2004 03-18Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting March 18, 2004
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Michael Rohm.
Members Present: Michael Rohm, Wendy Newton-Huckabay, and David Moe.
Members Absent: Keith Borup and David Zaremba.
Others Present: Chris Gabbert, Jessica Johnson, Bruce Freckleton, Anna Powell, Craig
Hood, and Dean Willis.
Item 1. Roll Call Attendance:
O David Zaremba X David Moe
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Michael Rohm
O Chairman Keith Borup
Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to open the regularly scheduled
meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and start with roll call of the
Commissioners.
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AUP
03-021 Request for an Accessory Use Permit for a bookkeeping
office out of home for Susan Rice by Susan Rice – 230 West Pine
Avenue:
Rohm: The next item on the agenda is adoption of the Consent Agenda.
Newton-Huckabay: I move that we approve the Consent Agenda.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we approve the Consent Agenda. All in
favor say aye. Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT
Rohm: Thank you. Before we move forward with any of the projects on this agenda
tonight, it's come to our attention that a number of the projects are potential for
continued and because the schedules are very tight in all the existing schedules that
are out there, we are going to discuss possibly adding a third P&Z meeting in the month
of April and so with that being said, I open that discussion for comment from the fellow
Commissioners.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 18, 2004
Page 2 of 14
Newton-Huckabay: I have no additional comment.
Rohm: No additional comment?
Moe: No additional comments.
Rohm: Does the fifth Thursday of April work for both of you?
Moe: That would be the 29th
?
Rohm: That would be the 29th
.
Moe: Yes. I believe so.
Newton-Huckabay: Yes.
Rohm: All right, then. That sounds good. If we could have a motion, we will add a
third.
Moe: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we plan for another
Commission meeting on April the 29th
for a regularly scheduled meeting.
Newton-Huckabay: I second the motion.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we have a third meeting in the month of
April on April 29th
at the regular scheduled time of 7:00, I believe. All those in favor say
aye. All opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT
Item 4. Public Hearing: AZ 04-003 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 16.73
acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Jaydan Village Subdivision
by Packard Estates, LLC – 5325 West Ustick Road:
Item 5. Public Hearing: PP 04-002 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 75
residential building lots and 8 common lots on 16.73 acres in a proposed
R-8 zone for proposed Jaydan Village Subdivision by Packard Estates,
LLC – 5325 West Ustick Road:
Item 6. Public Hearing: CUP 04-004 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development with request for reduction to the minimum
requirements for lot size, street frontage, and front yard setbacks for side
entry garages for proposed Jaydan Village Subdivision by Packard
Estates, LLC – 5325 West Ustick Road:
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 18, 2004
Page 3 of 14
Rohm: Okay. With that being said, now, we can open up Public Hearing AZ 04-003,
Public Hearing PP 04-002, and Public Hearing CUP 04-004. Could I get some
comment from staff on these three?
Powell: Yes, sir, you may. We -- the applicant is requesting that this item be continued.
They wanted to work on a concept plan for the parcel to the west, so they are still
working out things, and they also had some problems with their sewer issues. They
didn't have enough cover on their sewer. They are asking to be continued.
Rohm: Okay. Before we close the open discussion on this, if there is somebody from
the public that cannot be here for testimony on the 29th
, then, we would be willing to
listen to somebody this evening. With that being said --
Powell: Ma'am, you need to get up the microphone.
Rohm: State your name.
Priess: Jennifer Priess.
Rohm: Address?
Priess: 3138 West Pudu in Meridian. Hi. No, I just -- first of all, I wasn't sure if this
was the one on Ten Mile and Ustick. It's not. Oh. Okay. Sorry. If we don't need to be
here, then, that's what we were wondering. We are all as a community here for that
project and we were wondering what it is.
Rohm: Okay. Those will be continued to the 29th
as well.
Priess: Okay. We didn't want to leave if we shouldn't be here or -- okay.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Priess: So, we do -- we can go ahead and go and, then, be here?
Rohm: Yes.
Priess: Okay. Thank you very much.
