HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 18, 2005 P&Z Minutes
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 42 of 98
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 13:
Item 14:
Item 15:
Continued Public Hearing from July 21, 2005: AZ 05-015 Request for
an Annexation and Zoning of 59.30 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for
Crossfield Subdivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC - 955
West Ustick Road:
Continued Public Hearing from July 21, 2005: PP 05-017 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 246 building (244 residential units, 1 daycare
& 1 pool/locker facility / restroom) lots and 26 other lots on 59.30 acres in
a proposed R-8 zone for Crossfield Subdivision by Packard Estates
Development, LLC - 955 West Ustick Road
Continued Public Hearing from July 21, 2005: CUP 05-022 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single-family
residential units with a request to allow for reduced setbacks, reduced lot
size, reduced frontages, reduced house sizes and block lengths in excess
of 1,000 feet in a proposed R-8 zone for Crossfield Subdivision by
Packard Estates Development, LLC - 955 West Ustick Road:
Zaremba: Now, we will open the continued public hearings for AZ 05-015, PP 05-017,
and CUP 05-022. All three of these relating to Crossfield Subdivision and we wi/I begin
with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. As you may
recall, Craig Hood was the planner on this project and he's being wed this weekend, so
I'm filling in. So, I would just touch on some of the highlights that Craig and I went over.
As you probably recall, you primarily continued the hearing the last time because of the
-- you needed -- you wanted a little more time to read over the applicant's response.
Mrs. McKay did get a letter in, but she received the staff report late, so I think it was for
you to get a chance to read through her responses and, then, asked staff also to get
you an amended staff report that kind of tried to blend the two and so Craig did submit a
strike through version of the staff report for the packets for you. I won't go over the
aerial or the plat. I don't think -- suffice it to say that one of the five or so issues that I
think is outstanding tonight deals with this area up here in the northeast part of the
subdivision and whether -- the question being whether or not those -- that area should
be held out until future development continues in this area as to whether or not a
neighborhood center can develop. So, something non-residential. They are proposing
all residential with this application and Craig's recommendation was that they hold out
the area that is north of the street -- I forget the name of the street that crosses east-
west, but I believe that one. So, that would be held out as probably a single lot. It still
could be annexed, it could still be plated, but would be held out, so that neighborhood
center concept in the Comprehensive Plan is given an opportunity to work in the
marketplace, if you will. The applicant still wants to continue as it's proposed and the
staff thinks that -- you know, really, it's an issue, I think, of -- is what's the viability of
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 43 of 98
these centers does remain a question that's out there, but if you begin to fill it in with
residential uses, it really starts to dictate what happens -- in this case it would be to the
east across Venable Lane. And, you know, I don't think we are talking about a whole lot
of ground, it's just enough that you could get some good neighborhood services to work
there. I think Becky's primary point had to do with office vacancy rates and I guess I
would just point out there are office -- that's very true, I mean Meridian is seeing some
very high office vacancy rates. I don't think -- if you read the Comprehensive Plan, the
point is not to put -- just load these up with just office uses. You know, there is a
number of different kinds of land uses that we think are appropriate in these centers,
recreation oriented, civic oriented, you know, small retail, day cares, which, you know, I
think is already a part of the application. But, you know, there is just a real mix of uses
that could go there other that office. So, I guess that's my main point on that area. So,
that remains one area of disagreement. I think page 21 of the staff report still states
that a master grading and drainage plan should be required. Again, this relates to the
high groundwater in the area and if you want Mike Cole from Public Works to address
that further we can, but he did tell me that the Public Works Department would still like
to see that master grading plan done. Page 24 condition deals with the stub street to
the seven acre parcel owned by the Semaniches and the staff report requests an
extension of the stub here along the north and I think you did have a little bit of
discussion at your last meeting on that, as well as I think there was a comment from Mr.
Semanich and his letter, which you received in your packets, as well as Waterbury Park
homeowners association I think also talked about it. So, again, I think staffs position is
for seven acres, you know, two points of access is probably a good thing, especially
given that we don't know how Venable Lane is going to work down there. Well, we
know that it really probably won't function that far south, so -- let's see. We talked about
the area up north. The master grading and drainage plan. The stub street. There was
-- Craig did ask for a clarification on the accessory dwelling units on page 28 of the
report. It's -- there appears to be agreement that in order to get the density in these
neighborhood centers, in this case adding 12 -- I think it was 12 accessory dwelling
units, right now it's -- we are requesting that they actually identify on the plat which lots
those would -- those would be required to be placed on. So, I think if we could just have
some clarification for the record tonight from the applicant that would be good. And,
then, I think the last issue is dealing with the alley loaded setbacks, the rear setbacks on
the garages on the alley. Craig had presented I think an option as to whether or not
they go with a five foot from the edge of alley or a 20 foot and the applicant told me
tonight they would prefer to go with the five foot and they think that remains a valid
option for you to talk about tonight. I would point out that we have -- staff did look at this
during the design or the development of the Unified Development Code and felt that the
20 foot was preferred. But I -- again, that's not adopted and I think that the -- you know,
the five foot is an option for you to talk about tonight and for them to propose, so -- I
think the last item which probably deserves some discussion, but I didn't really see it
talked too much about in the reports, in the communications, just has to do with the
annexation, the overall, and just -- you know, this is probably more policy, frankly, than it
is ordinance, but creating an enclave. These are something that, again and again, this
body and the City Council has dealt with. They really are not good things to deal with
and the bottom line is when you -- when you have a parent parcel like this and in this
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 44 of 98
case it was, you know, seven acres is broken off of the parent parcel and as I
understand is under separate ownership today, and if that separate parcel, you know,
meets Ada County's code, which in this case would be a minimum of five acres, then,
Ada County views it as a legitimate legal split and that's recognized by Ada County as
buildable and, in fact, this -- that lot did have a house put on it and has hooked up to
sewer. So, I think it might just be worth this body giving that some discussion in terms
of is it in the best interest, you know, for you to annex and leave out the seven acres.
Again, I think ordinance -- straight ordinance reading would say since it's separate
ownership, you probably don't have too much of a leg to stand on. But I think you
certainly have the ability to encourage them to address this and you would be creating,
you know, a seven acre enclave by this annexation and that's not something that the
City Council or you, for that matter, have wanted to see in the past and staff certainly
does not think they are good things to create. So, I think those are the highlights that I
picked up on anyway.
Zaremba: Thank you. Questions for Brad?
Borup: I just -- I was out of town the last meeting. Who are the two owners of the
property at this point, then? You said separate ownership between the seven acres and
the rest -- and, then, the application before us?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Chairman -- or
Commissioner Borup, the original parent parcel was owned by the Semaniches and
now just the seven acres owned by them and the applicant Packard Estates
development is --
Borup: So, they have closed on the property?
Hawkins-Clark: Well, I'll let them answer that, but I believe so.
Borup: Well, somebody's closing on it if it's under separate ownership. So, you don't
know who the owner is, then?
Hawkins-Clark: Well, Packard Estates is the applicant.
Borup: I understand that. Okay. They can clarify that, then. I mean the application
shows it's one owner.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. And I think that's part of why I wanted to bring this up, because -
- you know, to address -- get clarity on the record for that.
Zaremba: It's a legitimate question, because the City Council has at least once and
maybe more than that, remanded something back to us because it created an enclave
that was under common ownership. And so we will ask how legal is the split. Or how
final, I guess. Any other questions from the Commissioners at this point? Okay. Let's
have the applicant come forward, please.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 45 of 98
McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle. I
promise I won't talk as long as Dave McKinnon, if that's any consolation.
Moe: Yes, it is.
