2004 08-19Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 19, 2004.
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Keith Borup.
Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay,
Commissioner David Zaremba, Commissioner Michael Rohm, and Commissioner David
Moe.
Others Present: Chris Gabbert, Tara Green, Anna Canning, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Craig
Hood, Bruce Freckleton, Steve Siddoway, Wendy Kirkpatrick, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
___X___ David Zaremba ___X___ David Moe
___X___ Wendy Newton-Huckabay ___X___ Michael Rohm
___X___Chairman Keith Borup
Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, we'd like to begin our meeting of -- our
regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. The
first item on the agenda is that of roll call attendance.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda:
Item 3: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of July 29, 2004 Planning and Zoning
Commission Special Meeting:
Borup: The next item is that of approval of minutes of July 29th. Do we have comment
or a motion?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would make one comment in that we are looking at the minutes of July 29th
and I do not recall that we have seen the minutes of July 15th. I just didn't want that to
slip by. And on the very first page of July 29th, the first sentence starts out the regularly
scheduled meeting and I believe that should be the special meeting. No other
comments.
Borup: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 2 of 82
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we approve the minutes of July 29th, 2004, as
amended.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 4: Discussion of Proposed Changes to the Public Hearing Procedures:
Borup: Okay. Our next item is that of discussion of proposed changes in the Public
Hearing procedures and, Director Canning, do you have some comments on that?
Canning: Yes. And I will try and keep it brief, given the length of the hearing you have
before you tonight. On Tuesday at the pre-Council hearing we took forward the
changes that the Commission and the Council had discussed about and -- was it
January or February? It was a while ago. But we did finally take those forward to the
City Council and they gave their nod, but they did want me to bring it all back before
you so that you would have an opportunity to comment on it. We are not expecting
comments tonight. They will discuss it at their regularly -- at their first meeting in
September, which is the 7th, I believe, and so if you can just provide either comments
by e-mail or call me up on the phone or however you want to provide comments, I
would be happy to take those forward to the City Council for you or you can come and
testify directly if you'd like, however you'd like to do that. I did just want to briefly go
over what you did receive tonight, because it may be a little confusing. In the memo
from me to Will and Tara, actually, there is just the Commission opening remarks, that
was just left over from last time. I just modified it to be consistent with the timing
provisions we talked about and, then, you will see that you have page one of eight for
amended hearing procedures and the blue comments are kind of older comments and
the red ones are kind of newer comments, is the only difference on those, and I forgot
that the clerk's office has a color printer. Mine just comes out black and white, so I
didn't realize there was going to be a difference and just to remind you that they are
adding a provision that these will apply to the Planning and Zoning Commission, as well
as the City Council, so where you see references to City Council, it should be read as
the Planning and Zoning Commission. Where you see references to the Mayor, it
should be interpreted as the chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The initial
applicant presentation limited to 15 minutes, other persons speaking in favor of an
application three minutes. If they have a spokesman that could be increased to ten
minutes. Applicant rebuttal five minutes. And the one thing we did add just with the
City Council the other day was that timing shall be done by the city clerk or designee,
so we wanted to give it a trial run tonight, given that it was a very long agenda, we
thought it might be appropriate, so Tara is prepared to do that timing tonight. The rest
of it you will see quite a few pages that don't have any changes. I -- for your ease, I
went back and typed in all of the Resolution 206, so you could see everything that was
there and everything that was being changed. Which brings us to the next item you
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 3 of 82
have got and that's Resolution 206. The next packet you have from the clerk's office is
listed as agenda item number five and that has the proposed resolution that the city
would adopt to amend that -- the resolution and you see what the City Council saw the
other night and that's two pages of changes. So, what happened was because it was
hard to reference with the rest of Resolution 206 which follows it, I went and typed the
whole thing in for you, so that it makes sense as a whole and that you would have the
whole document together. Does that make sense? I guess the basic thing is you don't
need to look at the thing that's marked as item five. If you look at the other one that has
the page one through eight of eight, that will be enough. Is that clear as mud? Okay. I
just --
Newton-Huckabay: The page one through eight of eight is this packet or --
Canning: The memo to Will. The thing that says Will Berg at the top, look at that one.
You don't really need to look at this one. It's all pretty much duplicate -- duplicated or
it's just legal mumbo jumbo. Sorry, Chris Gabbert. Commissioner Moe, did you have a
question or you were just following along with me?
Moe: I'm right here with you.
Canning: Okay. There you go. Okay. That was all I wanted to say, other than that
Tara is -- we would like to give it a test run with having Tara doing the timing tonight, if
that's okay with the Commission. And that's all I'll trouble you with tonight, unless you
have questions.
Borup: Any questions at this point, Commissioners? Thank you.
Item 5: Recommendation: VAC 04-005 Request for a Vacation of side yard
utility and irrigation easements on Lots 43-45, and Lots 88-91, Block 23,
Ashford Greens Subdivision No. 2 by Brighton Corporation – east of
North Black Cat Road and south of West Ustick Road:
Borup: Okay. The next item is a request for vacation. It's VAC 04-005, a request for a
vacation of the side yard utility and irrigation easements on Lots 43 to 45 and Lots 88 to
91, Block 23, Ashford Greens Subdivision No. 2 by Brighton Corporation. Again, this
would be -- it's not a Public Hearing, it would be a recommendation from the
Commission, but we would like to start with the staff report.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman and Craig, may I interrupt for a minute? I would just comment
for the record that I live in Ashford Greens Subdivision. I believe I'm in a different phase
than the one that's in discussion tonight. I have no financial interest in the outcome of
the decision tonight and I live far enough away from -- Ashford Greens is a very large
subdivision and I live far enough away from this that I would not even receive the
required homeowners notice, so my assumption is that if the legal counsel will make a
ruling, I don't believe I have any conflict of interest in discussing this one.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 4 of 82
Gabbert: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think the disclosure and if you feel
you can adequately proceed and take part in the proceedings that will cover you.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, the requested vacation affects seven lots in Ashford
Greens Subdivision No. 2. Like Commissioner Zaremba stated, there are several
phases of Ashford Greens. It's generally located south of Ustick Road and east of
Black Cat Road. Just briefly I will show you the site that -- the affected lots. What the
applicant is trying to accomplish is with the four platted lots, construct three buildings
with the three platted lots on the left-hand side of the plat that's before you, construct
two lots, so we need to vacate the easements that run along the side lot lines of those,
so the buildings will overlap those platted lot lines. With that I will stand for any
questions. This is just a recommendation, as the Chair stated, and it's a
recommendation to the City Council. Do you have any questions?
Rohm: Yes. My only question would be is are any of those easements occupied by any
utility currently?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Rohm, the applicant has provided notarized consent
from all of the public utilities, including the City of Meridian Public Works Department, to
vacate those easements. So, no one has facilities. We do have all of those. I just -- I
did make that a condition of approval just to double-check that anyone that may have --
there is new utilities, it seems like, all the time, so everyone that I had listed as a public
utility, they have submitted their consent. I will double-check and just make sure that
anyone with an interest has provided that and they don't have any facilities within those.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Anyone else? Maybe just for -- and I think this may be -- might be
something come up in the future, but, Bruce, at present construction aren't all utilities in
the front easement anyway and do we even have any utilities, other than an irrigation --
I mean there are no utility easements along side of the back property lines anymore,
are there?
Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, 99.9 percent of the subdivisions
going in our joint utility trench is in the front like you stated. Pressurized irrigation
typically will follow the back lot line around. Services from the different utilities, gas,
power, telephone, typically will run up those sides, so I have always kind of been under
the impression that that's why the side yard easements remain is so that they are
covered for service lines to the structures.
Borup: That part makes sense. Okay. Commissioners, do we have a
recommendation?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 5 of 82
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending
approval of VAC 04-005, request for a vacation of side yard utility and irrigation
easements on Lots 43 through 45 and Lots 88 through 91, Block 23, Ashford Greens
Subdivision No. 2 by Woodside Properties, LLC, east of North Black Cat Road and
south of West Ustick Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing
date of August 19th, 2004, received by the city clerk August 13, 2004.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6: Public Hearing: AZ 04-005 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.27
acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Packard Acres Subdivision No. 3 by
Packard Estates Development, LLC – east of North Locust Grove and
south of East Ustick Road:
Item 7: Public Hearing: PP 04-006 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 22
single-family residential building lots and 1 common lot on 5.273 acres in
a proposed R-8 zone for Packard Acres Subdivision No. 3 by Packard
Estates Development, LLC – east of North Locust Grove and south of
East Ustick Road:
Borup: Okay. Our next item is six and seven, Packard Estates Subdivision, have been
re-noticed due to a redesign of the plat, I believe. It's re-noticed to September 16th.
So, I don't know if anyone is here for Packard Estates, but we will not be hearing that
tonight and notification has gone out for the September 16th meeting. September 16th.
Item 8: Public Hearing: AZ 04-016 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 39 +/-
acres from RUT to proposed R-4 and L-O zones for proposed Strada
Bellissima Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. – northwest corner
of
West Victory Road and South Highway 69 (Meridian/Kuna Highway):
Item 9: Public Hearing: PP 04-022 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 70
residential and 12 office building lots and 10 other lots on 39 +/- acres in a
proposed R-4 and L-O zones for proposed Strada Bellissima
Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. – northwest corner of West
Victory Road and South Highway 69 (Meridian/Kuna Highway):
Item 10: Public Hearing: CUP 04-024 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for single-family dwellings with attached garage
and office buildings in a proposed R-4 and L-O zones for proposed Strada
Bellissima Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. – northwest corner
of West Victory Road and South Highway 69 (Meridian/Kuna Highway):
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 6 of 82
Borup: So, our next item is AZ 04-016, request for annexation and zoning of 39 plus or
minus acres from RUT to a proposed R-4 and L-O zones for proposed Strada
Bellissima Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers. And accompanying that is Public
Hearing PP 04-022, request for preliminary plat approval of 70 residential and 12 office
lots. And Public Hearing CUP 04-024, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
planned development for single-family dwellings, attached garage, and office buildings
on proposed R-4 and L-O zones. We'd like to open all three of these public hearings at
this time and start with the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is proposed
Strada Bellissima Subdivision. It is located at the intersection of Meridian Road and
Victory Road. Surrounding land uses include -- the yellow parcel to the north is
annexed. It's currently vacant. It belongs to the Valley Shepherd Church of the
Nazarene as a future site for their church campus. Wrapping around the northeast -- or
northwest corner and along the west side is Bear Creek Subdivision. To the west most
of this area is Victory Greens Nursery. And this southern area is mainly agricultural
vacant and rural residential properties. There is a large out parcel in the center of the
project here and a smaller out parcel here and the proposal tonight wraps around those.
The proposal is for -- I'm going to skip through these for a second. I'm going to go to
the plat. This proposal is for 70 residential building lots in this area and, then, 12 office
lots right along the frontage of Meridian Road. They do have ten common lots within
the subdivision as well. The minimum lot size in the -- on the plat is just over 9,500
square feet. Minimum for the R-4 zone, which they are requesting, is 8,000, so they are
well above that, and the average lot size is closer to 11,000 square feet. If I back up to
the Comprehensive Plan, you will see -- the project is in this area right here. You will
see that it is in this light green color, which is low density residential, the same as Bear
Creek and it is similar in density to the Bear Creek Subdivision project. You will also
notice that the area along Meridian Road here is also shown as low density residential,
where the office lots are proposed. They are proposed there as a 20 percent use
exception. This amount of area on the land represents just about 19 percent of the
property and I will discuss that more in just a second. Well, I will discuss it right now. If
you go to the staff report on -- that begins -- finding number E, it begins on the bottom
of page three, most of the discussion is on page -- top of page four. One of the
questions tonight is how the Commission feels about the office use along Meridian
Road. Meridian Road had received quite a bit of discussion during the Comp Plan
hearing as to whether it should go commercial or not. It was decided that it would stay
residential, but the planned development ordinance does allow the applicant to request
the use exceptions, as they have done. They see that this will provide a buffer along
Meridian Road for -- from the residences from the traffic noise that would be along there
and we are looking for some direction tonight from the Commission as to the
appropriateness of the requested use exception. The next one I would point out is item
number J on page five. The applicant is proposing an access at the northeast corner of
the project out onto Meridian Road, which is State Highway 69. It's regulated by the --
by ITD, the Idaho Transportation Department, and, typically, along these state highways
they only allow access at the mile intersections and, then, at the half mile. If we go
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 7 of 82
back -- this square here represents one mile. Again, this is the project. The proposed
access is right here at the quarter mile. The half-mile would be up here at the north
side of the church property. The applicant is working with the church to try and gain
access along this site at the quarter mile location and they would use it as a joint
access at that point. I will have Dave McKinnon, the applicant; address more about
their discussions with ITD. I did note in my staff report that I received a couple of
conflicting letters from ITD, one stating that they are in discussions about the proposed
access point and that it would require a variance and I believe the applicant is in that
process with ITD right now. The second letter stated that all access would be off of
Victory Road and appeared to be a mistake. So, I have contacted ITD, we played
phone tag a few times, the people that I needed to talk to left. I did get a hold of one
staff person who said they thought that it was likely to go through, but that's just one
verbal from staff and I don't have anything in writing. But the main access issue for this
subdivision is whether or not they would be granted the access out onto State Highway
69 in this location right here. Next I will just go through the special considerations
briefly. First of all, on page six, the ones dealing with the annexation, the first three all
have to do with the legal descriptions, the zones. The applicant is requesting two
zones, L-O for the office, R-4 for the residential. We had only received one legal
description for the entire property and ask them to divide it in two. We did receive those
yesterday and they are being reviewed by Public Works for closure and accuracy. So,
the extent of the original legal description was just the boundary and we needed the
annexation legals to include the center-line of the properties, which I believe they have
now done. And, then, had questions with the acreage of the project, as -- when the
project was introduced tonight it was introduced as 39 acres, plus or minus. That is
how it was applied for on the application. The application said 39. The letter stated
31.39. There were other discrepancies, I don't need to read them all, but we asked the
applicant to clarify exactly what the acreage is. The applicant did submit a response
letter, dated August 18th, yesterday, and they do state the actual acreage as 33.42
acres. 6.03 is limited office and 27.39 is R-4. Number four, item number four on page
six, under special considerations, deals with the use exception question that we pose to
the Commission tonight. Moving on to page seven. The preliminary plat had six
special considerations. The first being a stub street. We know that this parcel will be
developed at some point and I believe in the applicant's response they did state that
they have recently acquired the out parcels and will be developing them, so we would
like to see this parcel have more interconnectivity and have requested that either
Giovanni Street or Da Vinci Street stub to the large out parcel on the south. Number
two deals with right of way dedication along Victory Road and along Meridian Road, for
that matter. We wanted to make sure that all necessary rights of way were being
dedicated. There was -- if I can -- yeah. There is a small piece -- a small piece of land
that juts out to the center-line in this location on the plat that we wanted to make sure
was being dedicated as right of way. The highway district is not requiring any additional
right of way beyond the prescriptive easement that they currently have and we just
wanted to make sure that that easement would be actually dedicated right of way
through this process. We also wanted to make sure that the correct right of way was
dedicated at this access point and along this bend, the three points where the project
touches Victory Road. Item number three deals with open space. The subdivision
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 8 of 82
ordinance -- or the landscape ordinance requires five percent open space for the
project. Adding up all the common lots together, I came up with about three percent
open space. They also are proposing to have detached sidewalks with street trees,
which you can see in this landscape plan, the street trees are along every street in the
subdivision. They do wish to count that area between the street and the sidewalk as
open space and with that the applicant has stated in their letter that they have 5.1
percent open space. Item number four deals with Apea Street, which is this street on
the southwest end. The landscape plan actually shows a -- what we call a snoopy
down on the end. The plat -- well, it looks like -- the actual plat shows a half turnaround
and we -- in the discussions with fire and Sanitary Services, the trash company, they
have real concerns about being able to turn around with the half street construction.
We have asked that they construct a full street and they are in agreement to do so.
Item number five deals with landscaping. There was a -- I don't need to go through
everything. There was some missing landscape easements and there was missing
landscaping shown on some of the common lots on the landscape plan. If I flip to that,
you can see common lots here and here. This one is also -- the small one is a common
lot and this one down here is a common lot and should also be landscaped by the
developer. We have asked that they revise the landscape plan accordingly and also
they need to add a few extra trees out along Meridian Road. There is, actually, several
changes to the landscape plan required. They are detailed in condition number six on
page nine and I won't go through all of them. The last special consideration on the plat
is the acreage. As mentioned, this was in question and when the acreage changed that
also changes the density calculations and the open space. So, I wanted to make sure
that we had accurate calculations for the record for both density and open space and
the applicant I believe has those as well. Moving to the Conditional Use Permit, the
special considerations are on page 13. The first item deals with the pathway. If you
look at the Comprehensive Plan, you can see a multi-use pathway shown along the
Ridenbaugh Canal in this location. Again, the project sits right here. What we have
determined is that it makes the most sense, rather than being right up against a canal,
is that it be along the north side of Victory Road or this south end of this project, so that
people can come from the pathway that's being constructed in Bear Creek, come
across, stay on the north side of the road and get to the intersection, which will be
signalized in the future. It's unlikely that the pathway would ever, actually, be able to
cross the state highway just down from the intersection. And they are willing to
accommodate that pathway. Item number two deals with the amenities. I wanted to get
those clarified. The first item deals with a micro-path and bus stop. They are proposing
a micro-path from the residences in this location and a bus stop that could be located
internally in the office area in the future. It stated that it was unclear -- their proposed
amenity was a bus stop and I wasn't sure whether they were building a bus stop or
providing a specific location for one or road trusting for one and I believe the applicant
is just providing a location and can address that tonight. The open space plaza, the
letter talked about a large vegetated open space plaza, which I believe are two
triangular areas, one on the south end of these offices and one on the north. They are
about 2,100 square feet each and would have -- they are depicted with two trees and a
picnic table. There is also -- the one larger open space is located internally with a
proposed tot lot and the applicant has provided an illustration of the type of play
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 9 of 82
structure that they intend to build in your packets or in his response that came
yesterday. The last amenity is the proposed detached sidewalks with the street trees
and we'd just ask them to verify that this plan is -- accurately depicts the general
location and the number of trees that they intend to plant. Item number three deals with
the minimum frontage. The minimum frontage for the R-4 zone is 80 feet. The
application requests that to be reduced to 74. In my review I found -- or 75. I'm sorry.
Seventy-five feet. In my review I found that at least one of the lots went down as far as
65 feet. I believe the applicant would like to modify his request to be a 64-foot minimum
frontage. The street buffers -- just wanted to clarify as we did with Leeshire, that the
buffer along Meridian Road and Victory should be built in its entirety when the
subdivision is initiated and the buffer should not wait and be built lot by lot. The buffer
between land uses I felt probably could be, because they are so close to the pads in
places that we wanted them to have that flexibility. But it should be built with the
parking lot improvements, because a lot of it is adjacent to the parking lot and when this
goes in, the buffer between land uses should also go in. Okay. Almost done. Item
number five is an increased fence height. The original application asked for an
increased fence height to eight feet around this out parcel. We questioned that and I
think the applicant is in agreement that they no longer need that condition. So, the
condition of approval as stated states that it will be a six-foot fence on the perimeter
there. The last item is the office layout. Most of the projects we reviewed lately are just
conceptual approval, so we don't get into the details of the site plan. This one,
however, is a detailed CUP request. There are several instances -- areas where we
need modifications to comply with the landscape ordinance regarding planters at the
end of rows of parking. We have some areas where trash enclosures interfere with
parking and some access issues that need to be worked out with staff. So, the staff
request tonight is to go ahead, hold the hearing, take public testimony, have discussion
on some of these items and, then, to continue this hearing to give the applicant time to
change the plat, the landscape plan, and site plan for the Conditional Use Permit in
compliance with the staff report and any other direction that comes from the
Commission tonight and move this to the next available hearing, so that we can clean
up these items before it goes on to City Council. I believe the applicant is in agreement
with that. So, I will stand for any questions.
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners?
Zaremba: I do have one. Confirm for me, if you would. The western boundary of this
property abuts Bear Creek Subdivision; is that correct?
Siddoway: That's correct.
Zaremba: There is no gap between them. If you remember, refresh my memory on
what Bear Creek did with the pathway on their side. Weren't they talking about running
it along Victory Road, instead of along Ridenbaugh and -- I forget how that came out.
Siddoway: Okay. What it does, right now the parks department has an easement along
the south side of the Ridenbaugh in this location here. It stubs to Victory Road and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 10 of 82
dead ends at this point. I went out to the site with the parks director to figure out where
it should be. There is a narrow bridge where the Ridenbaugh crosses right here and
people would be forced to walk across a narrow bridge or cross. Those are the only
two options if it goes to the -- if it stays along the Ridenbaugh, they would cross Victory
Road, if it stays on the north side of Victory Road they'd walk across the bridge, which
does have a shoulder, but no specific sidewalk. So, what we are trying to do -- and the
parks director is in conversations with the legal department on how to approach this, is
they intend to approach the Bear Creek developer or homeowners association,
whoever has control, and try and move the easement in this location to the north side of
the Ridenbaugh. It would still be in that exact same area, just switch sides of the canal.
Then, once they reach Victory Road, they would not have to cross the bridge, they
would just get on the sidewalk and continue on to get to the corner.
