2009 12-03Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting December 3, 2009
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of December 3, 2009, was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Moe.
Members Present: Chairman David Moe, Commissioner Joe Marshall, Commissioner
Tom O'Brien, Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay and Commissioner Michael
Rohm.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Machelle Hill, Sonya Watters, Bill Parsons, Scott Steckline
and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Tom O'Brien
X Michael Rohm -Vice Chairman X Joe Marshall
X David Moe -Chairman
Moe: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome you to the regularly
scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and I'd like to call this
meeting to order and ask the clerk to call roll, please.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda:
Moe: Thank you very much. Next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda.
Commissioners, there are no changes, so could I get a motion to accept the agenda?
Marshall: So moved.
O'Brien: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve the agenda. All those in favor say
aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 3: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of November 19, 2009 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
Moe: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have one item, which is the
approval of the meeting minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of
November 19th. Any questions, comments of the meeting minutes? Could I get a
motion to accept the Consent Agenda?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2009
Page 2 of 33
O'Brien: So moved.
Rohm: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Before we open our first public hearing for this evening, there is -- I see people
that I don't think I have seen in the audience before, so I thought I would give you
somewhat of a rundown of how the format will be at our meeting here. I will open the
public hearing and, then, ask the staff to give a brief overview of the project and if the
Commission has any questions to ask staff and go through that process. After they are
done I will, then, ask the applicant to come forward. The applicant will have 15 minutes
to ask any other questions or give explanation of the project in their mind. After that
process there are sign-up sheets in the back if anyone in the audience would like to
speak, you can sign up back there. Once I have reviewed the list and gone through the
list I will, then, ask one more time if anyone in the audience would like to speak to the
hearing and give you an opportunity to do that. After that process is done I will, then,
ask the applicant to come back up and answer any questions that may have come up in
the public testimony, after which, then, I will, then, ask the Commission to close the
public hearings and, then, we will discuss it and, then, make motions at that point.
Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from November 5, 2009: MCU 09-002
Request to modify the building elevations approved with the Conditional
Use Permit for Avendale (fka Silver Oaks) by Engineering Solutions -
north side of W. Franklin Road, approximately'/ mile west of N. Ten Mile
Road:
Moe: So, having said that I would now like to open the continued public hearing on
Avendale and start with the staff report, please.
Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Moe, Members of the Commission. The applications
before you are a Conditional Use Permit modification to change the building elevations
and site plan previously approved with an extension of the Conditional Use Permit and a
design review application for the proposed multi-family structures and the site. The
property is zoned R-15, consists of 24 acres, and is located on the north side of West
Franklin Road, approximately a quarter mile west of North Ten Mile Road. A little
history on this property and previous approvals. This site was annexed in 2005 with an
R-15 zoning district. A development agreement was required as a provision of
annexation. Concurrently a preliminary plat and a Conditional Use Permit for a planned
development, consisting of 70 multi-family four-plex structures, totaling 280 units, with a
private clubhouse, park, and pathways was also approved. Initially one building
elevation and floor plan was approved with the planned development, which consisted
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2009
Page 3 of 33
of two and three bedroom units of 1,030 square feet and 1,185 square feet respectively.
The building elevation and site plan is no longer valid. The building elevations and site
plan approved with the time extension in 2008 replaced these plans. In 2007 the
director approved a one year time extension to record the final plat and commence the
use approved with the Conditional Use Permit. In 2008 a second time extension for 18
months was granted by Council and with the time extension request a site plan and
building elevations were submitted consistent with the previously approved plan, but
with condominiums, instead of four-plex structures with rental units. The site plan called
out three specific neighborhood areas, with each neighborhood consisting of different
architectural styles, Cape Cod, Mediterranean, and Prairie, as you see here on the site
plan on the left, that was the plan proposed with the time extension. Three different
variations of each of those styles, for a total of nine different looks, was planned to
provide architectural variety within the project. A total of four different floor plans were
also proposed. The City Council strongly favored the revised plans in comparison to
those originally approved. As a condition of approval of the time extension, the
applicant was required to develop the site consistent with the submitted concept plan
and building elevations. These revised elevations, floor plans, and site plan were
included in the existing Conditional Use Permit and replaced the original plans approved
in 2005. The original site plan, floor plan, and elevations are no longer valid. This site
plan shown on the left is the current approved plan. The plan on the right is the revised
site plan that's submitted with this application. The revised site plan depicts the same
number of units, open space, and amenities as previously approved. The overall
building layout is not changing on the revised site plan, as underground utilities have
already been installed on the site. However, the location of each building type is
proposed to change. The proposed site plan depicts the location of each building type
by letter, A, B, or C, on each lot. The site is no longer planned to develop with different
neighborhoods. The three different proposed building types are now planned to be
interspersed throughout the site. The proposed building elevation incorporates
substantially the same design elements and mix of materials, stucco, or horizontal
siding, shingle siding, stone veneer, and brick with asphalt single roofing, although not
quite as much brick and stone veneer as proposed as before -- as the previously
approved design, which consisted of row houses and two different condominium
concepts. However, instead of individual entrances to each unit from the main level,
resembling single family units, their proposed entries for each unit are from a central
stair well consistent with amulti-family structure. The elevations you're looking at here
are just colored elevations. The proposed ones by the applicant with this application.
And what you see here is the proposed building type on your left and the previously
approved elevation on your right. This is plan B, the Prairie style. This is the
Mediterranean style. And building type B and building type C, the Cape Cod. Only one
floor plan with two and three bedroom units and three building types, with no variations
within those types, are proposed now, as opposed to four different floor plans with two
and three bedroom units and three types of building designs with three different
variations within each of those designs, for a total of nine different looks as previously
approved. Because the modification to the Conditional Use Permit is proposed,
compliance with current design standards is also required. Staff has reviewed the
application for compliance with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 pertaining
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2009
Page 4 of 33
to architectural character, color, and materials and pedestrian walkways and found the
proposed changes to be in substantial compliance with those standards. Because
significant changes are requested to the previously approved building elevations and
site plan and because new design standards are in effect that weren't previously, the
director convened a committee of design professional to review the project and provide
a recommendation on the interpretation and application of the guidelines contained in
the design manual, as allowed in UDC 11-5A-2. A meeting was held with the design
professionals committee on October 17th. At the meeting the committee noted the
following: They felt that the variety of plans and separate neighborhood feeling has
been lost. The quality of the building elevations had been sacrificed in the form of
nonseparate entries. Low roofs have essentially been lost. Quantity of the high quality
materials, such as stone and brick, has decreased. There is monotonous repetition in
the appearance of the structures regardless of material types. A single floor plan
eliminates the ability to provide variety in the appearance of the structures. There is no
longer modulation on the front sides of the elevations and the basic quality of the
elevations has been lost. Further, because the Conditional Use Permit finding listed in
UDC 11-5B-6E requires the proposed use to be harmonious with the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan, the director also requested a recommendation from the design
committee on compliance as the proposed changes with the standards contained in the
Ten Mile interchange specific area plan. Based on the standards contained in that plan,
the committee found the following: Front porches are not provided on the proposed
structures as desired in the plan. There is significantly less variety in the housing types
proposed from four different floor plans with three type of buildings designs with three
different variations within each of those designs as was previously approved, for a total
of 36 different variations, as opposed to one floor plan with three building types as now
proposed. There is no access to the railway corridor proposed and detached sidewalks
are not proposed as desired in the plan. However, detached sidewalks are not really
feasible at this point due to adjacent parking structures. Additional trees, however,
could still be provided in front yard areas. Based on these findings the committee
recommended denial of the design review application. The director has reviewed the
proposed building elevations and site plan submitted with the design review application
and the recommendation of the committee. The director has determined that the
changes proposed to the plan do not meet or exceed the intent of the design manual, as
required by the UDC 11-5B-8D to grant approval of the design review. Therefore, staff
is recommending denial of the design review application and consequently
recommending denial of the Conditional Use Permit modification application. No written
testimony was submitted on this application. Staff will stand for any questions the
Commission may have.
Moe: Thank you. Any questions of the staff at this time?
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do.
Moe: Commissioner Marshall.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2009
Page 5 of 33
Marshall: Sonya, the design review committee, what's the constituency? I mean is it
people from industry, architectural firms? Where are they from? How many members?
I'm not looking for names and names of firms, but do they all come from one firm or
what?
Wafters: Chairman Moe, Commissioner Marshall, they are not the same group every
time. They are members that have volunteered from different architectural firms, you
know, around the valley. There were three different members present at this meeting.
Marshall: Okay. Thank you.
