HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 20, 2003
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 16 of 84
Borup: But whether that affects it, I don't think that question has been answered, is
would that trunk line be a smaller diameter than it is now if this parcel was not included,
And you probably can't answer that.
Freckleton: That's a real hard question to answer without putting it through the model.
Borup: Right. But I question whether the diameter would change with or without this
parcel.
Freckleton: It's hard to say. I can't give you an answer on that.
Borup: All in favor? Anyopposed? Okay. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5:
Item 6:
Item 7:
Public Hearing: AZ. 02-033 Request for annexation and zoning of
104.77 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Parkstone
Subdivision by Hillview Development, Corp. - west of North Eagle Road
and north of East Ustick Road:
Public Hearing: PP 02-033 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of
334 building lots and 34 other lots on 104.77 acres in a proposed R-8
zone for proposed Parkstone Subdivision by Hillview Development,
Corp. - west of North Eagle Road and north of East Ustick Road:
Public Hearing: CUP 02-049 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Unit Development for 275 single-family dwellings, 52 townhomes,
4 office lots, 2 commercial lots, 1 mini-storage lot, 1 pocket park, 1 city
neighborhood park and 32 common lots on 104.77 acres for proposed
Parkstone Subdivision by Hillview Development, Corp. - west of North
Eagle Road and north of East Ustick Road:
Borup: Our next hearing -- I think that's probably what most of the audience is here for
this evening. That's concerning Parkstone Subdivision. I'd like to open Public Hearing
AZ 02-033, request for annexation and zoning of 104.77 acres from RUT to R-8 zones
for the proposed Parkstone Subdivision by Hillview Development Corporation. The
property is west of North Eagle Road and north of East Ustick Road and two
accompanying applications, we'd like to open both those Public Hearings also at this
same time, and that is Public Hearing PP 02-033 and Public Hearing CUP 02-049.
Those are the Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use for the same property. I'd like to
start with the staff report at this time.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I'm going to give
you a brief overview ofthe project a nd, then, I have got a little bit of housekeeping,
some additional memos that you received tonight that I'd like to discuss and, then, I will
take questions from you before we open it up to the public. On the overhead in front of
Meridian Pianning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 17 of 84
you we have the subject property in bold. This is Summerfield Subdivision to the east of
the property and right at the very edge of the eastern -- I guess the eastern side of this
picture would be Eagle Road. The property itself fronts onto Ustick Road. This gives
you a little bit better picture of it. It's an aerial photo of the property. Again, Eagle Road
is on the eastern side. There is a large piece of property right here, a Winston Moore
piece of property, it's owned, it's currently in our Comprehensive Plan as a mixed use,
and Summerfield Subdivision, which is an R-4 subdivision with a number of larger
homes and up on the northwest corner of the property is the recently approved
subdivision for the elementary school and the new charter high school that we recently
went through, I think it was called Education Campus Subdivision. This gives you an
overview of the site plan itself. I'm going to skip passed this right now and move to a
cleaner copy without all of the dimensional standards and all the lot and block numbers,
and I will focus a little bit of my discussion at this point. This property is currently in our
Comprehensive Plan and it's shown as medium density residential, which would allow
between three to eight units per acre upon annexation. As you know, in our Planned
Development Ordinance we allow for a 20 percent land use exception, which would
mean the properties that are not currently zoned for a specific type of use, such as an
office use in a residential zone, would be allowed on 20 percent of the property within a
Planned Development. As along as the overall development met the requirements of
the Planned Development. They have included along the eastern edge of the property
some uses that would not typically be permitted in the R-8 zone. They have some office
uses on the left side or the west side of the entryway -- of the entry collector and on the
east side of that road they have commercial property and the property directly to the
western boundary would be the mini storage units that they would be proposing. All of
the commercial uses and 0 ffice uses are conceptual at t his time and they will come
back before you with a detailed Conditional Use Permit. Now, you are only looking at
those on a conceptual basis to determine whether or not those uses fit within this
Planned Development that's being discussed tonight. Some interesting items to think
about when looking at this. I will point out some of the highlights. It would be the six-
acre park that would be built in the center of this project. The six acre park has been
discussed with the parks commission, which you have received two memos and I will
discuss those memos later. The property itself has one stub street. The stub street is
on the north side going up to Jasmine Acres and there is no connection from Ustick until
you get to that north connection. There is almost a half-mile with no connection to the
east. There is a connection to Summerfield Subdivision, which interconnects the
subdivisions and there is a connection to the education campus subdivision. There is a
small one-acre pocket park provided to the subdivision, not to the city. The six-acre
park would be a city park. This would be a pocket park with an amenity that would be a
basketball court. With a Planned Development, there are requirements that need to be
met in order for them to have some of the benefits of a Planned Development, such as
a 20 percent land use exception, and one of those requirements is that they provide at
least two amenities. The two amenities that the applicant has provided would be the
pocket park and a pathway system that would run north and south through the project.
On our Comprehensive Plan -- as you can, it's down on the floor at this time, there is a
pathway that's depicted on our Comprehensive Plan that runs north and south. Sorry, I
have been -- had a little bit too much pop, I think, and I'm a little shaky with the laser
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 18 of 64
pointer. I will try to do better with that. They did not originally propose a pathway. The
applicant has agreed to install a pathway and they will revise their plat to include the
pathway to be in compliance with the comprehensive plan. That's a basic overview.
There are some additional - a few additional items that I'd like to share with you.
Because, again, this is a Planned Development, they are allowed to request that some
minimum standards be reduced and they have asked for some of those standards to be
reduced. They have asked fOT the minimum lot size to be reduced and they have asked
for the minimum housing size to be reduced from 1,301 square feet in the R-8 zone,
down to 1,200 square feet for a detached home. In addition to that, they have
requested that the lot sizes be allowed to be reduced from 6,500 square feet to a
minimum for a detached house to 5,888 square feet and for an attached house down to
3,883 feet. Those are minor adjustments to the minimum standards of 6,500 and 4,000
square feet. The project itself has a small section of attached single-family homes.
Those are, essentially, the duplexes with individual ownership on both sides. There are
52 of them and they are adjacent to Ustick, with the entrance coming off of the collector
street in this location. The collector streets that are bringing the -- the collector streets
that come in off 0 f Ustick, those a re the two main streets, those will have detached
sidewalks, with the collector in the center having a ten foot wide pathway in compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan running north and south through it. The rest of the
sidewalks within the subdivision will be attached sidewalks. On to a little bit of
housekeeping. You should have received a few memos. I will go over a couple of
those with you right now. You should have received a memo I mentioned earlier from
Elroy Huff, the acting parks director, asking you to ignore his previous memo asking to
table this item. The reason that he's asked for this not to be tabled tonight is that when
they met on February 12th when the P&Z Commission discussed this, the parks
commission stated they had no problem with the site location of the park and that some
of the other issues can be discussed at a meeting on March 12th and the City Council
meeting on April 3rd, so they would not ask you to table this tonight for those reasons
that were stated earlier in the previous memo. You should have also received a memo
dated today from Jonathan Seal from the W.H. Moore Company, that was concerning
the property that was touched on briefly that's adjacent to this property to the east and
some of the items of concern within this memo had to deal with the mini storage and
how the mini storage would be buffered from their property in the future and whether or
not there should be an i nterconnectivity in the northeast corner of this property. I do
have a memo that I received today from Becky Bowcutt you should have all received
this f rom Becky Bowcutt Planning Services, giving a written response to a II the staff
recommendations and site-specific requirements. I've had an opportunity to review this
today and I would ask that you follow with me to -- I guess we can just go right down
Becky's letter right now and talk about some of the items that are on her letter. In the
annexation and zoning Commission's approval, Item Number 1, Page 7, it's the first
item that she had to -- that she addresses. She states that she is in agreement with this
and I'd like to point out to you that one specific special instance with this piece of
property is that the Davis property is located right here. That's a brick home on the
property, and they have requested that they not have to connect to city services as part
of the annexation until such time as the phase for their project -- for their property is
Final Platted. And we don't have any problems with that. J wanted to point that out to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 19 of 84
you as a special note. Item number two, Becky has responded back that she would not
like to have all the properties zoned according to their use. Typically, we have property
zoned according to their use. If it's R-8, it's residential. That's medium density
residential. If we were to zone those properties as medium density residential and,
then, allow commercial uses on those properties, it becomes confusing for all people
concerned, people that want to develop on the property that contact us and see we
have R-8 zoned property and, then, we have -- and we say, well, actually, it's
commercial, you can use it for commercial, even though it's zoned R-8. In addition to
that, it would be confusing for the assessor's office to see commercial properties on R-8
zones, so we felt that it would be appropriate that we ask the applicant to provide legal
descriptions of the properties that are to be used for office commercial and otherwise, to
provide legal definitions for those and have those zoned according to use, rather than
just have a blanket zone of R-8 and allow commercial and office uses in those zones,
felt it would be cleaner on an annexation, on a zoning map. Just to give you a case in
point how that could be confusing, we have Wendy here tonight. Wendy, as you know,
is a new planner, she wasn't privy to the information concerning this tonight and if
someone were to call and say I have a piece of property that's zoned R-8, what can I do
on it, she might not know to say, well, this is part of a Planned Development and you
can actually do commercial. She would say, no, you can't do this and it creates
confusion. So, we would, again, state in opposition to Becky's new letter that we think
that those uses should be zoned according to the use. Onto item number three, there is
a lot of information that's provided in item number three. They state they are in
agreement with that, but I'd like to point out one thing to you that is a special
consideration. Mr. Davis, the owner of the property, has requested that he be allowed to
continue to use his property in an agricultural nature and be allowed to continue to raise
150 head of cattle on the property until the end of 2005. We, as staff, have no objection
to that. As the property develops, there will be less and less space for that, but there
should be adequate space for 150 head of cattle to remain on the property. It would be
a legal nonconforming use and it would be something that would be added to the
Development Agreement. It would be something that would be recognized and we, as
staff, have no objection to that. Onto Page 8, Item Number 1. Becky has stated that on
the pedestrian pathway, the interconnectivity is something that they would be willing to
work with and I'll show you exactly where this is going. Item Number 1, under the
additional considerations, has to deal with a pedestrian pathway that would connect to
the Winston Moore property. This aerial would look better. There should be some sort of
connection between these two properties. As I stated earlier, there is no connection on
Ustick Road to the east for over a half a mile north and south. This is the half-mile line
running right across here. This would be where the stub street is. It's just under a half a
mile with no interconnectivity. We propose that a pedestrian pathway be located in this
location to provide access for the people to the office park or the future commercial park
at this location. Upon thinking about this and discussing this as a staff, we felt that it
would be appropriate to let you know that staff would not be -- would not object to an
and/or language from the Planning and Zoning Commission tonight, whether you feel it
would be appropriate to add something that in that location or not. If the project to the
east develops a s a big block s tore, a pedestrian pathway going into the back 0 f t he
loading dock does not make a great deal of sense. So, it could be an option for you to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meetlng
February 20, 2003
Page 20 of 84
say that if this develops in a manner that is not conducive to having a pedestrian
pathway, that the pedestrian pathway could be eliminated at the Final Platting stage and
not be considered a significant change. Typically, if there is a change from the
Preliminary Plat to the Final Plat that is deemed significant, the plat would have to come
back to you for modification and we felt that if you included the language at this time to
allow for the additional flexibility, that would be something that would be appropriate at
this time. Onto page nine of the staff report. There is a few things that we need to
address, the block length, we have no problem with the block length and the multi-use
pathway and we agree with the multi-use pathway that Becky has indicated on page
one, that they would go ahead and add the multi-use pathway running north and south
as we have already discussed. That would require a multi-use pathway being brought
north, south, jogging to the east, and, then, following up through these two blocks and,
then, heading into Jasmine Acres to the north. Becky has proposed that they put a 20
foot wide buffer on this stub street to the north to provide a 10 foot pathway within that
and we, as staff, agree that that would be a good change to do that and we would
incorporate that change into our staff report and that that's one thing that they will do
when they revise the plat. Page 10 of the staff report. Site-specific comments for the
Preliminary Plat, Items 1 and 2, the applicant has agreed to. Item Number 3, the staff
recognizes the solid fencing notes that Becky has mentioned and we would agree to
include those notes as part of staff comments. That just has to deal with the fact that
there is some existing fence out there at this time. That they should not be required to
build a secondary fence adjacent to existing fences. Item Number 4, the Planned
Development site, the applicant stated that they will provide a 20 foot wide landscape
easement on the west side of the lots adjacent to the townhomes and so that's
something that they have agreed to do. Item number five they agreed to comply with.
