2004 06-03
""~-",
2,
~
CITY OF MERIDIAN
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Thursday, June 3, 2004, at 7:00 P.M,
City Council Chambers
1.
Roll-call Attendance:
~ David Zaremba ---2L- David Moe
~ Wendy Newton-Huckabay ~ Michael Rohm
~Chairman Keith Borup
Adoption of the Agenda:
3.
Consent Agenda:
A.
Approve minutes of May 6, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission
Regular Meeting: Approve as Amended
4.
Public Hearing: ZOA 04-001 Request for Zoning Ordinance
Amendment to allow small antennas to be mounted on existing and new
light and power poles within residential, office, commercial, and industrial
subdivisions by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc: Recommend Approval to City
Council
5.
Public Hearing: PP 04-014 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8
commercial building lots on 6.9 acres in an I-L zone for Reagan
Subdivision by Quadrant Consulting, Inc. - east of North Eagle Road and
south of East Presidential Drive: Recommend Approval to City Council
6.
Public Hearing: PP 04-015 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 3
building lots on 3.49 acres in an I-L zone for proposed Nola Subdivision
by Anderson/Lockwood Foundation - south-west corner of East Pine
Avenue and North Nola Road: Applicant withdrew Application
7,
Public Hearing: AZ 04-010 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.10
acres from RUT to L-O zone for proposed Brockton Subdivision by
Confluence Management, L.L.C. - 3665 North Locust Grove Road:
Recommend Approval to City Council
8.
Public Hearing: PP 04-013 Request for Preliminary Piat approval of 10
commercial building lots on 4.10 acres for proposed Brockton
Meridian Pianning and Zoning Commission Agenda - June 3, 2004
Page 1 of2
Ail materials presented at public meetings shail become property of the City of M"idian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hea,ings
please contact the City Ci"k's Office at 888-4433 at ieast 48 hours p,ior to the public meeting.
.oil
. -
11.
12.
13,
Subdivision by Confluence Management, LLC. - 3665 North Locust
Grove Road: Recommend Approval to City Council
9.
Public Hearing: CUP 04-012 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for proposed Brockton Subdivision with request
for reduction to the required landscape buffer along the north, south and
west boundaries and reduced or no lot frontage by, Confluence
Management, L.L.C. - 3665 North Locust Grove Road: Recommend
Approval to City Council
10.
Public Hearing: RZ 04-007 Request for a Rezone of 10.69 acres from
R-4 to R-4, R-8 and L-a zones for Tiburon Meadows Subdivision by
Tiburon Meadows, LLC - 1450 and 1460 North Ten Mile Road:
Recommend Approval to City Council
Public Hearing: PP 04-016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 46
building lots and 1 common lot on 10.69 acres in proposed R-4, R-8 and
L-a zones for Tiburon Meadows Subdivision by Tiburon Meadows, LLC
- 1450 and 1460 North Ten Mile Road: Recommend Approval to City
Council .
Public Hearing: CUP 04-013 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for reductions to the minimum requirements for lot
area, street side setbacks and minimum street frontage for Tiburon
Meadows Subdivision by Tiburon Meadows, LLC -1450 and 1460 North
Ten Mile Road: Recommend Approval to City Council
Public Hearing: PFP 04-006 Request for a Preliminary/Final Plat
approval for the re-subdivision of Lot 14, Block 1 of Woodside Creek
Subdivision No.1 into two building lots on .32 acres in an R-8 zone for
proposed Woodside Creek Subdivision No, 2 by Woodside Properties,
LLC - 1115 North Ten Mile Road: Renoticed to July 1, 2004
Mend;an Planning and Zoning Cnmmi"ion Agenda - June 3, 2004
Page 2 of2
Ail materials presented at public meetings shail become property ofthe City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents andlor hearings
please contact the City Cierk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the pubiic meeting.
. ?,
Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meetina
June 3, 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, and Commissioner David Moe.
Members Absent: Commissioner Michael Rohm,
Others Present: Jill Hollinka, Tara Green, Steve Siddoway, Bruce Freckleton, Wendy
Kirkpatrick, Craig Hood and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X David Zaremba X
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay
X Chairman Keith Borup
David Moe
Michael Rohm
Borup: We'd like to begin our regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and
Zoning of Commission for June 3rd. Start with role call attendance.
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Item 3:
Consent Agenda:
A.
Approve minutes of May 6, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission
Regular Meeting:
Borup: The first item is the Consent Agenda, consisting of the minutes of May 6th.
Zaremba: Mr, Chairman, I had a couple of amendments to suggest.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: And quickly looking for them. On page 17, near the bottom of the page,
where I'm being quoted as speaking, it says: Mr, Chairman and Brad, my inclination
would be to leave that in there, because the -- it says rear and the word real, r-e-a-!.
The real requirement is 25 foot. And one other, On page 40, near the bottom, not the
last time I'm speaking, but the time before that, it says Harris, thank you, then, Zaremba,
The last sentence. They could locate probably anyplace in the world, have decided to
spend their money here -- the word here, h-e-r-e, belongs in there. Those are my only
two amendments.
Borup: Okay. Any other changes? Comments? Seeing none--
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 2 of 65
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we accept the minutes of the meeting of May 6, 2004,
as amended.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 4:
Public Hearing: ZOA 04-001 Request for Zoning Ordinance Amendment
to allow small antennas to be mounted on existing and new light and
power poles within residential, office, commercial and industrial
subdivisions by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc:
Borup: Okay. Our first hearing is ZOA 04-001, request for zoning ordinance
amendment to allow small antennas to be mounted on existing and new light and power
poles within residential, office, commercial and industrial subdivisions. Like to open this
hearing at this time and start with the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is, basically, a
proposal to be able to mount small cell tower antennas to existing and new light poles
and power poles. You should have a staff report that's dated May 28th. In that report I
brought out four issues, one, to point out the proposed maximum size for these
antennas as five square feet. The second issue dealing with existing or new poles, The
report proposes that they only be allowed on existing poles and that new poles should
not be erected for the sole purpose of an antenna, The applicant wishes to amend that,
so that they could erect new light poles in residential subdivisions that may hold the
antennas. The third item is the P&Z director discretion to determine whether this
proposed stealth on a cell tower antenna is sufficient -- or sufficiently hidden in order to
warrant a CZC process and not a CUP and that, had been proposed to be deleted and I
was proposing to put it back in. And, then, the fourth one was the allowed zones.
Really just a clarification, I propose that one additional zone be added, being the R2,
and, then, below that is the proposed actual wording for the amendment. I -- the only
real outstanding issue for any discussion would be the issue of the existing poles or new
poles, if the commission is amendable to having new light poles erected that would hold
these cell tower antennas. I know that the application is here tonight and has samples.
I do have this one photo that was submitted with the applicant's response showing how
-- one example of how these antennas could be mounted to a pole, And with that I will
stand for any questions and let the applicant make their presentation.
Borup: Any questions from the Commission?
Zaremba: Yeah. My first question was who owns the poles? Are these being put on
somebody else's poles or the city's poles or --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 3 of 65
Borup: Light poles belong to the City of Meridian. They are maintained by the Public
Works Department.
Zaremba: And we would allow private companies to hang things on our poles?
Borup: I don't know. I don't know if there is a -- yeah. That's what the proposal is, yes.
I don't know if there is an arrangement where there would be -- that they would rent
space and actually pay the city for those -- I haven't gotten into that aspect of it.
Zaremba: I could be attracted to that. Otherwise, probably not. Okay. Just a question.
Siddoway: Okay.
McKinnon: Good evening, Commissioners, Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber
Meridian, Idaho. Steve did a pretty good job explaining what the ordinance would allow
and I will just go ahead and address Commissioner Zaremba's question right up front.
Similar to license agreements with the types of uses that you see in ACHD right of way,
because the cities own these towers, it would be a license agreement or another sort of
contract with the city, we'd pay our fair share of the power and there would be an
agreement between the city and the owner of the antennas to be able to utilize those
structures. So, it is something that we would have to come to an agreement with the
city for. We did already speak with the Council at a pre-Council meeting and they said
we are in support of this, but we would like to see a zoning ordinance amendment to
allow this. So, at that meeting we brought examples of what these look like. And this is
the biggest -- we'll start with this. This would be just your basic satellite dish, parabolic
dish that you see, very similar to the types used for satellite TV. You would typically see
one of these mounted onto a house or one of these, depending on the distance from the
relay area. This would be mounted on a house or on a pole. This is the largest size
that you would see for that and it's less than feet square in size and it would relay
wireless internet back and forth from the house with one of these at the house itself.
So, it's not a very big antenna and this would be another type of antenna that could be
used. These would be mounted six in a cluster together, so they would be a round
circular arrangement. You can see that they have a beveled edge in here, so you could
cluster six of them together. These can be mounted off the side of a light pole or they
can be mounted on the top of a light pole. These types would probably be mounted on
top of the light pole and they would be less obtrusive and this is really what we are
trying to accomplish by doing this tonight. Like I said, we have met with Anna, we have
met with the Council, and they were all supportive of this. Staff is supportive of it. The
only question that we have with the staff report is whether or not we should be able to
put up new light poles and dedicate those to the city and, then, place these on the light
poles. There is not enough light poles in some areas that we would be able to get full
coverage for the neighborhoods and so there may be a need for new light poles, that's
the reason why we have requested additional light poles to be allowed to be installed
and these to be installed on those new light poles. We are not asking for poles with just
these on top of them. We are talking about adding more streetlights to the city. If there
Meridian Piannìng & Zcning
June 3, 2004
Page 4 of 65
is a need for that. That's the only reason why we have that caveat in there. Other than
that, we agree with the staff report and ask if you have any questions at this time,
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Zaremba: Actually, I do. You're saying that there would be one antenna for every
residence that signed up for service from X company?
McKinnon: Just like a satellite TV service. You may one of these or one of those on the
house.
Zaremba: And one on a nearby pole?
McKinnon: One on a nearby pole.
Zaremba: For every corresponding -- in other words, it wouldn't --
McKinnon: It's not a one-to-one ration, Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Well, that's what I was asking about.
McKinnon: It's not a one-to-one ratio,
Zaremba: It would broadcast to a neighborhood and somehow they can tune a
frequency so that house one gets a signal and house two gets a different signal, but it
might come out of one antenna?
McKinnon: Right.
Zaremba: One sending antenna?
McKinnon: Yeah. It's just you don't have a one-to-one ratio for satellite TVs. It's not a
satellite for each dish.
Zaremba: Okay.
Moe: How many homes do you anticipate would be off one -- off a pole?
McKinnon: I'll repeat what -- each one of these can support 200, so as a cluster of six of
these you could support 1,200 off of one. One cluster, So, it's a lot of homes.
Borup: So, what kind of distance are you talking about?
McKinnon: Line of sight for these is approximately two miles and for the parabolic dish
that extends that by more than double.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 5 cf 65
Borup: Okay. See -- and that's what I thought it was coverage close -- or I didn't know it
was quite that much, but -- so, then, the question is -- you do need line of sight.
McKinnon: Line of sight right now.
Borup: Is that why you're taking about you may need new light poles?
McKinnon: That's correct.
Borup: You certainly don't need it with the two-mile radius,
McKinnon: That's correct. But this is a line-of-sight product at this time.
Borup: Okay. Questions from any of the Commissioners?
Zaremba: Yeah. I would ask -- I can see that that's not terribly obtrusive. I'm not so
thrilled about the dish being on the light poles. But if we change this from a process
where this would be an individual request -- I guess this is a question of staff as much,
but you may have some input on it as well, Dave. If we change this from a system
where this applicant would ask almost individually for each of their locations to a blanket
system, it not only allows this applicant, but 25 competitors -- or however many
competitors show up -- to do the same thing. I mean it would make a zoning -- instead
of making it just specifically this application and saying we think what you're doing is
fine, if we change the zoning ordinance, then --
Siddoway: It's open to anybody.
Zaremba: We could have some serious stuff hanging on our -- you know, we -- it would
be difficult to refuse a whole lot of others.
Borup: I could see it could head that direction, but if that's true, there needs to be an
agreement between the company and the city.
McKinnon: The city would have control, because it's their towers. You would still have
to get a license agreement to do that.
Borup: But I don't think the city wants to be in a -- and that's maybe what you're
concerned about, being in a position of denying --
Zaremba: We let one business to come and, then, we are required to keep going or we
at some point decide we are not going to license the 11th one and get sued or, you
know, what --
Borup: Well, I don't think there are going to be that many of the same --
Zaremba: Probably not.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 6 of 65
Borup: I mean there is --
Zaremba: Do you know how many competitors there are in this business?
McKinnon: Right now there is not even this business, so --
Zaremba: Okay,
McKinnon: I don't know how many there may be in the future, but the one thing to keep
in mind, as you all know, the technology doesn't continue to get bigger, technology
continues to get smaller. The cell phones that we had 20 years ago in the early '80s
look nothing like they do now and satellite dishes from the '80s don't look anything like
this satellite dish that you see now. The receiver. It doesn't anything the same. So,
things are getting smaller. Line of sight is a technology that they are working on, so it
doesn't have to be line of sight right now as well, so that would also minimize that in the
future.
Moe:On those as well, would there be cross-access agreements between wireless
companies to use that as well if another one was coming into the area?
McKinnon: Typically, with the cross-access -- it's a co-location, rather than cross-
access, and with co-location, typically, you have separations with a co-location on a
typical cell tower, since your radio frequency -- your RF is different from each other, so
there is some separation between the two. There may be some issues that need to be
resolved with that with the RF or the -- whatever type of frequency is being utilized by
the technology, but for right now this is for a specific use and that this would be used for
that specific type of use.
Moe: Okay.
Zaremba: Let me just run through some of the details, Okay. The maximum size
proposed is five square feet. The one you show me I would -- or the one that you held
up for display looks to me like it's considerably less than five square feet. I would put
that at maybe two.
Borup: Not square feet. Five square feet would be two by two and a half.
McKinnon: Uh-huh. This would fall within that. In fact, this plus six of these would
equal less than five square feet.
Zaremba: Okay. Two and two -- yeah. Okay.
Borup: Might be a little under that, but not very much.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 7 of 65
Zaremba: Okay. As for existing or new poles, I agree with staff, I would be inclined to
say existing, but when does a new pole become an existing pole and if a subdivision
adds street poles, then, they're new for awhile, but they become existing when they are
turned on.
Borup: The next day?
Zaremba: I guess the issue is we don't want poles built specifically for this purpose. If
it's there because it needs to be a light pole, we call it existing.
Borup: All right.
Zaremba: But their need for coverage is that they may need to -- so, I guess my
question there is, is it -- would it actually have a light on it and look like the rest of the
lights?
McKinnon: It would have a light on it and look like the rest of the lights. Yeah. But there
is no intention to have a pole with this on it without a streetlight. You would have a
streetlight with this on the streetlight, so you would have an actual streetlight that looks
like all the other streetlights in the subdivision.
Borup: Streetlights are designed as a minimum. It, you know, may not get as good of
coverage as -- does that -- who determines streetlight location now? Is that with Public
Works?
Freckleton: Correct. We do the design layout based on Idaho Power's facility plan map
when new subdivisions come in, but we lay those out. Maximum spacing is 400 feet,
but, typically, what we do is lay them out like you would do a sprinkler system. The 400
feet overlaps each other, so that you get better coverage. So, I would say typical
spacing is probably two, two-fifty.