Moe: Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward, please? And
state your name and address for the record, please.
McKay: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of -- or Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Commission. Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. I'm
representing the applicant Ten Mile Development on this particular application. Bear
with me. This is kind of a complex situation. I was not the original planner, nor were we
the engineer on this project. This project was done back in October of 2005. We kind
of have been retained to pick up the pieces, basically, in short words. In 2005 this
project was annexed. They had a preliminary plat approval, a conditional use approval,
and a planned unit development. At that time the Meridian zoning ordinance was in
effect and the Ten Mile specific plan did not exist, nor did the design review guidelines
exist. They entered into a development agreement with the city in January of 2006 and
that development agreement, I have reviewed it closely, still links the original elevations
to this particular project. I can't find any evidence the development agreement
modification was submitted after that time extension and as you well know, a
development agreement is a binding contract between the city, between applicant, and I
guess that's something for Mr. Nary to look into, but -- but that did come to light as I was
doing my review of this application. In June of 2006 they obtained construction plan
approval, final plat approval, from the city and commenced construction, installation of
their infrastructure. While construction was going on they had to submit, back in March
of 2007, an administrative time extension and when that time extension came in, the
very first administrative time extension, the UDC had been adopted. So, in staffs
review and the director's review, four new conditions were added to the project, which
now brought it into compliance with the UDC. The original developer was Charter
Builders and back in 2007 the project was not progressing well and it went into
foreclosure and it went back to Banner Bank. My clients Ten Mile Development, Joe
Stafford, Graye Wolfe, were the original property owners, who had sold the property to
Charter Builders. So, since they were in second position on this particular project, they
stepped up with Banner Bank to assume that loan to, obviously, protect their position.
Construction of the site, obviously, stopped when this became a distressed project.
Approximately 80 percent of the infrastructure was installed. Sewer. Water. Joint
trench. They have storm drain ponds. They have concrete vertical curb. Extruded
curb. Sidewalks. Base. And I have reviewed the proposals and bids from the
contractors. There is in excess of one million dollars in the ground today and I did bring
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2009
Page 6 of 33
some photographs to demonstrate that to the Commission. So, once it went back to
Ten Mile Development, they started a discussion with Milt Erhart and Mr. Erhart was
contemplating purchasing this project and doing a condominium, some row houses. He
had -- kind of had a concept and was contemplating trying to go in and retrofit this and
at the same time they were running out of time on their plat and their approval. So, a
second time extension was filed that had to go before the Council and at that time it
went to the Council -- I have read through the minutes and the Council said, well, we
want to see what you're doing. So, he had his architect draw up some condominium
buildings, they came in with three architect styles, Prairie, Mediterranean, Cape Cod.
The Council liked those elevations. They liked the variety. And if you compare that to
the original four-plex that was approved with the application, it was definitely an
improvement. The Council, with the time extension, tied these elevations, but, yet, like
said before, no development agreement modification was ever done, at least that I can
find. Mr. Erhart, then, attempted to find some financial backing for his project and was
unable to do so and every bank that he went to or investor kind of shied away and so
the project, as presented to the Council with those types of buildings -- obviously, the
site plan remained the same, other than they had different areas of different
architectural styles, was not economically viable. So, Ten Mile Development right now
is trying to salvage this project and complete the infrastructure. They have had Idaho
Survey Group doing as builts out there. We have been meeting with Ada County
Highway District, Meridian public works inspectors, Nampa-Meridian, every entity that
had involvement to, basically, try to identify what remains to be completed. The
contractor that did infrastructure originally filed for bankruptcy. So, we will be dealing
with a whole new contractor. The estimated cost of completing the infrastructure out
there is around 600,000 dollars and it is my client's desire to go in and finish this project.
So, then, the question arises what type of product can we build in this marketplace. So,
we kind of put a team together with some architects from the Architects Group,
Elizabeth Cooper and Mark Sanders, and we, basically, are trying to figure out how to
come up with a viable project in this marketplace and what I told them -- obviously, by
reading through the minutes the Council liked the different architectural styles, so my
recommendation to them was I want you to stick with the Prairie, the Cape Cod, the
Mediterranean styles, and -- and make sure that even though the buildings deviate you
take those necessary components of that architecture and incorporate it. We met with
the city on multiple occasions. We worked with Will Thornton at the time, who was our
design review liaison, and after many meetings -- and other staff members attended
some of the meetings and some they didn't, we went away with -- believing that we had
a product that kind of met in the middle and so we were recommended to submit our CU
and told that we had to submit a design review application at the same time. So, we
submitted that and, obviously, now we ran into a snag. I have looked at the staff report.
The Ten Mile specific plan is the applicable plan. In looking at it, this particular area is
designated as medium high density residential. On the Comprehensive Plan at the time
the original project was approved it was high density residential. So, as far as the
designation, nothing has changed. Staff cites the fact that there are no usable porches
in the provision at 30 percent of the exterior -- front exterior have porches. The original
condominium designs didn't have front porches either. The architects looked through
those and said they don't -- the ones that the staff says are tied to the project don't meet
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2009
Page 7 of 33
that. The staff talks about residential diversity in the Ten Mile specific plan,
incorporating single family attached, detached, row houses, apartment buildings,
different things like that. Well, it's kind of hard at this juncture for us to switch gears. I
mean when I have got vertical curb and parking and to go and try to retrofit single
family, I mean it just -- it just doesn't work and it doesn't make any economic sense in
times like these to abandon over a million dollars of infrastructure that we have in the
ground. One of the comments was the criticism that there is no public art. There was
no public art in the original application, nor in the subsequent time extension. If the staff
would like public art to be part of the amenities in this, obviously, we are open to that.
The staff talks about that they prefer the different architectural styles be concentrated in
different areas, so you may drive into one area, it's Mediterranean, the other is Cape
Cod, the other is Prairie. We don't object to that. We -- the architect and the -- the
developer kind of interspersed them, they thought at the time that that would look better,
but we are, obviously, open to creating these little pockets with their own specific
architecture. I guess from my perspective we are not asking for the moon, we are
asking the city, the staff, just to try to meet us in the middle. Help us come up with a
solution for this distressed project. This unfinished development is a detriment to the
city. It's a detriment to my client. Some of the infrastructure that's out there right now
has already been damaged. We have manhole lids that are missing that are a hazard.
I mean as -- the longer they lay unfinished in the ground the more work we are going to
have to do to bring this -- or to complete this project. I mean things degrade. The
problem, you know, that we have in our industry right now is many of these projects
were planned three and five years ago and if they were not fortunate to get finished
quickly, then, they are faced with a different market and that's kind of where we are.
Some developments, obviously, have the ability to be reinvented. We go in, come up
with new ideas, and try to make them work in today's marketplace. I guess what I'm
asking the Commission is to keep an open mind, provide us that opportunity to reinvent
this project, because in this current unfinished condition it doesn't benefit anyone and
the final plat on this has been recorded. They even went as far as getting certificates of
zoning for I think a few buildings, but they never acted upon them. I brought some
pictures that I wanted to submit to the Council, basically -- sorry I didn't put these on a
disk, but I ran out of time. Basically, to demonstrate what's out there in the field and,
like I said, we've spent an immense amount of time trying to identify what needs to be
done to get this completed. Could you put that disk in? In closing I just wanted to kind
of show you the elevations. What I did here is -- this is the original condominium
building that was submitted with the time extension and, then, what I tried to do is, then,
show you the corresponding building that we have that captures the same architectural
features. So, that -- that is the Prairie design and as you can see brick exterior, certain
features, and, then, we tried to emulate that. And can you go to the next one, Sonya.
Oops. This is the Cape Cod. As you can see, that was the original condominium type
building. We captured similar features to it. We have some exterior patio doors there
on that single level. You can see the Cape Cod features. You can switch to the next
one. And, then, this is -- this is the last one, the Mediterranean. As you can see, that
was with the time extension. And, then, there is -- this is the four-plex one. I also have
in there -- if you could flip to it, Sonya, another four-plex. Can you turn it? Okay. This
is the elevation of the original four-plex. There were kind of three -- three versions of
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2009
Page 8 of 33
the building. They are pretty much identical. I mean I can see a few different features,
but they are pretty close. They had -- one of them they had some type of brick or stone
on this feature here and, then, another one that they had kind of a little half wall, but,
technically, the building was very similar. So, I guess, you know, in closing, this project
was approved for four-plexes. This is the structure that was going to be built. We are
trying to find someplace in the middle and I guess I'd ask the Commission to think about
it. We are open to suggestions. We are not trying to force product down the throat of
the city at all. We -- we want to work with the city and that has been our attitude from
the day we walked through the door and this has been an uphill battle and -- and I'd like
to find middle ground. Thank you. Do you have any questions?
