2007 10-04EF,IIAl�T
IDAHO
E
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
City Council Chambers
33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, October 4, 2007 at 7:00 p.m.
"Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony,
all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected
to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter."
1. Roll -call Attendance:
X Tom O'Brien X Wendy Newton-Huckabay
_X David Moe O Steve Siddoway
X Michael Rohm - chairman
2. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve as Amended
3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of September 20, 2007 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting: Approve
4. Update on Blue Print for Good Growth and How it Relates to the
City's Area of Impact - Presented by Pete Friedman / Matt Ellsworth:
Presented
5. Continued Public Hearing from September 20, 2007: CUP 07-016
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for 171 multi -family dwelling units in
an R-4 zone on a ten acre site located within the Lochsa Falls Planned
Development for Solway Multi -Family Development by J -U -B Engineers
— west side of N. Goddard Creek Road, approximately 500 feet north of
McMillan Road and % mile east of Ten Mile Road: Approve
6. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 07-016
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for 171 multi -family dwelling units in
an R-4 zone on a ten acre site located within the Lochsa Falls Planned
Development for Solway Multi -Family Development by J -U -B Engineers
— west side of N. Goddard Creek Road, approximately 500 feet north of
McMillan Road and % mile east of Ten Mile Road: Approve
7. Continued Public Hearing from August 2, 2007: AZ 06-063 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 38.68 acres from RUT and R-1 zones to C -G
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — October 4, 2007 Page 1 of 2
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
zones for Waltman Property by Waltman, LLC — 505, 521, 615 and 675
Waltman Lane: Continue Public Hearing to December 20, 2007
8. Public Hearing: RZ 07-015 Request for a Rezone of .28 of an acre from
an R-8 residential zone to an O -T zone for 6th and Broadway Property by
Linda Loehr — 532 E. Broadway Avenue: Recommend Approval to City
Council
9. Public Hearing: AZ 07-011 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.84
acres from RUT to an R4 Medium Low -Density Residential zone for
Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek Properties, Inc. — 5230 N. Black
Cat Road: Continue Public Hearing to November 15, 2007
10. Public Hearing: PP 07-016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 16
single-family residential lots and 5 common lots on 6.84 acres in a
proposed R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek Properties,
Inc. — 5230 N. Black Cat Road: Continue Public Hearing to November
15, 2007
11. Public Hearing: AZ 07-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of
258.39 acres from RUT to C -G zone for Meridian Town Center by
CenterCal Properties, LLC — NWC and NEC of N. Eagle Road and E.
Fairview Avenue: Continue Public Hearing to October 18, 2007
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — October 4, 2007 Page 2 of 2
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
C�VEFIAN*-
ID,-
IDAHO
L
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
City Council Chambers
33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, October 4, 2007 at 7:00 p.m.
`Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony,
all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected
to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter."
1. Roll -call Attendance:
Tom O'Brien Wendy Newton-Huckabay
David Moe _Steve Siddoway
Michael Rohm - chairman
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of September 20, 2007 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
4. Update on Blue Print for Good Growth and How it Relates to the
City's Area of Impact - Presented by Pete Friedman / Matt Ellsworth:
5. Continued Public Hearing from September 20, 2007: CUP 07-016
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for 171 multi -family dwelling units in
an R-4 zone on a ten acre site located within the Lochsa Falls Planned
Development for Selway Multi -Family Development by J -U -B Engineers
— west side of N. Goddard Creek Road, approximately 500 feet north of
McMillan Road and '/ mile east of Ten Mile Road:
6. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 07-016
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for 171 multi -family dwelling units in
an R-4 zone on a ten acre site located within the Lochsa Falls Planned
Development for Selway Multi -Family Development by J -U -B Engineers
— west side of N. Goddard Creek Road, approximately 500 feet north of
McMillan Road and'/ mile east of Ten Mile Road: -=�U .,(, L,
7. Continued Public Hearing from August 2, 2007: AZ 06-063 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 38.68 acres from RUT and R-1 zones to C -G
zones for Waltman Property by Waltman, LLC — 505, 521, 615 and 675
Waltman Lane:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — October 4, 2007 Page 1 of 2 J
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
•
8. Public Hearing: RZ 07-015 Request for a Rezone of .28 of an acre from
an R-8 residential zone to an O -T zone for 6th and Broadway Property by
Linda Loehr — 532 E. Broadway Avenue:
9. Public Hearing: AZ 07-011 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.84
acres from RUT to an R-4 Medium Low -Density Residential zone for
Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek Properties, Inc. — 5230 N. Black
Cat
Road ,
l
10. Public Hearing: PP 07-016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 16
single-family residential lots and 5 common lots on 6.84 acres in a
proposed R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek Properties,
Inc. — 5230 N. Black Cat Road.
11. Public Hearing: AZ 07-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of
258.39 acres from RUT to C -G zone for Meridian Town Center by
CenterCal Properties, LLC — NWC and NEC of N. Eagle Road and E.
Fairview Avenue:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — October 4, 2007 Page 2 of 2
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
E IDIAN-'-
9 �
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
City Council Chambers
33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, October 4, 2007 at 7:00 p.m.
"Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony,
all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected
to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter."
Roll -call Attendance:
Wendy Newton-Huckabay
Steve Siddoway
Michael Rohm - chairman
Adoption of the Agenda:
Consent Agenda:
Approve Minutes of
Commission Meeting:
Update on Blue Print for Good Growth and How it Relates to the
City's Area of Impact - Presented by Pete Friedman / Matt Ellsworth:
Continued Public Hearing from September 20, 2007: CUP 07-016
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for 171 multi -family dwelling units in
an R-4 zone on a ten acre site located within the Lochsa Falls Planned
Development for Selway Multi -Family Development by J -U -B Engineers
- west side of N. Goddard Creek Road, approximately 500 feet north of
McMillan Road and % mile east of Ten Mile Road:
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 07-016
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for 171 multi -family dwelling units in
an R-4 zone on a ten acre site located within the Lochsa Falls Planned
Development for Selway Multi -Family Development by J -U -B Engineers
- west side of N. Goddard Creek Road, approximately 500 feet north of
McMillan Road and'/ mile east of Ten Mile Road:
Continued Public Hearing from August 2, 2007: AZ 06-063 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 38.68 acres from RUT and R-1 zones to C -G
zones for Waltman Property by Waltman, LLC - 505, 521, 615 and 675
Waltman Lane:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — October 4, 2007 Page 1 of 2
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
8. Public Hearing: RZ 07-015 Request for a Rezone of .28 of an acre from
an R-8 residential zone to an O -T zone for 6t" and Broadway Property by
Linda Loehr — 532 E. Broadway Avenue:
9. Public Hearing: AZ 07-011 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.84
acres from RUT to an R-4 Medium Low -Density Residential zone for
Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek Properties, Inc. — 5230 N. Black
Cat Road:
10. Public Hearing: PP 07-016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 16
single-family residential lots and 5 common lots on 6.84 acres in a
proposed R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek Properties,
Inc. — 5230 N. Black Cat Road:
11. Public Hearing: AZ 07-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of
258.39 acres from RUT to C -G zone for Meridian Town Center by
CenterCal Properties, LLC — NWC and NEC of N. Eagle Road and E.
Fairview Avenue:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — October 4, 2007 Page 2 of 2
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Broadcast Report
Date/Time 10-01-2007 03:36:51 p.m. Transmit Header Text Cltyof Meridian Idaho
Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1
Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Line 2
This document: Failed
(reduced sample and details below)
Document size: 8.5 "x11 "
PkAsit Po -q fir- PvWc Nolte -7hv I
CMER,IDIAN MIAERIDN PLANNING AND ZONING
I O A H oREGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
City Council Chambers
33 East Idaho Avenue, rderidfan, Idaho
Thursday, October 4, 2007 at 7:00 pm.
'Although the Clfy of Meridian no longer requires sworn tesfimony,
all presentadbns before the Mayor and City Coundl are expected
to be truft&l and honest to best of the ability of the presenter'
1. Ralf -call Attendance.
Tom V13don Wendy Newton-Huckabay
David Moa Steve Siddoway
Michael Rohm - chalnnan
Total Pages Scanned: 2
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of September 20, 2007 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
4. Update on Blue Print for Good Growth and How 1t Relates to the
City's Area of impact - Presented by Pete Friedman / Matt Ellsworth:
S. Continued Public Hearing from September 20, 2007: CUP 07-016
Request for a Conditional Use Permit far 171 mukkamffy dwelling units in
an R-4 zone on a ten acre site located within the Locfua Falls Planned
Development for Solway Multi -Family Development by J -U-8 Engineers
- west side of N. Goddard Creek Road, approximately 500 feet north of
MoNftan Road and X mile east of Ten Mile Road:
G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 07.018
Request for a Conditional Use Penna for 171 mutti-family dwelling units to
an R-4 zone on a ten acre site located within the Loc has Falls Planned
Development for Solway Multi -Family Development by J -U -B Engineers
- west side of N. Goddard Creek Road, approximately 500 feet north of
McMillan Road and 1/4 mile east of Ten Mlle Road:
T. Continued Public Hearing from August 4 2007: AZ 08.063 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 38.68 acres from RUT and R-1 zones to C -G
zones for Waltman Property by Waltman, LLC - 606, 621, 615 and 675
Waltman Lane:
Meddler Planting and Zoning Gammtseiolh MWft Agonda - Otober 4, 2W? Page 1 Of2
All me0e4JOits presented rot PWft meetings shall become propeAy or the qty of Mettdiatt.
Anyone deshtV eaowwlston for disabMev reWW to docunrents wWor haeritV.
Please cont O the qty park's Otiloe at 8884433 at least 48 he= prior to the p rraeft.
Total Pages Confirmed : 36
No.
Job
Remote Station
Start Time
Duration
Pages
Line
Mode
Job Type
Results
001
122
3810160
03:14:36 p.m. 10-01-2007
00:02:02
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP9600
002
122
8989551
03:14:36 p.m. 10-01-2007
00:00:32
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP19200
003
122
2088848723
03:14:36 p.m. 10-01 -2007
00:00:25
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP28800
004
122
8886854
0114:36 p.m. 10-01-2007
00:00:23
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP31200
005
122
2088985501
03:14:36 p.m. 10-01-2007
00:00:30
2/2
11
JEC
HS
ICP31200
006
122
8467366
03:14:36 p.m. 10-01-2007
00:00:24
2/2
1
EC
HS
ICP2880
007
122
18950390
03:14:36 p.m. 10-01-2007
00:00:24
2/2
11
EC
IHS
ICP28800
Broadcast Report
Date/Time 10-01-2007 03:36:58 p.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho
Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1
Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Line 2
No.
Job
Remote Station
StartTime
Duration
Pages
Line
Mode
Job Type
Results
008
122
208 888 2682
03:14:36 p.m. 10-01-2007
00:00:24
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP33600
009
122
208 387 6393
03:14:36 p.m. 10-01-2007
00:00:49
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP14400
010
122
2877909
03:14:36 p.m. 10-01 -2007
00:00:24
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP31200
011
122
2088885052
03:14:36 p.m. 10-01-2007
00:00:24
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP31200
012
122
8881983
03:14:36 p.m. 10-01-2007
00:00:28
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP24000
013
122
2083776449
03:14:36 p.m. 10-01-2007
00:00:48
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP14400
014
122
4679562
03:14:36 p.m. 10-01 -2007
00:00:26
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP26400
015
122
8886700
03:14:36 p.m. 10-01-2007
00:00:00
0/2
1
--
HS
FA
016
122
8884022
03:14:36 p.m. 10-01-2007
00:01:28
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP14400
017
122
3886924
03:14:36 p.m. 10-01-2007
00:00:30
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP24000
018
122
8841159
03:14:36 p.m. 10-01-2007
00:00:24
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP31200
019
122
8840744
03:14:36 p.m. 10-01-2007
00:00:25
2/2
11
EC
IHS
CP28800
Abbreviations:
HS: Host send PL: Polled local MP: Mailbox print TU: Terminated by user
HR: Host receive PR: Polled remote CP: Completed TS: Terminated by system G3: Group
WS: Waiting send MS: Mailbox save FA: Fall RP: Report EC: Error Correct
I 1W Broadcast Report 1W
Date/Tlme 10-05-2007 08:32:12 a.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho
Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1
Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Line 2
This document: Failed
(reduced sample and details below)
Document size: 8.5"x11 "
CVER,IDIAN
IDAHO
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
City Council Chambers
33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, October 4, 2007 at 7:00 p.m.
"Although the City of MerkHan no longer requires swam tes&wny,
all presentations before the Mayor and City Cound/ are expeoW
to be truthful and honest fo best of the ability of the presanter.
1. Roll -call Attendance:
Tom O'Brien Wendy Newton-Huaabay
David MoeSteve Siddoway
.e Michael Rohm - chairman
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
3. Consent Agenda: Approve AS ,t)rne..t042:1
A. Approve Minutes of September 20, 2007 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting: xippp i -o ve
4. Update on Blue Print for Good Growth and Now It Relates to the
City's Area of Impact - Presented by Pete Friedman / Matt Ellsworth:
Pre4JartAC-4
S. Continued Public Hearing from September 20, 2007: CUP 07-016
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for 171 multi--famly dwelling units In
an R-4 zone on a ten acre site located within the LoOsa Falls Planned
Development for Solway Muld-Family Development by J -U -B Engineers
- west side of N. Goddard Creek Road, approximately 600 feet north of
McMillan Road and %4 mile east of Ten Mile Road:
A)op,I'D "
6. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Low for Approval: CUP 07.016
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for 171 multi -family dwelling units in
an R-4 zone on a ten acre site located within the Lochsa Falls Planed
Development for Solway Muld-Family Development by J -U -B Engineers
- west side of N. Goddard Creek Road, approximately SW feet north of
McMillan Road and'/ mile east of Ten Mile Road: AAIPrv"
7. Continued Public Hearing from August 2, 2007: AZ 06-M Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 38.68 acres from RUT and R-1 zones to C -G
zones for Waltman Property by Waltman, LL 505, 621, 616 and 675
Waltman Lane: 0_ a rL*jn L44 AL - C He^ri r%j . ri'a
Meridian PiaYtntng and Zoning Conxnon Meeting Ager — Cotobw4, 2M7 Page 1 at2
Nl mawr4 s wesentad air p meetings shag become VMpWty of tha Cdtr ar Marklm.
/inYone desi aacwmnodadon for dWbMfiu reWM to dm ments andfar bearing.
please =#R dfhe CRY CNN$ Offirs at 888.4433 at tsW 48 h*m pdw to the prime meeft
Total Pages Scanned: 2 Total Pages Confirmed : 34
No.
Job
Remote Station
StartTlme
Duration
Pages
Job Type
Results
001
147
3810160
08:10:32 a.m. 10-05-2007
00:00:00
0/2
--
HS
FA
002
147
8989551
08:10:32 a.m. 10-05-2007
00:00:35
2/2
jUneMode
EC
HS
CP19200
003
147
2088848723
08:10:32 a.m. 10-05-2007
00:00:28
2/2
EC
HS
CP28800
004
147
8886854
08:10:32 a.m.10-05-2007
00:00:29
2/2
EC
HS
CP31200
005
147
2088985501
08:10:32 a.m. 10-05-2007
00:00:32
2/2
EC
IHS
ICP31200
006
147
8467366
08:10:32 a.m. 10-05-2007
00:00:30
12/2
11
JEC
IHS
ICP28800
007
147
8950390
08:10:32 a.m. 10-05-2007
00:00:29
1212
11
JEC
IHS
ICP31200
Date/Time 10-05-2007
Local ID 1 2088884218
Local ID 2
Broadcast Report
08:32:19 a.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho
Local Name 1 Line 1
Local Name 2 Line 2
No.
Job
Remote Station
Start Time
Duration
Pages
Line
Mode
Job Type
Results
008
147
208 888 2682
08:10:32 a.m. 10-05-2007
00:00:26
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP33600
009
147
2083876393
08:10:32 a.m. 10-05-2007
00:00:54
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP14400
010
147
2877909
08:10:32 a.m. 10-05-2007
00:00:28
212
1
EC
HS
CP31200
011
147
2088885052
08:10:32 a.m. 10-05-2007
00:00:27
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP31200
012
147
8881983
08:10:32 a.m. 10-05-2007
00:00:31
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP24000
013
1147
2083776449
08:10:32 a.m. 10-05-2007
00:00:54
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP14400
014
147
4679562
08:10:32 a.m. 10-05-2007
00:00:31
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP26400
015
147
8886700
08:10:32 a.m. 10-05-2007
00:00:00
0/2
1
--
HS
FA
016
147
W84022
08:10:32 a.m. 10-05-2007
00:01:41
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP14400
017
147
3886924
08:10:32 a.m. 10-05-2007
00:00:29
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP26400
018
147
8841159
08:10:32 a.m. 10-05-2007
00:00:27
212
1
EC
HS
CP31200
019
147
8840744
08:10:32 a.m. 10-05-2007
00:00:27
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP28800
Abbreviations:
HS: Host send PL: Polled local MP: Mailbox print TU: Terminated by user
HR: Host receive PR: Polled remote CP: Completed TS: Terminated by system G3: Group 3
WS: Waiting send MS: Mailbox save FA: Fall RP: Report EC: Error Correct
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting October 4. 2007
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of October 4, 2007,
was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm.
Members Present: Michael Rohm, David Moe, Tom O'Brien, and Wendy
Newton-Huckabay.
Members Absent: Commissioner Steve Siddoway
Others Present: Ted Baird, Machelle Hill, Caleb Hood, Scott Steckline, Bill
Parsons, Pete Friedman, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll -Call Attendance:
Roll -call
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Tom O'Brien
X David Moe - Vice Chairman 0 Steve Siddoway
X Michael Rohm - Chairman
Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I'd like to open the
regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
and begin with roll call of Commissioners.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda:
Rohm: Okay. There is a couple of items on the agenda that are to be changed
and I'll just go through those right now and, then, we will ask for the agenda to be
adopted at that time. Item No. 7, which is the Waltman property, will be
continued to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Commission on December 20th of this year 2007. The applicant has requested
that continuance and we will grant that. Item No. 11 on the agenda, the
application for the rezone for Meridian Town Center, will be continued to the
regularly scheduled meeting of October 18th. So, that's the next meeting. So,
anyone that is here for either one of those projects, we will not be hearing them
tonight and they will be on the agenda as mentioned. So, those are the two
changes and so if I could get a motion to accept the agenda as amended.
Newton-Huckabay: So moved.
Moe: So moved.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 2 of 43
Moe: Second.
Rohm: Okay. It's been moved a seconded to accept the amended agenda. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may just real quick, Item 11, Meridian Town Center, the
applicant is here this evening, if -- I didn't see too many people get up and run
out when you mentioned that that one won't be heard, but if anyone does have
any questions he will be available for just a few minutes there in the lobby if
anyone would like to speak with him. He's made himself available for a little
while.
Item 3: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of September 20, 2007 Planning and
Zoning Commission Meeting:
Rohm: Good. Perfect. Okay. At this time I'd like to present the Consent
Agenda and that is the approval of the minutes from the regularly scheduled
meeting of September 20th, 2007. Could I -- any additions or corrections?