Item Number 7 on Page 11 is the next item which they object to and they have stated
that they would agree to do the first bullet point, place the micro-path between Lots 48,
49 of Block 12. However, they are requesting that the lot with the micro-path between
Lots 25 and 26 -- 24 and 25 be changed to 25 and 26. The staff does not object to that.
That would be the pathway right here in the northeast corner of the property going to the
Winston Moore property. Item Number 8, bullet point Number 4, the applicant would
like to have the opportunity to allow a four foot tall fence with a lattice placed adjacent to
the pathways and I'm not aware if the Commission knows the recent discussions that
have been -- that have taken place with the City Council just in the last week. The City
Council -- the last two weeks. The City Council held a Pre-Council Meeting where they
discussed the four foot tall fences with lattice on top and whether or not that would be
considered an open vision fence and they felt that it would be an open vision fence, as
long as the four foot portion of the fence was also see through. The slats within the
fence did not connect with each other. There was an ability to see movement go
through a semi-private fence. A good example of that, which the applicant is very
familiar with, would be within Bridgetower Subdivision where all. the slats have a small
space between those. It's a vinyl fence with a lattice on top and they have been
approved for that and staff would not object to that type, nor would the City Council,
because the City Council has felt that that is appropriate adjacent to the pathways. As
long as they have met those standards, we can have the applicant address that,
whether they would be willing to meet that standard, it would be appreciative -- we
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 21 of 84
would be appreciative if the applicant would address that tonight, whether that would be
that type of -- whether or not the fence would be that type of fence. Now onto the final
page of the staff report, the general comments. Becky in her final note on the general
comments, she has noted that we are dealing with a Conditional Use Permit tonight for
the development of commercial office and mini storage lots. They, too, request that we
recognize the approval is a conceptual Site Plan and staff has no objection to that. Just
to let you know, again, this will all have to come back in front of you, the buffers will
have to come back in front of you, the parking designs, the building designs, all this will
be back in front of you for those buildings. This is only a conceptual use. It rest of the
items within Becky's report we agree with, we have no objection to them, and we would
not have any objections to having them incorporated into the staff report. You should
have received in your packet a number of letters in objection of the application. I just
want to point those out to you, that they have been received by staff and that they have
been read by staff and review with the Commissioners tonight. With that, I'd ask if you
have any questions for staff concerning this application and turn it back over to you,
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioner? Would the applicant like to make
their presentation?
Bowcutt: Can the Commission all see that? Since we have so many neighbors here
this evening, it's -- they kind of get frustrated when I point at the board and they can't
see what I'm pointing at, so this seems to work a little bit better. Becky Bowcutt, 1100
East Valli-Hi, Eagle. I'm representing the applicants in this matter. This particular
property is approximately 104.77 acres. It is designated medium density residential on
your Comprehensive Plan -- your new Comprehensive Plan. The definition of the
medium density residential designation is three to eight dwelling units per acre. It's
promotes Planned Developments for larger subdivisions, it talks about density bonuses
may be considered, promotes public amenities, such as open space, pathways, and any
land dedicated for public services. As Dave indicated, on the Comprehensive Plan
map, this is -- a multi-use pathway is shown traversing this property in a north-south
direction. Also on the Comprehensive Plan map an asterisk was shown on this
property, indicating that some type of a public park was to be located in this vicinity. As
you well know, the city cannot designate that a park be on a specific piece of property,
because that is a taking of that property. However, those asterisks -- the interpretation
of those asterisks is that it is within that general vicinity and that asterisk was within this
general vicinity. We met with the parks department and we came up with a concept of
incorporating a centrally located neighborhood park and that's what you see here. We
have two collector roadways coming into the project. Here we have Ustick Road. This
collector roadway is in alignment with Wingate Lane. This roadway is in alignment with
Wesley Drive. The westerly collector roadway comes up and terminates at this location,
where, then, the local street network takes - takes effect. We call it a non-continuous
collector. The easterly collector roadway comes up and terminates at this location. As
you can see, the way we have designed this by clipping this particular pod of town
home lots, the focal point of this development, as traffic or residents, plus guests, enter
this development, the focus is on the park to maximize the exposure and the visibility of
that park. We have multiple pedestrian pathways, one coming out of this pod, a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission MeeUng
February 20. 2003
Page 22 of 84
pathway coming here, and, then, a network of pathways here. Over along our western
boundary is the Meridian School District charter school site. At this point in time I
believe they are just either starting or getting to start construction on a new elementary
school. On this western portion of the property we have incorporated two pedestrian
pathways to facilitate the children getting out of this stub street, which will connect to a
collector roadway that will be built through the Meridian School District site and connect
to the subject property. That's where those kids would go to school. When we
submitted the application, we showed a detached sidewalk along the collector roadway
on the west. The staff recommended that we incorporate something a little larger, what
they call a multi-use pathway, which, instead of being five feet in width, is ten feet in
width. We have agreed to that and it is shown on my revised Preliminary Plat. We
have here, as you can see in the bold dark lines, it comes along this eastern side of the
collector, crosses, goes on an open space lot, comes around our pocket park, and,
then, comes through a pathway here. We have also added another pathway here.
Staff's concern in their staff report was when it terminates into this Connolly Avenue,
which is a stub street to the north, and then, that multi-use pathway would become just
a standard sidewalk. They talked about in their staff report adding another micropath,
but, then, it occurred to the applicants and myself the best solution would be to have a
separate 20 foot lot here separate from this buildable lot and, then, that ten foot
pathway could continue on and be stubbed to that northern boundary, so at some point
in time it could extend northward. In this project, as staff indicated, we are -- it's a
planned unit development, we have asked for an R-8 designation, which would fall
within that medium density residential designation. Under the planned unit development
ordinance it allows for some mixed use. In these larger projects we have tried to
incorporate diversity, a s you well know, from some ofthe other larger projects that I
have brought through. We have got three different types of single-family residential lots.
We have got some town home lots located here, then, we have some single family
detached residential lots and these lots are ranging from 6,600, 7,000 square feet and
as you go northward, the size of the lots increase until as we get up into this area here,
the lots are running 8,600 to 10,000, 13,000 square feet. So, we have tried to provide
the diversity that your Comprehensive Plan promotes in the residential housing, Also,
we incorporated these office lots. We have shown approximately four and what we
showed here is just in concept only. We are not asking for any detailed approval. Each
one of these uses that falls within the 20 percent exception would have to come before
this body as a site-specific Conditional Use application. At that time you would be
reviewing it for residential compatibility, landscaping, obviously, the type of architecture
and the type of use of that office building. Over here we have two commercial lots, what
we have called residential compatible. What these provide for the neighborhoods and
the first one we have done in Meridian was in the Bridgetower Crossing project, we are
getting dentists -- a dentist office is currently under construction. The second user is
going to be a day care, so what we are seeing is types of users that intend to service
not only the community that we are going to build, but also the surrounding community,
which, therefore, reduces the number of trips on our arterial roadways. We also have a
mini storage facility proposed here. That's also conceptual. In our planning we were
aware that the property along our eastern boundary is owned by W.H. Moore Company.
They are in the business of doing office and commercial developments and it was their
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
. February 20. 2003
Page 23 of 84
intent after discussing the development of that property with their representative, that at
some point in time they intend to develop that to a more intensive use, than, obviously,
just neighborhood type office or commercial, it would be more a regional type
commercial or office development. On your Comprehensive Plan map that's designated
mixed use regional, so there could be even a big box user, I believe up to 200,000
square feet, I think, is what your Comprehensive Plan states. Instead of creating a
situation like we had at the Crossroads development, most of you probably weren't on
the Commission at that time, I think Commissioner Borup was on the Commission at
that time -- there was a lot of controversy that Crossroads residential subdivision was
extremely opposed to that - that Crossroads commercial development where ShopKo
at Eagle Road and Fairview is currently located. And a lot of discussion took place on
how to appropriately buffer those residents from that development. We took it upon
ourselves to create our own buffer. I have found in other developments that mini
storage serves two excellent purposes. One, all the protective covenants in these new
subdivisions have one thing in common, they do not allow RVs to be located on their
lots, unless they are either in enclosed like garages or some, but very few, allowed if
they can place them behind the homes. Secondly, we found that they are a very low
traffic generator. The traffic that is generated by them is typically non-peak hours, and
the radius in which they service is typically about two miles. They are really servicing a
particular area and, therefore, from what the traffic engineers have told me, they are
reducing the trips on the arterials, you know, when you go further out, because you're
adding this particular service right here located next to the subdivision. They make a
good neighbor and a good buffer, a good sound buffer from major arterials. I put one
next to the freeway at the Cloverdale overpass on the north side. I did a subdivision
called Ironwood Subdivision and we put those mini storage buildings right adjoining the
interstate and, then, there were single family residential on the other side and it made
for a very nice subdivision. Had we not done that, the noise level would have probably
been quite a nuisance. Therefore, we feel that we have really tried to come up with a
good mixed-use development. We also have a pocket park right here that's private.
This is about 6.03 acres. This is approximately an acre. We would be installing a
basketball court. Our amenities under the PUD will be the multi-use pathway, our
pocket park, our basketball court, and, then, for the neighborhood park we went before
your parks commission about a week ago, we presented it to them, the parks
commission basically said that they were in favor of the concept, they liked the location,
they liked how we designed it, with the exposure open on both ends of those roadways.
Since that's a local street on the east side of the park, you can have parallel parking
along here, so residents from other areas could come in and parallel park here,
because it's single loaded, it's a local street. Since there is no parking allowed on the
collector, we have provided a little parking lot with about six parking spaces there. We
asked the parks commission to consider some park impact fees for only half of what we
are proposing and our discussion with them went well, but they said they wanted to take
it under consideration the issue of whether we were eligible for impact fee credits under
their new parks plan. That was the only outstanding issue. This particular -- under your
ordinance we are required to five percent open space. If we take say five percent of the
104.77 acres, we are at 5.24 acres of required open space. Our project has an 11.79
when you include this neighborhood park, which is about 11.25 percent open space.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20. 2003
Page 24 of 84
Density wise, when we looked at our gross density -- and that is just taking the
residential area, it includes the lots, the streets, the open space, excludes office
commercial, mini storage, our gross density is 3.58 dwelling units per acre. On the
lower end of that medium density residential designation on your Comp Plan. In the net
density that is under -- based on your definition, you take out all the streets and exclude,
obviously, the office and the commercial and that density is 4.68. We feel we have a
good mixed-use project. The staff - we have worked with your staff closely in trying to
incorporate the stub streets, the micro-paths. I think under -- under most -- most of the
issues we are pretty much in agreement, it is just kind of a matter of housekeeping, as
you can see, based on my responses to the staff report. The only thing that I did have a
real problem with was the issue of zoning the property CoG and L-O. I know Dave has
his opinion and Dave is absolutely correct, with these PUDs and their underlying
residential zoning designation, we have had some confusion with the staff when people
have popped in to inquire about a particular office lot with an R-4 or an R-8 type
designation. But this is how it's handled in other jurisdictions, other municipalities. The
City of Boise. For example, the PUD ordinance that the city -- this city adopted was
modeled after Boise City's. It is their preference that under the planned unit
development ordinance you guys have more control. If I could come in and if it was
preferable that I zone that L-O and CoG, then, there would be no need for me to do a
Planned Development application, but that's not the case, because your
Comprehensive Plan designates this as medium density residential. Therefore, that's
why I feel from a planning perspective the Planned Development application is the
appropriate course of action. Do you have any questions?
Borup: Yes. Becky -- maybe before some of the Commissioners, I'm sure they have
some, too. Would you like to comment on your neighborhood meeting? Did you hold
one?
Bowcutt: Sir, I tried. No, sir, I did not hold a neighborhood meeting and I do apologize
to the neighbors, because I always make it a point to have a neighborhood meeting
when I have a project of any size and I have adjoining neighbors. The problem that
arose was the Best Western Rama Inn is booked clear through March. The only day
they had available was Friday, Valentine's Day, and I thought that inappropriate to hold
a neighborhood meeting on Valentine's Day. I talked to Wendell Bigham with the
Meridian School District and he gave me the name of the Principal Janet Nichols of the
Charter School and I tried to make arrangements to hold one there. He thought that
that would be acceptable. Ms. Nichols said that they would have to pay a janitor to stay
after hours and she did not want to do that. I was put between a rock and hard spot. I
would like to offer to the neighbors that I will be glad to meet with them on one on one or
as a group, if we can organize a location, but the location is what hurt me, so I do
apologize.
