HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesMERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 6
Nelson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we table this item until
our October 13~' meeting.
De Weerd: Second.
MacCoy: Discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I think we need to reverse the order of seven and
eight.
MacCoy: I think you are correct on that too. She's right.
Rossman: It appears to me that it would be appropriate to address the Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law before you move on to the Plat approval.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I guess there was a question as to several items that
were mentioned in the Findings. A letter from the school, district and a building
that was mentioned in the staffs comments and that's why we tabled the
conditional use permit.
MacCoy: I agree with commissioner De Weerd and also.with our counsel. We
will switch no. 8 to no. 7. We'll move up no. 8 and come back to no. 7.
ITEM NO. 8: TABLED AUGUST 11, 1998: FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (48 UNITS ON 8.53 ACRES) -THE VILLAS
AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT -NORTHWEST
OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1:
Borup: Mr. Chairman, probably the easiest to handle this is ask staff if all their
items of concern was included in the revised plat.
MacCoy: Staff, Shari? Bruce? I guess we'll wait for a few moments. Shari did
you hear the question? I guess you did, okay.
Stiles: Chairman MacCoy, commissioners, I got this just today in my box and
hadn't had a lot of chance to review it. It appears that most of the items that we'd
asked for had been addressed. They have added one duplex lot from the
original findings and probably that may need to be revisited into the findings, I
don't know if that can just be done by your motion, .but ... I don't know if the last
time you looked at it whether that parking was incorporated in there, the
additional parking area. Without actually reviewing this against what the findings
are, I'm not positive that all those findings are consistent with what we've been
presented. .
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 7
MacCoy: Shari do you have anymore to add at this moment?
Stiles: I seem to recall on this project that they had made some concessions as
to minimum house size adjacent to the lots in Golf View Estates No. 2. The note
that is still shown on here shows the minimum house site is 1250 square feet. I
don't know if you recall that?
MacCoy: We had discussed that, but I don't know what our final decision was.
Maybe Commissioner Borup has something to review. Commissioner Borup, did
you hear what Shari had...
Borup: I'm sorry, did I hear her comment?
MacCoy: Yes.
Borup: No, I didn't.
MacCoy: Shari would you repeat the comment please.
Stiles: There was some discussion previously about making the house sizes
larger next to Golf View Estates No. 2, I believe the minimum house size in that
subdivision is 1,800 square feet. Do you recall?
Borup: I don't recall that that was one of our requests. I know there was some
comment, but there was also a irrigation ditch and a pretty good buffer there, with
no direct access. That's my recollection. Did you say they added another lot, or
another duplex lot? I've got three plats up here, so I think I've compared the
most two recent ones.
Stiles: From the findings it showed that there were nine duplex lots, there are
now ten. That was back from...
Borup: I still have ten on my previous one, that's why I was confused.
Stiles: I think the findings still reflected the original submittal.
Borup: That must have been from perhaps the testimony on what their intention
is. My-the notes that I had on my previous plat coincide with the ones that
they've got marked duplex on this. Whatever that means. I think most of the
comments-one of the reasons we table this was technical information is missing
on the plats. Some of it was-one big concern was the path along the ditch. It
looks like they included a conceptual there. Which is I think what one of the staff
requests. I think some of the other things were more specific plat type
comments, if I remember right. I don't believe, I don't know that the commission
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE8
had any other concerns other than that those specific items that staff had
mentioned were included.
De Weerd: Some of those were on the pressure sewer main. Has that been
answered?
Freckleton: Yes it has. They got-they're calling it lot 47, which is out of
sequence for lot numbering, it should be 38, it looks like, but they do have a
common lot now. However, in the notes, it's not reflected as a common lot.
De Weerd: You wanted detail on who was to maintain that, included in their...
Freckleton: There should be a note on that plat that references the common lot,
calls it out as a common lot to be owned and maintained by the homeowners
association, with a blanket easement for the City of Meridian for sanitary sewer.
Borup: I think the question that we have is, is this plat to the state that we can in
good conscious send it on to City Council?
Stiles: Commissioners, I would like to see the note added and the Findings
changed to reflect what is here now. On page 21 of the findings, Mr. Bradbury
stated that most of the homes are proposed to be in excess of 1600 to 1700
square feet, I would like that to be designated which lots and what sizes of
homes are the minimums for each lot.
De Weerd: You would like that noted in the findings?
Stiles: I would like that part of it noted on the plat. The findings changed to
reflect what we have before us now.
De Weerd: I believe that was one of our requests, so that is not noted on -the plat
then. The new plat?
Stiles: The minimum house size, or...
De Weerd: How many lots met the R-4 and how many don't. If the existing road
was changed with what the proposed, and did we receive comments from
ACHD?
Stiles: We received comments from Ada County Highway District, previously, the
first time this came through.
De Weerd: Okay, but we haven't received anything again to reflect what the
applicants have told us.
Stiles: Nothing new, no. I don't think that they changed the roadway system.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 9
Freckleton: Commissioner De Weerd, the information that was requested
regarding the zoning and setback variances is in the table of the right hand
corner on the plat.
MacCoy: Keep in mind commissioners that we're still talking on item no. 8, which
is Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and the plat comes on number
seven.
De Weerd: These were items that we had issues with in our findings.
MacCoy: Just so we're keeping straight the two items.
De Weerd: I guess the findings have, they've been revised not to reflect the
building that was supposed to be on site, that is not going to be on site.
Stiles: They do show the existing club house, I don't believe that has anything to
indicate that's going to be removed. They do show an outline of the existing club
house on Lot 4, Block 1.
De Weerd: On page 29 we have 19 and then the next item is item no. 29. Mr.
Chairman, on these findings they have on page 29, item 19 and then they jump
to item 29. In these findings, do we need to amend them before we can pass
them?
(Inaudible)
Berg: Commissioner De Weerd, on page 29, you are referring to where you think
it skips from 19 to 29, if you notice the indention 17,18,19, so it isn't a skip.
De Weerd: So if we were to amend these... one of the items that we mentioned
was item 14 on page 28, that refers to the maintenance building. Would we then
request that that be omitted?
MacCoy: That was the agreement that was made at the time we had the
hearing. He said he would remove that off the final plat. So if you've got it
covered in the findings, then it's going to have to be done. Shari, Item 14 in the
findings of facts, referring to the maintenance building which was stated-that's
page 28. That was to be omitted, the applicants made that statement. We
agreed to scratch that I thought. Is that your recollection?
Borup: Mr. Chairman, that's what my notes show.
MacCoy: Thank you.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 10
Stiles: I don't recall on the storage area. I don't remember that you requested
them to take out the parking that was shown on our previous version of this plat,
particularly around-they had some parking stalls shown adjacent to the duplex
lots and those have been removed. I don't recall that being requested to be
removed.
De Weerd: I don't recall that either. Mr. Chairman, can we table this and review
the plat so we can get response from the applicant?
MacCoy: We like to have it on the record. You request to see the applicant at
this moment or are we talking among ourselves here.
Borup: The plat is a continued public hearing.
MacCoy: The plat is, right. We're on item eight right now for Findings of Fact.
Borup: That's why I was talking about tabling that item, all our questions seem to
pertain to the plat and revising the findings to reflect the revised plat.
MacCoy: Well, if that's your desire, I don't see why not. That's up to you.
Rossman: There is no reason why that can't be done and probably should be
done to expedite this process.
MacCoy: Yes, do you want to have motion?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table item no. 8 for the conditional use
permit.
Nelson: Second.
De Weerd: Until...
(Inaudible)
De Weerd: Until after the public hearing for the preliminary plat, item no. 7.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: Item eight will be tabled until after item seven has been reviewed and
we'll come back to that.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 24 -
De Weerd: So if we subtracted out the duplex lots and the four additional lots
that they were requesting that would leave 29 lots, right? So~ I could amend it
rather than 22 go to 29 on my motion? Is that correct?
Rossman: You need to make a new motion.. You need to make the motion,
state the motion.
MacCoy: We are waiting for a motion.
De Weerd: Okay, well I will based on this table that I see, I will make a motion. I
would like to move to approve the preliminary plat for the Villas at the Lakes
Subdivision, with the change of noting the parking area to include five parking
spaces that 29 lots need to meet a minimum 1,600 sq. ft. per unit to include lots
31-34 and lots 2-9, that the duplex units need to be.a minimum of 1,250 sq. ft.
and the remaining lots a minimum of 1,304. "
MacCoy: Do I hear a second?
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: Any discussion? I think we've had a lot of discussion already. All in
favor?
MOTION CARRIED: Two ayes, one nay, and one absent.
Borup: Just a comment, Mr. Bradbury might want to pass along sometimes it is
not necessarily good to put too much information in the packet.
MacCoy: Alright, moving on back to item no.8. That which was tabled earlier
this evening.
ITEM NO. 8: TABLED BEFORE ITEM NO. 7. FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (48 UNITS ON 8.53 ACRES) -THE VILLAS
AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT -NORTHWEST
OF CHERRY LAND VILLAGE NO. 1:
MacCoy: Commissioners?
De Weerd: I assume that I could make a motion to approve the Findings of Fact
with the amendments that were noted previously?
MacCoy: On item no. 7, which is the preliminary plat.
De Weerd: Counsel, is that what I need to do?
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 25
Rossman: It appears to me that the Findings of Fact that we have before us are
not very representative of what we need to decide or what is acceptable for the
commission to decide at this point. My recommendation would be, unless
somebody is ready to recite what the proposed amendments were, we're going
to have to submit this for amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
De Weerd: I believe that I can do that.
Rossman: Okay, then go ahead.
MacCoy: Commission, it's up to you.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Facts with the following
amendments: On page 27 number 7.
Rossman: What did you want to do to number seven?
De Weerd: Delete. On page 28, delete number 9, 14, and part of number 16
regarding interlock and connection. The interlock and connection. That they
would include the new preliminary plat incorporations.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: Any discussion at this point? All in favor? We want to pull, you have
an approval of Findings of Fact and Conclusions, does somebody want to read
theirs? Alright, we'll go ahead with it then. The Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission hereby adopts, need the roll call.
De Weerd: I already made that in my motion.
MacCoy: Yes, you did. Going down...
Rossman: Just call the roll.
ROLL CALL: Borup, aye. De Weerd, aye. Smith, absent. Nelson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: Alt ayes.
MacCoy: I wanted to read the decision and recommendation.
De Weerd: The Meridian and Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that it approve the
conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in
the application. The applicant shall satisfy the conditions set forth in the Findings
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 26
of Fact and Conclusions of Law as amended or similar conditions as found
justified and appropriate by City Council and that the property be required to
meet the water and sewer requirements, the fire and life safety codes, uniform
fire code, parking requirements, and the paving and landscaping requirements
and all ordinances of the City of Meridian. The conditional use shall be subject to
review upon notice to the applicant by the city.
MacCoy: All in favor.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: Second, excuse me, you've got to pick up the second, yes. All in
favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 9: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR A REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER BY DAKOTA
COMPANY, INC. -SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EAGLE & FAIRVIEW:
MacCoy: Before we enter into the public hearing, I'd like to make a comment.
We the commissioners are very much in approval of all the letters we've received
from you people. That's one thing we've been asking for the last couple of times.
We'd like to hear from you. You stand up hear and give your comments, it's on
tape which is very good and also a number of you have submitted letters. One
thing I would like to comment about the letter is they are well written. They are
not some of the stuff we see in the past years with all kinds of little pieces that
don't really add up to anything. They are really well thought out. I want to
commend you from the standpoint too that we are very much impressed with
some of the suggestions you've made. We're going to consider those because
they haven't been brought up before. I just want to put that on the record this
evening. It's a great job, keep it up, that's good. Since we are open again as a
public hearing, is there anyone here that would like to standup next. Okay, the
applicant would like to stand up next.
LARRY DURKIN, WAS SWORN IN BY THE ATTORNEY.
Durkin: Mr. Chairman I would like to hold my comments tonight in the interest of
time and in the interest of repeating myself until after the public comment. Prior
to that, I would like to answer any questions that you may have developed,
otherwise, I will make my statements after the public comment tonight.
MacCoy: Any commissioners have any questions you want to ask the applicant
at this moment?
Borup: No, I just appreciate his statement. Thank you.
"- ~~- Meridian Planning & Za~g Commission
January 13, 1998
Page 68
MOTION CARRIED: All yea.
ITEM NUMBER 12: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT BY'STEINER DEVELOPMENT - NW CHERRY LANE VILLAGE
NO. 1:
Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite the applicant's representative to
address the commission.
Bradbury: I would simply like to ask that the commission incorporate the testimony
given in the previous matter into the hearing on this matter. I have nothing further to
add. I think I covered everything.
Johnson: Does anyone else want to do the same or we would just automatically
incorporate your testimony anyway so everybody gets a shot you know. Anybody else
have anything additional then. All right, I will close the public hearing at this time. This
require Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we direct the City Attorney to
draw up Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on this item.
Borup: Second.
Johnson: Motion is seconded to have the attorney prepare Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law. All in favor? Opposed.
MOTION CARRIED: All yea.
Johnson: Any further motions for this evening? Mr. Berg would like to make a
comment.
Berg: Yes, thank you Mr. Chairman. Just another reminder of this thing. I'll get you
some notices out that this is the Planning and Zoning Seminar at Boise State on
January 24th. I do want to say that I've response from our - I guess three active
members of the commission, and they are all attending. If you would like to attend.
Johnson: Isn't the City Council going to this?
Berg: So far, no. They have some conflicts, chili cook-off. And John if you would like
to, that would be great. And if Gary or Shari would too. I just need to get this into the
people running the workshop.
Prior: Sign me up. What day is that a Saturday?
Berg: Saturday, the 24th, and it's kind of an all day .thing.
Meridian City Council •
March 17, 1998 --
Page 7
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM #4: NEW FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BY
STEINER CORPORATION:
Crookston: Mr. Mayor, I have declared a conflict of interest on that, John Prior is
here to answer any questions if the Council has any.
Corrie: Council this is one that"was brought to my attention and I brought it to the
attention of the Council. Any discussion on this Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law? Anything that you want to say before we do this?
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I don't necessarily see that a threat of direction or action is
-shown in the findings to the applicant and that's probably a weakness on our part
for not providing that specific information to counsel in the preparation of the.
findings. My thoughts and direction of-this particular action at the time of the
hearing was that the difficulty I had with it was a lack of being harmonious with
the surrounding R-4 neighborhood ,and the larger lots and larger homes that it
abutted and that if you'll recall I gave the example of the kinds of things that we
had done in Meridian Greens and another subdivision that escapes me with
providing larger lots and establishing a particular architectural style in a new
reques#ed subdivision that would reflect the architectural and lot size in those
adjacent lots and then transition into the proposed use be it smaller lots or in this
case a P.U.D., planned unit development, I've indicated to Mr. Campbell that I'm
willing to sit down and discuss those issues with them, having said that that. the
way the findings are set up it's set up as a denial to the original application by
way of discussion I'm not opposed to tabling this until we have an opportunity to
discuss this with Mr. Campbell and maybe make further modifications to make
the direction clear to them and that we don't have double actions on this, that
approach would also require the delay in tabling of the next item on our agenda
as well which is a subdivision plat. Those are my comments.
Corrie: Any further comments? Mr. Rountree do you want to make that into
motion and we'll see where it goes?
Rountree: Mr. Mayor I would move that we table action on this finding as well as
the next item on our agenda until we have an opportunity to sit down with the
applicant and provide specific direction to them with this particular application.
Bird: I'll second that.
Corrie Motion made by Mr. Rountree second by Mr. Bird to table item #3 and #4
with the time to sit down and discuss the Findings of Facts. and the ways that the
Council would like for them to go. Any further discussion?
Meridian City Counci~
March 17, 1998 '
Page 8
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I think we're going to have to come up with a date though I
don't think you can just throw out an indefinite table on it.
Rountree: I would amend that to add a date certain -has it been seconded?
Corrie: Yes, withdraw your second.
Bird: I withdraw the second.
Rountree: I'd amend by motion to propose a date certain -
Corrie: My suggestion would be four weeks.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, again I would modify my previous motion to include a date
certain that we would decide on our regularly scheduled meeting April 21St.
Bird: I'll second that.
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree second by Mr. Bird to table the motion. of
item #3 and item #4 until the 21St of April. Any further discussion? All those in
favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, on that subject I would request that Shari work with the
developer and get a date established that we could sit down with them,
preferably an evening.
Corrie: Shari?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, once we do sit down with them and explain some
of the things that we would like to see in the proposal is do you have an idea of
when that would go back to public hearing or are you suggesting it go back to
Planning and Zoning Commission for a public hearing or to the City Council?
Rountree: I don't know what the resolve is going to be, it may very well have to
go back through Planning & Zoning and I suspect that's what's going to have to
happen.
Stills: Okay.
Corrie: So if you'll set up a time. and notify Will so we can put a notice at the City.
Stiles: Is that the entire Council that wants to meet with them or is that just -
Meridian City Counci~
March 17, 1998 "
Page 9
Come: - Do you want to have two at a time?
Rountree: That probably would be easier to discuss two at a time.
Stiles: Okay, thanks.