Zaremba: I remember some discussion about the bridge. Didn't we require Bear Creek
to widen the bridge or was that not --
Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Zaremba, in the
month of June when I was -- when I was off, I know plans came in and there was
discussions regarding a separate pedestrian bridge that was north of the structure on
Victory Road. I have got some plans sitting on the corner of my desk for a separate
bridge that crossed at that location. So, I don't know where the whole thing is, but I
know that there was the discussion for that, to keep the path on the southwest side and
do a separate crossing.
Zaremba: Actually, the net result, though, is that whichever way that decision goes,
whether it's on the south side with the bridge or on the north side, it will end up
accessing the property we are talking about tonight in exactly the same spot.
Siddoway: That's correct.
Zaremba: So, it isn't a choice of where this property needs to access it.
Siddoway: And the other thing that made us try to get the north side is just looking
longer term and where it continues to go, as it moves into the western half of this
square mile, there is no room for the pathway on the south side through here and would
have to be located on the north side. So, it wouldn't be that difficult to cross from south
to north on Stoddard at this point, but -- so either way it will work.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. So, the other piece of the question is -- and maybe I
should be asking the applicant. Are they proposing to complete the pathway across the
front -- the Victory Road part of the out parcel or are they only going to do their two little
connecting parts?
Siddoway: The proposal tonight is just for the three little sections that actually touch,
but, as I stated earlier, they have recently acquired -- I'll let the applicant talk about this.
They are acquiring the out parcels, at which time they would do those as well.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 11 of 82
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: Any other questions? Mr. McKinnon, you have got some comments?
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Dave McKinnon,
735 South Crosstimber. Steve did a pretty good job of detailing all the stuff that went
wrong with this one. There is some history that goes along with this piece of property,
just to let you know. If you look at this piece of property just the way it's designed right
now, it's a really odd shaped piece of property with a bunch of really strange constraints
to it, the first of which is having to deal with State Highway 69 and Idaho Transportation
District's policies with limited access. We currently have three unrestricted accesses to
State Highway 69 on State Highway 69's frontage right now. Idaho Transportation
Department does not want to recognize any of those and so we began negotiations
immediately with ITD to start working out how we could get access for this site, utilizing
one of the three unrestricted accesses that we had, as Steve pointed out. ITD only
wants to give accesses at the half mile and at the mile intersections on this type four
roadway. Steve, if you could go to the Comp Plan map. You can see that right now the
church property has the half-mile intersection. In our first meeting with ITD we
discussed what would happen if the church were to come in and develop and ITD said if
the church were to come in and develop right now, they would be required to put in the
access at the half miles and, then, construct a frontage road all the way across the front
of their property to give access to the property to the south, the piece of property we are
talking about tonight. He said so you want a frontage road to go all the way down and
there will be no access to the property to the north. The whole idea of putting the
access at the half mile is to provide a frontage road system to connect the subdivision
with the frontage road in front of the highway. No possibility to go north. The only
possibility is to go south. In addition to that, there is nothing for them to align up with on
the east side of the road. So, ITD is -- in talking with ITD, they said if the church would
be agreeable, they'd look at putting the access at the quarter mile. That way no one
would have to build a frontage road across their property to access someone else's
property and because there would be no stub street to the north, everybody that
accesses this would either go to the church or to the subdivision to the south and ITD
said that would be appropriate. So, we set up another meeting with ITD and
representatives of the church and we went down and met with ITD again, explained the
situation to ITD and the church and everybody said that looks like something that can
work. ITD buffered all their comments by saying; obviously, we are only a
representative of District Three. District Three can't make this decision; the decision is
made by the headquarters. And so we have got an application into ITD now. We
received a letter from ITD that you have all received in your packet, one of a couple
letters I think you received from ITD in your packet. The first letter states that they are
in general agreement with this and that is something that they think would work. The
second letter you have got is addressed to Joe Gunther of Ada County planning and
zoning that went to Steve Siddoway saying thanks for not applying for this access.
And, then, I received another letter from Chris Canfield thanking me for our application
and asking for an additional bit of information. We still are requesting this access. The
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 12 of 82
letter you received from ITD saying that there is no access being requested from 69 is
inaccurate. The letters are dated the same day and the one saying thanks for not
applying and thanks for applying. So, the left hand is not knowing what the right hand is
doing with that site. I have had discussions with the traffic engineer -- the traffic
engineer that wrote both letters and they understand that we are, indeed, asking for that
access point at this time. We received permission from the church to request this
access point from ITD. That was a request from ITD that we provide written
documentation that there would be an agreement in place for both to use this site. So,
that's the reason why we came up with the access point at this location. Otherwise,
without any access onto State Highway 69 we would be left with only an access off of
the windy part of Victory. Now, Steve, if you can go back to the previous photo. Here
we go. In meeting with the Ada County Highway District we discussed where we could
receive access to this site, excluding this center parcel. They said we could not have
any access on this parcel of ground, based on grade. You can see that there is some
grade issues coming down off the road and because of the tightness of the corner. In
addition to that, they said this access point doesn't meet policy, nor do we have
anything closer, because this would not give the vision that would be needed for people
coming off 69 to make that corner. They limited us to this access point at this location.
With this access point and this access point, meaning everything along Victory and
along State Highway 69, would have to have a large amount of traffic going across that
and we determined at that time that it would not be appropriate to put large residential
backyards up against the highway, we felt that a buffer would be appropriate, thus, we
have the office, but I'll get to that in moment. Steve mentioned a couple of out parcels.
This out parcel Steve mentioned we had originally requested an eight-foot fence to go
around that and there is a reason for that. This is a singlewide mobile home with an
outbuilding and over the last summer -- not this summer, but the summer previous, the
owner of the property leased it to a gentleman who had seven hogs. Not little potbelly
pigs, but actually seven hogs, and he had them being raised on what is approximately a
third acre parcel of ground with a single wide. We felt that would not be appropriate
with a neighborhood that would be built similar in style to Bear Creek and we asked that
we could have a taller fence. Since that time this piece of property has changed hands
and the owner of this piece of property would actually like to take this single wide
mobile home out of this site and he'd like to actually work with us to do something with
this piece of property and there is ongoing negotiations with this piece of property. The
other large out parcel building -- out parcel that Steve mentioned and the request for a
stub street into this property, we agree that that should be appropriate. The developer
has now acquired this piece of property to be a part of the whole and we do need to do
some redesign of this area to make the streets flow into here in a manner that would be
appropriate. Steve has requested that we be continued tonight and we agree with that
continuation, because we realize there are some things that we need to take care of
with the design of the subdivision, as well as the items Steve mentioned within the office
area. This third piece of property -- if you can go back, Steve, just to the Comp Plan
one more time. You can see this is a third piece of property that's actually the Hepper
piece, the Nelson piece, what used to be the Jim Fehrman piece and the Joan Atkins
piece. For those of you that were on the Commission when Bear Creek was proposed,
the Joan Atkins piece of property right here -- there is only one house located where the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 13 of 82
road is at right now. It's located up on a knoll. There is, actually, a driveway that leads
from that precarious turn right there all the way back to her property. The rest of it is in
agricultural use. She fought against Bear Creek and requested that Bear Creek not be
approved. It was approved, things are happening around her and she realized that she
has a very small skinny piece of property and that became something that was
interested -- that the seller Joan Atkins and the developer were interested to work
together on that. The developer Evans Construction Management has contracted that
and actually has closed on this piece of property. So, we had a large piece of property
with a very narrow piece that extended to this site. We felt that one access point on
Victory Road would not be appropriate and there would have to be secondary access.
The most appropriate location was on ITD's access on 69 and ITD agreed with that as
well and so did ACHD, they both felt it would be appropriate to have a secondary out of
this project. There is a third access for this site and it's the stub street out of Bear
Creek. It was proposed as Stagerman Road and you can see that on the application, if
you can move forward, Steve, back to the application. Steve, can you move that
forward to the next slide? In the original application that you received there was a letter
from Mr. and Mrs. Hepper agreeing that this road could be constructed its full width and
now that the developer has acquired this piece of property as well that road will be
constructed to the full width. The intention at all times was to construct this road to the
full width. There was some design issues originally, because originally we decided that
if we could not build it the full width we wouldn't be able to put in a turnaround, so there
was a small snoopy included there and we revised that now to show a full cul-de-sac
and that was just some design issues, rather than revise the topo and the landscape
plan. A turnaround is a turnaround and we have actually modified it to be a turnaround
with the island in the center. Steve, if you can move forward a couple more slides.
There we go. That gives a better idea of the landscaping. In order to match the appeal
of Bear Creek and to match the large size lots that we have in here, we felt that it would
be appropriate to do detached sidewalks with street trees. Originally, the idea was not
to have those, but after visiting several different developments within Meridian that have
the detached sidewalks, the developer agreed that it would be more appropriate to have
detached sidewalks, it gives a more pleasant feel to the subdivision, especially with the
street trees, it adds quite a bit to a subdivision. The Idea was not to overload the area.
We were looking to match similar densities to Bear Creek. This subdivision, with the
modified -- well, with the now corrected land dimensions is -- actually comes in about
two-tenths of a dwelling unit per acre less than what Bear Creek is, just for this area in
Bear Creek. Bear Creek overall has a much higher density than this. As you
remember, Bear Creek had smaller lots on the north, with larger lots on the south. We
have matched the larger lots on the south, as Commissioner Zaremba pointed out. We
do abut Bear Creek in this location along the western property line. Bear Creek has
constructed a wrought iron fence along this fence and as you saw in the topography
map, there is some -- some I guess sloped moving from the top to the bottom here, so
we envision some larger homes with some daylight basements at this site. I have got --
this area right here, there is some discussion about the bridge crossing and where the
pathway would be. Currently Bear Creek has constructed a sidewalk that ends right
where the laser is at. It, actually, doesn't extend all the way to their eastern property
line. We would, actually, be taking from our property line, building that -- that ten foot
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 14 of 82
wide asphalt path through here. Again, the Hepper piece of property has been acquired
by the developer. We would extend that ten-foot wide pathway to here, take it to this
point. This developer -- or the owner of this piece of property has not agreed yet to how
to develop this piece, but ACHD, in meeting with them during tech review, they said that
they would, if the developer wouldn't, go in there and complete that on ACHD's dime, if
the developer would not do that. And, then, it would be continued all the way through.
So, the multi-use pathway would go all along Victory without ever having to cross –
zigzag three times across Victory before it crosses State Highway 69. So, that was
something that we wanted to work with the city on that. All right. Now, Steve, if you can
move forward to a couple slides. There we go. Right there. When Chairman Borup
announced the hearing tonight he kind of went into the name of the subdivision and
stumbled a little bit on the name. The name is, actually, Strada Bellissima, which is
Italian for the Beautiful Street and in accordance with the Italian theme, the developer
would like the site to be developed with a Tuscan style for those office uses. We realize
that there is a long lengths, it's about 1,300 feet of office buildings that would be along
this area, and rather than have them all look similar to office buildings, we felt that a
Tuscan theme would be appropriate. As with all conditional use permits for a detailed
Conditional Use Permit, there is a requirement for elevations to be submitted with the
style and design, cultured stone, stucco, tiled roofs, those are the types of buildings that
we would see within this development. Rather than having them all arranged linearly. If
you can go back to the plat again, Steve? You can see that we have actually tried to
jog back and forth. Hey, Steve? Thank you. Rather just have a whole line of every
single one of them running up and down in a linear arrangement, we tried to jog those
back and forth to give some break in between the buildings. Obviously, this is a state
highway, it's got traffic on it, it is noisy. The highway department has a policy manual for
environmental guidelines and one of their sections in that is 1305, which deals with
noise issues. In that they recommend that you don't put residential and other noise
sensitive uses immediately adjacent to it, if there is any possibility for buffering, they
have requested buffering for that. The buildings give distance, as well as bulk in front of
that to buffer the noise from State Highway 69. As opposed to what would be
considered a strip development, we are not dealing with multiple access points and
monolithic buildings, we are dealing with many different individual buildings without, you
know, multiple tenants like you see in a strip development. It is a strip of land, as Steve
pointed out in this staff report, but it differs greatly from what you would see for a
standard strip development, in that these are all separate buildings and not monolithic,
they actually have some design to it, its a tilt up building with an overhang awning that
has all the different names of people that are in the building on it, these are actually
individual office buildings. I wanted to point that out. You received my letter. My letter
was basically four pages in responding to all 18 pages of Steve's report. The reason
why it's only four pages long is because we basically agree with all the comments that
Steve made. There are some changes that need to be -- that need to take place and
we are happy to make those. We are sorry about the confusion with the size of the
subdivision. We asked our surveyors to go out there, they did one survey of just Nelson
property, then, the Adkins property was added to that and when the Adkins property
was added to that, Joan Atkins requested that her piece of property not be included in
the annexation, so our surveyors did that and so we came up with another number for
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 15 of 82
that. And, then, I told them that that's not the possibility, we can't just annex a part of
someone's property, we have to annex the whole thing, so they had to go out and do
another one. They have submitted one that matches now and so they are checking that
and everything does work out. There is some revisions to the size and, obviously, it
changes the calculations. It's approximately 18.9 percent that's in office use right now.
As far as the open space, we are dealing with a large lot subdivision. We have got a
great need for that. Rather than having drainage swales as open space, the
groundwater is low enough in this area and it goes up on a knoll, that we can actually
have subsurface drainage, so there wasn't a need for a whole lot of drainage lots that,
as you well know, typically end up with just water in them and they are not recreational
use because of the depression. We have added a tot lot for this. There is a lot of
landscaping throughout this. We have added the bus and Steve clarified for us on the
bus stop issue, that there is no bus service in Meridian right now. We'd like to work with
that if there is some, so we have set aside an area for that, but rather than constructing
a bus stop for where there is no bus stop, we'd ask that that not be a requirement. That
gives you an overview of what we have done. We agree with most of the staff
comments. We'd love to hear your comments concerning the office uses. We believe
that the office buildings themselves, the architect did a great job with the rendering.
Those are something that would be a value to the City of Meridian. And ask if you have
any questions at this time.
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners?
Zaremba: Actually, I have a question or a suggestion on what isn't shown yet.
McKinnon: Okay.
Zaremba: If the out parcels have been acquired and it sounds like you were already
agreeable to continue this until some of the current issues were done, my question is if
it's continued for awhile, are the out parcels likely to be included in what you bring
back?
McKinnon: Commissioner Zaremba, Members of the Commission, the one out parcel,
the Hepper parcel, the big lot in the middle, that has been acquired and rather than
have to come back for a renotice for annexation to change the annexation request, we
can show you a design for this, but we will come back in with a separate annexation
request for this. However, at the next meeting -- we have already started the design of
this, obviously, and we can have it ready to go by next week, showing how this is going
to be redesigned and how the two subdivisions would work together. But at this point
we are only asking for the annexation of this site. This piece of property down here, the
owner of this piece of property is the owner of Victory Greens and he just acquired this
piece of property recently and he's not sure exactly what he wants to do with that. My
last discussion I had with him was a couple of days ago when he said he wanted to
relocate the Ridenbaugh Canal to acquire more right of way and to change the location
of Victory. So, there is still a lot of discussion going on with Mr. Mussell as to what he
really wants to do with that piece of property. So, I can't say as to what we are going to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 16 of 82
do to design for this. But Tim has requested that we try to work with him and we will try
to work with him, but I can't make any promises that it's going to work right now,
because he's got some ideas that he'd like to see done with that piece of property and
with Victory Road and right now it doesn't fit into our plans, but we'd like to work with
him, but I can't make any promise for that out parcel. But we can provide that. We will
come back in for an annexation for this piece, but overall you will be able to see how it
will work.
Zaremba: Actually, the comment -- or the suggestion I was going to make on that -- not
to do the engineering for you and it may not even be that good of an idea, but it looks
like because of the way Victory Road is such a problem, that it might make sense, once
you have control of that, to actually connect this across to that piece, so that you have a
continuous road there and instead of putting the entrance here, move it more to the
center of the straightaway. Just a comment. You don't even need to agree or disagree,
but I'm just making that suggestion.
Borup: I was thinking the same thing.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, to be quite honest with you,
that was what the idea was, actually, to bring this across. The one issue that we are
running into a little bit in design right now is that this does still curve. If we came
straight across we wouldn't have the depth for the lots that we are looking for, so we'd
probably have to bring that up a little bit and, then, back down to connect the two
together and we are looking --
Zaremba: That would still leave you with a much shorter cul-de-sac over here --
McKinnon: Absolutely.
Zaremba: -- Even if you didn't connect it at the end.
McKinnon: Absolutely. So, that is the idea and that's where we are going with that right
now. We are playing with the idea of a stub street through here and here right now as
to how that's going to play out for the subdivision design. If this road came in here,
we'd end up with some pie shaped lots that will have even more reduced frontage than
the 64 feet. They will still have the large size, but that's the idea is to run that across
and we appreciate that suggestion. As for the moving of the access, that's something
we could discuss, but for right now we are looking at it at this location, because it also
provides access to the office lots and if we pull it further away from that, that means that
there is going to be more of a need for the people to turn in and around to get to that.
Borup: If you'd tie that roadway across, does the stub street even -- does the stub
street really even serve any purpose? You had mentioned that you had a little bit of a
problem tying that in. I'm wondering if it's even necessary, if that street ties across.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 17 of 82
McKinnon: I can give you an idea of a couple of the things we have played with. Right
now we --
Newton-Huckabay: Do we solve that at this hearing?
Borup: Well, the hearing is continued for a redesign and add the stub street. The stub
is what's supposed to be added for their --
McKinnon: The way we currently have it right now, Mr. Chairman, is just to come
across and, then, there may be a separate road up here that would come down.
Borup: Okay.
McKinnon: And, then, maybe a stub street that could be here, but if we can fit the road
here to come down and the road across with a development in the middle that works for
that --
Borup: How much -- we need to decide on a date to continue it to. How much time are
you looking for?
McKinnon: Commissioners -- Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we can have
this back to the city before the end of next week with the corrections. This isn't
something that we have just -- you know we have acquired that piece of property just
recently, but, you know, we have started design work on that already. It wasn't
something we decided to wait on until we heard from you. We knew that was going to
work for the residential portion here and so we started the design of that already. So,
we can have that back to you, but this portion really isn't a part of this overall, but they
do have to work together and we would like you to see that prior to moving this forward.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Mr. Siddoway.
Siddoway: I just also want to point out that we should also put up for any additional
public testimony tonight.
Borup: Yes. We are still planning on that. Okay. Anything else -- well, I mean not
anything else. You were done. So, we are doing the Commission questions is what we
are doing. So, anything else from any of the Commissioners?
Moe: Well, I guess I would ask one question. If, in fact, we are not in favor of the office,
did you have a secondary plan of what you're going to do with that property?
McKinnon: Commissioner Moe, Members of the Commission, the Comprehensive Plan
shows as residential. If we can't do something of a commercial nature, that, obviously,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 18 of 82
we revert back to residential. I'd point out that the reason for this is not a change to the
Comp Plan, but, rather, it's a request as part of the planned development.
Moe: I understand.
Borup: Doesn't this also fit in with the proposed ordinance? Is that -- that's coming to
City Council -- I'm not sure where it's at on their agenda.
McKinnon: To be able to request office use within the --
Borup: On the section line roads.
McKinnon: Uh-huh.
Borup: Where it would be automatic -- I mean not automatic, but if it's L-O it wouldn't
require a conditional use. That -- we had passed that here and sent that on to City
Council with recommendations. So, that complies with what I'm saying.
Zaremba: Not that we are totally into discuss it yet, but I can -- if the project were to
move forward with other things being fixed, the concept of having L-O in that area,
actually, makes sense to me. Even since the Comprehensive Plan -- I mean it's okay
under the 20 percent use exception, even in the ordinance, but even in the two years
since the Comprehensive Plan was approved in the year or two before that, but it was
in discussion, so the change in traffic needs in even the three or four years since the
Comprehensive Plan was becoming etched in stone, I think it helps if people visualize
South Meridian Road by a few years from now being the equivalent of North Eagle
Road. As Kuna grows and other things happen even in Meridian in that end, Meridian
Road is going to be a pretty heavy thoroughfare and on that basis alone I would support
my own opinion having something other than residential backing up to Meridian Road.
That's just one person's opinion.
Borup: Does that conclude Commissioners? Questions? Okay. Thank you, Mr.
McKinnon.
McKinnon: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? I guess the question from
the Commission, then, seeing none, is a date to continue it to. We have got the next
meeting September 7th. There is actually seven projects.
Zaremba: September 2nd you're talking about?
Borup: 2nd. Yes. It would seem to me that some of these things are going to require
redrawing the plat and that staff would need it ten days before the next hearing even for
that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 19 of 82
Siddoway: Yes, please.
Zaremba: So, I think we are farther away than the meeting in September.
McKinnon: I think the second meeting in September would be appropriate as well.
Give us a chance to --
Borup: That's probably even better. But we are -- that will fill it up, so --
McKinnon: I promise not to talk so much next hearing.
Borup: We will remember that.
Zaremba: September has five Thursdays. Are we thinking of having a fifth Thursday
meeting?
Borup: Right now we have four projects on the 16th. We have a number of items, but
four projects.
Rohm: Let's try for the 16th.
