2004 05-06
2,
4.
CITY OF MERIDIAN
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Thursday, May 6, 2004, at 7:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
1.
Roll-call Attendance:
~ David Zaremba ~ David Moe
~ Wendy Newton-Huckabay ~ Michael Rohm
~Chairman Keith Borup
Adoption of the Agenda:
3.
Consent Agenda:
MCU 04-002: Request for minor modification to the original Conditional
Use Permit to utilize the new setback of 5 feet for the two story residential
buildings for Havasu Creek Subdivision by Havasu Creek LLC - south of
East McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove Road: Approve
5.
MCU 04-001 Request for minor modification of the original Conditional
Use Permit to utilize the new residential side yard setback of 5 feet for
Lochsa Falls Subdivision by Farwest LLC - west of North Linder Road
and north of West McMillan Road: Approve
6.
Continued Public Hearing from April 15, 2004: RZ 04-006 Request for
a Rezone of 16.1 acres from R-4 to R-8 zone for Sutherland, Farm
Subdivision No.4 by Sutherland Farm, Inc. - east of South Eagle Road
and north of east Victory Road: Recommend Approval to City Council
7,
Continued Public Hearing from April 15, 2004: PP 04-009 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 79 single-family residential building lots & 8
common lots on 16.1 acres in proposed R-8 zone for Sutherland Farm
Subdivision No.4 by Sutherland Farm, Inc. - east of South Eagle Road
and north of east Victory Road: Recommend Approval to City Council
8.
Continued Public Hearing from April 15, 2004: CUP 04-009 Request
for modification of the original Conditional Use Permit for a Planned
Development to allow the elimination of five office lots and the addition of
47 single-family lots in addition to the 32 residential lots previously
approved for a total of 79 single-family lots for Sutherland Farm
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda - May 6, 2004
Page10f2
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13,
14.
Subdivision No.4 with request for reduction to the minimum
requirements for lot size, street frontage and front yard setbacks by
Sutherland Farm, Inc. - east of South Eagle Road and north of east
Victory Road: Recommend Approval to City Council
Public Hearing: PFP 04-004 Request for Preliminary Final Plat approval
of 2 building lots on 2.3 acres in an I-L zone for Haztech Subdivision by
Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - 475 North Linder Road: Recommend
Approval to City Council
Public Hearing: AZ 04-008 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.22
acres from RUT to CoG zone for Magic View Court by Larry Hellhake -
2855 Magic View Drive: Recommend Approval to City Council
Public Hearing: PFP 04-005 Request for Preliminary Final Plat approval
for the re-subdivision of Lot 10 and portions of Lots 9 and 11, Block 11 into
3 building lots on 3.46 acres in a CoG zone for Copperpoint Subdivision
by Larson Architects - east of South Eagle Road on the south side of East
Copperpoint Drive: Recommend Approval to City Council
Public Hearing: MI 04-002 Request for removal from the City of
Meridian's area of impact for Fred Schuerman by Fred Schuerman -
west of North Cloverdale Road and north of East Fairview Avenue:
Recommend Approval to City Council
Public Hearing: CUP 04-010 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
100-foot monopole communications tower in a CoG zone for T-Mobile by
T-Mobile / Terry Cox - southeast corner of East Overland Road and South
Eagle Road: Recommend Approval to City Council
Public Hearing: PP 04-010 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 6
commercial building lots on 5.23 acres in a L-O zone for Valencia Plaza
Subdivision by Aspen Grove Development, LLC - east of South Locust
Grove Road and south of East Overland Road: Recommend Approval
to City Council
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda - May 6, 2004
Page 2 of 2
Ali materials presented at public meelings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodalion for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the pubilc meeting,
Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meetina
Mav 6, 2004
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order at 7:00 P,M. by Chairman Keith Borup.
Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay,
Commissioner David Zaremba, Commissioner Michael Rohm, and Commissioner David
Moe.
Others Present: Jill Hollinka, Tara Green, Bruce Freckleton, Wendy Kirkpatrick, Brad
Hawkins-Clark, Craig Hood, and Dean Willis.
Item 1,
Roll-Call Attendance:
x
X
David Zaremba X
Wendy Newton-Huckabay X
X Chairman Keith Borup
David Moe
Michael Rohm
Borup: Good evening, Ladies and Gentlemen -- gentlemen, mainly, in the audience.
We'd like to begin our regularly scheduled meeting for the Planning and Zoning
Commission. I hope with this big crowd everyone found a place to sit. We'd like to
begin with roll call of Commissioners.
Item 3.
Consent Agenda:
Item 4.
MCU 04-002: Request for minor modification to the original Conditional
Use Permit to utilize the new setback of 5 feet for the two story residential
buildings for Havasu Creek Subdivision by Havasu Creek LLC - south of
East McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove Road:
Borup: The first item on the agenda is MCU 04-002, request for minor modification of
the original Conditional Use Permit to utilize the new setback of five feet for two story
residential buildings for Havasu Creek Subdivision by Havasu Creek. This is not a
Public Hearing, it's a modification of Conditional Use Permit and we will turn the time
over to staff for the report.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, members of the Commission, I'll give you some background on
this application. Havasu Creek Conditional Use Permit was approved in January 2003.
At the time that it was approved the setbacks for two story homes, according to the
zoning ordinance, were -- it was required a ten foot setback. When they applied for
their CUP, planned development, they requested a seven foot side setback for two story
homes, which was approved, and since that was approved our zoning ordinance has
changed where now you're only required to have a five foot setback for a two story
home. So, the applicant's requesting that they modify their original Conditional Use
Permit to -- so they are able to use the current standards for the five foot setback and
there were a couple of glitches that came up while I was researching this, but they have
all been smoothed out. There are plat notes -- there are plat notes for the majority of
the final your plats for Havasu and also for Lochsa Falls, which we will talk about next,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6, 2004
Page 2 of 52
that state it as a seven foot setback. So, I talked to the County surveyor to make sure
that these plat notes didn't need to be vacated, that they weren't going to prevent the
CUP being modified and, in his opinion, because the developer was submitting an
application to modify -- to modify this development and because it's supported by our
current ordinance, it's fine to go ahead and grant this modification of the CUP. I also
ran this past Bill Nichols, our City Attorney, and he also thought that this was an
appropriate way to go ahead and modify the original Conditional Use Permit. I also
talked to Mayor de Weerd and Keith Bird, they know that this topic was discussed this
last -- I think this last June at a hearing and at that hearing the minutes stated that the
cleanest way to go in and fix these situations that have also come up on Bridgetower, is
to go in and do a modification for the CUP, so that's what you see here this evening.
So, it's supported by City Councilor by Keith Bird, who was at the original hearing, and
by Mayor de Weerd and supported by on code and so as far as I can tell this is the
correct way to go is to modify this and it's supported by staff. So, basically, their -- the
plat notes will not change, but when they come in and pull building permits for Havasu
Creek, they will be able to pull building permits with the five foot side setback, rather
than the seven foot setback that was on the plat. And if they had never gone to the
trouble of modifying the setbacks through the CUP, they wouldn't have to go through
this today. So, if they had gone ahead with the ten foot setback that was ordained --
that was permitted through the code when this application went through, they wouldn't
be having to go through and change this today, but -
Rohm: You're saying that they would be able to go ahead and assume the five foot,
because they hadn't requested a conditional --
Kirkpatrick: It's because they modified this through the CUP, they are required to go in
and modify the CUP.
Rohm: But they are modifying.
Kirkpatrick: Right.
Rohm: Got you.
Kirkpatrick: So, hopefully, that made sense. I know it's a little convoluted and
confusing, but do you have any questions of staff?
Borup: Now, in the modification, I'm not sure if we have done one. Isn't the applicant
usually here to have anything to say?
Kirkpatrick: You know, it's not a Public Hearing,
Borup: Right.
Kirkpatrick: I'm not certain. Maybe we could ask our legal counsel.
Borup: Is the applicant here even?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6,2004
Page 3 of 52
Höllinka: Chairman, members of the Commission, I -- since it isn't a Public Hearing, I
don't think you're required to hear any testimony, unless you have any questions, I
guess, that you needed addressed, but --
Borup: Yeah. We could ask questions from the applicant.
Hollinka: I would say questions for clarification purposes.
Borup: Right. Okay. Any of the Commissioners have any questions for either staff or
the applicant? All right.
Zaremba: That being said, I do have a comment on this proposal. For many, many
years the ordinance was that there was a requirement of a setback of five feet per story.
I remember when these and the next one came through, there were a lot of good
elements to the proposals that were made, and we didn't have much discussion,
although we accepted that a seven foot setback for a two story building would be okay.
And it was since that time that a developer made the request that the ordinance be
changed and it worked its way through the process, I was against the change to,
period, five feet, regardless of how many stories, for a couple reasons, and even though
it, eventually, was approved by the City Council, I voted against it. I am now on a
committee that is revising our current patchwork of revised and revised and revised
ordinances and on that I will fight to put it back to five feet per story. I mayor may not
win that battle, but that will come through a hearing as well. I feel there are a couple of
reasons that this was in the ordinance for a long time, One of them is esthetics and that
has not changed, The piece of it that has been talked about is the safety aspect of it.
There was a time that I believe that that actually was fire requirement and, apparently,
something has changed in the International Fire Code or otherwise that it is no longer a
requirement, but you also have to realize what happens in Meridian. If you have a five
foot setback, there are a lot of things that are allowed to be in that setback, side patios
to a garage, air conditioning units, overhangs, and gutters and stuff, and that five feet
can disappear pretty quick. We have had a few proposals come before us in the few
months since the ordinance was actually changed to say five feet and I have always
made it a point either of making it a condition or getting the developer to agree that they
had no intention of putting fences between the two buildings, so that if you have two
buildings that are ten foot apart, because they are each set back five feet, you're not
splitting that distance in half for the Fire Department by putting a fence there. As staff
has made very clear, we cannot add such a condition to this request, that there not be
fences splitting that distance, It's either yes or no, Either they can have the five foot
setback for all heights of buildings and fences would be possible, so that the Fire
Department would have only five feet less whatever in the way to make their way
through that, and I feel, even if the Fire Department doesn't defend it on their behalf, I
feel that that's a safety issue and what I'm signaling is that in this interim period where
there is an ordinance that I feel is wrong and that I hope to get changed back to the way
it used to be, I am adverse to going back to previous applications and saying, okay, it
may be wrong, but you can do it. What I'm signaling is I plan to vote no on the change.
"m comfortable with the seven feet that we agreed to before, but not five feet. Personal
opinion.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6,2004
Page 4 of 52
Borup: Questions or comments?
Rohm: Just an additional comment. Commissioner Zaremba, I agree with you
wholeheartedly in the logic trail that you have presented on here, but what would
happen, I believe, is if we were to deny, then, it would just be overturned at such time as
it made its way to City Council and I think that the ordinance supports the five foot
setback, whether you and I think that it should be or not, and so -- Wendy, did you
have --
Kirkpatrick: Oh, I just wanted to go ahead and note that this application will not go to
City Council, you all will make the final decision this evening.
Rohm: Oh. Oh,
Kirkpatrick: Think hard, That changes things just a bit, then, doesn't it?
Zaremba: Well, the question would be if an applicant disagreed with us, could they
appeal it to the City Council?
Kirkpatrick: I believe they could. They could appeal it.
Rohm: I believe that, too. And that's kind of the logic trail that I was trying to present
here, but thanks for interjecting. I appreciate that. In any case, I agree with you in
principal, but I think in the end all we would be doing is slowing the process down by
denying and so, albeit that I support your logic, I think I'd probably go the other way.
Zaremba: And, in support of your logic, I would say that's why there are five of us up
here, instead of just one person making the decision, and I appreciate that.
Moe: With me being in the middle of these two guys, I would say I'm a little bit -- I'm
torn both ways, so I guess I do have a question of the applicant, if possible. What's the
two foot -- what's the two foot going to give you -- you went to seven foot to begin with,
why the five? I mean this has been out there for a while,
McColl: Brian McColl, representing the applicant. It's really a matter of consistency and
appreciate -- I appreciate very much your position. Unfortunately -- and I think it's
somewhat ironic that, you know, for years we always feel like you can't fight city hall and
now you're almost on the other side fighting city hall. The change was made and so all
subdivisions that have been approved since the change was made, they got the five
feet. We are standing out there with only seven feet and it really does have some
actual impact from a competition perspective. You get builders that will say, I'm not
going to buy one of your lots, we can go down the street to Baldwin where, under the
ordinance, for a two story it's five feet. So, we wanted to have this -- some level of
consistency and if the rules change back, we will all be, you know, forced to live by the
change.
Borup: Any questions?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6, 2004
Page 5 of 52
Moe: Thank you very much.
Borup: Okay, Thank you, sir. Commissioner Zaremba, I just might -- maybe a little to
expand on what you were talking about, the safety aspect from the Fire Department. I
had assumed or you were talking about ladder access, You were talking about getting
through there with equipment was one of your concerns?
Zaremba: Ladders and equipment and, you know, what if they had to make a second
story rescue or get to the back --
Borup: Okay. Well, that's what I was wondering, if that was what you were referring to
or --
Zaremba: Apparently--
Borup: Or just getting through with equipment to get to the back yard.
Zaremba: Any obstacles that end up being in that space.
Borup: Okay. There is only five feet.
Zaremba: With only five feet and if there is no fence, then, they have ten feet, because
they have five feet that they can walk on the neighbor's property, but --
Borup: But on a single story you have got five feet, so that if you're just accessing --
Zaremba: But they may not need ladders.
Borup: Right. But if it's just accessing equipment to the backyard, that's not going to be
any different in that aspect.
