2005 03-17
',' - t
Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meetina
March 17.2005.
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Zaremba.
Members Present: Chairman David Zaremba, Commissioner Keith Borup,
Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner David Moe, and Commissioner Wendy
Newton-Huckabay.
Others Present: Ted Baird, Jessica Johnson, Craig Hood, Josh Wilson, Kenny Bowers,
Bruce Freckleton, Joe Guenther, Anna Canning, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Keith Borup X
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X
--6-Chairman David Zaremba
David Moe
Michael Rohm
Zaremba: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to call to order this regular
meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for March 17th, 2005. We
will begin with a roll call of the Commissioners.
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Zaremba: Next item is the adoption of the agenda. We will take these items in order,
but I would like to let people in the audience know that we have had a number of
requests to not hear some of them tonight, to move them to other dates. So, we will,
when we get to them, most likely move Items 7, 8, and 9, which refer to Bellingham
Park Subdivision. The request has been to continue that until our hearing the first
Thursday of April, which would be April 7th. Items 11, 12, and 13, we have been
requested to continue that -- regarding Northwood Subdivision. We have been
requested to continue that until April 21st. And we are likely to do that. Reserve
Subdivision, which is Items 14 and 15, we have been requested to continue them -- I
think it was until March 31 st, but we don't meet on March 31 st, so we will continue that
most likely until April 7th. So, if anybody is here for Reserve, Northwoods, or
Bellingham, we will not have any public testimony or discussion of those tonight, we will
only move them to the new dates. So, appreciate your coming. But we will, unless I
hear otherwise, consider the agenda adopted.
Item 3:
Consent Agenda:
A.
Approve Minutes of February 17, 2005 Planning & Zoning
Commission Meeting.
j Meridian Planning & Zoning
,- March 17, 2005
Page 2 of 60
Zaremba: And the next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda, which consists of
the minutes of the February 17th, 2005, meeting and I will first ask if any
Commissioners have any comments on those?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Rohm: No comment.
Zaremba: I do have two. On page 28, near the bottom of the page, we took a vote on
the item that was there and the vote actually was four in favor and one opposed and the
large type says all ayes, which is not quite true. It was four to one. At the top of the
next page, page 29, there is a similar thing. We had a vote that was four to one and it
states that it was all ayes. Those, I think, are my only amendments. Oh. At the very
end, we adjourned the meeting at 11 :28 and, then, right below that it says we adjourned
at 10:20 and the actual time was 11 :28. If there are no other amendments besides that,
I would entertain a motion.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we approve the minutes as amended.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 4:
Presentation - Meridian Development Corporation by Clair Bowman:
Zaremba: Next on our agenda we are pleased to have another in a series of
educational presentations. Tonight it's my pleasure to introduce Mr. Clair Bowman, who
is the director of the Meridian Development Corp, who will tell us about this great
organization. Mr. Bowman.
Bowman: Thank you, Mr.
Commission?
-- President of the Commission or Chairman of the
Zaremba: Chairman, I guess.
Bowman: Chairman of the Commission. And Commissioners. I have worked with
several of you in a previous facet of my public responsibilities. It's a pleasure to be here
tonight to talk about something that has been become just an intimate part of what I do
on a day-to-day basis and that is Meridian Development Corporation. That is the --
¡ Meridian Planning & Zoning
:' March 17.2005
Page 3 of 60
excuse me. That is the official name for what is really the urban renewal agency for the
City of Meridian. It was established by ordinance of the City Council effective January 1
of 2002. There are seven Commissioners for the Meridian Development Corporation
board. Two of those are City Council members. Keith Bird and Charlie Rountree sit on
the board. The chairman of the board right now is Craig Slocum of CSHOA, one of the
senior folks in that architectural planning and engineering firm. The vice-chair of the
board is Clarence Jones, the president and CEO of Farmers & Merchants Bank. The
secretary of the board is John Sessel, planner for Ada County. Linda Rupe is a former
business owner, former head of the Downtown Business Association in Meridian, and
she's now working for City Communications, KBOI. I forget the name of the company
that owns them. Let's see. Three. Six. Oh. Ron Anderson is the seventh
Commissioner. He's an ex-City Council member for the City of Meridian and also the
Fire Chief for the city of Nampa. Those folks are the decision-making body. I report to
them. I, actually, am on a contract basis with them, because they didn't want to have
any staff salaries and things like that, so they contracted with me to provide the
administration for the organization and my title is officially the Administrator for the
Meridian Development Corporation. When the city established Meridian Development
Corporation, it had to identify several characteristics of the community that warranted
the establishment of an urban renewal agency. The primary one in our case was
blighted conditions that affect things like the creamery property, the property along the
north side of the railroad tracks between Main Street and about the alignment of East
6th or East 7th, things like that. Some of the other buildings and things that are run
down or locked up, as the old Exchange Bank building is, things like that. Ultimately,
the area that was defined for the urban renewal responsibilities, started at Fairview
Cherry Lane, it runs approximately from east 4th to West 4th, down to Franklin, then, it
narrows somewhat and primarily takes in just Main and Meridian and a little bit of
frontage on either side of those, all the way to the interstate. In that manner, the City
Council deemed that the urban renewal agency could be involved in not only the
downtown or Old Town area of Meridian, but also the entrances to that. The one from
the south coming in from the interstate, up Main Street, the one from the north coming
off Fairview Cherry Lane, either down Meridian or Main Street to get into the Old Town
area. Activating an urban renewal agency takes, according to Idaho law, a series of
about five or six steps, all of which have to be undertaken in sequence and adopted by
the board, ultimately, before certain actions can be undertaken. We are most of the
way through that process now. We are in our -- into our fourth year, just a couple
months into our fourth year now and we have one major planning project left, that would
be a master planning process. So far the primary document that would be of interest to
any you have, I believe, would be the marketing strategy. That document is on our
website at meridiandevelopmentcorp.com. It is featured as one of the tabs on the home
page there. It is a concept plan that defines the downtown area as it is intended to be if
Meridian Development Corporation is able to effect any positive change in the area.
The phrase Heart, Home and Hub of the Community comes out of that marketing
strategy. We just, a week and a half ago, adopted a logo for the organization that now
features that byline on it and we will have, within the next couple of weeks, a brochure
that describes some of what we are about, some of what we are up to as an
organization, also a little bit of this organizational background that I'm giving you right
; Meridian Pianning & Zoning
.' March 17, 2005
Page 4 of 60
now. The marketing strategy, as I said, was a concept document. It said things like
parking. Things like that creamery. Things like the old Exchange Bank building.
Places like the 20 acres of property along the north side of the railroad tracks, as I
mentioned earlier, are high priority things to be resolved. It didn't give direction, nor did
it give priority to those. It was a concept plan, a marketing strategy. What is it that
Meridian has to sell or has to give and how do we package that to make it desirable for
development. The master plan will go into much more detail. We are looking at having
RFO available to go out for bid sometime within the next four to six weeks and the intent
there will be to look at specific projects. Does a parking garage, if we get a couple of
these newer buildings that are -- you're dealing with now in the downtown Old Town
area and a new City Hall goes up somewhere down here, so that we are adding let's
say conservatively 150,000 square feet of combined retail and office space in our four
or five block area here, one of the urban renewal agency's functions, as we see it and
as the board sees it, is to provide some of the parking demand there in a centralized
location, Is that more important than solving some other problem or than dealing with
acquiring some other property and redeveloping it? That's the kind of question that the -
- that the master plan will deal with and we would like all of you to be involved in that
process to the extent that you want to be. Now, let me turn a little bit to the kinds of
things that have been happening so far. I believe most of you are aware that the
original proposal for the Farmers & Merchants State Bank building over here behind the
City Hall started out as a branch bank drive-up facility, six to seven thousand square
feet of space on a single level. Meridian Development Corporation board members had
a great deal to do in talking with Clarence Jones, another board member, who,
ultimately, sold the idea of a larger facility as a first step in a -- demonstrating what it
can look like downtown, what a downtown building could look like, in addition to the
ones we have from Gary Benoit, the George's Bicycle Shop building and the Smoky
Mountain Pizza. So, we are not starting something new here, our job is to try to aid and
abet, kick it into a higher gear if we can, and I think the proposal that you heard recently
for the old Shell station site, Dave Buich's proposal, is another example of a building
that's coming through, this one now with residences included in it. I believe there are a
couple more developers who are in the process of talking about buildings that would be
three or four stories that would have residential components to them. Recently, the City
Council and the Meridian Development Corporation, both initiated requests to Senator
Crapo's office to begin a transfer of title of anther one of these parcels. The 20 acres
that lies north of the railroad track -- between Broadway and the railroad track and from
Main Street to -- out to and including a part of the Precision Craft grounds, is, actually,
ground held by the United States government in title. Many folks think of it as Union
Pacific property, but in practice it is U.S. Government titled ground and the railroad
company many years ago was given access to use it. They have continued that use
without any objection and we now think it's time to convert that title back to the urban
renewal agency, so that it can be part of -- perhaps the key component of a major
downtown redevelopment effort. So, that has been kicked off. We do not know what
the success will be at this point, all that we have done so far is talking to people.
Certainly, if the senator's office decides to move forward and is successful, then, the
master planning process will have a much different flavor than it would if we did not -- if
we had not made that request and had not initiated that process. The last thing is
I Meridian Planning & Zoning
- March 17,2005
Page 5 of 60
probably my role. Yes, I'm the administrator and the gopher for the board members and
help set up things in here. Although the city clerk's office helps set up for the board
meetings, I still feel I'm the one responsible for bringing the things and attending to the
board members. So, there is that side of the job, which I'm very familiar with through
my other public responsibilities over the years. The exciting part of this job, however, is
that I'm working with a lot of folks who are doing development in the area and who are
now talking about what's going on downtown, how can I get involved, where should I be
looking at projects. I'm -- I guess in my last couple of months of reporting to the board I
have been talking to two or three individuals or groups like that every week. I think I
now have 15 or 16 on my list of folks that I have met with in the last three months, all of
whom have some active -- have expressed some active level of interest in downtown.
Therefore, I have to work very closely with the staff that you have here, have to work
very closely with the Mayor's economic development advisor Cheryl Brown, and with the
Mayor and City Council, as well as with the MDC board. It's a fun job. I'm having a ball.
And I guess would stop there and attempt to answer any questions that you might have.
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners? I do have one and it's -- I guess a general
question about all urban redevelopment agencies. Is there any help that you can -- help
for funding that you can help people find, either through the federal government or other
ways that -- I realize our agency isn't going to pay people to do things downtown, it's an
economic thing, but is there -- are there federal guaranteed loans or anything that helps
people redevelop a house or redevelop a commercial property that they might not get if
it were not an urban renewal agency?
Bowman: Good question. I probably should have had financing on my agenda here
someplace and that is certainly one of them. A part of my role is to try to work with folks
who need assistance like that, if I can help them without a lot of direct intervention in the
process. We do not have any specific sources of funds that we know about that we
would go to. We would -- what we do know about would be competitive, it would be
with foundations, the Idaho Community Foundation, as an example, or it would be the
Community Development Block Grant program through the U.S. Department of
Economic Development. It isn't a department. Economic Development Administration.
Things like that. There is, however, a stream of revenue that comes directly to the
Meridian Development Corporation and I am remiss in not mentioning this earlier.
When the urban renewal agency was established in January 1 of 2002, the amount of
tax revenue from the geographic area that I described that goes to each of the other
taxing agencies, other than MDC or the school district, was frozen. That is, for as long
as the urban renewal agency exists, the City of Meridian will get no more tax revenue
out of that area than they got in -- before January 1 of 2002. Same with the mosquito
abatement district, same with the Western Ada Recreation District, Ada County, the Ada
County Highway District. The tax revenue that goes to all those was frozen at the level
it was on January 1 of 2002. Any incremental tax on that, then, goes to the Meridian
Development Corporation or to the school -- Joint School District No.2. School districts
were held harmless from this reduction in the increase of the revenue stream. It
becomes flat, instead of growing for all of the agencies, other than the school district.
So, in 2000 -- FY 2005, our current fiscal year, the total amount of such tax revenue
Meridian Planning & Zoning
. March 17. 2005
Page 6 of 60
from all of these other sources that now comes to the Meridian Development
Corporation is about 200,000 dollars a year. That's the source of funds through which
they contract with me, through which we will pay for the master planning process, we
have paid for all of the other planning processes that we have done. That revenue
stream is anticipated to go up reasonably rapidly and it would be the revenue stream
that we would use to bond them for high priority kinds of construction. If, indeed, a
parking -- improving parking is the highest priority item that comes out of the master
planning process, then, MDC would have the capability to use that revenue stream, or
some portion of it, to bond for doing the parking improvements in the very near future.
It's a process much like what's being discussed in the legislature with the Garvee
bonding proposal for highways. And in many respects urban renewal agencies are
intended to be debt management agencies. They don't do nearly as much good if they
live on a cash basis and just use the cash that they have, because you can never
aggregate enough cash, then, to do large projects. If you're going to do large projects
that make a difference in rebuilding a downtown area, you have to be able to take that
cash and use it in chunks that make a difference, that stimulate other development
beyond that, and that's why the urban renewal agency has the authority to do that
bonding unilaterally. The board can, by itself, decide to enter into those bonding
arrangements. It is the bonding underwriters who, then, determine whether the revenue
stream is sufficient to get you a grade A or a grade AAA rating on those bonds. So, my
apologies for going into depth again on a simple question, but I really did ignore that
and I -- it's my fault.
Newton-Huckabay: I have a question.
Zaremba: Well, I think that's one of the great benefits to having the agency, is that there
is some leverage there, so we call it. Any other questions?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Bowman, I have a question. What types of -- how are you
working in concert with the transportation authorities on -- you know, downtown traffic is
the big subject for everyone. Is that just through working with the Councilor--
Bowman: The downtown Meridian Transportation Management Plan that is that close
to being finished -- I think we have received a final draft -- or a final draft of the final
report at this point, was undertaken by the City of Meridian and the Ada County
Highway District jointly. MDC did not participate in that financially. However, I have
been intimately involved for two reasons. One is because I'm working with MDC and,
secondly, because folks know, then, my other role as the head of the regional
transportation planning agency for many years. I still have some contacts and I guess I
still have a little bit of knowledge about what goes on in that arena. So, I have been
personally involved in some of it and I have also been involved as a -- kind of just an
interested observer on behalf of Meridian Development Corporation. The MDC will be --
is holding a special meeting on March 30th. We will be looking, then, at the final report
from the Downtown Meridian Transportation Management Plan and making a
recommendation to the City Council at that point on the options or the priorities or the
questions that the board has. So, we are intimately involved, but we didn't contribute
) Meridian Pianning & Zoning
- March 17, 2005
Page 7 of 60
any dollars to this one, so we are not in the decision-making role, we are in the
recommending role in this case.
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you.
Rohm: Good job.
Zaremba: Great. Thank you very much.
Bowman: Thank you very much.
