2005 11-17
Meridian Planning and Zonina Meeting
November 17. 2005.
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of November 17, 2005, was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Zaremba.
Members Present: Chairman David Zaremba, Commissioner Keith Borup,
Commissioner Wendy-Newton-Huckabay, Commissioner Michael Rohm, and
Commissioner David Moe.
Others Present: Ted Baird, Jessica Johnson, Craig Hood, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Keith Borup X David Moe
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Michael Rohm
X Chairman David Zaremba
Zaremba: Good evening, everybody, and welcome to this regularly scheduled meeting
of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for Thursday, November 17th, 2005.
We will begin with the roll call of attendance.
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Zaremba: The next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and I have some
news that we are actually going to require some discussion during the adoption of the
agenda. Items 7, 8 and 9, referring to Reflection Ridge, the ACHD report has not --
actually, ACHD has not met about that subject yet and the report is not made and there
is a request to continue that one. The anticipation is that the report probably will not be
ready soon enough to have all the staff comments and to be to us by the requested date
of December 15th. So, I'm suggesting that we continue that one to our next meeting,
which is January 5th. We will actually vote on these when I open the hearings, but let
me ask for a consensus. The ACHD report is very important to me and I think others
have expressed that it is and it's important to staff in case anything gets changed. So,
can we anticipate that we will continue Reflection Ridge to January 5th?
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I would say so. That, quite frankly, with the other hearings that we
are going to continue tonight, any sooner than that I think is going to --
Zaremba: Okay. All right. So, Reflection Ridge, when we get to it, that will go to
January 5th, '06. My gosh. Okay. Items 10 and 11, which refer to Reserve
Subdivision; 12 and 13, which refer to Touchmark Center Subdivision, and 14, 15 and
16, which refer to Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision, I'm sorry to announce that there
was a flaw in the legal notice required to get everybody. There is three different kinds of
notices that have to go out and one of them was flawed, so we cannot hold a hearing on
those items, because they have not been legally, properly noticed. In order to get the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 17, 2005
Page 2 of 37
notice done, they actually cannot be heard on our December 1 st meeting, they won't --
the notice won't make that. So, it has to at least be December 8th, if the Commission
decides to have a special extra meeting, or December 17th, which is our regular
meeting, which currently has six subdivisions on it and it would be an all nighter. So, let
me get a consensus of the Commission of what you wish to do with those. I will say,
referring to the 17th, I have not actually contacted the person that I was going to do a
presentation that day, so I could easily cancel that presentation -- or just not schedule it.
Let me get opinions from people. Commissioner Rohm?
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I think the 8th would be a good date for these three, if the
balance of the Commission is willing to come in an extra night.
Zaremba: Other opinions?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton+Huckabay: I have a question. It would just be for those three hearings or are
we going to tack other hearings onto that?
Zaremba: Yes. I'm sure there may be a fourth one that would add to that. And let me
ask Mr. Hood.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, there was one possibly we thought
would go to the 8th, but I think that needs to be continued out, again, for the same
reason that Reflection is. We don't have ACHD. So, it would just be those three that
I'm aware of right now.
Zaremba: Okay.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I just -- a couple things I want to talk about. Remember, we do
have a special meeting on the 29th.
Zaremba: Also.
Moe: Then, we will meet that following--
Zaremba: And, then, our regular meeting.
Moe: The regular meeting and, then, another meeting on the 8th.
Rohm: But the pay is so good.
Moe: And the 15th. You know, you're absolutely right. Unfortunately, with the notice
not being done, I don't think it would be very fair to the applicants, because it wasn't
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 17, 2005
Page 3 of 37
their fault, to extend it out any farther, but -. and I don't see, either on the 15th where we
are already booked as well, so something would have to get moved. So, I'm not sure
we have any other choice, other than to have a meeting on the 8th as well.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, yeah, I agree with that. I mean no one loves extra meetings
more than me, but I hate to see things getting all backed up anymore than they would
be.
Moe: And, besides that, this is so much fun.
Zaremba: Well, I enjoy it.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, 1--
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, you asked a question, but you didn't
expression an opinion.
Newton-Huckabay: That would be fine.
Zaremba: Okay. So, the consensus of the Commission -- and, again, we will officially
do this when we get to those items on the agenda, but Reserve Subdivision, Touchmark
Center Subdivision, Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision, will all be continued to a
special meeting on Thursday, December 8th, beginning at 7:00 o'clock.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I do have one request in relation to that. To, please, endeavor not
to add anything else onto that meeting on that night, even though it may --
Zaremba: Would be attractive?
Newton-Huckabay: -- be an attractive option.
Zaremba: That's excellent direction for staff.
Borup: We will see.
Zaremba: Carry it on to the director, if you would, please. Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: I would just like to keep -- those are all three subdivisions anyway,
so it will take several hours as it stands.
Zaremba: All right. That being said, unless I hear any other comments, we will
consider the agenda adopted and acknowledge that some of those things will happen.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 17, 2005
Page 4 of 37
Thank you all for coming. I'm sorry we are not discussing them tonight, but we will get
to them. At this point I'd like to ask our City Attorney, Mr. Baird, to make an introduction.
Moe: Are we doing that prior to going through the Consent Agenda?
Zaremba: Yes.
Baird: I will make it quick. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we have
recently expanded our legal staff to add a part-time assistant city attorney. Emily Cane
is over here. She is recently with the State Attorney General. She was specializing in
environmental law, but she also does have a background in municipal law. So, we are
very happy to have her. She will probably not be attending too many of these meetings,
because we promised her we wouldn't be giving her night duty right at the start here.
But she is available and you might see her at meetings or see her name on memos and
whatnot. And while I do have the floor, I have also been asked to announce that there
is an enhancement -- another staff enhancement in the Clerk's Office. Jessica Johnson
has been appointed as the Liaison to the Planning Department. She actually has an
office now at the office on Watertower. So, she's doing reports over there and trying to
make a smoother transition between the Clerk's Office and the Planning Department, so
Zaremba: Thank you very much. Welcome, Emily, and congratulations on the change
and all that is very good. Thank you.
Item 3:
Consent Agenda:
A.
Approve Minutes of October 20, 2005 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
B.
Approve Minutes of October 17, 2005 Planning and Zoning
Commission Special Meeting:
C.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
05-048 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 96,000 square
foot department store in a C-G zone for Kohl's Department Store
by W. H. Moore - NWC of North Eagle Road and East Ustick Road:
Zaremba: Next item is the Consent Agenda and I have no comments on the Consent
Agenda. Does anybody else? Everybody is amazed.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I do.
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: But it would not be on any of the meeting minutes. On Item C under the Findings
of Facts and Conclusions, I have a question under the decision and order, which would
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 17, 2005
Page 5 of 37
be on page 2. C-3, where it discusses that the applicant shall work with the Planning
Department staff to modify the south and west building elevations per the staff report, if
you will remember in the meeting we were discussing both those elevations, as well as
the trash enclosure area and I'm a little bit concerned that -- because there is going to
be quite a bit of change to those two elevations, that this report is kind of bringing it to --
that those will be the only two items that are discussed. And I know we discussed with
staff that they would have the ability to talk with the applicant to make those changes,
but with nothing being said here with the trash enclosure screening and that, I'm just --
I'm curious if we are okay with this wording or if we are going to have any problems
when it comes down to them working with staff. Because back on -- also on Exhibit F,
page one, it just brings it up again that the applicant shall coordinate with the elevation
modifications with the planning department staff and I know we did discuss other than
just those two elevations, so -- so, my question would be where do we go from here with
that?
Zaremba: My question to the attorney, Mr. Baird, is that something we can hand write,
in addition to the official copy I sign, or do we need to have a new copy? I agree with
the comment.
Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, if you have language that you have in
your minds that you think fulfills what your motion was, you can make that on the record
tonight and go ahead and pass those Findings. Craig over there will probably make
notes and update the official copy of it. I think if you can do that, it would avoid further
delay on this. If it's -- I would ask also for Craig to chime in. If you think it's necessary
to bring back a printed form, we can do that, but --
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, and legal staff, I think that we can make
that -- if it's just a sentence or two that you would like to add that clarifies what we are
supposed to look for -- I'm not aware of all the discussion, I was not here at that hearing,
so if you want to add a sentence or two with screening trash enclosures or whatever
modifications to those elevations you want to see to be more specific, I can sure write
those in, get those to the clerk, and have the chair sign those at the end of this meeting
and so it's up to you, I think, to prevent this from having to go back and come back in
two weeks, that's probably the easiest way and, then, we can do that at City Council, we
can just strike through and add things if they are minor, so --
Moe: Okay.
Zaremba: I'll give Commissioner Moe a moment to compose such an addition.
Moe: Oh, boy. I guess I would ask the rest of the Commission -- do you remember
anything other than the screening that we are missing on this in regards to what we had
discussed with staff?
Zaremba: Variations in texture or materials I think were part of the discussion.
Variations in the parapet were part of the discussion.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 17, 2005
Page 6 of 37
Moe: That would all be part of the elevation changes.
Zaremba: But probably all part of the elevations.
Moe: Yeah. Just basic -- I think the only one was the screening, that it wasn't shown,
so --
Zaremba: And was it just screening of dumpster locations or some kind of screening --
we never came to a conclusion of how close residential was going to be to the west of
this, but did we want to discuss screening of the loading docks, as well as -- I remember
that being mentioned, but I don't remember a decision.
Moe: I think what I would probably do -- I think that fairly easily, starting in that second
sentence there, just in particular the Commission supports a modification to the west
elevation's roof line, wall projections, and screening, since it's visible from the
eastbound Ustick Road traffic. Just so that there is screening and, then, it's a simple
matter of working with staff on what all they want to have screened, other than the trash
area. Does that work?
Zaremba: Give them the option.
Moe: Okay.
Zaremba: That works for me. The chair would entertain a motion to accept the
Consent Agenda with the modifications specified to Item C.
Moe: As stated.
Borup: So moved.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second? Let's see. Commissioner Borup, were
you seconding?
Borup: Uh-huh.
Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
That motion carries. The Consent Agenda is adopted.
MOTION CARRI ED: ALL AYES.
Item 4: Presentation: Blue Print for Good Growth by Karen Doherty:
Zaremba: Next item is a presentation and I'm sorry to announce that Karen Doherty,
who was going to make this presentation, called me earlier today and said yesterday
she had to have gallbladder surgery and she's not quit prepared to stand up and make a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 17, 2005
Page 7 of 37
presentation today. So, I have agreed with her that we would move that presentation to
our next scheduled meeting of December 1 st. And if that's agreeable by the
Commission, then, I think I will also proceed with not having a presentation on the third
Thursday next month. We will move this presentation to the first and that will be it for
this month and next month.
Zaremba: Okay. In that case, we are up to the Public Hearing that we are going to deal
with. Let me state first, for those of you that don't come to our hearings very often, we
do have some procedure. In all cases the applicant and our professional staff have
spent some time together discussing the items that are before us and we will begin with
a report from our staff that describes for us and you where the project is located and
what the project is and any issues that they have uncovered in regards to the
Comprehensive Plan or the current ordinances of the City of Meridian. They are not
advocating for the project, they are just explaining what complies and what doesn't
comply and giving us as much background as they can. Following that, the applicant
has a turn to actually be advocating the project, to put it on its best footing, as well as to
answer any issues that have been raised by the staff that have not already been
resolved and bring to our attention anything else they wish for us to know. We ask that
the applicant limit their remarks to about 15 minutes. That includes any staff they may
bring with them of architects or engineers or otherwise. Then, following the applicant's
presentation is the time for the public testimony and that's when we ask anybody who
cares to to come forward and tell us what they think we need to know about the project
or how it impacts them. And we do ask that you limit your testimony to three minutes
each. Try and be concise if you can. The one exception to that is if there is a
spokesman and, typically, that would be a president of a homeowners association or
something like that, that is going to speak for other people who are not going to speak,
then, we give that spokes person ten minutes to speak. Following all the public
testimony -- and, I'm sorry, we do ask -- you know, since it's important enough for you to
come down, we want to make sure that we hear you and we do ask that you only speak
when you're at the microphone and when you come forward, please, give your name
and address for the record. Okay. Then, following the public testimony, we do ask that
the applicant has been taking notes while you speak and, then, we give the applicant
the final ten minutes to clarify anything they can relating to any issues that have been
brought up and anything that they can explain to us and, then, theoretically, we close
the Public Hearing and deliberate amongst ourselves, maybe ask staff some questions
and following that make a recommendation to the City Council, where there is, again, a
Public Hearing. So, that's pretty much the procedure. We have this handy light system
here and when the green light is on you have time to speak. When the yellow one
comes on, please, begin to conclude. And when the red one comes on we do ask that
you conclude at that point. So, now, let me ask a question both of staff and the city
attorney. Let me start with Mr. Baird. The first two items, although, technically,
unrelated, are right next to each other and are pretty much the same issue. Is there any
reason why we can't open both hearings for five and six at the same time?
Baird: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 17, 2005
Page 8 of 37
Zaremba: They are represented by the same person.
Baird: Unfortunately, I'd recommend against that.
Zaremba: Okay.
Baird: In order to keep the record clean in case some information came up that you
might want to deny one and approve the other, you're going to go in separate directions,
so to keep the record straight, they need to be separate. However, I think that staff is
going to be giving probably more of the presentation for the first one as a general
background, so you will probably have a quicker staff presentation on the second
hearing. I'm just presuming that. But for purposes of maintaining separate records, I
think we have to have separate public hearings.
Item 5:
Continued Public Hearing from November 3, 2005: AZ 05-048
Request for Annexation and Zoning of 14.81 acres from RUT to R-4 zone
for McGee Property by Martin Artis - 3086 South Mesa Way and 1252
East Victory Road:
Zaremba: I see Mr. Hood nodding and I appreciate your input. So, I will not combine
them. In that case, let me open the continued Public Hearing for AZ 05-048, relating to
the McGee property and even though this is continued, it was continued for a noticing
thing and we have had no prior discussion on it. So, we will begin with the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. And since this has been
continued, but the staff report wasn't presented, as I promised, I will be brief, but I do
want to run over some of the facts around this property and the adjacent property that
we will discuss more in detail next. The applicant for the McGee annexation has
applied for an R-4 zone, which is a medium to low-density residential zoning district on
14.81 acres that's outlined there in the purple color. It is currently zoned RUT in Ada
county. The site is located on the north side of Victory Road and on the east side of
Mesa Way, which is a local street in Kachina Estates. It's on the left-hand side. I'm
going to grab a pointer real quick. Sorry about that. So, this is Mesa, which is in
Kachina Estates. There are five lot subdivisions -- or five-acre lots in Kachina Estates,
primarily, and the subject annexation incorporates three of those lots. As you can see
from the aerial, it's currently rural residential. There are two existing single-family
homes on the subject property. The third parcel is currently vacant or does not have a
home on it. Just to kind of orient some more, there is a grange hall here across Victory.
This is the platted part of Tuscany Subdivision in the city. And I guess that's -- it's pretty
much low density residential around this today. It is rapidly transforming into more
urban densities, as some of the adjacent subdivisions to the east and west both. The
applicant has not submitted a preliminary plat with the subject application. However,
they did submit a conceptual site plan, which you see here. As the chair mentioned
earlier, it's the same representative of this 14.8 acres as it is the next property. What
we have done here is outlined the subject area in red. It should be noted that the city is
not approving this concept plan. We do require these now with our annexations if they
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 17, 2005
Page 9 of 37
don't submit a detailed site plan or preliminary plat. There are some concepts that we
do like or we need to change with this concept plan. We have called that out in the
development agreement, some of the conditions in the development agreement, and I
will touch on those right now or after I just briefly kind of describe what's going on with
the concept plan. We do have one public street coming in off of Mesa Way, which does
tie back into Victory. And, then, internal streets throughout. They are public streets --
or that's at least one of the conditions that we are looking at with the development
agreement. I think the applicant's proposing public streets anyway. It's not fully clear,
but they have enough right of way that they could be public streets. Some of the other
conditions in the development agreement that we were looking at -- the Comprehensive
Plan map does show a multi-use pathway along the Ten Mile Creek and so we have
made that a condition of when this property does develop they need to construct that
pathway. It's kind of up to them to get it from Victory to Mesa, but it, basically, needs to
go through this property. Also that the street buffer on Victory Road be installed, that all
14.8 acres be included in that plat. They are showing the existing home sites to be not
a part of that subdivision and there is a couple of reasons that the staff is not supportive
of leaving those existing homes out of plats. One is for infrastructure, You don't get the
right of way, you don't get the sidewalk, you have gaps in those types of infrastructure.