Moe: I have none.
Newton-Huckabay: None.
Rohm: Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda?
Moe: So moved.
Newton-Huckabay: So moved.
O'Brien: I second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those
in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
1
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 3 of 43
Item 4: Update on Blue Print for Good Growth and How it Relates to
the City's Area of Impact - Presented by Pete Friedman / Matt
Ellsworth:
Rohm: Okay. Before we start this next item, if -- we are going to get an update
from staff on our Blueprint For Good Growth -- that's her cue for me to shut up.
But I'm going to speak for just a little bit longer. The south area of impact is
definitely a part of our area of impact, but his talk tonight is not specific to that
area itself, but, in general, basically, we are trying to take a look at what good
growth throughout the community of Meridian is and at this time I would like to
tum it over to staff and, Pete, would you like to make your presentation.
Friedman: I would. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. It's
nice to see you again. I don't get to see you very often, so it's good to be here.
As the chairman indicated, what I intend to do tonight is just give you a brief
update, basically, on the Blueprint For Good Growth and a couple of other
influences that may affect some of our south Meridian planning that you have
been involved with for so long now. We are not going to discuss the plan tonight.
You will have an opportunity to take that up at your Public Hearing on November
1 st. So, I know that I had some calls today from people who thought that maybe
you would be discussing the south Meridian plan tonight, but we won't be doing
that and that will be at your Public Hearing on November 1 st. There is a number
of factors that we are going over with regard to the south Meridian plan.
Obviously, all the comments that we have received throughout our public
process, as well as some other things that have been going on currently as that
planning process has been going on and when we as staff look at all those
factors, we are feeling that in all likelihood there will probably be a revised
recommendation coming to you at the hearing. I'm not prepared to discuss a
recommendation tonight, because, one, there isn't a Public Hearing and, two, we
really haven't finalized what that recommendation is going to be, but there are a
number of things that we just wanted to kind of apprise you of in terms of
activities that indirectly relate to some of our other planning for the south
Meridian area. So, I'm just going to back up a little bit. You started the south
Meridian planning process in April of 2006. That process included a series of
three meetings and in those meetings we had participation by approximately 440
people. Through that participation we had developed a preferred alternative that
we brought to you and as we were getting ready to bring that alternative to you
for Public Hearing, we did some coordination with the highway district and ran
some transportation numbers and it became apparent to us that if our preferred
plan carried forward we would have a situation out there where the transportation
network couldn't really support what we were planning on or if it was going to
support what we were planning on it would only do so at great cost. So, we
scaled back the plan and as you will recall on April 1st we brought to you the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 4 of 43
preferred alternative that evolved out of the public process, as well as what was
referred to as the staff response. Now, you had your Public Hearing in April.
You took public testimony. There were a number of issues raised at that
meeting, a number of questions came up, and as a result you continued the
hearing in consideration of the south Meridian Comprehensive Plan until
November 1st. So, subsequent to your hearing staff -- well, it continues to be
staff was in contact with many of the interested parties. We had a public
workshop at the end of May. During that time we kind of went over the preferred
alternative, we went over the staff response, we took in people's comments, had
some question and answer sessions about just what the implications were of
both -- both recommended maps and as well as put out some written comment
sheets and opened a comment period, which lasted approximately a month. We
have received and aggregated the comments that were a result of that process. I
believe that Matt circulated those to you last week. You have those. But where I
really wanted to get to were these other influences that we are incurring at the
same time and one was Blueprint For Good Growth, which was the multi -
jurisdictional planning process that the City of Meridian and the other five cities,
the Ada County Highway District, and Ada County participated in. That was
begun in 2004 and culminated in the issuance of a policy paper about a year
ago. Another influence is the city sewer planning that our Public Works
Department is currently undertaking. And the third influence is the strategic
planning that the Mayor and the City Council have been engaged in over the last
few months. So, when we take those three factors, there is going to be elements
of those that are going to enter into our deliberations that are going to result in a
recommendation we bring to you. But as far as the Blueprint For Good Growth
goes, what came out of that -- and I think what most directly impacts what we are
planning for our two things. One is this concept of growth tiers. What came out
of the growth tier concept was some policies that said each of the cities should
identify an ultimate planning area, 20 year planning area. That doesn't mean that
it would be our impact area, it doesn't mean it would be our city boundaries, it
would be an area that we would plan for growth over the next 20 years and, then,
as time goes on we would refine our plans and our utility planning so that we
could sequence growth within those areas and, then, have orderly and logical
area of impact expansion and, then, future annexation. Kind of a vague concept,
some blobs on a map, but it's resulted in a lot of discussions between the cities
and the county over the last few months and I don't know if you read in the paper
the other day, but the county has really stepped forward and finally said, you
know, cities, why don't you plan some of these larger areas, plan for what you
think they should be or take over the responsibilities for planning those. We will
step back from that. All we want to know is that you all can agree on some
boundaries that you won't cross over, so you won't get in some of the situations
that we witnessed a couple of years ago where we had some overlapping areas
of impact. So, those discussions are going on -- I mean literally as we speak.
0 0
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 5 of 43
The cities and the county have put together a process they think that will work for
amending areas of impact and literally the staff and the elected officials are going
to be sitting down probably in about a month and starting to refine what those
planning areas are going to be. So, that -- that is going to have some effect on
how we look at -- at all of our kind of areas of impact and future areas of impact.
And that was a direct result of Blueprint that has taken on some momentum over
the last few months. The other really critical element that's starting to emerge
from Blueprint was the idea of an adequate public facilities ordinance. Simply
put, that's developing ordinances or mechanisms for all the cities to insure that
when development occurs it occurs where we have planned for the facilities and
so that when the growth occurs and the development is approved, that the
necessary public facilities are there or are programmed to be there concurrent
with development and maintain levels of service that we have established. So,
we are just beginning to work on that and that also has some implications on the
next thing we are looking at is sewer service and lands modeling of where we
can provide service most efficiently within the city and within our areas of impact,
doing modeling for capacities and kind of prioritizing where those areas of utility
service will go. And that's -- that's a critical factor, as you know, for the timing
and sequencing of development anywhere. So, these are sort of naturally
flowing out of Blueprint and, then, the third influence I think will be the City
Council's strategic planning and they have identified areas within the city and are
areas of city impact where they really want to have a priority of where the city
should expend its resources and utilities and its capacities to direct and guide
future growth and some of those areas are Ten Mile area, the Eagle -Fairview
area, Old Town, and some of the areas to the north. There is some areas in our
southern planning area that weren't exactly on the top of the list, so we are going
to be taking a look at -- at some of those factors also as we develop our
recommendation for you. So, we have a lot of factors to consider, not
diminishing from the importance of the comments that we have received certainly
as part of this planning process, but as I hope I have shown, there is other
influences that will layer into those and that will probably influence a
recommendation we bring to you on November 1st. So, with that I will be happy
to answer any questions. I have tried to kind of simplify some issues that many
of us have been wrestling with for the last two years as far as growth tiers and
adequate public facilities. There were times that, you know, it just seemed like
we were just on a treadmill going nowhere, but all of a sudden some of this has
gained traction and we are starting to see some results now.
Rohm: I appreciate your hard work and your presentation just brought more
questions to my mind about how you get the multiple communities within Ada
County all at the same table. You know, the fact of the matter is is there is
growth occurring in Eagle, which is going in all directions, Star is growing in all
directions, Meridian is expanding, Kuna is expanding -- I mean who arbitrates
0 •
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 6 of 43
between two communities that have a direct interest in a specific area? Now, I
didn't -- I'm not sure exactly --
Friedman: Yes. Well, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, right now there is a very
specific process, although it's a very cloudy one, that's outlined in state law and
it's one that the county and the city of Star and Eagle undertook as part of the
overlap that they had out there and it is confusing at best and I think that's one of
the few areas of agreement that there is -- or was between all the jurisdictions is
that it's a very confusing process and it's a very complicated and non -- and not
easy to understand process and one of the things that we have been working on
with at least the county and the city of Eagle and the city of Boise is coming up
with a more simplified process for identifying and approving areas of impact
expansion. So, that's one thing that has emerged from Blueprint, one factor.
The second factor that's going to weigh on top of that is identifying these
planning boundaries, so that everybody knows kind of where the lines are and
that we may be planning for a certain area to the south or a certain area to the
north. Eagle may be planning for a certain area to the north or to the east or to
the west. Star may be doing the same. And that presumably we will have some
agreement on where those lines meet and --
Rohm: I'm real curious about that. When you get that figured out, let me know.
Friedman: Well, you know what, I think there is an -- I think if you really want to
watch it in action at the Blueprint consortium meeting in November, which the
consortium is, essentially, the elected officials, as I understand it, they are going
to sit down with -- as Commissioner Tillman said, some crayons and some maps
and there is going to be an elected official, a mayor, and a staff member and at
least they are going to start drawing those lines. But, again, those planning
areas are not areas of impact, they may ultimately be, they may ultimately be city
limits. For the time being what we are looking at is areas where the respective
cities will undertake planning and it may not be the ultimate plan, it may -- I'll just
say city X may identify an area and say, well, this is our planning area, but we
may only choose to plan a portion of it now and, then, we will come back and do -
- break it into maybe more discrete sub areas and do more discrete plans as time
goes on or as conditions change, as our utilities become more available and that
sort of thing.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions?
Moe: Yeah. I'd like to -- just a little follow up and one of the main things that I got
out of our past meeting and whatnot -- one of the big areas that we were
concerned with was what was happening with the city of Kuna and Meridian and
have those -- has dialogue been happening now in regards to where the
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 7 of 43
boundaries are going to happen there or are we going to hear about that in
November?
Friedman: I think we are going to hear about that come November.
Moe: Okay.
Friedman: As you know, there has been some changes down in Kuna, both at
the level of the elected officials, as well as at their staff -- some staff changes and
I know that their new planning director has been more engaged and more
present in the process. There has been more presence than there has been in
the past. So, at least in terms of dialogue that's opening up in that respect.
Moe: I'm just -- I'm curious to see how that goes, simply for the location of their
new sewer treatment plant. Thank you.
Friedman: I understand the question.
Rohm: Thank you very much. I -- you know, what you guys do is an inordinate
amount of work and it's very much appreciated by us and I'm glad you're doing it
and not me.
Friedman: Well, you do your part, too. Thank you very much.
Rohm: Thank you very much. Appreciate your presentation.
Friedman: My pleasure.
Rohm: Before I open any public hearings tonight, I give this speech each and
every meeting, so this will not be an exception. Basically, the way the process
works is we open a Public Hearing and the first thing we do is we ask staff to give
their presentation. Their presentation relates to the project as it relates to the
Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Code. Those two documents
are, basically, our staffs guiding force and they look at those projects from that
perspective. They will make their presentation. Once the staff has made their
presentation, the applicant has an opportunity to respond to -- to that. Once the
applicant and staffs presentations have been completed, then, it's -- there is an
opportunity for the public to respond to those presentations. There are certain
projects that have been continued for a specific purpose or purposes and we will
only take testimony as it relates to that continuance on certain -- on given
projects. And we have one tonight that has been continued from our last
regularly scheduled meeting and we took a significant amount of testimony last
time and -- and we believe that we captured the essence of the public's concerns
• 0
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 8 of 43
when we directed staff to make adjustments to their staff report and so we are
going to listen to what the staff has to say tonight on that project and there may
be some questions that come up in that presentation and anything that's brought
up in our discussion will be open to the public to respond to as well. But only
those items. We are not going to revisit the entire project from two weeks ago.
Rohm: So, with that being said, at this time I'd like to open -- or reopen the
continued Public Hearing from September 20th, 2007, of CUP 07-016 for the
Selway Multi -family Development and begin with the staff report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. On
September 20th, 2007, the Selway Multi -family Development CUP was
presented to the Commission regarding the site design of the proposed
development. At that time the Commission continued the Public Hearing for the
sole purpose of reviewing the revised building elevations. The applicant has
submitted new elevations to staff for your review tonight. The revised elevations
show the proposed buildings to be constructed with three different hardy plank
siding materials, varying between wide plank, narrow plank, and board and
batten siding. Incorporated into the design are stone accents on the front
facades and pillars. The applicant chose the colors of the buildings to be tan and
sage, which has not changed from the previous review. The applicant has also
provided staff with additional elevations for building F as was directed by the
Commission. So, if you remember from the 20th hearing, they were proposing
19 buildings and they are labeled -- the multi -family buildings are labeled A
through H and A, B and C are to be the three story buildings and D, E and F are
two story buildings. So, as I go through these slides so you're looking at these
elevations, it's in order from A through H, so you can kind of visualize in your
mind where this is within the development. Here is building A and B and, again,
those will be three story structures. You can see some of the -- get my packet
out here. I have also included with your packet tonight some of the elevations for
you to look at as we go through the presentation. If you look at your A and B you
can see there are some stone accents along the lower level of the building and
along with the pillars and, then, again, there is the wide planking and the narrow
planking. And that theme is pretty much continued throughout the development.
E and F. This is what they came with at the last hearing and this is the second
elevation that staff had requested from them. Staff has received written
comments from the applicant regarding condition 1.1.10 and 1. 1.20 of the revised
staff report and should be included in your packet. It was staffs understanding
that tonight's proceedings were only for the review of the revised elevations. This
concludes my presentation. I would be happy to answer any questions the
Commission may have regarding the project.
Rohm: Any questions of staff?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 9 of 43
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Bill? So, when you say it was your understanding
-- I guess I don't know what you meant in relation to the response from the
applicant.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I -- when we closed -
- or continued the item to this hearing I thought you had gave staff direction to --
or the applicant to come back with revised elevations, because we weren't in
favor of the vinyl siding.
Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh.
Parsons: So, I just wanted to throw that in there to make sure that you are aware
that the applicant wants to speak to modification -- modifying some of the
conditions of approval. Also wanted to make note that we -- staff has prepared
facts and findings of conclusion of law tonight based on what we had discussed
at the previous meeting.
Newton-Huckabay: So, if we allow discussion on 1.1.10 and 1.1.20, we have to
reopen the Public Hearing to public testimony and continue again for new
Findings.
Parsons: I would defer that to Mr. Baird.
Baird: Mr. Chair and Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, you have correctly
summarized the situation. And I have reviewed the minutes from the prior
meeting and it was continued specifically to discuss the siding and the exterior
treatments. So, it's in your discretion whether you want to reopen that, but that's
exactly what will happen is that you will have to hear a lot of testimony on any
new issues that are brought up tonight. And most likely the Finding of Facts and
Conclusions of Law that are in your packet would need to be redrafted and
continued for another week -- or another meeting.
Rohm: The problem I have with any of this is if, in fact, we open it for additional
items beyond the exterior, that there are people that were here at the last hearing
that didn't come tonight from the -- with the understanding that we were only
going to be talking about the elevations. So, I'm a little bit concerned that -- that
we would talk about something that the public wouldn't have an opportunity to
provide input. And so it's possible if we expand the discussion to items beyond
the elevations themselves, that it would be in our best interest and the public's to
continue it once we have heard those -- that discussion as well, just to give the
public an opportunity for additional input, too. But that's -- that's just from my
perspective. So, Mr. Baird, do you -- how do you feel about that?
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 10 of 43
Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, just continuing it again wouldn't
actually give the public any additional notice. The applicant would have to
renotice these issues that the public thought were resolved at the September
20th hearing are going to be heard again. You had a full hearing, you resolved
all the issues except for the exterior. If there -- if the applicant has any quarrel
with anything in your decision, they have the opportunity take it up at the City
Council and I suggest that you let that process follow its course.
Rohm: Thank you. That's good advice. Appreciate your input. And that's why
you're here. Thank you very much. Okay. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay,
did you have anything else of staff or --
Newton-Huckabay: No. I just wanted to make sure that I understood clearly
where -- where this would all fall out, because I'm in complete agreement that I
don't want to discuss anything that the public at large, who was here before,
didn't have a chance to hear, mainly -- I mean there has been a lot of contentious
-- contention around this development anyway. I don't think that we need to take
a chance of muddying the waters further, so —
Rohm: And with that being said --
Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Wait. So, that being said, do we decline accepting
discussing this letter with the applicant and -- or -- I mean how do we address
that in the record that we are not going to -- just by way of the conversation we
have had?
Rohm: I think that the applicant has an opportunity to respond to the elevations
and that's the -- that's what's on the table tonight. And not the letter from the
applicant. That would be my opinion. But Mr. Baird can weigh in on that as well.
But that appears to be outside of what the continuance was for.
Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, there is a couple of ways that you
could handle that. You could just make a motion to reject the letter. You could
ignore the letter. You could -- the discussion you have already had has already
put the applicant on notice that you're not going to entertain any testimony with
regard to that tonight. So, it's really up to you on how you want to handle that.
Newton-Huckabay: I'd like to, then, make a motion that we are going to reject the
letter and not discuss it and if the applicant would like to appeal to City Council,
that would be a direction they need to go.
Moe: I'd second that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 11 of 43
Newton-Huckabay: End of motion.
Rohm: Okay. I -- we have never had that before, but there has been a motion to
reject the applicant's letter and it's been seconded. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign.
O'Brien: Aye.
Rohm: Okay. It's -- the motion has been approved.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from September 20, 2007: CUP 07-
016 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for 171 multi -family
dwelling units in an R-4 zone on a ten acre site located within the
Lochsa Falls Planned Development for Selway Multi -Family
Development by J -U -B Engineers — west side of N. Goddard
Creek Road, approximately 500 feet north of McMillan Road and
mile east of Ten Mile Road:
Hood: Mr. Chair, before you ask the applicant to come forward to discuss the
elevations, I just want to be clear for the record -- even though you have rejected
the letter, it's still going to be part of the record. I mean the letter doesn't just go
away. I mean we will put it in the file and it's here for public record for ever and
ever, but I just wanted that to be clear on the record that we did receive a letter
from the applicant, so --
Rohm: It's just not going to be part of our -- we are not going to change the staff
report based upon the letter. The letter has been received and certainly will go in
your -- in your file. At this time I'd like to have the applicant come forward for
discussion of what this continuance was for.
Thowless: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Wayne
Thowless, project architect for the Selway Apartment project and Rudeen
Development. Business address 1735 Federal Way, Boise. As requested at the
last Public Hearing, we have come back tonight. We submitted revised exterior
elevations to staff. You have seen those. They are in your packet. We have
also brought tonight a revised material sample board, which is over here for your
review. It reflects several things that were discussed at the last Public Hearing
and requested by the Commission. First being the shingles have been changed
to black to match the predominate shingle color in the adjacent subdivision. And
if you would excuse me for just a moment, I will bring the previous sample board
0 •
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 12 of 43
over a little closer, so you can compare the two as I continue my comments. As
we had indicated at the last hearing, there didn't seem to be a great deal of
concern regarding the general architecture, massing, color scheme of the
buildings, it was primarily an issue of choice of material when it comes to the
siding, not the roof. And so what we have shown here, as requested and was
part of the motion, was to utilize hardy plank siding, which would be painted, and
in lieu of the vinyl siding that had been previously proposed. On the board Daren
just brought over that was what was shown last time. The light sage green and
the tan were standard vinyl siding colors and on our new material board the
darker sage green and the darker tan are currently proposed colors on a wide
plank profile and a narrow plank profile of the hardy plank material. We have
also included this time there between the green and the shingles, the color of the
trim on the buildings. That trim color would be around windows, doors, the facia,
and some belly bands between floors. The strip of material on the left-hand side
of the board is a sample of a standard vinyl window and patio door color. It's a
standard almond or tan, which would be utilized on the project. The color on the
elevations on the PowerPoint presentation, unfortunately, does not show up, but I
think in your packets you have perhaps a better rendition and I just want to
reiterate, as we had mentioned at the last Public Hearing, that the -- the
arrangement of the colors on the buildings, the wide and narrow plank siding, et
cetera, varies from building to building, as well as the stone veneer. So, there
are a few buildings that will be identical, but they are not next to one another.
