that -- those Village units, the site plan? That will
explain that. Okay. I think this is what you're talking about. What happens here is the
property line for this property sets off five feet. This area right along in here. And., then,
this area over here -- right at this point where that garage is, it's about 20 some odd feet
wide at this area here. It's around 12 to 16 feet. What happens is the next house sets
off five feet from this property line --
Marshall: Which would be this five foot on the next site; right.
Armstrong: On the next site. So, what happens is there is a use and benefit agreement
that this owner gets to use this ground and this wall here there wouldn't be any low
windows. There could be some high windows in there, but, basically, this owner here
would have the use and benefit of that entire side yard. Therefore, their yard gets much
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 27 of 80
larger on that side of the house. Okay. Now, go to the corner. I think we have a corner
lot.
Marshall.: I got one on my page 22 here.
Armstrong: Let's see. Okay. I'll look on the staff report here and show you. Page 22?
Marshall: Yeah. Well, you're -- yeah.. Twenty-two. It shows that house entirely on the
west side, which would be, essentially, right along that boundary line, leaving five feet
between house and house. And the property -- the lot size is exactly the same on the
far west, not giving any room to move that out.
Armstrong: Yeah. I don't have the -- that in front of me, I guess. Let's go back to that
site plan. I think -- I think it will explain it, because there is a lot of right of way that is
along there. Right along here at the ends is all these blocks. There is additional space
at the ends of -- of these lots. So, you can flip flop the floor plans in those areas and
still end up with the same usable amount of area, so there is excess area at the ends of
all of those lots.
Marshall: I'm not seeing that on here. The setback and things like that shows that right
up against that property line and --
Armstrong: Yeah. What you see in this particular case is the ten feet, plus you have a
use and benefit of this additional land out to this side here.
Marshall: So, to get that -- but you only have five feet between that and the house to
the east, so if you're going to push that house -- so, you have the space between those
houses, you have got to push that house out to the right of way.
Armstrong: Yeah. In this case those houses would be flip flopped on the side, so you
always end up with the 16 feet. No matter which block you're in, you will always end up
with that 15 to 16 feet always.
Marshall: I'm not sure I understand how you're going to flip flop that, but okay.
Armstrong: It's just that this is drawn on the opposite end, if all the units were flipped
the other way.
Marshall: It shows it on the east end. Okay.
Armstrong: No. I understand what you're saying, I'm just saying that the -- if you took
that last site plan and flip flopped it, then, it would all make sense to you.
Marshall: Okay.
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 28 of 80
Armstrong: And that's how we plan on laying them out. And that's -- that's how we do
it. We want everybody to have side yards. We won't be able to sell them if they only
had. a five foot side yard.
Marshall: See, if you flip the other one I see you got the other problem -- the problem
on the far end of the block. The lots on the two ends, according to the preliminary plat,
are actually smaller than the lots in between, simply because you cut the corners off.
So, the same size lot. Now, that means, yes, you have got the right of way, but to get
the space between that last house and the next house next to it, you got to push that
house out to the right of way.
Armstrong: No.
Marshall: Okay. That's all I had.
Moe: Mr. O'Brien.
O'Brien.: Yeah. A question.. I read somewhere in the material -- I can't find it at the
moment -- but regarding the -- the installation of landscaping by the homeowner. I read
somewhere it was 30 days after signing, not at the day of signing. Is that -- do you
remember that or not? I couldn't find it --
Armstrong: No. We committed to -- that landscape has to be in at closing. They can't
close on their house unless it's in. Yeah. The additional. If they choose to put in
additional, they have 30 days.
O`Brien: I thought that was part of the plan that they had to put at least one tree and
several shrubs within -- is that true?
Armstrong: We -- that's true. We put in the sod and the sprinkling system.
O'Brien: Okay. And that will be done by the day of closing.
Armstrong: Yes.
O'Brien: Okay. I got it. Thank you.
Armstrong: Okay. Does that make sense?
Moe: Any other questions, Commissioners?
Armstrong: Thank you.
Moe: Commissioner Rohm, do you have any comments?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 29 of 80
Rohm: I think we have pretty well hashed everything over and I think we could probably
close the Public Hearing at this time and., then, we can have our final discussion
amongst Commission and move forward from there.
Moe: Does that mean that you're planning to do that?
Rohm: I will, sir. At this time I'd like to make a motion to close the Public Hearing on AZ
07-016, PP 07-020, and PUD 07-001.
Marshall: Second.
Moe: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on AZ
07-016, PP 07-020, and PUD 07-001. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Mr. Rohm, now do you have any comments?
Rohm: I do. And., first of all, I want to thank each of you for your testimonies tonight
and -- and I think the developers have tried very hard to at least take your concerns into
consideration at every juncture. The -- the significant issue has always been, to me, in
any development is this road issue and throughout Ada County and specifically in the
City of Meridian all this development occurs and we still have an infrastructure that is
inferior. The fact of the matter is -- is if -- in my opinion, is if we stopped development,
infrastructure improvements would also stop. It's not going to -- until we have a
developed mile, that mile is not going to be addressed by Ada County Highway District.
So, the argument that the infrastructure is not there to handle the additional lots -- it may
be valid,, but it isn't ever going to change under our existing system of government that
we have in this state of Idaho. I travel a lot to Arizona. Igo down to Phoenix, oh,
probably a month a year and it's amazing how they will build out a hundred percent of
the infrastructure maybe ten miles out from the city and they have five lane roads going
north, south, east, west and no development. I don't have a clue how they do that, but I
mean -- but we don't have that available to us here. And albeit that I -- I agree with
everybody that spoke to the infrastructure, the roadway, I personally don't think that it's
ever going to change until our state government changes the way funding occurs or
impact fees are collected or any number of different venues. But roadways I just don't
believe are ever going to come ahead of development. So, that's my little speech on
roadways. The second comment that I have is the Hubble development versus a
subdivision of custom homes. I have been driving around this community for a good
number of years and, you know what, there are vacancies in every single subdivision
and there are for rent signs even in subdivisions down in Eagle that are supposed to be
the high end subdivisions and the fact of the matter is -- is, again, from my perspective,
is these constructions of homes that are available to the populous that occupy the jobs
in our community, they are essential. If you don't have developments like this, I'm not
sure where people reside. So, I actually applaud them for their considerations for the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 30 of 80
parkways, the open spaces, and the development as a whole. So, that speaks to that.
The fact that this property is outside of our current area of impact, I think staff spoke to
that, that it is adjacent to property that has currently been annexed and it has always
been the city's prerogative to extend annexation to adjacent properties and I think that
this project certainly falls within that provision. The last thing I wanted to speak to is the
-- the design guidelines for the structures themselves and it is my opinion that we have
a very good building code in the state of Idaho that requires that every structure that's
built be built to minimum standards that are in the best interest of the homeowner
themselves, whereas they have proper insulation levels, proper wiring schemes, proper
heating and air conditioning and duct work, all of that stuff that is provided for in state
code under the building codes or the building permits would not be issued in the first
place. So, I think that from my perspective, the fact that it is one developer versus
another carries no weight. And that's the end of my talk. Thank you.
Moe: Thank you, Mr. Rohm. Mr. O'Brien, would you have any comments?
O'Brien: I'll defer for a few minutes, please.
Moe: Okay. Mr. Marshall..
Marshall: Well, to be honest, I really like the roving idea. I have seen in other states
where it works quite well. I haven't seen any around here. But it is a very nice idea in
creating an attractive streetscape. I like all the open space. I like the trails. I think we
definitely have a need for a less expensive area -- area where you can buy houses that
are a little more affordable, whereas the price of land has gone through the roof, for a lot
of people that becomes a very difficult purchase and this might be an option for a lot
people. I am concerned about the roadways. That is a concern of mine. I feel that this
area was zoned low and medium density, because we know it's on the outskirts and
more of our infrastructure is in towards -- and we are trying to get the denser -- higher
density areas in towards the traffic areas, the areas where we have infrastructure to
handle that traffic. I have to admit it's not a high density, but I am concerned -- I see
there is a lot development in that area -- along that area going out that way that appears
to be going medium density and that could put a lot of strain on that roadway. I mean to
those ends I like the development itself. I do like the fact that there is a 50 foot or 40
foot elevation difference between the Black Rock and the Castle Rock to alleviate some
issues there. I like the park and the ability to have that up against the hillside there.
don't like the tot lot next to the irrigation lateral. I guess those are my -- my thoughts
right now.
Moe: Thank you, Mr. Marshall. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Chair, Members of the Commission, I was reviewing back over my
comments on the first -- the first design that they had and based on the
recommendations that we made to City Council for the reason that we denied this
applicant in the first place, one of them being that we wanted to see the density moved
into the interior of the project, I wanted to see larger lots on the exterior of the project
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 31 of 80
and, then, the City Council wanted the issue with Eagle and Victory Road addressed,
maintenance considerations for the coved areas and, then, a reconsideration with the
new comprehensive -- south Meridian comprehensive plan., as we11 as a stub on the --
on the car itself -- Carlyle Way to Ten Mile Creek. That said that the applicant has
addressed all of those issues that have been sent before us. They have moved the
density more into the interior of the project. They have moved the park. They have
provided some funds to -- for the Victory and Eagle Road intersection, which I, myself,
was extremely disappointed when that was taken out of the plan that was suppose to
start this year I thought, so hopefully that will push that back over the edge. They are
providing two other stop lights at busy intersections, which I think is -- you know, off-site
improvements are always nice to help move those -- that infrastructure along, given the
current state -- the way that we handle infrastructure here in the city. I also like the cove
concept. I think that -- my only concerns with that is I cannot visualize exactly how the
driveways would look across that, but on paper I like the idea. And it does meet the
Comp Plan for south Meridian. It didn't before and it does fall with the Comp Plan for
south Meridian now. So, those are the positive things or -- depending upon which side
of the issue you stand on. We do have the overriding issue; neighbors are very much
against having this development so near their homes. There have been lots of recent
Comp Plan changes and as a resident in south Meridian it's probably very difficult to
keep up with all those and we have been working on that Comp Plan in front of us for
the last couple years. I believe we have seen multiple times, so I know that's very -- a
very high frustration, especially if you may have purchased a property in the last 18
months. It is a dense project. But, again, it does meet the plan. The fact that they are
Hubble Homes is a huge concern for neighbors, but, again, they do meet a market need
for the mainly service based employment area. My biggest hesitation on this
development is that is so large and given the market the way it is today, anytime we
have a large development come through -- this is not going to build out in 18 months.
This is going to build out in five to 15 years, given the current market that we have. It's
always very hard to plan a subdivision that isn't going to build out for 15 years and know
how the market is going to stand. So that is my biggest concern anytime we are
approving residential right now, as we have a lot of residential approved around there
and is the market going to bear this development five years from now or are we going to
have to come in and do it again? Is it going to get denser, so -- but Ithink -- I don't
really have any other comments, really.
Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. I'm not going to belabor the evening any -- too
much more. In regard to comments between Commissioner Newton-Huckabay and Mr.
.Rohm, a lot of my same sentiments -- this does meet the Comp Plan at the present time
and there are still a couple things that I am still a little bit unsure on and one being the --
the South Carlyle Way in regards to a stub to the east. The applicant is saying that they
would grant a 42 inch -- 42 foot wide easement through there, but at the same point if
that property, then, developed they would have to come back in and construct back into
this property to make that work within that easement. I would rather, quite frankly, like
to see them at least come to the property line, you know, this sign -- you know, and stop
at that point, so that it's developed up to that point. I realize they don't want to put the
bridge in is what I'm gathering is a big point here. But I'd rather at least see the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 32 of 80
development come to that point with the street going through to that point before a
bridge would be built.
Newton-Huckabay: To the canal?
Moe: Pardon me?
Newton-Huckabay: A road to the canal?
Moe: Yeah. You know, basically, right in here, bring it to that point. The other thing --
and the one thing that I have not seen tonight -- do we have a drawing on the phasing
plan for this project?
Hood: Mr. Chair, I didn't include that in the slides. I have a hard copy in the file, I can
probably try to find that, but didn't -- I didn't make a slide. I didn't see it in the applicant's
presentation.
Moe: Okay. Well, I guess what I -- basically I would like to just kind of verify a little bit,
as I understand phase one is anticipated to be in this area right here, whereas this area
here -- I think this is like area three. But Ijust -- I'm a little bit concerned with, you know,
they go ahead and may get started in area one and, then, it's -- how long is it going to
take to get to this --
Newton-Huckabay: (Inaudible).
Moe: Well, that's my concern. And, then, we haven't really done much for this entire
development, especially for these people up here, if this is all that's being developed.
And so I guess I'd kind of like to get a little bit better handle on the phasing plan and see
what could happen as far as trying to do a little bit more of the work in this area before
we start just targeting one spot right there. That's just an opinion. I saw that in our --
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I looked at it this afternoon, too.
Moe: I did, too, and I can't find it since.
Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh.
Moe: Would anyone be opposed if I -- if we reopened the Public Hearing to talk to the
applicant and he could address that for us?
Rohm: I think that would be appropriate.
Newton-Huckabay: Oh, there it is.
Moe: Never mind. We won't have to do that. Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 33 of 80
Newton-Huckabay: It's on page 9 -- Exhibit B, page 9, of the staff report phasing plan.
Phase one will enter in here and comes up to -- it looks like it comes to here, then,
crosses over here, down here, through here and down. So, phase one right in this area
here. So, it's the alley loaded --
Moe: Southeast, then?
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. The southeast corner. And., then, phase two would cover
this area here. Phase three would incorporate the park, so that connect comes -- it
looks like it comes up around here like that. And, then, phase four is right about this
middle area here. Then, phase five takes up -- I guess this was, I think, the Legends in
here. And six was up in this area here. And seven this area here. And, then, eight
was this real low density stuff here.
Moe: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: So, we have eight phases starting here, working its way up around
this way, filling out up through here and., then, wrapping around here. And, then,
coming back and filling this in later.
Moe: I hadn't heard that -- no other comments from the Commissioners, so when you
look through that, I assume, then, that no one had any problems with the phasing.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, if it all fell apart, this would be the most likely to come back in
for redevelopment, as would the -- so, the perimeter would be the most likely to come
back in for redevelopment on the north side.
Moe: Thank you, Commissioner, for going through that for me. I had no other
comment, so Mr. O'Brien.