Two -- and this is the next part of the development agreement condition -- is they have
existing access points to arterial streets and we do try to limit those and so we can
reevaluate access points when these come back in or are part of a plat. If they are left
out, they are basically grandfathered in and not part of that. So, that is something that
those two are two -- the two main reasons that we do want to see this whole thing come
back in for development and preliminary and final plat approval. And, then, probably the
last couple ones that I will touch on is that we do like the interconnectivity proposed
here, so they do need to, you know, show that -- or provide access to the adjacent five
acre parcel, so those can develop when those property owners are ready to develop
those sites. So, with that I think I will conclude my comments. Staff is recommending
approval with those conditions as outlined in the staff report for the development
agreement and I will stand for any questions you may have.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any question, please? Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Yes, I do have one. Craig, I would be curious, realizing this is just conceptual,
would staff be looking at some type of a stub street to the property to the east?
Hood: Mr. Chair and Commissioners, the stub street with this property, particularly --
and this is, again, assuming this whole thing develops -- I say the whole thing, the whole
20 acres develops together. Just by chance, if this just came in by itself, we would look
for that interconnectivity here, to both of these five-acre parcels -- adjacent five acre
parcels. The interconnectivity is provided through this other parcel, if it comes in. So,
we haven't gotten into that much detail with these and specifically said this is where you
need to provide this stub street. Some of those policies we have when we review
subdivisions, so we can include those as conditions of approval for the subdivision, so --
Moe: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 17, 2005
Page 10 of 37
Zaremba: Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. We are ready for the applicant,
then, please.
Cronin: Eric Cronin with Roylance and Associates, representing our clients. Mr. Chair,
Members of the Commission, as Craig had mentioned, we are looking for an R-4 zone.
As far as areas around it, it is.- does meet the Comp Plan with R-4 and areas around it,
as well as R-8. As far as the two existing homes on these 14 plus acres, those are to
be included in the platted subdivision if that were to -- as we move forward into the
preliminary plat stage. I don't really know if there is a whole lot more to say, other than
what Craig has said. It's all planned to be annexed in and rezoned as an R-4 is what
we would like to see. And with that I would entertain any questions you guys may have.
Zaremba: You mentioned that the two existing house lots would be included in the plat,
I think you said. And you're comfortable with them being included in the annexation as
well; right?
Cronin: Correct.
Zaremba: Okay. That was my only question.
Rohm: As long as you agree with the staff report, it sounds pretty good to me, too.
Cronin: We ask that all the area included within this annexation be annex and rezoned
all as one portion.
Borup: How about other aspects? Is there any part of the staff report on the
requirements for the development agreement you had any concerns or questions on?
Cronin: If there were concerns, it would be on the existing home lot along Victory Road,
as far as -- it sounded like Craig mentioned to it, when we get further into the
preliminary plat stage, the question about access -- direct access onto Victory would be
looked into further at that point.
Zaremba: And the likelihood is that it would be eliminated at that point. That's the goal.
Cronin: Yes.
Zaremba: Once there is an option -- once the street goes from the north end of the
property --
Cronin: Yeah. And I believe that they would still be able to get lot access from the
interior roads without a problem.
Zaremba: That's just kind of a warning with that issue.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 17, 2005
Page 11 of 37
Cronin: That's understandable, yes.
Zaremba: Okay.
Cronin: Any further questions?
Zaremba: No other questions?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I may add this -- Eric as well, but the
way that the DA condition is worded or the language that we are proposing in there is
that it would -- when this plats, there is no direct lot access. So, that's how it's worded.
There really isn't much up for discussion in the future the way it's currently written in the
staff report. So, just so that's clear. The other thing, Mr. Chair, I did note there was
some confusion, but everything is being included. What they have left out of the plat --
the conceptual plat are the two home lots. So, all of the property on these three lots are
being annexed. So, I just -- it's all being annexed. We don't need new legal
descriptions or anything like that. That's all good. It's all just to be included within the
plat, so -- thank you.
Zaremba: Great. Thank you.
Cronin: As a clarification, that -- their larger blocks out of -- you know, it looks like they
are less dense, it's just we wanted to include what was the majority of the green space
that already existed as to that lot as its own still. If you were to look at the aerial and put
that on top of it.
Zaremba: All right. Thank you. We will take public testimony and, then, call on you
again. Let's see. I will go through the list of people that signed up, but let me first ask if
there is anybody who is a spokesman for a group of people or other people. Apparently
not. Okay. We, then, we will go individually, Martin Artis. If you will come up to the
microphone, sir.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: If I can make one -- just one quick question of the applicant. Did you guys have a
neighborhood meeting in regards to this project?
Zaremba: Please.
Cronin: Eric Cronin again. At the time of applicant -- or application, there was not a
need to be -- have posted for a neighborhood meeting. Now, if we were to go further
we would have to, as I believe the application process has changed.
Moe: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 17, 2005
Page 12 of 37
Rohm: SO, the answer is no?
Cronin: The answer is no. None was held.
Moe: Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you, Mr. Artis.
Artis: My name is Martin Artis. I'm the investor in this project and I believe it's going to
be a very fine project and an asset to Meridian. That's all the comment I have.
Zaremba: Thank you. Aaron McGee. You're welcome to say from where you are that
you have been spoken for. Mr. McGee has been spoken for. Mark Carrington is it?
He's been spoken for as well. Anna Key Binford. Or Aneke Binford. I'll let you correct
me when you get up.
Binford: It is actually Aneke Binford.
Zaremba: Okay.
Binford: And I live at 3101 South Mesa Way, which is -- it's the road that runs through --
across Ten Mile. I just -- I don't know if you're aware that Mesa Way is a dead-end
street. You probably do know that. It's Kachina Estates. It is a fully developed
neighborhood. It's not like a little piece of ground with acreages around it. And you're
looking at the other plat map that they had. Yeah. It looks like there are probably, what,
five or six houses that are going to be set right on Mesa Way and to me it's just pretty
inconsistent to be putting that many houses in a five acre subdivision. It seems like
there would be no difference than someone in Banbury saying, hey, we have got a
pretty big lot behind us, let's put a duplex on it. So, it just -- I don't understand how that
can be consistent with an established neighborhood, to start chunking away and I think
it would affect our property values as well. So, that's all I have to say. So, I'm opposed
to that.
Zaremba: Any questions, Commissioners? Okay. We will have some discussion on
that point. Thank you. Matt Binford. He's been spoken for. Thank you. Okay. The
first name, I believe, is Tony and the last name might be Mose or Moore? It's Moss and
he's been spoken for. Thank you. Ralph -- is it Lamms? Is that close? Let me take the
next one and if I get to the end and haven't called you, then, we will assume that was
the one. Rich Yarrington.
Yarrington: Richard Yarrington and I live at 2550 Mesa Way. And the only concerns I
have is the street access for the people that come out onto Mesa Way. I think that they
should probably be bigger lots and maybe done different, so they stay inside their own
subdivision. You know, I'm not against them subdividing the property, but I'd like to see
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 17, 2005
Page 13 of 37
those houses .- they come back out in their own subdivision and not through our
access. And that's my feelings on it. I'm against that part of it.
Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Vince Sullivan. He's been spoken for.
Okay. That leaves the one other person -- I know the last name begins with an L. The
rest of it I'm not all that sure of. Nobody's saying they signed up on this one? Okay.