Moe: I agree.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue the public hearings AZ 04-016, PP
04-022, and CUP 04-024 until our regularly scheduled meeting of September 16th.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 11: Public Hearing: RZ 04-010 Request for a Rezone of .68 acre from R-4 to
an O-T zone for Mittleider Rezone by Leon Smith – 125 West Cherry
Lane and 1645 West 1st
Street:
Borup: The next item is Public Hearing RZ 04-010, a request for a rezone of .68 acres
from R-4 to OT zone for the Mettleider rezone by Leon Smith at 125 West Cherry Lane.
We'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The subject site is located
on the south side of Cherry Lane, approximately 300 feet west of Meridian Road,
between West 1st Street and West 2nd Street. The applicant has requested a rezone
for 0.68 acres from the current R-4 zoning to the Old Town, OT zoning designation.
The subject property includes four original lots of record in Wilson Addition Subdivision,
which was recorded in 1948. The map before you today shows a current zoning and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 20 of 82
that each one of those lots shown there actually contain two platted lots of record. To
the north of the subject site is the horse pasture -- current horse pasture, not annexed
in the city, zoned RUT in Ada County. To the south are single-family homes in the
Wilson Addition Subdivision, zoned R-4. To the east are also single-family homes and
to the west is the LDS church, zone R-4. There are two homes currently on this site.
The home on the west currently takes access and has an address to Cherry Lane. The
one on the east has access to West 1st Street and takes access from that road. With
the rezone application, the applicant has provided a conceptual site plan and staff
always encourages with just straight rezones or annexation applications that don't have
development applications concurrent, so we can kind of get a feel for what they are
looking at doing and the city kind of looks at potential for that property. Before you is
the conceptual site plan that the applicant submitted. It does show two offices -- dentist
office or medical clinic type uses, with parking for each one of those uses. There is a
direct access shown to Cherry Lane, as well as access to West 1st and West 2nd
Street. ACHD did submit a staff report that states that the depicted access point to
Cherry Lane does not meet their policy for location, because access does not meet
ACHD's policy and the city also has policies that state they should restrict access points
to arterials and collectors. Staff is recommending that no access to this parcel be
granted when these developments or a single building go in on this property. The
existing single family home that is currently on the left side of this site plan, of course,
can remain, that driveway can remain until such time as it redevelops. Another basis
for this is they do have sufficient access and can make -- as far as staff is concerned,
make the turning radiuses for the fire department and the availability for parking to work
with just the access to 1st and 2nd Street. One other thing I'd like to touch on and,
then, I will stand for any questions and let the applicant give their proposal, but Meridian
City Code does require a 25-foot wide landscape buffer on Cherry Lane on arterials and
a ten foot wide landscape buffer on 1st and 2nd Street or local streets, and a 20-foot
wide landscape buffer along the south property line of this one, because it would be an
office-clinic type use adjacent to residential uses. So, I did point that out in the staff
report for the applicant's benefit and we can possibly look at some form of alternative
compliance for that that is going to be 45 feet north to south and landscaping. The site
is only about 130 feet deep -- maybe not even that. I don't recall off the top of my head.
But it's a substantial portion of the site. Again, that's not being required with this
application, just a heads up for the applicant. Staff is recommending approval of the
subject rezone request to OT, with the conditions outlined in the report, which include
requiring the developer enter into a development agreement, which would restrict retail
and commercial uses, allowing professional offices, medical clinics, those type of uses,
in the OT, and that would also restrict access to Cherry Lane in the future. As I just
mentioned, the applicant did submit a response letter. They did have concerns with that
restriction to Cherry Lane and landscaping -- again, the landscaping is not a
requirement, just a heads up. That response letter is on the backside of the ACHD staff
report. It's kind of hidden back there. It looks like it was a supplemental packet from
the city clerk, although I don't see a cover sheet on that, it's just the ACHD packet is
what I had, with the last two pages being the applicant's response. With that, I'll stand
for any questions you may have.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 21 of 82
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman and Craig, I notice by the drawing that is up on the screen that
this, actually, is originally four lots that had two houses, each of which must have been
built across two. Does this application make that into a single lot or does it still remain
four separate parcels?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, it would still be -- and I believe the Ada
County assessor recognizes it as two parcels. What I did not find out is when that --
each lot on what is two parcels by Ada County standards, if a density reduction survey
had to be accomplished or what, but it not be considered one parcel by the city or by
Ada County. They could do something to that effect if one property bought the other
and vacated the easements. Those properties -- those lot lines will be there forever.
You can't vacate those lot lines, but you can vacate the easements and, then, build
across them and I don't know if there were four houses or structures, one on each lot,
or not. But the -- their buildings do go across the lot lines that were platted in 1948.
Zaremba: So, this action would not prevent them from, essentially, any configuration of
building they wanted? Just by the fact -- we are not validating that it's going to be four
separate lots?
Hood: I can't think of one. The only restriction they would have -- and they could -- you
know, they could -- even if there was a central building, one large building, they would
have to vacate any easements that run through the common property lines and so there
are two separate property owners, but that could be accomplished, you know, with the
relinquishments from all utilities or anyone that has an interest in anything on either
side, but that could even be accomplished.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Anything else? Would the applicant like to make their presentation?
Smith: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. My name is Leon
Smith and I'm married to Janice Mittleider and we own the two lots on the left and my
mother-in-law Nobella Mittleider owns the two lots on the right side. So, it's separate
ownership, but we have had this ownership for a long time and in answer to one of the
questions, these houses have been there forever. This is really the old part of Meridian.
The thing I'd like to bring to your attention -- and I certainly won't take more than the 15
minutes that you planned to allocate to the applicants, but these houses here are not
suitable residences on Cherry Lane. I'm told that there are over 30,000 vehicles a day
that pass by there. My wife's mother has a patio on the Cherry Lane side that is
unusable because of the noise and the fumes and just -- there is a lot of traffic there.
We rent the house that's on the other two lots and we -- sometimes we have a lot of
difficulty renting it, because nobody wants to subject their children to 30,000 cars a day.
So, the ideal use for the properties would be some sort of professional office building,
whether it be a doctor, lawyer, dentist, chiropractor, accountant, whatever. All of that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 22 of 82
requires a Conditional Use Permit, so we'd have to be back before you, if you allow us
to rezone, to put your conditions on there. At this time we'd just like to have it rezoned
OT and in the Comprehensive Plan Nobella's two properties on the right side are in the
Comprehensive Plan as Old Town. And for some reason or other the Old Town
designation goes right down the center line of Wilson Subdivision, so that our two lots
on the other side aren't in the Comprehensive Plan, but at least this makes them
contiguous and so it would -- it would all be one Old Town designation. I appreciate the
staff report and I tried to respond to that and, of course, my -- one of my main concerns
is that there is 160 feet of depth on those lots north to south and with 45 feet taken out
for flowers on Cherry Lane and on the back, the landscaping requirement would make it
very different to comply with parking and have any sizeable structure on the property at
all. So, I'm told -- Craig tells me that I -- when -- get by this hurdle, when we come in
with the conditional use, we can ask for a variance on that, if we can show justification
for it. So, that would be our plan on that one and that's why I mention that in my
response. The second issue is the access on Cherry Lane. There is presently an
access, but it is over on our two lots. Actually, it's on Lot 2 and goes directly into the
garage of that house and we'd have to have that access and I don't know whether these
two -- four properties, but two ownerships, would develop separately or not, but I'm
concerned by giving up an access that may be vital to our property on the left for a
development that may occur on the right two parcels. I can certain see the need for it
and with the amount traffic I'm certainly willing to agree and while we are all three willing
to work with the city on something on access and probably for West 1st Street and West
2nd Street are the logical things. But I just bring that up, because it is of a concern to
Jan and I. We don't want to do anything that would jeopardize our parking for our
tenants on the left two parcels. So, that's sort of the sum and substance of my
presentation. I'll certainly be happy to answer any questions.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Moe: Well, yeah, I have one. I understand your concern, but if, in fact, through the
report and whatnot, you would be gaining access to the properties on both 1st and 2nd
Streets, so I'm not sure exactly why you're concerned with having the access out on
Cherry Lane.
Smith: In response, at this point I'm not. I don't -- this is conceptual and so when we
come forward, assuming you allow us to do that, with the conditional use, then, I don't
know what we will have at this time and giving up that may be important to our
development. I don't know. But if you -- if you insist on that for approval of the rezoning
designation, then, of course we will comply.
Borup: Other questions? Thank you, sir.
Smith: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Okay. Seeing none --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 23 of 82
Hood: Mr. Chair?
Borup: Mr. Hood.
Hood: I would like to clarify a couple of good points that the applicant brought up that I
kind of just breezed right over. The Comp Plan designation is a pretty significant one
that I did want to just touch on real quick. You can see from the zoning map -- I
apologize for not scanning in the Comp Plan, but the Old Town designation does bisect
the subject property that's outlined there in black right down the middle of the block
between West 1st and West 2nd. In the staff report it does make some finding that it
does have frontage on an arterial street and, as the applicant states, staff is supportive
of this use being a nonresidential use anyways and someone trying to back up onto
Cherry Lane with 30 to 40 thousand cars a day, it doesn't make sense to staff. So, that
Comp Plan designation did kind of fudge over a little bit to -- you know, that designation
will expand if this OT zoning designation is approved. So, I just wanted to point that
out. And back to the access. Currently, city code would require anything in the OT to
obtain -- any use in the Old Town zoning designation, except for single-family
residences, to obtain a Conditional Use Permit. We are currently working on drafting a
new ordinance and depending on what this subject site develops, certain uses will be
principally permitted in the Old Town zone or a staff level review and those type of
things. So, I'm a little hesitant to remove or change the recommendation to say that
access is okay now, because you may not see this again, it may be just a staff level
approval. As of right now, if they turned around tomorrow and submitted the
application, they would -- it would require a CUP, but we were looking into amending
that part of the ordinance, so I did just want to point that out and they do still, regardless
of the zone, they do only have 255 feet of frontage on Cherry Lane and ACHD requires
150 feet between driveways, so you'd need a minimum of 300, plus the width of the
driveway to get an access there. So, they aren't approving or denying access points,
it's for a rezone only, but just based on their policy and having only 255 feet, again, staff
thinks that that's sufficient and the parking concern that the applicant brought up, you
could still have the same design and just have the vertical curb. I mean you could still
have all these parking spaces, it wouldn't change any of those requirements, you just
don't have access. So, this design would even work, not binding them to the design,
but you wouldn't lose any parking by restricting access and it would work just fine like
that. So, with that, again, staff is supportive of the rezone, but I just wanted to clarify a
couple of those points. Thank you.
Zaremba: Let me pursue the access. Would it be comfortable if the development
agreement included a statement to the effect that as long as the -- even though it's
rezoned to OT, if the property continues to be used as it's use, which is a residence,
that the current access would remain, but when they change the use, then, the access
would go away?
Hood: That's exactly what staff was trying to get across, that the -- you know, the
existing use can continue until it's ready to develop. I guess one -- just one other option
we have is just to require a CUP in the future. Now, that still doesn't give me the sense
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 24 of 82
that, you know, the access has been and it's still up for negotiations if you leave that up,
but at least it comes back to this board, if you're wavering on, you know, not restricting
access in the future when that develops, that is another -- another option, just straight
saying you've got to come back for a CUP.
Zaremba: I personally am not wavering on the future access, I'm just trying to
accommodate the current use. I agree that that's not a good place for access to Cherry
Lane if this develops into office uses or professional uses and stuff and that the
accesses off the two side roads need to be sufficient, so -- but I'm just -- I'm trying to
protect the current use as long as it is the current use, because I can understand the
applicant's feeling that this may not change immediately.
Borup: And was that staff's intention?
Hood: Yeah. I'm sorry that's not more clear in the staff report. That condition probably
could have been worded better, I guess, that the existing single-family access to Cherry
can continue.
Borup: And ACHD is pretty clear in their report, that it -- the requirement of 150 feet
and they do state that it is not approved in their staff report.
Zaremba: Yeah. I would also comment -- and, again, this is not a commitment for the
future, because we don't really have the concept in front of us, but the church to the
west of this has no landscaping. The current properties to the east of this may develop
differently, but I certainly could see alternate compliance that would be something under
the 25-foot front buffer and maybe a smaller rear buffer as well. Maybe that gives the
applicant some comfort, but no commitment until we see the real plan, but I just -- that's
a personal opinion.
Borup: Okay. Commissioners?
Rohm: I just have a question of staff on this. If, in fact, at a future time their proposed
development would be more beneficial with access onto Cherry Lane, can they, via the
Conditional Use Permit process, apply for access onto Cherry Lane, even though the
existing rezone has already taken place to Old Town?
Hood: I thought I was with you until the last part, Commissioner. I thought you were
asking if -- can they apply -- if you restrict access, what --
Rohm: Well, right now this application or staff comment says to restrict access not to
Cherry Lane, but at such time that they actually come up with a conceptual plan to
develop it commercially and it would be more advantageous for them to receive some
sort of access onto Cherry, can they make that as part of their Conditional Use Permit
application?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 25 of 82
Hood: I would think we would accept the application, but if there is a development
agreement that restricts access, I don't know how the city -- I mean you can amend the
development agreement to review that condition in the future if you wanted to, but --
does that answer your question? Am I --
Rohm: Just curious. Okay. Thank you.
Borup: And it would still require ACHD approval, too. Okay. Commissioners, are we
ready for a motion?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing RZ 04-010.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending
approval of RZ 04-010, request for a rezone of .68 acres from R-4 to an OT zone for
Mittleider -- I'm sorry if I massacred the name -- rezone by Leon Smith, 125 West
Cherry Lane and 1645 West 1st Street, to include all staff comments of their memo for
the hearing date of August 19, 2004, received by the city clerk August 13th, 2004, with
the following change: On page seven, paragraph three, I would add a sentence at the
end of that paragraph stating to clarify in the development agreement that use of
access to Cherry Lane is acceptable until such time as the use of the existing building
changes and at that point the access to Cherry Lane is abandoned.
Hood: Commissioner Zaremba, in paragraph four, actually, the second bullet talks
about access and maybe that would be -- for clarity purposes that may be a better place
you could insert that same language, but maybe in paragraph four, second bullet. Still
on page seven.
Zaremba: Well, that's true for once the use changes, but it doesn't clarify that it's okay
for the access to continue as long as the existing use continues. Where would you
rather have me put that? On the second bullet or --
Hood: That works fine, too. I just thought you could talk about access all in the
development agreement in the same area, rather than having them across site specific
conditions, but that's works, too.
Zaremba: Okay. I see what you're saying. And, actually, that does make more sense.
Okay. Cancel my first motion, I'm going to start from scratch. Mr. Chairman, I move we
forward to the City Council recommending approval of RZ 04-010, request for a rezone
of .68 acres from R-4 to OT zone for Mittleider rezone by Leon Smith, 125 West Cherry
Lane and 1645 West 1st street, to include all staff comments of their memo for the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 26 of 82
hearing date of August 19th, 2004, received by the city clerk August 13th, 2004, with
one change. On page seven, under annexation and zoning site specific conditions and
comments, paragraph four, which refers to the development agreement, the second
bullet under that currently reads: Access to Cherry Lane is prohibited. Access to the
site shall be provided from West 1st Street and West 2nd Street, with cross-access
between all the lots, add a sentence in that bullet that says: Until such time as the
current use as residential changes, the current access to Cherry Lane is acceptable.
End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: We have had a request from the Commissioners for a short break at this time,
so we'd like to take a short break.
(Recess.)
Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ 04-018 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19.4
acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Chatsworth Subdivision by Dyver
Development, LLC – west of South Locust Grove Road and south of East
Victory Road:
Item 13: Public Hearing: PP 04-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 77
single-family residential building lots and 4 common lots on 19.4 acres in a
proposed R-8 zone for Chatsworth Subdivision by Dyver Development,
LLC – west of South Locust Grove Road and south of East Victory Road:
Borup: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we'd like to reconvene our hearing for this
evening and continue with Items 12 and 13, Public Hearing AZ 04-018, request for
annexation and zoning of 19.4 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Chatsworth Subdivision
by Dyver Development and also Public Hearing PP 04-025, a request for preliminary
plat approval of 77 single family residential building lots -- or common lots on the same
project. Again, we'd like to open both of these hearings and start with the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. This application, as you stated, is for
annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat on 19.4 acres, located on the west side of
Locust Grove Road about a third of a mile south of the Victory Road. The land is
designated as medium density residential on the Comprehensive Plan future land use
map and the applicant has requested all the property be zoned R-8. You can see the
subject site there outlined in black. To the north of that is the recently approved
Roseleaf Subdivision, a single-family residential development, zoned R-8. To the west
is an agricultural piece of property, an 18-acre parcel zoned RUT in Ada County.
Tuscany Lakes Subdivision, the single-family residential development, zoned R-4, you
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 27 of 82
can see one of the phases has been platted and shows up on this map. There is a five-
acre parcel to the south currently zoned RUT and a 25-acre parcel to the south, also
zoned RUT in Ada County. There is currently a single-family home near Locust Grove
Road and some outbuildings there. You can kind of see the stuff that isn't green within
the black outline are the single-family homes and the outbuildings that the applicant is
proposing to remove all those buildings. The preliminary plat includes 77 build-able lots
and four other lots, common lots. The gross density is 3.97 dwelling units per acre.
This density is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan future land use designation of
medium density residential, which has a target density of three to eight dwelling units
per acre. The 77 proposed build-able lots range in size from 6,500 square feet to
10,562 square feet is the largest lot they have in here. Largest build-able lot. All
housing types are proposed single family residential. The plat contains approximately
six percent open space. There are no variances, exceptions, or reductions to the city
adopted dimensional standards or uses requested with this preliminary plat application.
I did just want to touch on a couple of things that ACHD required. They are requiring
two forms of traffic calming devices to be installed in the main entrances. The main
entrance to Locust Grove they want one somewhere mid block here or at the
intersection and one between these two streets, I believe, somewhere in this location,
or at the intersection. They are also requesting this stub street move about central
between this street and this street to provide access to the west. Staff is definitely
supportive of the conditions as they -- as does become a racetrack, especially if that's
extended in the future in a straight direction. So, moving this stub street seems to make
sense. I'll leave the traffic calming up to ACHD. Staff has provided the analysis and
recommended conditions of approval. We are recommending approval of the
applications. I did just want to make one note. Just when we were taking the break I
had the property owner come over to the desk, these five acres here, she had a
concern about access to the back-side of her property. With this stub street we did talk
about the applicant is proposing a five foot wide -- or five-foot tall perimeter fence
around the subdivision. She would like to have a gate, rather than the straight fence, so
she can use this as access to the backside of her property, so a gate with a sign stating
that this road will be extended in the future and, then, she puts a lock or whoever owns
it puts a lot, if they so chose, on that gate for access to the back side. I will let the
applicant address that concern by the applicant, but she had to go to work, so I thought
I would pass that along to the Commission. With that, I will stand for any questions.
Oh, I did get an e-mail. I hope you all did. It's got Jessica Johnson's name at the top of
it. It's in e-mail form. I responded --
Borup: We've got it.
Hood: Okay. The applicant doesn't happen to have any concerns, but I'll let you hear
from them. Thank you.
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners for Mr. Hood?
Zaremba: I do have two, if I may, Mr. Chairman and Craig. The version of the
preliminary plat that I'm looking at, the alignment across this street and across this
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 28 of 82
intersection, is slightly different. It's actually better on what I'm looking at than what is
displayed up there.
Borup: I think that was the two pieces pieced together.
Zaremba: Is this a -- oh, that's at a fold line? Oh, I can see that. Okay. Well, I like the
version that's here better. Second question. Are you able -- let's see. Go back to a
wider view that shows some of the property surrounding it, if you would, please. That's
good enough. Do you remember -- well, first off, Roseleaf has already been approved?
Hood: Correct.
Zaremba: By the City Council?
Hood: Correct.
Zaremba: Do you remember where their access to Locust Grove is?
Hood: The applicant would -- if I can look at the plat real quick. It does state in the
ACHD staff report, I believe, too, they are approximately 300 feet north of Palarmo
Drive across Locust Grove, the main access into Tuscany, so they are going to be
somewhere near their north property boundary, correct, somewhere in that location
there.
Zaremba: So, it's far enough from this access --
Hood: On the same side of the street. They are going to have almost 600 feet of
separation.
Zaremba: Okay.
Hood: With one on the other side about 300 feet away, so --
Zaremba: Kind of a stair step, which is all that great.
Hood: Exactly. Exactly.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Mr. Hood, you had mentioned the property owner and their comment about the
gate. Had she talked to the developer on this at all? Oh, she's still here, so we will get a
chance. Okay. I thought you said she had left. Okay. Would the applicant -- anything
else they'd like to add? We do have your letter saying you accept everything.
Nickel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Shawn Nickel, 52 North 2nd Street
in Eagle. And I'm not going to delay this. The staff did a good job of explaining the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 29 of 82
details of the development. I did provide Anna -- if she could put that up. It does show
the Roseleaf development to the north and how we attach to that and also that access
point for your reference. And you are correct, the 600 feet separation with the 300 feet
on the other side, so it does meet the highway district standards for separation. We did
hold a neighborhood meeting on this development and any issues that were brought up
we tried to address with the neighborhoods at that time and I don't believe there is any
outstanding issues. We are in agreement with all staff's findings and conditions of
approval. Regarding the gate along the boundary right there, that's fine with the
developer to include that. There will be a sign per ACHD's requirements stating that
that road will extend in the future and we will provide that in addition to the gate. One
other thing. We do have six percent open space -- usable open space within the
development. We are going to provide a pathway along this area and also some
playground equipment for children in that open space. We are in agreement with ACHD
regarding the traffic calming and the relocation of that stub street to the west. With that
I stand for questions.
