November 18, 2010 MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning
November 18, 2010
Page 2 of 65
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Any additions or corrections? Could I get a
motion to accept the Consent Agenda?
Marshall: So moved.
O'Brien: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Okay. Now, down to the real part of this meeting. Before we open up any of
the projects tonight basically I'd like to talk to you a little bit about the process we go
through and what we do is we will open up all the items of a specific project and, then,
we will ask the staff to give their report and the staff report is basically as the project
adheres to the Unified Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan and they will
give us their interpretation of the project and how it fits within the system. Once the staff
has given their presentation, then, the applicant will, then, have an opportunity to
present the project from their perspective. Once those two presentations have been
completed it will, then, be open to the public to make public testimony. If, in fact, there
is an individual in the audience that is speaking for a larger group, like a homeowners
association, that one individual, in speaking for many others, will be allowed ten minutes
to speak and any other individuals speaking on a specific project will have three minutes
to speak. Once all testimony has been taken, the applicant will, then, be afforded an
opportunity to come up and respond to anything that's been brought up in testimony.
Once that process has been completed and our Commission has had an opportunity to
ask questions of the applicant and of the staff, we will close the public hearing and
deliberate and if, in fact, we have enough information we will render a finding tonight
that will be forwarded onto City Council. So, that's the process.
Item 4: Action Item.
A. Continued Public Hearing from November 4, 2010: CPAM 10-
001 Waverly Place by Robert Mortensen, Mountain West
Entrust IRA/FBO Located at 2510 E. Magic View Drive:
Request: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land
Use Map to Change the Land Use Designation on 4.9 Acres of
Land from Office to Medium Density Residential
B. Continued Public Hearing from November 4, 2010: RZ 10-004
Waverly Place by Robert Mortensen, Mountain West Entrust
IRA/FBO Located at 2150 E. Magic View Drive: Request:
Rezone of 5.17 Acres of Land from L-O (Limited Office) to R-8
Medium Density Residential) Zone
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 18, 2010
Page 3 of 65
C. Continued Public Hearing from November 4, 2010: PP 10-003
Waverly Place by Robert Mortensen, Mountain West Entrust
IRAIFBO Located at 2150 E. Magic View Drive: Request:
Preliminary Plat Approval of 24 Residential Building Lots and 4
Common Lots on 4.9 Acres of Land in a Proposed R-8 Zoning
District
Rohm: And so with that being said at this time I'd like to open the continued public
hearing from November 4th, 2010, of CPAM 10-001, RZ 10-004 and PP 10-003 and
begin with the staff report.
Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. The first
application before you is an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan future land use
map to change the designation on 4.9 acres of land from office to medium density
residential. A rezone of 5.3 acres of land from the L-O, limited office, to the R-8,
medium density residential zoning district, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land
use amendment is also requested. Preliminary plat consisting of 24 single family
residential building lots and four common other lots on 4.9 acres is also proposed. On
the screen before you you see a zoning map and an aerial map of the property. The
property is bordered on the north by low density residential uses, zoned R-1 in Ada
County. Greenhill Estates Subdivision. To the west medium low density residential
properties In Woodbridge Subdivision, zoned R-4. To the south is Magic View Drive
and across Magic View is a low density rural residential property zoned RUT in Ada
County. And directly to the east is also rural residential property, zoned RUT in Ada
County. The applicant proposes to develop the site with 24 attached individually owned
townhomes in clusters of two, sharing a common property line. The applicant envisions
this development to be a retirement community for folks 55 years of age and over. This
is a copy of the proposed plat on the left and a copy of the proposed landscape plan on
the right. Each dwelling unit is proposed to have a minimum of 1,100 square feet of
floor area. This is a layout showing the site plan. They share a common lot line in the
middle and, then, they are attached. The applicant has submitted one elevation and
floor plan demonstrating how future buildings on this site will be constructed. From a
dimension shown on the floor plan the structure appears to fit on all of the proposed
lots. Staff recommends a minimum of two different styles of townhomes be constructed
within the development for variety and that the additional elevation is submitted for
review prior to the City Council meeting. Building materials for the proposed structures
consist of wood siding in a mix of horizontal, vertical, and shake siding, with stone
veneer accents. A 464 square foot clubhouse is also proposed, which will contain a
restroom, mechanical room, and meeting room that will serve as a neighborhood great
room for activities. Also structures are required to comply with the design standards in
the UDC and guidelines in the city's design manual and will be reviewed for compliance
with these standards with submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance and design
review applications prior to issuance of building permits. At this time we don't have
detailed elevations. Those are required with the design review application and we will
have four-sided elevations at that time, where as we don't now. Back up here to the
plat. Right of way for the extension of Hickory Way here, that's here at the northeast
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 18, 2010
Page 4 of 65
corner, exists off site and will eventually be extended here to the south to Magic View.
Staff is recommending that any fencing constructed along the east boundary of the site
be setback a minimum of ten feet and landscaping be installed and maintained to the
property line, so we don't end up with fences right on the property line right on the
street, you know, when that eventually is extended. There is a valid Conditional Use
Permit for amulti-family residential development on this property. It consists of 24
dwelling units, the same as proposed, they are except within six four-plex units. There
was aplat -- preliminary and final plat that was approved on this property, but it has
expired. That's why the applicant's proposing a new plat tonight. Services have been
installed at this site and the roads are existing and paved and everything. So, just trying
to get something that will work on this site, so they can go forward with this
development. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for this property is
medium density residential and what is proposed does comply with the Comp Plan and
the UDC. A written testimony was received on this application from Scott Noriyuki, the
applicant, in response to the staff report. He is in agreement. There were three letters
submitted from the Woodbridge Homeowners Association and Alston Jones. Staff is
recommending approval of the application with conditions and development agreement
provisions in Exhibit B of the staff report. Staff also recommends a modification on
condition 1.6 in Exhibit B, that the last part of the sentence be stricken as there is no
longer a caretaker unit proposed in the clubhouse. When this application was originally
submitted there was one proposed and that just didn't get taken out on the revised staff
report. And also if we could strike condition 2.6. There is no flood plain on this
property, so it doesn't apply. That's all staff has if the Commission has questions.