Zaremba: Thank you. All right. That was very nice. And this brings us to our Public
Hearing portion of our evening. I will describe a little bit about our procedures that we
will follow, for those of you who don't attend these meetings very often. Our
professional staff and the applicant have already spent quite a bit of time together on
each of these subjects, so we will begin each Public Hearing with a presentation from
our professional staff telling us all where the project is and what the project is and
identifying any issues that remain to be resolved. After that the applicant will have the
opportunity to come forward and say what they care to say about the project, including
addressing any items that the staff has raised, and we allow the applicant 15 minutes
for doing that and that includes any engineers or other supporting staff that they bring
with them, has to fit within that 15 minutes. Then, we open the Public Hearing for the
public to speak and we will start with those who have signed up, but, then, anybody else
that has thought of something, we will also ask you if you care to speak. We do ask, so
that we all can hear you -- if it was important enough for you to come down this evening,
we want to make sure that we hear you, so we ask a couple of things. One is that you
only speak when you come up to the microphone and the other is that you speak loudly
enough that we all can hear, even if you're at the microphone, don't be afraid of the
microphone, but speak up loudly enough that we can all hear you and that our recorder
can get things recorded for the record. We do ask you to limit your remarks to three
minutes. Generally, the point you wish to be made can be made within three minutes.
We do make an exception to that. If somebody identifies them self as a representative
of a group -- an example of that would be the president of a homeowners association
who is speaking for all of the homeowners in their association, we give that person ten
minutes to address us. Following that, then, the applicant can come back up -- they
should have been taking notes while the public was making their comments and the
applicant can come back up and try and address anything that they can resolve right
then that the public has brought up. And if I didn't say it, but the applicant is allowed ten
minutes at that point. We do have a handy light system here. When the green light is
on you have time to talk. The yellow one will go on when there is somewhere 15 and 30
seconds left, and we do ask that you conclude when the red one goes on. This helps
us all not be here until 1 :00 o'clock in the morning if we can move the testimony along
and we appreciate that very much.
Item 5:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-007 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
wireless telecommunication facility in a CoG zone for Verizon Wireless by
, Meridian Planning & Zoning
. March 17, 2005
Page 8 of 60
AFL Telecommunications - 1776 North Avest Lane:
Zaremba: That being said, let us begin with Item 5 on our agenda. This is CUP 05-007
and I will open the Public Hearing for that. It's a request for a Conditional Use Permit for
a wireless telecommunication facility in a CoG zone for Verizon Wireless by AFL
Telecommunications, 1776 North Avest Lane, and we will begin with the staff
presentation.
Guenther: Thank you, Chairman Zaremba. This is a -- like you said, a Conditional Use
Permit for a wireless telecommunications facility. The property is off of Fairview and
Locust Grove Road. It's on the existing Avest Stor-It site. It's a storage unit site that's
located in this kind of L-shaped piece. The proposed location is approximately in the
middle of that site. Right in this location they will be losing approximately four parking
spaces, which does not affect the overall condition -- or the site for the Avest site. The
site will be 12 feet by 28 feet for the -- housing the generator, the pole unit, and the
base of the unit and the general location here does conform to all of the requirements of
the Meridian City Code, which require it to be three times the height of the structure
away from any residential uses, which would be north of the site in this location and I
have also detailed that in the staff report. And that's all Barb put in there for me. The
site also has one other issue here. The Crickett 85-foot cell tower is also on this site.
This is a Verizon one. This is the Crickett site in that location. And at this time I will
answer any questions. Staff is recommending approval with the standard conditions
that are listed in the staff report.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? All right. Thank you. We will ask the
applicant to come forward and speak, please.
Hansen: Thank you, Commissioner and Members of the Commission. I'm Jerry
Hansen with AFL Telecommunications, representing Verizon Wireless at 429 Lawndale
Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah. I would, before I get into this too far, I'd like to make one
correction to your staff report. On the first page, in the applicant's summary, it says the
proposed tower will be constructed to allow for co-location for two additional antenna
arrays, one at 89 feet and the other at 986 feet. On our actual zoning drawings, those
RAD centers were the RAD centers for Verizon Wireless antennas, okay, not for the co-
location portion. Do you have a slide of that tower?
Guenther: That's what I thought was the third slide that wasn't there.
Hansen: That wasn't there.
Guenther: Go ahead with your testimony and we will show that here.
Borup: We have got that.
Hansen: You have that? Okay. Do you all know which one we are talking about?
, Meridian Piannlng & Zoning
> March17,2005
Page g of 60
Zaremba: Let me make sure I understand the clarification you're making. There will be
three positions for antennas, but Verizon's intention is to use them all?
Hansen: No.
Zaremba: No. Then I didn't get it right.
Hansen: Did you find the slide? It's this page on your drawing. Okay. This is a
hundred foot monopole. We have been able to stealth it, so that no antennas extend
beyond the circumference of the pole. This height would be 70 feet. Okay. The top 30
feet is being reserved for the antennas. If you can imagine a lazy Susan, there is a
center rod that goes up from this 70 feet up to a hundred foot and, then, there are areas
where the antennas attach inside of that. Verizon will be occupying the top ten feet.
Okay. From the 70 feet to 90 feet is being reserved for co-locations and that will -- and
that 30 feet is about the maximum that you can design this pole for when you have that
lazy Susan configuration. We can get approximately three co-locators -- I mean three
carriers there. I noticed in the staff report that the city wants first right of refusal for
police and fire department emergency communications on that pole, which is fine.
Verizon has no problem with that. We have another carrier who would like to also co-
locate on that pole. So, at this point, if the city were to decide that they wanted their
antennas on that pole, that could all be accommodated at the time that the actual
construction takes place. And we will present that to the city to see whether or not they
actually want to do it now or if they want to reserve the right. They can either have the
SO foot, okay, or the 70 foot, depending on what they opt to do. It's a good design. We
have been able to use this design in several locations now where you don't have to
have those top hats that have the 12 antennas out on top and this pole can be painted
whatever the city would like it to be. The one that Crickett has right now is some kind
of a dark green or -- it looks like a dark pole. Crickett could not be co-located on,
because the design of their pole would not allow it. It's not capable of having other co-
locators on that pole. This is, really, the only pole design that will accommodate those.
The need for this pole is not just additional coverage. The increase in communications
with the growth of the city and the types of digital communications that are taking place
now, for example, you have a lot of digital photos, you have got video streams, and
there are so many more phones being used that the actual capacity of existing
communication facilities are being stretched. In fact, what will happen is that you will
have critical overloads, you will dropped signals when you're in the middle of a call, it
will just end, because the capacity of the regular equipment can't handle it. This
becomes a critical hand-off site from other existing sites to take off some of that traffic
load and, then, this will also provide additional coverage to areas that are not now being
covered well. Verizon has been getting complaints from the community about some of
the coverage and so that's why they have been looking to try and figure out how to
establish a site in this location. It should serve the community for quite some time and
the co-location aspect of it is I think a very desirable thing for the city. There aren't too
many ways that you can co-locate on a pole without having some stand-off antennas on
the pole. So, if you have any questions.
c Meridian Piannlng & Zoning
- March 17. 2005
Page10of60
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I just have one question.
Hansen: Yes.
Rohm: I have tried to encapsulate what you were saying about the antenna and I'd just
like to read back the way I'd like to change the staff report and see if you concur. The
proposed tower will be constructed to allow for the co-location of additional antenna
arrays. Period.
Hansen: That's fine.
Rohm: And, then, we don't have to speak specifically to location or otherwise.
Hansen: Right. We will present construction drawings that will show Verizon's location
and, then, we will also show the applicable areas that are being left open for the co-
locators.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Hansen: Okay.
Zaremba: If my memory serves me correctly, the Crickett tower that is nearby was
approved just before the city realized that we should be doing co-location and I think it's
maybe one of the towers that said, hey, we need to make an arrangement to co-locate.
So, it was approved before that was a requirement and I appreciate your providing the
requirement. Do you know -- certainly if an antenna can be co-located, they don't
interfere with each other, but do you know if there is any reason that there would be
interference from one that's -- what is it, one hundred feet away from yours or are you
on different frequencies or how does that --
Hansen: No. We all have purchased different spectrums --
Zaremba: Okay.
Hansen: -- from the FCC. On any give pole -- now, for example, if -- some carriers
would interfere or would have a tendency to interfere with Verizon. In that case they
would have to have maybe a ten-foot separation between the tip height of one and the
bottom of another. In this case, the co-locator that we have been talking to will not have
that interference problem and I know from work that I have done up in Caldwell, for
example, on their emergency services, that there really is no problem with the
emergency services bands in terms of the other locators that are on there, so it should
fit very well.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions?
! Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 17,2005
Page 11 of 60
Newton-Huckabay: No. I just have a comment. On the pole - didn't we pick kind of a
standard paint color late last year to paint the poles?
Rohm: I think the comment that was made was the Idaho Power Company utility gray
that all their transmission towers seem to be a rather neutral color and that's the only
reference that I can remember speaking to and, I don't know, maybe staff has some
comments on that.
Hansen: My experience is that most of the challenges come to the color at the
jurisdictions and, quite frankly, the ones that seem to work best are the ones that -- like
Idaho Power has adopted. They seem to stand against the horizon better. The one
that Crickett has really stands out and it could be more neutral than that.
Rohm: Well, it seems to me that that was the reference that we had made before, is
because of that neutrality of the transmission poles that seemed to be the most -- or the
least objectionable of colors. But if staff has some comments on that --
Hansen: Yeah. During your inversions it becomes almost --
Guenther: Anna just indicated that we don't have a standard color that we require.
Borup: So, what would that be called, Idaho Power gray?
Rohm: Good enough for me.
Newton-Huckabay: If I remember right the T-Mobile pole on South Eagle Road, we
suggested to them to use a specific color.
Borup: And the one out at the --
Newton-Huckabay: And the one out at Ten Mile.
Borup: Yeah. Near the storage facility up there. Same thing.
Newton-Huckabay: Right.
Zaremba: Those were in the gray ranges, not green, but they were dark, I think.
Newton-Huckabay: They were gray. Right. but I guess my suggestion is that maybe
we could just suggest that we find out what that color was and just continue with that
color, so we don't -.
Hansen: That's something the city would have to decide, I guess. I'm willing to bring in
the little swatches and you guys --
, Meridian Pianning & Zoning
- March 17, 2005
Page 120f60
Zaremba: I think if we just work with staff -- I understand the issue is that you can have
it baked on at the factory if it's decided before you order it, so you don't to have to paint
it on site.
Hansen: We just need to know what you need.
Zaremba: Okay. I would say work with staff on the color.
Guenther: Mr. Chairman Zaremba?
Zaremba: Yes.
Guenther: Craig has referred to me that he did the one off of South Eagle Road and
they have the color in that staff report and we can get that to the applicant.
Zaremba: Okay.
Guenther: If that's the color you so choose.
Rohm: Works for me.
Zaremba: I think that was a good compromise, so that would be a good one to pick.
Borup: And I didn't pay any attention to that color. Maybe it served its purpose, but
does it? Is it pretty non-obtrusive? That's all we are looking for is something that's
going to blend in and it sounds like we are aware of what works. Did the other one
work?
Zaremba: I see the one up on Ten Mile and Ustick more than that one and it blends in
satisfactorily for me, the one up there.
Borup: If we have already worked out a color that works, but --
Rohm: Well, I think it's sufficient it to say that as long as you work with staff between
your group and staff we can get the color right.
Hansen: As soon as we can get them invisible we will. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you.
Zaremba: We do have a couple other people signed up to speak. Mr. McFadden, I
believe it is? Cameron McFadden? Okay. He's marked as neutral on it. And, then,
Nathaniel Curly. Okay. Neither of those choose to add anything. That leaves the
applicant with nothing to answer. Any more comment from staff?
i Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 17,2005
Page 130f60
Guenther: Yes, sir. The site specific -- or special consideration that Commissioner
Rohm wanted to amend, was that number two that says the applicant shall design tower
to accommodate the applicant's antenna and one other? Was that the condition that
you were talking about amending?
Zaremba: Are you on page four?
Borup: I think he was referring to a comment that was in the application summary, so
maybe we--
Zaremba: On the first page.
Borup: Yeah. So, we don't really need to amend that, it's just--
Guenther: Okay. And, then, just to clarify, the police and fire have indicated that this
tower most likely won't be tall enough to meet their needs, but this is something that --
for future references that they want to at least have the applicant contact them when
they are going to be building the tower as to be able to locate it within their grid and,
then, take a look at it, but, most likely, this one won't be tall enough for them.
Zaremba: So, this is the first of a standard procedure?
Guenther: They said a minimum of 125,
Borup: One hundred twenty-five?
Guenther: Was what their desirable range would be, which there is very few other
heights in the City of Meridian that meet that.
Rohm: So, with that being said --
Zaremba: The hearing is still open, if you'd care to say that on the microphone.
Hansen: We initially came in with a hundred feet, because that is kind of stretching it in
terms of height and getting approvals in some of the cities. If we are in a stealth design
that works, if the city needs it to be taller for their own purposes, then, we can certainly
look at a design, as long as Verizon can get the height that they want on this thing, you
know, it's very possible that the city could co-locate on it and we can get a -- if we can
get a free-standing 125 foot mono pole, you know, that might help the city out in terms
of their needs, so -- I mean we are open to working with staff on that, too.
Zaremba: I would guess that the issue for our consideration is whether this is the right
location for a telecommunication tower. Since it's within feet of another one I can't see
how there would be any objection to that.
Guenther: Chairman Zaremba?
, Meridian Planning & Zoning
- March 17, 2005
Page 14 of 60
Zaremba: It meets all the fall zone.
Guenther: It actually doesn't meet the fall zone. This one was the -- this one was
approximately 310 feet from the residential district and if they went to a 125, they would
not meet that three-to-one fall zone.
Zaremba: That's a good point.
Guenther: And second in there was Mr. Freckleton has referenced that the City of
Meridian is possibly going to a wireless network in the future and so we would just like
to change the Meridian police department comment, that condition to read: The City of
Meridian, not police and fire, so they would have to contact the city and it's a cover all
for us.
Hansen: Okay.
Zaremba: What page was that comment?
Guenther: That would be on page five, the last condition on the --
Zaremba: Okay, So, we are --
Rohm: Page five -- well, what is it again?
Zaremba: -- it is important how tall it is, then. Okay.
Guenther: It is important how tall it is. It's just -- their requirements for height might not
meet this location, as well as their comments to me in the comments meeting that we
meet with other agencies was that they most likely have this site covered for police and
fire as well.
Rohm: That works for me.
Zaremba: All right. Thank you. Appreciate your willingness to help, though. Okay.
Commissioners, I would only make one comment. Are -- and this is, I guess, a question
for staff. There are a couple of pages, on page four and page five, that talk about no
signs. I think there is an exception to that. They are required to have some like danger,
high voltage signs and --
Guenther: That would be like advertising signs.
Zaremba: Thank you. I checked with those who signed up. Anybody who did not sign
up care to comment? Okay. Commissioners?
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on CUP 05-007.