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? And they -- you will have the
redesign back to staff in plenty of time?
Nickel: We will have that prior to City Council, yes, sir.
Borup: Ten days prior.
Nickel: Ten days prior.
Borup: Thank you.
Nickel: Thanks.
Borup: Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this application? Okay. Did
you want to testify, ma'am?
Bee: Hi. I'm Lori Bee, I live next door on the property -- the big square right there with
five acres.
Borup: And the address is?
Bee: 3893 South Locust Grove.
Borup: Okay.
Bee: Meridian, Idaho. 83642. My question is on this property, the gate, great, thank
you for doing that. I appreciate that to developer and staff, because I'm going to still be
able to access my property from the back. But also on the north side of the property,
that line right there, there is an easement right there. That whole line is an easement
and the person who sold the property to the developer stated that that easement can
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 30 of 82
just go away. I don't want it to go away. The easement is 15 -- it's right in the middle.
The fence, built a fence there, and it's right in the middle. I've got 15 feet of that
easement and so does he on the other side and it's right in the middle.
Borup: What type of easement?
Bee: Honestly, I can't tell you. I know that there is an easement there.
Rohm: Access easement?
Bee: Thank you. Access to my property to the back, going back, and I wanted to keep
that easement, so that the houses aren't in my backyard, plus I can still access my
property from the side, because we have a gate -- I mean I have some -- where I can
get back there and I don't want to lose that. I mean I want to be able to access from the
gate also, but I don't want to lose that side either.
Zaremba: The current 15 feet that's on your side of the fence --
Bee: Yes.
Zaremba: -- I don't think he can give that up, but --
Bee: I just want to be sure, because I don't want them to say that's going away and,
then, I --
Borup: You're saying it's on your side of a fence or on the property line?
Bee: No. There is a fence right through the middle of the easement.
Borup: But that -- the question here is where is the property line?
Bee: My property line -- they have got a fence built there and there is the easement, 15
feet on my side and, then, my property.
Rohm: So, it's a 30-foot easement, 15 on each side of center?
Bee: Correct.
Borup: And it's your understanding the fence is on the property line? That's not
necessarily the case.
Bee: Okay. Yes, the fence is on the property line.
Borup: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 31 of 82
Bee: I'm still learning. I haven't owned this for a long time, but I just wanted to keep my
property, I don't want it slowly chopped away and --
Borup: Well, someone can't take your property.
Bee: Right. But you know what I'm saying. I don't want my easement gone. That's all
I ask.
Borup: Okay. We'll get some clarification.
Zaremba: We'll get a clarification, because that's --
Bee: I appreciate that.
Zaremba: I don't mean to interrupt if you have more --
Bee: Please.
Zaremba: On the gate that you and the developer are agreeing on, I'm just curious how
big a gate. Do you want that for personal access or do you have equipment that you
need to get through it?
Bee: I've got a backhoe and -- I have pretty good equipment that I want to be able to
get through that and so if they have got a street there, it should be wide enough for like
big dump trucks.
Borup: It's just a man --
Bee: Oh, no, it's a gate.
Zaremba: It's the full width of the street.
Bee: Yes. Yes. Absolutely.
Zaremba: Just wanted to make sure that was clear to everybody.
Bee: Thank you very much.
Rohm: Just curious. The fence that has been placed down the middle of the existing
easement, is that -- is that preventing you from getting in and out of your property at all?
Bee: Currently right now?
Rohm: Currently.
Bee: I can still drive back.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 32 of 82
Rohm: Cool. That's --
Bee: And I just need to be able to get back there. I don't want to be restricted to just
one entrance.
Rohm: Got you. Thank you.
Bee: Thank you so much.
Borup: Do we have anyone else that would like to testify? Okay. Mr. Bailey, did you
have some information on the easement?
Bailey: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is David Bailey. Office
address is 1500 East Iron Eagle Drive in Eagle. And to address the easement issue on
that -- and that is shown on the preliminary plat and there is a note on there that says
the -- and I think you can see it kind of in the middle there, it's hard to read. Easement
to be vacated. As you can see, where we are showing from our survey, that she's
correct that that fence is on her north property boundary and that easement -- there is
about five feet of that easement, from what I show there, that's on her side of the
property. We cannot and don't have any intention of vacating any easements that are
on her property, unless she chooses to do that. I mean -- and one of your conditions of
approval -- and I'm looking through the report here, I know it's either yours or Ada
County Highway District's condition of approval, is that we vacate that easement prior
signature on the final plat. I'm pretty sure it's Ada County Highway District, now that I'm
standing here, that we vacate that easement, because I remember just reading this
thing the other day again.
Hood: Chair, Commissioners, Dave, I do have it as site specific condition number four
on page ten, so prior to signature you have to vacate that easement, because it runs --
it takes up 25 feet of the backside of those lots, so that does need to be vacated. It's a
condition of approval.
Bailey: Right. And that will go through your vacation process for that easement before
we do that, so I'd stand for any --
Rohm: If it's an ingress-egress easement and -- doesn't it have to have a certain
recipient of that or is it just cart blanche, anybody can get in and out on that easement?
Is it issued to a specific individual?
Bailey: Commissioner Rohm, I'm not recalling in my head right now what the specific
terms of that -- the easement that are on there are, but you're correct in that that
easement is not -- it's not public right of way as far as it's access for everybody, it's an
easement for a specific use for access for some specific property. So, the vacation of
that easement has to be with the signature -- your process requires it to be with the
signature of all affected parties prior to -- prior to vacating that easement. So, we would
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 33 of 82
have to get that in writing before we bring it to you or to the Commission -- actually, it
goes to City Council, I believe.
Rohm: That was my exact point.
Bailey: So, we'd have to have their permission in writing to do it.
Rohm: Thank you.
Moe: But your comment was that you anticipated that was -- hers was not 15 feet, but
just five foot on her side?
Bailey: Commissioner Moe, what I'm showing on the preliminary plat here -- and this is
what my surveyor -- when they surveyed this site and showed me where that easement
is on the site, because we did, you know, of course, an actual boundary survey of it,
that's where they are showing that easement to be located according to record, where
we are showing it on plat there.
Zaremba: Are you satisfied where the existing fence is? Who put the fence in? Did you
put the fence in?
Bailey: We did not.
Borup: It's been there awhile.
Bailey: The fence has been there for a while and, actually, I looked real hard at this.
It's hard to see, but there is a little X you can see underneath the boundary line there,
we did locate that fence in our topography survey and it's shown on the preliminary plat.
So, it's there.
Zaremba: She seems to be satisfied with her access south of that fence and knows
where the fence is, so I don't see that as being a problem.
Borup: Your survey shows that that's right on the --
Bailey: Yes. Exactly on the property line.
Borup: That's the first time I think we have seen that.
Zaremba: Well, she knows where the fence is, so -- all right.
Bailey: Thank you.
Zaremba: Thanks.
Borup: Okay. I believe that concludes -- there was no other public testimony, so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 34 of 82
Moe: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of AZ
04-018, request for annexation and zoning of 19.4 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for
Chatsworth Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC, west of South Locust Grove Road
and south of East Victory Road, to include all the staff comments and conditions for the
hearing date of August 19th, 2004, received by city clerk's office August 16th, 2004,
with one change -- I take that back. That would take care of the annexation.
Zaremba: I'll second that.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor. Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of
PP 04-025, request for preliminary plat approval for 77 single family residential building
lots and four common lots on 19.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Chatsworth
Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC, west of the South Locust Grove Road and
south of East Victory Road, to include all staff comments and conditions of the hearing
date of August 19th, 2004, received by the city clerk's office August 16th, 2004, with
one comment. On page eleven, item eight, we'd like to extend that in the fencing that
the -- it would require a gate at the stub street, East Pisa Street, be installed full width of
the street.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 14: Public Hearing: CUP 04-027 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
daycare facility for up to 150 children in a C-G zone for Primary Colors
Daycare by Primary Colors, Inc. – east of South Eagle Road and south of
East Overland Road:
Borup: Next item is Public Hearing CUP 04-027, request for a Conditional Use Permit
for a daycare facility for up to 150 children in a C-G zone for Primary Colors Daycare by
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 35 of 82
Primary Colors. South Eagle and south of East Overland. We'd like to open this
hearing and start with the staff report.
Kirkpatrick: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, this application is a
Conditional Use Permit for a childcare center. The application is a Conditional Use
Permit, because they are proposing to serve 150 children. The subject property is
located in Silverstone Business Park and it's the site for both Citi Bank and for T Mobile,
so it's probably a prime location for a daycare center out there. The daycare center will
be licensed by the state of Idaho and will meet all state daycare criteria. The applicant
also operates another daycare in Boise and one in Eagle, just to give you some
background on the applicant. And here is an aerial, which is not quite up to date, but
shows some of Silverstone. And here is a copy of the site plan. The proposed project
meets all site plan criteria for the Conditional Use Permit. It has all of the required
parking, landscape buffers, and landscaping for the parking lot. The site consists of a
large -- of a building, which is approximately 8,000 square feet in size. This is the
childcare building. And, then, a large play area, which includes two sand boxes,
playground equipment, and the applicant has submitted detailed drawings of what the
playground equipment is going to look like for the site. The only real issue with this site
plan, since it has been submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission, that the fire
chief has commented he wants to see a turnaround at the southern end of that eastern
-- of the parking lot on the east part of the site. So, to do that turnaround, most likely
they are going -- I haven't seen a reconfiguration yet. They are going to have to lose a
couple of parking spaces. Right now this site is over parked, but we will want to make
sure that when they submit the revised site plan they still meet the parking requirements
for the daycare center where they are proposing to serve 150 children. And that's really
the only outstanding issue. Staff recommends approval of this project. Oh. And here is
some elevations of the proposed daycare center. Do you have any questions of staff?
Zaremba: I do have a question.
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Essentially, the parking area, I think we have had discussion on other larger
daycares -- and by that, the biggest one I remember is like 40 kids, but they tend to not
need as much parking as they need a real drop off area that would be in and out and
I'm thinking if we are looking at 150 kids, shouldn't there, near the entrance, be
something that's specifically a drop off area that allows the traffic to flow smoothly?
Kirkpatrick: Well, I will have the applicant address where -- where they envision the
drop off area being. Our code requires these spaces. They are required to have one
space every ten children and one for every staff member. So, they are required -- I
think worked out to have about 35 spaces. So, that's -- that's part of the code that we
can't modify. But we will have the applicant go ahead and address the drop off issue.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 36 of 82
Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation?
Canning: Chairman Borup, just a quick comment. Parents are -- and the applicant can
verify this, but the parents are required to sign their children in inside the door, so you
can't really just drop them off, as might have happened in past times. You have to walk
them inside the door.
Zaremba: I think I betrayed the fact that I don't have children. I'm not up to date on
those kind of procedures.
Borup: I think that was the testimony at previous -- some of the previous ones, that
they require them to bring them in the door. Okay.
Hobbs: Chris Hobbs, 12552 West Executive. Chairman and Commissioners, I'd like to
thank the staff for their comments. They did a good job. They did mention the concern
with the turnaround for fire and trash -- actually, we have spoken with the fire
department, with Ken Bowers, and I believe we also have the -- an okay in speaking
with SSC, that instead of a turnaround, this area here is going to be opened up more
and be striped no parking, so that they can -- let's see, they can come in and, then,
back up and, then, go out again and they said that they'd have enough space to work
that. And they already mentioned the point with the drop off that they have to go in and
do that anyway. And at the other two daycare centers they are set up and they have
similar parking schemes, so -- and it seems to work all right. And I will stand for any
questions. Thank you.
Zaremba: You answered mine.
Borup: Questions from any of the other Commissioners? Okay. Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Is there not room to put --
Borup: Go ahead, Commissioner.
Newton-Huckabay: -- where you would turn around, rather than back up?
Borup: Your question was is there --
Hobbs: No, there is not. What they were wanting was some sort of T or something that
would cut way into here and there just wasn't -- we looked at all sorts of ways, we spent
a couple days looking at it and discussing it, and we just couldn't make any of the other
options work until we figured that out.
Rohm: And the fire chief is agreeable to your solutions?
Hobbs: Yes. We spoke with Ken Bowers.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 37 of 82
Rohm: That's an important one.
Kirkpatrick: And, Chairman, Members of the Commission, we want to make sure that
we have documentation of that prior to the City Council hearing. We don't have it yet.
Borup: And that's in the works?
Hobbs: Yes. Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this application?
Seeing none, Commissioners?
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of
CUP 04-027, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a daycare facility for up to 150
children in a C-Z zone for Primary Colors Daycare by Primary Colors, Inc., east of
South Eagle Road and south of East Overland Road, to include all staff comments and
conditions of the staff memo for the hearing date of August 19th, 2004, received by the
city clerk August 13th, 2004.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 15: Public Hearing: AZ 03-037 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 46.40
acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by
Centennial Development, LLC – east of North Black Cat Road and north
of West Franklin Road:
Item 16: Public Hearing: PP 03-046 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 214
residential lots and 39 common lots on 46.40 acres in a proposed R-8
(PD) zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial
Development, LLC – east of South Black Cat Road and north of West
Franklin Road:
Item 17: Public Hearing: CUP 03-070 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for residential subdivision in a proposed R-8 (PD)
zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development,
LLC – east of South Black Cat Road and north of West Franklin Road:
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 38 of 82
Borup: Okay. The next project is Chesterfield Subdivision. We'd like to open Public
Hearing AZ 03-037, a request for annexation and zoning of 46.4 acres from RUT to R-8
zones for the proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development. And we'd
like to open Public Hearing PP 03-046, request for preliminary plat approval of 214
residential lots on 46.4 acres. And Public Hearing CUP 04-070, request for a
Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for a residential subdivision in a
proposed R-8 planned development zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision.
Again, all three hearings are open and we'd like to start with the staff report.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, you all have seen this project
before. Several months ago this went through Planning and Zoning Commission and
you all recommended approval to City Council. City Council has remanded this
application. They had some revisions they wanted the applicant to make and I'll run
through those revisions and highlight the changes that the applicants made, since you
saw the application last time. The property is located on Pine Street northwest of the
intersection of Franklin and Ten Mile, just between Ten Mile and Black Cat. The site is
46 acres in size and the application is for 214 building lots and there is an application
for a planned development to allow reduced lot sizes, reduced frontage, and reduced
setbacks. Some of the changes that were requested by the Planning and Zoning
Commission -- oh, excuse me, City Council. Sorry. Include they wanted a mix of lot
sizes, frontage widths, housing types, and they also wanted the applicant to address
the location of the open space area and the amenities in the open space area. So,
some of the changes have happened there now. Three types of home lots for the
subdivision. There are now alley-loaded lots in the center of the subdivision. These
lots average 3,200 square feet in size. There are -- additionally, they have done some
changes in the standard lots around the perimeter of the subdivision, they range in size
from 5,200 to 11,000 square feet and they have increased the size of the lots at the
perimeter of the subdivision to kind of buffer the subdivision and the adjoining
properties. And, then, they still have patio home lots. These haven't really changed. In
the southern part of the subdivision they average about 5,000 square feet in size and
feature common drives. The amenities have changed. There are now two main open
space lots. This is the central -- now we have a centrally located open space lot and
the amenities have also been centralized and they include playground equipment, a
gazebo, volleyball court, and, additionally, the applicant's also providing micro paths
along the western edge of the properties that's actually on Nampa-Meridian Irrigation
District property. The applicant is volunteering to provide that as an amenity. So, those
are some of the changes that you have seen on the project. I also wanted for you to
note that we have -- believe there were two letters of concern from neighbors to the
west of the subject property. One I think we just received today and he's here to testify.
One from the Casey family and, then, one from the Noll family, so I wanted to make
sure that -- to draw your attention to those letters. Staff is recommending approval of
the project. The project meets code and the Comprehensive Plan and they have made
all their revisions that were asked for by Council. Do you have any questions of staff?
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 39 of 82
Zaremba: I do have, of course. I may have missed it in the notes, but from having this
before us before, my recollection is that there was an agreement to do a locked gate at
the end of that road there and, then, I got exactly what the treatment was to protect the
existing house from this -- temporarily protected from that stub street.
Kirkpatrick: I'm going to go ahead and have the applicant address the details --
Zaremba: Okay.
Kirkpatrick: -- of that arrangement.
Zaremba: All right. That's my question for the moment.
Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation?
Amar: For the record, my name is Kevin Amar, address 114 East, Idaho, Suite 230 in
Meridian. Anna says I only have 15 minutes, I'm going to take about, hopefully, just
five. You can buzz me at anytime you want. This project has been before you before.
Staff did an excellent job at addressing why we are back. We went before City Council
and City Council asked us to look at specifically four items. Those were, as Wendy
stated, the amenities, locating those in a centralized location, as well as the park versus
two separate locations. Lot sizes. Not as much the density, because they did say they
were okay with the density, they just didn't want all the lots the same size and a number
of lots -- or the majority of the lots the last time were all the same size. So, asked us to
vary the lot sizes, but maintain the density or they were okay with the density. So, we
have maintained the density, we just changed the lot sizes. The roadway system --
could you put up the old map, please? Maybe. I'm stalling. I'm going to try to take all
15 minutes. In the old system we had a roadway system -- in the old plan, a roadway
system that didn't bring people to the center of the project and wasn't -- didn't have a
focal point as much as the new one. I'll show that in a second. This is the old layout.
This is the revised layout. As you can see in the previous layout, we had two separate
park areas with good interconnectivity at the roadway, but it was not -- it didn't bring it
into the center at one location. With the new layout we do have a centralized park. We
have, in fact, increased the total open space on this layout, bringing all of the focus to
the center of the project to the amenities within the subdivision. And that was a big
concern of especially Commissioner Nary or Councilmember Nary. So, we have
addressed that. The other items where they did want one really focal park area, it will
have some drainage. A lot of the drainage will be handled in here, but all the amenities
will be placed in this location, with the exception of the pathway. The pathway we will
address, because Wendy and I were in a meeting with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation
District and there are some concerns of theirs that -- we can work around those, but we
need to address those and make specific conditions. I think that's probably a safe
statement. So, we are here before you tonight really just looking for, again, a
recommendation for approval that you have looked at this. ACHD has looked at the
new layout and they have recommended approval of the new layout that does meet
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 40 of 82
their criteria. As far as the specific requirements from the previous hearing that we plan
on continuing those forward also. There were on the -- the pathway here we needed to
restrict access -- there is a little bridge crossing the Ten Mile. Those residents that live
on the east side of Ten Mile did not want people walking up and down there, it's a
private lane. They did not want people walking up and down that private lane. So, we
do need to, on this pathway, restrict access to go back down the sidewalk, rather than
be able to access the -- across the bridge. And we will continue that recommendation
forward or we'd like for that condition to be continued, as it was last time. Also on --
previously it was this lot and this lot -- now I guess this lot and this lot, there was a
single story requirement for those two homes and, again, we will continue that forward.
There was -- at this location we will be building all of -- I think it's called pine today. All
Pine or our half of Pine, but, again, in order to restrict access to the private road, we will
need to fence that portion of Pine, so people do not drive down that private road. That
was also a specific condition. Unless I missed something, those were the three specific
conditions from the previous recommendation for approval that we would like to have
conditions again. And other than that, I would answer any questions you might have.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Zaremba: You previously described some treatment that you did in this area to make
the area more palatable to the homeowner to the west and I have forgotten what those
things were.
Amar: I have an older map, but I don't have it right now. These lots -- we really did not
change this area at all from the previous map.
Zaremba: From the final version of the previous map?
Amar: From the final version of the previous map that you recommended approval on.
These lots initially were all along the boundary and we had the park between the
Kennedy Lateral and those lots. We shifted those lots. As you can see here, they are
still against the Kennedy Lateral with open space against the western boundary, as we
were talking. There was also another requirement to provide access for the irrigation of
that -- and maybe the owner is here, but the owner that gains access here for the
irrigation, we need to provide a gate so they can continue to gain access for that
irrigation and we will do that.
Zaremba: Those are my questions.
Borup: Anything from the other Commissioners?
Amar: That's the old old previous version.
Borup: Okay.
Amar: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 41 of 82
Borup: Do we have anyone from the public to testify on this? Please come forward.
Schweiger: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I am Judy Schweiger. My husband
Gary and I live at 3515 West Pine Avenue, which is the private road Kevin referred to.
I'm speaking for seven neighbors on that road. Rick Jensen, John Tucker, Dave Hicks,
Steve Wilder, Rob Boslow, and ourselves and the renters in our property and we have
lived from a minimum of ten years to 25 years on that road, so we are all long time
residents of that area. We actively farm between us 53 acres on West Pine Avenue.
Most of our homes are -- have a substantial value and, of course, we are quite
concerned about our farming being disrupted and the value of our homes being
diminished. Not the value of our land, but of the homes that we live in by this type of
housing adjacent to us. One of -- I do hear addressed a couple of issues that we were
very concerned about. One was the patio homes that were going to have an eight foot
front setback, which we just feel is very inadequate and creates problems in any
neighborhood where access -- for what people do with their cars and of the access of
services and other people to that area. Another thing that I --
Borup: Ma'am, I didn't understand the question on the cars.