Powell: Commissioner Rohm, you might want to talk about which items are going to be
deferred, so that anybody that's here for those items can go ahead and leave.
Rohm: Okay. Can we -- seeings how I have already opened up this one, can we go
ahead and finish this one first?
Moe: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move to continue the -- well, wait. I move to continue the
Public Hearing on -- hearings AZ 04-003, request for annexation and zoning of 16.73
acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Jaydan Village Subdivision by Packard
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 18, 2004
Page 4 of 14
Estates, LLC, 5325 West Ustick Road. Also, Public Hearing PP 04-002, request for
preliminary approval of 75 residential building lots and eight common lots on 16.73
acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Jaydan Village Subdivision by Packard
Estates, LLC, 5325 West Ustick Road and Public Hearing CUP --
Powell: Commissioner Moe, you only need to do the file number, just to save you from
reading all that over again. Just do the file number.
Moe: Okay and Public Hearing CUP 04-004.
Newton-Huckabay: I second that motion.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue Items 4, 5, and 6 on our
agenda to the third P&Z meeting on April 29th
. All those in favor say aye. Opposed.
Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT
Moe: It sounded pretty good, though, didn't we?
Powell: You sound great, sir. I'm sorry I had to interrupt you.
Moe: I appreciate that. You can hear me right?
Rohm: Okay. We have two other projects that I believe will be continued and they are
the McNelis Subdivision and the Rock Creek Subdivision. Both of those projects, I
believe, will be continued to that same meeting. If there is anybody in the audience that
would like to speak to that tonight, let it be known and we will open them before we do
the continuance. Okay.
Powell: Commissioner Rohm, also, Cafarelli Subdivision failed to post the site, so that
you will not be hearing that one tonight as well.
Rohm: We won't be hearing it, but we are not going to continue that.
Powell: Correct. I just wanted folks to know before they stayed through the Troy Place
application.
Item 9. Public Hearing: AZ 04-004 Request for annexation and zoning of 34.6
acres from RUT to I-L, L-O, and C-G zones for proposed McNelis
Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC – northwest corner of North Ten Mile
Road and West Ustick Road:
Item 10. Public Hearing: PP 04-004 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 16
commercial building lots and 5 common lots on 34.6 acres in proposed I-
L, L-O, and C-G zones for proposed McNelis Subdivision by Falcon
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 18, 2004
Page 5 of 14
Creek, LLC – northwest corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Ustick
Road:
Rohm: Okay. Good. Thank you. Appreciate that, Anna. Okay. With that being said, I
will open Public Hearing AZ 04-004, request for annexation and zoning of 34.6 acres
from RUT to I-L, L-O, and C-G zones for proposed McNelis Subdivision by Falcon
Creek, LLC, northwest corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Ustick Road and Public
Hearing PP 004. Both of these are open.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move to continue the Public Hearings on items AZ 04-004 and
Public Hearing PP 04-004 for the McNelis Subdivision.
Newton-Huckabay: I second that.
Rohm: And to continue them to --
Moe: Excuse me and continue those hearings to the April 29th
meeting.