Rohm: I guess probably the first question that comes to mind is can you expand on the
DA?
Wafters: Sure. Would you like to know specific provisions of the development
agreement?
Rohm: I think that would be worth sharing.
Wafters: Okay. As I -- I could do that. I'll just put them up before you here. 1.1.2 here.
As I already mentioned, the fencing restrictions along the east boundary of the site, ten
feet back from the property line. Consists of the property that are adjacent to a street.
Off-street parking is required in accordance with the requirements for townhouse
dwellings listed in the UDC. All townhome structures constructed on the site shall
substantially comply with the elevations shown in Exhibit A-5. There will be a minimum
of two different styles of townhomes constructed within the development for variety and
that the applicant's required to submit at least one additional elevation for review prior to
the Council hearing, as I stated earlier. Clubhouse structure shall substantially comply
with the building elevations shown, except that we would like them to incorporate stone
veneer accents consistent with the townhome structures. Development shall
substantially comply with the site plan and landscape plan that was submitted with this
application. A certificate of zoning compliance is required to be submitted on each of
the proposed townhomes structures and clubhouse structure and administrative design
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 18, 2010
Page 5 of 65
review is required for all structures in accord with the Unified Development Code and
the city's design manual.
Rohm: Okay. All right. Thank you. I think that kind of helps the audience know that
the staff and the development -- developers have, you know, sat down and established
some guidelines for the development of this to take place, so it's been with a great deal
of thought that this is moving forward.
Wafters: And we have. When they -- if I could just add this. When they originally
submitted their application they submitted just some sample -- you know, pretty. wide
variety of elevations that probably weren't necessarily going to be built. Since that time
we have worked together and they have come up with one elevation so far and they are
going to expand on that and, you know, go forward to, you know, a little higher quality
building materials and elevations to City Council on this.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any additional questions of staff?
O'Brien: I have none.
Marshall: I do. Is there any percentages on the different building styles? I assume that
going through design review we will be -- design review board will be looking at the
architectural aspects of the two different designs, a minimum of two different designs.
But is there anything stating that they can build just one of one design and the rest of
the other design or is there a percentage or anything like that that -- or is that the
purview of design review?
Wafters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Marshall, Commissioners, design review
does ask for a variety, you know, in building materials and in the design of the
structures. It does not call out a certain percentage, no. But there are specifics, you
know, related to the building materials, the modulation of the structures, you know,
windows, that kind of thing.
Marshall: Considerable variety.
Wafters: There does. There does need to be, yes.
Marshall: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward, please?
Nickel: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, good evening. For the record Shawn
Nickel, I'm with Stanley Consultants, 2264 South Bonita Way here in Meridian. I'm here
tonight representing the applicant, kind of sharing responsibilities with Scott. Scott will
be able to address any questions you have about the elevations and anything specific to
that. I'm just going to talk about the -- if I can work your little toy here. Talk about the
subdivision itself. First of all, want to thank staff a lot for working with us. I think they
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 18, 2010
Page 6 of 65
were a little concerned when we first brought this in and it has progressed quite nicely
from a -- maybe a recommendation for -- for denial to a positive recommendation. We
do appreciate staff working with us and making us come up with some creative
elevations. As staff has indicated, we are going to bring another elevation forward prior
to City Council that will provide that variety. The conditions themselves I think we are
okay with all of them. We do have one concern that I guess I can talk about and that's
that recommendation by staff for the -- regarding the extension of Hickory Street from
the -- from the north and you guys can see that drawing. Now, currently there is right of
way -- oops. I'm sorry. There is right of way from our --from our northeast boundary up
to that subdivision. The stub street is not built, in other words. We do understand and
respect the responsibility of that road some day connecting down to Magic View.
However, it's currently not on our property and if it -- if it were to stub and go along our
eastern boundary it does create kind of a problem for our development in that it does
require us to offset our fencing ten feet and not knowing if that stub street will ever be
extended in the future and understanding that there is a responsibility that, you know,
we do all want cross-connection and given the fact that this -- you know, we are really
tight on this project, because we have existing streets that are already built and we are
trying to fit everything in there, we think it's more appropriate that when the property to
the east does develop that -- and they are going to go through through a planning and
zoning review, that at that time that road be figured out and probably curved to the -- to
the east providing the proper common lot, so they don't create the double fronted lots.
So, right now as we have it designed we are not creating an ordinance issue with
double fronted lots, it's when that property to the east develops that that will be created.
So, what we would like to do is we would like to agree on that top corner lot, because
it's going to take some time before we will curve that road to the east, that we will agree
to a condition that we will offset the fencing on that first lot right there, because that lot,
no doubt, we will be double fronted, but there is nothing we can do about that because
of the design, but, then, eventually it will need to curve to the east when that property
does develop. So, that's the only real contention we have. Everything else we are in
agreement to. Again, we appreciate staff working with us and it's important to
understand the history of this property in the fact that we are not increasing density, we
are working within what we have been given, which is an existing street system and we
are, basically, turning amulti-family four-plex project into a single family attached
townhouse project with the same number of units, the same density and the same
amenities with the clubhouse and open space that was previously approved. So, with
that I'll stand for any questions specific to those items.
Rohm: Well, Shawn, my first question is if you -- if you folks are not in control of the
property to the east, how did you know that that roadway is going to veer away from the
property line and not specifically parallel your property?
Nickel: Well, I guess my argument is that it would need to be through the review of --
just staff's review they would have to use the ordinance and make sure that that
property owner is not creating that -- that conflict. In other words, we are not creating
the conflict with our development, we are developing our property to our boundaries. If
and when that property to the east develops they would be the ones creating that -- that
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 18, 2010
Page 7 of 65
conflict and so at that time when they design their project staff is going to have to, you
know, explain to them that if you build the road -- because they are the ones that are
going to develop the road -- develop that property to the east. When they develop that
road it's going to have to be through the design and discussion with staff that it's going
to have to be offset, otherwise, that property owner is creating the conflict in the
ordinance. Does that make sense?