Schweiger: Well, an eight-foot driveway is just --
Borup: Oh, no, that wouldn't -- that does not apply to the driveway. That would just be
the living area. The driveways still need to be 20 feet.
Schweiger: Twenty feet wide?
Borup: No. Twenty feet deep.
Schweiger: I think in the meeting before we were talking about an eight-foot front
setback.
Borup: That was the setback. The driveways still need to have the full depth of 20 feet.
Schweiger: Okay.
Borup: Other parts of the house could be reduced, but the driveway where the garage
needs to be --
Schweiger: Oh. All right. I don't think that was clear.
Zaremba: Unless you're talking about the houses that are alley loaded.
Schweiger: I believe so, yes.
Zaremba: Yeah. The cars would access from the back alley.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 42 of 82
Newton-Huckabay: She's discussing the patio homes on the south --
Schweiger: On the south.
Newton-Huckabay: -- boundary of the property.
Schweiger: Yes.
Zaremba: Oh. Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: With the common driveways.
Schweiger: That's right.
Newton-Huckabay: Four on a common driveway.
Zaremba: I got it.
Schweiger: Another thing that had come up that didn't come up tonight was the creek --
the walking path on the creek, the -- is just going to dead end at both ends, is -- they
had talked about a four foot high fence and something we really strongly desired was a
six-foot fence on possibly a four foot berm, so that we would have protection with our
animals and from that many people living behind us. So, we didn't feel that that
provided adequate separation between the subdivision and our properties. I think the
walking -- the fencing and the protection of our roads have been pretty adequately
addressed. We do have to go up to that area to turn on our irrigation water, so we
would need to have access to get in there to turn on our water. And the Hicks family, I
believe -- I don't know if it's in this new plan -- they were protesting -- there is a stub
street right by their property on the Ten Mile Creek and they were concerned about the
stub property and wondered if that small area could be redesigned. And, then, I think
that Faith Jensen wants to address an issue they have. Thank you.
Jensen: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I'm Faith Jensen, I live at 3720 West Pine,
and I think that you should have some pictures that I sent to you. Some copies. A
couple weeks ago. I think you should have gotten them. And I live just kitty-corner
from the proposed subdivision site and we have two main concerns with the proposal
and the first is the density and we feel that this would have a substantial negative effect
on our home values. The second is the close proximity of our house to the proposed
walking path and the pocket park and I'm not sure if that is still the plan, the little pocket
park on the east end. So, there is no -- so, it's just the walking path now?
Borup: Yeah. We need to address the Commission.
Jensen: Oh. I'm sorry.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 43 of 82
Zaremba: There is a -- there is a thing -- a laser pointer on the podium. Would you
point to the area that you're talking about? Highlight it?
Jensen: Right around there. There was a pocket park on the last proposed -- but,
anyway, we live just right over that bridge, so we live right there. So, the first photo that
I have shows our home and the picture is taken just from inside our fence. Just outside
that fence are trees and bushes that provide a privacy barrier for us. The second
picture is taken from the edge of our pool towards the proposed site and the haystack is
approximately where the walking path will be. And the third photo is taken from where
the walking path will be to the edge of our property. My husband is standing there. Do
you see those pictures? Can you -- and, as you can see, our privacy is being invaded
because of this and I'm asking that the developer pay for a berm with mature
landscaping that would wrap the corner of our property. And we contacted American
Wilderness Landscape and they gave us a bid of 5,600 dollars and this berm would
create privacy to our front yard area that is soon to be subject to new construction. It
would solve our two main issues concerning this subdivision, maintaining our property
value, as well as insuring our privacy. Do you have any questions? I do have a copy of
the bid that we got from the landscape --
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Come forward.
Noll: Thanks. My name is Tom Noll. I was up here before. I represent the El Gato
neighborhood, and, as you will remember, the El Gato neighborhood is off in this -- you
know, west of this property. We are about -- I always have trouble with these air photos.
I think we are down in here. We represent about 20 neighbors, 20 people, residents
that live on that street. And my name is Tom Noll, I live at 5947 West El Gato Lane.
We have talked about this and we want to thank you folks and thank Wendy for helping
us get a better understanding of how to approach this and how to work with you. In
summary, we sent a letter and we oppose this subdivision the way it's proposed. I'd like
to see one of the pictures again of the current layout. What we are mostly concerned
about is this high density here. Now, my eyes are pretty good and yours are probably
pretty good, but this is pretty darn small. These lots are pretty darn small and we are
thinking that that's just inappropriate for this part of the city. We live on five-acre parcels
to the west of there and we think it's quite a change to go from five acres to 5,000
square feet in that short of distance. We were at the City Council meeting and our
recollection of Keith -- or Kevin Amar's discussion of the density is just a little bit
different. We -- our recollection is that the City Council said that because -- just
because it's zoned at that density doesn't mean that you have to achieve that density,
that that was a limit, but that if a better design could be achieved with a slightly lower
density, the City Council would prefer that. Now, of course, that's our recollection. We
can look back at the record and see exactly which council member spoke to that issue.
We appreciate Mr. Amar's attempts to address those issues. However, we think he can
do better and we think this density, as I pointed out, the density here in the center, as
well as these patio homes inappropriate, and we think it's going to cause considerable
problems, not just as our neighbors to the east have mentioned with the property
values, but we think it's going to cause, you know, operations and maintenance
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 44 of 82
problems and access problems. So, what we would recommend is that we think this is
a reasonable first step and that Mr. Amar's made the right -- you know, he's moving in
the right direction. What we would recommend that this is remanded for further
revision. We think it's getting closer, but it's not quite there yet. So, that's the summary
of our recommendations from the El Gato neighborhood and, again, I want to thank you
for taking the time to listen to me.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Okay. I got a question for staff. Could
you elaborate a little bit on what the City Council did? Do we have a -- we don't have it
in writing on a summary of theirs, other than a brief summary.
Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, I, of course, was there and
my recollection was we had a discussion about density and whether this was
appropriate density for -- given the use and in their remand the items that they did --
that they wanted to see changed specifically did not address density on purpose. So, it
was discussed that, you know, it wasn't a density issue, it was just a design issue that it
was being remanded back for.
Noll: I would agree with that.
Canning: Sir, you need to go back up to the podium. Sorry.
Noll: I agree with the conclusion about the specific recommendations. I'm -- what I was
thinking about was the discussion that we had with the City Council. We'd probably
have to go back and read the court records to get at that. Again, this is Tom Noll.
Excuse me.
Borup: And the staff report says to have a mixture of that lot sizes and frontage widths
is how I think you stated it in the staff report.
Kirkpatrick: And, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I went through these
minutes when I prepared the staff report to make sure that they were meeting the
conditions of the remand.
Borup: Okay. So, that's where the wording -- that wording came from City Council to
have a mixture of --
Kirkpatrick: And I don't believe it was a quote, but I did -- I did go through and
synthesize why they asked for the remand.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Questions from any other Commissioners?
Zaremba: I have a question of staff. And this may have come up last time, but I either
don't remember the answer or the question didn't come up. Let's see. Can you go to
the little larger area view? Yeah. That will work just fine. I'm coming to the conclusion
that Pine Street, which will be this street, is not going to connect to the east for quite
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 45 of 82
some time. It sounds to me like the property owners on that end are not moving toward
changing from farming into development, which leaves Pine Street and the intersection
at Pine and Black Cat as the only access. To me that qualifies -- I'm sorry, yes, over --
farther over here. This entire area, with several developments going on in there, is,
essentially, one cul-de-sac, and similar to a discussion that we had with -- I think it was
Saquaro, until they had more than one way in or out -- now, this -- the application that
we are looking at tonight has two accesses onto Pine Street, but Pine Street only has
one way out. And I'm wondering -- I don't see comments from the fire department
about limiting the number of building permits. That isn't really an issue of whether the
application would be approved, but it's whether or not they can start building them yet.
Kirkpatrick: And, Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'd like to have the applicant
address that, because they are also the developers of Castlebrook to the north, but
there are additional connections in there and this has been reviewed by the fire
department, but I'll go ahead and have -- I'll have them address it, because they are
more familiar with the area.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: Unless there is any other -- any other questions for staff?
Canning: Chairman Borup, we did want to point out that although these property
owners have not expressed any interest, this property is for sale. It was previously
owned by a church and the church has decided not to develop there, so it is on the
market and they are -- so, currently it is on the market.
Borup: Okay. Mr. Amar, do you have some concluding remarks?
Amar: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Again, for the record, Kevin Amar.
I'll address some of the comments that were made by the neighbors first, their
questions, and, then, we can address the secondary access issue also. First, Mrs.
Schweiger, the patio homes, the eight-foot setback, initially that was something that we
had requested. We didn't want those becoming parking lots. We backed away from
that, because we weren't sure which was better and we have standard setbacks, 20
feet from the edge of the common drive. With respect to the pathway on Ten Mile, that
pathway -- I'll use the little map. This pathway is something that we are doing -- we are
requesting to be able to do. It's on property that's owned by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation
District. We can landscape it and we can do a pathway with specific conditions that
either we have to agree to or the city has to agree to, but we cannot do any substantial
improvements, such as berms or things of that nature. Nampa-Meridian Irrigation
District will not allow it. We will be putting a fence on the back of our property line,
which separates the lots from the pathway. The specific conditions to that pathway are
either this -- either the developer can develop it and not put a pathway in or the city can
maintain it and, then, it becomes a public pathway and on Castlebrook No. 2,
Preliminary Plat No. 2, we will be moving forward also with a recommendation or a
request to City Council to change that condition. We still want to improve it. We still
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 46 of 82
want a pathway there. Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District wants one of two things,
either the developer maintain it as a private area and there not be a pathway there and
we will still landscape it and put in trees and all the rest, or it be a pathway there and
the developer would still landscape it -- all of this is at our expense -- and the city
maintain the pathway. Wendy, is that what you understood from that meeting with Bill
Henson? So, with respect to that pathway, any additional improvements in that property
that Nampa-Meridian owns, I cannot do, Nampa-Meridian will not allow it.
Borup: What's the width of that irrigation?
Amar: The total width is 50 feet. There is probably 30 feet from top of bank to -- to our
property line.
Borup: Okay.
Amar: Thirty to thirty-five feet. But as far as improvements, that's something I cannot
do. Obviously, access to irrigation water will be kept alive. Irrigation water is a valuable
right. I'm sure more people have been killed over water than over -- I was going to say
something rude, but that -- killed over water is a big deal. And we will maintain access
to irrigation water. I believe it was Faith Jensen, her question was on -- I believe her lot
is this lot here; is that correct? There is a common lot at this corner. It is not a tot lot. It
is not a park. It's a common area for storm drainage. It will be improved as such, but
it's not counted to the park space and it's not a -- it's not a park lot, so there will not be
access to that or from that -- from the surrounding area. So, that was a concern
previously and it will be the same, it will not be a tot lot or a pocket park. Mr. Noll spoke
about density and we did ask at City Council, because we weren't sure just exactly what
items we needed to address from the previous plat and Commissioner Nary specifically
said density was not an issue, he just wanted more variety of lot sizes and widths and
that is what we have addressed. The density in this is 4.61 units to the acre. The
Comp Plan is actually eight units to the acre -- up to eight units to the acre and we
cannot meet that, eight units to the acre, we are still on the low end of the Comp Plan,
which is from four to six units to the acre, so -- the access issue, which I have saved
until last, we do have Pine that we will be constructing, but we also have through
Castlebrook Two, Castlebrook, and, then, these subdivisions we have access -- another
point onto Black Cat here, here, and here and, then, also there was a point onto Cherry
Lane. So, secondary access there is -- is well thought out.
Zaremba: I see that now. Thank you.
Amar: You're welcome. I believe those were the questions that I had written down to
address and I will answer any other, should there be any.
Borup: Anything else from any of the Commissioners? Okay. Thank you.
Amar: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 47 of 82
Newton-Huckabay: I don't have a question, I just have a comment. I have to agree
with the public that I don't think that the development -- I don't -- it doesn't really flow
with the rest and the density seems too dense. I mean I don't -- sorry to -- I can't think
of the terminology I'm looking for here, but I just feel like there are too many homes
squished into that area to maintain the type of lifestyle that people in that area are used
to, even in the development to the north. I think something more like that would be
better suited in that area. That's the comments I have.
Borup: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: The patio homes along the bottom, I think that I -- those common
drive lots that I just --
Borup: Other thoughts, Commissioners?
Zaremba: Well, I guess I have always been curious. Usually the developer's response
to a question like that is I can't afford to put in bigger lots and I wouldn't mind being
educated at some time how a developer figures out if they are going to build more
smaller buildings, as opposed to fewer larger buildings on their total acreage --
Borup: I have wondered that, too.
Zaremba: -- you know, why one of them is more profitable than the other. It's more
building to build smaller stuff. I don't know if we want to get that education tonight or
not, but I have always been curious about it. And I'm one who supports density, but I've
always wondered how that decision is made about what's affordable and what isn't.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, my thought is that's a lot of density out there and what is the -
- the services that will eventually support that density, gas stations, things like that, on
Black Cat.
Borup: Maybe it -- but doesn't a lot of that --
Newton-Huckabay: You know, you're just looking at a sea of homes. I mean I don't
know what will be out there for some time, though.
Borup: Well, that's my first impression, too. But it probably goes back to the Comp
Plan. The Comp Plan says four to eight and this is 4.6, I mean maybe we should have
been thinking about that when the Comp Plan was --
Zaremba: Well, I can see why the Comp Plan would -- generally along the railroad right
of way and nearer to the freeway and eventually if Pine goes east from this point it will
connect to Ten Mile, which some day may have an interchange. There is transportation
services coming to this area that would, 20 years down the road, support the density,
but --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 48 of 82
Newton-Huckabay: Well, as Nampa and Meridian converge, isn't the density going to,
at that point, it's just to spread out, is it not?
Zaremba: Probably.
Newton-Huckabay: And I would think that Black Cat, in my vision is, somewhere in the
middle between the growth of those two cities and you would -- I mean you're not going
to see another little city pop up in between, you know, with public support of those. I did
not vote on the first Chesterfield, I was not a Commission member at that time, but I did
attend that meeting as a public, if that's relevant.
Zaremba: A moment ago the planning director looked like she was anxious to say
something.
Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, I just did want to point out the
site in relation to some of those issues you were talking about were right here, if I can
keep it steady. There is mixed use in this location, there is large amount of mixed use,
it's the vision going to the Ten Mile interchange, high density residential right across the
railroad tracks, as well as industrial. So, the services are envisioned as being in this
location. There is also an important thing to note, there is a transit station here and one
of the ideas is to get higher densities near those transit stations and this is not -- this is
not a conversation and specific reference to the project that's before you tonight, just in
the general conversation of density and where we want density and along the railroad
corridor is one of those areas where we do want density and I was in a demographic
advisory committee today for Compass and the new modeling plans for the Compass --
I can't think of the name of it right now. Communities In Motion plan that Compass is
currently working on. One of those scenarios is higher density development around
transit stations. Now, we are looking at maybe seven units to the acre, around those
areas, to support bus or even going as far as to look at 25 units to the acre. This is,
obviously, nowhere close. So, those might be some of the things you would want to
consider and how that density relates to the projects around it. I mean I think that when
you have a project that's insulating that density within itself, then, that is something that
typically that the Council has looked favorably upon and the Planning and Zoning
Commission in the past, so --
Moe: I guess one thing I'd like to just point out, you know, because it had come before
us prior and we did approve it when it went to Council, that they decided that they
wanted to see some changes and whatnot and, quite frankly, see a little diversity on this
plan and I think, quite frankly, the developers have done exactly what Council was
requesting them to do. Here again, the density -- I mean as far as the average overall,
they are still well below what you -- what this area could have, so, again, I think that
what they bring forth has pretty much met what City Council was looking for when they
remanded it back to us for another review.
Rohm: I concur.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 49 of 82
Borup: Are we ready to move on?
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Is somebody ready for a motion or do we need some more discussion?
Rohm: Just to kind of further Commissioner Moe's comments, basically, as I see it, this
development complies with the Comp Plan, is ordinance compliant, it has -- I can't think
of the word -- the density is in transition from the light industrial and the developers
have addressed all the issues that the City Council remanded it back to us for and
based upon all of those items and fully addressing those, I see no reason why we
cannot forward this back to City Council with our recommendation for approval. That
would be my position. With that, if there is no other comments, Mr. Chairman, I move
that we forward on to City Council recommending approval of Public Hearing AZ 03-
037, request for annexation and zoning of 46.40 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for
proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC, east of North
Black Cat Road and north of West Franklin Roads, including all staff comments, for the
hearing date of August 19th and received on August 5th, including all staff comments.
Moe: No. I'm noting the hearing date of the 5th.
Rohm: Oh, hearing date of the 5th was the original staff comments, received August
2nd, 2004.
Moe: I'd second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
Newton-Huckabay: Opposed.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward on to City Council recommending
approval of Public Hearing PP 03-046, request for preliminary plat approval of 214
residential lots and 39 common lots on 46.4 acres in a proposed R-8 PD zone for
proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC, east of South
Back Cat Road and north of the West Franklin Road, to include all staff comments,
dated August 5th, 2004, received August 2nd, 2004.
Moe: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 50 of 82
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
Newton-Huckabay: Opposed.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY.
Rohm: And, lastly, Mr. Chairman, I recommend that we forward onto City Council
approval of Public Hearing CUP 03-070, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
planned development for a residential subdivision in a proposed R-8 PD zone for
proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC, east of South
Black Cat Road and north of West Franklin Road, to include all staff comments,
presented on hearing dated August 5th and received by -- received on date August 2nd,
2004.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Opposed?
Newton-Huckabay: Opposed.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY.
Item 18: Public Hearing: RZ 04-009 Request for a Rezone of 16.49 acres from R-
4 to R-4, R-8 and L-O zones for Larkspur Subdivision by Larkspur, LLC
– 2090, 2190 and 2240 South Meridian Road:
Item 19: Public Hearing: PP 04-023 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval for
56 building lots and 6 common lots on 18.94 acres in a proposed R-8
zone for Larkspur Subdivision by Larkspur, LLC - 2090, 2190 and 2240
South Meridian Road:
Item 20: Public Hearing: CUP 04-025 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
mixed use Planned Development consisting of single family residential,
assisted living and office uses with reductions to the minimum
requirements for lot size and street frontage for Larkspur Subdivision by
Larkspur, LLC - 2090, 2190 and 2240 South Meridian Road:
Borup: Okay. Next is the Larkspur Subdivision project. We have Public Hearing RZ
04-009, request for a rezone of 16.49 acres from R-4 to R-4, R-8, and L-O zones for
Larkspur Subdivision on South Meridian Road. And also PP 04-023, request for
preliminary plat approval of 56 building lots, six common lots, and CUP 04-025, request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a mixed use planned development, consisting of single
family residential, assisted living, and office uses, with reductions to the minimum
requirements for lot size and street frontage. These are all for Larkspur Subdivision.
We'd like to open all three Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 51 of 82
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm going to go through some of
the history of this application. This is, actually, a combination of two applications you
have seen previously. They have been combined into one -- into one project. The
project is located at the southeast intersection of Overland Road and Meridian Road.
And the project that you saw previously included Southwood Subdivision -- I'll go ahead
and put the site plan up. It will look familiar. Southwood Subdivision, which was a
project that encompassed light office lots, an Alzheimer's center, an assisted living
facility and independent living unit. That project was what -- approval was
recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission and, then, the project was
denied by City Council on June 1st of this year. And the second application you have
seen before is Larkspur Subdivision, which was withdrawn by the applicant July of this
year, because when Southwood Subdivision was denied, they lost their access point to
the north. So, they withdrew that application and both applications have been
submitted together as one large project. And I will -- later I'll go through the concerns
that City Council had with Southwood Subdivision and detail how this applicant's met
those -- those concerns of City Council. The project entails -- includes 16.49 acres,
which are being rezoned from -- currently it's R-4 zoning, it's all presently located in the
city with city zoning. Rezoning it from R-4 to L-O. The proposed light office lots will
have L-O zoning and R-8 zoning, which will be used for the remainder of the project.
The project includes 62 build-able lots and a Conditional Use Permit for a planned
development, which is going to allow the applicant to request reduced lot sizes and
frontages and also allows them to request this L-O zoning as a use exception as a part
of their planned development. If you remember, the previous Southwood Subdivision
was dependant on the matrix being approved to go in and ask for that L-O zoning, but
with the planned development application they can ask for this L-O zoning as a use
exception and they do meet the acreage for the use exception. And I'll go through the
project again briefly. The project includes 14 light office lots. The Alzheimer's center
and assisted living and independent living units are on two lots. Here is one lot that's to
the east of the canal. The other lot is to the west of the canal. And, then, there are 40
single family home patio lots and this portion of the project has not changed since you
saw the previous applications, just joined in with the Southwood's application. So, I'll go
ahead and go through some of the concerns of City Council and their reasons for denial
at the previous hearing for Southwoods. The first of these is they were -- and there
were concerns from Meridian Green residents, which is the subdivision to the west of
the subject property -- excuse me, to the east of the subject property. The applicant
has had a number of neighborhood meetings with residents of Meridian Greens and the
subdivision to the north and they have submitted a statement that's been signed by 23
of these neighbors saying that they now support the revised project that's been
submitted. So, they have done a lot of work with the neighbors. The second of these
issues that they were concerned about was the incompatibility of the R-15 zoning with
the adjoining properties in the area. The original Southwoods project was requesting R-
15 zoning for the assisted living center, Alzheimer's center, and independent living units.