And so there is some buildings that have more stone than others, there is some
buildings that have green up high and tan below and others that have tan down --
vice-versa, et cetera. It should also be noted that some of the buildings we have
incorporated, particularly on the front elevations, some vertical board and batten
siding, using the same hardy plank material, but introducing a little bit more
variety in that fashion as well. Daren, can you grab that board that's just behind
there. I did not bring large revised elevations of each building tonight, but this
here gives some idea of the variations that are involved. Here is an example
here on a smaller two story building of some of that vertical board and batten
treatment that we have incorporated, along with the two horizontal plank patterns
and the accent stone veneer. If you'd like to take a closer look you're welcome,
go up and touch the materials, et cetera. And I'd certainly stand for any
questions you may have.
Rohm: Thank you very much. Questions of the applicant?
Moe: Sure. Probably not so much a question as just a statement, because you
spoke earlier about what we had talked about. I just -- for the record, I just want
to make sure everybody understood that -- that I was looking for the wood siding,
the stone accents, and I was also looking for stucco. So, I'm assuming at least
you reintroduced in some board and batten to make it that way and so I don't
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 13 of 43
have a real problem with it any longer. I just wanted to make sure there was
some differences and accents on these buildings. The stucco would have
matched a little bit more of your neighborhood behind you, but I can -- I'm fine
with what you have done there. That was it.
O'Brien: Mr. Chairman? I had one question. What type of material will you be
using around the enclosures for the trash receptacles?
Thowless: It has -- Mr. Chairman and Commissioner O'Brien, as was stipulated
by a condition of approval, that will be a split face concrete block with metal
gates.
O'Brien: Okay.
Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant? Okay. Thank you, sir. There is
nobody that has signed up to speak to this application, but at this time we will
take testimony specific to these elevations that have been discussed by the
applicant. So, if there is anyone that would like to come forward and speak, now
is that time. And there is nobody that had signed up, so there is no public
testimony on this application. So, thank you for coming in. Discussion?
Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I really have nothing of substance to add. It's what I
expected to see. I think it will fit better in the neighborhood and the surrounding
area, and so -- I had also hoped to see some stucco, but I do like what -- as
Commissioner Moe said, I did like what you have done with the vertical bat and
boards -- is that what they are called?
Moe: Batten board.
Newton-Huckabay: Batten board. I thought -- I think that looks nice, so --
Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien, do you have any --
O'Brien: I just want to add, too, that I think it's a great change. I think it's going
to really make the area look a lot nicer, more compatible with the surrounding
development of the area. So, I'm pleased with what they have done. That's all I
have.
Rohm: Commissioner Moe. You're fine?
Moe: Nothing further.
• 0
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 14 of 43
Rohm: I'd like to say that I appreciate what the applicant has done in response to
Commission's request and I think you have done an excellent job coming forward
with a much improved project. So, thank you very much. At this time I'd like to
get a motion to either approve or deny this application for a CUP.
Newton-Huckabay: Do we need to close the Public Hearing?
Rohm: Yeah. Better close the Public Hearing first.
Newton-Huckabay: I move to close the Public Hearing on CUP 07-016.
Moe: I'll second that.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 07-
016. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I have a question related to the motion that we make for
approval of this CUP. Do we have to go back and reiterate all those points that
we made at the last meeting or -- I mean --
Rohm: I actually think --
Newton-Huckabay: I don't know what the spirit of the wording of the motion
needs to be to make sure that it captures the --
Rohm: I believe staff has incorporated everything that we had discussed and
made a point of in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and changes to
the staff report from last time to this time; is that correct?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, that is correct.
Moe: So, it's as per the staff report.
O'Brien: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I'm not sure if that trash enclosure stated
concrete block --
Moe: Yes, it did.
r-,
LJ
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 15 of 43
O'Brien: I thought it still had the slats on it.
Moe: No. No. The --
O'Brien: I thought I read that.
Moe: It is in there.
O'Brien: Okay. Then, I don't have any questions.
Moe: At least that's what I read.
i
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, that being said, then, I can just make a motion
and reference --
Moe: You need to reference the continuation of the staff -- of the hearing to
tonight and that staff report is good. It's as per the staff report for tonight.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Why don't you make the motion, Commissioner Moe.
Moe: No. You're fine. You're there. You asked the question. I'm just answering
your question.
Newton-Huckabay: And I'm not really sure -- I just want to make sure I follow
your -- so --
Moe: Caleb, all we need to do is just reference the continuation of the hearing to
tonight and it's the staff report for tonight's hearing; correct?
Hood: That's correct. Mr. Chair, Commissioners, Bill has already assumed that
you wouldn't have any changes to make, so the Findings that you're going to act
on next already assume these elevations, color schemes, material, so unless you
want to change the Findings somehow, you do not need to make any changes to
the staff report as written and the Findings that you will look at next.
Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Okay. Continued Public Hearing -- so, the staff
report dated --
Moe: Do you want me to do this?
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Would you mind.
0
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 16 of 43
Moe: Okay. Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
approve file numbers CUP 07-016 presented in the staff report for the continued
hearing date of October the 4th, as stated. Of 2007. As stated.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve project CUP 07-016 to include
the staff report as presented for the continued Public Hearing of October 4th,
2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 6: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
07-016 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for 171 multi -family
dwelling units in an R-4 zone on a ten acre site located within the
Lochsa Falls Planned Development for Selway Multi -Family
Development by J -U -B Engineers — west side of N. Goddard
Creek Road, approximately 500 feet north of McMillan Road and Y
mile east of Ten Mile Road:
Rohm: Okay.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move to consider -- can't even talk now. I move to accept the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 07-016 for the hearing date of
October 4, 2007.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 07-016. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
0 •
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 17 of 43
Rohm: There are people leaving, but I did have one final comment that I wanted
to make that any of the decisions that are made by this body can be appealed by
the -- either the public or the applicant, so if the applicant didn't like the fact that
we excluded their request for revision, they can appeal. If the public didn't like
our conclusions, they can appeal as well. So, with that being said we are done
with that project. Thanks for coming in.
Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from August 2, 2007: AZ 06-063
Request for Annexation and Zoning of 38.68 acres from RUT and
R-1 zones to C -G zones for Waltman Property by Waltman, LLC —
505, 521, 615 and 675 Waltman Lane:
Rohm: All right. Okay. At this time I'd like to open Public Hearing -- continued
Public Hearing from August 2nd, 2007, of AZ 06-063 for the sole purpose of
continuing to the regularly scheduled meeting of December 20th, 2007.
Newton-Huckabay: So moved.
O'Brien: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue the Public Hearing of AZ 06-
063 to the regularly scheduled meeting of December 20th, 2007. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 8: Public Hearing: RZ 07-015 Request for a Rezone of .28 of an
acre from an R-8 residential zone to an O -T zone for 6t" and
Broadway Property by Linda Loehr — 532 E. Broadway Avenue:
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on RZ 06-015 related to
6th and Broadway property and begin with the staff report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The application
before you is a request to rezone .28 acres from R-8 medium density residential
to OT, Old Town, for the existing residence at 532 East Broadway Avenue. The
subject site is located in the northwest comer of East Broadway Avenue and 6th
Street. Indicated on the map here. There is Broadway and 6th Street. To the
north and east of the property are single family homes zoned R-8 and RUT Ada
County. To the west are existing four-plexes zoned R-8 in Old Town. The parcel
to the south is vacant and zoned I -L. So, these are existing single family
residences, Ada County. Some duplexes here. And, then, that's vacant
industrial -- zoned industrial. The applicant is requesting the subject property
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 18 of 43
be rezoned so a new two story four-plex can be constructed on the site. If the
subject rezone is approved, the existing single family residence on this site will
be demolished to make way for the new proposed development. Under current
code multi -family developments are not permitted within the R-8 zoning district.
The OT zoning district allows multi -family development as a principally permitted
use. A certificate of zoning compliance will be required prior to the construction
of the multi -family development. If the proposed development does not meet the
design guidelines, it will be subject to a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant
has provided staff with elevations for the proposed four -flex. Here is kind of a
site plan here. I'm going to skip ahead to the elevations and, then, go back to the
site plan, because we have some -- although this is a rezone and we are not
really looking at the elevations in this -- we still want to make it where we can
kind of show you what's going to be proposed in the future on this site. Staff is
recommending some changes to the elevations in the site plan to insure
compliance with the downtown design guidelines. If the following changes are
made -- are not made, the applicant may need a Conditional Use Permit to
construct a four-plex on this site. Staff believes that the building should shift five
feet -- now I will go back up here. Staff believes that the building should shift five
feet to the south to allow more turning radius into the rear of the — into the rear
parking off the alley. So, right now it's kind of hard to see on this map, but as a
requirement for developing this site the applicant will have to add curbing and
sidewalk and so that's what you're seeing here in the light blue. Staff is asking
the applicant -- or recommending the applicant shift the building five feet all the
way to the property line and staff feels that what that would allow them to do is --
since this is only 16 feet and standard parking stalls are nine by 19, that would
give the residents that -- the future residents living here the opportunity to get in
and out of the alley, a little easier access there. So, that's one of the changes we
are proposing. Parking stalls three and four should be relocated towards the
alley to provide future tenants more common area, align these parking stalls with
other parking stalls. So, basically, we are asking that if this building here shifts to
the south, shift these two end units which are labeled unit one and unit four to
that property line along the sidewalk as well. Give you some variation in the
building, give you some articulation, but what that would also allow you to do is
shift an additional parking stall here, shift these two parking stalls back here, and
this would open it up for more common open space for the residents living in the
development. Staff is recommending approval of this rezone from R-8 to OT, as
stated in the staff report. This concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to
answer any questions the Commission may have.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate the presentation. Any
questions of staff?
Moe: I have none.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 19 of 43
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Bill, which were the two units you were suggesting move
forward? You were just looking for building modulation; right?
Parsons: There is two things why we think this works better. This is unit one and
this is labeled unit four.
Newton -H uckabay: Okay.
Parsons: If we -- if they shift these units down here, leave these two the same,
shift these here, right to the sidewalk to property line, so to speak, that would
allow one of these parking stalls that come over here and, then, you wouldn't
have this parking right along the sidewalk. It would actually be safer and this
building could also provide some screening to the rear parking of the facility. I'd
like to mention, too, that all these parking spots are going to be covered, too.
Covered carport parking. So, that's -- these are the two units that we are
recommending shift forward.
Rohm: I guess I'm interested what the applicant has to say, so -- Commissioner
O'Brien, do you have --
O'Brien: Yeah. I have one question. As has happened in so many other
residences in the Old Town area could this In a future time, with the discretion of
the owner, change over to a different zoning, like light office or something like -
that, without having to go through a rezone or a -- another -- I guess being able
to change it without going through any hearings or anything?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner O'Brien, certainly Old Town has a lot of
standards that are principally permitted in there and I believe office use is -- it
would have to come in for a CZC --
O'Brien: Okay.
Parsons: -- to establish that use on the site if it was exchanged to go back from
residential.
O'Brien: Okay. Thank you.
Parsons: You're welcome.
'
q :)
4 h
.} p3 3.
k'TM"r�.
q
x
x.
k
W
r
�
y
z
{s
r `
4v
v.
s
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 20 of 43
Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please. And, please, state
your name and address for the record.
Loehr: My name is Linda Loehr and my home address -- you want my home
address or the --
Rohm: Yes. That would be fine. Home address.
Loehr: 843 West Creekberry, Meridian, Idaho.
Rohm: Thank you.
Loehr: And I have my representative here to talk for me.
Rohm: Oh, well, then --
Loosli: Dennis Loosli with Moose Creek Builders. Address is 1220 North
Meridian Road, Suite B, Meridian, Idaho. I guess one of the questions I have --
the carports you were talking to the west -- northwest, you wanted them to be
moved where? To there --
Parsons: Yeah. Shifted back towards the alley, yes. If you shift unit one here
and move the parking back a little bit, that will allow you to get one of the parking
stalls there, so you wouldn't have it right along the property line and, then, you
could shift these down here and, then, that would open that up for more open
space for the residents.
Loosli: I'm thinking. That would be fine. I don't see a problem with that. Making
the alterations from moving the two end buildings farther to the street I think is
also a good idea. That will give it some more character. So, I don't see a
problem with that. Was there any questions?
Rohm: I guess if you're in agreement with the staff -- basically, then, you're in
agreement with the staff report?
Loosli: Yeah. That would be fine.
Rohm: Okay.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, just one other thing. Have you reviewed the ACHD report
that came out on the 1 st of October, as far as just more or less their guidelines
and whatnot that you're going to need to --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 21 of 43
Loosli: Yes.
Moe: --standards and whatnot? Okay.
Loosli: Yes, I have.
Moe: I won't ask your opinion of that. I pretty much got that.
Rohm: Okay. Is there anything -- okay.
Moe: Okay. Let's see. Where am I?
Rohm: At this time would John Cole like to come forward.
Cole: Commissioner, staff, I am a --
Rohm: Please state your name and address for the record.
Coles: Oh. John Cole. 614 East Idaho. I am one block away from the proposed
rezoning. I feel -- and I have two letters to submit to the Commission also.
Rezoning to OT would allow the multi -use -- multi -family building. I feel that it
should be denied, because we don't -- that -- that small patch of ground is a one
family chunk of ground when it was originally plotted out years and years ago.
We don't need more multi -family dwellings in that area. The two four-plexes that
are to the west of that, that is more than ample. I question why they were put
there anyway. But that was way before I came to Meridian. Minimum a duplex in
that spot on the corner of 6th and Broadway. The owner has already stated that
this is a money making obligation and he plans to sell it within five years. That's
not good -- you know, to me that doesn't look -- bode well to a -- to a resident that
has built and purchased a home a block away, great, we get another rundown,
dilapidated place to look at. 6th Street also -- 6th Street is a half street. Adding
the additional traffic of four units, potentially eight cars, would put stress on 6th
Street and on Idaho Street.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Cole?
Cole: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Could you point out your property on the map for me?
Rohm: There is a --
0
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 22 of 43
Newton-Huckabay: There should be a pointer.
Rohm: -- infrared pointer right --
Cole: Okay. That will work.
•
Rohm: There is a infrared pointer on the -- and you just push the button.
Cole: I'm going to be right there. Exactly. Right there.
Newton -H uckabay: Okay.
Cole: I'm -- I'm the first lot east of 6th Street.
Newton-Huckabay: And you're on the end of Idaho?
Cole: Yes.
Newton -H uckabay: Okay.
Cole: 6th Street alongside the project, that's -- that's a narrow street. That's a
half street. If the plan allows for curb and gutter -- or curb and sidewalk, excuse
me. Curb and sidewalk, are they going to -- that's going to take up even
additional property in the lot that they are going to stuff a four-plex in. And I'm
song for the use of that word, but it's going to take a shoehorn to get it in there.
A duplex -- cut it in half. This is -- this is the reason that I wish to go to the
negative to this -- may I --
Rohm: Absolutely.
Cole: The one letter is from my wife and I. The other letter is from the folks that
are just immediately to the west of me.
Rohm: I can tell you that it's -- your testimony is very much appreciated and
letters will be entered into the record. But we'd have to take a recess so that
each one of us could read the letters to -- my assessment is the letters, in
essence, say --
Cole: Exactly that.
Rohm: -- exactly what your testimony is.
Cole: That's too much building for that little space.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 23 of 43
Rohm: Okay. May I ask you -- are you aware or were you aware of the Old
Town designation within the City of Meridian?
Cole: Yes, sir.
Rohm: Okay. One of the -- one of the overall goals within the city is to allow for
concentration of development within that -- what is it, four blocks either side of
Main Street -- approximately four blocks either side and -- as opposed to having
an urban sprawl, if you will. The intent of having the Old Town is to get additional
concentration of the developments, so from a global perspective, not specific to
this project, but globally the City of Meridian supports bringing things into this
area and expanded use within the area of Old Town. But that's -- maybe that's --
maybe that's just for your own edification.
Cole: Right.
Moe: Mr. Cole, in your letter there is a point here I want to just -- your last
paragraph here you speak to the -- without notice or hearings with the
surrounding neighbors it will not benefit the City of Meridian. Was there no notice
on the property out there?
Cole: There was -- we were notified of the -- of the meeting tonight, yes.
Moe: Okay. Okay. So, I'm not sure what you meant by without notice.
Cole: Well, I didn't type the letter, my wife did when I was at work. So, I'm not
sure on that. So, anyway --
Moe: Thank you.
Cole: -- I appreciate your --
Rohm: Okay. Well, thanks for your testimony.
Cole: Thanks.
Rohm: There is nobody else that has signed up to testify to this application, but if
there is anyone else that would like to come forward, now is that time.
Baird: Mr. Chair, I don't want to delay things any further, but I think we need to
offer the applicant an opportunity to review the letters before they give their
rebuttal.
0 0
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 24 of 43
Rohm: Absolutely. Let's just do that. We are going to take a ten minute break
and give the applicant an opportunity to read the letters as submitted by the
gentleman that just testified. We will reconvene at 8:15.
(Recess.)
Rohm: All right. At this time we'd like to continue the regularly scheduled
meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and would the applicant like to
come forward, please?
Loosli: I'd like to comment on a couple things the letters talk about. One was the
value. The building we are building I believe -- the appraisal that I had on it was
over 500,000 dollars. So, in comparing to values, I don't think we are going to be
degrading the value of the neighborhood. As far as the appeal of the home -- or
the four-plex, I believe the structure and the looks of it would be as nice or nicer
than a majority of the homes in the area. As far as -- another thing he
commented about was the parking or the street access. We are actually
widening the street wider than it is now. In addition to that we are adding curb
and gutter, so the appeal there and we are also asphalting the alley as far as our
building goes. So, the concerns he had I don't believe have much merit.
Rohm: They have been addressed.
Loosli: Yeah.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any additional discussion before we close the
public Hearing? Okay. Could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing?
Moe: So moved.
O'Brien: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on RZ 07-015.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Discussion? Commissioner Moe?
Moe: I have no opposition to the project. Basically, it's a principally permitted
use for Old Town and we have seen a few of these in the past and I think that as
long as the applicant's taking care of the items that staff wants to see changed, I
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 25 of 43
think things will be fine. They have made every point that they agree with the
staff report, so I would be in favor. End of my comments.
Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I have no comment at this time.
Rohm: Okay. Commissioner O'Brien.
O'Brien: I think it's -- I think it's appropriate at this juncture. As far as -- I think it's
making an assumption and hopefully it's a wrong assumption, that because it's a
rental property that it's going to deteriorate and be lost to neglect, if you will. I
don't know if there is anything -- I don't think this body can guarantee that or the
City of Meridian can guarantee that, but maybe the homeowners in the area can
address it if it comes up at the area it's going to degrade their property values
and I think that's something that's -- they can take care of themselves. So, as far
as I'm concerned I think it's -- it's a good project. I think they are going to do a
good job. I think they are going to have some amenities to the area, like the
street widening, that's going help it. So, those are my comments.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you much. Basically I'm in concurrence with the balance of
the Commission and certainly appreciate the testimony from --
Moe: Mr. Cole.
Rohm: -- Mr. Cole. I certainly do appreciate your testimony, but I believe that
this is going to be a good project for the city. So, with that being said, could we
get a motion to move forward?
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file
number RZ 07-015 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of
October 4th, 2007. End of motion.
O'Brien: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council
recommending approval of RZ 07-015. All those in favor say aye. Opposed
same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 9: Public Hearing: AZ 07-011 Request for Annexation and Zoning of
6.84 acres from RUT to an R-4 Medium Low -Density Residential
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 26 of 43
zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek Properties, Inc. —
5230 N. Black Cat Road:
Item 10: Public Hearing: PP 07-016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval
for 16 single-family residential lots and 5 common lots on 6.84
acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole
Creek Properties, Inc. — 5230 N. Black Cat Road:
Rohm: Thank you, folks, for coming in. Okay. At this time I'd like to open public
hearings AZ 07-011 and PP 07-015 and begin with the staff report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The
application before you is on annexation and zoning of 6.99 acres from RUT Ada
County to R-4 medium low density residential and a preliminary plat approval of
16 single family residential buildings lots and five common lots on 6.84 acres of
land on Belhaven Subdivision. The subject property is located at 5230 North
Black Cat Road on the east side of Black Cat Road approximately a quarter mile
north of West McMillan Road. Black Cat. McMillan. Here is the aerial view of it.
The property is bordered on the east and west by agricultural land that has
preliminarily been approved with Volterra Subdivision, zoned R-4. On the south
and west by rural residential homes zoned RUT in Ada County. And I'd like to
mention, too, on the aerial of the area you can see some groupings of trees here
on the property. This site -- the portion of this site was a commercial tree farm
prior to the sale of the property and the remaining of these -- the remainder of
these trees will be relocated off site. The applicant is requesting annexation and
zoning approval of 6.9 acres from RUT to R-4, which complies with the
Comprehensive Plan map designation of medium density residential for this
property. Preliminary plat approval is also requested for 16 single family
residential building lots and five common area lots on 6.84 acres of land. The
proposed lot sizes range from 8,077 square feet to 14,454 square feet. All
buildable lots conform to the R-4 requirements of the UDC. Access to and from
the subject site will be from North Black Cat Road. Internal public roadways will
be built to ACHD standards and one stub street for future connectivity will be
provided to the south boundary from North Sun Haven Avenue and one stub
street will be provided to the north boundary from North Fur Haven Avenue as
proposed. There to the south and there to the north. I'd also like to point out that
this is a 40 foot right of way, not the typical 50 feet. So, any of these Ada County
zoned properties to the south will have to -- will be responsible for putting in the
remainder of that ten foot improvement -- road improvement or sidewalks and all
that or whatever they are proposing to do, if they stub into Belhaven Subdivision.
Approximately .80 -- excuse me. Approximately .8 acres or 11.7 percent of this
site is proposed for common area, which consists of a 25 foot wide landscape
buffer along North Black Cat Road. There is a 30 foot wide irrigation easement
0 •
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 27 of 43
that runs along the north and east property boundaries of the subject
development. These easements -- this easement is for the Settlers Canal. This
area will be used as open space with a five foot pathway adjacent to the canal.
The applicant is proposing to sod this area. Staff recommends that rows of trees
be placed on the south side of the common lots -- on the south side of common
Lots 5, Block 1, and 3 outside of the Settlers Canal easement. It's hard to see on
this map, but here is where the applicant's proposing the pathway and that
easement does kind of encroach into their property a little bit, but there is a small
sliver in there where additional trees could be planted along that micro pathway.
So, staff has included that requirement in the staff report. Trees shall be planted
in accordance with UDC 11-313-12. Further, a license agreement should be
entered into between the developer and the irrigation district allowing the
pathway to be placed in a common lot. Said pathway shall be maintained by the
homeowners association. Staff has also recommended the applicant shift the
proposed cul-de-sac to the west, which would allow for more open space within
the development. So, now you can see how they kind of terminate the roadway
here into the cul-de-sac. The applicant is able to keep the frontage requirement
of the code and be able to shift this to the west a little bit. Staff believes that this
would allow for more open space in the development. And speaking with the
applicant this morning about the staff report, we also discussed possibly putting
some kind of amenity right there in the comer for the residents in the proposed
subdivision. Elevations were submitted with this application. The applicant has
indicated with this application that the housing within the development will include
wood siding, thirty year composite roofing, earth tone colors and stone or rock
accents on the front facades. These building materials and elevations will be
included and subject to a development agreement. So, this is what staff got from
the applicant. As part of the DA requirements we asked for a memo of four
different building elevations and the applicant was to present that and this is what
-- they did give that to staff and here are the two they propose and these are the
other elevations that they submitted with their application. And, again, there is
the building material that they are explaining -- proposing to use on the homes in
the area. And they also indicated that they want to do some side loaded
garages, too. Just for clarification, I wanted to let the Commission know that I
was reviewing the staff report and I found that I had -- I need a modification on
one of the conditions that I had done. I didn't -- I had a mistake in there, so I
wanted to clarify that and have you guys clean that up for me tonight. Condition
1.2.2 it should read -- right now in the staff report it's showing just -- it indicates
where those trees should be planted within that common area -- in this area and I
just left it X -- Lot X, Block X. I didn't put a specific lot or block in. So, I want to
clean that up and let you know what -- how that condition should read. So,
condition 1.2.2 should read: Additional trees with minimum two inch caliper shall
be planted along the southern boundary of common Lots 5, Block 1 and Block 3.
So, this is Block 1, Lot 5, Block 3, Lot 5. Staff recommends approval of the
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 28 of 43
subject annexation and zoning and preliminary plat applications with conditions
stated in the staff report. This concludes my presentation and I stand for any
questions the Commission may have regarding the project.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you very much. Did you catch those changes to the staff
report?
Moe: Would you do that one more time?
Parsons: Sure.
Moe: That was common Lot 5 of Block 1 --
Parsons: Common Lots 5 of Block 1 and 3.
Moe: And three.
Parsons: Correct.
Rohm: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Bill, can you put up the aerial again? Do you have a picture
that puts it in context with the Volterra -- Volterra --
Parsons: Volterra.
Newton-Huckabay: -- Subdivision?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, this is where the
the proposed Volterra Subdivision will be and it's zoned R-4. This portion here.
I'm going to go up to the zoning map there. There you go. And that's all of it
right there.
Newton-Huckabay: So, the rest of the Volterra that's already built is just a little
bit to the east.
Parsons: Yes.
0 0
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 29 of 43
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, how -- do you have it into context of how this fits
up with the Volterra phase up there? Do you know what I -- you know what I'm
asking. Ah. Perfect. Thank you.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, yeah, this is just
preliminary platted. There is nothing built yet. It's still vacant.
Newton-Huckabay: Right. I just want to see what it would all look like when it's
done, because this development, standing on its own, looks funny I think. You
can continue.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any additional questions? Commissioner O'Brien?
O'Brien: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the pathway adjacent to Settlers
Canal there, I think I read where you're going to have chain link fence along the
canal? Is that being put in by the developer or is that already existing?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner O'Brien, there currently is a chain -- five
foot existing chain link fence along the canal. The applicant should state what
fencing they are proposing to put with the development.
O'Brien: Okay. I was going to recommend something different than that, so --
thank you. That's comes later.
Parsons: You're welcome.
Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please.
Nickel: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Shawn Nickel, 148 North
2nd Street, Suite 101, Eagle, Idaho. Here tonight representing the developer. I
want to thank staff for their staff report. If you have any specific questions on the
design or anything, please, ask me those. I'm not going to go into much detail on
that. We did provide additional elevations that staff spoke of, showing two
additional building types. We would like to request a -- some flexibility on the
condition that staff just modified, so it would be part of your Exhibit B, that
condition 1.2.2 regarding the additional trees along the -- along the north
boundary and along that pathway and the concern we have is when we do work
with the irrigation district and the license agreement for that -- for that pathway,
because of where that easement -- that easement kind of winds around here, we
are probably -- probably okay with those tree plantings, but we cannot plant
those trees within the easement. So, we just want the ability to -- if we can't get
those trees outside of the easement and inside that common area, that for
consistency's sake we have the ability to possibly put them within the lots and
• 0
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 30 of 43
work that out during the final plat and the final -- the final landscape plan. So, we
are fine with placing the trees and working with staff on distances between the
trees, but just if that condition could be modified to give us the flexibility of either
having them in the common area or if we can't get them all in the common area
under one -- one consistent row, then, to work and get those in the -- the very
rare ends of those -- those lots.
Rohm: That seems reasonable, but let me ask staff. Bill, do you have any
problem with placing the subject trees in a lot itself, as opposed to the common
area?
Parsons: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, we discussed this this morning and I didn't
have a chance to talk with Caleb about it, but I -- the applicant told me at that
time that there would be open screen fencing along the rear of the properties and
so if -- we would prefer that it be along the pathway per code, but if you guys felt
like you were okay with it, then --
Rohm: Well, I guess from a -- just from a presentation perspective, if, in fact,
they would have to have voids in those areas where the easement encroaches
the common area to a point that there is no -- there is no place to put the tree,
then, it -- then we -- it would be spotty and it just seems if they could slide the
tree into the lot itself, at least it would be a more consistent presentation. Isn't
that kind of what -- your point, Shawn?
Nickel: Yes, Mr. Chairman. And first and foremost we will try to accommodate
all the trees in a consistent manner within the common area, but in the event that
we can't do that -- and, then, to address -- kind of jump ahead a little bit to
address the question about the fencing --
Moe: Thank you. That's what I wanted to --
Nickel: -- we are planning on having that open fence. We are going to do a
wrought iron with some solid posts to keep that in there. So, if the trees are
planted in the back yards up against the property line, they will be visibly seen
from the pathway and from the common area.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
O'Brien: Thank you.
Nickel: And, then, in addition to that, Mr. Chairman -- and it's the last thing I have
and it's just clarification. Staff did a great job in their report explaining how this
property was a former tree farm and from the very beginning of this project we
0 0
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 31 of 43
met with staff and we were trying to determine how we -- how we treat that --
those additional -- those existing trees and so the way staff has it written, he
recognizes that -- that the trees are going to be removed by the former owner of
the property, the trees that were associated with the tree farm. So, I just need
one clarification and that's in Exhibit B, item -- or condition 1-3-5, where it talks
about any tree over four inch caliper that is removed from the property shall be
replaced by installing additional trees being of equal number of caliper inches.
Required landscaping trees will not be considered as replacement trees for the
trees that have been mitigated. I would just like to add the sentence somewhere
in there -- this alludes the existing trees from the -- from the tree farm. All the
way through the rest of the report staff does a good job at referencing that it
doesn't include the tree farm trees and I just wanted to make sure that that
condition states that as well and, then, everything is consistent throughout the
rest of the staff report.
Rohm: That seems reasonable.
Nickel: And staff was fine with that when we met this morning. So, that's all I
have. So, if you have any questions, if you want to talk about the shape of the
property, we could do that, or the layout.
Newton-Huckabay: Actually, it fits in nicely with the preliminary plat to the north.
Nickel: We tried to -- and that's one reason -- one reason we have that half road
on the south boundary was to make sure that our lots were -- we wanted those
lots as large as possible. As you can see, they are -- the lots in this stretch right
here are quite large and deep and, then, the other reason is when we originally --
and I don't know if you guys recall when we -- we had this at one point, this
property on your agenda, boy, back in -- probably back in early spring with a
different layout where we actually had the road down the middle and -- it might
not even have got to you, because we stopped it at the staff report level, but staff
was trying to figure out we could provide stubs to all these five acre lots to the
south. And so by doing this design and having this half street and having the
right of way right up against the boundary, this provides multiple options for these
four lots -- five lots, I guess, on the south boundary to access -- continue our
public road and, then, provide their designs, however they decide to future
develop those. So, it does two things, it makes our lots as large as possible and
provides better redevelopment in the future for the south.
Moe: Mr. Chair? Let's go back to fencing again.
Nickel: Okay.
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 32 of 43
Moe: What are we doing, then, on the southwestern portion of this thing up
against the other landowners there to the south?
Nickel: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Moe, I didn't get a clear answer from
the highway district today when I -- actually, I didn't get an answer back from the
highway district today when I asked that question. I asked them last week if we
would be able to -- because the property line is the right of way, if we would be
able to put a fence -- a solid fence along the boundary within the right of way --
I'm assuming that's a license agreement. I think we can. I didn't get an answer
back from ACHD for tonight's meeting. Our intentions are to have a temporary
solid fence along that -- along that boundary.
Moe: And, then, what are we doing as you go up -- up against the other property
there?
Nickel: You know, I -- the property owners right here are present and we actually
haven't talked about this area along their property, but we are definitely willing to
work with them on what type of fencing needs to be there, whether it's privacy
fence or open fencing.
Moe: I guess you'll get an answer -- you'll get a chance to talk about that in a
little bit.
Nickel: If they could address that, we would -- I can rebut that.
Moe: Okay.
Nickel: And, then, again, as we -- as we move over here, that wrought iron with
the solid post along this area and, then, landscaping along -- along Black Cat.
Moe: Can you just address, again, just so I get a little clearer picture in regards
to the trees, where you anticipate the problems getting it between the easement
and property?
Nickel: Well, that's -- it's kind of throughout, but this area right here and, then,
over here.
Moe: In the center there, you should be able to get the trees in there, should you
not?
Nickel: We should be, yeah.
Moe: Okay.
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 33 of 43
Nickel: It's hard to see on this map, but you can see if you have a large copy,
you can kind of see where that easement is. And, then, finally, I guess, to
address staffs recommendation to move that cul-de-sac back, that's fine, and
what we would do is we would extend the pathway down, square off this lot right
here, and, then, possibly have a little seating area right there as that path curves
back around to the cul-de-sac, so we have a continuous loop for that pathway.
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Nickel, this pathway doesn't -- isn't going to hook -- is it
going to hook up with Volterra -- Volterra -- I can't think -- do they have one
coming up to meet it?
Nickel: Well, not -- not directly. I mean it will hook up to the -- to the sidewalk
system as it stubs into Volterra here, but there is no other locations that it could
hook into Volterra.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Moe: Oh, just one other quick thing, as far as -- I mean you read the staff report,
so you know the conditions in regards to your utilities, sewer, water, as the time
frames and whatnot when you get that.
Nickel: And the developer has been meeting with Public Works staff and is
participating in the extension of the water line, so --
Moe: Okay.
Nickel: -- we are well aware of that.
Moe: Okay.
Nickel: Thank you.
Moe: Thank you.
Rohm: Paul Poorman.
Poorman: I'm Paul Poorman and I'm at 5230 North Black Cat Road and our
subject property is here. So, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, first I'd
like to correct a couple of misconceptions here. First is that there are no chain
link fences along the north boundary of the subject property. There is only one
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 34 of 43
chain link fence -- sort of a chain link fence here. The rest of it is kind of half
fallen down barbed wire. The other misconception is about the trees here. The
trees are mostly in this part right here and they are pretty much all -- yeah. There
we go. So, here is the trees right here. And these are mature 25 year old trees
that are, in some cases, about 60 feet tall and there is no way that I'm going to be
able to move those trees or get them off the property. So, if the trees don't get
worked into this subdivision, then, they are going to have to be chopped down.
There are a few blue spruces on the west end that I should be able to -- to move
and sell or the nice thing would be to put them in other places in the subdivision,
but I guess my hope is that the developers would consider the trees here and
work them into the subdivision. A couple of ideas would be perhaps some more
open space, a small neighborhood park, a playground, using the trees other --
other places on the property. Or just as a -- just as a screen. Then, the other
thing I wanted to point out -- and if you could go back to the -- to the map. Our
septic tank is somewhere about in here. I think it's between these two lots,
roughly our septic tank and drain field, and Mr. Roberts had agreed to connect
our septic tank into the new sewer and, then, that doesn't show any connection
for our septic and sewer. And, then, I guess another slight misconception is that
the map shows that this here is a chain link fence and our preference is that
would be an opaque privacy type fence along the -- the east boundary of our
property and the north boundary of our property. So, that's all the comments I
had. Thank you.
Moe: What type of fencing would you like to see there?
Poorman: Something like a cedar fence, something that you can't see through,
more of a privacy fence. Right now it just calls for a chain link fence, which is
great for keeping dogs out, but it's not very nice for privacy.
Moe: Okay. Let's talk about the trees again. I guess I'm a little confused.
You're stating that you're going to be moving them, so is that your property up
there that you're selling to the developer?
Poorman: So, we have already sold the property to the developer, but we
retained ownership of the trees and so it was a prudent or simple thing to do at
the time that we sold the property and there are roughly a hundred trees that we
could sell that are movable, but there is probably three or four hundred additional
trees that are too big to -- to be moved. So, if they don't get used where they are
or worked into the subdivision, then, they are going to have to be chopped down.
Moe: And that's -- that's what we are anticipating calling the tree farm trees?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 35 of 43
Poorman: Yeah. So, I'm the guy who put the trees in there and I'm the tree
farm.
Rohm: My question is where those trees originally planted as trees farm trees
that just didn't get sold and they grew up to be larger than what could be easily
transported out of there, is that --
Poorman: So, yeah, kind of both. I planted roughly 2,000 trees and sold
probably three-quarters of those, maybe 1,500 trees, and, then, others were
more just as a -- a screen to cut down on the road noise and just to give us a little
privacy.
Rohm: Okay. You know, I can't speak for staff, but I can't anticipate that the
staff would think that a tree farm tree would be mitigated by additional trees
placed within the subdivision itself, but I guess I can ask staff. Was that your
intent, Bill, to -- for the trees that the previous property owner couldn't take out
effectively, be mitigated or -- or what's your thoughts on that?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, when I met with the applicants this
morning they had told me that they didn't have -- retain -- they didn't have
ownership of the trees, as Mr. Poorman has just stated, and so on the plan that
they submitted it said the trees would be removed and off site. So, I was under
the impression that it would -- they would be dug up and removed. But after I
visited the site I realized -- and I told this to the applicant -- that those are pretty
good size trees out there and it would be pretty difficult to move any of those, so I
mean --
Rohm: So, I guess what my question is, do you have any problem with the
applicant cutting trees down and removing them?