Rohm: Well, I suppose in a fashion, but staff has come up with the solution that you just
put your fence ten feet off of the property line and, then, that road wouldn't be in conflict.
Nickels: Yeah. And the problem with that is, first of all, you're creating a -- basically,
you're creating a ten foot gap between our property line and that fence and so who is
going to maintain that ten feet? It's going to be kind of a no man's land.
Rohm: I think the staff report says that the homeowners association will take care of ten
feet. I mean that's the way I heard it.
Nickels: Right.
Wafters: The actual owners of the property would maintain their own property. It
wouldn't be a common lot. It wouldn't be an HOA thing, it would be the -- it's part of
those homeowners' lots.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: So we are going to rely on ten people to mow that patch of grass?
Nickel: It just -- it just creates a lot of -- it creates a lot of maintenance issues. And the
other issue is with the amount of area we have between our -- the back of our buildings
and the property line, it really decreases that -- those backyards to -- you know, to a
smaller area.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I was curious if we could see a farther away view, so we
could see all of Hickory Street or Hickory Way. How long is this going to end up if it's a
straightaway right up to Franklin? I mean not that I'm always a fan of Mr. Nickels'
suggestions, but it might be a good idea to have that road -- I mean no -- it might be a
good idea to have that road curve and create an actual slow down, so that you could
slow down your traffic. I mean that looks to me like it's going to be a very long stretch of
road right up to Franklin.
Marshall: The first thing, though, that goes through my mind here is that originally this
appears that Hickory is designed to run right along that property boundary and you're
asking the next property owner over if -- if and when they ever develop that not only are
you going to have to -- on your bill extend that street, build the street, but we are going
to ask for extra -- extra property, because this other property is a little tight. We are
going to actually -- we want more of your property than create abuffer --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 18, 2010
Page 8 of 65
Newton-Huckabay: No. No. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm stating is it looks to
me like if we have an opportunity here to possibly say, no, we are going to force Hickory
Way to curve and, therefore, create a natural speed bump, if you will -- anytime you
have got to turn a corner, generally unless you're 17, you're going to slow down, so --
Rohm: In any case, that's what your request is and did you have another question,
Commissioner Marshall?
Marshall: My simple point is, though, that we can't put any conditions on the property
next door. They can come in and request anything they want in the future and, then, we
will have to decide at that time whether that's appropriate or not and we can request that
it curve that way and whatnot, but at this time we can't put any conditions on that.
Newton-Huckabay: I'm not suggesting that we put a condition on it, I'm suggesting that
by accepting Mr. Nickels' suggestion and allowing them to keep that ten feet it will make
the argument stronger in the future that that road needs to curve, rather than be a drag
strip.
Nickels:. And, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'm not suggesting -- suggesting at all that
we put or force conditions on the property next to us. All I'm saying is that when they do
submit their application they are going to go through their review process and, then,
through the ordinance, the ordinance is going to say you can't put that road right up
against the property line, because now you're creating double frontage lots. They will
design it to meet that. So, that's all I'm saying. And, again, we are not trying to buck
interconnectivity. It would be different if the road was centered and half of it was on
ours and half of it was on theirs, then, yes, we would have that responsibility. But since
it's completely off our property and it runs straight -- it's kind of creating a hardship for
us and especially when you already have roads already built in that we are trying to
work with and, then, you have that kind of no man's land that's going to have to be
maintained. So, that was my point and I was just bringing it up for discussion and --
Rohm: All right. Thank you. Appreciate it. Any other questions of the applicant?
Okay. Thank you. Before we open it to the public I have a question for staff. When this
project came through previously, this road design and layout of this subdivision was, as
it is now, other than it was four-plexes, rather than townhomes. What was the thought
of staff related to that Hickory Way at that time versus now? Is there -- is there any
difference in perspective now than there was then?
Watters: I remember it being called out in the staff report, Commissioner Rohm. I don't
remember if there was any specific requirements placed on them. I don't believe there
was. There was some discussion about it.
Rohm: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 18, 2010
Page 9 of 65
Canning: Chairman, my recollection was that because it was multi-family units it was all
going to be commonly maintained open area anyway, so they just agreed not to do the
fence on that side or they had a lower fence. We can look up the previous findings and
let you know after the testimony, but that's my recollection.
Rohm: Well, that's all right. I was just curious, because, ostensibly, it's the same
project, but it's just building townhomes, as opposed to four-plexes and the lot
configuration is, ostensibly, the same, so just curious. Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Was this the one where you had -- it was four-plexes, but they were
two stories tall and you parked underneath? It wasn't that? That's not ringing a bell?
Wafters: I don't believe they parked underneath, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
They were two stories. I'm not positive.
Canning: We can look up that, too.
Newton-Huckabay: I know I was on the Commission at the time this was approved. I'm
just trying to remember exactly the development that it was.
Rohm: Okay. At this time we are going to open it to the public testimony and,
remember, each individual that testifies you have three minutes to testify and if, in fact,
one individual testifies to a specific point, it doesn't increase the validity of that point to
have it brought up again. So, once -- once a point's been made it doesn't change things
to have more than one person bring up that same point. So, with that being said --
Wafters: Chairman Rohm, excuse me. Could I interrupt for just a moment? I believe
you may have had another -- the other applicant want to speak on this, Scott Noriyuki.
Rohm: Oh. Excuse me. Yes. Please do. Thank you.
Wafters: You might ask if he did, but I think he --
Rohm: I apologize.
Noriyuki: Thank you. I didn't want to be rude. I figured I would wait. Scott Noriyuki.