Moe: Any questions of the applicant?
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do.
Moe: Mr. Marshall.
Marshall: So, really, there is -- just clarifying here, from what I'm reading, there is really
just one floor plan here, right? And three variations of facade?
McKay: Yes, sir. As far as the interior floor plan in the elevations that we have
submitted, yes, sir. Yes, sir, they do have one floor plan.
Marshall: And the last one that was actual -- the City Council -- this is back with the last
time extension. You say were tied to the last time extension. There were three different
variations of floor plan with three different variations of each floor plan with three types
of building designs -- or four different floor plans, three types of building designs, three
different variations of each of these designs for 36 different types?
McKay: In reviewing them, no, there should have been -- what we found was they had
A, B, C. They had three versions of the Mediterranean, three versions of the Prairie,
and three versions of the Cape Cod. So, what I found of record were nine.
Marshall: Nine. Got you.
McKay: And the buildings were very similar. We saw a little deviation in roof line, a little
modification in the -- you know, the front architectural features to take in the different
architectural style, but the buildings were very very similar. I have those with me and I
can give those to the Commission if they'd like.
Marshall: Just curious as to why those were tossed out for something new. You're
saying the market wouldn't support those. Why -- weren't those condominiums like this
and --
McKay: The project was initially approved for 70 four-plexes. With that last time
extension a different developer was looking at buying the project. So, he stepped up
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2009
Page 9 of 33
and came up with this idea as far as what he envisioned for the project. He could not
make it work. He could not obtain financing and as you well know even the
condominium market in downtown Boise is struggling at this time and so he just walked
away. He's no longer involved. Mr. Erhart.
Marshall: Do you think that's -- that's because of multiple variations in the
condominium? Is that -- is that what we are saying is that multiple variations of the
building won't sell, but asingle -- single floor plan will?
McKay: It was I think looking at the cost of those buildings, construction cost of the
building, and, then, the type of multi-family. Condominium, townhome, are typically
owner occupied, so they have go to obtain financing. With the four-plex design those
are more rentals and so it's kind of a different marketplace. Each one of those multi-
family has its own Hitch. But at this time the financing for condominiums -- I have
another -- a townhome project that was really nice up by St. Luke's Hospital. Good
location, awesome design. It is in foreclosure also. I mean it's just -- they can't -- they
can't obtain financing and when the buyer can go out and buy a detached single family
dwelling on a good size lot for either the same or less money than they can the
townhome, or the condominium that's where we struggle. They became so popular,
because of affordability issue, maintenance issue, but primarily affordability. When they
are going head to head with the single family for price point, it's just not happening. And
the banks I'm told do not want to loan on condominiums. But that's just kind of -- that
lending dried up.
Marshall: So, what we are saying is this is really going to turn into, essentially, an
apartment complex.
McKay: It would be rental units as originally approved. Yes, sir.
Marshall: Thank you.
Moe: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. We have no one that has signed up to
speak, so if there is anyone that would like to speak to this issue, you're more than
welcome to come up. Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, any thoughts from any of
you at the present time?
O'Brien: I guess a thought I have, Mr. Chair --
Moe: Mr. O'Brien.
O'Brien: -- is it sounds like the design review board is looking -- has a wish list about
what these things should really look like, but it's not compatible with the current
economic conditions. Is that what I'm hearing here or seeing here? I don't know if you
agree or disagree, but I think that's what I'm seeing is that we are trying to set a foot into
-- a size 12 foot into a nine size shoe and it's not going to fit. It's just economically not
feasible. From what I'm hearing from the applicant, anyway, they are trying to come up
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2009
Page 10 of 33
with a solution for this area that is not a compelling reason for somebody to use or to --
to rent, whether it be a condominium or an apartment. So, I don't know, it seems to me
like there is -- it sounds to me like there is -- it's not awin-win situation here. We either
allow the developer to do the best they can to develop this property into something
that's salable -- salable and -- or come up with a compromise of what's on the sheet,
which they -- the design review has issues with. Now, I think that's what they are really
looking for. So, I don't know. We would have to go back and see which one of these
things here we can maybe do without or think that things that are must haves versus the
wants being approached, but we are not going to settle that here tonight. I think there is
a lot more work to be done to -- to make this thing work. Either another design review
with the issues at hand the developer has or what you're after.
Moe: Well, no, based upon what you have said, I mean before us tonight, you know,
they have brought this product and we have comments from staff and whatnot
requesting a denial based upon what was brought to us this evening to do. It's -- in
reality, it's not our job to turn around and try and redesign a project for this to fit, if, in
fact, this Commission doesn't feel that it -- that it doesn't meet the requirements and
whatnot. The biggest problem, you know, that I have in my comments are, you know,
unfortunately, times are tough right now and financing is very tough, if there is any out
there, quite frankly. The thought of being able to able put people to work building
something is -- would be great. But at the same time there has been a lot of long hard
work done to take care of requirements in what we have done with the Ten Mile plan
and everything else and just because they have a site that, unfortunately, went into
bankruptcy and whatnot, it's been purchased again or taken back and whatnot, it's not
our responsibility to try and make something happen, even though they can't meet the
design guidelines that we have tried to set forward. I'm a little confused, basically, we
are going from what was, quote, originally approved to, then, when they went to the
extensions and Council at the second extension made comments that they really
wanted to -- they like those elevations that were shown and it sounds like to me it was
fairly well known that that's kind of what they expected to see and now we are seeing
another thing totally different and I realize that it may not have been documented in a --
in a DR or anything else, a revised DR or whatever, to make those elevation changes
from the original approval process. But with the review of this project, you know, by
professionals and whatnot, you know, what's before us tonight I don't see that they --
they have met the requirements.
O'Brien: I agree with you on that. I think also I should have mentioned that I think too
much emphasis has been put on the original design back in 2005 and I think that's a
mute point. That's gone. I think you're right there. We need to look at what's here
before us today.
Moe: However, depending upon the documentation, I guess, to make sure -- I guess
that's where I -- I guess the question to staff is, can you bring us up to speed from day
one to now in regards to what modifications were made in the city documents?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2009
Page 11 of 33
Watters: Are you -- Chairman Moe, are you asking to see the original elevations and
the site plan?
Moe: No. I'm just trying to -- what I'm trying to figure out is why aren't we still at the
original elevations and whatnot, if that was what was approved in a DR?
Watters: Because the applicant needed to extend their Conditional Use Permit. It was
expiring. They did obtain one time extension from the director, they needed a
subsequent time extension. As a condition of that time extension -- well, let me back
up. The applicant at that time Milt Erhart presented that time extension to Council and
with that request he showed an updated --
Moe: Right.
Watters: -- concept plan and building elevations. The Council liked that. So, they
decided to go ahead and grant that time extension contingent upon the site developing
per that plan and building elevations.
Moe: And documentation stating -- was that, basically, then, the modification to the
original DR?
Watters: There was no original DR, because design review was not required at that
time.
Moe: Okay.
Watters: Those revised site plans -- there was an extension on the Conditional Use
Permit, so those revised plans replaced those plans that were originally submitted with
the Conditional Use Permit. So, it just replaced those.
Moe: Okay. That's what I --
Watters: Okay.
Moe: Okay. Thank you. Do you have something to say?
Newton-Huckabay: I think I have a couple of questions.
Moe: Great.
Newton-Huckabay: I didn't see or -- how did the adoption of the Ten Mile area plan
impact decisions to make -- make or allow or require changes on this current change?
Watters: Chairman Moe, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, Commissioners, the Ten
Mile specific area plan was not in effect when this originally went though in 2005. Since
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2009
Page 12 of 33
that time it's been adopted and all new applications are reviewed under that plan, if the
land falls within that area.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I guess the question I'm trying to ask is what different
aspects of the Ten Mile area plan that weren't -- obviously wasn't in effect at the time,
it's in effect now, because this is subject to the Ten Mile area plan. What element of
that plan had the biggest impact on the changes requested by the city for this plan, the
one we see before us today?
Wafters: Let me go to that section in my staff report.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Wafters: There is a little more than just the Ten Mile plan. The design manual was
adopted since that time also, so there are requirements in the design manual, as well at
the Ten Mile specific area plan that it has to comply with. If you look at page seven of
the staff report, it talks about the standards in the Ten Mile plan, front porches on the
proposed structures, those are desired in the plan. Variety of housing types is also a
big thing in the plan. Access to the railway corridor.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Wafters: Detached sidewalks.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, what is this last section -- so, what, those were the --
the changes that would be made to those grounds, so to speak, those aren't really
issues with the elevations tied to these various agreements. Am I -- so --
Moe: And I'm anticipating that the applicant -- because a lot of this infrastructure is
already in place, then, you would be either tearing it out and having to redo it.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, those elements -- the elements of the Ten Mile area
plan would have required infrastructure redesign on the property, is that a fair
statement?