Parsons: I would probably ask Caleb to step in on this and see what his feeling
is on it, but -- I mean I don't even have any open space to put it on site, if that's
what you're -- it would have to be off site or something within a city park or
something. Code does have -- allow for that provision.
Caleb: As long as I don't have to try to move the trees, I don't care if they get cut
down. No. Code really doesn't speak to this case. I mean it just says you
should mitigate for any trees that are on site that you can't retain during
construction. Obviously, the code didn't anticipate a situation like this. Any trees
that can be retained, which is something that Mr. Poorman mentioned, and if we
can save some of them or relocate some of those -- I mean the whole intent
behind this is so we don't cut down all the trees and have two inch caliper trees
everywhere, let's try to save some nice mature trees around town. So, I think if
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 36 of 43
we can keep a few of these and have some nice mature trees for this new
subdivision, that sure will add a lot to the value of those lots as people start to
move into this neighborhood. So, you know, code is what it is. That's just my
personal opinion. The city arborist can maybe work out a compromise to mitigate
some of the caliper inches, but like Bill said, there is no way they can mitigate all
those caliper inches of trees on this site or probably even a couple of city parks
that are in this neighborhood, so -- in the future. So, it is a lot of trees and, you
know, I think that condition should be clarified and I don't have any heartburn
over you guys modifying that accordingly.
Rohm: Thank you.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to just add one more thing. When I met with the
applicant, too, they said that they would try to incorporate some of those trees
into the design of those front lots there, so --
Rohm: Okay. And they will have an opportunity to respond anyway. But thanks.
Thank you, sir.
Rohm: Just a second.
Moe: Anybody else?
Rohm: Don Roberts with you? Okay. Go ahead and come on back up.
Nickel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Again, Shawn Nickel.
Baird: Mr. Chair? Just -- it might be prudent to see if there is anybody who
hasn't signed up who might want to speak that's in the audience before we get
the rebuttal.
Rohm: Okay. Hang tight for a moment here, Shawn. At this time there is --
there isn't anybody else that has signed up to speak to this application, but if
you'd like to come forward now is that time. Okay. Thanks for pointing that out.
Shawn, you're on.
Nickel: Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman. Regarding the privacy fence, we are
fine with six foot solid cedar around the Poorman's property and what we will do
is we will coordinate that with them as far as placement. It is the developer's
intention, as stated, to provide sewer hook up for Poorman's home, so that will be
incorporated into the design. I believe our engineer just left it off the --
• 0
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 37 of 43
Rohm: Well, I'm a little bit curious how you incorporate sewer for a property
that's outside of the development. Isn't that something that would have to be
coordinated with the city? Because it won't be a city lot. I can't anticipate --
Nickel: That's a good point, Mr. Chairman. I guess we can defer to your Public
Works staff.
Steckline: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, generally it is that when an
applicant comes in that they would be annexing into the city when they hook up
to city sewer and water. The plans that I have seen don't allow for that sewer
and water to go through the Belhaven Subdivision. That's definitely something
that we could discuss, as long as the other applicants are aware that they would
need to annex into the city at that time also.
Rohm: Yeah. I -- that's kind of where I was going with this, is -- is in order for
that to happen there is -- annexation would have to take place. I -- as a general
rule -- it isn't that we never serve any properties outside of the city limits, but it's
under very special conditions and I'm not sure that this qualified, but --
Steckline: Mr. Chair, also the sewer and water will also be brought up in Black
Cat. There is other opportunity to hook up the development or the existing home
to the south through a sewer stub and water. But also does require annexing
into the city and it would require both sewer and water.
Moe: Mr. Chairman. Shawn, he pointed that his septic tank now -- is it in your
development?
Rohm: Probably the drain field.
Moe: Just the drain field? Well, I shouldn't just say just, but -- so, I think it's
going to be pretty important to verify that he wants to be annexed in in order to
be able to hook him up on city sewer, so that you can get the drain field out of
there.
Nickel: You guys have brought up a good -- I'm glad someone did bring it up
now, so we can discuss it. We are going to need to figure out how to -- how to
do that, because I don't know -- I don't think the Poormans envisioned being
annexed at this -- at this time.
Moe: I noticed her shaking her head earlier. That's why I'm bringing this up. So,
it's probably something -- and I'm -- I'm comfortable that we can get it worked out,
unless you guys are uncomfortable moving it forward to the Council, I think we
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 38 of 43
can get it worked out and maybe have a sit down with staff and the Poormans to
figure out how we can --
Rohm: I'm not the least bit comfortable moving it forward without that being
resolved.
Nickel: Okay.
Moe: I agree a hundred percent.
Nickel: I guess we are not in a huge hurry right now, so I guess we can -- we can
-- I guess we need to look at that.
Rohm: I think that has to be resolved before we can go any further.
Nickel: Okay.
Moe: I guess I'd like to ask staff one question and that would be one way to take
care of that, if, in fact, it is just a drain field, can they relocate the drain field or
simply -- I mean keeping their septic tank there, but just changing out the drain
field?
Steckline: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moe, Members of the Commission, if there
is adequate space on the property in question and if that's something negotiated
with the applicant and the current property owner, how they decide that, whether
or not their construction company comes in and does that, it is the intent of the
city, when city services are available and they are within reason, to have those
properties hooked up to city services. One thing I would be kind of concerned
about is leaving an island out there where there isn't city sewer and water. That
would be --
Newton-Huckabay: That's pretty much why I asked the question.
Steckline: -- my main concern. Yeah.
Moe: Okay.
Nickel: Now, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, one point of clarification is that we
are not creating this out parcel with the subdivision, this property. This is a legal
stand-alone parcel from the portion that my developer is developing. But,
regardless, we do need to at least have that I guess determined.
Moe: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 39 of 43
Nickel: So, I'm okay with that. Regarding the tree issue, very early on in the
process we did meet with -- with Caleb. I don't know if he remembers. It's been
quite awhile. It's probably been over a year. But one of the first questions we
asked -- and it was before my client purchased this property -- was with regards
to mitigation of a tree farm and not to put staff on the spot, but it is not our -- it
was never our intention to mitigate those trees within this development. There is
a contract in place between the Poormans and my client regarding the ownership
of those trees. I think that needs to be resolved by those two -- those two
parties. We would be more than happy to work with them if we can save any of
those trees. We can try to incorporate them. I agree, I think if we have some
mature trees within some of the lots it would make those that much more
desirable and we don't necessarily want to cut down trees if we don't have to.
But, again, that's something that if you look at our landscape plans submitted, it --
it takes into consideration new trees coming in to meet the code requirement
within our open space area.
Rohm: Well, I don't know if I can speak to the balance of the Commission, but I
don't think the -- the law was ever within the intent of replacing tree farm trees.
And so I think as long as you're making an attempt to incorporate the mature
trees that make sense into the development, I'm pretty sure we are going to be
able to work with you on that.
Moe: Well, I guess the other thing is they don't own them anyway.
Rohm: Well, exactly. And the guy that owns them doesn't want to cut them
down and so there you have it. In any case, I think that's probably -- you
understand where we are at on the trees?
Nickel: Yes. I think I do. And I think we have clarified it enough in the code -- or
in the staff report. So, that's all I have, Mr. Chairman, if you have any other
questions.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. I don't think we can move forward with this until we
get some resolve on that -- on the sewer system to the adjacent property, so I
think --
Moe: Well --
Rohm: -- I'm looking for suggestions.
Moe: Well, Mr. Chairman, I happen to agree with you. I'd like to have that issue
resolved. I guess the other thing I wouldn't mind -- maybe the applicant could
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 40 of 43
work with staff in regards to the trees around the -- the pathway and whatnot and
let's get this kind of decided exactly what we want to do --
Rohm: As long as we are continuing it, get it resolved.
Moe: Yes. Yeah. I'd like to see that resolved and at the same time, basically, it
will be noted that a six foot cedar fencing would be going in over on the -- that
would be, what, the southwest portion of the neighborhood there?
Newton-Huckabay: Would you also need to endeavor to put the cedar fencing
temporarily along the entire southern --
Moe: That's a very good point. He could check with ACHD in regards to what he
has to do as far as in their right of way and whatnot. If he can get done, yes, I
think that's a very good point. We'll get this figured out yet.
Newton-Huckabay: Maybe he can make the fence out of all those trees they are
going to have to cut down.
Moe: That's a great idea. You're going to have plenty of wood from the trees all
over the place. Okay. Let's see. Bear with me, I want to check my notes. Okay.
That was it, so --
Rohm: How long do you think you need to resolve the outstanding issues? We
are trying to pick a date for a continuance.
Nickel: Mr. Chairman, probably just a couple weeks. I think they can --
Rohm: Our next agenda is full, so if we have four weeks or --
Moe: The 1 st of November?
Nickel: Is that the date? Yeah. We will probably be back on that date for your
southwest comp plan.
Hood: Mr. Chair, that date's even more full than the 18th.
Rohm: Well, then --
Moe: Thank you.
Rohm: You know, really, we don't have a lot of issues. I'd rather take in this two
weeks if you can -- if you can get it resolved in two weeks. Caleb, is -- from the
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 41 of 43
staffs perspective what all has to take place for this sewer and water issue to be
resolved to a point that you can --
Steckline: Mr. Chair, we would be looking for some kind of an agreement
between the two parties involved, an agreement to annex into the city or other
means. Another thing that brought up a point. Generally, when we have
something like this happen, a septic system has failed or a well has gone bad
and they will have to contact central district heath and from there we make the
determination whether or not they are within 300 feet of city services being
available. Thus, the city would require the applicant to connect to city services.
in this case their septic system hasn't fail, they just don't currently own the
property anymore where that septic system is -- is located. We would, basically,
need -- Public Works would need some kind of an agreement stating that the
current homeowner is going to annex into the city, is, basically, the only thing that
I can see resolving this matter.
Rohm: Either that or they will have to relocate the drain field outside of this
development and have it fully contained in the adjacent property to the south.
One or the other. And I don't think we have an option of just connecting it to the
city, if, in fact, it's not going to be part of the city.
Hood: Mr. Chair, I do have one other option and maybe those -- I don't how big
that field is, but maybe there is a couple lots that are non -build until they do get
hooked up to -- so, there are some options that need to be discussed. I guess to
do two weeks, though, we need to have something figured out by the Friday
before the next Thursday hearing, so we can get something in your packets. So,
effectively, that's six business days or so to kind of work something out, so I don't
know if that's feasible or not, but --
Nickel: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, let's move it out a little bit further. Again,
we are not in a huge hurry with this, but --
Rohm: 15th of November?
Nickel: Yeah.
Moe: The 15th of November?
Nickel: That should be fine. Let me just double-check real quick.
Rohm: That's the date, the 15th.
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 42 of 43
Nickel: Let me make sure I'm available, otherwise, we might have to push it out
further. Yes. That will be fine.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Nickel: Thank you.
Moe: I'm getting there. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we continue
the public hearings AZ 07-011 and PP 07-016 to the regularly scheduled meeting
of the Planning and Zoning meeting of November 15th, 2007.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Items No. AZ 07-011 and PP
07-016 to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Commission of November 15th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed
same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 07-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of
258.39 acres from RUT to C -G zone for Meridian Town Center by
CenterCal Properties, LLC — NWC and NEC of N. Eagle Road and
E. Fairview Avenue:
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing for AZ 07-012 for
the sole purpose of continuing to the regularly scheduled meeting of October
18th, 2007.
Moe: So move.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded by all to continue items AZ 07-012 to the
regularly scheduled meeting of October 18th, 2007. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move to adjourn.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
X
I
0 0
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 43 of 43
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign?
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Good night.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:08 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPRO b:
MIC AEL . ROHM —CHAIRMAN
ATTESTED:
/11 I I
DATE APPROYFEED1"'c"'1s��,
G. BERG JR.,
4
t
WK
d
a
Za14,11010
� �
p
1 ': � t �,,.,9'�:-u$°���€�' �xf4 �
t
WK
a
Za14,11010
1 ': � t �,,.,9'�:-u$°���€�' �xf4 �
",�,e S q ; • d x .�" �` ,�F d'' s a�' X p
t i
Vo i-
y
n
X
Y`: t
'i LTA txi ,'tu^
ry
a INV x}
•
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING October 4, 2007
APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-A
REQUEST Approve Minutes of September 20, 2007 Planning &Zoning Commission
Meeting:
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted:
Date:
COMMENTS
Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING October 4, 2007
APPLICANT ITEM NO. 4
REQUEST Update on Blue Print for Good Growth and How it Relates to the City's Area
of Impact - Presented by Pete Friedman / Matt Ellsworth:
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted:
Emailed:
u
Date:
Phone:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
u
October 1, 2007
CJ
CUP 07-016
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING October 4, 2007
APPLICANT J -U -B Engineers ITEM NO. S
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 9/20/07- Conditional Use Permit for 171 multi -family dwelling units in an R-4 zone
on a ten acre site located within the Lochsa Falls Planned Development for Selway Multi -Family
Development - west side of N. Goddard Creek Rd, approx 500 feet n/o McMillan Rd & 1/4 mile e/o Ten Mile Rd
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
COMMENTS
See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes
See Attached Comments
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See Attached Emall from Bemadette Relsbeck
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
October 1, 2007 CUP 07-016
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING October 4, 2007
APPLICANT J -U -B Engineers ITEM NO. G
REQUEST Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP for 171 multi -family dwelling units in an R-
on a ten acre site located within the Lochsa Falls Planned Development for Selway Multi -Family
Development - west side of N. Goddard Creek Rd, approx 500 feet n/o McMillan Rd & 1/4 mile e/o Ten Mile Rd
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
COMMENTS
See Attached Findings
Contacted: �1,Date: 10 a' 0`� Phone: 3%,_� 336
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
OCTkit
1 .11 Nil
0 2 2007
n
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
CITY OF MERIDIAN
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW AND
DECISION & ORDER
In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit (CUP -07-016) for a multi -family
development consisting of 171 multi -family dwelling units on a 10 acre parcel located
within the Lochsa Falls Planned Development and Private Street approval within the proposed
Selway Multi -family Development.
Case No(s). CUP -07-016, PS -07-007
For the Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: September 20 and October 4,
2007 (Findings approved on October 4, 2007)
A. Findings of Fact
Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of September 20, 2007,
incorporated by reference)
2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of September 20, 2007,
incorporated by reference)
3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of
September 20, 2007, incorporated by reference)
4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the
hearing date of September 20, 2007, incorporated by reference)
B. Conclusions of Law
1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use
Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503).
2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified
Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps
thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the
Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6,
2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps.
3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code §
11-5A.
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). CUP -07-016, PS -07-007 - 1 -
IDAHO
In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit (CUP -07-016) for a multi -family
development consisting of 171 multi -family dwelling units on a 10 acre parcel located
within the Lochsa Falls Planned Development and Private Street approval within the proposed
Selway Multi -family Development.
Case No(s). CUP -07-016, PS -07-007
For the Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: September 20 and October 4,
2007 (Findings approved on October 4, 2007)
A. Findings of Fact
Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of September 20, 2007,
incorporated by reference)
2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of September 20, 2007,
incorporated by reference)
3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of
September 20, 2007, incorporated by reference)
4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the
hearing date of September 20, 2007, incorporated by reference)
B. Conclusions of Law
1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use
Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503).
2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified
Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps
thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the
Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6,
2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps.
3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code §
11-5A.
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). CUP -07-016, PS -07-007 - 1 -
4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental
subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction.
5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not
impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed.
6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which
shall be signed by the Chair of the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Clerk and
then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public
Works Department and any affected party requesting notice.
7. That this approval is subject to the Site Plan, Landscaping Plan and Conditions of
Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of September 20, 2007,
incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the
applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application.
C. Decision and Order
Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City
Code § 11-5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein
adopted, it is hereby ordered that:
1. The applicant's CUP Site Plan as evidenced by having submitted the Site Plan dated
July 10, 2007 is hereby conditionally approved;
2. The applicant's CUP Landscape Plan as evidenced by having submitted the Landscape
Plan dated July 10, 2007 is hereby conditionally approved;
3. The applicant's CUP Elevations as evidenced by having submitted the Elevations dated
September 27, 2007 is hereby conditionally approved;
4. Modifications to the site specific conditions were made at the Planning & Zoning
Commission hearing and are updated in the attached staff report; and
5. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff
Report for the hearing date of September 20, 2007, incorporated by reference.
D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits
Notice of Eighteen (18) Month Conditional Use Permit Duration
Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a
maximum period of eighteen (18) months unless otherwise approved by the City.
During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the
conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval,
and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or
structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). CUP -07-016, PS -07-007 - 2 -
final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with
multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the
event that the development is made in successive contiguous segments or multiple
phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one (1) year
from the original date of approval. If the successive phases are not submitted within the
one (1) year interval, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and
void. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the
period in accord with 11 -5B -6.G.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the
time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional
time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the
Commission may be granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may
require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code
Title 11.
E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis
The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a plat
or conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis.
Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than
twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request
for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for
Judicial Review may be filed.
2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of
Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has
an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of
the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of
this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho
Code.
F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of September 20, 2007.
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). CUP -07-016, PS -07-007 - 3 -
By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the
day of 2007.
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM VOTED Ci__
(Chair)
COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE VOTED
COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY VOTED
COMMISSIONER TOM O'BRIEN VOTED C
COMMISSIONER STEVE SIDDOWAY TED&&A;t—
CHA ICHAEL ROHM
\\\\\11111II IIITII/
Attest:
Tara Green, Deputy City Clerk'
Copy served upon Applicant, 'f�MDartinent, Public Works Department and City
Attorney.
By: ( Dated: —C) La 1
City Clerk
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). CUP -07-016, PS -07-007 - 4 -
e •
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2007
STAFF REPORT
Hearing Date: September 20, 2007
C�WEPkIDIAN-/,��:��_-
TO:
Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Bill Parsons, Associate City Planner
208-884-5533
Caleb Hood, Current Planning Manager
208-884-5533
SUBJECT: Selway Multi -fancily Development
CUP -07-016 — Conditional Use Permit for a multi -family development
consisting of 171 multi -family dwelling units on a 10 acre parcel located within
the Lochsa Falls Planned Development.
PS -07-007 — Private Street approval within the proposed Selway Multi -family
Development.
1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The applicant, Meridian Apartments, LLC, has applied for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to
construct a multi -family development consisting of 17 multi -family buildings (4 24-plexes, 8 8-plexes,
and 5 duplexes); one storage building; and a club house with managerial living quarters on 10.1 acres.
The applicant is also requesting approval to construct a Private Street loop road to provide access and
circulation throughout the proposed development. The private access road from N. Goddard Creek is the
only ingress/egress to the proposed development and provides future connectivity to the future
commercial property to the south. The site is located on the west side of N. Goddard Creek Way,
approximately 500 feet north of W. McMillan Rd. and a quarter mile east of N. Ten Mile Rd.
As part of the Lochsa Falls Planned Development approval in 2002, this area was conceptually approved
for 171 multi -family units. As part of the Lochsa Falls approval, the City Council allowed the subject
multi -family development as a use exception to the primarily single-family Lochsa Falls Development.