Rohm: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded that we continue AZ 004 and PP
04-004 to the April 29th
regularly scheduled P&Z meeting. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed? Thank you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 12. Public Hearing: RZ 04-002 Request for a Rezone of 7.48 acres from L-
O to R-15 zones for proposed Rock Creek Subdivision by Treasure
Valley Development – east of North Linder Road and south of West Pine
Avenue:
Item 13. Public Hearing: PP 04-005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 52
residential building lots and 1 common lot on 7.48 acres in a proposed R-
15 zone for proposed Rock Creek Subdivision by Treasure Valley
Development - east of North Linder Road and south of West Pine Avenue:
Item 14. Public Hearing: CUP 04-006 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development consisting of a mix of residential and commercial
uses with reductions to building setback requirements for proposed Rock
Creek Subdivision by Treasure Valley Development – east of North
Linder Road and south of West Pine Avenue:
Rohm: The next item on our agenda is the continuance of Public Hearing RZ 04-002,
request for rezone of 7.48 acres from L-O to R-15 zones for proposed Rock Creek
Subdivision by Treasure Valley Development, east of North Linder Road and south of
West Pine Avenue. PP 04-005 and CUP 04-006. All three of these are open.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move to continue the Public Hearings on Items RZ 04-002, PP
04-005, and CUP hearing 04-006, to our Commission Meeting of April the 29th
.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 18, 2004
Page 6 of 14
Newton-Huckabay: I second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue Items 12, 13, and 14 to the
meeting scheduled for April 29th
. All in favor say aye. Opposed same? Good. Thank
you.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT
Item 7. Public Hearing: PFP 04-001 Request for Preliminary Final Plat approval
for 3 residential building lots and 1 common lot on .73 acre in an R-15
zone for Troy Place Subdivision by PPN, LLC – 1236 East 2 ½ Street:
Item 8. Public Hearing: CUP 04-003 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development to allow for a multi-family development consisting
of 1 tri-plex and 2 four-plexes with reduced street frontage, setbacks and
minimum lot width requirements in an R-15 zone for Troy Place
Subdivision by PPN, LLC – 1236 East 2 ½ Street:
Rohm: Moving right along. I'd like to open the Public Hearing for PFP 04-001, request
for preliminary plat, final plat, approval for three residential lots and one common lot on
.73 acres in an R-15 zone for Troy Place Subdivision by PPN, LLC, dash 1236 East 2
1/2 Street. Public Hearing CUP 04-003, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
planned development to allow for a multi-family development consisting of one triplex
and two four-plexes with reduced street frontage setbacks and minimum lot width
requirement in an R-15 zone by Troy Place Subdivision, by PPN, LLC, 1236 East 2 1/2
Street. With these two open, could we get comments from staff, please?
Hood: You bet. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. As you stated,
this is an application for a multi-family development, including three new buildable lots
on 2 ½ Street. The site is located on the east side of 2 ½ Street, approximately 450 feet
north of Carlton Avenue in an R-15 zone. The property is currently designated high
density residential in the 2002 Comprehensive Plan land use map. Here is the aerial
for the site. Just north of the site is an existing single-family home right here and, then,
there is also a large vacant parcel on the north side of this lot. There to the east is a
multi-family residential development. To the south is a salon spa that was recently
approved, I believe in 2002 by the city. Then some other single family homes to the
south. Across 2 ½ Street is a duplex and, then, this is the school, the Cole Valley
Christian School. Two of the three lots you see here in the preliminary plat are going to
contain one four-plex each and the four-plexes will be on these two lots here. The
existing triplex is nearer 2 ½ Street in this location. This existing triplex was recently
approved by the city, as CUP 03-038 just late last year, I believe, is when that actually
went through. The gross density of the development is 15.06 dwelling units per acre
and as part of the approval to convert that existing home into an apartment house. The
applicant was granted approval to construct a driveway on 2 ½ Street in this location,
with additional off-street parking. Now, again, they are coming back and going to
redevelop the backside of this parcel. The Conditional Use Permit includes a request for
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 18, 2004
Page 7 of 14
reduced street frontage, reduced building setbacks, reduced lot sizes, and the driveway
modification in the R-15 zone. The applicant is proposing to construct a 25-foot wide
driveway the entire length, basically, of the north property line. There is a turn around in
this location with basketball court, which is one of their amenities and, then, there is a
barbecue pit over here, which is the other amenity. In the report -- in the staff report that
you have before you I did ask the applicant to clarify a couple things on the submitted
site plan. They both had to do with the open space requirements of the city, just to get
those calculations and I believe he's prepared to give those tonight. Also in the staff
report a note was made that the applicant submitted a revised site plan. That's, actually,
the plan you see here. The original site plan had these parking spaces on this side -- all
the parking was adjacent to the units. They have added three stalls here on the east
property line -- or near the east property line. I do have a couple -- a few comments
about the revised site plan that I was not able to include in staff report. I just got it a