3106 Ridgeway Drive, Boise, Idaho. I represent the developer. A couple things I would
like to address. First of all, I want to touch on the architecture. I think that's going to be
heavily discussed here shortly from the adjacent subdivisions and landowners. We are
naturally committed to producing additional elevations, floor plans, details and
commitments as far as our exterior finishes. However, coming through the P&Z process
and piggy backing a comp plan amendment on top of it, I hope you can appreciate our
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 18, 2010
Page 10 of 65
conservativeness until we kind of take care of the base land use approval and
requirements. Just so we are not spending excessive money and ultimately not getting
the project approved. That's our number one. Number two, we -- we clearly feel that
we are bringing in a project that's superior to what was originally approved. These are
going to be privately owned. These ownerships will not just be the structure, it will also
be the base land underneath it, which I think is important. It's a sense of ownership and
pride. So, I think we have got a good chance of having nice landscaping that's
maintained and exteriors that are maintained. I sent staff a comment or a response to
the staff report making a commitment to not only submit additional elevations and
finishes prior to Council hearing, but also to the adjacent homeowners via their board of
directors, so that they would have a better understanding and, ideally, a better comfort
level. So, with that that's the architectural aspect. The roadway aspect. I just kind of
want to talk about a couple of different concepts on that. And I appreciate what
everybody is saying as far as right of ways and not trying to put burdens on other folks.
Really looking at the comp plan and what the existing land use is, is on the northern
property line we have got R-1 within the county, essentially. It may or may not develop
in the future, but there is right of way there. We are proposing the R-8 with the higher
density, but the subject property to the east is L-O. So, the reality of a series offices
being built in that particular area and wanting to have connectivity into a low density
neighborhood, I don't know that, one, the neighbors would want that and I don't know
that necessarily that would be ideal from a development standpoint. I expect that you're
going to see kind of up in that -- I guess we would say it would be the northwest corner
where that right of way is. I could see an office being placed ultimately. Just a
consideration. And with that I'd stand for questions.
Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of this applicant?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I just had one. Missed the date that he said those other
elevations were going to be --
Noriyuki: I made a commitment of two weeks from this hearing. We just got the staff
report and yesterday I received a letter of concern from the adjacent homeowners
association, so I think it's -- reasonably it's going to take us about two weeks. I
anticipate that if we get a recommendation tonight theoretically we could be in front of
Council inside of a month or a little over, somewhere around there with the holidays.
So, I thought two weeks was appropriate to prepare that, get it submitted to the city, as
well as the homeowners association and provide my information to the board of
directors, that we have a good one, two weeks of interplay, essentially, before going to
Gouncil.
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you.
Noriyuki: I'm assuming that's a fair timeline.
Newton-Huckabay: And that seems reasonable to me, yes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 18, 2010
Page 11 of 65
Noriyuki: Thank you.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do have a question. Isn't this property currently L-O? The
property you're on right now, the property where you're currently discussing is zoned L-
O; is that correct?
Noriyuki: It is -- well, when it was originally developed and originally approved, it -- well,
it's always been L-O via the -- the comp plan, but the original comp plan and L-O zoning
allowed for multi-family and residential. Between the time that the project was
predominately developed, went defunct, and now we are in control of it, that ability to
have a residential within the L-O zoning doesn't exist anymore. But we are looking at it
from a standpoint of this is by and large developed. Ninety -- 90, 95 percent. The only
thing that's outstanding is structures, landscaping, and fencing. Aside from that we
have got public right of way, we have got every single utility in place, curb, gutter
sidewalk, asphalt, and we are just working within the confines where, really, we could
fold and say, hey, let's put up some four-plexes, go through design review, but from a
development standpoint we feel more comfortable with private ownership.
Marshall: I guess my comment was the property to the east is also L-O at this time and
seeing what's going to be there, I just don't know and -- as well as comment on
connectivity is an issue with EMS and fire and everybody else and whether that goes
office or not, I would foresee the city still requiring connectivity.
Noriyuki: And that I don't know, because I have to assume that the subdivision to the
north has existed for several years and it has its own connectivity and has not increased
from a density standpoint, but that's an excellent question. Just, absolutely we -- and
maybe what we should do is pull up the aerial photography, so that we could all take a
look at the roadway system. You know, essentially, we have excellent egress
considering our roadway and I have to expect that all of this L-O that will develop in the
future is, of course, going to have excellent -- what is the probability of the R-1 actually
somebody -- somebody assembling several of these one acre parcels and demo'ing the
houses and increasing the density. I don't know. That's --
Marshall: That wasn't quite what I was going with. I was simply suggesting, though,
that the property to the east, you were saying you foresee an office building there and,
potentially, that's possible, but I'm just saying that the possibilities are a little larger than
that and we have to take that into account as well, that there is considerably more
possibilities there than just simply an office building and the fact that the probability is
that connectivity will happen no matter what goes in there.
Noriyuki: Sure. So, with that said, like Shawn had suggested, I would be happy with
the ten foot on the first most northeasterly property and the reason why is -- not that I'm
trying to shove a responsibility onto an adjacent parcel or a restriction, but practicality
states that we have got an existing roadway and we have only got about a hundred
linear feet of depth between our existing roadway that is constructed and was approved
and this right of way. So, if the city and the ACRD or the -- let's say the next developer
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 18, 2010
Page 12 of 65
proposed running directly south, it would be counterintuitive to design principles,
because you would be approving double front on, which we don't want to do that.
hope. That's an opinion and I'll just leave it at that.
Marshall: Understand.
Rohm: Thank you very much.
Noriyuki: Thank you.
Watters: Commissioners, if I may add just a little more information on that. Hickory
Road has not been improved or open -- the right of way has not in this area. It's
planned here to extend, but it has not been constructed right here where you see
Hickory on the map, so --
Newton-Huckabay: I have to stand corrected, Sonya. I apologize. I just realized that
was -- when I glanced at it the first time it looked like it was and, then, I noticed that it
isn't, so that was my mistake.
Watters: No. That's okay. And just to answer one of your other questions, they -- the
garages are just like single family dwellings, they were not necessarily under either.