Okay. We have been through everybody that signed up and there is an opportunity, if
you didn't sign up, but feel that you have something that you need to add, this is your
chance. Okay. In that case, we will ask Mr. Cronin to come back up again.
Cronin: Name again?
Zaremba: Uh?
Cronin: Do I have to state my name again?
Zaremba: Please. Yes.
Cronin: This is Eric Cronin again. As far as speaking to Aneke's comments, as far as
Mesa, it exists as a local street right now and so direct lot access is available, if I'm
correct, to Mesa Way. And as far as -- I don't believe it would decrease your home
value adding homes along the road at all and so I -- that's about all I have to say, is it's
a local roadway. It allows access from private drives.
Zaremba: I would comment that this is a concept and when we -- we are not, at this --
for the comfort of other people, we are not at this point approving this as if it were a plat.
The discussion, actually, is only whether to annex or not. And I think you are getting
some anticipation of what comments may be made when you hold a neighborhood
meeting about the plat and perhaps be ready to anticipate those subjects and
discussion them with people.
Cronin: As far as what Rich had to say, I know, typically, ACHD will like to see the
interconnectivity of roadways and not leaving all these residents to have one outlet,
which in this case it would just be Victory Road. There is a lot of houses to get there
and if there is only one access point it kind of limits the safety issue as a -- to further
subdivide. And so interconnectivity is one of the reasons that we are typically required
to stub to vacant lots, as well as -- if there is a local street that we can have access to.
Rohm: Those are good topics for a community meeting, aren't they?
Cronin: Correct. And it will be further discussed. Of course.
Rohm: Thank you,
Zaremba: Any other questions from the Commissioners? Does staff, have any further
comment?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 17, 2005
Page 14 of 37
Hood: I may just add, Mr. Chair, onto what you said for the neighbors that are here
today, this plat will be the subject of another Public Hearing, so just so everyone knows
this is just for the annexation, as you stated. So, some of those design issues can be
discussed a little bit more as far as roadway design and location and lot sizes and
things like that. This is just for the R-4 zone now. So, just -- so, when I was out of --
really, the minutes of the subdivision that we discussed at a later date, so --
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: If I can just make one observation. This would be an excellent
opportunity to make sure that you have the names and addresses of those people who
want to make -- to be noticed who may not be in the 300 feet zone, that would want
notified of your neighborhood meeting.
Cronin: These individuals may not be within the 300 feet you're indicating?
Newton-Huckabay: Right. But it would be -- I'm just saying it would be a good
opportunity. Just an observation on that part.
Zaremba: Well -- and, actually, let me expand on that and clarify my own
understanding. There are legal notice requirements when the official plat -- or
preliminary plat that you present comes before us for a Public Hearing. In our new
ordinance we do have a requirement that before that happens you hold a neighborhood
meeting. That's a separate subject. But I'm not sure there is a notice requirement for
the neighborhood meeting. And to expand on what Commissioner Newton-Huckabay
said, you know, other than you going around knocking on doors or putting out fliers, it
might be wise for you to ask the collected people for their name and address, so you
can tell them about your neighborhood meeting, because I -- correct me if I'm wrong,
but that's not subject to the legal notice requirements.
Hood: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Yes.
Hood: For the Members of the Commission and everyone else, we do require that the
applicant either hand deliver or mail before five days before this meeting is held,
everyone within 300 feet, a notice of that meeting. So, we do have provisions -- very
specific provisions of how you notice people you're having a meeting, so --
Zaremba: We had a major revision of the ordinances a couple months ago and we are
all learning the new details. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 17, 2005
Page 15 of 37
Borup: I think maybe what Commissioner Newton-Huckabay may be saying is if those
of you that would like a written notice, if you'd leave your name and address on a paper
back there, then, that could get to you.
Cronin: Yeah. That would be fine with me. I mean they may be within that 300 feet,
but if they are not, if I can get them after the meeting.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, it's an opportunity, rather than to meet up again at your Public
Hearing for your subdivision, to workout the details with the neighbors prior to that.
Cronin: And we would be required to have a neighborhood meeting with these, correct?
Zaremba: We are just suggesting that if they give you their addresses, then, you will
notify them of your meeting.
Cronin: Not a problem.
Newton-Huckabay: My personal thought is that a subdivision on five acre lots, that not
everybody's going to be within 300 feet.
Cronin: Okay. Not a problem. I will request it after the meeting.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Baird: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Mr. Baird.
Baird: Just so we can go on record that we can't make it a requirement that you go
beyond that 300 feet, so I don't want anybody here to be upset if they don't get a letter.
I would also suggest, though, that everybody's name and address is on the sign-up
sheet and the applicant can get a copy of that at the clerk's office to simplify the
process, if you choose to do that.
Newton-Huckabay: Yes. I would say that's why I prefaced my statements as an
observation.
Zaremba: Thank you all. All right. Thank you, sir. Commissioners, discussion or are
we ready to close the Public Hearing?
Rohm: I think we are ready to close it. Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-048.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 17, 2005
Page 16 of 37
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that--
Newton-Huckabay: Did you ask for discussion?
Zaremba: We can discuss before we make the motion or we can discuss the motion
after it's made. If you'd care to comment, please, do. Commissioner Newton-
Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I'm sorry, I personally had no comment.
Commissioner Borup had one.
I thought that
Borup: Well, I changed my mind on that. But I was going to say other than I do have--
I don't know if there is any -- is there any concern that when it comes back for
preliminary plat that they could be applying for reduced standards or do we need to go
on record here that we expect it to be to all of R-4 specifications?
Hood: Mr. Chair, I assume that's directed at me.
Borup: Yes.
Zaremba: Mr. Hood.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Borup, they do need to
comply with all the R-4 zoning district standards. Now, they can always apply for a
variance if they wanted to do something else or they would also have to modify this
development agreement, because it also says you need to comply with the R-4
standards. So, that -- nothing's ever set in stone, but, yes, they do --
Borup: And it would be before this Commission also. Okay.
Zaremba: Well -- and I would also comment, just for the applicant's benefit, this
Commission does listen to the neighbors' comments and we will be concerned about
not having the smallest possible lots along that west boundary. So, just something to
think about in the development stage.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 17, 2005
Page 17 of 37
Borup: That's alii had.
Zaremba: Okay. Are we ready for a motion?
Rohm: I think so.
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of AZ 05-048, to include all staff comments, for the hearing date of November
17th,2005.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a second?
Moe: Yes. I was working on that, but I wanted to make sure that we do note that there
is a development agreement required as well.
Newton.Huckabay: Is that in the staff report?
Zaremba: It is in the staff report.
Moe: Okay. Second.
Zaremba: But a good point to emphasize that. So, we do have a motion and a second.
All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6:
Continued Pubic Hearing from November 3,2005: AZ 05-049 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 5.15 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for
Carrington Property by Mark & Karen Carrington - 2955 South Locust
Grove Road:
Zaremba: Thank you all very much. Moving on. Item 6. I would open the continued
Public Hearing for AZ 05-049 and, again, a comment that it is continued only because of
a notice problem before and there was no earlier discussion and we will begin with the
staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The subject annexation
and zoning request is, again, to the R-4 zone for 5.15 acres. This property is also
currently zoned RUT in Ada county. It is shown as low density residential on the city's
comprehensive future land use map. This property is located on the west side of Locust
Grove Road, just north of Victory there, again, within Kachina Estates Subdivision.
There is one existing home and some out buildings on the subject site. This is Lot 7,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 17, 2005
Page 18 of 37
Block 1, of Kachina. To the north is a city approved Salmon Rapids Subdivision, which
is single family homes. Sherbrooke Hollows and Sageland Subdivision are across
Locust Grove Road from the subject site. Also annexed and city approved
developments there with single family homes. Again, the conceptual preliminary plat
that was submitted with the annexation. I would note that there are 2.3 dwelling units
per acre. I failed to mention the conceptual dwelling units per acre on the previous plan,
that was just at two -- 2.1, I believe it was. On this 5.15 acres they are showing 12
home sites. So, it puts them just over two dwelling units per acre. A lot of the
development agreement requirements that staff is recommending are similar to the
McGee property annexation application. I will just touch on a couple of them real quick.