Borup: You were aware of our new ordinance that this Commission forwarded to City
Council -- I don't believe they have - I don't believe they have passed it yet, have they?
Bowcutl: They haven't passed it yet.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 25 of 84
McKinnon: It has been passed and it has been published in the newspaper and is
effective at this point.
Borup: Oh, it is?
Bowcutt: But it predates --
Borup: Just -- well, it probably--
Bowcutt: It predates this application.
Borup: No. I understood that, but -- and it's - unless City Council changed it, it was not
mandatory either. It says the Commission may, I believe.
Zaremba: May require.
Borup: Right. Clarification on the park. The developer would be developing the six-
acre city park; is that correct?
Bowcutt: Yes, sir and I can go through --
Borup: So developing and donating to the city and you were asking for half -- try to get
half of the development cost back through impact fees?
Bowcutt: Yes, sir. The developer would be dedicating the land, hydro seeding or some
type of seeding, obviously, working with the Parks Department on the -- how that's done
and the variety of the seeding, constructing that parking lot. We are required to put
trees along our collector roadway, so we would work with the parks department on
some type of an appropriate design. We have a landscape architect and he just kind of
did a smattering of trees, but we will work with our landscape architect as not to burden
the budget of the Parks Department to come up with an appropriate design for the tree
locations, et cetera. We would provide you sewer and water service, power service,
and irrigation within the park, excluding the pump station, and that's based on the
comments we received from Elroy that it is the parks department's intent to have a
separate pump station. If they share one with residents -- residences, they get
complains. As you can see, the little blue area right there in the right -- just right in the
corner of the park - yes. That is an irrigation pond. We would be providing storage for
our irrigation water and our pump would be located there and, obviously, the Parks
Department would be able to install their pump there. Fencing along the north and
south boundary of the park, we would be installing would not be requesting any
reimbursement for the fencing. We would like to see something that, as staff indicated,
obviously, a fence that's either four feet tall that's site obscuring, possible some lattice in
it, putting some slats in it, or something along that line. We would be glad to work with
the staff and the parks department. We would not be asking for any reimbursement on
the 10-foot pathway either. It would just be 50 percent of the park and 50 percent of the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20,2003
Page 26 of 84
improvements. When I look at that, based on the land costs and the approximate cost
of the improvements, our participation would be 236,500 dollars, approximately, that
would be out of the developer's pocket. Then, they would only, obviously, be eligible for
whatever impact fees would be generated by this project and this project alone. Like I
said, that's still up in the air as far as the reimbursement. The parks commission will
make a recommendation to the Council at their next meeting.
Borup: Two hundred thirty-six was one half?
Bowcutt: Two hundred thirty-six five was one half.
Borup: Okay.
Bowcutt: And that was based on six acres of land at 46,000 per acre, and that was the
cost of the land, that 236, and, then, I figured 75 cents per square foot, which is kind of
a general average, which is 197,000 dollars in improvements. Those were just some
rough approximate numbers.
Centers: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: Am I jumping ahead or are you saying that the city is going to maintain that
property, too?
Bowcutt: The park?
Centers: Yes.
Bowcutt: It would be a city public park, yes, sir.
Centers: I got to tell it like is. I'm not impressed. I'm not impressed with the numbers,
because that park is for the total benefit of that subdivision and the marketability of that
subdivision and to pass those numbers along that you're giving this to the city and that
to the city and, then, we have to maintain it for the use of homeowners of that
subdivision, I'm not impressed.
Borup: That was where a park site was designated.
Centers: I understand. I understand. I'm just citing my view, because that park is for
the total benefit of that subdivision a nd to m arketthat subdivision. T hen, the city is
going to maintain it and, then, she wants half of the money back for the purchase of it.
Half. Not she. Excuse me, Mrs. Bowcutt.
Bowcutt: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, I respect your opinion and we did
receive some comments along that line from the Parks Commission. The issue is that it
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 27 of 84
was designated for a park in this area. Due to the size of the property and the price of
the property, this was the best that we could do from a financial perspective. In locating
that along the two roadways, we try to make that exposure as great as possible, instead
of tucking it back. Most neighborhood parks are typically tucked back, especially private
ones, are tucked back away, so that the public doesn't -- is not aware that they a re
there. This one we have tried to provide as much exposure as possible. You may be
right, the Council and the Parks Commission may agree with you, that reimbursement of
any kind is not appropriate, but I don't think that that's something that we could hash out
tonight.
Centers: I just gave you my opinion.
Bowcutt: Thank you.
Zaremba: I'd like to ask -- and the subject is back to the zoning. Eventual ownership of
what will be the office and storage facilities, is that going to be continued as a common
area under the ownership and leasing of the homeowners association or do you plan to
sell those lots individually?
Bowcutt: So until it's developed -- your question is what would happen to it?
Zaremba: Once it's developed, the ownership of the lots where the offices are and the
lots where the store units are going, are those going to be sold separately?
Bowcutt: They have the potential to be sold separately if they were platted, yes, sir.
Until -- if the residential area -. typically, we find the residential portion develops first, so
we try to keep as much in agricultural production as possible, because, then, that
minimizes your weed maintenance and so forth and dust, et cetera. They would have
the potential to be sold off separately, yes. As I indicated, they would have to come
back before this body with a site-specific Conditional Use Permit and they would have to
contend with their new residents that would adjoin them. Now, the developers can, in
their covenants, when they plat those, specify, you know, very strict requirements and
most of my projects we have seen that the developer, obviously, just like with the
residential, retains architectural control to make sure that somebody does not put an
atrocious office building on that lot, something that is residential compatible, and so that
-- I mean that's typically how it's handled. That doesn't necessarily mean - if your
question is would the developer build that office building or build that mini storage.
Potentially, but not necessarily. It could be sold to another individual for development.
Zaremba: Well, but even if the developer builds it, they would still sell it to somebody;
right?
Bowcutt: They could do that, too, yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Mathes: But it's still classified as a lot in the subdivision?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20,2003
pege 26 of 84
Bowcutt: Yes.
Zaremba: My direction with that is that my instinct I feel supportive of staff's idea that
those should be zoned separately. If they are going to come under separate ownership
or could even come under separate ownership at some time, you have a piece of
property that has no relationship to the rest of the R-8, that has an office building on it,
and somebody owns that piece of property with an office building on it and to have that
be zoned R-8 I think is confusing. I agree that when you take the whole development, if
less than 20 percent of it is being used in that way, I still think it meets the purpose of
the planned unit development. I don't see any conflict between having a planned unit
development have several zones in it and my instinct is to say if it's going to be an office
unit and it's going to be under separate ownership, why not make it L-O. That's not
going to stop the project.
Bowcutt: No, sir.
Zaremba: Could you live with it if we decided that it needed to separate zonings?
Bowcutt: Yes, sir, I guess -- yes, I guess, you know, that would just be one of the
conditions. If you feel it's appropriate, then, obviously, we would have to accept that.
Borup: Other questions from the Commission?
McKinnon: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Commission, I have a question if I could ask at
this time.
Borup: Please do.
McKinnon: Mrs. Bowcutt, the maps you got hanging -- the colored map on the tripod, is
that your revised plan or is that just a color rendition of the original plan?
Bowcutt: No. That is the revised one. You can see that Block 19, the pedestrian
pathway through Block 19 -
McKinnon: Okay. I was going to --
Bowcutt: And, then, a pedestrian pathway to the east.
McKinnon: Okay. On Block 12, the one that would go over to the Hollister property,
Setter Cove Subdivision --
Bowcutt: Yes, sir. I doubt - that was not added, because I wasn't aware that you guys
were going to take that position. I think in our discussions -- but we are not opposed to
that. We would be glad to revise our Preliminary Plat to incorporate that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 29 of 84
McKinnon: Okay. There is just one - there may be some discussion on that, Members
of the Commission, just to point that out. The Setter Cove Subdivision has applied for a
Preliminary Plat a nd it does not proposed a ny connection to this subdivision. Lot--
Block 12 is, essentially, one of the longest blocks in the subdivision, the access being
into Education Campus here, running all the way down to Summerfield without a break
a pedestrian pathway going to the Hollister property would be at this location. However,
it, essentially, creates a very short block that connects to another very short block, it
would only provide interconnectivity to very few homes. The Hollister property is being
developed with two cul-d-sacs and that -- there should be some discussion determining
whether or not there is a need for a pathway at this location to connect to a cul-de-sac,
that would, eventually, just connect up to an elementary school at this site and it would,
essentially, be the end result of the crossings. If we require them to put in a ped path at
that location, we will be requiring the ped path be placed at the other location within the
other subdivision. I think it's something you should consider tonight when you look at
this -- I'll move backwards so you can see how the property lays out. The Hollister
property is this long narrow piece with the little bulb out here at the end. It's a very short
piece of property, it's coming down with two cul-d-sacs in a horseshoe shape and the
interconnection would just be at this point, providing just a very short interconnectivity
between subdivisions. It would break up the block length, but it still would not take it out
of t he 0 ver 1 ,OOO-foot length for t he rest 0 f Block 1 2. I think there should be some
discussion tonight by the Commission to determine whether or not you feel that there is
one -- a need for one at that location. That's something that we talked together as staff
today, Brad and I and I think Steve and Wendy as well, we talked about whether or not
that truly - there truly is a need for one at that location.
Zaremba: David, not on this drawing, but on -- that one.
McKinnon: Okay.
Zaremba: Is this a building lot or is that a roadway into that Hollister?
McKinnon: This is a roadway and, then, it turns left. There is no connection between
the Hollister property and Summerfield.
Zaremba: So that's a building lot?
McKinnon: That is a building lot.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: Do you want discussion right now on that comment, Dave? Would that --
McKinnon: That would be great, if you can just -- and, then, just secondary to that
would be just a statement from Becky whether or not she could agree to do the semi-
private fencing. Would you want to do the four-foot --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 30 of 84
Bowcutt: Yes. I consulted with the applicants and they are in agreement with you.
McKinnon: Okay.
Bowcutt: They would -- they will look at that option and they will comply with staff and
the City Council's recommendation on that.
McKinnon: Thank you. Becky, this would be an appropriate time, I think, to discuss that.
It's something that's site-specific in the Preliminary Plat. I think it's on Page 10. We
have the pathway connection to the northeast, put to that -- I think it's Item Number 7 on
Page -- it's Item Number 7 on Page 11, is where the discussion of the two micropath
lots are. The one that we just talked about would be between Lots 48 and 49 of Block
12. It would be at this location connecting to the Hollister property. As I stated earlier,
the only connection was to provide the connection between these two small -- the small
subdivision and the larger subdivision that would connect to the school, be just one cul-
d-sac. The house product types are very different. The lots within the subdivision to the
east are going to be larger, in the 15 to 30,000 square foot range for lots and, then, the
lots -- I talked a little bit in my staff report about adding some language regarding the
elimination of this lot -- of this ped path, possibly, if there is no reason for that to go into
the back of a big box store, if it develops in that manner.
Centers: What's the lot numbers on that, Dave?
McKinnon: The lot numbers on that would be between Lots 25 and 26 -- or 24 and 25 of
Block 15.
Centers: Right. Right.
Borup: Becky, any comment on that westerly connection that we discussed?
Bowcutt: The pedestrian pathway?
Borup: Yes.
Bowcutt: We are in agreement.
Centers: Well -- and that was called for in their comments, between Lots 48 and 49 of
Block 12.
Borup: I think Dave was asking is that necessary. How many lots are going into the
proposed subdivision do you know? Approximately.
McKinnon: Into that next subdivision, I believe it's nine. I think that it would connect to
five or six other--
Meridian Pianning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20. 2003
Page 31 of 84
Borup: So, we are talking run a pathway into nine lots, whereas they still have access at
the roadway 400 feet or -- 450 feet to the north from where the pathway would be.
Zaremba: I'm not sure I see how that benefits this subdivision. I can see it benefiting
the little pocket subdivision next to it, and, actually, by giving them access to this
subdivision's pocket park. I'm not sure, because of the ease of going this way, anybody
going to the school is probably going to go that way anyhow and I'm not sure --
Borup: They can slip into the park the same way.
Zaremba: I just think the neighbors would use this subdivision's park.
Centers: Well, they are entitled to it. The city is going to own it.
Borup: No, I'm talking about the --
Centers: They can get to the other one, too.
Borup: Well, I guess I've always --
Zaremba: That being said, I'm in favor of pathways, but -- as a general statement.