, Meridian Planning & Zoning
" March 17, 2005
Page 15 of 60
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of CUP 05-007, to include staff comments for the hearing date on March 17th,
received March 11th, 2005, with the following changes: On page -- I guess it would be
page one, under the application summary --
Borup: Okay. But that's not part of the -- it wouldn't be normally part of the motion,
because it's not part of the staffs recommendation. I don't know that you necessarily
have to change that.
Rohm: Well, I just think just --
Borup: Okay.
Rohm: -- we will change it and if they don't need it, it's doesn't hurt anything to
reference that. So, on the application summary I'd like to change the third paragraph
down, the proposed tower will be constructed to allow for a co-location of additional
antenna arrays. Period. And on page five, other agency comments and conditions,
number one, change that to read: The city of Meridian must have a first right of refusal
for co-location of communication devices as per MCC 11-22-E.3. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6:
Public Hearing: CUP 05..()O9 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
multi-tenant office building in an I-L zone as required by the conditions of
approval for Lot 5, Block 2, Medimont Subdivision No.1 by Falash &
Ross Construction, Inc. - 150 South Adkins Way:
Zaremba: Next item on the agenda, No.6. I will open the Public Hearing for CUP 05-
009, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a multi-tenant office building in an I-L zone
as required by the conditions of approval for Lot 5, Block 2, Medimont Subdivision No.
1 by Falash & Ross Construction, Inc., 150 South Adkins Way. And we will begin with
the staff report.
£ Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 17, 2005
Page 16of60
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a -- the second time this request has been
heard, as detailed in the staff report. The Falash and Ross building on Lot 5, Block 2 of
Medimont was before you under CUP 02-016 and it expired in December 5, 2003, for
practically the same building in the same location, with the same conditions. And the
conditions of approval for the Medimont Subdivision are that all uses in this location
receive a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant has submitted this design as well,
which is a multi-tenant building, which would be used for office frontage, warehouse,
kind of storage, industrial uses, for the rear. It is 11,450 square feet and located off of
Adkins Way. And staff is recommending approval of this as conditioned and the only
other thing that I had was that the landscape plan might be amended by SSC for the
location of their dumpster. Other than that, there were no outstanding comments on the
site.
Zaremba: Any questions from the Commissioners?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Zaremba: I did notice one. On the view that you have up there, the drawing that you
have up there, in the upper right corner is an area that appears cross-hatched and that
very small type there says sod, motorcycles, bicycle parking, but would we allow
motorcycle parking on sod?
Guenther: I think you may ask the applicant that question.
Zaremba: Okay.
Guenther: I wouldn't park my motorcycle on sod, but --
Zaremba: Well, if it's not a problem, not for me. Okay. No other questions, would the
applicant care to come forward, please.
Falash: Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Michael Falash. My place of business
is 149 South Adkins, which is right across the street from there. I reviewed all the
conditions of the staff, the sight conditions, and really accept all of them, in agreement
with all of them. The intention of that motorcycle area was to be paved, just have an
area that could park, you know, bikes and motorcycles and so forth, so we just had it
cross-hatched in an effort to not have any cars parked in that area. I have been through
this once and let it lapse and just didn't get around to putting up a building there, so time
went out and so here I am back again coming through. We did change the building
somewhat from what it was the first time we went through, which was a concrete tilt up
building and this time we are coming through with a split face block and being a dual tan
combination of split faced with a more traditional stick frame roof with asphalt shingles.
Beyond that we tried to keep the square footage the same. We wanted to keep coming
through on the same process we had before, trying to maximize the site, too, which is
part of the deal, and beyond that I'm in agreement with all the conditions and kind of
open that up to you guys if you have any questions.
1 Meridian Pianning & Zoning
March 17.2005
Page 170f60
Zaremba: Okay. Commissioners, any questions?
Moe: No questions.
Falash: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. We have no one signed up to speak, but, again, if there is
anybody who cares to mention something, we would be glad to have you come forward.
I did forget to say earlier that when you do come forward, please, begin by stating your
name and your address for the record.
Roberson: My name is Ernie Roberson, 105 South Locust Grove Road, Meridian, and
my place is directly behind this. It is east of this proposed multi-tenant office building,
and I just have a couple of questions. I know before we were concerned about the
dumpster back there and I also would like to know about building lights on the back of
the building, if they shine into our property, because, you know, next to us is the small
machinery shop and we were -- at that time complained about the lights, because they
lit up our whole backyard, and so they turned their lights off and we really appreciated
that. I'm also concerned -- I mean I wanted to ask about landscaping. Is there any
landscaping -- I can't tell by this drawing, I'm sorry, but is there any landscaping beyond
the chain link fence that's there? There is a chain link fence. And is there any
landscaping between the chain link fence and the building. Let's see. What else? I
don't understand about the motorcycle parking, because right now there is a couple of
motorcycles that work -- that go to work there at the machine shop and, I'll tell you, they
make a lot of noise when they get ready to go to leave. Sometimes it's 5:00 o'clock and
sometimes it's later, so I'm concerned about -- when it says motorcycles, you know,
plus, is it quite a few of them or what is the idea there? Other than that -- oh, the other
thing was -- he said the last time that they would put slats in the chain link fence that
now exists and I'm wondering if that's still part of his plan. I think that's all the questions
I have.
Zaremba: Thank you. Questions from the Commissioners?
Borup: I was just curious in which property it was on the -- was it the second green
one?
Newton-Huckabay: Right there.
Borup: The green one?
Zaremba: We need to have you on the microphone to speak, please.
Rohm: You have got to come up to the microphone and --
Zaremba: Repeat that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 17, 2005
Page 180f60
Rohm: -- repeat that, please?
Zaremba: Thank you.
Roberson: It's where the red light is.
Borup: Okay.
Rohm: That's your parcel right there? Or is it this one?
Roberson: No. No. I -- it's this way. It's this one. But I think it is the side of that green
one. That green one there looks kind of big. Is that -- there, I think that's it, because it
looks like that his building is going to be over just a little bit, not directly behind our
house, but behind our shop and, you know, that area.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Okay. Anybody else care to testify? All right. We will ask the applicant --
oops. I'm sorry. We do. Thank you.
Smith: I'm Jeri Smith and I live at 335 South Locust Grove Road and we border the
back of the -- all that industrial -- that light industrial area back there and we have had
problems with terribly noisy garbage disposal, like early in the morning and this starts
sometimes in the summertime it may start at between 5:00 and 6:00 o'clock in the
morning. We have had problems with the weeds like four or five feet high in that area --
not in the area, but just behind the Intermountain Wood Products. We have problems
quite considerably with the -- I think he built the Falash building on the end, that--
Borup: You need to address the Commissioners.
Zaremba: You need to address the Commission.
Smith: Okay. The--
Zaremba: If you have a question we will pass that on.
Smith: Okay. The fab building, we had -- and we live right behind that and we have
problems with that as far as they have stacked old car parts and pieces and different
things clear up within probably about two feet of that building and we understood that all
that was to be enclosed and I'd like you to address these to see maybe if this is going to
happen as far as -- because this was supposed to have been specially treated because
it was next to a residential in the finding of facts and the CUP. I'd like you to address
those, please. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you.
l Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 17, 2005
Page 19 of 60
Borup: Question. Ma'am? Mrs. Smith. You live south of Robersons?
Smith: Yes.
Borup: So, this is your property right here?
Smith: Ours would be next to the attorney's office.
Borup: You're down here, then?
Smith: Yes.
Borup: Okay.
Smith: Ours would probably be the wider one. What's the blue? Is that the last one in
that -- that's the last one. Is that water tower that runs through there in the red?
Borup: It's the water tower.
Smith: Okay. So, ours would be the wider one right up next to the blue one.
Borup: Right here?
Smith: Right.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Smith: You're welcome.
Zaremba: Okay. Let's see. Mr. Falash, you have the opportunity to respond, please.
Falash: I did take a few notes, so, hopefully, I can pick up on all these things up there.
As far as the landscaping issue goes, based on the ordinance we are allowed to build
up to the property line. On the east property line we have a -- there is a 20 foot
landscaped area -- I think it's 20 or 25 foot that was developed by the developer down to
that strip that's on the other side of the fence, but that was the intention of that
landscape buffer there, it would be some buffer between the residential area and the
industrial zone, so that's what the intention was and it's all developed along that that
access point. I didn't really probably call it out, but our intention is to slat the chain link
fence in the back, so it screens off what's happening on the site, Our intention -- we will
occupy the backspace and we are fencing in that backyard. Our intention is just to have
trailers that we have from job sites. We are not a company, we don't store material, we
don't have hysters and stuff, we have -- just basically have, you know, our flatbed
trailers and dump trailers and we just need to have them back in a secured area and our
intention would be to slat that off, so they are screened from the residential side, as well
, Meridian Pianning & Zoning
March 17.2005
Page 20 of 60
as from the Adkins side of the -- the issue with the dumpster location, as far as your
property goes, there is pretty much -- it's on the other side of the property. If we put it
on the -- say the south side of our building, it would be closer to your property. We have
got it intentionally on the other side, because it is more -- I think those folks -- I know
what the commercial or what it's going to be or -- as part of the improvements on
Franklin Road, I think that next property is all commercial property, if I'm not mistaken,
but we intend to put dumpster on the far side of it. As you know, working the Sanitary
Service, you have got to pretty much pull in straight and grab it, and pull back out, so it
almost puts you where you're -- in these properties where your dumpster's, really, in the
back of the property. It's better to have that out of sight from the main road anyway, but
you got to kind of pull that in and they want to grab it and kind of come back out of it, so
that location could go, as far as I'm concerned, on either side of the property, but on that
side of the property it's located furthest away from your property there. The motorcycles
-- I just have a couple of employees who drive motorcycles and the intention wasn't to
have a bunch of motorcycles parked out there, but just an area that, you know, a few of
my people once in awhile they pull up and no place to park with that many cars parked
in there and it's kind of back in our area, so if they leave them there, at least they are in
kind of a secured area and that was the intention of it. I think I have addressed --
Moe: The back lighting.
Falash: Oh, the lighting. Yeah. Typically, we have soffett lighting that runs around the
perimeter. Most of the lighting is in the -- but my intention was to have a couple of
canned down lights that were back in the soffett, which would be directed down on the
face of the building, that won't be -- there won't be any wall packs back there that face
out to the east side, they will be down lights that will come down out of the soffett and
sort of wash the wall and a little bit on the street side and, again, that buffer, you know,
we are -- from our building we are probably 50 feet, 60 feet from the property line and,
then, there is another 20 foot landscape buffer there, so you're -- and if you slat the
fence there, there is going to be quite a distance there between where their property
starts and where our building occurs.
Moe: So, no flood lights, nothing like that, it's just down lights only?
Falash: No. Just typical -- what you got here. Just kind of lights in the back, so you
have lights coming out -- I think we have a man door back there and one overhead door
coming into it, just to get some light back in that area.
Moe: Okay.
Falash: Any other questions?
Zaremba: I did have one just occur to me. I see -- you have mentioned the back area
being fenced in and I sort of missed that in the things that I was reading. I see where
this would be a gate.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
, March 17.2005
Page 21 of 60
Falash: That's a gate. And, then, we have one -- that's another side.
Zaremba: This is a gate here?
Falash: Correct.
Zaremba: And my question would be whether the fire department would care to have
that be knock boxes or something like that.
Guenther: That is a condition of approval.
Falash: Yeah.
Zaremba: It is in there?
Falash: Yeah. It's underneath the roof and you got the radiuses for the turning. We
are going to be a fully sprinklered building, so it helps us out on whatever the fire
department goes.
Zaremba: They would be able to get through there?
Falash: Yeah. We can have a lock box with a knock box on it and a key to get through
the gate area, so it's -- it's the same thing you put on your building to give them access
to that.
Zaremba: Great. Thank you
Falash: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Any further questions or comments from staff?
Guenther: No.
Zaremba: No? Commissioners?
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we close the Public Hearing on CUP 05-009.
Moe: I'll second that.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor, please, say aye. Any
opposed? That motion carries.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
March 17,2005
Page 22 of 60
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman. I move that we forward on to City Council recommending
approval of CUP 05-009, including all staff comments for the hearing date March 17th
and received on March 11 th, including all staff comments.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Newton-Huckabay: I just have one comment. We might suggest to Mrs. Smith who to
contact in the enforcement agency if they are not taking care of their landscaping as
they are supposed to.
Zaremba: That is a good point. I believe she was talking about an existing property,
but --
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Well, we can't enforce that, but we can steer her in the
proper direction, so that -- the enforcement body for the property that are existing.
Item 7:
Item 8:
Item 9:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-007 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 43.18
acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Bellingham Park Subdivision by
Gemstar Development, LLC - north of Amity Road and east of South
Locust Grove Road:
Public Hearing: PP 05-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval
of 166 building lots and 37 common lots on 43.18 acres in a
proposed R-8 zone for Bellingham Park Subdivision by Gemstar
Development, LLC - north of Amity Road and east of South Locust
Grove Road:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-008 Request for a Planned Development
consisting of 166 residential units with reductions to the minimum
requirements for lot size, street frontage and yard setbacks for
Bellingham Park Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC - north of
Amity Road and east of South Locust Grove Road:
Zaremba: I believe that's a called to the police department where the enforcement
officer is. Okay. Thank you. I will now open the Public Hearing for Items 7, 8 and 9.
That's AZ 05-007, PP 05-009, CUP 05-008. All three relating the Bellingham Park
Subdivision and as mentioned earlier, we have a request to continue this item --
requested for March 31st, but since we don't have it, let's assume the request is for April
7th. My only question would be to staff if they believe they will be prepared by then. Is
that enough time?
, Meridian Piannlng & Zoning
March 17, 2005
Page 23 of 60
Wilson: No. Bruce is indicating that the second meeting in April -- and that may be full,
from what I'm hearing. But that is what they are requesting.
Zaremba: Okay. So, we would rather that it be April 21 st?
Wilson: That's what they would prefer. I'm not sure if it fits or not.
Zaremba: Okay. Commissioners?
Newton-Huckabay: Didn't they just say that April 21 st is already full?
Zaremba: It's much more than the 7th is. The 7th is a pretty light agenda, but --
Rohm: We will just work harder.
Zaremba: It's up to us to -- it was noticed for tonight and it's up to us where we move it
to, if there is a better time.
Rohm: We have six items already for the 21 st?
Zaremba: That sounds right.
Borup: Items or hearings?
Rohm: We had 18 for tonight, so --
Canning: Chairman Zaremba?
Zaremba: Actually, on the 21st I'm already up to ten. There may be a few more.
Director Canning.
Canning: You have six projects, four of them residential, two commercial.
Newton-Huckabay: I don't want to add anymore to the 21 st, because I believe this is a -
- this is a rather large development itself as well.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, the applicant, in our meeting with them today, they felt like
getting on the first one -- the first meeting in April was a little too close. They wanted to
have time to make sure that they got everything addressed and I explained to them that
typically the second meeting is for carry over projects and that sort of thing, so they
threw it out, but it's your prerogative.
Zaremba: Yeah. The other option would be to go all the way to May 5th.
Borup: Help them out by giving them even more time.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
" March 17, 2005
Page 24 of 60
Newton-Huckabay: I think we ought to move it to May 5th. If we have that many
projects on the 21 st of April, that's getting huge.