Borup: The thought I had on adding one, then, is what's the complication on that? I
mean you have got to access to power and tap into the existing power line and that kind
of stuff. It's quite a job. I would assume you're not going to want to do anymore than
you need to, obviously.
McKinnon: That's correct.
Freckleton: In a residential subdivision it's not a huge deal. There are J boxes at the
corners, so I mean you can get into them pretty easily. Commercial subdivisions are
going to be lending a different problem,
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, in a commercial subdivision
these are products that you could also mount to the top of a tall building. In a residential
setting you typically don't have, you know, the larger type buildings you could put on.
Something like this could be mounted on a St. Luke's with a lot of line of site. And -- so
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 8 of 65
you're not going to see that. And in speaking with -- just what Bruce had added, I'm just
tying to figure out what would be bad about having additional streetlights in a
neighborhood. More often than not the police department would like to see more
lighting, rather than less lighting in a residential subdivision.
Borup: Would you have some -- anything else you want to add, Mr. Freckleton? Did
that --
Freckleton: Steve just brought up a point and that is with new poles, because of the line
of sight, I mean if we have a street light on one side of the lot and that doesn't give them
the line of sight and if they move to the other side of the lot, they do have line of site,
does that mean that they are going to propose putting a streetlight on both corners of a
residential lot. I mean there should be some criteria for --
Borup: On spacing?
Freckleton: Yeah.
Borup: Does that make sense?
McKinnon: That makes sense. And we are still having to go through the certificate of
zoning compliance process. This isn't a cart blanche approval by the city. You'd still go
through the CZC process for the approval.
Borup: Is there any problem with adding at least what -- separation of at least one lot?
Or do we say so many -- well, I don't know if you say so many feet, because lot sizes
vary,
Zaremba: Well, let me ask this: My instinct would be that most of the newer subdivisions
have enough frequency of street lamps. You're probably talking about some of the
older sections of town?
McKinnon: Uh-huh.
Zaremba: Have you looked at those enough to have an idea of how many new light
poles would have been to be put up?
McKinnon: There hasn't been a detailed study.
Zaremba: This may be -- in three-quarters of the city it may not be an issue.
McKinnon: This -- there hasn't been a detailed study, Right now we are looking at
doing this in a new subdivision that currently under construction and it's been advertised
as having wireless communication for that. Currently, there is another alternative
available to that, but this is what they would like to see happen in that new subdivision.
And, you know, to allow for the wireless internet is a subscription thing, If it works well,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 9 of 65
it's something that would branch out for the future and you would be looking at being
able to do it in other locations. If there is a demand for that, then, they would start
looking at doing the additional, you know, determinations and what would be needed.
Borup: So, it's not like -- it's, obviously, consumer driven.
McKinnon: Uh-huh.
Newton-Huckabay: I just want to make a comment that wireless access is -- I think that
you're going to see more and more of that being consumer driven and business driven.
I have had opportunities to work with it and I think that any community that can get to
that point of being wireless, you're providing many, many, options for residents and
businesses in a wireless environment.
Borup: Well, other concerns at this point? Maybe while we have Mr. McKinnon here --
Zaremba: Well, I certainly see it as a valuable thing and I agree with Commissioner
Newton-Huckabay that it is a valuable thing for a community to offer. I guess my
hesitation that I need a little more discussion on is do we want to do this as a change to
the zoning ordinance, so that it's cart blanche okay every place without some review?
Although we do have it that the P&Z director does have a review level and I guess my
question to the other Commissioners are we comfortable with that? Is that enough?
Borup: Well, I think so.
Zaremba: With the current P&Z director -- I have no problem with the current P&Z
director, because this is forever,
Borup: Well, as it states, if there is disagreement it can be appealed. That's the
situation we have on most everything, isn't it? Always be appealed to somebody,
because I don't think we want to look at everything.
Zaremba: That's true.
Borup: Okay. So, it sounds like, really, the only question is the new pole thing? Isn't
that, really, what we are down to?
Zaremba: New a pole thing and some --
Borup: Spacing.
Zaremba: I would like to acknowledge that there needs to be a licensing agreement
with the city somewhere.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page100f65
Freckleton: Mr. Chair, that was going to be one of my questions, is more detail on the
license agreement and maybe how power source and sharing of the costs of the power
and those details need to all be worked out.
Borup: That would be worked out in the agreement; right?
Freckleton: Right.
Borup: Not in an ordinance.
Freckleton: Right.
Zaremba: But my comfort requires at least mentioning that there is such a process, I
would say.
McKinnon: We are in agreement with that, Commissioner Zaremba. We have no
problem with that being mentioned.
Borup: But should that be part of the ordinance?
McKinnon: There is no reason it shouldn't.
Zaremba: To mention that there is a license process, I --
McKinnon: We are in agreement.
Zaremba: Okay. Not specify what it is, but at least mention that there is.
Borup: That makes sense. Okay. So, then, the pole question is what we are down to, if
we are--
Zaremba: I would be comfortable with the staff's requirement that it only be existing
poles, with the knowledge that new poles become existing poles pretty quickly.
Newton-Huckabay: When a new pole becomes an old pole, then, it --
Zaremba: I think the purposes is not to make it easy just to build poles for this purpose.
Borup: Let me ask on a new subdivision would the design be, going in in the initial
design of the subdivision?
McKinnon: Well, with the subdivision typically how it works is, like Bruce said, a plat's
submitted to the city and the city determines what --
Borup: And would you know -- would they know what they were planning on putting
their system into that new subdivision?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 110165
McKinnon: You could work from that.
Borup: So, couldn't additional poles be designed at that point?
McKinnon: They could.
Borup: In discussion with the Public Works Department?
McKinnon: They could.
Borup: Would that seem practical?
Freckleton: Mr. Chair, your logic is good. The problem is, is at the point in time when
the subdivision is going in, the developer is the one that's putting in the streetlights at
his dollar. So, I can't hardly justify to the developer I want you to put in two more poles
to satisfy a --
Borup: No. Well, I'm assuming that they are going to be working with the developer on
putting in the wireless into their system, So, yes, I was assuming that it would be all
three.
Freckleton: Yeah. That's fine.
Borup: And would that solve in a new subdivision, so it would just be in existing that
wanted to add a wireless network, something like this, that it would come up.
Moe: Yeah, but I don't want to sound like I'm confused, but your point of a new pole is if,
in fact, you don't have line of sight, you want to have the ability to put a pole in, so that
you do have line of sight.
McKinnon: Right.
Moe: You know, so I mean, yes, they are still technically asking to be able to have the
right to put a pole in if need be.
McKinnon: Put in a streetlight.
Moe: Right.
McKinnon: Yeah. And the odds are in the new subdivisions that's not going to be a
problem. If an old subdivision wants this type of product, there may be some limitations
to providing coverage for those, and if they want it, do you want to say we can't allow
you to do that, because you couldn't put in any new streetlights? Do you want to limit
the consumer at this point? It's not a limitation of the product; it's limitation of the
consumer.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 12cf65
Freckleton: Mr. Chair, just one point. The older subdivisions in town typically are pretty
deficient as far as street lighting goes. It wouldn't hurt to have more lights in there.
These are also subdivisions where the trees are pretty mature and I would think that
foliage and trees would kind of interfere with their product as well. So, I guess the point
of that was that the older subdivisions I think could use more lights anyway, so --
Borup: Well, it wasn't that many years ago and it's not the older, it's newer, that they
were not putting in streetlights.
Freckleton: That's true.
Borup: They were --
Freckleton: Meridian Greens.
Borup: There were and, then, the covenants required yard lights and they eliminated the
streetlights.
Freckleton: Yeah.
Borup: Now, this was --
Freckleton: That subdivision also -- they came back and lobbied the city -- they lobbied
pretty hard to do away with streetlights, because they were going to use yard lights,
and, then, they came back and retrofitted with some streetlights, too.
Borup: Oh, really? That I didn't know about. I wasn't referring to that subdivision; I just
know several of them in other areas in the county. I was wondering on this pole issue if
that could also -- sounds like it could be handled by the director.
Newton-Huckabay: That's what I think.
Borup: Which I guess we could say it would be allowed. I don't know -- if approved by
the director.
Zaremba: The director and Public Works would have to work together on it.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission that would be fine with us.
Zaremba: Uh-huh.
Borup: Because the way it's written now, it's not allowed at all in the ordinance, then --
Siddoway: Mr, Chairman?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 130f65
Borup: Yes.
Siddoway: I have a question for Dave, if I could. Dave, how high above the streetlight
would the array need to be mounted? Because I know there would be an addition up
above. Is that right? Is it right above? Is it ten --
McKinnon: Sit right above. Just sit right up on top.
Borup: Just as close above it as you can do it.
McKinnon: Uh-huh.
Borup: Well, can we do some wording along that line, then, that that would also --
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, this picture, if you have got it
right here, is the GPS antenna, That would be something that would be located
basically with a little mount on top of this, just to let -- so you would know where it's at in
space. That's -- it would just been up on top of this, Typically, you wouldn't see those
mounted separately on their own. Just for some clarification.
Borup: Okay. I think we can do something along that line. Let's see if they're any other
public comment or testimony.
McKinnon: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Okay. Commissioners,
are we needing some other -- any other discussion? Oh, as far as -- do you want to add
in the part that an agreement is necessary with the city?
Zaremba: I guess my only question would be where does that go?
Borup: Well, that's going to have to be drafted and written in the ordinance, isn't it?
Somewhere. Oh, we have got a proposed ordinance modification.
Zaremba: Well, we only have modified sections. We don't have the whole ordinance.
Borup: Right. Where would you recommend that, Steve?
Siddoway: I was looking at 11-22-4, B, which is the section that talks -- that gives the
Planning and Zoning director the review to determine whether the Conditional Use
Permit or CZC process will be required. At the end of that one you could state that --
well, in that one you could deal with the director's review as you were discussing and,
then, at the end of that same paragraph you could add in the fact that a license
agreement with the city will be required for any antennas on city streetlights.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 14 of 65
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, if I can maybe add one point Dave just brought up. Some of
the streetlights that we have in the city are homeowner association owned lights. They
own the pole, the light fixture; they are responsible of the maintenance of it. The city
pays the power bill. So, as we structure that -- that comment we need to -- we need to
somehow include and/or homeowners association, because the city still would be
involved, it would be like a three-party agreement if we did have some of those type
situations. But, typically, the decorative lights that you see in some subdivisions
throughout town, those are private lights that we don't own, So, they would need to get
agreement with the homeowners association the city for those installations.
Borup: Well, most -- a lot of those decorative lights are -- are they tall enough?
Freckleton: I don't know. You know, some of those are probably, I'm going to guess,
16 foot tall-- 12, 14, 16 foot tall is about all the taller those will go.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Bruce, there is not an intent to
install these on decorative lighting anyways. You know, if -- most of those subdivisions
that do have the decorative lighting still have the standard entrance lighting, the largest
poles. Most all subdivisions you go into have the standard pole size. It's actually larger
than standard at the entrance to the subdivisions. It's not the intent to mount these onto
decorative lighting. It wouldn't make sense to put something onto a pole -- decorative
light that's already done that way. So, I mean if you wanted to, we could go through an
exclusion of the decorative lighting as well, and, you know, the 12 to 16 foot decorative
lighting that probably --
Borup: I was going to say, then, you go into what the definition of a decorative light? I
don't know if we want to make it too complicated.
Zaremba: Yeah.
Borup: If it's owned by the homeowners association and they are going to have to
approve it --
Zaremba: Just to express an opinion, I have less and less problem with this in concept.
I think I'm satisfied on most levels. What I might like to discuss is continuing this and
having the applicant and staff work together to come up with some wording that we
don't currently have on licensing and homeowners associations.
Borup: Okay, I was thinking the same thing, some wording, but -- you mean like
continue on later to the end of the meeting tonight or something?
Zaremba: Or another meeting.
Borup: How much time would you need?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 15 of 65
McKinnon: We -- actually, contrary to what Commissioner Zaremba said, we'd like to
see this move forward to the Council. Part of the agreement language -- if we get to the
Council level and we have spent a month working on the agreement language and we
get to Council and Council, then, denies it, we've spent the time involving attorneys and
getting through all that whole process to get that agreement in place, then, it gets
denied, then, that's been time and money waste. Typically, we don't have a
development agreement set in place prior to the moving this -- prior to moving a project
forward to the Council, that's an agreement that could be done after the
recommendation for approval has been given. But we will continue to work with staff, if
you would like, to include that language. We talked early tonight about -- Tim and I
talked a little bit earlier tonight about, you know, we need to have an agreement in place
with the city and that's something that definitely needs to get started and we are more
than happy to start working with the city on that at this point to get that happening.
Borup: Well, Commissioner, were you talking about the wording on the agreement or
the wording for the ordinance?
Zaremba: The wording for the ordinance that would specify there needs to be an
agreement.
Borup: Yeah. That's what I thought you meant.
Zaremba: I don't think we need to include the agreement, but --
McKinnon: Oh. Okay. To have an agreement in place, I don't know how much more
technical it needs to be.
Borup: Well, it doesn't need to be real technical, other than we are just trying to
compose -- compose the whole thing here right now and I think it -- Commissioner
Zaremba said it was probably worth spending maybe ten to 15 minutes on, rather than
right here this Commission, maybe have that already worded and we say, yeah, that
sounds good. Is that what you were thinking?
Zaremba: Uh-huh.
McKinnon: And if you wanted to go to the end of the meeting, I could --
Borup: Well, maybe -- that's why I was going to ask, how much time you need. It may
not need to be at the end of the meeting, we could do it after the next -- just continue it
until after the next item.
McKinnon: Okay. Well, we have a couple of members of staff over there that aren't
doing presentations right now, I would be happy to sit down and --
Borup: You may want to work out some wording and see what they think.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3,2004
Page 16 of 65
McKinnon: Yeah. Would that be fine, Commissioner Zaremba, take some time to do
that?
Zaremba: Works for me.
Borup: So, we could do it after --
McKinnon: I mean I don't think it will take us more 15, 20 minutes at the most.
Borup: Okay, We might get through the next two items, then,
McKinnon: Is Becky next? It could be awhile.
Borup: Does that sound all right, Commissioners? Do we need a motion, then, just to
continue this for --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue ZOA 04-001 until later in this meeting
and let's tentatively look at it after Item 6, before Item 7.
McKinnon: Thank you, Commissioners.
Borup: Thank you. I think, then, we can get it all taken care of tonight. The next item is
Zaremba: Do we need to vote on that?
Borup: Oh, I'm sorry.
Moe: I second that, then, first.