couple of days before the -- it went to print and so I didn't want to -- didn't have an
opportunity to fully look at this site plan, but after reviewing it, they do have 13 parking
stalls here. City code requires a landscape island to break up those parking stalls, so I
believe that's something that they can accommodate. The original site plan did show a
landscape island to break those parking stalls up and there are 15 stalls there. I think
they can still make it work. The other thing I did not to want point out is I don't have
anything -- I haven't been able to talk to the fire marshal as of yet and I have not gotten
his thumbs up on this revised plan. It appears to meet their requirements, but it will
have to be approved by him as well. The third thing that I just wanted to call out -- and I
don't know if it needs to be a site specific. I'm imagine that the applicant will agree to do
this, but this area here is mainly for -- well, there is a van loading area for the van
accessible stall here and also it's a -- the other half of that is a backup area for this last
parking stall and the loading area. I just -- I do have some concerns, I guess, with this
new design that someone may park in there and, then -- so, just some appropriate
signage for that, so that there is no parking and people are aware it's a loading zone
only. These stalls get filled up and, you know, people are tempted to park in there, even
for a little bit, and I don't -- but, really, that's my only concerns with the revised plat. I did
get a letter from the applicant, it looks like he's pretty much in agreement with staff's
comments in the staff report, but I will let him tell you that. I did also want to tell you that
I spoke with the neighbor just to the north in the existing single family home. I do see
he's in attendance this evening and will give you a little bit of testimony. At least what
we talked about was the fencing and landscaping adjacent to his site. They are
proposing a new six-foot wood fence, which is consistent with the previous approval for
the triplex, but I believe that he has some concerns as well. With that, I will end this
presentation and any questions you may have I'm available.
Rohm: Thanks, Craig.
Moe: I have no questions.
Rohm: Would the applicant like to step forward?
Nickel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, Shawn Nickel, 52
North 2nd
Street in Eagle, representing the applicant tonight. First of all, I want to thank
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 18, 2004
Page 8 of 14
Craig for an excellent job reviewing this application. We are, actually, in agreement with
all the conditions of approval. There are several conditions that require us to do some
revisions, plat notes, things like that, that will come back to staff prior to the City Council
reviewing this upon your recommendation. We are in agreement with that. If you did
receive my letter, I think it was dated yesterday, it's a letter that says -- that has a whole
bunch of okays, referring to the site specific conditions, with a couple of will discuss at
the meeting tonight, so that's what we will do. Also present tonight is Troy Palmer, who
is the developer, and he will get up and talk to you about the actual living units and the
concept. I just want to go over Craig's specific comments regarding open space and
the site layout. If Craig could put up the screen -- that one there. Thanks, Craig.
Staff's comment to me was regarding open space. It's a little unclear, I believe, in the
code on calculating the open space for this PUD -- or for the multi-family PUD and staff
can probably explain that a little bit better than I can, but I did calculate what we do
have in green open area and if you consider our buffer here, the green open space area
that surrounds these units, the basketball court area, which is an open space amenity
and the -- oops, I forgot to color in the barbecue kind of social area right here, which is
also an amenity. We have in excess of 29 percent of the site is greened -- green area,
open space area, non-asphalt area. I will leave that up to staff to make that
determination if that doesn't meet the intent of the code. I believe it does. Secondly, as
staff explained, we did revise -- this is the revised plat or plat and development plan to
what was originally submitted and the reason we did revise it is Joe Silva with the fire
department had a concern about the distance between this center line area on the turn
around and the distance to the east property line. It was in excess of the -- I believe 150
feet necessary to provide proper protection of fire -- with the fire vehicles. One of his
suggestions, actually, was if we did locate parking spaces here, then, as a fire truck
came in it could only go to this location right here, thus meeting that distance
requirement from that turn around to that area right there. We did revise this and
submitted it to Joe and Joe did verbally state it was okay. I don't believe he has gotten
back with staff, but you do have a condition of approval that we do get a sign off from
the Fire Department, which we will abide by. Let's see. Tom is here he is the property
owner to the north. I just spoke with him very briefly before the meeting and he has
some concerns about the property line and future access for his van along that
driveway right here and we will work with Tom -- he'll get up here and explain his
concerns. I have already talked to Troy and will work with Tom and make sure that we
provide him with proper, you know, access. I think Craig is willing to work with us if we
need to modify some landscaping or maybe a placement of the fence slightly. I think we
can work that out. I think that was all. If you have any other questions or if I didn't
answer anything that I was supposed to, please, at this time you can --
Moe: I would imagine, then -- do you have a problem getting the landscape buffer
where the parking -- the 13 stalls?