Rohm: This is your opportunity to make a motion to that effect.
Zaremba: The chair would entertain a motion to that effect, Commissioner Newton-
Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I'd like to recommend that we move AZ 05-007, PP 05-
009, and CUP 05-008 to our May 5th, 2005, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries. Those three are continued to May 5th.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10:
Public Hearing: RZ 05-002 Request for a Rezone of 1.28 acres from R-4 to
L-a for Meridian Fire Station No.4 by the City of Meridian - Lot 1, Block
4, Thousand Springs Subdivision No.1:
Zaremba: Okay. Next we will open the Public Hearing for Item No. 10. This is RZ 05-
002, request for a rezone of 1.28 acres from R-4 to L-O for Meridian Fire Station No.4
by the City of Meridian, Lot 1, Block 4 of Thousand Springs Subdivision No.1. And we
will begin with the staff report.
Wilson: Thank you, Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, The City of
Meridian and Meridian fire department have jointly applied to rezone approximately 1.28
acres on South Eagle Road from R-4 to L-O construction of a Meridian fire department
sub station. The subject property was identified on the 2002 Comprehensive Plan
Future Land Use Map as a potential location for a fire station and it was also identified
on the face of the plat for Thousand Springs Subdivision No.1 recorded in 1999 as a
site for a Meridian department fire sub station as well. There are no outstanding issues
that staff is aware of for the Commission. I would just mention that the surrounding land
uses are Bonito Subdivision, a commercial subdivision zoned CoG is to the north across
the Ridenbaugh Canal. Thousand Springs Subdivision No. 1. does lie to the west and
south of the subject lot. Directly to the south of the lot -- of the subject lot is a City of
Meridian well lot. I'm not -- Bruce can maybe help me out if that has been developed
yet or not. No. That's a future well lot. And across Eagle Road to the east is some
rural residences and some vacant land. I think with that we have some members of the
Meridian fire department and some -- a person from ZGA Architects who has been
working with the fire department and I will turn it over to them and also take questions
from the Commission.
" Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 17.2005
Page 25 of 60
Zaremba: Any questions?
Rohm: I have none.
Zaremba: Okay, This is the opportunity for the applicant. Chief, do you have anything
to say? Okay.
Zabala: Mr, Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Tom Zabala, I am
with ZGA Architects. Our address is 565 West Myrtle Street in Boise. I am here tonight
on behalf of the Meridian fire department. As you have noted, here this evening is Chief
Bowers, as well as Danny Little, our project manager for this project, who could speak
to specific details about the operation of the facility and from the Meridian fire
department's perspective, as well as any technical issues that you may have about the
building. We have had a chance to review the staff report on this. We take no issues
with any of the conditions or statements of fact that are outlined in that. As they have
indicated, this site has been identified for quite some time as a location for a future fire
station. As everyone knows, that area of our community is growing rapidly and it's very
critical in terms of timed response for emergency services to be within a certain distance
and this facility is one that is planned to do that and to improve public safety services for
the City of Meridian. This facility will be similar to stations previously built for the city, as
at Locust Grove and Ten Mile. I have here some small versions of -- I have some small
versions of the site plan and building plan, landscape plan, and building elevations that I
will pass that out, because you don't have anything in your packets, I believe it shows
what's going to be built. So, I'll stop talking for a second. I might add that we had our
neighborhood meeting on the 11th and we had one of the adjoining neighbors show up
that evening and we talk over the project with them and I notice that they are signed up
here this evening to speak, so I will let them speak to any kind of concerns they may
have about the project. We did also aUhat meeting provide those folks with these
drawings, so that they would have the opportunity to review them in more detail than
what the public neighborhood meeting allowed for them. What you will see in the
packet there, obviously, is the site plan for the building. It is fronted onto South Eagle
Road. The apparatus bay where the fire and emergency vehicles are located on the
north end of the site. We have parking for both firefighters, as well as visitors, to the
south of the site. The well lot that was referred to by the staff has been incorporated
into this project. The city has determined that they no longer need it for a well site, so it
has been incorporated into our project. And as you will see on the second sheet, which
is a concept landscaping plan, we are working -- in the process of working with the City
of Meridian and Meridian Parks Department to develop a small casual park there, along
with a connecting link back to the neighborhood. That small connecting link does exist
today. It's pretty much a barren, sort of a weed area, not now well developed, but the
intent would be to come in here and working with the fire department to landscape that
and provide some trees, some casual areas for sitting. Not a formal park by any
means, but just a kinder, gentler way of getting from South Eagle Road to the
neighborhood and back and forth and also improving the balance of that lot. Within the
packet you will see the floor plan of the building. It is a two bay facility. There are four
sleeping rooms along the west side of the site, with the rest of the internal activities for
, Meridian Pianning & Zoning
March 17,2005
Page 26 of 60
the firemen and the other emergency members that will be housed there. There is also
on the last page a colored elevation of the building, which, again, reflect the general
materials, color, and texture, height and et cetera of the buildings that have been built
out at Ten Mile and Locust Grove. I think the Meridian fire department -- all previous --
these previous stations have also been built in similar situations where we adjoin a
neighborhood and the chief can speak more directly to the measures that they have
taken to be good neighbors. They are -- they do have to roll every so often, but they are
very conscientious about lights and sirens as best the circumstances will allow. With
that I will be happy to answer any questions that the members may have.
Rohm: Just a comment. Fire stations adjacent to residential development seems to be
a good place to put fire stations.
Zabala: Well, I'll tell you, if you are having a heart attack or a fire, you like to hear those
sirens coming.
Rohm: Absolutely.
Zaremba: Well -- and I would suspect that the homeowners' fire insurance would go
down -- or insurance would go down, probably, as well, having it close to -- this is a big
step for Meridian, having the first fire station on the south side of the interstate. As you
mentioned, it's been in the plan for a long time and this property has been identified for
it for a long time. It's nice to see the idea moving forward.
Zabala: Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. We do have a couple other people signed up to talk. Tom
Connelly.
Connelly: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Nice to be here tonight. I
do have copies of the plan. I did check neutral and I think by the time I'm done with you
you're going to realize I'm pro, because I have had nothing but a wonderful experience
with the fire department, the people of the fire department, the architect, everybody has
been very good with us. We are not opposing the fire station, we are -- have some
major concerns that we'd like to share with people on the fact that it butts up right to my
house. I get the propane tank right in my backyard and that's not a negative, it's far
enough off, but the propane tank is one of the issues and the generator is another of the
issues that we are interested in and the trash collecting and we are talking about small
potatoes here, but what happened was when the Heritage Reflection moved in behind
us, we had some situations with them with the garbage people coming out there at 6:00
in the morning, dumping the garbage and banging it and waking up everybody. That's
been resolved by enough complains to the garbage department. The firemen, I'll tell
you, I have been to the stations two or three times, they are marvelous, I know they are
great neighbors and the people that surround them are very happy to have them
around. My concern is the lights was one of the things. We have seen the lights and
they have even taken that under consideration also. The lights that we see are focused
, Meridian Planning & Zoning
- March 17, 2005
Page 27 of 60
in such a direction that it's not going to be keeping us up all night. But the lighting is one
of the things we wanted to go on record with and make sure that it's not going to be
intrusive. When the fire engines come in, the way it's designed, they will be coming --
they will be heading south and they will turn west, there will be light flashing in the
evening with their headlights coming in and we would like to have a little conversation
about some sort of a fencing, something -- maybe some concession from them that
would change the fencing. We have a six-foot fence right now, cedar, and we have
maintained them very well and my neighbor will be speaking in a few moments, too.
But we are looking at some sort of a block cedar -- not cedar, but a cement block or --
there is a special name for some stones that may be able to take the glare off and it
would also be a noise barrier. So, this is really our only concern. We knew it was
coming. We know they are great neighbors. We are looking forward to barbecues with
them, but I have some really good comments, because the people that I have checked
with in other neighborhoods, there have been serious illnesses and the firemen were
there in 30 seconds and there are some people that attribute their existence to the
firemen being that close. So, I think what I wanted to share with you is simply the
sounds that are one of ours, but the dumpsters and the generators and things of that
nature and the lighting and I will stop with that one.
Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Any questions? All right. Thank you. Kent Heasley.
Heasley: Good evening. My name is Kent Heasley at 2502 South Hood Ranch. I also
am at the back of the fire station here and I must thank ZGA for having a meeting for me
last week. I did go to the meeting and gather plans and they were very helpful. Met
with the fire chief. We have been to some of the fire stations and talked to them and,
again, I marked under neutral minor concerns and I would voice similar concerns as to
my neighbor, lighting, noise, and some of the placement of the items on the site would
be -- you know, would be the concerns. I have questions for staff as to if there are any
codes or ordinances -- or any codes or ordinances on the lighting flow off of the property
to the residential. Also sound codes, if there is any sound code requirements at
residential property lines, Typically there are some codes, some decibels that are set
for those areas and with that information I would like the developer to -- or the city, in
this case, to consider those in developing their lighting to flow away from our property
adjacent to -- to address some of the sound issues, to make sure that the -- and lighting
issues of the trucks coming in off of the street, that they are not shining their lights into
our back windows as they come around the corner, which could be seen through the
cedar fencing. My neighbor mentioned that we have been talking about a masonry wall,
a third face wall or something that would act as a sound barrier, as well as block the
lighting of the trucks coming around, block the sound of the trucks rolling down the back
of the property lines. So, I would ask that, you know, some conditions be put on this --
this recommendation to City Council that would carry those conditions into the approval
of the property. I think that overall we welcome the fire station, I think they are going to
be great neighbors and they are going to be there long term and I think that everything
will be great as long as we could just address some of these minor concerns. I thank
you for your time.
. Meridian Planning & Zoning
~ March 17,2005
Page 28 of 60
Moe: Mr. Chairman. I just one want to make sure I'm clear. Are you south of the
property, then?
Heasley: I'm west of the property.
Moe: West of the property. Okay. All right.
Heasley: I'm, basically, smack dab in the middle as you -- as you come off of Eagle -- if
you could go back to the site plan. As you come off of Eagle and come down the
driveway and as they make that turn, they are going to be shining lights at the back of
my house.
Moe: Okay. I understand that.
Borup: You're on Lot 25? Never mind.
Heasley: There is no numbers. I don't know the lot number off the top of my head.
Moe: And you have seen the landscaping plan as well?
Heasley: Yeah. I have seen the preliminary plan. It's not very descriptive at this point.
I see deciduous trees and some pine trees back there and, obviously, they will help
some in the summertime when they are leafed out and full grown, maybe to block some
of the lighting, but in the wintertime there would be very little block out of that sound or
lighting.
Moe: Thank you.
Borup: One final question. You understood when you bought your home that this was
designated as a fire station, didn't you?
Heasley: I understood that there was the possibility of a fire station, yes. But, again, it
is zoned R-4, which wouldn't have allowed for a fire station. But I knew the time would
come --
Borup: You knew that was set aside from when this subdivision was originally platted
for a fire station?
Heasley: It was set aside, donated to the city, and suggested to be a fire station. Yes, I
knew that.
Borup: All right. Thank you.
Heasley: But it's not zoned for a fire station today, so --
Borup: That's the purpose of this hearing.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 17.2005
Page 29 of 60
Heasley: And that's why I bring the concerns today, as you do revise the zoning that
you put some conditions on the construction of that site.
Zaremba: Thank you. Mr. Zabala.
Zabala: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Tom Zabala again. I may have
Chief Bowers speak to some of the comments that were brought up by the neighbors
and I do have to compliment the neighbors, they have been very cooperative throughout
this whole process. And, again, many of these where you gets slightly contentious, so I
think their concerns, were I in their shoes, are legitimate and we are, obviously, going to
try to address as many of them as we can. With regard to the points that were brought
up, we do have on the site plan, if you will notice, on the north end of that site plan there
are some small boxes indicated there, which indicate our -- really, our outdoor
equipment that are involved with any building. We have condensing units for -- which
are for the heating and air-conditioning units in the building. We have an emergency
generator and the attendant propane tank that they have a policy with the Meridian fire
department of having a backup fuel source for the emergency generators. It's a natural
gas generator, but they use propane as a backup fuel source. And, then, also, at that
location is the electrical transformer for the building. We have co-located all of those at
the north end of the site and we have provided a screen wall around them. In talking
With the neighbors right now, I think we will probably look at the design of that screen
wall around those particular units. It was intended to be a masonry wall. It will still be a
masonry wall, but as far as access to it and the opening of that, where it now opens
primarily to the west or facing them, we will probably reverse some of those and try to
get most of the access to that area out the north side of that unit. With regard to the
propane tank, that is the only filled once a year and so the truck services, that will only
be there once a year. The generator, as a matter of course, I believe the chief will tell
you is exercised once a month. It has a critical silence muffler on it. That doesn't mean
that you won't hear it, but it is exercised during daylight hours and not in the evening
hours, from my understanding. With regard to the trash collection, again, we have
located the -- the trash receptacle, as you can see, is in the southwest corner of the site
there. That is somewhat predicated upon the ability for the refuse people to get to it
easily and maneuver on the site. I don't know that we can do much about that in terms
of where we locate it. Any other place on the site would bring it in deeper into the site.
Up near the street functionally doesn't work too well for the people that pick up the
trash. The fire department mayor may not have some influence over when they do pick
up that trash, but I don't know that for a fact. With regard to lighting, we have site
lighting on the site. If you look at the site plan, there at the trash receptacle in the
southwest corner there is a light pole on a 20-foot standard. Up near the propane --
where the propane tank is shown, there is another light pole on a 20 foot standard.
Both those have -- are down lights, standard shoebox, with a back baffle to keep the
light from going off into the west into the neighborhood. We have two pole lights out --
double headed pole lights out front on the street, one on the north side of the apparatus
bay, one on the south side near the entrance to the parking area. There are two wall
pack lights over the overhead doors at the -- on the west side there and those are
L Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 17.2005
Page 30 of 60
directed downward onto the apron themselves. With regard to the fencing, as the
neighbors have indicated, they have maintained their cedar fence very well and we
have looked at that in terms of the trucks and maneuvering back there and that. We
contacted the Idaho State Transportation Department, as well as the Ada County
Highway District and we were referred to Charles Rountree as sort of the resident
expert in automobile noise abatement on sites, specifically with the intent of what could
we do along there to mitigate the sound. That particular length of fence is
approximately 345 feet long. A six-foot or more - eight-foot concrete masonry wall in
terms of the cost would be probably over 30,000 dollars for that length of wall. It's our
understanding from Mr. Rountree that the effectiveness of that wall in terms of noise
abatement is nothing different than what you would get from either the cedar fence or a
vinyl fence. I can't speak to the techniques of that, but that's what we were told in terms
of the functionality of that material, despite what it may look like. What you see out
along the freeway, the tall sound walls out there, he indicated are set up for that kind of
traffic, that kind of thing, but they are extremely high and a lot different than what we
would have here. So, in our opinion, a fence -- a block wall fence, other than the
expense of it, would yield very little of what the neighbors are hoping to achieve in terms
sound abatement. As far as lighting and in conjunction with the sound, I think we would
be willing to work with the city parks department and our landscaping architect to
intensify the screening along there in terms of more evergreen trees, perhaps spaced a
little bit closer, a little denser, so that they would have year around screening of --
eventually of the lights of trucks coming in and turning and, hopefully, would gain some
noise abatement in that process. I believe that was the notes that I made on that. As
far as I know, the city does not have any -- for this particular use, this particular zone,
any criteria within their current ordinance in terms of decibel levels for this type of use or
any illumination of -- am I correct or incorrect? Chief, did you have anything you wanted
to add? Any other questions?