Borup: I am, too, and I think they good and necessary. If someone is going to the park
to get some exercise, because they don't want to walk another 400 feet, I don't know if
that makes a lot of sense either.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it seems there is an agreement
to keep that -- as a Commission would you be willing to modify my staff report -- the
staff report that Bruce and I prepared for Lots 25 and 26 to make that something that
could be removed at the Final Plat stage, if it does not -- it's not --
Centers: Yes.
McKinnon:-- feasible to place a micro-path there based on the adjacent development?
Borup: You're saying -- if we are talking loading docks or backing up docks or
something.
McKinnon: Right.
Borup: Right now what the owner of the property said, they are envisioning a campus-
type project.
McKinnon: And if they build a campus type project I totally stand behind having a
connection, pedestrian, to that. However, if we are talking about loading docks, I don't
see a purpose for that. The reason why I bring that up to you and ask you to add that
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 32 of 84
in, so that in the future, if that comes in the Final Plat, and they have to change the
Preliminary Plat, that it does not have to come back before you, that you are okay at this
point to allow that to be eliminated, if the Council sees that it's not reasonable to place it
there.
Zaremba: I would be okay with calling that a minor enough change that we don't have
to see it again. My question on timing would be when do we think we will see a plan for
the neighboring project, as opposed to when this would go to Final Plat?
Borup: Do you know when that phase would come on line, approximately?
Bowcutt: I believe it would be after 2005. After 2005.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, while we are on that, that's the eliminated pathway we are
talking about, correct to the adjoining landowner? We don't want them walking into
commercial development. Why do we have this stub street here? Isn't that the same
landowner?
Bowcutt: No, sir.
Centers: It's not?
Bowcutt: That's a five-acre parcel with one existing very large single family dwelling in
the middle of it.
Centers: So is that residential in the Comp Plan?
Bowcutt: Yes.
McKinnon: Yes.
Centers: Good. Okay.
Borup: Okay. Any other questions from the Commissioners? Anything else, Becky?
Bowcutt: Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Do we have anyone that would like to testify on this application, now is the
time for you to come forward? We see none. I guess we are done. You would like to
come forward? Okay. Now is the time.
Clapp: I'm Dick Clapp, 2255 Paradise Lakes, the subdivision to the immediate north up
there. I just had some questions. There is an irrigation ditch that's behind our property
and right now the elementary school that's under construction they have covered over
their portion of that irrigation ditch. Does the fence line go to the middle of that ditch or
where does it go?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission MeeUng
February 20. 2003
Page 33 of 84
Borup: You mean you're talking about the ditch that's on your property and your fence
line?
Clapp: Yes.
Borup: And we are supposed to know where you fence line goes or --
Clapp: Well, no, I think my property line is the middle of that irrigation ditch that runs
behind Heritage Subdivision. Keith, you live there, so you know where that is.
Borup: Well -- but I don't live on that boundary.
Clapp: I just wanted to know where the property line to this subdivision is and if there is
a ditch, does it get piped?
Borup: Did the school site do theirs?
Clapp: Yes so it would be the same thing, then, I would imagine.
Borup: Right. The city ordinance requires piping of all ditches.
Clapp: Okay. Now, what kind of a fence is going to go in between my property and this
new SUbdivision? Are you taking about a four-foot fence?
Borup: That was left -- well, we can have the applicant address some of that. I believe
they did. They had a concern -- was that the one they were wondering about the
burning, because it's buried, so that would not be - need to be a noncombustible.
McKinnon: The one that was noncombustible was on the northern boundary of the
subdivision.
Borup: Well, that's what he's talking about, but -. that's on the other northern boundary?
McKinnon: That's my understanding is the other northern boundary. Typically, we
require that there be a six-foot fence adjacent on the surrounding perimeter.
Clapp: A vinyl six foot fence, is that --
McKinnon: There wasn't one that was proposed at this time. Typically, we get into that
with the Final Plat. We may require that they submit a new fencing plan prior to Final
Plat at that stage.
Clapp: Okay. But it would be a six-foot fence or whatever -
Borup: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 34 of 84
McKinnon: It would be a six-foot fence.
Clapp: Okay. Is it possible to request that we get single level houses put back there,
instead of two story? From the developer, I guess, is who you make application to?
Borup: Well, would your subdivision do the same thing, have single level houses on the
other side?
Clapp: I'm sorry?
Borup: I'm just saying maybe -- can that -- would that be appropriate to go both ways?
Clapp: Well, we already have existing structures there that-
Borup: And they are all single level?
Clapp: No.
Borup: Okay but, yes, I mean as - in your testimony you can ask for it.
Clapp: I so ask.
Borup: Anything you would like.
Clapp: Okay. That's basically my -- my big concern was that irrigation ditch and where
the fence line is actually going to be.
Borup: And I don't know if we can answer where the fence line will be on their property.
Clapp: Okay.
Borup: And along that continuing piping of the ditch.
Clapp: And is this supposed to be developed after 2005? Is that --
Borup: Well, they said by the time the -- by the time it gets to the northern part of the
property it would be done and I'm not sure what the total build out time frame would be,
but it's --
Clapp: A couple years from now anyway?
Borup: -- a multi-phase subdivision.
Clapp: Yes.
Me~dlan Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
FebruaiY 20, 2003
Page 35 of 84
Borup: So It would be for over several years. .
Clapp: Thank you.
Centers: Thank you.
Blakeslee: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is John Blakeslee, I
reside at 2546 East Ustick Road in Meridian and the property that my wife and I own is
immediately across the street f rom the proposed development a nd I thought I would
start by simply saying if Mrs. Bowcutt had taken the effort to have a meeting with us as
neighbors prior to this meeting, I would have anticipated that we -- that she would
probably finish by now.
Borup: That's why I asked that earlier.
Blakeslee: And I think it would be a tremendous gesture if you might consider, if you
don't decline this application outright, that you at least table it until she pays us the
courtesy to do that. I had the dubious opportunity, as all of you have now, of serving on
the Ada Planning and Zoning Commission for six years and went through literally
hundreds of these applications and we determined about seven or eight years ago that
it was indispensable to have that interaction with the applicants and the neighbors, it
would save everybody a lot of heartburn by doing so. I would strongly urge you, if you
have the 0 pportunity to see that the City Council does what it sounds I ike you have
initiated. As a procedural point - and this is probably something for Mr. Wollen, the city
attorney, to help us with is I would like to know if there is some way that you can
demonstrate to us that the statutory requirement for noticing and posting this application
was performed according to the code.
Wollen: Well, how does that --
Borup: Do you have a question that it was not posted? I mean a concern that it was not
posted?
Blakeslee: I saw the 11-by-20 inch signs posted on Saturday morning, which would
have been the 15th of February. If I read the ordinance correctly, a posting is only
accurate seven days before the date of the hearing, which would have been the 12th of
February. From a procedural standpoint, if we could determine if it had been mis-
posted, it might determine that we are sitting here this evening reviewing something,
which has no force and effect in law.
Borup: Let's maybe look into that right. Have you got the affidavit?
McKinnon: The Clerks Office would have the affidavit.
Borup: Okay. We will look at that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 36 of 84
Zaremba: I think we were given a copy of it. Usually we are.
Blakeslee: If I -- in reading your ordinance correctly, if I have interpreted it properly,
that's one of the obligations of the applicant to post that seven days prior to the hearing:
is that correct?
McKinnon: That is correct.
Blakeslee: And that they would provide a certified -- actually, a notarized certification of
that posting.
Wollen: Well, that is handled by the City Clerk's Office, that notarization of the affidavit,
actually, of posting.
Blakeslee: Mr. Chairman, if I could direct a question to Mr. Nicholas. If, in fact, that had
not been complied with, would that throw this out of proper hearing from this panel this
evening?
Wollen: Well, if notice is determined to be not proper, then, it would not be proper to be
heard in front of this Commission this evening.
Borup: And we have had those before where we were notified -- we were made aware
prior to the meeting and those meetings were tabled.
Centers: Mr. Blakeslee, did you get your written notice in the mail?
Blakeslee: I did receive written notice. I'm concerned about --
Centers: So that's covered. That's covered.
Blakeslee: I'm concerned about the multitude of people that might not have been.
Centers: I understand and you said that you saw the posting on the 15th -- Saturday,
the 15th?
Blakeslee: That's the first time I saw it.
Centers: So it's possible it could have been there a couple of days prior to that?
Blakeslee: It's --
Centers: When you saw it was on the 15th.
Blakeslee: Anything is possible. It's very unlikely.
Centers: Or it could have blown down and somebody put it back up.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20. 2003
Page 37 of 84
Blakeslee: When I stop at my driveway to get on Ustick Road, I would be looking at the
signs.
Centers: Yes.
Borup: And we do have an affidavit signed that it was posted seven days -- or one week
prior to the Public Hearing, so -
Centers: So it's possible it could have been on the 13th. That's-
Wollen: Well, and - yes, it's my belief that we have to take the affidavit at its face value.
That's, I mean, the reason for the affidavit itself.
Blakeslee: Well, I would simply submit - because I thought that you would probably be
able to produce the affidavit, however, that does not determine in my mind as a - from
a practical matter, that it could not have been posted later than that, but I would hope
that that might induce you to further consider the fact of the need for more involvement
from the community who is affected by this application. I appreciate your response and
I hope, in fact, that it was posted in a timely fashion, but I doubt it. The application in its
general form I believe is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and I think it should
be declined on that basis. I think that if you examine your ability and your capability in
this -- in this proceeding, as you do in all of them, that you will find that it is an attempt to
somehow determine that the consideration for this property should be evaluated purely
from an easterly heading westerly direction and that leaves three-fourths of the rest of
us out of the equation for some reason, because the Comprehensive Plan designates
the property to the east as regional mixed use, which could be construed to anything
from a big box or let's say a Target or something along those lines, to something like an
office campus, it would appear to me that the applicant is trying to convince you of the
fact that the -- that they are going to mitigate that somehow, when, in fact, the
Comprehensive Plan allows you the right to mitigate it going the other direction. I would
hope that that would not be a point of confusion for you as you carefully consider this
application. To the contrary, if you were to go over into the Summerfield Subdivision,
which is a medium density development, with the same definition 0 f medium density
that's placed on this subject property in your Comprehensive Plan, the movement to the
east from Summerfield is diametrically opposed to what Summerfield is with the same
designation, density transfers notwithstanding. I think Mr. Centers appropriately
identified the give and take, which the applicant would have you believe they are giving
by giving up a pocket park and a city park, that that is not truly a basis for granting these
density transfers. If I were living in the Summerfield Subdivision and saw the approach
that's being taken, it would definitely reduce my compatibility with that new development
and it would also reduce the value of my property. Now, if we looked from the north
heading south into this development, what I just said about Summerfield is many times
more obvious, because to the north and west of the development are one acre parcels
that have been preexisting there for 25 or 30 years and, then, as you head to the center
and easterly portion of the north of this development, you have five and larger acre
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission MeetIng
February 20. 2003
Page 38 of 84
residential developments. From the south where I live, you have developments from
one to seven or more acres. I would hope that you would not be misled by believing
that you're having to mitigate a regional mixed use with a planned unit -- well, the zone
change, the planned unit development, and a CUP, because I think that that is only one-
fourth of the equation and the other three-fourths is strong in opposition to it. My wife
and I, who have lived there for 20 years and we have raised our family, have anticipated
that Tom and Sue Davis would eventually cave in to the pressures that are constantly
put upon them to develop this ground. I might add that they are probably the two of the
finest neighbors that a person could have and I certainly respect their right, as has been
brought up earlier in another hearing with regard to private property rights, to sell their
property and have it developed. That is not the issue. The issue is to develop it in a
consistent fashion with what is in the area and which would provide for the long-term
maintenance of the concept of living in Meridian, Idaho. Now, if you read the
Comprehensive Plan, there are numerous paragraphs, which talk about that distinction.