Nickel: No. Absolutely not. We can make that work, as staff has suggested. We will
also -- I guess to follow up, we will properly notice that as well for no parking.
Rohm: And you will note that on the plat?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 18, 2004
Page 9 of 14
Nickel: Yes, sir.
Rohm: Okay. I don't have any questions.
Newton-Huckabay: I have no questions.
Nickel: Oh, sorry, one other thing that I guess that staff didn't bring up. Or maybe he did
and I just forgot to mention it. There was a question -- part of the multi-family
requirement or standards in the code requires 100 feet of usable area per living unit and
I just wanted to point out in our building layout that each unit has a deck area that's
approximately 100 square feet in size and that does meet, I believe, the intent of that
standard that's in the code, so --
Rohm: Good. Thank you.
Nickel: Thank you.
Rohm: Appreciate that. Is there anybody else that would like to testify to this applicant
tonight? Come on up.
Roe: My name is Bill Roe. I live at 312 East Washington. My property is adjacent to
your plan and I'm kind of new right here, so I had some questions. Are your units single
level or multi level? They are multi level? Then, I can -- and, basically, my concerns
are on the north -- or the back north side that's apparently been revised, part of which
being multi level is going to be overlooking into my property and I think that's a concern
to me and my family. I think my concerns are multi levels will be looking into my
property. Almost all those properties around there, except for the multi unit ones, which
is farther to the north, are all single level properties or with a basement. None go two
stories above ground. It's kind of out of place. I guess what I'm getting to, it's going to
be a little bit out of place, it's going to be looking down into -- in essence, the privacy of
my property now. I was wondering about the setback from that fence -- from my fence
line to the building, how far that was going to be. I was kind of concerned about the
traffic. I live on East Washington, which is only a half street now. I know this is around
the corner, although my -- our properties do adjoin each other. Even 2 ½ Street is not a
very traffic friendly street. Thirdly, is -- is the irrigation. In essence, there was a ditch
that runs on the north side of the property that's an overflow ditch that loops back
around into the watering system. How will this complex affect that, what will the runoff
be. I don't know -- I'm sure you have thought of that and I guess I just need to be
brought up to speed on all those thoughts. Those are kind of my three main things. I'm
concerned about the height of the buildings being out of place with the neighborhood
housing that's there now. I'm concerned about the road conditions accommodating
another 50 people living on this lot and I'm concerned about the irrigation runoff, since
most of those houses in that area are -- flood irrigate still.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Roe, would you mind pointing out your property on that map for
me? I think there is a pointer.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 18, 2004
Page 10 of 14
Rohm: There is a pointer right there on the podium. You just push the button and it's
infrared.
Roe: Thank you. I believe this is my property here.
Rohm: And your home is --
Roe: Here.
Rohm: Okay.
Roe: As I see it, these two four-plexes -- or three-plexes, I believe -- or four-plexes --
the two four-plexes which will be multi story, will be right along my fence line looking
straight into my property and although this appears like a long way, there is already a --
kind of a see through right into my home and into the privacy of my backyard. Those
are my concerns. I think there is ways around those concerns, but those are my
concerns today.
Rohm: Thank you, sir.
Powell: Commissioner -- or, yeah, Commissioner Rohm, just for the benefit of the
public that is here, what will happen is that everybody that wants to testify will testify
and, then, the applicant will get an opportunity to rebut and so that's why he's not
answering your questions right now, if you were expecting him to. It's that he's required
to answer the Commission for questions, so -- he will get around to it, so -- that's all.
Rohm: Is there anybody else that would like to testify to this application?