The applicant has request R-8 zoning for the project and I want to briefly go through
staff's interpretation and why we feel R-8 zoning is appropriate in this scenario. Our
interpretation is that the independent living units that are a part of this project function
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 52 of 82
as a part of the assisted living facility there. They are difference from apartments in that
the residents have on-site medical care and there is a central location where they are
receiving meals, so they function differently than apartments and really function as a
part of the assisted living facility. So, that's how they were able to ask for the R-8
zoning in this location. The third concern from City Council was the potential for the
Alzheimer's center to disturb residents of Meridian Greens Subdivision. Remember, the
original Southwood Subdivision Alzheimer's center was located on the east side of the
canal. The refigured project has it in a much more centralized location, so it's
essentially -- the project is buffering the Alzheimer's center from adjoining properties.
And, then, the final concern of City Council, as they stated, and their reason for it during
the project is -- was the incompatibility of the L-O zoning with the Comprehensive Plan,
because previously they were relying on the land use consistency matrix, which was
withdrawn by staff. And that's been resolved through the planned development
application and their application for a use exception for that L-O zoning. So, they
resolved all four of the major issues that were the reasons for denial by City Council. I
want to go through several additional issues I just wanted to draw your attention to. I'm
going to try to find -- the site plan is a little less busy. The first of these -- and I know we
discussed this at length when it came to Planning and Zoning Commission. Last
hearing is the -- the access points for these -- these two existing residential lots, which
staff feels that there is probably a good potential, given the location and size of these
lots, that at some point they will redevelop and we wanted to make sure that -- that they
were able to redevelop and that we had access to those lots. We have a letter from
ITD, their most -- several letters from ITD. The current letter states that the applicant
can -- as long as these remain residential and there is no change to the property, can
retain their access points off of Meridian Road. Upon redevelopment they will need to
abandon those access points. The developer and the current residents favor obtaining
access through the proposed light office development. There is a lot -- let's see. Well,
you all have plans, you can look at the lot number. I don't have a rundown here. But
there is a lot which they are planning to currently have as a landscape lot and upon
redevelopment of these commercial properties, they will put a common drive and, then,
that will serve as access for these two commercial points and that's the preferred point
for the developer and for the current residents. We also discussed a couple other
options at the last hearing, including using the emergency road access, paving that, and
turning that into an access or doing one to the north of the residential property and that
was strongly opposed by the current residents. And the next issue -- we addressed the
R-8 -- oh, he's squirming over there. Still strongly opposed it looks like. I wanted to
make that clear. The second issue I addressed was the R-8 zoning and why we think
it's appropriate to ask for that for the independent living units. And, then, the last issue I
wanted to cover is staff is requesting that there is some internal pathways in the
subdivision which are an amenity and we think a good part of the project. We wanted
to make sure that lots adjoining those pathways had, essentially, micro-path fencing.
Currently, there is nothing in our code to regulate the type of fencing that goes along an
internal pathway of it doesn't meet micro-path standards. These are longer than micro-
path lots. So, we are asking that they just go ahead and meet micro-path standards, so
we increase visibility and safety in those areas. So, we are asking for that micro-path
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 53 of 82
fencing along all open space areas and along -- along those internal pathways. The
staff is recommending approval of this project and I will answer any questions you have.
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Would the applicant like to add
anything?
Sargent: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'm Ron Sargent, 4915 West Camas Street in
Boise, and there is, actually, two developers in this project. We are doing the patio
homes and the limited office area up here and, then, Doug Clegg can address the
assisted living, Alzheimer's, and independent living spaces. I guess one of the things,
because of the previous application, there was discussion about density and we are
doing these patio homes in here and maybe I could just briefly explain a little bit our
thought process behind the whole issue of the density in here and the reason that we --
we have done about 200 of these townhouses, patio homes, in the Treasure Valley area
and what we find is by far and away the majority of the buyers, the homeowners in
there, are seniors and some of the things that we look for is access to services in the
community that are relatively close and just to the north of us, Southern Springs, you
know, retail commercial development on this -- these two parcels here is planned for
sometime in the future and we are hoping that they build that out and so that people
from the patio homes would be able to walk to retail and commercial services up there.
And I think having the close proximity to the freeway is also a good use for a higher
density, because it makes it easier for people to get access to other services in the
Treasure Valley, as well as being able to use the retail services on the north side of the
freeway. So, we look at this as a good location for a higher density, because the type of
buyers that we have been selling to we feel are going to be attracted to this type of
development in this location, so just to kind of address one of the things that came up
earlier. I guess, Wendy, could you go back to the site plan? And as we discussed, we
have added -- I guess it shows it on this one -- an access at sometime in the future,
because our feeling that these -- these two lots here are being retained by the existing
owners, they are single family homes located there, and they are going to continue to
remain as single family homes for the time being. But at sometime in the future when
they are redeveloped, we feel that because of noise and the proximity to Highway 69
and Meridian Road, that they are more than likely to be redeveloped as commercial
office property and not as residential. And we think it makes more sense for that type of
access to go through the office area here, rather than coming through in this area
where it comes through a residential and, then, into an office commercial area. So, we
think it would be better designed to keep those separated and that's why we put this
access over in this location to use at sometime in the future. I guess I'd open up to any
questions.
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners?
Zaremba: I have a couple that are just kind of a review of things that we talked about
before.
Sargent: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 54 of 82
Zaremba: Your assumption is that at some point the end of this street would connect to
an existing dead end that's probably, what, 500 yards south of your property?
Sargent: Yes.
Zaremba: That there would be a connection to that sometime, which gives you the
second access, at which time you would give up this gravel and does that become a
building lot, then?
Sargent: Yes. That would be the intent sometime.
Zaremba: Okay.
Sargent: As soon as this road connects on through and there is a secondary access,
then, our plan is to make -- then, turn that into a build-able lot at that point in time.
Zaremba: Okay. Then --
Kirkpatrick: And, Chairman, Members of the Commission, we wanted to make sure that
that lot does not redevelop until that connection to the north is established.
Zaremba: Until there is that connection.
Borup: Well, you're saying two connections, one to the south and one to the north.
Kirkpatrick: When those two properties redevelop.
Sargent: Yeah.
Zaremba: Then, the other question is I agree with you that it makes sense to -- that this
will probably develop at something other than residential --
Sargent: Right.
Zaremba: -- after the people are tired of living there. The current owners. And this
stub through here makes a great deal of sense. However, this -- if this develops as
office or commercial of some sort, it's a piece of property about the same size as that.
Might it not make sense to have a second way in and out of it, maybe there, just for
traffic flow, not necessarily even for safety reasons, but just for traffic flow?
Sargent: I guess it's --
Zaremba: Or is that one wider than I'm thinking it is?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 55 of 82
Sargent: Yeah. That's -- it's a standard drive aisle that is 24 feet wide and I think it's
wider than maybe it looks. This also -- I think the opportunity -- and we don't know that
this -- that Roslin comes in this area, there is a lot -- or potential for a development here
and there could be access from the south as well off that public street.
Zaremba: And have continuing connection all the way through.
Sargent: Right. So, we -- I mean it's hard to say what would develop, but there is the
potential for that to develop to the south, as well as commercial -- or nonresidential I
guess is better terminology.
Kirkpatrick: And, Chairman, Members of the Commission, just another point to
consider, that the property to the south, while it is on an arterial, the Comp Plan
designation is low density residential, so just kind of keep that in mind.
Borup: Okay. Anyone else?
Zaremba: Yeah. Let me just clarify your last comment. If I remember, those are long --
a couple more long narrow lots similar to these and it's likely that they might develop
with a 20 percent use exception similar to what we are doing, so it is logical that there
might be something other than residential along --
Kirkpatrick: And while they could come in and ask for the use exception, the
designation is low density residential.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you.
Sargent: I'll let Doug Clegg discuss the senior campus.
Clegg: My name is Doug Clegg and I'm at 1091 North Pinnacle Way, Eagle, Idaho.
And I really don't have anything to say, unless you have got questions for me about
what we are going up there. I think Wendy's presented all the concerns. I personally
talked with everybody but Bill Nary from the City Council and also Madam Mayor de
Weerd after we were denied and we actually went back and asked them, instead of the
denial, to change our status to a continuance, because we knew that the staff was
going to be bringing forward a proposal to amend -- I'm not real sure what the
terminology is, but the Comp Plan, so that we could do the consistency matrix and after
talking about it and being denied, we just re-applied. So, all the concerns that she
brought up earlier, which was the location of Alzheimer, the Mayor asked us to get
letters of reference for our other locations and we currently have 32 of those gathered
from surrounding residences of our existing locations in other communities, because
there was some concern that we weren't going to be good neighbors and we will
present that to the City Council here when we meet with them. The only other comment
that I had was relative to a fence and from City Council on Ten Mile drain. And I think
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 56 of 82
that that was from Councilmember Rountree. He's concerned about the fact that there
is a pretty steep slope there on the Ten Mile Creek and that the seniors are using -- or
anybody that would be using that pathway that parks and rec. is going to require us to
develop there, would potentially fall in there and not be able to get back out. We have
been in discussions with the irrigation district and also with the Army Corps of
Engineers and we don't see a problem with that, but we are going to have to work
through logistics of putting fencing on both sides of that to curtail foot traffic or
something falling in there, but I think other than that, all the other concerns have been
addressed there. The only other thought I might bring up, too, is -- could you turn to the
landscape plan, Wendy? Are you managing that? One of the concerns that the
neighbors had that we -- we actually had nine items that we addressed that were
included in the letter that was given to you with their signatures on it, which is pretty
much an affidavit of them saying we like the project now, you guys have made some
changes, and we had had two or three other plans before we actually came up with this
one and some of the other concessions that we made was actually to have 20-foot
separation on the side yard of those duplexes that are in that triangular section and a
35-foot setback and an increased density and you can see we have got a lot of trees
going there in that back area to create a little bit better buffer with the neighbors there
and I think they were pretty pleased with that. As you can see, none of them are here
complaining tonight, so I think we got their vote of confidence on the project now, so
those are the only thoughts I had.
Borup: I'll commend you on that. It looks like you had spent a lot of time with the
neighbors --
Clegg: Thanks.
Borup: -- and you can see the difference.
Clegg: Yeah. Thanks.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have any other testimony on this application?
Clark: My name is Gordon Clark, I am at 1919 Southeast 3rd Way. Unfortunately, I'm
right outside the barrier -- or the perimeter line that gets notified of these changes and
stuff and also I'm -- unfortunately, I was not in attendance to the previous City Council
meeting, I was on vacation at that time. Some of my concerns are -- I'm still kind of
questioning the densities and if you look to the left there, you got Bear Creek and, then,
you were talking about this Bellissmer -- or however you say that -- Subdivision and
both of those are nice R-4 subdivisions and Meridian Greens is pretty much in the same
density and we live on 30 acre lots there and so I'm kind of questioning -- if you take the
lower -- is that pointer thing here?
Borup: It's right there on your -- it should be on your --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 57 of 82
Clark: Yeah. Right. If you look at the -- this section right here where the subdivision is
going to be in, that looks to me about six acres and you're going to have 40 patio
homes there and I'm just trying to understand how that fits in with, you know, all the
other developments around there as far as density. Currently to the south there, I think
that is about an R-2 in there. Some of the comments that were made, you know,
access to, you know, this area that might be developed sometime into shopping for
elderly that might live in here right now, this highway is not fun to walk along, it's terrible
access, actually, so I'm not sure if they are going to try to buy out this land and get up in
there or what for access to that and I guess the main question is just now does this fit
in. I'm trying to understand. You guys are the planning commissioners and stuff and
I'm just really trying to understand how when you got such disperse density all around it,
how all of a sudden we are going to have 40 homes and I think that is about six acres,
wouldn't you agree or -- looks like 16 or 17 acres, I can't quite tell total.
Borup: The total is 16, so you're probably pretty close.
Clark: Right. I'm talking about this area right here.
Borup: That's probably pretty close.
Clark: It's about six acres and 40 homes and that just seems like a lot more dense than
neighboring areas, so -- I can see that they have made concessions. I also, you know,
appreciate the work they have gone to. I think the light office buffering on the site is
okay. I still don't understand why exceptions always have to be made, you know, why
can't you just stick with the regular light office zoning as it is in the code, you know, and
allow the same density of light office, since that's the designation of light office. So, I
don't understand why exceptions always have to -- to me it's just somebody needs to
make more money and so they put in more office buildings, so -- anyway, thanks.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Okay. Did you have any final
comments?
Sargent: Ron Sargent again and I guess just on the issue of the density, I think
sometimes it's not so much the number of people or the homes -- and in this case it's
slightly over seven acres and we have a density of about 5.6 homes per acre, there is
also the use and the type of owners that are in there and I guess what I would say is
that we tend to be -- the people that we sell to tend to be good neighbors, they tend to
be seniors, they travel at off times of the day, they are not out there at rush hour with a
lot more congestion on the streets. They tend to be quiet, they are not up late at night
typically and as far as access is concerned, is we built a pathway system that starts
here on the sidewalk and goes through up this way and there is a pathway, then, that
goes over to the multi-use pathway on the Ten Mile Drain and, then, this pathway will
continue on up to the commercial area at Southern Springs. So, there would be -- for
people to walk into the Southern Springs retail development, they wouldn't have to go
out on Meridian Road, there would be access on a pathway system at the back of the
development. So, thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 58 of 82
Borup: Okay. Commissioners?
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on all three of these
items.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Do we have any questions or discussion or --
Newton-Huckabay: I just want to comment after this came through as Southwood
Subdivision, I drove out to Eagle and I looked at the development out in Eagle, because
I just -- I wasn't real comfortable with the way the Public Hearing went and I would be
very willing to live next door to that development that they have in Eagle. That was a
real first class development. So, I just wanted to make that comment that it was
everything that they said it was when I drove out there. And I think flipping the
configuration around will make them even better neighbors. But I do -- I do like this
development, even though it does have more density around it, I think the type of
homes and the type of development it will be will compliment all of the neighbors
around it.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: I would say was I satisfied with the proposal before, but I actually think this is
an improvement over it, so the tweaks have -- have been good and there were a few
things left hanging that have been nailed down, all of which are good.
Moe: And one other thing I would say is it has been good that there wasn't a lot of
opposition tonight.
Zaremba: Well -- and that's the credit to the developer of having a good neighborhood
meeting. We try to encourage that, that things go a lot smoother if you can iron out the
neighborhood problems before they get here.
Moe: I agree.
Rohm: With that being said, Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council
recommending approval of Public Hearing RZ 04-009, request for a rezone of 16.49
acres from R-4 to R-4, R-8 and L-O zones for Larkspur Subdivision by Larkspur, LLC,
2090, 2190 and 2240 South Meridian Road, including all staff comments for the hearing
date August 19th and received on August 16th.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 59 of 82
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward on to City Council recommending
approval of Public Hearing PP 04-023, request for preliminary plat approval of 56
building lots and six common lots on 18.94 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Larkspur
Subdivision by Larkspur, LLC, 2090, 2190, and 2240 South Meridian Road, including all
staff comments for the hearing date of August 19th, 2004, received on August 16th,
2004.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and Second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward on to City Council recommending
approval of Public Hearing CUP 04-025, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
mixed use planned development consisting of single family residential, assisted living,
and office uses with reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size and street
frontage for Larkspur Subdivision by Larkspur, LLC, 2090, 2190, and 2240 South
Meridian Road and including all staff comments for the hearing date August 19th,
received on August 16th, 2004.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Okay. That concludes that application. Thank you. We are going to take a real
short break at this time.
(Recess.)
Item 21: Public Hearing: AZ 04-019 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 64.48
acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Ventana Subdivision by G.L.
Voigt Development Company – north of West McMillan on North Meridian
Road:
Item 22: Pubic Hearing: PP 04-026 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 234
single-family residential building lots and 16 common lots on 64.48 acres
in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Ventana Subdivision by G.L. Voigt
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 60 of 82
Development Company – north of West McMillan Road on North Meridian
Road:
Item 23: Pubic Hearing: CUP 04-028 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
mixed use Planned Development consisting of single family residential
lots with reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size, street
frontage (including cul-de-sacs) and request to exceed the maximum
block length allowed for proposed Ventana Subdivision by G.L. Voigt
Development Company – north of West McMillan Road on North Meridian
Road:
Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our hearing and start with Public Hearing AZ 04-
019, request for annexation and zoning of 64.48 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for the
proposed Ventana Subdivision by G.L. Vogt, and also PP 04-026, request for
preliminary plat approval of 234 single family residential building lots and CUP 04-028,
request for a Conditional Use Permit for a mixed use planned development, consisting
of single family residential lots, with reduction in minimum requirements for lot size,
reduced frontage, and block length. Again, we are opening all three public hearings
and starting with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. There are
three applications here and the first one -- I was pronouncing it Ventana. Whether it's
Ventana I don't -- maybe that's right, but I'll say Ventana. Or Ventana. I think we are
already to Vent-a-na a little bit there.
Moe: Moving on.
Hawkins-Clark: Sorry. The property is originally part of the Ashenbrenner hundred plus
acre parcel, which was divided recently in the county for mainly the purposes of the
middle school -- future middle school that is on the bottom 40 acres, and the property is
designated as medium density residential in the Comprehensive Plan. Saguaro
Canyon Estates was approved a few months ago and that is 140 acres here to the east
and to the north and other adjacent properties, as you can see, have been annexed.
On the west side of Meridian Road, Paramount Subdivision, with a few out parcels here
and, then, Havasu Creek, Cobre Basin Subdivision on the south side of McMillan Road.
All the other adjacent -- well, the adjacent property to the north, there is a 24-foot wide
gravel road, as you may recall from Saguaro Canyon Estates, immediately north and,
then, there is approximately a 20 acre estate-type property and, then, another 20 acre
estate-type property to the north of that. So, this is the third application for annexation
that we have received in this section. So, they have requested all of the 64.48 acres to
be zoned to an R-8. Aerial photos. Here is the layout that was submitted with the
preliminary plat. The application, as the chairman noted, there are 234 building lots
and, then, 16 common lots. The build-able lots range in size from about 6,000 square
feet, which is their minimum, to 14,575. The gross density of the project is 3.63
dwelling units per acre. The Conditional Use Permit is requesting exceptions to four
different standards. The first one is lot size. Instead of the 6,500 square foot in an R-8,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 61 of 82
they are proposing 6,000. And the second one is frontage. Instead of 65-foot frontage
on the lots, they are asking for 40. That 40 applies to about four lots. The rest of them
are right around the 65-foot frontage. The cord length that they are asking for is five-
foot reduction from a 40-foot cord to a 35-foot cord and, then, a block length. The
maximum block length for the city is 1,000 and they are asking for 1,200 plus. And that
primarily is related to this central block in the subdivision here. The block actually
begins here at this north boundary where that 20-foot gravel roads is and, then, comes
down to this point. It does not have a public street that breaks it up. However, it does --
they are proposing a clubhouse with a swimming pool about in the middle of that block
and that would allow for pedestrian connection through the block. One attempt that
they are trying to do here, which the applicant, Becky, will probably go maybe a little bit
more in detail on is the connection that Saguaro Canyon Estates provided is right here
about in the -- the northeast corner here and as you may recall, they will not be able to
use the -- the only lot that can use the gravel road on the north is a five acre lot for one
house that is located here owned by the Boyacks. Once that house in Saguaro Canyon
has another public road access, they have to abandon the gravel road entirely; they
won't be able to use that. So, all of Saguaro at this point is moving traffic either down to
McMillan Road or out through this sub and, then, of course, in the future it's anticipated
they can go other directions in the north and south, but these are the only applications
that the city has received right now, so in terms of looking at the circulation in this area,
there was some concern by this developer that the cut-through through their project
from Saguaro may be a problem and so they have tried to make it fairly circuitous to get
out to Meridian Road. So, that is some of the reason there. The South Slough -- or is
that the North Slough, I'm sorry, does cut through this northeast corner of the project.
They are proposing to extend the ten foot wide regional public path, which was a part of
Saguaro as well, up this road, go along the drain and, then, come out to Meridian Road
and, then, that would hook up with Paramount and head across over towards the high
school. The future high school. Let's see. On the planned development, the amenities
that they are proposing are the playground equipment, a clubhouse with restrooms and
a swimming pool and a multi-use pathway. They do have about eight -- a little over
eight percent of their total gross acreage is in open space. Here is just a couple of
slides of the landscape plan that were included in here, so you can see the amenities.
This is their main entrance of Meridian Road, it's located here about in the middle of the
project. As you come in it is designed, as a residential collector with no front-on
housing that would terminate here at the clubhouse. The playground equipment is
currently shown here and one of staff's comments was that at least one of the two
required amenities should be shifted down to the south, since these two are only about
1,000 feet apart from each other. Let's see. I'll just go back to the overall preliminary
plat and just point out two -- I think two issues. We did receive to the public record two
responses -- well, one was a letter submitted by Mr. John Priddy who, I believe, is here
tonight and the other one was a response from Engineering Solutions, which is a written
response to our comments. On the written response, I have talked with Becky, there
was nine proposed modifications, some of them slight, the only really main one that
requested significant change, I think, was Item number eight under the preliminary plat.