McKay: I'll try to address the key issues, as Brad indicated, that we were asked to
provide the Commission opportunity to review the information submitted in writing and
to kind of ponder their thoughts, because of the complexity of this project. One of the
things I'd like to touch on is that neighborhood center concept. The Waterbury -- well,
that was working. The Waterbury Park association president submitted a letter to the
Commission stating that when the Comprehensive Plan map was going through, that
they had objected to the neighborhood center dropping down south of Ustick, that they
appeared not to be opposed to the half moon type concept, which we find throughout
the north Meridian area, but in this instance they kind of dropped to the south. If you
look at your Comprehensive Plan, you can see a lot of the neighborhood centers are
just a half moon, but this one in particular did -- is a full circle. Now, one of the things
that, obviously, was not considered was the fact that they had already cut off a lot of
their options for Venable Lane to ever come down into this interior of this section and
feed that traffic out. And I think, as I mentioned before, and for Commissioner Borup, I'd
like him to take this into consideration -- the whole intent behind the neighborhood
centers is that we capture traffic within the interior of the section, that the collectors
come in, they protrude in, they are non-continuous in some instances, but that they
gather traffic from the larger internal, detached single family, and then, as we head
toward the arterials, the density increases and the uses intensify, therefore, providing
some type of neighborhood commercial, office, et cetera, to provide services for this
particular section. But in this instance Venable Lane, one, has been offset north of
Ustick at Cedar Springs, so there is no way that our development could extend Venable
Lane or make those improvements. This property here has to be developed, the Ward
property, in order for that to ever take place, because the alignment is on the Ward
property. Secondly, we have got the Creason Lateral that is open through here. When
Waterbury Park was approved by the City Council, there were no provisions for any
connection to that Venable Lane or for it to continue even further south to feed this
interior out. So, from a planning perspective what happens if we do leave this out and
say you put commercial uses there, all you're creating, in my opinion, is a strip type
commercial facility, because it's going to be collecting traffic that's going up and down
Ustick, not reducing the number of trips that are on the arterial by capturing what's
coming out the collector. And in your diagrams that were included in the
Comprehensive Plan -- I'm sure you're quite aware of it -- talks about that this is not to
be taken as gospel or the only way that a neighborhood center can develop. It talks
about keeping our blocks down to 300 foot, if possible, which in our plan here, as you
can see we have very short blocks. It talks about having grids, keeping a grid pattern
and interconnectivity between property or other parcels. We have got a stub street here
on the west, on the east. We have got a stub street here going west and going east
and, then, one to the seven acre parcel here. We have provided a noncontinuous
collector that terminates here where our -- where the clubhouse and splash pad and
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 46 of 98
swimming pool facility and restrooms will be right there. So, we have gone on a grid
pattern. We are interconnecting for your pedestrian pathways. We have got an existing
multi-use pathway along Five Mile Creek here. We are providing that interconnectivity
at this point. Also it talks about the right of housing choices, arranging things in what
they call a radiating pattern. We put all of our higher density up here and with that
neighborhood center, as you well know, it talks about eight dwelling units is the target or
the minimum. When we take this acreage here and we looked at the density that we
are proposing, which does include the 12 accessory units, we are at 8.19 percent. Or
8.19 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, we are meeting that criteria. As we come south
into the project, the lots go from 5,000, 4,000, down in here to the 6,600 square foot,
6,200 square foot. As we go further south they go to 7,700 square foot, 8,500 square
foot, and down in here we have like nine and ten thousand square foot. So, we are
providing a variety of lot sizes that will accommodate a variety of home choices. If
Venable Lane ever does develop, say hypothetically the Ward property at some point in
time will develop, we have created this east-west street, which will provide a connection
to that, so that in the event it would ever become signalized, even though ACHD says
that the trips generated at this intersection they don't believe will ever meet a warrant for
a signal, we have provided this connection here and we have landscaping running along
the south side of this. We do have front-on housing here, but these are all alley loaders.
And my client took great care to -- did quite a bit of research to look at what type of
product could go in there and in the discussions about the five feet versus the 20 feet,
here is some products where you can see that there is five feet. The alleys look tidy.
They have got a lot of landscaping. There is no room to park the vehicle. There is -- I
can see a vehicle right here, but there is kind of like a little enclave in there where they
have parked that. This is what we find at Heritage Commons. They have got a 20 foot
setback. As you can see, it appears to be kind of plain, very bare boned, and so we felt
that the five foot setback would provide us a little bit better look. And I'd also like to
submit for the record what we believe these accessory units are going to look like.
There is two ways that you can do that. Here is one you can see is an exterior access
to it and there is a third bay garage. So, there is three garages that are provided off of
the alley. This particular style, the accessory unit is to the rear, detached from the
primary dwelling, and that's a little plaza area that's in between the dwellings. So, we
have been working very diligently to try to provide some type of quality development
that will give a new type of product to the market. Not just little bitty lots with little bitty
houses. We redesigned this project three or four different times. We looked at
incorporating other uses up here in this section, but with the Venable Lane issue a
question mark, it was impossible. There is an existing house here, we incorporated that
internally to take the direct lot access off of Ustick and the idea we came up with that
facility was that we could turn that into a day care that would be able to serve this
neighborhood and it would also capture traffic. One question that Brad brought up is
the issue of the enclave. The seven acres that's right here that is still owned by Mr.
Semanich, it is my understanding that seven acres was a separate parcel that he
purchased from someone else. Now, he may be able to add to the record as far as the
history of that and that has been relatively recent. The subject property is owned by
Edmonds Groves Land Holdings, Inc., and so it is under separate ownership. Now, as
far as this enclave, the Council kind of gave their blessing that it not be annexed,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 47 of 98
because when Mr. Semanich was anticipating building his dream home on the seven
acres, he went before the City Council and got a waiver to hook up to central sewer and
water without being annexed. And as you well know, the ordinance states if you utilize
Meridian city water and sewer you will annex into the city, unless a waiver is granted by
the Council. And I think he can probably elaborate on that. So, I mean it was,
obviously, his wish that he not be annexed, this was owned by another entity and the
Council allowed him to not be annexed and still utilize your services. We have a really
good project here. There is nine percent open space. We have got pathways that are
interconnected throughout the whole project. We have agreed to leave the Creason
Lateral open, go in and see what Nampa-Meridian will allows us to do to improve the
esthetics of it. It does have some redeeming qualities. Mr. Semanich asked that we
leave it open. This was one of the most difficult properties that I have had to deal with
from a land use perspective. When you have all of these existing stub streets that I
have to connect to, that is setting these street locations. Just also to refresh your
memory, there is an existing sewer trunk, when Mr. Semanich gave the City of Meridian
easement that went over to Waterbury Park right here. So, we also had to fit this street
to fit that sewer line and it kind of angled through there and, then, was only, I believe, 97
feet off of the east boundary. We had the Creason Lateral to contend with and we also
have the flood plane. There are approximately 56 lots all within the flood plane. It is our
intent to comply with the ordinance, to either have the finished floor elevation one foot
above the flood elevation or to go in and do a Lomar where you provide some fill to the
site and build it up above that flood elevation and take it out to -- out of -- so they don't
have to have the insurance, the flood insurance. So, I guess what we are asking you
this evening is to modify some of these conditions. I don't think that it's fair to this
project to lop off that northeast corner and make it sit there to provide for a possible
market that we don't know that will exist or a collector that's never going to go south and
serve anyone. The neighbors don't want it in Waterbury Park. They feel it would just
add additional traffic in that area and I tend to agree with them. I just don't think it's a
good idea. It was kind ill-conceived. The other issue is -- there is a condition on here
that asks that we provide a grading and drainage plan. We have 13 test holes on this
property. We have been monitoring it for a year and a half. It was in agricultural
production, so we were seeing some spikes in it. Since they took it out of agricultural
production we have seen a decline in that groundwater level and it is the estimate from
our geo tech, which submitted the report to Public Works for their review, that the
groundwater is approximately four to five feet. We can clean the drain. They also
believe, since it hasn't been cleaned for 15 years, that that will reduce the groundwater
level, because the level of the groundwater is higher over next to the drain, which
doesn't make a lot of sense. So, we believe that this site is not unlike some of the other
sites that are out there, it's not like we have got groundwater at 18 inches like you have
seen at some of the other sites. This is a good project and it should be approved. Mr.
Semanich has cooperated with the city for years and provided them area for pathways,
sewer easements, and now this is kind of like an in-fill parcel and I think we have done
the best we can with what we have worked with and tried to make it as compatible as
possible. Do you have any questions?
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions at this point?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 48 of 98
Borup: A couple.
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: This would be a 59 acre in fill.
McKay: It's a bigger one.
Borup: It is. You talked about the design on the neighborhood center and from what I
could tell that was one of your reasonings for the denser housing product as you got
closer and closer to the neighborhood center?
McKay: Yes, sir. That's what your Comprehensive Plan --
Borup: Okay. Right. I understand that. I just don't see a neighborhood -- I mean I
don't see -- I don't see the business commercial part of this neighborhood center here
and if that's the rationale for the denser properties, shouldn't that also be accompanying
it?
McKay: Well, to answer your question, it would have to be oriented to this Venable
Lane, because based on -- based on what we have to work with as far as the
guidelines, this is the half mile at this location. They put commercial around that half
mile collector. Those collectors lead into schools or come deep into the interior of the
section to create enough vehicle trips to, obviously, support that commercial. Venable
Lane -- we can't build Venable Lane. It's going to be to the east of us. Now, we have
provided a 25 foot landscape area. We are piping the Flack Drain, which would,
therefore, create a buffer. It's not like these lots would back up to it, but --
Borup: I understand all that. But my question still is the rationale for the denser product
is because you're trying to fit the criteria of a neighborhood center; is that correct? You
can't have a neighborhood center without the center.
McKay: There is no center.
Borup: That's what I -- so what's the rationale for --
McKay: The rationale is we had to have some type of components, because your
Comprehensive Plan delineates what they want to see in this area, even whether it
makes sense or not, we felt -- and your staff felt that it was important that some of the
components, as much as possible, we incorporate into this plan. If this were just a
straight 3.5 dwelling units per acre, the lots were all 7,500 square feet, I don't think
that's what should be put on this property. That's not what should be placed on this
property. Ustick Road is going to be a major arterial and we have to start thinking about
what we are going to -- what type of product are we going to put up against those
arterials, because a lot of them are going to go five lanes and I see subdivisions that I
Meridian Planning & Zonin9
August 18,2005
Page 49 of 98
have done years and years ago that back up to like McMillan and Eagle Road, Madison
Park is one, for example, and every time I drive by it I kick myself, because backing in
those lots up to a five lane roadway, I feel bad for the people that live there due to the
noise and the high volumes of traffic. So, I don't find an error in the higher density being
up there by the arterial and that's not necessarily just a component of the neighborhood
center concept, it's a component we use in planning to transition to the interior.
