2005 12-08 Special
Meridian Plannina and Zonina Special MeetinQ
December 8. 2005
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of December 8, 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, Tara Green, Craig Hood, Mike Cole, 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 special meeting of the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for Thursday, December 8th, 2005. We will
begin with a roll call of Commissioners.
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Zaremba: Okay. Next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and, as
always, we will take the items in order, but before we officially adopt the agenda, I would
like to have some discussion with the Commissioners on Items 8, 9, and 10 relating to
Sadie Creek Promenade. This is a portion of a property on the schedule for tonight that
we have used as the bad example of the Commission getting burned on doing only part
of an area. It came to us for annexation some time ago. The Commission
recommended annexation of it and, then, part of the properties withdrew. They did not
provide the concept plan that this Commission asked for. The piece that we have
before us tonight is a portion of a piece that we will also be seeing -- that we will see the
other part of it on January 5th. My feeling is we need to look at the whole part of it and
my question to you is even if we discussed it tonight, there are reasons that it will be
continued, I'm sure, because there are missing elements, the major of which involves
how it interrelates with the other property, what accesses do this and the other property
need to Ustick, to Eagle, and to each other and I'm certain we will end up considering
both projects at the same time anyhow. So, my question to you is assuming that we are
going to continue this, do we want to continue it without public input tonight or do we
want to get part of the picture, then, continue it? I'm trying to forewarn the audience
about whether we are going to talk about this or not talk about this.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 2 of 36
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: My preference would be not to discuss it tonight and, then, rehash it
again in four weeks.
Zaremba: When we know more about the other project.
Newton-Huckabay: As we are often in the spirit of doing.
Zaremba: I support that opinion. I'd rather hear them both at the same time.
Newton-Huckabay: I agree. I just would prefer not to --
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe and Commissioner Borup?
Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have two questions. Which is the other parcel you're
referring to? The one directly to the south?
Zaremba: I believe it's called Bainbridge or something. Staff, can you correct me on
that?
Guenther: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The projects that we have tied
together here is the Sadie Creek Promenade, which is to the north, as well as the
Bienville project, which is to the south. Each of them include a portion of the
development agreement that was signed onto in 2003 through the Kissler annexation.
They also both include two annexation requests, each one has its own annexation
request, as well as Bienville we have a rezone request in order to try and look at the
overall site that was the original proposal for that development agreement, the master
plan for the site. This would be both in the -- surrounded by Carol Subdivision in the
southwest corner of Ustick and Eagle.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: So, I still have the same question. What was this other -- it's directly to the
south.
Guenther: It's directly to the south. It is a three zone --
Borup: Okay. And so it still leaves one more vacant parcel in this area?
Guenther: No, sir. These--
Borup: Those two were together?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 3 of 36
Guenther: Yeah. The other two parcels -- there was four parcels originally on this site.
This project before you tonight, Sadie Creek Promenade, would incorporate two of
them. The Bienville project would incorporate the other two.
Borup: The other two. Okay. And the other question I have -- you had made reference
to one of the parties withdrew with they were trying to work out an overall concept.
Which property was that that withdrew from the --
Zaremba: That would be this one.
Borup: All right.
Zaremba: Or one of these. One of them is in the annexation that we had previously
and one of them is not. When it got to City Council I believe it was the northern most
property or two properties --
Borup: Withdrew.
Zaremba: -- by one owner. That have withdrawn from that.
Borup: So, it is this project.
Zaremba: Thereby cutting them all off from Ustick.
Borup: Okay. So, at that time they weren't interested in cooperating with anybody?
Zaremba: Well, they started out cooperating.
Borup: Yeah. Well--
Zaremba: And I don't know what changed before it got to City Council, but --
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: And we are looking for cooperation again, but--
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I would recommend that we go ahead continue this as well.
Zaremba: Okay. So, the --
Newton-Huckabay: Without discussion?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8. 2005
Page 4 of 36
Zaremba: -- anticipation is --
Moe: Without discussion. That's correct.
Zaremba: For those in the audience the anticipation is that when we get to eight, nine,
ten that relate to Sadie Creek Promenade, we will continue those to January 5th without
any discussion. Is that the consensus?
Borup: I assume you have already looked at the January 5th schedule?
Zaremba: It's pretty heavy, but--
Borup: I know.
Zaremba: -- but Bienville is --
Borup: Okay. Right.
Zaremba: -- I anticipate that one or two of those may drop from that schedule as well.
Okay. We will consider the agenda adopted.
Item 3:
Consent Agenda:
A.
Approve Minutes of November 17, 2005 Planning and Zoning
Commission:
B.
Approve Renewal of Adult Business License for Paul McLeod with
Valley Video - 433 North Main Street:
Zaremba: And the next item, then, is the Consent Agenda, which consists of minutes
and a business license renewal. I have no comment on any of those. Commissioners?
Newton-Huckabay: No comment.
Zaremba: I would accept a motion to accept the Consent Agenda.