Borup: A question, Mr. Chairman. Do you know what type of fencing is on the other
stations at Ten Mile and Locust Grove?
Zabala: On those particular sites that were built, there was no existing fencing, so the
fire department -- we have a combination there of white vinyl fencing, six foot, and a
combination of -- in some locations of chain link with white slats at those particular
locations.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: I guess one question. One of the issues that may possibly be able to be
mitigated would be fire trucks returning at night and the sweep of their headlights as
they come in the driveway and make the right turn north to go back into the barn. would
it be possible to have a procedure that they dim their lights as they pull in that driveway?
It seems to me there are a couple of light poles around, so it's not going to be absolutely
dark back there.
" Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 17,2005
Page 31 of 60
Zabala: I would think that could be accomplished. I think that's a management issue
that the fire department and in working with the neighbors could accomplish. It makes
good sense.
Zaremba: It doesn't solve the sound, but at least they wouldn't be suddenly awakened
by a flash of light going through their bedroom window or something.
Zabala: Yeah. And I think that would be a reasonable request and an operational thing
that they could accomplish.
Zaremba: Okay. Any other questions?
Freckleton: Mr. Chair? With regard to the lighting, our codes do require downcast
lighting, so I believe Mr. Zabala has addressed that perfectly. The only other issue that
we have had ongoing discussions with the fire department on is this was the -- the well
lot that was designated in the plat, with the development of the Thousand Springs
Subdivision, we have stubbed 12 inch water main into this flag pole portion here and we
have also stubbed 12 inch water main in off of Eagle Road. We did that for the future
well that we were going to put in and now we have kind of gotten away from that idea.
Our only request would be that -- that that be connected up, so that we don't have two
dead end lines there. And with doing that, the only other thing that we would want to do
is work with them with respect to the landscaping that they are showing. They have got
some fairly large trees and that sort of thing in the flag pole portion and, you know, big
trees and water mains don't work too good together, so we will just have to work with
them on the type of materials that they put in there. I just wanted to get that on the
record.
Zabala: We are perfectly willing to do that. The plan that you have here is not etched in
granite. This was a first pass and we have really not had a chance to come back to the
city staff or the parks department with this to discuss the details of that in conjunction
with what we have heard here this evening.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Canning: Chairman Zaremba?
Zaremba: Director Canning.
Canning: If I might, the applicant has spoke of the parks department. I just thought I
would let you know why he keeps on referencing the parks department. It's because
they do take care of the landscape maintenance issues of the fire stations. That's all.
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners?
Newton-Huckabay: I have a question.
, Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 17, 2005
Page 32 of 60
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: If a masonry fence is not an option -- and I haven't been behind any
of the new fire stations that have been built. Is maybe an increase in landscaping or
density reasonable?
Zaremba: I think he offered to do more trees and to make some of them evergreens, so
that that would at least help mitigate some of the impact. I believe I heard that.
Newton-Huckabay: I didn't hear that.
Moe: I did.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I mean I would think that that would be -- I guess less
expensive than the block and landscaping -- more landscaping would help cut down on
that. That would be my --
Zaremba: I agree with you, but I think that was offered.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Zaremba: Any other questions? Commissioner Rohm?
Rohm: No comment.
Zaremba: I would entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on RZ 05-002.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval
of RZ 05-002, to include all staff comments of the hearing date March 17th, 2005,
received by the city clerk's office March 14th, 2005, with the additional item under site
specific comments I'd like to add a number four, that the applicant would work with staff
to provide additional landscaping for the screening on the west side of the property,
along with the south property, with the Public Works Department.
Rohm: Second.
, Meridian Pianning & Zoning
- March 17,2005
Page 33 of 60
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: We are approaching the moment where we traditionally take a break. I
be.lieve we will. We will take ten minutes and reconvene.
(Recess.)
Item 11:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-005 Annexation and Zoning of 32.75 acres from
RUT to R-S, R-15 and CoG zones for Northwoods Subdivision by Dyver
Development, LLC -1200 West Franklin Road:
Item 12:
Public Hearing: PP 05-007 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 147
building lots and 7 other lots in proposed R-S, R-15 and CoG zones for
Northwoods Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC - 1200 West
Franklin Road:
Item 13:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-006 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for single-family residential, multi-family residential
and conceptual commercial uses in proposed R-S, R-15 and CoG zones
for Northwoods Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC - 1200 West
Franklin Road:
Zaremba: Okay. We will reconvene our meeting. Let the record show all
Commissioners are again present. The next items on our agenda, I will open the Public
Hearing for Items 11, 12 and 13, that is AZ 05-005, PP 05-007, CUP 05-006, all
pertaining to Northwood Subdivision and for this we have a request from the applicant
to continue until April 21 st and is there discussion about that date?
Newton-Huckabay: That day is full. We already decided that earlier in the evening.
Zaremba: I believe we did have that discussion. How do we care to proceed?
Borup: Did you have a chance to look at that agenda as far as how intensive the
projects were?
Zaremba: Yeah. It didn't show everything that's going to happen that night. As I recall,
Director Canning said that there were six separate issues, some of which may include
more than one project. That's quite a few for one evening to deal with six major
projects, so -- I don't have anything as far forward as March 5th, but that's something
we did with the other item that we moved.
Newton-Huckabay: I would say the 5th and if they wanted the 21st, they wouldn't be
ready for the 7th.
, Meridian Pianning & Zoning
March 17,2005
Page 34 of 60
Zaremba: Yeah. They are not suggesting they will be ready that soon, so --
Canning: Chairman? Just to let you know, we have told I think one or two people that
will be on the May 5th agenda that they are on the May 5th agenda. One of those is a
very large, very complicated project, so I just wanted you to know that it's 110 acres of
mixed use in a sensitive location, so it's going to be a big issue. So I -- just a heads up.
That's all.
Zaremba: Okay.
Rohm: Which one is that?
Zaremba: That was for May 5th that there may be one that will create lengthy
discussion.
Newton-Huckabay: That's something new.
Zaremba: Well, yeah, we have never had that before.
Newton-Huckabay: Sorry.
Zaremba: I guess the choice is whether the 21st or the 5th would be better. I don't
have an opinion.
Moe: Well, I guess I would be curious and staff, if they can answer this, are they -- are
they trying to take care of some of the -- is there reasons why there was a possible
denial for that?
Wilson: The applicant did indicate that they are going to respond to comments made in
the staff report, so they need some time for redesign. Yeah.
Rohm: And maybe have a community meeting.
Wilson: Yeah. That as well, I think.
Rohm: Oh.
Moe: Well, I think we ought to leave it on the 21st, then.
Zaremba: I'm comfortable with that and I would entertain such a motion.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move --
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
~ Meridian Pianning & Zoning
March 17,2005
Page 35 of 60
Moe: - I move -- excuse me -- make a motion that we move the public hearings on AZ
05-005, PP 05-007, and CUP 05-003, be continued to the regular Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting of April the 21st.
Zaremba: The CUP number is 05-006.
Moe: Oh, I'm sorry, yes, it is.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 14:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-004 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of
9.0S acres to a R-4 zone for The Reserve Subdivision by C5
Development, LLC - west of North Locust Grove Road and south of
Chinden Boulevard:
Item 15:
Public Hearing: PP 05-006 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 22
single-family residential building lots and 7 common lots on 9.01 acres in a
proposed R-4 zone for The Reserve Subdivision by C5 Development,
LLC - west of North Locust Grove Road and south of Chinden Boulevard:
Zaremba: Okay. The next items on our agenda are -- I will open the public hearings for
14 and 15. This is AZ 05-004 and PP 05-006, relating to The Reserve Subdivision and
we have a request from the applicant to continue this until April 7th. That is a meeting
that's fairly open, as far as we are concerned.
Hood: Mr. Chair, this one, actually, needs to be tabled due to improper posting of the
site. It wasn't at the request of the applicant, they failed to post the site, but the 7th they
are willing to go, so the 7th would be a good date for this project.
Zaremba: Okay. So, by then -- or the proper posting is occurring?
Hood: Yeah. The applicant -- I spoke with the applicant yesterday and they are in
agreement with the 7th, if you so choose, and they can post the site and --
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
, March 17,2005
Page 36 of 60
Moe: I move that we -- I move the Public Hearing on AZ 05-004 and PP 05-006 be
continued to the regular scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting of April the 7th, 2005.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Anyopposed? That motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 16:
Item 17:
Item 18:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-006 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 76.29
acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Zebulon Heights Subdivision No.2
by Traditions by Amyx II, LLP - south of East McMillan Road and east of
North Locust Grove Road:
Public Hearing: PP 05-008 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 175
single-family residential building lots and 20 common lots on 72.85 acres
in a proposed R-4 zone for Zebulon Heights Subdivision No.2 by
Traditions by Amyx II, LLP - south of East McMillan Road and east of
North Locust Grove Road:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-006 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development with reductions to lot frontage, increased block
length and reduction in density to less than 3 dwelling units per acre in a
proposed R-4 zone for Zebulon Heights Subdivision No.2 by Traditions
by Amyx II, LLP - south of East McMillan Road and east of North Locust
Grove Road:
Zaremba: All right. I will open the Public Hearing for Items 16, 17, and 18 on our
agenda. This is AZ 05-006, PP 05-008 and we have a correction to the file number on
Number 18, it's actually CUP 05-019. These are all relating to Zebulon Heights
Subdivision No.2. And we will begin with the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. As you noted, this project
had the wrong CUP file number. I apologize for that. There was another item on this
agenda with the same file number. Again, this is CUP 05-019 is the new number. And
it is located on the south side of McMillan Road. Eagle Road is in this location.
Wainwright Drive does tie in with the subdivision at -- in this location. It's one half of a
mile to the east of Locust Grove Road and approximately one half mile south of
McMillan at the Wainwright entrance. It is currently zoned RUT in the county. Boise
city abuts this site to the east and there are some large county parcels to the south that
are zoned RUT that are within Meridian's area of impact. You can see the area of
impact boundary between Boise and Meridian in this purple line here, so it kind of
weaves in and out along the eastern boundary of a subdivision. I did want to point out a
couple of the existing residential subdivisions. Heritage Subdivision are some large one
'. Meridian Pianning & Zoning
March 17, 20OS
Page 37 of 60
acre lots that front out onto Locust Grove and this is Settlement Bridge. The final plats
haven't been recorded in Settlement Bridge and that is to the west. To the north, part of
the annexation, but not part of the plat, are two ACHD storm drain lots located along the
frontage of McMillan Road. And Austin Creek is across the street from that. The Ustick
Baptist church continuing onto the east is in this -- on this parcel. And, then, Zebulon
Phase One, which is a light office development in Boise city, actually fronts on Eagle
Road with that Wainwright Drive access, just to orient you a little bit where we are at.
The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as medium density residential, as shown
in yellow, and the site encompasses this area here. Their proposed gross density is 2.4
dwelling units per acre. The applicant is requesting to go below our target density, so
that's for your consideration this evening, is that 2.4 gross. The submitted plans -- there
is the aerial. There are some existing structures on site that will all be removed. The
proposed plat is here. There are 175 lots. They are proposing the R-4 zones, low
density residential. There are some stub streets that are being extended into the project
from Settlement Bridge here and one being proposed here and staff has recommended
an additional stub street somewhere in location to a five acre parcel. In addition, they
are proposing some -- a multi-use pathway that runs along the North Slough and this is
page one. It's two pages. So, bear with me a little bit. And that pathway will continue
along the street section and go to a neighborhood park on the south end of the
development and stubs with the street to an eight acre -- an eight acre parcel to the
south, the Ketlinski parcel. Here are some elevations that the applicant provided, some
pictures from what the anticipated homes are to look like. I did want to just point out the
applicant did submit a response letter this afternoon. I would just like to touch on a
couple of those issues that the applicant brought up and maybe suggest a couple of
amendments to the staff report as submitted to you. The first one begins on page nine
of the annexation and zoning. It's condition number three. It's the first bullet, second
sentence. I have some language for that second sentence that should clear it up. I
think everyone would be in agreement if we just removed the portion starting at -- from
the second sentence to read: Further, the applicant agrees to provide the city with all --
and, then, you delete easements and -- and continue with legal descriptions for -- and
delete any -- continue with portions of the multi-use pathway that are off site, deleting
currently, and, then, leave the remainder of that. So, basically, removing the condition
that they provide us with an easement, but anything that is off site they would need to
provide the legal description for and construct that pathway from the western terminus
of the project through -- to and through, basically, to the south of the project.
Zaremba: I'm sorry, Craig. Tell me again where you were. Was that --
Hood: Okay. Page nine, number three. It's the first bullet.
Zaremba: Oh, number three. I'm sorry. I thought you said number two. Okay.
Hood: Second sentence. So, delete easement and in the third line and replace the with
any and forward after that. And, then, continuing, multi-use pathways that are -- and,
then, delete currently under ACHD. So, it would read: Further, applicant agrees to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
, March 17. 2005
Page 36 of 60
provide the city of all legal descriptions for any portions of the multi-use pathway that
are off site.
Rohm: Got it.
Hood: And continuing on, just a couple of other minor changes. On page 13, site-
specific condition number three, the first and second bullet, just a comment. Maybe that
first bullet could be -- allow a little bit of flexibility of the applicant for the construction of
trees, Staff's idea was to have a consistent landscape buffer adjacent to McMillan
Road. Settlement Bridge is constructing a 25-foot wide - 35-foot wide, excUse me,
landscape strip -- landscape buffer there with trees and some nice landscaping. Staff's
idea was that if you get some trees in there, at least right by the sidewalk, it will look
continuous, you have a nice open space, the open space being the storm drain for
ACHD back there and, you know, it will flow a little bit better. But if we amend the first
bullet to just read: To remove in accordance with Meridian City Code 12-13-10-6 and
replace it with if allowed by ACHD, that kind of gives the applicant some opportunity to
plant some shrubs or some other type landscaping in there if they won't allow trees
within that right of way. I think that may work. We would still encourage the applicant to
plant trees in there, but it does give a little bit of flexibility and requiring trees in there
may not be the best. I'll leave that up to you, just for your consideration. Two more
changes, based on the applicant's response letter. Page 20 of the staff report, number
two. Staff does not have a problem with adding the -- the exception to adding a bullet
basically that allows Block 7 to exceed the maximum block length. If you look at the
preliminary plat, Block 7 -- if it starts here and, technically, it would go to there.