Borup: I agree with that. That's two different -- but you're going two different -- coming
from two different directions there.
McKay: This is a tough one. It's complicated, sir.
Borup: That's all I had at this point.
Moe: I would just chime in in regards to the same point. Then why not wait out the
northeast area to see what, in fact, does happen? I mean if it's all put in there in -- I
think it's a two year hold at that point, then, you're able to develop at that point, if, in
fact, the neighborhood concept isn't going to happen in that area. Now, I realize that
Venable Lane is -- and the property to the east are the -- gee, the what its. But I think
that -- again, I just go back to the entire plan of the Comprehensive Plan was to see
these things happen. What we more often than not have been seeing the projects
come in here that are all around the neighborhood centers and we have yet to really
implement much of a plan on any of them, because everybody wants to do something --
you know, stay away from them. So, having said that, my next question I have for you -
- you did a good job showing us the renderings or the photos of the five foot setback
and the 20 foot setback within the alleys and whatnot. I would anticipate that you could
probably esthetically change the looks of the 20 foot setback to look more like the five
foot, if, in fact, you wanted to do that within your development.
McKay: Yes, sir.
Moe: Okay. But I follow your point that it's the way it was. But it could happen. Okay.
That's it for now.
Zaremba: Well, one of the things we have done along that subject is -- on other
properties, suggest that it could be a five foot setback to the living area, but still a 20
foot setback to the garage, so that there is off-alley parking. That's just a comment. But
on the subject of the alleys, according to the staff report, the lots actually go to the
center of the alley, so that -- if I'm understanding that correctly, everybody that has a
house that's alley loaded actually owns a piece of the alley and my -- and if that's true,
then, the question is what about maintenance? Doesn't it make more sense to put the
alley into a common lot to get it maintained?
McKay: Yes. To answer your question, Commissioner Zaremba, they -- we discussed
that last time. We did agree that we would put that in a separate lot. So, it would be
solely under the association, because there is a --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 50 of 98
Borup: I thought that sounded familiar.
McKay: There was a debate over should it be an easement, should it be a separate lot,
and we agreed that it would be a separate lot. So, we were comfortable with that and I
think staff was comfortable with that. And I think, you know, most of the issues I
believe, you know, we are in agreement with.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman? I just go --
Zaremba: Brad.
Hawkins-Clark: I mean normally the alleys are a public right of way. ACHD has title to
them. Is that --
McKay: You have the option of being private or public. That was my understanding,
based on my conversations with ACHD and Craig Hood.
Hawkins-Clark: I do believe this will be the first time that we have seen an alley be
private. I didn't know that was ACHD's policy. Certainly from the aspect of the trash
pickup and utilities --
Zaremba: Police and fire and stuff.
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. I think there is some good arguments to be made for them to be
public. I mean I guess I don't know -- I mean unless there is a real concern about the
ownership -- I mean the width would be exactly the same, it's just an ownership issue.
Zaremba: Does that create some different standard that it has to be built to or --
McKay: No.
Hawkins-Clark: No.
McKay: No. We meet the criteria. We made sure that we designed it to meet the
ACHD standards.
Zaremba: Okay. Do you have an opinion about my suggestion of having the living area
set back five feet, but the garage is set back 207
McKay: It sounds like --
Zaremba: Repeat that if you would.
McKay: -- the applicant indicates that he's not quite sure how they would incorporate
that into the design as far as the structures that they have been looking at as far as
.. ..
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 51 of 98
building on these lots, because most of them the garage is what is oriented to the alley
and the living space is toward the street, so --
Zaremba: I guess what I'm thinking -- I'm trying not to remove living space, but make a
place to park their car.
McKay: See, they look like that. So, you may have some living space, but you also
have a garage underneath. And the same would hold true here. This would be like a
front elevation here and here. So, that's the type of product that --
Moe: Gee, that's 20 feet.
McKay: They vary. There are all kinds of different ones. And some of them look like
they are even 15 feet and the staff was not comfortable with that, because they felt it
would not be long enough to -- or deep enough to accommodate a vehicle and could
impair the movement down the alley.
Zaremba: I agree with that. It shouldn't be partially deep. It either needs to be --
McKay: Either 20 -- either deep enough to accommodate a car, 20 feet long, or five
feet, so that there is no way you could park there.
Zaremba: Yeah.
McKay: So, we do see it both ways.
Borup: Another question, Mr. Chairman. Have you looked at -- one of the concerns I
can see, especially with narrow lots, is just being able to back out and pull in. You don't
have a lot of turning radius. Was that picture you showed up in Boise valley and, then,
you look at the 25 foot alley, with the five foot --
McKay: The alley would be --
Borup: Right now it shows 20. Twenty-five would give you a little bit more to be able to
pull in and pull out.
McKay: And we got two foot of grass on each side and, then, I think a 16 foot alley is
what the staff was asking for --
Borup: Okay.
McKay: -- so that the hard surface is 16.
Borup: Okay.
..-
Meridian Planning & Zoning
Au9ust18,2005
Page 52 of 98
McKay: But, then, you have got two foot of clearance on each side of that and, then,
that -- you know, for storm drainage and you add some green. Because that -- I notice
from the --
Borup: Only 25 feet just as in a parking lot?
McKay: It's 20.
Borup: Twenty in a parking lot?
McKay: In a parking lot a drive aisle is 25.
Borup: That's what I thought.
McKay: Under your ordinance. Yes. But alleys are 20.
Borup: No, I understand that in the ordinance. I'm trying -- the practicality of being able
to actually use them without having to back in and you back up twice.
McKay: They are kind of new to the valley. There aren't, you know, a lot of them
around.
Borup: Well, that's why I wondered if there had been any practical experience with the
five foot setbacks.
McKay: There is one, I think, over in Eagle that has those reduced setbacks, but,
obviously, I have never tried to turn a vehicle into the garage. It's not my project. But I
could go ask them.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I have one question. Could you speak to the phasing of this
project?
McKay: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the phasing -- I think we had
phase one is located there and, then, we had two -- one came down this area here and,
then, two was over here. We had three and, then, four. So, we brought on two different
types of lots in phase one, jumped to -- and the collector, the green space here and,
then, jumped over to here. So, that would be the third phase, the corner.
Rohm: And do you have any anticipation as to when you will -- when you would get to
phase three as a time line?
McKay: Commissioner Rohm, you know, it all depends on the market. Right now --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 53 of 98
the standard rule of thumb was we did one phase per year. With the demand on some
projects we are doing three phases a year, because they are just absorbing those lots
and buying those homes as fast as we can go. So, it's just hard to say. Now, if interest
rates go up and the market slows, you know, it may be a couple years out. Right now
with the market I would say they will probably go through it fast.
Rohm: Yeah. Get in before rates do go up.
McKay: Well -- and just keep hearing the same thing over and over, that there is such a
shortage of lots and such a shortage of different types of lots.
Rohm: Where I'm going with this is the community center, if, in fact, it were to be in
phase three of this development -- or the lots within that area that's designated by the
Comprehensive Plan being in phase three, is there a significant objection to going
ahead and pulling those out for now and if, in fact, by the time you get to that, maybe
the property to the east will have, in fact, come up with a solution for Venable Lane and
it will -- there will be some clarity available, so that adjustments can be made. And if
that's your third phase anyway, it's not something that would have to be -- a solution
provided tonight.
McKay: I guess that would be a question for the applicant, because it would be his call.
He would, obviously, have to sit on that corner and, then, you know, see what happens
in the future. You also have a new Comprehensive Plan map that I know Brad's been
working on and I have been told some neighborhood centers have been removed.
Rohm: And I think that the staff has done a very good job of trying to keep the
neighborhood centers alive and I think that we as a commission need to give those
centers every opportunity to come to fruition and if, in fact, we can keep that alive
without significantly harming your project, then, I think that we have been able to come
to a compromise that is in everybody's best interest. That's the end of my comments on
the community center.
Borup: The staff report already mentions that if something isn't done within two years,
that would proceed ahead. And that's, I guess, your point is two years enough time or is
that going to be developed before then?
Moe: Well, if you shift it to phase four.
Borup: That would spread it out a little bit.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to the groundwater situation. I just kind of want
to get a good feel for what you will be providing the city in regards to verification that
there are not going to be problems here.
McKay: The engineer -- when we go into our design, they -- ACHD looks at the
monitoring that we have had, so we have had a year and a half. They -- if we have
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 54 of 98
interference from either perched water or irrigation, then, they will disregard some of
that data and based on the recommendations of the geo technical engineer, they will
take a conservative groundwater level and that's what we design to. The civil engineer
has to certify that that groundwater is at a certain level base on the elevation of these
streets, which is a three foot separation. If we use say the borrow swale concept for
storm drainage retention, then, we got to have -- I think it's four and a half feet or
something separation. So, it -- we have seen a few projects where we saw some spikes
in groundwater, but the ones that it took place in it was due to agricultural uses next
door to us that negatively impacted us. Now, we are hoping -- I think the staff has
received information from some of these subdivisions that are around there that they
had some wet space in their crawl spaces. So, that was one concern, I think, that they
had about this property. But, like I said, this property could be the culprit that's causing
some of their problems. So, hopefully, now that it's out of agricultural production that
that can be alleviated. This drain has not been cleaned for 15 years and it -- the flat
comes here, comes down, and, then, dumps into the Creason Lateral. We had taken
shots all down the Flack Drain, inverts at the Creason. The drain could be deepened
and cleaned a little bit and, then, when we put it in like a perforated pipe, that will also
take that groundwater away and create a free-flowing channel. Mr. Semanich says
right now that the water kind of just stands there, it just barely slowly moves. It's kind of
a mosquito breading ground at this time. And so that's why we -- our test hole here --
we believe that water is perched up in this corner here.