Staff is recommending that all of this -- this subject property, the 5.15 acres, also be
included with a future development application, again, so we can get that entire
landscape buffer that's required along Locust Grove Road and no direct lot access to
this site -- the existing home site actually has a circular drive and another driveway on
the north side of the property back to their garage or shop back there. So, it's, again,
shown as not a part on the conceptual plat, but that was another one of the conditions
that we had. I think that's pretty much it. Staff is recommending approval of the subject
annexation request to R-4 for the site and I will stand for any questions you may have.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? I guess not. Thank you. We are ready for
the applicant to present this one.
Cronin: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, Eric Cronin with Roylance and
Associates again representing the client. We are asking for annexation and rezone of
the 5.15 acres to R-4, as it meets the Comp Plan. And, however, I ask Council to strike
what staff has recommended in the development agreement that indicates all 5.15
acres be included within a proposed future development, because with the addition of
right of way and a landscape buffer, the existing dwelling on this acreage would become
unusable and have to be demoed. Currently, there are access points along Locust
Grove, but as ~- if the back end were to develop without the home site as part of the
future development with the McGee portion, the only access would be to this single
home as it is now today, as it stands. So, as far as no additional trips would be created
and allowing that portion not to be within allows it so that the house can remain as is
and not have to basically be demolished, because there is no way with the added right
of way, street buffer, to access the driveway or the garages from within the subdivision
that we talked about previously in the McGee annexation. At this point, with the McGee
annexation and rezone potential, preliminary plat, going for in development, it gives his
back three plus acres a great opportunity to be included within a subdivision at this
point, because it's all going through at the same time. To require it all to be within the --
included within the potential further development of the McGee property, would mean
that the house would have to be stricken and if that's the case may not want to proceed
that way and, therefore, the tax base that would be received from those back -- the back
portion being developed would not be received to the City of Meridian. So, that is my
suggestion to that and I will take any questions at this time, if there are any, I'm sure
there are.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 17, 2005
Page 19 of 37
Zaremba: You don't have any issue with the other items that are listed for the
development agreement that's specifically the one?
Cronin: That direct lot access --
Zaremba: Uh-huh.
Cronin: -- being terminated and the entire portion being further developed with McGee
portion. Those are the two that I would like you guys to look further into.
Zaremba: All right. Thank you. Commissioners, any questions?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none at this time.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I just have a couple.
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: I'd like maybe some discussion on the right of way. You're saying a future right
of way for Locust Grove, anticipating -- have you talked with ACHD and what they have
-- what would be consistent with -- to the north, then? Is it 90 -- what's that right of way
that you're talking about and what distances are we talking about?
Cronin: I might have to ask Craig on this one. Craig, do you recall what the added right
of way would be along Locust Grove?
Borup: Then you said that it would be unusable with the right of way and the buffer, so
what's the distance -- what's the remaining setback?
Cronin: With the added right of way and, then, I believe it's a 25-foot buffer on top of the
right of way, that's not included in the setback. The corner portion of the Carrington
residence is within two feet of the buffer distance. So, when you add your setbacks to
that you're going to be infringing upon that and to get -- if you were to come through off
of Victory through the -- all the way through the potential development into the back,
there is no way to access any of his garages or any of that.
Borup: Are you saying it's -- it's only about 27 feet from -- from what would be the new
right of way?
Cronin: His existing home?
Borup: Yes.
Cronin: Roughly.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 17, 2005
Page 20 of 37
Hood: I do have that dimension. It was a 48, so I don't know if that 27 ~~ if that's what
you're working off of. But ACHD did note in their staff report that --
Borup: You're looking at 96.
Hood: You're looking at 96. Forty-eight from center line, yeah.
Borup: That's what I was wondering, if they were looking at a full 96 there. Well, like I
say, I agree with -- you know, that it all should be annexed and it doesn't make sense to
have -~ I mean eventually I don't -- you know, don't know when, but Locust Grove is
going to be fully widened. It's going to have to happen at some time. Another option
may be is a reduced -- you know, a --
Rohm: Reduced buffer?
Borup: Yeah. What's the terminology there? But to workout a reduction in that buffer
width. I personally -- I mean in this case, unless there is some more information, it
seems to me like a make -- maybe makes sense to have access to Locust Grove on this
one house. The other two -- I mean the other one, I don't know that it does on Victory,
but -- because it's got enough room. This one --
Cronin: Commissioner, we are asking for the entire area to be annexed and rezoned. I
wasn't sure if I mislead you.
Borup: Okay. Yeah. But I thought you said you didn't want to plat it.
Cronin: Within the future development of the other 15 acres of the McGee, plus this
back portion. We asked that that not be included -- have to be included within a further
development, but it can be ~-
Borup: So, it's going to be annexed into the city, but not developed is what you're
proposing?
Cronin: We are asking that the entire five plus acres be annexed and rezoned into the
city.
Borup: Okay.
Cronin: At that time we would like to do a property line adjustment which would allow
for it to become an out parcel and the remainder to be able to be developed so it's a
separate parcel.
Borup: So, that's the direction you're trying to go?
Cronin: Correct.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 17, 2005
Page 21 of 37
Borup: You'll probably not going to have a lot of sympathy on an out parcell don't think,
but -- I know what the staff feels, I know what we have done in the past.
Zaremba: Mr. Rohm appears to have something to add on that subject and, then, I do
as well.
Rohm: I think your point's well taken, that the existing dwelling does not conform with
the setback, plus the right of way adjustment once the roadway is expanded and I think
that that's the issue at hand here and as long as at the point of development those
issues can be resolved, then, it's almost a moot point whether it's part of the
development -- property development or not. As long as we can find a way to bring it in
without having to remove the home is your point; is that correct?
Cronin: Bring it into the city --
Rohm: Well, right. Bring it -- annex it into the city and be a part of this development if,
in fact, the home can remain without having the buffer --
Newton-Huckabay: They can keep their access.
Rohm: Yeah. Keep your access and then -- and minimize the buffer to -- $0 that it
doesn't infringe on the dwelling itself. That's kind of what your point is; correct?
Cronin: Correct. Yeah. And so the only -- the only lot within the developed subdivision
-- further developed subdivision would be the existing parcel -- or the existing dwelling,
where all other portions that were developed within this back acreage would take
access off of either Mesa or Victory Roads.
Rohm: And I guess my only further comment is as you work through the development
with the staff I'm sure that those things can be worked out. That's as I would see it
anyway.
Cronin: Okay.
Zaremba: My opinion may be near the opinions that have already been expressed. My
feeling is the right of way is going to happen at some point anyhow. It's in the city's best
interest to preserve most of the buffer, but I certainly can see having an exception in the
neighborhood of the portion that would not be set back far enough. I could see a
temporary exception allowing the access to Locust Grove, but I would want to see,
perhaps, added to the development agreement that should the use or even the building
that is currently on the property every be changed, then, that access would be given up.
And what I mean by that is in your mind in thinking the design for the rest of the three
and a half acres now, do prepare for sometime in the future if -- it maybe 20, 30 years
away before this house would fall down or whatever. But at that point the rest of the
subdivision should be designed, so that the new development that happens there could
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 17, 2005
Page 22 of 37
take internal access and that being said, I would leave in the staff conditions that when
you present the plat that this be part of it, with request for some variations.
Rohm: Right.
Zaremba: That would be my opinion. Let me ask staff whether it made sense or is it
workable?
Hood: It made sense. I guess if I may, just a couple of things to facilitate that a little bit.