Borup: Motion and second, All in favor? Any opposed,
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5:
Public Hearing: PP 04-014 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8
commercial building lots on 6,9 acres in an I-L zone for Reagan
Subdivision by Quadrant Consulting, Inc. - east of North Eagle Road
and south of East Presidential Drive:
Borup: Public Hearing PP 04-014, a request for preliminary plat approval of eight
commercial building lots on 6.9 acres in an I-L zone for Reagan Subdivision. Like to
open this hearing and start with the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The subject
property is located on the Eagle Road. It's part of the extension of the Crossroads
Shopping Center, Presidential Drive entry into Crossroads Subdivision is on its north
Meridian Planning & Zcning
June 3, 2004
Page 170f65
boundary. The new extension of Pine Street is on the southern boundary and Eagle
Road is running North-South here, The subject property is outlined in black. It is a
proposal for eight commercial lots on the 6.9 acres shown, You can see the aerial
photo here. It's a re-subdivision of three of the four existing lots on that site and this is
the proposed layout You can see the full site here. The part that's cross-hatched is the
portion that is not part of this application and the remaining portion in white has the
other -- one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight lots. There are three variances that
already currently exist on the property that were granted in the year 2001. The first
variance omitted the need for the landscape buffer on Eagle Road to be on a common
lot It allowed it to be placed in an easement The second variance reduced the width
of that buffer from 35 feet to 20 feet and, then, the third variance reduced the width of
the buffer in the rear from 25 feet to 20 feet and the proposed plat reflects those
changes as allowed by those variances. You should have the staff report from Brad
Hawkins-Clark, who I'm pinch-hitting for tonight and Mr. Freckleton. I would point out
that on page four, item 15, the applicant has raised the question about the -- about
needing the revised plat depicting the foot cross-axis easement in a vehicle turn around.
I cannot figure out why that would be needed and am recommending that it be deleted
at the applicant's request The access road that goes through .- connects through all
the way to two public streets -- and I'm not certain where a turn around would be
needed. Yeah. It may have been a carry over from a previous report. I'm not certain.
If there is an issue with it, there is still an opportunity for Brad to bring it up at the City
Council, but I have reviewed it and I am not seeing a need for it So, I would
recommend striking item number 15. Then, my second comment is just below that you
see that there is a section for agency comments and it's blank. We did discover that
today and have added an addendum, which you should have from the clerk that
provides nine comments from the fire department, two from sanitary services company,
and one from the parks department and we would ask that those be incorporated into
any motion tonight and I will stand for any questions.
Borup: Questions from any of the Commission? Does the applicant have a presentation
they'd like to make?
Christensen: Members of the Commission, my name is Chuck Christensen. I work for
Quadrant Consulting at 406 South 8th Street in Boise, I don't really have much of a
presentation. We have reviewed the conditions of approval and with the one
modification deleting condition number 15, the conditions are all acceptable to us.
Moe: Have you reviewed the other comments from the fire department?
Christensen: Yes. Those are all acceptable, too.
Moe: Okay.
Borup: Okay, Any questions from any of the Commissioners? All right Thank you, sir.
Do we have anyone else to testify in this application. Seeing none, Commissioners?
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 18 of 65
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on PP 04-014.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval
of PP 04-014, request for preliminary plat approval of eight commercial building lots on
6.9.acres in an I-L zone for Reagan Subdivision by Quadrant Consulting, Inc., east of
North Eagle Road and south of East Presidential Drive, to include all staff comments of
their memo for the hearing date of June 3, 2004, received by the city clerk June 2, 2004,
with two exceptions. One is that on page four, paragraph 15 may be deleted, and the
other is that we are including in this staff report the addendum staff report, which is also
dated for the P&Z hearing date of June 3, 2004, received by the city clerk June 3, 2004,
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 6:
Public Hearing: PP 04-015 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 3
building lots on 3,49 acres In an I-L zone for proposed Nola Subdivision
by Anderson/Lockwood Foundation - south-west corner of East Pine
Avenue and North Nola Road:
Borup: Thank you. The next item is Public Hearing PP 04-015, a request for preliminary
plat approval of three building lots on 3.49 acres in an I-L zone for the proposed Nola
Subdivision by Anderson/Lockwood Foundation. We'd like to open this hearing at this
time and start with the staff report,
Hood: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the applicant has submitted a letter
requesting that this application be withdrawn. After preliminary review of the submitted
plat, staff contacted the applicant; there was a record of survey -- long story short, there
was a record of survey recorded early 2002, I believe, or 2000, that split the property,
The city does not recognize records of survey that subdivide property without going
through the subdivision ordinance, so they have withdrawn the application and are
going to include the entire boundary of that record of survey in a revised preliminary
plat, which we expect to see shortly.
Borup: So, it's just withdrawn and they will reappiy?
Hood: Withdrawn right now. We may be coming back -- or Anna may be coming back --
since a staff report wasn't prepared, they will be out some of their fees, but they do want
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 19of65
a credit -- some type of a credit, so I don't know how that's going to work, but we are
totally withdrawing the subject application and going to be resubmitting a revised plat,
so --
Borup: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: We will not need this paper work again?
Borup: No.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, if necessary, do we need a motion to accept their withdrawal?
The Public Hearing is open.
Borup: Do we have anyone here to testify on this application?
Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on PP 04-015.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we accept the withdrawal of this application.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Borup: Thank you. Maybe before we move on, do you know whether we have anything
from Mr. McKinnon yet? He's not here, so we can go ahead with the next --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue ZOA 04-001 to the end of this
meeting.
Borup: Or at least --
Zaremba: That was the one that we continued to this point.
Borup: Or at least until after Item 9?
Moe: I'll second that.
Zaremba: Are you seconding after Item 9?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 20 of 65
Moe: After Item 9.
Zaremba: Okay. Let me amend my motion. Since I moved to move it to the end of the
meeting, I will amend my motion to continue the Public Hearing for ZOA 04-001 until
after we have done the disposition of Item 9.
Moe: I'll second that.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 7:
Public Hearing: AZ 04-010 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.10
acres from RUT to L-O zone for proposed Brockton Subdivision by
Confluence Management, LL,C. - 3665 North Locust Grove Road:
Item 8:
Public Hearing: PP 04-013 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 10
commercial building lots on 4.10 acres for proposed Brockton
Subdivision by Confluence Management, L.L.C. - 3665 North Locust
Grove Road:
Item 9:
Public Hearing: CUP 04-012 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for proposed Brockton Subdivision with request
for reduction to the required landscape buffer along the north, south and
west boundaries and reduced or no lot frontage by Confluence
Management, L.L.C. - 3665 North Locust Grove Road:
Borup: Okay. Next item. It's for the Brockton Subdivision project. We have three public
hearings and we'd like to open all three of these at the same time. Public Hearing AZ
04-010, request for annexation and zoning, 4.10 acres from RUT to L-O zones for the
proposed Brockton Subdivision, And Public Hearing PP 04-013, request for preliminary
plat approval of ten commercial building lots. And Public Hearing CUP 04-012, request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for proposed Brockton
Subdivision, with request to reduce -- or a reduction in landscaping buffers and et
cetera. Again, all three public hearings are open at this time and we'd like to start with
the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. As you just stated,
there are three applications regarding this Public Hearing. The annexation and zoning,
preliminary plat, and a Conditional Use Permit for the planned development on the
subject 4.1 acres located on the west side of Locust Grove Road approximately a
quarter mile north of Ustick Road. The site is currently zoned RUT in Ada County.
There is a single family home and some outbuildings on the site that the applicant will
be removing. The property is designated as mixed-use neighborhood with the
neighborhood center on the 2002 Comprehensive Plan future land use map. The
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 21 cf65
purpose of a neighbor center, as defined in the Comp Plan, is to provide a blend of high
density residential, small scale commercial, entertainment, office, and open space uses
that are geared to serve all residents within a one to two square mile area. The center
should offer an internal circulation system that connects with adjacent neighborhoods
and regional pathways. They will also serve as public transit locations for future park
and ride lots, bus stops, shuttle bus stops, or other alternative modes of transportation.
I give you that as just background information for some more detailed analysis of that
Comp Plan designation. To the north of this site -- and this will kind of help, hopefully,
too, with that designation. To the north there is a single-family home on 1.2 acres that
is also currently zoned RUT in Ada County. To the south is the new fire station and also
there is a single family home southwest of this property. To the east is a new charter
school and single family homes in the Summerfield Subdivision. To the west is Heritage
Commons Subdivision with a zoning of R-8. The annexation application does propose
to zone the entire site L-O. All lots within the plat share a common ingress-egress to
Locust Grove Road, which is in alignment with the main access to Summerfield in this
approximate location here. The submitted CUP planned development application
proposes ten office buildings consisting of 29,742 square feet of office space, with each
building being on the individual lot. For the required planned development amenities,
the applicant is proposing to construct two gazebo areas with picnic tables. The first
gazebo area is located up here on Lot 10 and the second gazebo is on the south side
on Lot 7, proposed Lot 7 in this area. Looks like a tree. Maybe it's not on this plan, but
it's in this area here. In the report staff did make a recommendation that the amenities
and the area around the amenities be removed from the buildable lot area and
incorporated into common lots, The applicant has proposed a recreational easement
for those amenities. I'll touch on that just briefly at the end of this presentation. The
Comprehensive Plan does state that all development proposed in these areas, meaning
the neighborhood centers, will require approval as plan developments under the CUP
application process. In these locations the developer has the option to develop either,
one, under a neighborhood center in conformance with the city's neighborhood center
design ordinance, which the city does not currently have, or, two, to develop as a
conventional mixed use project. So, because the city doesn't have a neighborhood
center design ordinance, staff evaluated this proposal using the established design
standards for the conventional mixed-use project. Again, using the Comp Plan for
guidance, it states if developing a conventional mixed-use project, four specific design
elements must be incorporated into the development. Street connectivity, open space,
pathways, and density not below eight dwelling unit per acre. The applicant, again, is
only proposing office use, There is no mix of uses and even though the city has not
adopted an ordinance for neighborhood centers, there are several established
standards by resolution that are established in the Comp Plan for areas lying in these
mixed use neighborhood designations. For example, some of these design standards
are maximum acreage in square footage. they are defined in the Comp Plan and these
proposals do exceed what the Comp Plan envisions for the neighborhood center as far
as acreage and square footage of non-residential buildings. So, that's why staff in the
report said that a residential component may be an acceptable -- or make sense -- may
make sense in the site, some type of residential component to kind of keep within the
guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. And, again, they are just guidelines. It does say
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 22 of 65
up to ten acres and up to 100,000 square feet of non-residential uses within this area. It
is a guide, but kind of -- again, that recommendation, taking into account that there are
approximately 34 acres also within this neighborhood center, if this application is
approved, all the non-residential area and building area has already been approved, so
when the next application comes in can staff make the findings for those to also have
non-residential type uses. So, just kind of some history on some of the
recommendations and comments in the staff report. A couple of changes, I guess, that
have been requested in the staff report and things I just want to briefly touch on are the
land use buffers between the office -- there is residential to the west, residential to the
north currently, and about half of the site has residential over here. Again, this is the
new fire station. So, the applicant's proposing a 20 foot land use buffer around the
entire perimeter, excepting the northern portion and excepting about five feet here
where this -- the drive aisle and turnaround encroach, so staff recommended this one
parking stall be removed and the drive aisle be pulled back to maintain a full 20 foot
wide width along this entire west boundary. They are requesting a reduced land use
buffer to ten feet abutting the single-family home to the north. Staff is supportive of that.
The other change that was -- that was requested of staff is a, pedestrian connection in
addition to the vehicular connection. They are proposing cross-access to the 1.2 acres
that's, again, the single-family home right now. They are proposing vehicular access,
no pedestrian access. The staff was just hoping that the sidewalk could be extended,
as well as the drive aisle in this approximate location to get that pedestrian connectivity
and also a pedestrian connection in this neighborhood, a north-south connection
basically somewhere in this area. So, when the future -- when this parcel also develops
in the future, there is at least pedestrian access, which the neighborhood center -- and
that's kind of the idea, is get people to non-residential uses without having to get on the
arterial streets, so they can walk to their -- to their dentist office or whatever. That
seems to be a component. So, a couple of changes in the staff report. I just want to
make sure you do have a letter from the applicant dated today. There were a couple of
things that were brought up and I wanted to talk about a couple of the site specifics.
Site specific number five, preliminary plat, page 13. The intent of this was future right of
way and quotes the future part of that is future from today, so the applicant in their letter
states that they will be dedicating 28 feet from center line, so an additional three feet,
that three feet being the future right of way. So, that three feet should not be counted in
the land -- in the buffer width. So, if you can just amend that site-specific condition to
delete future, I think that will work for everyone, so --
Zaremba: Excuse me. You're talking about number five on page 13?
Hood: Site specific number five on page 13. Correct. And, then, site-specific condition
number two for the Conditional Use Permit, which is on page 19, staff, also would agree
with the applicant's comments in the letter. The intent, again, was not that all buildings
must look exactly like the elevations and pictures submitted by Mrs. McKay, but that
they substantially comply with the materials, elevations, and the list of construction
materials that the application did submit. So, would also ask that that condition be
modified to include in the first sentence after shall and before comply substantially, so --
and, then, in the second sentence after shall and before comply again, insert
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 23 of 65
substantially. And, then, in the -- is it the fourth or fifth sentence? Let's see. The third
sentence would be -- after the and/or materials list, comma, insert as determined by the
planning director, comma, and, then, continue on with the rest of that sentence. This
just would allow -- it gives staff some flexibility. Again, if they change a color or if they
change, you know, a little bit of -- they add an architectural amenity to this and staff
believes that it is an improvement, that that doesn't have to come back before the
Council for a CUP modification. Staff does not want that. I don't think the City Council
wants to see those either. So, this kind of just gives a little more flexibility to staff. And
the final site specific, I believe, that the application had addressed was the recreational
easement versus common lots, again, that I touched on earlier for the amenities. I'll let
the applicant kind of state their case for that. The intent, again, was just so all of the
future tenants and owners -- property owners within this development do have access to
those amenities. The fear was if they are on a private lot and not in a common area,
you know, this tied more to the building and not the entire development as a whole, so I
thought if it was on a common lot, it would be more clear that everyone owns and
maintains these common areas and has access to them. So, I did also want to show
you some elevations that were submitted. I don't think you were privy to those, since
they came in an e-mail addressed to me, but they are -- they are nice buildings. The
pictures do show buildings that do have a lot of character, esthetically pleasing would
be -- I believe they are nice looking buildings. Again, the real difficulty was the
designation on the Comp Plan and this being a neighborhood, not necessarily the
design of the buildings, but the design of the site and how that ties in with the
surrounding uses. So, with that I believe I will stand for any questions you may have of
me.
Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners?
Zaremba: I do have one that goes -- it's on a subject you were on, but it actually goes
about a step farther. You were suggesting that the two amenities be made common
lots. Wouldn't it be typical for the drive aisle and parking areas to be a separate
common lot as well?
Hood: They do go by both ways. I would say it's probably about a 50-50 split with it just
being an easement versus a common lot. That was kind of the logic I was looking at. If
you make a Lot 11, call it a common lot with the drive aisle and have little flares on the
end of it for your common gazebo area --
Zaremba: It includes the amenities,
Hood: It seemed like a design issue that could be taken care of, but I don't design plats
and I don't know what the difficulty in that would be, You're looking at one of them, you
know, as a standard note on the plat that says Lot 1 -- or Lot 11, Block 1, is a common
lot that's to be owned and maintained, they don't have ingress-egress to said lot and
maintenance thereof, et cetera, et cetera. The other one, you know, is an easement
that is provided. So, either way -- staff's okay either way with either the easement for
access or it being a common lot. And, like I said, we see them both ways.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 24 of 65
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: Now, excuse me. Mr. Hood, you're referring to the easement access for the
drive aisles and the parking?
Hood: Yes.
Borup: So could that same -- could that also apply to the gazebo?
Hood: Again, that's kind of what I was envisioning was if they made that just a common
lot. All of the drive aisle and parking, you just kind of have some extra area on the end
of that and you would call it all a common lot of ingress, egress, and amenities,
basically.
Borup: But I thought you were referring to the other as an easement.