O'Brien: Yes. I'll try to keep it short. I agree with the rest of the Commissioners on the
layout. I really like the location of the park and the increased size and the frontage, et
cetera.. The -- but I have a concern of the traffic within the subdivision itself at one point.
It seems to me, especially with -- with the amount of traffic that this area here will
generate, versus this and versus that, it's going to be a -- pretty much of a bottleneck
here, especially when the school goes in and these stubs go off to Amity, it's going to be
an issue. And could we have the overhead of Google, please? So, I'm concerned with
-- my concerns really go along with the owner of this property in here and the amount of
time it takes now with current traffic as it is and the bottleneck that it creates, especially
putting signals here, signals here and, then, another one at Victory and Eagle, it's going
to put a considerable load on Locust Grove and it's not slated for any improvements
until late 2020. This is a very narrow roadway and it has some swales, if you will, along
there that sometimes can be dangerous, because people speed along there, as well as
speeding along Lake Hazel arid Eagle Road as much as they can. So, those are
concerns about the amount of traffic that's going to generate by this -- by this .plan.
also have a concern with moving what I call the urbanite line, changing urban areas
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 34 of 80
closer to Overland Road. and trying to, basically, compress the transition between
Meridian City and Kuna by using this -- this area as -- as an urban center where what
heard from the community is they certainly would like to keep it as rural possible and I
heard more negatives about this than I heard positive, so that concerns me that, you
know, are we really doing the community a service and the City of Meridian along with
it. What is the right thing to do, what is not? So, I have those things in the back of my
mind I'm concerned with. Density, we have to follow the guidelines. I think they did a
good job in trying to work out those issues. I'm still concerned about the amount of
density that it will create in this area, but, again, it follows the guidelines. And that's
what they are, they are guidelines. I think that when I first came into this position one of
the things the -- that I was informed of is that it may be the right -- it may be they look to
be the right thing to do, it meets all of the goals that -- it satisfies the development code,
but is it the right thing to do and that's what bothers me so much. Is this the right thing
for this area. It's very unique in that it has a nice area here that rises up and looking
down over that valley it's pretty nice. And so I'm concerned with those kind of things
turning it into an urban parking lot and lessening the transition between our city and
Boise and Kuna. So, I'm going with that as my major concerns, the traffic, the rural -- or
urbanization of it and the infrastructure of the traffic. So, that's all I have to say about
that. Thank you.
Moe: Thank you, Mr. O'Brien.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I have a question of Commissioner O'Brien. Well, if we have a
development that meets the Comprehensive Plan and the density is within that
Comprehensive Plan guideline, what is our -- what is your -- our basis as a Commission
-- what is acceptable in there? Something substandard from the Comprehensive Plan,
which we have as being an acceptable density on the Comprehensive Plan? I mean I --
for the most part I agree with what you're saying, I have some issues about whether or
not this is the right development for this area, but if it cannot be -- if it doesn't meet the
spirit of the Comprehensive Plan, but yet it meets the guidelines of the Comprehensive
Plan, what is the -- what's the alternative for somebody to develop this property?
O`Brien: I agree with you all the way. I -- I don't know. We need all those criteria, but
sometimes it's just down in your gut and my gut feels like this is just the not right -- it's
just not the right fit and I think the community -- every one of the members that I have
heard., including people I have talked with at the neighborhood meetings, say they want
to have us maintain a rural atmosphere and as much open space as they can, thinking
at the time it was already too late to go through that exercise to try to change the
Comprehensive Plan, because it's already -- it was already said and done that it's going
to be a -- what we are getting. And so it's a moot point. It doesn't mean I have to like it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 35 of 80
Newton-Huckabay: Would it make a difference if they were all Kastera Homes instead
of Hubble Homes?
O'Brien: I have no idea what -- what they are. I just think that the spirit of the
community was that they'd like to see it more open space and there is nothing they can
do about that. They agree they think it was R-4, but it's really compressed I think of
spaces that they thought it would not be.
Newton-Huckabay: Are you talking just like specific lot size?
O'Brien: Well, yeah, the lot sizes are very, very small. I mean -- if you will. I'm against
row houses. I think that's an eye sore. It's just too compressed, too condensed., and
especially right next to that entrance to Eagle Road when you get a lot of people going
out of there between 6:00 and 8.:00 o'clock in the morning you're going to have a
backup there right at the intersection of Taconic Drive. These things just don't jell with
me very well. We are just asking for problems and I can't put a nail on one particular
one, but you add them all together and they say this big red flag.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you.
Moe: Well, thank you for your comment, Mr. O'Brien. Do we have anyone getting close
to making a motion?
Rohm: I --
Moe: Before we go -- I do want to make sure that we all understand that -- and, trust
me, I'm not asking to sway a vote one way or the other, but if, in fact, a motion does
come that is for a denial and whatnot, we will -- this Commission has in the past been
directed that if, in fact, we do go with a denial., basically, we would like to be able to
direct the applicant as to what they could do in order for us to possibly look at it in a
different vein, just like we did the first time they came through with this. So, having said
that, the maker of the motion, the other thing I want to make sure that we go through is
would you, please., add the 42 foot easement that they are willing to grant at South
Carlyle Way, the stub, if, in fact, that's all we do. Yes, Mr. Marshall.
Marshall: And a fence up against --
Moe: Mr. Cantrell's property I believe it was.
Marshall: Yes. Yes. It was Don Cantrell. Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Yes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 36 of 80
Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Marshall also had suggested moving the tot lot away
from the water feature.
Moe: Yes. That is correct. I believe that would be a great idea.
Rohm: Forty-two foot easement along Carlyle Way. Move the tot lot. What was the
third one?
Marshall: Fencing against Mr. Carlyle's -- Mr. Cantrell's --
Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Mr. Rohm.
Rohm: I'd like to make a motion to forward onto City Council recommending approval of
AZ 07-016, PP 07-020, and PUD 07-001, to include the staff report with the following
modifications: That the developer provide a 42 foot easement along the Carlyle Way
as was in discussion. Work with staff to relocate the tot lot within the subdivision. And,
three, place a fence along the Don Carlyle -- Don Cantrell property. End of motion.
Moe: Do I have a second?
Marshall: I'll second..
Moe: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to send onto City Council approving of
AZ 07-016, PP 07-020, and PUD 07-001. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same
sign? That would be a three to two approval. That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS.
Moe: It's about ten after 9:00. We usually take a break at 9:00 o'clock. We will adjourn
and come back at 25 after the hour.
(Recess.)
Item 7: Public Hearing: AZ 08-003 Request for Annexation and Zoning of
12.06 acres from RUT to R-40 (10.56 acres) and C-C (1.15 acres) zones
for Rectency at River Valley (REVISED) by Mason & Stanfield - 2500 N.
Eagle Road:
Item 8: Public Hearing: CUP 08-004 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a
multi-family development in a proposed R-40 zoning district for Regency
at River Valley by Mason & Stanfield - 2500 North Eagle Road:
Moe: All right. At this time I'd like to reopen the P&Z hearing for this evening and open
the Public Hearing for AZ 08-003, request for annexation and zoning of Regency at
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 37 of 80
River Valley, as well as the Public Hearing for CUP 08-004, also Regency at River
Valley. And begin with the staff report, please.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I did just want to start with
your agenda real quick. There is a revised behind your annexation for this project. The
reason the revised was added is in 2006 there was also another project -- in fact, on this
property that came through with the same name. So, the revised was kind of thrown in
as an afterthought, but really meant to differentiate between the 2006 application and
the 2007, 2008 application. So, that's what the revised is on your agenda and I'll talk a
little bit more about past applications here in just a second. So, the subject property is
located on the east side of Eagle Road, midway between Ustick and Fairview Avenue.
The address is 2500 North Eagle Road. The property consists of 12.06 acres and is
currently zoned RUT in Ada County. To the north of the site is some vacant property,
zoned C-G. Both this parcel and this large vacant parcel was annexed with Red
Feather, are both still currently vacant. There is a home, I believe, and some -- maybe
an outbuilding out on that property as well. There are -- to the east you can see the lots
in Red Feather. In fact, there are some homes, although this phase was not fully built
out the last time I was out there, but there are some homes in Red Feather there to the
east. To the south is vacant property. It's currently going through the process of being
zoned in the city for -- to C-G for the Meridian Town Center project. It's currently zoned
RUT in Ada County. To the west are some single family residences and vacant
property, zoned RUT. Also across the way from Eagle Road is an office park and, then,
River Valley Elementary School further to the west. The Comprehensive Plan
designation for this site is mixed use regional. There are actually four applications
associated with this project. You have two of them on your agenda this evening. Those
are the only two you're required to act on this evening. However, I'm going to talk about
all four of them as they are all interrelated to the same project. The annexation is for
12.06 acres from RUT to R-40. And that includes 10.56 acres to R-40. And, then, C-C
zoned area of 1.5 acres. This map here only shows the R-40 -- maybe jump back real
quick and -- the 1.5 acres, then, would be -- there would be a break right here between
the C-C and the R-40 zoned property. And a Conditional Use Permit for multi-family
residential development on the site. I'll get into the details of that here in a second. And
as promised there are two other applications. Both of them are variances. The first one
is city code that prohibits new access points to state highways at points other than the
half mile on state highways and the applicant is requesting to construct a temporary
access out to the state highway in this location here on an interim basis. And, then, the
other variance has to do with the number of covered parking stalls required based on
the number of units and the number bedrooms in those units. So, in summary, the --
there are 204 multi-family living units within nine apartment buildings. And, then, there
is a clubhouse that's kind of sandwiched right in the middle. There is a swimming pool
area, a putting green, several gazebos, an entryway water feature, pathways, extensive
landscaping and a playground area. About 1.9 acres or 18 percent of usable open
space on the site. I touched on the access of -- proposed temporary access to Eagle
Road.. The main access into the site is the extension or construction of River Valley
Road. River Valley -- excuse me -- currently exists on the west side of Eagle Road and,
again, goes into the office park and the school that you can -- you can see on the other
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 38 of 80
side. Staff is not supportive of the proposed temporary access to Eagle Road at this
time. In fact, staff is recommending denial of both the variance to Eagle Road and the
request to annex the 1.5 acre parcel. We will have to talk about that a little bit more as
we proceed. That's how the staff report is currently written.. We may need to look at
that a little bit more. I'm going to jump back, just take a side trip real quick. This
property today is actually on two parcels. However, the parcels are not split right there
where the zoning is proposed to be split. You can see the existing property line do
something like that. So, if, in fact, we annex this, but not that, it would, then, create this
no man's land parcel over there that's in the county still, but created by the city, because
we are annexing this greater portion. So, we can talk about that some more, I just
wanted to kind of explain some new information that was brought to my attention. The
applicant is proposing to construct a 25 and 26 foot drive aisles right now, although I
think they are going to have all them be 26 foot wide when all is said and done. We are
requiring them to submit a private street application and name those roads, that way
emergency service providers have access and can find the units within the
development. The applicant is also proposing to construct a small segment of Allys
Way, which is on the east property line. It's approximately I think around 140 or so feet
right at the intersection of River Valley Road extended and Allys Way, which would
eventually feed down and connect in with Records at Fairview and going the other way
would connect up with Ustick Road. ACRD is requiring a road trust deposit for half the
construction of Allys Ways. There will be a bridge that will need to be constructed in
this location to have that Allys Way continue to the north. There is currently, as you can
see on this -- this plan may be the best one, maybe not the best one. As you can see
on this one, there is currently not an access to Allys Way proposed. I do have
comments from the deputy fire marshal that was provided this afternoon, stating that
these two points of access do not meet his -- or fire code requirements for separation of
a project of this diameter. So, he does want to see at least an emergency access be
provided over to Allys Way, preferably further away from that intersection. Off street
parking, as I mentioned., they have a variance request. We require two parking spaces
per unit for a one bedroom unit. One of those must in a covered carport or garage..
There are 48 one bedroom units shown on the site plan. If there is more than one
bedroom, they need two parking spaces, with both of them being covered. There are a
total 360 spaces and 48 uncovered spaces are required on this site, for a total of 408
spaces per the UDC. There are seven garage spaces. Each of those contains six
parking spaces. Let me see if I can make those out from here. There is one there.
One there. One There. One there. Those are kind of what the garages are on the site
plan.. Most of the other parking areas are covered with carports. They have left some
area near the clubhouse area as surface parking. Staff did request that. So, it got good
visibility into the common amenities and things there. This is where the variance comes
in. There is an easement along the South Slough. It's known by three or four names.
The South Slough -- there is an easement that Nampa-Meridian won't allow any vertical
construction or any permanent construction that you can put down parking area, surface
parkings and things like that, but it's my understanding that they will not allow carport
structures in -- within their easement. So, the applicant has requested a variance. They
are 65 parking -- covered parking spaces short of being in compliance with the UDC
standards for covered parking. Staff is not supportive of the requested parking
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 39 of 80
variance. There is a 35 foot wide street buffer on Eagle Road and 20 foot wide buffers
along Allys and River Valley. Both collectors. There is another canal that's mentioned
in the staff report, along with the South Slough, the Downey Lateral, an associated
easement there. There was some concern on staffs part. Some of these buildings
were encroaching into that easement. We have asked the applicant and we will ask
again tonight that they explain what -- where they are at with Nampa-Meridian on either
relocating that or obtaining an encroachment agreement to have some of those
buildings encroach and if, in fact, they do relocate, what that does to a landscape plan
as typically Nampa-Meridian does not allow any trees within their easements. So,
again, I will ask the applicant to provide an update to the Commission on that. Staff is
requesting a development agreement for this site. Those provisions are on pages nine,
ten and eleven of the staff report. And as previously promised, just quickly there was an
application submitted in 2006. The City Council did vote to deny the application. That
application was for annexation and zoning, Conditional Use Permit for 204 multi-family
residential units, private street and three variances. The third variance that they aren't
applying for this time had to do with the private usable open space, such as a patio deck
and they are providing those on these units. And that leads me to the elevations. So,
this is the look at the entryway, if you were coming in from standing or in your car right
there, you would be looking north into the site. Here is a rendering of one of the one
buildings. There are four different buildings, plus the clubhouse elevation in the nine
buildings that are proposed. The structures are all proposed to have brick, veneer,
masonry, stucco, stone veneer, and fiberglass reinforced asphalt shingles. All of the
structures are two to three stories in height, have the same architectural design and
appearance, but are different in size based on how many units they contain. So, your
floor plan basically has to deal with your massing on most of the buildings. And on the
next sheet -- I know that is kind of hard to read when you have four different building
types on -- on one sheet. This one really does probably a better job of telling the story.