The thing that - when I read it that stuck out in my mind the most was that Meridian did
not want to be become and be known as a bedroom community and, yet, everything
that the application has proposed this evening is consistent with us being another
bedroom community to Boise, because there is not that much in this plan, if anything,
that differentiates us from them. Now, I believe that it's good to be friends with your
neighbors and city to city I guess those are neighbors and that that should be
considered, but this development is too dense. It maximizes the profit for the developer,
which, as a capitalist, I agree in principal is okay, as long as it's not taken to the extreme
and this application I think is extreme. This six acre park is something that I find to be --
to be interesting -- and I'm going to read to you, as requested, a letter from my
neighbors John and Shirley Schey, who were unable to be here, who are traveling out
of town. They apologize at the beginning of it and ask at this time for me to read this
letter to you. You have the letter and so I'm not going to -- I'm not going to bore you by
reading it again, but I believe the neighbors here are as entitled as you are to hear a
couple of these comments. They say - and I quote: When we received your letter we
were both shocked and dismayed, not with the fact that things do change and progress,
but what shocked us was the overwhelming density of the layout of this planned unit
development. The s mall I ots a nd the density 0 f a I arge portion 0 f these homes a nd
townhouses are not even close as comparison to the surrounding existing subdivisions
and/or neighbors in the areas. Thereafter, this propose is not in the best interest of the
neighborhood in the areas. Therefore, this proposal is not in the best interest of the
neighborhood and their existing residences. They go on and cite a paragraph or two
about the safety on Ustick Road. For instance, Wingate Lane, which is -- which this
park -- what's the name of the entrance street on the east? On the west? Park what?
Borup: Oh, on there -- this subdivision you mean?
Blakeslee: Anyway, for some reason they wanted to change the name from Wingate in
that westerly entrance point -- and I forget what the name of it is. It starts with Park. At
any rate, the access to get on -- from Wingate onto Ustick Road right now is taking your
life into your own hands. It's a private lane, unimproved, most of the people who live
there are -- live on acreages sufficient enough to have horses and there is, actually, a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 39 of 84
horse t raining facility 0 r two down t here, a nd t his application doesn't provide for that
preexisting condition in any way, shape, or form. The Ada County Highway District
report, which the transmittal which I read, which was some 15 to 20 pages long, and
having sat with you -- or not with you, but as you are sitting, I know how tedious these
are to read, particularly, if you have multiple items on the agenda, but if you have read
this and if you are in the same boat that the average commissioner would be in handing
off to them the responsibility for our roads, you have made a fatal mistake, at least in
this one application transmittal. The two conclusions of law that they have stated are,
number one, and the proposed site plan is approved if all of the site-specific and
standard conditions of approval of satisfied. You can go through those in their volume.
Paragraph 2. ACHD requirements -- and that's the ones just referred to in Number 1 --
are intended to assure that the proposed use slash development will not place an undue
burden on the existing vehicular and pedestrian transportation system within the vicinity
impacted by the proposed development. In my opinion, the first statement says we are
going to approve it based on the conditions and, Number 2, this is why we exist. If you,
like me, were reading the newspaper about ten days ago, you understand that they are
in a fiscal turmoil right now and they are not going to be able to do many of the things
that they want to do with regard to our transportation system, particularly as it pertains
to new roads. Excuse me. I have a cold here this week and it seems to be coming
back. Getting back to the park, you have this park that is sitting in the interior of the
subdivision and because I am a real estate agent for the last 24 years in this town and
in this valley, I can assure you that Mr. Centers was absolutely correct in his
observation with regard to who benefits from this park. They give it to us and, in return,
ask for more density and, then, they come in and ask for half ofthe cost back and, then,
they provide six whopping parking spaces for the public to come in and utilize it. That is
laughable on its face. And, then, the transportation department tells us on the westerly
side that we can't park there, because that's a theater street, but that we can park,
according to the applicant's representative, on this westerly approach, which,
incidentally, if you count that long string of north and south running lots, are 15 or 16
lots without a curb in the street. I can well imagine if anybody could ever find that park
who was a member of the public and not in that subdivision, got there and had their little
one playing anywhere near that speed zone that's going to be created by having such a
long and straight street, that there is going to be a horrible result and so not only is it too
dense, what they have planned is ill-conceived, in my opinion. The letter that I was
reading from the Scheys, my neighbors, also indicated that if a public park was truly
going to be part of this plan, it should be out on Ustick Road where the public can
benefit from it and I might add that would keep, from a selfish standpoint, those of us on
the southern boundary used to looking at the one hundred plus acres that our kind
neighbors allowed us to view for these last 20 years, we wouldn't be looking at the back
of what were termed duplexes or double units on small lots and I think that is something
that, hopefully, that you would consider. The only other thing that I thought was really
quite interesting and I notice that Jim Merkle and Don Hunt are the co-applicants, I
know Mr. Hunt was a renowned football player from Borah High and, then, Boise State
University, but I find it very interesting that the majority, if not all of the streets in this
subdivision are named after the old coaches and male teachers, as I recall, at Borah
High School where I attended as a sophomore in high school and I compliment them on
Meridian Planning and ZonIng Commission Meeting
February 20. 2003
Page 40 of 84
that, I think that's a nice legacy for the people who spent those many years at Borah
High School. In summary, I would simply like to remind you that as your commission
implies, you are to try to make the tough calls in our community and my heart goes out
to you. There is never a winner in any of these -- in any of these applications, believe
me. Particularly sitting there where you are. But I would submit to you that upon careful
consideration you will feel as good as the applicants on Setter Cove, which you will be
hearing, I think, on March 6th, an application for 15 lots adjoining this subdivision, where
they have made these lots approximately a half an acre, which is a nice mitigation
between Summerfield and Heritage to the north and which is, in my opinion, truly a
medium density. 0 ne 0 ther item t hat I'd like to mention a bout having commercial --
particularly, the kind of commercial that's proposed here with regard to storage
buildings, there is a storage complex within a statute mile of this application that has
approximately 750 units in it and it's in a commercial zone and it impacts the residential
only slightly, because it's built on a busy street. It's open 24 hours a day and, in my
opinion, whoever is living by those is going to feel the impact ofthat kind of use virtually
24 hours of the day. I appreciate your letting me air my concerns and encourage you
to, if nothing else, table this until we can get better organized as a neighborhood or to
decline it as it's presently constituted and ask the developer to go back in and try to do a
more compatible application. I'll stand for questions if there are any.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Blakeslee?
Blakeslee: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify?
J. Blakeslee: I'm Julie Blakeslee and so you're going to get the full shot here from both
of us tonight. I hadn't planned on saying anything tonight. but just have a couple of
things that are very -- are very near to my heart that I feel like I need to share with you
and, first of all, it is a fact that we have known for -- ever since we moved on our
property that there would eventually be development across the street and this is not a
surprise to us. As my husband has said, I think our biggest surprise is the fact that the
density is so -- is so small and one of the things that only we can know that you need to
be aware of of living right where we live, is the fact that whenever there is a problem on
Eagle Road with congestion or if the roads are ice -- which we haven't noticed this year,
but traffic gets backed up to our driveway and that's a half a mile down from the
intersection at Ustick and Eagle and that is without this subdivision going in. When I
can see on the plat map that there are only two main streets coming out of that
subdivision onto Ustick Road, I cannot imagine what kind of extra traffic that is going to
put on that little segment of road between that half mile to Eagle and I'm not just saying
it, because, you know, I live across street from there, I have seen it get very, very
congested and it's going to get horrifically worse with that many homes going into that
area. The third point that I wanted to make is I was really surprised that there was not a
neighborhood meeting about this. I think, you know, it's hard to stop a train when -- you
know, if you have got the big engine going down the road and we don't mean to stop it,
we just need to be able to let the little people voice their concerns. Those of us who
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 41 of84
have lived on the south side of Ustick Road have been there many years. As John said,
we raised our family there, we have been there for 20 years, and we are in the minority
of the time of people that have lived there. The Holidays that are sitting beside us have
lived there since 1950 and I know that the Scheys have been there for 30 years -- 30
some odd years and we are little people, we -- you know, we are single home dwellings
on a creages a nd, you know, maybe we don't have a lot of voice behind us, but 0 ur
feelings have not even been heard or considered regarding this very dense subdivision
that's going in right across the street from us and I would really hope that you
Commissioners would take that into consideration and give us a chance to maintain the
quality of life that Meridian has to offer to us and give us a chance to be able to open
this up a little bit and make it -- make our feelings heard and considered and not just the
developer who is out there to try to cram as many homes as he can into the allotted
spots and thank you for your time and I hope that, you know, you will be able to make a
wise decision on this.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Becky, do you have any final
comments?
Bowcutt: As I stated before, I will gladly meet with the residents and they don't realize
how difficult it is to find a location so that we can have these meetings. I called around
to JB's I asked them if they would allow us to have a room. I called the Sandman. The
only one we found was Best Western Rama and we had difficulty in scheduling. There
is, I guess, shortage of meeting rooms in Meridian. Nonetheless, I will be glad to meet
with these residents and discuss these issues. Concerning the irrigation ditch along the
north, the question came up as far as where is that ditch located in comparison to the
property line. It is my understanding, based on the property owner, that that ditch is
located north of this property line, so we are -- we are south of the ditch, so the ditch lies
solely upon their parcel.
Borup: Is that your understanding on the ditch. That it goes through the school
property also?
Bowcutt: It's just along -- as it goes through the school? I don't know. Ditches
meander when it goes through the school. What I'm told by the existing property owner
is right through there.
Borup: Right through here is on the north side?
Bowcutt: That ditch is on the north side.
Borup: Okay. I guess we need to -- has that property corner been surveyed?
Bowcutt: I believe the boundary survey was done on the property. A legal description
was provided.
Borup: So there should be a pin there.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commisslon Meeting
February 20. 2003
Page 42 of 84
Bowcutt: There should be a pin there. Well, to answer Mr. Clapps' question, if the ditch
is on this property it will be tiled. I guess if it's on the other property --
Bowcutt: Yes, sir. Based on your ordinance, if it is --
Borup: If it's on someone else's property --
Bowcutt: If it is on this property we would have to pipe it.
Borup: Yes, this owner would not go on someone else's property and mess with it. Go
ahead.
Bowcutt: Thank you, sir. To kind of go through Mr. Blakeslee's concerns, I have known
Mr. Blakeslee for a long time. He was on the Ada County Planning and Zoning
Commission when I worked for Ada county and, then, as I went into the private sector
was on there for many years. We did post the site. My assistant posted the site. She
did an affidavit of posting that it was done one week prior to the hearing. Also, another
thing that I do, just as a safety catch, is I always drive by the site the same day it's
posted just to verify that they have posted the right property, because I have an
instance where the wrong property was posted. It's sometimes confusing. I did go by
there. I also took a precaution with your staff, I asked for two posting signs, not just
one, in the event that it gets blown over, because we -- the week it was posted we had a
lot of rain and wind, so we put two. It was posted, you have an affidavit, and I go on the
record that we did meet the criteria of the law.
Borup: So that was the 13th or prior?
Bowcutt: Yes, sir. It was the seven days -- at least seven days prior. We met the
criteria. It was stated this application isn't consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Your Comprehensive Plan talks about medium density, three to eight dwelling units per
acre. I 'm quite a ware 0 f t he fact that no 0 ne is guaranteed t he maximum allowable
density, but we are not asking for the maximum allowable density here, we are talking
3.58 d welling units per acre and t hat calculation is based on t he standard industry's
manner in calculating what your gross density is.
Centers: Becky, just--
Bowcutt: Yes, sir.
Centers: -- along that line -- I don't like to interrupt. Would you know what Summerfield
is?
Bowcutt: Yes, sir. It is approximately three dwelling units per acre. There are about
204 lots on approximately 69 acres, I believe.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 43 of 84
Centers: With very little open space. I think that went in prior to --
Bowcutt: Yes, sir. I have a copy of their plat right here. As you can see, their open
space is right here, it is approximately 1.25 acres, which, based on the 69 acres, would
be 1.8 percent of their gross site is open space. The bulk of their site is single-family
residential, 8,000 square foot minimum lots.
Centers: Let the audience know, I didn't know that you wanted me to ask that question,
but you were prepared for that question, weren't you?
Bowcutt: Yes, sir.
Centers: But I was concerned about it, because Mr. Blakeslee talks about density and I
figured that this subdivision wasn't near as dense as the one next door. Doesn't even
compare and it does meet the Comp Plan.
Zaremba: Well, while we are on that subject, I was just visualizing the back lot lines of
your proposal that back up against -- is that Summerfield?
Bowcutt: Yes, sir.
Zaremba: The fence lines don't line up exactly, but it appears to be just about one for
one.
Bowcutt: Yes, sir. That is correct. There are ten lots on the Summerfield side and 10
lots on our side.
Borup: And that is correct. From this street north -- this street north there are ten lots
on each side.
Bowcutt: Yes. When we talk densities, when Summerfield was done I was doing
projects in the City of Meridian and the philosophy at that time was the city wanted to
see 8,000 square foot lots. They had -- they did not require any minimum open space.