Hood: As proposed by the application, the lot lines go to, basically, the centerline of the
drive aisle.
Borup: Yes.
Hood: So, there aren't any frontages for the rear four or five lots. They don't have any
street frontage.
Borup: Because of --
Hood: So, that's the difference. It's an easement over the parking area and the drive
aisles.
Borup: And that was my question. Could like a gazebo area also be an easement?
Hood: Yeah. And that's what -- I'll let the applicant discuss that, if an easement -- a
recreational easement is provided.
Borup: And that's free access to everybody in there.
Hood: I think that could work. But, yeah, haven't seen how the easement's worded and
just, again, got to make sure that everyone has access to that. I think that could work.
Borup: Any other questions? Would the applicant like to make their presentation?
McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle.
Representing the applicant. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, this was kind
of a challenging site. If Craig could put the vicinity map up there. The site's only 3.8
acres of usable area. As you can see, we have got that one acre site here that's an
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 25 of 65
existing residence and, then, the collector roadway coming into Heritage Commons at
the half mile is located here and, then, Heritage Commons, along with their original
application for development has some office and commercial type approvals for their
lots adjoining Locust Grove, We have got the Meridian fire station that's just
constructed recently right here on our south boundary and, then, another single family
dwelling here that comes back with kind of a flag lot. With this particular site we looked
through the neighborhood center criteria and we came up with incorporating one -- an
alignment with Summerfield Drive to minimize our access points to the arterial. Two, we
have no backing motion into this ingress and egress that is here, It's also -- I believe it's
-- I got it 30 feet wide versus your standard 24 to give it a little more width. All of our
buildings were oriented to the exterior, incorporating the new urbanism, so you're not
looking at a sea of parking. The parking is all within the interior. We could not, since
the site was so small, it's only 329 feet wide and, then, 507 feet long, so we were very
restricted in what we could do and I struggled with this to try to come up with something
that looked good and the Y concept seemed to work real well with, you know, a little leg
down here with a nice big island and, then, the Y coming up here. And, then, the owner
of this property says, you know, I have been very good friends with the adjoining
neighbors and they would like to have some cross-access and I said I think that's an
excellent idea. So, we have agreed that we will provide cross-access, pedestrian and
vehicular, so that in the future when that acre, if it were to redevelop, would have an
opportunity to interconnect with us. They, in turn -- I'm told when Heritage Commons
was approved, got a private drive access to Heritage Commons collector. So,
therefore, they developed to the north, so they could have an interconnection clear from
the collector through this, Therefore, interconnecting these smaller parcels with the
Heritage Commons, which is the dominant development in this section. And when this -
- the Commission and the Council came up with the neighborhood centers, I testified
that it was going to be very problematic as far as implementation when they were doing
the mid section neighborhood centers, because I said are we going to put the single
family detached dwellings at the arterial intersections? Because it taiked about that, you
know, the neighborhood center, the intensity of the uses decreases as you fan out from
that half mile mark and I also brought up the fact about what about small parcels, in-fill
type parcels, how are we going to handle them and incorporate them? Obviously, to
come in with a residential component on a parcel this little, I have no clue how you
could even make it -- market it, make it work, make it pencil. I mean I don't know. And
so what we tried to do is come up with something that we thought was creative and
staff, you know, had some concerns and I got a little hot under the collar, but we tried to,
you know, think of some things creative and one was your L-O zone requires frontage,
50 feet of frontage for every lot. Well, you know, that -- that means you just do like a
strip office development fronting them with their frontage going on out and taking access
to Locust Grove. So, we came up with the idea, well, let's go through a planned
development, that would allow us to deviate from the frontage requirement, we would
have to provide two amenities in order to qualify and so, then, we had to think about
what type of amenities could be utilized within a development of this small size and get
the use arid picnic areas are what I see people using the most. They go out there, they
eat their sack lunch, they sit around and visit, they sit around and smoke, those areas
appear to kind of be a little gathering place. And so that's what we came up with.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 26 of 65
These buildings are very small in size; they range from approximately 2,000 to 4,000
square feet. They are residential compatible, That's what we have put in our
application. Singe level. Most likely like a stucco design with some masonry -- you
know, we see them throughout the city springing up in the suburban areas and we see
the accountants, the doctors, the realtors, the engineers, you know, different -- different
types of professional people utilizing these types of developments, because they are
close to home or close to where they do business. But we feel that this project is a
good project. We have got ten buildings, ten lots. The question arose why did we come
up with the cross-access easement. I have done them both ways and I never could see
whether one was more advantageous than the other to create a separate lot for the
access and the parking versus have it shared. I mean there is pros and cons, I guess,
for both -- for both types. This particular applicant indicated that he preferred it to be an
access. We typically place it on the plat. It's crosshatched. It's in bold letters that this
is a cross-access easement, it cannot be dissolved, and it benefits all the different lot
owners and it includes sewer, water, utilities, et cetera, and we thought that the
recreational facilities, the little picnic gazebos would be the same, what we call a
recreational easement. Your ordinance requires to calculate the parking area and have
six percent of that parking area be landscaped, we are 8.95 percent. So, we do exceed
that. We are almost at nine percent. I think on these small parcels, you know, this is as
good as it gets. Like I said, I struggled, tried to come up with something that I thought
was creative that minimized the impact on the arterial, that interconnected, and that
could co-exist. We had our neighborhood meeting, I had I think three or four residents
that attended, they were all very impressed. they like it, they thought that was a good
fit, a good use, they said we like it, it's a low traffic generator, I think if I was -- if I was
proposing apartments, I probably would have had a group here opposing me, because,
you know, this is the kind of development that they envisioned there. They asked a few
things of us to coordinate our fencing so it matches what Heritage Commons has
installed, to coordinate with the neighbor to the north on the irrigation, the piping of the
ditches, their drainage, see if we can come up with some type of a joint possibly
pressurized system that would benefit the two. I recommended that she get with the
applicant and they come up with something. The neighbor over here from Summerfield
said he would like us to post a sign no skateboarding, because I guess he backs up to
the school, the charter school, and they had kids riding those little motorized scooters
and skateboarders and it's been a problem for him, so he said that was his main
concern, that we post signs that no trespassing, this is a business, et cetera. But I was
very pleased with the response that we received and I think this is a good project and
have done everything that I can do to utilize the tools that we have to work with. Do you
have any questions?
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Moe: Yes. I see on your plan there that you have made the change for pedestrian
access --
McKay: Yes, sir.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 27 of 65
Moe: -- on both -- both ways there,
McKay: Yes, sir.
Moe: What about the 20-foot over there to the upper left?
McKay: I did not have time to take out that last parking place. As Craig indicated, with
elimination of this end parking space, then, that -- that would give us that 20 foot
setback.
Moe: And that wouldn't be a problem there?
McKay: No, sir.
Moe: Okay.
Borup: Other questions?
Zaremba: As usual, a creative solution to a difficult spot. I guess my personal instinct is
to have common areas be a separate lot. I don't know why I have developed this
opinion, but it seems like the future rights of the owners, if they know it's a separate
common lot and they contribute to it, seems smoother to me. I don't have a problem
accepting that your current applicant wants it a different way. So, I guess the only
questions I would have is even if you call the two amenities a recreational easement, I
don't see on the current plan that I have that that's mentioned. You're going to add that
to the plat --
McKay: Yes.
Zaremba: -- and somehow crosshatch that next to the other cross-access easements?
McKay: Yes, sir.
Zaremba: Okay.
McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, that -- I guess it didn't occur me when
we were devising the plat to put that on there, but I wouldn't have a problem doing that.
Like I said, it's -- you know, the preference of this body, what they feel most comfortable
with. Either way, I guess, it would work.
Zaremba: Well, my personal preference is that it would be a separate common lot. You
would have 11 lots, instead of ten lots,
McKay: We would have 12.
Zaremba: Is that the right number? You would have 12?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 28 of 85
McKay: We would have one here and, then, we'd put --
Zaremba: Well, I'd just throw that in to the -- I would make them part of the same other
common lot that everybody has to maintain. You would change the outline of your
common lot a little bit to include the two amenities.
Borup: Let me -- maybe some clarification. Is that a common lot? Isn't that all -- right.
McKay: This is an easement.
Zaremba: Not currently.
McKay: Not currently. Yes.
Borup: Are you going to make it a common lot, though?
McKay: I guess that --
Borup: Yeah. That was my point. If it becomes a common lot, I definitely agree with
you that it --
Zaremba: And I'm not ready to --
Borup: -- should be a common lot. If it stays an access agreement, then, it would be
consistent to have -- I mean if it stays a recreational -- stays an easement, I should say,
then, it makes sense to me that the other recreational easement would also apply.
That's consistent between the two.
Zaremba: And I think what I'm thinking, obviously, I'd prefer that it all be a separate
common lot. I would make on common lot that includes the drive aisle and the two
amenities, but I also don't have a problem, but I would still think that it should be one
single cross-access that, then, includes the recreational cross-access, as well as the
vehicular cross-access in one -- in one easement. So, that it -- there isn't any doubt
about who maintains them and -- I mean that's what I'm going for is no future doubt that
if the guy on Lot 6 says, well, I don't have to contribute to maintaining the amenity,
because I can't even see it from my place.
McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, one other thing -- one other factor that I
faced in the past with the city of Boise and it was not just applicable to the city of Boise,
it's in the building code. We were -- we were platting -- platting an office complex for
Winston Moore off of Emerald with existing single level office buildings. We met the
separation between buildings as far as fire code and so forth, but when I created lot
lines, then, the uniform building code kicked in another setback and we to have certain
firewalls and we had to go in and rip out columns and put firewalls in these columns,
because the building had columns in front of them and it was very strange. So, I have
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 29 of 65
had instances where that can create a problem and in that situation, you know, that --
and so I guess that would be my main -- another concern I would have if we made this a
separate lot, that, then, how do we deal with the setback coming off of that lot line. I
don't know. Bruce -- maybe he's faced it in an analysis on some of these other -- it's in
the commercial building code and that's what has caused us problems. But I have no
problem with this easement overlapping onto the recreational easement.
Borup: And I assume that part of that --
McKay: If you're really concerned, we could do like maybe a little lot -- just a little lot
here for this, a little -- you know, a separate lot here, but still keep this in an easement, if
you're concerned about one building owner saying, well, that's on my lot, I don't want
your employees eating lunch there anymore.
Borup: I'm not so stuck that it has to be a separate lot and your explanation is a good
one for not going that direction. I think what I would still go toward, instead of having
three different easements, the one access easement and the two recreational
easements, I would still go toward that being one all-encompassing easement.
McKay: And I have no problem with that, sir.
Zaremba: Okay. And show that on the plat.
McKay: Yes, sir.
Borup: I assume that's going to be part of the agreement?
McKay: Covenants.
Borup: Part of the covenants or is there a separate building owners agreement or
something along that line, too?
McKay: Yeah, Because there will have to be maintenance of all of the parking, common
maintenance of the drive, snow removal of the landscaped area,
Borup: Okay.
Hood: Mr. Chair?
Borup: Mr. Hood.
Hood: Members of the Commission, I just -- I'm with Becky with the setbacks and stuff.
I mean we would have to basically re -- with a PO you can set your own requirements
for setbacks and that's even different than the UBC for separation and all that. On this
particular one I think we are probably all better off right now just going with an
easement. But just for future -- just kind of a side comment and a way that maybe, you
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 30 of 65
know, the open space isn't one of those design standards in the neighborhood center to
-- you know, these kind of almost look like they are afterthoughts. It's like we will put a
gazebo over here and over there and maybe if it was something that was kind of more
central to the development, everyone has access to it a little bit better, it's more -- it's
clear that, hey, this is my gazebo, too, you know, and, then, you're in a common area
and it could be, you know, tied in with your -- with your drive aisle lots and so it's kind of
future stuff, but I think you would -- if you made a lot today, we are having to write a new
condition about setbacks, because the front setback in the L-O zone is going to be 30
feet. And the front of these buildings now are just over 30 feet to the centerline of the
drive aisle, so --
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: That's a good argument for not making it a separate lot and I accept that.
McKay: And, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, as far as the location of the
gazebos, I moved them around about three times and so -- I mean if somebody's got a
thing -- that's where it should -- you know, a better location, I'm open to that.
Freckleton: Mr. Chair, one other point that comes to mind looking at this. If it is going to
remain an easement, I think that the drainage facilities that are shown should be
included within that easement.
McKay: Yeah.
Freckleton: That way the joint responsibility can be spelled out clearer and it's not going
to -- the responsibility is not going to fall on the owner of Lot 9, for instance, because
that drainage facility happens to fall in his lot, so -- and, then, it just needs to be real
clear in their covenants that they share in the responsibility.
Zaremba: The only other comment I would have is the discussion whether or not there
should be a residential component. I understand staffs point that if we were almost
forcing any future applications to have a residential component if we are going to
comply with the Comprehensive Plan. I like what is being presented to us and I can
understand the reason that it goes that direction. The only way to add a residential
component would be vertical integration and I don't know whether that's even
necessary. I guess since staff brought it up, it should be discussed. Vertical integration
is that you would have office on the first floor and a second or third -- second and
maybe a third floor that would have residential.
Hood: And that's a true, you know, mixed use building even. The L-O zoning
designation, I guess, is one -- one of those, you know, four things n four or five different
design standards that are called out. Again, the ten acres maximum per neighborhood
center, 100,000 square foot in non-residential neighborhood center. And I don't know--
I'm not on the other side of things, I don't know marketing, I don't know the dollars, I
don't know how to make all of it work out, but from a planning perspective, you know,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 31 of 65
looking at some multi-family units that also share -- I know sometimes, you know, banks
and things look at those as commercial developments, so just for financing reasons --
and I don't know what the reason for that is, but it's not -- the intent of that -- the
comment for residential component was to get that mixed use feel in this and it wasn't a
condition of approval, just a comment to be discussed further. I don't disagree that this
isn't a good design, if it weren't in a neighborhood center area, I like how the buildings
are closer to the street, the parking is in the rear, again, the structures are nice, cross-
access, one access point, I mean that's -- those are great aspects of the development.
Again, it's the Comprehensive Plan and the diagram showing what a neighborhood
center is and does, how this just doesn't meet that, you know, as outlined in the
Comprehensive Plan. So, again, as far as making it actually pan out dollar wise for the
applicant, I haven't considered that, just that you're over what the Comp Plan says for
eventual uses and, you know, some of this could work, because when other properties
want to develop, we are going to look at those and go it's already used up, you have to
be multi-family at eight dwelling units per acre or, you know, not to go below eight
dwelling units per acre. Maybe not multi-family, but--
Zaremba: But even there would they be able to satisfy it by being vertically integrated if
they wanted to have a commercial component or office component.
Hood: In the vertically -- we don't see a lot of that. I think that's -- and that's probably
something else that I have heard and read about a little bit that's even tougher to get
financing for and zoning -- yeah, zoning is another thing with a planned development. I
think we -- you know, we may be able to address some of those things, but we are
looking at that with the new ordinance right now, again, staff is looking basically saying,
okay, you get L-a for three-quarters of it, but the acre and a half we want to see higher
density, eight dwelling units per acre or more. Now -- and you may get some neighbors
that, you know, oppose the project and understand where the applicant's coming from
there, but the city has said we want to see high density, a neighborhood center type
development here. So, that's kind of what -- again, what the staff report was based on,
some of those aspects, so I think I'll leave it at that. But, again, that's kind of the
discussion and where staff is.