ITEM #5: TABLED MARCH 3, 1998: PRELIMINARY PLAT, 48 LOTS FOR THE
VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER CORPORATION:
ITEM #6: ORDINANCE #789 - THURGOOD REZONE:
Corrie: Item #6 is Ordinance #789, this is a rezone ordinance. Ordinance #789 is
an ordinance of the City of Meridian amending and changing the zoning of
certain real property in the City of Meridian which is generally described as a
portion of the south-east corner of section 1, township 3 north, range 1 west and
also known as 236 W. Cherry Lane, Boise, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho and
providing for effective date. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to
have Ordinance #789 read in its entirety?
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, just for verification this is #789 is that correct, because
there's no number on our ordinance.
Corrie: Right it's #789. This is rezoned from R-4 to a residential L-O, limited
office. Any discussion on Ordinance #789? If none I'll entertain a motion for
Ordinance #789.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that City Council approve. Ordinance #789,
authorize the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Ordinance #789 with suspension of rules, all in favor say aye. Opposed
no. -- Oh I'm sorry that is a roll call vote. Back-up on a roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Mr. Bird -Yea, Mr. Bentley -yea, Mr. Rountree -yea, Mr.
Anderson -yea.
MOTION CARRIED: All yeas.
ITEM #7: APPROVAL OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS FOR LIQUOR AND BEER
LICENSE FOR BILL MARTELL - BILL'N LYNN'S PLACE:
Corrie: Chief, is everything in order on the one?
Meridian City Council .
March 3, 1998
Page 30
ITEM N0. 13: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT - NW CHERRY LANCE VILLAGE N0. 1 BY: STEINER
DEVELOPMENT:
Corrie: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite Mr. Bradbury.
STEVE BRADBURY 877 MAIN ,STREET, BOISE WAS SWORN BY CITY ATTORNEY.
Bradbury: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, my name is Steve Bradbury. I've
been asked to present the application on behalf of Steiner Development. What you
have before you is an application for planned unit development and preliminary plat ,
you should all have a book that looks like this. And what I'll do in my presentation is
kind of leaf through it and tell you what's back there and then we'll get an opportunity to
talk about each of the difference parts of the book. The site is an eight and a half acre
parcel of property that's east of Black Cat Road between Ustick and Cherry Lane, and if
you want to get a feel for the location, if you look behind tab four, three, four pages in
you'll find a location map here. Like that. And the piece we are talking about is this
irregular shaped piece which is on the southerly end of that map. Maybe I can show
you a bigger board that will help as well. We got the Lake at Cherry Lane 5, 6 & 7 over
here. Ashford Greens, and then we've got Golf Vew over here, and the piece we are
talking about is right here. As a matter of fact, it's the piece where the golf course club
house is. The current one. This piece of property was originally brought to the Council
by the developer of the Ashford Greens Subdivision, Brighton Corporation and was part
of the previously approved Ashford Greens planned unit development.. The Brighton
Corporation however failed to exercise their option on this particular piece of property,
and my client, Steiner Development, picked it up. In the book, in case you are
interested, behind tab five is a copy of the findings of facts end conclusions of law that
were adopted by the Council back in September 1994 that dealt with the overall concept
approval for the Ashford Greens Subdivision, and what they did or what the members of
the Council at that time did, was with respect to this piece of property, gave it concept
approval for what was described as medium density development, and that was further
described as being for up to eight units per acre. Steiner Development having acquired
the property is submitting this application for that purpose in order to -let me back up.
The Council required that a more particular site plan be submitted for approval by the
City, and this application is that more particular site plan. Back to the book for a
second. Behind tab one, you will find a summary letter of the application. So if you
hadn't had an opportunity to read that, you can read through that at your leisure.
Behind tab two, you will find some general project information, just sort of outlines in
summary form what the project is all about, and I will go through that a little bit. I
already told you that it's on eight and a half acres. The property is presently zoned R-4,
but the application seeks approval for 46 total single family units. Now 37 of them
would be single detached. Three of them would be two unit attached structures, so
there's three two units or you might call them two unit townhouses. They are described
as duplexes but that's not really true because these will on separate ownerships and
each of the unit will be on separate lots. And then there's one three unit townhouse
Meridian City Council
March 3, 1998
Page 31
proposed for a total of 46 dwelling units. Now that comes up to a overall density of
about 5.6 units per acre which is substantially less than the eighf units per acre which
was conceptually approved back in 1994. The lot sizes, now you need take your pencil
or pen out and fix an error because it's not right, and I will tell you how that happened.
The lot sizes range from 3909 square feet up to 8413 square feet. And the reason for
that change and one of the reason is that some adjustments were made down in this
part of the plat. This is where the temporary sewer easement exists here: It's a twenty
foot wide sewer easement, and when the application was originally submitted, the lot
calculations included the land within the sewer easement area. The proposal now is to
take that out of these lots and make it a separate common lot which would be owned
and maintained by the homeowners association to be formed. The other thing that
happened is this street here got moved up a little bit. We've kind of rearranged this
area in here so that we could make this -take this twenty feet out of those lots and still
have reasonable size lots. So those numbers that are shown there are not right. The
ones I've given you are what the engineer calculated earlier this week. The size of the
homes are a minimum of 1304 square feet up to 1785 square feet and actually behind
tab eight, is a list of the numbers of units for each of those sizes. In other words a .size
distribution list. And what you will see is that more than half of the units proposed would
be in the 1700 or above range, actually it's 1699 square feet. We probably should find
another foot so we can call it 1700, but 1699 and 1785, there'd be 25 of those, so
something more than half. And the remainder of them as you see are pretty equally
distributed between the other sizes. The roadway system in the project is proposed as
a private road which would be gated at the entry. It would be on 42 feet of right-of-way.
37 feet of that would be improved. It would include a five foot wide sidewalk on one
side, which is similar to what was approved in Lake at Cherry Lane No. 6. Back to the
homes, be 7 different plans made available in there, and some of those would have two
elevation choices and if you are interested in looking at the. plans and the elevations,
you can find those behind tab six. They are all single story. They are all two car
garage. They each have either two or three bedrooms and two baths.. Each space
would be provided by, of course, a private driveway. The driveway would have space
for a least two cars, so each unit would have a total parking availability of four cars.
There are four color choices being offered in either stucco or a siding, and there's a
brick accent on some of the units. If you are interested in looking at those, you can find
the materials and color charts behind tab eight as well. Some of the amenities of the
project you can find a list on the second page behind tab two. This is what my physics
instructor used to call a spaz test to find out whether or not you can follow all the tabs
and you are not a spaz, I guess. That was back in high school, and 1've always
remembered that for some reason. I don't why, maybe it was because I was a spaz.
Maybe I still am, I don't know. Well now that Councilman Morrow isn't here, he doesn't
beat up on me over my college allegiance. At least Ihave a -
Bentley: Another Idaho joke.
Bradbury: That's right. We got somebody's who is going to pick up the baton here.
Anyway, behind tab two I talked about the gated security entrance, and you can find a
Meridian City Council
March 3, 1998
Page 32
detail of that behind tab four. Third page in, behind tab 4, and it looks similar to this
drawing here. The proposal here is to provide a gated security entrance in front of the
subdivision and so the - in order to keep the traffic circulation down to a minimum. The
other nice feature about this is the concept is to provide a pedestrian and cart path in
through the subdivision over the top of the sewer easement and out on to the canal right
of way and up all the way along the perimeter of the subdivision and then it would come
back out up at the golf course. And that would give the people who want to walk to the
golf course who live in the neighborhood or even theoretically those people who own
golf carts and wanted to drive their golf carts up the golf course, would have a route to
get up there. And as you can see, you can see the detail of how all that works there.
This by the way as I said, this sewer easement ~nrould be a common area lot as would
the lot where the golf cart path would. go. All to be owned and maintained by the
homeowners association to be formed. Behind tab three are application materials if you
are interested in those. Behind tab four is a copy of the layout of the subdivision.
You've probably got a blue line there in front of you so it will be a little bit easier to read
than that one. It gives you an eight and a half by eleven of it. And then the details for
the cart path and the details for the gated area, and then the location map. Also behind
tab five behind the green sheet is a copy of the findings of facts and conclusions of law
which the planning and zoning commission adopted when they looked at this project
about a month ago. And I assume you know, but in case you don't, the planning and
zoning commission recommended approval of the project as presented. Now because
this is a planned unit development, the developer is asking for certain exceptions under
the provisions of the planned unit development portion of your zoning ordinance, and I'll
go through each one of those exceptions so that we can talk about them. One of the
exceptions is to have the setbacks reduced. Or some of the setbacks reduced. The
typical front yard setback in a residential subdivision would be twenty feet. They are
asking for reduction of the setback to fifteen feet. Similarly .the street side yard
setbacks, that would be on the comer lots like here. That's typically a twenty foot
setback required, and again the developer is asking for a reduction to .fifteen feet. And
that's just exactly like what the Council approved in the Lake at Cheny Lane No. 6.
Now there's also a reduction being requested for these lots, lots one through four for a
ten foot rear yard setback as opposed to the required fifteen I believe it is. And what
you need to understand however even though there will only be ten of lot, there will
actually be thirty five feet of separation from the lots, which are to the south because
you will have the ten foot of setback in the lot and you will have twenty feet of that sewer
easement area which would be a common lot and have that path on it. In addition the
lots sizes are the typical R-4 lot sizes, 8,000 square feet, and they are asking for an
exception down to the lot sizes that are shown on the plat. As I said the minimum size
about 3900 square feet. The largest is over 8,000 square feet, but it comes out to an
average of somewhere around 5700 square feet, and I don't have the exact number for
the average, but it is in that 5700 square foot range. Also the typical frontage
requirement on an R-4 lot is 80 feet. That is frontage on the street. 80 feet. In this
particular application the requeet is that number be reduced down to fifty feet because
these are essentially fifty foot lots. I say that and then I'm going to say yeah, but there's
also some of the flag lots and the corner lots which are something less than that. So
Meridian City Council
March 3, 1998
Page 33
probably the simplest way unless you want me to read a list all the frontages is to simply
say a request to reduce the frontages are shown on the plat. I guess I talked about the
private street, but technically that would also be a requested exception from the typical
ordinance requirements. This one as I said 42 foot of right-of--way with a five foot
sidewalk on one side. The house sizes in here, I told you about the range from 1300 up
to over 1700 square feet. The typical R-4 requirement is 1400 square, so for those ten
or twelve that would be less than that number would need exceptions for that. I think,
that's all the exceptions that we are asking for under the planned unit development
provisions. Now as an off set to that, I guess, if you want to look at it that way is that the
developer owns about a third of an acre which is on the opposite side of the eight mile
lateral from this subdivision which is over on the golf course side. And the developer is
offering to donate that third of an acre to the city. In other words, convey it free of
charge and the deed would be conveyed to the city at the time that the final pat is
recorded. And that would be used, of course, for the city's golf course property. I can
show you where that piece is. It's right here. There's a piece that's -well, it's relatively
triangular in shape right here and so a lot would be - a separate lot would be created on
the -let's get my bearings here - on the east side of the canal. And that would be.
conveyed to the city. This piece.
The intent of the project, of course, is to continue to try to provide a .variety of
housing types and housing choices in the vicinity. Like what Steiner Development has
started to do up at the Lake at Cheny Lane. As you probably recall up there, there are
a number of different sizes of lots, and sizes of homes and types of housing
arrangements. There's the typical 8000 square foot R-4 lots. There's some 6500
square foot R-8 lots. There's some -1 can't remember the lot sizes, but other lot sizes
that are in number six which -and there's a mix of houses in there, but that's a seniors
living area, and then in number seven, are a series of townhouse developments duplex
type - I say duplex and that is really not right because they are all separate lots with
separate ownerships, but townhouse type developments on smaller lots there as well.
Our feeling is that this type of project is not only in line with what the City Council
conceptually approved back in 1994 for Ashford Greens, but it's also compatible with
the overall scheme for this mile section, and we tried to put together a view and
unfortunately we don't have those on there, but I give you an idea of the different sizes
and different types of lots and housing that is provided in the area. You've got, like I
said, this is the Lake at Cherry Lane area up here, and then you got the Cherry Lane
Village area down in here, the Golf View and Ashford Greens, and as you can see, we
have marked and some of these reds are areas where there are existing townhouse
and .duplex type living. That would also be true in this location here. And you don't
have it yet, but an application is just about to be filed for the piece of property up here,
the Wilkens' property, and the same basic kind of concept will be pursued for this
property as was pursued for the Lake at Cherry Lane, and that is having a variety of
housing types and a variety of lot sizes. The whole mile section is I think
conceptualized as being a place where there can be a variety of sizes and different
housing opportunities, and we think it's consistent with what's been proven in the past,
and consistent with what is likely to be submitted to you folks in the not too distance
Meridian City Council
March 3, 1998
Page 34
future. That's all of the prepared presentation that I have, and I'd be pleased to respond
to any questions that you might have.
Corrie: Council, questions'?
Anderson: On the security gate, would that be something, how would the emergency
get through that security gate, is it keyed, is it activated by siren?
Bradbury:. t don't know the detail on that. I know that the security gate systems that
have been used around the valley have had -there's been a system. for emergency
access. I don't know. Do you know how that works? Is it strobe he says. Doug
Campbell representative of Steiner Development says that he envisions it being
activated by a strobe. Unfortunately I'm just lawyer. I don't know the technicalities of
those things.
Anderson: That would be something that would probably need to be coordinated with
the police and fire, not all those vehicles are equipped with strobes. And it would be up
to them to figure which system would work best.
Bradbury: Sure, we are more than willing to work with the fire department. I've had
really good success with those folks in the past and making sure that they are
comfortable with what's been approved or have been applied for. If you wanted to
make it a conditional of approval, that certainly wouldn't be a problem for us.
Anderson: And then the road, is it Interlachen that goes through there?
Bradbury: I call it Interlachen.
Anderson: Is there a reason why that doesn't go on through and tie into the other
street?
Bradbury: Well, yeah, as a matter of fact there is. I brought with me a traffic impact
report that I will pass out to you if you'd like. The Ada County Highway District, when
they looked at this thing, they thought that the road ought to go through as well, and the
reason that we're not showing it that way is we are concerned that it's going to create
too much cut through traffic. I mean there is going to be traffic trying to access to the
golf course, back and forth, and there would be traffic coming from the Ashford Greens
Subdivision. They'd be heading down through this -down this street in order to get to
the Albertsons down there on the corner. And so - like I said, the Highway District
originally thought that it ought to go through as well, and I think that you may even have
a transmittal from them saying that that's what they'd to see.. We submitted a request
for the Highway District Commission to take another look at this thing and go before
them next week, and part os what was submitted to them was a traffic impact study and
report that was done by Phil and Gary Funkhauser from Earth Tech. -and let me pass
out copies of that. And we can go through the report and talk about how he got there.
Meridian City Council ,
March 3, 1998
Page 35
But what I'd suggest you just do is go to the last page, and there is a chart. And it
shows what the existing traffic is, and what the projected traffic would be both with and
without the connection. And what you have is on Interlachen, .and you can pick any
one. Let's just go to the bottom line because that's the one where the most traffic is.
North of Cherry on Interlachen the existing traffic that was counted by Earth Tech. Is
771 vehicles per day, and the traffic which would be produced by this site at that
location is 285 trips per day. Now that gets you up to -well, we are over a thousand
vehicles right about there. If you added, if you connected the street through, what you
do is you add about 300 trips per day for the golf course according to the experts and
you add about 400 trips per day for Ashford Greens.- Both of these would be cutting
through and then about 30 trips per day from Cherry Lane Village. So what you end up
with.is you end up with over 700 additional trips per day with the connection that you
wouldn't have without it. Now our feeling is that not only would the residents in this
proposed subdivision be unhappy with those 700 additional trips per day, but we also
felt like the people that live on Interlachen now would likely be unhappy with having
those 700 additional trips per day. So the proposal that we've made is not to put it
through in order to keep that cut through traffic from taking that route. According to the
preliminary contact we've had with the Highway District staff, they tend to agree. That
goes to the commission as I said next week, but staff indicated to Mr. Funkhauser
earlier today who passed it on to me that they tend to agree. They are not sure they
want to have that connected there after all because of the increased amount of traffic.
Anderson: And they would already have the 297 trips now that people are going to the
club house now, so those people are already experiencing part of that,. and they are
going to get relief when the club house is moved to the new location.
Bradbury: Yeah, I guess that would be true. That's correct. I guess that's how people
get there today. You are going to find out that I don't golf.
Inaudible
Bradbury: I'm sorry? (Inaudible) That's right. Now one of the things that Mr.
Funkhauser pointed out is that by connecting it through, what you end up with is what
the traffic people call a continuous collector. There would a continuous collector from
Black Cat down to Cherry Lane, and that's something that the Highway District typically
tries to avoid. Because of the fact that it then becomes a route for people to use to cut
through in order to avoid intersections and having to go around and so the -apparently
the present day thinking is to have collector streets that go into the mile section but
don't connect directly on to other collector street going on through and they want to
have these discontinuous collectors. Mr. Funkhauser says that if you were to connect it
in, it would function as a continuous collector, but it isn't designed to actually properly
act as such. You know if you are asking for a prediction, I think the Highway District is
going to agree that it shouldn't be connected.
Anderson: is it a 47 foot wide road?