Stephens: Okay. Are we on? Okay. Tom Stephens is my name. I live at 1304 East 2
½ Street, which is just north of Mr. Palmer's property. As was mentioned earlier, we
were talking about the fence, the six foot fence going in, but now with the adjacent -- or
with the additional four-plexes, I was really concerned about the traffic and the noise
and was hoping to get some evergreen shrubbery put in for the noise conditions. As
you were saying, I talked to this gentleman representing Mr. Palmer and I don't believe
it's going to be a problem, but I just thought it should be put on the record, that would be
something that would be nice to have with all the additional traffic in that area. I think
that's probably all I need to say.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Does anybody have any questions for this --
Stephens: Oh, yes, excuse me. When I first moved into my house, which was 17 years
ago, the existing owner, then, was Walt Howard and the two of us got together and he
just kind of just -- he said, well, the property stakes should be right here. Neither one of
us ever actually seen a stake and so, in the meantime, Mr. Palmer has had the place
surveyed and the stake is a lot closer to my property than what I was expecting. I was
just discussing about whether or not we can move the fence over a little bit, so that we
would have adequate room for getting the driver's door open when we had to back in,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 18, 2004
Page 11 of 14
so that I could get out on my left. That doesn't seem to be a problem, from what they
are saying. I just wanted to make sure that that was also covered, that we wouldn't
have a problem being able to get out.
Rohm: Yes. I think that that would be between you and applicant on that particular
issue.
Stephens: Okay. Yes. Just maybe getting the extra noise condition with the
shrubberies put in, with the extra 20 something spaces, I think that extra traffic, would
be really nice. I think that's it.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Stephens. Is there anybody else that would like to testify
for this application? Hearing none, Mr. Nickel, you're back on.
Nickel: Again, for the record, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, Shawn Nickel, 52
North 2nd
Street in Eagle. First of all, the first gentleman that spoke, I guess I do
understand his concerns regarding the two stories. I did look at the scale and the
elevations and those buildings will be 24 feet in height to the peak of the roofs, which
definitely meet -- or below the maximum requirement for that zone, even for a single
family dwelling. I don't believe that's really going to be an issue. There are also existing
trees on the property that are going to be retained that should provide some additional
buffer to the south property right here. With regards to the drainage, I believe he's
talking about the drainage ditch that -- little drainage ditch that runs along here. Per
Idaho state requirements we have to maintain that drainage at all times, so that will
remain intact. As far as our drainage, we are going to retain and detain our drainage on
site or we will take it off the site at historic rates, but it will be at least retained and
mostly -- or detained completely on site. As far as traffic, ACHD did approve this
application with our existing -- with our existing and current use proposed and we meet
the allowances for 2 ½ Street. I'd like to point out that there are, I believe, two story
four-plex or apartments units to the east right over here, so we are compatible with
what's in the surrounding area. I believe we do meet the --
Rohm: And I think it’s sufficed to say that a single family dwelling of two stories would
have the same height that the four-plex has. I think that's what your point is.
Nickel: Absolutely.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Nickel: And, then, regarding Tom's comments, again, yes, we will work with Tom. I think
staff will show us some flexibility on -- I don't know if we need to work it out before we
get to City Council, but we can, in deed, do that if you'd like to put that as a condition of
approval to accommodate the gentleman to the north.
Rohm: Okay. Now, that would be for the evergreens --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 18, 2004
Page 12 of 14
Nickel: The evergreens and also he had mentioned that because of our survey he
thinks that our boundary is about a foot closer to him than what he expected and if
that's the case and he is going to have a problem with his access for his van, we would
be willing to offset our fence if need be to accommodate that and I don't believe staff
would have an issue with that.
Rohm: Okay. Appreciate that consideration.
Moe: One other thing he was curious about was the -- I assume the dimension on the
setback off that property where the building was.
Nickel: We are proposing in the PUD a setback of 9.9 -- nine feet nine inches from the
property line.
Moe: Okay.
Nickel: On that south side. Now, just -- and, then, just for the record, the existing
house, which is located right here, currently is six feet eight inches from the property
line.
Rohm: So, the new structures will be further from the property line than the existing --
Nickel: Slightly, but yes a little bit further. Yes, sir.