Borup: I like the looks of -- I mean the effects you can have with neighborhood centers.
I think it's a little more difficult when you're talking most of it in-fill type property and
that's one of the restraints here is what we are looking at is a lot of small parcels that
are going to be redeveloping more as if it was, you know, in the middle of a mile on a 40
acre piece you have got a lot more control.
Zaremba: I like this project. I guess my only question is are we backing ourselves into a
corner with the other projects that will be neighbors to this.
Borup: And they are the same. They are all -- I don't think there is any of them over five
acres.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 32 of 65
Zaremba: Yeah. They are all going to be small and they are all going to have the same
challenge, so -- I'm willing to put that off and deal with it when they come.
Borup: Okay. That's probably what it will do. I do have a couple questions on -- it has
been mentioned on the neighbor to the north and they came to the neighborhood
meeting.
McKay: Yes, sir. And she's here this evening.
Borup: Oh. Okay. Yeah.
McKay: She may want to speak.
Borup: Okay. Good.
McKay: Whether she would want two story apartment buildings,
Borup: Well, I had some questions on the access and the buffers and stuff, so I'll wait
and ask them.
McKay: Okay. Mr. Chairman, one thing to keep in mind about your Comprehensive
Plan, it is a guiding document. They are goals, they are not specific requirements and
standards and we, obviously, have to look at each situation and these small parcels
along these arterials, as they redevelop from residential to a more intensive, is -- it's
going to be challenging to find a perfect balance, I don't know how you go about that,
but even with Heritage Commons -- I mean Bruce may correct me -- I don't believe
Heritage Commons was eight dwelling units per acre. No. Wasn't even close.
Borup: Depends on what street.
McKay: And they were -- well, yeah. But I mean they are the core of that neighborhood
center and even they deviated from that eight dwelling unit goal. So, I guess, you know,
we have got to use, obviously, logic, the situation, the parcels, the locations, to
determine what are the proper uses. I hate to see us say, well, you know, we only have
a finite amount of. office or finite amount of commercial. We used it up. I'm sorry, Mr.
Smith, you know, you have to be multi-family. I don't think that's an appropriate
solution. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you, Okay. Who do we have that would like to testify on this? Come
forward. Go ahead and state your name.
Donohue: I'm Beverly Donohue; I live at 3775 North Locust Grove. I'm the 1.22 acres
north of. this commercial building. We looked at the plan and we thought it was nice.
The only concerns we have is the issue was if Heritage Commons is doing all
commercial and the parcel to the north of us, the four acres, is that going to tie us from
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 33 of 65
not being able to be do commercial, because all of it is used up? Is that what this
discussion is over tonight?
Borup: Part of that was they are saying that could be a problem.
Donohue: Yeah.
Borup: Your situation may be a little bit more unique than some of the others down the
road, maybe, since you're surrounded on both sides.
Donohue: Exactly. Because our thought for future for planning is kind of -- we got
access now from this development going straight through and Heritage Commons has
given us a private driveway, because we are going to be landlocked in, because we are
not going to have any access on North Locust Grove where we had two driveways
previous and we were like the in-fill, so we were not given any consideration for the 150
access to the opening of Heritage Commons. So, when we are trying to get out of our
property right now, we are in a situation where we have got traffic; from both ways hitting
us and it's, you know, been kind of very difficult as of right now with the growth not even
finished with the commercial coming through on Heritage Commons area, So, that's
something, I guess, I'm going to have to talk to Planning and Zoning on, trying to get,
you know, some kind of access, what we are going to do with our property.
Borup: Right. So, are you fine with the design that's proposed to reduce -- they are
talking about a reduced buffer and --
Donohue: The only concern I had -- and like I told Becky is they are going to have the
parking in the middle and my concern was -- is like -- if there is like 10:00 o'clock or
whatever from the elementary -- or the high school across the street. They have the
skateboarders and they are flying around there -- the police or no one will be able to see
them if there is any destruction being done and the noise and if they have all these little
gazebo stuff, the kids are going to hang around there, which, you know, if they are
being respectful, it's no problem, but if they have the skateboards and they are just
flying up and down on the weekends and whatever -- is there going to be a city
ordinance, noise ordinance, or is there anything that can be done with the city?
Borup: Well, those ordinances are in effect now.
Donohue: So, then, we just --
Borup: As far as noise ordinance and -- I don't know as far as --
Donohue: The skateboarders? I mean they have a park,
Borup: Yeah. But right now your -- I mean you're fine with the reduced buffer to ten feet
and the access is a location that works for you also; is that correct?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 34 of 65
Donohue: Yes.
Freckleton: Mr. Chair?
Borup: Yes.
Freckleton: Could I ask a question of the --
Borup: Yes,
Freckleton: Do you recall when Quenzer was approved -- or Heritage Commons was
approved and that driveway approach was -- was given to you, do you recall any
restrictions on that? I did not do a review of the file tonight before the hearing, but wasn't
there some discussion about restrictions on current use and future use and things like
that? Maybe you could clarify that. Or was it unrestricted?
Donohue: No, there are restrictions. It's for personal use only as ofright now.
Freckleton: Okay,
Donohue: So, the question being is -- what are we going to do for future if I've got this
commercial on this side of me that wants to have ingress and egress -- is that what it's
called? Versus the other side, they got a road coming in, but they don't have it going all
the way through, where if it's all going to be commercial, this whole ends up
commercial, to keep people off -- the traffic and the flow off North Locust Grove, which
is bottlenecking already, where it's supposed to be a community family-type thing, you
would want the driving all to be off the main road and is that what the future plans are
for the Planning and Zoning?
Borup: Well, we have always wanted cross-access and for vehicles to be able to
continue -- yeah. Exactly what you're saying. That's what it -- that's what I think this
commission is --
Freckleton: Mr. Chair, my point is that that's the ideal situation is to have that cross-
access and be able to get up there, but I believe -- and I would have to do some
research, but I believe at the time that that access was provided to the Donohue parcel,
there was some restrictions put in place that it was only for residential use --
Borup: But can that be amended if there is a change of use?
Freckleton: Well, I would imagine. I mean it's going to have to go back through the
homeowners association of Heritage to do it.
Borup: It would -- the agreement --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 35 of 65
Freckleton: Because that goes across a common lot in Heritage Commons to get that
access over to the Donohue parcel. So, yeah, I mean it's not a slam-dunk, but it's
feasible that it could happen. And, yeah, certainly desirable by the city to have that
cross-access between these parcels.
Donohue: I thought the city at the time really wanted it, but they were not budging.
Hood: That's the problem. We can't require the developer to give you property for
access or frontage on this street that they have built, so in the future, if you can -- again,
I haven't seen how that easement is worded either, but if it's for your private use and
when your property redevelops, if they say, no, you don't get access, you will have to go
to ACHD and trying to get another access out to Locust Grove -- or an access out to
Locust Grove Road. Sure, in a perfect world, you know, it ties into their collector street
across that common area and may we, through you, may be able to go to the
homeowners association of Heritage and acquire that easement and change the
language that's in place now to make it for office or commercial use and I guess that's
why I would -- I don't want to make it sound like when this property does come in, some
type of a commercial use seems to make sense for this subject property and we aren't
just going to say, you know, there is already ten and a half acres approved for non-
residential, you can't do non-residential, but it does factor in and it's something we have
to look at when writing a staff report and, you know, the Comp Plan says up to ten
acres. Okay. We let you go; now it's 12 acres. The next guy that comes in the -- near
the core area of that neighborhood center, do you budge it even further? Pretty soon
you have got, you know, 20 acres that are non-residential on the arterial and it's just --
it's not -- it's not what was envisioned with the Comp Plan. So, not to discourage, you
know, you too much from not getting on residential uses, because, again, you're going
to be sandwiched between them.
Donohue: Exactly.
Hood: But it's almost a reverse. Your property should probably be the office or
commercial use and this property should probably be the residential. So, that's -- that's
the bind and kind of what staff indirectly was getting at again in the staff report, so --
something else just -- that Becky brought up. Quenzer was actually approved prior to
the Comp Plan being adopted, so they were not subject to the neighborhood center
designation. This was, actually, approved as a use exception, 20 percent use
exception, so the neighborhood center designation wasn't even in existence when that
was -- it was in draft form, but it hadn't been adopted and that was the idea with that use
exception was this is going to be the core area of our neighborhood center in the future,
but they weren't subject to those provisions yet, because it hadn't been adopted, so just
to clarify that, too.
Borup: Okay. They were kind of leading edge on that. So, I guess that was a long way
of saying it sounds like what your proposal may be makes sense and most parts would
the city be acceptable to it, but the promise can't be made at this time, of course,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 36 of 65
Donohue: Right. Okay. Well, yeah, because that was our concern is because we were
the in-fill, I guess that's what I learned.
Borup: Right. Yeah.
Donohue: And so even though we have lived there our whole lives, I ended up with an
entrance right next to my bedroom and even though it wasn't a hundred feet, which was
anACHD regulation, we are the ones that are taking the front out of the mess and, then,
we are going to end up if we don't have access, land locked.
Borup: Yeah.
Donohue: Which I think the city --
Borup: Well, I think the city would be behind you on having an access to --
Donohue: Okay.
Borup: -- through to Heritage, Any other questions from the Commission?
Donohue: Okay.
Borup: Thank you.
Donohue: Thank you.
Borup: Is there anyone else to testify? Yes, sir.
Canning: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Joe Canning, I'm
employed by B&A Engineers in Boise at 5505 West Franklin and I'm here tonight
representing the applicant as a project you will be seeing in about four weeks. It's just
north of this about three or four parcels. It's a ten-acre piece also. It's also in the
mixed-use neighborhood zone area on the Comp Plan,
Borup: Is that the piece next to Razzberry?
Canning: Correct. Immediately south of Razzberry. And that particular development is
proposing a two-acre piece out front on Locust Grove, It's a -- we are suggesting or
trying to get an L-O zone. So, our primary concern is how the city will be looking at the
guidelines presented in the Comprehensive Plan for the ten acre -- of two ten acre
apparent maximum in the Comp Plan for the non-residential uses. Our project is a
mixed-use project. We have on professional offices we are proposing in the front on the
two acres, the remaining eight acres will be open space and I guess I call them patio
homes. The old concept of like zero lot line, but with the new building codes we can do
zero lots lines, we have to come up with something a little bit different, but it's the same
type of concept. And our concern is that we want to go on record that we also would
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 37 cf 65
like a similar type of designation as what Razzberry did. And, then, just to get some
other information, I am fairly familiar with this vertical, I guess, zoning use, land use,
mixed use projects. We have had some pretty heavy uses in downtown Boise, our
office, with mixed use projects with parking garages, apartment complexes, and retail,
all in downtown Boise that are all done vertically. I have been watching some projects
in particular on Ustick Road in west Boise that went through a similar zoning issue
where there was some retail offices or professional offices on the first floor and, then,
either apartments or I think in this particular case they were condos they were proposing
on the second floor. It's rather interesting to note in the true urban areas, such as
downtown Boise, those projects are fairly successful. As soon as you get out in the
suburbs that particular project on Ustick has not been anything. It's been approved two
or three years ago, the back part of the project, which are just townhouses, sold quite
rapidly, and, then, the front parcel, which are out on Ustick, remains vacant. So, I think
the key is having something fairly close that's quite large and vibrant downtown, such as
at night, there seems to be quite a difference on the health of that project. So -- but as I
have mentioned, my main concern is, I guess to get on record, that we will also be here
in four weeks. Our project is a true mixed use, but we do have two acres in the L-O
zone we are requesting. So, with that I would be more than happy to answer any
questions, It's coming,
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Canning; Thank you.
Zaremba: I would only comment this is a not commitment to approve your project, but
we have tended to -- the people that are actually putting their money into making
something happen, we have tended to believe your market research and if it proves that
what you think is appropriate there, we have tended to lean that way. But that's no
guarantee of the future, but just a comment.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Mr. Siddoway,
Siddoway: Just to round out the discussion to try and maybe finish this issue off on how
this area will develop in relation to that ten acre, 100,000 square foot maximum.
Heritage Commons was the first in with their -- non-residential uses up front there, I'm
going to flip forward briefly to the neighborhood center concept. If you imagine this as
Locust Grove, the idea was to have right at or near the half mile a collector coming in
and commercial or office uses on either side and then, surrounding by the higher
density and transitioning out. When Heritage Commons came in with theirs, they are
basically the left half, if you will, of that commercial core area. They did put in the
collector right on their north boundary. The discussion at the time it came in was that
this is one half of that commercial center and the -- the other half would be to the north
of it. Well, the only one you haven't heard from tonight is that north half. So, we are
really increasing the amount of non-residential uses and the actual center of this
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 38 of 65
neighborhood center is not yet before us at all and would have been intended for
additional commercial office type uses just on the other side of this collector, which
comes right on the half mile. What we have now, in addition to that, we have got
Razzberry approved with some just off the map. Mr. Canning, who just spoke, would be
representing the parcels just below it. Then, there is the remaining piece. And the
project that's before us tonight below that and the parcel -- the Donohue parcel, which is
between Heritage Commons and Brockton Subdivision, So, if they all go, it's about a
half a mile plus or minus of office and commercial development that would ultimately be
there, as opposed to the concentrated core surrounded by the residential. I guess that's
just something that has to be weighed by the Commission and Council as it goes
through. That's all. Thank you,
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Did I ask if we had anyone else on this to testify?
Okay. Final comments, Becky?
McKay: Just one. With the neighborhood concept, like I stated before, it's a goal. If you
go back to that map, Craig. Sorry about that. It's a goal and it states in there this is not
the only -- it says right by the drawing -- it's not the only way that it can develop and I
guess in a perfect world, if you go back to the map -- that one. The aerial. There you
go. In a perfect world this would be totally undeveloped, you know, a large 40 or 80 or
100 acres, so that that -- that neighborhood concept, you know, could be fostered, but
what you have got here is a five acre lot here with a house, a five acre lot here with a
house -- these are two sisters that fought Heritage Commons, because I dealt with
them on Havasu Creek. We have tens here. We have got other fives. So, it's already
kind of been chopped up and to think that they are all going to come in as one unit and
you're going to have this big, you know, north half of this center, it's going to kind of
come in little bits and pieces and you're going to have to piecemeal it together and since
Heritage Commons did come in prematurely based on the neighborhood concept, the
interconnection, obviously, was restricted to Mrs. Donohue's parcel, so, therefore, you
know, even Heritage Commons impairs us from trying to have the true neighborhood
center with all that total interconnection to get these accesses off of the arterial. So, I
guess my point is we have got to work with what we have got and we have got to come
up with creative ideas to make this happen and there is not going to be any fast, hard
rules that you can apply to everyone of these applications, you're going to have to look
at it on a, you know, case-by-case basis and come to a determination and we try to be
as creative as possible. Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Commissioners?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Public Hearing on these three items be closed.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the hearings. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 39 of 65
Zaremba: I can't think of any issues that haven't been resolved. We have discussed a
lot of things, but -- anybody think of anything that isn't reasonably resolved?
Moe: No, I can't.
Borup: No. Do we have any -- any discussion on the -- some of the changes that --
Zaremba: I think I noted them.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: I'm ready to attempt a motion.
Borup: Let's move on.