And there was a -- I just pulled up the findings from that -- that other approval and there
was a requirement for fencing along that east boundary, six foot tall vinyl fencing along
the west, north and east boundaries. It was called out in the staff report for the
Commission and Council to take a look at and determine what they wanted to do with it
and they ended up approving the project with fencing along that boundary. Was there
any other questions the Commission had on the previous approval on this site?
Rohm: I don't think so.
Watters: There was originally -- this property is zoned L-O currently and before there
was a requirement fora 25 foot wide buffer on L-O zoned properties to residential uses,
so there was a 20 foot wide required buffer on the west, north and east sides of this
property. Not necessarily in a common lot, but just be provided on each of the lots as
an easement. So, hopefully, that helps.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Okay. At this time would Beth Monteith, M-o-n-t-e-i-t-h,
would she like to come forward? Oh. Okay. She said that she's not speaking from the
audience and I guess I will just go to the next person on the list, then. Mark Monteith.
Oh, you're not speaking either. Okay. All right. How about Celeste Fox? Okay. Mr.
Fox, would you like to come forward. And, please, state your name or address for the
record.
Fox: Main I continue to sit down?
Rohm: You may
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 18, 2010
Page 13 of 65
Fox: My name is Gene Fox. By the way, it's very difficult to hear in the back. My name
is Gene Fox. I live at 582 South Wood Haven and I represent some of the citizens from
the Wood Haven community. So, I will try to make this as quick as possible, but it's
probably more than three minutes. But five years ago -- five years ago I stood in front of
the P&Z and I --
Rohm: Before you continue, could I get a show of hands of who he's speaking for?
Okay. All right. Thank you.
Fox: Anyway, I was here five years ago in opposition to a project being built behind our
house and, then, a year later my wife and I worked diligently to help Mr. Alston Jones
with his Waverly Place project. Mr. Jones had asked for a zone change the same as
what the current developers are asking for, but he was denied. So, I will ask you, has
anything changed to make the current application acceptable? Mr. Jones was able to
find a way for his project to fit within the current zoning ordinances. He worked closely
with the neighbors, listened to their concerns, and brought in a quality proposal. Becky
McKay was able to design a project to fit on the available space. There were to be 24
units, varying in size from 1,500 square feet to 4,000 square feet, plus a 2,000 square
foot clubhouse. Sadly, economic conditions ruined the development. People lost
substantial amounts of money and the citizens of Green Haven and Woodbridge
suffered much disappointment. New developers took over the property, where as
learned tonight they haven't yet taken over the property, but if they get it it would be at a
sale price. They had one meeting with the neighbors on September 8th, but presented
only some lip service and no concrete offerings. It was, basically, a farce to satisfy city
requirements. We, the neighbors, heard nothing more until it was learned that the
developers had submitted a proposal to P&Z that included four or five elevations based
on photos that were harvested from the Internet website. P&Z staff recommended
acceptance, but that changed when it was pointed out that the suggested plans would
not fit on the lots, except for one, and the square footage of that house was less than
what code required. The proposal was tabled. It should be noted that the errors were
discovered by a citizen of Woodbridge and not the P&Z staff. No effort was made by
the developers to interact with the neighborhood. We heard no more until last Monday,
a time frame which gave us only two days to check out the new proposal. The
information supplied was extremely sketchy, which leaves us puzzled as to why staff is,
again, willing to recommend acceptance. We object. Why is the developer so anxious
to have quick approval, but is not willing to offer comprehensive -- comprehensive
details of the project. What is the sales proposal? Where is the features list? About
4:00 p.m. this afternoon we received an a-mail, we learned that the petitioners would
need two weeks to prepare their material list and design. If they need two weeks, then,
why are they here tonight? The state of unpreparedness annoys me. It is as if the
petitioners have no respect for the neighborhood or the P&Z Commission. I see this as
being intolerable and a sad way to conduct business. They are planning to build 12
duplexes and it is my suspicion that they will turn them all into rental units, an end run
around the no apartment restrictions. The developers are asking for something special,
that is a zoning amendment. They should be required to offer something special in
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 18, 2010
Page 14 of 65
return, but such does not seem to be part of their plans. This proposal should not be
accepted merely because it would be cheap to build. That would be a step back for the
community. Whatever is built will live for 20 or 30 years. It's a sad project as build now
it will still be sad in 30 years and the residents of Woodbridge will be forced to look at it
every day as they drive by. We are not obstructionists. We know that something will be
built there. All we want is a quality product and some transparency by the developers
who will slow this project down and ask the developers to work with the neighbors in
good faith. Please don't accept this project based on promises. Don't accept a pig in a
poke. Let us all have some good hard looks inside the poke. Thank you.
Rohm: A question for you, sir.
Fox: Yes.
Rohm: Appreciate your testimony, but as I was listening to you I was wondering if you
are saying that you would rather see a number of four-plex complex -- a number of four-
plexes built on this property, rather than the duplex -- well, they are duplexes, they are
townhomes, that are being proposed by the developer at this time. You think four-
plexes would have been a better development?
Fox: I believe that -- I believe that the product that Alston Jones proposed was quality
and I'm very suspicious that this current project is not.
Rohm: Okay.
Fox: Whether it's four-plex or two-plex it doesn't matter to me. The end is the same, 24
units. All Iwant -- all we want is something worthwhile.
Rohm: Yeah. And I think the city does, too. Thank you. Any other questions of this
individual? Thank you, sir.
Fox: Thank you.
Rohm: Now, Mrs. Fox, did you want to speak as well?