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Okay. We do have a couple people signed up. Chris Brower makes a
comment that he's available to answer questions. Where is he? Do you care to actually
comment again or -- I have three different lists and he is -- yes, he is, on some of them
he's ahead of you. Okay. We will start with Mr. Semanich, then. And, Mr. Semanich,
while you're coming up, thank you very much for the letter that you provided to us. It's
very helpful as to be able to read and consider things like that and I appreciate your
sending the letter.
Semanich: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Joe Semanich. I live at 955 West Ustick
Road. We had sold this property to Crossfield. We'd like to see it developed. We think
it's time. We reserved that seven acres. Eventually we plan it to be into the city. The
only reason we didn't go into the city is because some of your conditions of agriculture
and Planning and Zoning were not able to answer some of those questions, so at that
time we decided to keep it into the county. City Council gave us permission to hook up
to the city sewer and water. We want to be good neighbors. The street that comes in
from the south, from the Waterbury Park, Mr. Brower wants to put a condition on it that
that street not be extended, if permission is granted to build this subdivision. That's a
pretty strong statement to me to come here with that kind of an attitude. The street has
been there for many many years, most people know that if a street stubs out it's going to
be extended. But what I need is assurance for that seven acres, since it is an enclave
at the present time, that we will have egress in and out of it that will satisfy the future
buyers of the seven acres and the people that are in the adjacent subdivisions. And
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 55 of 98
that's about all I have on that subject. And if somebody has any questions, I would be
glad to answer them.
Zaremba: Commissioners? Just to make sure I'm clear, because I was a little unclear
last time and afterwards I started thinking about it, making sure that I understood what
you were saying. You are actually in favor of all of the stub streets that are currently
existing and depicted on these. In other words, I wasn't sure whether you wanted some
not to happen -- you want all of these stub streets to happen.
Semanich: No. There are only two stub streets. Again, to put one in from -- I don't
know how to make this thing work. They are going to put one in -- they are putting one
in right there, we are building a home right in that corner right there. We are building
that home, so this street can come in front of that home in the future. So, that home will
not create a problem of developing the remainder of that seven acres.
Zaremba: So, that stub street is okay with you?
Semanich: Yes. Now, there is one down here that Mr. Brower objects to being
extended, because he feels it will bring traffic -- more traffic into their subdivision. So,
what I need is assurance that I will have -- if one street out is adequate, that's fine. We
will just use this one. But, possibly, this one may have to be extended -- connected at
that seven acres.
Zaremba: And it looks like one farther down. Is that south of your property? That
doesn't come into your property?
Semanich: Yes. That's south and that goes into Crossfield.
Zaremba: Okay. So, there is only two that are here.
Semanich: Yes.
Zaremba: And I agree with you, that ACHD certainly anticipates that being a
connection. That's why they asked to have stub streets put there in the first place, so --
Semanich: I think so. Yes.
Zaremba: Okay. I just -- I had lost track of which ones we were talking about last time,
so -- thank you very much.
Semanich: Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Brower.
Brower: Chris Brower, 387 West Woodberry Drive, on behalf of the Waterbury Park
Subdivision. Just to clarify, in my written and oral testimony I pointed out the fact that if
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 56 of 98
there was similar or lesser density going into the -- to this proposed project, we wouldn't
be here in opposition to it. We always thought that the stub street would be connected,
but that it was since interior to us and since our subdivision was completed before the
2000 modification of the Comprehensive Plan, that that interior traffic would just come
from similar or lesser density. When the neighborhood centers were proposed, we did
point out that the neighborhood center for this parcel was the only one that was not a
semi-circle and so to answer the question about where the commercial development
would go in this potential neighborhood center, it is on the north side of Ustick. So,
even if just the north side of Ustick is developed, it would be consistent with the
neighborhood -- the other neighborhood centers on the current Comprehensive Plan.
We have no problem with the stub street that goes to -- to our southwest connecting in,
it's solely a concern the stub street that's in our northwest. All of this high density traffic
in here would want to go through our subdivision, which is a straight shot and has no
stop sign or other impediment going straight to Meridian Road in a primary direction of
traffic, rather than going up to Ustick, down Ustick to Meridian to what currently is a stop
sign, but which may be a light, then, turning right. So, again, I just want to clarify that
the opposition to developing that stub street is not because there is a stub street and it
shouldn't be developed, it's only because if we are going to have this high density that
was proposed after our subdivision was already built in accordance with what was
expected from the then existing Comprehensive Plan, that as a condition that one stub
street not be developed. And, again, that's consistent with what happened with Valen
Court where we in Waterbury Park, in conjunction with the folks from Salisbury One,
were concerned on Valen Park -- Anna Canning of the planning staff even agreed with
us that there should be stub streets connecting to Venable Lane that would allow that
neighborhood center traffic to flow eventually through Indian Rocks Road, then, it would
be buyer beware, because people buying a house there would know that the high
density traffic was going to come through there. But, again, that request was turned
down, so there is no access.
Zaremba: Okay. Any questions?
Brower: I'm not sure if I'm allowed ten minutes for --
Zaremba: Well, actually, you were the spokesman for your subdivision, weren't you?
Brower: Right.
Zaremba: So, we will -- yeah, we will consider the three minutes out of your ten minutes
gone, but we will call it ten minutes.
Brower: It will just take about one more minute to finish.
Zaremba: Okay. Great. Thank you.
Brower: So, our concerns, again, are the stub street, only because the nature of the
traffic that will come through is going to be radically different than the Comprehensive
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 57 of 98
Plan that existed when we moved in. The other -- the second accommodation given to
Salisbury One, in addition to re-routing Valen traffic through Indiana Rocks, if you
remember we redid that to accommodate the traffic concerns and that's what we are
asking about blocking that stub street. He will still have access from Venable Lane and
this street here. The other concern is the number of lots to our west interior of our
subdivision along this stretch immediately to our west. There is one more lot number
than the number of lots on our side and, again, what happened with Salisbury One was
an accommodation to make sure that the interior -- that the lot sizes were the same or
larger than -- than the lots in the existing subdivision. So, again, we are just asking for
these lots in here to be the same size or larger than ours. I know that's also R-4, but,
again, it's a higher proposed density currently, even thoUgh it's interior and we are in the
direction of traffic. Those are our points, again, just about why the stub street's
important, because it was a change after our subdivision was built, what was going to
come through our road and the lot sizes to the west. That's all I have.
Zaremba: Commissioners?
Borup: A couple questions. So, you're saying your lots are wider than 80 feet? In
Waterbury?
Brower: If I understand correctly, we have seven lots --
Borup: Well, I'm talking about the width of the lots in Waterbury. They are more than
80 feet?
Brower: I don't know the answer to the question. I only know the answer to the
question about the -- our lots that are immediately adjacent to these proposed lots, our
lots are larger than the proposed interior ones and that was the concern we brought up
on -- with Salisbury One and that change was made.
Borup: Well, yeah, the lots along there are 80 feet wide. I didn't know if you were
aware of that, but --
Brower: When I met with Craig Hood, he confirmed with me that in the same distance
that we had seven lots, that they had eight. If that information is incorrect, I can go back
and --
Borup: No, I'm not saying that's incorrect. I'm saying the lots here are 80 foot wide.
So, they are fairly decent widths.
Brower: But less width than apparently the --
Borup: Well, apparently -- you're not sure what yours are, but apparently they are more
than 80, if that's correct.
Brower: According to Mr. Hood, yes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 58 of 98
Borup: Was -- when you had talked did you raise any of these questions with ACHD at
that meeting?
Brower: No, I did not.
Borup: Okay.
Brower: I'm sorry --
Borup: The question on the traffic flow and that seemed to be the main concern, is that
-- is the traffic and he's also talked about the density. Was the density the concern on --
more so on the -- on the housing at the north end of the project, as opposed to that on
the south end?
Brower: If this stub street isn't developed, we are fine with that density. They can still
access through there. But we did bring up at the time the neighborhood centers were
proposed the idea of making a neighborhood center here consistent and just north of
Ustick and, then, the area south of Ustick would probably just have been developed with
the same density that we have and, then, we wouldn't have any problem. It's only the
later proposed higher density and we are in the primary direction of traffic.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Can you put back a larger area view for -- yes. That's--
Rohm: If there is a proposed stub here --
Zaremba: That's, actually, not a stub. I was thinking it was, too. But that's the Creason
Lateral.
Rohm: Oh. Okay.