Zaremba: Well -- and I can see that the Fire Department is not here defending the extra
space on their own behalf, so --
Borup: And most -- and depending on which side of the house it's on, even if there is
ten feet, they usually have a fence in the way, anyway, that they have to break down, I
guess. Wendy, was there -- I mean this goes back a ways, but there was Fire
Department input back when the ordinance was changed, wasn't there?
Kirkpatrick: You know, I wasn't involved with the ordinance change. That may have
been before I started working here at Meridian, I'm going through and looking to see if
there are any Fire Department comments. I don't remember there being any.
Borup: Not in our packets.
Zaremba: And I don't remember that the Fire Department weighed in when it was going
through the change process either, because I remember asking that question and --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6, 2004
Page 6 of 52
Borup: If they didn't, they should have.
Zaremba: I either wasn't satisfied with the answer or there wasn't an answer.
remember that part.
Borup: I would have thought they would have.
Newton-Huckabay: Do we have to make a motion to do the modification --
Borup: Yes. Oh, right. We have no hearing to close, so --
Zaremba: It is a final, so it's not a recommendation.
Borup: Right. So, we just need to make a motion to -- in this case approve with staff
recommendation and comments or otherwise.
Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I'd like to recommend approval of MCU 04-002, including all staff comments,
dated April 29th, 2004, for the hearing dated May 6, 2004. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Anyopposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY.
Item 5.
MCU 04-001 Request for minor modification of the original Conditional
Use Permit to utilize the new residential side yard setback of 5 feet for
Lochsa Falls Subdivision by Farwest LLC - west of North Linder Road
and north of West McMillan Road:
Borup: Our next item is MCU 04-001, request for minor modification of the original
conditional use -- in fact, they are the same conditions that we were discussing here,
only this one is for Lochsa Falls Subdivision. Anything additional you want to add,
Wendy?
Kirkpatrick: Very similar to the last application. The only difference is Lochsa was
approved in 2002 -- let's see, We have -- I guess the only minor difference would be
there is 12 phases of Lochsa and ten of them have been approved by the city. There is
still two more that need to come through the city, whereas Havasu, all phases of the
Havasu and Cobre Basin have gone through the city, So, that's, essentially, the only
difference between the two applications, otherwise, it's the same proposal, to modify the
setbacks.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6, 2004
Page 7 of 52
Zaremba: And since this is a different record, I will only restate my objection on the
basis of both esthetics and what i perceive to be a safety issue and leave it at that.
Rohm: Okay, Mr. Chairman, with that being said -- and I appreciate your comments.
Mr. Chairman, I recommend approval of MCU 04-001, including all staff comments
dated April 29, 2004, for the hearing date May 6, 2004. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second, All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY.
Item 6.
Item 7.
Item 8.
Continued Public Hearing from April 15, 2004: RZ 04-006 Request for
a Rezone of 16.1 acres from R-4 to R-8 zone for Sutherland Farm
Subdivision No.4 by Sutherland Farm, Inc. - east of South Eagle Road
and north of east Victory Road:
Continued Public Hearing from April 15, 2004: PP 04-009 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 79 single-family residential building lots & 8
common lots on 16.1 acres in proposed R-8 zone for Sutherland Farm
Subdivision No.4 by Sutherland Farm, Inc. - east of South Eagle Road
and north of east Victory Road:
Continued Public Hearing from April 15, 2004: CUP 04-009 Request
for modification of the original Conditional Use Permit for a Planned
Development to allow the elimination of five office lots and the addition of
47 single-family lots in addition to the 32 residential lots previously
approved for a total of 79 single-family lots for Sutherland Farm
Subdivision No, 4 with request for reduction to the minimum
requirements for lot size, street frontage and front yard setbacks by
Sutherland Farm, Inc. - east of South Eagle Road and north of east
Victory Road:
Borup: All right. Thank you. Next we have Items 6, 7, and 8, continued public hearings
from April 15th, 2004, RZ 04-006, PP 04-009, and CUP 04-009. All three of these are
for a request for Sutherland Farms Subdivision. Again, these are continued public
hearings and we'd like to start with the staff report,
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. I'm pitch
hitting for Steve Siddoway tonight on this, so I will try to kind of hit the highlights of his
staff report that you have received. The first item, number six, is for the rezone and
what is shown on the slide is the full boundaries of Sutherland Farm Subdivision.
Original -- their existing approved preliminary plat and as you can see, they have started
development already, They are phasing from Victory Road going north, but they also
have frontage here on Eagle Road, Silverstone -- the Silverstone development is to the
north. The Ridenbaugh Canal is between Silverstone and Sutherland. So, the piece of
Sutherland Farms that our -- that is the subject of all these three applications, is here in
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6, 2004
Page 8 of 52
the northwest portion of their project that fronts on Eagle Road. They have an R-4 zone
today on the full 120 plus acres and they -- item number six is proposing to rezone just
a portion of that 16.1 acres to the R-B. And as outlined is Steve's report, staff is
recommending approval of the rezone. The Comprehensive Plan is medium density
residential, so it does allow the R-B. This shows you the approved preliminary plat,
which was a mix of uses, They had an office development that was approved on the
Eagle Road frontage, that came in several hundred feet, and what they are proposing to
do is take these five office lots that were approved and, essentially, change those to a
residential -- medium residential use, instead of the office use. No changes to the -- to
the entry collector street. They are proposing this open space area that was shown
here along the Ridenbaugh Canal, as you will see on the next slide, to shift to the south.
But that's the area for the plat that they are proposing to change. Here is the
preliminary plat that was submitted and, as you can see, they are still maintaining the
office lots that have the Eagle Road frontage, proposing largely attached dwelling units.
There are -- let's see, What do they have? They have -- they are adding 47 single-
family residential lots, for a total of 79 in this section. The open space area in this
revised preliminary plat does come to, I believe, just over 20 percent of the area. They
have this central feature, which is a -- about a two acre park that they have, again,
shifted from the Ridenbaugh. They are maintaining some open space for the public
multi-use pathway that would ultimately become the cities and maintained by the city
parks, but they are now shifting houses that would back up to that regional pathway,
whereas before this was largely just open space. So, I think that's probably the main
change in terms of the layout. Again, the addition of these attached units here. The
applicant does submit a two-page response to Steve's staff report, which I don't know if
the Commission -- did you receive that in your packets?
Rohm: I don't think so.
Hawkins-Clark: Dated April 15th.
Zaremba: I don't recall seeing that.
Hawkins-Clark: It was addressed just to Steve Siddoway, so I wasn't sure if the
Commission had received this or not. We can certainly get that to you for your review.
But I will just touch on the five or six main issues that were outstanding and I think the
bottom line is tonight, I believe, that the applicant is agreeing to -- to all of the staff --
proposed staff conditions. The main -- there was some concern about -- from the police
department about access -- sort of public surveillance into this open space area, since it
is backed up to residential houses or with residential lots and what the police chief has
asked for, as I understand, from Mr, Fluke, is for this -- some of these lots to just get a
little bit narrower, so that they can have access from more directions into this central
area. There is a sewer easement that is platted that runs north and south here that kind
of bisects the open space and they are proposing a grass crete type design for that, so
that vehicles could actually get in there. It would have to be the 14-foot minimum for the
Public Works Department. There would be man holes, et cetera, in there, so that's one
of the issues that the police department was looking for and they feel that if they can get
that grass crete, they can, if necessary, get vehicles in there. So, that was one of the
reasons for the request to reduce the frontages, which the applicant's going to also
Meridian Piannlng & Zoning Commission
May 6,2004
Page g of 52
address tonight. There is a shared driveway that's down here in the southwest corner
that has four dwelling units on the south side. The public street comes here and, then,
they have their driveways accessing off the south. The staff report had recommended
that the lot to the north also take access and I think originally was to make that a private
road, since the ordinance says you can only have four lots on a common driveway and,
then, if you go more than that, you have to pump up your design standards, et cetera, to
a private road, The applicant would prefer to keep that as a common driveway. There
is an emergency connection also into this from Sutherland Farms Phrase Three up here
in the northeast corner, that there would -- bollards shown originally on phase three up
here, those would be removed and the connection extended into this phase, so that
would provide the secondary access into this for emergency. This is the primary, of
course, down here on the south off the collector road. Here is the layout of the
landscape plan that they propose. And I will just -- one other thing, just touch on the
planned development reductions that they are asking for. They are summarized on
page two of the staff report, dated May 6 -- or for the hearing date of May 6. Excuse
me. And the three areas that they are asking for exceptions to are the front setbacks for
living areas and side entry garages, they are asking to go from 15 to ten. The minimum
lot size they are asking to go from 6,500 square foot for detached, to 5,000 detached.
For attached units going from what was originally approved -- because this property
does have a planned development already on it that was approved with the original plat,
so they did get a couple of reductions a couple of years ago and now they -- with adding
the attached units they are proposing to decrease the lot size by about 200 square feet
again to 3,700 square feet for attached units. They originally were 3,829. And, then,
the third exception that they are asking for is minimum lot frontages. The prior planned
development was the same as the ordinance, 65 feet for detached. They are proposing
50. And, then, the attached units of 40-foot is the attached minimum in our code and
they are proposing 37, Are there any questions?
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman. Brad, I have two questions on slightly different subjects. One
is this emergency access, which is identified up here, and I did have a question about
whether there were going to be bollards. I did think I remembered from phase three that
they were there. In approving this, though, we can't make the modification to phase
three to remove the bollards from phase three, can we? Even though it makes sense
they shouldn't be there, can we, as a condition of this one, say that the bollards won't be
there or just make a gentleman's agreement to not put bollards on --
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. I guess the bottom line to your question, Commissioner, is
correct. I mean on a different phase, yeah, I guess the question is are the bollards
technically on the property line or are they within this phase or not, but if the applicant
could address -- I'm not even sure if Sutherland Phase Three is final platted, so --
Zaremba: I agree with not having them there, but " like you, recall that it was a
requirement. Second unrelated question, When it was envisioned that this would be --
as I recall, this portion was going to be developed to L-O standards or something like
that, that would make Silverstone north of it, which I believe is all CoG, not have so
much of a transition requirement or buffer requirement. If this gets changed to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6,2004
Page 10 of 52
residential, I'm not sure I see that it would be fair to require Silverstone to handle the
buffer zone, I would think because this one is changing, whatever buffer is needed
between residential and CoG should be this project's responsibility, That's a question,
not a statement.
Hawkins-Clark: Sure. Yeah, The ordinance does talk about the buffer between land
uses as being from the property -- from a shared property line, so between two different
types of uses and it does require the higher intensity use to put their -- put the buffer on
their side. The Silverstone plat is complete and those kind of buffers would just happen
lot by lot. So, as Silverstone lots develop on the north of this project, if -- typically, you
know, you would see those buffer requirements to just be dealt with case by case.
Zaremba: But the Silverstone people assume that this area is office buildings, not
residential. Or is there a --
Hawkins-Clark: A portion, correct. The entire area was not -- they were previously
approved for -- as you can see, some of it was residential under the original approved
preliminary plat, but, you're correct, I mean there is a couple hundred feet here where
they were anticipating office and beyond that there was this open space here that was
separating them,
Zaremba: I'm just -- as much as I like this project, I'm saying I don't think it's fair for
Silverstone to have to bear the results of the change, Is that a fair statement or is there
anything we can do about that?
Hawkins-Clark: Sure, I mean they were certainly noticed as part of this process, so I
think that's probably a good item for discussion for the Commission. You know, they do
have, bear in mind, the Ridenbaugh easement is -
Zaremba: Pretty wide.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. It's 80 feet.
Zaremba: Plus a roadway on both sides of it, so it's -- it is a pretty good size buffer all
by itself. Okay, Those were my only questions.
Borup: Anyone else? I had -- back to the original approved plat. Did we -- have they
increased the number of lots and the density of lots on -- in the area that was previously
approved? I'm having trouble following exactly what happened. I mean, you know, all
these lots and this lot became a part of the residential; is that correct?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Borup: So, has the size of these lots changed?
Hawkins-Clark: I believe they --
Borup: I didn't have an original plat to compare it to. That's why I --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6,2004
Page 11 of 52
Hawkins-Clark: Right. I believe there were some slight reductions. Certainly, the
reason that they are asking for the R-8 is because the gross density went above four.
Borup: Well, yes,
Hawkins-Clark: Before they were below. Each of those -- that particular section I would
have to check, You know, I think they are probably pretty similar, because they do have
still some detached units.
Zaremba: My recollection was that the area that you're talking to just east of the current
application was --
Borup: No. Well, the current application has this area included. This area here is east
of the current application. So, they are taking -- correct. They are taking this R -- this
residential area, combining it with this office area, and making a new residential area.
Zaremba: Okay. I was missing part of it. Because, I do remember this as being fairly
high density,
Borup: Yes. But it looks like they have even increased it beyond what it was originally.
That was my question.
Zaremba: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: Just to answer that question, Commissioner, I think they were
previously about 50 feet frontages and they remain about 50 feet frontages. Fifty foot.
Borup: Okay.
presentation?
Any other questions?
Would the applicant like to make their
Fluke: Mr, Chairman, Members of the Commission, thank you. My name is Darin Fluke
with JUB Engineers, representing the applicant in this matter. I think I'll just make a
couple of general observations, try to answer your questions, and, then, I have just two
specific requests on the conditions of approval, so I will make it brief. Could we see the
old plat, please, Brad? I just want to point out that it is by way of a general observation
that we did have a planned development approved for the entire boundary that you see
here, the mix of land uses from detached single family up through attached single
family, multi-family, office, and general commercial, all within the bounds of this project.