Wafters: Some of the items --
Newton-Huckabay: For the porches.
Wafters: I believe that the variety in housing types could still be provided. There just
isn't financing is the problem they had with the condo units.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. The other question I have that I thought was interesting is
this has been continued multiple times and been in and out of staffs office and how is it
that we get all the way to a Commission meeting and you guys are at logger heads at
what -- we thought we were fine and, then, all of a sudden staff says, no, this doesn't
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2009
Page 13 of 33
work? I mean how did we get to that point? Who -- did somebody recommend
something? Somebody just ignored it or -- I mean how do we get to that point to where
-- did you draw a line in the sand and say it's these elevations and these condos or
nothing or -- I mean it seems like it just -- to me it seems odd that we would be in
denying this -- wanting to deny this application based solely on an opinion of the
elevations. Is it because we want to try out the new design guidelines and -- I just -- it
seems odd to me.
Wafters: Chairman Moe, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, staff did meet with the
applicant on several occasions. I was not present personally at all of those meetings.
As Becky said, she met with Will Thornton, our design review guy on these. He made
several suggestions I know to them. They were told from the very beginning that they --
this application is subject to the design standards in the design manual, the Ten Mile
specific area plan, they aren't simply guidelines we can waive at a staff level. As a
body, you know, the Commission and Council has adopted these plans and our job as
staff is to make sure these projects are consistent with those plans. You know, it --
Newton-Huckabay: I guess what I'm kind of struggling is this area is zoned high density
residential. A four-plex is high density residential. Condominiums are high density
residential. So, as far as -- if I understand it correctly, it's meeting the spirit of the
zoning of the property to have multi-family units and -- but we are just -- the city is
saying we prefer the condos there. Or we prefer -- is it -- I'm, basically, interpreting
everything written that we want those -- we want those condos.
Wafters: In response, Chairman Moe, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I think the
main probably issue is that the design manual and the Ten Mile plan both call for a mix
and variety in housing types and there is none as proposed.
Newton-Huckabay: So, if it were -- so, are you saying that there should be single family
houses in here, condos, and four-plexes?
Wafters: Not necessarily saying single family, but there should be a mix.
Newton-Huckabay: So, like duplexes and four-plexes or --
Wafters: Possibly. Probably some -- possibly owned units, possibly some rental units,
possibly some two bedroom units, three bedroom units, that accommodate a variety of,
you know, folks to live there.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Mr. Marshall.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2009
Page 14 of 33
Marshall: May I ask a question of clarification, then? Making a guess here and, please,
correct me if I'm wrong, then. The variety and mix of housing is speaking to more of a
change of elevations for esthetic reasons that it's okay if they are all apartments, but as
you drive in you want things to change, you want some things to look different and
every building to look different than the last building, so that it doesn't look -- shall we
say institutional. Is that the intent here?
Wafters: Chairman Moe, Commissioner Marshall, that is the intent and also not only for
them to look different, for them to be different, to offer a variety in housing types to
residents.
Marshall: Right. Some that could be purchased. Some that could be rented, et cetera?
Wafters: Possibly. Those are just examples, but --
Marshall: Uh-huh.
Wafters: -- yeah, different opportunities, you know. Possibly studio apartments.
Possibly, you know, three bedroom units that are available to families. It's not just
staffs desire to see this, this is -- this is what's in the Ten Mile plan and the design
manual.
Moe: Anyone else? Mr. Rohm, any comments?
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, what I think that what we have going on here is, basically, as a
four-plex and I -- I don't know dollar per square foot what it is, but I'm just going to use a
four-plex may be 100 dollars a square foot for construction and the original concept of
the condominium development would probably be 100 plus, let's say 150 dollars a
square foot. Well, now you're going to develop it as rental units, rather than
condominiums, because the economy doesn't service condominium development, you
can't put a 200 dollar a square foot four-plex out there to compete against afour-plex
that's right around the corner off of Ten Mile and what the issue really boils down to is
the Ten Mile plan wants to have more variation than what afour-plex rental complex
can afford and in my mind if, in fact, our Ten Mile area plan says that we want additional
amenities on the buildings, whether they are called condominiums or four-plexes for
rent or whatever, we got to go with what the Ten Mile plan and the design review
committee submitted and go with that and if the applicant wants to come back and say
we have got a million dollars in the ground, we are going to meet you in the middle and
come up with a design that meets that Ten Mile area plan expectations, and still is
economically feasible to develop as rental units, then, we got a fit, but until we can get
to that we don't have anything. That's the way I see it.
Moe: Thank you, sir.
McKay: Could I make just one comment?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2009
Page 15 of 33
Moe: One comment.
McKay: I do apologize with burdening the Commission with this. I just want you to
understand the design review procedure that we have. We don't have any opportunity
to be heard or interact with your design review committee. It is closed door. And unlike
city of Boise where we are an active participant in that design review with the design
review commission, which they can make suggestions, we can offer up solutions and
kind of solve problems, I don't have that opportunity the way it's structured. Now,
according to Pete they are still working through their process, but I don't believe that
there is any due process in that. I mean how can I work out the kinks? I'm asking the
Commission to provide us the opportunity. I don't know. Maybe -- maybe you send us
back -- defer us, send us back, say why don't you guys all get together and, you know,
let's try to solve this. That's all I'm asking. I mean --
Moe: I don't want to get into great discussion here, but the one point I do want to make
and that is -- is you had your architects go to the city.
McKay: We did.
Moe: They did meet with the design review representative here at the city and work
through some of the issues to where you had the information necessary to bring back
and you failed as far as what the city is saying. So, now you're saying now you want to
go back and try again.
McKay: No. We thought we had hit the mark.
Moe: Okay.
McKay: That's where we came away from the last meeting with Mr. Thornton, thinking
that this -- what we had come up with was in the middle. Obviously, other staff
members are not of that same opinion. And Will Thornton's no longer with the city, so
that's where we have the disconnect, sir.
Moe: So, I guess -- well, thank you.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Mr. Rohm.
Rohm: I move we close the public hearing on this application.
O'Brien: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on MCU 09-002. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2009
Page 16 of 33
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Comments?
Rohm: Yes. I have comment. Mr. Chairman, you know, I believe the applicant has a
very compelling argument that they have got a million dollars in the ground already out
there and nobody wants to see that lost -- or let's -- it makes no sense to lose it if, in
fact, it can be salvaged. This design review process that we now have in place is in its
infancy and I believe that there are kinks that are yet to be worked out and from my
perspective I don't want to deny this, but I'm certainly not in favor of moving it forward
and if, in fact, we want to continue it and let them get back and further alter their plans
to accommodate the design review committee's responses, then, I think that the -- this
project can still be viable. But the fact of the matter is as it currently exists I would
recommend denial. So, that's -- my recommendation is to continue it and let them come
up with some alternative planning.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I have a question to the Commission at large. I guess the only one
floor plan thing -- but I didn't think that the architectural changes that they made to go
from a condo to a duplex or a four-plex were so grossly drastic that it made it an
unappealing elevation for amulti-family home. I'm curious if that -- I mean I understand
the design review and, you know, and -- and, yes, I voted in favor of it and all that, but
think that, again, it's a new process and I want to know your opinion. I mean do you
guys think they are so far of a deviation from what the City Council -- I mean beyond the
front porch issue, because the front porch issue comes out of the Ten Mile plan.
Moe: Well, I want to answer first.
Newton-Huckabay: Go.
Marshall: Go ahead.
Moe: I'm going to be very -- very brief and to the point. The point was well taken that
we are looking for different views of these buildings, not just the three -- you know, it's
too simple. The Ten Mile plan is looking for a lot of difference out there. What's on Ten
Mile just right off Ten Mile Road right now -- this is exactly what we'd see a second time,
in my opinion, is the same look and when we are trying to -- the Ten Mile and Pine right
there.
Newton-Huckabay: There is no way that looks like that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2009
Page 17 of 33
Moe: When you've only got three different elevations to work from, it's all going to look
the same, you don't have different entries and everything else. I realize you don't want
to talk about the porches and whatnot --
Newton-Huckabay: No, but --
Moe: -- but it's all going to look like a bunch of boxes. There is -- there is no big change
to me. That's my point. You asked for an opinion.