Meridian City Council .
March 3, 1998
Page 36
Bradbury: It's a 42 foot wide right-of-way with 37 feet improved.
Anderson: What's your turning radius in that cul-de-sac down there at the end of
Interlachen then?
Bradbury: I don't know, but Mr. Campbell says that he thinks it's 80 feet. Yeah, I
wonder if it doesn't show that on the blue line. I don't have that.
Inaudible
Anderson: Is that back at the sidewalk or the curb?
Bradbury: Let's see. I think that's going to be the right-of--way all the way back, so
that's going to be back to the back of sidewalk. That actually, yeah, it's going to take it
right to the property line.
Cowie: Anybody else have comments? I have three. Did you say the frontage on the
lots were fifty feet?
Bradbury: Fifty, right.
Cowie: Fifty feet by what?
Bradbury: Well, there's a whole bunch of numbers, and that's kind of the problem.
Each one of these lots is a little bit different size. For example, if you looked at lot -let's
just take the string 7,8,9 and 10. Because they are square and they are easy to work
with. Lot 7 is 59 foot of frontage. Lot 8 is 57. Lot 9 is 55. Lot 10 is 51. And you go over
to - if you want to get into these numbers over here, you've got on 42.through 45, they
range from 60 feet, 65 feet, 65 feet and another 60. There's a whole bunch of different
numbers and different sizes. Now there are also smaller ones. For example, let's look
at this triplex, I say triplex, I'm using the wrong terminology too. This three unit -the
three unit townhouse development there, those are all smaller lots, but it's going to be
one building, and they are all going to take access off that same spot. If you added up
the numbers on the frontage for - if you took each one of those frontages separately,
they are small, but add them up together and you are going to end up somewhere in the
neighborhood of 30 or 35 feet of frontage on that one. So it makes it really hard for me
to say that we are asking for a fifty foot frontage. I guess on average that's about what
we are ending up with. But each one of the lots is going to have a slightly different
amount of frontage: And that's why when I talk about asking for the exception, I'm
talking about the exception to allow frontages essentially as shown on the plat, and of
course as you go from preliminary to final, you find that there is little adjustments here
and there, but essentially that's what we are talking about.
Anderson: Does the parking still work out two cars. on these smaller lots?
Meridian City Council
March 3, 1998
Page 37
Bradbury: Yeah, each one of them would have a minimum of 18 feet between the
garage and the lot line. So that you would be able to get a car up two cars side by side
up on to the driveway.
Corrie: The other one is who is James G. Marshall? I got a letter to the Meridian City
Manager. Dear James G. Marshall.
Bradbury: Beats me. Did I write that letter?
Corrie: No, it was from Louis Steiner, but I was just curious if we've gone to the city
manager form of government and Mr. Marshall is here. I didn't
Bradbury: I don't know. I don't remember having seen the letter. Who wrote that?
Corrie: Mr. Louis Steiner.
Bradbury: We will be sure to give him a call.
Corrie: I think he was talking about Boise, but they don't have a city manager either.
Bradbury: They don't have a city manager either.
Corrie: My other question is has Steiner ever since Interlachen is the only way in to
that, have they thought about the entrance of Interlachen to do anything in the entrance
at all?
Bradbury: Down at Cherry Lane? The topic of conversation hasn't come up in front of
me, but I'd be more than happy to raise it with them.
Corrie: That's alt that I have at this time.
Bird: I have one. What the difference between a triplex and townhouses?
Bradbury: Well, the difference is - my definition.
Bird: I have a definition too, that's why I want you to -
Bradbury: Yeah, because I'm the-one who's been yammering about it. My definition is
the difference between a townhouse and a triplex is who owns it. A triplex or a duplex,
it's on one lot. One building on one lot. Two units owned by the same person, and
generally you live in one and rent one out. In a townhouse, on the other hand, it's really
like a zero lot line with a common wall. "t's one building with three separately owned
units with common walls on three separately owned lots.
Meridian City Council
March 3, 1998
Page 38
Bird: That's what I'm saying and in your five, six and seven the three people that own it
are nice, if they are not, you have a fight. There is no way you are going to get a car in
any one of those.
Bradbury: Yeah, I understand the problem. Let me show you something that maybe
will help you.
Bird: Then your lot sizes are going way down too on that.
Bradbury: We brought - in case this issue came up, let me pass this out. What's
coming down towards you there is a kind of a concept drawing of how access on to that
particular lot you are talking about might be handled. And what we would do is we
would create a common driveway at the entrance at the frontage of those lots, and the
way we'd handle that is we would include in the restrictive convenants and in the deeds
that would be supplied to these people a provision for a cross access so that it would be
-each owner would have a legal right the entirety of the common driveway as it enters
those three lots. And we've done a number of times, and have had reasonably good
success with it.
Bird: In putting those three parking spaces that we got back here, right?
Bradbury: Right. That's right.
Bird: (Inaudible)
Bradbury: Did I have the same definition as you?
Bird: Yes.
Bradbury: That worked out then.
Corrie: Any more questions? Mr. Rountree?
Rountree: List of amenities, you don't list the potential disamenities that might be
associated with this. You talk about pedestrian ways to the club house, but I see no
provisions for vehicular bridge across the lateral or drain so that's really not an amenity.
You don't discuss the potential options for golf course out buildings that might be built in
conjunction with the club house that might border these lots. That's not an amenity. In
your list of exceptions, you don't talk about tiling ditches, variances would be in order.
You don't talk about the potential buffering of adjacent subdivisions, ei. Probably Golf
View and to a lesser degree and probably not at all Cheny Lane Sub. 2. You block out
pedestrian access to the golf course from that part of the city. You have a pedestrian
gate on the pedestrian way, so folks that now access the golf course that live in the front
of that subdivision would have to go through the subdivision almost to your Lakes
Meridian City Council
March 3, 1998
Page 39
Subdivision that's being developed now back across to the golf course or out to Black
Cat and around. I don't see any provisions for those folks.
Campbell: Are you talking about driving or are you talking about walking?
Rountree: You can't even walk according to your plan. You have a pedestrian gate.
Prior: If he's going to testify, he is going to have to be sworn in.
Campbell: What gate are you looking at?
Rountree: I have the page 3 after tab 4, the one you referred to as the gate that shows a
five foot pedestrian gate on the five foot sidewalk. I guess that's just one side where
you are going to drop the sidewalk. The cart path it does show; but it's - I don't know
what you are going to do. Are you going to gate that like the other side?
Bradbury: No, I mean the intention is to provide an access - if there's a problem with
the detail, maybe I'm not reading it right, but the way I understand it is this is the path
that takes you up to the golf course.
Rountree: Well, you actually show a gate on the other side.
Bradbury: Agate over here.
Rountree: My question is why a gate there and not on the other side when we see this
in final form, you are going to say well we want to gate the entire community and we are
going to gate people out on the cart path and pedestrian way.
Bradbury: No, the intention -and if the drawings are creating a problem, then we will fix
those. The intention is to provide a route through -along the subdivision so that people
who live in the area can access the golf course. And if the gating scheme concerns
you, let us know.
Rountree: It has to be accessible to the rest of the community.
Bradbury: Sure. We don't have a problem. The theory here is not cut it off. The theory
here is to provide it. And if the - like I say, if the drawings are a problem or if there is a
- if you've got a gating scheme that you like better than this one, by all means just say
so.
Rountree: My last question or comment is that one of the requirements of approval of
the PUD 'is that they have an open space requirement and I don't see any open space
other than space that's going to be there by way of an easement that exists anyway.
You're asking the city to make exceptions for lot setbacks to accommodate an
Meridian City Council ` i
March 3, 1998
Page 40
easement that's already there so you can build a house on, but I don't see anything in
the subdivision that reflects that need for open space.
Bradbury: Actually the engineer calculated, and maybe if I'm -the area that would be
included as open and common area is the area that this pedestrian pathway is included,
and that's calculated out to be just over 8/10 of an acre. In addition, and the reason I
told you about the provision of the third of an acre that would be donated to the city, I
mean that includes another 15000 square feet or there about. If you take into account
all of that space, it far exceeds the ten percent requirement in the ordinance. Now, in
addition to that, when the Ashford Greens concept plan was approved, the city acquired
a fair amount of land from the owner of the property. I guess it was the Fullers. Is that
right? Fullers for the golf course, and at that time, I believe that the city had included in
the generalized open space requirement the land that was provided to the city for
purposes of expansion of the golf course. Now, this piece of property is now owned by
somebody different. But when originally approved and when the city accepted the
property and as set forth in the findings that were made back in 1994, that donated land
was intended to and does in fact serve as the city's requirement for open space as part
of the trade off. The trade off is -you can provide theoretically I suppose you could
provide the ten percent open space in a privately owned property which would be
owned and maintained and used by the residents of the subdivision or you make it
public property, and in this case, public property was provided the city, and it's now
public property and being used as such. It seems to me that if the council at this point
in time is going to disregard what was previously required and previously provided, I
think that the city would be in essence reneging on an agreement already made.
Rountree: I don't believe there was an agreement made with this particular developer,
but that's okay. My last question, is this particular development as I believe the original
development, and maybe Gary you can correct me if I'm wrong, but were these lot
numbers calculated in the lots that would be assessed a fee towards the pay off of the
golf course improvement and maybe you can't, Steve, answer that, but Gary might be
able to.
Bradbury: I don't know that answer to that one.
DOUG CAMPBELL 2638 N. TURNBERRY WAY WAS SWORN BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY.
Campbell: This particular project will be included in the $640 fee that's currently being
charged on every lot out in that general area.
(End of Tape)
Corrip: Any further questions of Mr. Bradbury?
Rountree: Not at this time.
Meridian City Council , •
March 3, 1998
Page 41
Bradbury: Thank you very much.
Corrie: Someone else from the public would like to enter testimony in this request?
LARRY ASTLEY 2129 TURNBERRY CIRCLE WAS SWORN BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY.
Astley: I live in Cheny Lane Goff Course. I live adjacent the number one hole, fairway.
My concems in this matter are basically two fold. Looking at the proposed development
in my opinion affects what I feel is - or in my opinion, the density and the layout of this
development affects in my opinion the aesthetic value of the golf course. And also you
know in some ways could affect property values. I guess that's all I have to say.
Corrie: Okay, thank you. Anyone else from the public would like to testify.
JOE STAFFORD 4192 W. PLUMROSE STREET WAS SWORN BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY.
Joe Stafford: I'm here tonight to talk about some of the problems that I see with the
project. I've kind of listened to what the developer's requesting and the variances that
he is requesting including the density issue through the PUD. Presently I'm understand
the property is zoned R-4. Where I live is in Golf View Subdivision directly south of this
project. Our property is 18,000 square feet is our lot, and it is contiguous and touches
this property to the north. Some of the concems I have in just listening and you know
talking about the ten foot back yard to the houses and to the property to the south, but
it's really not a ten foot back yard because there's an easement there. A ditch which
presently is there. That ditch belongs -the property on that ditch belongs to us. We
pay taxes on it. It's assessed in our lot. It was purchased with our lot.. There is a ditch
easement there -they have a right to use that, but that is our property. Our property we
touch that and so effectively we're getting a ten foot away from our property line. A ten
foot back yard for someone to use. The other concern I have is in this area part of the
statements were made that this is conducive to the area, that it fits the area. And in
nowhere in this immediate area of Golf View, Cherry Lane right next to this area are
there the small lots. There are duplex lots directly to the east of this property. I've been
over there, know people there. They have much more than a ten foot back yard. They
have much more setback than is required by this, so I have some concerns with that.
The other thing, the neighborhood is pretty conducive to families, the golf course, using
the golf course, and that type of area. He brings out that there's a 3909 square foot lot.
If you take a 1304 square foot home, and add a 400 square foot garage, you are at
1700 square foot on 3900 square foot lot. That's a 44% use not counting any side yard,
sidewalk, driveway. Not counting any of those things. 44% land use on that. That is
not conducive to that area, absolutely not. And one reason I think he applied- under a
PUD which is common to get a higher density in an area zoned for less density. And so
I'm kind of objecting to that. The 5.6 units per acre is not common in that area. Our
Meridian City Council
March 3, 1998
Page 42
house is about 2700 square feet. The neighbors is 3300 square feet. Our land use is
20% of our property. Our home is about 20% of our property. That includes the
garages. I think the neighbors is maybe 22%. That's kind of what's .common in that
area. The other thing I wahted to bring out if they are doing - if this is so conducive
and this is a family area, the golf course where all our kids play golf and that what not. I
mean we have a trampoline in the back yard. We have six bicycles. We have all these
things that we use as a family. On lots that are taking 44% land use or building use, I'm
objecting to that saying they don't have room to use any of that area. I think the other
thing I want to bring out real quick and I know my time's limited is the lot width. All the
lot widths are very small. It's not conducive to good community flow. They are closing
off the area, that's presently an open area. They are asking for private streets. All the
subdivisions that border this property all have two sidewalks, curbing gutter. They are
asking for one side. We all have 20 foot setbacks on the front. They are asking for 15.
And we all have to go by the city requirements for our setbacks on the side yards. So I
think that is all I have. Is there any questions?
Corrie: Thank you very much. Anyone else wish to testify?
JACKIE STAFFORD 4192 W. PLUMROSE WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
Jackie Stafford: I'm pretty much - my husband just talked just a second ago. My
biggest concern is the density of what they are going to be putting over there. We have
four children, and trying to keep four children in a big huge yard is hard enough. I mean
we even have the commonary where the kids go play, bike, you know down on the path
and stuff. My concern with cutting down, chipping away their yards the way they want
to, where are the kids going to be. Usually when you have apartments or anything like
that a lot of times they will have tennis courts or basketball courts or something for them
to go and just kind of release some of their energy. The other concern that I have is the
traffic flow on Interl~chen. Not only does Cheny Lane use that Interlachen, but Golf
View does too. A lot of our neighbors - we come up from the side, and go out Cherry
Lane instead of going Summer Tree where we are probably suppose to. But it's a short
cut. So I think they are disregarding that traffic flow besides the one that's in Cheny
Lane. So that's pretty much it.
Corrie: Okay, thank you. Any questions? Anyone else would like to testify?
Prior: I've been advised not to swear this particular person in.
WAYNE CROOKSTON 2125 TURNBERRY WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
Crookston: I might. As many of you know I live on the golf course. I live right off of
number one fairway, what is now the number one. I don't know how they are
designating it now. EvFntually it will be the number eighteen fairway. And I li~~e within
300 feet of this proposal. I did not get notice when this was initially done by Brighton
Corporation, so I can't say that I did actually know about it. I can't actually say that I did
Meridian City Council ~ i
March 3, 1998
Page 43
not know about it, because I was presiding as the City Attorney when that was
presented. However, at that time, this area of the property was not being presented to
be developed at the time. It was part of what they called the medium density portion of
the property. The City Council at the time did allow the single family dwelling units that
Council presented some things that had to go about that. I would refer to as far as my
concem, I would refer to the Comprehensive Plan that says that these lots are suppose
to be compatible in section 1.13U of the housing section of the Comprehensive Plan it
says infilling of random vacant lots in substantially developed single family areas should
be considered at densities similar to surrounding development. Well, surrounding
development is where I live, where Mr. Astley lives, and the people that live over in Golf
View. Those are not on average 50 X 85 square foot lots. I have approximately at least
a quarter to a third of an acre. Mr. Astley has a larger lot than I have. Mr. Stafford, he
testified that he has approximately I think he said 16000 square feet. So the lots around
this are substantially larger than they are proposing. The concem that I have is that on
that size of lot, you cannot build a house that is of the same property value as the ones
that I'm referencing. The City Council at the time did consider the medium density
parcels of ground, but they did state that Mr. Wardle presented Brighton's application at
the time in the findings of facts it says Mr. Wardle further stated that they were aware
that the PDR approval for the medium density parcels must be conditioned on a future
submittal of specific design plans which would address access roadways, parking, open
space, landscaping, and other matters. In September 13, 1994 public hearing Mr.
Wardle stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission can require the medium
density to come back before it. I think that when you present the medium density and
the planned unit development type idea, you have to consider also what the
comprehensive plan says. You are suppose to have compatible surroundings to what is
there, and what is compatible to me is not a 85 x 50 foot lot. The other thing that I have
is that there is the concept about Interlachen connecting to Dawson. And I well
understand the reason why people may not want that to be connected. People that live
along Interlachen may not want that. That, however, is something that the previous City
Council said. had to be done. I have no objection to Interlachen not being connected to
Dawson, but what was done previously the City Council wanted it connected. So that's
something that you have to consider. As I said in my mind, the lots are too small. They
are not R-4 lots. They are not even close to R-4 lots, and they are not close to the size
of lot that I have or Mr. Astley has, and the people in Golf mew have. Some of the
things that were addressed by the City Council at the time this was being developed by
Brighton Corporation, there was a statement that said, "Prior to any development of the
medium density parcels, the developer shall submit a detailed application and site plan
for review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council."