Very few subdivisions came in with any significant amenities and your staff can attest to
that. Since, then, the city's direction has changed and they have asked the
development community to look at differing densities. They are not asking for the
maximum, but they are asking us to look at alternative densities and try to provide
amenities that will benefit the neighborhoods that we are going to construct, plus
provide some amenity or possible use for the community as a whole and that's what we
are trying to do here. This is not a high-density development. 3.58 dwellings per acre is
not high density. If you look over as we -- if you move eastward toward the City of
Boise and you look at some of those subdivisions, Mahogany Park, some of those other
developments, they are hitting 4.5, some of them are dense, some are four. Heather
Meadows, I believe, is four dwelling units per acre. I did Madison Park. I believe it's
3.3. I did the Legends. We were approximately just shy over three. I did Cameron
Park. This is the average type of urban densities that we are seeing. The other thing is
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 44 of 84
you had a presentation this evening on the North Meridian Plan. One of the main
criticisms of Smart Growth and some of the other members of the public is the fact that
we are not providing self-sufficient neighborhoods that allow for differing uses to keep
those people in the neighborhood, so that they have access to schools, access to parks,
access to a dentist, a mini storage, whatever the case may be. They are harping on us
that our densities are too low, that the amount of land that we have is finite and at some
point in time, if we continue say with extremely low densities, one, we will never been
able to have public transportation and have it be cost effective and so they were
pushing the group, which included myself, that worked on that North Meridian Plan, to
bump those densities up, get them up, get them up to five, get them up to six. Not
every development, but try to get a balance. I think what I'm trying to get across is this
is not high density. This is not at that eight edge. We are at that lower tier. They talk
about the development that Mr. Hollister is proposing. I know Mr. Hollister very well I
have worked with him on some projects. When his project comes through, you guys will
struggle with the fact that he does not meet his minimum density. That is a minimum in
your new Comp Plan, because of the input from Smart Growth and other agencies. The
other issue was mitigating for future uses. Mr. Blakeslee indicated that it should be the
responsibility of Mr. Moore to mitigate against us. Well, from a planning perspective
that's why we have designations on your Comprehensive Plan map, so that we can plan
what our adjoining uses will most likely be, so we can provide buffers -- provide
transitioning uses, all those things. We have looked at the larger picture, not just at this
and say, well, when Mr. Moore comes in, then, he will have to deal with these residents,
he will have to build a 10 foot masonry wall, like what went on at the Crossroads
development. Traffic. If you look at ACHD's report, it states in there the level of service
out here is better than level C. Also, Ustick Road is on their CIP or their Capital
Improvement Plan, so it is planned for improvement. Secondly, we are connecting to a
collector roadway that heads west out to Locust Grove, so our sole access is not just to
Ustick, there will be an alternative and it is a collector. Also along Ustick Road we will
have right and left-hand turn lanes as a requirement for both entrances out to Ustick
Road. There was a discussion about the park and the location of that park. We were
chastised for putting the park between two roadways. However, your parks plan states
that they want these parks to be open and visible and to -- like if we look at a community
park, for example, they don't want any lots backing up. What's happening is you're
seeing them placed between roadways, collectors and arterials. If it's not safe for
children to play in that park next to a local street, how is it going to be any safer if I
move it south and put it next to a minor arterial Ustick Road? I would say that we are
making the problem even worse. I mean you can look at these things from different
perspectives. I understand their concerns and I always try to do as much as possible to
mitigate the impact and try to do the best planning that I can. I work with staff, I work
with the Highway District very closely, and I typically try to accommodate the neighbors
as best I can. Obviously, some of the opinions here, they just flat out don't like the
project. I don't know what I can do. If they think 3.58 dwelling units is too dense, I don't
know what I can do. We can't provide the diversity and the amenities and push these
down to two dwelling units per acre. This is a good project, it's a good quality project,
and I ask that you recommend approval. Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 45 of 84
Borup: Any other comments from any of the staff?
McKinnon: Not at this time. Thank you.
Wollen: Mr. Chairman? Do you have the affidavit of posting?
Borup: Yes.
Wollen: I just want to know, does it have an actual date on it or does it simply say that it
was posted seven days prior?
Borup: it just states seven days prior. Okay. Discussion from the Commission?
Rohm: Yes. Mr. Chairman, one ofthe things that has been passed on to the City
Council was the discussion of the neighborhood meetings, that we believe from an
ordinance perspective that that's the best way to mitigate these concerns brought forth
by the public and at the time that this application was made it wasn't an ordinance then,
but it is now, and it's something that it sounds like from the discussions that have been
put before us need to take place and I think Mrs. Bowcutt -
Borup: That was one of the reasons I allowed extra time for the testimony tonight,
because they had not had that opportunity.
Rohm: Well -. and I think that both parties have done an excellent job of presenting
their position, but, notwithstanding, there isn't any opportunity to move in any direction
based upon where we are right here and now. It seems to me that it would make more
sense to get back together and say, okay, let's see if we can come up with a consensus
opinion that we could both support and it's not -- it's not as if they are saying that they
don't think that the development is going to occur, because they believed all along that
that property will, in fact, be developed. There are some minor issues that seem to be
sticking between the two sides of the fence here and I don't think, personally, it's our
position to solve that here tonight. That would be my position.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
(Voice from audience.)
Borup: Well, the hearing is open, but this isn't really a back and forth debate. Let's go
ahead and get your comments on the record. Why don't you go ahead and come on up
and --
Blakeslee: John Blakeslee, 2545 East Ustick Road, Meridian. A lot of the people who
may have come this evening who did not wish to testify may have a strong feeling and if
you allow it, we could take a poll, so that all of you would know that instead of two or
three of us opposing the - as my wife called it, the fast moving train, that there may be
more that were of like opinion.
Me~dian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 46 of 84
Borup: That may be good. I guess my assumption was everyone was opposed, but I
may be wrong, so let's go ahead.
Blakeslee: Thank you.
Borup: Would you like to invite them to -- well, all those who are in opposition to this,
would you like to raise your hands? Let's leave them up and let's go ahead and get a
count, then. Four, five, six, seven, eight.
Centers: Mr. Chairman? While the word opposition -- so, in other words, the
neighborhood meeting maybe wouldn't help if they are in opposition to the project.
Rohm: They are in opposition based upon its current configuration. That doesn't mean
that they are in opposition to development. I think that to put it back to a community
meeting may resolve the issues at hand. I don't -- I don't think that anybody here is of
the belief that that property should not be developed. I think it's just the minor issues as
to maybe the density or maybe the park location or maybe a number of issues that were
brought up by discussion are things that they would like have an opportunity for input
and I'm not suggesting that you throw the project out, because I agree with Mrs.
Bowcutt, that it is a good project, b ut if it was - - if t here a re differences that can be
resolved through a community meeting, then, everybody benefits from having that
opportunity and, then, bring it back at the next scheduled -- what would that be, the third
-- four weeks out from today or can we hear it again in two weeks or what's the --
Borup: It would depend on what time. Well, it would probably be -- yes, a month from
now. I think we are already filled up on the next meeting, so--
Rohm: Well, it's --
Borup: And maybe the one after that.
Centers: March 20th.
Rohm: I think that from my understanding of things, it's our job to make sure that we
meet the expectations of the community as a whole, as well as the developers
themselves, and if, in fact, there is this diametric opposition to the development as it's
currently laid out, to give them an opportunity to work together to come up with
something that's mutually agreeable serves everybody's interest and I think I stated that
enough. That's my position.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I do have a couple things, if I
could jump in at this time.
Borup: Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 47 of 84
McKinnon: If that's okay with the Commission. Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Commission, just a couple things that haven't really been addressed tonight that I think
should be addressed, if you want to go to the neighborhood meeting, some of these
items probably should be addressed as well. One of the items that was brought up by
Mr. Blakeslee that was not addressed was hours of operation of the multi -- I guess the
mini storage facility.
Centers: Excuse me. That would have to come back through a CUP.
McKinnon: That would have to come back through a CUP.
Centers: And we would address it, then.
McKinnon: As part of the Development Agreement that's typically something that's
addressed in a Development Agreement as well, so that would be something that you
could address at this time as part of the annexation through the Development
Agreement.
Centers: I hadn't heard of that.
McKinnon: And, then, just to go back to what Commissioner Rohm was discussing with
the neighborhood meetings, we don't have -- when this application came before us
there was nothing in our code requiring the neighborhood meeting, there is nothing in
our code now that would require the neighborhood meeting. Neighborhood meetings
are strongly recommended, but there is not an outright requirement for that. You, as the
Planning and Zoning Commission do, understand the new ordinance, have the ability to
require the neighborhood meeting take place. In requiring the neighborhood meeting to
take place it seems like there is a few items that have been brought up that need to be
discussed or that were requested to be discussed. Among those would be the fact that
Mr. Blakeslee felt that it was -- that the proposed application is not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and that it's diametrically opposed to the Summerfield application
in front of you and that it's too dense and I think we have heard that we have a
Comprehensive Plan that supports the density that has been requested and as part of
the state code requirements you are required to approve a Comprehensive Plan, so we
went through a process of three years and we went through and said here is what we
want to do with this piece of property in the future. Now someone has come before you
and said here's what you asked for, here is what we have got, so you have got an
application in front of you that meets the requirements of something you spent three
years working on. To say it's diametrically opposed to the Comprehensive Plan, the
Comprehensive Plan says three to eight units per acre or more density as you go
through the Planned Development, plus a 20 percent land use exception. To require
them to go back and mitigate for that in a neighborhood meeting I don't think we are
going to get an accomplishment, especially when we have something, as Mr. Centers
pointed out, that -- the statement was diametrically opposed. Residential medium
density and residential medium density adjacent to each other, there is no diametrical
opposition. These are residential adjacent to residential. They may not be the same
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 48 of 84
size of house, but in our Comprehensive Plan it calls out for a mix of housing types. It
doesn't say that only like housing types can be adjacent to like housing types. If there is
a requirement for a neighborhood meeting from the Commission, I would suggest that
specific items to be addressed at that neighborhood meeting to be resolved. It sounds
like there are some items that may need to be resolved and some items may end up
being in opposition, regardless of what happens at the neighborhood meeting, and I just
wanted to point that out to you that you do have a Comprehensive Plan and it does
comply with the Comprehensive Plan.
Centers: That's a good thought. Yes and, Mr. Chairman, I was thinking about it and I'm
in agreement with Commissioner Rohm, but, then, what are they going to talk about,
was what I wondered, because they are low density now, it fits the Comp Plan, I mean
are you going to get -- are you going to go back to a meeting and just do this? I mean
there is nothing to resolve. The only thing that I can see that you might want to talk to
them about is moving the park and that's not going to be up to you, that's kind of the
City of Meridian, too, that's involved in that. Since I have the floor regarding the park,
my position still stands. That doesn't impress me. However, that's the city parks and
their decision to make. Now, I don't work for the City of Meridian, so I can voice my
opinion. I'm not paid by them. My opinion is that their policy is not a good one.
However, they have a lot more open space there due to that park. The city may go in
there and mow that, but they have got a lot of open space in that area, so they more
than meet the open space requirement. I think they have eleven percent and they are
required to have five. I'm close so -- but my opinion and my comments on the park, you
took them out of context. That was - you know, they have the space. I don't agree with
the way it's handled, I think they -- and their homeowners should mow it and not me, as
a city taxpayer, pay the bill. I don't call that shot, so -- but I'm in agreement, I don't know
what they are going to talk about at the neighborhood meeting. I had some other notes
here and we covered them all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Zaremba: Let me ask staff a different subject, like that subject. If we were to insist on
the zoning L-O and a CoG in the appropriate places does that suddenly, create a need
for a 20-foot landscape buffer that currently doesn't exist?
McKinnon: Give me one second to look at what I wrote in the staff report. If I
remember correctly, I addressed about the buffers between separate land uses being
required already based on the uses. The zone is irrelevant to the Landscape Plan -- to
the Landscape Ordinance. It deals with the use, rather than the underlying zoning. If
you could give me just one second?
Zaremba: I like the idea of having it bed ifferent zones, but if its uddenly creates a
burden that otherwise doesn't exist --
Borup: They might have a buffer there already.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, page 10, item number four,
detail Landscape Plan already calls out for a 20 foot buffer between the mini storage lot
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission MeetIng
February 20, 2003
Page 49 of 84
and the western boundary of Lots 2 and 5, Block 7. That's the office lots adjacent to the
office park.
Zaremba: Okay.
McKinnon: So I did have that covered in the staff report.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, along that same topic, you know, you stated that we would
have to have, of course, a Development Agreement and, then, specify the hours, which
I didn't know we covered in a Development Agreement I thought we did that with a CUP.
Borup: You don't have to specify the hours, but that would be an opportunity to do it.