Newton-Huckabay: And I wanted to know it.
Moe: Mr. Marshall.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I fall on the side that I don't think there is a lot of variation
architecturally at all. I really don't. More than anything else -- and that's mostly based
on the floor plan. You look at one floor plan -- and, I'm sorry, when you start saying
mixed use, either you want that -- that mixed stuff or starting to say we wanted -- we
want each building to look different in that area. The mixed use is also referring to
being able to mix in a little higher end with a little lower end, rather than everything the
same, as in -- again, as Sonya mentioned, the place where the single family can -- can
live, as well as the single person with -- with a studio apartment and mixes and change
in the design. I'm sorry if I saw these drawings -- driving in with the same floor plan,
even though there is a mix of facades, I still see the same floor plan. You know, to me
that gives an institutional feel and I think that's what we are trying to get away from.
And I would like to see different floor prints and I believe that was why the City Council
was so interested and approved the last time extension, because, to be honest, if it had
stayed the same as it had been originally, I don't believe the time extension would have
been approved. That's my thought.
Moe: Just another comment I would like to make, Mr. Rohm. I would -- I happen to
agree with you, I do believe that, you know, a lot of money has been spent, you know,
and I would like to see them go back and see if they can't work with staff to make some
changes and make this project work and so I also would hope that we could set
something up to go back again.
Rohm: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I wanted to ask Sonya -- she had that same picture of
the three old elevations previously approved all in one, like she did in the three new
ones.
Wafters: Chairman Moe, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, the previously approved
one is here on your right. I don't have them all on one slide, but --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2009
Page 18 of 33
Newton-Huckabay: But -- I guess maybe I'm not getting this, but I understand there
were nine different buildings, but there were only three different elevations all along.
Am I -- on the second --
Wafters: There were three types of building designs with three different variations
within each of those designs. You're only seeing one of them here in each of those
three.
Newton-Huckabay: So, how much different was the other Prairie style?
Wafters: I don't believe we ever got elevations of those. I believe it was just a -- I may
be wrong, but I believe it was just averbal -- there will be three different variations within
each of these styles or types, if you will.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I have nothing else to say.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Yeah, Mr. Rohm.
Rohm: Do we need to reopen to get input from the applicant as to how long they feel
that it would take to meet with the design committee and come up with alternatives to
what's currently -- or can we just say January 21st would be a good date and I move to
continue --
Moe: I would recommend that right there, just go to the 21st of January.
Rohm: Fair enough. Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Mr. Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we continue public hearing of MCU 09-002 to the regularly
scheduled meeting of January 21st, 2010, and give the applicant an opportunity to redo
modifications from the design review process.
Marshall: Second.
Nary: Mr. Chairman? I don't recall in the motion that you said to reopen the public
hearing. Did you say that?
Rohm: No. No. We didn't.
Nary: Well, you can't take anymore information on the 21st of January unless you
reopen the public hearing. But, secondarily, Mr. Chairman -- and maybe this is a
clarification. I don't know if this will be helpful. Commissioner Rohm, you stated that
this was an opportunity for the applicant to meet with the design review committee.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2009
Page 19 of 33
That is not part of the process. They don't meet with the committee, the committee
merely advises the director.
Rohm: With staff I should say.
Nary: Yeah. The committee advises the director. The director is the one that makes
the determination. So, we don't have a review process, like Mrs. McKay was talking
about. That isn't what the City Council wanted and I think you all know that, but I
wanted to make it clear for the record is they would be meeting with the staff further,
which is just fine, but you need to open the public hearing, too.
Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Yes, Mr. Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we reopen the public hearing to establish a date certain for a
continuation of MCU 09-002.
Marshall: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to reopen MCU 09-002. All those in favor say
aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Mr. Rohm.
Rohm: At this time I'd like to ask the applicant if they would have plenty of time by
January 21, the regular scheduled meeting of Planning and Zoning, to meet with staff?
McKay: Yes, sir.
Moe: From the audience she says yes.
Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Mr. Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we again close the public hearing --
Nary: No. No. No. Leave it open.
Moe: We are not closing, we are continuing.
Rohm: Oh. Oh. That's right. Excuse me. Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue
MCU 09-002 to the regularly scheduled meeting of January 21st, 2010.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2009
Page 20 of 33
Marshall: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue MCU 09-002 to the regularly
scheduled meeting of Planning and Zoning of January 21st. All those in favor say aye?
Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from November 19, 2009: RZ 09-004
Request for Rezone of 5.41 acres from R-4 (Medium-Low Density
Residential) to an R-8 (Medium Density Residential) zone for Cabella
Creek by Coleman Homes, LLC -north side of E. Victory Road, west of
S. Mesa Way and east of S. Bailey Way:
Moe: At this time I'd like to open the continued public hearing on RZ 09-004 for Cabella
Creek and start with the staff report, please.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Before you this
evening is an application to rezone approximately 5.41 acres of land from R-4 zoning
designation to an R-8 zoning designation. The aerial before you you can see that it's
part -- this portion that's proposed for rezoning is part of a subdivision that was
approved in 2006 known as Cabella Creek Subdivision. The area in red is the area that
is proposed to be rezoned from the R-4 to the R-8 zone. Surrounding the property -- or
the property is located on the north side of East Victory Road, approximately a quarter
mile from Locust Grove. Surrounding the property is single family lots in Cabella Creek
and Salmon Rapids Subdivision. The property is zoned R-4. To the west and the east
are five acre lots in Ada County, zoned RUT and they are part of the Kachina
Subdivision. And, then, also, if you notice to the west there is also a couple lots that are
preliminary platted -- or been final platted, but have not received city engineer's
signature and that's known as Shays Cove and that's this portion here that is zoned R-4
at this time. To the south are R-8 zoned lots platted with the city and, then, again, you
can see surrounding the property there is some other pockets of R-8 zoned property as
well. Here is an aerial and right now there are approximately seven to nine homes
constructed on this site, so the site's a little further along than what you see here. One
thing I did want to point out is that this property is -- again, was in foreclosure, so when
it came before the city it was titled under a different owner and now because of it being
-- going into foreclosure the new owner is here tonight seeking the rezone and primarily
the reason for the rezone is to construct a smaller home than what is allowed in the R-4
zoning district. What I have shown to you -- demonstrated for you on this slide is on the
left side is the zoning map, which shows what the property surrounding this subdivision
is zoned currently and how it relates to the land use, which is the exhibit on the right.
This -- again, this area was -- is designated low density residential, so when it came
through in 2006 staff analyzed the site appropriate to the designation and it was found
to conform to that site in 2006 and it still does today under its current approval. If you
look at the other lots adjacent to it you can see that they are also designated low density
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2009
Page 21 of 33
residential, as well as along to the north it's medium density, however, those lots are
zoned R-4, which is consistent with this property as well. The density for this site -- this
subdivision today is -- came in as 2.49. The current -- the Comp Plan calls for densities
in the low density zoning land use designation to be three or less. So, that's what I was
saying that it does conform to that low density land use designation at this time. The
applicant is not proposing any -- to change any of the lots, the configuration of the lots,
the setbacks, the size, the density, they merely just want the opportunity, again, to
construct a smaller home. Staff was of the opinion that that wasn't the appropriate
avenue just to rezone a portion of a subdivision in order to construct a 1,270 square foot
home on seven lots. I did error in the staff report, I did say that there is a potential for
20 lots to develop that way, but it really is only 17 buildable lots that would be subject to
the R-8 standards. The lots will meet both setback standards and size standards of the
R-4 and R-8 zone if the rezone is approved -- or recommended approval by you. One
thing I did want to point out is the fact that the applicant is leaving those lots buffered
along the north and the east and, again, it is internal to that development. So, again,
the one other issue is -- that staff had and the reason for the recommendation of denial
from staff is the fact that when this site was annexed and zoned in 2006 there was a
requirement for a development agreement and in that development agreement it did not
tie elevations to the property, but it did tie the use to the property and that was to be
only single family detached homes in the R-4 zone and so staff felt like even though
they are going with the rezone, we can't condition the rezone, but the UDC allows us to
ask for another development agreement, so staff -- because the UDC doesn't really
regulate single family homes, it doesn't require a CZC approval for a single family home,
staff is of the opinion that it would be difficult to track which seven lots would develop
with those size homes and so we felt that was another point of contention for
recommending denial. The applicant -- staff did not receive any comments from the
applicant. I did receive written testimony from one of the neighbors and he spelled out
his concerns with the rezone and he wanted to go on record stating that he's against the
rezone and with that I'll stand for any questions you may have of me.