The City and the developer have entered into a Development Agreement requiring CUP approval prior to
construction of the subject multi -family development. A fmal plat was also approved by the City Council
for the subject site in June 2007. The site is currently designated High Density Residential on the City's
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and zoned R-4. The subject site is currently vacant.
2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
The subject applications were submitted to the Planning Department for concurrent review. The Planning
& Zoning Commission is the final decision making body on a Conditional Use Permit and the Director is
the final decision maker on a Private Street application. Staff has provided a detailed analysis of the
requested CUP and PS applications below. Staff recommends approval of CUP -07-016 for the Selway
Multi -family Development, as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of September 20,
2007, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B.
2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: (Insert after Staffs Recommendation)
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on September 20 and October 4,
2007. At the October 4`s public hearing, the Commission moved to approve CUP -07-016 and PS -
07 -007.
& Summary of Commission Public Hearing:
Selway Multi -family Development CUP -07-016; PS -07-007 PAGE 1
e
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2007
i. In favor: Daren Fluke, Wayne Thowless, Allen Wallace
ii. In opposition: John Nelson, Laurie Miller, Brian Coffey, Dion Callahan, Matt
Hessing, David, Budolfson, Anna Budolfson, Tammy Witham, Erin Tidermen,
Mr. and Mrs. Valas, Tracy fries, Majorie Matthis, Chris, Sandra Robert Li ton,
Donna Eggess, Jennifer Regner, Ken Pahlas, Ann Nikakis, Nick Nikakis,
Bernadette Reisbeck, Glen Tiderman, James Shilton, Brian Katcher, Sheryl
Hopkins, Don Fleck, Dan Skoric, Mark Wheeler, Sarah Marksfield Katcher, Dan
Clizbe, John Bellamy, Lawerence Gibson, Wally Reisbeck, Sabdra Freeman, Jim
Freeman, Linda Ullman, Jim Ullman, Andrea Skoric Jeff Weeks, LaDawn
Weeks, Ron Horsley, Joanne Stevens, Mel Grant, Lillian Grant, Sylie Carbaial
iii. Commenting: Glen Tidernian, James Shilton, Brian Katcher, Sheryl Hopkins, Don
Fleck, Dan Skoric, Mark Wheeler, Sarah Marksfield Katcher, Dan Chzbe, John
Bellamy, Lawerence Gibson, John Nelson, Karl Miller, Matt Hessing, Tammy
Witham, Paul Valas, Tracy Fries, Marjorie Matthis, Russ Pollock, Mindy Hayes,
Rachael Nelson
iv. Written testimony: John and Rachel Nelson,Elaine and Mike Robgy, Sheryl Hopkins,
Dion Callahan
V. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons
vi. Other staff commenting on application: Caleb Hood, Bill Nary
b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission:
i. Lighting for the development.
ii. The berming along the northern and western property lines.
iii. The building materials (i.e vinyl siding, three tab roofing hardy plank siding,
rock/stone accents) for the proposed development.
iv. The pathway connectivity to the north with the existing residential neighborhood.
V. Denser landscaping adjacent to the residential homes along the western and northern
boundaries.
vi. Construction of the trash enclosures being of block with off -set metalag tes.
vii. Vinyl fencing along the southern property boundary.
viii. Mechanical units to remain in the rear of buildings F.
ix. New elevations with new building materials for Commission review.
X. Access and future connectivity with the commercial parcel to the south.
xi. Building setbacks adjacent to residential structures.
c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation:
i. Building materials for the buildings are to be hardie board siding as submitted with
CUP application.
ii. Lighting for the development must be shielded.
iii. Applicant is to work with staff regarding an additional amenity.
iv. Trash enclosures are to be constructed of block with off -set metal gates.
V. Additional trees to be planted along the north and west side with trees touching at
80% maturity.
vi. Provide vinyl fencing along the southern boundary.
vii. Connect the existing micropath to the north.
viii. All landscaping along the north and west property lines shall be installed and prior to
obtaining any occupancy for any building, all development improvements such as
irrigation, parking and landscaping shall be installed on that building's site.
ix. Additional elevation for Building F1 has been inserted into Exhibit A of the
staff report.
xi. Building setbacks are to remain the same along the western and northern side.
xii. AC units to remain in the rear of Building F/F1 along northern boundary.
Selway Multi -family Development CUP -07-016; PS -07-007 PAGE 2
0 •
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2007
3. PROPOSED MOTIONS
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Numbers CUP -
07 -016 and PS -07-007 as presented in staff report for the hearing date of September 20, 2007
with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Numbers CUP -07-
016 and PS -07-007 as presented during the hearing on September 20, 2007, for the following
reasons: (you must state specific reasons for denial of the conditional use permit and what the
applicant could do to gain your approval in the future.)
Continuance
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Numbers
CUP -07-016 and PS -07-007 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the
following reason(s): (you should state specific reason(s) for continuance.)
4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS
a. Site Address/Location:
West side of N. Goddard Creek Road, approximately 500 feet north of E. McMillan Rd.
and % mile East of N. Ten Mile Rd.
Section 26, T4N, R1W
b. Owners:
Daniel Gibson
19500 HWY 20/26
Caldwell, ID 83607
c. Applicant:
Meridian Apartments, LLC
P O Box 633
Liberty Lake, WA 99019
d. Representative:
Daren Fluke, J -U -B Engineers
250 S. Beechwood Ave, Suite 201
Boise, ID 83709
e. Present Zoning District: R4
f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: High Density Residential
g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant has applied for Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) approval to construct a multi -family development consisting of 17 multi -family
buildings (4 24-plexes, 8 8-plexes, 5 duplexes); one storage building; and a club house with
managerial living quarters on 10.1 acres. The applicant is also requesting approval to construct
a private street to provide access and circulation throughout the proposed development.
1. Date of site plan (attached in Exhibit A): 07/10/07
2. Date of landscape plan (attached in Exhibit A): 07/10/07
3. Date of elevations (attached in Exhibit A): 07/10/07
h. Applicant's Statement/Justification: The subject site was approved as part of the Lochsa Falls
Selway Multi -family Development CUP -07-016; PS -07-007 PAGE 3
• •
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2007
Planned Development and has the appropriate land use designation of High Density Residential.
A development agreement for the site requires CUP approval prior to any construction of multi-
family structures. The final map for the property was approved on June 19, 2007 and is currently
being routed to the agencies for their signature. Based upon the input received from the
neighbors at the first public meeting, changes were made to the site, building and landscaping
design and a second meeting was held. The project is proposing 171 dwelling units including a
club house, storage building and several amenities and open space for the residents to use. The
intent of the design is to provide a transitional zone between the proposed commercial property to
the south and the single family residential to the north. Important consideration has gone into the
site layout and design of the project to ensure compatibility with the surrounding residential uses.
(See Applicant's Submittal Letter for more.)
5. PROCESS FACTS
a. The subject application will in fact constitute a conditional use as determined by City
Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Unified Development Code Title 11
Chapter 5, a public hearing is required before the Commission on this matter.
b. The subject application will in fact constitute a private street as determined by City
Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Unified Development Code Title 11,
Chapter 5, a public hearing is required before the Commission on this matter.
C. Newspaper notifications published on: September 3, 2007 and September 17, 2007
d. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: August 24, 2007
e. Applicant posted notice on site by: September 10, 2007
6. LAND USE
a. Existing Land Use(s): Vacant land
b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: The area surrounding the proposed
development is primarily single-family residential. The parcel to the south of the subject site
is vacant and approved for future commercial development.
c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning:
1. North: Single-family homes, Fulfur Subdivision No.7 (aka — Lochsa Falls), zoned
R-4
2. West: Single-family homes, Verona Subdivision, zoned R-8
3. South: Vacant, zoned R-4 (Future Commercial Development); Single-family
homes, Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision No.7&9, zoned R-8 & R-4
4. East: Single-family homes, Fulfur Subdivision No.3 (aka — Lochsa Falls), zoned
R-4
d. History of Previous Actions: The subject property was previously approved for 171 multi-
family dwelling units in 2002 with the Lochsa Falls Planned Development. The Development
Agreement (DA) for this property requires Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval prior to
construction of the multi -family units.
e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities:
1. Public Works
Location of sewer: N Goddard Creek Way
Location of water: N Goddard Creek Way
Selway Multi -family Development CUP -07-016; PS -07-007 PAGE 4
• 0
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2007
Issues or concerns: 1.) Depending on fire flow requirements a third water
connection may be required to Lochsa Falls
Office/Commercial
2. Floodplain: N/A
3. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: N/A
4. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any hazards associated with this property.
5. Size of Property: 10.1 acres
6. Gross Density: 17 units per acre
f. Landscaping (see Analysis below for more details):
1. Width of street buffer(s): N/A (existing on Goddard Creek)
2. Width of buffer(s) between land uses: N/A (a land use buffers will be required on the
parcel to the south when/if it develops with non-residential uses.)
3. Percentage of site as open space: The applicant states that 17% (74,782 sq. ft.) of the
site is being set aside for common open space.
4. Other landscaping standards: Landscaping adjacent to micro -paths should comply
with UDC 11-3B-12.
g. Amenities: For multi -family developments with more than 100 units, the decision making
body shall require additional amenities commensurate to the size of the development (UDC
11 -4 -3.27D -2d). There are 171 units proposed in this development. As a reference for multi-
family developments with 75 units or more, 4 amenities are required, with at least one from
each category (Quality of Life, Open Space, and Recreation). The applicant is providing
amenities as follows: 2,500 square -foot community club house and fitness facility (Quality of
Life), property management office, storage building, development map/directory (Quality of
Life), pool and hot tub (Recreation), 5 foot walking trails around the perimeter of the property
(Recreation), covered picnic area with barbeques (Quality of Life) and 2,000 square foot tot
lot (Recreation) and open space (Open Space). See Analysis below for more information
regarding amenities.
h. Off -Street Parking: UDC 11 -3C -6A requires multi -family dwellings with one bedroom to
provide two spaces, one covered and one uncovered and 2 or more bedrooms to have a two -
car covered carport or garage for each unit. The submitted site layout does propose covered
parking spaces and garages for all of the multi -family dwellings. The site plan complies with
the off-street parking requirements of the UDC.
i. Conditional Use Information:
1. Non-residential square footage: 2,500 square feet (Community Clubhouse) & storage
building
2. Proposed building height: Varies; R-4 District allows a maximum 35 feet
3. Percentage of site devoted to building coverage: 18%
4. Percentage of site devoted to landscaping: 45%
5. Percentage of site devoted to paving: 36%
6. Percentage of site devoted to other uses: 17% useable common open space
7. Number of Residential units: 171
Selway Multi -family Development CUP -07-016; PS -07-007 PAGE 5
• •
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2007
j. Proposed and Required Residential Standards: The subject is currently zoned R4 which is
primarily a single family residential zoning district. If the subject CUP is approved, the
applicant should request a rezone to R40 which is consistent with the Future Land Use Map
designation for this property and is representative of the proposed multi -family residential land
use.
R-4 Standards
Setbacks (measured to perimeter property line) Proposed Required
Front Living Area to street 36 25
Side 15' S & 23'N 5
Rear 15 15
Maximum building height 3 stories 35
k. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): The
applicant is proposing private street access for this development. There is one private street
connection to N. Goddard Creek Road. The private street system provides access and an
interconnected looping circulation system throughout the development. It also allows for
future connectivity to the vacant commercial parcel to the south. As of the print deadline for
this report, staff has not received written comments from ACRD. ACRD staff verbally
indicated that they had no issues with the proposed development. When they are received,
staff will add ACHD's comments and conditions to Exhibit B.
7. AGENCY COMMENTS MEETING
On August 31, 2007, staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and departments present
included: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police, and Public Works Department. Staff has included
all comments and recommended actions as Conditions of Approval in Exhibit B.
8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS
The subject site is designated "High Density Residential" on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Future
Land Use Map. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the purpose of this designation is to allow for the
development of multi -family homes in areas where urban services are provided. Residential densities
may exceed eight dwelling units per acre. This residential development might include duplexes,
apartment buildings, town homes and other multi -unit structures. Other uses within the development may
be considered under a planned development permit process. A desirable project would consider the
placement of parking areas, fences, berms and other landscaping features to serve as buffers between
neighboring uses.
Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply
to the proposed development (staff analysis in italics below policy):
• Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services.
(Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1)
The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained
by the Ada County Highway District (AChD). This service will not change.
The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #2. This
service will not change.
Selway Multi -family Development CUP -07-016; PS -07-007 PAGE 6
• •
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2007
• The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This
service will not change.
• The subject lands currently lie within the City's urban service planning area and
is serviced by Meridian City Fire Department. This service will not change.
• The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction the Meridian Police
Department (MPD). This service will not change.
• The subject site can be serviced by the City of Meridian's sanitary sewer and
water system.
Municipal, fee -supported, services will be provided by the Meridian Building Department,
the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian
Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility Billing
Services, and Sanitary Services Company.
• Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 1: Protect existing residential properties from
incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels.
North of the site is an existing single-family development. East of the site is a single-family
subdivision. West of the site is also single-family residential. The parcel to the South is
currently vacant, but planned for commercial development. Although the subject project is
denser than any of the adjacent projects, it does provide a transition between the proposed
commercial project to the south and the single-family homes to the north. The duplexes
located along the northern property boundary are designed to emulate two story single family
residential homes and provides screening for the interior portion of the development, which
include three story structures. Although staff believes that multi family development is a
compatible land use based on the Comprehensive Plan land use designation, staff believes an
additional elevation and landscaping buffering is needed along the northern portion of the
property (see Analysis below).
• Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 5: Require appropriate landscape and buffers
along transportation corridor (setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.).
The applicable landscape buffer has already been installed along Goddard Creek Road.
• Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 3: Consider "Accommodating Bicycle and
Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended Approach" from the National Center for Bicycling and
Walking in all land -use decisions.
This publication encourages jurisdictions to establish bikeway and walkway facilities in new
construction and reconstruction projects, in a manner that is safe, accessible and convenient.
Staff believes that the subject applications generally comply with the applicable policies
listed in the literature noted above.
• Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 6: Require street connections between subdivisions
at regular intervals to enhance connectivity and better traffic flow.
The adjacent projects have not provided opportunities for the subject site to provide
vehicular connectivity (no stub streets). The applicant is proposing a private loop street
Selway Multi -family Development CUP -07-016; PS -07-007 PAGE 7
• •
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2007
system within this development. The private street is shared with the future commercial
development to the south. One connection to N. Goddard Creek Way is proposed. Staff is
generally supportive of the vehicular connectivity proposed.
• Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 5: Require pedestrian access connectors in all new
development to link subdivisions together to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a
community pathway system.
The adjacent project to the north has provided an opportunity for a pedestrian connection to
this property. The applicant is providing pedestrian connectivity internally as well as to the
Fuller Subdivision No. 7 to the north. The applicant is also proposing to construct an
internal pathway system for recreational use. Staff is requiring the applicant to provide
pedestrian connectivity to the future commercial parcel to the south as well.
• Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 6: Require pedestrian access in all new
development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity.
See analysis above.
• Chapter VII, Goal I, Objective D, Action 9: Require new residential development to provide
permanent perimeter fencing to contain construction debris on site and prevent windblown
debris from entering adjacent agricultural and other properties.
Prior to construction of any buildings, fencing should be constructed around the perimeter of
this site. The site currently is enclosed on three sides. Additional fencing is only needed
along the southern property line.
Staff recommends that the Commission rely on any verbal or written testimony that may be
provided at the public hearing when determining if the applicant's development request is
appropriate for this property.
9. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
a. Allowed Uses in the Residential Districts: UDC Table 11-2A-2 lists multi -family
development as a use not allowed in the R-4 zone; however this multi -family development was
originally approved in 2002 with the Lochsa Falls Planned Development as a use exception. Staff
recommends the applicant rezone the parcel to R-40 so that the use conforms to the zoning
district and so that the zoning map will accurately depicts this use. The R40 zoning district is the
most appropriate zoning district for the density of 17 dwelling units to the acre that is being
proposed.
b. Purpose Statement of Zone: MEDIUM -LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-4)
The purpose of the residential districts is to provide for a range of housing opportunities
consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Connection to the City of Meridian water and
sewer systems is a requirement for all residential districts. Residential districts are distinguished
by the allowable density of dwelling units per acre and corresponding housing types that can be
accommodated within the density range. Residential land uses are also allowed within the O -T,
TN -C, and TN -R districts as set forth in Chapter 2 Article D.
c. Multifamily Development (UDC 11-4-3.27) The following standards shall apply for the
multifamily units, including standards for Site Design, Common Open Space, Site Amenities,
Selway Multi -family Development CUP -07-016; PS -07-007 PAGE 8
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2007
Architectural Character, Landscaping, and Maintenance.
Site design (UDC 11-4-3.27B):
The building shall provide a minimum setback of ten feet unless a greater setback is otherwise
required by this title. Building setbacks shall take into account windows, entrances, porches and
patios and how they impact adjacent properties.
All site service areas, outdoor storage areas, waste storage, disposal facilities, and transformer
and utility vaults shall be located in an area not visible from a public street, or shall be fully
screened from view from the public street.
A minimum of 80 square feet of private, usable open space shall be provided for each unit. This
requirement can be satisfied through porches, patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards. Landscaping,
entryway and other access ways shall not count toward this requirement.
For the purposes of this Section, vehicular circulation areas, parking areas and private useable
open space shall not be considered common open space.
The parking shall meet the requirements set forth in Chapter 3 of this Title.
Developments with 20 units or more shall provide the following: a property management office, a
maintenance storage area, a central mailbox location, a directory and map of the development at
an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development.
Common open space design requirements (UDC 11-4-3.27C):
A minimum area of outdoor common open space shall be provided as follows: a) 150 square feet
for each unit containing 500 or less square feet of living area; b) 250 square feet for each unit
containing more than 500 square feet and up to 1,200 square feet of living area; and c) 350 square
feet for each unit containing more than 1,200 square feet of living area.
Common open space areas shall not be adjacent to collector or arterial streets unless separated
from the street by a constructed barrier at least 4 feet in height.
Site development amenities (UDC 11-4-3.27D):
All multifamily developments shall provide for quality of life, open space and recreation
amenities to met the particular needs of the residents as follows: a) Quality of Life (clubhouse,
fitness facility, enclosed bike storage, and public are such as a statue); b) Open Space (open
grassy area of at least 50 by 100 feet in size, community garden, ponds or water features, and
plazas); and c) Recreation (pool, walking trails, children's play structures, and sports courts).
The number of amenities shall depend on the size of the multifamily development as follows: For
multifamily developments with 75 units or more, 4 amenities shall be provided, with at least 1
from each category. For multifamily developments with more than 100 units, the decision-making
body shall require additional amenities commensurate to the size of the proposed development.
Architectural Character (UDC 11-4-3.27.E):
All building elevations shall have a minimum portion of the elevation devoted to architectural
features designed to provide articulation and variety. These features shall include, but are not
limited to windows, bays and offsetting walls that extend at least two feet; recessed entrances;
and changes in material types. Changes in material types shall have a minimum dimension of two
feet and minimum area of 25 square feet.