Zaremba: That's not a street. It's a --
Rohm: So, where is the stub up here?
Brower: The stub street that I'm talking about is a north-south stub street that leads
north into this seven acre parcel here, that we thought would, you know, be similar
density that would come through some day and what will happen is if we wait for this
parcel to be developed some day, if is this isn't a condition, I'm almost certain that if this
high density exists, that we will then be required -- it will be much higher standard at that
time to say let's not have that high density come directly through us to Waterbury, then,
while this land is still not annexed by the city.
Rohm: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 59 of 98
Zaremba: Okay. Do we need some discussion or are we ready for the applicant to
respond?
Rohm: I think I'm ready for the applicant.
Zaremba: Okay. Mrs. McKay.
McKay: Becky McKay. Okay. I think what Mr. Semanich's question was, as far as if
the seven acres where he's building his new home, were to redevelop, would this stub
street, obviously, be able to handle the traffic that this property would generate, plus
would he -- could he be stopped by these future residents from making this connection?
He wants to make sure that, obviously, he's never cut off from that stub street. I sat
down with him and kind of did a layout on this property, how it could redevelop. This
street would come in, based on his house being constructed right here, and it would
create kind of a loop and it would loop back. You could get approximately 24 or 26
homes on that, so that one access point would, obviously, be able to handle 250, 260
vehicle trips. What we have now on this street is just a handful of trips. So, we would
not be exceeding, obviously, the capacity of that. Your staff offered up a stub street
right here, an additional one to the west. Now, Mr. Semanich, in my conversations with
him, he wasn't quite sure that that helped him out. I think his concern was would it
hinder him more than it would help him, because it potentially could. He would have to
work around it and, therefore, he may also lose a lot versus just doing a loop. Now,
what Mr. Brower -- or Chris has said is there is a stub street there to the seven acres,
but that stub street was stopped on the south side of the Creason Lateral. No
provisions were made for any culvert or bridge or anything for it to come across into the
seven acres, so -- and I think Craig's analysis and ACHD's comments, they believed it
was highly unlikely that this stub street would ever go into the seven acres and if we
would look here at the overall vicinity map, I can see what Chris' concern is. If this stub
street came in here and there was connectivity here, potentially cars could come down
here and this is such a straight shot that -- that this could become a cut-through traffic
area. So, his concern is that if this connection were the only one that were made, it
would, obviously, give us the interconnectivity that we pursue in land planning, but it is
more of a circuitous route to go out to the arterial here at Meridian Road. So, I guess
the question is up to the Commission, do they believe the one stub street would
accommodate the redevelopment of the seven acres or should we come through here
and punch this through. It's up to the Commission. I believe --
Zaremba: To comment on that, I -- it would be my instinct that three stub streets into
that seven acre property would be excessive and difficult to plan around. If it's your
assessment that the stub street Mr. Brower is talking about is never going to connect
anyhow, because it -- there is no provision for the -- for crossing the waterworks.
McKay: It could. I'm not saying it's out of the question. But somebody would,
obviously, have to spend the money, because they did not make the Waterbury
developer do it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 60 of 98
Zaremba: Didn't put half the proceeds or --
McKay: No.
Zaremba: -- or anything like that.
McKay: That's kind of a pretty recent thing that they started.
Zaremba: And the new subdivision that was recently approved that he's mentioned,
that interior road goes up like this. There is no western connection or eastern
connection from this property.
Borup: That's because of Venable Lane.
Zaremba: I would hesitate to do anything that would create three stubs streets into the
seven acre property, but if we can be comfortable that that's never going to happen and
you're offering to give a second one there -- my feeling is that one is not enough. I do
think there needs to be --
McKay: You would like two.
Zaremba: -- two. Seven acres could have a need to go two different directions. I just --
Moe: I, myself, think that your west -- your southern Pine Drive should probably come
in and stub into that area as well.
McKay: Right through here, sir?
Moe: Yes. Yes. And that way you would have it from the Summerton, as well as
Southern Pine. I don't know if you have looked at any design as far as what you would
do with the seven acres, bringing that one in from the west. I mean is that going to give
you --
McKay: I'd probably take this and kind of crank it northward to try to, obviously,
intersect at a 90 degree and make it so that it would line up with how this street -- this
east-west street would --
Borup: So you have the lot depth there on --
McKay: Yeah. But in calculating his lot depth, if he went with say a reduced roadway of
42 foot right of way, he would have 90 foot deep lots on this row and the other three
rows of lots.
Zaremba: Well, my instinct is to say ACHD anticipated that other stub street to connect.
But, having heard some of their recent budget discussions, they are not going to front
Meridian Planning & Zoning.
August 18, 2005
Page 61 of 98
the money to build a bridge or a culvert anytime in the near future and it wouldn't be fair
to Mr. Semanich to say, okay, you have to connect and build the whole bridge. I don't
think anybody would go that direction. So, I -- if you're willing to make the
accommodations you just said, I think that satisfies a lot of people. That would assume
that that southern stub street is not ever going to go anywhere --
McKay: Yes. Because he would have the two options there. So, then, obviously, if that
-- if that street were to go through, the burden would be on Mr. Semanich or whomever
developed that property to pay that expense and I think if he could demonstrate that he
had two points of ingress and egress there would be no need for that one to be done, it
would just be redundant for such few lots. Your fire department I think requires two
points of access if we hit 50 lots. I think that's what they have been putting in the staff
report.
Zaremba: Certainly works for me.
McKay: Okay. As far as the density, in this particular area our lot sizes are -- 7,600 I
think is kind of our smallest. They are eight, nine, ten thousand. We even have some I
think might be pushing 11,000 square feet. To answer Commissioner Borup's question,
I did look at the lot here in Waterbury. They are 85 by 100 deep. Our lots here, they
have seven and we have eight. Our lots along this line are 80 feet wide and 97 feet
deep. And that depth was set by that sewer location, because that is a big trunk and I --
we are not going to move it, so I had to make sure that I got it in the appropriate
corridor. So, that set my depth. But I do have one additional lot. I tried to -- we try to
set our lot lines so that we go one neighbor for one neighbor, but as we reached this
end I think they got -- they start getting about one and a half neighbors when they get
up here in this north end. I did talk to my client about this northeast corner. He has
indicated to me that -- we looked at -- we looked at -- if you drew a line like this down,
so you take in -- the landscaping would be built, this street would be built, and you chop
that whole corner off, come around that day care lot, that would be approximately
around five acres and he said that he would be willing to put that as the latter phase
four, to sit that time out to see what, if anything, ever happens to the neighborhood
center or if it's eliminated from the Comprehensive Plan or what happens. Now, what
that would do is -- see, these lots -- you got to look at it from the perspective of these
lots here front this street. These are alley loaders. There is an alley right here. So,
that's why we built this street and, then, lopped off that corner. That would give you five
acres, gives you flexibility to -- you could have some office, you could have some
commercial, ice cream shop. You would also have a street here. You'd also have this
street and, then, this interconnectivity here. So, I guess we'd like to offer that up for the
Commission to contemplate. And if you'd like me to mark on --
Zaremba: Sounds like an excellent compromise to me.
McKay: If you would like me to mark on one of these for the record, I can, on these
drawings.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 62 of 98
Moe: Well--
McKay: So, it would look just like that. So, everything north of Parkstone and east of
Blaymore, with the exception of the day care lot, would remain undeveloped for two
years, as recommended by staff and, like I said, I did kind of a quick and dirty
calculation. It is about roughly five acres.
Zaremba: So, currently, it would be platted as one lot.
McKay: We would probably just leave it --
Zaremba: And you would come back and replat it?
McKay: -- unplatted. Yep. Yes, sir. And, then, if that -- if Venable Lane is built and
there -- you know, maybe he can do it with that developer. Maybe that developer would
have interest in the five acres, incorporating it into that. I mean if that -- if that ever
came to fruition, because I think that's what the Commission is looking for is some type
of option. And the staff has been very supportive of our application and I know they
have been working to try to find a way to -- because they like the project -- to make it fit
with the Comp Plan. So, I think this is a good compromise. I hope you do, too.
Zaremba: I'm not speaking for everybody. I agree with you that's a good compromise.
Commissioner Rohm made a suggestion that probably nobody but me heard at the
time. Since you have presented a complete plat and the city is asking you to back off of
a portion of it and, therefore, two years from now you're going to need to come back
with an application to replat that five acres -- this is a question for staff, whether or not
the fees can be somewhat waived at that time. I mean it's our request that they not plat
this section. Can we offer any compromise on fees in the future or do we have the
permission to -- do we have the authority to --
Hawkins-Clark: I'm sorry, Chairman, I missed what the application would be that we
would compromise fees on.
Zaremba: Well, the staff recommendation -- and I'm compromising in the middle here --
is that the area that Mrs. McKay is indicating be platted as a single lot and left vacant
until two years from now, at which time a different decision may be made, but that
requires the applicant to come back and apply to replat that lot -- to resubdivide that lot.