And., then., here is the clubhouse, labeled as such and., then, your garage elevations as
well. Staff has not received any letters of testimony from adjacent property owners.
However, I understand there was an a-mail sent late this afternoon from an adjacent
property owner to the south. You all should have that in your electronic packet from a
Mr. Kleiner. I have not received, like I said, any -- from any other adjacent property
owners. We have received revised comments from the fire department and the
applicant regarding the access point to Allys Way to the east. I think I touched on that
enough. We will probably have to talk about it some more, about getting in a driveway
over to that -- that direction. That is one of the reasons staff continued this for a
redesign site plan showing an access over to that Allys Way. And, in fact, staff is
recommending several significant changes to the site plan, parking plan, access plan
and building locations. Staff is also recommending that the C-C zoned area adjacent to
Eagle Road not be annexed at this time. For these reasons and because comments
have not yet been received from AGHD and ITD, staff is requesting that the
Commission defer final action until a later date to give the applicant time to make
revisions to the site plan and landscape plan as outlined in staffs report. And I will
stand for any questions you may have
Moe: Any questions of staff?
Meridian Planning & zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 40 of 80
Marshall: Just wanted to confirm that the Downey Sublateral easement is running right
along here, along this edge. Is that correct?
Hood: Correct. It's on the north side of the future River Valley Street.
Marshall: Where it is currently. Got you. Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Caleb, we already -- the last time this came through it looked a lot
like this, didn't it, but it was a different owner?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, it's the same development team
pretty much. I think they have -- they have changed some., but Bach Homes was the
owner back in 2006 and they still are. There have been some changes. Like I said, the
elevations are probably the biggest change, that they really beefed up their elevations
and amenities. I went through it pretty quick, but it's certainly not the same building that
we saw before. They have multiple colors they are proposing, multiple board and bat
siding and stucco and brick and stone and multiple colors and windows. Side
elevations were discussed before by the Commission. They really dressed up all those
sites. And, like I said., the private usable open space, now they have the patios on the
units and comply with that requirement. So, as far as layout goes, very similar. But the
units themselves have changed significantly.
Newton-Huckabay: Yet it come back -- is coming back before us with -- with the
exception of the personal open space, all the same issues it had before.
Hood: Yeah. And -- Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. A lot of the same
issues. However, there is a pretty big project that went in just -- or has got approval just
recently from the City Council and the applicant believes that now the timing is correct
for them to get into this square mile and work along the same time lines as some of the
stuff that's going onto their south. So, that is a big --
Newton-Huckabay: You're talking about the center --
Hood: Meridian Town Center. Yeah.
Newton-Huckabay: Meridian Town Center.
Hood: So, that is just directly to the south of them, so they are expecting., you know,
this access point to be -- it's something now that -- that is on the horizon. Before there
wasn't any access to the site and this is in the foreseeable future going to be a reality.
So, we have conditioned it that it -- that you need to have that road in before you do
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 41 of 80
this, but that does look like it's a very likely possibility here in the near future. So, I don't
think it was but maybe a couple days after the City Council gave the thumbs up to Mr.
Welk and his group to -- that they submitted their application. So, some similar issues
with the variances and things, but -- but the timing certainly is different.
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you.
Marshall: I did have one more question about the stub -- the stub street that the fire
department's requesting. Are they expecting that to be right in this corner off their
property right here at the intersection?
Hood.: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Commissioners, the -- the fire code -- and I'm going to do my
best without trying to interpret fire code. I met with Joe Silva a little bit today and he had
his scale out and he scaled out the vertical -- or, excuse me, the horizontal distance of
the site and by fire code your accesses into the site have to be one half the diagonal
distance of your project apart. So, I think he said in his revised a-mail that they needed
-- that the access points -- he needs to have two access points into the site that are at
least 600 feet apart. So, if you leave this one, 600 feet puts you over here. Not only do
they need. to be separated by 600 feet, but he's concerned about the congestion on
Eagle Road and even if this road gets constructed, he wants to either be able to get into
the site from Ustick Road or the Fairview Road, not both necessarily. But he needs to
be able to attack this from Fairview up Records and in or down and in, because he can't
-- there may be gridlock on Eagle and they can't go anywhere to get into this site. So,
he -- at the -- at the very end of that a-mail -- and I -- it was given to the clerk and I don't
know if they got it scanned into your packets or not, but the very last comment he has in
(here has something to do with a recommendation or a potential condition that could be
put on this project would be let them construct approximately half or a hundred units,
until some other access into this site from either Fairview or Ustick is provided and,
then, adequate secondary access is had, so -- but, yes, back to your original question,
they are looking for it to be -- to be at the part of the northeast corner.
Marshall: Okay. So, even if you move this one clear over here, you would be right next
to that within your 600 foot.
Hood: Yeah. I could scale the width of that property. The applicant probably knows
what it is. I don't know the exact width of it, but, yeah, it's probably around 800 feet I
would say. Not that it's impossible, but, yeah, you're still close to this intersection and --
regardless of where you put it and I think they have about 132 feet or something like
that of -- 143 feet of frontage on here. So, it's going to put any access really close and
that's why I think probably emergency access, if anything, is the best way to go. Having
that be open to full traffic is probably not a good idea with. this being a pretty major
intersection in the future.
Moe: Any other quesfiions of staff at this time? Okay. Would the applicant like to come
forward, please?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 42 of 80
Anderson: Mr. Chairman, Commission, my name is Lars Anderson. I work for Bach
Homes, the project manager, at 11650 South State Street, Suite 300, in Draper, Utah.
84020. I am here representing our interest in Bach Homes. We are the same applicant
that was here in August of 2006. It may look the same, because you have seen so
many projects, however, this project to us has drastically changed. We took the
comments from your -- from previous Commission notes and from the Council and we
have gone back and changed the architecture and the site layout. I would like to point
out those differences now. Randy's going to show you our -- the architecture of our
building changed quite a bit based on your comments. We removed all the siding. We
have gone with the usable space of 80 square feet. Added that. We even changed the
side elevations, which I believe Commissioner Huckabay mentioned being too -- what
was the word she used before -- too vertical and not enough roof gables and didn't
break it up enough, so we have gone back and changed that since that time. And we
believe that was a -- a positive change. So, we are really happy with the architecture
now and we have included in your packets -- we submitted a supplemental booklet to
you and I hope all of you had a chance to look through that and that shows all of our
floor plans and details about our company, so that we don't have to go through those
now. So, if you have time to go through that --
Newton-Huckabay: Well done.
Anderson: Well., thank you. I hope that helps. Next we'd like to show the clubhouse.
We really beefed up our amenities as Caleb mentioned. We -- and these are models --
these are renderings of the actual plans. So, it shows the pool area, we put in a kids
play area in the pool area and we plan on building those gazebos and create a very
livable resort type feel to these apartments, they are not the typical apartments, and a
water feature out front with the signage. So, we feel it's a great asset to the community
to have these apartments. We are the owners. We build them. We develop them,
build them, and maintain ownership of these and for the foreseeable future we don't sell
them off, so with that we'd like to turn time over to our engineer and he's going to
address the technical issues and after he's done we'd like to ask that we receive
approval to -- recommendation to move to City Council for the annexation zoning, as
well as for the Conditional Use Permit. At this time at this meeting we would like to pull
the variance that we were requesting for the Eagle Road access in that we have relative
assurance that River Valley Road will be built and, therefore, we won't need the
temporary access off of Eagle Road. We only requested that as a backup if River
Valley Road weren't built. So, if we are able to proceed that way, we will pull that
variance. We still need the variance for the covered parking stalls, because of the issue
with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. So, with that I'll turn the time over to Scott.
Thank you.
Stanfield: Good evening. Scott Stanfield of Mason Stanfield Engineering. 314 Badiola
in Caldwell, Idaho. We are back again. I'll just go over these items quickly. Caleb did a
good job of pointing those out. As Lars indicated, we are going to drop the temporary
access to Eagle Road. We are comfortable with Council's actions and what Center Cal
is doing and we can work with them and get that accomplished, so there is no reason to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 43 of 80
keep that variance on the table. With that said, that might ease staffs mind on allowing
us to annex the commercial area now, because one of their concerns was with the -- the
temporary approach going through there, so it's recognized that that parcel -- that
commercial parcel just over one acre will have no access, so it's really unbuildable until
the parcels to the south develop and an access to River Valley is provided. The reason
why we are uncomfortable with not annexing that -- that commercial now is it does
create an illegal parcel in the county. Dimensionally it's illegal.. We tried to do a
property boundary adjustment in the county, because we do have two legal parcels
now. We tried to do a property boundary adjustment that would match the legal
description that you have before you tonight, but the county quickly said, no, you will
create an illegal parcel and the commercial one would be too small. So, our fear is if
that one gets left behind tonight, is the county going to squabble and say, well, you have
created an illegal parcel, therefore, the whole thing is illegal. We are just concerned
and maybe Mr. Nary can shed some light on it, but we would like to annex the whole
thing now, just to avoid that future problem. Bach is not a commercial developer, they
don't have any plans on development, they would just sell it and market it at the
appropriate time. Emergency access, Caleb did an excellent job describing what Joe
wanted and, believe it or not, we do have room up in the east portion -- the northerly
end of our easterly portion to put a 26 foot wide ingress-egress only. I agree with Caleb
it's highly inappropriate to put a public access there, but we do have room to put an
ingress-egress for emergency vehicles and about the only thing we would have to
change is that sidewalk, the first couple of stalls, and the trash dumpsters. So, we feel
it's very minimal changes, nothing in our opinion to justify holding back approval of the
site plan tonight. So, we would agree to that. There was some discussions from the
Parks Department, Mr. Steve Siddoway, about a ten foot path that's not shown on this
plan right now, but we do have multiple locations we can put that path. We have been
talking with Mr. Siddoway, we have got a meeting with him tomorrow morning at 9:00
and I'm telling you tonight that we will agree to a ten foot north-south path where ever
Steve thinks we need to put it. There is plenty of places to put it on site. So, again, it's
not on the plan tonight, but we feel it's pretty minimal; we have got plenty of room to put
that. The fire department wanted private streets with 26 foot drive aisles. The only
drive aisle that's not dimensioned 26 feet is the far westerly north-south drive aisle, it's
dimensioned 25 feet, but you can see we have plenty of room to gain a foot quite easily.
So, again, it's something you wouldn't even notice on a site plan if you were to see a
dimension change from 25 to 26. So, we don't feel that's a big issue, because we can
comply. There was a discussion in the staff report about the sanitation company and
the dumpster locations. My client, the owners, Bach, did meet with the Sanitation
group, Doug, I can't remember his last name, met with him today and they have
apparently ironed out all the issues and the dumpster locations, particularly on the
north, will change and will shift, but, again, we know we have to comply with his desires
and wishes and we don't see that as a big issue regarding site impacts. Wheel stops,
the staff report indicated they'd like to see wheel stops, because of the pull-in parking.,
particularly probably around the units. We definitely can agree to either widening the
sidewalk or the wheel stops. Probably the wheel stops. We don't want to add anymore
hard surfaces than we need to; we prefer to have more landscaping than hard surface.
So, we can work that out in the final designs. Probably the two issues that staff is
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 44 of 80
correct that has the potential to impact this site is regarding Nampa-Meridian's facilities
and we have two facilities. I`m going to start with the -- my opinion is the easiest one on
the south and I'm going to call it the Stokesberry Lateral. Nampa-Meridian recognizes it
only as the Stokesberry Lateral, so I need to always call it the Stokesberry Lateral. And
that is on the south boundary. And there is an existing easement that we do show
encroaching upon with our buildings. Staff indicated in a letter -- in the staff report that
they wanted a letter from Nampa-Meridian approving that. Nampa-Meridian will not
write letters without final plans and construction drawings, but I did meet with John
Anderson and my clients met with him this afternoon and he didn't say it would be okay,
but he didn't say it wouldn't be okay. He suggested things that we could do that could
increase our chances highly of getting approval from Nampa-Meridian's board and
those are ideas that we definitely will entertain. Some of the concepts were go with an
inverted siphon, so that we don't have this big pipe poking out of the ground and have to
put this big massive amount of dirt on top of it. He did say that he doesn't want any
large tree bearing -- root bearing structures within 20 feet of the centerline of that pipe
and that would cause the tree scapes to be pushed out to the north. Another option that
he was quite intrigued with was Lars Anderson, who does a lot of this in Utah with
UDOT on his landscaping plans, is he puts an HTP liner in the trench wall of the gravity
irrigation pipe and., apparently, stops the trees from going into the root structure and
John Anderson seemed real intrigued by that. He thought with the proper license
agreement between NM1D and Bach as the owner of this project, that that could be a
good test case. So, there is plenty of options that we can do. So, we are comfortable
that we can move ahead with the Stokesberry Lateral on the south regarding Finch
Lateral aka South Slough. Again, Nampa-Meridian only recognizes that as the Finch
Lateral, but it's the same thing. They will not allow -- we tried to convince them to craft
any type of one-sided license agreement to allow us to put parking structures in there,
covered parking structures, but they said absolutely not. Basically don't even apply for
it. So, that has the potential of causing a major site revision. If our variance is denied
and we have to put in covered parking, then, we are going to have to shift that whole
line on that northerly boundary about 25 feet into the site. That's going to squeeze this
internal area, put our buildings much closer together and really impact our landscaping.
That's why we requested a variance and --
Moe: Question for you on that.
Stanfield: Yes, sir.
Moe: What about getting rid of this building right here, would that not take care of the
problem with the additional parking spaces needed?
Stanfield.: It's going to -- I think we still have quite a bit more we are going to have to
provide and it's going to wipe out that whole northerly tier of parking. I don't think we
can get enough parking just in that one little building area. And this is why we
requested a variance. You could tell us to revise the site plan, but at this point we are
not willing to withdraw that variance, so you would, basically, get the same site plan., to
be honest with you. So, we would be looking for either a recommended approval for
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 45 of 80
that variance or a recommended denial. We realize it's a gamble on our part, but it's
something that we are -- we are willing to move ahead to with Council. But it does have
the potential to impact the site, but that's why we are requesting a variance. And I think
that's it. I tried to go as quick as I can. It's pretty late.