Zaremba: Let's try it. If anybody needs to correct me, jump in. Mr. Chairman, I move
we forward to the City Council recommending approval of AZ 04-010, request for
annexation and zoning of 4.10 acres from RUT to L-O zone for proposed Brockton
Subdivision by Confluence Management, LLC, 3665 North Locust Grove Road, to
include all staff comments of their memo of -- for the hearing date of June 3, 2004,
received by the city clerk June 1, 2004, with no annexation changes.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval
of PP 04-013, request for preliminary plat approval of ten commercial building lots on
4.10 acres for proposed Brockton Subdivision by Confluence Management, LLC, 3665
North Locust Grove Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing
date of June 3, 2004, received by the city clerk June 1, 2004, with the following
changes. On page 13, paragraph two -- we didn't discuss this, but there is a sentence
that says maintenance of the drive aisles and parking areas should be provided for in a
note on the face of the final plat. I would put a period at that point and deleted the rest
of the sentence -- and/or in a document such as CC&Rs would be deleted. Then, that
paragraph continues with another sentence. And I do that because I'm now going to
jump down to paragraph nine, which is a similar statement, and make an adjustment to
that on paragraph nine, page 13. I would change that to read: Maintenance of all
common areas, including, but not limited to drive aisles, parking aisles, add the word
amenities, comma, landscaping, comma, add the word drainage areas, comma, et
cetera, shall be the responsibility of the Brockton business owners association and so
noted on the face of the plat. Then still on page 13, let's go backup to paragraph five,
in the second line, the word future can be deleted. End of preliminary plat motion,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 40 of 65
Moe: Second,
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval
of CUP 04-012, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for
proposed Brockton Subdivision with request for reduction to the required landscape
buffer along the north, south, and west boundaries and a reduced or no lot frontage by
Confluence Management, LLC, 3665 North Locust Grove Road, to include all staff
comments of their memo for the hearing date of June 3rd, 2004, received by the city
clerk June 1 st, 2004, with the following changes: On page 19, under site specific
conditions, conditional use, paragraph two, it begins all building construction within
Brockton Subdivision shall -- and we will add the word substantially, so that it reads
shall substantially comply, On the third line there is a similar -- the sentence starts
construction materials shall -- add the word substantially, so it reads shall substantially
comply, Continuing with paragraph two, but now over on page 20: Any modifications to
the approved architectural design features and/or materials list -- let's see -- shall be
approved by the planning director.
Moe: That was in the third sentence also, was it not?
Zaremba: Yeah. I just realized I'm missing my math here. That is a continuing
sentence, I believe. What we are trying to add after materials list is, that this will be
determined by the planning director.
Hood: Commissioner Zaremba?
Zaremba: Uh-huh.
Hood: Staff had -- if you want to leave this out, that's fine. Significant after any. So, it's
not just any modification, but any significant modification as determined by the planning
director.
Zaremba: Thank you, I did miss that one, On page 20, this first paragraph, which is --
this first sentence, which is part of paragraph two. Any significant modifications and,
then, after materials list as determined by the planning director. Oh, now that sentence
makes sense. Okay. Let me read the whole thing, Thank you. This is the new
sentence: Any significant modifications to the approved architectural design features
and/or materials list, as determined by the planning director, will require a separate CUP
modification approval. And, then, the sentence after that remains. End of CUP motion.
Moe: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 41 of 65
Borup: Motion and second.
approval --
Discussion? Was that intended the CUP modification
Zaremba: I'm sorry, say that again,
Borup: -- would be under the -- would be under the -- okay. Staff can approve the
modification is what you're saying.
Zaremba: Yes. Architectural design features and materials.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Staff can approve it, but the way we are meaning this is if it's a significant
modification, the planning director may require a separate CUP for a significant
modification.
Borup: Well, that's what I was wondering. You didn't say may, I don't think, in how I
heard your sentence.
Zaremba: No. I did read it will. I left it will.
Borup: Does that work for staff? Okay. Okay. Motion and a second. All in favor? Any
opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Borup: Okay, I think this would be a good time. We will take a short break and we will
reconvene in a few minutes.
(Recess.)
Item 4:
Public Hearing: ZOA 04-001 Request for Zoning Ordinance Amendment
to allow small antennas to be mounted on existing and new light and
power poles within residential. office, commercial and industrial
subdivisions by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc:
Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our meeting. If Mr. McKinnon is here -- or shall
we go on -- do you want to -- oh, they are here. Okay, We'd like to -- Item No.4, the
zoning ordinance amendment. So, we will continue with that.
McKinnon: Thank you, Commissioner Borup, Members of the Commission. Again,
Dave McKinnon, just for the record. Steve and Wendy and Craig and Bruce and Tim
and I, we all got together and worked this out and this is what we have come up with
and it addresses the issues that you wanted addressed, Commissioner Zaremba,
concerning the agreement, the license agreement. In fact, I just had a moment to talk
with Will Berg, the city clerk, and he said that, yes, it should be a licensed agreement
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 42 of 65
with the city and it would be something that would be required, even if it wasn't part of
this, but he didn't see any reason not to put this in. And we changed a little bit the first
paragraph there, so that instead of saying light poles, everything would be consistent to
say streetlights and to include new streetlights as part of that, instead of just saying
existing. It includes new streetlights. And so we just got rid of some inconsistency and
added the language that you wanted to see there, Commissioner Zaremba. Bruce
Freckleton added one more comment to that that you see in the first paragraph there, it
says shall be reviewed by the planning director and the public works director, because
Bruce wanted to make sure that Public Works was involved as well and we have no
objection to that and we had Steve write it, so you could read it and we are ready to get
this thing moving forward. If you have any other questions, be happy to answer them at
this time,
Zaremba: Does the clerk have a copy of that, so that it can just be referenced or will I
need to read it?
Siddoway: I will give this copy directly to the clerk.
Zaremba: Okay,
Borup: Okay. That covers what we had discussed?
Zaremba: I'm satisfied that staff is satisfied. I think it covers the issues that we brought
up and, therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move this hearing be closed.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval
of ZOA 04-001, request for zoning ordinance amendment to allow small antennas to be
mounted on existing and new fight and power poles within residential office,
commercial, and industrial subdivisions by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc., to include all staff
comments of their memo for the hearing date of June 3, 2004, with the following
change: The statement provided to the clerk regarding Section 11-22-4, B, shall be
incorporated into the proposed amendment.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 43 of 65
Item 10:
Public Hearing: RZ 04-007 Request for a Rezone of 10.69 acres from R-
4 to R-4, R-B and L-O zones for Tiburon Meadows Subdivision by
Tiburon Meadows, LLC -1450 and 1460 North Ten Mile Road:
Item 11:
Public Hearing: PP 04-016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 46
building lots and 1 common lot on 10.69 acres in proposed R-4, R-B and
L-O zones for Tiburon Meadows Subdivision by Tiburon Meadows, LLC
- 1450 and 1460 North Ten Mile Road:.
Item 12:
Public Hearing: CUP 04-013 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for reductions to the minimum requirements for lot
area, street side setbacks and minimum street frontage for Tiburon
Meadows Subdivision by Tiburon Meadows, LLC - 1450 and 1460 North
Ten Mile Road:
Borup: Do we have the applicant for this next hearing here? Okay. This is one time it's
easy to see if there was anybody here for this application. Okay. Let me proceed. I'd
like to open Public Hearing RZ 04-007, request for a rezone of 10.69 acres from R-4 to
R-4, R-B, and L-Q zones for Tiburon Meadows Subdivision and we would like to open
Public Hearing PP 04-016, request for preliminary plat approval for 46 building lots and
one common lot and open Public Hearing CUP 04-013, request for Conditional Use
Permit for a planned development for reductions of minimum requirements, area of
street setbacks, and minimum street frontage for Tiburon Meadows Subdivision. And
with these hearings open I'd like to start with the staff report.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'll briefly go through some of the
issues surrounding this project and staff is recommending approval. The project
consists of 10.69 acres and it's located at the southeast corner of Cherry and Ten Mile
and to the north of the subject property there is another church and, then, to the north of
the church there is an existing medical office facility and just to the west of the subject
property is Albertson's. And there is residential on the west side of Ten Mile, as well as
just to the east of the subject property and to the south of the subject property. The
proposed preliminary plat includes 46 building lots and one other lot. And I'm going to
go through some of the issues surrounding the proposed rezone, because we have had
some changes since the staff report was written and since the applicant submitted their
application, Currently -- let's see. I'll go back to the parcel map. Currently, the
southern two -- it's -- this property consists of three parcels. The southern two parcels
have a Comprehensive Plan designation of public, quasi-public, because of the existing
church property and the entire property was under a single ownership when the
Comprehensive Plan map was created, so the entire property was given the public,
quasi-public designation, The northern property, the northern -- the third property to the
north has a Comprehensive Plan designation of mixed use community, so I sort of
wanted to give you some of the background. All three parcels are today zoned R-4,
Okay. And I'll go through what the applicant is requesting, because their -- the zoning
that they have requested is different from what was on the original application and we
have run this past our legal department and according to Bill Nichols, I talked to him
Meridian Planning & Zcning
June 3, 2004
Page 44 of 65
earlier this week, to go ahead and -- because we notice this as a rezone to R-4 -- or,
excuse me, to R-8 and L-O, it's fine to go ahead and shift some of the zones, because
we are not actually changing any of the zoning designations and the legal notice didn't
have particulars about the acreages or the location of the zones. So, the changes that
are going to -- that are being requested, that entire church property -- let's see. Can I
use the pointer? Okay. The property -- this is where the church currently sits. So, this
proposed lot and, then, this lot to the south, which will also be retained by the church
and I think in the future they are planning to do a multi-purpose center and they will
retain ownership of -- from what we know of this parcel. They want to rezone that
property to L-O and this complies with our zoning code and basically if they -- if they
don't do this rezone to L-O, if they want to build a new building or do an expansion, it
would be an expansion and nonconforming use, because currently they have
residential, so staff fully supports their request for the L-O zoning, it makes a lot of
sense there, And the second area that's changed -- currently there is an existing house
and, then, a detached accessory building on this lot and the applicant's proposing to
have L-O to remove this detached accessory structure from this lot and to have L-O
zoning and develop that as a commercial office property in the future. The piece of
property with the existing home will retain the zoning of R-4. Okay. And, then, our final
rezone is currently -- this area is all R-4 and they are asking for a rezone to R-8, so that
-- that part of the zone change request has not changed. But I will go through some of
the issues surrounding that rezone request. As I said earlier, the Comp Plan
designation for this area is public, quasi-public, but what's different from this requested
rezone from some of the ones we have seen lately is that this actually has underlying
residential zoning, So, the zoning is R-4, Essentially, what they are doing is asking for
a step up to R-8 zoning and let me put back up the vicinity map and staff is supportive
of this rezone, because of the residential that's located to the east of the property and to
the south and, then, to the west. So, we feel that it's an appropriate -- it's in an
appropriate rezone and the reason the entire property was originally given the
designation of public, quasi-public was because it was under the ownership of the
church, which no longer will be with this development application if this goes through.
So, staff is supportive of that zone change. Let me get onto the preliminary plat.
Actually, I'll go through the planned development first. The applicant's requesting
reduced lot sizes and reduced frontages for the subdivision lots. It's a planned
development and their amenities that they are proposing include nearly 11 percent open
space and a homeowner's building and the developer can give you some details on this.
The homeowner's building and the common area lot and also a picnic area. The
preliminary plat -- I would also go through the -- the planned development does not
include -- does not include the church properties and these two existing lots with the
existing home and detached accessory building. Those are not included in the planned
development. All lots are, of course, included in the preliminary plat. For the
preliminary plat, 42 knew residential lots are proposed and for a total of 46 lots. We
have the 42 proposed new residential lots, two lots for the church and the church
property to the south and, then, there are these two existing residential lots. And I'm
going to go through a couple of the issues associated with the preliminary plat. The first
of these is the existing attached accessory building, which will be demolished if we
allowed it to continue on its own lot, it would be a nonconforming use, so we have
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 45 of 65
requested they demolish the building and they are going to comply with that. The
second issue I want to go through is currently there are two access points off of Ten
Mile, that the southern access point, which is on the south side of the church building,
will be, essentially, decommissioned, it will become just an emergency access point and
-- for the church and we are requesting that the applicant work with the fire chief to meet
the fire chief needs to have that as an emergency access point for the church. And the
third issue I wanted to go through -- see if we have a better map. No. Is the cross-
access for -- between the existing church property and the church property to the south.
This property is, basically, a flag lot, taking its frontage off of this road and we wanted to
make sure that there was a cross-access between the existing church property and this
drive and that's just to reduce the number of cuts off of this public road and I spoke with
the developer and we have come up with an agreement and he will kind of go through
what he would like to see there, but the intent is just to reduce the number of access
points off of that -- off of that road. So, those are the issues with staff. Again, staff is
recommending approval of this project and I think it's a good addition to the City of
Meridian. These preliminary plats that are proposed -- the preliminary plat they are
proposing patio homes, which is similar to some of the other projects we have seen
where it's geared towards seniors and I think it adds a good mix and diversity of housing
types here for the City of Meridian. Are there any questions of staff?
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Wendy, as far as the -- there is no secondary access out of the planned
development, then. You're talking only one emergency exists off out of the church
property, but there would be nothing in the rest of the residential?
Kirkpatrick: That's correct. The secondary access point would be -- would be on the
south side of the church building. There is a threshold once you reach 50 homes.
That's when you're required to put in a secondary access point.
Moe: Okay, I got you. Thank you.
Zaremba: I have a question about the actual lots.
Kirkpatrick: Okay.
Zaremba: It appeared to me on this drawing and maybe one other that this is a lot line
that runs through the middle of the church; is that correct?
Borup: The existing lot line,
Zaremba: And that lot line is going to go away. That's being corrected in this --
Kirkpatrick: It's being replatted.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 46 of 65
Zaremba: Okay, So, will this area become a single lot or will that still be two lots?
Kirkpatrick: No. This will be two-lots. The existing church building will be on one single
lot. Yeah, This shows a little more clearly. This is the lot with the existing church. This
is -- also will be owned by the church, but it will be a separate lot.
Zaremba: So, the lot line is moving 50 feet south or something like that?
Kirkpatrick: Well, they are not doing a lot line adjustment, it's just being replatted.
Zaremba: Okay.
Kirkpatrick: I want to -- actually, I wanted to make a correction in the staff report. It says
there were two detached accessory structures. There is only one. There is -- so, this
lot has attached accessory structures. This is a home with a large attached garage, but
there is not -- there is not a second detached accessory and there is a couple
references in the staff report, on page one and page seven, where I just wanted to go
back and clarify that.
Zaremba: Again, still on the church property, you said they were going to have an
emergency access to Ten Mile on the south side of the church.
Kirkpatrick: Correct.
Zaremba: Will they take their access directly to Ten Mile on the north side or are they
going to access through the other public road that's being created? I don't think it exists
now, but -- the new public road.
Kirkpatrick: And, actually, I do not have a site plan showing the church configuration, so
I would ask the developer if that's going to change.
Moe: I, actually, think the church takes access off that road that's there now.
Zaremba: The road is there now? Okay.
Moe: Yeah. From Ten Mile, yeah, that's already there.
Kirkpatrick: Actually, I was out there this morning. I think that that is where the access
point is. I don't remember there being a second one, but we will have the developer go
through that.
Zaremba: Okay,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 47 of 65
Moe: Just one more. Could you go back to the last slide you had up? No. The one that
shows the -- there you go. So, basically, then, on the top left that's going -- that's
proposed to go L-O now?