We do have an alternative compliance section of our ordinance, so it's written
specifically for instances like this where you can't just plop a 25-foot wide landscape
buffer down and there are sometimes you have existing structures or something that
gets in the way. Now, we do look for the intent of that to still be met, so that may mean
you have to put more trees. It's not as wide, but you put more trees in a 10 or 15-foot
wide buffer or something like that. So, as far as -- as far as a buffer -- and the right of
way, I guess, is another one that I could touch on real quick. I didn't draw a picture of it
out, but the 96-foot right of way that ACHD is looking for, they actually do a 38 foot right
of way with a sidewalk and an easement. So, their ultimate on an arterial is actually ten
feet less than that, as long as you provide that sidewalk on your property within an
easement and that could also be within the buffer. So, now we have reduced that, you
know, what would otherwise be a 40 plus, you know, setback from the existing property
line, pretty significantly. So, I think at least including this as a lot and block in the
subdivision, if now the remaining thing is access, we could maybe strike that bullet that
says no direct access and we can discuss this some more with a plat. I mean that
would be, you know, something that I think that we can live with. Again, what we don't
want to see is this not be a part and, then, we don't get the sidewalk there and we don't
get the right of way and, then, I don't think it's in the best interest of the city to annex it.
So, I think we can work around a lot of these things. Just for clarification, I drove by
there -- didn't spend a lot of time out there. There is not -- the home itself doesn't have
a garage that uses a circular drive; correct? This is the drop off to the front door; right?
The garage is actually detached and you use the north driveway. You do have a
garage on the front? Okay. Thank you. And so I just -- but that can be addressed in
the future and it is an arterial and having people, you know, use that for direct access i
think is probably -- but I won't belabor that anymore. I think there are ways around it.
Zaremba: On that subject, I think my suggestion would be to at least leave in a
statement that at some point that direct access will go away. Whether it needs to go
away immediate or not, but I would tie that to a use change or a new building permit or
whatever -- whatever would trigger this building being torn down however long from now
that is.
Hood: Yeah. If you wanted to include that in the -- Mr. Chair, if you wanted to include
that in the development agreement, that's up to you. That would also be something we
would look at with the plat. I mean if we had this on there, I have seen them written in a
couple of times where you can use this until, you know, the house needs a building
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 17, 2005
Page 23 of 37
permit. The use probably isn't going to change. There is not a lot you can do in an R-4,
besides single-family homes. I think that --
Zaremba: Well, the second subject was not a use change, but if there ever needed to
be a building permit for a new building on that property.
Hood: And with the plat. I mean we would look for something -- you know, it could be
as simple as providing that driveway -- you know, it wouldn't have to be a full public
street. I mean just a driveway access to the end of that cul-de-sac that's further to the
west. Yeah. Something just -- no. The other driveway crossing. It wouldn't have to be
a full 50-foot right of way, but just something so access could be provided in the future,
if that's how you so choose to go with the plat, that we do provide that, and I guess that
would be my two cents.
Zaremba: I see some topographical contour lines converging in a narrow path there. Is
there a ditch or anything there? What is the topography? I'm looking at what would be
the upper right cul-de-sac. I'm sorry. I have one of those, too. Thank you. I can see it
when you do it. I can't see it when I do it. Is that any kind of a terrain that would
prevent connecting from this property to that property at sometime in the future?
Cronin: I couldn't answer that. Maybe Mark could.
Zaremba: Okay. We do have others, including him, signed up to speak, so maybe--
Borup: The aerial doesn't look like it's that big of a problem.
Zaremba: Okay.
Cronin: Craig, could we see that aerial photo? I don't believe I see any --
Borup: That's the ditch right there, isn't it? It looks like it's fairly small.
Zaremba: Okay. All right.
Borup: Relatively.
Zaremba: All right. Let's proceed with the other public testimony if we need and, then,
we will call you back up again. And, again, if you have been spoken for, you're
welcome to say so. Mark Carrington. You have been spoken for? Thank you. Aaron
McGee. Spoken for. Thank you. Martin Artis. Spoken for as well. Tony Moss.
Spoken for. All right. In that case. that's everybody who signed up to speak. If there is
anybody else who would care to add something. Well, in that case do we have
anymore questions for Mr. Cronin? Oh, I'm sorry. Come forward. please. State your
name and address again.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 17. 2005
Page 24 of 37
Yarrington: I'm Rich Yarrington. I live at 2550 Mesa Way. That -- our irrigation system
runs right behind his house, so it runs -- there is the lot right -- okay. The water runs
down that line, like you just showed it. But the ditch runs behind his house and there is
access ~- it runs to two spots, so we have to have access to get into that lot back there
to change the headgate. And that ditch is just almost -- it's -- most of it's piped, but it's
just right on top of the ground.
Zaremba: Okay. That helps.
Borup: That's the water access you have for your lots?
Yarrington: Yeah. In the back.
Borup: Okay.
Yarrington: Up on top and below.
Borup: And water has to still be delivered. It's not going to be interrupted, but--
Yarrington: It has to be split there.
Borup: But the choice may be -- they may want to -- it may be a matter of relocating the
headgates or something to --
Yarrington: It could, because they split it to go underneath these lots -- it splits right
here --
Zaremba: There is a hand microphone right next to it, if you would grab that.
Yarrington: It splits right there and goes underneath those lots up there to feed three
houses on the top end and, then, we change it and it runs down the line there and, then,
it does the rest of the lots in the back.
Borup: So, it's buried somewhere all through the subdivision?
Yarrington: Yes. It's buried there and it's buried down the side there.
Borup: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I think the only point that needs to be made is that they will be
required to deliver your water one way or another.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 17, 2005
Page 25 of 37
Yarrington: Okay.
Zaremba: Well -- and that's actually state law.
Newton-Huckabay: Right.
Zaremba: You must get your traditional water delivery at what you have been
accustomed to. Whether they change it as it goes through their property, it all has to
get to you the way it always has.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Okay. Are there any questions -- further questions for Mr.Yarrington?
Newton-Huckabay: There was one other --
Zaremba: Oh, was there anybody else who would care to speak? I'm sorry. I don't
mean to cut you off. Please come forward to the microphone.
Sullivan: My name is Vince Sullivan and I live at 2602 Mesa Way and that's how I get
my irrigation water to my property and so I'm concerned about that. And the creek that
runs through, that's a natural creek right there. Right there. And I was concerned about
that, too, what they are going to do about that. Is there maybe some environmental
issues with that, with it being a year around creek, It's not irrigation.
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any other questions? Mr. Cronin, would you
care to make any final remarks?
Cronin: Eric Cronin, Commissioners, Members of the Board. I believe we spoke to
these two questions that water would be delivered and any issues with Ten Mile Canal
or Creek, excuse me, would have to be addressed at the time of platting at that point. I
guess I do have one more question and I believe I need to speak at this point and that is
if we do decide to go through -- or say it's annexed and rezoned, at the time of
development, it sounds like from the opinions I have heard from you guys of the board,
that that portion that includes the existing dwelling would have to to be a portion of any
further development that goes on and with that would the -- or the added right of way
and landscaping buffer and all that stuff -- and added sidewalk, would that have to be
completed at the time of final platting? That's just a question.
Zaremba: We will ask staff. I believe the answer is yes, but --
Hood: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, and Eric, yeah, that's -- prior to
occupancy of those homes in the final plat you have to post surety and that will need to
be constructed before we allow those homes to be occupied. So, yeah, it's a condition
of the final plat.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 17, 2005
Page 26 of 37
Cronin: Okay.
Zaremba: But, again, during the plat discussion we can have alternate compliance and
that kind of -- I mean it isn't that you have to do exactly what the -- I mean you have
some constrictions there that I think everybody is willing to work around. My sense is
that the Commission supports the staff in asking that it be one plat, but that's with some
flexibility in that one plat.
Cronin: Understand.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Are you alluding to a certain level of compliance or are you
speaking generally? Are you --
Zaremba: There is a provision --
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I understand that, but -p
Zaremba: -- alternate compliance, but until there is a plat before us, I don't think there is
much to discuss.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. It just almost sounded to me that you were -- okay.
Zaremba: I'm not being specific, I'm just --
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Zaremba: I'm just repeating that there are options that encourage me to stick with the
staff's request that the plat cover all of the property.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: I guess that's how -- Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Yeah. I do have a question and you may not even know the answer. I'm just
curious; do you know the property owner to the west of this property?
Cronin: I do not, no.