However, the street system really -- being four lots deep I wouldn't consider as one
block, so if they want to -- this is -- all the lots in this block are labeled Block 7, but the
idea with the -- the intent with part of our ordinance is that you don't have a straight,
continuous street with no stubs or anything, so I think that if we add a bullet they are
allowed Block 7 to be -- exceed the 1,000 foot and the applicant did request that in their
application, I just didn't think it was necessary to include, because my interpretation
wouldn't be that that is one block. So, if you want to add that as a bullet, that Block 7
may exceed that block length. And one final amendment is on the next site specific --
site specific condition number three on page 20, there was some discussion about the
open space calculation. Staff has in the past typically not included the channel of a
lateral as open space. The only point in the staff report -- they do meet the minimum
requirement of five percent open space for a project. They are proposing eight percent
quote, unquote, open space with approximately three percent of that being the channel,
the top of bank to top of bank on the North Slough, so they still are at the minimum open
space requirement. If you so choose, you know, could change that site specific
condition number three or just clarify that they need to provide a minimum of five
percent or if you want to require eight percent and have it be exclusive of any channel,
you know, that would be about ten percent, that's up to you, I guess, but I believe the
open space calculation is okay and the five percent works. I think it's appropriate in the
development. If you have got a pathway adjacent to that, it does provide some visual
amenity, so I don't know that it needs to be -- it may be clarified, but I think it's -- as
written it works, too. A couple of final notes. The Ada County Highway District has
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
}. March 17.2005
Page 39 of 60
allowed two streets to be constructed to what isn't their typical width being -- their typical
-- as proposed by the plat, their street section here, but it's a 36-foot street section. The
ACHD is allowing them to construct these as 29-foot street sections, with parking on
one side. Without getting into too much of the Meridian fire department's requirements,
the applicant will have to meet whatever their face of curb or face of gutter requirement
is for basically the emergency services and the highway district, for whatever street
section that is, but .the idea of allowing those is -- to kind of give you some more
background information again, this is Zebulon Heights No.1, approved in Boise city.
The cross-access across build-able lots here to the south -- and I'd like to go to the last
slide here, the applicant actually provided this. The Ada County Highway District is
talking about potentially, in the future, having a public street go through where that cross
access has been provided and coming down to the Winston Moore parcel, which came
through as Blue Marlin and, then, providing that service up to Wainwright, which would,
eventually, have a signal here at the half mile on Eagle Road, so you get that
commercial traffic that can flow through to Wainwright. It doesn't necessarily affect this
project so much, but more of an FYI, for you, there may be a commercial street right
adjacent to. The applicant has shown on another version of the plat a 20-foot wide
landscape buffer, just to kind of buffer the residential uses from the street. Staff is
supportive of that, but without any guarantee that the public street is going to go in
there, I don't want to require that, so just an FYI. The traffic circulation has been
thought about in this area and that's kind of what's going on there. The applicant will be
required to construct turn lanes on McMillan Road, based on the traffic studies, both
east and westbound on McMillan Road to get into their main entrance. They would
have warranted for that, so there will be improvements to McMillan Road for turn lanes.
And, finally, staff did receive quite a few letters from neighbors in the general vicinity
about traffic on Eagle Road and the signal at Wainwright. The most recent version of
the Eagle Road corridor study that I saw did show a signal at Wainwright. I don't
believe it's planned for construction, but they are talking about a signal, it makes sense
there. The city planning department thinks it makes sense there, but just so you know,
we did receive a bunch of -- most of them came late this afternoon, so I'm not even sure
you got them in your packet, but I'm just going on record for that.
Zaremba: We receive them. We have got them.
Hood: And staff is recommending approval. I think that's alii have and I'll stand for any
questions.
Zaremba: Question from the Commissioners?
Borup: Which street section was it -- did you say a 29-foot -- I missed what area you
were talking about.
Zaremba: The two little cul-de-sacs.
,. Meridian Pianning & Zoning
March 17.2005
Page 40 of 60
Hood: Commissioner Zaremba, the two cul-de-sacs -- the names are escaping me right
now, but these two streets -- to get that 20 foot landscape buffer here, ACHD is allowing
them to construct a 29 foot street section. Now, for the highway district.
Borup: That's different than the plat we have, then?
Hood: Correct. That didn't change.
Borup: All right. I understand.
Zaremba: Any other questions? Would the applicant care to hobble forward?
McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens. I'm representing the
applicant on this application. We did have a neighborhood meeting on this application
prior to our submittal. Because this is a project of some size and anytime I have
existing large lot residential adjoining us, it's always a good idea to have them -- provide
an opportunity for the neighbors to come out, take a look at what we are proposing, and
give us some input. In designing this particular project, we had the one-acre lots here to
our west. We have five-acre lots here on our southern boundary. So, in laying this out,
I took that into consideration. Obviously, we try to minimize the number of lots as much
as possible adjoining these larger lots. The five is far more difficult, but the only way
that I can do that is, typically, by utilizing the cul-de-sacs or the pie lot and on the
western boundary we kind of did the same thing, we swung this street out, created a
cul-de-sac here, and, then, made these lots considerably deeper. These are about 140
feet. So, all of these lots along this west boundary and along this southern boundary
are extremely large. Some of them are as large as 31,000 square feet. The particular
project we have here is very low density and, as Craig indicated, the Comprehensive
Plan calls for this to be medium density, three to eight dwelling units. We did ask for a
step down. Staff did agree with us, due to the fact that we have these larger estate lots
around us, that it made sense that our density and our lots be -- our density be lower
and our lots be larger. So, we are at about 2.4 dwelling units per acre. We had a little
bit of a challenge up there at McMillan Road with Camas Creek there at Austin Creek
Subdivision. Ada County Highway District purchased those two parcels and left that
property a 60-foot kind of flag going out there for future access to McMillan and, then,
after they did that, Austin Creek came in and nobody ever noticed that the 60 feet didn't
line up with Austin Creek. So, when we -- when we met with the highway district on our
pre-application conferences, we talked to them and they said they didn't feel that was a
problem, they wanted definitely to align with Camas, and that we would be allowed to go
in and do some redesign on those ponds and create this street and, then, do kind of a
land exchange and it's already Ada County Highway District right of way, so it was not
problematic. Your staff did ask that this be included in the annexation application, but it
is not included in our preliminary plat. So, the Ada County Highway District property is
not calculated in our density. We did meet with the Ada County Highway District staff
about those ponds. They are not landscaped. We have heard comments over the past
few years that they are not esthetically pleasing. The development services staff has
indicated to us that they are open to granting us a license agreement to going in and try
" Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 17, 2005
Page 41 of 60
to make some improvements -- landscaping improvements where those ponds are. We
will, obviously, be limited as far as what we can do by their drainage division, who will
have the ultimate say on, you know, if we can put trees and how many and shrubs and
so forth. The highway district has agreed to allow us to design sidewalks all along that
stretch and, then, they would participate for the installation of a sidewalk on their
frontage only. We would install it when our contractor comes in. That will make one
continuous stretch of sidewalk there, versus having any gap, because with Settlement
Bridge you will have all the way up to the Idaho Power property, the church has a
sidewalk, and, then, there is obviously there at Madison Park you have got the Boise
city regional park just northeast of us, so you're going to have a lot of pedestrian traffic
going east over to that park. We have a natural feature here, the North Slough. We
designed around that, incorporated it into our project. I only had one small portion here
where we show a relocation. Everywhere else that this is the historical location of the
North Slough. In your Comprehensive Plan it designates the North Slough as having a
multi-use pathway, a ten foot, so we created a separate landscape lot here and, then,
our large park area -- private park area here, we will swing that multi-use path through
there, run it through a pedestrian micropath, there is a separate lot here and a separate
landscape lot here. We will have -- the staff has asked us to create pedestrian friendly
crossings every time it goes across any of the public roadways, either like with striping
or stamped concrete. The pathway will, then, come over here and cross the slough,
The pathway will have to be separate from Settler Irrigation District access to the
slough. They made that decision with the Settlement Bridge project, so on the south
side will be the 14 or 12-foot access road for maintenance by Settlers, on the north side
will be the ten foot pathway and it will connect here. ACHD has indicated that they will
allow us to construct this stretch of pathway, so we will make the connection to
Settlement Bridge. We will have to get a license agreement. I have one little gap here.
This is the Ustick Baptist Church. We have prepared a legal description as an exhibit.
Luckily, one of the developers has an association with that church and he said that he
would go speak with them and he thought that they would be open and favorable as far
as allowing an easement on their property for a Meridian pathways and, then, that will
complete that whole stretch. Wainwright here is a collector roadway. As Craig
indicated, the same development team, we had a project approved in Boise we called
Zebulon One, it's a light residential compatible office here. It's already been
constructed. You may have seen it if you drive down Eagle Road. We will connect to
that collector and extend that collector in and, then, transition to local streets. All our
sidewalks will be detached with five foot of landscaping and, then, four-foot sidewalk.
This area right here is about 3.36 acres. There will be like a little clubhouse, restrooms,
changing rooms, lockers. They don't exactly know exactly how large the facility is going
to be, but they are going to try to keep it, obviously, manageable, because the
association will have to maintain it in perpetuity. They will also be building a swimming
pool facility, a small little parking lot, and then, we have got kind of a little rotary with
pathways going around and, then, a playground here and, then, a playground up here
and this is about .35 acres. These lots, unlike a lot of the subdivisions that you have
seen lately, are extremely large. A lot of them are twice the size of some of the other
subdivisions that have been proposed. I have got to relocate. Sorry, I'd say probably
the average size on a lot of these lots is 11, 12 and 13 thousand square feet. They are
Meridian Planning & Zoning
, March 17, 2005
Page 42 of 60
all really wide, 90s, a lot of 88s and 100s. We try to provide a variety. We anticipate
the smallest homes on here to probably be around 2,500 square feet, approximately, so
these will be larger, more expensive homes. We think that this will, obviously, benefit
this area and provide a product out here that doesn't exist at this time. With Madison
Park over here, that's a subdivision I did years ago, the density is around close to four
dwelling units per acre. Austin Creek is close to four dwelling units per acre and, then,
Settlement Bridge, as Craig indicated in the staff report, is 3.7 dwelling units per acre.
So, we are providing a variety of housing. Our smallest lots are right here up against
Madison Park, they are kind of a little separate area here. We toyed with how to treat
this area. We thought about doing some town homes and, then, we decided we would
just go detached single family. So, our smallest lots in here are about -- there is one
that's 8,100 square feet. These neighbors here we are pleased at what we did, we are
connecting to their stub street. They asked us to dump a lot right here, which I did, take
a lot out. The two neighbors that I had spoke with, one on the phone, one at our
neighborhood meeting, said if we took a lot out they would be satisfied. And that's what
we did. I dealt with a couple of the neighbors to the south. Mr. Ketlinski is right here.
One of his concerns is the Parkins North Lateral runs along that south boundary. I
guess it serves this property. It also picks up drainage from their properties and, then, it
turns and goes north over here and serves the subdivision here at -- called Heritage
Subdivision. The ditch is leaking, they have had problems with it. His request was that
we go in and work with them to pipe it. I think he -- he indicated that they do have some
runoff that's going into it, so we will have to come up with a mechanism to collect any of
their drainage and get that back into that pipe. So, I will be working with Settler's
Irrigation District, because that's their water and according to their letter I think it's their
facilities, but we will also work with the neighbors to the south to make sure that we take
care of the ditch and provide water on these neighbors to the west. As far as fencing,
we anticipate vinyl fencing is kind of what we talked about at the meeting. I offered up
different varieties and types of fencing, because I always try to work with the neighbors
and make sure that they are pleased with what fencing we are proposing. Vinyl seems
to be real popular now, it wears well, and the adjoining neighborhood seems to like it.
Along the North Slough we are looking at probably wrought iron. We want as much
visibility as possible. If we are going to make that an amenity and have a pathway
there, we want to make sure that it's a safe as possible. Do you have any questions?
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Borup: Not at this time.
Zaremba: I have one small little spot. If you're referring to -- I believe you said it was
the church property here. Do you know if their back property line is fenced? And the
reason I ask that is is this going to be difficult over in this little corner where you need to
make a pathway connection?
, Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 17, 2005
Page 43 of 60
McKay: I don't think they are fenced -- that's a pretty new facility. I think they are still
kind of getting their development of their property -- they just got their building done
here, I don't know, last year sometime. About a year ago.
Zaremba: So, you're coming along at just the right time it sounds like.
McKay: Just the right time. So, they will probably be glad to see some fencing that they
don't have to purchase and we hope that they will be open to that pathway. We would
think it would benefit them, because people from this neighborhood, obviously, then,
walk to church, instead of driving, which would be good.
Borup: And it looks .Iike that pathway is probably within the easement -- the highway
district easement anyway.
Zaremba: The upper portion would be within the highway district. Was talking about
this little corner overhere.
Borup: I'm sorry, I didn't mean the highway, I meant Settlers. I meant Settlers --
Zaremba: Oh, Settlers.
Borup: -- easement. Yes.
Zaremba: Well, that works. That would be good.
McKay: So, we will still have to have permission from the church, .even with the Settler's
easement. So, I'm hoping to -- we are preparing a document that we hope they will sign
just granting that to the City of Meridian and, then, we will construct it at our expense.
Zaremba: I hope it's that easy. If that's, actually, incorporated city of Boise, does the
city of Boise have to give up that four square inches or whatever we are talking about?
McKay: No. It would just be an easement. It would only be a multi-use pathway
easement. I don't think that they can overlap jurisdictional boundaries. City limits don't
-- it doesn't matter, does it? I wouldn't think that would be problematic.
Zaremba: Good. That helps. Commissioners?
Rohm: I don't have any questions. It looks like a good project.
McKay: Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. I know that's tough to juggle crutches and displays and
microphones and -- you do it with a smile. We appreciate that.
McKay: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zooing
, March 17.2005
Page 44 of 60
Zaremba: First on our list to speak is Ty Ketlinski.
Ketlinski: Hello. I'm Ty Ketlinski. My address is 662 South Torino in Meridian and as
you can probably assume from the last name, I'm speaking on behalf of my father and
my mother, who own the south property, the triangular shape just to the south. It's
noted -- yeah. That one right there. And Mr. Ed Bollinger is here also tonight with me
and he owns the next - the next parcel, the ten-acre parcel to the east of my father's.
He couldn't make it tonight, he's down south vacationing, and so he sent me and he
sent me on a subdivision that starts with a Z, so it's at the end of the calendar. At any
rate, he sent a letter in and I'm sure all of you have gotten that --
Zaremba: Yes, we did. Very well worded letter.
Ketlinski: Okay. And, in essence, you know, I don't want to repeat that letter verbatim,
but I mean, in essence, there is two issues involved with the letter. The first has to do
with transitional issues and the second has to do with the safety and a -- perhaps
environmental concern. The first one, in terms of transition, his letter proposes several
different options for those southern parcels there and one was to limit those particular
parcels to one-story buildings and I know that the developer is against that notion. They
characterize those lots as extremely large. I'm not -- I think they are at the biggest a
third of an acre, so I'm not sure they are too large.
Newton-Huckabay: A big lot.
Ketlinski: Times have changed, I guess. But, at any rate, given the size of the two
parcels, my father's and Mr. Bollinger's, they would appreciate it if those could be limited
to one story. The other transitional issues that they had suggested in the letter were
putting up the fence and the developer suggested a vinyl fence. The one my father
suggested was a concrete wall. And the second issue that I wanted to point out was the
safety and the environmental concern, There is that ditch there -- the ditch there, there
has been some leakage and if the developer is working -- is willing to work with him in
some manner to get that covered, it would either be a pipe or tile or something like that,
because I'm not sure -- I'm not sure what kind of problems would emerge in the future if
that's not taken care of now, particularly if you are going to put several houses on the
southern border. So, at any rate, he wanted a warm body here and Mr. Bollinger, like I
said, echoes these concerns in the letter and so he sent me down. And the other issue
that concerns me a little bit -- and this isn't in the letter -- is the Eagle Road issue. And
I'm just a little bit -- not -- I'm concerned to a certain extent, being a resident of Meridian,
regarding the impact on that road and I would be -- I would just be curious to hear the
thoughts ofthe Commission on that. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: I do have a question, Chairman.
Meridian Plaming & Zoning
M...,h 17, 2005
Page 45 of 60
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: You had mentioned the user's ditch. Do you know what side of the property line
that is?
Ketlinski: Yeah. It's on - irs on my father's property side.
Borup: Okay.
Ketlinski: I believe - or is it split down the middle? Yeah. Irs split down the middle.
Borup: The ditch is right on the property line you're saying? Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: We will have the applicant address your questions, but I would comment on -
- since we also got quite a number of letters from other existing residents around in the
area, they all referenced that there should be a signal at that intersection with Eagle. In
attitude I'm sure the City of Meridian supports that idea. The jurisdiction for that is lTD.
The City of Meridian doesn't make that decision and, in fact, thars actually in the city of
Boise. So, I think you would certainly have support, but that is not part of our decision.
Ketlinski: I realize that I suppose - I suppose in a way Eagle Road is kind of a - I
don't know, a neutral zone, so to speak. n's kind of in Meridian, ifs kind of in Boise.
Zaremba: Some of it is. You're absolutely right. Much of it is in Meridian.
Ketlinski: You know - and I'm not I'm not sure. I don't have a solution. I was just
wondering if anyone on the Commission had that -
Zaremba: We support the signal. We don't control it.
Ketlinski: Okay.
Zaremba: Next on the list is Dave Bivens, commissioner.
Bivens: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is - for the record, my name is Dave
Bivens at 2354 Star Lane, Meridian, and I'm here not as a commissioner, but as a
neighbor and resident in the area and we live just over the west fence of this - of this
division. I guess we had met Mrs. McKay here previously and discussed the problem
that we had with the Settler ditch that runs along that property. You mentioned it along
the south side. And, then, runs back to the north, goes clear up to the north and, then,
back down to the west again. The gophers have really a joy ventilating that ditch and
not only that, I think it definitely, in my estimation, needs to be piped for safety reasons
for the little children, because the ditch is large enough that a child - a small child - I
know if my great grandchildren got in there they couldn't get out. So, I think they pretty
well agreed to do that. We talked about the fence and there needs to be some kind of a
fence banier. We already have on our property - we do have a chain link fence, I think
, Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 17.2005
Page 46 of 60
a five, six-foot chain link fence all the way around our property and that was there when
we purchased it 22 years ago. But I think we talked about that. The only other item --
and I don't know whether others wrote in relative to the type of structure -- hopefully, it
could be one story structures along that -- the east side of that development there -- it
would, actually, be the west side of their development, but on the west east side of the
Heritage Subdivision. But we have lived there and enjoyed the open area out there for -
- and the gophers, of course, and other things that came along, for nearly 22 years this
coming July. So, I just wanted to be here and I appreciate the opportunity to listen to
the discussions and see the operation. I haven't been here -- I used to sit on the other
side of the desk -- the other side of the podium and I did excuse myself from voting
when this particular subdivision came before us, because I had already visited with the
developer and made some comments, so I felt it was only proper that I excuse myself
from voting, so I am -- my skirt's clean in that respect. So, I will put back on my
commissioner hat for just a second and comment about the 29-foot streets. And I know
there was frowning going on when we talk about 29-foot streets, but in the Boise area
we -- especially up in the heights, up towards Bogus Basin Road and up in there, some
of those roads, because of the conditions, the area, and what have you, we have
allowed even down to 28-foot streets. It helps to deter speed and kind of discourage a
little traffic and what have you. I know it isn't always the best, but sometimes it works
and we haven't heard any -- in other words, we approved them and they haven't heard
anything back from them. So, hopefully, that's good news. So, that's all that I had and
appreciate the chance to be before you and I have enjoyed the evening, listening, kind
of nice to sit back and relax, not have to make any decision. So, if you have any
questions, why I would be more than pleased to --
Zaremba: Commissioners, questions?
Newton-Huckabay: I have nothing.
Bevins: Okay. Keith lives in my subdivision, so -- all right. thank you very much.
Zaremba: Thank you, sir. Ed Bollinger. Okay. He said it's already covered. Todd
Amyx. He has nothing to add. Okay. Mr. Bollinger was marked as neutral and Mr.
Amyx is marked as for. And in that case we are ready .for the applicant to return.
McKay: Becky McKay. On the Eagle Road issue, one thing to keep in mind, this is low
density, it's 175 lots, We anticipate approximately five phases. That's what we have
delineated on our preliminary plat. We are asking, you know, for market flexibility as far
as our phase lines are concerned. We will be starting here on McMillan Road and
working our way back this way. So, this particular area here I think is in phrase four. I
was the planner on Cameron Park and that was one of the first collectors that I ever laid
out in a subdivision, especially one that was pretty close to being a continuous collector,
because it did go deep into the center and, then, fed out a lot of those subdivisions that
came about after Cameron Park, such as Heather Meadows, out to that half mile. ITD
dictated that we place Wainwright at that half mile, so that at some point in time it did
have the possibility of being signalized. What we are being told by Washington Group
, Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 17,2005
Page 47 of 60
is that they are studying that Eagle Road corridor. The consultant has came up with an
idea that they will install a median along Eagle Road and this was -- I guess this is the
preferred way to handle the volumes that are taking place on Eagle Road and what's
going to happen in the future. If they put a median down Eagle Road, there will be no
left-hand turning movements. Therefore, that will improve its carrying capacity. But in
doing so they will have to install signals at these half miles and create u-turns for -- so
you can go back -- you know, if you're coming from the other direction and get back to
your subdivision. I guess it's done in other communities. They claim that it just takes
some getting used to and we are going to have to, you know, step up and realize that
we can't have all these left-hand turning movements on these five lane state highways
and maintain 55 miles per hour. And if it's going to carry high volumes at 55, well, they
are going to have to take some drastic actions like that. As far as the installation of that
light, it meets the warrant, but ITD, obviously, has not budgeted for it and according to
out traffic engineer, he said they are not going to put it in until they have political
pressure from the public, the municipalities, to install that, just like what you saw happen
in Eagle down there at Island Woods. If you're the mayor and you live in Island Woods,
then, you can get a light. So, you know, it's political pressure. How he explained it to
me is for every one person on Wainwright that the light would accommodate, they were
inconveniencing 20 people that are going north-south on Eagle Road. When they -- I
guess they factor in the delay time of those 20 people and what they could be making at
the average wage in the valley and, then, they determine -- I guess they put a value on
what it costs people to be delayed to allow Wainwright people to get out onto Eagle
Road and make left-hand turns and -- I mean a 20 to one ratio, obviously, Wainwright
loses every time. So, if it's going to be a political issue. The warrants are there, but
neither we, nor ACHD, nor the city can force -- you know, can get ITD to do it without
putting pressure on them. They are not going to do it easily. At least that's how it was
explained to me by the traffic engineer. On the piping of the ditch, I will work with the
neighbors to the south and Settlers Irrigation District in the sizing and locating of that
pipe. I'll have to work with Commissioner Bivens, I hope that he will be my contact
there, since he's lived there for so many years, as far as piping the ditch that comes up
and serves them. Any time we can put them in pipe it's better off for all the
neighborhood and from what I have been told by all the surrounding neighbors, there
are problems. I mean the ditches are leaking, they are washing out, and they have
been a headache for a long time and so this is an opportunity for us to go in and take
care of that problem for them. The fencing. The vinyl fencing is very standard in the
subdivisions. It looks good. It wears well. It's six feet. It is sight obscuring. I don't
believe that a concrete wall is what people want. I mean people don't want to be walled
in. This isn't a Wal-Mart or something like that that is not compatible with the residential
to the south. We are residential also and we have taken great effort to try to minimize
the number of lots that we place next to those larger lots and come up with a design and
a density that would be a good transition as recommended in your Comprehensive
Plan. As far as the single story issue, I have always been of the opinion that it is your
inherit right to build a single story or a two story. There is -- you know, to restrict that I
just -- I always think it's wrong and I guess the question I ask -- when Settlement Bridge
came in, they got a whole bunch of 8,000 square foot lots and less all along the north
boundary of Heritage Subdivision, were they all restricted to single story? I don't think
Meridian Planning & Zoning
, March 17.2005
Page 48 of 60
so. I really really doubt it. And I think, you know, the same should hold true for us. We
have made greater effort -- when I look at their design here, they have got a bunch of
lots -- they have created a lot more neighbors backing up to these people's backyards
than we have. They didn't use cul-de-sacs and pie size lots to transition like we did. I
think we have gone the extra mile. Also, I have looked at the locations of the homes
along this corridor here and here and, then, when you factor in that the homes set back
approximately 20 to 30 feet from the edge of right of way, the homes are approximately
50 feet in depth, when I measure the distance from this home to that home, it's between
175 and in excess of 200 feet, depending on, you know, which house you're measuring
them, because they are staggered in here. So, I guess we are not like 15 feet from their
boundary. I have created lots that are 140 feet deep, I think this lot line here is like 225.
So, you know, we have really tried to make sure that it's as open as possible and that
those homes will set as far as back as possible to preserve their views as much as we
can. But I just -- I always disagree with that one story restriction. If we start doing -- I
mean it just -- things like that snowball and pretty soon, you know, I guess we will all be
living in one story houses, because you can' build two story anymore. Do you have any
questions?
Zaremba: I think we have responded to that and made that requirement when there
was a demonstrated security issue. Do you know -- and I'm just using the canal along
the property line as a reference -- is the property fairly level on both sides? Are they
equivalent heights?
McKay: Oh, yeah. I think it's -- I don't think there is discrepancies in elevations of
property. It's all pretty flat.
Zaremba: So, your property isn't ten feet higher than the other property?
McKay: Not to my knowledge. It's all pretty much the same.
Zaremba: All pretty level?
McKay: I mean those ditches are serving --
Zaremba: The footings of the houses would be on the same level?
McKay: Yeah, We don't -- there is no flood plane or anything that would require that we
come in and build the property up or anything, no, sir.
Zaremba: Would there be any interest in requiring a larger backyard setback, so that
the houses are definitely built near the front of the property? I'm trading this off, as
opposed to one story.
McKay: They are pretty big lots. I mean -- are you opposed to that? Are you opposed
to larger setbacks on the rear lot lines?
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
March 17,2005
Page 49 of 60
Zaremba: And I realize the economics of it. Most people don't want to build a long
driveway, it's expensive, so they probably will build forward on the lot anyhow, but --
McKay: And that's typically what we see.
Zaremba: Okay.
restriction?
So, you don't want either a one-story restriction or a setback
McKay: I don't -- I don't see them being 15 feet from it. The lots are too deep.
Zaremba: Yeah. I can see that as well. Commissioners?
Moe: Are you anticipating all those lots to have two story homes there?
McKay: I'd say there is -- you know, chances are there may be some single levels in
there and there may be some two stories in there. You know, I think that the market
kind of dictates it. The builder team that they -- that they have, they have -- and you can
see the pictures that we submitted, they build two stories, they build single story, So,
you know, a 50-50 chance, I guess. Heck, I don't know. I don't know what the ratio is
for a single story or a two-story ratio.
Rohm: I think, typically, when we tried to restrict to single story is where the homes are
going to be right on the property line, they will be looking right down into their backyard
and -- or into their homes and I don't believe that that's the case in this particular
subdivision. It's -- they are not building right on top of each other.
McKay: That's correct, sir. And we have got an aerial photo on the back of that that
demonstrates the distance,
Zaremba: I have to apologize. I have just looked through the sign-up sheet and
realized that there was somebody signed up for Item 18 that wasn't on the other lists
and I did not call that person. Can I interrupt you to -
McKay: Yes, sir.
Zaremba: -- see if Mr. Fred Roam is here. He is not here. So, my faux pas goes
unnoticed. He was marked as neutral on the sheet. I'm sorry. Okay. Proceed.
McKay: Yeah. Here is -- ours is overlaid on top of it. Thank you. There is an aerial
photo, if you would like to take a closer look. It is to scale. It's one inch equals 100 feet,
so -- there we go. Here is a home right here. That's one hundred feet to there. And,
then, we have got 140 feet to this right of way. Here is a home. There is 85 feet from
the -- and I'm going from the rear line of that home to the boundary. And this is 140.
Mr. Ketlinski's house is here. It's 140 feet from the closest point of his home to the
boundary here. And, then, these, I think, are 140 feet. And like this house here is
substantially further. So, one inch equals 100 feet. So, when you come back 20 feet,
, Meridian Pianning & Zoning
March 17,2005
Page 50 of 60
calculate a 50 foot pad area, you're getting, you know, a separation that's, like I said,
between 175 and 200 feet in separation from home to home.
Rohm: That was the point that I was making. Thank you.
McKay: Thank you.
Zaremba: I think most items have been addressed. I don't remember what the final
comment was on making one of the southern cul-de-sacs into a stub street.
McKay: What, sir?
Zaremba: There was a suggestion from staff that one of the southern cul-de-sacs be
made into a stub street.
McKay: Yes, sir. We were in agreement with that.
Zaremba: I don't remember what that discussion ended up.
McKay: Yeah, we were in agreement with that. The Ada County Highway District did
not ask for an additional stub to the south, but staff did. And that kind of a road -- we
have this stub street here that's in alignment with a future stub at Champion Park
Subdivision here. We got this connection to Settlement Bridge. This connection to
Madison Park. And, then, what staff talked about here, where Ada County Highway
District -- we have a 48 foot lot that we created as a buffer landscape lot for the --
between the office use and the residential and ACHD believes they would like to
purchase that lot, so that they can make a commercial connection to this commercial
collector and get out to a light when Winston's Moore's property develops. So, it was
staff's determination that since that would be more of a commercial roadway, that it
made the most sense to put another residential stub here in the event this five acre
property were to redevelop in the future. And we are not opposed. We will just drop the
cul-de-sac down.
Zaremba: You're okay with that?
McKay: We are okay with that. So, I think staff and the applicant are pretty much in
agreement. The only thing that we are concerned about is making sure that we didn't
have a requirement placed on us to landscape those ponds in a specific fashion that we
can't get ACHD to agree to.