Moe: Any questions of staff?
Marshall: One question. You say --
Moe: Mr. Marshall.
Marshall: -- that one person on record, was that the Mike Vale or is that someone else?
Parsons: Commissioner Marshall, that's correct. That's Mike Vale.
Marshall: Thank you.
Parsons: He came into the office and submitted written testimony.
Marshall: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2009
Page 22 of 33
Moe: Any other questions? Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward?
Coleman: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Thomas Coleman. 1859
South Topaz Way here in Meridian. I'm going to give you a brief rundown and, then,
Becky will come back up and actually talk about some important stuff. She's a little bit
better at this than I am. But wanted to give you a quick rundown. Could we get that
Powerpoint up, Bill. Just to give you an introduction, Becky and I have been working on
this since we bought the project in June of this year. The original engineer was Land
Group, but Becky has been working on a lot of the outstanding issues with me. I'm
Thomas Coleman, I'm the executive vice-president of Coleman Homes. My father and I
own the company and have been in business since 1972. We are currently building
homes in three different communities. One, which is West Highlands, which is a
community of our own in Middleton. We are also building in Bridgetower here in
Meridian and, then, in Cabella Creek where we have already built some homes. Cabella
Creek, like Bill said, was approved in 2006 and when we purchased the property it was,
for the most part developed, but there was still a large amount of landscaping that
needed to be done, a lot of landscaping maintenance because it had been in disrepair
for some time. There was also a lot of irrigation work still outstanding. Road work. And,
then, the ponds in the community, which were actually the amenities, had not been
completed either. And there was a slew of unpaid bills as well. So, we actually didn't
buy it in foreclosure, we worked with the owner and their bank and bought it from the
owner and in that process worked with the city, who had outstanding letters of credit,
which we replaced and all those types of things and brought all the bills current to the
community. So, it's been a lot of work in doing that. In the summer after we purchased
that project we started redoing all the landscaping. We have planted 60 new trees,
fixed all of our irrigation problems, and updated all the landscaping and replaced
anything that was dead. This fall we are going to be completing all of the roadway work,
as well as redoing all of the ponds that are in the community and completing every other
punch list item that the city and ACHD still had outstanding. The purpose of our
application in general is that we are catering to a specific market with this housing type,
which really is not available in this -- this area of the city, which is that there is a large
demand for smaller homes right now that aren't starter homes. We build this collection
of houses in West Highlands and it ranges from 1,270 feet through about 2,100 square
feet and so the one floor plan, which comes in a lot of different styles that's excluded
from that is the one that's 1,271 square feet and right now what we are seeing down
there in Cabella Creek is that 85 to 90 percent of our prospective home buyers are
either empty nesters or retirees and so they are really looking to down size. A hundred
percent of our buyers out there have been that. Bill, if we can cycle through. I don't
know how to -- this is just a brief shot of some of the landscaping repairs that we have
done. I will run through this pretty quickly. But you can see up top are two before
pictures of when we purchased the property and down below were what it was after we
got done this summer. We have replaced the entryways and redone and put in a new
sign and this is one of the homes that's built out there now for sale. In addition to that,
we are trying to go through and kind of the philosophy of our company is that we build a
variety -- a wide variety of houses that range from 1,270 feet through 4,000 feet, but our
philosophy is that a bigger home is not always the better home and a bigger lot is not
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2009
Page 23 of 33
always a better lot and this is just an example of some really big houses on some really
big lots that -- at least I don't feel are really that nice looking. While these houses are
significantly smaller, significantly smaller lots, they are nicer looking. These are homes
which are in Cabella Creek now, homes that we built. This house itself was 1,500
square feet. This is another one. This is about 1,700 square feet in Cabella Creek.
And ..this home, which you can see some of the rear elevation shots, is about 1,800
square feet. Scroll through here. To give you an idea of the houses we are building -- I
won't run through this, obviously, but this is a list of all the standard features that come
with every single one of the houses, including the one that we'd like to build, which is
1,270 feet. And just to give you some quick highlights -- go back here. Things that
come standard are hand textured walls, hardy board siding -- we don't use any vinyl
siding or anything like that. Thirty year architectural shingles. Three inch baseboards.
Front yard landscaping. All those things come standard in our houses. The house that
we are proposing to build, the one floor plan that's excluded is 1,271 feet, is this home
right here. This is built in our West Highland Subdivision and it's kind of a bad day for it,
but you can see that it's of the exact same type as what we are proposing or what we
are currently building out at Cabella Creek, same roofing type, same exterior features,
all that type of stuff. Same cabinets on the interior. With that I think I will turn it over to
Becky McKay and, then, field questions if you have any, if that's all right, or I can stand
for questions if you have them now.
Moe: Do you have any questions of this -- okay.
Marshall: Yeah, I do have one question real quick.
Moe: Mr. Marshall.
Marshall: Typically, what's the cost per square foot here on these, approximately?
Coleman: A sales price?
Marshall: Yeah. Sale price.
Coleman: These are about 105 dollars a square foot. We -- the smallest plan would be
145,000 dollars, although we are not building it right now. So, our least expensive
home is 155,000 and we go up to about -- with options up to 250,000 dollars. But on
average about 180,000 dollars.
Marshall: Got you. Thank you. Appreciate that.
Moe: That 15 minutes is coming due here.
McKay: My list is short. Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 1029 North Rosario. I
am representing Coleman Homes on this particular application. This is another one that
has been a challenge trying to get everything organized. When -- when we started the
project we had about two pages of items that had to be done at the site as far as -- even
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2009
Page 24 of 33
though it was paved, landscaped, there were still some items that were undone, so we
spent a lot of time with the highway district, the city, and even the Army Corps of
Engineers, because all of their permitting had expired on their 404 permits, their flood
plain permits, their license agreements, et cetera. So, we have submitted all of those
and obtained those necessary approvals. Thomas wanted us to come up with an idea
as far as how could we deviate from that 1,400 square foot minimum lot size -- or
minimum home size in the R-4 zone. We met with the staff, we talked about variance,
they didn't think a variance was appropriate. We kicked around the rezone and that
seemed at the time to be viable and that's kind of why we are here. And, then, after we
submitted they said, yeah, you know, we are not -- we can't warm up to it. So, we
proceeded forward, basically to lay our case out before the Commission and, obviously,
the Council. When we met with the neighbors I received quite a few comments from
them. Originally we were going to have no more than ten homes out there. They asked
me would you contemplate reducing that number. We did. We backed it off to seven
homes total that would deviate from the 1,400 square foot. Nothing would be below that
1,270 or whatever we had in there. They also -- we were going to rezone the whole
thing and some of the adjoining neighbors in Salmon Rapids said, you know, I don't like
that. Could you isolate it to just say one particular area, possibly in the interior of the
project. So, the application that you see before you is it does exactly that. We took a
block of 17 lots and we said we would like to rezone these -- no more than seven of
these would drop below the 1,400 square feet. They also had concerns about the
landscaping. The ponds out there were atrocious. They were green. They were ugly.
So, Thomas has been spending a lot of time bringing it up to snuff. We have been
doing a lot of design work redesigning ponds, redesigning pump stations, and check
structures for the irrigation system and we -- we have just obtained those approvals and
hopefully we will get those installed as far as the pump station soon. There is 47 lots
total in this project when it was originally approved. So, the -- you know, the seven that
we are asking deviation from is about 14.9 percent. Staff I think talked about, well,
maybe -- maybe an ordinance amendment should be done, because there has always
been a debate about is that minimum square footage appropriate. There isn't a
minimum square footage in the R-8, but there is in the R-4. Well, we kicked that around
after we had already submitted and paid our fees and so forth and -- and we kind of
thought, you know, elimination of a section in the ordinance shouldn't be project
specific. We didn't feel that made sense. If there is going to be an initiation of an
ordinance amendment, that should probably come from the staff and not from us for one
particular project, even though the staff has had their -- their questions whether
minimum home sizes are appropriate. Let's see. Can you switch -- oops. Where did it
go? There we go. One of the other things that we took a look at was in this general
vicinity. What you see in yellow are the R-8 zones that are out there currently. As you
can see, here is the subject -- will it point without changing? There is the subject
property right there that we are proposing to rezone that block of lots. As you can see
there are lots of pockets throughout those sections of R-8 and, then, a large sea of R-8,
which is Cavenaugh and Tuscany Village, is located directly across Victory from Cabella
Creek. So, we felt that this did make sense with that R-8 all out there. One of the
things that we did take note of was staffs concern about how do you track something
like this and the administrative tracking of it. So, we kind of thought about that and we
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2009
Page 25 of 33
came up with an idea. The staff stated that a CZC is not required for a single family
dwelling. Well, we would like to agree to a CZC or certificate of zoning compliance for
any home that drops below seven, the 1,400 square feet. That would give staff that
opportunity for the review and the track. Along with that CZC we will submit a map that
shows the lots within that 17 lot pocket that have been built on and the size of the home
that's been built on it. So, that would be a very easy way to track it. We couldn't really
come up with any other ideas on how to handle this situation. This was kind of the best
that we could come up with. The project looks good considering the way it looked
originally. The homes that are out there are very esthetically pleasing and I have been
impressed and unlike some subdivisions that have multiple builders, Coleman Homes
builds in their own subdivisions, so, obviously, he controls the architectural and the size
of the homes, et cetera. So, we'd ask the Commission to at least consider this as a
viable option in this project and help us have some diversity. Do you have any
questions?