Moe: Okay. I'm just looking at that property and noticing up to the north of it that that
subdivision is planned to have a stub street go in there, so I'm just kind of -- I'm a little
bit concerned with the preliminary design for your project here. It's going to be a little bit
strange for -- if that property was to develop, how a roadway would go through there.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 17, 2005
Page 27 of 37
I'm just -- something when you guys start finishing up your planning, you might take that
into consideration a little bit, because that's going to be a little weird. Thank you.
Zaremba: So, what you're saying is on the other thing that we were looking at, there
appears to be a stub street about here?
Moe: Yes.
Borup: Even closer.
Moe: Closer -- closer to the -- to the subject property.
Zaremba: Yeah. You're right. Right off the end of the property line. Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Good observation.
Zaremba: Okay. Just something to be aware of in your future engineering.
Cronin: Understandable. I guess I would close, unless there is any other questions. I
would request annexation and rezone and with at all possible excluding -- or as a further
development agreement as required, excluding the existing dwelling portion outside of
any further development.
Borup: Understood.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Cronin: Thank you.
Hood: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Mr. Hood.
Hood: If I may, just for reference, the development agreement provisions on page
seven, the one that the applicant specifically brought up this evening -- and I'm sorry the
bullets aren't labeled. Maybe that's something when we get to have ten or 12 bullets,
that may not be a bad idea. But it's going to be bullets eight, nine, and ten that they
have -- that they have brought up anyways, just so you know where we are at there on
page seven of the staff report.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: So, Craig, you were just suggesting that we strike the existing
driveways to Locust Grove may be utilized until the internal streets within the plat are
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 17, 2005
Page 28 of 37
constructed and approved by the transportation authority. At such time direct access to
Locust Grove shall be prohibited. We are taking that out of it or do we need to restate
that?
Borup: I think that's what we need to discuss.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. But that's the bullet that -- the only one that's going to be
modified.
Moe: As I understood it when we were discussing earlier, Craig made the point that the
no direct access to Locust Grove would be allowed -- would be the point to strike.
Hood: Yeah. Just to clarify for the Commission, I guess the way that the condition is
worded and the intent behind that, is that this home can continue on as it is today and
when this develops and the final plat gets had, that there is no more direct lot access.
So, it's not what the applicant wants to see, but that's this -- this says that you can use
that -- those driveways until such time as this develops and access at that time has to
be provided somewhere else. So, that's -- and, then, it may be -- maybe the one that I
would, you know, request it get -- be modified, that bullet eight, although -- and city code
does allow for alternative compliance, we may just want to -- the way it reads kinds of
make it sound like you have to construct a landscape buffer in compliance with city
code. That could be interpreted to be a 25-foot wide landscape buffer. So, you would
like some flexibility in there, that unless otherwise alternative compliance is granted,
construct, or even strike the thing -- I mean we can cover it with the preliminary plat.
So, I'm not so concerned about that one.
Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission --
Zaremba: Mr. Baird.
Baird: -- you could easily modify Item No.8 to read on the first line: In accordance with
the city code, comma, including any applicable alternative compliance provisions, and,
then, the rest of it. So, adding those words would express -- if you do have the intent to
allow that, that would make it clear if you choose to leave that condition in.
Zaremba: That works for me. Thank you. Back on what I believe is the 10th bullet that
Commissioner Newton-Huckabay was talking about. My comment would be to --
somehow we need to keep the future no direct lot access to Locust Grove, but I would
be willing to tie that instead of to the plat, tie it to any future building permit for a
modification to any existing building or something like that.
Rohm: Redevelopment.
Zaremba: Can we do that?
Rohm: Yeah.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 17, 2005
Page 29 of 37
Zaremba: So, that it could, actually, develop the rest of it, but if this use -- I don't mean
if this use changes, if they ever --
Rohm: Redevelopment of that lot.
Zaremba: Yeah. Is there a way to put that? Mr. Baird appears to have an opinion.
Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, if you're going to do that, I'd recommend
that you attach it to a specific event. The term redevelopment I think could be
interpreted in a number of ways, so if it's a building permit, if it's -- oh, I can't think of
some of the possible other events.
Zaremba: My suggestion would be a building permit for any modification to any building
on this piece of property.
Baird: And I know staff has seen these before. They might have some opinion on how
that could also be worded. Mr. Hood.
Hood: I would just concur with legal that redevelopment is a -- not a very well defined
term. So, it's up to you if you want to tie it to any -- the only concern -- and maybe that's
your intent, is if they build another accessory structure that's larger than a garage and
they need a building permit, that's the building permit. A ten-by-ten shed -- or anything
over 200 square feet requires a building permit. So, they need that and if you word it
that way, then, now the access goes away, so just--
Zaremba: Remodeling the house, tearing it down, rebuilding it, that would require a
building permit.
Hood: Correct.
Borup: Well, that could include re-roofing, too. A building permit.
Zaremba: You need a permit --
Hood: Electrical work. Plumbing. I mean there are a lot of building permits that you
could pull that it wouldn't necessarily be a redevelopment, quote, unquote, of this
property, just general maintenance stuff could still require a building permit. So, I don't
know what the intent is and that's why this is the cleanest and best way, but--
Zaremba: What I'm aiming for is to allow the continued use of the property the way it is,
until something changes. Now, the maintenance issue, like plumbing and roofing, I
would not want to trigger this, but adding a room and adding another out building or
tearing the house down to build something else, I would want to have trigger it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 17, 2005
Page 30 of 37
Hood: And, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, what I would -- what we -- the
problem we run into is tracking these things. None of those things require the planning
department to review this. It's a building permit you pull through the building department
and we are requiring -- relying on them to catch these types of things, so enforcement
gets to be a big issue there and it's just a nightmare, to tell you the truth. I mean there
is just no way they can keep little notes of all these little things around the city that they
are supposed to be looking for and they have their general duties and codes they are
trying uphold at the same time, so --
Borup: That seems problematic to me to try to tie it to a building permit. You know,
even an addition. But demolition of the building and building something new or re-
platting of this lot -- there is enough -- you know, the lot's large enough that you could
get, I don't know, three or four lots in there. Three lots, maybe. So, it sounds like that's
what you're saying should trigger it and --
Zaremba: Yeah. I would want it be something --
Borup: A new building or are-plat.
Zaremba: -- to trigger this, but still something that's likely to happen within 30 or 40
years.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I did have one more thing that -- this
just may be a better thing that we not include in the development agreement and talk
about this some more at the plat, because there are plat notes that we can add to the
phase that say except for driveway accesses that are approved by ACHD or put some
sunset time on a driveway or whatever, you can put those types of notes on the plat --
and we got to be kind of careful, because it is a surveying document, but the direct lot
access notes are on plats on a regular basis. So, that may be a better time to have this
discussion. ACHD can get us more detailed comments. There is a street that's not too
far away. Excuse me. So, just to have detailed comments from them on where -- what
-- it's their policy, too. We just may want to lose that condition altogether and discuss
this some more at a later date.
Rohm: I think that's the right answer. The preliminary plat is going to resolve all of the
issue associated with the existing dwelling and for annexation purposes we don't have
to come up with a solution tonight.
Zaremba: Well -- and that's a good point. I think the applicant has heard this
discussion and is well notified that these will be issues when there is a plat.
Rohm: Exactly.
Zaremba: I'm comfortable with that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 17, 2005
Page 31 of 37
Rohm: SO, with that being said, a question of staff. If we were to strike both bullet eight
and bullet ten from your staff report, then, the balance of it would be in compliance with
what the --
Zaremba: Eight was being modified.
Newton-Huckabay: We don't need to strike eight. We could restate it.
Rohm: Eight, in my opinion, is very similar to ten, in that in the plat that will be -- that
buffer issue will be addressed in the plat as well, will it not?
Borup: Yeah. It's going to have to be.
Rohm: It will be. So, I think to strike it now and to resolve it at -- during plat is the right
answer for that as well.
Borup: As long as it's all annexed -- it all be annexed together.
Rohm: It's annexed. But as it's being platted, all of those issues, including that buffer
and -- will be addressed at that time.
Zaremba: That's true. We are moving towards proceeding. The Public Hearing is still
open. That would need to be closed.
Newton-Huckabay: I have a question.