Selway Multi -family Development CUP -07-016; PS -07-007 PAGE 9
0 0
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2007
Main entrances, which are the primary point(s) of entry where the majority of building users will
enter and leave, shall be designed as an obvious entrance and focal point of the building through
architectural treatment, lighting, and address identification.
Entrances shall be adequately covered, recessed, or treated with a permanent architectural feature
in such a way that weather protection is provided.
Roof forms shall be distinctive and include variety and detail when viewed from the street.
Sloped roofs shall have a significant pitch. Flat roofs should include distinctive cornice
treatments.
Exterior building materials and finishes shall convey an impression of permanence and durability.
Materials such as masonry, stone, stucco, wood, terra cotta, and tile are encouraged.
Windows are required to allow views to exterior activity areas or vistas. Windows shall be
provided on any building facing any common area used for children's recreation.
All roof and wall -mounted mechanical, electrical, communications, and service equipment should
be screened from public view from the adjacent public streets and properties by the use of
parapets, walls, fences, enclosures, or by other suitable means.
Landscaping (UDC 114-3.27.F):
Development shall meet the minimum landscaping requirements in accord with Chapter 3 of this
Title.
All street -facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation. The foundation
landscaping shall meet the following minimum standards: The landscaped area shall be at least
three feet wide; for every three lineal feet of foundation, an evergreen shrub having a minimum
mature height of twenty-four inches shall be planted; and groundcover plants shall be planted in the
remainder of the landscaped area.
Maintenance and Ownership (UDC 114-3.27.G):
All multifamily developments shall record legally binding documents that state the maintenance
and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including but not limited
to structures, parking, common areas, and other development features.
Outdoor storage/refuse areas (UDC 11-3A-12):
Outdoor utility meters, HVAC equipment, trash dumpsters, trash compaction and other service
functions shall be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and landscaping so that the
visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent
properties and public streets.
10. ANALYSIS
As submitted, the subject applications appear to substantially comply with the Unified
Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan. In each section below, staff has provided
analysis regarding the proposed development.
Selway Multi -family Development CUP -07-016; PS -07-007 PAGE 10
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2007
CUP/PS Applications:
Multi -family Standards: The UDC has several specific standards that apply to multi -family
developments (See Section 9 above for a complete list.) These standards apply to Site Design,
Common Open Space, Site Amenities, Architectural Character, Landscaping, and Maintenance.
Below are some of the multi -family and general design standards that the applicant should be
required to comply with.
Density: As noted on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, this area is designated
High Density Residential. This designation anticipates densities exceeding 8 dwelling units to the
acre in this area. The applicant is proposing a density of 17 dwelling units to the acre. If the
subject CUP is approved, Staff recommends the applicant apply to rezone the parcel to R-
40 to be consistent with the Future Land Use Map designation. The R40 zoning district is
also more appropriate for the density of 17 dwelling units to the acre the applicant is proposing.
Landscaping: The landscape plan prepared by Leatham, Krohn, Vanocker Architects, on 7-10-07,
labeled Sheet L-1 substantially complies with the requirements of the UDC. Staff recommends
that the following modifications/notes be made to the plan:
The applicant is proposing a 20 -foot wide landscape strip along the north property line. Except
where the single -story storage units are proposed, the applicant is proposing an approximately 40 -
foot wide landscape strip along the west property line (the storage units are set back
approximately 15 feet). These landscape areas have pretty dense vegetation and the applicant is
proposing several 3" caliper deciduous trees (2" is typical). However, because the City has
received several complaints from adjacent property owners regarding this development,
staff believes that it is appropriate to provide a wider and denser landscape buffer to the
north and west; a minimum 25 -foot wide landscape buffer should be constructed along the
north and west property lines (NOTE: Private useable areas (patios, decks, etc.) may be
allowed in the landscape buffer, but HVAC units shall be prohibited in this landscape
buffer; move to the side of the duplexes). Landscaping in these areas should be consistent
with the land use buffer requirements listed in UDC 11-3B-9, so as to create a solid
landscape barrier to the existing single-family homes when the trees mature. Further, a
berm shall be constructed and all deciduous trees within the north and west landscape areas
shall be a minimum 3" caliper. If additional landscaping (open space) is added to the north
and west, as noted, Staff believes that the proposed landscaping is sufficient for this project.
Private Useable Open Space: UDC 11-4-3.27B requires a minimum of 80 square feet of private,
usable open space shall be provided for each unit. This requirement can be satisfied through
porches, patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards. Landscaping, entryway and other access ways shall
not count toward this requirement. The applicant has shown, on the floor plans, that each
dwelling unit will be provided with at least 80 square feet of private open space in patios (lower
level units) and balcony/decks (upper level units. Staff is supportive of the applicant's proposal.
Parking: UDC 11 -3C -6A requires multi -family dwellings with one bedroom to provide two
spaces, one covered and one uncovered and 2 or more bedrooms to have a two -car covered
carport or garage for each unit. The submitted site layout does propose covered parking spaces
and garages for the multi -family dwellings. The applicant is proposing 360 total car parks for the
multi -family units; 282 covered, 32 uncovered (including the 18 visitor parking) and 28 garage
spaces for resident parking. The applicant complies with the off-street parking requirements of
the UDC.
Selway Multi -family Development CUP -07-016; PS -07-007 PAGE I 1
• •
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2007
Amenities: The applicant is required to provide amenities for the multi -family development. For
multi -family developments with more than 100 units, the decision malting body shall require
amenities commensurate to the size of the development (UDC 11 -4 -3.27D -2d). As a reference,
the UDC requires multi -family developments containing 75 units or more to provide 4 amenities,
with at least one from each category (Quality of Life, Open Space, and Recreation). The applicant
is providing amenities as follows: 2,500 square -foot community club house and fitness facility
(Quality of Life), property management office, storage building, development map/directory
(Quality of Life), pool and hot tub (Recreation), 5 foot walking trails around the perimeter of the
property (Recreation), covered picnic area with barbeques (Quality of Life) and 2,000 square foot
tot lot (Recreation) and open space (Open Space). Staff is generally supportive of the proposed
amenities, but believes an additional active amenity should be provided on the west half of this
site. If additional landscaping (open space) is added to the north and west, as noted in the
Landscaping section above, and an additional active amenity (BBQ area, horseshoe pit, etc)
is added in the vicinity of Building 7B, Staff believes that the proposed amenities are
sufficient for this project. Staff recommends that the Commission determine if the proposed
amenities are appropriate for a development of this size.
Elevations: The applicant is proposing several different structures on this site. There are duplexes,
8-plexes, 24-plexes, storage units and a clubhouse. The applicant has submitted building
elevations for all of these structures. The storage units (Building H) on the west side of the
development are single -story, the duplexes (Building F) on the north side and the 8-plexes
(Buildings D & E) are two stories tall, and the 24-plexes (Buildings A, B, C,) are three stories
tall.
UDC 11-4.3 requires multi -family structures to comply with specific design standards. Staff
believes that the elevations submitted with the CUP significantly meet the requirements of the
design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19. However, Staff is not in favor of the vinyl siding
being proposed as the primary siding material. Exterior building materials and finishes should
convey an impression of permanence and durability. Materials such as masonry, stone, stucco,
wood, terra cotta, and tile are encouraged. Due to the construction materials being used on the
single-family homes in this area, Staff believes the applicant should also use building materials
that are more compatible to the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Staff recommends that
the Commission prohibit vinyl siding on the buildings in this development. Further, Staff
recommends that the applicant, at the public hearing, state what type of siding material will
be used instead of the vinyl.
There are 5 duplex structures proposed on the north side of this site. All of the proposed duplexes
are two -stories and are the same building. Staff is supportive of the applicant proposing less -
intense structures as a transition to the single-family homes to the north, but recommends that at
least one more duplex building elevation be proposed. If the applicant complies with the
landscape buffer requirements (see Landscaping above), adds another duplex
elevation/building and constructs the buildings with quality materials, staff believes these
duplex units can work adjacent to the single-family units to the north. Staff will ensure that
when CZC applications are submitted for construction of the multi -family buildings in the future
that the elevations comply with the UDC requirements and the elevations submitted.
Pedestrian Pathways: The adjacent project to the north has provided an opportunity for a
pedestrian connection with this property. The applicant is providing pedestrian connectivity
internally as well as to the Fulfer Subdivision No. 7 to the north. The applicant is also proposing
to construct an internal pathway system for recreational use. Staff believes that the applicant
Selway Multi -family Development CUP -07-016; PS -07-007 PAGE 12
• •
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2007
should also provide a pedestrian connection to the future commercial parcel to the south,
near the southwest corner of this project. Pathways should be constructed in accordance with
UDC 11-3A-8 (construction) and UDC 11-3B (landscaping).
Multi -family Setbacks: The UDC does not have a specific setback between internal multi -family
units. The submitted site plan shows setbacks that exceed the minimum setback requirements of
the R4 zoning district.
Refuse Areas: The Sanitary Services Company (SSC) has not commented on the proposed
dumpster locations or design. Staff encourages the applicant to contact SSC for further comment
on enclosure design and location prior to submitting for a CZC.
Open Space: Open space is defined as an area substantially open to the sky that may be on the
same property with a structure. The areas may include, along with the natural environment
features, parks, playgrounds, trees, water areas, swimming pools, tennis courts, community
centers or other recreational facilities. The term shall not include streets, parking areas, or
structures of habitation (UDC 11-1A). UDC 11-4-3.27C requires a minimum area of outdoor
common open space shall be provided as follows: a) 150 square feet for each unit containing 500
or less square feet of living area; b) 250 square feet for each unit containing more than 500 square
feet and up to 1,200 square feet of living area; and c) 350 square feet for each unit containing
more than 1,200 square feet of living area. Common open space areas shall not be adjacent to
collector or arterial streets unless separated from the street by a constructed barrier at least 4 feet
in height.
The units for the proposed multi -family development range in size from 922 square foot one
bedroom, one bath units to 1,167 square foot, three bedroom, two bath units. The UDC requires
250 square feet for each unit containing between 500 and 1,200 square feet of living area. The
proposed development has been approved for 171 units. The minimum amount of open space
required per code for the proposed development is 42,750 sq. ft (171 X 250 sq. ft.). The applicant
states that 17% (74,782 sq. ft.) of the site is being set aside for common usable open space.
Maintenance of all common areas should be the responsibility of the Home Owners'
Association(s). Staff believes that the open space proposed complies with the UDC.
Street Buffer: A 20 -foot wide street buffer is required along North Goddard Creek Way, a
collector street (UDC 11-2A-6). UDC 11-3B-7C2a requires all residential street buffers to be
located on a common lot maintained by a home -owners association. The applicable landscape
buffer has already been installed with prior subdivision approval.
Fencing: The site has existing 6 foot fencing along the west, north and east boundaries of the
development. The applicant has not proposed any fencing along the southern portion of the
property. Staff recommends that the applicant, at the public hearing, testify as to whether
permanent fencing will be provided along the south property line. A detailed fencing plan
should be submitted with any future CZC application. If permanent fencing is not provided before
issuance of a building permit, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be installed
around the perimeter. Perimeter, common open space, and micro -path fencing shall be designed
according to UDC 11-3A-7.
Pressure Irrigation: The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied
by a year-round source of water. The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or
well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single -point
connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single -point connection is used, the
Selway Multi -family Development CUP -07-016; PS -07-007 PAGE 13
i
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2007
developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to
signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. An underground, pressurized irrigation system
should be installed to all landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with
UDC 11-3A-15 and MCC 9-1-28. The development lies within the Settler's Irrigation District.
The applicant states the pressurized irrigation system will be maintained by the Home Owners
Association.
Private Streets: The applicant is proposing to use a private street to provide access to this
development. The private street system provides access to the future commercial development to
south and an interconnected looping circulation system throughout the development. The
applicant has submitted a Private Street application as required by UDC 11-317-3. The private
street standards are listed in UDC 11-317 and as conditions in Exhibit B. Staff is generally
supportive of Private Street proposed for this multi -family development.
Opposition/Testimony/Comments: Staff has received several letters and verbal comments from
nearby residents requesting denial of this project. Staff has thoroughly reviewed the previous
Lochsa Falls Planned Development, Development Agreement, and the subject CUP application
and believes that the conditions of approval in Exhibit B incorporate some of the neighbors'
concerns and mitigate any adverse impacts this project may have on the surrounding uses. Staff
recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission rely on any verbal and written testimony
provided for this project when making a decision.
Staff recommends approval of CUP -07-016 for the Selway Multi -family Development, as
presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of September 20, 2007, subject to the
conditions listed in Exhibit B.
11. EXHIBITS
A. Drawings
1. Site Plan (dated: 7-10-07)
2. Landscape Plan (dated: 7-10-07)
3. Elevations (dated: 7-10-07)
B. Conditions of Approval
1. Planning Department
2. Public Works Department
3. Fire Department
4. Police Department
5. Parks Department
6. Sanitary Service Company
7. Ada County Highway District
8. Central District Health Department
9. Settler's Irrigation District
C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
1. CUP Findings
Selway Multi -family Development CUP -07-016; PS -07-007 PAGE 14
0 0
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2007
2. Private Street Findings
Selway Multi -family Development CUP -07-016; PS -07-007 PAGE 15
•
A. Drawings
1. Site Plan (dated: 7-10-07)
CD
I T.TT
Isj
fit
v
ihi�l
m
CD
•
Exhibit A — Page I
I T.TT
Isj
fit
v
•
Exhibit A — Page I
<AIMAN III
' � l It �•
I
ILA W7Ug1�li�W'YIINIOC�I Setmay Apatmt�¢ts `Y'' a° ,�
1 Waoem,wme ken
I
i
I
J
C
�
I
I
1
�
l
1{
I
I�
4
hhh
I
J
77
a
z
it
f
h
Sds
l
(
tr
kis
h
I
r4k
Exhibit A — Page 3
s
3. Building A & B Elevations
Building C & D Elevations
Exhibit A — Page 4
t
A
j
.Y
t
41,
f
s pE
C
5r ?dip h
i Y"
0
Building
Building E & F Elevations
Exhibit A — Page 5
4
A
4.O
'4
Z'
4"" -
V�—
'4
0 0
n
I
Exhibit A — Page 6
A -A
j..%=;
0), 7
I
I-
�
Building Elevation for F1
Exhibit A — Page 7
ti!- =
hl+dsehryet, 4f
•
I
ti!- =
hl+dsehryet, 4f
•
0
Building G and H — Club House and Storage Building Elevations
117f
\ � �. � \ � � _ \ �
A-
� ` / �_� } a
� / / ,
� � � u� / �� ;�\
ii r■
v, ' � \!� |
0
Exhi§!A—Pa78
0 •
B. Conditions of Approval
1.1 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
1.1.1 The Applicant shall comply with all applicable conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit
(CUP -02-012), Preliminary Plat (PP -02-009), Annexation (AZ -02-110), and Development
Agreement (instrument # 103012598) of the Lochsa Falls Subdivision and the Selway Final Plat
(FP -07-018).
1.1.2 Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) application, submit a rezone
application to the Planning Department for the subject property. Said rezone application shall
request the R-40 zoning designation.
1.1.3 The site plan prepared by Leatham Krohn Vanocker Architects, dated July 10, 2007, is
approved with the conditions listed herein.
1.1.4 The landscape plan prepared by Leatham Krohn Vanocker Architects, dated on July 10, 2007, is
approved with the conditions listed herein.
PmN4de a mit� 25 feet wide landseape buffer- along the Refth and west pr-ep
des -The landscaping buffer along the north side shall be 24 feet wide measured from
property line to ground floor with an allowance of two feet of projections for the second
floor. Additional trees shall be planted in the west and north buffers with planting of
trees touching at 80% of maturity^(NOTE: Private useable areas (patios, decks, etc.) may
be allowed in the landscape buffer -,but G
buffi "' meve to the side a fthe dup e..e ` Landscaping in these buffer areas shall be
consistent with the land use buffer requirements listed in UDC 11-3B-9, as to create a
solid landscape barrier to the existing single-family homes when the trees mature. Befms
sha]4 be ee«n14«..ete and a4l deeid eus tines .�rid i« the
sulejeet bu shall
l 1.
V LO �L K 1 YVVareas
f
ealipef tme at planting.
• Provide landscape islands at the ends of the parking rows within the development. Said
islands shall contain at least one tree. All internal landscaping shall be constructed in
accordance with UDC 11 -3B -8C2.
• All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All
storm water detention facilities incorporated into the approved open space are subject to
UDC 11-3B-11 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees. Sand, gravel or other
non -vegetated surface materials shall not be used in open space lots, except as permitted
under UDC 11-3B-11. If the storm water detention facility cannot be incorporated into
the approved open space and still meet the standards of UDC 11-3B-11, then the
applicant shall relocate the facility. This may require losing a building or developable
area.
A written certificate of completion shall be prepared by the landscape architect, designer,
or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan and submitted prior to final
occupancy being granted. All standards of installation shall apply as listed in UDC 11-
3B-14.
Pathways shall be constructed in accordance with UDC 11-3A-8 (construction) and UDC
11-3B (landscaping).
1.1.5 Provide private streets, and private street signs (including one at the Goddard Creek intersection),
within the multi -family development. Said private streets shall comply with the standards listed
for Private Streets in UDC 11-3F, and be constructed 26 -feet wide, and have 28' inside and 48'
outside turning radii. Provide a cross-access/ingress-egress easement for the parcel to the south to
Exhibit B — Page I
9 •
use the private streets as access to the public street system (at N. Goddard Creek Way). Prior to
the occupancy of the first building on this property, provide a copy of a recorded cross-
access/ingress-egress easement (or agreement).
1.1.6 Provide at least 360 parking stalls for the multi -family units; 282 covered, 32 uncovered
(including the 18 visitor parking) and 28 garage spaces, as proposed.
1.1.7 Provide an additional pedestrian access (stub) to the vacant commercial property, located near
the southwest corner of the site. Connect to the existing pedestrian pathway in the residential
subdivision to the north.
1.1.8 Provide at least 80 square feet of private, useable open space, such as a patio or balcony/deck, for
each multi -family dwelling unit, as proposed on the floor plan.
1.1.9 Provide the following: a property management office, a storage area, a central mailbox
location, a directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for
those entering the development.
1.1.10 Provide amenities as follows: a minimum 74,782 sq. ft of open space, a 2,500 square -foot
community club house and fitness facility (Quality of Life), storage building, pool and hot tub
(Recreation), 5 foot walking trails around the perimeter of the property (Recreation), covered
picnic area with barbeques (Quality of Life), a 2,000 square foot tot lot (Recreation) and open
space (Open Space), as proposed. In addition, provide an additional active amenity (BBQ area,
horseshoe pit, etc) in the vicinity of Building 7B. Except for the landscaping directly around the
structures, all amenities shall be completed prior to occupancy of the third building in the
development.
1.1.11 Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or assigns. Record
legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the
management of the development, including but not limited to structures, parking, common areas,
private streets, and other development features.
1.1.12 Building setbacks, separation between proposed structures shall comply with the Building Code
and Fire Code.