Moe: So moved.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second to accept the Consent Agenda. All in favor
say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 5 of 36
Zaremba: Okay. Next, for any of you that don't come to our meetings regularly, let me
describe our procedure, as we are about to get into the Public Hearing portion. In all
cases the applicant and our professional staff have spent quite a bit of time together
reviewing the application and discussing various different items. We begin with our staff
giving us a presentation on where the project is and what the project is and how it does
or does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan and the ordinances of the City of
Meridian and raise any issues that they feel need to be resolved. In that capacity the
staff is not either advocating for or against the project, but just clarifying for us what they
feel we need to know about it. Following that, we invite the applicant to come forward
and make their presentation and, in fact, they are advocating for their project and,
again, describing to us anything they feel we need to know, take that opportunity to
answer any objections that the staff has raised that they can't answer, and clarify for us
and the audience anything more we need to know about the project. We will allow the
applicant, along with their supporting members, who would be architects or engineers or
whoever, we allow them 15 minutes to make their part of the presentation. Following
that is when we do open it up to the general public and at that point we ask that you
prepare to be a little concise in presenting to us what you feel we need to know about
this application, questions that you have or items that you think need to be brought to
our attention, and we do ask that you confine your remarks to three minutes. And as
well, since we want to make sure that we hear everybody, we do ask that you only
speak when you're on the microphone. That way we can hear you and our recorder can
get it recorded for the record, and we also ask that you begin with your name and
address for identification. And as I said, we allow three minutes for that. There is an
exception. If there is a representative of a group -- for instance, the president of a
homeowners association, who is going to speak for other people who are not going to
speak, we do allow that representative to have ten minutes. And, then, as I say, we will
go through the list and call on people that want to speak. If a representative spoke for
somebody already, then, we ask that you just say that you have been spoken for.
Following that, the applicant has the opportunity -- theoretically, they have been taking
notes during the public testimony and the applicant has the opportunity to come back up
and take ten minutes to answer any questions that have been raised, make any further
explanation that needs to be made for us, then, theoretically, we close the Public
Hearing and deliberate among ourselves and staff and end with a recommendation that
we make to the City Council, where there will, again, be a Public Hearing on the same
subject. In theory that's the way it goes. And, let's see, I can't think of anything I
missed on that.
Item 4:
Continued Public Hearing from November 17, 2005: 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:
Item 5:
Continued Public Hearing from November 17, 2005: 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
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 6 of 36
Reserve Subdivision by Dave McKinnon with Conger Management
Group, Inc. - west of North Locust Grove Road and south of Chinden
Boulevard:
Zaremba: So, we will proceed and I will open the public hearings for AZ 05-050, PP 05-
051, both relating to Reserve Subdivision, and even though these are continued
hearings, I will comment that all we have done in the past is continue them to this
meeting and there has been no prior discussion. So, we will begin with the staff report,
please.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. As was just mentioned, this
item was on a previous agenda, but due to a noticing error this is the first time that it's
been heard, so I will give you all the facts around the subject applications. In fact, there
are two applications. The first one is the annexation and zoning for five acres and the
second one is a preliminary plat that includes 12 build-able lots and five common lots.
The site is located on the west side of Locust Grove Road, approximately 1,000 feet
south of Chinden. It is currently rural residential. There is an existing single family
home. If you look at the map on the one acre parcel, it's on the northeast portion, there
is an existing home on that site currently. This property has not been previously platted.
The property is designated for medium density residential uses on the future land use
map in the Comprehensive Plan. As you're aware, these aerial maps are oftentimes out
of date. This one is no exception to that. There is a school north of this -- of the subject
site there and I believe it's a joint campus. Eventually there will be another school
facility constructed on that site. To the east is rural residential, it's Dunwoody
Subdivision. It's zoned RUT in Ada County. To the south, excuse me, that's un-platted.
There is some large -- directly south there are two large parcels that are very narrow,
skinny parcels on Locust Grove Road. To the west is a vacant five acre parcel, which
I'll talk about a little bit more here in just a minute. And just to the west of that is Arcadia
Subdivision. That's zoned R-8 in the City of Meridian. So, four of the five proposed
acres that are proposed for development with this property have been the subject of
previous preliminary plat and annexation applications. I did want to give you a little bit
of history, because that does tie in quite a bit to staff's recommendation on this project.