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: What -- if there was a compelling need to put comment eight in
there in the first place and we have very simple language to make it -- alternate
compliance a possibility, I think that leaving it in there isn't going to harm anything at this
point. I don't know that -- I don't know at what point it might get redundant, but I
certainly wouldn't want it to get lost, because I think it's a critical issue that -- and, Craig,
I guess I would defer to your expertise there. I don't--
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I --
Borup: Let's just leave it in.
Hood: That's up to the motion maker and if it gets a second -- I have no preference.
We will review it again when it comes through the preliminary plat, unless the motion
says we do not want to see any landscape buffer on Locust Grove and put that in the
development agreement. I mean we will address it again with the plat. So, either way.
Newton-Huckabay: You have no preference? Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 17, 2005
Page 32 of 37
Hood: I mean -- right. It's probably a little cleaner if you -- you know, if you leave
something in and it leaves a record of the discussion that's been had and the alternative
compliance was discussed regarding the landscape buffer, but --
Rohm: Personally, I don't think anybody in this room is void of that. I think they all
know that that will have to be addressed at such time that the preliminary plat is
presented.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-049.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: Second,
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Newton-Huckabay: And I guess I'll make the motion. I move to recommend approval to
the City Council of file number AZ 05-049 as presented in the staff report for the hearing
date of November 17th, 2005, with the following modifications to be included within a
development agreement. On page seven, bullets which would ~- if they were numbered
would be eight -- eight and ten. To number eight will read that a street buffer
constructed in accordance with the city code include applicable alternative compliance
provisions be installed along Locust Grove Road prior to occupancy of any new dwelling
unit. And end of that comment. And, then, we will strike comment number ten
altogether, that starts with that when a preliminary plat is submitted and ends with
Locust Grove Road shall be prohibited.
Borup: Second.
Newton-Huckabay: End of motion.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries. Thank you all very much,
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 7:
Continued Public Hearing from October 20,2005: AZ 05-045 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 91.085 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 17, 2005
Page 33 of 37
Item 8:
Item 9:
Reflection Ridge Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC - 4275
South Locust Grove Road:
Continued Public Hearing from October 20, 2005: PP 05-048 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 255 building lots and 26 other lots on
91.085 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Reflection Ridge Subdivision
by M & H Development, LLC - 4275 South Locust Grove Road:
Continued Public Hearing from October 20, 2005: CUP 05-046
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for 255
single-family residential dwelling units with reductions to minimum lot
sizes, frontage and setbacks. Also, the applicant is requesting a waiver
of the standard block length in a proposed R-4 zone for Reflection Ridge
Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC - 4275 South Locust Grove
Road:
Zaremba: Okay. I would like to open the continued Public Hearing for AZ 05-045, PP
05-048, and CUP 05-046, all relating to Reflection Ridge Subdivision and entertain a
motion to continue those again to our regular meeting of January 5th, 2006.
Rohm: So moved.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10:
Item 11:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-050 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.0
acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Reserve Subdivision by Dave McKinnon
with Conger Management Group, Inc. - west of North Locust Grove Road
and south of Chinden Boulevard:
Public Hearing: PP 05-051 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12
single-family residential building lots and 5 common lots on 5.0 acres in a
proposed R-4 zone for Reserve Subdivision by Dave McKinnon with
Conger Management Group, Inc. - west of North Locust Grove Road and
south of Chinden Boulevard:
Zaremba: I'd like to open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-050 and PP 05-051, relating to
Reserve Subdivision, and entertain a motion to continue those to a special meeting of
December 8th, 2005.
Borup: So moved.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 17, 2005
Page 34 of 37
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: I'd like to open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-052 -- did I skip one?
Borup: Yes, you skipped 12 and 13.
Item 12:
Item 13:
Public Hearing: PP 05-054 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 22
building lots and 1 other lot on 15.35 acres in an L-O zone for Touchmark
Center Subdivision by Touchmark of the Treasure Valley - southwest
corner of Touchmark Way and Franklin Road:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-050 Request for a Conceptual Conditional Use
for office uses on 15.35 acres in an L-O zone for Touchmark Center
Subdivision by Touchmark of the Treasure Valley - southwest corner of
Touchmark Way and Franklin Road:
Zaremba: I'll go back. Strike that. I will open the Public Hearing for PP 05-054 and
CUP 05-050 relating to Touchmark Center Subdivision. Open those public hearings
and entertain a motion to continue those to our special meeting of December 8th, 2005.
Moe: So moved.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 14:
Item 15:
Item 16:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-052 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.87
acres from R1 to C-G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision by
Landmark Development Group, LLC - 3055 North Eagle Road:
Public Hearing: PP 05-053 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 24
commercial building lots 15.33 acres in a proposed C-G zone and an
approved C-G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision by
Landmark Development Group, LLC - 3055 and 3085 North Eagle Road:
Public Hearing: Request for a conceptual Conditional Use for retail,
restaurant, drive-thru and office uses in a proposed C-G zone and an
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 17, 2005
Page 35 of 37
approved C-G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision by
Landmark Development Group, LLC - 3055 and 3085 North Eagle Road:
Zaremba: I will open the public hearings AZ 05-052, PP 05-053, and CUP 05-049, all
relating to Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision and entertain a motion to continue
those to our special meeting of December 8th, 2005.
Newton-Huckabay: So moved.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 17:
Review Modification to Planning Department Application:
Zaremba: The last item on our agenda, No. 17. Review modification to planning
department application and we will have a staff report.
Hood: A very brief staff report. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I'll
just read through a little bit of the new code here regarding the application processes
UDC-5A-3B2. It says: Prior to commencement of any substantive changes to the
application requirements, the director shall submit the changes to the Planning and
Zoning Commission at a Public Hearing. The director has determined that what we
have done, basically, with the new applications that mirror our new MDC is we have
helped them clean up items, some things that are spelled wrong, some things we just
didn't carry over from the old applications. A few of them are significant. You do have a
memo on -- should have a memo from Sonya Waters for today's date just listing,
basically, all of our Commission and administrative review applications. Again, just
clean-up stuff, but the director did want you to become aware that we are cleaning
those up in an effort to perfect them. So, probably a couple few of them will be back to
you in the future with some other changes, but they are pretty -- they are just pretty
standard changes and, hopefully, makes the process a lot smoother, just some things
that were inadvertently left off from the initial draft. So, I will stand for any questions you
have,
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Borup: They look good to me.
Zaremba: Okay. Any action you need us to take, other than to say At A Boy?
Hood: Not that I'm aware of. I think that was more of a -- just an FYI type thing, so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 17, 2005
Page 36 of 37
Newton-Huckabay: At-A-Boy.
Rohm: At-A-Boy.
Zaremba: Thank you very much. Okay. And reminder that we are having a special
meeting on Tuesday, the 29th, starting at 6:00 p.m. and we mayor may not be
provided with something to eat. I'm not sure. I think we are.
Hood: Yeah, you will. Goodwood I have heard is what has been -- is that okay with
everyone or --
Newton-Huckabay: Well, that sure beats Pizza Hut.
Moe: I think now that we have a liaison, I'm sure she's going to take care of it.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: There is a really very proper English word there, the liaison to
something.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: 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: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Thank you and good night.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:30 P.M.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 17, 2005
Page 37 of 37
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED:
f) 0-. ß;; ~
DAVID ZAREMgK - CHAIRMAN
\1\11111111/111
\\\ - ME "'1
" ,,\ "~,(" 'ib, II,
.=,' ,..¡ '-vi .,.,1,¡J', ~',
", '!I.' '~~."'- """
.:' CJ ,.....- ¡-. "On",""', '<
{ .:tv',!'" "I" ~ò~.., " ~::.
f ~1' ,,[\JTE JEcl
= f: L:.iU ~
~"Yc.... r)J ,,~
;. ,-(,)! ':,:::
~"YC ~t í ,~'t :" .¡? f
-',,"" ~ ./~~ :-:,.$"
",III Co'r' Ji"" , ~ ""
II, ,-" I \ , \\\
1111111111 ,,",\\\\
\1.. I B I 05
DATE APPROVED
~
-I