Centers: But the way it reads -- and, then, the applicant presents conceptual
warehouse, conceptual office lots. By us -- if we were to approve this, we agree with
that conceptual plan. We agree with that so they come back with a mini warehouse and
we are almost obligated to approve it, period. Even though it's a CUP so what good is a
CUP, because we have conceptually approved it tonight? Follow me? The only thing a
CUP allows us to do is set the hours, maybe make them put up a better fence, and the
construction that we don't have a lot of control over, we don't have a design review
board and that type of thing. I would like, if this is possible, in our agenda we cross out
the four office lots and put other and we cross out the mini storage lot and put other,
that we don't necessarily agree with the concept. We will look at it when they come
back and we bring everything in R-8 the way it is right now and we are approving all the
lots, if we approved it, the way they have presented it, with 275 single family, 52
townhomes, four other lots, two commercial -- two other lots, one other lot, one pocket
park and one city neighborhood park. I don't like to be tied to having to approve that as
a mini warehouse down the road. So could we do that?
McKinnon: You could.
Centers: She wants it all R-8 -- or they do. We bring it in as R-8 and we have all those
lots and we look at it later. They come back to us, it's a planned unit development, and
so they have the authority to come back to us. It's conceptual, but that has always been
one of my little pet peeves, conceptual, and, then, we are drawn into it, we almost have
to approve it later.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, would you feel more comfortable if
it's -- if we had the underlying zones, the L-O, the CoG and --
Centers: We are committed to that, then.
McKinnon: We are committed to that, but not committed to the proposed uses that are -
_ that area could be zoned - that area is zoned commercial, that area is zoned office,
but not being tied to the concept that's been presented to you tonight.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 50 of 84
Centers: But the way I'm thinking -- the way I feel right now, I'm comfortable with R-8
just like that applicant. Bring it all in that way and then, you know -- because in the
Comp Plan it doesn't provide for L-O and CoG there, it's medium density residential. I
got my Comp Plan out and looked at it.
McKinnon: Yes. I don't -- Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, I don't disagree with
that. The -- there is so much flexibility written in our code to allow a 20 percent land use
exception for something that would be -- to take place without the underlying zone being
the same as the use. That goes with the Comprehensive Plan as well. The
Comprehensive Plan says medium density -- same thing we did with Lochsa Falls.
Same thing we did with Bridgetower. All of those said medium density, low density, and
we allowed them to go with the underlying - with a use differently than the underlying
zoning definition, but with those we have left those as the R-4 and created some
confusion for us and we would like to eliminate that confusion. Within our ordinances
that were adopted of a Planned Development, it does allow for a conceptual Planned
Development, which is what they are requesting. If you're uncomfortable with it at this
and you would like more time to discuss it, or you would like to not have to be tied --
and, you're right, we are tied somewhat by conceptually approving this, saying that this
is something that we can agree with.
Centers: I'm okay with the vision.
McKinnon: So they have got the vision for that. I'm wondering if there is some way that
you would feel comfortable by restricting certain uses from those areas, rather than
saying that those areas can be used for a specific use. We do have the right -- the
applicant has the right to request those uses under a conceptual approval to our
ordinances.
Borup: Well, I think that opens up more than what they are proposing. I understand
what you're saying, Commissioner Centers, but if a concept plan is presented to us and
we don't agree with the concept, I think maybe this is the time that we say, no, we don't
so agree with that.
Centers: Well, the one thing I have to agree with Mr. Blakeslee on -- well, more than
one thing -- is the storage units and 24 hours normally they are open and you don't
normally see them in an area like that, as Mrs. Bowcutt stated. She did a development
and she put it -- back of the property adjacent to the freeway as a buffer.
Borup: Well -- but that had a whole row of houses adjoining those.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members -
Borup: And, again, there is -- that -- the property that that's going to impact is going to
be the people living right there in this subdivision, any nighttime storage like -- I don't
know if you have visited with -- or been by storage buildings at night, but they are -- the
traffic studies show that there is --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 51 of 84
Centers: They are not there that much. Right.
Borup: Right.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think it was Mr. Blakeslee that
brought it up that within one statute mile there is another storage unit. I believe he's
referring to the Avest Mini Storage that backs up to Fred Meyers that- on the south
side, but on the north side of that it's surrounded by residential. If you don't believe that
this is a good concept and like to have additional discussion on that concept, you could
make a motion, if you're okay with the rest of it, except for that, pass that along to the
Council as your recommendation, that they not approve that for that use and that they
have to come back with the use another time and that's not approved.
Zaremba: Is a motion in order to close the Public Hearing?
Borup: Well, I think it --
Centers: Well, are we going to close it or postpone it?
Borup: Okay. There has been some additional testimony, so, Mrs. Bowcutt, would
have a chance for final comment.
Bowcutt: I will be very brief. I'd just like to answer Mr. Centers' question. To give you
an example of why we --
Borup: Becky, maybe --
Bowcutt: Oh. Becky Bowcutt.
Borup: Yes.
Bowcutt: To give you an example of why the Planned Development Ordinance and the
underlying R-8 zone is preferred, let me give you a scenario. The City of Boise, some
applicants came through and asked that a particular piece of property be zoned L-O-B __
or L-O. Excuse me. In that - with that property they said it was going to be office.
Under Boise City's ordinance, as a Conditional Use Permit, a hotel is allowed in an L-O
zone.
Centers: With a CUP.
Bowcutt: . With a CUP so, a few yeaTS go by, the property is sold, somebody comes in
and they said -- come through with a hotel and the residents are just horribly upset,
because it was said that it was going to be office. They argue we have got an L-O
zone, by darn, you know, and it says we can have a hotel as a Conditional Use and it
was a real fight. The planned unit development gives you that ability to say this concept
Mertdlan Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
pege 52 of 84
is approved for residential compatible uses. When they come back with a site-specific,
if they came in with a horrible site plan, a very poor buffering, very poor building that you
considered not residentially compatible, because there are office buildings that are
residentially compatible and there are others out there that are not. Since - you're
correct, Meridian has no design review. I would expect this body -- that is your only
mechanism to say, hey, we approved this as a concept for residential compatible, with
residential compatible hours, uses, you know, architecture. What you're proposing is
not what is in the Development Agreement and I think that can be placed in that
Development Agreement to protect the --
Centers: Yes. But, then, that verbiage I like, residential compatible. I like that.
Bowcutt: Because-
Centers: And I was never in agreement with the L-O or CoG or designated with a zone,
because I - well, we saw the same thing she's talking about with that hotel and an L-O
zone and a CUP. It was turned down eventually, but it took a lot of time. Yes,
residential compatible.
Bowcutt: Because it is a privilege to the exception and they can't demand it, because of
the -- there is no underlying zone for it. That's what I call the beauty of that. Thank you.
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Okay. David, did you wish to make a motion? Like I said, we have given an
opportunity several times and it's not really a debate back and forth. I don't know if we
have heard anything new. Commission Rohm, you have got someone out there in
support of your comment.
Rohm: That was my thought, so --
Centers: I'd like to hear what they are going to talk about, Mr. Chairman, at the
meeting.
Borup: Okay. Let's come on up. What would you propose for items of discussion?
Lundgren: Marty Lundgren, I represent Summerfield Subdivision. What Summerfield, I
think, would really like to talk about in that meeting is the transition from our subdivision
to theirs. You're going to have houses that back up to their subdivision, 2,000 plus
square feet abutting houses that are 1,200 square feet. You're going to kill property
values. It should be your responsibility to protect those homeowners and transition in.
If we could talk to them and say those homes, you have to be compatible with
Summerfield and, then, work into your smaller ones, that's fine, but our houses should
be blend with theirs, not a solid transition, and we could work that out in a meeting. One
more additional topic that has not been mentioned -- and I will be brief -- is the school.
They are taking credit for that grade school and our kids -- their kids are going to go
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 53 of 84
there. The school -- my wife was on that for the school. They didn't know about this
subdivision. That school is going to be overcrowded with that many homes.
Borup: Just a minute. The school boundaries I saw didn't even have this -- this -- is
that correct the boundary for this -- for that new school is north of McMillan? That's-
Lundgren: Within the boundary of the school.
Borup: No. No. The boundaries that are attending the school are north of McMillan.
That was the map I saw in the paper. The paper was wrong?
Lundgren: Or approximate. I don't know.
Borup: Well, no, I mean -- yes.
Lundgren: Okay.
Borup: Has the paper ever been wrong before?
Lundgren: Okay so that school will be overcrowded much to soon with this much
development. They were not part of the planning for that school population. That was
never even considered. They are trying to take credit for that in this application and they
never communicated with the school district.
Borup: Well, I don't know that they are taking credit for --
Lundgren: Look at the application. They do. They say that our kids will be close to the
school.
Borup: Do you know about what size the lots are in your subdivision?
Lundgren: 8,000 square foot plus.
Borup: Okay.
Lundgren: And she even pointed out we have three acres -- three houses per acre on
average. Okay. They will have 3.68. That's 40 percent more.
Borup: Well, your concern was the property abutting your subdivision.
Lundgren: Yes and they are all very tiny sub lots that in this application say they are
going to be 1,200 square foot homes. That's much different than a 2,000 or 2,500
square foot home. They should have to transition like any other neighborhood does to
their neighbors, transition into what they want.
Borup: Okay. Well, no, I understand your concern, but they do have the transition.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 54 of 84
Lundgren: Where?
Borup: They have got three -- approximately 14,000-foot lots abutting your subdivision.
Lundgren: But what's the home requirement? 1,200 square feet.
Borup: And what's the requirement in your subdivision?
Lundgren: 1,600, I believe. I don't know. I don't know if there are any that are that small.
Mathes: Yes, but if you have a 14,000 square foot lot, you're going to put a 1,200
square foot home on it?
Lundgren: I don't know what they are developing. You're assuming. And you can't
assume that.
Mathes: If you're spending that kind of money on a lot, you're not going to --
Lundgren: You cannot assume that.
Centers: I think the square footage of the home that you heard was the minimum.
Lundgren: Exactly.
Centers: Right.
Lundgren: Who's to say that they are not going to be there?
Centers: No. On the larger lots only a fool would do that.
Lundgren: My point and in a meeting with the homeowners --
Borup: You could work that out.
Lundgren: We could work that out.
Borup: So that would be one item you would like on the agenda.
Lundgren: Thank you.
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Becky, could you just -- well, question on the lot sizes. We didn't answer that. I
mean on the home sizes. Maybe that would be good to have here. Is that the same
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 55 of 84
throughout the subdivision or do you have a different -- okay. Let's read the covenants.
Okay. The covenants 1,500 square foot, so that's larger than Summerfield.
Bowcutt: No. That is Summerfield's.
Borup: Oh, that's Summerfield. I'm sorry.
Bowcutt: Yes. 1,500 square foot.
Borup: Okay. Yes. Summerfield has 1,500 square foot on single, 1,800 on a two story.
Bowcutt: That's correct.
Borup: Now, can you explain - are you 1,200 blanket through the subdivision? Do you
have different sections that have different square footage requirements?
Bowcutt: The town -- the square footages vary from the townhomes to the single family.
I think our bottom for the detached single family is 1,200, but we are -- minimum. We
are willing to match the Summerfield covenants for those lots along that Summerfield
western boundary.
Borup: How about the northern part of your subdivision, too? Weren't those larger lots?
Bowcutt: Oh, with the larger lots--
Borup: Which is on the north of the subdivision. I assumed you would want to do the
same thing.
Zaremba: Only the request for those five or six lots was single story.
Borup: Well, we just -- yes. This is not a discussion back and forth.
Bowcutt: I don't know what the square footage to the north is. I guess you could
technically have that 1,500 around that perimeter along Paradise and, then, wrap down
along Summerfield.
Borup: Those are your lots that were from, you know, nine to -- nine to 12,000 -- 14,000
square foot lots.
Zaremba: Well, let me ask you, do you think some of these issues could be resolved by
having a neighborhood meeting?
Bowcutt: I feel -
Zaremba: You seem willing to work with the objections that have been made.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 58 of 84
Bowcutt: I would like the opportunity to proceed forward and meet with these residents
before I get to the City Council and get these square footage issues, fencing -- like I
said before, some people are just opposed and I don't think there is anything that we
can do to satisfy them. We are willing to work on fencing and the square footage issues
and I think -- I think that can be done between now and City Council. If not, we will be
there battling like we are here. It is in our best interest to get with these residents and
see if we can find some middle ground. We want to be a good neighbor to Summerfield,
to Paradise Estates.