C.Fox: Good evening. My name is Celeste Fox. I live at 582 South Wood Haven
Avenue in Woodbridge Community in Meridian. Here -- well, Commissioners, here are
some of the questions that we believe need to be answered before you make a
decision. Where are the other elevations? You know, what we see is just one. What
about a variety, size, orientation, materials, which can result in a much more attractive
project. What about a mix of single story, two story, wainscoting, variations of brick and
stone. The neighbors have not been given any of this kind of information. What about
exterior design materials, roofing materials, roof pitch, siding. Landscaping. Why did
the previously approved detached sidewalks disappear from the plan? They really
softened the streetscape. Where will the visitors park? This new plan requires 20 foot
driveways -- 24 foot, leaving only one extra parking space between units and no
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 18, 2010
Page 15 of 65
additional parking spaces with a common driveway. And what is the purpose of the
clubhouse? This one is about 1/4th the size or less of the Alston Jones project that we
so strongly supported. It looks like a pump house with no design elements, the side
facing Magic View that we drive by every day, and very close to the entrance of
Woodbridge, has one tiny window -- bathroom window without any other architectural
features. This is parked in the middle of the only green space.. And this is compared to
the previously approved project where the clubhouse was offset to the side of a nicely
designed park area. Why were we told several months earlier by P&Z staff that they
would not be supporting this project and the zoning change. What changed? Why was
P&Z staff going to recommend approval of the October 21 meeting without adequate
details? Why hasn't the neighborhood been involved? That's our really big question.
Mr. Jones spent a lot of effort to inform the adjacent neighbors of all the details of their
plans and it was very clear the intent was to build a quality project that would not only
enhance the neighborhood, but would also provide a great transition from large houses
in a beautiful neighborhood. This developer has spent no time with the neighbors
discussing details of this current project. The lack of transparency causes us great
concern. Where is the transition between large single family homes in a neighborhood
with strict design guidelines, even to the color of paint we can use, to the very small
duplexes? What about setting a minimum of 1,500 square feet or more adjacent to the
larger houses? We are pretty sure that Alston Jones' project got approved, because so
many of us supported it. Don't blind side us just because the economy didn't allow
Alston to finish the project and because infrastructure is already in. Smaller does not
have to be poor quality and cheap looking or negatively impact property values. We are
the stakeholders. Please slow this project down and require the developer to go back to
the neighbors to work on designing a quality project that would be a good transition from
the really nice subdivisions you have in this area. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. Before we continue I wanted to ask staff again. Is this project still
under design review as far as the elevations and everything is still going to be submitted
through staff, is that correct?
Wafters: Chairman Rohm, that is correct. Design review will be required on every one
of the structures in this development with a certificate of zoning compliance application
prior to issuance of building permits.
Rohm: Okay. And the follow up to that, with these being townhomes my presumption is
the -- probably the smallest one is going to be 2,800 square feet, the two unit combined
together.
Wafters: The applicant has stated that the minimum dwelling unit size will be 1,100
square feet.
Rohm: So, you have got 2,200 feet minimum?
Wafters: Yes. There are no minimums in the R-8 district, but they have stated that it
will be at least 1,100 square feet.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 18, 2010
Page 16 of 65
Rohm: But each structure itself in combination will be 2,200.
Watters. Twenty-two hundred. Yes.
Rohm: So, you know, that at least will give you more of a visual of what the project is
going to look like, than, an 1,100 square foot single unit.
Watters: And if the Commission would like to add a minimum dwelling size in the DA
provisions, that is an option also.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to clear that up before we move forward.
Marshall: I also have a question of staff. Did we have the exact same design review
process in place the last time this came through?
Watters: Chairman Marshall, Commissioner -- or Commissioner Marshall,
Commissioners, no, we did not have design review at that time.
Marshall: So, this is a new process that we have in place now?
Watters: It is. Yes.
Marshall: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Would Roger Tibb like to testify? Okay. Peggy Slaten.
From the audience she said no. Scott Clark. From the audience he doesn't have
anything to testify to. Bob Jessup. Pardon? Okay. Well, she already spoke. Okay.
I'm sorry. Is there anyone else's who would like to testify to this application? Okay.
With that being said, would the applicant like to come forward, please?
Noriyuki: Thank you.
Rohm: Please state your name and address.
Noriyuki: Oh. Sorry. Scott Noriyuki. 3106 Ridgeway Drive, Boise, Idaho. As
mentioned earlier, I anticipated the architecture and exterior finishes would be a
predominate concern and I'm just going to reiterate our commitment as we have made
to produce additional elevations, transmits them to the city prior to City Council, with a
listing of our finished products on the outside, as well as to the homeowners -- adjacent
homeowners. Excuse me. With that I'd stand for any questions.
Rohm: Commissioner Marshall.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 18, 2010
Page 17 of 65
Marshall: Just a comment. It does appear that there is a significant disconnect
between your project and the neighbors and it doesn't appear like there is a lot of
interaction there, that maybe some might have been helpful.
Noriyuki: Recognized. I felt like -- like I had communicated the best I could with what
we had and what we were proposing. However, feels that there are a couple folks out
there that would like some more information and we are happy to meet them with that
information.
Rohm: Okay.
O'Brien: Mr. Chair. Thank you. Scott, I noticed this before and I'm glad it was brought
up again. I was just kind of curious as to the clubhouse size is really a concern of mine,
as far as the size of the restroom is a quarter of the size of the entire building and it just
seems like it's so inadequate if you wanted to have a gathering of, you know, people
and retired, if they are, with family and friends, it's just going to be totally inadequate to
be able to do anything. Are there picnic benches? Are there barbecues around there
anywhere or planned to or -- I don't know.
Noriyuki: We planned on some outdoor seating. We had planned on keeping it small
for a handful of reasons. One, there is only 24 units. This is not a large facility. We
anticipated that it .would be for general activities or maybe conversations, not a senior
center or a bingo hall per se. Just a nice gathering place. Also, we are trying to keep in
mind -- keeping HOA costs somewhat in check, so that they don't become burdensome
and we can keep the quality where it needs to be.
O'Brien: Okay. But I still stand by the fact that I think it's just inadequate.
Noriyuki: Okay.
O'Brien: I mean just one family, if they are a retired couple, has -- has families from
both sides. I have gone to senior areas where residences in attendance at some of
these gatherings, birthday parties or anniversaries, you know, 15, 20 people is not
uncommon and it's too -- there are too many people for the house that they live in or the
residence, but certainly not adequate for this kind of a structure to be able to conduct
any kind of a fun time.