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: And the question is whether or not we can waive some fees -- they have paid
to do the whole picture right now.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, do we know what that fee amounts to? How much are we
talking about, approximately?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 63 of 98
Hawkins-Clark: Five acres -- we charge on a per lot basis. It's a base of three -- I think
it's like 325, plus 11 dollars per lot, something -- but I think there might be some
confusion, because I don't think we are -- we are necessarily set on them having to plat
it as a lot. I think the -- if I heard the applicant right, I mean just leave it as a future
phase and they are basically committing tonight to not construct for two years. So, it
wouldn't be a resubdivision --
Zaremba: But if we do it that way, then, we have already pre-approved this, they are
just holding off on it.
McKay: That's correct. That's how the condition is written. If I could quote this, it says
that not -- shall not be allowed to final plat until one of the following occurs. A market
analysis performed to see that nonresidential uses can be supported in this area or to
determine that they cannot. And, then, it states: Then, the applicant should be allowed
to plat the area with residential lots as proposed. So, you would be approving it as
shown now, with the condition that it cannot be final platted for two years.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
McKay: And some type of a market analysis be provided demonstrating that it could not
be developed as office or something. I guess had I assumed before -- when that two
years lapses. So, we wouldn't have to resubmit if we reverted back to this. If it goes to
something else, it would be a resubmittal and only the Council can waive fees and your
fees are changing.
Zaremba: Okay. Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Number one, I agree entirely with your explanation. That's kind of what I
anticipated how it would be done, but here, again, we are -- you're going to have some
redesign in that area to take care of; right? Or is it -- or are we just anticipating taking it
from the road -- everything to the north of the road? But I guess my question is, you
know, we have got -- there is still a couple outstanding issues on this thing and, plus, we
are requesting another stub street and a few other things. Still haven't really resolved
the issue of the setbacks in the alleys. Of course, that's something that we will discuss
a little bit. I guess -- and was someone talking about trying to approve tonight, I'm a
little bit concerned, I'd like to see how this stub street comes into that seven acre parcel
and whatnot. So, I'm not sure I'm going to be ready to -- again, to do an approval
tonight, but I guess we can talk through this and we will see where we go, but we still
have the issue of the alley and probably need to get a little bit more clarification on
some of the other issues, since it's been awhile, just to verify that we are staying up with
staff's concerns.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, just to clarify, as the conditions are worded that stub street is
already in there as a condition of approval. Just on that issue I just wanted to make
sure you were aware of that. Currently, the condition reads they shall stub across the --
on the --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 64 of 98
Moe: From the west, not the one to the south.
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Borup: They can't do the one from the south, can they?
Moe: I'm verifying. Okay.
McKay: Yes, sir, that's already been worked out as a condition. So, that's pretty much
set.
Moe: Okay.
Borup: So does that just leave the alley?
Moe: That leaves the alleys.
McKay: And that's up to the Commission on what they are comfortable with. You have
the option.
Borup: So, at this point you would like to have the five foot setback.
McKay: That's what the client believed the look he wanted. But, you know, it's up to the
Commission to determine what they believe the appropriate setback from the edge of
pavement to that garage should be.
Borup: Is there any discussion on a wider alley?
McKay: Craig can address that.
Groves: Craig Groves, 3920 East Shady Glen Court. Members of the Commission, I
wanted to address the alley loaded product for just a second. We spent several months
analyzing the type of product that we wanted in this location. We are requesting the five
foot setback on the alley, but the product that we looked at around the country, Florida,
Portland, Seattle, all of that product -- alley loaded product comes typically with a 20
foot alley and a four foot apron on each side of the alley. So, the garages are 28 feet
apart. Okay. Does that make sense? What we are requesting here is a 20 foot right of
way. We will pave 16 feet of it. We could make it 20. But we will pave 16 feet of it and
basically a five foot apron from the 20 foot right of way. Okay? So, you're going to have
basically 30 feet between the garages. Now, the other analysis behind this particular
product mix is our buyer profile for this product is not the same profile that buys a 3,000
square foot front loaded garage. These folks have fuel efficient cars, okay? So, they
are driving Hondas. They are driving Beetles. They are driving small SUVs. You're not
going to find somebody living here that drives a, you know, 4-by-4, three quarter ton
pickup truck or a Suburban. Okay? It's not that same profile. These are fuel efficient,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 65 of 98
economy minded individuals. The other aspect of allowing for the five foot setback on
that alley is it gives us an additional, basically, 13 feet to work within the lot space.
Okay. So, we can provide a larger home, more livable home, and it gives us the option
on the accessory dwelling units to develop more of a plaza area between the main
home that faces the public street and the accessory dwelling unit that's in the back alley.
Okay. And the last comment I'd like to make -- we are agreeing to leave off the five
acres to see if the neighborhood center concept does develop. You know, I think it
would be great if I felt there was a demand for the neighborhood center. We are willing
to take a step back, do some market research, determine whether we think we can
make a neighborhood center work there, and if we can we will come back with another
plan for you. However, if we came back with a neighborhood center, I would absolutely
not want 20 foot setbacks on those alleys. It would completely destroy what we are
trying to accomplish from an urban planning perspective. Okay.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Zaremba: Yes. Mr. Nary.
Nary: There is always a legal wrinkle and the two things, I guess, I would want the
Commission to think about -- as it sounded like you may want to have more than tonight
to think about it. But right now there is -- I didn't notice -- and maybe I missed it, but I
didn't notice a recommendation for a develop agreement. You have some plat
conditions about when a final plat can occur on that phase. As Mrs. McKay stated, the
phasing is somewhere between six months and five years. I mean it's hard to really
know in our marketplace currently, but they certainly seem to build a lot faster. All that's
being recommended by the planning staff is a plat condition regarding when final plat
can occur. But, yet, you are approving the plat as presented. The only cases in Idaho
that I'm aware of regarding when preliminary plats say once they have signed it, they
get to build that. They are not obligated to build anything else. They can look at the
market study, they can look at what's recommended, but once they have platted it,
that's what they can build and they don't have to do anything differently. If it's the will of
this Commission to leave that option open, then, the recommend by the staff is probably
not going to get you that. If they want to truly do market research to see what the
available market can support, then, you may want to consider first a development
agreement to not have that property developed at this time. Another development
recently simply excised it out of their project and left it completely as an out parcel at
that time -- at the time for this exact same purpose. Or you may want to plat it as one
lot without those individual lots being in there, if your intent is to truly see if the market
can support a different concept. But if you leave it as it is, in two years they can build
that and they don't need this Commission to revisit it to have authority under the current
state of the law in Idaho to build what they have already presented and it's been
approved. All you're doing by the staff's recommendation is telling them to wait two
years to do it. But not leaving, really, any room to make that secondary look of requiring
that they truly analyze whether it's a residential development, a commercial
development, a mixed use, something else. So, if you consider that that's what you
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 66 of 98
would like to do, I don't think the staff recommendation goes far enough to give this
Commission I guess that direction back to the applicant, if that's what you'd like.
Rohm: And I think that that's the reason I brought up waiving the application fees, in
fact, they were to agree to pull those lots out of this and make it a single lot and, then,
when they come back and -- for redevelopment, if you will, two years down the road,
whether it be for a community center or otherwise, then, to have to, then, go through the
application fee process again for something that would have been included in this
application, seems to be an undue burden on the applicant if they are willing to meet us
halfway, I guess.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Rohm, I mean I
think that's certainly a very -- a very reasonable -- reasonable idea. The problem is -- as
was already said, only Council can waive fees to begin with. You can certainly
recommend that in the recommendation. The fees are changing. I couldn't tell you
what the fees are exactly today. I know in a month they won't be the same and two
years from now they probably won't be the same again. The total of -- the fees are
driven by what the project is. Part of the trade off is if this Commission's view to support
at least at this point the neighborhood center concept, then, the option from the
developer's standpoint to be denied, because it doesn't meet that, or to take this parcel
out until that decision and analysis of what can be supported there in the neighborhood
center concept, can be done. So, is the developer losing something by taking that out
currently and having to potentially reapply and pay fees another time for that new
application, certainly they are. But their other option is it doesn't meet the
Comprehensive Plan goals and guidelines today for the neighborhood center. And the
other option this Commission has is to recommend to deny it. So, I think there is
adequate trade off that you can certainly weigh in your decision as to whether to go
forward or what your recommendation can be.
Borup: It looks to me like the fee would be seven or eight hundred dollars. I'm not sure
if the applicant is really worried about that.
Rohm: Probably not. Okay. All right.
Borup: So, there is just probably more important things that they are worried about.
Rohm: Are you -- Commissioner Moe, how are you with the alleyway explanation? Are
you still kind of struggling with that?
Moe: I have got a couple more questions and we will go from there. Where are the
photos that were dropped off here?
Borup: The clerk should have them.
Moe: While we are waiting on that, the accessory lots, the 12 of them, have they been
located? That was -- was that not in the report that they wanted them located?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 67 of 98
Zaremba: The echo was prior to Council from the audience.
Moe: No. I heard that. I said, I know, this is prior to Council.
Borup: Oh. Okay.
Zaremba: We heard it, but --
Moe: So, if we stay with the concept of the five foot, is the alleyway going to look like
that? Because that was the rendering that was shown that this is kind of the concept
you're looking at.
Groves: It will look better than that.
Moe: It will look better than that? I'd like to make sure that staff has this and the
building department as well, so that if, in fact, we do go forward with that, that I do see
something better than this.