Borup: 0 kayo Anything else from -- while she's up t here? Thank you, a gain, Becky.
Commissioners? Did everyone -- anyone else have any other comments they'd like to
make?
Zaremba: Well, there are some issues and I -- on the one hand, I feel that some of them
could be resolved at a neighborhood meeting. I know the applicant would like to have it
move forward faster than that, but we have been told many times by the City Council
get things resolved before you send them to us, don't have hanging issues in front of the
City Council. I think the opportunity for a neighborhood meeting is important. As
Commissioner Rohm said and J think Commissioner Centers has agreed that I think --
Centers: Well, if they had something to talk about.
Zaremba: -- as a whole the project - yes, if there was something to talk about and I
think there are a couple issues that could be discussed and resolved. I agree that the
whole project fits with the Comprehensive Plan. There is - we are not going to turn this
down lock, stock, and barrel, but maybe there could be some adjustments, and my
sense of it is the City Council would like us to hear the resolution before we send it on.
Borup: Well -- and they have stated they want -- they want a clean application on -- I
think on most parts. That means the plat not have any redesign issues and et cetera.
But I guess this could be close to those areas.
Zaremba: Are we ready for a motion? I would make a motion to continue the Public
Hearing pending a neighbor meeting.
Rohm: I'd second that motion.
Borup: Motion and second. Discussion, then? Oh, you're --
Centers: Yes. Mr. Chairman?
Borup; Well, part of that -- if we are going to do that, I'd like to have some - I think as
Mr. McKinnon said, at least some specific items to be discussed at that - what is it that
we want them to --
Centers: Yes. Go ahead.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20,2003
Page 57 of 84
Borup: What information would we like to gain from that?
Centers: Yes.
Borup: If it's something different that what we --
Zaremba: Transitions along the entire borders.
Centers: Didn't the applicant just agree that they would do the homes to meet the
CC&R's in Summerfield on the west and northern boundaries? What more can they do
to that? They will build 15, 1600 square foot homes on the west and north. What are the
other issues that they are going to talk about?
Borup: Commissioner Rohm, this was -
Centers: And we can place that requirement on the west and north boundary lines.
Rohm: I agree with Commissioner Centers that the planas presented meets the criteria
of the Comprehensive Plan and so to the end - if, in fact, you took that just at face
value, we wouldn't have to have Planning and Zoning meetings. Anybody that
presented something that meets the Comprehensive Plan is automatically stamped and
I don't concur that that's the intent and so I still maintain that there may be some issues
that could be resolved in a community meeting that are specific to this development and
if, in fact, it's --
Borup: And that's what I was asking. What are the issues you'd like to see?
Rohm: Well, the transition for sure, and I didn't make very good notes on Mr.
Blakeslee's presentation, but -
J. Blakeslee: I would be more than happy to restate them.
Borup: Okay. His comments were location of the park and turning -- that was Mr.
Blakeslee that made these comments. The location of park and -- well, I don't know how
they can - are you saying you're differing from ACHD's report requiring turning lanes?
Okay. He would like to see something else. We have got to get you either on record
or --
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman -- Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, have you guys
closed the Public Hearing?
Borup: No, we haven't.
McKinnon: Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 58 of 84
Borup: Well, let's let the Commissioners finish what discussion we are going to have
first.
Centers: Well, we can close the Public Hearing and still talk about it. I move we close
the Public Hearing.
Borup: It depends on what this motion is.
(Inaudible comments from Mr. Blakeslee.)
Centers: Mr. Blakeslee, I'm not. I mean we have heard a lot of testimony. Yes. That's
right. But the others might be. I don't know.
Borup: Okay. Who had -- you were --
Zaremba: I'm ready to make the motion.
Borup: You had a proposed motion that was not - would not allow closing the Public
Hearing.
Zaremba: My motion would not close the Public Hearing, it would continue it until our
second meeting in March, which is the 20th, with a requirement that there be a
neighborhood meeting between now and then.
Rohm: J will second that motion.
Zaremba: It would be to continue all three hearings.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just a clarification on the
motion. The applicant is -- I ~uess there is another meeting in front of the parks
commission I believe on the 12 -- is Becky still here? Would you prefer, then, to have
that meeting prior to meeting with the Parks Commission or after you have had a
chance to meet with the Parks Commission? The Parks Commission has had an
opportunity to look at the park location and they are in support of that and if they are
going to be changing that, if they are going to be changing the location of the park, if
that's one of the issues to be discussed, should that be held prior to this meeting?
Borup: Well, Commissioners, we do have a 400 acre subdivision on the agenda for that
night, for one, and a --
Zaremba: But this one is going to come back with all issues resolved and take five
minutes.
Borup: Well, we can limit it to what -- what specifically we want to hear. The other is a
smaller 40-acre subdivision and a couple minor items. That's what's on the agenda for
the 20th.
Meridian Plenning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 59 of 84
Centers: Well -- but you have a motion and a second. Can we discuss it, Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Yes. I thought that's what we were doing.
Centers: Just briefly. I think the attempt to postpone this is a blatant attempt to postpone
the whole project. I think it's just - - when M r. Blakeslee came up a nd started talking
about the fact that it wasn't posted with no proof and we have an affidavit that says it
was posted, then, he said I doubt it, so I think this is just a blatant attempt to postpone
the development and postpone the transition from here to the City Council. The
applicant has stated they would work on the home sizes along the west and north
boundary line, what else is there to resolve? They are not going to put the p ark on
Ustick Road, I guarantee you. The city won't allow it. They are not going to contradict
what ACHD tells them to do. There is nothing that can be resolved -- I shouldn't say
anything -- there is very little that can be resolved at a neighbor meeting, other than
delay the project. That's my discussion. You bet I'm going to. We have a motion and
second, Mr. Chairman. I call for the --
Borup: All in favor? Opposed? One aye. Three opposed.
MOTION FAILED: ONE AYE. THREE NAYE.
Borup: Do we have an alternate motion -- or another motion?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on all three items.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAYE.
Borup: Okay. Are we ready to - we still need a motion. Do we want a little bit of
discussion before we -.
Centers: The Public Hearing is closed, Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Yes.
Centers: Could we take a five-minute break?
Borup: Okay. We will take a five-minute break at this time.
(Recess.)
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meellng
February 20, 2003
Page 60 of 84
Borup: We'd like to reconvene our meeting. I believe we had closed the Public Hearing
and contemplated a motion.
Centers: Yes. Mr. Chairman, did you want to -- was there something, Commissioner
Zaremba, that you -
Zaremba: I would say I discussed and said my peace about having this be three
different zones and I was swayed by Commissioner Centers' comments at one point -- I
forget when in the discussion that was, but I could see having it be all R-8. I think I'm the
only one that was supporting having --
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Bruce brought up a point, too,
and I'd like to add it to that, if I could. It would be possible -- and I'll double-check on it,
but we could add another layer to the map and say R-8PD, so that it designates the
Planned Development for that section. Would that make everybody happy? That was
Bruce's comment. I don't want to take credit for it. He mentioned that earlier, so --
Zaremba: Well, if Bruce said it, then, it's --
McKinnon: That's what I said. I think that that would probably alleviate that concern if
we added the P D to it, if that's something that you guys would be amenable to, we
would probably add that and go with the - and go site-specific Number 2 on the
annexation. We would be agreeable to that.
Borup: I'd just like to see that we keep control of that, which --
Centers: Add what?
Zaremba: Call it R.8PD. Planned Development.
Centers: Oh. Okay.
Zaremba: Planned Development.
Centers: Okay.
Zaremba: So it's not just, in fact, any R-8.
Centers: Okay. Moving along. Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: Regarding item five on our agenda, I would recommend approval of AZ 02-
033, request for annexation and zoning of 104.77 acres from RUT to R-8PD zone for
proposed Parkstone Sub by Hillview Development Corp., west of North Eagle Road and
north of Ustick Road, including all staff comments. Regarding Item Number 2 on their
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20. 2003
Page 61 of 84
comments, the annexation, strike Item 2 from the staff's comments, and including all
other comments. End of motion.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion?
Rohm: I thought we were going to include in the motion the transition?
Borup: This is just the --
Rohm: Oh, that is just the annexation. Okay. Okay. End of discussion.
Borup: Okay. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, moving along. I would like to recommend approval for Item 6 on
our agenda, PP 02-033, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 334 building lots and
34 other lots on 104.77 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Parkstone Sub by
Hillview Development Corp, that's west of North Eagle Road and north of East Ustick
Road, including all staff comments as amended. Page 11, Item 7, strike the second
bullet item. We would just simply strike that. Hopefully, you know, a second will agree
with me, that why have that pathway when we have mixed use -- high density mixed
use next door. I think that's obvious. Turning back to Page 10, Item 3, under site-
specific, we are okay with the applicant's request as submitted in the applicant's memo
dated February 19, 2003. Item 4, Page 10, under site-specific. We are okay with the
applicant's verbiage per her same memo dated February 19111. Item 7. I covered that
ahead of time.
Borup: Probably some discussion on that. I'm not sure if we - if that was what staff was
recommending.
Centers: They were stating and/or on the micro-path.
Borup: Yes.
Centers: As I said, if you agree with me, then, there would be a second. I'm just
eliminating it. We know what's going to be next door. It's not going to be residential. We
know that for a fact.
Borup: Right.
Centers: Why would we want a micro-path to --
Borup: So the people can get to the commercial.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission MeeUng
February 20, 2003
Page 62 of 84
Centers: To a Target?
Borup: Well, it's campus office proposed at this time.
Centers: Okay. Okay. I guess I would agree with that. Item 7, Page 11, do not strike the
second bullet point and leave it and/or up to the adjoining developer and this developer
to decide that. If so, it would be placed between Lots 25 and 26 in Block 15.
Borup: In agreement with - concurred by staff.
Zaremba: The issue there is that would be a staff motion and not be considered a major
change.
McKinnon: Thank you.
Centers: Item eight, staff is in agreement with the applicant's verbiage on her memo
dated February 19th, with the insertion that they would like the option of a four foot fence
with see through slats, if allowing a two foot lattice. The applicant has stated that that
was fine. I need some help here, Dave. I added site-specific 13, additional pedestrian
path at west property line. Had we talked about that?
Borup: That's in number seven.
McKinnon: That's -- Yes. That's the--
Centers: That's 48 and 49.
McKinnon: That's correct.
Centers: Okay. Forget that. End of motion. Including all other staff comments.
Wollen: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers.
Centers: Yes.
Wollen: Just a clarification on your motion. First of all, were you proposing -- or were
you moving to recommend on the initial statement a request for Preliminary Plat
approval of 334 building lots and 34 other lots on 104.77 acres in a proposed R-8PD
zone?
Centers: Correct. PD.
Wollen: And another one -- I just wanted to make clear for the record that your initial
motion that the comment -- comment 7 on Page 11, that it be that -- that that bullet item
be stricken out, that instead that was replaced with leave it as an and/or option.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 63 of 84
Centers: Correct.
Wollen: Okay.
Centers: Thanks for the clarification.
Zaremba: And/or at a staff level.
Borup: Staff level approval.
Zaremba: Before I second it, a question of staff. Is this where we would give approval
for maintaining the 150 head of cattle and no sewer hook up?
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba. That was handled with the
annexation.
Zaremba: Okay so we approved that. Right?
McKinnon: Correct.
Zaremba: Okay. I'll second the motion, then, as stated.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Centers: Mr: Chairman, I would like to recommend approval for Item 7 on our agenda,
CUP 02-049, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for
275 single family dwellings, 52 townhomes, four office lots, two commercial lots, one
mini storage lot, one pocket park, one city neighborhood park, and 32 common lots on
104.77 acres for proposed Parkstone Sub by Hillview Development Corp., which is west
of North Eagle Road and north of East Ustick Road, including all staff comments and
adding Item 4 -- excuse me. Would it be Item 4? I want to add one. I know that. Is it?
Did you find it? Item four would be that the referenced office lots, commercial lots, and
mini storage lot, any approvals there would have to be residential compatible. In
addition, Item Number 5 - that would be on the Preliminary Plat. Question for staff.
Can we -- you know, we wanted to make sure the developer built minimum 1 ,500
square foot lots on the west and north property line that abuts other subdivisions.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner C enters, I believe it would have been more
appropriate to place it at the -- with the Preliminary Plat and I believe the applicant
would be willing to make that a note on the plat in the future, even though it's not part of
the motion. In addition to that, you do have the ability to place certain conditions that
would minimize adverse impact on other developments within a Conditional Use Permit,
so you can include that as part of your Conditional Use Permit requirement.