Noriyuki: Understood. Understood. And I appreciate what you're saying. I had kind of
modeled the dimensions after several -- several clubhouses that are positioned next to
oftentimes swimming pools within subdivisions that a lot of gatherings will take place for
birthday parties or what have you and I kind of modeled that I guess occupancy
expectation on the square footage. That's how I came up with it.
O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. I have nothing further.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 18, 2010
Page 18 of 65
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Just maybe one comment that, if, in fact, this project does
get moved forward to City Council I would strongly recommend that you have very well
developed elevations and make them available to the public, the folks that are taking
their time out of their evening, make sure that they have that in their review prior to City
Council, because; you know, I think for the most part I think the unknown is the thing
that people fear the.most and if, in fact, you eliminate these unknowns, it goes a long
ways towards gaining support and that's -- that's just from my perspective to you.
Noriyuki: Understood and agreed. A couple quick items I just kind of want to clear up.
The property is owned. It is not optioned. We are beyond thinking maybe we might or
might not do this. It is owned. But the elevations, agreed. They were concept only.
want to reiterate that we are dealing with several land use applications and want to get
a comfort level on the base usage and, of course, we will spend the time and energy to
do appropriate elevations, details, and meet with the -- the adjacent property owners.
Regarding the comments of us pushing this process through, we have tabled this and,
then, tabled it in conjunction with staff to spend some time thinking about these design
criterias. So, it has been slowed down, hence, the continuation.
Rohm: Okay.
Noriyuki: One last item. Regarding the development agreement, really, that's the
protection item. The design review and the development agreement and the designs
being locked into the development agreement, that at such time we ideally get through
City Council there is a protection level there for the adjacent property owners and for the
city that we will have to conform.
Rohm: Thank you. Well -- and, in essence, that's why I asked staff to review those --
the DA agreement, so that the audience would know that their concerns are being
addressed by staff. Thank you.
Noriyuki: Thank you.
Rohm: Additional questions?
Marshall: Quick comment, though. You have already indicated that you would provide
the homeowners association, those neighbors around, with -- with elevations and the
like. I would recommend that be quite some time before, like a week before City
Council
Noriyuki: As I said, our goal is to develop them within two weeks. We just got the staff
report. We have got the concerns from the adjacent homeowners. It is going to
reasonably take us two weeks. I anticipate, typically, it's a month, if not a little more,
before we make it to Council. That will allow two weeks of comment, conversations,
possibly a meeting. Ideally the only thing I would ask of the adjacent homeowners if -- if
there could be one or two people identified that I could communicate directly with via e-
mail or phone call to transmit the designs, that would -- that would kind of help me just
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 18, 2010
Page 19 of 65
so you could funnel your concerns and questions and, then, I could address them
appropriately.
O'Brien: Mr. Chair? I just have an observation, too. It kind of bothers me. Is that I
think this is pushing things quicker than I like to see it go through. I would like to see
the new elevations and also hear the comments from the surrounding people about this
process and if it's acceptable and, I don't know, I just think we are push this thing on to
-- we are not able to look at it ourselves and make some kind of a judgment call as far
as what the applicant has to say and also the people, so, I don't know, I think we should
see this again.
Rohm: Let's have those comments for the discussion after the hearing has been
closed. All right. Do you have any additional comments that you'd like to --
Noriyuki: No, sir. I don't.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Noriyuki: Thank you.
Rohm: Appreciate it very much. At this time --
Marshall: I have a quick question of staff. Design review. When does that come into
play? When do these elevations go in front of design review board?
Watters: Commissioner Marshall, Commissioners, the design review application is
submitted with the certificate of zoning compliance application. It is an administrative
design review by staff.
Marshall: So, would the neighbors get an opportunity to have any input or discussion in
that?
Watters: No. Not unless they filed a Council review application, if they were unhappy.
with the results of those.
Marshall: How would they -- if they are not involved with that, how would they know
what the result of that is?
Watters: They can certainly check back with the planning department. All of our files
are public record. There is an applicant tracking database on our website also where
they can follow the application.
Marshall: Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. Could I get a motion to close the public hearing?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 18, 2010
Page 20 of 65
Nickel:. Could I make one comment before you do close the public hearing? It's just in
reference to your motion. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, again, for the record Shawn
Nickel. If you do in your motion decide to --decide to postpone this, which we hope you
do move it forward -- may we request that you do discuss in your motion the -- basically,
there is two issues here now, there is the elevations and the quality of the project and
there is also the land use and I think it would help the developer moving forward in
working with the neighbors if he had an idea of your thoughts on the land use. In other
words, do you guys feel that the requests -- what we are requesting is appropriate,
provided that we work the details out, if that would -- that would definitely help the
property owner move forward, so -- that was all I had. Thanks very much.
Rohm: Thanks.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend that we close-the public hearing on -- one
second. I want to stop myself before I get too far. Knowing what my personal
preference on this is, we wouldn't actually close the public hearing, I'd prefer to continue
the public hearing. After comments, do you want me to go ahead and close it and if
comments pan out, reopen it or -- would that be your preference?
Rohm: That would be my preference.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I recommend we close the public hearing on CPAM 10-001,
RZ 10-004 and PP 10-003.
O'Brien: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CPAM 10-001, RZ
10-004 and PP 10-003. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Okay.
MOTION CARRIES: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Newton-Huckabay: May I make my comments first?
Rohm: You may. Absolutely.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I would like to see this continued for the sole purpose of
giving the homeowners a chance to interact with the developer, discuss the elevations
and get a chance to talk about those things that are of interest to them, such as
materials and that type of thing that are used on the development. I feel like that the
land use rezone, given the changes to the UDC, is appropriate at this time, so I wouldn't
recommend any changes to that and I would stand in favor -- or am not in favor of staffs
request to move the fence ten feet from -- from the property line. I think that that's going
to created an eye sore. It's one thing if you're relying an a homeowners association to
take care of that. Ten different retired people, I think that's possibly a little bit
unreasonable and every time the --anything comes up with the Woodbridge Subdivision
I always am so thankful of what an organized group that you guys are and you talk to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 18, 2010
Page 21 of 65
the issues and you address the issues that are of concern to you and I think that it
makes it very easy from my perspective to -- it's not hard to give you what you're asking
for and that's a .chance to interact with the developer and talk about your concerns that
you have and I think that's really important and I don't think it's unreasonable. So,
think that for that reason I'd like to see it continued until at least the end of the month.