Certainly this is a proposal that does that. But this is the first time that I've ever seen
this application for the development of that property. Then the City Council also said,
"The City reserves the right to place appropriate conditions on the medium density
areas in accordance with ordinance requirements, including but not limited to streets,
pedestrian walkways, planning and resen~e strips, public sites and open spaces, lineal
open space corridors, pedestrian and bike paths." It mentions piping of ditches,
pressurized irrigation. It says access parking, landscaping and screening. I don't see
Meridian City Council
March 3, 1998
Page 44
that that's been addressed in this application, so I have a problem with that also. So
that's basically my position is that I don't think that these lots are compatible to the
surrounding area, and I don't think that this proposal should be approved. If you have
any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
Corrie: Question Council?
Crookston: Beg your pardon? I guess I can talk to you later about that. I can tell you
the story about my hand. But -
Corrie: We're not interested in that.
Crookston: It probably should be stated that this is a public hearing. Thank you.
Corrie: Anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony in this request?
GORDON MARGULIEUX 2420 INTERLACHEN WAS SWORN BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY.
Margulieux: I need to congratulate or thank the developer because he's very open. I
testified at the Planning and Zoning Commission. Some of the things I had mentioned,
they actually had addressed. Particularly the sewer easement area behind the first
through fourth lot, because at that time, it was still on those lots, and they have
addressed that. I appreciate that. I am still concerned about the size of the lots. My lot,
which I'm in Cherry Lane ~Ilage 1, Lot 3 which is twenty eight feet from where this
proposed path is, and my lot which is an irregular is actually 13000 square feet, but the
adjoining lots around there are roughly running about 8000 square feet. So this is
smaller, and I am not saying that their aiming at different people, different - in a gated
area -and what they are proposing, and it looks really good considering that it will be
developed sooner or later. This doesn't look too terribly bad. I do like the fact that it is
closed, and as Steve pointed out, I do live on Interlachen, and I would not be happy to
have a through street with more traffic over there. I've sort of like their concept to that
extent. Other concerns I have is this easement that goes through that's going to be a
pathway. I'm not sure how to address it because it's a private section. It's would be
taken care of by the homeowners association, which hasn't been defined yet, but it will
be. But it's wider than this room. And there is no parks very close. And there is going
to be a nice smooth pathway through there where kids on skateboards are going to be
skateboarding, and things are going to be going on over there, and it's not lit. There's a
street light down at the - if I can borrow this -there will be a street light right here which
will light some of this path, but nothing down here. We have some problems with kids in
our neighborhood that like to drink and smoke, and they like dark areas to do it in. And
there was some question as to whether or not because at the time when I mentioned it,
they said well maybe this will be gated. Bvt timed so that at night it would close and
people couldn't get in. But this wouldn't be gated on the other side. One of the families
that we constantly see smoking and drinking are right on this comer this house, and
Meridian City Council , •
March 3, 1998
Page 45
they have a two and a half foot fence. Very easy to hop over and just sit there. If
possible some of the things that could be done, is maybe put a street light somewhere
at the end of that. Right now they don't go back there because Wally has a big post
with a big light on it, and the police patrol that, and I'm not sure how they are going to
patrol it if they can't turn around. There is going to be a path down there. I'm not sure
how they are going to turn around. So they might not patrol it. So my concern is that
we go going to have a park back there that you are going to see a lot more activity
because there is no open area for kids to play over there. Medium size density it was
mentioned. Again, a fot is important. When they talked about medium size density and
they talked about eight houses per acre with Ashford Greens, they were talking about
multi family dwellings. And these are single family dwellings. So we are not talking
about the same thing even though we've cut it back to 5'/Z houses per acre, it's not
quite the same thing. The other one is - well I guess that's about it. I went through
them real fast. Any questions? Thank you.
Corrie: Anyone else from the public would like to speak? Okay. Steve do you want to
answer any questions that have come up?
Bradbury: I was asking the gentleman who testified and I'm sorry, I missed his name,
Stafford, and I was asking him which lot he was living in. He pointed to this lot right
here. Just so there's no confusion, the lots that would be immediately adjacent to his lot
and the others in Golf View would have the standard R-15 rear yard, excuse me
standard R~ rear yard setback. The reduction that we are asking for in the rear yard
setbacks are the ones over here next to this gentleman's lot, which has also then has
the twenty foot sewer easement next to it, so they actually have that separation, so we
are not talking about a reduced setback next these folks, and of course those folks in
Golf View are separated from this project by the canal, which according to the map, and
I am going to assume it's correct, is shown on there property, and so there is a fairly
good sized separa~on, and a matter of fact you call it I guess maybe a manmade
feature, but there is a geographical feature that separates these two parcels of property
in addition to the distance. So I just wanted to make sure that there wasn't any
confusion about that, because we are not asking for a reduction in the setback in that
location. I guess maybe the thing that I wanted to address primarily was this concept of
compatibility and how it is that smaller lots are incompatible with larger lots, and maybe
I just don't understand it, so that I can't express it particularly well. But I don't
understand it. Because it seems to me that when you are talking about compatibility,
you know land use in the land use context, you are talking about compatibility of uses.
That is the reason we have zoning is to keep industrial uses, you know where they are
going to be banging out car parts separate from residential uses, as opposed to
residential uses separate from residential uses. So in terms of the use compatibility we
are talking residential in a residential. Now when you talk about the lots, what you are
really talking about is how much space somebody is going to have between them and
somebody else, bottom line I guess just how much dirt is oat there. The reality is and I
thinK you all know this, not everybody wants a third of an acre, or a quarter of an acre,
or even 8000 square feet. Some people don't want to have all that ground to take care
Meridian City Council i `
March 3, 1998
Page 46
of. And they'd like to have something a little bit less. And so what Mr. Steiner is
attempting to do is he is attempting to provide that opportunity and that variety in this
vicinity as is being provided in other areas in well, heck right here. Right down the
street where there are smaller lots. Right immediately adjacent to the same piece of
property. I you take the logic that Mr. Crookston wants you to follow, if you start out with
one 8000 square foot lot in a mile section, you have and in order to be compatible
according to Mr. Crookston, everything that touches that 8000 square foot lot has to be
8000 square feet. And so you go the first lot and everything around that has to be 8000
square feet, let's assume it's square so now you've got five, all 8000 square feet. And
everything that touches those five has to be 8000 square feet. Pretty soon, all you have
got is a mile of 8000 square foot lots. And I don't think that's what the City envisions. 1
don't think that's what the City wants, and I don't think you should want it. I think what
you should want to do is you should want to provide for a variety of uses, the variety of
sizes, something that presents a little .bit of interest in the community. Something that
presents a little bit different living arrangement and lifestyle so you don't have this sea of
8000 square foot cookie cutter lots. I don't think - I have been coming out here for five
or six years, talking to you folks about subdivision developments, and I've heard you
talk about at one time or another about not having every subdivision look like every
other subdivision. And it seems to me that you shouldn't expect every piece of property
to be made up of 8000 square foot lots or larger. I think you need to provide different
types of opportunities for people who have different types of lifestyles and like to -some
who like to mow lawns and some who don't. And of course Mr. Crookston and first
gentleman who testified they are a little more remote from this. I just I kind imagine it is
going to effect how they live, and their lifestyle or their property values.. I think the
suggestion is nothing but a suggestion, and I don't think you have been given any real
evidence to support that proposition. What else did I miss that you folks would be
interested in hearing about?
Corrie: If you should get the approval, where is the present club house going to go?
Bradbury: It's my understanding that you've got a site selected.
Corrie: What if he doesn't put it up yet?
Bradbury: Well-
Corrie: I know it's a one ended - I probably shouldn't ask you that -
Bradbury: I have had the idea that you folks have -have those plans made, and if
that's not the case, then if we need to make some arrangements and work something
out, I think we ought to sit down and do it. Because I know, I've worked with Mr. Steiner
long enough, I know he's not interested in making things any harder than they need to
be. And I know that he is going to want to work with you folk ~ to see to it that things
work io the best to everyone's best interests.
Meridian City Council
March 3, 1998
Page 47
Corrie: The reason I made the statement is I suggest you bring the chairs.
Bradbury: Okay, how many do you want?
Corrie: Probably a lot of them. Any questions?
Bradbury: Thank you very much.
Corrie: Council, any further discussion.
Rountree: I guess my point on the application and what I see and the issue of
compatibility if that's the appropriate word, is that it seems like there wasn't a whole lot
of consideration to either the type of home or the design of the homes that are adjacent
to this and I'll cite a specific example where we have had this happen in the past and
what the remedy was. It's something very similar to this happen in Meridian Greens.
Only it was an R~ against an Rte. We had a subdivision with large lots, specific
architectural types, specific kinds of roofs. The people in that subdivision objected. to a
R-4 subdivision adjacent to them that had a lesser standard, smaller lots, asphalt
singled roofs, those kinds of things. The remedy is the remedy that we have in our
some of our ordinance language and our comp. Plan as a buffer. There was a portion
of that subdivision that had to have cedar shake shingles. They had to meet a certain
size lot, and they had to meet a certain square footage. The rest of the subdivision as it
progressed out, became what the developers originally proposed. I would like to see
some consideration given to that concept in this development. I'm not opposed to the
medium density. I was on Planning and Zoning when it came through Planning and
Zoning. But we did want specifics and we did want to make sure that the neighborhood
considerations and the existing features out there were considered. That's why we
wanted specific plans brought for consideration of medium density. I guess that is the
point I would make in discussion. Anybody else can talk about that or you can close the
hearing and we can go forth.
Corrie: Anybody else want to call anybody? At this time I will close the public hearing,
and ask any further discussion.
Bentley: I agree with Charlie. That was one of my concerns when I viewed this project,
and 1 agree with Mr. Bradbury on the fact, and we do not want all subdivisions to mirror
each other and look the same, but the same token, we've got open ground butting up to
these people's property, and I think we need to have some transition housing that are
similar in statute and size to what is there, and then as the project proceeds, you can go
in with the smaller homes, because there is people that don't want a lot of yard. They
want the ability to just run around with a mower and go play golf. And some day I'll
probably be right there with them. I don't know how good the golf will be, and that is the
basic problem I have too. I think we got to give some consideration to the surrounding
area. Thank you.
MERIDIAN CI'I'Y C~CII,
APRIL 21, 1998
PAGE 2
because Bob didn't mention that but the stations that were done by the various
cities we had the best station and we were notified of that by the Boise people, to
me it was even more of interest we were told that in a formal meeting with the
German (inaudible) Government so I thought that was really good that we shone
for our city.
Smith: Malcolm was really correct in that the award is for the volunteers, there
were just an untold number of volunteers that made that partnership successful.
MacCoy: We couldn't have done it without them.
Corrie: Thank you very much.
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD APRIL 7, 1998:
Corrie: Council you have the minutes of the previous meeting held April 7, 1998,
are there any corrections or alterations to those minutes?
Bird, Bentley, Rountree: None.
Bird: I'll make a motion we accept the minutes of the April 7th meeting.
Rountree: Second.
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bird, second by Mr. Rountree that we accept the
minutes of the April 7th meeting. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM #1: TABLED MARCH 17, 1996: FINDINGS OF FACTS AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE
N0. 1 BY STEINER CORPORATION:
Corrie: I believe that Council we had a -supposed to meet with these people.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor for the record we need to point out that City Attorney
Crookston has stepped down due to a conflict of interest.
Corrie: Do we have the other attorney here tonight?
Bentley: No we do not.
Corrie: Okay, I don't think we'll need him.
MERIDIAN CITY C~CIL
APRIL 21, 1998 -
PAGE 3
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, a meeting was scheduled for our last Council meeting with
Steiner Development, we sat with them and explained some of the language in
the conditional use permit, some of the desires that we were looking for in terms
of access to certain lots, reduction to the number of lots in the area that bordered
Golfview Estates, also some design. details that will be included with the CC&R's
for adjacent properties to abutting neighborhoods. Since that meeting within the
last couple of days I have received and I believe the other councilmen have
received a proposed re-plat showing some of the changes that they've come up
with since our meeting. In talking to City Engineer Smith prior to our meeting he
apparently has not seen this plat so given that if there isn't any further discussion
or questions I would move that we table items #1 and #2 till our next regularly
scheduled meeting in May which would be May 5~h for the Finding and Facts and
the preliminary plat for the Villas at the Lakes Subdivision.
Bird: 1'll second that.
Corrie: Okay, the motion has been made by Mr. Rountree and seconded by Mr.
Bird that we table items #1 and #2 till the May 5~' meeting, are there any further
discussions on those two items?
Bentley: The question I have is if it's going to appear that we're going to have
substantial changes to this to where it would possibly need to go back to P & Z,
do we need to wait to make that decision until we hear from staff or is time not a
problem on this one?
Corrie: Gary, are they -Shari are the changes substantial or are they just minor
or just re-drawing of the plat or does it require a second hearing for the planning
and zoning?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council I think what some of the things staff had requested
would have required substantial changes, however after the meetings that were
held and the changes that have been made I wouldn't consider those to be
substantial.
Corrie: Gary do you have any comment?
Smith: No, I don't have any comment Mayor.
Bentley: That answered my question, thank you.
Corrie: Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
Meridian City Cot •
May 5, 1998
Page 2
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion we accept the minutes as written.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Anderson, second by Mr. Bird that we accept the
minutes as written of the joint city council rural fire district meeting held April the
14~'. All those in favor of the motion, say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
Corrie: I'd like to welcome the scouts here tonight from troop 30 in Meridian.
Welcome fellows, and hope we can give you some highlights on city council
here.
ITEM NO. 1: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR
THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION -NORTHWEST OF CHERRY
LANE VILLAGE NO. 1 BY STEINER CORPORATION.
Corrie: Council, is there any discussion on this tabled item?
Crookston: Mr. Mayor, I have declared a conflict of interest on this. I will step
down.
Bentley: Mr. Crookston, before you depart, I need to ask did you author these
findings?
Crookston: No, I did not.
Bentley: Thank you.
Rountree: Just to get some discussion going on this item and item number two,
tabled preliminary plat for the same subdivision. We had met individually with the
developer on this particular issue, have discussed some changes in the
preliminary plat that would reflect, need some changes in the findings of facts. I
understand by letters that I have received and phone calls and information that's
been received by the city, that there are a number of individuals that would like to
see what the changes are in this preliminary plat. Being that we had not taken
action on the public hearing even though we did close the public hearing, I would
suggest that we consider either moving this back to P & Z for hearing or
rehearing before the city council.
Meridian City Coti*1 •
May 5, 1998
Page 3
Bird: I concur with Charlie. I think that some people would like to have a clearer
deal of what the changes were. I feel comfortable with them, but I think that
some of the other people aren't.
Bentley: I would agree that it needs to go back.
Anderson: I'd like to see it go back to P & Z and go through the process again.
Corrie: Okay, if that's what the conclusion is of the council, I'll entertain a motion
to that effect on items one and two. If that is the council's pleasure.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that we move items one and two tabled April 21St
related to findings of fact and conclusions of law for a conditional use permit for a
planned unit development for ~Ilas at the Lakes Subdivision northwest of Cherry
Lane be reheard before planning and zoning with the amended plat and that be
scheduled at the earliest possible date for planning and zoning.
Bentley: Second.
Cowie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree and second by Mr. Bentley to refer back to
planning and zoning for the earliest public meeting on the agenda of the planning
and zoning. Any further discussion?
Rountree: I believe the information that we have received from the public
desiring information and expressing some concerns about this should made
available to the applicant so they can take that into consideration in the next
hearing.
Cowie: Okay, we'll do that. Any further discussion?
Berg: Since the attorney is not hereon this issue, Charlie is your motion desire
to go through the whole process of two public hearings? One before P & Z and
one before City Council, or would you like the recommendation of the P & Z after
the hearing is done? Why I say this is it should be pretty clear what they are
going to do, just have one hearing or go through the whole process again.
Rountree: I didn't know there was an option. I'm thinking it goes to planning and
zoning and comes back to us with their recommendations. That was my intent.
Corrie: They have to have another public hearing, yes.
Inaudible.
Rountree: Either that -- as far as discussion could we -we've closed the
hearing. By motion can we remand it back to P & Z and request them to reopen
Meridian City Cou;~
May 5, 1998
Page 4
their hearing, and then when they are done, come back to us and reopen our
hearing.
Corrie: We can do that if that's your desire, yes. It's going through the process
again is what you're doing.
Rountree: Well, I see some structure difference from just what the applicant has
to do.
Corrie: The way I understand it, you want to at least let the public have another
crack at this.
Rountree: Yes.
Berg: Just a comment. You've heard the application. You've made some
comments. He's willing to make some changes. You want the public to have
more input on those changes, but you are not totally rejecting the project.
Rountree: Correct.
Berg: So that's not really going through the whole application process with him
reapplying, but you are just going through the public hearing process to make
sure the public get the input.
Rountree: Correct.
Berg: Okay, I think that's what the intent was.
Corrie: Just for my clarification. They are changing some changes on the plat as
well, So they are going to have to address that at planning and zoning as well.
Rountree: My motion included both items one and two, which is the findings as
well as the plat.
Corrie: Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion, say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
Corrie: I'll make sure planning and zoning gets that same word.
Rountree: That Mr. Campbell get that information.
Corrie: I will see that he gets that too.
~ ~
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 6
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 3: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TABLES AND CHAIRS FOR OUTSIDE SEATING
BY WILD WEST BAKERY - 611 E. 1sT:
Smith: Mr. Chairman, just to make a matter of public record. I don't have any problem
with this, but the chairs and tables already are out on the sidewalk.