1.1.13 Underground year-round pressurized irrigation must be provided to all lots within this
development. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a
year-round source of water. The applicant shall be required to use any existing surface or well
water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single -point
connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single -point connection is used, the
developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to
signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. An underground, pressurized irrigation system
should be installed to all landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with
UDC 11-3A-15 and MCC 9-1-28.
1.1.14 As determined by the Planning Director, the multi -family buildings, storage building and
clubhouse constructed on this site shall substantially comply with the renderings submitted to the
City with the CUP application, and as modified by the conditions of approval herein. All roof and
wall -mounted mechanical, electrical, communications, and service equipment shall be screened
from public streets and properties by the use of parapets, walls, fences, enclosures, or by other
Exhibit B — Page 2
• 0
suitable means. Further, all buildings shall comply with the architectural standards of UDC 114-
3.27E.
1.1.15 Vinyl siding is prohibited on buildings in this development. Exterior building materials and
finishes shall convey an impression of permanence and durability. Materials such as masonry,
stone, stucco, wood, terra cotta, and tile are encouraged. Change/variation in material type is
required. The developer shall use building materials mentioned above and incorporate those
building materials into the facades of the multi -family structures. Said facades shall be
compatible with the surrounding residential structures. All buildings on the site shall be
constructed of Hardie Plank siding (wide plank, narrow plank and board and batten) with stone
accents as submitted with this CUP application and approved by the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
1.1.16 Propose and construct a different duplex building (type) for two of the five duplexes
proposed on the north side of the site, so that there is variation in elevation. Said
duplexes shall be consistent with, but not the same as the proposed Building F.
1.1.17 No building or structure shall be erected, moved, added to or structurally altered, nor shall any
building structure or land be established or change in use on this site without first obtaining a
Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) permit from the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Department. NOTE: Multiple multi -family buildings may be contained in a single CZC permit.
1.1.18 Prior to CZC issuance, provide assurances that construction debris will not blow off of the
property by either having a debris maintenance plan or providing temporary construction fencing.
1.1.19 Comply with all of the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3.27 regarding multi -family developments,
including Site Design, Common Open Space, Site Amenities, Architectural Character,
Landscaping, and Maintenance.
1.1.20 Prior- eb# ee ifieate(s) of eeeupaney, all dc wle encs, ; e,, ing pe
fmeiag, 4�gMiea, and landseaping shall be instal Prior to obtkningT the first Certificate of
Occupancy, all landscaping along the north and west property lines shall be installed. Prior to
obtaining any occupancy for any building all development improvements such as irriag tion,
parking and landscaping shall be installed on that building's site.
1.1.21 Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department.
1.1.22 Staff s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved annexation and
conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance.
1.1.23 Comply with all of ACHD's requirements and conditions for this project.
1.1.24 All trash enclosures within the proposed development be constructed of split face block on three
sides 6 feet in height with off -set metalag tes.
1.1.25 Vinyl fencing shall be constructed along the south side of the property.
1. 1.26 All lighting within the development shall be in accordance with UDC 11-3A-11. The outdoor
lighting shall have downward shielding on the building and perimeter lighting and shall not
impact the surrounding single -fancily residences.
Exhibit B — Page 3
Sanitary sewer service to this development is being proposed via extension of mains in N
Goddard Creek Way. The applicant shall install mains to and through this subdivision; applicant
shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard
forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over
sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub -grade is less than three feet than
alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments
Standard Specifications.
Water service to this site is being proposed via extension of mains in N Goddard Creek Way W.
The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development,
coordinate main size and routing with Public Works.
The applicant shall provide a 20 -foot common lot for all public water/sewer mains outside of
public right of way. The common lot shall be covered with a blanket easement to the City of
Meridian.
The applicant shall provide a 20 -foot easement for all public water/sewer mains outside of public
right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easements shall not be dedicated via
the plat. The description shall be consistent with the graphically depicted easements on the plat
but be recorded as a separate document using the City of Meridian's standard forms. Submit an
executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description, which must
include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2" x 11" map with bearings and
distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a
Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this
document.
The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round
source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or
well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single -point
connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single -point connection is utilized,
the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to
signature on the final plat by the City Engineer.
All existing structures shall be removed prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer.
All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or
lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per UDC 11-3A-6.
Plans shall be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association
(ditch owners), with written approval or non -approval submitted to the Public Works Department.
If lateral users association approval can't be obtained, alternate plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the Meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature.
Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per
City Ordinance Section 9-14 and 94-8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at
(208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic
purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources
Contact Robert B. Whitney at (208)334-2190.
Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City
Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures
and inspections (208)375-5211.
Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed,
drainage lots constructed, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final
Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits.
A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted
fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to
signature on the final plat.
All development improvements, including but not limited to sewer, fencing, micro -paths,
pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining
certificates of occupancy.
Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction
inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the fmal plat
per Resolution 02-374.
It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with
the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act.
Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting
that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H.
Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building
pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material.
The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of
3 -feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom
elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1 -foot above.
One hundred watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights shall be required at locations designated by
the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical
locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. Final design locations and quantity are
determined after power designs are completed by Idaho Power Company. The street light
contractor shall obtain design and permit from the Public Works Department prior to
commencing installations.
3. Fire Department
One and two family dwellings not exceeding 3,600 square feet will require a fire -flow of 1,000
gallons per minute available for duration of 2 hours to service the entire project. One and two-family
dwellings greater than 3,600 square feet will require a minimum fire flow as specified in Appendix B
of the International Fire Code. Fire hydrants spacing shall be provided as required by International
Fire Code Appendix C.
Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and
water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing.
Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department.
a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 V2" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle.
b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it.
C. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works spec.
•
E
d. Locations with fire hydrants shall have the curb painted red 10' to each side of the
hydrant location.
e. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits.
f. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'.
g. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade.
h. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5.
i. Fire sprinklers required for four-plexes.
3.4 Any roadway greater than 150 feet in length that is not provided with an outlet shall be required
to have an approved turn around. Phasing of the project may require temporary approved turn
around on streets greater than 150 feet in length with no outlet.
3.5 All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius.
3.6 For all Fire Lanes, paint the curb red and provide signage "No Parking Fire Lane".
3.7 Insure that all yet undeveloped parcels are maintained free of combustible vegetation.
3.8 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs and access roads with an all
weather surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site.
3.9 Building setbacks shall be per the International Building Code for one and two story construction.
3.10 The roadways shall be built to Ada County Highway Standards cross section requirements and
shall have a clear driving surface, available at all times, which is 20' wide. Streets with less than
a 29' street width shall have no parking. Streets with less than 33' shall have parking only on one
side. These measurements shall be based on the face of curb dimension.
3.11 Maintain a separation of 5' from the building to the dumpster enclosure.
3.12 The first digit of the Apartment/Office Suite shall correspond to the floor level.
3.13 Provide a Knox box entry system and gate for the 20' fire lane (not ballards) for the complex
prior to occupancy.
3.14 All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems), processes & storage practices
shall be required to comply with the International Fire Code.
3.15 Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes.
3.16 The fire department requests that any future signalization installed as the result of the
development of this project be equipped with Opticom Sensors to ensure a safe and efficient
response by fire and emergency medical service vehicles. This cost of this installation is to be
borne by the developer.
3.17 The applicant shall work with the Planning Department staff to provide an address identification
plan and a sign which meets the requirements of the City of Meridian sign ordinance at the
required intersection(s).
3.18 Pool chemicals shall be stored in compliance with the International Fire Code.
Exhibit B — Page 6
0 •
3.19 All portions of the buildings located on this project must be within 150 feet of a paved surface as
measured around the perimeter of the building.
3.20 There shall be a fire hydrant within 100 feet of all fire department connections.
3.21 Buildings over 30 feet in height are required to have access roads in accordance with the
International Fire Code Appendix D Section D105 (26 -feet wide).
3.22 Emergency response routes and fire lanes shall not be allowed to have speed bumps.
3.23 Approved fire apparatus access roads to be 20 feet wide improved gravel surface capable of
supporting 50,000 GVW and shall be provided to all athletic fields, concession stands and pathways.
Approved water supply shall be provided to all structures. Plans and specifications shall be provided
for review and approval.
3.24 Multi -Family and Commercial projects shall be required to provide additional 60 inch wide access
point to the building from the fire lane to allow for the movement of manual fire suppression
equipment and gurney operations. The unobstructed breaks in the parking stalls shall be provided so
that building access is provided in such a manner that the most remote part of a building can be
reached with a length of 150 feet fire hose as measured around the perimeter of the building from the
fire lane. Code compliant Handicap parking stalls may be included to assist meeting this
requirement. Contact the Meridian Fire Department for details per IFC Section 504.1.
3.25 All R-2 occupancies with 3 or more units or with 3 floors shall be required to be fire sprinklered. Full
NFPA 13 sprinkler system will be required because of proposed building height and limited access
with the single entry into development.
3.26 The developer shall provide a Knox Box at the front entrance sign of the development.
4. Police Department
4.1 Prior to release of building permits, the applicant shall submit a parking plan for all off-street
parking in the multi -family development to the Planning Department. All parking spaces shall be
assigned to a specific dwelling unit or for guest use. The parking space identification shall use a
different numbering system than the dwelling units.
4.2 The proposed multi -family dwellings show more than 4 units that share a common entrance
and/or stairwell. Such configurations are a safety concern. Prior to the next public hearing, the
applicant shall meet with the Police Chief to address these concerns and revise the plans as
necessary.
4.3 The proposed development shall limit landscaping shrubs and bushes to species that do not
exceed two feet in height. Trees shall have a canopy of no less than six feet.
4.4 To increase emergency access to the site, the applicant shall provide a stub street to the south
west corner of the property for temporary access to W. McMillan Rd.
5. Parks Department
5.1 No comments received.
Exhibit B — Page 7
CJ
6. Sanitary Service Company
6.1 No comments received.
7. Ada County Highway District (forthcoming)
Site Specific Conditions o roval
7.1
Standard Conditions of Approval
E
7.1b Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way.
7.2b Private sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within any ACHD roadway or
right-of-way.
7.3b All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be
borne by the developer.
7.4b Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the
construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file
number) for details.
7.5b Comply with the District's Tree Planter Width Interim Policy.
7.6b Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing
by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for
details.
7.7b All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy
Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all
applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the
State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans.
7.8b The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit
(or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes.
7.9b Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable
requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy.
7.10b Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance
with Ordinance #200, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance.
7.11b It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. The
applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The
applicant shall be required to call DIGLE1 E (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days
prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic
Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during
any phase of construction.
Exhibit B — Page 8
7.12b No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing
and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized
representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to
obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District.
7.13b Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this
application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or
other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest
advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless
a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect
at the time the change in use is sought.
8. Central District Health Department
8.1 After written approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for
central sewage and central water.
8.2 The following plans must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health &
Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality: central sewage and central water.
8.3 Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem.
9. Settler's Irrigation District
9.1 All irrigation / drainage facilities along with their easements must be protected and continue to
function.
9.2 A Land Use Change Application must be on file prior to any approvals.
9.3 A license agreement MUST be signed and recorded prior to construction of any S.I.D. facilities.
9.4 Any changes to the existing irrigation system such as relocation, tiling, and landscaping must be
approved by Settlers Irrigation District.
9.5 All storm drainage must be retained on-site.
9.6 The development must supply irrigation access to all lots within the above-mentioned
subdivision. If the developer wishes to have Settlers Irrigation District own, operate, and
maintain the pressure irrigation system an agreement needs to be in place prior to the pre -
construction meeting.
Exhibit B — Page 9
0 0
C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
1. CUP Findings:
The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon
the following:
A. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the
dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located.
Commission finds that the site is large enough to accommodate all required parking,
landscaping, loading and other standard regulations required by the UDC.
B. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan
and in accord with the requirements of this Title.
Commission finds that the proposed use is in general conformance with the
comprehensive plan (please see Section 8 of the Staff Report for detailed analysis of
specific comprehensive plan action items that apply to this development).
C. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with
other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character
of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential
character of the same area.
Commission finds that the general design (as amended), construction, operation and
maintenance of the multi -family uses will be compatible with other uses in the general
neighborhood and with the existing and intended character of the vicinity as to not
adversely change the character of the area. Commission finds that a higher density
residential use on this site should be compatible with the neighborhood (provided the
applicant complies with all UDC provisions.) Staff recommends that the Commission
reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the
proposal will adversely affect the other properties in the area.
D. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,
will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity.
Commission finds that the proposed development should not adversely affect other
property in the vicinity if the applicant complies with all CUP conditions and constructs
all improvements and operates the use in accordance with the UDC standards.
E. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and
services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection,
drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer.
Please refer to the comments and conditions prepared by the Meridian Fire Department,
Police Department, Parks Department, Sanitary Services Company and ACRD in Exhibit
B.
F. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities
and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
If approved, the developer will be financing the extension of sewer, water, local street
infrastructure, utilities and irrigation services to serve the project. The primary public
costs to serve the future residents will be fire, police and school facilities and services.
Exhibit C — Page 1
0 0
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 16, 2006
Commission finds that the applicant should be required to pay to extend the sanitary
sewer and water mains into the site. No additional capital facility costs are expected from
the City. The applicant and/or future property owners will be required to pay highway
impact fees. Commission finds that the proposed uses should not create excessive
additional costs for facilities or services and should not be detrimental to the economic
welfare of the community.
G. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment
and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the
general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes,
glare or odors.
Commission finds that the proposed development will not involve uses that will create
nuisances that would be detrimental to the general welfare of the surrounding area.
Commission does not believe that the amount of traffic or noise generated will be
detrimental to the general welfare of the public. Staff recommends that the Commission
reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the
proposal may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which staff are unaware.
H. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural,
scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance.
Commission finds that the proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or
damage of any natural feature(s) of major importance. Staff recommends that the
Commission reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether
or not the proposed development may destroy or damage a natural or scenic feature(s) of
major importance of which staff is unaware.
2. Private Street Findings:
A. The Design of the private street meets the requirements of this Article;
The applicant will have to certify that the Ada County Street Naming Committee has
accepted the private street names. The design of the streets meets the standards as set
forth in UDC 11-3F-4; no gates are allowed. Roadway and storm drainage shall be
contained on site.
B. Granting approval of the private street would not cause damage hazard, or
nuisance, or other detriment to persons property, or uses in the vicinity; and
Commission does not anticipate any hazard, nuisance or other detriment from the private
streets if they are constructed and maintained as designed.
C. The use and location of the private street shall not conflict with the comprehensive
plan and/or the regional transportation plan.
The location of the private street does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and/or
the regional transportation plan.
Exhibit C — Page 2
— Transmission Report
Date/Time 10-05-2007 10:45:24 a.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho
Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1
Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Line 2
This document: Confirmed
(reduced sample and details below)
Document size: 0.5 "x11 "
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
DATE October 4, 2007 ITEM # 7
PROJECT NUMBER AZ 06-063
PROJECT NAME Waltman Property
PLEASE PRINT NAME I FOR I AGAINST NEUTRAL
Total Pages Scanned: 2 Total Pages Confirmed : 2
No. lJob I Remote Statlon Start Time I Duration I Pages I Line IMode jJobType, I Results
001 1151 18886854 10:44:42 a.m. 10-05-2007 00:00:12 2/2 11 IEC IHS ICP31200
Abbreviations:
HS: Host send PL: Polled local MP: Mailbox print TU: Terminated by user
HR: Host receive PR: Polled remote CP: Completed TS: Terminated by system G3: Group
WS: Waiting send MS: Mailbox save FA: Fall RP: Report EC: Error Correct
Broadcast Report
Date/Time 10-04-2007 09:31:31 a.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho
Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1
Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Line 2
No.
Job
Remote Station
Start Time
Duration
Pages
Line
Mode
Job Type
Results
008
142
208 888 2682
09:04:10 a.m. 10-04-2007
00:00:18
1/1
1
EC
HS
CP33600
009
142
8886777
09: 04: 10 a.m. 10-04-2007
00:00:39
1/1
1
EC
HS
CP14400
010
142
8840745
09:04: 10 a.m. 10-04-2007
00:00:19
1/1
1
EC
HS
CP28800
011
142
208 387 6393
09:04:10 a.m. 10-04-2007
00:00:39
1/1
1
EC
HS
CP14400
012
1142
12877909
09:04:10 a.m. 10-04-2007
00:00:18
1/1
1
EC
HS
CP33600
013
1142
120N885052
09:04:10 a.m. 10-04-2007
00:00:18
1/1
1
EC
HS
CP31200
014
1142
18886573
09:04:10 a.m. 10-04-2007
00:01:26
1/1
1
EC
HS
CP9600
015
1142
18881983
09:04.10 a.m. 10-04-2007
00:00:21
1/1
1
EC
HS
CP24000
016
1142
12083776449
09:04: 10 a.m. 10-04-2007
00:00:39
1/1
1
EC
HS
CP14400
017
1142
14679562
09:04:10 a.m. 10-04-2007
00:00:20
1/1
1
EC
HS
CP26400
018
142
8886700
09:04:10 a.m. 10-04-2007
00:00:00
0/1
1
--
HS
FA
019
142
8884022
09:04: 10 a.m. 10-04-2007
00:01:03
1/1
1
EC
HS
CP14400
020
142
3886924
09:04:10 a.m. 10-04-2007
00:00:24
1/1
1
EC
HS
CP24000
021
142
8841159
09:04: 10 a.m. 10-04-2007
00:00:18
1/1
1
EC
HS
CP31200
022
142
18840744
09:04: 10 a.m. 10-04-2007
00:00:19
1/1
1
EC
IHS
CP28800
Abbreviations:
HS: Host send PL: Polled local MP: Mailbox print TU: Terminated by user
HR: Host receive PR: Polled remote CP: Completed TS: Terminated by system G3: Group 3
WS: Waiting send MS: Mailbox save FA: Fail RP: Report EC: Error Correct
October 1, 2007 AZ 06-063
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING October 4, 2007
APPLICANT Waltman, LLC ITEM NO.
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 8/2/07 -Annexation and Zoning of 38.68 acres
from RUT and R-1 zone to C -G zone for Waltman Property - 505, 521, 615 & 675 Waltman Lane
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Request for Continuance
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the city of Meridian.
0
October 1, 2007 RZ 07-015
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING October 4, 2007
APPLICANT linda Loehr ITEM NO. 8
REQUEST Public Hearing - Rezone of .28 of an acre from an R-8 residential zone to
an O -T zone for 6th and Broadway - 532 E. Broadway Avenue
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
See Attached Staff Report
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
No Comment
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
See Attached Comments
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
See Attached Comments
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
See Attached Comments
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See Attached Sign Posting,
Contacted:
Date: Phone:
Emailed:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
n
U
October 1, 2007
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING October 4, 2007
AZ 07-011
APPLICANT Pole Creek Properties, Inc. ITEM NO. 9
REQUEST Public Hearing - Annexation and Zoning of 6.84 acres from RUT to an R-4
zone for Belhaven Subdivision - 5230 N. Black Cat Road
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
COMMENTS
See Attached Staff Report
No Comment
See Attached Comments
See Attached Comments
See Attached Comments
OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Sign Posting
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at pubBc meetings shall become property of the City of Merldian.