One of my comments was that, as you can see, Paramount is proposing a center
median island here at the half mile on the west side of Meridian Road. We had thought
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 62 of 82
it might look good, since it's the half mile point, to have a median on the east side of the
road as well. The surveyors, the engineers, did look at that, they do have to use the
center-line, obviously, that cannot shift. Ada Highway District requires those to be
perfectly aligned and in order to stay with that center line, putting the median in there
would make the turning radius to the north virtually impossible. So, that is the reason
why there is not a median in this project. With that 24-foot wide road being on the north
and this property owner, Voigt Development Company, not having any control over that,
obviously, they can't encroach or penetrate to that north, so they have to use the
boundary that they have and staff understands that it's, essentially, a survey and an
Ada County Highway District issue that the applicant doesn't have any control over. So,
they are requesting that number eight be removed. If the Commission agrees, staff is
fine with that. The other item I wanted to point out was item number 18 on -- also on
the preliminary plat, which deals with the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department.
Their standard condition that we include says that whenever someone builds a pathway
that's going to become public, that that pathway should be built to the specs that are
currently in their master plan and I think this item came up on a project over on Ustick
and Ten Mile, where the standards are actually, from an engineering standpoint, almost
stricter than what a public roadway is and it's just used for a public pathway, so I think
there needs to be some coordination, obviously, there between our department and the
conditions that we are putting on and as well as the parks department and what exactly
is going to be a -- you know, a good quality pathway that's not going to require much
maintenance, but is also reasonable in terms of the cost to construct it, so --
Borup: So, the parks department hasn't come up with a new recommendation? I
thought that was --
Hawkins-Clark: I don't believe so.
Borup: That's what I kind of understood was going to happen, they were going to come
up with some new standards.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. Chairman, I don't believe they have done that yet.
Borup: Haven't done that yet? Well, was that a correct assumption, they were working
on it, or does someone need to say something to them?
Hawkins-Clark: It will certainly be brought up to the parks department at this point.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman and Brad, in the previous discussion on the other project that
you're talking about, didn't we substitute reference to some standard, international
something or other that come out of some manual and say that they could build to that
alternate -- or am I --
Hawkins-Clark: I'm not sure. I was not the planner on that and, unfortunately, those of
us that are left here tonight can't remember, but I think what they have proposed is that
the pathway be coordinated -- the construction of the pathway be coordinated with both
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 63 of 82
Planning and Zoning and the Parks and Recreation Department, which, probably for the
sake of a preliminary plat, is adequate.
Zaremba: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: The other disagreement that was put into the letter -- response letter
had to do with the Conditional Use Permit and I had made a comment about the
frontages. They were requesting a reduction down to 40 feet on the frontages and we
have in other projects differentiated between a lot frontage on a perpendicular street
and a lot frontage on a curvilinear or cul-de-sac and in my first review I didn't see that
there were any lots on perpendicular streets that needed to go below 55 feet on the
frontage. I did miss a couple lots that do go down to about 42 feet. The lot sizes of
those -- and just for example, here is one down in the southeast corner where the lot
frontage I think is about 42, 43 feet. This lot size itself is, actually, over 9,000. And,
obviously, that's -- you got to look at both, frontages and lot size and as long as those
are build-able lots, they can maintain the minimum lot size and not go below their
requested 6,000, then, I think it's probably safe to allow that reduction to go down to 40,
which is what they have proposed. And I guess the last suggestion I had was on -- if
the Commission wants to just simply incorporate, rather than going item by item, if you
agree with the applicant's responses or, if not, you could just simply ask staff to
incorporate those responses into the recommendation to the City Council. Just an
option for you. And, then, finally, on the last page of my staff report onto the
recommendation I did make a note about transportation corridors in the north Meridian
area and the fact that -- let me just go back here -- that if you take the whole -- this
whole area into consideration, there is -- this zoning doesn't show it correctly, this is
actually C-G in Paramount, there is C-G on the corner and, then, there is R-40 and,
then, there is L-O, so you have three different zones that are either high density or
commercial that are actually across the street from this Ventana Subdivision. And,
then, of course, you have Meridian -- a future Meridian middle school. One of the
concerns from a transportation congestion management standpoint is where are the
appropriate places to help get some density, as you talked about already tonight, so
that those corridors are viable and whether -- is 64 acres large enough to do a little bit
more diversity, rather than just one hundred percent single family detached product
types and we -- none of the required findings for annexation and zoning really, I felt, in
writing the report, I felt they could all be met. I mean I thought that the findings, for the
most part -- there is -- there is change in the area, there is transportation available. The
level of service on Meridian Road was found by the traffic engineer to be a level of
service C or better and that's with a 2009 build out, adding a little over 5,000 vehicle
trips, and what they found was that Meridian Road could handle it, so I guess I just
wanted to clarify that from a technical standpoint could the findings be met, yes. From
a larger perspective is this a potential area where we might want to see more diversity
and a little more density, in the south portion next to the school, maybe. And the final
comment I had was in Mr. Priddy's letter he references the north Meridian area plan
and, of course, there is not an adopted north Meridian area plan that has the force of
law behind it. There was an effort that, obviously, was made and has a lot of good
ideas, which, hopefully, are not going to be forgotten, they are still alive and will come
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 64 of 82
forth, but we -- in terms of making land use decisions, this body and the City Council
have to use the adopted Comprehensive Plan and the ordinances, so I just want to
make that clarification. Thanks.
Newton-Huckabay: None of us have the letter from Mr. Priddy.
Zaremba: I don't remember seeing it.
Newton-Huckabay: I have the letter from Becky.
Hawkins-Clark: Would the Commission like that to be read into the record or --
Borup: Maybe we will let -- Mr. Priddy is here, maybe we will wait and see how his
testimony goes.
Hawkins-Clark: Okay.
Canning: I just wanted Mr. Gabbert's opinion. I think if he's provided the testimony for
tonight's hearing, he'd either have to read it or table until you could hear it -- or table
until we got a copy of it.
Borup: Do you have a copy in your file?
Canning: Yeah.
Borup: Okay. So, we just -- can we fire up the photocopier and take care of that, rather
than table it? Any other questions for staff? Does that handle -- I mean that could
potentially handle that. Okay.
Rohm: Works for me.
Borup: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I'd like to have it read or to read it myself.
Borup: Right. Yeah. We will get a copy. Okay. Becky, would you like to do your
presentation?
McKay: Becky McKay with Engineering Solutions. I'm representing the applicant on
this application, G.L. Voigt Development. Oh, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle. I'd like
to start out by just kind of letting you know how this project came about. I was
approached by Wendell Bigham of the Meridian School district a few months ago and
he said that he was having problems acquiring a middle school site and he said he had
concerns that the property was being bought up so quickly out in the north Meridian
area, that they were going to be left out in the cold, and he said I have approached
multiple property owners and multiple developers and he said the problem with
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 65 of 82
approaching these property owners is a lot of them have say 104 or five acres and I
only need 40 and no one's willing to sell just 40 acres. And I said so what are you
talking about, Wendell, I said are you wanting to kind of team up with a developer and
he said, well, if that's possible and we could -- you know, they'd buy a portion and we'd
buy a portion and meet both needs, he said let's try it. So, he and I brainstormed about
different properties and this Ashenbrenner property, which was about 105 acres, they
had approached Mr. Ashenbrenner and he had told developers and the school district
he had no interest in selling this property. I was fortunate a few years ago to develop
some property that his father owned for the Bosegar family and so I knew Ken and I
dealt with him, he was on Settler's irrigation board. So, I approached him by myself to
see if he would be interested in this and he liked that idea of a middle school and a
subdivision combination, so we got both parties -- all three parties together and this is
what happened. So, I just want to let the Commission know that, you know, that the
private sector and like the school district can work together in some instances, so that
we can benefit the community and not just, you know, only one subdivision. This
particular area going to be served by the North Slough. This is a map that was
provided by Keller and Associates. They have been retained by the City of Meridian to
design the North Slough trunk. This is Paramount Subdivision right here and the trunk
line is within Paramount at this time. Keller is designing that trunk line out to Meridian
Road and, then, it will go along -- it was planned to go along our north boundary and,
then, drop down into the future Saguaro Subdivision and go all the way out to Locust
Grove to take the Vienna Woods lift station off line and service that eastern portion of
your impact area. We have been working with Keller and Associates closely. We
accelerated our land planning in order to give them a concept, so that they could get the
sewer alignment. Their schedule, based on the most current information we have, is
that the design phase will be wrapped up around the first of the year and, then, they will
bid that out and, hopefully, start construction in February, ending in I think June or July.
So, this trunk line is not here at this time, but it is going to be coming our direction. In
designing this project, I wanted to take one -- this is the half-mile, so I did have to align
here with Paramount's entrance. We brought in a short collector roadway here and,
then, we included a pedestrian path here, so that the city sewer could take more of a
direct route to go onto the east. The less bends and manholes that are installed, the
deeper that sewer is and the cheaper it is for installation. So, we didn't want the city to
have to drop down and zigzag as far as to get that trunk over to the east. We had
looked at providing a collector to come back in here when Saguaro was processing.
We had talked with the staff, they had liked that idea, we approached Saguaro's
developer, they said they did not want a half mile collector coming into their project and
that the information they gave us was that Mr. Priddy did not want a collector roadway
lying against his boundary, because one of the ideas would be that that 24 feet that was
a driveway would be absorbed into that collector. So, we brought in a non-continuous
collector here, matched up at the half mile. Our primary entrance with an island is
located here. This is a collector coming in here with the focus being a clubhouse and --
which will have lockers, restrooms, changing rooms and, then, a swimming pool and,
then, there will be a small parking facility for handicapped, guests, and so forth. One of
the things that we worked with also was the fact that you do have a multi-use pathway
that's designated on your Comp Plan and your parks plan going in a northwesterly
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 66 of 82
direction. We are matching up to Saguaro with our ten foot pathway, then, it will
transition to a six foot sidewalk coming up here, we will put pedestrian crossings here,
bring a ten foot pathway up here, six foot, then, ten and, then, ten going out and what
that will do is facilitate kids going to the elementary, as you recall, right in the center of
Paramount is going to be an elementary school. So, you're going to have a lot of
pedestrian traffic going that way. The school district did not want any stub streets to the
middle school, they just wanted to pedestrian pathways. I did consult with Wendell on
these. We have placed these in -- obviously, two where we felt were convenient
locations to drop these kids down these blocks and, then, as you can see, we have
pathways that come to the clubhouse and, then, they can drop down this way and come
in and drop back into the middle school. So, we have got a real good pedestrian
circulation. The staff was quite pleased when we did the pre-app. We have got some
linear open space with pathways going through it here, we have playground equipment
proposed there, but if staff believes it's appropriate that it be down here, that's fine. We
had a discussion about safety as far as visibility of these more linear parks, that always
becomes an issue. My recommendation in my comments is that we have non-sight
obscuring fencing along the rear of any lots that back up to that open space, so that we
have got maximum visibility of the kids playing on the equipment or playing ball or
whatever. This particular project is in a medium density residential zone. We are 3.63
dwelling units per acre. Like Brad said, we have got about approximately eight percent
open space, which is about 7.47 acres total of open space in this project. This is very
similar to the Sundance project that I did at Meridian Road and Ustick. Same
developer. We got a lot of variation in housing types and styles. That also had a little
clubhouse and pool, playground equipment. We got a lot of compliments from the
residents that live there about the livability of the community. Steve Siddoway has
purchased a house there, so, obviously, even planners like it and we are trying to
duplicate the same type of community here. We went through three or four different
versions. We felt that this was, obviously, the most conducive one minimize cut-through
traffic, since we do have a major stub street here and we would take those -- that traffic
out to this collector, but yet slow it down as it comes through the community. We are
stubbing -- the staff is asking us to stub to Mr. Priddy here and, then, we did have a
neighborhood meeting on June 17th. The only attendance at the meeting -- and it was
held at the Ashenbrenner's home, was the Boyacks and they asked us to please move
this stub street further east. We have done that, we moved it east, we have sent it to
Keller and Associates and I have indicated in our comments that we believe that will
provide them the access that they need and close enough alignment to their stub street
to the north. We feel we have got a real good quality project and we believe that the
amenities that we are providing, the multi-use pathway, pool, a little clubhouse,
restrooms, play equipment, meet the criteria under the planned develop and the focal
point of this neighborhood is, obviously, on that clubhouse and pool center. Do you
have any questions?
Borup: Questions from the Commission? A question on your neighborhood meeting.
Was there a letter sent to Mr. Priddy?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 67 of 82
McKay: Yes. I saw it on the list. We sent -- because the list was very short. There
weren't that many properties owners that adjoin us.
Borup: That's what I would have assumed.
McKay: Yes. I got a copy of the letter and the records that went out.
Borup: Okay. Questions from any of the Commissioners?
Zaremba: Maybe not. I guess not.
Borup: On one of the stub streets that staff recommended to north, you mentioned the
Boyacks' property, but I'm not sure where their proper is and how that ties in with this.
McKay: Commissioner Borup, Members of the Commission --
Borup: I mean I assumed it was --
McKay: -- the Boyacks property line is right -- the Boyacks property line is right there
and they own this 24-foot strip. It comes back to this point, then, there is kind of jog in
the boundary. This would be their western boundary and, then, I believe the eastern
boundary of that five acres was right -- kind of right in here. So, we have taken this stub
street and we have moved it over to be more centrally located.
Borup: Oh, you have moved it. Okay.
McKay: Yes, sir.
Borup: That's where I was --
McKay: This drawing does not reflect it, but we have moved it in our computer drawing
and we have e-mailed that version to Keller and Associates for their sewer alignment.
Borup: Okay. That explains my confusion.
McKay: Yes, sir. I'm sorry.
Borup: I didn't have a plat that jived with the comments. Okay. Thank you.
McKay: Thank you.
Zaremba: If at sometime the 24 or 25 foot wide easement is abandoned, which,
apparently, is going to happen, is it -- would that become your property or what happens
to it?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 68 of 82
McKay: We don't own that. The Boyacks own it. They were part of Saguaro. I don't
know, you know, what the -- probably the best use would be to utilize that as a buffer.
We are putting a landscape buffer along this collector here, it's, oh, going up to about
40 feet maximum here to create a buffer, then, between us and Mr. Priddy is the
24 feet and that driveway is existing now and I think that was the big debate when
Saguaro came through was that they wanted to retain that driveway to build a new
home, but the property was never part of this property.
Zaremba: Well -- and part of the reason for that was that I think we required them --
they could put roadways in, but they couldn't do any flammable building north of a
certain line until they had other accesses in and out of there, which left them and their
existing house high and dry, unless they kept this access. So, I understand the
reasoning behind why it currently exists, although when they have a roadway that they
can get out, that's when they have to give this up, so I guess I'm supporting staff's
question of are we going to end up with a 25 foot strip of gravel once they abandon it as
an access that's between your property and the next property?
McKay: Commissioner Zaremba, I brought that very issue up at the City Council when
Saguaro was heard at Public Hearing, that I didn't want to be the one that would have to
fix someone else's mistake. I think the condition the Council placed upon them is when
they have alternative public street access, that they would abandon the 24 feet as a
driveway, but, nonetheless, they will still own the 24 feet. So, to answer your question
as far as what happens to the 24 feet, in reality, when they do abandon it, I don't know if
the Council specified -- it makes the most sense that it probably be sold to Mr. Priddy,
so that he could have even more of a landscape buffer separation from the residential
developments.
Moe: What kind of fencing are you putting on that north side, if any?
McKay: Along -- along this north side here?
Moe: Yeah. Basically to be separating from Mr. Priddy's property and this subdivision.
McKay: Well, right here Mr. Priddy has pole fence, ag -- pole ag fence all along the
north side of the driveway, then you have the driveway, which is owned by the Boyacks,
and, then, right along here would probably be some type of a solid fence, like a wood
six foot solid fence, residential type fence, because we don't abut his agricultural use.
Moe: Don't want to put in a concrete -- stamped concrete wall?
McKay: We did discuss that, because it was brought up at the Saguaro hearing, and it
was brought up because they had lots backing up to agricultural use. But we don't --
we don't abut his property, sir. So, in my discussions with my client, he was opposed to
that.
Moe: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 69 of 82
Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you, Becky. Do we have anyone else that
would like to testify on this? How about the whole audience come up?
Priddy: I am the audience. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission,
anybody else who is still left here this evening. This is American government working
hard at this hour, isn't it? My name is John Priddy, my address is 5740 North Meridian
Road and if somebody could just pop the first picture -- there you go. I am the property
-- there you go -- with the square dot in the middle of it and --
Borup: What is that dot in the middle?
Priddy: That's the house. That's the residential portion of --
Borup: Separate parcel number?
Priddy: Yeah. Residential portion of the property and the remaining property is
agricultural. We run cattle out there. One to two herds, one to two bulls, in two
separate pastures. Our property is very unique and that's why the north Meridian plan
was so intriguing to us when we purchased it three years ago, because we thought that
there was going to be a transitional development in that area and what I'm confused
about is that the north Meridian plan is still a good idea and we hope those ideas still
happen, but it's impossible for them to happen with each one of these subdivisions as
they get approved, because there is really nothing else to do once they are approved.
So, the Saguaro Canyon discussions with the folks that lived -- that developed behind
us, basically, came down to this with the City Council. Our property -- we have a 7,000
square foot home on the property, a 5,000 square foot barn, 2,500 square foot
outbuilding, we have added three to four hundred thousand dollars in improvements in
the last year. It's a unique property and when this subdivision goes in next to us, there
is no doubt in my mind as a business man that we are going to take a very serious
financial hit on that property, because it can't be developed per normal, you can't scrape
the buildings. It's just impossible. So, the basic value of the property will be for the dirt
and, of course, the dwellings on it are worth far more than that, so it's a serious issue
relative to a financial impact towards us. The big question I have is where is the
transition. I know that the property doesn't directly abut our property, but the -- the
ranching nature of our property -- I mean it's ranched out there. The bulls are serious.
They -- you know, a wooden fence, even though it doesn't abut the property, is a great
concern to me. It was a concern to City Council at the last meeting relative to Saguaro
Canyon and that's where the stone fencing came in and so it's a -- even though we
oppose the subdivision completely, I just feel, to save your time, you're down a road
here that I don't think we are going to be able to change your minds on and I'm not quite
sure what to do about it and I wish we could be included in development discussions,
just as a creative thought, but I'm not sure what to do with my property over the next
five to ten years, I really don't know what to do. But, in the short term, I don't want
school children, neighborhood children -- I don't want a bull getting through there and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 70 of 82
that's why we came up with the six foot concrete fence behind us with Saguaro Canyon
and that's what I'm proposing to the developer. Incidentally, I'm --
Borup: And where do you propose the developer put this? On your property? You want
him to put it on your property?
Priddy: It could be their fence. It could be just the -- instead of a wooden fence, it
would be their fence that would be the end of their subdivision and it would be -- you
know, it would look the same as the concrete fence behind us or the stone fence behind
us. It should be consistent.
Borup: So, do your bulls get out of your property quite often?
Priddy: They haven't, but, you know, keep in mind, they look at corn, they are not very
interested in going there when there is people moving and construction, you know,
there are four or five cows across the street from us on Meridian Road and no bull, so
our bull has decided that those cows belong to him and he's trying to figure out -- we
have electric fencing on that property as well, so it's -- you know, you got a gravel road
in there and you got electric fencing, you got agricultural post fencing, and I think there
is a large liability of, you know -- is it going to happen? Probably not. Could it happen?
Yes. And I don't think we want to be there, you know, when it does. So, that's how we
came to that. Incidentally, I did not receive the letter inviting me to the neighborhood
meeting and I would have attended, so it's -- I don't know that -- I mean it went out. All
you have to do is drive by Meridian Road and pop it into the mailbox and I would be
glad to go to the meetings. The lot sizes go from -- I think 6,000 square feet to 14,500.
Another recommendation is where is the transition. We have such small lots adjacent
to our property, if there are going to be 14,500 square foot lots, can we at least design
this to where there is some transition into our property? If you look -- I have always
wanted to use this pointer. There we go, and, I don't know what that is right there next
to the gravel road, lot one.
Borup: That's that landscaped area.
Priddy: Oh, that's a landscaped area. Okay. I couldn't see the -- and, then, you have
these tiny little lots right here. I would just like to see a redesign of where if there is
14,500 square foot lots in here, I don't -- it's hard to pick them out. I'd like to see a
redesign to where there was at least a transition into our type of a property, as opposed
to these kinds of lots here. I'd like to see a height restriction of 25 feet and, you know,
again, these are what we asked of the developer behind us in Saguaro Canyon and
they were -- you know, and they are doing those things and it's helpful. It's not great.
It's problematic. I still don't know what to do with our property in the future, but the
stone fencing, the height restriction and a redesign to put the larger lots so there is
some sort of a transition to our property at least helps. And you gave me more than
three minutes. Thank you. I appreciate it.
Borup: Anyone have any questions for Mr. Priddy?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 71 of 82
Rohm: Just a comment.
Priddy: Yeah. Do you need me at the podium?