Moe: Any questions?
Marshall: So, usually when people move into the apartments they have places
assigned to them; right? Parking stalls assigned?
Stanfield,: It's been a long time since I had to move into an apartment.
Marshall: Yeah. So, my question is are any of these assigned? Are those just for the
clubhouse?
Stanfield: Some of them are signed assigned, but by and large they are open for
visitors, the mailman to come in, other services that may need to come in and provide
support to the clubhouse. The idea is to keep that as open as possible and encourage
people to park in their assigned parking stalls.
Moe: Any other questions of this applicant?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none right now.
Moe: All right.
Rohm: Before we -- before you sit down -- Caleb, if they drop their variance request for
the access road, would you be in support of including the commercial property and drop
your desire to have that excluded?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Rohm, absolutely. We have some -- some provisions
or Sonya has some provisions already written in the staff report should you choose to
annex that commercial portion. It talks about things such as requiring aback-age road
on that lot, so properties to the -- maybe I'II go back real quick. There are some parcels
that aren't a part, so approximately this is -- the 1.5 they have -- there is one more
parcel to the north of them that is also landlocked but for Eagle Road and, then, two
more south of them. Some of those provisions in the DA talk about aback-age road for
all four of those lots to use and eventually come out to River Valley Road.. They would
not be able to develop that lot until such time as access is provided through River Valley
or probably a less likely scenario, up to Ustick. But those provisions are already written
into the analysis section of the staff report. So, absolutely, if they -- if they withdraw
their variance request I think staff could be supportive of annexing them into the city as
well.
Moe: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 46 of 80
Stanfield: Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, the site plan that has my title on it on the
right-hand. side that I prepared, we actually even show anorth-south ingress-egress
easement for the benefit of our neighbors along our east side.
Rohm: That generally has support by this Commission for adjacent properties, because
I think we have found that a lot in developments where the adjacent property is just as
landlocked as yours --
Stanfield: Correct.
Rohm: -- and., then, if it doesn't get addressed now, it just moves the problem out to a
later date.
Stanfield: Yes. And somebody's got to go first with the annexation and set the tone and
we are willing to set that tone with that north-south.
Moe: Any other questions? Thank you very much. As far as sign-ups, Lars and Scott
did their job of signing on there, so Andrew?
Welk: Thank you, Members of the Commission. My name is Andrew Welk, I'm with
Center Cal Properties, 7455 Southwest Bridgeport Road, in Tigart, Oregon. 97224.
Glad I got that right. And I think in about two hours somebody turns into a pumpkin, so -
- we are -- I'm here representing our interest as a developer to the south of this
property. We are neither in support or against this application, we simply wanted to
state into the record that there is potentially an adjoining road between us, being East
River Valley, and we would encourage, as a condition of this approval, that the applicant
be encouraged to work with us as a neighboring property owner on those access points
on East River Valley, just so that the properties are coordinated for access. It just
makes sense. So, I just wanted to state that and I appreciate your support in that.
Thank you.
Moe: Thank you very much. But, I guess I am curious, you already note that where the
-- the entrances are and whatnot. Are you anticipating yours is going to change? Yours
won't line up and whatnot?
Welk: We haven't designed our approached off of East River Valley yet, so,
unfortunately, we don't know that precisely today. There may be some flexibility in their
access, I don't know.
Moe: To me it doesn't look like we have a whole bunch of flexibility, other than .probably
the one that would be right now that's shown on the east, because the one on the west
has to stay -- or should be fairly close to staying where that's at. The one, basically, in
the center I guess could move.
Welk: Yeah. I don't -- I don't know. It's their site plan, I would just simply ask that, you
know, we both, as neighbors, need to make an effort to coordinate what we do.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 47 of 80
Moe: Well, I guess on the record you said that and they have heard you.
Welk: All right. Thank you.
Moe: All right. Thank you. There is no one else signed up. If there is anyone else that
would like to speak, you're more than welcome to come forward. Okay. No one else
would like to speak. Mr. Rohm, you look like you want to say something.
Rohm: Just that we probably need to close the Public Hearing. So, with that -- Mr.
Chairman?
Moe: Mr. Rohm.
Rohm: At this time I'd like to make a motion to close the Public Hearing on AZ 08-003
and CUP 08-004.
Newton-Huckabay: Second..
Moe.: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on AZ 08-003 and
CUP 08-004. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Discussion? Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, any comments?
Newton-Huckabay: I have a couple questions, if I may. It may be a late hour, but
assure you I do not turn into a pumpkin at midnight, it's much worse, so -- this whole
thing --
Moe: Is there a witness to that or --
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. You might want to move back. I totally lost my train of
thought now. Okay. So, this whole thing hinges on the variance 08-002 being
approved by City Council and.., if not, the whole thing has to be redesigned., is that what
I'm -- that's -- okay. In addifion to that, isn't this site plan -- it's uncovered parking and
it's 56 spaces short -- or 53 spaces short?
Moe: Sixty-five.
Newton-Huckabay: Sixty-five spaces short?
Moe: As far as covered., 65.
Newton-Huckabay: It's not -- no, but isn't it short spaces also?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 48 of 80
Moe; No.
Newton-Huckabay: No. It's just short covered spaces.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, that's -- that's
correct. They actually have, I think, four more than what would be required by total
parking spaces.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Hood: But they are 65 covered parking spaces short from being in compliance.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. That's all my questions. That's my question. I'm done.
Moe: Okay. Mr. Rohm.
Rohm: You know, I like the project as a whole, but we can't act on the variance request,
only City Council, and from my perspective the project as a whole has a lot of good
merits to it and the variance in and of itself is only to be acted by Council, so I think we
should give them an opportunity to take it before the Council and if the Council doesn't
like the lack of covered parking, then, they can kick it back and, then, we will see the
whole thing over again once they have gone through a redesign, but I'm in agreement
with the applicant that why redesign if, in fact, there is a solution with the variance.
Makes sense to me.
Moe: I would agree, Mr. Rohm. I guess the other question I would have -- what would
your opinion be of the 65 spaces that don't have cover at the present time?
Rohm: I think that anybody that moves in there would be aware of that at the time they
moved in and it's -- that doesn't create a significant issue for me. But I'm not living there
either.
Moe: I understand. I guess my point being is -- is that we do have the opportunity to
give opinion to Council, along with any other motions that we bring forward to them and
so --
Rohm: I don't think the lack of 65 covered parking spaces should preclude this project
from being developed.
Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. O'Brien.
O'Brien: So, am I understanding correctly it's the reason that they have suggested that
we have 65 parking spaces that are uncovered, is that being driven by the irrigation
district?
Moe: Yes. They can't -- the Nampa-Meridian right through there --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 49 of 80
O'Brien: Okay.
Moe: -- they can't build over their property -- over their easement.
O'Brien: So, the next question would be is a parking cover considered a .permanent
building?
Moe: Yes.
O'Brien: Okay. Thanks.
Moe: Mr. Marshall, anything?
Marshall: Yes. To be honest, I don't think that allowing them to build without the 65
.covered spaces constitutes any special privilege or anything like that. I really don't,
because of the hardship created by the irrigation district here. I do -- I am concerned
and would like to see a solution to the irrigation here on the south side. I understand
things are in works, but who's to say all that falls through and we can't get any type of
trees down in there, the buildings have to move, things like that, based on where that
irrigation -- the Stokesberry Lateral easement is and based on that I have a hard time --
Iwant that information before I make a decision.
Moe: Well, Mr. Marshall, I guess one thing that could be done -- just my point would be
that the maker of the motion could make it such that no construction could start until
written authorization from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation was given in order to go ahead and
let that go forward. I don't know that there is a reason to hold this thing up, just waiting
on that approval. Nothing's going to get done until that's done anyway. You know,
Nampa-Meridian's going to have to approve it --
Marshall: But in what kind of condition? Are they going to allow trees in that area or are
they going to allow the buildings in that area? I mean to what end will Nampa-Meridian
go? I understand that's in negotiation, but -- and they seem amenable to finding the
solution --
Rohm: I think what the deal ultimately boils down to, Commissioner Marshall, is we are
not recommending that the landscape ordinances be abandoned along that property
line and if, in fact, they can come to an agreement with Nampa-Meridian that meets
Nampa-Meridian's needs, while at the same time does not abandon our -- our
landscape ordinance, then, we got a -- we got a deal. If they can't, then, at that time
they will have to come back and revisit that situation. But our process of approval
doesn't vacate ordinance and so they are still required, even if Nampa-Meridian puts
limitations on them, to be in compliance with our landscape ordinances.
Marshall.: Which means they wouldn't be able to move forward as it sits.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 50 of 80
Rohm: Right.
Marshall: Got you. I appreciate that clarification.
Moe: Mr. Rohm, you did a great job.
Rohm: I think that's correct.
Marshall: Okay. Thank you.
Moe: Any other comments?
O'Brien.: None from me.
Moe: Okay. Would there be -- yes. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I just wanted to wrap up the -- the changes that would go on a
motion, would be to add the ten foot pathway as per an agreement with the parks
commission. Condition approval on -- what's the adjective I'm looking for here --
agreement with NMI'D at the emergency or -- no, it was right-in, right-out, ingress-
egress, it wasn't just ER was it? It was an actual ingress-egress. No, it was an ER
ingress-egress. Okay. So, an emergency access on the east -- southeast -- southeast?
Moe: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Just the east. On the east side of the property along Allys Way.
Those were the three -- oh. And, then, we would put -- that we accept withdrawal of the
variance?
Moe: Uh-huh.
Newton-Huckabay: The first variance. Variance 08 --
Moe.: The access to Eagle Road.
Newton-Huckabay: And. we need to -- I don't think we need to put anything related to
Mr. Welk's comments from Center Cal. You're happy work with them.
Rohm: I think you're ready to make a motion.
Newton-Huckabay: So -- okay. Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing
on --
Rohm: It's already closed.
Moe: We have already done that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 51 of 80
Newton-Huckabay: Oh, did we do that? Okay.
Hood: Mr. Chair and Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, before just -- I didn't print off a
copy of the staff report. I'm not quite sure what Exhibit B has in it at this point. Are
there conditions of approval provided in the staff report? I vaguely remember seeing
something about, you know, since staff is recommending continuance -- I didn't know
how many conditions made it in there.
Rohm: Read that whole thing.
Newton-Huckabay: Do you want me to read through the whole thing?
Hood: No. That's fine. I just want to make sure there are conditions of approval --
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. There is --
Hood: Particularly from the planning department is my concern. All the other agencies
should be in there already.
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. It says draft, though.
Hood: Okay. And you may want to read through -- you may want to read through those
real quick, Commissioners, because some of them do reflect some of the changes that
staff was looking for. So, if those are the only changes you're making, those are really
added changes. Some of those you may not want to move forward onto the City
Council, I guess, is all I'm trying to say.
Moe: Well, actually, probably the first, he's already making comment that the
development agreement does not talk about the C-C zoned property. See that first
one?
Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. You know, we may have to -- we may have to continue
this just so it can be cleared up.
Moe: Don't like to sit here and try to make conditions for projects, so I don't think -- but I
don't -- and, again, Sonya's got that analysis back in Section 10 for what -- I couldn't
give you the page. I apologize, I didn't print it out this evening and bring it with me, but it
'looks like page eight, maybe, of the staff report has some analysis regarding the C-C
zoned property. If you're not comfortable doing that now, we can certainly take that
initiative as staff and, you know, revise the comments based on the hearing tonight and
bring it back to you.
Hood: Mr. Chair and Commissioners?
Moe: Yes, sir.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 52 of 80
Hood: If I may, I think we could probably solve the C-C portion of it pretty easily if in --
again, beginning on page nine of the development agreement provisions, you added
two additional provisions. One that requires the C-C zoned property to have aback-age
road to the property to the north and south, to provide them with across-access
ingress-egress easement to the properties to the north and south.
Newton-Huckabay: Across-access agreement or an ingress-egress agreement?
Hood: Ingress-egress, slash cross-access. So, it's really both.
Marshall: As shown on his preliminary plat; right? As shown on the back of the
preliminary plat as an access easement.
Hood: Yeah. I didn't see that exhibit, but I did see it out in the hallway earlier, but I
haven't seen it on the plan.
Rohm: And what's the second one?
Hood: The second one would be that development of the C-C zoned lot shall not occur
until such time as access is provided to East River Valley -- street, road, alley, whatever
it is. And just a note to the developer. I don't think we necessarily need it in the
development agreement, but this is an entryway corridor, anything constructed on that
site will be subject to design review. So, typically would put in something about
architectural character of those buildings, but we do have at least those minimums
covered with the city's design review standards. So, that lot will be subject to design
review anyways. If you want to put something else on there that you want the building
to be gold plated, you certainly could insert that if you want to, but there will be a
minimum design standard, so --
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Nary, would that be okay?
Nary: They probably don't want that. That's probably not in your testimony.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Are those the only changes I need to add to the motion?
Hood: As far as staff is concerned those would be the only ones to the development
agreement. I have not had a chance to go through the ones for the Conditional Use
Permit and I think based on the discussion you all have had, there may be a couple of
those that -- that you may want to modify. I haven't had a chance to look at those, but if
you're -- like 1.1.2 on the Exhibit B says the applicant's request for annexation and
zoning of 1.5 acres to C-C is not approved.. So, it sounds like you guys are going to
want to change that one.
Newton-Huckabay: Can we just strike that?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 53 of 80
Hood..: Yeah. You could simply just strike the not. And, then, again, in the Conditional
Use Permit it talks about the site plan being not approved.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Yes. You're leaning to want to wait on this and seeing the site plan?
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I`m just concerned that I'm going to make a motion and we
are going to leave in items in this staff report that shouldn't be and leave out items that
should be included., just based on what conversation we have had here. It might be
cleaner for everyone if we continued it just to get aclean-up staff report to the next
meeting.
Moe: Two weeks we would have it cleaned up and --
Hood.: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, I think we probably could. Now, that also -- I would
preface that by saying I don't know if there are changes you want to see to the site plan.
Like the emergency access over to the side or not. Now, then, I'm going to put the ball
back in the applicant's court and say, well, when can you get us a revised site plan that
we can have, you know, a new date on that we can just reference in the staff report.
mean we need a little bit of time there. So, if they can get us something by, you know,
Tuesday or Wednesday of next week, we can have something for the following
Commission meeting the following Thursday. So, that's why I would preface that yes
with a depends on when we get a revised site plan and what changes need to be made.