Rohm: Thank you.
Moe: I have a question as far as on staff in regards to the percentage of the green
space now that he's proposed. What's your opinion?
Hood: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, usually, just for an example, single
family homes we don't count setback areas as open space. However, these multi-family
units -- I think the applicant's proposing plenty of green space and open space to meet
the intent of the ordinance and the minimum ten percent requirement. In addition to
that, this is an in-fill site. We do have a little bit of flexibility on in-fill sites to -- specifically
that ten percent open space requirement can be -- so, I'm satisfied with what the
application has shown.
Moe: Okay.
Rohm: Thank you, Craig. Is there any other testimony on this application at this time?
Hearing none --
Moe: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we -- I'm going to get there yet that we close
Public Hearing PFP 04-001 and Public Hearing CUP 04-003.
Newton-Huckabay: I second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 18, 2004
Page 13 of 14
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close PFP 04-001 and CUP 04-003. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same? Hearing none, carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT
Rohm: Any discussion?
Moe: A couple things I'm curious about in regards to the -- the revised site plan. Would
we just be noting that in the motion in regards to that?
Hood: The date on that revised plan is March 11, 2004, by Anderson David. That's
when that was prepared.
Moe: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move to recommend approval of file number PFP 04-001,
Request for Preliminary Final Plat approval for three residential building lots and one
common lot on .73 acres in an R-15 zone for Troy Place Subdivision by PPN, LLC,
1236 East 2 ½ Street.
Rohm: Would you like to include all staff comments?
Moe: Excuse me with all staff comments. I knew there was something I was forgetting.
Of the hearing date March 18, 2004, transmitted date of March 15, 2004.
Newton-Huckabay: I second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we approve PFP 04-001. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed same? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT
Moe: Mr. Chair, I move to recommend approval of CUP 04-003, request for a
Conditional Use Permit for a planned development to allow for a multi-family
development consisting of one triplex and two four-plexes with reduced street frontage,
setbacks, and minimum lot width requirements in an R-15 zone for Troy Place
Subdivision by PPN, LLC, 1236 East 2 ½ Street, along with staff comments for the P&Z
hearing date of March 18, 2004, transmitted date March 15, 2004, along with additional
revised site plan from Anderson David, dated March 11, 2004, with additional comments
of a landscape buffer to allow for no more than 13 parking stalls within the parking area.
Fire Department final approval for the revised site plan appropriate signage for the no
parking area as noted on the plan. Additional evergreens shrubbery as noted -- which
area is that? On the south side of the property excuse me on the north side of the
property.
Newton-Huckabay: I second that motion.
Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we move to approve CUP 04-003. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 18, 2004
Page 14 of 14
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT
Powell: Chairman, just for clarification, when you say the north property line, did you
only mean that adjoining Mr. --
Rohm: Stephens?
Powell: Mr. Stephens?
Moe: Yes, I did. I'm sorry.
Powell: Thank you.
Item 11. Public Hearing: PP 04-003 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 2
building lots on 2.7 acres in an I-L zone for Cafarelli Subdivision No. 2
by Shawn Fickes – 1950 West Franklin Road:
Rohm: Thanks for that clarification. Okay. That concludes that. We have one item left
on our agenda here tonight and it is Public Hearing PP 04-003, request for a
Preliminary Plat approval of two building lots on 2.7 acres in an I-L zone for Cafarelli
Subdivision No. 2 by Shawn Fickes, 1950 West Franklin Road and that project was not
properly noticed and so we will not be continuing it, it will have to be renoticed and we
will more than likely include it on the April 29th
P&Z meeting, but until it's been properly
noticed, we can't add it to any agenda. That one we will just have to wait and see if it's
properly noticed. I think that's it.
Moe: Mr. Chair, I move we adjourn.
Newton-Huckabay: I second that.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded we adjourn. All those in favor say aye. We are
done.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:45 A.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
______________________________ _____|_____|_____
KEITH BORUP - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 18, 2004
Page 15 of 14
_____________________________________
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR, CITY CLERK