De Weerd: They were before we even heard this. Mr. Chairman, I would move the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
Nelson: Second.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup, aye. Smith, aye. De Weerd, aye. Nelson, aye.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the conditional
use permit for outside seating with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law and all of the ordinances of the City of Meridian.
Borup: Second.
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM N0.4: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT:
De Weerd: Mr. Bradbury are you up there? You're up.
Prior: Actually Commissioner -
De Weerd: Oh, we're doing Findings. Sorry.
Prior: Sit down Steve.
De Weerd: I'm trying to really rush to number five.
Prior: Me too.
f
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 7
Smith: Page 28 of the Findings, the staffs comments, requirements, did we have a
page 28, item 9 did we get a letter from the school district? And then same question
has to do with item 16, it says provide detail pedestrian walkway, golf cart access, my
question is when is that suppose to be submitted prior to City Council action, after,
now? And then item 14, a maintenance building or approved area will be provided for a
suitable services required for the repair and maintenance of all common areas. And I
don't recall that there was a maintenance building area proposed for this development.
I guess item 14 - 14 is probably the most concerning to me.
Stiles: Commissioners on item 14 that was a staff requirement that we requested. This
project did come before you previously. It was recommended for approval to the City
Council. It went to the City Council for a second public hearing and some of the
neighbors were upset and wanted it to be reheard by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. That's why it came back before you. They have made some
modifications. There are some errors on some of the information that they have
included on this plat. They haven't met all the requirements of our initial comments, but
I don't know if you want to approve this or make any kind of recommendation for
approval on this with the errors or I'm not even sure if this is the most recent one that I
have. The one I have is dated June 8th, '98; is that what you have? Is that what you're
looking at?
Smith: I didn't get anything since the last meeting.
Stiles: You wouldn't have had anything new.
Smith: But I guess that leads into my terse comments at the start of the meeting
regarding why this is even on the agenda if we haven't got a corrected plat. But we're
not on the plat. I realize that. We're on the Findings, but I don't want to throw a wrench
in the works here. I don't want this thing coming back from City Council for starters,-and
I don't want to approve Findings if we are going to have them - if that's going to cause
us problems getting the plat moved through. But I know the plat hasn't - we haven't
seen anything that's responded to the comments. I think there was a couple of
questions on common lots and the plat didn't reflect that, and it should have been
resubmitted before we push it on to City Council, so I don't -and then these things that
are in the Findings, I don't remember ever discussing a maintenance building. I didn't
see a letter from the school district. Well the fire department, we get the comments, but
the school district I didn't see aletter - I don't recall seeing a letter of approval. I'm not
saying I didn't get it. I just don't recall it. Then I want to know when specifically so we
can make it matter of public record, when they are suppose to provide a detail of the
pedestrian walkway, golf cart access. I guess this is a question for the attorney or the
chairman. Should we -what should we do on item four so it doesn't adversely affect
what we do on item five?
• •
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 8
MacCoy: I think you can make as you have had statements which I think are apropos.
Staff can give us some guidance as to when we're going to see material, and I still don't
like to move anything - in fact we will not move things forward to the council until we
actually see the facts. We could go ahead and make the approval of this with no -
Smith: Would this move the conditional use permit to the City Council prior to us
approving the preliminary plat though?
Stiles: Commissioners if you approve this conditional use permit we will be required to
go ahead and notice it for presentation to the city council without the plat if you don't
approve the plat at the same time.
MacCoy: Okay then if we table it we have it in our hands, right? That's the only
condition we have.
Stiles: Yes.
Smith: Then I'm mind set to table because I'm not going to forward on the plat.
Prior: Mr. Chairman, we've heard one commissioner's views on this, and I think it's
important that you hear what the other commissioners have to say.
MacCoy: You heard what we just finished saying here about the fact that table versus
moving it, and we don't want the thing in the council's hands without having all the I's
dotted, so do you have any comment the fact we table this?
Prior: That's entirely up to you. If you want to table consideration of the Findings until a
later time, my preference is you table until a date certain to allow the applicant to
provide the information that you request. I think it's important thought that Mr. Bradbury
and the applicant are back there. I think it's important that you state to them exactly the
reason why you are tabling it and what information specifically you want for the
applicant to provide. I'm a little uncertain as to what exactly they want, and I see Mr.
Bradbury in agreement. Commissioner, if you would express exactly what you want him
to do, I think that would be helpful.
Smith: Okay, item 14, the maintenance building, it either needs to come off the
Findings or it needs to be incorporated on to the plat. I'd like a date certain when the
detail of the pedestrian walkway golf cart access is suppose to be provided, and staff
asked for it for a reason. I'm sure they don't want it after it's already built. So
clarification on that. The school district's letters are pretty standard, and I'm not so
uptight about that, but if it's in the Findings as needing to be provided, then as we've
been told over the last month and it's not a -this is not directed at Steiner Development
and Mr. Bradbury at alt, but past applicants haven't incorporated the information we've
•
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 9
asked them to provide on their submittals before or after they've gone to city council,
and they've fallen through the cracks and not been done. So specifically because I
don't want -personally and I'm not speaking for the whole commission, personally I
don't want to the Findings on without the plat to the city. And the reason I'm not in a
position to send the plat on to the city is because of these conflicts with the Findings
and with -there was a couple of items and I don't have the minutes in front of me, but
there was a couple of items that needed to be corrected on the plat and we have not
received that. We don't have that as part of our packet and so it hasn't been done. I
can't forward that on either.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I guess it raises the issue if we have complete information
packets and the items that we asked for the time before if they were also provided and
what we have prior to this meeting, we wouldn't be in this situation. We would have that
information even though the plat follows this discussion, we would already have had a
chance to view it and be able to make some logical choices here. My concern is
number 14 was not discussed at all at our last meeting. It wasn't raised as an issue by
staff. I didn't even see it in the minutes that I read of prior meetings of this building
being an issue. So that building came out of the blue.
MacCoy: It was discussed and I see it's written because that's off a tape on all the past
documents, so I agree with Commissioner Smith that since it's in the documentation as
we see it presently it better be ready to go forward all the documents present to this
council. Otherwise we should not be releasing that, but that's your decision.
Nelson: Mr. Chairman, I would support Commissioner Smith's option to table this. In
the essence of not avoiding other -wasting people's time here.
Borup: I think we already -we've been given pretty good guidance from city council.
It's already come back once. If at the very least if staff would have received the plat and
had a chance to review it, I'd feel more comfortable in this case staff has not received it.
And we certainly haven't. I don't know how we can do anything else. Again city council
has been pretty clear on what they want.
MacCoy: We are asking to approve the Findings of Fact number one.
Borup: Right, but I think they go hand in hand enough, and I don't know what it
accomplishes to forward the Findings without the plat.
MacCoy: All right.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, then at this time I would make a motion that we table this item
until our September 8th meeting.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 10
Bradbury: My name is Steve Bradbury. I'm representing Steiner Development. I
understand your frustration and believe me we're just as frustrated. We've never seen
your Findings. We don't know what's in front of you. So, I'm at a complete loss to be
able to respond to the questions that are contained in a document that we don't have.
In listening to your conversation, you are struggling with respect to a maintenance
building. My understanding is the initial staff report suggested under the typical PUD
requirements that provisions should be made for a maintenance building. We explained
to you in the original public hearing some months ago and in the most recent public
hearing that there is no maintenance building. There is no provision for a maintenance
building because all the maintenance will be contracted by a third party provider. So it
seems to me that if the maintenance building is an issue as a condition to leave it from
the Findings because we don't propose one and I don't think you folks ever required
one. I think it's just a hold over from a previous staff report. With respect to the
pedestrian access and golf course detail, when we met a month ago, the discussion
was to my recollection that that would be a matter that would be provided before the
council approved the final plat. It would be handled as a staff review detail. And so if
what we're looking for is a date certain, let's put it on at the point of the final plat. With
respect to the corrections needed for the preliminary plat, I guess perhaps we dropped
the ball there, but I got to tell you I don't know where. And part of what we were hoping
to have happen is that the Findings would be adopted so that we could prepare you a
preliminary plat that complies with the conditions of approval that you impose on the
conditional use permit. Otherwise we're guessing, and I know you guys are tired of
hearing us guess and believe me we're tired of guessing, and that's kind of the chicken
and egg problem that I think we maybe getting ourselves into. If you tell us what you
want, believe me, we'll get it to you, and we haven't been yet told what you want. I think
the process that the city attorney is suggesting is that the conditional use permit
Findings is the process by which you tell us what you want.
MacCoy: Hold it right there. Let me ask the question of the staff. Everything that we've
talked about, do you have any comments right now?
Stiles: Commissioners staff was at a loss to know how to react to this going back to the
Planning and Zoning Commission because the changes were really negotiated at City
Council level, then sent back because of the opposition from the neighbors and they
wanted the opportunity to review the revised plat and speak to those concerns at a
public hearing. Probably what need:: to happen on this plat because there are some
obvious errors on the plat, I'm not sure that the public would know what they're looking
at if they did see this plat. It refers tc~ six duplex lots that are two of them are
immediately adjacent to the people that were having problems with the duplexes and it
also refers to three triplex lots one of which I don't even see on the plat. My concern is
approving something that's not correct. It maybe that we need to revise our comments,
and if this is the latest version, --
• •
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 11
MacCoy: What's your date?
Stiles: I have June Stn '98
Bradbury: Mr. Chairman, when we were here last month,. we provided you with a
revised plat dated July 10, '98. That's the one I've got.
Stiles: Staff does not have any copies of the revised plat.
Bradbury: Ms. Stiles was not here, and I remember handing one to Mr. Freckleton that
night as well as all of you.
Stiles: It's almost impossible to comment on something that's handed to you the night
of the meeting.
De Weerd: I might share a couple of things here. This commission is fairly new. We're
evolving, and we're finding out that if what we forward to city council is not complete
we're getting it back. That doesn't dc~ you any good and it certainly is overcrowding our
agenda. So we need to be consciern:,e what we send forward is going to be complete,
and this is all a learning process as the newest member for me especially. What my
notes have of last meeting is that we needed resolution on the pressure sewer main, on
the common lots. One was made common. The other one had it as an easement. We
requested that that have a common I ~t as well. We wanted specific notation on setback
variances, and where they were required, how many would be required. We would like
to see a landscape plan on the pathwray. We wanted to know how many lots met the R-
4 requirements and how many didn't. We wanted to know about the fencing in the front
and also about the existing road and :how it's not in line with the proposed road. And I
believe those were the issues that I noted that we thought we would see at this meeting
before this meeting, and if that's of any assistance there you go.
MacCoy: Does the applicant ever receive the Findings of Fact prior to this meeting?
They are available to him? Okay, by what type of -here's meeting on Tuesday night,
do they (inaudible).
Berg: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, we prepare the packets on Friday.
At that time we call each applicant, and if we can't get a hold of them Friday, we call
them Monday saying the packets are prepared. If we get the Findings in at a later time
from that Friday, we call them and say we now have the Findings or what other
documents that we may have, but we call the applicants and let them know that they are
on the agenda and their packets are ready. Sometimes we fax it to them. Sometimes
they come pick them up.
MacCoy: Anymore comments from staff?
• •
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 12
De Weerd: Do you have a letter from the school district?
Bradbury: No. As a matter of course a letter from the school district comes out. I don't
recall - I mean I don't recall if there has been something more than what is typically
sent, their form letter is generally not very helpful. Could I inquire Ms. De Weerd? I'm
recalling several of these issues that you've raised except the pressure sewer main. I
don't remember what the issue with respect to that was.
De Weerd: I'm sure Bruce can help you with that.
Freckleton: Commissioner De Weerd, members of the commission, the issue with the
pressure sewer main was that the easement that you have shown along the southeast I
believe needed to be a common lot over that pressure sewer main instead of an
easement.
Bradbury: Okay, all right, and you are looking for a landscape plan now as opposed to
at final plat?
Smith: No, I just wanted to know when staff was asking for that.
Bradbury: Well that's what I'm trying to figure out if between now and the next time we
come if in fact this thing going to be postponed, if you wanted to see a landscape plan -
De Weerd: I would love too, but I won't require it. I would love to though.
Bradbury: The discussion at the time, my recollection was at final plat, but if that's not
what you want, you just need to tell us what it is and we're going to do our best to
provide -
De Weerd: If I could ask for if, I would.
Smith: I'm not concerned about it. I'm just - if it's in the Findings and staff was vague
as far as when they wanted, I just want clarification to be entered in by Shari when she
wants it so we can incorporate that into the Findings.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, in an effort to move this along it appears to me that all the
questions really are concerning items that would be on the plat. Is that -the other
commissioners agree with that? So far what I've heard are all things that pertain to the
plat. You don't agree?
Smith: Well if you could get a date certain into these Findings, but yes I agree with you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 13
Borup: Well then in light of that I would be in favor of approving the Findings and tabling
the plat approval especially in light of what Mr. Bradbury said. That would give them the
information that they need and we can move on.
Smith: But that information is available to them whether it's approve or not.
De Weerd: Mr. Berg, our city clerk, raised an important issue, and that's if we pass the
Findings tonight, that will go before city council without the preliminary plat and they
really should go hand in hand, should they not?
MacCoy: We think so, but that's raising a good point.
Smith: I made a motion to table it.
De Weerd: Did you make that official?
Smith: I did.
Borup: Oh, that motion on the table? Mr. Bradbury, if we approve the Findings and
held the plat, the end result isn't going to be any different for you, is it?
Bradbury: I agree and that's what I was just speaking to Mr. Campbell about, and I
think if we're going to get hung up on the plat, let's just table the whole thing and -
Borup: Do them both at the same time, and the time frame stays the same.
Bradbury: We're going to be back next month anyway. I apologize for that. I wish it
didn't happen, but that's where we're going to be.
Smith: And bythat time staff can - we can either remove item number 14, have a date
certain on item 16 and find out whether or not we do have a letter from the school
district.
MacCoy: Any comments from the staff?
Stiles: Commissioners the reason I asked for the detail landscape plan is because they
are calling this a PUD. They are required to have ten percent common area. They are
showing the edge of the ditch in some areas where they are proposing a pathway at
less than three feet from the people's backyard. I think as part of the conditional use
permit, those details need to be reviewed and approved and know that that is what you
are approving as part of the conditional use permit. Not something after the fact that
staff is simply going to review and have to try to negotiate some kind of common ground
when what they are proposing at least to me is difficult to tell that that can happen even.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 14
De Weerd: I believe that we did request a landscape plan for our next meeting. If we
could please get that prior to the meeting, that would be helpful. You know, Mr.
Bradbury, I don't believe -Shari do you want that specific as to what the plantings
would be or do you want a conceptual design?
Stiles: I would like it at least conceptual to the point that I can tell that there is in deed
room for the pathway that they have proposed and what kind of landscaping is going to
be there beyond just the ditch that's there now.
De Weerd: Well perhaps I might suggest that you call Shari and work with her on the
Findings and maybe pose any questions that you might have on what she needs, and if
we could have that prior to the meeting, that would be excellent.
MacCoy: Commissioner Smith do you have any conditions before you-
Smith: No, my motion is still on the table.
MacCoy: Do you want to put any conditions to it?
Nelson: I'll second that.
Smith: Beyond what Commissioner De Weerd stated, no. Incorporate all the other
commissioners' requests.
MacCoy: Okay we got a second on the table right? Okay. All in favor of that?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 5: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT -
NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1:
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, could I move right now to continue the public hearing on the
request for preliminary plat for the Villas at the Lakes Subdivision by Steiner
Development?
Prior: Is that a motion?
De Weerd: Can I? It's amotion -until September Stn
Smith: Second.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: AUGUST 11, 1998
APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 4
REQUEST: CONDITION USE PERMIT FOR PUD FOR VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUB.
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK: SEE ATTACHED MINUTES FROM 7/14/98
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
SEE ATTACHED FINDINGS
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
~Jr~.
~~.
~~
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
OTHER;
All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
MERIDIAN PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 14, 1998
PAGE 81
hopefully you can work all this out for the benefit for both of you.
ITEM NO. 18: AMENDMENTS TO ZONING AND SUBDIVISION AND
DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES:
MacCoy: Moving on to item 18, just to let you know, if anybody's here for that it's
been withdrawn from the thing and we will take a recess for five minutes and we
will return to item 12.
(FIVE MINUTE RECESS TAKEN)
MacCoy: Okay we're going to reconvene now after taking a break. Steiner has
come forward and said they'd prefer not doing 12 at this point. Just do 15 and 16
and go that route at this point. So we'll be at item 15 a public hearing.
ITEM NO. 15: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (48 UNITS ON 8.53 ACRES)
-THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT -
NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1:
Prior: Mr. Chairman, just for a clarification Steiner Development, so they don't
want to do number 12?
MacCoy: No, I didn't say that. I said we'll start at number 12 when we came
back. He came up here during the break and said he'd prefer to move it to 15
and 16 since we had people here for this hearing.
Prior: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay.
MacCoy: Now you can come up here, sir.
Bradbury: I just thought that maybe these folks might like to get home a little
sooner than later as would we all I'm sure.