Newton-Huckabay: Chair, I recommend we reopen the Public Hearing on AZ 08-003,
CUP 08-004, VAR 08-001 and VAR 08-002 to discuss continuing this with the applicant.
Marshall: Second..
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to reopen the Public Hearing on AZ 08-003, PP
08-007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? We are back open on the Public
Hearing.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, would you like to applicant to come forward?
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah.
Moe: Would the applicant come forward, please.
Anderson: The applicant Lars Anderson with Bach Homes. Do I need to restate my
address?
Moe: No. I think we got it. We are in good shape.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 54 of 80
Anderson: Great.
Moe: After listening, do you guys have any problem with making revisions to the site
plan in regard to showing where the emergency access is and --
Anderson: No. We have no problem with that. We still ask that we proceed with
recommendation to City Council tonight and we would be happy to make that change.
We feel, again, that it's such a minor change to show that in there -- we have the room
for it -- for the emergency access. It's such a minor change we feel like we could
proceed with that as a condition.
Moe: Well, our biggest concern right now is the staff report is not complete in regards
to, you know, what we are going to approve and trying to go through here now and just
lining out here and there and whatnot, we, quite frankly, like to give the staff enough
time to review it and put it back in the way it is and along with that we may as well clean
it up and get the new site plan in there as well, so it's all set to go. And I think that's
pretty much where we are leaning to right now.
Newton-Huckabay: We don't have clear conditions of approval in the staff report and --
Anderson; It looks like we are okay with that. We've waited a year and a half now,
waiting for Center Cal's approval, so I guess another couple of weeks won't hurt us,
but --
Rohm: And our question is can you provide an updated site plan by next Tuesday or
Wednesday?
Hood: Mid week, anyways. Yeah. Wednesday.
Rohm: Mid week. So, that they can include it in the revised staff report?
Anderson: Yes. Again, it's such a minor issue, we would be able to turn that out.
Rohm: And I think that we really would like to have that reference to that frontage road
along that commercial property included in the site plan adjustment, too, just so that
there is that ingress-egress and cross-access addressed on the plat itself.
Anderson: Would we be able to do that with a note? We, obviously, don't own the other
two parcels, so --
Rohm: Absolutely.
Anderson: -- we could just say -- and we have said that on the existing site plan, that
cross-access would be --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 55 of 80
Rohm: Would be provided.
Anderson: -- provided. Yeah.
Moe: I guess one more question I do have, since you're up there. This is in regards to
your discussions with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation. I understand until you have your final
plans and you're ready to go, you're not going to -- they are not really going to make a
decision, but what kind of a time frame are we looking at to get that squared away with
Nampa-Meridian? Are we waiting until Council approves something and, then, you're
going to finish it out at that point or have you had more than one discussion with John
Anderson?
Stanfield: We had adiscussion -- Commissioner, Members of the Commission, Scott
Stanfield. We've had a couple conversations with Nampa-Meridian and various staff on
our first go around and none of this came up. We had a new conversation just today
with him regarding Nampa-Meridian's time frame. We -- I'm almost a hundred percent
sure we wouldn't get anything in writing from Nampa-Meridian by Council either,
because they are -- I have never known Nampa-Meridian to give any kind of written
approval without any kind of final design. In fact --
Moe: Nor I have.
Stanfield.: In fact, Mr. Anderson reiterated that today. And what Commissioner Rohm
said earlier is correct, we are not asking for any special consideration on the
landscaping. If we can't comply, we got to come back.
Moe: Thank you.
Anderson: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, if I can add to that real
quick, Commissioner Marshall asked about the structures being in the easement and
we have shown the easement being relocated to the south outside of the right of way
and none of the structures are actually in the easement, only the landscape is in the
easement -- in the relocated -- the Stokesberry Lateral.
Marshall: My reference was the preliminary plat that you provided here, so --
Anderson: Yes. So, we may have mistakenly shown it there, but none of the garages
or the buildings are in the relocated easement. But there are landscape trees in the
easement.
Marshall.: Thank you.
Moe: Thank you very much.
Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may, just one more quick thing. And for the applicant as a request
that I would hope you would make as part of your motion where you can incorporate
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 56 of 80
this. I agree that the access -- the emergency access is fairly minor. However, revised
calculations explaining what you did with parking, if you lost any parking, new
calculations as far as that goes, we are going to need that, so even a quick narrative or
revised calculations stating how you kind of approached that angle would definitely help,
as well as revised plans. And, then, while I have got the mike, Commissioners, there
are some, too, that -- a couple of conditions that I would ask you -- that we need
direction even tonight on. 1.2.3 talks about submitting a private street application prior
to the next meeting. Just clarification. If they need to put that together -- it's not very
difficult of an application to put together, it will take some man hours or at least an hour
or two to put together, but that is something now that we are requiring as staff. We think
it's the cleanest way to go. That way we are sending on a complete package to the City
Council, but need you to kind of either confirm or modify that, whatever you choose to
do. 1.2.6 you just talked about, so you may want to modify that even now or give us
direction how you would like that to read regarding the letter from Nampa-Meridian
Irrigation or not letter or whatever. And, then, 1.2.8 talks about parking standards.
think staff is going to come away with the same, even though that's your direction,
unless you tell us right now to remove 1.2..8, that I'm taking away that if you're
forwarding this on, then, you're in support of the variance. You can read between the
lines on that one, so -- but I need to hear that from you if that's the case on 1.2.8.
Ands, then, there is no 1.2..9, I just realized, but 1.2.10 -- I guess we have talked about,
so that doesn't necessarily need to be addressed. But those other three Ithink -- again,
those are all bolded, except for 1.2.8, if you can modify those and we will get the rest.
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. 1.2.3, a complete private street application. for streets within
this development shall be submitted at least ten days prior to the next Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting. Twenty-six foot wide private street shall be constructed
within this development in accordance with the standards listed in the UDC, I believe
that the position of the Commission would be to leave that condition in, but I don't want
to speak for --
Rohm: Yeah. Ithink so.
Newton-Huckabay: -- the four of you. Okay. 1.2.6. So, leave it in on 1.2.3? On 1.2.6
the applicant should submit a letter from Nampa Irrigation -- Nampa-Meridian Irrigation
District prior to the next Commission hearing documenting that they are amenable to
relocating the Downey Sub-lateral and easement that currently exists along the
southern boundary of the site. If NMID is not amenable to relocating the easement, the
site plan shall be revised so that structures are located outside of the easement.
Additionally, if NMID will not allow landscaping, for example, trees, within their
easement and there is not sufficient room outside of the easement for the required
street buffer along River Valley Road, an additional five foot wide stripe shall be
provided for street buffer landscaping. Would we just preface that on an agreement
with NMID?
Moe: Yeah. That pretty --they are not going to deal with anything unless they --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 57 of 80
Newton-Huckabay: So, leave that one -- that bullet in there.
Moe: I'd just leave the whole thing in.
Hood: Except for -- excuse me. Except for prior to the next Commission meeting.. The
intent of this was not to get that approval letter from NMID, but just something from
them saying we are going to talk with the applicant. They could -- they need to meet all
of our requirements, but we are not saying no.
Moe: Right.
Hood.: We are at least going to work with them on trying to make it a reality.
Newton-Huckabay: So, if I strike prior to the next Commission hearing, that -- that --
Hood: Yeah. That works for me.
Newton-Huckabay: That should do it?
Moe: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. 1.28, the applicant shall comply the covered and uncovered
parking standards for multi-family developments listed in UDC 11-3-C-6. The requested
variance is not approved.. I believe that we could leave that in there, as that will remain
staffs position on this and our forwarding onto City Council would be our
recommendation for approval. I agree with that, Caleb.
Moe: Okay.
Rohm: You agree with the -- requiring the --
Moe: That's a requirement.
Rohm: -- the approval of City Council on the variance request.
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I think if we just -- let me make myself more clear. I believe
1.2.8 should just remain in the staff report as stated and our recommendation of
approval to the City Council is our support of granting the variance.
Moe: Got you.
Rohm; Okay.
Hood: And just let me hopefully clear things up. This right now, until you guys make a
formal action on it, is staffs recommendation.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 58 of 80
Newton-Huckabay: Right.
Hood: When you forward this onto City Council these conditions should be your
conditions, not staffs original conditions. I don't mind leaving it in and you guys striking
it through at the next hearing, if that's what you so choose to do, but (wouldn't -- I don't
think this condition should be in there, if, in fact, you guys are supporting the variance.
Newton-Huckabay: Oh. I misunderstood you. I thought you wanted it left in there for
that record the other way.
Hood: We came up with it, so I do prefer that it be left in. I'm trying to now craft
conditions that reflect what I'm hearing from you guys..
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, we'll just strike 1.2.8.
Rohm: Strike it.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I'm going to make a motion for continuance and I'm going to
repeat myself on all of these.
Rohm: Go for it. Don't we need to close the Public Hearing again?
Moe: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: No, we are going to continue the Public Hearing.
Moe: I'm sorry, you're absolutely right.
Rohm: I think that is right. Yeah. Good job.
Newton-Huckabay: I move to continue file numbers AZ 08-003, CUP 08-004, VAR 08-
001,and VAR 08-002, to the hearing date of March 6, 2008, for the following --
Moe: We already struck one variance.
Hood: March 6th is today.
Newton-Huckabay: Oh, it is. March 20th.
Hood: We need to do at least the 20th.
Moe: Right.
Newton-Huckabay: Start twitching here in a minute. Okay.
Rohm: I think she is turning into a pumpkin.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 59 of 80
Newton-Huckabay: To the hearing date of March 20th, 2008, for the following reasons:
The applicant will be removing the request for -- removing the variance request VAR 08-
001, which variance for access on State Highway 55, Eagle Road. We will be adding
the condition or adding a pathway with the cooperation of Meridian Parks Department.
Be adding an ingress-egress on the east property line to Allys Way. On the staff report,
on condition 1.1.2 we will be striking the word not from the sentence the applicants
request for annexation and zoning of 1.5 acres to C-C is not approved -- will read that it
is approved. Condition 1.2..3, there will be no changes to that condition. 1.2.6, we will
strike the words prior to the next Commission hearing, so the applicant should submit a
letter from Nampa Meridian Irrigation District documenting that they are unable to
relocate the Downey Sub-lateral, et cetera. That's how that will read. Condition 1.2.8
will be removed from the staff report.
Rohm: Emergency access, did you --
Newton-Huckabay: Yes, I did. There will be an easterly emergency ingress-egress
access.
Rohm: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: And, then, I'm not sure if I stated.., but our recommendation for
approval will also be prefaced on an agreement -- an agreement to be reached between
NMID -- I think we -- NM1D and the applicants. End of motion.
Rohm: Second.
Moe: It has been moved and seconded to continue AZ 08-003 and CUP 08-004, along
with the variances, to the regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting of March
20th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Those have been continued to
the 20th.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9: Public Hearing: CUP 08-002 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a
drive through establishment in a C-G zone within 300 feet of another drive
through facility for Sonic Southern Springs by Boise Food Service -
1870 South Meridian Road:
Moe: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing CUP 08-0.02 for Sonic Southern
Springs for the sole purpose of continuing it to be regularly scheduled meeting of the
Planning and Zoning Commission of March 20th. Can I get a motion?
Rohm: So moved..
Marshall: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 60 of 80
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue the Public Hearing CUP 08-002 for
Sonic Southern Springs to the regularly scheduled meeting of the 20th of March.
Newton-Huckabay: Aye..
Rohm: Do you need a motion?
Moe: Yeah.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue Item No. CUP 08-002 to the regularly
scheduled meeting of March 20th.
Moe: I think we probably moved it twice. That's good.
Rohm: Well, I think we did.
Moe: Could I get a second again?
Newton-Huckabay: Second..
Moe: All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10: Public Hearing: AZ 07-020 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3
acres from RUT to an R-15 (Medium High Density Residential) zone for
Villas Cad Lochsa Falls by D.T. Campbell Investments - 5555 North
Linder Road:
Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 08-002 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval
with 1. residential building lot and 1 common lot in a proposed R-15 zone
for Villas ~ Lochsa Falls by D.T. Campbell Investments - 5555 North
Linder Road:
Item 12: Public Hearing: CUP 08-003 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
21 multi-family dwelling units in a proposed R-15 zone on approximately 3
acres for Villas Cad Lochsa Falls by D.T. Campbell Investments - 5555
North Linder Road:
Moe: Okay. I'd like to open the Public Hearing AZ 07-002, PP 08-002 and CUP 08-003
for the Villas @Lochsa Falls and start with the staff report, please.
O'Brien: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, you said Public Hearing AZ 07-002, instead of
020.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 61 of 80
Moe: I'm sorry about that. 002. That was AZ 07-020.
OBrien: Thank you.
Parsons: No. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. It's supposed to be AZ 08-002 for the
annexation.
Newton-Huckabay: A misprint.
Moe: What's that?
Newton-Huckabay: A misprint.
Moe: It was a misprint. Okay. So, it should have been 08-020 is what you're saying.;
right?
Marshall: 002.
Moe: Okay. Well, let's open that thing, along with the other two.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair, there is -- one confusion. Is it AZ 08-002 or -
- because on the agenda it says 020, on the report it says 002.
Parsons: It is 002.
Moe: And that, I do believe is -- it does say 020. Okay. Let's start again. We are going
to open the Public Hearing on AZ 08-002 -- correct? Okay. And PP 08-002 and CUP
08-003:. And now the staff report.