Rohm: You may.
Priddy: Okay.
Rohm: I would say that your piece of property is pretty unique, whether this subdivision
was adjacent to it or otherwise and in my mind, meaning no disrespect, anything that
goes in adjacent to your property is not going to be -- it's going to be different. There is
going to be significant change from your bull-cow operation with a 7,000 square foot
home in the middle of it. There is not going to be another one like that, more than likely.
And so this development would not change that condition -- any other development of
this property wouldn't change that condition and that's the only point that I'd like to make
to you is any development won't coexist with yours.
Priddy: May I comment?
Rohm: You bet.
Priddy: Thank you for the comment. I couldn't disagree more. That was the concept of
the north Meridian development plan. I mean if you put horse acreage next to that
property, it would -- there is a transition element to, then, my property and Mrs. Atkins'
property north of mine. It also creates -- if there were transitional properties there, then,
at least in the future some sort of development could happen on my property, which
would, then, build more luxury homes or larger lot sizes, something that at least could
be blended into the community. As it stands now where I see the problem is you have
the Ventana Subdivision to our south, you can't financially scrape the buildings that are
on the property, so what will the future of that property look like? If there was a more
transitional usage of larger lots, more luxury homes, things along those lines, then, at
some point at least there would be an option for us to develop or, you know, sell the
property, do something.
Rohm: Well, by the same token, you have the option of doing that transitional home
site between your 7,000 square foot home and the property that's being developed as
your neighbor to the south; correct?
Priddy: That's -- that's not good business. I mean if you put 250 to 350 thousand dollar
homes adjacent to -- the average selling price of these homes to the south is going to
be, what, 129 to 149 thousand?
Borup: I would say no.
Priddy: What's the average -- do we know what the average --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 72 of 82
Borup: First of all, there aren't any homes in there, but I guess the information that was
provided is similar to another subdivision and the sales prices are higher than that.
Priddy: And can you give me an estimate of what those are? Thank you for the
discussion, by the way. I appreciate it. I know this is not --
Newton-Huckabay: Are you talking about Sundance?
Priddy: Sundance.
Newton-Huckabay: They start about 140.
Priddy: Yeah.
Borup: On up to two hundred.
Priddy: Well, 140, okay, I mean, you know, 140,000 next to a 300,000 dollar home is
not going to -- that's just not good business. So, what I'm saying is you're delimiting, I
think, my ability to even do my own transition with this type of zoning. Well, here is a
better way to look at it. Think of it this way. What would you do were you in my shoes?
I mean that's the question I would put before you. See, I'm a good Meridian citizen, I
own Richardson Labs, we employ 240 people, that company, after it was acquired by a
public company, left Meridian for a lot of reasons, we are active business people in the
community, we love Meridian. I'm in a pickle in my property and the truth of the matter
is I don't think there is a lot of answers about what I can do with my property and when I
pose them to people, I'm a business man and a good one. It's a conundrum. so, I
appreciate your comments, but I don't think it's a real world, I really don't.
Rohm: Well, I guess what my point was is I don't think that that world can coexist --
you're not going to be able see a development of like homes like yours transition to any
other development. That's a unique type of development that you chose to put on that
piece of property -- and this is just my opinion.
Priddy: Yes.
Rohm: And I can't see anything transitional that would be fair to the adjacent property
owners that would be dependent upon matching your existing construction.
Priddy: I could show you 20 -- I could show you 20 developments. I could show you
20. And Eagle has many of them. Now, are they going to -- when you max, the house
is --
Borup: Well, we are talking about -- we are not in Eagle, we are in Meridian.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 73 of 82
Priddy: Right. But he was saying that they don't exist. So, what I'm saying is that they
do exist, but you know -- and I know we are in Meridian. I live here, so I understand
that. I was responding to the comment that they don't exist.
Rohm: And what I meant is as the City of Meridian expands to have a 7,000 square
foot home within a -- how many acres do you have?
Priddy: Twenty.
Rohm: Twenty? There is not an easy transition from a 7,000 square foot home on 20
acres to anything else and that's my only comment to you, sir.
Priddy: I appreciate the comment. I don't agree. My opinion is different. And I also
don't -- the transition is nonexistent. There is no transition.
Rohm: It's a pretty tough --
Priddy: It's a zero transition.
Rohm: I can see what you're saying.
Priddy: I mean here is the transition. That's not -- you know, from my opinion.
Rohm: And the only point that I was trying to make is the transition that can take place
down the road is the transition from your property out and have your 6,000, 5,000,
4,000 square foot homes move out away from your existing 7,000 to match up by the
time you get to the south line of your existing property to here and, then, that transition
is maintained. And I guess, really, at the end of the day that's a decision that you will
need to make, but it doesn't seem like to me that there is an easy way to transition from
one home on 20-acres to a subdivision environment at this point.
Priddy: Well, at this point. I thought the north Meridian plan was fairly -- you know, I
was a big fan of that. I thought that had some -- some concepts in it that could have
worked in terms of, you know, rural transition.
Rohm: I didn't read the north area plan in its entirety, but I don't think that that plan
even addressed from a 20-acre parcel to a subdivision and what the specific transition
would be.
Priddy: Well, you have given me a lot of time tonight and I appreciate it. Thank you.
And I -- the comments -- the questions you're asking, here is the -- at the end of the
day, I'm a resident of Meridian, I'm in trouble, okay? I mean these decisions weren't
made, you know, ten years ago where we knew things were coming. If I would have
knows things were coming like this, I would have not -- it's not that I wouldn't have
bought the property, I wouldn't have added and built, you know, onto the property. We
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 74 of 82
didn't know 6,000 square foot lots were going to be here. I mean that's -- I mean how
would I have known that as a matter of public record?
Borup: Because the Comp Plan was done a few years ago.
Priddy: Which said that there would be 6,000 square foot lots in this area?
Borup: Yes.
Priddy: Well, they are asking for -- that's lower than anything that -- they are asking for
a reduction in lot size.
Borup: This says medium density.
Priddy: But aren't they asking for a reduction in lot size as part of this development?
Borup: Yeah. On a couple. And maybe to answer your question -- maybe more than a
couple. But to answer your question, on the six lots adjoining your property -- there are
only six lots in the whole length of your property, but the ones those size are ten to --
ten to over 12,000 square feet.
Priddy: But my question is in the Comp Plan -- the Comp Plan does not call for 6,000
square foot lots, does it?
Borup: No. They could be smaller. No. It calls on how many homes per acre, but in
this zone it would be 6,500 feet.
Priddy: And they are asking for 6,000 in this zoning; right?
Borup: Yes. On some lots.
Priddy: So, it is an addition -- I mean how could I plan that, this discussion taking place
this evening. You see my point? You're make discussions on lot size that -- how we got
into this is --
Borup: Well, but the Comp Plan calls for density, but, yeah, I don't know if we are going
to accomplish anymore --
Priddy: Well, you have given me a lot of time. Thank you. You understand that I have
a dilemma. So, I'm back to, look, I'll live with it as best I can. If there could be a
redesign here to put larger lots here, that's a plus. The stone fence makes me feel
more secure and height restrictions would be helpful as well. So, those are what I'm
asking for. You have given me a lot of time. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Okay. Mrs. McKay, have you got final comment?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 75 of 82
McKay: Yeah. Just to try to help clarify for Mr. Priddy, in the Comprehensive Plan this
is designated medium density residential, not very low density, but medium density
residential, which is three to eight dwelling units per acre. We are at what, 3.63, so we
are still on that lower spectrum. If you notice staff's -- you know, one of staff's
comments is, you know, maybe the density could be boosted. If we are ever going to
get mass transit, we have got to try to boost our densities. Concerning the
redevelopment of this property. There is another 20 acres north of his property. I don't
know if he's aware of it, but that particular owner has been exploring the idea selling his
property. I happen to have a client -- two clients, in fact, take a look at the potential
redevelopment. It has, they tell me, a 600,000 dollar house centrally located in the 20
acres. It's got a tennis court, detached garage, tile roof, stucco, very nice, very similar
to what he's describing. What we did on there, just as a -- kind of a rough concept to
look to see if it would pencil, was developing that property with 18,000 square foot lots,
like that R-2 density. Then we would have the same type of homes that would be
compatible with it, you know, more like Meridian Greens, something like that, and you
could interface that existing 600,000 dollar home and utilize the tennis court as an
amenity for the whole neighborhood. So, there are some things that can be done. You
know, obviously, it's dependent on the location of his accessory buildings and so forth.
But that -- from a planning perspective for that particular piece of property, I don't think
they have proceeded with the project, but I think he would have to look at
redevelopment in that same fashion, because the home's too expensive to pick up and
to move or to doze or anything like that. But just, you know, for the Commission's
understanding that there are options out there -- you know, you can come in and do
half-acre lots. It's been done, it just depends on, you know, the developer or -- some of
these people develop themselves. That would be an option to Mr. Priddy, too, to assure
that the quality and value of his home was protected. This is a good project. This area
is in transition. When he bought his property I doubt if there were discussions that this
North Slough Trunk was going to take place this quickly, but this area, obviously, has
been planned for development, development at urban densities. We have got a middle
school going in, elementary school, a high school to the west of us, so all of the
structures, the infrastructure, sewer, water, all of those things are starting to come
together and this is an appropriate density. And I worked on the north Meridian plan, I
went to I don't know how many meetings on that, and nowhere in the plan did we ever
specify that if there was a 20 acre parcel that we were going to maintain extremely low
densities around the twenties. I mean we were trying to plan, you know, for an urban
future and provide I think a mix of housing, but nothing that low of density. Everything
was discussed at urban densities. Thank you.
Borup: Any final comments from staff?
Hawkins-Clark: I did verify on the mailings, there is J.C. Lando, LLC, 12438 West
Bridger Street -- I'm sorry, we can't dialogue like this. Sorry. But, yeah, we are
dependent on the city, obviously, from the Ada County assessor's records for our -- you
know, good or bad, that's the way the system is set up and if the Ada County assessor
records don't change, unfortunately, the City of Meridian records don't change in terms
of addresses.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 76 of 82
Borup: That was the property owner that --
Hawkins-Clark: But that's the -- that's the address that was on the 300 foot radius list,
so I just -- that was brought up earlier, so I wanted to mention that. And I guess I did
want to clarify as well that on these stub streets, what the staff report recommends is a
shifting from this stub street that is right now, basically, on the property line between Mr.
Priddy's property and the Boyack piece. The applicant has agreed to shift that over to
about this point about 200 feet to the east and this five acres that is here would,
obviously, then, utilize that, so -- and, then, we also did recommend an extension of this
street to the north that, obviously, right now would stop at that gravel road, but in the
future should that 24-foot wide gravel road be incorporated otherwise, we felt that it
would be important to have more -- to have at least one opportunity to connect to that
20 acres. So, that is -- that was something that the applicant agreed to. And, then, the
third thing I wanted to clarify, on this lot down here our staff report -- the police chief had
some concerns about this dead space right here, there are no opportunities to really
look into that. If I understand right, Becky has agreed that all the fencing around this
area would be open vision. So, from this street patrol officers, you know, supposedly
would be able to see in through these lots. Now, we have -- we would still like the
police chief to comment on that, to see if he considers that sufficient or if they would like
to see an actual footpath, for example, right here, that would provide better visibility into
that dead space. I guess that's a little bit unresolved, but whether or not just open
vision fencing is adequate, they did not have time to talk with Chief Musser before this
meeting, if the Commission wants to address that. Thank you.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for staff here. Brad, earlier in discussion you
referenced the letter provided by Engineer Solutions as being in response to some of
the differences between your staff report and their perception and I thought you had
said that, basically, if you take the staff report and supplement their responses to those
queries, that you're in substantial agreement and we could reference that Engineering
Solutions' letter and make it a part of any motion and would not have to amend your
staff report; is that correct?
Hawkins-Clark: That's correct.
Rohm: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that.
Zaremba: Well, the one amendment I would make is on page 12 and that's dropping
paragraph eight.
Rohm: I, actually, got that. Got that. Strike paragraph eight on page 12.
Zaremba: Yeah. And, otherwise, staff's memo as modified by Engineering Solutions
memo is what you're talking about.
Rohm: Exactly.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 77 of 82
Borup: I did have a question on that eastern stub street. Is that -- the 24 foot gravel
road, is that deeded property or an easement? It is deeded property, isn't it?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, sir. It is. The --
Borup: So, to get to Mr. Priddy's property to the north, he would have to buy the
roadway through that property.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
Borup: So, how practical is a stub street?
Hawkins-Clark: Well, are you referring to -- you said the one on the east or the one on
the west?
Borup: The one on the west.
Hawkins-Clark: West. Okay. Well, the -- the one on the west -- okay, yes. And that --
yeah, I guess staff's feeling is that the intent of City Council's motion with Saguaro
Canyon was to, as much as they could, try to avoid that -- that 24 feet becoming, you
know, dead space.
Borup: And I like the idea of stub streets, it saves a lot of -- but I have also seen some
that are pretty much abandoned and just become a -- kind of a garbage area with -- is it
possible to have -- to have the right of way there, but leave it landscaped or is that not
practical?
Hawkins-Clark: I believe the highway district's policy is they won't allow that. Right. If it
-- yeah, if it's put into the final plat as right of way, then -- and Ada County Highway
District accepts it as dedicated right of way, it needs to be improved to their standards.
Borup: Okay. Did anybody ask Mr. Priddy if he wanted a stub street? Okay. Go ahead
with the --
Zaremba: I did have one more question for Mrs. McKay and that is a discussion of
putting a solid fence, whether it's block or cement or whatever is being suggested along
your north property line, I realize it would be along this easement that we are talking
about and your property line, but is that doable? I can see the safety consideration for
both sides of that property line of having some way of preventing the bulls from getting
out.
McKay: Like I said, I -- when it came up at the Saguaro hearing, I mentioned it to my
client that that was one issue that was kicked around and that particular developer,
since they did have lots that adjoined his agricultural use, agreed to that. And in
questioning my developer, you know, would you be willing to do the same, he said, no,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 78 of 82
I'm opposed because we don't abut them. We are not physically adjoined to their
property. Therefore, he felt that would be inappropriate. We have also got, you know,
substantial street and landscaping along there, we have got those six lots are the only
things that are abutting that 24 feet. The rest of it's landscaping and street. So, he felt
that a standard residential type fence would be more appropriate.
Borup: Plus the two street stubs would not be fenced.
McKay: That's correct. I can't put -- the highway district will not allow me -- if I put the
stub over there and it's public, they will not allow me to put a concrete barrier across
that.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Any anything else need to be discussed?
Newton-Huckabay: Well, there was the request for the larger lots on the top and, then,
the one story building.
Borup: Well, he didn't say necessarily -- he said 25-foot height.
Newton-Huckabay: Twenty-five foot. Beat me up over details at 11:30.
Zaremba: Is that a question for Mrs. McKay?
Newton-Huckabay: I guess we just need to -- I think we should at least address it. I
don't think it's an unreasonable request.
Rohm: I think just like the fence, you ask the question and solicit response.
McKay: 11:30 is wearing on me, too. I thought it was going to be faster than this. As
far as the single story, it would affect just those six lots and, according to staff, 25 feet
will not accommodate a two story. The Commission has imposed in the past certain
circumstances, typically to provide if we had a home that was close to our boundary to
kind of help with providing their view. But I guess I'm trying to figure how that's going to
help him, when his home is in the middle of 20 acres, is ten additional feet of home a
big deal when the view is -- of the foothills is to the northeast and, then, the Owyhees is
our other view and that's to the southwest, so I guess I'm trying to figure out how that
works. With Saguaro they abut the boundary, they are in a northeasterly direction from
his house, so his view of the Boise front, but I'm trying to -- you know, under certain
circumstances it makes sense. In this circumstance does it make sense from a
planning perspective? No, I don't think it makes a lot of sense. If his house was right
just within 50 feet of us, yeah, but it's hundreds of feet from us right in the center of 20
acres. So, how am I intruding on his view? And I'm the wrong direction. What was the
other question?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 79 of 82
Rohm: The lot size of the adjacent -- your north property.
McKay: The lot sizes. We have six lots along there. There are three -- there is 10,000,
12,000, and, then, there are the three more rectangular lots are --
Borup: They are 6,380.
McKay: 6,380?
Hawkins-Clark: 6,380. 6,380. 7,800. 7,700.
McKay: So, I guess, you know, maybe you could take those -- the three rectangular
lots, make them two to make them all more consistently larger and wider, you know, in
that nine, ten thousand square foot range. Seems reasonable.
Rohm: And, then, you'd lose a lot, then?
McKay: Take one of those lots out.
Rohm: But lose a lot to the subdivision or put that in -- split it up somewhere else?
McKay: Well, you allowed it both ways. I had one development and you allowed me to
find another location for it and some of them we just drop it. I guess I'd leave that up to
the purview of the Commission. But that would make the most sense if he had, you
know, concern about making sure those lot sizes are at nine or ten thousand. Drop a
lot there along that north.
Rohm: So, if we were to recommend approval of this development less one lot with the
assumption you're going to drop one of those three rectangular lots, you would be in
agreement with that?
McKay: Yes, sir.
Rohm: Thank you.
McKay: At 11:30 I'll agree to anything.
Rohm: Well, get back up here, then.
Zaremba: I don't know, it's still the day we started, you know. This is nothing unusual.
Rohm: Okay. Let's see, where do we put that? That would be in the preliminary plat?
Zaremba: Uh-huh. Could add a new paragraph at the end. While he's making notes, I
would make a comment that as just a general observation for staff, in this report -- it's
on page two, but we often have reports that point out that the applicant is asking for
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 80 of 82
reduced lot size and quite often on a PUD or planned development that's a typical
request. We often find out that the reduced lot size only applies to two lots or five lots
out of 300. It might help me and it might help the general public who is reading this
before, if you've counted the plat and you know that it only applies to three or four lots,
would it be too much to ask to actually state that in the commentary?
Borup: Even better, have the applicant put it in their presentation or in their application I
mean.
Zaremba: Okay. Because, to me, when I first started seeing those I was very resistant
to them until in the discussion I found out it was only two or three lots or five lots or
whatever, but less than ten percent of the lots.
Borup: I haven't found them yet, but I assume they are on here.
Zaremba: And I just -- I just think to -- since you guys have to go through the effort of
counting them and looking for them anyhow, when you identify how many -- or the
applicant can supply that information to you, it just would be helpful to have it in the
public record and have it in our minds even before we come to the meeting. Just a
comment.
Hawkins-Clark: That's a point well taken. I can see where the general public -- I mean
the clerk's office would have the exact same assumption, so --
Borup: Well, the first thing I had -- and I still haven't found the 6,000-foot lot, but, yes, I
-- and I think the applicant is the one that should supply that. They have got the --
Zaremba: That was my only comment and at this point have we closed the Public
Hearing?
Borup: No, we have not.
Zaremba: Okay.
Rohm: I think we should close it. Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public
hearings on Items -- what is it -- 20, 21, and 22.
Zaremba: I'll second that.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward on to City Council Public Hearing
AZ 04-019, request for annexation of 64.48 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed
Ventana Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development Company, north of West McMillan and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 81 of 82
North Meridian Road, including all staff comments received on August 16th for the
hearing date August 19th.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Canning: Mr. Chairman, before the motion maker makes another motion, I was
wondering if you could indicate for the record that you have received the letter from Mr.
Priddy and have had a chance to read it.
Borup: Yes.
Rohm: Oh.
Borup: Well, we have received the letter. Every Commissioner got a copy. I had a
chance to read it. I don't know if any other Commissioners did. I did read it.
Newton-Huckabay: I read it.
Rohm: I read through it in its entirety.
Zaremba: I had a chance to read it and I want to appreciate his input and his --
Priddy: Exceptionally well written.
Zaremba: It is exceptionally well written. And his input to the process and --
Rohm: Well -- and I think we tried to address each of the issues brought up in the letter
in the open public forum as well. With that being said, moving on. Mr. Chairman, I'd
like to move that we forward on to City Council recommending approval of Public
Hearing PP 04-026, request for preliminary plat approval of 233 single family residential
lots and 16 common lots on 64.48 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Ventana
Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development Company, north of West McMillan Road and
North Meridian Road, including all staff comments, dated August 16th, for the hearing
date August 19th, supplemented by a letter submitted by Engineering Solutions,
received on August 19th, with the following changes: On page 12 we are to strike bullet
number eight, which is the revised -- revisal of the preliminary plat, that center line
landscaping, that sentence or paragraph will be omitted. And on page 15 we will add
item 14 and it will read: Drop one of the three lots 35, 36, or 37 of Block 3 along the
north line and make two lots of those three, thus, reducing the build-able lots to 233.
End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 19, 2004
Page 82 of 82
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we forward on to City Council
recommending approval of Public Hearing CUP 04-028, request for Conditional Use
Permit for a mixed use planned development consisting of single family residential lots
with reductions in the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage, including cul-
de-sacs, request to exceed the maximum block length allowed by -- for proposed
Ventana Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development Company, north of West McMillan
Road on North Meridian Road, including all staff comments dated August 16th, 2004,
for the hearing date August 19th, 2004, including the supplemental letter from
Engineering Solutions received August 19th, 2004.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Okay. That concludes the public testimony. Do we have a final motion?
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:41 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
______________________________ _____|_____|_____
KEITH BORUP - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR, CITY CLERK