STEVE BRADBURY 877 MAIN STREET, BOISE, WAS SWORN BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY.
Bradbury: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman and members of the commission.
This item originally came to this body in January of this year and was
recommended for approval to the city council. At that time it contemplated a total
of 46 living units, 37 of them being single family detached 3 two unit townhouses
for a total of six more units. And then one three unit townhouse for three more
making a total of 36. It reached city council in March and the number of -well, I
guess probably very close to the same people who are here this evening I think,
appeared before the city council and expressed opposition to the project. These
are primarily residents of the Golfview Subdivision and the Cherry Lane Village
MERIDIAN PLANNING~D ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 14, 1998
PAGE 82
Subdivision and as we understood the concerns that were being. expressed at
council that night were that the lot sizes adjacent to or near to those two
subdivisions were too small and therefore were not harmonious with the existing
development. City Council took that testimony under advisement and ask that
the plat be revised to enlarge the lots in those areas and Steiner Development
agreed and did prepare a revised plat. Proposed that the city council take it up
and the city council decided that it should probably come back and we should run
it passed you folks first so that you folks could take another look at this. So in
fact what has happened is that the plat has been revised from that which you
saw earlier and I don't know what the best way to do this so you can see this.
(Inaudible)
Bradbury: What we did what the developer did - is this thing working? What the
developer did is in total - he eliminated a total of living three units so now instead
of having 46 livings, there's 43. And the change resulted in 33 single family
detached dwellings where before there were 37, and then 10 townhouse units
you know two unit townhouse units. So we ended up with a total of a minus
three. Among the changes that were made were to move the townhouse units
that existed in this vicinity here in what would be I guess the southeast part of the
project the southerly part of the project and some of the townhouses that were in
this part of the project here again over near Golfview. The first place they used
to be over near the Cherry Lane Vllage Subdivision and then some over near
Golfview. The townhouses at Cherry Lane ~Ilage were taken out all together
and replaced with single family detached lots. The townhouses that were next to
Golfview were also eliminated except for two which are immediately adjacent to -
this isn't a good spot for you guys maybe. Except for the two that are
immediately adjacent to the entry way where there's a whole line of townhouses
that come along and along Interlachen. So as a result the townhouses are now
essentially clustered on the westerly side of the project so that they are away
from the existing Golfview development and away from the Cherry Lane Vllage
development. So that rearranged the location of some of those structures. The
third thing that was done was that the lot sizes were increased in two basically
two locations. Along Golfview where there once were six lots, there are now four
and those are in minimum of -these lots here will be a minimum of 8,000 square
feet and as a matter of fact one of them is all the way up to 9,400 square feet so
all of the lots next to Golfview will come out at 8,000 square feet. Actually one of
them shows on my map here as being 7,993 feet. Well, we'll fix that and move
the line over a foot or whatever it takes to make sure that all of those lots are at
8,000 square feet before the final plat is presented. In addition the lots that are
closest to the Cherry Lane Village area were also increased in sizes. Those lots
originally ranged between 3,900 square feet to about 6,500 square feet, and
most of them along there were originally under 5,000 square feet. Those lots
now range from 6,375 up to 9,350, so they're over -one of them is over 9,000
square feet. It must be this one here. And there once were 11 lots, now there's
8, and so the lot sizes have grown and new lots next to Golfview will come out at
MERIDIAN PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION •
JULY 14, 1998
PAGE 83
8,000 square feet. Actually one of them shows on my map here as being 7,993
feet. Well, we'll fix that and move the line over a foot or whatever it takes to
make sure that all of those lots are at 8,000 square feet before the final plat is
presented. In addition the lots that are closest to the Cherry Lane ~Ilage area
were also increased in sizes. Those lots originally ranged between 3,900 square
feet to about 6,500 square feet, and most of them along there were originally
under 5,000 square feet. Those lots now range from 6,375 up to 9,350, so
they're over -one of them is over 9,000 square feet. It must be this one here.
And there once were 11 lots, now there's 8, and so the lot sizes have grown and
numbers of lots have decreased. Of course the purpose of that was to attempt to
get the density away from the existing development in order to address the
concerns that were expressed by the individuals that live in those areas and try
to cluster more of the density toward the center of the project and adjacent to this
unplatted land to try to deal with the harmonious issue that was raised. The
other issue that was I guess still unresolved at the time that you folks saw it is
whether or not Interlachen would be required by the highway district to connect
through to the road that is the collector road that serves Ashford Greens. And
when you saw it at the time, the highway district's ofFcial position was that they
wanted it connect through. We were in the middle of the process of working with
them to explain why we thought it wasn't a good idea. The primary reason was
we were concerned it was going to create a lot of cut through traffic and increase
the traffic load on Interlachen above that which would be acceptable. And the
highway district has since agreed and have abandoned the notion that there
should be a connection through, so that issue I believe is now behind us. And I
don't know, Bruce, did you get a copy of the highway district's most recent
transmittal on that? Let me just give it to you or give it to somebody. Maybe give
it to Will. What I've given Will is a copy of the Ada County Highway District's
June 3 staff findings which were accepted by the Ada County Highway District on
that date. I think it's June 3`~. In any event what they said is that they like the
idea of the cul-de-sac. They don't want a connection through. They too are
convinced that if it's connected through, there would be too much traffic
generated along Interlachen. And that's really all I that I had to present to you.
I'd be pleased to respond to any questions that you might have.
Smith: Steve, I'm sorry quite frankly I don't really remember what we looked at
before. But on this development, you said there was ten townhome lots?
Bradbury: Yes.
Smith: And I see the two over off Interlachen. Then what is the 25, 30 --
Bradbury: Commissioner, you need to look at lots 20 and 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,
27. Right and then 36, 37 to make a total of ten.
Smith: 36 and 37.
r
MERIDIAN PLANNING ARD ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 14, 1998
PAGE 84
Bradbury: Correct. I think there's a note that says~that somewhere on there.
Smith: Well, I was looking for it and I didn't see it. Unless it's under notes.
Bradbury: Yeah, I found it under notes. It's note 13. I hope that you've got a
somewhat similar plat to the one I've been pointing to.
Smith: Okay, it is note 13. I'm sorry. (Inaudible)
MacCoy: What's the date on your map?
Smith: This one say November 18, 1997.
Borup: Revision there.
Smith: I'm sorry June 8, '98.
Bradbury: I've got an updated one. The last revision on mine is July 10. You're
looking at a map that's got bad numbers on it. Let me show you one more time
so you know.
Smith: Yeah, Iguess -
Bradbury: The townhouse lots are here. I don't know what numbers are shown
on your map, but these are -
De Weerd: 40 and 39.
Bradbury: Mine is 37 and 38, but I'm not going to -it's these two lots that are the
most southerly. And then it's the lots on the western edge starting with the
corner. I'm sorry, you've got to go one lot in. 19 on your map and 20, and then
21 on your map, 22, 23, 24. What's your number across the street?
Smith: 25.
Bradbury: Okay mine shows 26 and 27, so -
Smith: 25 and 30 on here.
Bradbury: That's what happened. We jumped somehow.
De Weerd: And three and four?
Smith: No.
Bradbury: No.
11~RIDIAN PLANNING A~fD ZONING COMNIISSION
JULY 14, 1998
PAGE 85
MacCoy: Do we have a copy of that map any place? Can you give us one of
those?
Bradbury: We'll give them to you. I think what happened is we caught the bad
numbers and reprinted it.
Smith: And before you called these duplexes and triplexes, is that still the deal or
are you just going with duplexes now?
Bradbury: Just so that it's clear, I don't want to get lost in the definitions, these
are all what we call two unit townhouses, separate ownership. When I hear the
term duplex, I'm thing single one ownership. Two units on one lot, we're talking
about zero lot line townhouses. So you'll sell separately.
De Weerd: They just share a wall.
Bradbury: They just share a wall, exactly, and there's a total of ten of those units
in here.
De Weerd: Ten two unit townhouses.
Bradbury: Right. Now that's not 20 units. I mean ten units. It's late.
Borup: Am I correct on the old plat you had 21 townhouses and on the ,new one
you have 20?
Bradbury: On the old plat, we had a total of 6, 7, 8, 9 what I'll call multiple unit
structures.
Borup: Six duplex, three triplex.
Bradbury: Correct. Total of nine. We picked up one additional attached dwelling
than from what was originally presented to you back in January.
Borup: No, just the opposite.
Bradbury: We had nine. We've got ten now.
Borup: Oh, but I mean total units.
Bradbury: But in total number of units, we've actually lost three.
Borup: Yeah, I was just talking on the townhouse designation units.
Bradbury: Right.
MERIDIAN PLANNIN~ ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 14, 1998
PAGE 86
Borup: I still have - I saved my old plat for some reason. I knew this was coming
back.
De Weerd: Now this is a PUD?
Bradbury: It is.
De Weerd: You know I wasn't there.
Bradbury: I understand.
De Weerd: Do you have open space here?
Bradbury: Yeah, there's two places. There's this piece of property here, which is
remote from the building lots across the canal, and this piece of property is over
on the golf course side, and what the developer has proposed to do and it's
about a third of an acre. What the develop has proposed to do is to donate that
to the city for use as part of its golf course would be without charge. The other
area is a path that goes along the southerly boundary and then works it way up
along the canal which would be used to access to allow pedestrians and golf
carts to access the golf course the relocated clubhouse which will be up in here
once that project is completed, and so there's a total square footage of the open
space of about an acre, just about an acre of open space including the donated
ground just to make that clear.
De Weerd: I think during your city council meeting, Councilman Anderson asked
about the gate and how it would be respond to emergency vehicles. Did that get
straightened out?
Bradbury: From what I understand and I don't know a lot about these emergency
gates, but I've hear that these gates and how the emergency vehicles are going
to open them, but I understand there's a number of different types of systems
that can be employed. There's some sort of a use where you can use a strobe.
There's some sort of a deal where you can have a remote or an emergency key
.access number, a number of different ways to accomplish it, and I don't think that
this developer necessarily demands that there be one or the other. The intention
is to work it out with the Fire Department and whatever other emergency services
are involved. Find out what they prefer and install that type of system.
De Weerd: And so what are the total number of lots per acre?
Bradbury: It comes out to five.
De Weerd: And what was it before the redesign?
MERIDIAN PLANNIN~ ZONING CO1~II1~1ISSION
JULY 14, 1998
PAGE 87
Bradbury: It was actually over five. I can't remember the number the density at
that time. I can't remember exactly what it is but it was 5.2 maybe. I can't
remember. One of the things that Commissioner De Weerd, since you didn't -
weren't here before, this piece of property was originally included as a part of the
Ashford Greens PUD and during the preliminary plat process for Ashford Greens,
this piece of property was identified as what the city council at the time was
calling, I think they're calling medium density and it was conceptually approved
for up to eight units per acre. The developer of the Ashford Greens Subdivision
didn't exercise the option on this piece so Steiner Development picked it up and
this application -what they did back then is they gave a PUD approval for
Ashford Greens with the preliminary plat. This parcel was shown as an
undeveloped conceptual medium density type of an area. Steiner. Development
picked it up and is now presenting the plat. Theoretically attempting to follow the
I guess the conceptual approval that was granted back to Ashford Greens back
in whatever year it was.
De Weerd: Was Golfview Subdivision developed at that time?
Bradbury: I think it was. Although I don't know that for certainty. I think Golfview
was in existence prior to Ashford Greens.
De Weerd: Do you have any landscaping in this development?
Bradbury: There will be a landscape treatment at the entry, and you don't have
that. It doesn't show on the plat, but there's a landscape treatment at the entry
and then this area which would act as a cart path would also be landscaped.
De Weerd: With what type of landscaping?
Bradbury: I don't know that I can give you the - I can't tell you precisely.
Specifically or are you just trying -there will be a walkway and grass and bushes
and trees. I mean that's about as specific as I think I can be. I'm not sure. If
you're asking me has a landscape plan been prepare, I think the answer would
have to be no. That would typically be prepared at a final plat process.
De Weerd: Those are all the questions I have right now.
MacCoy: All right. Mr. Smith?
Smith: I don't have anything else.
MacCoy: Mr. Borup are you finished?
Borup: Yes, I am.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions. I hope I'm not kicking a
MERIDIAN PLANNIN~ ZO1~iING COMMISSION
JULY 14, 1998
PAGE 88
dead dog here, but in this revised preliminary plat, I look back at my original
comments from January of this year, we have a pressure sewer main that
crosses portions of this property. This is a forced main that comes from a lift
station in Golfview Estates and discharges over on I believe it's Turnberry. This
forced main goes across the southerly edge of lot 37 and across the
southeasterly side of lot 40 as well as along lots 1 and 2. My original comment
from January was that those should not be easements. They should be a
common lot. If we have a break on a forced main, we need to be able to get in
there right now. I don't know -it's looks like we've got one of them on this
revised plat as a common lot but it looks like the other one is still within an
easement and I'm just kind of wondering -okay you still show it on your plat as
an easement though.
MacCoy: Steve, do you have an answer for that?
Bradbury: Well, all I can tell you is the plat as drawn shows a common lot on part
that he's talking about and it does show as an easement on the other part. I
don't remember the precise conversations that were going on at the time. But I
had the idea that this was a temporary easement that would be abandoned at
some point in time.
Freckleton: That's true. As soon as Golfview develops out to Black Cat Road,
that lift station would be abandoned because the gravity sewer would go out. to
Black Cat, but until that time in this interim, we have this forced main situation.
Bradbury: Right, and my recollection is that because it was a temporary
easement that it might make the most sense to provide for just an easement so
that when it's abandoned it's got go to somebody, it's got to be somewhere, and I
suppose one of two choices. It's either a common lot owned by a homeowners
association or it's a part of somebody's building lot.
Freckleton: My original comment was that it would be a common lot owned and
maintained by the homeowners association. The written response from PLS, the
applicant's engineer, was that the sewer easement area will be a common lot
owned and maintained by the homeowners association. The area landscape
plan will be submitted to the city for review and approval. So, that's why I'm a
little confused as to why we're not there now.
Bradbury: It sound like we need to make that a common lot, and if that needs to
be a condition of approval, that's certainly appropriate.
MacCoy: Anything else, Bruce?
Freckleton: That was all I had. Thank you.
De Weerd: Mc. Chairman, a couple of other comments that were addressed were
,-~ !~
MERIDIAN PLANNING7.i~1D ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 14, 1998
PAGE 89
tiling ditches and the potential buffering to adjacent subdivisions. Have those -
Bradbury: There are no plans to the either of the two ditches. From what I
understand they both are -they both exceed the size limits that the city generally
requires for tiling. And actually from the way we look at this, the ditch that is
between this project and Golfview I believe sits on a 50 foot easement, and so
there's actually in addition to the lots the size of the lots in Golfview, and now the
increased size of the lots in the Villas, there's this 50 foot ditch easement that is
in between so that it provides the ditch itself provides a fair amount of separation
between the two. My understanding from looking at the maps is that the ditch
between this project and Golfview is entirely within the Golfview lots. In other
words, the easement that that ditch runs through, it's not a centerline. The
property boundaries are on in the centerline of the ditch, but the property line.
from Golfview actually comes all the-way over. So the ditch itself is in Golfview.
It's in those lots. On the other side between this project and the golf course you
have the lots and you've another 50 foot ditch easement and then you've got
fairway, and you've got another couple hundred feet beyond that before you get
to houses. Now, perhaps the one exception maybe some houses that are more
or less in this location over here which I think are among the people that are
intending to testify and they are a little bit closer to these units which is wkly these
were all the size of these lots here. The nearest lots to these homes were
expanded. And of course then here you've got 7, 8 and 9,000 square foot lots.
You've got 50 foot of easement. You've got golf course, then you have the
nearest dwelling units. (Inaudible) And so what we're trying to accomplish is
recognizing that we've got these existing developments, these people were
concerned about the fact that they didn't think that smaller lots made sense next
to their larger lots, so we tried to put the larger lots next to their larger lots, and
take advantage of and use the separation the natural separation which is
provided by each of those two ditches.
De Weerd: And the public would have access to the pathway?
Bradbury: Yes, that's correct.
MacCoy: Anything else? Any other commissioner -
Borup: Just a question. Whin the conceptual review was done for Ashford
Greens, was that a public hearing?
Bradbury: I got to think it was because it was a PUD and preliminary plat.
Borup: So that was part of all that when they did the conceptual. So it wasn't -
they didn't have a design at that time then?
Bradbury: They didn't have a design for this parcel; that's right.
MERIDIAN PLANNIN~ ZONING COMMISSION
JL1L.Y 14, 1998
PAGE 91
they are going to be compatible, and I think that they should be larger than 8,000
square feet because the lots that abut them are larger than 8,000 square feet. I
certainly appreciate what they have done to enlarge some of those lots, but I
don't think they've enlarged them enough. As my memory serves me, when we
dealt with this property under Ashford Greens, it was placed definitely in an R-8
kind of a situation. It was a planned unit development, but this property was not
platted out. So I didn't know what was going to happen to that property at that
time. And that's when I got a hold of this thing and I didn't find out about it until it
got to city council, and I apologize for that. I should have stepped up before the
Planning and Zoning Commission and not just in front of the city council. As I
said I have to appreciate what they have done. I would like them to do
somewhat more. Thank you.
Borup: Your lot is R-4 zone or R-8?
Crookston: My lot is R-4 zone. But it's substantially larger than the 8,000 square
(End of Tape)
Crookston: ... from the west from my lot west of me -
Borup: So there's some other lots between your lot and this development?
Crookston: There's the golf course between my lot and this development, but
there are -
Borup: When you say west you meant others on your same street; is what you
meant?
Crookston: No, on my street. I live in a cul-de-sac, and the lots go around in a
circle. The lots that go around from me westerly are larger than 8,000.
Borup: Okay, the other lots on your street. I'm trying to decide where these lots
to the west of you are located. You are saying those are on your street.
Crookston: Yes.
Borup: So between those lots and this development, you say the golf course is
in between?
Crookston: Yes.
Borup: Do you know how far that is? One fairway down through there?
Crookston: Yes, it's just one fairway between my lot and this development.
Borup: Thank you.
MERIDIAN PLANNING''a!ND ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 14, 1998
PAGE 92
MacCoy: Any other questions? Anyone else who would like to make a
statement.
JOE STAFFORD 4192 W. PLUM ROSE WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT
CITY ATTORNEY.
Stafford: As I stated I live on Plum Rose which is Golfview Subdivision. My lot
approximately is from -let's see I think I attach right in this area here off the
Golfview Subdivision. Our lot is approximately 16 to 17,000 square feet. That's
abutting this project and those lots again as Mr. Crookston brought up that we do
appreciate that they've increased the lot sizes somewhat compared to what they
were before, but there's more at issue and that's the density factor for-the whole
project. There is nothing that high a density on either side meaning Golfview
and/or Cherry Lane in that immediate area. The other thing that kind of bothers
me a little bit is that they keep bringing up that this was conceptually approved. I
think the key is it was conceptually approved for Ashford Greens, which had high
density property because they were giving quite a bit of property to the golf
course. So they were allowed to cluster high density. This project isn't giving or
adding more golf course. They are talking about donating three quarters of an
acre to that area. I don't know what that would do or if that would change
anything to the golf course. Another issue is that this is the third time it's been -
one P & Z, one council and back to P & Z with recommendations from staff from
my understanding on modifying some things, showing the easements
accordingly, talking about a plan for landscaping and yet there's not a correct
map that's been sent to the public. I mean-this map is different than the map I
got and the map you have apparently. There isn't a landscaping plan for us to
look at or talk about or discuss to see if it's good or bad. There's a few
comments, well I'll change this or I'll change that. We had originally talked about
-there was discussion about the developer meeting with the homeowners to
show us the changes so we could talk about it and work things out. There was
no contact made at least to our home for that matter. The other thing I think that
I'm concerned with is besides the lots sizes, you're talking about setbacks. From
my understanding now, this is the last hearing, and I don't know if this is
changed, but the setback requirements for the city they're asking for a variance.
Am I understanding that that is correct that they're asking for a variance for
setbacks like on the rear yards? No? They're going to have a 20 foot setback
from the rear yard?
Smith: It says 15 on the map.
Stafford: 15 on the map.
Borup: Which would be that's normal city ordinance.
Stafford: Is that normal city ordinance? So all the setback requirements are
MERIDIAN PLANNIN~ ZONING COMMISSION
JITLY 14, 1998
PAGE 93
going to be normal city ordinance. No variance?
Borup: I don't think anybody said that.
Stafford: That's a question I have to staff maybe.
Freckleton: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. They look standard setbacks. However,
when you have the townhouse lots, there will be a zero lot line there
understandably so.
Stafford: Which is standard for a townhouse. So, there is no ten foot setback on
the rear lots for building or 5 and 5 on each side which would be different from
the city.
Freckleton: Side interior is 5. That's standard.
Stafford: On both sides?
Freckleton: Yes. Twenty foot on the front, fifteen rear. Side yard with a street is
20.
Stafford: Okay, so they're not asking for a variance on the setbacks. The other
question I have are the streets standard width along with sidewalks on both sides
like we're required and like Cherry Lane has and both attached subdivisions?
Freckleton: I'm sorry.
Stafford: Street width. Is that the standard size for streets?
Freckleton: These are private streets. They are narrower.
Stafford: They are narrower. And is there sidewalk on both sides of the -
De Weerd: One side.
Stafford: One side.
Freckleton: One thing that I should clarify from my previous statement, on your
side yards setback it's five foot per story, so if you end up with a two story, that's
ten.
Stafford: But there's no request for a variance on that. Okay so the streets are
private streets, and they are not the normal width that we would have in a
subdivision, a public street let me put it that way, and they're not required to have
sidewalks on both sides.
MERIDIAN PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 14, 1998
PAGE 94
Freckleton: They are not required to if city council allows them not to.
Stafford: Okay. My concern is too this isn't -they brought that they were talking
about another project they did that was a senior citizen or 55 and older project.
There's no mention of that. They're talking townhouse or higher density. You
know we all have kids. I'm sure is going to be a majority or a minority of children
in there with one side streets, no yard to speak of, no sizable yard. I think the
minimum lot size in there is about 4,000 square feet, which is approximately the
size of some of our homes the actual lot size that's abutting this property. So
those are all some concerns that I have with the project and he brings out that
there's 8,000 square feet along Golfview, but you go down 30 feet or 40 feet and
they drop down to 5,000 and 4,000 square feet. So that does have an effect in
the immediate area just because my property is touching an 8,000 square foot lot
which is considerably smaller, but still granted R-4 type lot doesn't mean that the
whole .project is done that way. So I think those are some of the concerns that I
have and if you have any questions I'd be more than happy to answer them.
Borup: Yes, Mr. Stafford, did you attend any other public hearings?
Stafford: Yes, I did, city council.
Borup: But not the one -
Stafford: Not the P & Z.
Borup: I didn't recognize you from P & Z. Show the location again of where your
house is. I thought the way -
Stafford: We're along this lateral right here, and (believe -
Borup: I thought the first time I saw you pointing further to your right.
Stafford: Yeah, I'm not sure if it ties in this spot or this spot here.
Borup: That's why I was confused. I thought you had pointed to the other spot
which my plat shows as being part of Lakes at Cherry Lane.
Stafford: Yeah, so it would be from this point.
Borup: Okay, that's why I was confused. You were pointing to a different
subdivision. Thank you.
MacCoy: Anything else? Thank you.
GORDON MARGULIEUX 2040 INTERLACHEN WAS SWORN BY THE
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.
MERIDIAN PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 14, 1998
PAGE 95
Margulieux: I live again as I mentioned in Cherry Village No. 1. I live at lot
number three which is 27.29 feet from the proposed path. Right there is the
corner of our lot. It's an irregular size lot. Most of these lots here are 8,000. My
lot actually because it is irregular is 13,000. But I'm not as concerned. I think
that the developer has done a fairly good job at trying to balance, trying to
transition in there, so I'm not that concerned about that. I am concerned about
the path. There are some issues that haven't been -they seem to fade in and
out. But one is lighting on the path. We have -three or four years ago, I wouldn't
have even thought of this, we have a family that's in our neighborhood that has
some teenagers that are kind of troublesome and I think an unlit path back there
20 feet wide that is gated, it will be gated. This is one of those issues that sort of
fades back and forth. At night atone end but not on the other end, and it just
happens to be the end that a patrol car if they wanted to look down that way, they
wouldn't be able to - in fact from the drawings I've seen of the island where the
gate is that a patrol car would not be able to go down to the point where they
could look down to see if anything is going on there. So, I'm concerned. The
developer has expressed a willingness to maybe light it to a certain extent. But
that again it changes from time to time as to what a good solution would be for
that. It is again locked at night. The proposal is that it's locked at night so people
wouldn't be going back there. On one end, but the other end is open. The
comment about landscaping, I'm not sure because again we haven't seen
anything on that. But earlier today we talked about that entire 20 foot would be
paved and maintained- by the homeowners association. So I'm not sure what sort
of landscaping would be there, if there would be any trees or anything like that.
Twenty feet is a pretty wide area especially for walking or -the idea is that
maybe you would drive your golf cart over there. So maintenance is an issue if
the homeowners association chooses not to maintain it. I'm not sure exactly how
that gets addressed. I did want to make the comment about the platting for R-8.
My understanding from talking to people is what happened is they said we'd like
to do something like this. R-8 sounds like a good idea. And the P & Z came
back and said show us and then we'll talk about it. And they never came back
and showed -so they really didn't give it approval. They said yeah, go ahead
and show us what you're talking about and we'll talk about it and they never did.
So 1 don't think there's even aconceptual -there maybe but I don't believe
there's even conceptual approval. It was you know if you want to try go ahead.
Anybody can present something to us. By the way I have been to all the
meetings in case someone's interested. I have been to every one of the
meetings that I got a notice for. The only other one I wanted to talk about
mention is there may be some change that I'm not aware of but there was some
requests for changes in the setback and Steve's been very straight forward. I
should say the developer's been very straight forward in any of this. I can go
over to their headquarters, sit down with them, talk to them. I have in the past
and they've been very straight forward. I really appreciate it. But they did talk
about some setbacks at the original meeting and if I remember the note, the front
was a change from 20 to 15 and the side to the street, whatever side adjacent to
MERIDIAN PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 14, 1998
PAGE 96
the street, was also request a change from 20 to 15 and I thought that they might
have mentioned that the rear was to change from 15 to 10 on some lots. Not all
of those lots, but that they had asked for that. So again I'm sure that when Steve
gets back up here he'll mention those and it was apparently in the original packet
that they gave so they're not trying to hide anything as far as I know. Other than
that I actually like -I've seen the book. I sat down and looked at it and gone
through it and it looks nice. And they've done things that's been brought up in
the meetings so I think they are willing to work on it. They have and other than
this path, the security along that path, that's the only concern I really have. Any
questions? By the way, good morning.
MacCoy: Thanks a lot.
Borup: Gordon, right now you're living next door to the clubhouse?
Margulieux: Actually fairly close. We see the light out on the -
Borup: Which of the two uses would you consider more favorable to you?
Margulieux: Well the clubhouse - I would like to see the place developed and
get it over with and this to me looks fine. I mean they've done lots of things to
change it. I'm not opposed to the development. The clubhouse gives us no
problems at night unless they have a party. We've had to ask them about that,
but that only comes about once a year anyway. So either way it doesn't seem to
bother us. We do see cars driving around and we do call 9-1-1 when we see
people peering into the clubhouse that aren't suppose to, and if I saw someone in
that path over there that wasn't suppose, I'd call 9-1-1 then too. But either way I
think that the subdivision in general is not a bad subdivision from my point of
view, and I think they've done a lot of things to satisfy or try to satisfy the people
in our subdivision.
Borup: Thank you.
MacCoy: Thank you very much.
ROBERT PATCHIN 4199 W. PLUM ROSE STREET WAS SWORN BY THE
CITY ATTORNEY.
Patchin: I would love to comment, but I don't think I can do it intelligently having
a map that you can't read because it's so small and I guess it's not the same
map that's on this large display here or the ones that you have. So it's a little bit
disadvantage and to make any kind of a reasonable comment at this point: I.
would like to say though that I still think the density is a little bit too much for the
surrounding area. I don't believe it's still is not compatible. I don't know what
can be done if they've reached their limit as far as number of lots to their
investment that there is no return. That may be a problem. The traffic has got to
MERIDIAN PLANNIN~ ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 14, 1998
PAGE 97
increase based on the number of lots and if it's not restricted like the other
density over there in Cherry with the 55 or older, why it's going to be a lower cost
housing and of course there's going to be more children. Just looks like the
density is going to be just too much. It's awful hard to follow the numbers and it
looked like originally it looked like about six variances were required to do this
development. I'm not sure. I kind of lost count of that as to existing. I have not
made the meetings. I've been absent unfortunately, but I did write a letter to the
city and it is on file. It did address some of the concerns there moving the
townhouses or what were duplexes away from the edge next to the larger lots in
the other subdivisions. So they have made some progress but I just don't think it
has gone far enough. I'd like to have more time to study the real map.
MacCoy: Any questions?
Borup: What lot was your lot number?
Patchin: Well, I'm right across the street. It's lot number 2 and block 5 of
Golfview.
Borup: You're right across the street from Mr. Stafford?
Patchin: Yeah.
Borup: Okay, thank you.
MacCoy: All right. Thank you very much. Anyone else that would like to come
make a statement?
Bradbury: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of comments. Where to
start? Let me talk about this notion of variances, because I think it's important
that we get it as clear as we can possibly be at this hour. You have an
application for a PUD, a planned unit development. Under the planned unit
development ordinance you allow for certain exceptions to be made to the
standard zone requirements in exchange for considerations of open space and
issues like that. In this case there's a proposal to provide the city with some
additional property for the golf course and provide some additional open space,
and as a result the developer is asking for consideration as a PUD. So there are
no variances as that term is used either in the ordinance or in general rules of
law. There are a number of exceptions which have been asked for under the
PUD process. Among those exceptions is that this project be served by a private
street. It is after all a dead end cul-de-sac. The intention is to construct a
security gate so that the people who live in this subdivision will have the added
security of gated community. The streets are lesser width than ACHD standard,
but of course ACHD, that is the highway district, will not own and maintain them.
Instead they'll be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. There is
in fact a proposal that sidewalk be placed on one side of the street only, and
MERIDIAN PLANNIN~ ZONING COMMISSION •
JULY 14, 1998
PAGE 98
again as we have talked in times past, because these are streets that dead end
and just serve the interior of the subdivision, it didn't seem that a bunch of
additional concrete in the form of sidewalks on both sides of the street would
necessarily be a good idea. There is a request for exceptions from the standard
setback provision. The request has been that the front yard setbacks be reduced
from 20 to 15 feet, and 18 for the garage units. And that the street side yard
setbacks be reduced from the standard 20 to 15 feet. With respect to the notion
that the map is somehow different, it's the same map, the numbers have just
been modified so they follow a logical sequence. I think the map you have the
numbers simply don't follow a logical sequence. Other than that, everybody is
looking at the same drawing. With respect to the idea of this notion of
compatibility and larger lots needing to be next to larger lots, I guess I
understand to a certain extent. But I see compatibility a little differently. It seems
to me that when you talk about compatibility you're talking about compatibility of
uses, and the compatibility of uses is to take a clear incompatible use. A hog
farm next to Mr. Crookston's house, a nice home. That would bean incompatible
use. Residential development next to residential development I don't know what
can be more compatible than that. In this case I don't think that the notion of
compatibility requires that every lot which is adjacent to another lot be the same
size as the lot next to it. Because if you take the logic of that, if you start with a
10,000 square foot lot, every lot in the City of Meridian has to be 10,000 square
feet because after all if there's one next to that it's got to be 10,000 square feet in
order to be compatible. It'll have to be 10,000 square feet, the next one after that
will have to be 10,000 square feet. I don't think that's what compatibility is about.
I think what compatibility is about is having compatible uses and in this case
we're talking about residential uses in a residential area, separated by the way, --
interspersed is maybe a way to say it with golf course. The distance between Mr.
Crookston's house and these parcels it's got to be a couple of hundred feet. The
distance between the Golfview properties if they're some 10, 12, 15, 16,000
square feet is there's a 50 foot canal easement in between so there's a couple
3,000 square feet of their lots that are taken up by canal. You have that
separation and that distance, and on this developer's side, we're going to have
standard or in excess of standard R-4 lots. All of them being 8,000 square foot
minimum. I'm having a hard time buying into the notion of incompatibility. Mr.
Margulieux was talking about the gated path. It's perhaps some confusing. The
path is going to be open on both ends. It's gated so that people from outside of
the subdivision cannot come into the subdivision, but people from outside the
subdivision can access the path and go all the way along the path without having
to negotiate or open or close the gate, so it is open, and t'm not sure maybe we
didn't - in our conversations with Gordon maybe we didn't make that very clear.
But it's open. The proposal is not to pave 20 feet side to side. It would be a
walkway with landscaping with I don't know ten feet of pavement and the balance
being landscape treatment. I think I've addressed most of the issues, except
perhaps the density one and whether or not this was ever approved. I'm going to
read the motion that was made by the city council in the Ashford Greens project.
I'm not going to read the whole thing because it covers three pages, but I'm
MERIDIAN PLANNING~D ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 14, 1998
PAGE 99
going to read one sentence out of it. It says, "The concept of 'medium density'
parcels is approved conceptually only." So this is not the first time that this idea
has come before the city. Anything else?
MacCoy: He mentioned the lighted path.
Bradbury: We'll work with him on lighting. I think that would be included as part
of the landscaping treatment, and I don't think that we have any problem with
including in that treatment with some form of lighting. My experience has been
that the landscape plans are something that you folks look at the final plat. In
due course those would be presented and we're certainly willing to work with
these people in any way to help them be as comfortable as they can with it.
MacCoy: Any questions from the commissioners?
Borup: Steve, did you mention earlier percentage on the open space?
Bradbury: I haven't calculated percentage. Let's see, there's 8'/Z acres and
there's about an acre of open space. So that comes out to about what? 12%?
Borup: Okay.
Freckleton: I guess I'm feeling a little ignorant now that I talked about the
setback issue. The new revised plan that I got with my packet dated June 9, is it
incorrect then?
Bradbury: The only thing that's incorrect about it are the numbers on it, the lot
numbering sequences is incorrect.
Freckleton: Okay the setbacks are stated right on here just as I had quoted
earlier.
Bradbury: Under your ordinance -
Freckleton: Standard setbacks.
Bradbury: Under your ordinance as I understand it the ordinance requires that
the zone that the property exists as it exists is required the setbacks are required
to be shown on your plat under the zone as it exists, and that's why it comes out
this way.
Freckleton: No, I think what you need to show on your plat is what you propose
for setbacks.
Bradbury: Well, let's pull out the ordinance. Does anybody have it?
MERIDIAN PLANNIN(,`!~ND ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 14, 1998
PAGE 100
(Inaudible)
Borup: Yeah, I think that's my recollection too. We had some others where the -
I'mthinking of a zoning thing where the current zoning had to be stated, but on
your previous fact that you specified which lots you were looking for reduced and
which ones you weren't. So apparently that is not with this application.
Bradbury: Well, because we've changed those lots -
Borup: Well, that's what I mean so this application doesn't have specific lots
mentioned on the reduction?
Bradbury: That's correct.
Borup: Or is it a blanket on all of them?
Bradbury: The way I was approaching it rather than trying to figure out which
ones were going to need it and which ones were not, just simply make it a
blanket.
Borup: Okay.
Bradbury: And then we don't have to try to untangle every time we move a line.
Borup: Yeah.
De Weerd: Are those setbacks along any existing subdivisions that you are
asking for the variance or the exception?
Bradbury: There are no rear yard setback -the existing subdivisions abut the
rear yards, and we are not asking for reductions of rear yard setbacks. So the
front yard setbacks of those same lots however would be maybe reduced.
Borup: Was this reduction the same as what the original application last
January? Was it a blanket request at that time?
Bradbury: Well there was a little bit of confusion about that because there was a
map that showed some of the lots that would need setback reductions and over
time -
Borup: -- specified other than the map which the map didn't even have the lot
and blocks on it.
Bradbury: That's right. And that map was something that was originally inserted
and then over time it got to the point where it became just too complicated and so
it was simply, the proposal Ithink -
MERIDIAN PLANNINV~ ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 14, 1998
PAGE 101
Borup: I think my question was on this application. I don't think anybody here
has the paperwork from last January. I saved some plats and stuff for some
reason, but in that application there was a request for reduction of the setback.
Bradbury: There was; correct. That's correct, yes, sir.
De Weerd: Now on the pathway, who is responsible for maintaining and
upkeeping and maintenance?
Bradbury: That would be owned and maintained by the homeowners association
that would be formed as a part of the project.
De Weerd: So when lights go out they will take care of it.
Bradbury: It would be part of the homeowners association responsibility. That's
correct.
De Weerd: Bruce, I had a question for you. Is that right with the landscaping
that we don't see that?
Freckleton: Commissioner De Weerd, typically I believe those are submitted to
Shari for review. I don't believe that they come before P & Z unless it's
requested.
De Weerd: Well, it seemed like it was an issue before city council and so I guess
I assumed since it was an issue at that point that we might be seeing it. I guess
that assumption is wrong.
MacCoy: Anyway in past, Shari has done most of them. We see them once in a
while. I'm not sure if that's just because -well we have requested some
sometimes, but sometimes we get them without even requesting them too.
De Weerd: Yeah, I guess I was just looking conceptually what the idea was.
Borup: Tammy you said you felt the city council had a concern on it last meeting,
is that what you're referring to?
Bradbury: I don't know if this helps you, but included as part of the submittal, I
think drawing went to the city council included as a part of the submittal to the
city council was kind of just a real rough outline of what was considered there.
De Weerd: And that circle is by the gate? Okay. This is all asphalt here?
Bradbury: (Inaudible) The access would be on the public side of the gate. It
would work its way through and around and up and then there would be a gate
MERIDIAN PLANNIN~ ZONING COMMISSION •
JULY 14, 1998
PAGE 102
here. (Inaudible).
De Weerd: Thank you.
MacCoy: I'd like to clarify something with you. You mentioned the pathway and
so on would be homeowners. The street is private and so of course the sidewalk
that goes with it. That's private. So the homeowners association has got quite a
few they've got to take care of. In other words it's going to be costly for them.
Bradbury: I don't think this is going to be a cheapo subdivision. That's not the
market that these guys are after. These guys are after the market -the bulk of
the homes in this subdivision and you don't have the materials that were
submitted here six months ago, but the bulk of the homes in this subdivision are
proposed to be in excess of 1600, 1700 square feet. So we're not talking about a
number of just little boxes. I know these aren't mansions by any means, but they
are reasonably sized homes, and the market is to try to find people and I've said
it in the past in meetings with you is to try to find people who want to have nice
homes in a secure environment but have a bunch of yard and maintenance
duties and you're right, these folks are going to have a fair amount of
homeowners dues in order to maintain not only the private road but the pathway
system and what not.
De Weerd: Now are these - do these have specific designs that you are
marketing or they can go in and build whatever they want or do you have
uniformity?
Bradbury: There are specific floor plans and elevations that were presented to
the city originally as well and they are included in the books. But again
unfortunately you don't have.
De Weerd: And are those their only choices, or can they just build something?
Bradbury: The idea is that this is as a part of the PUD we're proposing specific
floor plans and elevations that would be built in the project. Now, I'm not going to
try to say that every single one is going to be exactly like that and there may very
well be an occasion where somebody will want to build something a little bit
different, but conceptually we're trying to show you here's the floor plans that we
think are going to work here and we've laid it out for these floor plans. These are
the elevations we think we're going to use. These are the materials that we
expect to use and the standards will be meet or exceed these standards.
De Weerd: And landscaping? Do you have minimums on that?
Bradbury: Included in the restrictive covenants will be minimum requirements for
landscaping.
MERIDIAN PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 14, 1998
PAGE 103
De Weerd: Will you provide any of that?
Bradbury: To the city?
De Weerd: No, to the buyers.
Bradbury: Absolutely. You bet. The restrictive covenants will be created and
recorded before a lot is sold. And as a matter of fact as a part of the final plat
process I expect the city will review these restrictive covenants. At least if what
has happened in the past holds true to form.
MacCoy: Anything else?
Smith: Just a clarification since it's so late. You salt earlier you don't have
identified on here which lots are in excess of or meet :Qf ale in excess of 8,000
square feet and which ones aren't. We don't h~Y~ a calculation on a number and
we don't know which ones are going to require ~~g variances on the setbacks?
i
Bradbury: Well, I could tell you lot by lo~ ~a~ t~Ie sizes are because I have it on
the map that I'm working with. So if you'r' interested in that information we can
certainly provide it, but what I didn't try to .do:is try to figure out on a lot by lot
basis under this layout which lots going tp need a 15 foot setback and which one
can deal with a 20 foot setback and what might need a 19 foot setback and all of
that.
Smith: It would be helpful to know which ones are what size.
Bradbury: Sizes of the lots?
Smith: Just to get an idea of -you know we've got this many that meet the R-4
zoning and this many don't.
Bradbury: I can leave the map that I have here. It's got the square footages on
it.
Smith: You know you're required to do that anyway. You presented it. You lost
it. I don't have - I'm just tired.
De Weerd: I do have one more question and that's about security issues. I think
the point was raised that the police would have the opportunity to respond to that
pathway if there were problems or patrol that pathway or -you- don't see that as
a-
Bradbury: I don't understand that either. I mean it's not gated and locked and I
think if an officer wants to stop his car and go down that pathway. I suppose
theoretically if you wanted to he could just drive his car down there because it's
MERIDIAN PLANNIN~ ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 14, 1998
PAGE 104
twenty feet wide, but it's not closed.
Smith: You are going to put in a bunch of little nice landscaping so it won't be
wide enough. But this gentleman I think was under the impression that the
pathway was gated, not the street. When you showed us where that pathway
originates, that's off of your property. If it's going to have access - from what I
saw in your sketch and what I'm looking at on the property line here, the gate is
like right on your property line?
Bradbury: Right.
Smith: And then that thing is stuck out down to the southeast a little bit, which is
off of your property?
Bradbury: I believe it's going to be in the ACRD right-of-way.
Smith: Okay, I'm just confused.
Bradbury: It's late and this is maybe not as easy as we'd hoped.
MacCoy: Anything else? Okay, thank you very much, Steve, is there any other
comments from the audience before we close this?
Stafford: My name is Joe Stafford. Just one quick comment. You know you
talked about compatibility that every lot has to be 10,000 square feet and the
whole City of Meridian be 10,000 square feet. Twenty percent of the lots from
what I've heard him say tonight on which ones they raised to 8,000 square feet
meet the minimum standard there. There isn't an 8,000 square foot lot abutting
this property. So 80% don't meet the minimum of 8,000 square feet for an R-4
zoning, and I understand it's a PUD. But that certainly is not compatibility. You
know I understand every lot is not the same. We have a variance in sizes in our
subdivision, but 80 % don't meet the 8,000 square feet, and he's trying to sell
that that's compatible with my 18,000 or someone else's 12,000. So I just have
to bring that up. Thanks.
MacCoy: Anyone else?
Margulieux: This is Gordon Margulieux. I just want to clarify that about the
locked gate. I know that this is a gated community, so there is going to be a gate
that is on the street that crosses the street that people have to open in order to
get through, but there was a discussion at one time that for security reasons that
they may put a gate across the path too, so that at a particular time in the
evening time that that gate would be locked. And so that the gate wouldn't be
open 24 hours a day, but it would be locked on the -now if that's changed,
again, things have fluctuated so if that's changed, that's fine. Again it's just a
situation of really sort of knowing or getting the idea as to what they plan on
MERIDIAN PLANNIN~ ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 14, 1998
PAGE 105
doing. The other one in talking about the gate that I was reminded of and that is
the existing road does not line up with the proposed road that's there. There is
between the existing curb right now and the new curb, there's ten and a half feet.
So it's 10'/z feet the new one moves the road over. But the old road is owned or
maintained by the highway district so I'm not sure exactly what sort of situation
that ten and a half is going to be moved out now. That road is not going to be
part of somebody's but we don't know who's because it belongs to the highway
district right now. So it will be a curb in there and so I'm not sure how that's
going to work out. I haven't quite figured that out yet. But it is if you look at the
old one, and go from that corner on the old - on Cherry Lane's Subdivision 1
from the end it's ten and a half feet shorter than if you go from the drawing out to
the curb. So I'm not sure exactly - I'm sure they'll all figure it out, but I'm not
sure how that area gets controlled over there. I should also say that with the
changes in the lot size, maybe that can be brought back in to line with that,
because it had before, you had four houses along that section. Now you only
have two, so the lots sizes -there's room that can be maybe moved around
there. So maybe that could be brought in line with it. I don't know.
MacCoy: Steve, do you want to answer that?
Bradbury: I'll try. Are we talking about the ten feet highway district thing? Yeah,
we've had conversations with the highway district about that and I needed to be
reminded because I couldn't remember exactly where that all came out either,
but as -we're going to buy it from the highway district so that it all lines up. I
mean it's an engineering thing between Mr. PLS and the ACHD people and if
there's extra right-of--way that's not going to be needed, the notion is that Steiner
Development would buy it.
De Weerd: Is this fenced in? Are ,you fencing this subdivision in or is it open?
Bradbury: You know I don't know. I haven't talked about fencing. Mr. Campbell
says that it's likely to be fenced everywhere but along the golf course.
MacCoy: Any other questions? Thank you. Any other comments to be made
before we close the hearing? Yes. Come ahead.
JACKIE STAFFORD 4192 W. PLUM ROSE STREET WAS SWORN BY THE
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.
J. Stafford: Just one comment. These people have been up here three times.
You'd think they'd have some type of landscaping. Something to give us all that
we wouldn't have all these silly questions that we keep having to ask. That's it.
Thank you.
MacCoy: Thank you. Anyone else? I'm going to close the public hearing at this
time and commissioners, what is your desire?
MERIDIAN PLANNIN~ ZONING COMMISSION
Ji1LY 14, 1998
PAGE 106
Borup: This is back before us because of a substantial change in the plat that
was originally recommended; is that correct?
MacCoy: That's correct. What's your desires?
Borup: My desire is to take a nap.
MacCoy: Well if we get with that, we can do that.
Borup: Well I don't know. We seem to have a lot more concerns and questions
on this now than we did six months ago, and I'm not sure why.
Smith: I don't recall anybody coming in and testifying against it six months ago.
MacCoy: You got a point there.
Borup: That maybe the difference, but it's got three less lots, (End of Tape).
Borup: .. I guess these are the things that came up at city council. The question
I would have then. I don't know if we can answer that is if these changes
satisfied city council's concerns.
De Weerd: Yeah, I guess that was my question too. I know the issue of
compatibility was high was on that list, and you know I don't know if that's been
met. I think it certainly has been improved and you know I look at the example of
Meridian Greens where they were compatible and then they kind of filter in and
then you can have a higher density, and I believe in that too. I do believe that
multi land uses is a good idea. But I don't know what their definition of
compatibility was for the perimeters that would be shared with existing
subdivisions.
MacCoy: I think what the -since we didn't get any guidelines given back to us
on this thing because of the change from what he had reviewed and what they
received they felt that it should go back here and be again opened up to the
public. We would then hear that and make a new decision. If it's to go back and
get more facts, put it in that direction or -
Borup: One of the criteria we use when we're talking about incompatibility
between residential and commercial is buffering. And you think on the one side
we have a 50 foot canal as a buffer. On the other side we have a golf course
fairway as a buffer. And then the smallest buffer is the pathway. On my
standpoint, I'm thinking I don't have as much concern about compatibility as
maybe some of the other aspects. Is that correct that the only discrepancy on
the plat is just the numbering is my understanding, lots sizes all stay the same
except for the ones that need to be changed. Well, there was some mention that
MERIDIAN PLANNIN~ ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 14, 1998
PAGE 107
one was -
Smith: Common lot.
Borup: No, well the 7900 foot one was going to be changed to 8,000.
De Weerd: I don't know. I just don't understand if it's gone through P & Z and
City Council, why we don't have a clearer idea of what's going on.
MacCoy: I expected you to have that, but we didn't receive that. You can put it
back into Finding of Fact again if you want.
Borup: Well, that's what I was going to say. That's the procedure we need to go
to. These corrections still need to be made. Whether to us or to city council. We
can do the findings and go on from there and it ends up back in the city council's
lap.
De Weerd: Well before we make a motion since we can't talk about this after a
motion has been made, have we closed the public hearing?
MacCoy: Yes, I just did.
De Weerd: Okay. Is it would be our hope that city council gets a more complete
picture than what we get if we ask for Findings at this point? That you can give
them a better idea of if you're going to fence it and maybe the type of fencing and
an idea of the landscape. I think some questions were raised that if these people
again show up at the public hearing that they too can have a better
understanding of what's going on. So that's my little speech at 1:00 in the
morning.
Smith: Well and I think if we're going for deviations from an R-4 zoning, we need
to know which lots are being asked to be smaller and at a minimum that. It would
be nice to know which lots are going to need to have variances to setbacks as
well, but I guess you really don't know that until you sell the lot and you know
which unit you're putting on it. But at a minimum we should know whether one or
two lots are deviating from the R-4 or whether the majority of them are. I mean
that's what I don't feel comfortable about forwarding on to city council right now, I
mean could go through it myself and figure it out. But that should be something
that would be made available to us. So that's my little speech, so I'm not going
to going to make a motion for findings of fact. If somebody else wants that's fine.
De Weerd: I will. I move that the assistant city attorney prepare Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law for the conditional use permit for a planned unit
development, the Villas at the Lakes Subdivision by Steiner Development.
Borup: Second.
MERIDIAN PLANNIN~ ZONING COMII~QSSION
JULY 14, 1998
PAGE 108
MacCoy: Any discussion?
Smith: Not from me. I said it.
MacCoy: I think you did. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: 2 ayes, 1 nay.
ITEM NO. 16: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT -
NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1:
MacCoy: Mr. Bradbury, do you have any statement about this one?
STEVE BRADBURY WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.
Bradbury: Mr. Chairman, I don't have anything to add. I'd simply ask that the
testimony from the previous hearing be incorporated into this one so that we
don't have to repeat it all.
MacCoy: Very good, sir. Thank you. Since it is a public hearing, is anything
from the public that would like to be stated at this moment even to the same point
that he just did for his.
WAYNE CROOKSTON 2125 TURNBERRY WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT
CITY ATTORNEY.
Crookston: I would like to like Mr. Bradbury did, I'd like to incorporate the
testimony that I gave in the previous public hearing in this public hearing
testimony. Thank you...
MacCoy: Anyone else would like to do the same?
Smith: Can't we speed this along and just make a blanket motion to incorporate
everything that everybody said on the last thing. (Inaudible)
GORDON MARGULIEUX WAS 2040 INTERLACHEN WAS SWORN BY THE
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.
Margulieux: I'd like to incorporate my previous testimony but I'd also like to ask
about item number 16 that it's not 48 lots. They've removed three lots. That was
kind of confusion on the letter they sent out too, because it had items on it.
MacCoy: We didn't have the map. So when we received our material it was
written as 48.