Parsons: Thank you., Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The applications
before you tonight are an annexation and zoning of three acres from RUT Ada County
to R-15, medium high density residential. Concurrently the applicant has submitted for
preliminary plat approval of one residential lot and one common lot. Conditional Use
Permit approval to construct amulti-family development consisting of 21 condominium
units and 120 square foot cabana. A private street application for three private streets
within the proposed development and alternative compliance for two UDC standards of
one to allow for an alternative design from the 20-by-20 parking pad requirement and
the other is to allow for an alternative design for the five foot landscape strip adjacent to
pathways. The site is located at 5555 North Linder Road, approximately a half mile
north of McMillan Road on the west side of the Linder Road.. The property is bordered
to the north by Lochsa Falls No. 1. To south with a single family residence, zoned Ada
County -- Ada County RUT. To the east of the site is Rocky Mountain High School,
zoned R-8. And, again, to the west of the site is Lochsa Falls Subdivision No. 1, zoned
R-4. Move to the aerial. The site currently contains an existing single family home with
associated out buildings. The submitted plans indicate all existing buildings are to be
removed to make way for the proposed multi-family developments. So, here you can
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 62 of 80
see the site is pretty much built out around it, except for this parcel here. The map's a
little dated. This is under construction now. And one thing I'd like to point out, too, is
this section or roadway is also under construction -- ACHD construction right now. The
applicant is requesting approval of two lots consisting of one residential lot and one
common lot. The UDC requires all residential street buffers to be on a common lot. On
a submitted preliminary plat the applicant does not show the street buffer landscaping
within a common lot. In addition, the site connection to the existing Lochsa Falls
sidewalk on Cedar Grove in the southwest corner of this site tapers from five feet to two
feet. Staff has conditioned the applicant to revise the plat to show the landscape buffer
in a common lot and the extension of the sidewalk, maintain a five foot width to the
property line prior to submitting for final plat. So, here is the plat that they submit. Here
is where that 25 foot landscape buffer is located and it's not indicated there and, then,
this is what staff is recommending here as far as the tapering down from five to two feet
here and connecting to that existing sidewalk. Primary access to the site is from Cedar
Grove, a half street section via a cul-de-sac that will be dedicated to ACRD and will be
extended if and when the parcel to the south annexes into the city. In conjunction with
the public streets, the applicant is proposing to construct three private streets to provide
access and circulation within this development. The proposed private streets are all
internal to the development and are to be constructed as a 24 foot street section that
includes a four foot wide sidewalk on one side. So, here is kind of the entrance way into
the development. Here is the partial cul-de-sac that will be dedicated to ACHD. And,
then, entrance into the site will be through this 26 foot throat and, then, the private
street's kind of going in an I shaped to T shaped if you will. The applicant is proposing
several different structures on this site. The site is expected to develop with 14
buildings, including the exercise cabana. The mix of the buildings include five single
detached buildings and eight bi-unit buildings, totaling 21 units. The product type will
range in size from 1,500 to 1,750 square feet. All of the units will be three bedrooms,
two and a half baths, with attached two-car garages. The applicant is proposing an
alternative to the 20 by 20 parking pad in front of the garages as required by code. The
parking pads located in front of the garages are 20 feet wide and tape down to ten feet.
The roll into the driveway is at least 40 feet and the first 20 feet incorporates a five foot
landscape strip with a decorative trellis that highlights the entrance of the driveway. The
four detached units internal to the development do not have the expanded driveway, but
have the trellis integrated into the front facade of the garages. Ten guest parking stalls
have been provided for the four internal units to provide additional parking for the
development.. Staff is supportive of the applicant's request. So, here is where they are
locating their guest parking here and also north of -- of the internal units.. These are the
four internal units that I had mentioned earlier without having the parking pads. I know
in past projects we have discussed this issue quite a bit about having the two.car parks
or the two garage car parks and a 20-by-20 pad when they came into condo the project,
so that applicant's have come in with aunique -- I guess alternative to what code
requires and so they actually provide this pad space here and, then, you know,
additional pad space behind there, so tandem parking. Again, you can see where they
had the landscape strip and there is where the trellis is located to highlight the entrance
into the garage.. The landscape buffer and proposed plantings around the foundation of
the units comply with the UDC. However, the UDC requires a five foot landscaping strip
Meridian Planning ~ Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 63 of 80
along both sides of walkways with trees planted every 35 linear feet. The applicant has
requested alternative compliance from this standard. By requiring the five foot walking
path along the west side of their property, would either be placed along the existing
fence of the single family residences or adjacent to the garages of the two units that
parallel the pathway. For the esthetics of the project the applicant is proposing to vary
the widths of the landscaping strips along the pathway to allow five feet for the planting
of trees and narrow to three feet in areas to be planted with shrubs and plants, while
maintaining the five foot pathway. Portions of the path -- walking paths would still be at
the back of the residential fence, however, the impact is less than having the entire
fencing located along the west property boundary's fence line. Staff believes this is a
better alternative, because it limits the impact to the residents on the west and meets
the intent of the landscaping ordinance. So, again, this is the walking path that staff is
referencing. You can seek how the applicant has varied the landscaping width here to
allow for the trees to be planted., so you have it five feet here, opens up five feet here,
opens five feet there, five feet here, and, then, opens there for five feet to allow the
required trees. And, then, along the property boundary here it narrows to three feet in
there to allow for shrubs and other plantings. The applicant is required to provide
amenities for the multi-family development. Amenities on the site include a walking path
throughout the development, berm landscaping along North Linder Road, with a central
plaza and water fountain. A neighborhood fitness pool and an excise cabana with
outdoor patio area. So, amenities are provided here. Here is the walking path around
the development. There is where the cabana is located. Outdoor seating area. And.,
then, of course, the fitness pool here. Again, here is where that fountain is located with
the plaza for residents to use. One other thing to mention, the applicant's also provided
that 80 foot -- 80 square feet of private usable space and, in addition, they try to
incorporate private usable backyards for future residents of the development as well.
Those average roughly 400 square feet. Because the site is less than five acres, the
qualifying open space requirements of the UDC -- of UDC 11-3G-3 are not applicable.
However, the multi-family standards require a minimum area of outdoor common open
space of 350 square feet for each unit containing more than 1,200 square feet of living
area. The units for the proposed multi-family development range in size from 1,500
square feet to 1,750 square feet. The minimum amount of open space required for this
development is 7,350 square feet and private usable open space is not considered
common open space. Currently, the applicant does not comply with the UDC. Staff
recommends the applicant lose one of the northern units adjacent to the cabana and
incorporate this area into a common area lot. If one lot -- one unit is lost, the applicant
will have to provide 7,000 square feet of open space. In addition to providing an
additional common area around the proposed cabana and pool area, staff recommends
that the applicant provide an additional amenity, including, but not limited to a gazebo,
barbecue area. Furthermore, staff recommends that the square footage of the exercise
cabana increase from 120 square feet to 240 square feet to provide for a more usable
space. If these changes are made, staff is supportive of the common open space for
the site. So, what staff is actually proposing is one of these -- preferably one of these
units to move or either rotate, turn, and try to just provide some more usable space
here. The applicant has provided staff with an additional rendering that we passed out
for you tonight. I'll let them do a job of explaining that to you, to kind of go with what
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 64 of 80
they are proposing to do with that. But right now staff has asked that one of these units
be removed and additional open space be provided. The applicant has submitted front,
side, and rear building elevations for the housing types and the cabana. Building
materials are to include stucco, stone, and masonry, wood siding, rough sawn -- rough
sawn timber, stained black, brown, Carmel or natural finish and fiberglass shingles. All
of the homes will be two stories with covered porches, private courtyards, and own
private backyards enclosed with six foot Cedar or vinyl fencing. The cabana is to be
constructed of shingle -- stucco with slate the banding along the top and bottom of the
structure. The same architectural shingles will be used as proposed by multi-family
units. In the narrative submitted with the application, the applicant states the project
does not propose to repeat two exterior styles side by side. Staff is supportive of the
varying -- staff is supportive of varying the exterior styles and elevations and has
conditioned the project as such in Exhibit B of the staff report. And that's also been
included in the development agreement for the site. Staff likes the appearance of the
proposed buildings and any future buildings on this site shall substantially comply with
the construction material and design elements shown on these elevafiions. Staff is
recommending approval of the Villas @Lochsa Falls with conditions in Exhibit B of the
staff reporter. With that I will stand for questions.
Moe: Any questions of staff?
Rohm: No, sir.
Moe: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward?
Grime: Good evening. It's still evening. My name is Evelyn Grime. I'm the architect.
I'm the architect and planner on this project. My address is Place Design and Planning,
100 Main Street, Suite 201, Boise. 83702. Nice to be here. And my coach turns into a
pumpkin, too. So, I have amended my comments just to stay as short as I can and I
would encourage you to ask lots of questions. There is a lot of detail in this project,
there is a lot going on on three acres, and we have spent a good almost a year
exploring different layouts and approaches and design schemes, anything from a
standard subdivision to what you see in front of you today. We have had four pre-
application meetings and we have really tried hard to work with staff before we ever got
in front of you tonight to see if we have got a winner. There is one other thing I'd like to
pass out and I'd like to do it now before getting into the discussion of our features. So, if
may, I`II give this to Nancy. And just quickly, what I'm handing out is an enlarged plan
of our entrance knuckle coming from Cedar Grove. Two of the items that I have
included with this plan are a shaded box representing a car as it can travel around this
directional island and into the private streets. In addition to that there are some 45
degree angle lines near the T intersection showing you the vision triangles. So, I think
that will be a handy reference when we get to that part of our discussion. I have two
other boards I'd like to put up. And my only concern here is I don't know how well
Commissioner O'Brien can see and so if I need to move out of the way or if you want
me to pull something up, I would be happy to do so. And my caffeine probably has not
worn off, so let me introduce you to the Villas @Lochsa Falls. What we have tried to do
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 65 of 80
here is look at our context and our context says that Comprehensive Plan shows that
this could be, you know, up to an R-8 in density. Part of the reasons we have combined
this with an R-15 condominium plat private street application is our ultimate goal was to
be as -- condense the hard-scape as much as possible, condense the streets, and open
up the open space as much so we have a neighborhood feel and rather than coming in
here with a public street, which we tried different -- different layouts and every time we
tried the public street approach it took up so much of the site and created a very
unpleasant condition for any of the neighbors, because you would end up with a street
running north-south right along the western property line here, which is very unfriendly
to the three neighbors. Now, I'd ask you to look at this plan. You have three neighbors
along your western boundary and you have three neighbors along your northern
boundary. Across Linder Road you have got Rocky Mountain High and this lot remains
a tree farm, I think. So, the design goal here was to integrate with the existing Lochsa
Falls and to be similar to the existing Lochsa Falls as far as buildings next door,
massing of structure, heights, architectural finishes. And our solution to this created a
knuckle here where you come in at a directional travel and you go around a tree island
and you come into the site -- this is where the private roads start. The next design tool
is to take these twins and complete the architecture of these twins in such a way that
they look like a single family home from the street from either direction. So, if we look at
this home, one of the front doors is here, coming in directly from the street. If we look at
this one, the front door enters from the side. So, when you look at this front elevation
you see a single family home. Another design to take apair -- or I call them twins. I
have twins. That's why. And put it next to a single. So, at any point in the
development, except right here, you don't have any pairs that are side by side. This is
some of the way that we go away from that look of row homes. I heard Mr. O'Brien's
comment earlier that he doesn't really like the look of row homes, but my goal as an
architect is always to say this lives and breathes like two homes, but it looks like a
single family on the street. And based on what it's next to, it also reads like a single
family home. The other design tool that we use were these driveways. One of our
challenges, given by staff and one that all of us agree with are recess the garages.
Well, when you come in with a public street here or you try to lay this out in a standard
traditional plat, you force your design into front loaded garages. By using the private
street layout and by pairing these homes, we are able to push the garage to the back,
have a ten foot wide drive here, this is an old fashioned ribbon strip driveway, with the
landscaping in the center, but you can still go to the back here and flair out and have a
full two car garage. But the emphasis is on the front door and the front porch and on
trellises that, again, bring the attention away from the garage, but say, you know,
welcome into my side yard. In this plat what I have done is all of the light green is public
outdoor open space or front yards that's not private space. Everything that is dark
green is meant to indicate that private outdoor space, as you would find in a single
family home. To talk about the different amenities and follow up on Bill's presentation, I
think starting, again, from our entrance, what makes this unique is we have a way of
coming in and traffic calming this, you know, what would otherwise be a very wide
straight shot through, by putting a tree island in the middle we are able to direct traffic
around., slow it down, at this entry. Another amenity is the walking path that he
mentioned and this is where we are asking for alternative compliance here. The idea
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 66 of 80
was to connect this neighborhood in 'a more traditional fashion as you walk along the
sidewalk and you greet your neighbors. So, there is a dedicated walking path this way.
And this four foot pathway is in addition to the 24 foot wide private street. And I think
when Bill described that earlier it almost sounded like it was 24 feet, including the
sidewalk. It's actually 24 feet plus the four foot walking path. And, then, when you
reach the intersection of this T street, the surface area. of that walking path changes just
to say pay attention, you're coming to an intersection. When we come towards Linder
Road, you know, whenever you have a landscape buffer here you have a choice of
saying we want a ten foot buffer and we want to ignore the rest of the world. That's not
our choice here. What we'd like to do is integrate and connect with Rocky Mountain
High School and the rest of the world, but do it in a softer way. So, what we have is a
three foot berm, plus a rock wall fence that runs the length of this and I have included
tonight -- Bill was so kind to put these in with his report as well -- sections of this berm to
show you how the pathway works. Thank you, Bill -- with our area. So, if we look here
at my board, this landscape berm picture is heading north and south, this happens at
the north end section and at the south end section where there isn't a pathway and what
you have is Linder Road, it's proposed with a bike lane, a detached sidewalk. These
are based on ACHD plans and Scott with Mason Stanfield can correct me if I have this
incorrect. I think this is the most current plan. And, then, we raised a three foot berm
and.., then, this -- a rock wall that takes this separation -- this vertical separation to four
feet at this point. And, then, that berm falls back towards the structure. And this berm
all along here can be landscaped with trees and bushes and shrubs. When we move
forward to where the walking path occupies part of that landscape buffer, this is what it
looks like. So, again, you have got your Linder Road bike lane, sidewalk, that berm
comes up to three feet, this is a rock wall that comes up one foot above the top of the
berm, plus another foot of wrought iron. And this pergola structure that you see in the
background, there are two, there are these entry pergolas here and, then, a central
fountain pergola here. So, what you're looking at in this picture is the fountain pergola
you were walking along the sidewalk towards that fountain area. Now, for open space
requirements, part of what the code says is that you can -- you're required to have this
landscape buffer along an arterial, but in order to count that -- and I counted this
towards the open space requirement, because we have a greater than four foot vertical
separation between the road and the walking path, because at this point this rock wall,
plus the wrought iron is five feet. However, the wrought iron, I personally still like,
because now walking along this path I can still look out across Linder Road, I can still
look at the high school. I don't feel like I'm walking in a tunnel. And the idea is to open
this up and create a very nicely landscaped parking -- you know, parkway path. The
third point of our berm section is right here at the pergola over the fountain, which I have
drawn here, we have our Linder sidewalk and our berm and now this wall is curving out
to create this semi circle plaza. The pergola is above it. In here would be the fountain
and now, you know, you have got a larger gathering space. You know, this gathering
space is -- you know, if you were to take this curved section, plus the sidewalk, is about
500 square feet. You know, it's not a courtyard size, it's large enough to have a group
of people stop and sit and talk. So, I imagine you will have some questions about the
berm, because I had some questions about the berm as I was designing it, but we come
back to any of those as you like. Bill, if we could go back to the elevations, please.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 67 of 80
What I'd like to point out on the elevations, because this is another really key
component with our design -- in respect to neighbor privacy -- and privacy goes two
directions -- the upstairs building footprints are darker than the one story footprints. So,
what I've tried to illustrate with this rendering is the upstairs massing steps back
considerably from the property line in all directions. So, if we are along the western
boundary, you have got your -- a one story garage and, then, your second story starts
here, so that between this property line and your home is close to 30 feet. And the
same thing happens along this northern boundary. The distance from the property line
to the one story residential area, not the garage, but the master bath, actually, is 18 feet
and by the time they get to the second story, again, you're close to 30 feet. And this is a
design tool to keep this compatible with the neighbors, which are a lower density, but
we are trying to make it look and breath and feel similar in density. So, if we look at
elevations, this illustrates our side elevation where the garage is one story and, then,
you go to that second story mark, these are the interior courtyards that every home has
and., then, this is the front porch. And this is a front porch that shows that door coming
from the side. In the rear this dashed line shows where the six foot fence would ride.