Borup: Yeah. It was probably taken on garbage day, it looks like.
Groves: That was taken from a project -- I think it's called Orenco Station in Portland. It
has won the Urban Land Institute project of the year. It was on trash day, so --
Borup: What was the name of it?
Groves: I think it's Orenco Station and it was developed by Rudy Catliff.
Borup: I think what makes that alley attractive is the landscaping and, you know, the
other one we had had no landscaping at all period.
Groves: It makes a big difference.
Borup: And it makes a big difference. My only concern on the alley is still just being
able to back out. You know, being a practical deal to back out. Now, if we don't feel
you can do it in a parking lot, why can you do it in an alley? I guess maybe there is less
cars to contend with, but -- I'm not -- I don't -- I don't have a problem with the five foot. It
does leave a lot more flexibility on house size and maybe some interior courtyards or
whatever in a design, but I don't know if we want to have a situation where neighbors
are backing into the -- backing over -- or go on their neighbor's property across the
alley.
Zaremba: Well, I think, though, if it's a 20 foot wide right of way and they are paving the
middle 15 feet, then --
Borup: That gives you seven feet from the garage to the pavement.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 68 of 98
Zaremba: Yeah. Plus the 16, gives you 23 to back out.
Borup: Right. So, maybe that's close enough to 25.
Zaremba: Well, I tend to agree with this assessment that these will be people that aren't
driving the bigger SUVs and --
Rohm: Well, in the second --
Zaremba: You don't buy a smaller home, if you're --
Borup: Well, I thought that was the only reason to have the reduced setbacks, so we
could have larger homes.
Rohm: I think the issue is that the alleys are not going to have a high traffic volume and
people will be able to back out into them without fear of a car buzzing by like the
through traffic issues. So, I don't see the 16 foot paved alleyway and put it seven foot
either side of the pavement to the structures, that seems like that would work for me.
Moe: And I guess the other comment I would make -- and I probably would agree with
him somewhat and that is if, in fact -- and we were wanting to see the northeast corner
develop into something within the neighborhood center, I do somewhat agree that 20
foot alleyways in other -- the areas south of Parkstone Street would not really be
favorable with a neighborhood center up there in the corner there, so --
Borup: The other thing, if we allow five feet, that doesn't mean they have to build the
houses right up to five feet, it can be back further.
Zaremba: It could be farther away, it's just that's the minimum.
Moe: Which that will be what it is, but --
Rohm: Okay. I do think, though, that we should make that a single lot, with the
exception of Lot 5, Block 4, and have the balance of it -- of Block 4 and -- what block is
this right here?
Moe: That's five.
Rohm: Five. The balance of Block 4 and all of Block 5 be combined into a single lot
and allow Block 5 of Block 4 to remain an independent lot for the development of that
day care center.
Borup: I was going to say, we still need a lot for that to happen.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 69 of 98
Zaremba: I think the objective is is to put the decision on that five acres off for two
years, not to make the decision today and hold it for two years.
Borup: But the day care center should still be able to --
Zaremba: The day care center is fine.
Borup: Right.
Moe: That would be Block 4 over --
Rohm: But this is where the day care center is going. This is Block 5 of Block 4 -- Lot 5
of Block 4. Yeah. And so that would --
Zaremba: But I think -- I guess I was already assuming it was intended to be this way,
but as other developments have done, make that a single lot, with no plan for it at the
moment, two years from now make the plan.
Rohm: Exactly. Right.
Zaremba: Based on market studies and -- so, it sounds to me like the mechanism for
doing that is to make a single lot and be replatted sometime in the future.
Rohm: Okay.
Moe: Not to confuse you anymore, but is that -- so, is that Lots 6 through 20 of Block 4,
and, then, all of Block 5?
Rohm: Lot 2, 3 and 4 would have to be included in that as well.
Moe: Okay. I got you. Okay. Yeah. I see what you're saying. Yeah. I hadn't seen
that, so -- okay.
Zaremba: May I ask staff where is -- are you feeling that issues are being resolved or is
there a reason to --
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. No, we are comfortable. I think we -- the intention, what you're
guiding us there -- getting back to Mr. Nary's point, I guess if you go this route to
actually a redesign prior to City Council, to show that as one lot, that would certainly do
it. I'm wondering if another option is just to keep the condition that's worded and put it in
a develop agreement or a Condition Use Permit, so that if it's away from the issue of the
plant, not -- you know, of the requirements for final plats and preliminary plats being --
entitlements -- and if it was, just keep the record as it is, but to make it a condition of the
Conditional Use Permit, which would run with the land. I'm wondering if that's another
way to look at it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 70 of 98
Zaremba: What's easier for staff to administer? It's got to come up on somebody's
scope in two years and I'm sure the application will bring it up two years from now, but it
has to come up on somebody's scope.
Hawkins-Clark: Either way. I mean anytime we have a project in the future, we will pull
this file and we will review the -- all the Conditional Use Permit conditions and -- either
way.
Zaremba: Okay.
Nary: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Who was that? Mr. Nary.
Nary: Did you want a response to that?
Zaremba: Sure.
Nary: Being the person having to defend that, not that Mr. Groves would be bringing
this, but someone else -- to defend it -- by far the easiest way to do that is either the
single lot, the out parcel, there is not a question of what entitlement to that property
development exists. The conditional use requirements and a DA certainly are another
method, but certainly the cleanest for me, from a legal perspective, is the out parcel or
the single parcel, because, then, there isn't an issue of what can they do, they know
they have to do something differently and they are going to have to bring that back and
if it's not Mr. Groves is the one -- person two years from now, that would be the easiest
way to deal with that, because we wouldn't have to go back through the records and
piece through what did we mean and what did we think, they know all they have got is
one single parcel, they are going to have to do something differently with that.
Zaremba: Well, it -- I think my feeling is -- and I agree with you, my feeling is we are
asking them to put that parcel off for two years. It could very well be that two years from
now they are justified in bringing exactly the same thing back to us.
Groves: Absolutely.
Zaremba: And at that point if it's justified I wouldn't have a problem with it. But what we
are asking is to give two years chance to the neighborhood center to work. So, if it's
easier from your standpoint to call it a single lot, then, with the understanding it needs to
be replatted, even if it's to this --
Groves: Uh-huh.
Zaremba: That works for me.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
Au9ust 18, 2005
Page 71 of 98
Rohm: If we were to require that it be replatted as a single lot, do we even have to
address the two year issue at this time? Because at such time that they bring whatever
back, it's going to already be known that the two years or the market study would have
had to be completed. So, what I propose is that we just write something to the effect all
of the lots in Block 5 and all of Block 4, with the exception of Lot 5, be combined into a
single lot prior to this going before City Council. End of statement. And just have it as a
one line item, rather than even addressing all of the reasons why, because that will -- is
self-evident and by combining it into a single lot you have addressed that issue until
such time that redevelopment takes place. Does that make sense?
Borup: Yes. I think we have handled that one.
Rohm: Okay.
Borup: Can we move on to some of the others?
Rohm: I was hoping there were no others.
Borup: Probably the easiest way to handle the setbacks is maybe redo the chart. I
mean that's part of a staff report on page 29. Is that -- would that be correct, Mr.
Hawkins-Clark? The chart on 29, if we redo that, would that be the easiest way to
address the alley setbacks and other setback issues?
Hawkins-Clark: I think that would be --
Borup: Rather than try to make a long multi-sentence --
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah.
Borup: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: It's weird. All the other setbacks are -- you know, either way it needs to
be addressed as part of the planned development and so I think that chart in the
Conditional Use Permit is a good place.
Moe: So, in lieu of the 20 foot it would be the five foot?
Borup: And how about the 18? Does that also go to five? Under the alley loaded
detached. Then, we also have attached. I mean it's--
Moe: None of them are 18. They are all 20s.
Borup: Well, the rear -- the rear under detached alley loaded said 18. So, that would
also be five?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, we are really just talking about the face of garage line there.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 72 of 98
Borup: Okay. So, the rear of the building still needs to stay at 18? See, that was my
question. That should also be five, then.
Zaremba: Was that 18 originally based on the property line going to the center of the
alley and the property line is no longer centered to the alley, because they have put the
alley into a common lot?
Borup: So, that would have been eight.
Zaremba: Right.
Borup: Because ten foot of that lot was alley easement.
Zaremba: Yeah.
Borup: So, if it was 18 minus ten, that would have been eight. Was that the intention?
Rohm: I was thinking it was seven, for some reason.
Borup: I mean on this chart. I don't know. I'm asking -- I'm not making statements, I'm
just asking questions. I'm--
Zaremba: Well -- and I'm questioning right along with you. I don't know the answer.
Borup: So, what is the intention with the 18 or do you know?
Hawkins-Clark: I don't know what the intention was, because I didn't write the report.
Borup: It doesn't matter what the intention, we just need to decide what works.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. And if you can imagine going down the alley and having some of
them, rather than garages -- and as I'm reading this, your alley loaded on the rear --
you're talking rear, that's the dwelling unit. That's not the garage. Well, it should be
clarified that that is -- that is the garage, I guess is my point, because there is not a
clarification here whether or not on the rear you're talking about the rear of the garage
setback or the rear of the dwelling unit setback. So, we probably really need --
Zaremba: The public hearing is still open. We could have the applicant comment on it.