Moe: Any questions? Okay. Thank you very much. We do have some folks that have
signed up. Rose Crandall, please. State your name and address for the record, please.
Crandall: My name is Rose Crandall and my address is 1319 East Observation Street
in Cabella Creek Subdivision. I'm just going to go through my notes here. I don't agree
with the rezoning from R-4 to R-8. Number one, when we purchased the home -- when
we were looking into getting into the subdivision we spoke with the previous builder and
I don't know how much due diligence a buyer has to do. I thought I did. I questioned
him, I asked him about the CC&Rs, I asked him -- when we signed up into the
subdivision the minimum square footage or living space was 2,400 square feet and the
lot sizes were, you know, decent compared to the other newer subdivisions and the
neighborhood Salmon Rapids and, you know, the Tuscany Village -- it's in a good area.
And so when we bought -- when we signed up for it and we -- my realtor even asked the
builder at that time if he was financially capable to sustain this project, because we were
-- I was one of the new homes -- I was the first home, actually, in the subdivision to be
built and he said no problem. I even asked him what if he sold the subdivision, you
know -- you know, is it going to change and he said, no, because the CC&Rs has
already been filed. Well, I didn't check that, because I didn't know that I had to research
all of those things. And so now I'm sorry that he fell into financial -- you know, a bad
financial situation and this had to happen and we already lost the value. -- you know,
some value to our home because of the economy, even without the houses in the
subdivision being built in the smaller sizes. And so I think that we have already
conceded -- our subdivision has already been reinvented from when we signed up to
purchase the home initially and we were also told the homes in the subdivision will be
built Energy, you know, Star certified. Well, now, it's not a standard, they offer it
because they are an Energy Star certified builder, but it is not a standard anymore. And
as far as the smaller sized homes, I can understand the situation and right now we don't
have a choice anymore, because th_ a houses are lowered and the square footage when
we first bought into the homes, so as far as that goes my thought was just if they are
already building from -- 1,500 is the smallest square footage home they are building
right now, because the next to that -- is that my time?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2009
Page 26 of 33
Moe: Just finish up.
Crandall: Okay. Because his smaller square footage home is 1,271, but he could still
build home with -- a smaller square footage home if he designed it into a 14 square feet
and would still be within the -- the R-4 requirement, I guess, and so I -- I have more
points, but I will submit my testimony to you guys for your review if my time is up.
Moe: Okay. Thank you very much.
Crandall: Okay. Thank you.
Moe: Yeah. Your comments, you will need to give them to the clerk. I will apologize
now if I get this wrong and she already knows who it is. Is that Aneke. Close enough,
right? Sorry about that.
Binford: Aneke Binford, 3101 South Mesa Way. I just wanted to start out by adding a
little bit to what I wanted to present in thanking and commending Coleman Homes for
the job that they have done in cleaning up the landscaping and their long list of
everything that they have done to improve the site that they purchased. However, that's
how they purchased it and they knew that that was something that they would have to
do to be able to market whatever went into that project. So, those are great things that
they have done and we appreciate it, because it was a mess, but that being said, they
bought it as is: They knew they had to do those things. So, they did show some photos
of the interiors. Those photos are absolutely beautiful. But that's really not the issue
here. The issue is the zoning. When Cabella Creek was originally approved in 2006 it
was approved for R-4. At that time staff found that the R-4 zoning was appropriate. It
provided an adequate transition to the nearby five acre residences. It's my
understanding that part of the objectives and goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to
protect existing residential property from incompatible land use developments on
adjacent parcels. We feel that R-8 zoning will have a negative impact on the value of
our home, as well as building the smaller homes that they are planning to. The
remaining homes in Kachina Estates are all on five acre parcels with larger homes. R-8
did not provide an acceptable transition in the year 2006 and it does not provide an
acceptable transition today. We understand that the economic times are bad. We know
that the developer is trying to capture more of the first time home buyer. It is easier to
get a loan these days on a smaller amount. However, the real estate market was bad
when he got into the project and we feel that the price and value of our homes should
not be sacrificed because of the risk that he took in purchasing that project. We
understand that he wants to only include the seven homes at that 1,270 minimum
square footage. But, again, we agree with staff. We have concerns over what could
possibly go wrong with that, how many of those homes, if that entire five acre area is
rezoned to R-8, how many of those homes could end up being a 1,270 square foot
house? Like I said, since its original approval as being R-4, nothing around that area
has changed. Everything to the north -- Salmon Rapids that is still R-4 as it was in '06.
To the west you have RUT five acre parcels. To the east is the RUT five acre parcels.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2009
Page 27 of 33
Nothing's changed since 2006 and at that time it was deemed that R-4 was appropriate.
So, we feel that nothing around this area has changed, so why should we change the
zoning just because economic times are bad and this developer would like to be able to
get on with his project. Staff has always recommended that R-4 has been appropriate
for this area and we hope that staff continues to keep that recommendation. Thank you.
Moe: Questions?
Marshall: I do have aquestion -- a quick question.
Moe: Mr. Marshall.
Marshall: Have you seen the Coleman product that they have produced out there so
far?
Binford: We have.
Marshall: And your thought as to the product itself? Other than size, are there any
issues?
Binford: I wouldn't say I have any issues. I don't think that it really flows that well into
what's out there right now. I mean they are attractive homes, but -- I mean I hate to use
the word cookie cutter, because that has such a negative, you know, connotation to it.
But when when I drive from my property and down the rest of Kachina Estates, which is
down there, I mean these are five acres estate homes. When you hang a right and go
past the Coleman Homes it's just -- it's such -- I mean we have even had people go
what are they doing across the street from you guys, you know. Our house is currently
on the market and every home buyer -- possible buyer that's come through and agent
who has come through has looked across the street at the larger homes -- now, we are
not talking the 1,270 square foot homes, and they have said that just doesn't fit. So,
even, though, you know, back in '06 we fought for that R-4 and the homes that are
being built there are the larger homes, we still have people saying they don't fit. So, it's
a huge concern for us. Absolutely.
Moe: Next on the list is Matt. From the audience she did a good job, so he has nothing
further. So, that's all that was signed up. ff there is anyone else that would like to
speak to this hearing -- I see no one raising their hand, so would the applicant like to
come back up and make comments to the testimony, please. Name and address again.
Coleman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I do appreciate the comments from both of
our adjacent neighbors and we did --
Moe: Name and address again.
Coleman: I'm sorry. Thomas Coleman, 1859 South Topaz Way.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2009
Page 28 of 33
Moe: Thank you.
Coleman: I do appreciate the input and we got a lot of input at our neighborhood
meeting as well and we take these concerns very seriously. You know, unfortunately,
we can't do anything about the promises made by the previous owner. I do understand
that there were promises made and I'm not trying to break anybody's promises by any
means, but what we have to go by is what was established and what was recorded and
those types of things. We feel like we are bringing value to the neighborhood in
rehabilitating and building the houses that we are building. Certainly I think some of the
slides that I have shown, we could build a lot bigger houses and be devaluing the
property. We are not changing the density of the property in any way and we are in
violation of the CC&Rs and all that -- I'm mean we are not in violation of the CC&Rs by
any means. We are trying to address the demand for Energy Star housing by offering
that to anybody that would like it. It costs about 3,000 dollars to upgrade your home to
Energy Star. We do a lot of things that are already Energy Star standard, like two by six
framing and a lot of our appliances and those types of things. So, there is really a cost
of an inspection and couple of other things that go into that. Going down to 1,400
square feet would require us to design a new home which, you know, isn't unreasonable
by any means, but we do have one home that has been popular that we would like to
sell and part of it would be that that home at 1,400 square feet would still be more
expensive and could cost anywhere between, you know, a thousand and three
thousand dollars a year for somebody trying to afford that. And addressing some of the
transition concerns, I do think that we have tried to do that by isolating the interior of the
subdivision with R-8 and leaving the R-4 around there and I think as Becky showed,
there is a lot of R-8 around us already. In fact, almost the entire south side of the street
below us is R-8, which I think came in in 2007 or something like that. So, I think that we
are trying to have a positive on values. Certainly that's our, you know, desire in owning
quite a few properties out there is to bring positive values to the area and with that I
guess I'd stand for questions if you have anything else.