The project before you tonight modifies that slightly, gets rid of some square footage of
office uses and replaces that with some attached and detached single family dwellings,
so it's not that large of a change, In the context of the overall project, all the numbers
still work. The open space actually increased through this -- through the change by
about 3,900 square feet. So, about the size of one of the lots. It got a little bit bigger
and we think it got a little bit better. It got more centrally located and more usable from
the previous application, So, just in response to your questions that you had, the
Chairman is correct in stating that this is number three right here, that's about a couple
of days away from being recorded right now, The boundaries of the current application
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6,2004
Page 12 of 52
come over to here and come along here. So, essentially, what we did is a mirror image
of this and just flipped it over and sort of fit it to the topography of the site. To do that
we had to work around an existing sewer line that comes down here to serve the project
and comes all the way down, That line is about 25 feet deep and so it wasn't going to
be easily moved and that does serve this whole project by and large, so -- if we could
just see that -- the new plat, Brad. So, like I said, what we did is, essentially, took this
and just flipped it over and added lots there and moved the open space down into the
middle. I think we have addressed all the issues with staff. The reason that we asked
to be tabled three weeks ago -- in the letter that Brad referred to was my response to
the issues that we found as we went through the preliminary plat with the other
agencies, including the police department, the Fire Department, and the others. We
made some changes, we skinnied these lots down a little bit, so that we got wider
pathways into here. You will notice in the staff report that they do ask to widen these
paths up to 15 feet as well. That's going to require knocking the frontages down on
these and I'll get to that in just a minute, They also want to widen this pathway up here,
We show a pathway connection going to this path along the Ridenbaugh. They also
want to connect that path to this office lot, which we are not opposed to, but we do need
to pick up a little bit of room here and so we might as well talk about that now. On page
12 of your staff report, condition number ten, limits the frontages on detached units to
50 feet and 5,000 square feet in area and on the attached units, 37 feet of frontage and
3,700 square feet in area. Because we need to pick up those additional frontages
there, we'd like to just knock those numbers down just a little bit. On the attached units
we'd ask to go to 44 feet of frontage and 4,400 square feet. Really, that only affects
these three lots and if you want to write the condition to that effect, that's fine with us. It
just seems easier to knock it all -- to just say 4,400 square feet with 44 feet of frontage
is the minimum for detached units. As far as the attached units go, they are showing 37
feet frontage along here, because that's the way the numbers work when it's laid out.
Thirty-six feet actually makes more sense, because we try to keep it at even numbers
and if we need to pick up some area here anyway, we'd like to just go ahead and define
34 feet as the minimum frontage, with 3,400 square feet as the minimum for attached
units. Again, that won't affect all the units, it will probably just affect this tier right here
and I doubt that they will have to go down to 34, they will probably be 36. And by doing
that, we can meet all the other conditions that you see in your staff report for making
those pathways wider and dealing with the concerns of the other agencies.
Borup: So, you would not be adding any additional lots you're saying?
Fluke: That's correct. That's just an effort to not lose any lots. With this issue of the
bollards, if I remember right, I don't believe that it was a condition on the final plat of
Sutherland Number Three and so I don't think we are running into any procedural
difficulties there. We had, in fact, offered it up on number three, thinking that it made it
work better, Really, whatever the city wants we are happy to do in that regard and so
we are happy to leave the bollards out there. And, then, finally with regard to the
questions about buffering next to Silverstone, I would just point out that those buffering
requirements are keyed to land uses, not zoning designations. The previous application
had approved all uses that were allowed in L-O and our narrative talked about having
not only office uses, but multi-family as well. Apartments. You know, not knowing into
the future what they might want to build, they left their options open and all of those
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6, 2004
Page 130f52
uses were allowed and so, really, you don't change anything for Silverstone now,
because when those lots develop, they are going to have to react to what's on the other
side as far as land use goes, not zoning designation, and they would have had to have
done that previously anyway. So, that's just the cost of doing business. They always
knew that something was going to go in there. And I think we do have a really effective
transition that -- with the Ridenbaugh in there, not only is it wide horizontally, there is
also some vertical relief there of about 30 feet -- well, 20 feet, I guess from the toe up to
the top of bank on that and so there is a good separation between those two projects.
We think we have designed a really attractive project here. We are going to use one
builder on this whole thing -- or one builder is going buying the whole thing and going to
build the whole thing, so it will be a nice looking project, with a nice looking product in
there, and we would just ask for your approval.
Borup: Questions for Mr. Fluke?
Moe: Actually, would you -- I didn't catch your -- the change you wanted to make on
detached units. Could you go over that one more time for me?
Fluke: On detached units we just asked that the frontage go down to 44 feet and the
minimum area to be 4,400 square feet.
Moe: And the other was 34 and 3,400?
Fluke: Correct.
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: So, at this point, other than that, you're saying that you're in agreement with all
staff report items?
Fluke: That's correct. I think all the issues have been resolved.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: You answered my questions.
Borup: Okay. I think -- one more question,
Newton-Huckabay: It's just a general question, why there are no stub streets linking
these subdivisions together, like most of the other developments that come before us.
Fluke: Well, it's all part of the same project. They are connected by way of that
residential collector that goes through the -- could we see the whole project view again,
Brad? This is a residential collector that comes in and connects everything in the
development. There are other streets coming up from the south. Two different product
types. The developers wanted to keep these two as separate as they could and so
what we did was provide that as a secondary emergency access. With this being a
divided road there, with this median, essentially, you have got to ways in, if one of those
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6, 2004
Page 14 of 52
were to be blocked. So, that was the compromise with the Fire Department on that.
So, really, there is nowhere for a stub street to go. You're not going to go north against
the canal. You're not going to go to the west because we don't necessarily want these
people driving to get here anyway, they can walk when there is a pathway connection
here.
Newton-Huckabay: I was talking about to the east.
Fluke: Okay,
Newton-Huckabay: Where your emergency access is, why there wasn't a stub there,
Fluke: Right. That's why.
Borup: Okay. All right. Thank you, Do we have anyone else here to testify on this
application?
Larsen: Chairman Borup, Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, my name
is Cornell Larsen, I'm here tonight actually on another matter, but since the Silverstone
issue came up, I have been involved in that project for quite awhile, so I thought I'd
speak to some of your concerns. Along the south side of Silverstone most of the lots in
here have been developed or are in for a permit at this point in time. There is a
Limelight Studio going right here. We have in for a permit for this portion here. We are
before you tonight for a two-lot split in this area on this portion, All the other lots along
here, with the exception of this one on Eagle Road and one right there, have been
developed next to Sutherland Farms, so there is only two lots that might be adjacent to
Sutherland Farms and it appears they want to keep these as commercial office uses, so
most likely they would be fairly compatible along there. Wouldn't see too many issues
regarding that. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Borup: So, you're saying the buffer issue would not affect anything in Silverstone,
because they have already been either built or approved?
Larsen: Correct. And, in addition, there is -- I believe there is a 50 foot or a hundred
foot canal right of way there, plus Silverstone's provided an additional ten feet along
there on their additional plat for -- I mean on their plat for landscaping buffer at the base
of the slope of the canal and we can't really do too much on the slope of the canal,
unless you get a license agreement and they just -- we just recently paid to line that
canal along there, so that there was no water infiltration down on the property below
Sutherland Farms, so we have taken all the precautions to make sure that it is weed
free as best we can along the canal facility and still landscape properly.
Borup: Okay. Does that answer your question, Commissioner?
Zaremba: Thank you,
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Okay. Seeing none, Commissioners?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6,2004
Page 150f52
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that these three public hearings be closed.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second, All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending
approval of Item 6 on our agenda, RZ 04-006, request for a rezone of 16.1 acres from
R-4 to R-B zone for Sutherland Farms Subdivision Number Four by Sutherland Farms,
Inc., east of South Eagle Road and north of East Victory Road, to include all staff
comments of their memo for the hearing date of May 6, 2004, received by the city clerk
May 4th, 2004, with no changes.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second, All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr, Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending
approval of Item 7 on our agenda, PP 04-009, request for preliminary plat approval of
79 single family residential building lots and eight common lots on 16.1 acres in
proposed R-B zone for Sutherland Farms Subdivision No, 4 by Sutherland Farm, Inc.,
east of South Eagle Road and north of East Victory Road, to include all staff comments
of their memo for the hearing date of May 6, 2004, received by the city clerk May 4th,
2004, and, again, with no changes,
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second, All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending
approval of Item 8 on our agenda, CUP 04-009, request for modification of the original
Conditional Use Permit for a planned development to allow the elimination of five office
lots and the addition of 47 single family lots, in addition to the 32 residential lots
previously approved, for a total of 79 single family lots for Sutherland Farms Subdivision
No.4, with requests for a reduction to the minimum requirements for lot size, street
frontage, and front yard setbacks by Sutherland Farms, Inc., east of South Eagle Road
and north of East Victory Road, to include all staff comments of the staff memo for the
hearing date of May 6, 2004, received by the city clerk May 4th, 2004, with no changes.
Moe: Uh -- yeah.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
May 6,2004
Page 160f52
Zaremba: I'm sorry. There was a change on page 12. Thank you for that correction.
We didn't discuss this, but let me phrase it this way: On page 12 of the staff notes,
paragraph ten, we will say that attached units may have a 34 foot frontage, minimum lot
frontage, and that attached units may have a minimum lot size of 3,400 square feet and
that three of the detached lots may have a 44 foot frontage and those same three
detached lots may have a 4,400 square foot minimum lot size. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES,
Item 9.
Public Hearing: PFP 04-004 Request for Preliminary Final Plat
approval of 2 building lots on 2,3 acres in an I-L zone for Haztech
Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - 475 North Linder Road:
Borup: Okay. Our next item is Public Hearing PFP 04-004, request for preliminary/final
plat approval of two building lots on 2.3 acres in an I-L zone for Haztech Subdivision by
Pinnacle Engineers. I'd like to open this hearing and start with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, this is a
preliminary/final plat request. The property is located on the west side of Linder Road,
south of the railroad tracks. There is an existing day care facility on the east side of
Linder Road. Franklin is about a quarter mile to the south. The property has been
annexed. It is zoned light industrial. Their request tonight is strictly for a -- essentially a
lot split. City of Meridian code does not allow for one-time divisions, other than through
a plat. We are a little bit different that way than some other jurisdictions in the valley, so
the reason that this is before you is -- is for that reason, there is no other mechanism for
them to split a parcel. As you can see, there is a line that's shown on the base map that
shows that there are two parcels there today. They did do a record of survey that
divided that. However, the city doesn't recognize that record of survey as creating legal
buildable lots, So, the staff report is before you, We did received written comment that
I think was on your desks this -- as you got into the chambers this evening, dated today,
May 6, from Dave McKinnon Pinnacle Engineers. As you can see there, the majority of
staff's recommended conditions they are in agreement with. I will just go to the plat
here quickly. There is a private road that runs along the south boundary of this site that
was approved a year and a half or so ago under a separate miscellaneous application
that went directly to City Council. That applicant at that time was this property to the
west for -- Marcon is a company that stores cement barricades and they needed to have
a -- basically, a storage facility for those and so they came in needing access into that
area and this was approved. As you can see, it does lie wholly on this -- the plat that's
before you tonight. It's 24 feet wide and it was approved as such. It's already built.
They would propose to take access off that private road for this rear lot, which is the
only one that doesn't have a building on it. The front one does have the Haztech drilling
company building today. Let's see, I guess we didn't put in the landscape plan. There
was a few comments on the landscape plan that I had made. We -- since the final plat,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6, 2004
Page 17of52
typically, we like to see detailed landscape plans with the species and planting
standards, et cetera, so we are just basically asking that that be provided before the city
engineer signs the plat, so we can review it at staff level. Item number four, site specific
comments, is one of the items that Mr. McKinnon raised in his letter, response letter,
stating that the 24 foot three inch landscape buffer is - on Linder Road is already in
place, already planted, and they are, essentially, indicating compliance with the
condition. So, I think that's more of just a housekeeping thing. If the Commission wants
to keep it in, that's fine. Staff's fine with either way, frankly. And, then, the only other
one I'd point out is under Fire Department comments, number six. The - talking about
fire sprinklers being required for all buildings associated with the project and, then, the
proposal is to add if required by an adopted safety code, such as the International
Building Code or National Fire Code. Understand that Joe Silva, Deputy Fire Chief, did
verbally restate that he was okay with that. So, I think those are the only two issues
staff has to point out. Is there any questions?
Borup: On the landscaping buffer, are you saying that since ifsin place they don't need
to show that on the plat or that it will be done prior to final plat? I don't know if I
understood which way that went.
Hawkins-Clark: Let's see. The condition as it's worded is a 24 foot wide street buffer is
required beyond the North Linder Road right of way. Prior to the city engineer's
signature, existing landscaping shall be inspected by the P&Z Department to confirm
compliance.
Borup: And the applicants addressed that it was in compliance, so that's --
Hawkins-Clark: Right. And, essentially, it involves, you know, one tree every 35 feet
and I do know that that's correct. I was mainly trying to --
Borup: It's just not showing on the plat is what you're - isn't that --
Hawkins-Clark: Actually, the landscape plan that was submitted with the application
does reflect all the existing trees on the site.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman and Brad, my inclination would be to leave that in there,
because the real requirement is a 25 foot buffer and this paragraph acknowledges that
we realize that we are accepting the 24 and, actually, they have 24 three inches, but I
would leave it in, so that it's clear that we understood that we are making an exception
to the 25 foot buffer.
Hawkins-Clark: And also, as I read through it, I guess the last -- second or third to the
last sentence does reference that there is a minimum ten foot wide street buffer on the
north side of Marcon Lane, which is that private lane here that we are asking for and I
believe there is a fence that mayor may not be within the required ten feet, but we want
to makesureth~t that gets addressed, so--
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6,2004
Page 180f52
Borup: Okay. Maybe we can discuss that with the applicant. Any other questions? I
got to say I particularly enjoyed the school district's comments, though.
Zaremba: Boilerplate letter,
Borup: Okay, Mr. McKinnon, have you got anything you'd like to add?
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Dave McKinnon,
735 South Crosstimber. On the issue of item number four, if you want to leave it in,
that's fine. The landscaping is in place right now and it does conform. The only reason
why I wanted to keep that out is when the owner takes a look at this, it may be
confusing for him to say is it or is it not in compliance and it is in compliance and just
wanted to make that statement, that it is in compliance and Brad's made that statement
for me, which is great. Joe Silva did leave me a voice mail today about the fire issue,
item number six, saying that he's okay if it's required per the Uniform Fire Code or the
International Fire Code. Didn't have a chance to get a written response from him. I
came back into the office about 4:40 today and happened to talk to Bruce Freckleton
today at work and I played the voice mail for him, so I've got somebody to verify that Joe
was okay with that. So, those are, really, the only things I have to add and just ask for
approval tonight.
Borup: I think one of Commissioner Zaremba's comments on leaving the 24 -- or
leaving that in there, because it does -- since we are approving to 24 foot, rather than
25.
McKinnon: That's fine.
Borup: Is that -- other than that -- and maybe for the audience, the school district's
comment was that this was going to have a significant impact on the enrollment in all
the schools.
Zaremba: All the added children in this commercial project.
residential subdivision letter.
It's their standard
Borup: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Put together on in-service day,
Borup: Any other questions for Mr. McKinnon?
Moe: No.
McKinnon: Thanks, guys.
Borup: Thank you. Is there anyone else that has any testimony on this application?
Seeing none, Commissioners?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that this hearing be closed.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6, 2004
Page 19 of 52
Rohm: Second,
Borup: Motion and second to close this Public Hearing, All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending
approval of Item 9 on our agenda PFP 04-004, request for preliminary plat approval of
two building lots on 2.3 acres in an I-L zone for Haztech Subdivision by Pinnacle
Engineers, 475 North Linder Road, to include all staff comments of the staff memo for
the hearing date of May 6, 2004, received by the city clerk May 4th, 2004, with one
change and that is on page five, the comment is actually being made by the Fire
Department, paragraph six, reads: Fire sprinklers will be required for all buildings
associated with this project and we will add to that: If, in fact, they are required by an
adopted safety code, such as the IBC or the IFC. End of motion.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10.
Public Hearing: AZ 04-008 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.22
acres from RUT to CoG zone for Magic View Court by Larry Hellhake -
2855 Magic View Drive:
Borup: Okay. Thank you, Next item is Public Hearing PFP 04-004, request for
preliminarylfinal plat approval of two building lots -- excuse me. Public Hearing AZ 04-
008, request for annexation and zoning of 5.22 acres from RUT to CoG for Magic View
Court. Like to open this hearing and start with the staff report,
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. This
application is just for annexation and zoning tonight. There is no associated
development applications with it. The applicant is proposing a CoG zone. The land is
currently in the county, RUT zoning, outlined here on the south side of Magic View
Drive. The Magic View Subdivision is, essentially, this area here south of Greenhill
Estates, east of Woodbridge Subdivision, The applicant is proposing to, essentially,
match the zoning that has already been approved on several other lots here in Magic
View Subdivision. The zoning in the Comprehensive Plan during the -- that amendment
process a couple of year ago, the 20 plus property owners in this subdivision were fairly
involved in that process and submitted several different letters asking for a change,
essentially, from their current rural five acre lot subdivision, to a commercial. Office
designations were put on the perimeter and commercial designations were put on the
interior. There is an existing -- actually, two hotels that are being constructed in this
area right now on the corner of Allen and Freeway and, then, at the corner of Wells and
Freeway. Hubble Homes, Hubble Engineering has their headquarters located on this
lot, which is adjacent to the south side of this and, then, there is Medical Imaging and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6,2004
Page 20 of 52
some other clinic and office type professional office facilities that are already annexed
and located here. W.H, Moore Company is developing this limited office parcel to the
north. The history with annexation applications, as you know, is typically to come in
with some kind of development application. We have been hearing more from
developers at the staff level lately about the difficulty in marketing property that is not
annexed and doesn't have city sewer services. My understanding from the applicant
that's the main driving force why they'd like to get this -- why they'd like to get this in.
They have submitted this concept plan with the application that shows a basic office
layout on the property. If the Commission desires or the City Council, this could be
included as part of the development agreement, which would, essentially, encumber this
parcel with this plan or one similar to it. Staff felt that being in a commercially
designated area in the Comp Plan, one that's rapidly transitioning, there is probably a lot
of activity on the market from -- with interstate proximity, that we would kind of be
setting ourselves up for a lot work in the future if we set up a specific plan that mayor
may not be feasible. So, we did ask for something to kind of demonstrate what they
might be thinking about and that's the reason why this was submitted. If you adopt the
staff recommendations as we submitted them, this would not be attached as a required
element of the development agreement. We didn't even recommend a development
agreement be entered into. So, I think I have addressed sort of the main outstanding
items. On page three -- I'm sorry -- page four of the staff report, paragraph I, that's the
reference to the development agreement that the CoG zone, as, you well know, has a
number of uses that may be fairly intensive. We had this discussion with the Southern
Springs project that came through several months ago on Overland and Meridian Road
and that was also about a five-acre parcel. It was an expansion of Southern Springs
One and they were wanting to cross the Ten Mile Creek, five acre -- the Commission
and Council both approved that five acres with a CoG without adevelopment agreement
for some of the similar reasons, but I did want to point out that that's certainly an item for
discussion tonight. And, then, the last thing to point out would be on page five, special
considerations, I was wanting to make the Commission aware there that there is an
existing residence. The aerial photo here, as you can see, it's up on the north end of
the parcel on the northeast corner. There are some out buildings there. And wanted to
just point out for the applicant the current owners, the Commission, that if it was
annexed to a commercial zone, that existing residence would not be permitted any
expansions or significant alterations that change the footprint of the building without a
Conditional Use Permit.
Zaremba: On that subject, Brad --
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
Zaremba: -- if they continue to use it as a residence until such time as they find a
commercial buyer for it, once it's annexed are they required to hook up to city sewer and
water anyhow, whether they keep the residents or not or can we grandfather the septic
system until such time as it changes hands?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, typically what we have done in
the past is as long as they maintain it as a home residence, we will allow them to
continue to use their well and septic, If they do expand the structure, like Brad's talking,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6, 2004
Page 21 of 52
they have to go through the Conditional Use Permit process, we probably at that point in
time would make them connect, but as long as it remains basically the way it is today
and is lived in as a home, we wouldn't make that requirement.
Zaremba: Thank you,
Borup: Okay. Anything else? One comment I guess I maybe might make and that's on
Brad's comment on in the past we have usually had a project associated with the
annexation and I think that makes a lot of sense on some of these stand-alone parcels
that are maybe a single parcel next to residential or where ever they may be, But -- and
ashe's alluded to, I think we have a different situation here. This is more or less
expanding commercial development and I, for one, don't have any concern with a
straight annexation and zoning in this situation.
Rohm: At such time that they develop, will there be a Conditional Use Permit required
for that?
Borup: Not at this point. I mean not with this -- if we follow the staff report, other than --
other than the development agreement, which would limit -- isn't that correct, that the
development agreement would eliminate a lot of commercial uses or uses that would
normally be -- could be approved in a commercial zone?
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. Title 11 of the zoning ordinance, you know, outlines all of the
allowed uses, conditional uses, prohibited uses, and so if this was annexed as C-G, you
just go down the schedule of uses and if it says that your use requires a conditional use,
you have to do a conditional use, but a lot of the uses in the C-Gzone are allowed with
just coming in for a building permit.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: But are you anticipating in the development agreement to either eliminate some
of those or require a conditional use or are you anticipating just following the current --
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, you just caught me off guard, because I didn't
remember recommending a development agreement and, in fact, there is not, so --
Borup: Oh, there is not. What am I thinking of?
application. Sorry.
I'm thinking back to the last
Rohm: So, if there is not a development agreement, then, we'd make the change, then,
they can just build anything that falls within that zoning,
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Rohm: Without any additional applications being made.
Hawkins-Clark: Correct, There would be no public hearings, et cetera. I mean, you
know, there are some uses that would require the conditional use, but at this point if you
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6,2004
Page 22 of 52
approve it as in the staff report, it would -- it would just be a building permit for the
majority of the allowed uses, with no public hearing.
Borup: Okay,
Rohm: And staff is okay with that?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
Rohm: Okay.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, Brad, as you pointed out, this area has already been subject
to a lot of public comment and public hearing and we haven't found out yet if there is
anybody here tonight specifically to speak on it, but I -- even before we hear them, at
this point I would agree with staff that there has been enough said about this that
making it a CoG zone and the allowable and conditional uses that are established in the
chart are comfortable for me, Unless I hear some objection from public testimony that
they want further restrictions, I would not go with a development agreement or anything,
I would -- just normal process, Personal opinion, which I can reformulate if we hear
public testimony to the contrary, but --
Hawkins-Clark: Last week the Commission, I believe, heard an application on Ten Mile
and Ustick for that McNelis Subdivision, where somewhat similar situation, just a
request for annexation and I think one of staff's recommendations has been that if it's on
an entryway corridor where it will receive a lot of high visibility from the public, we
typically would like, in that case, to recommend a conditional use for those that are on
the arterials. You know, Magic View Drive certainly is going to carry more and more
traffic as the subdivision builds out, since it does connect out to Locust Grove Road, you
know, indirectly, but Woodbridge Subdivision has, you know, over 250 lots, so -- but it's
not an arterial and so we felt being more internal to a project that it was okay to move
ahead as we recommended.
Borup: The only permitted use I noticed on the chart that may not be desirable was a
bus or rail station and I don't think we have to worry about either one of those going
here.
Zaremba: If I were designing either one of those, this is not where I would put it.
Borup: Okay, Would the applicant like to make their presentation?
Hellhake: Thank you, Mr, Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Larry
Hellhake, 3837 North Hall Drive in Eagle and I represent the owners of the property Bob
and Kathy Barnes, who are also present. And, basically, in reviewing the staff report,
we agree with all of the points, I would like just to point out two areas, the ones that you
have discussed. We have had several people approach us over the past time that we
have had the property marketed and each person seems to have a different need, but
all of them do fit in the C-G zone. We have looked at motels, a couple of motel people
have looked and there is still one. Right now we are negotiating with a medical group
Meridian Piannlng & Zoning Commission
May 6,2004
Page 23 of 52
that is talking about build two buildings, We did make the plan that you -- that we
presented to Brad as a possibility that if we did not have somebody to purchase the
property, we may do it ourselves and, then, have maybe six lots. So, we wanted to
keep it as broad and as open as we could and allow the most uses, which, obviously,
the CoG zone allows us to do, So, we would like very much to have that CoG zone and
allow the flexibility to work with any entity that would comply with that zone. As far as
the residence, we fully believe that that will be taken out of there, It's not anything that
could be even remodeled or fixed that would work as an office or anything like that, so
the residence I would guarantee will be removed, destroyed, hauled away in a truck, or
donated, Anybody want a house? But it's nothing that really has any value for the
property at this time, Other than that, we concur with all of the conditions. We would
like very much not to have a development agreement at this time, but be allowed to
come back, either ourselves or with a purchaser in the future, to work with you on a CoG
zone and we would ask that you would approve this,
Borup: Okay.
Hellhake: I would be happy to answer any questions.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Hellhake?
Rohm: I think staff's answered most of my questions. Thank you.
Zaremba: That's true. I would only comment -- thank you for supplying the concept.
That does help us make sure that we are all envisioning the proper zone for it, so it is
handy to have a concept. And we accept a concept as just that. It's not etched in
stone, necessarily, That being said, we can't put any conditions on a concept, but I
would comment that I like that you are suggesting that there will be at least drive aisle
access to the undeveloped property to the west and to the south and would only ask
that you maybe consider whether or not one could be put on the east through the
Hubble property. It mayor not be possible by how they are designed, but -- it's not a
condition, it's just a comment to consider and thank you for providing the concept.
Hellhake: If we do decide to do that ourselves, we would consider that. I'd meet with
them and -- they have landscaped and fenced that, but, obviously, D-8 Cats can open
up fences real quick, so --
Zaremba: True. Cross-access is a handy thing.
Hellhake: Definitely in an area like this,
Borup: Okay, Thank you, Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this
application? Seeing none.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing,
Zaremba: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6, 2004
Page 24 of 52
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Okay. Mr, Chairman?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Mr. Freckleton.
Freckleton: Before a motion is made, maybe just a point of clarification. I understand
the house is going to be demolished and hauled off, but I'm under the understanding
that it's lived in and it will be until such time that an application does come forward or
that somebody comes in to develop the property. So, I would request that we add a
condition, if you would, simply to address the sewer and water issue for that existing
structure. I have got one formulated here if you want to consider this. That we just not
require the existing home to be connected to city sewer and water unless the use
changes from residential or the home is expanded in the future.
Rohm: If that's going to happen, it won't make any difference. It won't change things a
bit.
Freckleton: Right.
Rohm: Thank you.
Borup: And the purpose for that is annexation would normally require connection. Is
that your point, Mr. Freckleton? And this allows that to continue.
Freckleton: Yes, sir.
Hawkins-Clark: Just one other point of clarification. Annexations without development
agreements, they are not technically conditions on the property, they are just comments
that are made as a part of the findings, You can't condition an annexation or condition a
rezone, so it's just for that clarification. It would be in the findings, but it would be
comments that would be for the public record.
Borup: Okay.
Moe: I'm there.
Borup: Yeah, And then, staff already has that in their report, in sight specific
comments. So that that we have would be comment number seven, I guess.
Moe: Oh. Yeah.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending
approval of Item 10 on our agenda, AZ 04-008, request for annexation and zoning of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6, 2004
Page 25 of 52
5,22 acres from RUT to CoG zone for Magic View Court by Larry Hellhake, 2855 Magic
View Drive, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of May 6,
2004, received by the city clerk May 3rd, 2004, with one change. Under site specific
comments, which begin on page five, we will go to page six and add a paragraph seven
that says as long as the existing residence continues under its same use, the use is not
changed, or the building is not modified in any way, they may continue to use the
current septic and well system. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Borup: But not require hook up to city sewer and water implied in that, I assume.
Zaremba: Yes.
Borup: Okay. Second?
Moe: That's a second.
Borup: We had a second, All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 11.
Public Hearing: PFP 04-005 Request for Preliminary Final Plat
approval for the re-subdivision of Lot 10 and portions of Lots 9 and 11,
Block 11 into 3 building lots on 3.46 acres in a CoG zone for Copperpoint
Subdivision by Larson Architects - east of South Eagle Road on the
south side of East Copperpoint Drive:
Borup: Thank you, The next item is Public Hearing PFP 04-005, request for
preliminarylfinal plat approval for a resubdivision of Lot 10 and a portion of Lots 9 and
11, Block 11, into three building lots on 3.46 acres, C-G zone, for Copperpoint
Subdivision. We'd like to open this hearing and start with the staff report.
Hood: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Like Brad, I, too, am pitch hitting
for Steve tonight. I just read the staff report for the first time about an hour ago, so bear
with me, but I will try to highlight some things in the staff report, just for the general
public. This is a preliminary/final plat for a three-lot subdivision on 3.46 acres located in
Silverstone on the south side of East Copperpoint Drive, This is just north of the
application -- three applications ago on the agenda tonight that Mr. Larsen referred to.
This property was originally platted as part of the Silverstone Phase Two. It was
recorded in October of 2002. There was a record of survey done on this property in
2003 and moved some of those lot lines around from the original lots in Silverstone
Phase Two were approximate size and the lot hasn't changed that much, but the legal
description now is a portion of three different lots, There is a CZC that's been issued on
this site. The applicant -- this subject application is to provide two mirror lots within the
developable area here, That CZC was issued on Lot 3 of the proposed subdivision. I
don't know if your eyes are very good, but I can't see which one is Lot 3 and I don't
know what the CZC was, but -- the southeast corner Brad says.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6,2004
Page 26 of 52
Borup: Yeah. It looks like this is Lot 3. The big one,
Hood: So, the Northwest are the new lots are buildable lots in this subdivision. I do not
see a letter from the applicant in the file. I did read through the staff -- the conditions
that staff has put on this application. I do not believe there should probably be any
problems with it, but I will let them speak for themselves and stand for any questions
you may have.
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Would the applicant like to add
anything?
Larsen: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Cornell Larsen,
address 210 Murray in Garden City, We are in agreement with the staff report and the
conditions in the staff report. So, there is not too much to talk about. The CZC was
filed on this lot and I do have -- I had a stack of color renderings on my desk, but I only
remembered to bring one, so I can pass that around that shows the project. The first
building would be in this location here, then, there would be an attachment to it for a
second phase and there would be a single story there and a single story there. This
building is a two story as it's currently proposed. This is the canal setback we talked
about in the previous easement. We do own to the centerline of the canal. That's pretty
much all I had. I can certainly give you this if you'd like to look at it or pass it around,
but on this rendering this building right there is the first building. I'd be happy to answer
any questions if you have them.
Borup: Questions for Mr. Larsen? Okay, I think we are -- it looks like we are feeling
okay about this.
Larsen: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Seeing none --
Zaremba: Mr, Chairman, I move the Public Hearing on Item 11 be closed.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES,
Borup: Do you have a motion, Mr. Moe?
Moe: Yes. I'll take over for you there. Mr. Chairman, I move to recommend to City
Council of file number PFP 04-005, request for a preliminarylfinal plat approval for the
resubdivision of Lot 10 and portions of Lots 9 and 11, Block 11, into three building lots
on 3.46 acres in a CoG zone for Copperpoint Subdivision by Larsen Architects, east of
South Eagle Road on the south side of East Copperpoint Drive, as presented in the staff
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6, 2004
Page 27 of 52
report dated for the hearing date of May 6th, 2004, and transmittal date of April 30th,
2004.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 12.
Public Hearing: MI 04-002 Request for removal from the City of
Meridian's area of impact for Fred Schuerman by Fred Schuerman -
west of North Cloverdale Road and north of East Fairview Avenue:
Borup: Thank you. Next item is Public Hearing MI 04-002, request for removal from
City of Meridian's area of impact for Fred Schuerman by Fred Schuerman. I don't know
if I pronounced that right. West of Cloverdale Road and north of East Fairview Avenue.
I'd like to open this hearing and start with the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is my application,
so I'm somewhat familiar with it, but the applicant has submitted a request, a
miscellaneous application to remove this property from the City of Meridian's area of
impact and will subsequently ask to be annexed into Boise city's area of impact and,
then, into the city limits. The property is located on the north side of Fairview Avenue,
approximately a half mile east of Eagle Road and about the same distance west of
Cloverdale Road. To the south is Terrace Lawns Memorial Gardens. To the north is a
residential sub, Venture Subdivision. Both of those properties are zoned RUT. To the
west of the site is also RUT zoned property and this was before this board in 2002, I
believe it was -- yeah, November of 2002, the site directly to the west of this site was
denied annexation by the City Council due to traffic reasons and some other concerns
that neighbors in the area had with annexing the property, as well as there was some
questions about serviceability with sewer, and so that kind of puts this property in a little
bit of a bind. Their path to annexation has been taken away from them, basically.
There are other possibilities for annexation. Terrace Lawns I do not believe that they
will annex anytime soon. They will be little benefit. Same with the residential
subdivision to the north. Those are approximately one-acre lots and annexation for
those lots I don't see in the foreseeable future anyways. Further, some background
information, The applicant owns approximately 16 acres, which is in Boise city,
currently annexed into the city of Boise directly east and does have a development plan
for that site, as you can see here. So, the 1,6 acres is off to the left there, kind of the L -
- thank you -- portion of the site plan in front you, with the remainder portion being in
Boise city. This application -- I guess Idaho Code requires that the Planning and Zoning
Commission hear changes to area of impact and make recommendations to City
Council, much like development applications, and that's what we are going through
here. Currently, there is not a mechanism or we don't have an area of impact
application, that's why you're seeing a miscellaneous application, Included in the staff
report is -- I was hoping to get some discussion from the board and eventually City
Council on amending our fee schedule to set up strict guidelines for area of impact,
adjustments, so I don't know what thoughts the Commissioners may have on that. Just
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6, 2004
Page 28 of 52
to further that, I guess, it does take quit a bit of staff time. This staff report you see
before you today did not take staff a lot of time to prepare, but this is the first step in a
long process and that miscellaneous application is fairly inexpensive and will not cover
the cost of staff time and going to meetings and preparing other correspondence
between the county and being in those negotiation meetings that have to occur between
the city of Meridian and the city of Boise and Ada County to move that line. So, we just
-- again, for discussion purposes, if you wanted to put a special recommendation in or
something like that with this application, that would be great. I have not heard anything
back from the applicant. I got them the staff report a little late in the game, I think
Monday sometime, so do not have any response, The staff report did not make a
recommendation. I'm going to leave that up to this board to make a recommendation to
the City Council. There aren't a lot of planning issues when someone requests an area
of impact boundary adjustments. Relied on Public Works to come up with some
findings or some facts, I guess, about serviceability. That's one of the main reasons
that the applicant is requesting to go to the city of Boise. He has services stubbed to
this property from the east and he's ready to go and would like to protect some of those
existing buildings on that property. So, as far as the planning issues go, there really
aren't a lot and I guess I will leave it at that and any questions you may have I will
answer them.
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners?
Zaremba: Yes. I have one comment and, then, a question. I thoroughly agree with
staff that there probably should be a fee associated with such an application and I would
like to discuss it. I probably would ask that that become an Item 15 on our agenda for
tonight for a thorough discussion. My own instinct would be not to apply that to this
application anyhow. This applicant filed the application not having any idea that there
might be such a fee, although I agree there should be. I still wouldn't apply it to this
application. So, my question would be can we make that an Item .15 on our agenda and
discuss it separately? Because I think we should discuss it and have a fee.
Borup: I think -- well, yes, I think we can discuss something. I don't know if I personally
agree with that assumption. If we already had a boundary adjustment schedule and a
fee established, then, yes. In this case, they were doing an application that did not have
any fees connected with it at all.
Zaremba: Right.
Borup: So -- and I'm assuming they didn't -- they weren't assuming there would be no
fees at all, so they had to assume there would be something. If it's not -- if it's not on
the schedule, then, that needs to be determined, other than it did come in as a
miscellaneous, but --
Zaremba: Okay. Well, in that case it makes sense to discuss the subject now, rather
than put it off.
Borup: Well--
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6, 2004
Page 29 of 52
Zaremba: I, actually, had a suggestion --
Borup: And I think there maybe needs to be some other discussion. The question I
would have from staff is I don't think we can establish a fee, There needs to be a
recommendation from staff as far as assessment of time and what would be a fair --
Hood: Yeah, And we talked with the applicant early on in the process about that and
there being some ambiguity in what the city had done in the past with these applications
and the miscellaneous app.
Borup: But I think there has been very few boundary adjustments. We really don't like
to -- we don't like to give up any of our area of impact and in the past there has been
some that I think this Commission has approved and City Council denied, so--
Hood: That's why staff was a little hesitant to give a recommendation on this
application.
Borup: You don't want City Council mad at you.
Hood: But just as far as a fee schedule goes, it could be interpreted that this is a
Comprehensive Plan amendment. In that case, that application is 12 or 15 hundred
dollars, That didn't seem to be appropriate either, so something in the middle may be
appropriate for that discussion, but for this applicant the miscellaneous app was
consistent with the previous three, I think, is what the city has seen in the past three or
four years. And so that's what the director decided would be appropriate for this
application as well. But, you're right, we don't see them very often, but it would be nice
to add that to the fee schedule, so there is a process that those go through and there
isn't questions about how much fees are and whatever and this discussion of size, too.
I mean this is a fairly small adjustment that's being requested. I don't anticipate huge
requests for area of impact adjustments, but maybe, you know, that's the criteria, if
you're underneath it's this much, if you're over -- although staff time would be --
Borup: That's what I was going to ask, whether it's small or large, the time with the
county and stuff is going to be pretty much the same, isn't it?
Hood: It would be the same. And I guess just thinking out loud, for those discussion
purposes, I, myself, have not sat in on those meetings, but the director has and is well
aware that it does take a lot of staff time and effort to follow this through to the end, so --
Borup: So, did staff come up with a recommendation on a fee?
Hood: I don't have a dollar amount, I guess, in mind, Something, I guess, in between
the 250 dollars for this application and the 1,200 dollars that a Comprehensive Plan
amendment is, would probably be appropriate, something in there, but --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman and Craig, the suggestion I was going to make is that there be
some calculation of the time involved in not only the application process, but carrying it
through Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council, Boise would, then, have to deal
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6,2004
Page 30 of 52
with it, Ada County, then, makes the final decision, if both Meridian and Boise agree.
That there be a fee calculated on that much work, with a knowledge that if it got to
Meridian City Council and they denied it, there might be a refund of a portion of it.
Borup: That's--
Zaremba: Because there is a different level of work if it proceeds and if it doesn't and
my suggestion would be to come up with a full price and, then, establish what a refund
might be if it's denied.
Borup: That makes sense to me.
Zaremba: Just a suggestion,
Borup: I think that's a good one.
Zaremba: I would collect it all up front, as opposed to saying if it goes on there is an
additional charge, but I'd make it one fee and collect it all up front, but have a possibility
of a refund proportionally. That being said, to discuss the merits of this issue, if we
may, I agree, the initial instinct is not to give up any property. However, this is along a
borderline where there is discussion and, eventually, the question is for Bruce, about
whether we can service it or not by gravity sewer and other things. The applicant has
stated that eventually this could be connected at a cost of about 100,000 dollars and I'm
sure that's a fair assessment, but I throw into the mix in a situation like this where an
applicant is trying to put together two pieces of property, the great bulk of which is
already in Boise, it's kind of the reverse of what we did with Winston Moore's property
on Ustick and Eagle where Boise gave up some impact area to us in order to join his
property into one jurisdiction and I can't see asking Boise to give up 16 acres to us in
this case, it makes more sense for us to give up the -- what was it, 1.6 acres. Anyhow,
whatever it is, The small piece. My inclination, although my instinct is to be against
approving any of these, that this is probably one that's valid, which brings me to my
question for Bruce, does it make more sense for them to hook up to Boise?
Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, the city, as you guys are well aware,
have paid considerable sum of money to have a facility plan generated for the entire
urban service planning boundary, The purpose of that study was to determine the
serviceability of the lands. According to that facility plan, it does indicate that this parcel
can be served. The sewer currently stops right about there at that little out parcel that
you see. That's about where water stops now, too. We didn't make a specific
recommendation because of the issues historically.
Zaremba: Well, let me ask a bigger question, because at sometime -- probably a
property south of this - we had some discussion about making a realignment and even
along the Ridenbaugh Canal, you know, so that we didn't have ten feet on the other side
of the Ridenbaugh Canal that we had to do something about. Has that sit down with the
county and Boise happened?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6,2004
Page 31 of 52
Freckleton: There have been meetings between their city engineer and our city
engineer. We have identified several parcels. This particular one wasn't one of them.
With the cemetery here, we know that they more than likely will not ever need service.
The county subdivision up here potentially could be serviced through the Kliner property
when it develops. To get back to your original question, does it make sense, it may not
make real good sense to try and keep it in the city. It's not going to be cheap to try and
bring services to this parcel. From the applicant's application, they have services that
are available on their east side. Readily available, I guess I'd lay the cards out like that.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rohm: I think my question on that, Bruce, would be if, in fact, you were to service it off
of the Meridian system, would there be a loop in and through this property to service
other property? And from what it looks like, the answer to that is probably no? It would
dead end -- it would -- to that parcel, if, in fact, you did take service to it?
Freckleton: Commissioner Rohm, the service -- basically our service area stops right
there. So, as far as looping goes, no, this would be basically dead end for sewer, Now,
water, you know, eventually, we will probably want to bring water up -- up this road, so
that it can tie in, you know, to this Kliner property someday in the future. You know, I
would envision that some day this subdivision probably would be on city services.
Rohm: Well, I guess my point was -- is if, in fact, the City of Meridian would ultimately
have to go through the expense to sewer that, even though it wouldn't be serving it,
then, I would be inclined to speak against removing it from our area of impact. But if, in
fact, that's not the case, then, there would be really no compelling reason to keep it
within our area of impact, from my perspective, Thank you.
Borup: I think one other factor that the buildings on this side are already existing, at
least what they show on the application. I believe they are all existing and I don't know
if they are anticipating any new structures or not, but it's not adding anything new at this
point that I can see. Okay, Would the applicant like to add anything?
Schuerman: My name is Fred Schuerman. My address is 6134 Emerald in Boise. This
application comes about by the unique problems that are caused by our property being
bisected by the boundary for two different entities and their area of impact. Could I
have the commercial -- the development plan, please? This is the boundary line now
between Boise and Meridian. This building is constructed and in the city of Boise and
there is sewer right there within a few feet of our property line. There is also water, both
in the front and back of this building, The property to the west of us -- an application
has been made to be annexed to the city of Boise and it was -- or the City of Meridian
and it was denied, It may be years, I don't know, but there is no way to tell how long it
would be. It just makes common sense, with utilities within a few feet, to be served that
way, rather than wait for I don't know how long or if ever and I had an engineer and a
utility contractor give me the estimate of 100,000 dollars -- there would have to be a
boring under Fairview and it's -- I think it's just -- you know, it's just -- because we are
bisected by this line and we are doing this as one project, it just makes sense that it
should be under one area of impact.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6,2004
Page 32 of 52
Borup: I understand. Are you trying to get water over here for sprinkler systems for the
building?
Schuerman: One of my main concerns -- this is an historic old barn. It's presently being
occupied by a produce company and I really would like to get that fire sprinklered, as I
said in -- or in my application there was an historic old barn recently lost on Ustick and I
would hate to have a similar fate happen to this, The rest of the buildings probably
would not fire sprinkler. There is no -- this is an old house with a red tile roof, a neat old
house, but -- and there are a lot of other reasons that I feel are compelling reasons,
besides the utilities. It just makes it -- I mean addressing is a problem. We are 4380
East Meridian here and this is 12570 West Fairview, Boise, and if the -- life safety
problems if there is some kind of an incident, it's real confusing to have two different
entities there in two different areas of impact.
Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners? All right. Thank you.
Schuerman: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Seeing none.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman --
Borup: Oh, wait a minute. I did have a question for Mr. Schuerman. I'm sorry.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: I wrote a note here and then -- and that's the discussion of the fee. Have you
talked with staff on that and -- you realize the dilemma a little bit here as far as fee
schedule on this type of application?
Schuerman: Early on when we made the application there was a discussion.
Borup: Do you have any input on that that might help this Commission maybe --
Schuerman: Not really.
Borup: So, you don't care which way it goes?
Schuerman: I'm not sure what --
Borup: Staff's recommendation was -- as we mentioned, this was maybe a Comp Plan
issue, kind of, which was 1,200 dollars, The miscellaneous application, usually for little
minor things, which was the 250, Staff's recommendation may be somewhere in the
middle there,
Schuerman: That's fine with me,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6,2004
Page 33 of 52
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Zaremba, you were starting to say something?
Zaremba: Mr, Chairman, I was going to move that we close the Public Hearing and I
will do so.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing, All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES,
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a two-part motion. The first part is that I
move we forward to the City Council recommending approval --
Borup: Okay. Are we going to discuss the fee part of this application? Or I guess your
motion will determine that.
Zaremba: The second part of my motion was going to involve the fee, but not a dollar
amount, just following up on the suggestion I made earlier that the fee be established
based on carrying it through the whole process, with a possibility of a refund and let
staff determine an actual dollar amount before it gets to the City Council.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Is that -- staff is having some discussion.
Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I don't believe that -- if you're
thinking --
Borup: No, we are not talking about establishing fees on the books, I don't believe, but
we are talking about attaching a fee to this project, isn't that -- wasn't that the request
from staff? No? That's what it says. It says staff is requesting the city assess fees for
this application,
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, my instinct would be to create a fee structure, but not apply it
to this applicant. Which is sort of why I wanted to make it a separate motion.
Borup: Okay, Well, the staff application -- or the staff report says this application.
Rohm: I kind of like your first idea, Dave, of adding a 15th item on our agenda and we
will talk about that separate and aside from this application. Especially if there is not
going to be a fee structure applied to this application. I don't see why it would even be
part of any motion.
Borup: Yeah. So, maybe that's the first thing to establish.
Freckleton: Mr. Chair?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6, 2004
Page 34 of 52
Borup: Yes, Mr. Freckleton.
Freckleton: Perhaps some input from legal counsel, but to establish a fee -- to set a
fee, it's going to take a lot more discussion and it's going to have to be established by
the City Council. This Commission can't establish a fee --
Borup: Well, I know we can't, but we can make a recommendation to the City Council,
but you're saying they can't either?
Freckleton: It's going to take public hearings to establish stab fees and --
Borup: Even a -- okay, Well, then, that really answers that.
Zaremba: Okay. So, it can't be part of this application. In that case --
Freckleton: I don't believe so, Jill, do you have any input?
Hollinka: I did talk about this a little bit with Bill Nichols this afternoon and he had
suggested I think what had been suggested earlier on, was treat it as a Comprehensive
Plan amendment, but we never really came to any kind of final decision or conclusion
on whether or not that should be applicable to this particular application. But maybe go
forward with trying to work through some revision to the fee schedule to add a fee for
this particular instance, which would be a separate issue for this particular application.
Borup: Okay. That's another -- that's a different --
Zaremba: In that case, I would like to go back to my suggestion that we have an Item
15 on our agenda tonight for further discussion.
Borup: But that still doesn't address this application. Let me ask you a question. Can--
is there any provision for a reduced fee? I mean can you reduce a fee that's in the
schedule?
Hood: The City Council, I believe, can reduce fees, I don't know if the Planning and
Zoning Commission has that --
Borup: Well, I understand that. We don't have any authority to do anything,
Hood: And they waive fees for non-profits and the like. so they have the ability to do a
lot of things, I don't know that it's written in the ordinance that way.
Borup: My thought was, per Mr. Nichol's recommendation, is it could go through as a
Comp Plan fee with a reduced --
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, no, that's not the application, though.
Zaremba: This applicant already paid 250 dollars; right?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6, 2004
Page 35 of 52
Rohm: Right. That's where we got to leave it.
Zaremba: For this applicant we are done.
Hood: And just to set it for future applications, we will bite the bullet on this one, but
let's establish something for future applications.
Zaremba: That's where I would like to go with it.
Borup: Okay. Let's proceed with your motion.
Zaremba: Okay. Then I have a one-part motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward
to the City Council recommending approval of MI 04-002, request for removal from the
City of Meridian's area of impact for Fred Schuerman by Fred Schuerman, west of North
Cloverdale Road and north of East Fairview Avenue, to include all staff comments of
their memo for the hearing date of May 6, 2004, received by the city clerk May 3rd,
2004, with one change. On page two I would delete the paragraph entitled
Miscellaneous.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: Which refers to the fee structure.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Moe,
Moe: Just a small recess.
Borup: I was just going to suggest that. I told Anna yesterday that we were going to be
out of here by 9:00 o'clock and I see we are not going to make that.
Zaremba: Almost.
Rohm: I was thinking 8:30. I don't know what's going on.
Zaremba: I'm trying to stretch it to 11 :00.
Borup: So, we will have a short break, We will be back by 9:00 o'clock to continue,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6,2004
Page 36 of 52
(Recess.)
Item 13.
Public Hearing: CUP 04-010 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
a 100-foot monopole communications tower in a C-G zone for T-Mobile
by T-Mobile / Terry Cox - southeast corner of East Overland Road and
South Eagle Road:
Borup: Okay. We'd like to continue our hearing this evening. Item No. 13, Public
Hearing CUP 04-010, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 100 foot mono pole
communication tower in a CoG zone for T-Mobile by T-Mobile, Terry Cox. We'd like to
open this hearing and start with the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is the third
application in this general location tonight. We are moving just a little bit further north,
It is a request for a 100 foot tall mono pole with supporting equipment in the C-G zone in
Silverstone. It is approximately 1,200 feet east of Eagle Road and 1,600 feet south of
Overland, The lease area the T-Mobile has acquired is within Lot 6, Block 2, of
Silverstone Subdivision. The site -- that Lot 6, Block 2, does have an existing building
on it today and this would be going -- the cell tower will be going in this approximate
location back in here, This is Copperpoint Drive here. And the previous applications
were in this general location. So, the cell tower is there, It is a 24-by-16 foot area they
are leasing out. They are going to be using the existing driveways for when they need
to do any type of servicing of the facilities. Just a couple of items, it doesn't look like --
sometimes you get a lot of public coming out to cell towers. There aren't a lot of public
members here tonight, so I'm just going to breeze through this real quick. But just a
couple of items in the staff report. In the application they show a six-foot tall chain link
fence around the compound. Code does -- wants to see a sight-obscuring fence. The
application has responded to this request and has agreed to construct -- originally a
wooden fence. We are all right with wooden or vinyl as what they are now proposing.
Either one would be fine. Landscaping, city code also requires a five-foot landscape
buffer around the development. There is some existing landscaping. I do have pictures
that I'm going to show here in a little bit the applicant has provided on the site, but there
is some existing landscaping near this area. It is fairly well hidden. Additional
landscaping staff does not believe will serve a great purpose, so, it is recommending
that waiver as requested by the applicant. Also in the applicant's submittal letter they
have agreed to allow two additional wireless carrier antennas to co-locate on this in the
future, And just in conclusion, they have submitted most of the documentation required
by Meridian City Code and all of the requirements for -- regarding the radio frequencies
required by the FCC and Federal Aviation Administration standards for construction.
The last one that I just wanted to talk about real quick was site specific number six and
in the applicant's letter, dated May 4th, they have asked at this hearing that a specific
color be identified for the mono pole. That was also in the staff report, that an earthen
color be painted, so it's not reflective and kind of blends in more with the general
surroundings, Staff does not have a preference on color, Understand that the applicant
would like some direction on that, just in case in the future staff says, no, we don't really
like that shade, but even if you wanted to specify that, you know, whatever color the
applicant prefers that isn't steel in color, that would be fine. So, I will leave that up to the
Commission to make that recommendation. With that I will stand for any questions.
Meridian Planning & Zcning Commission
May 6, 2004
Page 37 of 52
Borup: Questions from the Commission? Would the applicant like to --
Zaremba: I do have a couple questions, I'm sorry.
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Before we go. One comment. If you look on page five, this was just a typo.
Paragraph D, tower design, the second paragraph esthetics. About the third line down
it says where the color is dictated by federal -- I believe that word should be or -- state
authorities. Then, on the subject where you were, page six, item six, on the subject of
color, the most recent pole that was put up is just off of Ten Mile in the storage area
there and we had this same discussion with them. What color did that end up being; do
we know? I can see it from my house and it's not at all obtrusive, it's a mat something.
But it appears to me to be more in the gray zones --
Borup: That's what I was thinking, too.
Zaremba: -- than an earth color. And it's a very acceptable color to me.
Hood: I do not recall the color that they did with that CZC. I did look at that staff report,
but I didn't follow it through to the CZC to see what actually they submitted for it, so I
apologize for that. I do not know,
Zaremba: And part of the reason that they wanted to establish the color before it went
through the approval process is that they could order it from the factory with the color
baked on it or whatever they had to do and, you know, not have it up in the air. So, I'm
sure that would apply to this application as well.
Hood: We have that information. If you'd like to condition six to be of similar color to
the one at Ten Mile --
Zaremba: That works for me. I don't think it's an earth tone, but that certainly would
work for me.
Rohm: Well, I'd like to hear the applicant's response to that.
Borup: Yeah. Let's get some input from --
Zaremba: Then, let me ask another question first.
Newton-Huckabay: He wants to know what color to paint it.
Zaremba: Yeah. That was his question. Go back to the aerial view if you would, of the
area. Can you identify for me where the other call center is going to go? And my
thought is how close are they going to be maybe to be able to share this tower.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6, 2004
Page 38 of 52
Hood: This is for that call center. This is -- T-Mobile is going in right here. It is an off-
site cell tower for them back in this location.
Zaremba: Oh. Okay,
Hood: So their facility is in this location.
Borup: I got it.
Hood: But their tower is a little bit --
Zaremba: So, the likelihood that the other -- I forget the name of it. The other call
center, they could share this tower?
Hood: Yeah, They will -- they are building this, so they could co-locate with two other
wireless carriers in the future.
Zaremba: Great. Then I had one other and it's kind of a question, On page seven, the
Meridian Fire Department comments number two posts the building address with six
inch numbers. I would assume there may be an address for this, but those numbers -- I
would specify that they should be on the outside of the sight obscuring fence, not on
any building that's inside the fence, Does that make sense if we add that?
Hood: That makes sense to me.
Zaremba: To the Fire Department's comments, Those were all of my questions.
Borup: Anyone else?
Moe: Just one question in regards to the fence. They were proposing chain link with
barbed wire and now we are just -- we are requiring just solid fencing, wood or vinyl,
and no barbed wire, no nothing --
Hood: Let me see what the site specific - sight-obscuring fence at least six feet, no
taller than eight. So, they could do six-foot tall wooden fence or a vinyl fence and put
the barbed wire on top. That is allowed in the CoG zone and for security purposes is
pretty standard, so -- you don't see a lot of them with fences with barbed wire, but--
Zaremba: You're on page six, item two?
Hood: Page six, number two, Yes, Excuse me.
Zaremba: It just doesn't specify the material of the fence and we are happy with that,
right?
Hood: Yeah. Unless you want to specify it has to be wood or it has to be vinyl. Site
obscuring is how it's worded.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissicn
May 6, 2004
Page 39 of 52
Moe: I'll wait for the applicant. I'm just kind of curious in regards to the barbed wire and
security as who's going up the pole.
Borup: Okay, Would the applicant like to come forward?
Harris: Good evening, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, My name is Clark
Harris, I live at 1571 East Harvard, Salt Lake City. As you know, I'm here on behalf of
T-Mobile. To address your direct questions, I think the first one we can start with is the
pole color. Yes, we do order it from the manufacturer it comes baked on, that way it's
there for the life of the pole. We don't have to go up and paint and it looks a lot better. I
was just looking for direction of color, baize, green, gray, something that would kind of
give me in a -- pointed in the right direction of how we wanted to go with this. Personal
experience, a little bit darker gray, flat gray, seems to be a good generic color for most
daylights -- you know, crystal clear, blue, sunny days it's a little more visible, but if there
is any kind of haze in the sky at all, it blends in really well, I don't recommend light
blues or anything like that, because that usually sticks out more often than not. In this
particular case I don't recommend a dark green, because it would stick out, because
there is no foliage or anything around it. Baize, again, mayor may not work. It's just
kind of a personal preference. But that's where we are coming from. I would
recommend a kind of medium to darker gray, again, flat, so it's non-reflective.
Rohm: Maybe that's where we should leave it is just a non-reflective flat --
Zaremba: Light color.
Borup: Yeah. Medium to dark gray sounds -- I think you can tell, the city doesn't have a
specific color scheme, they just don't want a shiny metal that's going to maybe reflect
and --
Zaremba: Purple with orange polka dots.
Harris: Yeah. And we are also open to placing the condition that we mirror the color of
the existing pole as close as possible, I'm perfectly acceptable to that. That's easy to
do as well.
Borup: I think that -- maybe I would be more comfortable with their past experience, if
you're saying medium to dark gray.
Harris: Yeah. And I'm not talking about a deeper dark gray, it's a --
Rohm: Well, it's to your advantage to be --
Borup: Inconspicuous.
Harris: So, that answers your question there. And the fencing I spoke with Sundance
Company today, this afternoon, and their architecture, in order to blend with the whole
park design, business park design, they requested that the fence be vinyl. We are
totally fine with that. They recommend a baize color, versus a white color, kind of
Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
May 6,2004
Page 40 of 52
offsets, blends again, better with the landscaping that's there, Six to eight feet high, as
staff recommended, is perfectly acceptable, and no barbed wire. The reason the
drawing showed chain link with three strands of barbed wire, that's the cut and paste
standard, off-the-shelf cell site design and, again, it's not applicable for everything. In
this particular case it's not. And we are perfectly amenable to a six-foot high vinyl baize
colored fence.
Borup: So, you're not -- you don't have any security concerns on this site?
Harris: Not in this particular case. We do have sites that are in public parks without any
fencing at all. The equipment is designed to be weather and, you know, vandal proof.
The fencing more of a hazard. This particular jurisdiction we need to remove the bottom
20 feet of pegs -- 20 feet, so that that inhibits people to climb the pole. Normally, we do
it, because we are concerned with the liabilities. We have all been teenagers and we
have all been curious and always wanted to climb something, so you get someone that
jumps the fence and wants to climb a pole. In this particular case it shouldn't be an
issue, unless they are really good climbers. And the last item I wanted to kind of help
clarify for you folks a little bit is who is this for. And, yes, T-Mobile is building a call
center that will house up to 700 employees. That is a top concern, but the other side is
in this whole business park, again, just being out there today, this is a vacant building
waiting for someone. You have the tenant here that was here earlier tonight looking to
put three new buildings with tenants, There is a three story large development, tilt up
construction, and it's almost put up as far as the walls today. The growth is there.
Whether it will be for T-Mobile or for others, there is going to be additional growth not
only for us, but for other carriers and by us putting the first installation in, it allows for
other carriers to come and provide the need that's going to be there for whomever.
Maybe AT&T or others that may come along? So, yes, we have a call center desire,
but it's also for the whole business park and that whole area that has been growing.
And with the residential units that were also here earlier that was down even to the
south, we will cover that as well.
Borup: Okay, Any further questions?
Harris: Thank you.
Zaremba: I just have a comment. Since the building and all is likely to go through the
process without hearing before this Commission, this is probably our only opportunity to
say how much we appreciate T-Mobile choosing Meridian as a place to locate. They
could locate probably any place in the world, has decided to spend their money and I
hope you will pass onto the T-Mobile people how much we appreciate their trust in our
plan for the future of Meridian.
Harris: Thank you very much. I will definitely pass that along.
Borup: Well said. All right. And I don't know if it makes any difference to ask this, but is
there any other public testimony on this application?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing on Item 13 be closed.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6, 2004
Page 41 of 52
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES,
Zaremba: Okay. Items we have discussed are the fencing and I think item two leaves it
-- at least the material and the color unstated, I'm comfortable with the applicant
working with the developer in coming up with a satisfactory solution, as long as it's at
least six feet and no taller than eight feet, which is the way it's stated. On page six, item
six, shall we say a mat gray, medium to dark?
Borup: Per applicant's choice,
Zaremba: Well, I will take out the words: Or otherwise. So, what I'm suggesting is
paint the mono--pole structure and antenna array a mat gray color, medium to dark, to
camouflage the structure and antenna to reduce glare and visual intrusiveness. Do we
want a final approval by staff or can we leave it at that?
Hood: Medium to dark I think we can figure that out.
Zaremba: That's comfortable. Okay. That way the applicant knows what to order. I did
have one question. It is, actually, in the ordinance that no signs or banners or anything
can go on a tower; is that correct? I remember we discussed it when the ordinance was
going through, but --
Hood: Any signage would require a separate signage permit. I don't know that signs
are specifically prohibited from being constructed on cell towers, but there aren't any
allowed.
Zaremba: Okay. That's what I thought. I was worried about somebody putting a big
advertising banner 85 feet up the tower. I don't think that's allowed, so we don't need to
mention that. In that case -- and, then, the only change I would make is the minor one
to the Fire Department statement to add that the six inch numbers of it be on the outside
of the fence, not on the building, If we have no other discussion, I'm ready to make a
motion.
Borup: Please do.
Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending
approval of Item 13 on our agenda, CUP 04-010, request for a Conditional Use Permit
for a 100 foot mono pole communications tower in a CoG zone for T -Mobile by T-Mobile,
Terry Cox, southeast corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road, to include
all comments of the staff memo for the hearing date of May 6, 2004, received by the city
clerk May 3, 2004, with the following changes: On page five, paragraph D, tower
design, the paragraph that says esthetics, the third line down, where the color is
dictated by federal, I would change the word of to or, so it reads federal or state
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6, 2004
Page 42 of 52
authorities. On page six, paragraph six, change that paragraph to read: Paint the mono
pole structure and antenna array a mat gray color, medium to dark, to camouflage the
structure and antenna to reduce glare and visual intrusiveness. And on page seven,
under Meridian Fire Department comments, their paragraph two I'm adding to it, so that
it reads: Post the building address with six inch numbers on the outside of the site-
obscuring fence. End of motion,
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 14.
Public Hearing: PP 04-010 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 6
commercial building lots on 5.23 acres in a L-O zone for Valencia Plaza
Subdivision by Aspen Grove Development, LLC - east of South Locust
Grove Road and south of East Overland Road:
Borup: Thank you. Next item is Public Hearing PP 04-010, request for preliminary plat
approval for six commercial building lots on 5.23 acres in an L-O zone for Valencia
Plaza Subdivision by Aspen Grove Development, LLC. We'd like to open this hearing
and start with the staff report,
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Before you I have
another resubdivision development application in Resolution Subdivision. This site is
generally south of Overland Road and east of Millennium Way on the south side of Gala
Street. It is 5.23 acres. Currently vacant. The applicant is proposing a six-lot
subdivision, This was Lot 1, Block 1, in Resolution Subdivision No.1. As part of that
original CUP for Resolution, as you may recall, all uses require a separate CUP and
approval prior to construction. I'll let the applicant touch on that a little bit more in their
presentation. We are currently working with the applicant on either amending the
development agreement for Resolution -- this kind of goes back to some of the
discussion that was had earlier today, It takes a lot of the applicant's time, as well as
staff time, to process CUP's in L-O zones for professional offices. It was envisioned at
the time that Resolution was approved they had just a general concept, a mix of uses,
and so when each phase came in, detailed approval would have to be submitted. I
don't believe this particular site was anticipated to be an ice skating rink. It is zoned L-
O. The applicant does not want to have the burden to come back with each of these
professional offices and obtain CUP approval, so we are currently working with them on
a way to get that question before this board, possibly, or maybe just City Council, to see
if modifying the development agreement or maybe one CUP for the whole site. But,
anyways, I'll let the applicant touch on that some more. A couple of changes to the
submitted preliminary plat as outlined in the staff report, The main entrance off of Gala
Street -- I call it the main entrance -- does align with the other access across Gala.
There is a center island, a median that they are proposing. The Fire Department does
have concerns. There is only, I believe, about 14 or 15 feet from the curb faces. They
need a minimum of 20 feet for the fire trucks. So, the applicant, I believe, is going to be
able to widen one or the other of those to provide a fire lane into this site, but that was
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6, 2004
Page 43 of 52
one of the comments, Moving over to the stubbed drive aisle to the west. Staff had
made a recommendation that this drive aisle stub slash easement be moved to the
south five feet. They are showing it -- you can kind of see here, This is an existing
property line separating Gaudry Seegmiller Subdivision and Lot 3, Block 1, of
Resolution Subdivision. The stub -- the drive aisle was constructed, the pavement
would be right on that property line, and so the extension of that drive aisle would not
allow for the five foot landscape buffer along that property line. So, that's the nature of
the staff's request. So, when it's extended you get some landscaping in and you're not
building that drive aisle right up to the northern property's property line. The other
comment has to do with this drive aisle. It is longer than 150 feet. Therefore, the Fire
Department wants to see a -- either a turn around here or shorten this up to 150 feet. I
believe they will lose about four stalls if they shorten it up to 150 feet. I'll let the
applicant state that. Or how they propose to meet the Fire Department's requirements
there, The last comment I believe that's pertinent that the Fire Department has, except
for their standard comments -- this is, again, outside of their current five-minute
response goal area. Just like to point out that, these are coming on a pretty regular
basis. I know it's just going on the record that this is currently outside of that five minute
goal for the Fire Department. And, then, also on the record staff did receive a letter
from David Wishney, who is representing Gaudry Seegmiller and they are supportive of
a cross-access to Lot 3, Block 1, to the south of their property. With that, I will stand for
any questions.
Borup: Questions from Commission?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman and Craig, on the subject of the Fire Department and this
lower right area in there, would the Fire Department be satisfied if instead of ending -- I
realize there is no development proposal for the property to the east, but if that were
made a cross-access driveway as well, instead of being a dead. end parking lot, would
that satisfy the Fire Department eventually?
Hood: They would still need a temporary turn around until such time as that was
extended. So, some type of a turn around would have to be provided there, even if it
were stubbed.
Zaremba: Okay,
Hood: But it could be temporary in nature. And we did analyze this for cross-access,
the reason just to kind of -- why that is a recommendation, Gala Street is fairly close and
so that interconnectivity is there, we believe, and that stub -- I don't remember the exact
dimension, but it's only a couple hundred feet, anyway, between the public street and
that drive aisle you see there to the south, so --
Borup: I have got an additional question on that, too. The concern on the 150 feet is
what?
Hood: They get a fire truck back in there and, then, they have to back up that whole
length, so --
Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
May 6,2004
Page 44 of 52
Borup: So, if the -- so it would be shorting the road about 20 feet or so?
Hood: Approximately 20 feet, yes.
Borup: Is that going to make the building any smaller?
Hood: It shouldn't have any effect on the building,
Borup: So, can't the fire truck just quit backing up that last 20 feet, instead of --
Hood: You would think that they could see that the road ends there, but I -- it's a
standard requirement. It's the Fire Department's requirement.
Borup: And I understand that. In most instances it makes sense. I mean they have got
a distance -- how about striping the road, say fire trucks do not pass this line or
something.
Hood: That may be an option and, basically, they just need to please the fire marshal in
that respect. I think they could use the other northern part of the drive aisle to service
this backside of the building anyway. It would just be if they had a service call on the
southern part of this development would they even have to get down here. I would
imagine that the truck would stop probably in this area and they can pull their hose to
150 feet of that building anyway, so --
Borup: And if their options were to, you know, shorten the street or the turnaround, I -- I
mean I could maybe see the point of a turnaround, but I don't see what shortening the
street really accomplishes. Okay. Maybe we can have some input from the applicant.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, if I'm in the south side of the building and I'm having a heart
attack and the Fire Department is the first one there, I don't want them to have to worry
about whether or not they could turn down there.
Borup: Well, they already can turn down, they just can't drive on the last 20 feet.
Newton-Huckabay:
something --
But if they have a sign painted fire trucks do not enter or
Borup: Well, no, I meant have the striping right here in their no man's land.