Borup: Well, there is not -- I mean the lots are down to 36 feet. If we are talking ten
foot setback, that only leaves 26 for the house, you have 20 for the garage at a
minimum, there is only six feet of house that could be there anyway.
Zaremba: I guess the question is what are we measuring from now and what is the
measurement.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 73 of 98
Grove: Well, my interpretation would be it would be five feet. Five feet from the right of
way.
Zaremba: And the right of way is the private common lot --
Grove: Yes.
Zaremba: -- separate from that.
Grove: Yes.
Zaremba: Okay.
Grove: Because on the accessory dwelling units, they will be stacked right over the top
of the garage, so --
Borup: Right. On a two story, then, yeah, that would apply. On the single level you
only have six feet to work with.
Hawkins-Clark: That needs to be clarified. The principal detached dwelling units could
not go the five feet.
Borup: Correct.
Hawkins-Clark: Principal detached dwelling units would have to remain the full standard
20, actually.
Grove: Correct.
Borup: To the alley?
Hawkins-Clark: Off the alley. Correct. But an accessory dwelling unit or garage would
be the five. Yeah. That would be consistent with Alexandria Subdivision, another alley
product sub that you have approved.
Borup: So, when it says rear, should say rear of principal dwelling unit? Would that
clarify that?
Rohm: Not principal, the --
Borup: Well, then, it would change to 20.
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Zaremba: The principal is 20 and we need to add a line that says accessory is five.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 74 of 98
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Borup: Yeah. We don't have anything on there that breaks those two out.
Zaremba: So, we need to add a row.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, if the maker of the motion, you know, just wants to generally
refer to that -- I mean I -- the intention is certainly clear here for us to prepare our
recommendation for City Council. So, I wouldn't worry too much about the -- crafting
the language on that.
Zaremba: And it sounds like the applicant is agreeing with the way we are trying to
make it appear, so -- I see head nods.
Rohm: Is that all -- those are the only two changes from the staff report?
Zaremba: On that subject. I kind of support the staffs request for a groundwater report,
whatever it was, that study.
Moe: I would agree.
Zaremba: I think the history of the property, even though there are good explanations
for the history of the property, I think because of the history of the property, staff is right
to ask for that.
Rohm: So leave it as written.
Zaremba: As requested in the staff report.
Rohm: Okay. Anything else?
Borup: Well, maybe it doesn't have to be tonight, but I still -- on the accessory dwelling
comment of -- staff says identify 12. Right now it can be on every house in there; right?
Staffs saying a minimum of 12. I don't know if that's a big concern. I mean this is -- I
assume this is the first subdivision this has come up since the new ordinance, isn't it? I
mean to me it sounds like it could be a very popular thing. Is staff concerned that there
may not be 12?
Hawkins-Clark: I believe Craig's concern was that they meet the target density and the
12 would put them at the target density.
Borup: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: Without it they don't meet the target density.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 75 of 98
Moe: And that would be on the --
Borup: Yeah, that's -- well --
Hawkins-Clark: So, if you are correct in that they all could, potentially, but I think the
point is 12 would be required to do it.
Borup: Right. But having to designate specific lots this early in the stage -- I don't
know, maybe it's not a problem. But it kind of -- I mean you have to have, you know, the
house designs already decided, almost, to be able to designate it this early. But I guess
it depends on when the build out happens and maybe that's not a problem.
Moe: I don't think that --
Borup: Didn't have any concern about that? Never mind.
Moe: Yeah. Now, the only other question I have and brought up very early in this
hearing, was, basically, just the -- in regard to the annexation and whatnot and, then,
what we do with annexation at some point of the seven acres next to it. As I heard this
evening from testimony, that at some point they are wanting to annex into the city now
if, in fact, he was going to get his stub streets and whatnot, so that issue somewhat has
been --
Zaremba: Probably somewhere in the pipeline anyhow.
Moe: Exactly. So, that issue is kind of put --
Hawkins-Clark: Staff agrees.
Moe: Okay.
Rohm: Should we have an additional item on the preliminary plat to add a stub street.
Borup: That's already on there.
Moe: That's already --
Rohm: Oh. Okay.
Zaremba: That was an original request.
Rohm: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, if I could just on that. It might be helpful to add something
that, you know, since you are requiring that one to -- just for clarification, that the
Northwest 10th stub would not be envisioned by this Commission. I mean no more than
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 76 of 98
two stub streets to that seven acres is required. And, you know, I mean whenever that
seven acres comes through in the future, at least somebody can look back and see the
intent was not to put all three through.
Zaremba: Okay.
Rohm: Where is that? The preliminary plat?
Zaremba: Are we prepared to close the Public Hearing?
Rohm: Yeah. We can do that.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Yeah. I move that we close the public hearings on AZ 05-015, PP 05-017, and
CUP 05-022.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed: Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-015,
to include all staff comments for the hearing date of August 15th and received August
10th. And for the --
Moe: That would be August 18th; correct?
Rohm: 18th. No changes on --
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 77 of 98
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of PP 05-030,
to include staff comments for the hearing dated August 18th, received August 10th, with
revisions on August 12th, with the following changes: On page 14, under item two,
Comprehensive Plan plan, the text as written should be stricken and in its place all of
the lots in Block 5 and all of Block 4, with the exception of Lot 5, be combined into a
single lot prior to City Council. And on page 24, an additional item number 19 should be
added that no more than two stub streets will be required to serve the seven acres
Semanich property to the east. Was there anything else?
Moe: Twenty-nine.
Rohm: Oh. And on page 29, the front or alley face of garage line in the table on the
detached alley load should be five feet. The rear should add for the primary dwelling
unit should be 20 feet and an additional line for rear for accessory dwelling should be
five feet for the detached alley column.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: Okay. Discussion. The phrasing that you added to page 14 is in staff
discussion. The actual site specific conditions are on page 20 and I might ask that you
add the same phrasing on page 20, so that it's clear that it is a condition. I believe it's
item two.
Rohm: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, could I add something on that point?
Zaremba: Yes. Please do.
Hawkins-Clark: If -- I believe the motion was to actually delete number two altogether
and just replace it with your sentence, but the last paragraph on number two, actually,
deals with those accessory dwelling units.
Zaremba: Well -- and that's why I'm looking at page 20 of instead of 14, so --
Rohm: Yeah. I think --
Zaremba: That would be the first paragraph -- substitute for the first paragraph on
paragraph two, page 20.
Rohm: As opposed to page 14, item two. We will just -- we will put it here, rather than
on page 14.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 78 of 98
Zaremba: Replacing the first paragraph of paragraph two, but not replacing the second
paragraph.
Rohm: Correct.
Hawkins-Clark: And, then, my other point on that is I believe you said all of Block 4,
except for that day care lot.
Rohm: Yes. Except for Lot 5.
Hawkins-Clark: But there are three lots in Block 4 that go south of the -- of Parkstone.
Borup: That was to Lot 20, was it?
Rohm: And the way the applicant drew their little map, wasn't any intention to including
those -- those lots in the -- yeah. It included those -- Lots 2, 3, and 4, so --
Zaremba: Those are being combined into the common lot.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. And my point was not on that side, it was on the opposite side.
Over here -- I'll just point to the screen. If you look down here, these are part of Block 4
as well. And so the point was to --
Borup: It think what the motion meant to say is two through 20, Block 4.
Hawkins-Clark: That would be --
Rohm: Right. Two through 20 of Block 4.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rohm: And that would be on page 20, item two, under the site specific condition,
preliminary plat, as opposed to page 14. End of motion.
Zaremba: Okay. Does the second accept that change?
Moe: Yes, I do.
Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 79 of 98
Rohm: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of CUP 05-
022, to include all staff comments for the hearing date August 18th, 2005, received
August 10th, 2005, with supplement on August 12th, 2005, with all changes as noted on
the preliminary plat application. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries. Thank you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: Anticipating that we will finish the agenda tonight, we will take about a five
minute break.
(Recess.)
Item 16:
Continued Public Hearing from July 21, 2005: AZ 05..029 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 11.75 acres to R-2 zone for Sunstone
Subdivision by Benchmark Construction - 1155 and 1123 North Black
Cat Road:
Item 17:
Continued Public Hearing from July 21, 2005: PP 05-029 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval for 17 single-family residential building lots and 3
common area lots on 11.75 acres in a proposed R-2 zone for Sunstone
Subdivision by Benchmark Construction - 1155 and 1123 North Black
Cat Road:
Zaremba: Okay. We will reconvene and let the record show that all Commissioners
that were present before are again present. And I will open the continued Public
Hearing AZ 05-029 and PP 05-029, both relating to Sunstone Subdivision and entertain
a motion to accept the application -- the applicant's request to withdraw these.
Borup: I'd just like to say I'm disappointed with withdrawing that. I liked the idea of half
acre subdivisions. But that being said, I move that we accept the applicant's withdrawal.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 18:
Continued Public Hearing from July 21, 2005: AZ 05-028 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 2.06 acres from RUT to R-40 zone for Arnke
Subdivision by Michael Arnke - 2070 West Pine Avenue: