2005 08-18
Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meetina
AuQustj 8, 200~
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of August 18, 2005, was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Zaremba.
Members Present: Chairman David Zaremba, Commissioner Keith Borup,
Commissioner Michael Rohm, and Commissioner David Moe.
Members Absent: Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Jessica Johnson, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Josh Wilson, Joe
Guenther, Mike Cole, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Keith Borup X David Moe
Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Michael Rohm
X Chairman David Zaremba
Zaremba: Good evening, everybody. We will call to order this regularly scheduled
meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for August 18th, 2005. And
we will begin with a roll call of Commissioners.
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Zaremba: Next item is adoption of the agenda. We will take all items in order, but I will
announce that Items 16 and 17, which relate to Sunstone Subdivision, the applicant has
asked that that be withdrawn. So, we will accept their withdrawal and not discuss it
tonight. That was Sunstone Subdivision.
Item 3:
Consent Agenda:
A.
Approve Minutes of July 14, 2005 Planning and Zoning Special
Meeting Workshop:
Zaremba: Next Item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda, which consists of the
approval of our meeting minutes for July 14th and I will begin with my own comment on
that. On page 11 of 33, about the middle of the page, there is a paragraph where I am
speaking and I say when I first started hearing people say that the federal government
would -- that actually was a contraction wouldn't. The negative should be there. Would
not. That's the only change that I have. Commissioners, any other comments on the
minutes of July 14th? Okay. I would entertain a motion to accept them as amended.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
/
,/
,/
/
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August18,2005
Page 2 of 98
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we accept the minutes as amended.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 4:
Presentation: Meridian Economic Development by Cheryl Brown:
Zaremba: Now, we are pleased to have another in our series of educational
presentations. We have been doing these on our second meeting of each month and
today I'm very pleased to have with us Cheryl Brown, who is Meridian's Economic
Development Coordinator, and she, along with her husband, is a business owner in the
Treasure Valley and has been a long time resident and works right side by side with the
Mayor in doing the important work of helping Meridian have a presence in the economic
world and I'm pleased to introduce Cheryl Brown.
Brown: And you forgot I'm your next-door neighbor.
Zaremba: And she's also my next-door neighbor.
Brown: Well, good evening. I sure hope I'm going to be educational tonight. I'm not
sure if all of you really know what I do and so maybe we should start with that, because
I know Bill doesn't, he tells me that all the time. So, as Economic Development
Coordinator, what my job is is to help promote business to Meridian, help retain
businesses in Meridian, and help them grow here. So, I am working with local
developers, I'm also working with out-of-state developers. I'm basically, what it all boils
down to, I'm, basically, their project manager. When they come in -- and I will give you
an example with Hallett Cinemas. When they came in I met with the owner and he said,
okay, I need to have this theater open in time for Star Wars. Can we do this? So, I
pulled together the department heads with Planning and Zoning, Public Works, myself,
the Mayor, the architects, engineers, and construction company, and we all laid out a
time line. Can the city meet the time line? Can they meet the time line on their end?
And, then, it was my job, basically, to keep everything on the time line, making sure
everything moved along and it was submitted when it needed to be submitted and if it
wasn't, then, I was either calling the architect, I was calling the construction company, I
was bothering, you know, Bruce Freckleton and Mike Cole and saying, you know,
what's going on. If it gets red lined -- I'm their one point of contact, so they are not
having to call different departments throughout the city. So, it -- kind of like a
construction manager is what I'm doing, among the other things here that I'm going to
talk to you about. And I know everybody -- this is the first question everybody alWays
asks me is what's coming to Meridian. What's coming? What's coming? So, I can run
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August18,2005
Page 3 of 98
down a list of projects I'm working on right now and kind of put some numbers to them.
The one sheet you don't have -- and I'll go over this to give you an idea of the revenue
that is coming into Meridian. For example, Citi Group, when they opened up out at
Silverstone, right now they have 1,800 employees out there. That project was a 10.3
million dollar project. It was 176,000 square feet. T -Mobile was over a seven million
dollar project. That one right now has around 700 employees out there and they are still
growing. The square footage out there is over 77,000 square feet. The cinemas was
an eight million dollar project, which is 18 screens. It has two completely digital
screens, which there are only two other theaters in the whole United States that have
this state-of-art system and we are lucky enough to have one in Meridian. Fairview
Lakes project is a 20.6 million dollar project, with 220,000 square feet. Silverstone--
and these are at build out, at completion. Silverstone is a 270 million dollar project and
that one has 1.55 million square feet out there at Silverstone. EI Dorado is a hundred
million dollar project and that one has 750,000 square feet. Central Valley Corporate
Park -- and I know you see these coming through in pieces, but this will kind of give you
an overall once everybody is out there, this is the totals. Central Valley Corporate Park
is a 165 million dollar project with 1.1 million square feet. Meridian Marketplace is a four
million dollar job, with 30,000 square feet. The 72 K building, which is on Eagle Road,
that is a Ron Van Auker property, that one is a 1.5 million dollar project. That's 72,000
square feet. Louisiana Pacific, they just did an expansion. Right now they are at 14.7
million. They are two and a half acres. Pinebridge, which is going to be -- you haven't
seen it yet and you will be, but not yet. This project is on 122 acres and it's going to be
another two million dollar project, mixed-use project. I am working with them very
closely on a couple of big national tenants and a big corporate office going out there,
but -- I can't tell you who it is. I wish I could. And as soon as I can I will let you know,
but they are working on some very big tenants out there and that's Dennis Baker's
project. Waltman Lane, you haven't seen that one yet come through. I met with -- there
is two developers on this one. One developer has 36 acres. He is a developer out of
San Francisco. And that is going to be primarily retail, restaurants, I just got their basic
map yesterday, what they are looking at. They do have three anchor tenants out there
that want to get out there. Again, I can't tell you who they are, but they are national as
well. There is another developer that has the piece right now next to it and he's another
developer out of California and he isn't quite sure what he's putting out there yet. Ustick
Marketplace, which is Lowe's, that is a 45 million dollar project, 400,000 square feet at
completion out there. I am working right now with Blue Cross's nine million dollar
expansion. I'm working with Tri-City Meats' expansion. Double D's expansion. Food
Services of America's four million dollar expansion. This is phase three of five of their
phases. Idaho Trust with another five million dollar expansion. So, businesses aren't
just coming here, but they are growing and getting bigger. And so I'm helping them with
their expansions as well, going through the process from start to finish. The Ten Mile
Development parcel, if you remember that one, that came through on Eagle Road, is
going to be a little bit different than actually came through, because it's going to be sold
and it's coming across as a separate -- a separate application and it's going to be split
into two parcels, as I understand. I talked to one of the developers today. Another one
from California. Sizzler will start with their application next week. They are coming out
to Ustick Marketplace. We have a civic center committee that we have put together and
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 4 of 98
we are really trying to get a civic center put in downtown Meridian and so we are
working forward on that one. That's our basic -- starting at the ground level right now,
what needs to be there. We need to get the feasibility study done and go on from there.
Collobo's Italian Restaurant, which is the Outback's sister restaurant, is coming in out
next to The Ram. I'm helping them with their application. We have another
manufacturer that is relocating from Oregon. Has a lab in Oregon and in Boise and
moving to Meridian. They manufacture eyeglasses. And so they are going to be
coming out here. I'm working on the Country Inn that's going in on Eagle Road, a four
story hotel. Oregon Tile and Marble, 24,000 square foot facility, that is going to be --
having granite, marble tile, a hundred choices. Huge. Huge. It's really neat. Again,
from out of state. Let's see. What else? I have been working with BSU on trying to see
what programs, especially that are expanding businesses and the new businesses
coming in to utilize, with the workforce training funds that are available through the state
right now, now I'm trying to help each individual business utilize these funds and get
their employees trained and work with BSU. Can you develop a program for them or
can you -- you know, are you willing to go out to their factory, do they need to go to you
-- and so that's working out great. BSU is being wonderful. I work with Commerce and
Labor on leads that they get in through the state and I have taken businesses out --
there is another company that has been in town a few times looking for their second
store and so we are trying to fine the right area in Meridian for that. Boise Valley
Economic development partnership, I'm a member on that committee, and the Idaho
Economic Development Association and that is for the whole state. I have been
working with Clair on downtown in what's coming in downtown and there is a lot that's
going to be happening real soon and I'm really excited about that. The website we are
revamping the total economic development portion of the website. And so that is out at
a professional right now fine tuning and getting everything on there that we need. I
have been working with the -- on the Ten Mile interchange, pulling the developers and
the property owners around Ten Mile together to try and come up with two million
dollars to start a study, because we need another interchange really really bad. I'm also
working on -- this is going to be -- this is the rough draft I got today. We are placing an
ad like this in the Horizon Air magazine that is coming out October 1 st. They are doing
a whole section in there on Idaho. So, I'm taking out a half a page color ad for Meridian
and I have sent up articles on Meridian that I'm trying to get them to write more about
Meridian in this ad. So, I'm working with this with our marketing company. We did hire
a marketing company to help with some of this. The brochure is new. We needed to
send something out that was professional looking, something more updated, what's
going on in Meridian. So, we got these probably two months ago. If you look through --
if you look at your map, this one right here, I'm trying to get the demographics of
Meridian, because when I first came on with this job, we had no statistics on just
Meridian. We had it on Ada County, but not Meridian broke out specific. So, I have
been working with Commerce and Labor, I have been working with Compass, I have
been working with a bunch of different entities. This kind of shows you where all the
retail is in Meridian, where the office is, the medical, manufacturing, transportation and
your public. So, it's a real good tool when I'm sending out information on Meridian
electronically, letting people know, because they want to be -- say buy a medical facility
or whatever they are interested in. If you look at the spreadsheet here, it will tell you
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August18,2oo5
Page 5 of 98
what the percentage is of retail from 2000 up 2004 on your different industries and I
have the residential permits, total square footage, year, and the nonresidential on there,
because when I'm sending out these packets, they also want to know housing
availability and so I do need to send some residential as well with the commercial. The
line graph from 2000 to 2005 now, kind of shows -- and this is our commercial growth
and as of 2005 we are off the map already and we have been for a couple months. We
have had a record year this last month with permits, as you probably well know. So, our
commercial is picking up a lot -- a lot more. If you look at the pie chart, this kind of
breaks out here for you nonresidential building permits value by category. So, you have
got, basically, you know, what percentage of office is here, retail, and the basic dollar
amount on this one. We also came out in Money Magazine, August issue, 100 best
places to live, and Meridian ranked 74. Not Boise, but Meridian. We were the only
northwest city in here and we were really proud of that, because, you know, we had
Forbes magazine come out and rate the Boise valley as two. We had Inc. Magazine
come out and rate us as six. Money came out and rated Meridian only. So, we were
really happy about that one. So, that's kind of -- kind of what's going on. There is two
other big projects that I'm working on and I would love to tell you about it, because I
think they are just extremely exciting, but until we have all the funding in line and until
we have the land in line, I can't talk about it, but there is a lot -- a lot more that's coming.
So, do you have any questions? What questions can I answer for you?
Zaremba: Any questions?
Rohm: I just have one question. All this economic development is the one side of the
equation. The other side of the equation is the people that are already here. And I think
that it would be nice to be able to share what the value to the current residents are, as
opposed to -- in addition to the fact of these other corporations are coming in and
expanding their --
Brown: So, how they value the community, is that what you're saying?
Rohm: Yeah, because I think economic development is good for a community, but --
and be able to put it in terms of the existing residents can digest and see where they are
benefiting from all this growth.
Brown: We have also formed a Mayor's Economic Development Council and we have,
basically, the big hitters in the valley who are doing all of the economic development on
this council helping to drive us in the right direction and which industries should we be
targeting and how do we do that. We also are starting up to do Friday visits to all these
businesses. We are going to have ambassadors going out, so that these existing
businesses -- you know, they still feel appreciated and let them know what's going on
and how they could maybe partner with another new business coming in, utilizing, you
know, what they are or what services they have, too. Did that --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August18,2oo5
Page 6 of 98
Rohm: Yeah. That's kind of along the line. I wasn't necessarily speaking to the
businesses, existing businesses, as speaking more to the residents that are here, what
benefit it is to them.
Brown: To them? Frank Thomason, from the Valley Times is coming to interview me
tomorrow to put an article in the paper about that.
Rohm: Good. Good. Okay. Well, it just -- that's the -- besides the growth, there is a
cause and effect type deal.
Brown: Yes. Yes.
Zaremba: I think one of the things I have heard mentioned along that line is that goods
and services that didn't used to be available in Meridian -- you know, people that have
been long time residents, had to go to Boise or Portland or Seattle or Salt Lake City to
get things that now can be gotten right here in Meridian.
Brown: And the good news on that--
Rohm: Exactly. That's--
Brown: The good news on that is the retailers that I have been talking to, I have been
saying, okay, so are you bringing Nordstroms in? Are you bringing, you know, the
bigger -- we want a lot of the nicer, bigger, you know, national type things and there are.
So, that's good. We also want the big jobs coming in, too. And we are working on that.
Moe: Well, it never also hurts to have all the commercial tax base coming into town to
take care of infrastructure to the city as well.
Brown: Yes.
Moe: I thank you very much.
Brown: You're welcome.
Moe: I didn't really know what you did, so that helps me out a lot.
Brown: And I work really close with the building department and public works, Mike and
Bruce Freckleton, I work really close with them, charting everything and their time lines
and tracking and so that's what I do.
Zaremba: That's great. Well, it's nice to know that some of the things we get involved
in have a downstream effect.
Brown: They do. They definitely do.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 7 of 98
Zaremba: Unofficial to the city, so -- thank you very much.
Brown: Thank you.
Item 5:
Recommendation: VAC 05-013 Request to vacate a 20-foot wide
portion of ACHD right-of-way located at 701 North Black Road to be
included as part of EI Gato Subdivision by C2B Development - 701
North Black Cat Road:
Zaremba: Very much appreciated. Okay. Item 5 on our agenda is a recommendation
that we need to make to the City Council regarding a vacation, so I will open the
recommendation to discussion for V AC 05-013 and we will begin with the staff report.
Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of Commission, get ready for a staff report from a Public
Works person. It won't be as polished as my planning representative -- my planning
brethren, but here it goes. This application is to recommend a vacation of a portion of
ACHD right of way along the southern boundary of the EI Gato Subdivision that we saw
last time we met. Joe had made it a condition that they come into vacate that, so that
their preliminary plat did not include the right of way in the plat. Staff is supportive of
this. We actually asked the applicant to do that. It's along the southern boundary in the
Perdham drain, I believe. Thank you, Dave. Perdham drain. And with that we will
stand for any questions.
Zaremba: I think we did already discuss this in relation to the subdivision that this is a
portion of. I don't know if there is any further discussion or are we ready for a motion on
this?
Rohm: I move that we close the hearing on VAC 05-013.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of the VAC 05-013, including all staff comments.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 8 of 98
Item 6:
AP 05-001 Request for an Appeal for the denial of a fence waiver for
Justin Martin by Justin Martin - 5606 North Ten Mile Road:
Zaremba: Item 6 is AP 05-001, request for appeal for the denial of a fence waiver for
Justin Martin at 5606 North Ten Mile Road. And, again, this is not a Public Hearing, but
we will begin with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think this is
maybe one of the first appeals for some of you. I don't know. But the code does say
that if the applicant is in disagreement with the planning director's decision, they do
have the ability to appeal the director's decision to you. These would be on normally
some of these applications that are just at staff level that you don't ever see and fence
waivers are an example of one of those. So, we -- in this case the applicant Justin
Martin did submit a fence waiver to our department and it requested -- here is the parcel
-- here is Hero Park, pretty much surrounds their residence, and this is North Ten Mile
here. As you can see, they front on Ten Mile. There is an existing fence in front of the
house and what they were proposing to do is to take that existing fence down and put
up a six-foot concrete fence on top of about a two to three foot berm. That fence would
be the existing one and the new one would be about ten feet from the Ten Mile Road
right of way line. As you know, we normally have landscape setbacks off of major
arterials that are 25 feet in width and the code says you can't do structures within that
landscape buffer. So, Anna's decision on this issue -- a written decision back to the
applicant last month and that decision did deny the fence waiver to request that the front
setback be ten feet, not 20 feet, as required by ordinance. And her main reason was
why the city has issued many many fence waivers. We, to our knowledge, have never
issued a fence waiver for a six-foot fence in a front setback. They have normally been
along on corner lots where you have a side street and people want to take advantage of
a bigger side yard, so they normally don't want the 20 feet and they propose ten. Those
are common. But to allow a ten-foot front setback for a six-foot fence on top of a two
foot berm, the decision was that that would be a poor precedence to set. So, that's the
decision that was appealed. Again, I don't think -- you know, you don't have really any
recommendation per se on these items and the attorney could clarify, but I mean if your
decision -- if you uphold the director's decision, then, I believe they do they have the
option to appeal that again to City Council, but at this point you wouldn't need to prepare
any findings or anything, it would just be your decision stands; is that not right, Mr.
Nary?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think you -- because it is an appeal
to you and you have the ability here, I think you would have to make some finding.
They could still appeal that to the Council, but you would have to make some motion as
to what your decision is. I mean if you want the staff to prepare written findings or a
written decision and order in conjunction with that, we can certainly do that, but, yeah,
you have to have some finality to this decision for them, then, appeal it if they wish to do
that. Mr. Chairman, I don't know if the rest of the Commission has any question about
process, since, again, you don't hear these very often, I could give you, I guess, a
thumbnail of the process of this if you like.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August18,2oo5
Page 9 of 98
Zaremba: I think that might be helpful. We have two of these that we are hearing
tonight, so --
Nary: This type of appeal only is, essentially, a hearing, what would be termed in the
legal world as a de novo hearing. You do not have to pass judgment on the staff's
recommendation, you can simply hear the staff's reasoning, what the ordinance was
that was related to it, what their rationale was, but you are free to make independent
findings separate from the staff. You don't have to find the staff erred in their
interpretation of the ordinance, you are subject -- you are free to make your own
interpretation of the ordinance. The appellant doesn't have to carry a burden to show
that the staff was somehow misreading, misinterpreting an ordinance or rule or policy,
but simply they are in disagreement with it and you are free to make your finding as to
whether or not the application of the ordinance is applicable to the appellant and
whether or not they -- whatever the staff's view was you're free to do that separately and
you can make, again, your own independent finding based on what the staff's report is
and what the applicant's testimony is. My suggestion would be to give the applicant --
or the appellant no more than ten minutes to make their case and, then, you can have
discussion and, again, make some decision and motion and ruling.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Very clear. Just to make sure I understand, they would
be able to leave the existing fence where it is, but the choices are if -- either to leave the
existing fence where it is or the second choice would be to build the new fence 20 feet
back from the right of way.
Hawkins-Clark: That's correct, Chairman.
Zaremba: Any other questions? Would the applicant care to explain the desire for
doing it differently? Is the applicant here? Apparently not. Okay. Seeing no action, I
will assume that the applicant is not here. Commissioners?
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: It's my position that the ordinances are set to protect the interest of the public at
large from encroachments of this type and for us to waive that for this application, I think
would be an injustice to the ordinance that we have on the books. So, I wouldn't be in
favor of it myself.
Zaremba: I tend to agree with that and just visualizing the -- maybe not the near future,
but the very far future of Ten Mile, there may come a time when it would need to move
back anyhow. So, rather than have that future battle, I agree with the precedent that
follows the ordinance, that any new construction needs to comply with the current law.
Moe: I would concur as well.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August18,2oo5
Page 10 of 98
Zaremba: I believe, then, what we would ask for is a motion that denies the appeal and
upholds the director.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I'd like to move that we deny the appeal for AP 05-001 and uphold the findings
of the planning director.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, for the purposes of the record, would the planning department
notify the appellant that their matter was heard on this date and they were denied; is
that --
Hawkins-Clark: We can certainly do that.
Nary: Okay. Do we have something showing we have sent them a notice to be here
tonight, since they didn't show?
Hawkins-Clark: Could I refer to the clerk on that?
Johnson: No, we don't have anything in writing that we have contacted them.
Nary: I mean they have filed a letter is all we have in our records saying they were
seeking an appeal and did not -- if no one told them to be here tonight, since they didn't
provide anything, no one told them to be here tonight --
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. Just to clarify, that was in our transmittal from the city clerk's
office, they have the date of August 18th --Jessica, aren't the transmittals normally sent
to the applicants?
Johnson: No, they are not.
Hawkins-Clark: Okay.
Zaremba: In that case, my comment would be that if we contact the applicant and they
did wish to be here to make comment, that we re-hear this; is that a possibility?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 11 of 98
Nary: What I would suggest, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, is you set
this matter over to one of your September meetings, you have made a decision, you
can reconsider that, but send notice to the -- maybe direct staff to send notice to the
applicant to hear their appeal. You have preliminarily made that decision now and you
have had a motion and a second and voted on that, but due process -- we should have
sent them notice to be here.
Zaremba: Okay.
Nary: And they should have had an opportunity to be heard. So, my suggestion would
be to set this matter over. They can be heard if you still concur with that decision, you
can still go forward with that. If you decide to do that differently, you can certainly make
a motion to that effect, but I think we are going to have to provide them adequate notice
for an opportunity to be heard, so --
Zaremba: Is September 1 st soon enough to provide adequate notice?
Nary: Yeah. There is no time limit. There is no 15-day time limit, so we just need to
send them a letter saying their matter will be heard. I think to make your record clean,
you'd probably want to move to reconsider your prior motion and continue this matter to
that date certain, so that way you can make that decision cleanly the next time.
Zaremba: Commission, I would entertain a motion to do precisely that.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: Whatever he just said, I would like to make a motion to that effect.
Zaremba: Okay. Let's target it for September 1 st, if we may.
Moe: I'll second that.
Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second to reconsider our action and
continue this item to our September 1 st meeting. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
That motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Nary: Mr. Hawkins-Clark, will someone send them notice to be here on the 1 st?
Hawkins-Clark: We will certainly coordinate with the clerk's office on that.
Nary: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August18,2oo5
Page 12 of 98
Rohm: If, in fact, they choose to represent -- they don't have to be here.
Nary: No, they aren't obligated to be here, but I think we want to be sure they had the
opportunity to be heard.
Item 7:
AP 05-002 Request for an Appeal for the Cherrywood Plaza by Roy and
Richard Brown - 1701 and 1735 West Cherry Lane:
Zaremba: In that case, we have another appeal and I will open the appeal for
reconsideration -- or request for appeal by Cherrywood Plaza by Roy and Richard
Brown. This is AP 05-002. And, again, this is not a Public Hearing, but we will begin
with the staff report.
Moe: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.
audience? Okay. Thank you.
I would be curious right now, are they in the
Zaremba: Perhaps we should just carry this over to September 1 st as well.
Nary: That would probably be the wisest thing to do.
Zaremba: I believe without even taking a staff report, we will do that. Anybody care to
make that motion? I should have asked that question myself.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue AP 05-002 to the September 1 st
meeting.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: And the point being to make sure they are aware that they can appear and --
Borup: And that the applicant be notified of that meeting.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: Okay. Now we are ready to begin the actual Public Hearing portion of our
meeting and for those of you who don't attend our meetings very often, I will talk through
our procedure for a minute. In all of these cases our professional staff and the applicant
have spent some time together going over the details, so we will begin with a
presentation by our professional staff, identifying the project, where it is, what it is, and
in the case of continued public hearings, which many of them are tonight -- many of the
hearings are tonight, they will refresh our memory of what the outstanding issues may
have been. A couple of the continued ones we actually never did talk about, but staff
will bring us up to speed either way. Following that, the applicant, including any
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August18,2oo5
Page 13 of 98
supporting staff that they may have of engineers or architects or whatever, will have a
total of 15 minutes to clarify anything that was unclear from the staff, respond to things,
tell us a little bit more about the project. Following that we open it to the public
testimony and did I mention that the applicant has 15 minutes to do that. We, then,
open it to public testimony and whether you're for or against, we ask that you come
forward and, please, come to the microphone and begin by stating your name and
address and, then, make any remarks that you think we need to know about for the
record. We do ask that you limit your testimony to three minutes, so that we get through
these meetings without going to 1 :00 o'clock, hopefully. And if you find that some
previous speaker has said what you had to say, we always appreciate if you would just
say I agree with Joe who spoke a few minutes ago, we know what you mean. We do
have a provision that if there is somebody who is a spokesman -- and the example of
that would be the president of a homeowners association that's neighboring a project
that we are talking about. If that person identifies themself as speaking on behalf of a
group of people, we do allow them ten minutes to speak and, then, we ask that the
other people that they are speaking for do not make further comment, unless they have
something that we totally left out. Then, at the conclusion of that portion of the evening,
the applicant gets a final opportunity to come back up and respond to any issues that
have been raised and we ask that that be ten minutes, including any supporting staff
that they have. We have a handy light system here. When the green light is on you
have time to speak. It will go to yellow and you should begin to conclude and when the
red light is on we ask that you do conclude or turn your remarks over to somebody else.
Then, the Commission will deliberate and we may ask further questions, either of the
applicant or public or staff, and the end result is intended to be a recommendation that
we will make to the City Council where there will be another very similar hearing. And
the City Council does not always come out with the same results that we do, so if you
came to this hearing, I recommend that you go to that one as well.
Item 8:
Continued Public Hearing from August 4, 2005: AZ. 05-033 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 3.02 acres to R-8 zone for Banff
Subdivision by Landworks, LLC - 675 South Linder Road
Item 9:
Continued Public Hearing from August 4, 2005: PP 05-032 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 21 single-family residential building lots
and 7 common area lots on 2.91 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Banff
Subdivision by Landworks, LLC - 675 South Linder Road:
Continued Public Hearing from August 4, 2005: CUP 05-036 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit / Planned Development to allow reduced lot
sizes, setbacks, frontage and minimum ground floor square footage for
Banff Subdivision by Landworks, LLC - 675 South Linder Road:
Item 1 0:
Zaremba: And that being said, we are ready to open the public -- continued Public
Hearing for AZ 05-003, PP 05-032, and CUP 05-036. All of these relating to Banff
Subdivision at 675 South Linder Road and we will begin with the staff report.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 14 of 98
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Banff Subdivision is a 3.02-acre annexation, with
a 2.91-acre subdivision for an amended 17 single-family residential lots. The original
request was for 21 building lots and seven common lots and it was amended to 17. As
stated, the subdivision is on South Linder Road, just north of Waltman Court Lane and
there is several other R-4 subdivisions in the near vicinity, as well there is the -- I
believe it's a middle school or an elementary that's to the -- it's an elementary
immediately to the west of the site. The site is currently a single-family residential lot for
one existing home with several out buildings. The back portion is vacant. It is fairly flat
ground. The proposal that is in front of you is for a planned development with this
application. There is several issues that needed to be raised that are detailed in the
staff report. The first being that planned develops do not allow for perimeter setbacks to
be amended. The applicant has requested ten-foot rear setbacks. However, 15 foot is
what the ordinance says and that is what -- they are not eligible in order to ask for the --
I'm losing my words here.
Zaremba: Setback.
Guenther: They can't ask the setback to be amended on the perimeter of their lots,
essentially, is what it amounts to. The second standard is that the flag lots that are in,
essentially, the northwest corner of the property have been designed with a five-foot
common drive style lot design. The standards that are listed in the Meridian city
ordinance are designed so that homes that are two homes, which is what is in the
northwest corner, need to have 15 foot of flag lots on road frontage and with that they
have added two other five foot common lots to provide for future access to the property
north of the site, as well as an easement in this location across their common lot for
future development of the one acre site. This one,.acre site is a county property and it is
not located in the City of Meridian's annexed area at this time. As well as the property
to the south, which even though this is a small parcel and is bordered by the City of
Meridian, is not considered by our ordinance to be an in-fill parcel. This is a -- this does
not meet that classification and the allowances that go along with an in-fill parcel do not
apply to this site. The second, I guess, key issue to look at is the roadway is proposed
to be 29 feet back of curb to back of curb. The Meridian city fire has a policy that they
measure roadway that need to be 29 feet front of curb to front of curb. So, even if this
subdivision was approved, it would have to have an amended street section that that
would be wider in order to accommodate the Meridian city fire concerns. Currently, with
the 28-foot roadway, the Meridian city fire has said that there will be no parking on this
street. So, the entire roadway would be designated no parking. The other major
concern is that most of the subdivisions in the area have developed at between three
and 3.2 dwelling units to the acre, where this subdivision is proposed at a little bit over
six dwelling units to the acre, even with the larger sized lot for the existing single family
residence. With that I will try and keep this short. I'm sure you have questions, which I
will answer. The issues that I have just detailed for you are the reasons that staff is
recommending denial on this subdivision. It just does not qualify for several of the
issues that are key for this type of a neighborhood. The neighborhood is predominantly
very large lots and county lots. The properties to the -- about 200 yards to the south of
this site are all low density residential, as well as across Linder. The avenue lot size is
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August18,2005
Page 150f98
greater than 10,000 square feet. With the lot sizes that were originally proposed, they
were over half of what the R-8 standards are, which is 6,500 square foot lots and they
originally brought in roughly at 3,100 square feet per lot. With that staff felt that this is
just asking too much of the planned development standards, which are usually brought
in for a type of a mixed use and not just an alleviation of the box standards as set forth
in the Meridian city ordinance. And I'll stand for questions at this time.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Moe: Not at the present.
Zaremba: All right. Thank you very much. In that case, we are ready to have the
applicant, please.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Dave McKinnon, 735 South
Crosstimber. You guys have before you a 22-page staff report and you just heard Joe's
staff report as well. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for this product tonight and so I
think we need to talk a little bit about the design and there is a few other slides I think
Joe probably has. Do you have the elevations as well, Joe, and the slides for a couple
others. The product type you're looking at is more of a cottage product type, more the
smaller house on a smaller lot. And there is another one. You can scroll through those
real quick.
Guenther: That's the last one.
McKinnon: Is that the last one? Okay. You're looking at a product type that's small.
Right now, as many of you know, the housing market in Meridian is going through the
roof and not everybody can enter the market right now with a 200 to 300 thousand-
dollar house. Your Comprehensive Plan says to encourage the type of housing that will
allow people to have home ownership and one way to do that is to provide smaller lots.
One of the reasons for the rising house prices in the City of Meridian is not necessarily
the cost of construction, but also the value of land. In the last six to seven months the
value of land in Meridian has almost doubled, if you're trying to purchase land for
development. So, that automatically equates into higher prices for selling homes and so
one of the things we are trying to do with this site is provide a nice product that would be
viable in this area and be affordable to people that complies with the Comprehensive
Plan-and-joe, if you can go back to the overall site plan. It was the first slide. Keep on
going. There we are. That's great. When we first dealt with this piece of property, we
looked at this piece of property and the property to the north. Both of these properties
were on the market and they were being marketed together by a real estate agent. We
went and looked at the properties, made an offer on both properties and the property
owner to the north decided they did not want to sell. They decided we would try to work
with the property owner to the south, the Banff property you see in front of you. It's a
long narrow piece of property and they'd like to do something with this piece of property,
we'd like to develop this piece of property, but as you can see, there are some
constraints with this. It's 197 feet wide and 600 -- I mean almost, that's just over 90 feet
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August18,20o5
Page 16 of 98
in length. Long and narrow. The property to the north is 66 feet wide. Almost one acre
in size and it also runs the full length and we are trying to decide whether to make those
work with this piece of property and how do we develop this piece of property, as well
as provide for some sort of access to this piece of property to the north. We met with
your staff, had a pre-application meeting and we discussed a number of different issues
that Joe brought up tonight. In fact, after we had the pre-application meeting we
modified our design a little bit. Joe, can you go to the first design we submitted? There
we go. The first design we submitted did not provide any access to the north in this
location. It provided access through an easement to the property owners to the north,
because staff and ACHD said in the future the homeowners to the north will not have
access to Linder. They have asked us to provide access to this property owner on the
north and so we provided a cross-access easement at this location, which puts it behind
the garage so they can come in on this property and, then, access back to get off of
Linder. They won't have access to Linder, it's a narrow piece of property, and they don't
want them to have access right next to our access. After meeting with ACHD and the
City of Meridian, they said we are to provide access to the north. City staff also
requests we have this stub street to the south. A couple weeks ago this was supposed
to be heard in front of you and staff called us up, as Joe pointed out, and you pointed
out, Commissioner Zaremba or Chairman Zaremba. We worked closely with staff. Staff
called us in and said we have some changes we want you to make and let's talk about
those before it goes to the Commission and, then, if we can make those changes, we
can probably go to the Commission with some sort of agreement in hand. Joe, can you
go to the application we have got now? The meeting with Joe, Joe said it's too dense,
let's take some of those out. One of the reasons for taking those out is to make these
lots bigger. All the lots. If you remember from the first slide that we were just looking at,
these houses will all turn north-south, just like this area. We have turned them east-
west. They have gained in length. And we have also got a little more width. These lots
are a little bit bigger in size. We also provided two common lots that would be deeded
to the property to the north in the future, so that they would have public street frontage,
because as of right now the house that's located on this site, there is no way to gain
access to this rear part of the property, because they can't take access off of Linder.
But if they do take access off of Linder to get to this house, they would have to pour a
driveway all the way to this point in order to develop back here. So, city staff said,
please, make a connection here. We have provided a key connection there. We felt
the reason -- the best way to do that is to provide them public street frontage with a five
foot wide common lot, which is what you can do for a flag lot where there is four or more
-- three or four coming off of a flag lot. So, that's the reason for that. Work at the school
district and their staff, they supported us having a pathway through here. In working
with this site we wanted to keep this house in the location that it's at, so in order to keep
that house together, they would bring the road in and jog it around and put an open
space area right here. Joe, do you have the landscape plan? If you can flip back down.
Putting in a landscape target, they would pull into this subdivision, the first thing you see
is not houses, but you, actually, see a landscaped area. There was also provided a
picnic area, a covered area in this area. It's now shown on this plan. But a covered
picnic area so when you pull into the subdivision this is what you see, you don't
automatically see houses. We thought that would be a nice design feature for
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 17 of 98
something a little bit smaller. As far as the design of the road goes, Joe talked about
that a little bit. We have worked with ACHD and they have worked with Joe Silva at the
fire department. Joe Guenther is absolutely correct when he points out that the fire
department wants a 29-foot street section that's flat, doesn't include curb, we can
accommodate that. I have met with Joe and I have also met with ACHD. The 29-foot
street section and the 42.foot right of way, you end up with a foot and a half of right of
way behind the sidewalk. If you widen that roadway of 29 feet flat, before face of curb
and face of curb, you end up with one foot behind sidewalk right of way. ACHD is
happy with that. We are happy to make that accommodation as well. With that, we had
-- and after working with Joe Silva on this, we asked that we could have parking on one
side of the street, which meets the fire department's guidelines and it meets the
requirements for the city. The reason why we went with the 29-foot street section is
because this is a very small subdivision, we felt that bringing a 36 or 33 foot road
system for something that's very small and services a very few number of lots would be
overkill. We had a smaller subdivision, it creates more of a small neighborhood feel,
which is what this is, it's more of a cottage product than a standard housing product.
Joe, if you can go back to the current. Another thing we discussed with your staff, with
Joe, before we resubmitted this was -- we talked about the standards for attached
housing. Under the R-8 zone in the new zoning ordinance, 4,000 square feet is all you
need for attached housing. In talking with staff we felt that detached housing was more
appropriate than attached housing and that the lot sizes would be similar. We have
provided elevations that can work on these smaller lots -- on these smaller lots and still
be detached, rather than providing duplexes on this lot. Individual homeownership
without having an attached wall was thought to be preferable by both us and staff, so
that's the reason why we still got the smaller lots, but they would come very close to
meeting the standard for that. This is, obviously, a planned development, so we are
asking for some reduction in the lot sizes and lot frontage. Joe pointed out correctly that
on the Comprehensive Plan -- on the plat we have asked for a ten percent -- a ten-foot
rear lot line. However, if you see this little note right here, it says a 15-foot rear setback
is typical. We are more than happy to accommodate a 15-foot rear on the perimeter of
the subdivision. That was our intent in the first place and we had discussions with our
engineer about having a ten-foot setback on the rear at one point, he didn't take it off,
but we are not requesting a ten-foot setback. A 15-foot setback still works with our
elevations and that's what we have actually shown on this submitted preliminary plat.
We are going to need some help from you tonight. We have tried to work with staff.
Staff asked us to make the changes. We have made those changes. We were hoping
to come to you guys tonight with a recommendation from staff for approval after they
asked us to make those changes. We made those changes and we are still at
loggerheads with them. We think we have got a product that works with the city. The
Comprehensive Plan calls for this property to be R-8. In order to get eight units per
acre on -- or even six units to the acre you have to go to a smaller lot size. On the
Comp Plan it says three to eight units per acre. We fall within that. The property to the
north -- Brad, can you turn the overhead on? I gave Brad an overhead -- just a real
quick layout. That's not it. That's Justin's house. Thanks, Brad. We decided to see
what it would look like if we went ahead in the future and the rest of the redevelopment
for the property to the north. In the staff report there was some discussion that we are
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August18,2005
Page 18 of 98
not providing access to the north. In the future the existing residence would be able to
take access off of this location, the easement we provided back to this house. We have
been able to show that this could redevelop into four lots. Remember that these lots are
only 66 feet deep. There is no more width to them. So, we had them coming off of
what is an existing drive. We can't provide for that. That existing drive is not part of our
project. We can't provide access off of that, but in the future they could redevelop that
way. And Lots 1 and 2 could redevelop, coming off of the flag lots from our subdivision.
They have no other way to access that in back, unless they were to bring the driveway
through here or driveway down and, then, reduce those lots from 66 feet wide to even a
narrower section, almost making it impossible to build. So, we feel that it actually allows
for the north area to redevelop, provides a stub street to the south that ACHD wanted us
to have. In meeting with city staff, one of their comments from a couple weeks ago was
to remove that. ACHD would have nothing of that. They wanted to have the stub street
for interconnectivity. So, we ask for some help from you tonight as to what you think is
appropriate here. It is a narrow piece of property. It's long and narrow. The property
owner to the north does not want to sell the property and the owner to the south does
not want to sell. We don't want to be left hostage to requiring them to come in with us
and we don't want them to feel hostage to us that they have to come in and develop
with us at the same time. We think this is a product a little bit different and different is
sometimes scary, but we think that this product is, actually, something that would sell
very well in Meridian. It's directed towards not all the -- the smaller families, but towards
professional couples and to people downsizing. We don't see a large number of people
with children in this area and for the professionals that don't want to have to come home
and take care of a large yard. A high amenity product without having to have a huge
yard to take care of and a lot of house to take care of. With that I'd ask for any
questions that you have and I'd also ask for any suggestions that you might have to help
us to get through this tonight and see what we can do to make this piece of property
work for the development that would be a benefit for the City of Meridian.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Rohm: I think that was a good presentation. I don't have any questions at this time.
Moe: I just want to verify a couple things. You said that as far as a 15-foot setback, you
will comply to that?
McKinnon: Absolutely.
Moe: As well as the 25 foot road section?
McKinnon: The 29 foot flat road section face-to-face.
Moe: Face-to-face. You can do that. I'm a little bit -- the five foot common drive with
the flag lots, with the road through there, can you kind of go through that one more time.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 19 of 98
Guenther: Sure. Commissioner Moe. We had one recently that only had four homes
accessing the common drive. The minimum paved surface of the common drive is 24
feet. They are proposing 20 feet, each flag lot being five feet. So, even so, it would not
meet the standards of the ordinance and there is specific roadway standards for
common drives that are called out in our ordinance, which must be met.
Moe: Okay.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we have the depth on those
two lots. Those are the longest lots -- the lots up on the west end, those are the longest
lots, and we can abide by that 24 foot driveway surface for that. We just need to drag it
out into this area a little bit further west and we have the width to accommodate that.
We are more than happy to agree to that.
Moe: That would be a 24-foot?
Guenther: They would have to meet the standards of the ordinance for the minimum
road frontage on a common lot with a minimum of a 24-foot paved surface. And that
would also have to be approved by the fire department and it's such a long common lot
that the police department would also need to review that.
Zaremba: Help me understand. There were two elements, though, weren't there? The
paving needs to be 24 feet wide, but does a flag have to be ten feet wide, which means
if there is four flags in here, it needs to be 40 feet wide?
Guenther: Correct. But this is only two flags. There is only two lots actually using
those access points, which --
Zaremba: And those two lots are the ones that would develop on the next property, not
this property.
Guenther: That's correct. And for a two lot flag lot it needs 15 feet of road frontage.
Zaremba: Okay.
McKinnon: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, we can't design for that
and, then, not provide them access. If the city is asking us to help give them access,
we have to provide a way to do that and we will try to do that within the ordinance. We
can accommodate the 24-foot wide asphalt. You're asking us to provide it, but, then, at
the same time saying you can't provide it, because, then, you won't meet the ordinance
and so we are in a Catch 22 there.
Zaremba: Okay. Any further questions at this time? All right. Thank you. I believe we
will move on to the public testimony.
McKinnon: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 20 of 98
Zaremba: Thank you. Signed up we have Jerry Hiatt or Hinath. Please come forward.
Hiatt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. I'm Jerry Hiatt. I
represent my mother at 755 South Linder, the five just south of this three acres. In the
audience I have my wife and my brother, who I am also speaking for at this. I don't
know whether this is Banff or Baniff. I think it should be Banitt. You talked about EI
Gato a little earlier. I think it ought to be called EI Ghetto. We are putting an R-4 in the
midst of R-1 and R-4. It's an R-8 request. We have R-4 and R-1 all the way around.
It's -- I don't think we should be building no Garden City slum in the middle of Meridian.
Mrs. Brown talked earlier about being number 74 on her sheet from Money Magazine, I
believe it was. This will put you down about three million in 74 for developments like
this. So, I'm definitely opposed to it in every aspect of it. And I have got some other
reasons in here and I would just like to read it to you. I have got copies here if you want
to read along. Or we can give it to the planner and you can get it later. It's your choice.
Zaremba: If you have enough to --
Hiatt: I have amended that.
Zaremba: If you could give one to the clerk, please.
Hiatt: I will get my spectacles on so I can read. I oppose the development on the
grounds that as an adjacent neighbor the survey markers have never been identified to
us. Are they developing their property or are they encroaching upon and developing
what is our property? Surveyors have been all over Mrs. Hiatt's property, on the five
acres. Another developer had given her or her representative, which is myself, the
courtesy of identifying where the property lines are at. Several stakes have been
placed from the recent survey about 12 feet north of the existing fence line and 3.02
acres that are there should be developed on what is theirs and that fence should be put
in there prior to any development. He talks about the size of the lot and setbacks, so is
that -- the size of the lots based on where the fence line is or is it based on the plat?
Because the -- out front on the property line, the drive into the back has been platted
and staked. The actual property line between 755 South Linder and 675 South Linder
has not -- the pins have not been put in the ground. Out through the pasture out back
there was three stakes out there and those three stakes have been removed. So, when
we went to the Public Hearing meeting -- the local community meeting that they had, my
brother was there, he asked them what the deal was on the property lines, and the
comment was that, well, we do have some concern in area and the other comment was
we don't know what's going on. So, we would like that clarified before anything is
planned and approved.
Zaremba: Can I interrupt you for just a second, sir? Sorry.
Hiatt: Sure.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August18,2oo5
Page 21 of 98
Zaremba: You mentioned that you were speaking for the other -- are you acting as a
spokesman and they are not going to speak?
Hiatt: The next two people on the -- yes.
Zaremba: Okay. In that case we will give you a total of ten minutes, only three of which
have elapsed.
Hiatt: Thank you. The issue of who replaces the fence. The fence ought to be put in
prior to any development. There is also the problem with irrigation rights. This is the
fourth time we have had to deal with a developer in this area and this is the last side
that's open for development. Each time we have lost irrigation and had to fight for the
irrigation on this five acres. It needs to be retained as provided by the Nampa-Meridian
Irrigation District. The next comment, of course, I have already made concerning R-8
versus R-4 and R-1. And my last comment on this is concerning the number of houses.
The allowance of reduced lot sizes, reduced setbacks, frontages and minimum floor
space should be kept out of this neighborhood. Although affordable housing should be
made available, this is not the way -- or the subdivision to do it in. The gentleman used
the word cottage. That's a nice term. You know, it's a good marketing term, but I just
don't think it dwells in this area. I agree that there should be affordable housing, but I
just don't think this is the place to put it. There are much larger lots and homes
surrounding this development. The integrity of the neighborhood should be maintained
by maintaining similar lot sizes and square footage of lots and dwellings that are in
existence in the surrounding neighborhood. The main -- we need to maintain the
property values of the existing houses. We need to attract buyers in that area of the
same economic level. The tax base for the future of Meridian would be jeopardized.
The property values would not accelerate in that area and the existing neighborhoods at
the same rate as they would if it was a similar housing put in in this three acres as what
is around it. So, I have no qualms with them developing the three acres, but it should
be reduced to an R-4 at least. There is also the problem with the fire department on
means of egress in this area. They are already -- South Linder is the main arterial in
that area. There is already 700 houses down in there. There is no other exit out of
there or entrance into that. And those issues need to be resolved before more housing
is put down in there. So, I understand talking to the planner today that in the future
there is going to be an egress out to Ten Mile Road down Waltman and until that's
done, though, I think everything should be tabled because of safety issues. Any
questions?
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, questions?
Borup: Mr. Chairman. I do have one question on the fence. You said that the survey
markers are 12 feet north of your fence -- your mother's fence?
Hiatt: When we seen -- when they were first put out in the pasture we seen three
markers out there with flags on them. They have been taken down and it was
approximately 12 feet north of that -- of the fence.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18. 2005
Page 22 of 98
Borup: So, you're not sure if that was their property line or not, then?
Hiatt: Not sure, but that was where the flags were.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you, sir.
Hiatt: Thank you.
Zaremba: That covers everybody who was signed up and anybody who was not signed
up care to add anything that has not been discussed? Commissioners, do we wish to
have some discussion or are we ready for the applicant to respond?
Moe: Probably the applicant. I will have a couple questions for him as well, so --
Zaremba: Okay. If you care to return.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. It looks like there
are a few things to talk about. It's a nice opportunity, I'm glad the neighbors were here
tonight to bring up some of those issues. Let's start directly with the survey. When we
had our neighborhood meeting the survey was not complete. We had a site design that
we worked through at our office and we presented that at the neighborhood meeting.
The surveys weren't complete at that time and so at the neighborhood meeting we didn't
have an answer for where the surveys were. As you well know, I'm not a professional
land surveyor, but we have had a professional land surveyor go out there and survey
this property. The plat that you have in front of you tonight is representative of the
property lines as determined by a professional licensed surveyor. So, as far as the
property line, I have to rely on the professional that we have hired to do that. They are
licensed by the state and that's the best we can do to answer that question is, yes, this
does comply with the boundary lines. As far as where locations of fences are, as many
of you are well aware, fence lines do not necessarily depict property lines and if there is
any discrepancy there, I do have to rely on the professional opinion of a professional
land surveyor. What you see in front of you tonight is representative of that.
Borup: Question on the fence line, then. The survey line that's -- you believe is correct
is north of the fence line that is there?
McKinnon: What you have in front of you tonight -- I can't speak to --
Borup: I'm talking about where the fence is in relation to this.
McKinnon: I'm not sure where the fence is in relation to that. I wasn't out there when
they did the survey, as far as where pins were placed and where the flag is done for the
property, I'm not sure. What I do know for sure is that the plat that you see is
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 23 of 98
representative of this and that the boundary and -- when the topography map was
created for this, the house and all of the buildings were within the property line and
that's what you see represented on this map in front of you tonight. And so that's what
the plat is based on as well. One of the other comments that he had was the fence.
We are more than happy to have the fence put up prior to development. That's typically
a standard of the City of Meridian to require a fencing program prior to, so that
construction debris and construction workers lunch material doesn't fly across the
fences. That's usually a problem and the city has addressed that by the fence code by
requiring that. We are more than happy to abide by that as well by having the fence up
prior to construction. The idea that we would block the irrigation on this property -- there
is irrigation rights in the state of Idaho. We are required to provide irrigation to pass to
and -- to and through our property. I understand that very well. We will endeavor to
make sure that nothing happens. We have been working with Nampa-Meridian
irrigation about this situation already. We have had a meeting with John Anderson and
we have also discussed the pressurized irrigation system working off a loop system with
the elementary school, so -- rather than require a new pressurized irrigation pump
station for this area. We could improve the lift -- the pump station that the school is
using and, then, hook off of that to come around. Their pressurized irrigation system -- I
see Commissioner Moe looking at me a little bit. Their system loops around the
outside. They'd provide a stub to us if we upgrade where they are dragging their water
from. So, we have had some discussions with Nampa-Meridian. We understand the
irrigation issues in this area. The R-8 versus R-4 -- could you show a -- go back one
more -- there we go. Perfect. There is an R-4 subdivision right here. The average lot
size in this subdivision is just under 6,000 square feet. It's an R-4 subdivision. I have
got a map -- I didn't -- don't actually have it with me, but it's not a well detailed map.
These lots right here are 5,000 square feet. Actually, 5,009 square feet. Some are
5,008 square feet. Those are substandard for the R-8 zone. The discussion is that this
entire area is predominately larger lots. Kiddy-corner from this property the majority of
these lots in the subdivision are substandard R-8 lots in an R-4 zone. It was handled as
a planned development. It was Blue Marlin. Several of you were on the commission
when that came through. It's a W.H. Moore project. These are very small lots. On
these very small lots they also had reductions in the amount of home sizes. A lot of lots
within here were designated as having 1,100 square feet, some 1 ,200 square foot,
some 1,300 square foot minimums. They were all different colors, if you remember that.
These are small lots in this area. Another thing to point out -- Linder in the future -- and
you can see in the design of this subdivision it's widened out at this location. Linder is
going to be a thoroughfare, there will be an overpass at this location. Just, like the
overpass that's going to be under construction soon at Locust Grove. In the future
Linder will be widened and it will be expanded to include this overpass. The large lots
are not easily as marketable next to a large thoroughfare. The smaller lots, people
recognize that you will have some of that. We have provided a buffer. The existing
house, plus a long drive in with landscaping to buffer those people in the future in
having to listen to the traffic as this widens. ACHD does not include this small portion of
land from here to here in their 20 year work program. However, this portion of Linder is
in the 20 year work program and this portion of Linder is in the 20 year work program.
ACHD typically will only purchase right of way if it's in their 20 year CIP. They stepped
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August18,2oo5
Page 24 of 98
forward and said we recognize that that may have been a problem. We will pay you for
the right of way there. We do want to include that as part of our 20 year CIP. So, they
have stepped forward in the staff report you have in front of you tonight saying, yes, we
would like to purchase the full 48 feet from centerline. Right now it's a two-lane road. In
the future this will be a 96 foot right of way and they want to purchase this right of way
now, even though it's not part of their CIP, they haven't exactly detailed what the
funding will come from, but I do realize that they'd like to purchase that at this time,
rather than wait into the future and take care of this. This is going to be a wider road.
It's going to be a bigger project. It's not different from here. The lot sizes within the
subdivision towards the rear are larger than the lots within the subdivision that's already
been approved by the City of Meridian. Now, as you know, I worked for the city of
Garden City for four and a half years. This is not Garden City. The project and the
product type here is something very different. We are not talking about a lower amenity
product type. People are getting more and more discriminatory in their purchasing of
homes. You recognize that the people that are purchasing newer homes are not
purchasing lower quality homes in Meridian and Boise area, they have moved out to the
Nampa area or Caldwell areas and the Kuna areas where the price of land is lower and
the price of land, just for these lots, will push up the value of these homes. They are
going to be nice smaller homes. I can't guarantee you they are going to be large
homes, because they are on small lots, but they will be nice homes and they will be
representative of those drawings and elevations that we submitted to you tonight. We
know that there may be some issues that you have and we want your help on this. If
you have some suggestions for us, some things that might make it more tenable for you
and for the city, we are open to those. We tried working with staff, we have worked with
ACHD and we have worked with the fire department. We have had discussions about
the one way in, one way out with your staff at Linder Road -- has only one way in and
one way out right now and we understand that and in the future it may not be the best
idea to put a public school on a one way in, one way out. We don't believe that a three
lot -- I mean a three acre subdivision will add the extra pressure. I believe we are on
the brink right now that no extra development can happen in this area until Waltman is
extended in the future. With that I'd ask if you have any questions. We ask for your
support tonight and your suggestions that we can move forward to City Council with this
project.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Well, you pretty much answered all the questions that I was going to ask you, but,
then, that just brings up a couple more in your comment of suggestions and I really do
have a real problem with the amount of lots that you have got in here and the size of
these lots. I mean you have made the point that the R-4 caddy-corner there was small
lots, even for an R-8, but we are down into 35 and 36 hundred square foot in this
development here, when minimums, you know, for an R-8 are 6,500. Now, you have
got a couple, you know, over there on the west side that are getting close, but I think
when staff discussed trying to reduce some lots to make this a little bit more appealing
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 25 of 98
to an R-8 zone, I think it was more than four lots that they were looking for reductions on
and that's a big concern of mine in this thing as far as what you have already discussed
making the changes and whatnot, I'm glad to see that, but for an R-8 in these such
small lots, I think we are -- I think we are going to crowd everything in here and I realize
that it's zoned for the R-8 right now, but have you guys looked at all to reduce any of
these lot sizes again?
McKinnon: Joe, can you go ahead and flip back to the site plan that we have got right
now? We have talked about that and taken a look at it and I don't know if I did a great
job of explaining myself in the discussion we had with staff. Under the new
development code, the Unified Development Code, that has recently been discussed by
you and approved by you and recommended to City Council to approve, under the
development code --
Moe: Keep in mind it has not been approved.
McKinnon: It has not been approved. But this is the discussion that we had with staff.
Was that under that code -- and the old code was very similarly written. This part didn't
change a great deal. For attached housing you could have 4,000 square feet and 4,000
square feet and that would meet code for the R-8 zone without a planned development.
We both felt that it would be more appropriate and a better product if it was detached
from each other and we felt that if we were to push those lots closer to that 4,000
square foot in size, that it would be better to have detached, which is a better product
typically, it's a better ownership product, people would rather purchase a detached
home than an attached home. So, we said let's move these closer to that 4,000 square
foot number. If we removed this lot, we could widen each one of these lots out, it would
exceed 4,000 square feet in size. We could reduce the open space here. Drag these
lots over. We would lose one net lot -- one lot, essentially, in the net. These could be
moved over. These could be expanded to, essentially, 4,000 square feet. I haven't
done the math on the north side. On the south side we definitely have done the math.
It's a lot easier down there to make it work. By losing one lot these would all be pushed
to be 4,000 square foot lots, which would match for attached housing. We were asking
detached housing on the same lots and having reduced setback between the two on the
non-habitable side.
Moe: But as far as a PD, are you anticipating the open lot as part of the amenities in
the PD?
McKinnon: Under the PD ordinance there is a number of different amenities that can be
required. One's a pathway to public open space, which is a park, which is right here.
This area is included as an amenity with the picnic area. It can be -- it will have to be
squished a little bit. The requirement for a PD is if you want to count your open space
as an amenity, it's a ten percent open space requirement. This piece of property is not
asking for the ten percent open space requirement amenity. In fact, on a three lot
subdivision there is no -- a three acre subdivision there is no requirement for open
space. Only subdivisions in the City of Meridian that require open space are those
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August18,2oo5
Page 26 of 98
subdivisions that are five acres in size or larger. This is smaller than that and so
providing open space, it's not the ten percent area, that's why we have got the picnic
shelter in this area. So, it would be squished a little bit further. We don't want to squish
it too much, but you could take 20 feet here, incorporate that between each one -- see if
I can do some quick math here. These are about 76 feet deep. Is that right, Scott?
Seventy-eight feet deep. If we take an additional ten -- 20 feet here, that's 78, 1,400
feet, one, two, three -- it would probably be in the neighborhood 15 feet we would have
to squeeze that in order to get those lots all to 4,000 square feet. So, It would reduce
that, but we can draw that up and see how that works.
Moe: Or take another lot off to the north side.
McKinnon: We could possibly do that as well. We can redraw that and come back to
you with those drawings. We just feel that a detached product is a better product than
an attached product for ownership and marketing as well.
Moe: I have no more questions.
Zaremba: I will have to say there are elements of it that I like, but I will give you the
couple of things that I struggle with and some of them are brought up by staff and also
by the neighbor. Can you go to a larger area view? Like that. Yeah. Thank you. The
logic to me, if it were possible to develop -- it's difficult to deal with these small parcels
and I realize it gives you a tough challenge and it gives us an awful lot to chew on. One
of the struggles is isolating this little property just north of you and you have made some
accommodations for that. Logic would be that in the far future when Linder actually is
being used as an arterial and crosses the freeway and stuff like that, that it would make
more sense for all of these three properties -- my light is not working very strongly, but
the three properties that are neighboring each other -- actually, to access off of this
street, as opposed to off of Linder -- it seems a little premature to try and shoehorn this
subdivision into a spot that could develop much more favorably not only for the future
residents, but also for the current residents, if the whole picture were looked at. And
that also brings me to the subject -- and I'll ask Commissioner Borup to comment on this
as well. My recollection is that when we were discussing this subdivision, which is Blue
something. Blue Haven or --
McKinnon: Blue Marlin.
Zaremba: Blue Marlin. I thought Blue Marlin was the commercial on Eagle and Ustick.
McKinnon: Yeah. That's the marketing name.
Borup: Blue Horizon.
Zaremba: This is Blue Horizon.
Borup: Yeah.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August18,2oo5
Page 27 of 98
Zaremba: We had the discussion about there only being one way in and one way out
until now and, as I recall, we went ahead and recommended approval of Blue Horizon,
based on that it was imminent to have a second connection somewhere, either to the
east off of -- I think there is a stub street under this compass mark, but also one here.
Or to the west connecting -~ I forget what the name of that street is, but -- or that within
a couple of years, since they were setting aside space -- and I think they even
contributed to it, to get this intersection going. And I will ask Commissioner Borup
whether he agrees with me on that. I think the instinct of the Commission at the time
was to say -- we were kind of holding our breath to approve Blue Horizon, with the
thought that we would not really discuss any further growth in this area until there was a
second way out. Was it that firm or did we go that far?
Borup: I don't remember going that far, but I think we anticipated there would be --
Zaremba: By now.
Borup: Well, I thought to the east was what we thought was most likely in the shorter
term.
Zaremba: Yeah. Well -- and where I'm going is my discomfort with even adding one or
two houses more, when I feel we are way beyond -- typically -- I mean this is a cul-de-
sac and the rules usually are 50 dwelling units on a cul-de-sac and we are -- I'll take the
word for it that we are up to 700 at the moment. It may sound minuscule to say we are
not adding that many more, it's a small percentage, but it's getting a little scary to isolate
that many people with only one two lane entrance and until those improvements are
made, I, for one, am very uncomfortable discussing further development in this area. I
don't know if I'm the only one that feels that way, but -- you know, if we do take the
responsibility to make sure that public safety is available to anybody who is likely to
move in here and the end result to me is that I kind of think it's premature to even annex
this at the moment.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, help me through this process in my head, if you would. I
understand a little bit about emergency services and, obviously, you have a better grip
on it than I would. I'm trying to think of what type of catastrophe that could happen that
would block Linder that would be -- that would -- you say that you're uneasy right now
as to adding more to that. What type of catastrophe is it that would concern you in the
future? For instance, is it a traffic accident that would block people from getting in and
out of their homes or is it a life safety issue of people having to exit if there was a
massive fire in the south end of this heading north. I'm trying to understand the reason
for that. I have looked at the fire department's comments. I don't believe there were
any comments from the police department to this. I notice it was more Planning and
Zoning. But help me out with it. I'm trying to understand the --
Zaremba: A fire in the area where the word Linder is would be a very difficult
proposition. I'm also well aware that even though they don't happen very often, this is
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18. 2005
Page 28 of 98
an earthquake area and I have seen the surprise devastation that they can cause. And,
hopefully, that will not happen. They are very scary when they do. But I think it's kind of
our responsibility to be prepared for them.
McKinnon: Joe, can you go to the aerial really quick? The thought just occurred to me.
Oh, it doesn't quite show it. The school site in the back of that -- just over. There we
go. I'm a little bit familiar with Whitestone Estates Subdivision up here, with the access
further to the north in this location. There is this -- it looks like a stub. It's actually not a
stub, it's a sewer connection to the school. This was a sewer easement that runs
through here. It's bollarded off. And when it extends with the sewer easement -- if you
remember, sewer easements -- and, Mike, you may want to jump in on this and help me
out -- the sewer easements are built so that you can drive a vehicle over those. There
is a secondary access back around the school site. The school area is paved around.
Vehicles can drive and park on that pavement in that area. There would be, a
secondary access to this location for emergency vehicles. And so if something were to
happen at this location, there is a secondary road -- or secondary means of emergency
access to get to this location and to this location, if something were to happen south of
this access point. And so I remember we were dropping my kid off -- I have one child
that went to Peregrine and we used to drop off here, rather than rotate all the way
around. I have a friend that lives in Whitestone Subdivision and we'd stop by, but there
is secondary emergency -- and, Mike, help me out with that. Your sewer easements are
typically built with gravel over the top or asphalt so they can support a vehicle?
Cole: Are you asking, Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Yes.
Cole: Typically, yes. If a sewer main is run through an easement, we will have a gravel
access road for maintenance of the sewer main. This particular easement here, I'm not
aware of what the status is. I'm not familiar with each and every easement in the city.
But, general, yes, there are access roads over that for maintenance of the sewer line.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Let me ask staff a question, if I may. It's been mentioned
that -- is this road that's along here, is that Waltman, as well as --
Guenther: Yes. That's Waltman Court.
Zaremba: Portions of it.
Guenther: But this over here is where the mixed-use development for the Ten Mile
interchange occurs. It's immediately west of the large lots, Connie Subdivision, in the
southwest area of this site.
Zaremba: So, where I was going with that, if there is discussion of punching that road
through to Ten Mile, is there any thought of a time frame? Would it wait until the
interchange is done, which is several years off to --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August18,2005
Page 29 of 98
Guenther: That would come in a part of that mixed-use development for all of that
undeveloped agricultural ground at that time and a connection through to Waltman'
Court would be a long-term solution. The most immediate would be Commercial in the
location at the stub here, which would be the one coming across north of the Waltman
Court -- I think it's Waltman Court Subdivision, which was approved last fall.
Zaremba: Okay.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it sounds like there is a few
things that we still probably ought to work out with staff. I have got your comments,
Commissioner Moe, about reducing the density. I think that I saw some nods of some
heads as you were making those comments from the Commission.
Borup: Maybe you could remove two lots, one on the north, one on the south.
McKinnon: We can absolutely draw something up to see if that works and we will do
that and we'd like to come back to you and have a little more discussion about -- and
have some timing discussions with Mike and with Joe and with ACHD concerning when
the -- a secondary access to this area comes in and have a better answer for you. So, I
guess we would ask at this time for a continuance to be able to draw some different
designs up, come back to you, and make a few changes. We will make the change to
the property to the north, make that 24 feet wide, and make the road section 24 -- and
the 29-foot face-to-face, other than back-to-back. And we currently show that the -- we
will make sure that the plat's corrected to show a 15 foot rear setback instead of the
request for a ten. We will make those changes and have a chance to meet with your
staff. If we could have a couple weeks to do that. As far as the changes to the plat,
those are pretty quick drawings to make. It's moving some lines. And we can try to
make that work and that's, actually, going to help us with our elevations, if it was a wider
lot to work with, and we will probably have some additional elevations that will fit on
some wider lots, to ask for a continuance at this time, so we can continue to work with
staff and make some changes that you suggested at this time.
Zaremba: I certainly think that's reasonable. Let me throw one question into the mix,
then. If you are able to consider and perhaps accomplish the suggestions that
Commissioner Moe made -- let's see, can we actually go to a site plan? That's fine.
Would it not, then, make more sense -- and, again, I'm thinking way off into the future
and property that's not actually your property, but not only this narrow one right to your
north, but the two that are north of that, I'm sure ACHD would like them to lose their
access to Linder at sometime, too, and where I'm going with that is what if instead of --
my light's dying. Here it goes. Instead of this being a 24 foot driveway, could it be a 29
T intersection, so that it -- you actually have a stub south and a stub north and a T
intersection there, instead of a driveway. You're losing another five feet off of what you
have already agreed to shuffle, but --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 30 of 98
McKinnon: If we are losing a property to the north, it would give us some more to play
with on the north side. So, there may be some possibility of widening it there. The
bigger concern I have with that -- if you can flip back to the aerial. Okay. Great. This
property owner at the neighborhood meeting had to put in an emergency vehicle
turnaround on his property. He wasn't really happy about it when he was annexed into
the city and he was very adamant about, you know, this is -- I'm trying to see how this is
going to develop in the future. ACHD granted this access point here. It accesses this
property and this property. ACHD's major concern with this driveway was the location
of the driveway that we are proposing. They have to have an offset. This piece of --
this driveway meets the offset requirements when compared to this driveway. So, the
little piece in the middle --
Zaremba: It is far enough away?
McKinnon: It is.
Zaremba: Okay. Okay.
McKinnon: In addition to that, Commissioner Zaremba, I -- Joe, flip back real quick. I
think it would actually go right to that house, if it was stubbed right there at that location
it would go right through that house. But I guess we could move the stub in a little bit
different location connected with the cul-de-sac. But we can play with the design of
that. I think there is an area that we can design off of to see how that would go.
Zaremba: Okay. Let's see. If we continue this for applicant and staff to work together a
little bit more, is there anything that staff would want to add right now?
Guenther: Well, clear direction of what we are looking --
Zaremba: Say again.
Geunther: Staff would like the Commission to give us some clear direction as to what
you guys would like to see at this site and what you would feel comfortable approving
prior to going with that direction.
Zaremba: Yeah.
Moe: So, I guess my --
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe put a number of things in order.
Moe: I would anticipate pretty much your concerns about the road width. The flag lot
road section through there be taken care of. The perimeter or the setback to the 15
feet. I'm looking for possibly at least -- at least a minimum of one lot per side of that
road to go away. I want to get some larger lots in there. I would really rather not lose
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 31 of 98
any of the open space, if at all possible, in that north side. That's where I want to take
the one lot out. Is there anything else?
Guenther: Commissioner Moe, when staff did have discussions with the applicant there
was several other things that were brought up that Mr. McKinnon did say. We did look
at the option -- and staff had recommended that they make all of their lots a minimum of
4,000 square feet, as that is the minimum lot size that is called out in the city code. As
well as we had made a recommendation that they either stub to the north or provide
also a connection of a minimum 20 feet in this area for future roadway connections. We
understand that there is an existing garage there where the potential connection for the
roadway would happen, but staff would still feel more comfortable with having a public
road service to this site, rather than having the flag lots in the first place. What staff's
recommendation to the applicant was that the -- at the last time we met after the original
recommendation, was to provide either a large hammerhead type of a structure there
with a very narrow common lot that would be for future access to that site or something
along that method, which we never had the discussion about this type of a design. This
is not something staff had commented on with this -- with this applicant.
Moe: Before you go farther, in regard to the Chairman Zaremba's point in regards to
T'ing the road there at the end, would that be accepted to staff as well?
Guenther: That was staff's recommendation to the applicant almost to a T.
Moe: All right. Well, if it was to a T, then, I would anticipate that that's what I would like
to see.
McKinnon: Commissioner Zaremba, Members of the Commission, ACHD had a
problem with the T, where is it going to, it's going to a 66 foot wide lot. They want the
access to the south. The city didn't want the access to the south. We were stuck
between a rock and a hard place. The city staff report says we don't recommend the
stub street to the south. ACHD required that. What we did on the north side with the --
this -- I guess the - quasi-stub there, the common lots, was try to provide frontage for
those lots without having to provide a full street to that property. It's 66 feet wide. It's
not a huge property to develop and if you have a full 29-foot street section running back
into it, there is not a great benefit to ACHD or to the city, for that matter, to provide a
larger street section back there. We have discussed that option with ACHD and they
felt this was a good compromise for that.
Borup: Yeah. It's not a real practical property to develop. It's not something you're
going to run a roadway down, obviously, from Linder and -- and I -- it looked to me like,
you know, the proposed development sketch is probably the only practical way to even
try to do anything with that. But, you know, it's going to depend on the property owner if
that's something they even want to do.
McKinnon: Well--
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August18,20o5
Page 32 of 98
Borup: Has there been any discussion with the property owner to the north? Is that
something they would be looking at long term?
McKinnon: You know, I don't believe they came to our neighborhood meeting. We
have asked the real estate agent that was representing both the sellers at that time to,
again, approach them to say we would like to purchase that and we have asked her to
approach them and the answer was, no, they did not want to sell at this time. In some
of the discussions we have had, the property owner to the north that had that cul-de-
sac, the turnaround, there was some discussion that maybe he was wanting to
purchase the back half of that property.
Borup: That looks more practical.
McKinnon: That would be something that, you know, we would be fine with as well, but,
like I said, it's a 66 foot wide piece of property to drive the driveway the full length this
way, even' if it's a ten foot wide driveway, then, you have a 55-foot deep lot. Take a 20
foot front setback and, then, you take a 15 foot rear setback, which you can't reduce, as
we discussed tonight. All of a sudden we have got a 20 wide building lot and that's not
much to build on. And so we think that that one alternative we put up there probably
provides the best alternative. There is, obviously, other alternatives, but we think that
that's probably one of the best alternatives to redeveloping the property to the north.
Guenther: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Yes.
Guenther: As staff we don't make recommendations on how off-site parcels are brought
into this city or what their width is or anything along that line. Our main concern is
leaving that out, because there is no way that ACHD is going to give that property
access to Linder and this is our one shot at redeveloping that property. If it doesn't
redevelop it will probably stay a once acre tiny parcel, with a driveway access to Linder
for who knows how long. And that is -- that was the purpose that staff was looking for
either some sort of stub connection to Linder -- regardless of how wide it was, that's -- I
mean, obviously, that's the purchase that we are looking for.
Borup: But that's also why you're purposing two access points.
Guenther: No. They are proposing to put an easement here. Staff's recommendation
was to either provide a jog in the road and bring it up here and redesign some of the
portion back here, so that they can provide lots in the rear of that, or something along
that line.
Borup: That's what I was saying, you're proposing two access points.
Guenther: No. This could go away as far as we are concerned, because this driveway
cut actually cuts into their open space. So, in the future this lot -- this home here is
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 33 of 98
going to have a driveway across what is the amenity for the rest of homes in this
subdivision.
Borup: So, you're saying if there is access at the rear, then, the easement in the front
can go away?
Guenther: If that's what the applicant chooses. Like I said, we are not --
Borup: As far as staff is concerned it could.
Guenther: It could. As long as they come together with some sort understanding of
how that parcel is going to have public street frontage for redevelopment that's not on
Linder
Zaremba: But that's part of my struggle. Should we even accept this problem without
some coordination or an area plan, really, for these three properties? Is it in the best
interest to annex -- best interest of the City of Meridian to annex this problem at this
time without seeing a plan for those whole three properties?
Borup: Well, every time we annex something we do. We don't look at the adjoining
properties. And there is also -- you know, this is always an issue. Really, this is a little
more difficult because of the size and the location of the existing buildings, but there is
always the adjoining properties and always the stub streets that's -- that's included in.
It's the same issue, only this is just a lot different.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: From my perspective it seems that if the applicant were to make the changes
that Commissioner Moe brought up, that really addresses the primary issues of this
development as a whole, if they get the 4,000 square foot lot minimum, reduce the lots
on both north and south of the roadway by one, the back lot line setback be 15 feet, and
29 foot roadway and a 24 foot roadway to the back portion of the one acre lot, that
seems to me to address all of the issues that are --
Borup: In the staff report.
Rohm: -- are within the staff report and the parcel that is one to the north -- north of this
66 foot wide, they just developed that and I don't personally think that that parcel will
redevelop yet again in the near future. So, it seems logical that to provide access to the
back half without having a fully developed roadway is the most appropriate. That's--
Zaremba: Okay.
Rohm: -- my position on this.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August18,2oo5
Page 34 of 98
Zaremba: It sounds like consensus is --
Borup: I agree with that. I agree with Commissioner Rohm.
Zaremba: -- to continue this to a future meeting for the purpose of applicant and staff
working out those details and staff providing a report with conditions for approval. Is
that what we are --
Rohm: That's what I would support.
Zaremba: Okay. Do you want to pick a day?
Guenther: Mr. Chairman, it would have to be a minimum of a month, because we do
need to take this to comments meeting for at least -- and I'm not sure when the next one
is. We only had one last week and they are only once a month.
Zaremba: And it needs the ten days to go out to staff again, there would be -- I'd call
these changes --
Guenther: Yeah. And we would need to send this -- we would need to transmit this to
ACHD, obviously.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, this is just more of a cautionary I guess comment. It is within the
purview of this Commission to make some suggestions based upon the staff's report.
On this particular project, although it's a fairly small project, I mean one of the
requirements is -- because there is a conditional use requirement, is that there is
compatibility with the neighbors. As long as in your next hearing you're going to hear all
public testimony all over again and all from the neighbors -- because in redesigning this
project up here you have changed it significantly from the neighbors' comments, but yet
you haven't made any findings that it's compatible and I think this is the danger and
that's why I'm saying a cautionary statement. It's the danger of this Commission
designing the projects for the applicant as how to get them approved when you have to
make a finding that it's compatible with the neighbors who have already -- the only
neighbor that testified says it's not compatible with the neighborhood. So, I would just
caution you on this project, as well as others, in, essentially, putting yourself in the place
of the applicant. You can certainly say we agree with the staff report. We would
suggest that we are not in favor of this based on it. If you want more time, as Mr.
McKinnon asked in his early comments, to go back and redesign and come back to you,
that's fine. I just would be cautious on this one and others to redesign the project to this
degree again and make sure that you're going to take the neighbors' comments again
and that we are going to have a full hearing a second time. But in other ones -- I didn't
find a spot to interject, but the level of redesign is probably not in your best interest as
Commissioners to make objective decisions later as to whether this is an appropriate
project in the best interest of the city, because at this juncture, from Mr. McKinnon's
standpoint, if he meets all of our criteria, potentially indicated your pre-approval without
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18. 2005
Page 35 of 98
seeing it. So, I would not recommend that you -- to design them to this degree, merely
give recommendations, allow them the opportunity to redesign if they wish, or make a
decision based on what you have in front of you. But if you want to set this over, I'd just
make sure it's clear for the neighbors you're going to have a full-blown hearing, you're
still going to have to make findings on whether they are compatible and you're going to
hear whatever they want to say in regards to this project.
Zaremba: Yes. I appreciate that and I was even considering whether we would insist
that there be another neighborhood meeting. There is enough redesigning going on
and we have asked that in the past. And I certainly -- certainly at the Public Hearing
would expect to hear from everybody again and I'll leave it up to the other
Commissioners whether we would want to ask for another neighborhood meeting once
they have gotten together with staff and come up with a different agreement.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Like I say, I do appreciate Mr. Nary's comments. They are very much
appreciated. I, for one, am not a designer, so, therefore, I wasn't designing, but what --
I did want to make sure what everybody understands is -- is that this area is zoned R-8
and the whole point is to try and get within the R-8 zone requirements and as far as I'm
concerned, he's not near that at the present time, in my opinion. So, therefore, number
one, I would like to have you guys have another meeting, neighborhood meeting, if, in
fact, you're going to redesign and, yes, I would hope that the public that did speak
tonight and others would come back forward and speak again on this once they see the
redesign and, hopefully, in the neighborhood meeting they will be happy with what is
presented and, hopefully, this project can go forward. So, therefore --
Zaremba: Let's discuss timing. The choices would be September 15th, which is --
Moe: I would anticipate the 6th of October.
Zaremba: Or the 6th of October.
Moe: Yeah. I think that would probably be the way to go. What do you think?
Borup: Well, either the 15th or the 6th. Does the 15th meet the time criteria?
Zaremba: It's less than a month from now.
Borup: Right.
Guenther: I would request a little bit more time than a month.
Borup: That leaves the 6th, then.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 36 of 98
Moe: Okay.
Borup: I mean -- yeah. The 6th.
Zaremba: So, if we continue -- the question was if we continue it we don't need to
renotice; right? Even if the changes are significant, it's still the same application, the
same Public Hearing?
Borup: The street's not going to move, is it?
McKinnon: We are reducing lots, it shouldn't have to be renoticed.
Zaremba: Okay.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, since the recommendation is to
reduce lots, not increase them, and because this was the open hearing an opportunity
to come here, you can continue it without having to renotice. If, certainly, the
Commission believes there is a need to, you can certainly recommend that or direct that
as well to renotice it, too, so that's within your discretion.
Moe: Okay. Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move we -- what do I move to do here? I'm figuring that out here. I'm just trying
to figure out where I was here. Move the Public Hearing on AZ 05-033, PP 05-032, and
CUP 05~036 be continued to the regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting of
October 6th, 2005, and I would also request a renotice of all three hearings.
Borup: Even though that's not necessary?
Moe: Yes, I do.
Zaremba: And did you want to include in your motion suggesting another neighborhood
meeting?
Moe: Yes. And I would also like to have another neighborhood meeting required prior
to our hearing date.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 37 of 98
Zaremba: Thank you all very much. We have reached 9:00 o'clock, which is
traditionally time for us to take a break. We will take ten minutes and reconvene.
(Recess.)
Item 11:
Continued Public Hearing from July 21, 2005: AZ 05-030 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 5.1 acres to R-8 zone for Windwalker
Subdivision by Beckit Development, Inc. - 2770 South Locust Grove
Road:
Item 12:
Continued Public Hearing from July 21, 2005: PP 05-030 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 24 residential building lots and 4 common
area lots on 5.10 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Windwalker
Subdivision by Beckit Development, Inc. - 2770 South Locust Grove
Road:
Zaremba: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we will reconvene our meeting and let the
record show all Commissioners that were here before our break are here again. And
we will open the continued Public Hearing for AZ 05-030 and PP 05-030, both related to
Windwalker Subdivision, and the purpose of continuing this until this meeting was for
the single subject of discussing the ten foot -- ten foot setback, excuse me, around the
perimeter of the property and -- we will begin with staff comments.
Guenther: Mr. Chairman, you also have to open CUP 05-036, which is on the front
page.
Nary: No, that's --
Zaremba: 036 is Banff. Yeah.
Guenther: Oh. Okay. Sorry. This doesn't have a CUP associated with it.
Zaremba: This does not have a CUP. Thank you. So, we are referring to AZ 05-030
and PP 05-030.
Guenther: That's correct.
Zaremba: And does staff have comments for us?
Guenther: Staff has one comment and that is that the applicant has delivered to us an
indication that she met individually with every owner that she possibly could and they
are still amenable to going to the ten foot side yard setback, which would be the rear
setback of the other two subdivisions, and staff still supports the design as presented
with the conditions of approval.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August18,2005
Page 38 of 98
Zaremba: Okay. Commissioners, any questions? Okay. And we said that we would
allow either Mr. Harris or Mr. Williams to address that for us on behalf of the applicant.
Are either one of those here?
Williams: Good evening. Carla Williams. 2065 East Fairview. And, yes, I have met
with as many of the homeowners that I possibly could get ahold of. I have an updated
version of what I had provided -- of what I provided to staff and out of the 21 homes that
are backing up to this development, 15 residents have told me that they are in support
of the ten foot variance. Two of the homes are vacant. And there were four homes that
I was not able to contact. So, that's about a 71 percent of the neighbors that backed to
Windwalker are in support of the ten foot variance. I have picked up the variance
application. I'm prepared to fill out all of the documents required for that and to pay the
fee if that is the recommendation.
Zaremba: All right. Thank you. Any questions from the Commissioners? Okay. That's
very helpful. Thank you. Then, we also said we would hear from a spokesman from the
subdivisions and would that Mr. Strolberg?
Strolberg: I'm Eric Strolberg, 1872 East Dwarshack. And I was a spokesman at the last
meeting. My understanding with the neighbors I talked to and Mrs. Williams said that
we would accept the additional five feet, making a ten foot setback. The consensus
from the people I spoke to still don't care for the development plan, but they would
accept the additional five feet, is what we were going to address tonight.
Zaremba: Great. Thank you very much. Commissioners, any further questions?
Okay. And either staff or Mr. Nary, is there a form that our recommendation to the City
Council needs to be in that indicates -- I think the consensus of the Commission was
absent the ten foot setback we would actually wish to deny it, but it's conditional on that
ten foot setback that we would recommend approval. Is there a way that we should
state that?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, what I would recommend to you,
then, is if that is your -- if that is your desire to recommend approval only contingent
upon that and since, obviously, this Commission doesn't get to hear those applications
for variance, that's probably the nature of what your motion should be and your
recommendation or direction to the staff is not to prepare findings necessarily, but to
simply forward that recommendation for approval, somewhat similar to the older format
that we used to do prior to the recent changes in how these go to the Council, is simply
that recommendation with the staff report, with the reasons for the approval based upon
that ten foot setback, instead of the five, and have the staff forward it in that manner and
if the Council were to, then, concur with that and grant the variance, then, they could
direct findings to be prepared to that effect and that would probably make more sense
for the staff to be in this very odd quandary of preparing findings for approval contingent
upon an action the City Council hasn't even heard in front of them yet. The only other
issue would be is, then, the application would have to get filed, requesting that and,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August18,2Q05
Page 39 of 98
then, the staff and probably the clerk's office would have to track to make sure those
projects stayed together and the variance would have to get heard prior to those
-- prior to this application being heard. It can be heard the same day or heard on the
same night, because we have done those before as well at the Council level, so -- but,
hopefully, that answers your question. I think you would want to make a
recommendation and staff would forward that with a report to the Council.
Rohm: Before we move forward with that, it seems to me that if the project can't come
to fruition until the variance has been granted or denied, then, what would be wrong with
just waiting until the application for variance catches up with the project, so that they all
three could move forward concurrently? I mean not -- they would still -- the project
would still gain approval or denial at the exact same moment, because you can't
conclude the development until the variance is acted on; is that correct?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Rohm, I guess I'll
see what Mr. Hawkins-Clark's perspective is. This is a little bit odd in the sense that
you're only -- if this is your only basis for granting approval of the annexation request is -
- and the plat is this variance, I don't know if we have had cases where the Council has
only heard the variance and you haven't had this moved forward until that's been
decided. I can't recall -- I can't recall any like that. I think what we had is we have had a
-- that I can think of -- we have had applications and projects go forward to City Council
at the same time that the variance was before them and if for some reason in timing the
variance application somehow got on the agenda before this project or after this project,
we always tracked them and kept them together. But I can't think of one -- and maybe I
misunderstood your question. If you wish to move this forward, you certainly can,
based upon that variance issue and the Council would have to hear it in that manner. If
they, again, denied the variance, they would know your recommendation is denial. If
they denied the variance, it wouldn't comply with the staff's recommendation and it
would be denial as well and the Council would probably address that accordingly. Am I
incorrect, Mr. Hawkins-Clark? I don't recall any that we separated them, so --
Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. I don't believe we have had that.
Moe: I just want to make sure -- I mean we are approving these as per staff comments,
along with the variance.
Zaremba: Yes. All previous staff comments, plus the requirement for the variance.
And my instinct would be -- since we don't hear the variances or any part of it, I don't
see the need for us to continue this Public Hearing in front of us. If I'm understanding
Commissioner Rohm's question, you were thinking we wouldn't take an action until we
knew about the variance.
Rohm: Well, just so that they would all finish out at the same time was my only
comment, but if, in fact, the two are going to get married back up when they are before
City Council, there is no reason to delay our actions tonight, so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 40 of 98
Zaremba: If it's properly worded, I think the City Council understands that our
recommendation is based upon the requirement of the variance.
Rohm: Okay.
Guenther: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Yes.
Guenther: There is several remedies that can happen with this project and it wouldn't
necessarily mean that they would have to do the variance, which is where you keep --
you keep mentioning the variance. With that, what you're recommending was the ten-
foot side setback. How the applicant chooses -- she could potentially keep the 15-foot
front setback and choose to redesign her front buildings in order to meet that 15-foot
front setback and that would be another option for her. There is several options.
However, if she wanted to choose the variance option, she could definitely do that and
keep -- and just move her building envelope closer to the road, which is what we have
indicated that we would support that as well. But she's got many other options to do
that. But what I'm getting from you is that you're just looking for a ten-foot side setback
for this site.
Zaremba: I think that was the net result of the discussion last time was we narrowed it
down to that. I'm pretty sure we did -- once, again, there could be a complete redesign.
They don't have to be duplexes, they could be --
Guenther: Well, they would have to be with this type of -- with this design with the
common lots. That is a requirement of the R-8 district. But to make a variance a
condition of approval is not the way that staff would recommend that you make that
motion. Or just make a motion that it's a ten-foot side setback and let the applicant
decide how she wishes to pursue that.
Zaremba: I can work with that.
Borup: Same result; right?
Zaremba: And just to clarify, since the buildings are turned sideways, when we talk
about the side setback, we are talking about the perimeter fence line of this property.
On a normal project that would be the rear setback, but it's the side setback, because
the buildings are oriented differently. So, I just want to make clear that we are talking
about the perimeter fence line, regardless of how the buildings are oriented. Are we
ready for -- our first motion would be close the Public Hearing if we are out of
discussion.
Rohm: I'll make that motion.
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 41 of98
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearings on AZ 05-030 and PP
05-030.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval
of AZ 05-030. End of motion. Oh. Wait. Excuse me. To include all staff comments
from both the hearing dates of July 21st, 2005, and August 18th, 2005.
Rohm: Second.
Moe: I'll do that on the --
Zaremba: Are we including the ten-foot setback?
Moe: We will when I do the preliminary plat.
Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward onto City Council recommending approval of
PP 05-031, to include all staff comments of the hearing date of July 21 st, 2005, as well
as August 18th, 2005, with one additional site specific condition, number 22, and that
would be to require a ten foot setback -- side setback at all lots. End of motion.
Zaremba: Okay. And I believe you said that the file number was PP 05-031. It's
actually 030.
Moe: I'm sorry. 05-030. That is correct.
Zaremba: Okay. Is there a second?
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 42 of 98
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 13:
Item 14:
Item 15:
Continued Public Hearing from July 21, 2005: AZ 05-015 Request for
an Annexation and Zoning of 59.30 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for
Crossfield Subdivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC - 955
West Ustick Road:
Continued Public Hearing from July 21, 2005: PP 05-017 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 246 building (244 residential units, 1 daycare
& 1 pool/locker facility / restroom) lots and 26 other lots on 59.30 acres in
a proposed R-8 zone for Crossfield Subdivision by Packard Estates
Development, LLC - 955 West Ustick Road
Continued Public Hearing from July 21 2005: CUP 05-022 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single-family
residential units with a request to allow for reduced setbacks, reduced lot
size, reduced frontages, reduced house sizes and block lengths in excess
of 1 ,000 feet in a proposed R-8 zone for Crossfield Subdivision by
Packard Estates Development, LLC - 955 West Ustick Road:
Zaremba: Now, we will open the continued public hearings for AZ 05-015, PP 05-017,
and CUP 05-022. All three of these relating to Crossfield Subdivision and we will begin
with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. As you may
recall, Craig Hood was the planner on this project and he's being wed this weekend, so
I'm filling in. So, I would just touch on some of the highlights that Craig and I went over.
As you probably recall, you primarily continued the hearing the last time because of the
-- you needed -- you wanted a little more time to read over the applicant's response.
Mrs. McKay did get a letter in, but she received the staff report late, so I think it was for
you to get a chance to read through her responses and, then, asked staff also to get
you an amended staff report that kind of tried to blend the two and so Craig did submit a
strike through version of the staff report for the packets for you. I won't go over the
aerial or the plat. I don't think -- suffice it to say that one of the five or so issues that I
think is outstanding tonight deals with this area up here in the northeast part of the
subdivision and whether -- the question being whether or not those -- that area should
be held out until future development continues in this area as to whether or not a
neighborhood center can develop. So, something non-residential. They are proposing
all residential with this application and Craig's recommendation was that they hold out
the area that is north of the street -- I forget the name of the street that crosses east-
west, but I believe that one. So, that would be held out as probably a single lot. It still
could be annexed, it could still be plated, but would be held out, so that neighborhood
center concept in the Comprehensive Plan is given an opportunity to work in the
marketplace, if you will. The applicant still wants to continue as it's proposed and the
staff thinks that -- you know, really, it's an issue, I think, of -- is what's the viability of
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 43 of 98
these centers does remain a question that's out there, but if you begin to fill it in with
residential uses, it really starts to dictate what happens -- in this case it would be to the
east across Venable Lane. And, you know, I don't think we are talking about a whole lot
of ground, it's just enough that you could get some good neighborhood services to work
there. I think Becky's primary point had to do with office vacancy rates and I guess I
would just point out there are office -- that's very true, I mean Meridian is seeing some
very high office vacancy rates. I don't think -- if you read the Comprehensive Plan, the
point is not to put -- just load these up with just office uses. You know, there is a
number of different kinds of land uses that we think are appropriate in these centers,
recreation oriented, civic oriented, you know, small retail, day cares, which, you know, I
think is already a part of the application. But, you know, there is just a real mix of uses
that could go there other that office. So, I guess that's my main point on that area. So,
that remains one area of disagreement. I think page 21 of the staff report still states
that a master grading and drainage plan should be required. Again, this relates to the
high groundwater in the area and if you want Mike Cole from Public Works to address
that further we can, but he did tell me that the Public Works Department would still like
to see that master-grading plan done. Page 24 condition deals with the stub street to
the seven acre parcel owned by the Simunich's and the staff report requests an
extension of the stub here along the north and I think you did have a little bit of
discussion at your last meeting on that, as well as I think there was a comment from Mr.
Simunich and his letter, which you received in your packets, as well as Waterbury Park
homeowners association I think also talked about it. So, again, I think staff's position is
for seven acres, you know, two points of access is probably a good thing, especially
given that we don't know how Venable Lane is going to work down there. Well, we
know that it really probably won't function that far south, so -- let's see. We talked about
the area up north. The master grading and drainage plan. The stub street. There was
-- Craig did ask for a clarification on the accessory dwelling units on page 28 of the
report. It's -- there appears to be agreement that in order to get the density in these
neighborhood centers, in this case adding 12 -- I think it was 12 accessory dwelling
units, right now it's -- we are requesting that they actually identify on the plat which lots
those would -- those would be required to be placed on. So, I think if we could just have
some clarification for the record tonight from the applicant that would be good. And,
then, I think the last issue is dealing with the alley-loaded setbacks, the rear setbacks
on the garages on the alley. Craig had presented I think an option as to whether or not
they go with a five foot from the edge of alley or a 20 foot and the applicant told me
tonight they would prefer to go with the five foot and they think that remains a valid
option for you to talk about tonight. I would point out that we have -- staff did look at this
during the design or the development of the Unified Development Code and felt that the
20-foot was preferred. But I -- again, that's not adopted and I think that the -- you know,
the five foot is an option for you to talk about tonight and for them to propose, so -- I
think the last item which probably deserves some discussion, but I didn't really see it
talked too much about in the reports, in the communications, just has to do with the
annexation, the overall, and just -- you know, this is probably more policy, frankly, than it
is ordinance, but creating an enclave. These are something that, again and again, this
body and the City Council has dealt with. They really are not good things to deal with
and the bottom line is when you -- when you have a parent parcel like this and in this
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 44 of 98
case it was, you know, seven acres is broken off of the parent parcel and as I
understand is under separate ownership today, and if that separate parcel, you know,
meets Ada County's code, which in this case would be a minimum of five acres, then,
Ada County views it as a legitimate legal split and that's recognized by Ada County as
build-able and, in fact, this -- that lot did have a house put on it and has hooked up to
sewer. So, I think it might just be worth this body giving that some discussion in terms
of is it in the best interest, you know, for you to annex and leave out the seven acres.
Again, I think ordinance -- straight ordinance reading would say since it's separate
ownership, you probably don't have too much of a leg to stand on. But I think you
certainly have the ability to encourage them to address this and you would be creating,
you know, a seven acre enclave by this annexation and that's not something that the
City Council or you, for that matter, have wanted to see in the past and staff certainly
does not think they are good things to create. So, I think those are the highlights that I
picked up on anyway.
Zaremba: Thank you. Questions for Brad?
Borup: I just -- I was out of town the last meeting. Who are the two owners of the
property at this point, then? You said separate ownership between the seven acres and
the rest -- and, then, the application before us?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Chairman -- or
Commissioner Borup, the original parent parcel was owned by the Simunich's and now
just the seven acres owned by them and the applicant Packard Estates development is
Borup: So, they have closed on the property?
Hawkins-Clark: Well, I'll let them answer that, but I believe so.
Borup: Well, somebody's closing on it if it's under separate ownership. So, you don't
know who the owner is, then?
Hawkins-Clark: Well, Packard Estates is the applicant.
Borup: I understand that. Okay. They can clarify that, then. I mean the application
shows it's one owner.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. And I think that's part of why I wanted to bring this up, because -
- you know, to address -- get clarity on the record for that.
Zaremba: It's a legitimate question, because the City Council has at least once and
maybe more than that, remanded something back to us because it created an enclave
that was under common ownership. And so we will ask how legal is the split. Or how
final, I guess. Any other questions from the Commissioners at this point? Okay. Let's
have the applicant come forward, please.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18. 2005
Page 45 of 98
McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle. I
promise I won't talk as long as Dave McKinnon, if that's any consolation.
Moe: Yes, it is.
McKay: I'll try to address the key issues, as Brad indicated, that we were asked to
provide the Commission opportunity to review the information submitted in writing and
to kind of ponder their thoughts, because of the complexity of this project. One of the
things I'd like to touch on is that neighborhood center concept. The Waterbury -- well,
that was working. The Waterbury Park association president submitted a letter to the
Commission stating that when the Comprehensive Plan map was going through, that
they had objected to the neighborhood center dropping down south of Ustick, that they
appeared not to be opposed to the half moon type concept, which we find throughout
the north Meridian area, but in this instance they kind of dropped to the south. If you
look at your Comprehensive Plan, you can see a lot of the neighborhood centers are
just a half moon, but this one in particular did -- is a full circle. Now, one of the things
that, obviously, was not considered was the fact that they had already cut off a lot of
their options for Venable Lane to ever come down into this interior of this section and
feed that traffic out. And I think, as I mentioned before, and for Commissioner Borup, I'd
like him to take this into consideration -- the whole intent behind the neighborhood
centers is that we capture traffic within the interior of the section, that the collectors
come in, they protrude in, they are non-continuous in some instances, but that they
gather traffic from the larger internal, detached single family, and then, as we head
toward the arterials, the density increases and the uses intensify, therefore, providing
some type of neighborhood commercial, office, et cetera, to provide services for this
particular section. But in this instance Venable Lane, one, has been offset north of
Ustick at Cedar Springs, so there is no way that our development could extend Venable
Lane or make those improvements. This property here has to be developed, the Ward
property, in order for that to ever take place, because the alignment is on the Ward
property. Secondly, we have got the Creason Lateral that is open through here. When
Waterbury Park was approved by the City Council, there were no provisions for any
connection to that Venable Lane or for it to continue even further south to feed this
interior out. So, from a planning perspective what happens if we do leave this out and
say you put commercial uses there, all you're creating, in my opinion, is a strip type
commercial facility, because it's going to be collecting traffic that's going up and down
Ustick, not reducing the number of trips that are on the arterial by capturing what's
coming out the collector. And in your diagrams that were included in the
Comprehensive Plan -- I'm sure you're quite aware of it -- talks about that this is not to
be taken as gospel or the only way that a neighborhood center can develop. It talks
about keeping our blocks down to 300 foot, if possible, which in our plan here. as you
can see we have very short blocks. It talks about having grids, keeping a grid pattern
and interconnectivity between properties or other parcels. We have got a stub street
here on the west, on the east. We have got a stub street here going west and going
east and, then, one to the seven-acre parcel here. We have provided a non-continuous
collector that terminates here where our -- where the clubhouse and splash pad and
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 46 of 98
swimming pool facility and restrooms will be right there. So, we have gone on a grid
pattern. We are interconnecting for your pedestrian pathways. We have got an existing
multi-use pathway along Five Mile Creek here. We are providing that interconnectivity
at this point. Also it talks about the right of housing choices, arranging things in what
they call a radiating pattern. We put all of our higher density up here and with that
neighborhood center, as you well know, it talks about eight dwelling units is the target or
the minimum. When we take this acreage here and we looked at the density that we
are proposing, which does include the 12 accessory units, we are at 8.19 percent. Or
8.19 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, we are meeting that criteria. As we come south
into the project, the lots go from 5,000, 4,000, down in here to the 6,600 square foot,
6,200 square foot. As we go further south they go to 7,700 square foot, 8,500 square
foot, and down in here we have like nine and ten thousand square foot. So, we are
providing a variety of lot sizes that will accommodate a variety of home choices. If
Venable Lane ever does develop, say hypothetically the Ward property at some point in
time will develop, we have created this east-west street, which will provide a connection
to that, so that in the event it would ever become signalized, even though ACHD says
that the trips generated at this intersection they don't believe will ever meet a warrant for
a signal, we have provided this connection here and we have landscaping running along
the south side of this. We do have front-on housing here, but these are all alley loaders.
And my client took great care to -- did quite a bit of research to look at what type of
product could go in there and in the discussions about the five feet versus the 20 feet,
here is some products where you can see that there is five feet. The alleys look tidy.
They have got a lot of landscaping. There is no room to park the vehicle. There is -- I
can see a vehicle right here, but there is kind of like a little enclave in there where they
have parked that. This is what we find at Heritage Commons. They have got a 20foot
setback. As you can see, it appears to be kind of plain, very bare boned, and so we felt
that the five foot setback would provide us a little bit better look. And I'd also like to
submit for the record what we believe these accessory units are going to look like.
There is two ways that you can do that. Here is one you can see is an exterior access
to it and there is a third bay garage. So, there is three garages that are provided off of
the alley. This particular style, the accessory unit is to the rear, detached from the
primary dwelling, and that's a little plaza area that's in between the dwellings. So, we
have been working very diligently to try to provide some type of quality development
that will give a new type of product to the market. Not just little bitty lots with little bitty
houses. We redesigned this project three or four different times. We looked at
incorporating other uses up here in this section, but with the Venable Lane issue a
question mark, it was impossible. There is an existing house here, we incorporated that
internally to take the direct lot access off of Ustick and the idea we came up with that
facility was that we could turn that into a day care that would be able to serve this
neighborhood and it would also capture traffic. One question that Brad brought up is
the issue of the enclave. The seven acres that's right here that is still owned by Mr.
Simunich, it is my understanding that seven acres was a separate parcel that he
purchased from someone else. Now, he may be able to add to the record as far as the
history of that and that has been relatively recent. The subject property is owned by
Edmonds Groves Land Holdings, Inc., and so it is under separate ownership. Now, as
far as this enclave, the Council kind of gave their blessing that it not be annexed,
Meridian Planning 8< Zoning
August 18. 2005
Page 47 of 98
because when Mr. Simunich was anticipating building his dream home on the seven
acres, he went before the City Council and got a waiver to hook up to central sewer and
water without being annexed. And as you well know, the ordinance states if you utilize
Meridian city water and sewer you will annex into the city, unless a waiver is granted by
the Council. And I think he can probably elaborate on that. So, I mean it was,
obviously, his wish that he not be annexed, this was owned by another entity and the
Council allowed him to not be annexed and still utilize your services. We have a really
good project here. There is nine percent open space. We have got pathways that are
interconnected throughout the whole project. We have agreed to leave the Creason
Lateral open, go in and see what Nampa-Meridian will allows us to do to improve the
esthetics of it. It does have some redeeming qualities. Mr. Simunich asked that we
leave it open. This was one of the most difficult properties that I have had to deal with
from a land use perspective. When you have all of these existing stub streets that I
have to connect to, that is setting these street locations. Just also to refresh your
memory, there is an existing sewer trunk, when Mr. Simunich gave the City of Meridian
easement that went over to Waterbury Park right here. So, we also had to fit this street
to fit that sewer line and it kind of angled through there and, then, was only, I believe, 97
feet off of the east boundary. We had the Creason Lateral to contend with and we also
have the flood plane. There are approximately 56 lots all within the flood plane. It is our
intent to comply with the ordinance, to either have the finished floor elevation one foot
above the flood elevation or to go in and do a Lomar where you provide some fill to the
site and build it up above that flood elevation and take it out to -- out of -- so they don't
have to have the insurance, the flood insurance. So, I guess what we are asking you
this evening is to modify some of these conditions. I don't think that it's fair to this
project to lop off that northeast corner and make it sit there to provide for a possible
market that we don't know that will exist or a collector that's never going to go south and
serve anyone. The neighbors don't want it in Waterbury Park. They feel it would just
add additional traffic in that area and I tend to agree with them. I just don't think it's a
good idea. It was kind ill conceived. The other issue is -- there is a condition on here
that asks that we provide a grading and drainage plan. We have 13 test holes on this
property. We have been monitoring it for a year and a half. It was in agricultural
production, so we were seeing some spikes in it. Since they took it out of agricultural
production we have seen a decline in that groundwater level and it is the estimate from
our geo tech, which submitted the report to Public Works for their review, that the
groundwater is approximately four to five feet. We can clean the drain. They also
believe, since it hasn't been cleaned for 15 years, that that will reduce the groundwater
level, because the level of the groundwater is higher over next to the drain, which
doesn't make a lot of sense. So, we believe that this site is not unlike some of the other
sites that are out there, it's not like we have got groundwater at 18 inches like you have
seen at some of the other sites. This is a good project and it should be approved. Mr.
Simunich has cooperated with the city for years and provided them area for pathways,
sewer easements, and now this is kind of like an in-fill parcel and I think we have done
the best we can with what we have worked with and tried to make it as compatible as
possible. Do you have any questions?
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions at this point?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 48 of 98
Borup: A couple.
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: This would be a 59-acre in fill.
McKay: It's a bigger one.
Borup: It is. You talked about the design on the neighborhood center and from what I
could tell that was one of your reasoning's for the denser housing product as you got
closer and closer to the neighborhood center?
McKay: Yes, sir. That's what your Comprehensive Plan --
Borup: Okay. Right. I understand that. I just don't see a neighborhood -- I mean I
don't see -- I don't see the business commercial part of this neighborhood center here
and if that's the rationale for the denser properties, shouldn't that also be accompanying
it?
McKay: Well, to answer your question, it would have to be oriented to this Venable
Lane, because based on -- based on what we have to work with as far as the
guidelines, this is the half-mile at this location. They put commercial around that half-
mile collector. Those collectors lead into schools or come deep into the interior of the
section to create enough vehicle trips to, obviously, support that commercial. Venable
Lane -- we can't build Venable Lane. It's going to be to the east of us. Now, we have
provided a 25-foot landscape area. We are piping the Flack Drain, which would,
therefore, create a buffer. It's not like these lots would back up to it, but --
Borup: I understand all that. But my question still is the rationale for the denser product
is because you're trying to fit the criteria of a neighborhood center; is that correct? You
can't have a neighborhood center without the center.
McKay: There is no center.
Borup: That's what I -- so what's the rationale for --
McKay: The rationale is we had to have some type of components, because your
Comprehensive Plan delineates what they want to see in this area, even whether it
makes sense or not, we felt -- and your staff felt that it was important that some of the
components, as much as possible, we incorporate into this plan. If this were just a
straight 3.5 dwelling units per acre, the lots were all 7,500 square feet; I don't think
that's what should be put on this property. That's not what should be placed on this
property. Ustick Road is going to be a major arterial and we have to start thinking about
what we are going to -- what type of product are we going to put up against those
arterials, because a lot of them are going to go five lanes and I see subdivisions that I
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18. 2005
Page 49 of 98
have done years and years ago that back up to like McMillan and Eagle Road, Madison
Park is one, for example, and every time I drive by it I kick myself, because backing in
those lots up to a five lane roadway, I feel bad for the people that live there due to the
noise and the high volumes of traffic. So, I don't find an error in the higher density being
up there by the arterial and that's not necessarily just a component of the neighborhood
center concept, it's a component we use in planning to transition to the interior.
Borup: I agree with that. That's two different -- but you're going two different -- coming
from two different directions there.
McKay: This is a tough one. It's complicated, sir.
Borup: That's alii had at this point.
Moe: I would just chime in in regards to the same point. Then why not wait out the
northeast area to see what, in fact, does happen? I mean if it's all put in there in -- I
think it's a two year hold at that point, then, you're able to develop at that point, if, in
fact, the neighborhood concept isn't going to happen in that area. Now, I realize that
Venable Lane is -- and the property to the east are the ~- gee, the what ifs. But I think
that -- again, I just go back to the entire plan of the Comprehensive Plan was to see
these things happen. What we more often than not have been seeing the projects
come in here that are all around the neighborhood centers and we have yet to really
implement much of a plan on any of them, because everybody wants to do something --
you know, stay away from them. So, having said that, my next question I have for you -
- you did a good job showing us the renderings or the photos of the five-foot setback
and the 20 foot setback within the alleys and whatnot. I would anticipate that you could
probably esthetically change the looks of the 20~foot setback to look more like the five
foot, if, in fact, you wanted to do that within your development.
McKay: Yes, sir.
Moe: Okay. But I follow your point that it's the way it was. But it could happen. Okay.
That's it for now.
Zaremba: Well, one of the things we have done along that subject is -- on other
properties, suggest that it could be a five foot setback to the living area, but still a 20
foot setback to the garage, so that there is off-alley parking. That's just a comment. But
on the subject of the alleys, according to the staff report, the lots actually go to the
center of the alley, so that -- if I'm understanding that correctly, everybody that has a
house that's alley loaded actually owns a piece of the alley and my -- and if that's true,
then, the question is what about maintenance? Doesn't it make more sense to put the
alley into a common lot to get it maintained?
McKay: Yes. To answer your question, Commissioner Zaremba, they -- we discussed
that last time. We did agree that we would put that in a separate lot. So, it would be
solely under the association, because there is a --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18. 2005
Page 50 of 98
Borup: I thought that sounded familiar.
McKay: There was a debate over should it be an easement, should it be a separate lot,
and we agreed that it would be a separate lot. So, we were comfortable with that and I
think staff was comfortable with that. And I think, you know, most of the issues I
believe, you know, we are in agreement with.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman? I just go --
Zaremba: Brad.
Hawkins-Clark: I mean normally the alleys are a public right of way. ACHD has title to
them. Is that --
McKay: You have the option of being private or public. That was my understanding,
based on my conversations with ACHD and Craig Hood.
Hawkins-Clark: I do believe this will be the first time that we have seen an alley be
private. I didn't know that was ACHD's policy. Certainly from the aspect of the trash
pickup and utilities --
Zaremba: Police and fire and stuff.
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. I think there is some good arguments to be made for them to be
public. I mean I guess I don't know -- I mean unless there is a real concern about the
ownership -- I mean the width would be exactly the same, it's just an ownership issue.
Zaremba: Does that create some different standard that it has to be built to or --
McKay: No.
Hawkins-Clark: No.
McKay: No. We meet the criteria. We made sure that we designed it to meet the
ACHD standards.
Zaremba: Okay. Do you have an opinion about my suggestion of having the living area
set back five feet, but the garage is set back 20?
McKay: It sounds like --
Zaremba: Repeat that if you would.
McKay: -- the applicant indicates that he's not quite sure how they would incorporate
that into the design as far as the structures that they have been looking at as far as
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 51 of 98
building on these lots, because most of them the garage is what is oriented to the alley
and the living space is toward the street, so --
Zaremba: I guess what I'm thinking -- I'm trying not to remove living space, but make a
place to park their car.
McKay: See, they look like that. So, you may have some living space, but you also
have a garage underneath. And the same would hold true here. This would be like a
front elevation here and here. So, that's the type of product that --
Moe: Gee, that's 20 feet.
McKay: They vary. There are all kinds of different ones. And some of them look like
they are even 15 feet and the staff was not comfortable with that, because they felt it
would not be long enough to -- or deep enough to accommodate a vehicle and could
impair the movement down the alley.
Zaremba: I agree with that. It shouldn't be partially deep. It either needs to be --
McKay: Either 20 -- either deep enough to accommodate a car, 20 feet long, or five
feet, so that there is no way you could park there.
Zaremba: Yeah.
McKay: So, we do see it both ways.
Borup: Another question, Mr. Chairman. Have you looked at -- one of the concerns I
can see, especially with narrow lots, is just being able to back out and pull in. You don't
have a lot of turning radius. Was that picture you showed up in Boise valley and, then,
you look at the 25 foot alley, with the five foot--
McKay: The alley would be --
Borup: Right now it shows 20. Twenty-five would give you a little bit more to be able to
pull in and pull out.
McKay: And we got two foot of grass on each side and, then, I think a 16-foot alley is
what the staff was asking for --
Borup: Okay.
McKay: -- so that the hard surface is 16.
Borup: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2Q05
Page 52 of 98
McKay: But, then, you have got two foot of clearance on each side of that and, then,
that -- you know, for storm drainage and you add some green. Because that -- I notice
from the --
Borup: Only 25 feet just as in a parking lot?
McKay: It's 20.
Borup: Twenty in a parking lot?
McKay: In a parking lot a drive aisle is 25.
Borup: That's what I thought.
McKay: Under your ordinance. Yes. But alleys are 20.
Borup: No, I understand that in the ordinance. I'm trying -- the practicality of being able
to actually use them without having to back in and you back up twice.
McKay: They are kind of new to the valley. There aren't, you know, a lot of them
around.
Borup: Well, that's why I wondered if there had been any practical experience with the
five-foot setbacks.
McKay: There is one, I think, over in Eagle that has those reduced setbacks, but,
obviously, I have never tried to turn a vehicle into the garage. It's not my project. But I
could go ask them.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I have one question. Could you speak to the phasing of this
project?
McKay: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the phasing -- I think we had
phase one is located there and, then, we had two -- one came down this area here and,
then, two was over here. We had three and, then, four. So, we brought on two different
types of lots in phase one, jumped to -- and the collector, the green space here and,
then, jumped over to here. So, that would be the third phase, the corner.
Rohm: And do you have any anticipation as to when you will -- when you would get to
phase three as a time line?
McKay: Commissioner Rohm, you know, it all depends on the market. Right now .-
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August18,2005
Page 53 of 98
the standard rule of thumb was we did one phase per year. With the demand on some
projects we are doing three phases a year, because they are just absorbing those lots
and buying those homes as fast as we can go. So, it's just hard to say. Now, if interest
rates go up and the market slows, you know, it may be a couple years out. Right now
with the market I would say they will probably go through it fast.
Rohm: Yeah. Get in before rates do go up.
McKay: Well -- and just keep hearing the same thing over and over, that there is such a
shortage of lots and such a shortage of different types of lots.
Rohm: Where I'm going with this is the community center, if, in fact, it were to be in
phase three of this development -- or the lots within that area that's designated by the
Comprehensive Plan being in phase three, is there a significant objection to going
ahead and pulling those out for now and if, in fact, by the time you get to that, maybe
the property to the east will have, in fact, come up with a solution for Venable Lane and
it will -- there will be some clarity available, so that adjustments can be made. And if
that's your third phase anyway, it's not something that would have to be -- a solution
provided tonight.
McKay: I guess that would be a question for the applicant, because it would be his call.
He would, obviously, have to sit on that corner and, then, you know, see what happens
in the future. You also have a new Comprehensive Plan map that I know Brad's been
working on and I have been told some neighborhood centers have been removed.
Rohm: And I think that the staff has done a very good job of trying to keep the
neighborhood centers alive and I think that we as a commission need to give those
centers every opportunity to come to fruition and if, in fact, we can keep that alive
without significantly harming your project, then, I think that we have been able to come
to a compromise that is in everybody's best interest. That's the end of my comments on
the community center.
Borup: The staff report already mentions that if something isn't done within two years
that would proceed ahead. And that's, I guess, your point is two years enough time or is
that going to be developed before then?
Moe: Well, if you shift it to phase four.
Borup: That would spread it out a little bit.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to the groundwater situation. I just kind of want
to get a good feel for what you will be providing the city in regards to verification that
there are not going to be problems here.
McKay: The engineer -- when we go into our design, they -- ACHD looks at the
monitoring that we have had, so we have had a year and a half. They -- if we have
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August18,2005
Page 54 of 98
interference from either perched water or irrigation, then, they will disregard some of
that data and based on the recommendations of the geo technical engineer, they will
take a conservative groundwater level and that's what we design to. The civil engineer
has to certify that that groundwater is at a certain level base on the elevation of these
streets, which is a three-foot separation. If we use say the borrow swale concept for
storm drainage retention, then, we got to have -- I think it's four and a half feet or
something separation. So, it -- we have seen a few projects where we saw some spikes
in groundwater, but the ones that it took place in it was due to agricultural uses next
door to us that negatively impacted us. Now, we are hoping -- I think the staff has
received information from some of these subdivisions that are around there that they
had some wet space in their crawl spaces. So, that was one concern, I think, that they
had about this property. But, like I said, this property could be the culprit that's causing
some of their problems. So, hopefully, now that it's out of agricultural production that
that can be alleviated. This drain has not been cleaned for 15 years and it -- the flat
comes here, comes down, and, then, dumps into the Creason Lateral. We had taken
shots all down the Flack Drain, inverts at the Creason. The drain could be deepened
and cleaned a little bit and, then, when we put it in like a perforated pipe, that will also
take that groundwater away and create a free-flowing channel. Mr. Simunich says right
now that the water kind of just stands there, it just barely slowly moves. It's kind of a
mosquito breading ground at this time. And so that's why we -- our test hole here -- we
believe that water is perched up in this corner here.
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Okay. We do have a couple people signed up. Chris Brower makes a
comment that he's available to answer questions. Where is he? Do you care to actually
comment again or -- I have three different lists and he is -- yes, he is, on some of them
he's ahead of you. Okay. We will start with Mr. Simunich, then. And, Mr. Simunich,
while you're coming up, thank you very much for the letter that you provided to us. It's
very helpful as to be able to read and consider things like that and I appreciate your
sending the letter.
Simunich: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Joe Simunich. I live at 955 West Ustick
Road. We had sold this property to Crossfield. We'd like to see it developed. We think
it's time. We reserved that seven acres. Eventually we plan it to be Înto the city. The
only reason we didn't go into the city is because some of your conditions of agriculture
and Planning and Zoning were not able to answer some of those questions, so at that
time we decided to keep it into the county. City Council gave us permission to hook up
to the city sewer and water. We want to be good neighbors. The street that comes in
from the south, from the Waterbury Park, Mr. Brower wants to put a condition on it that
that street not be extended, if permission is granted to build this subdivision. That's a
pretty strong statement to me to come here with that kind of an attitude. The street has
been there for many many years, most people know that if a street stubs out it's going to
be extended. But what I need is assurance for that seven acres, since it is an enclave
at the present time, that we will have egress in and out of it that will satisfy the future
buyers of the seven acres and the people that are in the adjacent subdivisions. And
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18. 2005
Page 55 of 98
that's about alii have on that subject. And if somebody has any questions, I would be
glad to answer them.
Zaremba: Commissioners? Just to make sure I'm clear, because I was a little unclear
last time and afterwards I started thinking about it, making sure that I understood what
you were saying. You are actually in favor of all of the stub streets that are currently
existing and depicted on these. In other words, I wasn't sure whether you wanted some
not to happen -- you want all of these stub streets to happen.
Simunich: No. There are only two stub streets. Again, to put one in from -- I don't
know how to make this thing work. They are going to put one in -- they are putting one
in right there, we are building a home right in that corner right there. We are building
that home, so this street can come in front of that home in the future. So, that home will
not create a problem of developing the remainder of that seven acres.
Zaremba: So, that stub street is okay with you?
Simunich: Yes. Now, there is one down here that Mr. Brower objects to being
extended, because he feels it will bring traffic -- more traffic into their subdivision. So,
what I need is assurance that I will have -- if one street out is adequate, that's fine. We
will just use this one. But, possibly, this one may have to be extended -- connected at
that seven acres.
Zaremba: And it looks like one farther down. Is that south of your property? That
doesn't come into your property?
Simunich: Yes. That's south and that goes into Crossfield.
Zaremba: Okay. So, there is only two that are here.
Simunich: Yes.
Zaremba: And I agree with you, that ACHD certainly anticipates that being a
connection. That's why they asked to have stub streets put there in the first place, so --
Simunich: I think so. Yes.
Zaremba: Okay. I just -- I had lost track of which ones we were talking about last time,
so -- thank you very much.
Simunich: Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Brower.
Brower: Chris Brower, 387 West Woodberry Drive, on behalf of the Waterbury Park
Subdivision. Just to clarify, in my written and oral testimony I pointed out the fact that if
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 56 of 98
there was similar or lesser density going into the ~- to this proposed project, we wouldn't
be here in opposition to it. We always thought that the stub street would be connected,
but that it was since interior to us and since our subdivision was completed before the
2000 modification of the Comprehensive Plan, that that interior traffic would just come
from similar or lesser density. When the neighborhood centers were proposed, we did
point out that the neighborhood center for this parcel was the only one that was not a
semi-circle and so to answer the question about where the commercial development
would go in this potential neighborhood center, it is on the north side of Ustick. So,
even if just the north side of Ustick is developed, it would be consistent with the
neighborhood -- the other neighborhood centers on the current Comprehensive Plan.
We have no problem with the stub street that goes to -- to our southwest connecting in,
it's solely a concern the stub street that's in our northwest. All of this high density traffic
in here would want to go through our subdivision, which is a straight shot and has no
stop sign or other impediment going straight to Meridian Road in a primary direction of
traffic, rather than going up to Ustick, down Ustick to Meridian to what currently is a stop
sign, but which may be a light, then, turning right. So, again, I just want to clarify that
the opposition to developing that stub street is not because there is a stub street and it
shouldn't be developed, it's only because if we are going to have this high density that
was proposed after our subdivision was already built in accordance with what was
expected from the then existing Comprehensive Plan, that as a condition that one stub
street not be developed. And, again, that's consistent with what happened with Valen
Court where we in Waterbury Park, in conjunction with the folks from Salisbury One,
were concerned on Valen Park -- Anna Canning of the planning staff even agreed with
us that there should be stub streets connecting to Venable Lane that would allow that
neighborhood center traffic to flow eventually through Indian Rocks Road, then, it would
be buyer beware, because people buying a house there would know that the high
density traffic was going to come through there. But, again, that request was turned
down, so there is no access.
Zaremba: Okay. Any questions?
Brower: I'm not sure if I'm allowed ten minutes for --
Zaremba: Well, actually, you were the spokesman for your subdivision, weren't you?
Brower: Right.
Zaremba: So, we will -- yeah, we will consider the three minutes out of your ten minutes
gone, but we will call it ten minutes.
Brower: It will just take about one more minute to finish.
Zaremba: Okay. Great. Thank you.
Brower: So, our concerns, again, are the stub street, only because the nature of the
traffic that will come through is going to be radically different than the Comprehensive
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August18,2oo5
Page 57 of 98
Plan that existed when we moved in. The other -- the second accommodation given to
Salisbury One, in addition to re-routing Valen traffic through Indiana Rocks, if you
remember we redid that to accommodate the traffic concerns and that's what we are
asking about blocking that stub street. He will still have access from Venable Lane and
this street here. The other concern is the number of lots to our west interior of our
subdivision along this stretch immediately to our west. There is one more lot number
than the number of lots on our side and, again, what happened with Salisbury One was
an accommodation to make sure that the interior -- that the lot sizes were the same or
larger than -- than the lots in the existing subdivision. So, again, we are just asking for
these lots in here to be the same size or larger than ours. I know that's also R-4, but,
again, it's a higher proposed density currently, even though it's interior and we are in the
direction of traffic. Those are our points, again, just about why the stub street's
important, because it was a change after our subdivision was built, what was going to
come through our road and the lot sizes to the west. That's alii have.
Zaremba: Commissioners?
Borup: A couple questions. So, you're saying your lots are wider than 80 feet? In
Waterbury?
Brower: If I understand correctly, we have seven lots --
Borup: Well, I'm talking about the width of the lots in Waterbury. They are more than
80 feet?
Brower: I don't know the answer to the question. I only know the answer to the
question about the -- our lots that are immediately adjacent to these proposed lots, our
lots are larger than the proposed interior ones and that was the concern we brought up
on -- with Salisbury One and that change was made.
Borup: Well, yeah, the lots along there are 80 feet wide. I didn't know if you were
aware of that, but --
Brower: When I met with Craig Hood, he confirmed with me that in the same distance
that we had seven lots, that they had eight. If that information is incorrect, I can go back
and --
Borup: No, I'm not saying that's incorrect. I'm saying the lots here are 80 foot wide.
So, they are fairly decent widths.
Brower: But less width than apparently the --
Borup: Well, apparently -- you're not sure what yours are, but apparently they are more
than 80, if that's correct.
Brower: According to Mr. Hood, yes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August18,2o05
Page 58 of 98
Borup: Was -- when you had talked did you raise any of these questions with ACHD at
that meeting?
Brower: No, I did not.
Borup: Okay.
Brower: I'm sorry --
Borup: The question on the traffic flow and that seemed to be the main concern, is that
-- is the traffic and he's also talked about the density. Was the density the concern on --
more so on the -- on the housing at the north end of the project, as opposed to that on
the south end?
Brower: If this stub street isn't developed, we are fine with that density. They can still
access through there. But we did bring up at the time the neighborhood centers were
proposed the idea of making a neighborhood center here consistent and just north of
Ustick and, then, the area south of Ustick would probably just have been developed with
the same density that we have and, then, we wouldn't have any problem. It's only the
later proposed higher density and we are in the primary direction of traffic.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Can you put back a larger area view for -- yes. That's--
Rohm: If there is a proposed stub here --
Zaremba: That's, actually, not a stub. I was thinking it was, too. But that's the Creason
Lateral.
Rohm: Oh. Okay.
Zaremba: That's not a street. It's a --
Rohm: So, where is the stub up here?
Brower: The stub street that I'm talking about is a north-south stub street that leads
north into this seven acre parcel here, that we thought would, you know, be similar
density that would come through some day and what will happen is if we wait for this
parcel to be developed some day, if is this isn't a condition, I'm almost certain that if this
high density exists, that we will then be required -- it will be much higher standard at that
time to say let's not have that high density come directly through us to Waterbury, then,
while this land is still not annexed by the city.
Rohm: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August18,2oo5
Page 59 of 98
Zaremba: Okay. Do we need some discussion or are we ready for the applicant to
respond?
Rohm: I think I'm ready for the applicant.
Zaremba: Okay. Mrs. McKay.
McKay: Becky McKay. Okay. I think what Mr. Simunich's question was, as far as if the
seven acres where he's building his new home, were to redevelop, would this stub
street, obviously, be able to handle the traffic that this property would generate, plus
would he -- could he be stopped by these future residents from making this connection?
He wants to make sure that, obviously, he's never cut off from that stub street. I sat
down with him and kind of did a layout on this property, how it could redevelop. This
street would come in, based on his house being constructed right here, and it would
create kind of a loop and it would loop back. You could get approximately 24 or 26
homes on that, so that one access point would, obviously, be able to handle 250, 260
vehicle trips. What we have now on this street is just a handful of trips. So, we would
not be exceeding, obviously, the capacity of that. Your staff offered up a stub street
right here, an additional one to the west. Now, Mr. Simunich, in my conversations with
him, he wasn't quite sure that that helped him out. I think his concern was would it
hinder him more than it would help him, because it potentially could. He would have to
work around it and, therefore, he may also lose a lot versus just doing a loop. Now,
what Mr. Brower -- or Chris has said is there is a stub street there to the seven acres,
but that stub street was stopped on the south side of the Creason Lateral. No
provisions were made for any culvert or bridge or anything for it to come across into the
seven acres, so -- and I think Craig's analysis and ACHD's comments, they believed it
was highly unlikely that this stub street would ever go into the seven acres and if we
would look here at the overall vicinity map, I can see what Chris' concern is. If this stub
street came in here and there was connectivity here, potentially cars could come down
here and this is such a straight shot that -- that this could become a cut-through traffic
area. So, his concern is that if this connection were the only one that were made, it
would, obviously, give us the interconnectivity that we pursue in land planning, but it is
more of a circuitous route to go out to the arterial here at Meridian Road. So, I guess
the question is up to the Commission, do they believe the one stub street would
accommodate the redevelopment of the seven acres or should we come through here
and punch this through. It's up to the Commission. I believe --
Zaremba: To comment on that, I -- it would be my instinct that three stub streets into
that seven acre property would be excessive and difficult to plan around. If it's your
assessment that the stub street Mr. Brower is talking about is never going to connect
anyhow, because it -- there is no provision for the -- for crossing the waterworks.
McKay: It could. I'm not saying it's out of the question. But somebody would,
obviously, have to spend the money, because they did not make the Waterbury
developer do it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 60 of 98
Zaremba: Didn't put half the proceeds or --
McKay: No.
Zaremba: -- or anything like that.
McKay: That's kind of a pretty recent thing that they started.
Zaremba: And the new subdivision that was recently approved that he's mentioned,
that interior road goes up like this. There is no western connection or eastern
connection from this property.
Borup: That's because of Venable Lane.
Zaremba: I would hesitate to do anything that would create three stubs streets into the
seven acre property, but if we can be comfortable that that's never going to happen and
you're offering to give a second one there -- my feeling is that one is not enough. I do
think there needs to be --
McKay: You would like two.
Zaremba: -- two. Seven acres could have a need to go two different directions. I just --
Moe: I, myself, think that your west -- your southern Pine Drive should probably come
in and stub into that area as well.
McKay: Right through here, sir?
Moe: Yes. Yes. And that way you would have it from the Summerton, as well as
Southern Pine. I don't know if you have looked at any design as far as what you would
do with the seven acres, bringing that one in from the west. I mean is that going to give
you --
McKay: I'd probably take this and kind of crank it northward to try to, obviously,
intersect at a gO degree and make it so that it would line up with how this street -- this
east-west street would --
Borup: So you have the lot depth there on --
McKay: Yeah. But in calculating his lot depth, if he went with say a reduced roadway of
42-foot right of way, he would have gO-foot deep lots on this row and the other three
rows of lots.
Zaremba: Well, my instinct is to say ACHD anticipated that other stub street to connect.
But, having heard some of their recent budget discussions, they are not going to front
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18. 2005
Page 61 of 98
the money to build a bridge or a culvert anytime in the near future and it wouldn't be fair
to Mr. Simunich to say, okay, you have to connect and build the whole bridge. I don't
think anybody would go that direction. So, I -- if you're willing to make the
accommodations you just said, I think that satisfies a lot of people. That would assume
that that southern stub street is not ever going to go anywhere --
McKay: Yes. Because he would have the two options there. So, then, obviously, if that
-- if that street were to go through, the burden would be on Mr. Simunich or whomever
developed that property to pay that expense and I think if he could demonstrate that he
had two points of ingress and egress there would be no need for that one to be done, it
would just be redundant for such few lots. Your fire department I think requires two
points of access if we hit 50 lots. I think that's what they have been putting in the staff
report.
Zaremba: Certainly works for me.
McKay: Okay. As far as the density, in this particular area our lot sizes are -- 7,600 I
think is kind of our smallest. They are eight, nine, ten thousand. We even have some I
think might be pushing 11,000 square feet. To answer Commissioner Borup's question,
I did look at the lot here in Waterbury. They are 85 by 100 deep. Our lots here, they
have seven and we have eight. Our lots along this line are 80 feet wide and 97 feet
deep. And that depth was set by that sewer location, because that is a big trunk and I --
we are not going to move it, so I had to make sure that I got it in the appropriate
corridor. So, that set my depth. But I do have one additional lot. I tried to -- we try to
set our lot lines so that we go one neighbor for one neighbor, but as we reached this
end I think they got -- they start getting about one and a half neighbors when they get
up here in this north end. I did talk to my client about this northeast corner. He has
indicated to me that -- we looked at -- we looked at -- if you drew a line like this down,
so you take in -- the landscaping would be built, this street would be built, and you chop
that whole corner off, come around that day care lot, that would be approximately
around five acres and he said that he would be willing to put that as the latter phase
four, to sit that time out to see what, if anything, ever happens to the neighborhood
center or if it's eliminated from the Comprehensive Plan or what happens. Now, what
that would do is -- see, these lots -- you got to look at it from the perspective of these
lots here front this street. These are alley loaders. There is an alley right here. So,
that's why we built this street and, then, lopped off that corner. That would give you five
acres, gives you flexibility to -- you could have some office, you could have some
commercial, ice cream shop. You would also have a street here. You'd also have this
street and, then, this interconnectivity here. So, I guess we'd like to offer that up for the
Commission to contemplate. And if you'd like me to mark on --
Zaremba: Sounds like an excellent compromise to me.
McKay: If you would like me to mark on one of these for the record, I can, on these
drawings.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August18,2005
Page 62 of 98
Moe: Well--
McKay: So, it would look just like that. So, everything north of Parkstone and east of
Blaymore, with the exception of the day care lot, would remain undeveloped for two
years, as recommended by staff and, like I said, I did kind of a quick and dirty
calculation. It is about roughly five acres.
Zaremba: So, currently, it would be platted as one lot.
McKay: We would probably just leave it --
Zaremba: And you would come back and re-plat it?
McKay: -- Un-platted. Yep. Yes, sir. And, then, if that -- if Venable Lane is built and
there -- you know, maybe he can do it with that developer. Maybe that developer would
have interest in the five acres, incorporating it into that. I mean if that -- if that ever
came to fruition, because I think that's what the Commission is looking for is some type
of option. And the staff has been very supportive of our application and I know they
have been working to try to find a way to -- because they like the project -- to make it fit
with the Comp Plan. So, I think this is a good compromise. I hope you do, too.
Zaremba: I'm not speaking for everybody. I agree with you that's a good compromise.
Commissioner Rohm made a suggestion that probably nobody but me heard at the
time. Since you have presented a complete plat and the city is asking you to back off of
a portion of it and, therefore, two years from now you're going to need to come back
with an application to re-plat that five acres -- this is a question for staff, whether or not
the fees can be somewhat waived at that time. I mean it's our request that they not plat
this section. Can we offer any compromise on fees in the future or do we have the
permission to -- do we have the authority to --
Hawkins-Clark: I'm sorry, Chairman, I missed what the application would be that we
would compromise fees on.
Zaremba: Well, the staff recommendation -- and I'm compromising in the middle here --
is that the area that Mrs. McKay is indicating be platted as a single lot and left vacant
until two years from now, at which time a different decision may be made, but that
requires the applicant to come back and apply to re-plat that lot -- to re-subdivide that
lot.
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: And the question is whether or not we can waive some fees -- they have paid
to do the whole picture right now.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, do we know what that fee amounts to? How much are we talking
about, approximately?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18. 2005
Page 63 of 98
Hawkins-Clark: Five acres -- we charge on a per lot basis. It's a base of three -- I think
it's like 325, plus 11 dollars per lot, something -- but I think there might be some
confusion, because I don't think we are -- we are necessarily set on them having to plat
it as a lot. I think the -- if I heard the applicant right, I mean just leave it as a future
phase and they are basically committing tonight to not construct for two years. So, it
wouldn't be are-subdivision --
Zaremba: But if we do it that way, then, we have already pre-approved this, they are
just holding off on it.
McKay: That's correct. That's how the condition is written. If I could quote this, it says
that not -- shall not be allowed to final plat until one of the following occurs. A market
analysis performed to see that nonresidential uses can be supported in this area or to
determine that they cannot. And, then, it states: Then, the applicant should be allowed
to plat the area with residential lots as proposed. So, you would be approving it as
shown now, with the condition that it cannot be final platted for two years.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
McKay: And some type of a market analysis be provided demonstrating that it could not
be developed as office or something. I guess had I assumed before -- when that two
years lapses. So, we wouldn't have to resubmit if we reverted back to this. If it goes to
something else, it would be a re-submittal and only the Council can waive fees and your
fees are changing.
Zaremba: Okay. Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Number one, I agree entirely with your explanation. That's kind of what I
anticipated how it would be done, but here, again, we are -- you're going to have some
redesign in that area to take care of: right? Or is it -- or are we just anticipating taking it
from the road -- everything to the north of the road? But I guess my question is, you
know, we have got -- there is still a couple outstanding issues on this thing and, plus, we
are requesting another stub street and a few other things. Still haven't really resolved
the issue of the setbacks in the alleys. Of course, that's something that we will discuss
a little bit. I guess -- and was someone talking about trying to approve tonight, I'm a
little bit concerned, I'd like to see how this stub street comes into that seven acre parcel
and whatnot. So, I'm not sure I'm going to be ready to -- again, to do an approval
tonight, but I guess we can talk through this and we will see where we go, but we still
have the issue of the alley and probably need to get a little bit more clarification on
some of the other issues, since it's been awhile, just to verify that we are staying up with
staff's concerns. .
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, just to clarify, as the conditions are worded that stub street is
already in there as a condition of approval. Just on that issue I just wanted to make
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 64 of 98
sure you were aware of that. Currently, the condition reads they shall stub across the --
on the --
Moe: From the west, not the one to the south.
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Borup: They can't do the one from the south, can they?
Moe: I'm verifying. Okay.
McKay: Yes, sir, that's already been worked out as a condition. So, that's pretty much
set.
Moe: Okay.
Borup: So does that just leave the alley?
Moe: That leaves the alleys.
McKay: And that's up to the Commission on what they are comfortable with. You have
the option.
Borup: So, at this point you would like to have the five-foot setback.
McKay: That's what the client believed the look he wanted. But, you know, it's up to the
Commission to determine what they believe the appropriate setback from the edge of
pavement to that garage should be.
Borup: Is there any discussion on a wider alley?
McKay: Craig can address that.
Groves: Craig Groves, 3920 East Shady Glen Court. Members of the Commission, I
wanted to address the alley loaded product for just a second. We spent several months
analyzing the type of product that we wanted in this location. We are requesting the five
foot setback on the alley, but the product that we looked at around the country, Florida,
Portland, Seattle, all of that product -- alley loaded product comes typically with a 20-
foot alley and a four foot apron on each side of the alley. So, the garages are 28 feet
apart. Okay. Does that make sense? What we are requesting here is a 20-foot right of
way. We will pave 16 feet of it. We could make it 20. But we will pave 16 feet of it and
basically a five-foot apron from the 20-foot right of way. Okay? So, you're going to
have basically 30 feet between the garages. Now, the other analysis behind this
particular product mix is our buyer profile for this product is not the same profile that
buys a 3,000 square foot front loaded garage. These folks have fuel-efficient cars,
okay? So, they are driving Hondas. They are driving Beetles. They are driving small
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August18,2oo5
Page 65 of 98
SUVs. You're not going to find somebody living here that drives a, you know, 4-by-4,
three quarter ton pickup truck or a Suburban. Okay? It's not that same profile. These
are fuel efficient, economy minded individuals. The other aspect of allowing for the five
foot setback on that alley is it gives us an additional, basically, 13 feet to work within the
lot space. Okay. So, we can provide a larger home, more livable home, and it gives us
the option on the accessory dwelling units to develop more of a plaza area between the
main home that faces the public street and the accessory dwelling unit that's in the back
alley. Okay. And the last comment I'd like to make -- we are agreeing to leave off the
five acres to see if the neighborhood center concept does develop. You know, I think it
would be great if I felt there was a demand for the neighborhood center. We are willing
to take a step back, do some market research, determine whether we think we can
make a neighborhood center work there, and if we can we will come back with another
plan for you. However, if we came back with a neighborhood center, I would absolutely
not want 20-foot setbacks on those alleys. It would completely destroy what we are
trying to accomplish from an urban planning perspective. Okay.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Zaremba: Yes. Mr. Nary.
Nary: There is always a legal wrinkle and the two things, I guess, I would want the
Commission to think about -- as it sounded like you may want to have more than tonight
to think about it. But right now there is -- I didn't notice -- and maybe I missed it, but I
didn't notice a recommendation for a develop agreement. You have some plat
conditions about when a final plat can occur on that phase. As Mrs. McKay stated, the
phasing is somewhere between six months and five years. I mean it's hard to really
know in our marketplace currently, but they certainly seem to build a lot faster. All that's
being recommended by the planning staff is a plat condition regarding when final plat
can occur. But, yet, you are approving the plat as presented. The only cases in Idaho
that I'm aware of regarding when preliminary plats say once they have signed it, they
get to build that. They are not obligated to build anything else. They can look at the
market study, they can look at what's recommended, but once they have platted it,
that's what they can build and they don't have to do anything differently. If it's the will of
this Commission to leave that option open, then, the recommend by the staff is probably
not going to get you that. If they want to truly do market research to see what the
available market can support, then, you may want to consider first a development
agreement to not have that property developed at this time. Another development
recently simply excised it out of their project and left it completely as an out parcel at
that time -- at the time for this exact same purpose. Or you may want to plat it as one
lot without those individual lots being in there, if your intent is to truly see if the market
can support a different concept. But if you leave it as it is, in two years they can build
that and they don't need this Commission to revisit it to have authority under the current
state of the law in Idaho to build what they have already presented and it's been
approved. All you're doing by the staff's recommendation is telling them to wait two
years to do it. But not leaving, really, any room to make that secondary look of requiring
that they truly analyze whether it's a residential development, a commercial
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 66 of 98
development, a mixed use, something else. So, if you consider that that's what you
would like to do, I don't think the staff recommendation goes far enough to give this
Commission I guess that direction back to the applicant, if that's what you'd like.
Rohm: And I think that that's the reason I brought up waiving the application fees, in
fact, they were to agree to pull those lots out of this and make it a single lot and, then,
when they come back and -- for redevelopment, if you will, two years down the road,
whether it be for a community center or otherwise, then, to have to, then, go through the
application fee process again for something that would have been included in this
application, seems to be an undue burden on the applicant if they are willing to meet us
halfway, I guess.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Rohm, I mean I think
that's certainly a very -- a very reasonable -- reasonable idea. The- problem is -- as was
already said, only Council can waive fees to begin with. You can certainly recommend
that in the recommendation. The fees are changing. I couldn't tell you what the fees
are exactly today. I know in a month they won't be the same and two years from now
they probably won't be the same again. The total of -- the fees are driven by what the
project is. Part of the trade off is if this Commission's view to support at least at this
point the neighborhood center concept, then, the option from the developer's standpoint
to be denied, because it doesn't meet that, or to take this parcel out until that decision
and analysis of what can be supported there in the neighborhood center concept, can
be done. So, is the developer losing something by taking that out currently and having
to potentially reapply and pay fees another time for that new application, certainly they
are. But their other option is it doesn't meet the Comprehensive Plan goals and
guidelines today for the neighborhood center. And the other option this Commission
has is to recommend to deny it. So, I think there is adequate trade off that you can
certainly weigh in your decision as to whether to go forward or what your
recommendation can be.
Borup: It looks to me like the fee would be seven or eight hundred dollars. I'm not sure
if the applicant is really worried about that.
Rohm: Probably not. Okay. All right.
Borup: So, there is just probably more important things that they are worried about.
Rohm: Are you -- Commissioner Moe, how are you with the alleyway explanation? Are
you still kind of struggling with that?
Moe: I have got a couple more questions and we will go from there. Where are the
photos that were dropped off here?
Borup: The clerk should have them.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18. 2005
Page 67 of 98
Moe: While we are waiting on that, the accessory lots, the 12 of them, have they been
located? That was -- was that not in the report that they wanted them located?
Zaremba: The echo was prior to Council from the audience.
Moe: No. I heard that. I said, I know, this is prior to Council.
Borup: Oh. Okay.
Zaremba: We heard it, but --
Moe: So, if we stay with the concept of the five-foot, is the alleyway going to look like
that? Because that was the rendering that was shown that this is kind of the concept
you're looking at.
Groves: It will look better than that.
Moe: It will look better than that? I'd like to make sure that staff has this and the
building department as well, so that if, in fact, we do go forward with that, that I do see
something better than this.
Borup: Yeah. It was probably taken on garbage day, it looks like.
Groves: That was taken from a project -- I think it's called Orenco Station in Portland. It
has won the Urban Land Institute project of the year. It was on trash day, so --
Borup: What was the name of it?
Groves: I think it's Orenco Station and it was developed by Rudy Catliff.
Borup: I think what makes that alley attractive is the landscaping and, you know, the
other one we had had no landscaping at all period.
Groves: It makes a big difference.
Borup: And it makes a big difference. My only concern on the alley is still just being
able to back out. You know, being a practical deal to back out. Now, if we don't feel
you can do it in a parking lot, why can you do it in an alley? I guess maybe there is less
cars to contend with, but -- I'm not -- I don't -- I don't have a problem with the five foot. It
does leave a lot more flexibility on house size and maybe some interior courtyards or
whatever in a design, but I don't know if we want to have a situation where neighbors
are backing into the -- backing over -- or go on their neighbor's property across the
alley.
Zaremba: Well, I think, though, if it's a 20-foot wide right of way and they are paving the
middle 15 feet, then --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August18,2oo5
Page 68 of 98
Borup: That gives you seven feet from the garage to the pavement.
Zaremba: Yeah. Plus the 16, gives you 23 to back out.
Borup: Right. So, maybe that's close enough to 25.
Zaremba: Well, I tend to agree with this assessment that these will be people that aren't
driving the bigger SUVs and --
Rohm: Well, in the second --
Zaremba: You don't buy a smaller home, if you're --
Borup: Well, I thought that was the only reason to have the reduced setbacks, so we
could have larger homes.
Rohm: I think the issue is that the alleys are not going to have a high traffic volume and
people will be able to back out into them without fear of a car buzzing by like the
through traffic issues. So, I don't see the 16-foot paved alleyway and put it seven foot
either side of the pavement to the structures that seems like that would work for me.
Moe: And I guess the other comment I would make -- and I probably would agree with
him somewhat and that is if, in fact -- and we were wanting to see the northeast corner
develop into something within the neighborhood center, I do somewhat agree that 20
foot alleyways in other -- the areas south of Parkstone Street would not really be
favorable with a neighborhood center up there in the corner there, so --
Borup: The other thing, if we allow five feet, that doesn't mean they have to build the
houses right up to five feet, it can be back further.
Zaremba: It could be farther away, it's just that's the minimum.
Moe: Which that will be what it is, but --
Rohm: Okay. I do think, though, that we should make that a single lot, with the
exception of Lot 5, Block 4, and have the balance of it -- of Block 4 and -- what block is
this right here?
Moe: That's five.
Rohm: Five. The balance of Block 4 and all of Block 5 be combined into a single lot
and allow Block 5 of Block 4 to remain an independent lot for the development of that
day care center.
Borup: I was going to say, we still need a lot for that to happen.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August18,2oo5
Page 69 of 98
Zaremba: I think the objective is is to put the decision on that five acres off for two
years, not to make the decision today and hold it for two years.
Borup: But the day care center should still be able to --
Zaremba: The day care center is fine.
Borup: Right.
Moe: That would be Block 4 over--
Rohm: But this is where the day care center is going. This is Block 5 of Block 4 -- Lot 5
of Block 4. Yeah. And so that would --
Zaremba: But I think -- I guess I was already assuming it was intended to be this way,
but as other developments have done, make that a single lot, with no plan for it at the
moment, two years from now make the plan.
Rohm: Exactly. Right.
Zaremba: Based on market studies and -- so, it sounds to me like the mechanism for
doing that is to make a single lot and be re-platted sometime in the future.
Rohm: Okay.
Moe: Not to confuse you anymore, but is that -- so, is that Lots 6 through 20 of Block 4,
and, then, all of Block 5?
Rohm: Lot 2, 3 and 4 would have to be included in that as well.
Moe: Okay. I got you. Okay. Yeah. I see what you're saying. Yeah. I hadn't seen
that, so -- okay.
Zaremba: May I ask staff where is -- are you feeling that issues are being resolved or is
there a reason to --
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. No, we are comfortable. I think we -- the intention, what you're
guiding us there -- getting back to Mr. Nary's point, I guess if you go this route to
actually a redesign prior to City Council, to show that as one lot, that would certainly do
it. I'm wondering if another option is just to keep the condition that's worded and put it in
a develop agreement or a Condition Use Permit, so that if it's away from the issue of the
plant, not -- you know, of the requirements for final plats and preliminary plats being --
entitlements -- and if it was, just keep the record as it is, but to make it a condition of the
Conditional Use Permit, which would run with the land. I'm wondering if that's another
way to look at it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August18,2Q05
Page 70 of 98
Zaremba: What's easier for staff to administer? It's got to come up on somebody's
scope in two years and I'm sure the application will bring it up two years from now, but it
has to come up on some body's scope.
Hawkins-Clark: Either way. I mean anytime we have a project in the future, we will pull
this file and we will review the -- all the Conditional Use Permit conditions and -- either
way.
Zaremba: Okay.
Nary: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Who was that? Mr. Nary.
Nary: Did you want a response to that?
Zaremba: Sure.
Nary: Being the person having to defend that, not that Mr. Groves would be bringing
this, but someone else -- to defend it -- by far the easiest way to do that is either the
single lot, the out parcel, there is not a question of what entitlement to that property
development exists. The conditional use requirements and a DA certainly are another
method, but certainly the cleanest for me, from a legal perspective, is the out parcel or
the single parcel, because, then, there isn't an issue of what can they do, they know
they have to do something differently and they are going to have to bring that back and
if it's not Mr. Groves is the one -~ person two years from now, that would be the easiest
way to deal with that, because we wouldn't have to go back through the records and
piece through what did we mean and what did we think, they know all they have got is
one single parcel, they are going to have to do something differently with that.
Zaremba: Well, it -- I think my feeling is -- and I agree with you, my feeling is we are
asking them to put that parcel off for two years. It could very well be that two years from
now they are justified in bringing exactly the same thing back to us.
Groves: Absolutely.
Zaremba: And at that point if it's justified I wouldn't have a problem with it. But what we
are asking is to give two years chance to the neighborhood center to work. So, if it's
easier from your standpoint to call it a single lot, then, with the understanding it needs to
be replatted, even if it's to this --
Groves: Uh-huh.
Zaremba: That works for me.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August18,2oo5
Page 71 of 98
Rohm: If we were to require that it be re-platted as a single lot, do we even have to
address the two-year issue at this time? Because at such time that they bring whatever
back, it's going to already be known that the two years or the market study would have
had to be completed. So, what I propose is that we just write something to the effect all
of the lots in Block 5 and all of Block 4, with the exception of Lot 5, be combined into a
single lot prior to this going before City Council. End of statement. And just have it as a
one line item, rather than even addressing all of the reasons why, because that will -- is
self-evident and by combining it into a single lot you have addressed that issue until
such time that redevelopment takes place. Does that make sense?
Borup: Yes. I think we have handled that one.
Rohm: Okay.
Borup: Can we move on to some of the others?
Rohm: I was hoping there were no others.
Borup: Probably the easiest way to handle the setbacks is maybe redo the chart. I
mean that's part of a staff report on page 29. Is that -- would that be correct, Mr.
Hawkins-Clark? The chart on 29, if we redo that, would that be the easiest way to
address the alley setbacks and other setback issues?
Hawkins-Clark: I think that would be --
Borup: Rather than try to make a long multi-sentence --
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah.
Borup: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: It's weird. All the other setbacks are -- you know, either way it needs to
be addressed as part of the planned development and so I think that chart in the
Conditional Use Permit is a good place.
Moe: So, in lieu of the 20 foot it would be the five foot?
Borup: And how about the 18? Does that also go to five? Under the alley loaded
detached. Then, we also have attached. I mean it's--
Moe: None of them are 18. They are all 20s.
Borup: Well, the rear -- the rear under detached alley loaded said 18. So, that would
also be five?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, we are really just talking about the face of garage line there.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 72 of 98
Borup: Okay. So, the rear of the building still needs to stay at 18? See, that was my
question. That should also be five, then.
Zaremba: Was that 18 originally based on the property line going to the center of the
alley and the property line is no longer centered to the alley, because they have put the
alley into a common lot?
Borup: So, that would have been eight.
Zaremba: Right.
Borup: Because ten foot of that lot was alley easement.
Zaremba: Yeah.
Borup: So, if it was 18 minus ten, that would have been eight. Was that the intention?
Rohm: I was thinking it was seven, for some reason.
Borup: I mean on this chart. I don't know. I'm asking -- I'm not making statements, I'm
just asking questions. I'm--
Zaremba: Well-- and I'm questioning right along with you. I don't know the answer.
Borup: So, what is the intention with the 18 or do you know?
Hawkins-Clark: I don't know what the intention was, because I didn't write the report.
Borup: It doesn't matter what the intention, we just need to decide what works.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. And if you can imagine going down the alley and having some of
them, rather than garages -- and as I'm reading this, your alley loaded on the rear --
you're talking rear, that's the dwelling unit. That's not the garage. Well, it should be
clarified that that is -- that is the garage, I guess is my point, because there is not a
clarification here whether or not on the rear you're talking about the rear of the garage
setback or the rear of the dwelling unit setback. So, we probably really need --
Zaremba: The public hearing is still open. We could have the applicant comment on it.
Borup: Well, there is not -- I mean the lots are down to 36 feet. If we are talking ten
foot setback, that only leaves 26 for the house, you have 20 for the garage at a
minimum, there is only six feet of house that could be there anyway.
Zaremba: I guess the question is what are we measuring from now and what is the
measu rement.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18, 2005
Page 73 of 98
Grove: Well, my interpretation would be it would be five feet. Five feet from the right of
way.
Zaremba: And the right of way is the private common lot --
Grove: Yes.
Zaremba: -- separate from that.
Grove: Yes.
Zaremba: Okay.
Grove: Because on the accessory dwelling units, they will be stacked right over the top
of the garage, so --
Borup: Right. On a two story, then, yeah, that would apply. On the single level you
only have six feet to work with.
Hawkins-Clark: That needs to be clarified. The principal detached dwelling units could
not go the five feet.
Borup: Correct.
Hawkins-Clark: Principal detached dwelling units would have to remain the full standard
20, actually.
Grove: Correct.
Borup: To the alley?
Hawkins-Clark: Off the alley. Correct. But an accessory dwelling unit or garage would
be the five. Yeah. That would be consistent with Alexandria Subdivision, another alley
product sub that you have approved.
Borup: So, when it says rear, should say rear of principal dwelling unit? Would that
clarify that?
Rohm: Not principal, the --
Borup: Well, then, it would change to 20.
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Zaremba: The principal is 20 and we need to add a line that says accessory is five.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 74 of 98
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Borup: Yeah. We don't have anything on there that breaks those two out.
Zaremba: So, we need to add a row.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, if the maker of the motion, you know, just wants to generally
refer to that -- I mean I --' the intention is certainly clear here for us to prepare our
recommendation for City Council. So, I wouldn't worry too much about the -- crafting
the language on that.
Zaremba: And it sounds like the applicant is agreeing with the way we are trying to
make it appear, so -- I see head nods.
Rohm: Is that all -- those are the only two changes from the staff report?
Zaremba: On that subject. I kind of support the staff's request for a groundwater report,
whatever it was, that study.
Moe: I would agree.
Zaremba: I think the history of the property, even though there are good explanations
for the history of the property, I think because of the history of the property, staff is right
to ask for that.
Rohm: So leave it as written.
Zaremba: As requested in the staff report.
Rohm: Okay. Anything else?
Borup: Well, maybe it doesn't have to be tonight, but I still -- on the accessory dwelling
comment of -- staff says identify 12. Right now it can be on every house in there; right?
Staff's saying a minimum of 12. I don't know if that's a big concern. I mean this is -- I
assume this is the first subdivision this has come up since the new ordinance, isn't it? I
mean to me it sounds like it could be a very popular thing. Is staff concerned that there
may not be 12?
Hawkins-Clark: I believe Craig's concern was that they meet the target density and the
12 would put them at the target density.
Borup: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: Without it they don't meet the target density.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18. 2005
Page 75 of 98
Moe: And that would be on the --
Borup: Yeah, that's -- well --
Hawkins-Clark: So, if you are correct in that they all could, potentially, but I think the
point is 12 would be required to do it.
Borup: Right. But having to designate specific lots this early in the stage -- I don't
know, maybe it's not a problem. But it kind of -- I mean you have to have, you know, the
house designs already decided, almost, to be able to designate it this early. But I guess
it depends on when the build out happens and maybe that's not a problem.
Moe: I don't think that --
Borup: Didn't have any concern about that? Never mind.
Moe: Yeah. Now, the only other question I have and brought up very early in this
hearing, was, basically, just the -- in regard to the annexation and whatnot and, then,
what we do with annexation at some point of the seven acres next to it. As I heard this
evening from testimony, that at some point they are wanting to annex into the city now
if, in fact, he was going to get his stub streets and whatnot, so that issue somewhat has
been --
Zaremba: Probably somewhere in the pipeline anyhow.
Moe: Exactly. So, that issue is kind of put --
Hawkins-Clark: Staff agrees.
Moe: Okay.
Rohm: Should we have an additional item on the preliminary plat to add a stub street?
Borup: That's already on there.
Moe: That's already --
Rohm: Oh. Okay.
Zaremba: That was an original request.
Rohm: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, if I could just on that. It might be helpful to add something
that, you know, since you are requiring that one to -- just for clarification, that the
Northwest 10th stub would not be envisioned by this Commission. I mean no more than
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August18,2oo5
Page 76 of 98
two stub streets to that seven acres is required. And, you know, I mean whenever that
seven acres comes through in the future, at least somebody can look back and see the
intent was not to put all three through.
Zaremba: Okay.
Rohm: Where is that? The preliminary plat?
Zaremba: Are we prepared to close the Public Hearing?
Rohm: Yeah. We can do that.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Yeah. I move that we close the public hearings on AZ 05-015, PP 05-017, and
CUP 05-022.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed: Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-015,
to include all staff comments for the hearing date of August 15th and received August
10th. And for the --
Moe: That would be August 18th; correct?
Rohm: 18th. No changes on --
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 77 of 98
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of PP 05-030,
to include staff comments for the hearing dated August 18th, received August 10th, with
revisions on August 12th, with the following changes: On page 14, under item two,
Comprehensive Plan plan, the text as written should be stricken and in its place all of
the lots in Block 5 and all of Block 4, with the exception of Lot 5, be combined into a
single lot prior to City Council. And on page 24, an additional item number 19 should be
added that no more than two stub streets will be required to serve the seven acres
Simunich property to the east. Was there anything else?
Moe: Twenty-nine.
Rohm: Oh. And on page 29, the front or alley face of garage line in the table on the
detached alley load should be five feet. The rear should add for the primary dwelling
unit should be 20 feet and an additional line for rear for accessory dwelling should be
five feet for the detached alley column.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: Okay. Discussion. The phrasing that you added to page 14 is in staff
discussion. The actual site-specific conditions are on page 20 and I might ask that you
add the same phrasing on page 20, so that it's clear that it is a condition. I believe it's
item two.
Rohm: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, could I add something on that point?
Zaremba: Yes. Please do.
Hawkins-Clark: If -- I believe the motion was to actually delete number two altogether
and just replace it with your sentence, but the last paragraph on number two, actually,
deals with those accessory dwelling units.
Zaremba: Well -- and that's why I'm looking at page 20 of instead of 14, so --
Rohm: Yeah. I think --
Zaremba: That would be the first paragraph -- substitute for the first paragraph on
paragraph two, page 20.
Rohm: As opposed to page 14, item two. We will just -- we will put it here, rather than
on page 14.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August18,2005
Page 78 of 98
Zaremba: Replacing the first paragraph of paragraph two, but not replacing the second
paragraph.
Rohm: Correct.
Hawkins-Clark: And, then, my other point on that is I believe you said all of Block 4,
except for that day care lot.
Rohm: Yes. Except for Lot 5.
Hawkins-Clark: But there are three lots in Block 4 that go south of the -- of Parkstone.
Borup: That was to Lot 20, was it?
Rohm: And the way the applicant drew their little map, wasn't any intention to including
those -- those lots in the -- yeah. It included those -- Lots 2, 3, and 4, so --
Zaremba: Those are being combined into the common lot.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. And my point was not on that side, it was on the opposite side.
Over here -- I'll just point to the screen. If you look down here, these are part of Block 4
as well. And so the point was to --
Borup: It think what the motion meant to say is two through 20, Block 4.
Hawkins-Clark: That would be --
Rohm: Right. Two through 20 of Block 4.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rohm: And that would be on page 20, item two, under the site-specific condition,
preliminary plat, as opposed to page 14. End of motion.
Zaremba: Okay. Does the second accept that change?
Moe: Yes, I do.
Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 79 of 98
Rohm: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of CUP 05-
022, to include all staff comments for the hearing date August 18th, 2005, received
August 10th, 2005, with supplement on August 12th, 2005, with all changes as noted on
the preliminary plat application. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries. Thank you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: Anticipating that we will finish the agenda tonight, we will take about a five-
minute break.
(Recess.)
Item 16:
Continued Public Hearing from July 21, 2005: AZ 05-029 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 11.75 acres to R-2 zone for Sunstone
Subdivision by Benchmark Construction - 1155 and 1123 North Black
Cat Road:
Item 17:
Continued Public Hearing from July 21 2005: PP 05-029 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval for 17 single-family residential building lots and 3
common area lots on 11.75 acres in a proposed R-2 zone for Sunstone
Subdivision by Benchmark Construction - 1155 and 1123 North Black
Cat Road:
Zaremba: Okay. We will reconvene and let the record show that all Commissioners
that were present before are again present. And I will open the continued Public
Hearing AZ 05-029 and PP 05.029, both relating to Sunstone Subdivision and entertain
a motion to accept the application -- the applicant's request to withdraw these.
Borup: I'd just like to say I'm disappointed with withdrawing that. I liked the idea of half-
acre subdivisions. But that being said, I move that we accept the applicant's withdrawal.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 18:
Continued Public Hearing from July 21 2005: AZ 05-028 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 2.06 acres from RUT to R-40 zone for Arnke
Subdivision by Michael Arnke - 2070 West Pine Avenue:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18. 2005
Page 80 of 98
Item 19:
Continued Public Hearing from July 21, 2005: PP 05.028 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 18 building lots and 3 common lots on 2.06
acres in a proposed R-40 zone for Arnke Subdivision by Michael Arnke -
2070 West Pine Avenue:
Item 20:
Public Hearing: CUP 05.037 Request for Conditional Use Permit for 18
townhouses in a proposed R-40 zone for Arnke Subdivision by Michael
Arnke - 2070 West Pine Avenue:
Zaremba: And I agree. I think it could have been worked out somehow, but I guess
they are redesigning it, so -- okay. Let us now open the continued Public Hearing for
AZ 05-028 and the continued Public Hearing for PP 05-028, and the new Public Hearing
for CUP 05-037, all relating to Arnke Subdivision. And we will begin with the staff
report.
Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner, Members of the Commission. The application
before you is for Arnke Subdivision, for 18 dwelling units and three common lots on 2.06
acres off of East Pine Avenue, west of Linder Road. The site is located to the west of
Meridian High School and, then, is surrounded on the north and west by Ada County
property and, then, on the east by the LDS seminary. The applicant has requested
approval through the Conditional Use Permit process of six three-plex buildings, which
are considered townhouses under city code and in the R-40 zone. They have
requested those as a conditional use. In discussions with staff, the applicant did choose
the R-40 zone for the lack of required street frontage, because of the proposed service
drive and not dedicating a public road on the property. The R-40 zone, while they are
nowhere near the density that you would see in an R-40 zone, that the dimensional
standards and the lack of required frontage did work to their advantage in that respect.
The applicant has proposed to construct a 24-foot driveway off of East Pine Avenue that
would be a private drive, enter the site and, then, in a T configuration moves east and
west, with guest parking off of that drive. In working with the applicant about some
issues that the application did have -- unfortunately, some were worked out kind of late,
so I did get a memo to you today. I don't expect you to read or be able to -- it's mostly
for a reference for making your motion. I'll go through each of the items there and talk
about what came to those conclusions. I do apologize for that being late. First, staff did
recommend -- and I think you can kind of see it here on the landscape plan at best, is
that on the eastern end of the site, as the property narrows, there was some concern
about access to those units, to the eastern most units. The applicant had proposed to
stop the service drive and, then, serve six units off of a common driveway. Staff did
recommend that service drive be continued. We initially -- initially recommended that it
be continued over to the landscape Lot 15. In discussions with Joe Silva of the fire
department, because that service drive was extended, that changed his requirements in
terms of fire access. So, he did want to see a secondary access. We did ask the
applicant to punch that service drive through to the LDS property and connect to their
drive as a secondary emergency access. The applicant was okay with that and,
apparently, has already had discussions with the LDS church about getting that done.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18. 2005
Page 81 of 98
That access would, then, be blocked with bollards and a chain with a knocks box lock
that the fire department has access to. And that would only be used for a secondary fire
access. The other issue -- another issue is the drive. Staff recognizes that as the site
narrows it is possible to continue the sidewalk all the way to the eastern edge of the --
and to the six lots that are on the eastern portion of the property. Staff would like to see
the sidewalk continued as far as is feasible. That was a little bit hard of a condition to
come up with, so I did come up with a -- that it should be continued to the western edge
of Lot 17. That seemed like the farthest that it could, obviously, be fit in. It could
possibly be fit farther than that, but it becomes a little bit difficult to word the condition
that, you know, the applicant will continue the sidewalk as far as possible'on the south
side drive, so I did tie that to a physical location, to the western side of Lot 17. And the
applicant can address if that works for them, if they feel like that's feasible. As part of
insuring access to those eastern units, we did request that the applicant reduce their
proposed landscape buffer along Pine. While it's not something we would normally do
is recommend that the landscape buffer be reduced, this is a high -- this is designated
high density residential on the Comprehensive Plan and as such we would like to see it
utilized to the extent that that's possible. By reducing that landscape buffer to the -- to
require 20 feet, they were able to shift some buildings, meet their setbacks in the rear of
the property and keep a distance between the garages that we felt like functioned better
as a common drive, that would insure that there wasn't too much interference and there
is the ability to access those very most two eastern units. So, that was a condition that
was in the staff report. The fire department has required, because of the 24-foot width,
that the entire service drive be signed no parking. The only parking would be -- would
be the guest spots in the garages of the units and on the landscape plan here, the --
and they are delineated from the mass of the dwelling structure, but these front most
portions of the units are garages. So, the only parking that would not be parking lot on
the service drive, the only parking would be in the guest spaces, in the garages, and on
the units where they are providing the full driveway depth, which, I believe, is only those
three -- that building up there. Let's see. Staff did recommend on esthetic grounds that
the applicant flip flop the buildings located in the center on the north of the service drive
with the open space lot. In other words, move this open space drainage lot and
associated parking to line up with the end of the entry drive and move that building to be
adjacent to this building. Staff did feel that even with those parking spaces in front of
the open space, that open space with some landscaping and trees, would provide a
better view from Pine Avenue and entering into the unit and also immediately identify
where the guest parking was, because it would be immediately apparent upon entering
the development. The applicant did represent that there is some site constraints that
does not make that possible or preferable. I think staff is okay with that. I'll let the
applicant make his case on that. But that was more of a -- trying to make this
development as pleasing as possible. If there is some things on site that don't work, I
think that's still okay and staff is okay with that. The applicant did also request in the
application letter to gate the project with a -- with a remote control -- I assume a remote
control gate that would be, then, accessible by residents and their guests. Staff has
actually recommended denial of that request and that is because you end up with one of
two things. We do need to see the vehicles be able to move off of the roadway in order
to access that gate. So, the gate cannot be placed at edge of right of way, because a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18. 2005
Page 82 of 98
vehicle would be waiting in East Pine Avenue for that gate to open up. If we move the
gate in -- and Brad represented that 60 feet is a number that we would like to see.
Then, you have the problem of vehicles pulling off of Pine into this 24-foot drive and
upon coming to the locked gate, the option is to back out onto East Pine, which is
something we don't want to see. So, without facilities for an exit or a turnaround right
there before the gate, we are recommending denial of that request. Any sort of
turnaround right there for vehicles would impact buildings adjacent to the drive and it's
my assumption that the applicant ~- that's not -- would not be their preference. As a
CUP they were required to submit elevations. The units are attached three-plexes or
what we would consider townhouses. They do have a -- what staff felt was a positive
appearance than maybe your standard four-plex box -- these aren't four-plexes, these
are three-plexes, but they have an appearance that's residential in character and staff
felt like was a good product and consistent with these other properties. And those are
the elevations there. I will kind of touch real quick on the memo and make sure I hit all
changes here. Number one was to delete condition 1.1.3 and that was the requirement
that the applicant flip flop the open space drainage lot with those buildings and line them
up with the service drive entrance. We have recommended that they modify condition
1.1.4 to extend that service drive to the eastern property line and provide that second
emergency access the fire department would like to see. We have modified condition
1.1.5 to read that the applicant shall extend the sidewalk on the south side of the
service drive to the western edge of Lot 17. Did add condition 1.1.12, which reads that
the request for installation of a security gate at the entrance to the service drive from
East Pine Avenue is denied. And, then, also recommended that condition 1.1.13 be
added that because of site constraints the applicant has proposed to place the service
drive -- the eastern extension of the service drive in an easement and we recommend
that, then, be placed in a cross-access easement to benefit those lots in the subdivision
that it does access. I think that that's the only thing I wanted to -- and at this point I will
stand for questions.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Josh, as far as any fencing, they haven't submitted anything as of yet?
Wilson: No, I don't believe they have.
Moe: But it is a requirement for them to fence the perimeter?
Wilson: If permanent perimeter fencing is not proposed, then, they would have to put
up temporary fencing before release of building permits. But there is not a requirement
to fence the perimeter.
Moe: Even with the high school right there?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18. 2Q05
Page 83 of 98
Wilson: As far as ordinance, no, but it's -- it being a Conditional Use Permit, you can
impose conditions above and beyond the ordinance that you feel are necessary.
Moe: Well, we will see what the applicant's planning to do there and we will go from
there. I've got a real concern about that. Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: The emergency access, which in your new memo is referred to in paragraph
two, to make that operative, does there need to be a cross-access agreement with the
LDS property or -- it would only be used for emergency purposes, but do we need their
agreement that --
Wilson: I think we probably do. I think you're correct. I think that should be added.
Zaremba: Okay. To paragraph two on your memo.
Wilson: Yeah. I think it could be handled within the same condition as the sentence in
there.
Zaremba: Okay. All right. Any other questions for staff? Would the applicant care to
come forward?
Nickel: Good late evening to you all. I'm going to be very brief. Shawn Nickel. 52
North 2nd Street in Eagle. I'm as tired as you are, as you saw from my nap back there,
so I'm just going to address the questions that Josh brought up and, then, a couple of
your comments. The modified conditions of approval we are fine with. We did -- I did
meet with Joe Silva this morning and to kind of lock in that -- what he wanted for that
emergency access. My client has met with the LDS church and does have approval
from them to access that as an emergency access. I think a cross-access agreement
would be appropriate. Or some sort of commitment from the seminary and we will
provide that.
Zaremba: I guess my thinking on that is they could someday sell their property and the
new owner might say, no, I don't want a fire truck coming in this way or something, so
it -- .
Nickel: And I think they realize that. It also provides them another access into theirs as
well, so that would go both ways.
Borup: Is there any redesign on that property? I assume there is a fence there.
And no landscape, though?
Zaremba: Shawn, if you would repeat what was said.
Nickel: Yeah. My client did state that, yes, there is a chain link fence along the eastern
boundary of the property and we will work with the seminary on providing that access.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 84 of 98
Borup: So, I assume all the redesign work would be done as part of this project?
Nickel: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. As staff stated, we did have a concern about relocating that
common area over to this section right here and the reason we placed this common
area right here was two fold. One was the sewer easement -- that sewer line will be
coming from the north through the school district and that's the -- where the school
board -- we will bring the sewer main over in this area and it will have to come down to
service our site. The school had plans for building on this property right here and so
that sewer line would coincide with their future plan. Secondly, this is the best place for
us to put our drainage. That will be -- although it will be landscaped, it will be a
drainage area and this was the best location for that. So, we would like to keep that in
that location and so we would -- we appreciate staff's recommendation to delete that
condition. With regard to the sidewalk, we just want the flexibility that as this area
narrows down here -- we do have to keep a certain distance between the buildings and
an appropriate width for that service drive, that we can work with staff on exactly how far
to the east that that sidewalk would come and still fit in that spot as it narrows down.
Zaremba: Let me ask a question on that. Is the sidewalk and the actual driveway
different material, the sidewalk going to be concrete and the driveway asphalt and there
is a curb?
Nickel: Right. That is correct.
Zaremba: But what I was wondering is if you could visually continue that farther than
you really intend to by just striping something that looks like a crosswalk.
Nickel: That's a good --
Zaremba: Where the cement has to end and the curb has to end, maybe -- that puts
drivers on alert to look for pedestrians.
Nickel: I think that would be a good idea.
Borup: Or the sidewalk could continue and just delete the curb in that area, too.
Zaremba: Bring it down to level with the asphalt.
Borup: Then you don't have the drainage you need.
Nickel: The drainage and also cars driving over the sidewalk as it narrows down. But,
again, if we have the flexibility to work, once we design it, with staff, I think we can come
up with --
Zaremba: I'm just thinking it could literally look like it goes a lot longer than it really does
with a paint stripe or something.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August18,2oo5
Page 85 of 98
Nickel: Okay. So, the only -- I guess the only real issue we have -- and I guess before
we talk about that, your question, Commissioner Moe, was regarding fencing?
Moe: Uh-huh.
Nickel: The school is going to have a six-foot high chain link fence with slats along the
north boundary. We are proposing a six-foot high either cedar or vinyl around the
perimeter of our development and that brings me to the need for the security gate, was
to kind of establish a secure -- because of the location to the school, to kind of provide a
secure -- I won't say lock down, but a community, and that's why we were requesting
that security gate is to have that a secure community, enclosed community. I do
understand staffs concerns. I just do want to point out that we did get the approval from
the fire department to do -- that if we do a security gate, that they would have access to
that. Again, I guess I'll leave that up to you to make your recommendation to City
Council. I know where staff is going with it. We would like to see that remain. I don't --
staff is correct, we do not have an appropriate turnaround if someone was to pull in
there and they need to pull back out -- I don't know how many times that would happen.
We would provide enough area to staff for when residents do come in that they would
be off of Pine Street. So, again, I'll leave that for your recommendation. We did have a
neighborhood meeting and the issues that came up were specifically in regards to
irrigation and drainage and we have agreed with the farmer, the property owner to the --
I guess to the east -- or to the west that during design we will coordinate drainage and
irrigation as it comes through our property and service his property to the west. That
was it for the concerns from the neighborhood meeting. Very briefly -- as staff stated,
these are three units -- they are not really tri-plexes in the sense that they are going to
be rentals or actually individually owned. Each of the three units within the building are
in a separate lot and so the intent is individual ownership. I just want to kind of show
you the -- you can pass that around. I believe this design is something that's going to
be unique to the City of Meridian. I know the developer is very proud of the design and I
just wanted to show you his drawings that he had. And that's a picture of the entrance.
If you have anymore-specific questions, Mr. Arnke is here and he would be more than
happy to address those.
Moe: I guess the only thing that I would -- the only other question I would have, then,
you take no exception to anything of the staff, other than item number four in his memo?
Nickel: That is correct. And I'd like to thank Josh for working with us and trying to get
everything taken care of before we came this evening. We were working up to kind of
the last minute getting everything ironed out and that's why his memo was the last
minute, but we do agree with everything. And, again, we'd like the consideration on the
security gate.
Rohm: Does this have to stay here now?
Borup: Yes. Once it's presented --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August18,2005
Page 86 of 98
Rohm: I wasn't sure if they intended that or not.
Nickel: Well, we'd like to -- if we can use it for City Council.
Zaremba: It will be available.
Nickel: Okay. I'm not going to show you this one.
Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Arnke, you're signed up to speak, so I would give him the next
opportunity.
Arnke: Chairman, Commissioners, staff, thank you for your interest in our project. We
hope that everything is approved. I would, again, like to address --
Zaremba: For the record, sir, would you state your name, please.
Arnke: Oh. I'm sorry.
Zaremba: We may know, but please -- thank you.
Arnke: Mike Arnke. And I would like to address the issue of the security gate. The
particular project that we have developed is kind of in our -- I have done it in several
other locations around the country and it's been very popular, because of the design, it's
-- and we have been -- because of the types of materials used here it's a little different,
but it lends itself to almost -- I won't say a complete adult community, but because they
are -- this unit here is 1,500 square foot. This one is 2,000, and this one is 1,700. And
they are all on one level, all the master -- you know, except for this one has two large
bedrooms that are 14 by 20 upstairs, but typically, we find empty nesters without
children are predominant buyers for this. Every once in awhile we will have a young
family, but predominately a more adult community. So, that's why we prefer to use a
gated community, because there is a sense of security there. And statistically we know
that in and around high schools 90 percent of the burglaries occur before 5:00 o'clock in
the afternoon and that's nationwide. It doesn't care what city you're in and that's just
status quo. And we are that close to a high school and you have a lot of youth around
there that, let's face it, they are -- you know, they aren't where they should be and we
just feel that that gated security would afford the homeowners there a little extra --
keeping people out who don't belong there. And that's only because it's just a real
isolated pocket. If you go up and down Pine in either direction it's a long ways away
before you can pull into another residential area there. So, that's why we were
concerned about that. Unless you can guarantee me that --
Zaremba: The gate is a logical request and certainly make sense. The difficulty is there
needs to be some form of escape for people who are not authorized to go through the
gate that makes that corner, not aware there is going to be a gate there. In the other
places where we have approved gates, it has included some form of escape that didn't
require -- I mean Pine today doesn't look like it, but it's going to be an arterial,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18. 2005
Page 87 of 98
particularly when it connects farther west and at certain times even now when the high
school is letting out, it's a busy street. And I agree with staff, we don't want a situation
where somebody needs to escape by backing onto Pine Street.
Arnke: Sure. And I understand that.
Zaremba: Is there a way to give a turnaround?
Arnke: Well, typically, in most of the multi-units that we have built in the past, typically
our gates remain open during your peak times. Not only is it logical, it's sensible,
because you're not putting wear and tear on your gate and people need to get in and
get out and we don't need to stack -- nobody wants a stacking problem and a back up
out onto the main artery. So, between given hours in the morning and in the afternoon
or say around 5:00 o'clock .- normally between 4:00 and 6:30 and between 7:00 in the
morning and 9:00 o'clock the gates remain open. That's your heaviest traffic hours. So
this way you alleviate your stacking. And if everybody has -- and if you set up your
gates -- with the exception of those people who aren't residents, but if you set up your
homeowners with transmitters, they can push the transmitter well before they get
around that corner or as they come around the corner and the gate will open. So, that
doesn't necessarily present itself as a problem. You know, if there is a way that I could
do it, I certainly would do a turn out, if I had the room, but that's logical. If I had the
room I certainly would do that, but I don't -- I don't --
Zaremba: It doesn't look like there is the room.
Arnke: That's the problem.
Zaremba: Great. Thank you.
Arnke: Any other questions?
Borup: Yeah. I'd like to pursue --
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: -- pursue the same thing, Mr. Commissioner. And it sounds like you have done
the research and such. You talked about incidents of burglary around high schools and
stuff. So, it sounds like you have got -- are most of those with cars? Are they coming in
with cars and loading up cars?
Arnke: Well, it's the age of mobility --
Borup: Okay.
Arnke: And I speak from experience. I'm a retired police officer.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 88 of 98
Borup: Well -- and I wasn't sure, but I mean if I was going to break in, I certainly
wouldn't go through the gate, I'd jump over a side fence where all the landscaping is,
but --
Arnke: Well, yeah, but--
Borup: And so the gate is not going to keep that type of --
Arnke: It's going to keep people from just meandering in and out and, let's face it,
burglars are opportunists and in the event of fleeing they are going to jump a fence,
sure. But they are not going to jump into an area they don't know what's on the other
side. And so you're -- if you go up the way the hill is and you're going over a six-foot
high fence, you can't see over to the other side. So, for all they know they could be
jumping into the backyard with a pit bull and they don't know that. But with the age of
mobility, most of them you will find burglars in the daytime, you know, they are going to
be driving cars. I mean we are not talking about toddlers in there, we are talking about
15,16 and 17 year old kids that, you know, for whatever reason they are what they are.
Borup: And you said the gates would be open most of the time. So, that's on a timer?
Arnke: Yes.
Borup: But you said most of the burglaries are before 5:00?
Arnke: Before 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon. So, if you set up your -- but, typically,
burglars are not going to be ingressing when the guy's in the garage getting ready to go
to work, I mean they are going to be basically in there after hours at 9:00 o'clock in the
morning -- they are lazy people. They are not going to get out of bed at 7:00 and --
Borup: Basically you mean --
Arnke: Well, I'm talking about between 7:00 and 9:00 in the morning your gates would
open and, then, between 4:00 and 6:00 in the afternoon they would open again, so that
the majority of your traffic can ingress and egress without a problem.
Borup: So, any solution on how the individual that pulls in that doesn't intend to go in
there?
Arnke: It's possible, because right --
Borup: What's their situation, then, other than backing out?
Arnke: Yeah. The only thing I can think of is right in this area here is an open stall area
for several parking places --
Borup: No. I mean when the gate is closed.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 89 of 98
Arnke: Oh, when the gate's closed? How would he get in if the gate were closed?
Borup: No. How would he get back out onto Pine besides backing out?
Arnke: It would have an automatic opener as you come up to it from the inside.
Borup: No. I'm talking about the individual that does not intend -- that pulls in
accidentally, as staff discussed.
Arnke: If he -- okay. If he pulls in accidentally, then, the gates would be open, then, he
could come in, turn around, and, then, go back out, because the gate would be open.
Borup: Then why have a gate if it's open all the time?
Arnke: Well, no, it wouldn't be open. I'm saying if he drove into it during -- you said if
he drove into it and the gate was open.
Borup: No. No. He dove in there, the gate's closed --
Arnke: Yes. How would he get out? That's a good question.
Borup: I mean that was the concern that staff raised and I just wondered if you had
the --
Arnke: I think if there is -- if there is -- if we design the project so that there is enough
visibility -- and, obviously, there would be, because this area right there is of great
concern, if the normal prudent person were driving down this way and made a right turn
into there -- and if the gates were somewhere right in this area right --
Borup: That's what I was going to ask. So, you're proposing the gate at the end of the
site triangle?
Arnke: We would have to -- we would configure something to make it readily visible and
distinguishable as a gated community, you know, and that would be something that, you
know, as we develop that and certainly with some .- it would be subject to critique as we
further designed it with that in mind. Mainly, the visibility for ingress and egress.
Borup: Thank you. Does staff have any further comments on that? If the gate's at the
end of the sight triangle, so you would see it before you pulled in there -- we are not
stopping those accidental pull ins.
Wilson: Probably would most.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August18,200S
Page 90 of 98
Borup: But if one car is stacked, but if they have got -- and most people -- like a garage
door opener, they hit it -- they are not going to pull in the driveway and park and, then,
hit their opener; right? They hit it so they don't have to slow down.
Wilson: And I think without a turnaround or an exit, I don't think staff can support the
gate. You know, you could eliminate most people going in there by making it visible,
but, you know, there is people that -- I think without that--
Borup: And only one car could -- because it's only -- what is that setback, 35 feet?
Wilson: Twenty.
Borup: Okay. So, that's one car length. Same as anybody -- same as any house along
Pine that's pulling out of their driveway. So, I'm wondering how bad of a thing it is. I
was just throwing that out.
Zaremba: Okay. All right. We also have signed up to speak Paul Geile.
Geile: My name is Paul Geile. I live at 4717 Willow Lane in Boise. My father owns the
20 acre parcel directly west adjacent to this property and my function is just to kind of
keep an eye on the project and make sure that the changes that occur aren't detrimental
to our interests and in looking at all of the proposed changes, gate or no gate, I haven't
seen anything that materially affects our position to the west. Just a real quick note
about -- maybe this is why Meridian's a great place to live. My parents have lived right
next to Meridian High School since it was built in '76. I was in the first class out of there.
They have had numerous minor -- minor minor things, but never have had a single
burglary or serious trespass on their property. It's been amazing. But, anyway, as far
as I'm concerned, I don't see anything that really concerns me and that's my comment.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Moe: Thank you.
Zaremba: To make sure it's on the record, we have also received a letter from Mr. and
Carmack, who live east of this property on Pine Street and they have mentioned that
sometimes teenagers from the high school are around the neighborhood at times when
they shouldn't be doing things that they shouldn't be, so that does add concern for
wanting to have a gate. They had some other issues as well, but I think most of them
have been addressed. I just wanted to note that we have seen their letter.
Rohm: I think one of the things that allowing the developer to put a gated community in
here, it lends itself to clientele that they are going after, the retired people, and/or the
empty nesters and if it were not a gated, maybe there would be young families moving
in and, then, there would be cars all over the place. And so there is -- there is possibly
some advantages internal to the project by allowing it to be a gated community, just to
minimize the cars on the roadway.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 91 of 98
Zaremba: If we are thinking of going that direction, Mr. Arnke mentioned things that
would emphasize the gate. Would we want to make suggestions that there be extra
lighting focused on the gate or anything that would help people notice that there is a
gate there? I mean certainly the residents are prepared for the gate, but I'm still thinking
of the guy that wanders down the street thinking he can look through this subdivision to
see whether maybe he even wants to buy a house in there and pulls in and here is this
gate. If -- do we want to make suggestions about ways to highlight the gate, so that it
can be noticed by anybody that's not asleep while they are driving or --
Borup: If he goes fast enough he can probably make it in anyway.
Zaremba: Following somebody else. I mean I -- my biggest concern is somebody
having to back out onto Pine and I certainly can understand the reasons for having a
gate. If there were a turnaround or an escape I would be fully supportive, but --
Wilson: Chairman Zaremba?
Zaremba: Yes.
Wilson: Before you close the Public Hearing, staff does have a question about -- the
applicant did indicate in their letter that Joe Silva has seen the gate and is okay with it. I
would ask the applicant where they showed that -- where they had shown that gate,
how far off of Pine. Brad's recollection that they do like to get their fire trucks off of the
roadway, which they are 40 feet long. If the gate was 40 feet or more off, then, it
becomes very much less visible from Pine. So, maybe if the applicant could address
where they did show that gate when Joe was okay with it.
Borup: The fire department wants it 40 feet in?
Zaremba: So, they can get their truck off --
Wilson: They get their truck off of Pine when they pull in there.
Borup: See, I have never seen the -- when they are on an emergency, I've never seen
them too concerned about anybody else. I think that they figure they own everything on
the road.
Zaremba: Well -~ and there may be an ACHD requirement as well. I have heard 60
feet, but I'm not sure it -- where that came from.
Nickel: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Yes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 92 of 98
Nickel: Shawn Nickel again. It wasn't discussed with Mr. Silva, the distance. When we
met with him it was early on and it was more would you accept a security gate and he
said, yeah, as long as we have the access. But we didn't really get into distance about
how much -- you know, what he wanted for a fire truck. If they want to get in, they will
get in.
Borup: I mean they'll just stop out there. I mean they will just stop in the road and block
traffic, is what I would say.
Nickel: They will do whatever.
Borup: So, what would the access do? Would they also have a remote or a key?
Nickel: It would be a key to override the system to get in.
Borup: So, they would have to get out of their vehicle?
Nickel: Yeah. It just wasn't discussed as to how -- if he wanted to actually have access
to pull in before they got out. I would image they would just stop in Pine.
Zaremba: Do you have suggestions for highlighting the gate?
Nickel: I don't. It doesn't come up too often in my developments.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rohm: Let me ask you how are you going to highlight your -- your entrances -- isn't
there a -- kind of a little brick wall right here with the name of the subdivision? Right
here? I thought I saw on one of the elevations --
Zaremba: Something indicated as a sign.
Rohm: My question was, is could this be eliminated?
Nickel: Sure. That's our intent.
Rohm: Okay. Because that should provide some indication of--
Nickel: We will have illumination shining up onto the signage --
Arnke: And can I make one other comment relative to the issue on the sidewalk? It's
my intent that in the areas where I have roadway, this will be asphalt, and then -- at a
certain point, then, everything beyond that will be gutters and --
Borup: Concrete?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 93 of 98
Arnke: -- concrete. So, there will be a third distinction between what is considered
roadway and/or a walk area.
Moe: I assume most of these you have said earlier all have security gates?
Arnke: Yes.
Moe: But I don't see one in your rendering here.
Arnke: Well, subject to discussion. And certainly we would be glad to get with staff in
our design and I certainly would, if it's acceptable, we could design that issue for further
approval, for your evaluation. Certainly don't want to do anything that's going to create
a problem and I think everybody looks at it from their own perspective, I think we are
better off coming up with a resolution, either for it against it, which ever works.
Borup: One last question for staff. Is there any merit to having a partial turnaround into
the buffer? I don't know if that makes sense. If you pull into the right side, you have got
26 feet of -- 26 feet to the curb -- outside of curb to outside of curb it looks like. You
know, another five or ten feet with a turnaround, I mean it's going across traffic -- well,
the only traffic that would be blocked would be the outward bound traffic. It kind of --
you know, that's where they have got their sign also and it's going to eliminate some
landscaping. I don't know. Ten feet of -- ten feet makes a lot of difference. Is that a
solution at all or is that just --
Wilson: I guess I would have to see how it functions and there is also the concern of
eliminating landscape in that landscape buffer.
Borup: So, you have got 20 feet -- you need a ten-foot -- I'm thinking a ten foot back up
area. Probably on the other side is what I'm thinking, to give a little bit more room to
back up. I mean right in the middle of the area, you know. If it's ten feet wide and you
have got -- that would still give you five feet on each side for landscaping.
Moe: You're speaking perpendicular to Pine, then?
Borup: Yes.
Moe: Okay. Yeah. I was wondering the same thing.
Wilson: I mean I think -- I think it creates the possibility for conflict with traffic, you
know, to say that somebody could fairly recently negotiate that, you know, is one thing,
but there is always the possibility for traffic conflict that could be eliminated, you know,
where we have that --
Borup: We have a conflict with somebody else turning in by mistake when that guy is
trying to get out.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August18,2oo5
Page 94 of 98
Wilson: Right. Or somebody exiting or a resident entering or you know -- but they
would be performing some sort of turning maneuver across the entrance as somebody
either wanting to enter and exit. So, there is that possibility for conflict there.
Borup: I don't see that much of a conflict coming from the inside of the gate's closed. I
don't know. That was just another idea.
Moe: I thought it was a good idea.
Zaremba: Well, let me make a suggestion. I'm getting the sense that we are 90 percent
in favor of the project, the sticking point may be the gate. If we are thinking of
recommending approval, do so as the staff has requested without a gate, but allow the
applicant the opportunity to come up with some solution and present that part of the
public hearing before the City Council. I mean we are --
Borup: Could we do that?
Zaremba: I realize we don't like to send things undecided to the City Council.
Borup: Can we do that without -- with making no recommendation on the gate either
way? No? You don't want that?
Zaremba: I'd want the applicant to make a strong case and have a solution to the
backing out problem. .
Borup: If we need to, because right now --
Zaremba: Is that a workable solution?
Rohm: I think we should approach it the other way, say they have to work out with staff
a way --
Zaremba: An escape.
Rohm: -- an escape which would include the gate. And that way they still -- we don't
object to the gate, but they have to work something out that could be acceptable to staff.
And I don't know if staff is willing to meet them halfway on this. 1--
Zaremba: Well -- and I'd probably want to run it by the police department and the fire
department again as well.
Wilson: Yeah. I'd like the fire department to comment on it. From my perspective as
staff, I don't have much in the way of criteria to judge any solution they present against
-- I certainly don't have any expertise in traffic movement to driveways, so -- I mean I
can try and evaluate it, but I'm not sure that we have a mechanism to.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August18,2005
Page 95 of 98
Rohm: Well, I think like Commissioner Borup's comments on the fire department, they
pretty well take whatever they want whenever they want it and -- and, you know, as they
should -- I mean as they are approaching the scene of a fire, they are -- they are going
to park their vehicles the way they are best able to serve at that moment in time and so I
don't see that as a significant issue and if the entrance is properly illuminated, I don't
personally think that there is going to be that many people that are going to pull in and,
then, have to back out onto Pine. I don't see it as a huge issue, but I'm not the one that
has to enforce issues that arise from it.
Moe: So, if I get this correctly, you're saying to -- basically, if we are all in agreement
with the project, that we would approve it as presented by staff, along with the -- the
additional memo, which does deny the gate, but that in between this hearing and
Council that the applicant be allowed to work with staff to possibly come up with a
solution to the gate is what you're saying?
Zaremba: That includes an escape. Unless the other -- that's what I originally said,
actually. Yes. The new thinking is the other way around. We approve the gate with an
escape. If they are not able to come up with an escape, then, the gate is not approved.
Moe: Well, I guess I would ask staff -- because what I have heard tonight on the
possible solutions -- I'm getting answers of that won't work. And so I'm not getting a real
good feel that there is a solution going that route. Especially after, you know, they still
need to talk to fire and whatnot.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, I guess I would just say we are taking our direction from you
on these issues that are really not clear in code. That's part of the reason these are
conditional use permits and so I guess I would just say, yeah, we -- we are telling you
we don't really have much experience with this and we don't have much criteria to
evaluate these, as Josh mentioned, but at the same time, you know, this is your area.
Your direction to us on the area that -- if you, actually, prefer a gate, as long as public
safety issues can be addressed.
Rohm: Bingo.
Hawkins-Clark: And, you know, if that's the direction to us, then, we are fine with that.
You know, I think there is -- and that may be an option to just kind of create a little bit
wider entrance to not have it choke down so quick. I mean right now the way it's drawn,
then, yeah, it might make the turning radius off Pine, but you might actually create
almost a -- you know, a moon shaped asphalt area -- maybe you could make it look a
little better with a little planter or something there, but so that -- you don't have a lot of
visibility and even a small car might be able to be parked on the curve, so that if it was a
moon shape --
Borup: You're talking about, basically, a small turnaround?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18. 2005
Page 96 of 98
Hawkins-Clark: A small turnaround, but it's all basically where the landscape buffer is
current. That depth. It's just wider.
Rohm: That sounds like the solution. With that being said --
Borup: Well, there is a lot of solutions and I don't know that I'm saying I prefer the gate,
I'm just saying I'm not objecting to it if a solution can be worked out.
Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-028, PP 05-028, and CUP
05-037.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-028,
to include all staff comments for the hearing date August 18th, 2005, and received
August 12th, 2005, including all staff comments and with the addition of a memo dated
August 18th, 2005, submitted by planner Josh Wilson and changes to that memo would
be on item two, a cross-access agreement will be required with the LDS church and
change to item four, the request for installation of a security gate at the entrance of the
service drive from East Pine Avenue is approved with an escape route provided
acceptable to staff.
Moe: Is that required in the annexation?
Rohm: Well, I -- it's -- I will just make it as part of all of them.
Moe: Okay. That will work.
Rohm: End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18. 2005
Page 97 of 98
Zaremba: We have a motion and second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of PP 05-028,
to include all staff comments for the hearing date August 18th, 2005, received by the
clerk August 12th, 2005, with the attached memo dated August 18th, 2005, by Josh
Wilson, with the following changes to that memo: On item two, an additional sentence
at the end of that -- that line, which would read a cross-access agreement will be
required with the LDS church and on item four, the statement will read: The request for
the installation of a security gate at the entrance to the service drive on East Pine
Avenue is approved with an escape route provided and accepted by staff. End of
motion.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we recommend approval to City Council for CUP 05-037, to include
all staff comments for the hearing date August 18th, 2005, received August 12th, 2005,
with an additional memo dated August 18th, 2005, by Josh Wilson with the following
changes to that memo: On Item two a cross-access agreement will be required with the
LDS church. And on Item four, the request for the installation of a security gate at the
entrance of the service drive from East Pine Avenue is approved with an escape route
provided and accepted by staff. 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: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 18,2005
Page 98 of 98
Zaremba: Thank you all very much. Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move we adjourn.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: Thank you all very much.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:35 A.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
I 0 I LC I DC;
DATE APPROVED
ATTESTE