These windows are true, because if you look at this roof line, this is coming back down,
which lets us put a full side window in here for bedroom egress, but from the back side
protects the privacy of that bedroom and protects the privacy of the neighboring
property owner. So, if we look at this elevation or any of these, you could imagine that
this is my property line, I come over ten feet, here is my garage, now I'm close to 30
feet. Here is my second story. So, to go through those items I hope that it illustrates
just how much thought we have tried to work into this and meet all of the different code
requirements, but still have something that I think is unique and that doesn't just give up
the landscape buffer along Linder to the car. That's another -- I think that's a personal
thing that I bring to this that just says we are creating neighborhoods here, we are
creating avenues of cars. So, I really like that in the code where you could say I can still
use the space for people space if I have four foot vertical separations and there is our
walking path. So, aside from that, I would rather just go right into questions, because
we are short on time and energy. I think I clarified the street widths. ACHD is already
constructing Linder Road and our preliminary plat -- originally when we submitted it we
thought, well, it would all be one common lot and after we submitted it was pointed out
that we needed to separate the buffer lot from the residential lot. So, I do have that
shown on this plan and I know that Scott's already addressed that on his plan back at
the office and I don't think that's an issue. If you look at this streetscape here, this is
looking directly -- directly from Linder Road this is the straight elevation, but it also can
show you -- here is my property line. There is the massing step back and I step down,
here is that entry pergola that allows some pedestrian connection through a gate to
Linder Road., so it doesn't completely block my connections with the outside neighbor,
besides Lochsa Falls. And., then, I have two homes here. This is our central garden
and plaza pergola. And, again, then, this is our second access pergola to Linder Road.
Now, the streets that you see in the I shape, they are happening right here, so, you
know, this a to scale real depiction of the space we have between our buildings. And,
again, we do actually want to design every elevation different where there wouldn't be
any repetition, not just repetition side by side. And Dustin just reminded me that our
major topic of discussion is the idea of our open space with the cabana and if you have
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 68 of 80
the site plans that Bill passed out, this side plan study -- so let me briefly say how I
came up with the open space math. From my perspective I felt we had met the
requirements., because I was including this section of area along this walking path, plus
the area about the cabana, plus this section of the walking path, because it completes
our recreational walking path around the neighborhood. So, I added all that up and
came close to -- well, I think I was about a thousand square feet shy of what Bill said I
needed to come up with, so I said,, okay, well, how about we add to this area and we
meet the other requirements of enlarging the cabana and enlarging our outdoor amenity
space and that's the plan that you have in front of you in an enlarged plan. The
differences are this: This home has gotten smaller. One parking space has gone
away. To meet our parking we are required to have eight, with ten, so I don't believe
the loss of one space here is a detriment. And in your plan you will see the cabana has
moved forward to meet the ten foot setback as requested and it has been expanded to
240 square feet. The trellis area has shortened this way, but enlarged to the side and
this is a location that would be a great opportunity for a barbecue pit or something else
that would increase the gathering space amenity. The pool has remained the same
size, but there is more open green space here. So, if I do the same calculation with this
area and this is just -- when I do that calculation I'm just following the line of that wall,
I'm not including this. So, if I take this area, the expanded area, and this section, we are
actually 50 square feet over -- 49 and a half square feet over the 7,350. So, one thing
that the code doesn't allow us to do is count these private backyard spaces in any way.
So, I can say that this site plan is 30 percent landscaping -- 30 percent soft compared to
a lot of this density that wouldn't reach that by any means. In addition to not being able
to count these, though, I feel we are meeting our outdoor open space with this change
and doing so in a way that doesn't require the loss of a home. So, what I would ask you
to do is give us an opportunity to take this to Council, understand that we are going to
continue to work with staff and come to a compromise that we are all happy with and I'd
like to stand for questions. And, forgive me, I'm tired to, so I'm really trying not to
ramble, but --
O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I have one.
Moe: Yes.
O'Brien: The fire egress, did they have any questions about the fact that these garages
right here could potentially be a problem of interference with vehicles --
Grime: Actually, no, because -- I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner O'Brien, I'm
tired.. I have sat down -- and, actually; Scott Stanfield has also sat down with Joe Silva
on some different occasions here and these are private streets and anything narrower
than 29 feet has to be posted no parking. So, parking is not allowed on these streets
just because they are 24 feet wide, plus -- technically, they are 28 feet wide, but there is
no parking allowed on either side of the street, hence, the guest parking is a must. In
addition to that, when I spoke with Joe Silva and John Overton, we also talked about
including signs for towing and this something I think has been recently done where the
homeowners association just steps up and says we have a towing agent on retainer and
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 69 of 80
if my neighbor doesn't like where someone else is parked or there is a problem, you call
the towing company, you don't have to work with the city or call code enforcement or
that type of thing and if you come out and your car is gone, you call the towing
company. The number is right there. It's kind of aself-serving thing. And so far as
emergency service vehicles, you know, the idea is, actually, you could park three cars in
many of these tandem driveways -- interesting to see who draws the short straw, but,
you know, there is -- there are places to park that are -- don't require you to park on the
street and the other concern I know that Joe Silva has just been verified that we meet
the minimum maximum turning radiuses for emergency vehicles and we actually have
several drawings now that show that we do, in fact, meet that. I think it's a matter of
testing the built product in the end that -- on paper it's working very nicely. And that's
one of the reasons I included this enlarged plan, too, showing the parking and the vision
triangles, just to give you a sense of it, because you look at this and you think, well,
that's not very big. Well, you know, this is 53 feet from there to there and only ten's
taken up by landscaping, so in most of the cases this is 29 feet here and it just gets
wider from there..
O'Brien: That's all I have. Thank you.
Moe: I'm kind of curious, this area right here, is that new open space here or what is
that right there?
Grime: In this first plan that was private space for this home, with their front porch being
here and a little bit of a front yard., but I felt that with parking here it might be kind of
obnoxious, so originally it was fenced yard with a private space. Under the new plan
this is reduced, but this could be a four foot fence, not a six foot fence, but it's still
private yard space to this home and in your new plan it's moved over about this much.
So, if you take this first parking stall, move your sidewalk over to there, and all of that
area now has gone into that public open space. Does that answer your question?
Moe: Well -- and, then, what kind of square footage are we speaking of in there?
Where I'm getting that, I understand that your making the common space all over your
project, but I'm not seeing any dedicated space for a gathering spot for any sizable
group, other than on, you know, pavement and whatnot, no real big green space. That's
what I'm looking for.
Grime: Okay. So, to answer that, in the amended plan that you have in front of you,
this area -- going from memory here, but I believe this is 2,675 square feet and this
whole side of it here, there is a large patio for gathering space and, then, as the trellis
wraps around, there is a large area here for gathering space.
Moe: Plan of the trellis looks like it really starts going towards the home quite a bit.
Okay. Well, we can review that.
Grime: And I think those are some of the finer details that we can -- we can continue to
refine.
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 70 of 80
Moe: Are there any other questions of the applicant?
O'Brien: I have none.
Moe: Okay. Thank you very much.
Grime: Thank you.
Moe: There was no one signed up, but if there is someone that would like to speak,
you're more than welcome to come forward. One coming up.
Stanfield.: I'll make it real quick. Scott Stanfield, Mason Stanfield Engineering, 314
Badiola in Caldwell, Idaho. Two things. In our neighbor meeting there was no
opposition to this. Second of all, on a condo plat we are controlled by state code and
anything that is not aunit -- in other words, a living unit in this case, is automatically a
common area, so you don't differentiate a landscape common area along Linder Road.
The whole thing is a common area, except for the living unit. So, we are pretty sure the
county surveyor will bounce it back if he sees a lot line right there on the common plat.
So, that's why the preliminary plat doesn't show a dedicated common lot, because it's
not a unit there, it's a common area. That's it.
Moe: Any questions? Thank you. Anyone else that would like to come up. Okay. No
one's coming forward.. Any questions of staff, Commissioners? Bill, I guess I would ask
based upon the new plan that you received in regards -- I'm just trying to get a handle
on the open space. What is staffs recommendation based upon the new plan?
Parsons: Chairman Moe, Commissioners, staff still would be supportive of having --
~ you know, maybe not losing a unit, but still having some kind of open space if they were
! able to maybe turn that building 90 degrees that one single unit there, turn that
somehow and make it still work and provide additional open space on that side -- on the
-- I guess the west side of the cabana and pool site and try to have some kind of
additional open space for residents in the area to congregate. Other than that we still
feel like there should be some additional open space, even with the revised plan that
they provided.
Moe.: Okay. Thank you very much.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: So, the personal -- the dark green -- the dark green areas here in
between these -- these four units -- this is for all four residents?
Moe: Yeah. That's basically private space inside, it's not common space.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 71 of 80
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I understand that. But it's for the use of everyone who lives in
-- either here, here, here, or here. It's fenced -- it's private yards. Oh.
Moe: From the audience the applicant said it was private.
Newton-Huckabay: Sorry. Okay. I would be in favor of a little more obvious green
gathering area, as Bill stated, too. That is my only .problem. It's a lot going on on this
small piece of property, but I think it works really well. I'd just like to see a little picnic
area, something like that I think would be really -- really nice there. But I do like what
you did with the berm along Linder. That's very nice.
Moe: Commissioner O`Brien.
O'Brien.: Yeah. Along with that I think that if you expand -- if you expand that area, I'm
concerned about the lack of parking there for guests that may want to utilize this with
the owners of the -- or residents there. I still -- I think that's -- the number of parking --
excess parking is lacking. I don't know what the number is, but if you add more space
and have more functions in the larger functions, where are they going to park?
~ Moe: But per the code they only need eight and they have got ten.
' O'Brien: I agree. That's just an observation.
Newton-Huckabay: Are you thinking -- Mr. Chair?
Moe: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner O'Brien, are you thinking that like these people are
going to drive up here?
O'Brien: Oh, that could be, but --
Newton-Huckabay: Rather than walk?
O'Brien: I don't know. But if they -- if you have a function going on and people from the
outside that are family or friends stop by, I'm just saying -- suggesting that along with
normal visitors you're going to have an influx and they can't park on the street, so they
have to park outside of the residences or -- I don't know. It's just a question. It's just a
concern, I guess. But if it meets code, it meets code.
Newton-Huckabay: They could park over at Rocky Mountain and take this regional
path.
O'Brien: There you go. There you go. I'll shut up.
Meridian Planning & zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 72 of 80
Newton-Huckabay: No. That's good...
Moe: Are there any other comments from the Commissioners?
Marshall: Comments?
Moe: Comments.
Marshall: I'm especially -- I especially like the way the garages and things are setback.
I really like that. I like the streetscape. I don't have a problem with the parking. I think
that's a very good point that Rocky Mountain has a huge parking lot over there and it is
right across the street. I am concerned about the open space, because I used to -- I
mean this is a pathway, this is not a gathering spot to me. I think -- I like this, but I'm not
going to gather next to somebody's garage to sit and talk to my neighbors and stuff.
You know, if this -- if you had a large area where there was a barbecue pit and stuff like
that, but your new shows more space here, your new design, but that ten foot if there is
any kids in there, you're still in the splash zone. I mean this -- I would want to be back
away from that pool if I wanted to sit and watch kids in the pool or something like that. I
-- again, I would like to see a little larger gathering space. I really like the architecture
and the way the garages are setback and I really like that, but -- I guess that's all I have.
Moe: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Rohm, do you have any comment?
Rohm: None.
Moe: Okay. That was quick enough.. Quite frankly, I really like the project. It's got a
great look to it and everything else, but I, too, I have one major problem and that is the
gathering space, you know, there is just -- something needs to be done up there. I don't
know whether we -- you know, this building turns., therefore, allowing additional space
here. I don't know whether you can do that. We are still open, if you could come up,
maybe, and address that I would appreciate that.