Kirkpatrick: Well, only the one lot. This lot would be L-O, this will retain it's R-4 zone.
Moe: R-4, Yeah. Okay.
Borup: Okay. And you're still recommending that the church lot be zoned L-O also?
Kirkpatrick: Correct. And, actually, we have recently had a number of churches when
they have done an expansion also come in for a rezone to L-O, so it's kind of the
preferred church zoning here in Meridian.
Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation?
Sargent: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Ron Sargent, 4915 West Camas in Boise,
Idaho. Let me, I guess, first of all, state that we did have a -- host a neighborhood
meeting and we did not have a single attendee show up for the meeting.
Borup: You have got all the same people here tonight.
Sargent: Yes, And they all came tonight to support this. But I did get a phone call from
the -- from one neighbor that lives approximately in this location on the south side and
she, basically, had two issues. She was really concerned the impact to the school
system, She's concerned that the schools are already overcrowded and the new
subdivision will continue to aggravate that situation. But as I explained to her, in this
type of development with the small lots, we tend to get 60, 70, maybe 80 percent of our
buyers tend to be seniors. Out of 250 type of homes we have done like this we have
only ended up with one family that had kids that were school age. So, I told her it was
probably highly unlikely that we would have much of an impact on the school system in
that area. She was also -- the second thing she was concerned about is she has a
fence that's sort of falling apart that's not in very good shape and I assured her that we
are going to build a solid six foot fence around the perimeter. The other thing I guess I'd
like to point out with the site -- Wendy, could you go to the vicinity map? Yeah. This one
is -- it was interesting when each of these subdivisions were builtin this location, there
were no stub roads put through to this property, so when we came in to acquire it from
the church and Mrs. Hewett's property on the north, we basically were limited to 50
home sites in there total from off of Ten Mile Road. So, we were -- I mean so we were
particularly challenged, because we ended up with having to build just a loop road to get
in and out of there. Wendy, if you'd go back to the subdivision map. Also, today the
church does have two accesses off of Ten Mile Road. They have an access here and
they also have an access to the south of their paved driveways. The highway district
has asked that one of those be eliminated, so we have elected to eliminate this one and
make it emergency access only. And the church, then, will take access off of Cheryl
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 48 cf 65
Lane, this new road that we are creating here. And in the ACHD report they put that the
only public access to Ten Mile be off this road for this whole development that's in there.
Zaremba: Excuse me, That would also be true of the new L-O in the upper left?
Sargent: Yes.
Zaremba: It would not access Ten Mile?
Sargent: They have -- ACHD said, yeah, these lots here have to take their access off of
Cheryl Lane as well. So, no, this road would be the only access to Ten Mile for this
whole development.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Sargent: Okay. Let me see. I think Wendy covered the zoning changes that we talked
about. The only, I guess, thing I'd also like to just make sure as clarification, I guess, is
that on December 18th this Commission, when they were reviewing the Cherry Lane
Office Park Subdivision, I guess set a precedent that the quasi-public attaches solely to
the current use and is, therefore, unlike a zoning designation, which more permanently
attaches to the land, And as Wendy pointed out, the quasi-public is a Comprehensive
Plan designation. The actual underlying zoning for this property is R-4 and we are
requesting the one step up to an R-B designation to do our planned development in this
location.
Zaremba: I'll have to say I agree with what you just read.
Sargent; Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Quoting me.
Sargent: Oh. Okay. Those are all the points I guess I'd like to point out. Any
questions?
Borup: You have discussed with the church to have their parcels -- at least the one
where the church is on be zoned L-O and, then, the one to the south, what has been the
decision on it? Same thing?
Sargent: Yes, Let me -- the church is selling us this approximate property. They are
retaining these two parcels. One is this is a flag lot that covers this area that goes -- 50
foot wide flag that goes to Cheryl Lane and Mrs. Hewett is retaining this portion and
selling us this back portion of the property. And in both cases I have met -- I have met
with the church's board, we reviewed the staff recommendation about being rezoned
from R-4 to L-O and they were fine with that designation. So, they had gone back, they
did some research with an attorney and came back to me and said that's -- the L-O
zoning is fine, And likewise --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 49 of 65
Borup: It really makes it easier for them for any future development they do, they would
just have to go through it then. This is a much easier -- in fact, they probably love it,
because you're doing all the work,
Sargent: I think they are appreciating that. Their one concern is that there -- because
they are a church, their property tax is supposed to be tax free and, unfortunately, they
are in a dispute with the Ada County assessor's office over property taxes for 2003 and
it was over some filing of some documents, so they -- their biggest single concern was if
got they got rezoned to -- from R-4 to L-Q that they may have a property tax impact, but
I think they, then, have come to the conclusion that there is -- that this problem they are
having with the 2003 taxes was a one-time problem and not going to be an ongoing
problem for the church.
Borup: And it would be in the same category as most of the other churches in town.
Sargent: Exactly. So, once they came to that realization, they were fine. Likewise, I
met with Mrs. Hewett and her family and her attorney and we reviewed a number of
different options for these two parcels and in the end they felt that it was best to remove
this building as a condition of approval and rezone this to L-Q and she wants to retain
this as income property as residential and --
Borup: But she still owns both lots.
Sargent: Yes. She owns --
Borup: You're just doing the residential in the back?
Sargent: Yeah, We are purchasing this property from this -- from approximately this line
from her, approximately that portion of the property. But her attorney and the family
were fine with the L-Q designation and the R-4 designation.
Kirkpatrick: Oh. And, actually, an additional comment -- and we hadn't gone through
this with Ron earlier, but while Steve and I were looking at the landscape plan, we
noticed that they don't -- a big surprise -- we don't have the required landscape buffer
along Ten Mile, There needs to be a 25-foot wide buffer with a tree every 35 feet. I
think they already have the area to do that, it's just we want to make that a condition of
approval that they meet buffer requirements and we had another church on Cherry
where when they came in for a rezone we required them to upgrade their buffer to meet
current standards.
Sargent: I guess, Wendy, you're absolutely right. If you would put up the landscape
plan. I think what happened is that -- yeah, we failed to show the landscaping in this
portion and our intent is to have that as a 25-foot wide buffer. We have found that there
is a number of trees that the church has planted there already. They have a small berm
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 50 of 65
and with the widening of Ten Mile we are not going to end up losing any of the trees, so
Borup: So, we are going to be doing the buffer, then?
Sargent: Yeah. So, we are going to be doing the buffer. But we are not going to lose
any trees and we also are going to build a detached sidewalk from the north portion all
the way to the south portion of the property along Ten Mile.
Kirkpatrick: And Chairman, Members of the Commission, we also need to make sure
that that landscape easement is added to the plat.
Sargent: Yeah.
Kirkpatrick: So, that should be part of the condition.
Sargent: Is it not on the plat. It's hard to tell.
Kirkpatrick: We don't -- we don't think it's there.
Sargent: It's intended to be there, so that's no problem.
Borup: Then, I assume we are okay, they make those other changes between now and
City Council, as far as other --
Kirkpatrick: Correct.
Borup: -- the L-Q zone designation is what I was referring to.
Sargent: Yeah.
Borup: Okay. Any other questions from any Commissioners?
Zaremba: I think we need to give the opportunity to all the audience members to --
Sargent: I brought my whole entire staff with me.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing,
Zaremba: Second.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I had one more comment. We
should condition that they submit revised legal descriptions for the rezones prior to City
Council.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 51 of 65
Borup: That's, I guess, one of the things I was referring to. All of that, I assumed, would
be done prior to City Council, but would that be good to state that in the motion? Is that
what you're --
Moe: Wendy, could you do me a favor and kind of walk me through page by page, so I
know exactly what all we are changing here?
Kirkpatrick: Okay.
Moe: And, then, I would be more than happy to make a motion.
Kirkpatrick: Oh, Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think you do still need to
close the public hearing. I interrupted you. You need to vote,
Borup: Oh, I'm sorry.
Zaremba: I was going to say, I don't believe we actually voted.
Borup: No, we didn't.
Zaremba: Either that or my mind is slipping.
Borup: No, we didn't. I forgot to. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Borup: All right. Thank you.
Moe: Wendy, I anticipate that, basically, for the rezoning, I would just need to state the
lot numbers and the designated zone that it has been changed to on those; correct?
Like Lot 1 is going to go to an L-O, Lot 2 is going to stay at R-4, and 41 and 40 are
going to L-O and, then, the rest of the project is a planned development; correct? And
that's going R-8?
Kirkpatrick: Correct. And, then, I think -- and we also want to state that they need to
submit those revised legals ten days prior to City Council. But I think that could all go
under number one in site-specific comments.
Moe: I'm sorry. Hang on.
Borup: On page six? Is that where you're reading?
Zaremba: Page six.
Moe: Under site specific number four? And, I'm sorry, would you --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 52 of 65
Kirkpatrick: Well, I think we want to go in and modify number one.
Mae: Number one. I'm sorry,
Kirkpatrick: Currently it says that it's accurate and, actually, we are changing it.
Moe: I'm sorry. And you would say -- read it one more time. How would you -- we are
just taking out accurate?
Kirkpatrick: Let's see.
Borup: Well, probably accurate and meets the requirements would be -- that would be
removed and, then, you replace that --
Moe: Okay. Just the legal description submitted with the application to the city.
Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Mae, I'd propose that we just say new legal
descriptions for each zone -- each proposed zone be submitted and approved prior to
City Council. I spoke with the applicant and those legal descriptions have been
prepared, we just need to get them reviewed and stamped.
Zaremba: So say ten days before --
Freckleton: Yeah. Ten days would be fine.
Zaremba: So, Paragraph one is to say new legal descriptions will be provided ten days
before City Council hearing.
Mae: For each zone.
Zaremba: Identifying each zone.
Borup: Okay.
Moe: I'm getting lost here. New legal description -- I have new legal description for each
zone will be --
Zaremba: Submitted by ten days prior to the City Council hearing.
Borup: That would be it on the rezone, I assume.
Moe: And, then, on the plat I would just be noting the 25-foot landscape buffer along
Ten Mile Road; is that correct?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 53 of 65
Kirkpatrick: Correct. So, we will want to add that under site-specific comments for the
preliminary plat. Want to add that, as well as a mention of the cross-access easement
between the two church lots,
Moe: Just one second here.
Zaremba: So, on page eight we are adding a paragraph seven on paragraph eight.
Borup: Or you could change item one, maybe.
Moe: And the modifications as noted, What, to include a 25-foot landscape buffer along
Ten Mile Road?
Borup: Yeah,
Moe: Okay.
Zaremba: This is under site specific comments on page seven, paragraph one.
Moe: Yes.
Zaremba: Yeah. That's where you are. And, then, on page eight add a paragraph
seven.
Moe: Hang on.
Borup: For what? What would be in that?
Zaremba: There was a different subject.
Borup: Oh,
Kirkpatrick: Number seven would be for the cross-access between the two church lots,
which I believe are 40 and 41.
Zaremba: The two L-O church lots.
Borup: So, between 40 and 41,
Kirkpatrick: Okay. And, then, also under special considerations we want to -- special
consideration number one, the existing home, we probably want to go ahead and make
that a site-specific condition that the existing detached garage will be removed.
Moe: I'm sorry, which -- oh. Number one here?
Zaremba: Still on page seven, number one.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 54 of 65
Borup: The number one would become number eight.
Kirkpatrick: We could deal with this by making special considerations one, two and
three, adding them all to site-specific conditions.
Borup: Oh. And that eliminate seven.
Kirkpatrick: Yeah. And when you do that the special consideration number one, I want
to go ahead and change the proposed Lot 2 has an existing house and detached
garage, because, actually, it's just an existing house and attached garage.
Borup: Couldn't you say existing house and garage --
Kirkpatrick: Right. So, you could just say existing house and attached garage for the
first sentence.
Moe: On number one where it says existing detached garage?
Borup: No. It's on Lot 2 that has it.
Moe: Oh, I'm sorry.
Zaremba: On Lot 2 there is house and detached -- that's, actually, attached, not
detached.
Moe: Okay. It's attached,
Borup: So, just change detached to attached and that should handle it. So, items one,
two and three will become seven, eight and nine?
Kirkpatrick: Correct.
Borup: Are you ready, Commissioner?
Moe: We are going to find out. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council
recommending approval of RZ 04-007 request for a rezone of 10.69 acres from R-4 to
R-4, R-B, and L-O zones for Tiburon Meadows Subdivision by Tiburon Meadows, LLC,
1450 and 1460 North Ten Mile Road, to include all staff comments and conditions of the
staff memo, hearing date of -- the hearing date says May the 20th, 2004, and received
by the city clerk's office June 2nd, 2004.
Kirkpatrick: Let's correct that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 55 of 65
Moe: With the following changes: On page six, under site specific comments, paragraph
one, change the wording to read on number one new legal description for each zone will
be submitted within ten days prior to the City Council hearing. End of that.
Zaremba: I will second that.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval
of PP 04-016, request for preliminary plat approval for 46 building lots and one common
lot on 10,69 acres in proposed R-4, R-B, and L"'() zones for Tiburon Meadows
Subdivision by Tiburon Meadows, LLC, 1450 and 1460 North Ten Mile Road, to include
all staff comments and conditions of the hearing dated May 20th, 2004, received by the
city clerk June 2nd, 2004, with the following changes: On page seven, under site
specific paragraph one, add an additional sentence to include a 25 foot landscape
buffer along Ten Mile Road.
Kirkpatrick: And also want to show the easement on the plat.
Moe: Okay, And, then, I'll just continue that sentence and to include and showing the
easement on the plat. And, then, under -- and, then, change special considerations to
the preliminary plat, items one, two, and three. change those to items seven, eight, and
nine under the site specific comments, with one change under the special
considerations, paragraph number one, under -- in the second sentence -- the second
sentence where it says existing house and detached garage, change that to existing
house and attached garage. End of motion.
Zaremba: I would suggest adding a new -- what would now be numbered paragraph ten
to ask for the cross-access agreement between the two church lots.
Borup: That is --
Moe: That is item number three on special considerations.
Zaremba: I'm sorry. It's already there. Thank you very much.
Moe: So --
Zaremba: So, I second the motion without any comments from me.
Borup: Okay, Motion and second, All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 56 of 65
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of CUP
04-013, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for reductions
to the minimum requirements for lot area, street side setbacks, and minimum street
frontage for Tiburon Meadows Subdivision by Tiburon Meadows, LLC, 1450 and 1460
North Ten Mile Road. I don't know that there was -- oh, to include all staff comments of
the hearing date May 20th, 2004--
Kirkpatrick: Let's correct the hearing date.
Moe: -- and received by the city clerk June 2nd, 2004, End of motion.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second, All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Borup: Thank you. Okay. We have had two additional items. And I probably should
have added that at the beginning of the meeting, but I didn't.
Moe: We still have -
Item 13:
Public Hearing: PFP 04-006 Request for a Preliminary/Final Plat
approval for the re-subdivision of Lot 14, Block 1 of Woodside Creek
Subdivision No.1 into two building lots on .32 acres in an R-8 zone for
proposed Woodside Creek Subdivision No, 2 by Woodside Properties,
LLC - 1115 North Ten Mile Road:
Borup: Oh, I'm sorry. Number 13, Yes. There is the answer right there. That has been
renoticed, so that --
Kirkpatrick: Do we have a date that we are going to continue this to?
Green: July 1st.
Kirkpatrick: Okay.