That's the end of my comments.
Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner O'Brien, do you have additional comments beyond
what --
O'Brien: And I agree with everything that Commissioner Newton-Huckabay had just
talked about and I'm in favor of that as well.
Rohm: Commissioner Marshall?
Marshall: Several things. First off, because design review is later and kind of after the
fact and I know design review has done an excellent job for Meridian in the past, but I
would prefer to see the neighbors involved in the process and would like them, you
know, to get some buy in there.. It sounds like in the past they have been rather
reasonable and willing to work with people and I'd like to see that so everybody is happy
with this. We do have an existing something out there that we have got to do something
with, we'd like to see developed, I'd like to see this go forward. You know, again, 1'd like
to see a mix of housing opportunities within the city and it does need to be able to blend
in well with the surrounding neighborhoods and so I believe I, too, am leaning towards
probably a continuation in that I feel I'd like to see a little more work between the
developer and the neighborhood, get some -- a little more concrete designs down, some
ideas that make everybody happy before seeing this again. I also -- I will agree sense
the existing road -- I can't remember the name of it. To the north there.
Newton-Huckabay: Hickory.
Marshall: Hickory. Thank you. Hickory Way. Is not actually developed and looking at
the rest of that, that may never be developed and may not be -- and I have to agree,
lean to the fact that that may well be better served by aiming that -- if it is eventually
connected through -- more to the east and I would agree with not moving the fence
there. That creating that buffer is probably going to end up with ten foot of
unmaintained property and that could be an eye sore and I -- I do worry about that. So,
I guess those are my thoughts.
Rohm: Thank you very much. My comments are mainly directed to staff. If, in fact, we
move forward with the -- would it be the CPAM and the RZ? Can we move those
forward and continue the preliminary plat? Is that how -- so that the developer would
know that the land use would be favorable to their development and it would be the
preliminary plat alone that they would need to meet with the adjacent property owners in
order to respond to their concerns? Is that what your recommendation would be or --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 18, 2010
Page 22 of 65
Canning: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, our code states that they are concurrent
applications, that we will process them concurrently, and you could separate them out --
Iguess the only concern I have is that the reason they are going for the Comprehensive
Plan amendment is so that rezone matches what was approved previously, but if the
Commission or the Council is not inclined to approve what was approved previously,
then, is the Comprehensive Plan amendment appropriate. So, you're kind of in a circle
there and it all became because of a lack of clarity in the code at the time, the light
office land use designation was supposed to only allow office uses, but it wasn't
abundantly clear that you couldn't have all the uses allowed in the L-O zoning and so
that's how it originally got approved. So, it wasn't -- it wasn't originally planned to have
residential here, but we are kind of at this stage where all the infrastructure is in place,
so, again, it's -- I guess I -- the short answer, which I should have started off with, is
wouldn't recommend it, I would recommend keeping them together.
Rohm: Okay. I think I might have a solution. I think possibly to keep them together and
only continue these with only one item of discussion at the next hearing and that would
be elevations of the proposed development would be the only thing that would be
discussed next time we meet as a group and, therefore, the developers will have had an
opportunity to come forward with more precise elevations and the adjacent property
owners would, then, be able to have had their comments and that's the only item that
would be available for discussion with this continuance. Does that --
Canning: My only caution, Chairman Rohm, would be that I heard landscaping
mentioned, I heard variety and footprints mentioned, which are kind of related to
elevations, but if you could maybe clarify that.
Marshall: That's also does affect how they sit on a piece of property.
Newton-Huckabay: I was going to recommend that all of the preliminary plat
applications be open for discussion at a continued hearing.
Rohm: That works for me.
Newton-Huckabay: Will that circle us back around on the Comprehensive Plan?
Canning: No, not quite that far. But the elevations aren't tied to the plat, the elevations
are following along with the rezone because they are addressed in the development
agreement.
Newton-Huckabay: Good point.
Rohm: I think probably just with the way this has gone tonight the commitment that we
will make is that if we continue it to the next hearing date of the regularly scheduled
Planning and Zoning, that will give the developers and the adjacent property owners an
opportunity to sit down and iron out their differences and we reopen it for final action at
our next meeting.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 18, 2010
Page 23 of 65
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I think given that the developer needs at least two weeks
on the elevations he was working on, we probably want to go with our 18th meeting --
16th meeting.
Rohm: That works forme. Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Do we need to reopen the public hearing?
Rohm: I don't think we need -- oh, you have to reopen it just to continue it.
Nary: Yes.
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to reopen the public hearing on CPAM 10-001, RZ 10-
004, and PP 10-003 for the sole purpose of continuing these items to the regularly
meeting of December 16th.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Marshall: Second.
Rohm: That's your motion and your second?
Newton-Huckabay: So moved.
Marshall: So moved and seconded.
Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue these three items to the
regularly scheduled meeting of December 16th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
Motion carried. Thank you all for coming in on this hearing.
MOTION CARRIES: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
D. Public Hearing: CUP 10-012 Jack in the Box by Stantec
Architecture, Inc. Located at 1815 S. Meridian Road Request:
Conditional. Use Permit Approval of a Drive-Thru
Establishment Within 300 Feet of a Residential District anc
Existing Residences
Rohm: And with that we will move on. At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on
CUP 10-012 for Jack-in-the-Box and begin with the staff report.
Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. The next
application is a Conditional Use Permit for a restaurant for Jack-in-the-Box with adrive-
thru window in a C-G zoning district. The site consists of 1.13 acres -- or, excuse me,
1.3 acres is currently zoned C-G and is located at 1815 South Meridian Road. Zoning