Rohm: Well, an alternate to that would be just to not put those spaces and when
adjacent property develops, then, you will put the cross-access in and at that time you
would put the spaces in and carry it on out. That seems like that would --
Borup: Well, they are saying this Gala goes to that same property, so that it --
Rohm: Well, all I'm saying is when they put this cross-access in --
Borup: Well, staff isn't recommending that at this point.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6, 2004
Page 45 of 52
Rohm: No, but --
Borup: If they did you're saying?
Rohm: Yeah.
Borup: Okay. Okay. Would the applicant like to add anything to this conversation?
Guho: Good evening. My name is Mark Guho and I reside at 362 Rooster Drive in
Eagle, Idaho, I don't think we object to the -- any of the concerns of staff whatsoever.
And as far as the -- that rear -- it would be the southeast corner of the parcel there, yes,
we would probably go with your idea, Commissioner, and bring back those four stalls,
omitting those and if they need the cross-access, we can provide that. And when that
cross-access comes into happen, then, we could gain back those stalls, but right now
our parking ratio, I believe, is somewhere in the neighborhood of about one to two
hundred square feet, so we have a pretty good parking ratio on the project.
Borup: So that's not a concern for you, the parking? It sounds like that's not a concern.
Guho: Well, it's nice to have the parking, because that equates to four spaces, which is
enough for a thousand square feet, so -- I mean it would be great to have it, but I mean
if it's a stumbling block, we are -- I think we are okay on --
Borup: It sounds like it's mainly with the Fire Department. Or could that parking be
redesigned with straight in parking in that location? You'd get back two of your spaces.
Is it possible with that type of design? I mean it's not going to be. blocking anybody else
backing out or anything.
Guho: Yeah. That's -- in fact, that's probably a great idea.
Zaremba: I missed that. Say it again.
Borup: Well, I'm not trying to design their project, I'm just saying that these last two
spaces, that parking could be here, straight in here, because now it would come clear
out that space and they are going to have 20 some feet.
Guho: So, the spaces that are going this way would -- we would lose those, but gain
some this way. So, the net effect we would probably lose maybe two spaces, in lieu of
four.
Rohm: I think the point is just to adhere to the fire marshal's --
Guho: Sure. Right. I will agree to that.
Rohm: And whether you eliminate four and bring them back at such time that you have
a cross-access or otherwise, as long as you address the fire marshal's concerns, then,
we are covered.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6, 2004
Page 46 of 52
Moe: Which means, then, you do agree to item number four in the conditions?
Borup: On the entrance? Is that --
Rohm: There we go.
Borup: So, that's -- you plan on redesigning that entrance to get it wider?
Guho: Correct. Yes.
Borup: On probably the entrance?
Guho: We will provide that additional width.
Borup: Okay. And I don't think -- and you said everything else you had no concerns
with on staff comments?
Guho: No problems,
Borup: Okay,
Guho: I would like to maybe comment a little bit on what Craig had stated. And this is
sort of a -- somewhat of a unique problem that we have and when we started the project
out, we submitted just for the subdivision process and upon -- here about a week ago
Craig -- Craig brought it to our attention that we were in the need to file a Conditional
Use Permit on the project, which involves a considerable delay of maybe an additional
three months and we would like to see if the Commission, possibly, has any ideas or
maybe some insight on filing for amendment to omit that process. We are not
necessarily trying to get around anything, we are just trying to gain three to four months
of time.
Borup: Is this still the site plan you would be using? This would be the building
footprints and everything or would that change?
Guho: No. No. That's -- we are going for that. The building exact footprint --
Borup: Well, how about the parking?
Guho: Yeah. We are -- our intentions are to go ahead and build the complex like it is
right there and develop --
Borup: The building may change a little bit within those --
Guho: Yeah. Continue it.
Borup: That makes sense.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6, 2004
Page 47 of 52
Guho: We have -- currently we have in the upper -- it would be the northwest corner,
we have lot number one and Idaho Gastroenterologists is going to be building a surgery
center there and so we are in the process of right now to submit plans to the city for that
project and, yet, we just found out here last week that we have this Conditional Use
Permit, which could take us another three to four months in time.
Borup: Mr. Hood, has staff contemplated a solution for this? I mean in -- I'm trying to
remember why a conditional use got put on everything in there. I think it was from some
concerns on some of the stuff to the west, but --
Hood: Well, it's mainly because the applicant at that time submitted a conceptual plan
for this. Like the other application you had tonight, if they would have just asked for
annexation and zoning of the property, there wouldn't be that second step in the CUP
process. They got conceptual approval, therefore, you need detailed on the next one.
Borup: But where this is -- I mean it's an all L-G zone, they are keeping the same
parking configuration and --
Hood: They are subject to that development agreement and that approved conceptual
CUP. So, that's what we are playing with. We are trying to see if we can't amend the
development agreement to either exempt this lot from having to go through the CUP
process or possibly -- and it doesn't -- with that initial building it won't save the applicant
that three or four months time, but with that first one, go through a CUP for the whole
site, so not every single building has to come in, but you submit that first one for the
gastroenterologist surgery center and show the other buildings and all those other
buildings will, then, have just CZCs, rather than CUPs,
Borup: So, is there any recommendation that this Commission can do to help? It
doesn't sound like it at this point.
Hood: I think he was just wanting to brainstorm. Those are the two that staff's come up
with. I'm waiting to here back from legal, because that development agreement now
has other parties that -- at that time it was the G.L. Voigt Company that entered into
that agreement with the city, now there is several property owners that are subject to
that development agreement, so do they all have to be a party to amending the DA or
do they all have to consent -- so I'm just waiting to see if that's the correct hoop to jump
through to get the applicant at least before the City Council to say this is what we want
to do, so --
Borup: It seems like a logical change in this situation.
Zaremba: Yeah. I can see why the decision was made several years ago to go the
direction they did. I mean the high school wasn't there, none of this was anything but
open property, and the Commission and Council at the time wasn't probably willing to
just leave it so open, but I think there has been enough development around it that it
certainly is reasonable at this point to say, okay, now we can understand how this is
going and if it's going to be an L-O and fit in, I would be comfortable working out some
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6, 2004
Page 48 of 52
arrangement not to have a CUP on every one of these buildings. That's a reasonable
request at this point.
Hood: And staff is supportive of that, too. Like I stated earlier, it saves us a ton of time
and the applicant time and money as well. So, we would be supportive. And just to
follow up on that, I can also see why that development agreement and requirement for
the CUP was put in place. There is a lot of visible frontage on Overland Road. This
property is back in and you will have buildings and similar to Magic View, it's kind of
hidden back and most of the buildings -- you're not going to get a lot of traffic by these
buildings. Not that we don't want to see a nice development, but a Public Hearing just
doesn't seem to be the right process, so --
Zaremba: Well, then, who would come? The school is probably the only thing within
300 feet, right, that would get notified.
Rohm: All those students. I think, though, to address the applicant's concern about the
three month delay, I don't -- it doesn't sound like there is any way to get around at least
one Conditional Use Permit application being generated, which would address the first
building and any additional buildings that would be part of this development. That
seems like that's the only option that's available.
Zaremba: Would a CUP as a planned development just covering the whole piece of
property -- I mean it's going through the plat process now --
Hood: Yeah. That's what we were --
Zaremba: -- so each property is separately identified and if he -- instead of calling it the
first building, just call it a planned development.
Hood: And that's what we are trying to do. I think what Mr. Guho's problem is is that
this first building is the most important one and the rest after that one. So, it's that three
or four month time frame for that initial CUP approval. To answer Commissioner
Rohm's question, the development agreement modification is the other way to go and
even that process is a six to seven, eight-week process. So, they are picking up a few
weeks by modifying the DA, but there is no guarantee with that.
Rohm: Well, I think you will ultimately have to work that back through legal counsel to
see if you would have to get buy-in from the other property owners that have now
purchased that are part to that original agreement.
Hood: The e-mail has already been sent out. I'm waiting for a response.
Rohm: Okay. Cool.
Guho: He's all over it.
Rohm: It sounds like staff's addressing your issue as we go,
Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
May 6,2004
Page 49 of 52
Guho: We just wanted to see if anybody else had any creative ways to solve the
dilemma, so --
Rohm: It sounds like we are working the process.
Guho: Well, thank you very much and I appreciate everybody's cooperation.
Borup: Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing be closed,
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Let's see. I don't think there is much, really, to discuss. Pretty much
everything was agreed to.
Moe: Yeah.
Borup: I did maybe want to --
Zaremba: Did we want to make clarifying comments about the southeast comer or just
leave it 150 feet and let the applicant work out how they are going solve that?
Rohm: I agree.
Borup: Yeah,
Zaremba: I would like to encourage the eventual resolution to be cross-access into the
east property, but I think we have heard from them that they are not planning to develop
for a long time. We will just leave it the way it is. Okay. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I
move that forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 14 on our
agenda, PP 04-010, request for preliminary plat approval for six commercial building
lots on 5.23 acres in an L-O zone for Valencia Plaza Subdivision by Aspen Grove
Development, LLC, east of South Locust Grove Road and south of East Overland Road,
to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of May 6, 2004,
received by the city clerk May 3, 2004, with no changes.
Rohm: Second,
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES,
Rohm: Thank you for sitting through this.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6, 2004
Page 50 of 52
Zaremba: At least it's not 1 :00 o'clock in the morning, Often the last item is hanging on
at 1 :00 o'clock in the morning,
Item 15,
Fee discussion:
Borup: Okay. We are going to look at Item 15.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest any resulting thing is going -- anything that
involves a fee change, as was pointed out, I believe by Mr. Freckleton, is going to
eventually have a public hearing, so I think our -- our move at the moment would be to
enable staff to use their time working on this and I would phrase it in such a way that we
direct staff, so that it's clear that we want them to spend staff time on it -- we direct staff
to prepare a proposal that would establish a fee for area of impact adjustments
somewhere along the lines of the Comprehensive Plan fee, with the knowledge that if
the area of impact was denied, there could be a partial refund, and staff put together a
proposal that would come through the Commission and eventually the City Council for a
fee structure.
Rohm: Or at least explore that possibility of a refund, if, in fact, they didn't move all the
way through the process.
Zaremba: Yes. That would be one of the Items in discussing -- I'm not saying it has to
include that, I'm saying that should be a -- something that would be considered in the
discussion of putting the proposal together. And I don't know if that needs to be in a
motion or just a consensus of--
Rohm: Yeah, I --
Zaremba: I'm in favor of what I said.
Borup: Yeah. Is anybody opposed to that?
Rohm: Yeah. I don't think it really even should be a motion. I think it's just direction
from the Commission to staff to explore that, just because I'm a little uncomfortable
putting something in the form of a motion that wasn't on t~e agenda in the first place.
So, with that being said, I'd just leave it at that.
Borup: Okay.
Moe: I would agree with you as well,
Borup: All right. Any other items for tonight?
Rohm: I move we adjourn.
Borup: Well, maybe one thing just quickly before we do, our next meeting, May 20th,
we have -- actually, there is only -- there is five public hearings, but three of them are
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6, 2004
Page 51 of 52
one project, so we have three different projects we will be addressing that night. A
small residential and an couple of commercial. The reason I bring this up, we have
talked about adding some other things -- I mean we have talked coming early to
address some of the things we want to discuss. Would we want to maybe look at
adding that to this -- this meeting, rather than coming early sometime? Is there any
desire for any of that?
Zaremba: I would support that.
Borup: We may not have an opportunity like this again for a long time. I don't know.
But I can't remember what we were discussing that we wanted to --
Zaremba: In-house discussion items or--
Borup: Well, we still have --
Newton-Huckabay: Because I told her what shirt I wanted today.
Zaremba: Well, if we put it on as an agenda item and we discover we don't have
anything to talk about -
Borup: Well, we have still got our list from discussion of the laundry list and probably
Dave and I are the only ones here that was even -- when that started, weren't we?
Anything else that staff would see beneficial? A lot of that was undecided. I know I
think the director would like to do all those changes at one time and I would be more in
favor of maybe hitting small groups and make some progress, rather than waiting for
two years and doing them all at once,
Zaremba: Well, I certainly would think that one of the items that could be discussed
would be a report from the director on the progress being made by the group that is
currently reviewing the ordinance to change it, maybe an update on that and what
direction it's going.
Borup: Yes.
Zaremba: Because there is a group that's meeting once a week trying to write a whole
new ordinance.
Hood: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I don't get to speak for Anna very
often, so I'll take this opportunity. I'm sure if you put something on an agenda she
would come up with things to discuss with you, Any opportunity to speak before you,
I'm sure, would be appreciated, So, specifically, I don't know of anything.
Borup: Well, yeah, and she had mentioned -- well, I think that would be one of the
things, the updating. And, then, she had said last time that she'd like to spend some
time going over some general things at the meeting and -- I remember her saying that,
but I don't remember what it was.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 6. 2004
Page 52 of 52
Newton-Huckabay: Are we talking about lunch meetings or where are you going?
Borup: No. She was talking about, I thought, some extra time at these meetings, like --
Zaremba: Well -- and one of the other things -- and she may want to suggest. We
depend very heavily on our professional staff. We are all private citizens intentionally
selected because we have different fields of interest, most of which are not the
professional planning business. She has made the suggestion that we discuss some
ongoing training, I mean so that we -- not that we are ever going to become
professionals, but that we know more about this business than just a general citizenry
would indicate, And I'm in favor of learning anything we can learn that makes us --
Borup: I think we all should have gone to that planning convention in Washington DC.
Zaremba: Yeah, We should all go.
Rohm: Or maybe one in Florida in January.
Zaremba: Isn't there one in Hawaii?
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Meeting adjourned at 9:50.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:50 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
;¡f/1Afi!b
~Iìl~
DATE APPROVED
A