Moe: Any questions?
O'Brien: I have one comment, Mr. Chair.
Moe: Mr. O'Brien.
O'Brien: Mr. Coleman. So, I -- one of the concerns I heard from -- from the
homeowners is -- is the concern of the smaller homes -- more of those being built than
the larger ones. How do you control that? How would you achieve a good mix?
Coleman: What we are proposing -- are you saying to make sure we don't build more
than the seven proposed?
O'Brien: Yes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2009
Page 29 of 33
Coleman: What we are proposing is that -- so, we isolated the area to 17 lots where we
could potentially build those houses and, then, of that area we are only allowed to build
a maximum of seven homes below the current 1,400 square foot requirement and as
staff noted -- I mean that could be an administrative headache and so what we are
proposing to do is with every single building permit we submit, we will submit a plat
showing the houses that have already been constructed and the size of those homes,
as well as a tally of how many homes we have built under that 14 square feet and, then,
as Becky mentioned also, if staff would like a certificate of zoning compliance as well
and if there was any other way for us to make sure that we don't build over the seven, I
would be happy to agree to that as well. I don't have any intention of doing that and
would be open to any other suggestions there may be.
O'Brien: Okay. Thank you.
Moe: Any other questions? Thank you very much.
Coleman: Thank you.
Moe: Okay. Commissioners, any comments?
Marshall: Well --
Moe: Mr. Marshall.
Marshall: -- Mr. Chair, a couple comments. First, I really appreciate the fact that the
applicant here has tried to offer up opportunities to address issues staff had come up
with with the offer to submit for CZC, for tracking, things like that. I agree that I'd like to
see the mix of housing and the opportunity to throw in -- and I'm not sure -- you know, I
question the fact that maybe the 1,400 square foot type thing -- would love to be able to
see a 1,270 in there. The 1,270, going to 1,400 at 105 dollars a square foot, is about a
nine percent increase. It increases the cost of a house almost 14,000 dollars. But,
then, again, I really don't like tearing it up and putting a zone inside a zone like this.
don't like the idea of splitting that up. I agree that the applicant can't be held
responsible for promises of past owners. Sorry, I can't do that. The applicant did know,
though, what the situation was when they bought in. I agree, I wouldn't mind seeing
1,270s in that area and I'd like to see the mix. It looks like it's a pretty decent product,
you know. But at the same time the rules are what they are. If the rules are 1,400
square foot, until that's changed I don't like stepping around it and rezoning separate
lots. It's a creative approach, but I'm just not for it. I think it complicates things and
causes a real problem. Maybe there needs to be some other solution, but I don't know
of one at this time. And, to be honest, I can't say I like this solution, although I'm not
against -- you know, I appreciate they picked up a -- a defaulted product and it looks like
turned it around and are starting to make something of it and I appreciate that and it
looks like they are doing a good job with it. Again, though, I just can't find myself
excited about zoning within, you know, separate lots just to change the building square
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2009
Page 30 of 33
footage. Maybe the city -- maybe somehow we need to come up with another solution
along the way, but Ijust -- I'm not for this solution.
Moe: Thank you, Mr. Marshall. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, do you have any
comments?
Newton-Huckabay: I will keep it brief. I think this is -- should stay the way it is with the
R-8 zoning. I agree with the city on rezoning just to reduce the house size isn't a good
solution and it certainly always -- like I always tell my teenagers: How could this go
wrong and I can just see this rush of applications coming in wanting to rezone various
lots and subdivisions so you could put a smaller home on them, so I would -- I don't
think I'd like to -- I don't think I would like to vote in favor of this.
Moe: Mr. Rohm, any comments?
Rohm: No.
Moe: Okay. Mr. O'Brien, any comments?
O'Brien: A brief or two. I'm not in favor of changing it to an R-8 from an R-4. I think -- I
think in the long term we will regret it or the people will regret it. I think it's better to
leave it alone and go for the long term instead of the short term effect.
Moe: Okay. Okay. Any other comments or motions?
Rohm: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Mr. Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we close the public hearing on RZ 09-004.
Marshall: Second.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on RZ 09-004. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Mr. Marshall.
Marshall: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend denial to the City Council of file number RZ 09-004 as presented in the staff
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2009
Page 31 of 33
report for the hearing date of December 3rd, 2009, because we -- I really don't want to
see zoning split up like this to see a rush of rezones of individual lots. I think it's
inappropriate, even though I think the product is nice and like to see the mix, there has
to be another method of addressing this in the future. This is not the appropriate
method.
O'Brien: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to deny RZ 09-004 as discussed. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6: Public Hearing: ZOA 09-003 Request to amend the text of certain
sections of the Unified Development Code (Title 11) for UDC Text Code
Amendment by City of Meridian Planning Department:
Moe: All right. At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on ZOA 09-003 for the
UDC text code amendment, city planning department, please.
Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Moe, Members of the Commission. The next
application is a request for a text amendment to the Unified Development Code by the
planning department. Since the implementation of the UDC on September 15th, 2005,
staff has requested several other amendments to that document. Staff continuously
tracks the UDC in order to identify issues that hinder the code's ability to function
efficiently in accord with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the
zoning ordinance amendment is to modify and/or eliminate vague or unclear standards
and add specific sections that staff believes will make implementation and use of the
UDC more understandable, equitable, and enforceable. Because staff has bundled
many of the so-called clean-up items in this application, numerous sections of the UDC
are affected as follows: Chapter 1, Article A, Definitions. Chapter 2, Article A,
Residential Districts. Chapter 2, Article B, Commercial districts. Chapter 2, Article C,
Industrial Districts. Chapter 2, Article B, Traditional Neighborhood District. Chapter 3,
Article A, Standard Regulations In All Districts, Chapter 3, Article B, Landscaping
Requirements. Chapter 3, Article G, Common Open Space and Site Amenity
Requirements. Chapter 3, Article H, Development Along Federal and State Highways.
Chapter 4, Specific Use Standards. Chapter 5, Article A, General Provisions
Administration. Chapter 5, Article B, Specific Provisions Administration. Chapter 6,
Article B, Subdivision Process. And Chapter 6, Article C, Subdivision Design and
Improvement Standards. The details of the proposed amendments to these sections of
the UDC are included in Section 7 of the staff report. There was no written testimony
submitted on this application. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed text
changes as stated in the staff report. I'm assuming that Commissioners have got a
chance to look at the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission
may have on the specific changes in that document.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2009
Page 32 of 33
Moe: Any questions, Commissioners?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Moe: I'm hearing none here.
Marshall: No questions. Comments. I have got a comment.
Moe: That's just as good. There will probably be some -- go right ahead, make your
comment.
Marshall: Again, I'm not a wordsmith. Obviously, I tend to use 15 words to say
something someone else can say in three, but -- as evidenced in the last motion. But
everything seemed to make sense to me. I never know all the ramifications of these,
but they look pretty good to me. That's my comment.
Moe: Thank you very much.
Newton-Huckabay: We never know the ramifications until they go wrong, isn't that how
life works?
Marshall: Yeah. Yeah. But you try to -- you try to foresee those things and that's I think
part of our job is to review that and try to foresee some ramifications to see if there is
anything we see as negative or might be a problem and, to be honest, I didn't see any.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close the public hearing for ZOA 09-003.
O'Brien: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on ZOA 09-003. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to the City Council of File number AZ -- excuse me -- file number
ZOA 09-003 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 3rd,
2009, with no modifications. End of motion.
O'Brien: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2009
Page 33 of 33
Marshall: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve ZOA 09-003. All those in favor say
aye. Opposed. That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Mr. Rohm.
Rohm: I move we adjourn.
Marshall: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: We are adjourned at 8:47 p.m.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:47 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
DAVID MOE - CHAI
ATTEST: U a
JAYCE
. HOLMAN, CITY CL
~z 11ZI~
DATE APPROVED
~~~,•~~~ OF ~RI~q'~,,~%
,. ti --.
E ~ Fo
- SEAL
' ,~~~
O `~'
•,~~~~,9 COUNTY . ~~~.~~``.