Grime: Love to. Evelyn Grime again. And, actually, there are -- I'm a firm believer that
we can solve everything through design. So, again, we can take the plan that we have
already started to amend and just keep working with it. As far as the area here for this
square footage of home, we can still meet our promised goals of three bedroom, two
and a half bath., master bedroom down by changing the footprint on this. Originally
was trying to keep this wall back at this 18 foot line, simply for being considerate of the
northern neighbor. But we can go over the garage a little bit and we can come a little bit
closer and square this building up, as opposed to making it elongated and still have very
good private outdoor open space, a great front porch and front entry and I think we can
do it with only losing one parking space and adding quite a bit of green space to the
pool and cabana area.. I think the plan that you're looking at that shows the expanded
trellis -- and a part of that trellis is over landscaped area, too, and that patio -- I'm going
from memory here, because I don't have it front of me. The patio is this way and that
plan is 13 feet to the apron. It's still another five feet to the pool. But now it's close to --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 73 of 80
I want to say 20 feet wide and that's just in this area. And when you come around the
side, it's showing a ten foot section of landscaping that can be widened, because this
can turn and this building footprint can change and so when this changes, this goes
from dark green to light green and, then, we achieve that gathering space. The parking
-- I'd like to address Commissioner O'Brien's question -- and I think it's a good question
of any neighborhood., you know, what do you do when you have a party. The idea here
is, you know, these four guest spaces are to compensate for these four homes -- these
four and four of these, so that these have guest parking spaces within 75 feet of their
front door. However, you know, the likelihood of everyone having a party at the same
time is kind of remote. So, I think that, you know, parking here and parking here is
available for those types of occasions, .plus if I -- if I come over and see this guy and I
have been here before, I know that I can park in this driveway and walk over if one of
these isn't open, and I can come from across the street. So, I really do think that
through the redesign of this home we can achieve a really nice open space here that
retains the intimacy of the neighborhood., but still -- you know, you could have 30
people. I don't think we are too far away from that with the site plan that you have in
front of you. If we -- you know, to take us out of the splash zone we could also scoot
the pool over. You know, this pool is intended as a small pool, an exercise pool, you
know, get wet, have some fun. It's not a municipal pool. So, with that in mind, those
dimensions in the standard industry are, you know ten to 12 feet wide and 30 -- about
30 feet long., still plenty of room for kids to play and -- you know, or for you to do a few
laps.
Moe: Okay. What kind of a time frame would it take you to see what you could do and,
then, show us a new site plan with that?
Grime: Well, my concern is this: I know -- and I'll just be candid, I think my client --
again, we have spent so much time in some of our four pre-application meetings in
really looking at different options that, you know, their option on the property, we are
running up against a deadline and that's why if there was any way to say keep working
on it, this is the condition, go onto Council, knowing that we are going to keep working
on it as we have illustrated, we would ask for that, because we are running into our
option deadline here. And so I asked this earlier and they said, yeah, two weeks puts
us into trouble with that.
Moe: Well, let me ask staff. I'm kind of curious of one thing. Bill, do you have an area
as far as the square footage -- additional area that you would be looking for? In that
area where we are at. I guess my point being if anything we could do a condition that
they require an additional X amount of square footage and that be shown prior to
Council.
Hood: Mr. Chair, if you don't mind me fielding that one. I guess I'd put it maybe back
on the applicant with the revised layout of that house, where does that put the -- for the
east -- you know, property or building line, so how much room, then, are we talking
between that building line and the trellis area or what's available there. I mean you're
looking at a small yard for whoever is going to take that -- in fact, they will probably have
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 74 of 80
j virtually no front yard and no rear yard. But they will back up -- they will be right next to
a common area, so -- but that's the dimension we really need is when you go with
i livable above the garage, how far over are you going, because I'd like to see all of that,
t then, included into the -- the open space, whatever is available outside of that.
Grime: So, looking at this revised plan, the open -- just to clarify the revised plan, the
open space between the apron of the pool and the fence of the home number three --
you know, that's like 12 feet. So, if we were to take that another five feet, that gives us,
you know, a considerable area of open space beside the pool. Also, we can take the
pool and we can push it a little bit further to the right to increase the green space
between the pool and the parking and the fence line of the home. And, Caleb, I fihink
that the back yard space, even if we push that rear building wall to the north a little bit,
you know, I wouldn't feel comfortable going with less than 15 feet, which in an urban
condition is a backyard. So, I think they still can have a very nice private backyard and I
think we can still create a great front porch, front yard, with this court yard effect, you
know, still happening, but give another five -- probably no more than ten feet, but I think
five to seven is easy and still maintain the quality of living around home number three.
But, again, realize that between the apron of the pool and the fence right now there is
12 feet, so if you add another five feet, that's 17 feet.
Hood: And, Mr. Chair, just to kind of put this in context to some of our other code and
most of it revolves around subdivisions, but for it to even qualify as open space in our
residential stuff it needs to be at least 20 feet wide before we even start to count it. And
I'm thinking of -- you know, if I want to go toss a frisbee with my buddy, where am I
going to go. Something 20 feet wide maybe, 25 is probably ideal by the length of that
from parking stall to the north. So, you just asked what we would be looking for, that's
what I would be looking for is something that's usable, maybe something in there.
Because it really isn't anywhere like that on the site. So, if we can get a couple more
feet, you know, again, from the edge of the pool or the decking of the pool, 20 to 25 feet
of green space in there, if that's possible, I mean I think that's -- That's ideal from a use
standpoint. I'm just saying if I lived in there I would want something like that. And
don't know what the length is of that from parking stall to your north property boundary
or what that gives you in square footage, but --
Grime: May I answer?
Moe: Yes.
Grime: Okay. So, actually, from our north boundary from -- not from the parking stall,
but if you look at this from the street, you know, you have got 40 feet there by the time
you come to the trellis and, then, again, I think we can go wider. I would like to point
out, kind of like the parking condition, we have got Rocky Mountain High School across
the street, if you really want to throw your frisbee or play football, I'm probably going to
go across the street. But for a quick run around play tag with the little ones, I think we
are close to a solution there. I am trying to keep it so that we have enough frontage for
home number three and have that master bedroom down, just from a house plan design
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
', Page 75 of 80
point of view. I'm just trying to make sure I can still deliver on that promise. However,
you know, I think we are really close. Again, we could create that 20 feet of grassy area
by moving the pool to the right, maybe we even bring the pool down a little narrower,
make it a smaller size width of pool to increase our grassy space to the left and the
apron -- standard apron is three feet wide. So, that's a safety concern, because that
needs to remain three feet wide, but you can still take your pool to the right and
increase your grassy area to the left by modifying home number three and I would say,
you know, if we could achieve an area here that's 20 feet wide between the apron and
the fence line for the home of number three, you know, that provides one large area
space, we could shift the parking lot to the left also. One reason I did not do that is my
pathways look so pretty here, but, you know, really, that can be done, the whole -- that
whole section can shift over and we still have enough room there for a class two tree,
possibly a class three.
Moe: I guess my biggest concern --
Grime: And have a nice front point entry.
Moe: -- right now is -- is that we are not able to really define what we are going to do to
resolve this, so, therefore., you know, I think we are going to have to continue this thing.
Grime: Okay.
Moe: That would be a recommendation that I would give the rest of the Commission,
would be to consider a continuance if, in fact, you think you can make this work, you
know --
Grime: Or could we suggest that we will meet 20 feet clear between the apron of the
pool and home number three, the grassy area, as a condition, because I think we can
meet that by the adjustments that I have mentioned.. And if we can't meet it, then, we
are going to be back here to see you anyway. But I mean just working through that, you
know, give me half an hour and I can draw it for you, too. I think we are that close. But
I guess Caleb and Bill would want to concur if 20 feet clear grassy area would work for
you.
Moe: We are speaking of 20 foot and., then, all the way up.
Grime: I understand.
Moe: From the parking all the way --
Grime: Correct. And I would even adjust the parking. If I can bring it all the way to the
street I'll do that, too. Without losing anymore parking.
Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 76 of 80
Moe: Well, again, on most projects that come through here, any type of site change
and whatnot, this Commission has not gone ahead and approved things without seeing
the revision prior to going to City Council.
Grime: I understand..
Moe: So, I'm going to ask the other Commissioners what their opinion. is of this before
we -- because I'm only one. And I will just go down the line.
Newton-Huckabay: I don't really have any issue.. If we get a commitment for -- I'd say
we get a commitment of total square footage or total foot, move on with it, they have
done a great job designing the rest of the site, I'm pretty confident that whatever house
three -- the footprint's going to be fine, because I don't have any problem really moving
it forward. It would be one thing if we were moving a lot of buildings and that kind of
thing, but --
Moe: Okay. Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I think that I would concur with Commission Newton-Huckabay, as long as we
get a definition from staff to what their expectations are and as long as they can make
their architectural changes that match the staffs stipulation.., then, I have no problem
moving it forward either.
Moe: Commissioner Marshall?
Marshall: I am of the same mind.
Moe: Okay. Commissioner O`Brien.
O'Brien: I, too. I think there is a myriad of possibilities there of getting that much space
and I don't see there is any issue at all.
Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. I would actually agree and I'm just -- I am just
wanting to get staff to give us a little bit of direction, so that when someone makes a
motion we know where we are going.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Could we recommend if we form a motion in a form that the
applicant will add an additional ten feet to the -- to the existing open. space or increase
the existing ten feet from the apron of the pool to 20 feet to the west, would that be
sufficient? That will give us the 20 foot --
Marshall: Through the latest --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 77 of 80
Parsons: Mr. Chairman?
Newton-Huckabay: Yes. I'm sorry. This revision.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, staff originally just request that we remove the
whole -- one unit altogether and so if you guys are so inclined, feel that you want to add
that provision to that, we will let you decide on that. But right now it's -- we leave it up to
our -- we don't design the projects, we -- basically, we are just saying, okay, this is the
easiest way to go with it, remove a unit and provide an additional amenity and the
applicant didn't want to lose that additional unit, so -- and that's understandable. I mean
they spent a lot of time and effort on this project. So, I -- at this time I can't picture if you
guys are so inclined to do that, I guess we will do that, but I'll leave it in your court.
Moe: Any recommendation right now, it's -- it's to delete one.
Parsons: That's how I wrote the staff report, yes.
Rohm.: We are not closed yet, so --
Moe: No, we are not.
Grime: So, I wonder if that condition can be amended through the motion to -- you
know, along the lines that if the additional open space if 20 feet of open grassy area on
the west side of the pool can be provided, then, a unit doesn't have to be taken out,
along those lines. I don't know if you can do that and in your motion amend that
condition. I don't know -- so, that be would my -- my thought is can we take that
condition and amend it so that we are not taking a unit out as a solution, but rather
providing an alternative solution with a minimum of 20 feet of grassy open area to the
west side of the pool. You know, modifying unit number three as necessary.
Newton-Huckabay: I'm okay with that, just with the exception of I don't want to see the
pool moved to get that.
Grime: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: I want to see you gain the ten extra feet from this revision, but I
don't want you to get that by getting five of it by pushing the pool over.
Grime: I wouldn't have that much anyway. Talking inches.
Hood.: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, I'm just going to jump in real quick and comments have
been made about the open space -- it needs to be common open space. That's the
whole driving thing that everyone -- it shouldn't just be a rear or side yard for that
building three, it needs to be open for the general community to use. So, if you could
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 78 of 80
use that language, common open area of at least 20 feet wide, so it's not their backyard
or side yard or however that units going to be reoriented.
Grime: That's certainly my intent, yeah.
Marshall: An expansion of the current common area?
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Is everyone in agreement with that verbiage, basically where
we --
Rohm: I like that.
Marshall: I think so.
O'Brien: Yes.
Moe: Bill, do you know what condition that is in your report that would need to be
revised?
Newton-Huckabay: I don't have this one printed out.
Rohm: While we are doing it, let's close the Public Hearing, do you want to?
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah, go ahead.
Rohm: All right. Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Yes, Mr. Rohm.
Rohm: I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-020 -- well, excuse me. It's,
actually, AZ 08-002 and PP 08-002 and CUP 08-003.
Moe: Love to if I can get a second..
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 08-002, PP 08-
002 and CUP 08-003. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Newton-Huckabay: I'm still looking for that condition, so bear with me just a minute.
Moe.: We are bearing.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 79 of 80
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, one bullet point is in the development
agreement requirement provisions. We said construct a maximum of 20 units. That's
condition 1.1.2.
Newton-Huckabay: If I amend that one will that cover it? 1.1.2?
Parsons: Yes. And, then, also in the Conditional Use Permit section, condition 1.4.1,
bullet number one, it also references removing the one unit to the north and incorporate
more open space around the pool and cabana area. ,
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Parsons: So, if we can change that to say 21 units, possibly, in the DA and, then, just
revise that to an additional 20 -- your 20 foot common area, to the cabana area.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Will do.
Parsons: And I'd also like to point out which are you preferring that additional amenity,
too, as far as the picnic area or anything in that open space? Or do you want to strike
that requirement as well?
Newton-Huckabay: No. Afire pit and kind of -- a barbecue area
Marshall: A barbecue area of something like that
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Marshall: An additional amenity.
Newton-Huckabay: Additional amenity. After considering all staff and applicant
testimony, I move the approval of file numbers AZ 08-002, PP 08-002., and CUP 08-003.
Do we reference the two -- the public street and the alternative -- it's not -- as presented
in the staff report for the hearing date of March 6, 2008, with the following modifications:
On bullet point number 1.1.2 in the annexation and zoning conditions of approval, bullet
number one, construct a maximum of 20 units on this site and comply with the site
landscape plan and elevations submitted with the CUP, should read construct a
maximum of 2'1 units. Okay. And on the Conditional Use Permit, bullet 1.1.4, revise
that bullet to read that the applicant will increase the open -- common open space in the
northeast area of the property by increasing the area from the apron of the pool from ten
foot to -- from ten to 20 foot west. Is that clear enough, everybody? And, then, bullet
one that reads revise the site plan by removing one of the units along the north
boundary and incorporate the area into common open space around the cabana and
pool area, a maximum 20 units are approved, a minimum of 7,000 square feet of
common open space shall be provided. Change that to a maximum of 20 units are
approved -- 21. And strike the first sentence, revise the site plan by removing one of
the units along the north boundary. And change that to --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2008
Page 80 of 80
Moe: And the amenity?
Newton-Huckabay: And,, then, I guess a third bullet there would be to add an additional
amenity in that area such as a barbecue pit or -- is that what we -- such as, but not
limited to, a barbecue pit.
Rohm: Second.
Newton-Huckabay: I do believe that's the end of my motion.
Moe: Are you done with your motion. Is there a second? It's been moved and
seconded to move onto City Council approving AZ 08-002, PP 08-002, and CUP 08-
003, including all staff comments and modification as noted. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Marshall: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we adjourn.
Rohm.: Second.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and second to adjourn. In favor? Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: 11:50. We are adjourned.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:50 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVE
DAVID MOE - C M N
ATTEST:
JAYCE
DATE APPROVED ``~~,.~`~ ~ ~''~~,,~~~
;• d'~~
~ ;
a
_ = SISAL _=
MAN, CITY CLERK ~
7 `~ D
~T 11~ ' ~`
Qr
'~U~(T1