Zaremba: Say again? This is renoticed to July 1st, is that what happened?
Borup: Well, it's been re-noticed and we can reschedule it to July 1st and it's -- it looks
like we are okay on that agenda, so --
Kirkpatrick: And this should be a pretty quick hearing item. It's just a re-subdivision of
an existing lot. It should go pretty quickly.
Meridian Piannlng & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 57 of 65
Item 14:
Meeting Schedule in July
Borup: Yeah. So, where that's been re-noticed, so we don't even open -- we don't even
need to open it or anything, because there won't be a Public Hearing. Okay. Two new
items that were -- one is from a request of staff and the other request of the Mayor. I
don't know which one -- let's go ahead and do the staff one. That was the one that was
asked for first. They were looking at the items coming up in the next month. We are --
for the -- we have already had the cutoff for July 1 st; correct?
Siddoway: That is correct.
Borup: Okay. July 1 st at this point is going to have seven projects. It looks to me like
most of them are quite small, but we do have two subdivisions. One the gentleman
referred to it tonight called Alexander and the other is Salisbury -- this is the same
Salisbury we have already -- that we already looked at before.
Zaremba: Is that the one that was remanded back to us, I think, from City Council. Will
we have an explanation of why it was remanded back to us?
Borup: I hope so.
Siddoway: I don't think it's a remand. I think it was denied and this is a new application.
Borup: Okay,
Holinka: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I was -- if that's the one I was
thinking of, I was at the City Council hearing and I believe it was remanded for -- to look
at some of the open space issues and its location and I think there was one other issue
that escapes me right now, but if that's the one I'm thinking of, it was remanded.
Borup: That information should be in our packet, then. So, anyway, that one and, then,
this other subdivision. The rest are all smaller things, Meadow Lake, you know, that's
the Touchmark thing and a couple of these I don't know what they are. They look like
individual -- one of them is and --
Newton-Huckabay: Is Meadow Lake the one there by Meridian Greens?
Siddoway: No.
Newton-Huckabay: What was that one called?
Zaremba: Meadow Lake is behind the hospital.
Borup: Yeah. The Touchmark.
. ~ .
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 58 of 65
Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Oh. Okay. What's the one by Meridian Greens? Wasn't it
Meadow something?
Siddoway: It was Southwoods.
Borup: Oh.
Newton-Huckabay: Southwood.
Borup: Okay. So, we are okay there. The staff's comment really had pertained to the
rest of the month at this point and they have got a list of the projects. We could
potentially have 14 projects on July 15th. Not -- not individual hearings, but 14 -- is that
correct from.what--
Siddoway: That's the number of projects and most of those are multiple annexations,
plats, CUPs --
Borup: Right. So, two to three per --
Siddoway: It's too many.
Moe: A marathon.
Borup: They wanted to know what the Commission would think about having a special
meeting where we have five Thursdays in July. I think at one of our last meetings we
had talked about using those meetings for looking at other non-hearing type business.
They can -- those meetings can be pushed into August, but August -- I'm not sure how
many is coming in August, but that deadline is not even here yet, so --
Zaremba: Am I correct that we at the moment have no June 17th meeting?
Siddoway: There is no June -- there is no June 17th meeting.
Borup: I guess we could have put Woodside to June 17th. Come in and have a 30-
minute meeting.
Zaremba: Yeah. On one subject.
Siddoway: Well, there were two, if you will recall, that we called to ask if you wanted to
do something -- put them on June 17th, but since they were the only items, you opted to
push them to July 1st.
Borup: It would have been okay, they were such short little things, I didn't think the
Commission would want to meet for 30 minutes.
.., ,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 59 of 65
Zaremba: Since we are not having the June 17th meeting, I wouldn't have a problem
with having a third meeting in July, although I agree with you, we had talked about
reserving that for in-house and workshop, non-hearing kind of stuff.
Borup: Which could be done on the June meeting, I guess, now that we mention that.
Siddoway: Yeah.
Borup: If we have enough items to discuss. I mean some of the things I would like to
get into is some of those, you know, amendments and redoing some of the ordinances
and that kind of thing and I -- my concern still is if we wait and try to do them all at once,
how long is that going to take? I would rather take them in groups, but --
Newton-Huckabay: Because I'm going to be gone and I, of all of you folks, probably
need the training the most on ordinances or whatnot.
Borup: Well, it would be training -- not training, as much as maybe looking at the
ordinance changes,
Newton-Huckabay: My case that would be --
Borup: Yeah. But, I don't know, is staff prepared to -- I think Anna really wanted to try to
do them all in one big swoop, didn't she?
Siddoway: I'm not sure what you're referring to. Are you referring to the new zoning
ordinance amendment that she's working on?
Borup: Well, incorporate -- I mean we have had -- we have had several lists, one was
called the laundry list and, then, a couple others that we have accumulated over the
years on different ordinances that needed to be revised,
Siddoway: I guess whatever your priorities are. I mean certainly we can bring forward
the draft zoning ordinance amendment that's the whole new ordinance that's currently
being worked on with the subcommittee.
Borup: And see how many of those can be incorporated in -- yeah, see how many of
those changes have been incorporated, maybe,
Zaremba: The clarification is that it really isn't the old ordinance being amended. There
is a -- all of the elements are there, but it's reorganized, reprioritized, so I'm not sure you
can make cross-reference connections between the old ordinance and the new one, but
we just, when we review it, need to make sure that the things that we have in mind are
in the new ordinance, but I don't think we can look at parts of it.
Borup: No. Well -- and I agree with that. A new ordinance, just need to make sure a lot
of those changes are --
f " c'
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 60 of 65
Zaremba: Yeah.
Borup: Anyway, in two weeks would probably be a little premature on that anyway, isn't
it?
Siddoway: It depends on what you want to talk about. I mean it's a fairly extensive
ordinance, it's a whole new -- it takes the place of Chapters 11 and 12 of the current
ordinance and this subcommittee that's working on it meets every week for two hours
and they have been going for at least five or six meetings and I don't believe they are
halfway through it yet, so there is a lot. But if you want to meet to look for your own
issues and just state for the record whether they are in there or not and need to be
addressed, I mean that's something that could be done, But it would require a lot of
review on your own ahead of the meeting.
Borup: Well, Wendy would like to be at that meeting, too, so I think we are back to not
having a meeting then.
Zaremba: Yeah. The committee isn't ready to really make a presentation yet --
Borup: No.
Zaremba: -- of what the new ordinance would be.
Borup: It's very much still being drafted.
Zaremba: Yeah.
Borup: I think I'm going to look through that list I have, if I ever get around to it, and,
then, maybe make sure those are included in. I mean maybe --
Zaremba: Well -- and I'm embarrassed to say I have missed a couple of the meetings,
there have been some family emergencies, but anybody that wants to give their issues
to me, I'm kind of our representative on the committee, when I make the meetings, and,
actually, there have been I think close to ten meetings at this point, of which I made
most, but I missed the last couple.
Borup: Okay,
Zaremba: And I intend to make the rest of them, but --
Borup: I will do that. And, actually, the other two -- you have got that list of that -- the list
I'm talking about.
Zaremba: I had a list that started years ago,
t ~ .,
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 61 of 65
Borup: The other two Commissioners probably don't, so I'll try and make some copies of
that and get that to both of you.
Moe: That would be good.
Zaremba: I even have things that the current Mayor handed to me as she was on this
Commission before she was on the City Council, so --
Borup: And they are not organized, they are just things that have been put down that's --
that goes back, like you say, a number of years. Okay. So, it sounds like we are fine
and we don't have another meeting this month and we are okay with doing a third in
August.
Moe: No. July.
Borup: July I mean. The other choice was August -- really would have been jammed
up, from it looks like the applications coming in.
Moe: Well, I will be gone a little bit in August anyway, so c-
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Well, now rather than splitting what was all scheduled for what would be the
15th of July, rather than splitting that in half, do we still want to make the 29th a short
meeting? In other words, don't split it 50-50, but --
Borup: I like that.
Zaremba: Make the 15th a pretty substantial meeting --
Borup: Let's do it two-third, one-third, or something like that.
Zaremba: Yeah. Two-thirds, one-third, and maybe be able to chat some at the end of
that meeting as well.
Newton-Huckabay: The 1st, the 15th, and the 29th of July?
Borup: Right.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, seven items, with multiple applications, is a very full meeting
and if we split them in half, you're going to have seven on each one. There will be
seven on all three. You already have seven for the 1 st --
Borup: Well, yeah, the first one -- the first one has, really, two subdivisions and, then, a
bunch of smaller ones, but we seem to have a tendency to stretch some of those
smaller ones out.
t " cF
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 62 of 65
Newton-Huckabay: Let's just hope they are not asking for wireless access.
Borup: Well, no, but that was -- that was a zoning -- that was an amendment, so that
was -- that was probably appropriate to spend the time on that. I think we will need to
take a look at -- I mean July 1st is already set and, then, it will be split between the 15th
and the 29th, I can get with staff and --
Siddoway: I would just propose that Kristy work directly with the Chairman, Chairman
Borup --
Borup: That's what I have done before.
Siddoway: -- and make that split.
Zaremba: Yeah,
Borup: I don't remember what the other one was that could have been on the middle of
this month.
Siddoway: Meadow Lake Village was one and I think there was a second one.
Zaremba: Well -- and the only reason I was expressing that opinion is that I would still
like to reserve a line item on that 29th meeting for just our own discussion, sort of like
we are having right now, but have it on the calendar, so that we don't heavily load the
29th,
Borup: Yeah, We will take a look. I haven't seen all of those projects. We will take a
look and try to do like a two-third, one-third, if that looks feasible.
Moe: When's our next -- the 1st?
Borup: Pardon? Yeah. Our next meeting won't be until July 1st.
Zaremba: That's correct.
Item 15:
Discussion on Election of Chairman.
Borup: Okay. And, then, the next item -- so the answer is, yes, we will do it the 29th.
But it probably made a difference, because we didn't have the second June one. The
Mayor reminded me and wanted us to at least be aware -- in the past the chairman of
this Commission has -- I don't know. I think in the far past, I don't know that they have
had any policy. Some of the chairmen have served for a long time. A few years back
we had discussed different things and I think the one that was agreed on was looking at
an annual -- annually elect the chairman. And maybe we need to pull out that motion, It
was -- the motion at the time -- I think the only official motion was that we would either
, c' .
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 63 of 65
discuss or elect a chairman annually, not necessarily that it needed to change, but that
would be -- that it would be brought up, so --
Zaremba: I haven't read it, but what I have heard is that we would hold an election
annually and that would include reelection.
Borup: It could, Yeah. So, it's open for either way. Last time we did it I think we had --
and I don't remember how long ago it was, but we had all new Commissioners and at
that time I guess that's why. So, the question is -- I don't know what the question is, but
we needed to be aware of it and maybe look at it in the past, we were looking at
December, we have gone past December, we could do it sooner. It's really up to the
Commission on what we would like to do or even change the current policy is another
option.
Newton-Huckabay: Why don't we do it in July?
Borup: To discuss it in July you mean? Oh, you mean have the election in July?
Newton-Huckabay: Like the third meeting in July.
Zaremba: Yeah. I think it should be a calendar item. It could happen on the 29th.
Borup: Okay. Let's take a look at that and probably it would be good if somebody could
find that motion -- the policy when we --
Zaremba: Well, Tammy handed me something. Let me see if I've got it. I didn't read
what it was.
Borup: It was probably -- I don't know. It would have been at the time Malcomb left.
What year was that? Or after he left, you know, within like -- so probably somewhere
around 2000.
Zaremba: I'm not sure it says, I think this is from state statute.
Borup: Okay,
Zaremba; Under the Commission -- organization. The Commission shall elect a
chairman and create and fill any other office that it may deem necessary.
Borup: Right.
Zaremba: May establish committees, advisory committees --
Borup: And I think this Commission's motion was to do an annual.
Zaremba: Yeah. But it doesn't say how often.
, " .
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 64 of 65
Borup: No. The state doesn't. So, we will try to find -- we need to try to find that. I don't
know who is -- who would be the one to assign to do that? The clerk's office? Okay. We
will have a copy of that prior to that meeting, maybe, would be good. Maybe at the next
meeting, at the July 1 st meeting, or -- would you like to then --
Newton-Huckabay: So, what are the logistics of going that, electing a chairman?
Borup: There is -- I don't know if there was any set policy in the past. It's been
discussion among the Commission, someone made a nomination and, then -- or others
have expressed either an interest or desire. Usually it's been after the motion.
Sometimes someone says, no, I'd just as soon not, even though they were nominated,
but -- I mean it has to be agreed on, I think. I don't know that we want to railroad
somebody either. So, it would be up to us to determine. Maybe at the beginning those
who did not wish to could state it. That may be the easiest. It's--
Zaremba: What -- tell me -- or us, since you're the only chairman I have known, what is
different about the chairman, You seem to have agendas that I haven't seen.
Borup: Well, mainly --
Zaremba: You must have more meetings than we have,
Borup: Well, I -- not a lot. I mean the new agenda -- the draft agendas I usually get
here, sometimes if it looks like there is a lot coming up, I will go in and pick some up.
But I usually call about it just to -- other than running the meeting here, it's just talking
about the agenda schedules and trying to either not keep them too full or like -- you
know, like not holding this second one in June for 30 minutes. I didn't think that was
good use of everyone's time, So I did -- I guess I did do that without even consulting
with anybody. I didn't think anybody would mind,
Zaremba: I agree that I don't mind.
Borup: So, the other --
Zaremba: I support your decision,
Borup: So, it would be like maybe talking with them on this -- on this next one, to just --
so there is not a lot, too much, I haven't been -- the staff has kind of wanted to -- Anna
has wanted to decide who -- which of the staff is at what meetings and the only question
I have ever had is sometimes some of the staff members who have had a deal at the
beginning and at the end and I have always wondered why they are not together, but I
think that's the director's -- been the director's choice there, hasn't it?
Siddoway: Well, we set up a rotation for new hearings, where we just rotate back each
meeting, The only time it ends up spitting is when something gets continued and say
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 65 of 65
the person's got a new Public Hearing and it's their turn to be at the end, winds up with
a continued hearing at the beginning.
Borup: Okay. So, most of the time they do try to --
Siddoway: All the new ones are on a rotation.
Borup: But each staff member would all be bunched together, grouped together.
Siddoway: Yes. Normally. Yeah, Except for the continued ones, which are generally
placed at the beginning of the hearing.
Borup: Right. Yeah. Okay. Maybe that's why it's -- so they have been doing that. The
only time -- and that came up because of I have questioned some that I thought would
be better moved to the beginning that looked like they would be real short and now have
-- wait clear to the end for, you know, a five minute -- a five minute hearing. But they
were that way because of the staff member that was presenting it. That was a long
explanation for a short question, I guess. I don't know if that answered that or not. So,
no, there has not been -- it's been that once in awhile into the office and the rest on the
phone.
Zaremba: Okay.
Moe: And we will take that up on 29th?
Borup: Yeah.
Zaremba: Works for me. Do we want to close this meeting?
Borup: I think so,
Newton-Huckabay: I make a motion that we close this meeting.
Zaremba: I second the motion to adjourn.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Borup: Meeting adjourned at 10:07 and a half.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:07 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
. .. ~
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 3, 2004
Page 66 of 65
~Jt /!w,ÙJ ~
KE H BORUP - CHAIR~N
) LL-I-12:t
DATEAPPROVEdu