Rohm: I guess my question, then, would be if that will not be a cul-de-sac any longer
and be a through -- or a stub street, can you, then, make it the 30 -- what is it, 33 foot --
what's the standard roadway?
McKay: Thirty-six.
, Meridian Pianning & Zoning
March 17, 2005
Page 51 of 60
Rohm: Thirty-six? As opposed to a reduced roadway?
McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, what we did -- if you could put that back
up. There we go. We submitted it with a 50-foot right of way here and here and 36
back to back. When Ada County Highway District brought this issue up here in this
phase one that's already built and platted, we decided that we would need to create
some -- a new buffer. If this becomes a commercial roadway, I need a 20-foot
landscape buffer between these residential lots and that ACHD right of way there. Right
now I have a 48-foot buffer that they want to buy. It's already landscaped and done, but
they are saying they want to buy that for a future commercial street connection to the
south, to Winston Moore's property and so we -- if we took 20 feet out of here, then, we
reduce these to 42-foot right of ways and that's where we got the 20 feet. So, that's
how that came about. Is that bothering you?
Rohm: Well--
McKay: Oh, you're saying if it's --
Rohm: If it's a through street --
McKay: I see what you're saying.
Rohm: Yeah. If it's a through street.
McKay: You're saying if we are going to get some traffic here, then, maybe we should
go with 50-foot, 36.
Rohm: Bingo.
McKay: You're correct.
Rohm: Yeah.
McKay: Good point. That will cause a problem,
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, we did actually talk with Christy Richardson about
that very question and I have an e-mail from her stating that the traffic volume
anticipated on that stub street will not exceed their threshold for a 42-foot right of way,
so they will still allow you to do 29, again, provided that Meridian fire also signs off on
that street section for parking on one side. So, their development services is okay with
the extension of the stub street at a 29 foot street section.
Rohm: That was my point. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you.
, Meridian Pianning & Zoning
March 17, 2005
Page 52 of 60
Moe: I do have a --
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: -- question. Probably more for staff. I just want to make sure in regards to the
tiling of the ditches that is taken care of, then, on page 14 of the -- of item four. We will
take care of that?
Hood: That is correct. And also on the applicant's submitted preliminary plat you notice
the Parkins Lateral, a user's ditch and, then, it says to be piped. So, they are proposing
to do that on their plat, in addition to this site specific standard requirement that requires
all irrigation laterals to be tiled and piped, so --
Moe: Just wanted that on the record. Thank you.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, we have talked about the -- I guess it would become a through
street. I wasn't clear on what properties that was going to have access to. It looks like
a ACHD future street would go to Winston Moore's property and cut through those two
parcels, I'm assuming. I assume those purple lines are a proposed conceptual layout?
Hood: That's my artistic take on streets. The dashed lines -- the black was provided by
the applicant. They are approximate locations. There are some constraints. A private
lane does bisect right here and there is some crossing of that private lane. The other
idea is to get the commercial mixed use here at Winston Moore's up to the signalized
intersection. It may weave a little bit through there, but that's the general alignment of
that street. These other pink are the residential portions. This mayor may not tie with
that commercial aspect -- or commercial street, but it could potentially provide that
connectivity as well, so -- all very conceptual, though.
Borup: Okay. Right. I understand. Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: The hearing is still open. Commissioner Bivens back again.
Bivins: Dave Bivens. Craig, could you put back up that -- the map of the way it
currently is? Yeah. The reason this not to -- I think you asked -- Mr. Chairman, you
asked that the elevation of these properties -- this land in here versus the land that's on
this side -- you remember that this lateral runs right down here and, then, back over this
way. It is on grade. But the interesting thing -- and I don't know how it ever happened --
but the drainage from the irrigation system that still occurs here actually drains down
from the east to the west and, then, down to the south and it's piped down to that way.
It's kind of a strange arrangement. But the lateral at this point in this corner here is quite
high and this location in here is a dramatic difference in elevation. So, they have
graded that -- leveled that land in there, so --
Zaremba: Let me see if I understand it. The canal itself is high, but the properties on
both sides of the canal are fairly equal?
. Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 17.2005
Page 53 of 60
Bevins: The canal itself is high and this part through here -- right in through here is
concreted. It's a concrete ditch. And, then, it's open -- just dirt ditch from here on out.
But, like I say, this here -- the land on this side is much higher, because of that draining
to the -- it's going against the grain, I guess you would say, from the way the water runs
and I was told at one time that that was changed and the water at one time came down
-- and I'm probably -- this is maybe irrelevant. The water came down this line right here
and, then, it went this way to service this property. So, they changed that whole thing
and releveled that field, so that the water drains from about in this area here, down
here, down -- goes down that ditch. So, the elevation that -- the net result was -- in
answer to your question, the elevation on the west side of the canal is actually higher
than it is on the east side. So, it does give a better site distance.
Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Okay. Commissioners, any thoughts?
questions? Discussion? Close the Public Hearing?
Further
Rohm: I don't have any additional questions. Mr. Chairman, I move we close the --
Hood: Mr. Chair, excuse me. You may want to just allow the applicant to have the last
word, even though it wasn't really a question, she's just--
Zaremba: The applicant is satisfied with it. That was a contribution, not a question.
And it, actually, was answering a question that I asked, so appreciate that.
Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on Items 16, 17
and 18.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second to close the three public hearings. All in
favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Do we need any further discussion or clarification from staff of items in the
report that should be modified? We had some given to us previously.
Newton-Huckabay: Some modifications?
Zaremba: Uh-huh. Or are you ready?
Rohm: I think I'm going to make a stab at the first one anyway.
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm,
, Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 17.2005
Page 54 of 60
Newton-Huckabay: I have some questions first.
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: This Eagle Road traffic issue with the medians and that type of
thing, what's the time horizon on getting that to a resolution? Does anybody know? I
mean we see the miscellaneous reports and that type of thing, but --
Rohm: My guess is just as the -- they address it at such time as political pressure is
significant.
Newton-Huckabay: I guess my concern is -- I know that we don't decide that. I mean
we have no impact on that, that we are not the authority there, but we continually
recommend developments a on Eagle Road and -- but everybody at the same time
agrees that there is a huge problem on Eagle Road and --
Borup: Usually it's when it gets bad enough that people can't take it anymore, then,
they do something. So, the way to speed that up is to have more development.
Rohm: Yeah. Make it worse.
Zaremba: Unfortunately -- and I think one of the letters that was written to us or e-mails,
I'm not sure how the form came in, pointed out that the signal at Island Woods or Two
Islands or Two Rivers or whatever it is up there, happened because there were traffic
fatalities and, you know, you don't want to have to wait that long to have it happen, but,
unfortunately, sometimes that's what pushes the responsible authority over.
Rohm: Well -- and I also think that --
Newton-Huckabay: Director Canning, do you have anything more enlightening --
Zaremba: I think Director Canning has something to add.
Canning: I just wanted to say that the Eagle Road corridor study I don't believe has
actually been adopted yet, so I think that that's just finishing up. And, then, I know that
the next step was, then, to allocate funds. If the Garvee bonding goes -- proposal goes
through, the governor will probably -- it's not one of the ones he specifically identified,
but I would imagine it's one of the ones that ITD is probably interested in. So, that's the
next step in the whole process, to begin funding parts of that project as identified in the
corridor study.
Borup: And in this case Eagle Road will start with the median is what they would be
doing on Eagle Road? And some signal lights?
, Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 17, 2005
Page 55 of 60
Canning: I seem to recall -- I think they were going to do it kind of in chunks, rather than
do all the lights and, then, all the medians. I think they were going to just go in
segments as they went down the road.
Borup: Makes sense.
Canning: You know what would be a great thing is that Steve, I believe, is coming to
talk to you on the --
Zaremba: Our second meeting in April.
Canning: In April. And he could probably, if you asked him, give you an update on
what's going on with the Eagle Road corridor study. That would be the best thing to do.
Zaremba: Great.
Canning: If I remember I will let him know. If one of you remembers, that would be
helpful, too. Try and leave him a note.
Newton-Huckabay: That's the only thing that bothers me all the time is, you know, what
is the resolution to that very real problem. Or are we just going to continue to develop
around that problem?
Rohm: Well, I think that a portion of the answer to that that as developments occur
you're adjacent mile post roads are going to develop as Eagle Road has and Locust
Grove and other roads will continue to expand and lessen some of that burden off of
Eagle Road, as they are widened and fully developed. And in the meantime you just--
Zaremba: Much of the -- how shall I put this? We know that ITD and ACHD are
responsible for actually building the roads, but they are, actually, in a position of having
to wait until Compass forecasts that that road improvement is necessary and justifiable.
Compass constantly updates their forecast and their need based on how much
development happens. I mean their forecasting system seems to under forecast, but
they revise it every time a new subdivision starts building and I think it's been said
before, road widenings and signals and even fire stations happen because enough
development happens to force them into the -- onto the schedule for the improvement
plan and, you know, if we were to deny this development, that signal probably will never
happen.
Newton-Huckabay: Oh, I'm not going to -- I'm not saying I want to deny this
development, but --
Zaremba: Yeah. I knew we weren't talking about that extreme, but I'm just making that
example.
. Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 17, 2005
Page 56 of 60
Newton-Huckabay: I mean it's not rocket science that something needs to happen on
Eagle Road and whether -- you know, that -- you know, somebody needs to be jumping
up and down and throwing a fit that we need to fix the problem on Eagle Road. And I
don't know how that gets done, because it's not -- you know, the ACHD report says, you
know, who is going to fund the -- who is going to fund the light --
Zaremba: Well, I may have asked this question before. When we get this many e-mails
and letters from people who address that subject, does anybody ever respond to them
and say would you, please, forward your request onto ITD?
Borup: That's what I was just going to say. That would be useful to have -- but have
them do the same to ITD and that's where it needs to go, They are all from Cameron
Park.
Zaremba: Can we respond to some of them, say thank you for your interest, please --
Hood: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: -- who would make that response?
Hood: We do have a response card. It's pretty generic. It says thank you for your
concern. Your concerns were noted at the hearing and we could even add, probably, a
P.S. to the end of that generic card that we have generated, you know, please forward
this on to ITD District Three and let them know that you have concerns about this and
they get a mass e-mailing -- I don't know that it will go anywhere, but we could certainly
do that.
Newton-Huckabay: I think it's a great idea.
Zaremba: I would like to respond to the people -- suggest to them that they take that
action. If that's possible. Does that help us resolve most issues? Commissioner
Rohm, you look like --
Rohm: I have run out of steam now.
Borup: He was already to go.
Rohm: I was ready to go 15 minutes ago. Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we forward on to City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-
006, including the staff report for hearing date March 17th, 2005, received on March
14th, 2005, with the following changes: On page nine, paragraph three. bullet one, the
second sentence should read: Further, the applicant agrees to provide the city with all
legal descriptions for any portions of the multi-use pathway that are off site, quote,
, Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 17,2005
Page 57 of 60
unquote, under ACHD ownership and church ownership, end quote, prior to final plat
signature. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Did we have anything with the preliminary plat?
Moe: Yes. On page 13.
Rohm: Got it. Got it. Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of PP 05-008,
to include all staff comments for the hearing date March 17th, 2005, and received March
14th, 2005, with the following changes: On page 13, under site specific conditions,
preliminary plat, item three, bullet one, to read: If allowed by ACHD, install one tree for
every 35 feet -- through the balance of that first sentence. And I have not made any
other changes, so end of motion.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? Okay,
That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm, you're on a roll.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of CUP 05-019, to include all staff comments for the hearing date March 17th,
2005, and received March 14th, 2005, with no changes.
Moe: Page 20.
Rohm: Oh, that's why we have you, Dave. Page 20. Okay. Oh. Page 20, item two,
add a second bullet that says Block 7 is allowed to exceed the block length due to
design configuration of the existing street structure.
Borup: Do you want to add the word thousand in there?
~ 4 ,Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 17, 200~
Page 58 of 60
Rohm: To exceed the thousand foot block length, due to the design of the street
structure.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: We have one more motion.
Borup: There was one other discussion and that was on the -- excluding the land in the
North Slough. Wasn't there additional discussion on that?
Newton-Huckabay: That's the landscape, the eight percent --
Borup: I know. I know. But the staff report says it needs to be eight percent.
Rohm: Or he said that it could be left just as written, if we chose to, and I didn't
understand it well enough to change it, so--
Borup: Okay. I was--
Zaremba: Yeah. The discussion was what is counted in open space and what isn't
and they have enough even if you don't count the disputed middle of the channel.
Borup: Well, they don't have eight percent without the channel, do they?
Zaremba: They only need five.
Borup: I know. But the staff report says eight. I was just wondering if we need to
change that eight to five? I realize we have already had a motion -- I don't think I voted
on it, though. Did we have a motion?
Zaremba: We did. And I think we were unanimous.
Borup: I didn't vote, I don't believe.
Hood: As a clarification, you could, you know, exclude the -- or include the channel in
that eight percent requirement as proposed -- I mean that's -- you know, it does say
eight percent of the site for open space and, then, there are, in parenthesis, exclusive of
the channel for the North Slough, so --
Rohm: How about if we just change it to five percent and -- or exceeds five percent
and, then, leave everything else as is?
~ ,I . Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 17, 200~
Page 59 of 60
Hood: A minimum five percent.
Borup: That's what my notes show.
Zaremba: So, would you care to propose that as an amendment to the recently made
motion?
Baird: Mr. Chair, I would recommend that since that motion did pass, that you move to
reconsider that, to totally open up again, rather than modifying it. I should also add that
when you do include as part of your motion: And to include all staff comments, you are
actually, with that saying, you have actually adopted the modifications that staff has
proposed, so it's -- it's arguable, but it's in there, but since it's definitely a point of
discussion, I'd recommend for clarity that you -- if you want to, to go ahead and move
the reconsider and, then, direct staff with regard to what particular language you would
prefer.
Zaremba: Okay. I would accept a motion to reconsider the most recent motion.
Rohm: So moved. Can you do that?
Borup: You just did.
Rohm: All right.
Zaremba: Is there a second?
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: Okay. Moved and seconded to reconsider the motion that was made on
CUP 05-019. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm, do you want to lead the discussion?
Rohm: I'm not sure if I do or not.
Newton-Huckabay: You just make the motion again.
Rohm: I'm going to make a stab at that. Okay. Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of CUP 05-
019, to include all staff comments for the hearing date March 17th, 2005, and received
. ;:¡ , Meridian Pianning & Zoning
March 17, 2005
Page 60 of 60
March 14th, 2005, with the following changes: On page 20, add a second bullet that
says Block 7 is allowed to exceed the block length of 1,000 feet, due to road design.
Under item three is a reference to an eight percent of the site set aside -- an eight
percent -- and we are going to change that from eight percent to five percent -- exceeds
five percent. And I believe that's all the changes we need to make.
Moe: Just for clarity, you didn't note that second bullet was going under Item number
two.
Rohm: Oh. Excuse me. The second bullet does go under Item No.2. I believe that's
the end of the change.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Thank you all very much.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we adjourn.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: We are adjourned. It is 10:21 p.m.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:21 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
DAVI2~P ~
'\Ie:..
___t,¿r