The co-owner of the subject property, Mr. Jake Centers, also developed Arcadia
Subdivision to the west, as I mention earlier, and after receiving approval for Arcadia, he
bought the nine acres just to the east and C5 subsequently submitted a development for
annexation and preliminary plat approval to the city. The proposed subdivision did not
include connecting the public street to the Locust Grove Road to Jericho Road. Instead,
the applicant proposed a long cul-de-sac street. City staff did recommend approval of
the project with the condition that Hidden Path Street, which was the name of the street
coming in off of Locust Grove Road at that time, be connected to Jericho, because that
five acres did have 60 feet of frontage on Jericho Road. Planning department staff also
did attend the ACHD public hearing on this and requested that the ACHD also require
the applicant to connect Hidden Path Street with Jericho. After ACHD and the city both
required the street connection, the applicant withdrew those applications. Mr. Centers
did tell staff that he does not intend to construct -- that he did intend to construct his
personal residence on the western portion of the site and, therefore, did not want to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8,2005
Page 7 of 36
extend Hidden Path Street, so that's why it didn't -- he didn't want to construct the
connection. And that was the first submittal for Reserve. Subsequent to that submittal
we did -- the city did receive and review an application for a four acre subdivision, which
is similar to what you see here. What's changed is they have also acquired the one
acre parcel to the north that I spoke of earlier in the introduction. Mr. Centers did deed
the five acres to the west to Not For Sale and it was not included with the boundaries of
that second preliminary plat application. Jake is the registered agent of Not For Sale.
He, then, submitted the applications -- that one included eight build-able lots on the four
acres and he continued to own it in his name. Shortly after submittal the property owner
to the north showed interest in partnering with Mr. Centers and they did withdraw their
application before it made it to this body. Staff is appreciative of Mr. Centers'
willingness to partner with the one acre parcel. That's something that we had talked
about, you know, trying to get that one acre parcel to come in with them, so we could
limit access points to Locust Grove Road and things like that. So, that was -- that was a
good change from the previous submittal. However, both the City of Meridian planning
department and ACHD staff made it clear that an extension of Jericho Road was
necessary -- was necessary within Arcadia Subdivision, so that street could be
extended to Locust Grove Road through the subject property. City staff had informed
Mr. Centers several times that a connection to Locust Grove Road from Jericho Road
is in the best interest of the city. Staff continues to believe that development of the
subject site is not in the city's best interest if the entire ten acres cannot be developed
together with a vehicular connection to Jericho Road. Therefore, staff is recommending
denial of the proposed Reserve Subdivision for the reasons listed in the staff report. I
didn't touch on the merits of the subdivision too much. If you want to talk about the
development a little bit, I guess staff doesn't necessarily have a problem with the layout
of the proposed development and, in fact, if we were to condition this for approval, there
probably wouldn't be a whole lot of changes required. Really, the only concern that I
have is some driveway locations around the roundabout. They are proposing a micro-
path to the school site. That's good. There is a temporary turnaround shown for the
extension of the public street in this location on that build-able lot, so that would go
away once this road -- if that road ever gets extended. That's probably about the only
changes that we could see. I mean it's a fairly straight forward -- I guess density would
be the third. It is, I believe, 2.4 dwelling units per acre and the Comprehensive Plan
does call for between three and eight dwelling units per acre. So, it's a little bit below
what the Comprehensive Plan is calling for in this area. The applicant did submit a
letter and I'm sure he's got some -- some additional comments for you, but I think I'll
stop staff's report at this time, unless you have any other questions for me.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Moe: Yeah. Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8. 2005
Page 8 of 36
Moe: Craig, in the report you do note that the five acres now to the west is now owned
by others, not the -- what was it, Just For Sale or Not For Sale. They have now deeded
it over to someone else?
Hood: That is correct. The deed -- the applicant did, actually, submit a deed for the
other five acres with their application and it was someone -- an individual who is not a
party to Not For Sale or other -- as far as I know. So, yes, a third party.
Moe: Okay. That will do it for now.
Zaremba: Okay.
Moe: Thank you.
Zaremba: In that case, we are ready for the applicant, please.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Dave McKinnon, 735 South
Crosstimber. Craig's right, this property has got some history to it and Craig did a pretty
good job outlining the history of this. It's kind of funny. Jake, when he came back with
that second application and deeded it to Not For Sale, LLC, the reason why he did that
is because he kept getting numerous phone calls from other people and he puts all of
his properties now as Not for Sale, LLC, so when people pull up the name on the public
listings, they see that it's not for sale, so they won't call him. So, that's the reason why
he did that. So, Craig, if you could go onto the next slide. I think you have got a color
copy. There you go. This is what I handed out to you earlier tonight and I think you
guys all have a copy, including the attorney has a copy. I know he wanted one, so --
let's talk about what this project is and we can talk about what it was in the past and,
then, we can spend a little bit of time discussing how it needs to move forward or -- with
your recommendation one way or the other. What we have is a piece of property, it's
five acres in size, and as Craig pointed out, there used to be a one acre piece that
basically sat just like this. The roadway came in and jogged and came up. The one
acre piece is now part of this. It's done a couple of really good things for this project.
Number one, it centered the driveway, so it didn't have the jog in the road anymore. Got
rid of another access up on Locust Grove. And it created some additional building lots
because there was not that jog in the road. It became more developable for both
parties. So, instead of trying to cram a couple more houses onto that little one acre
piece by grabbing a stub street in the middle of the project, they are able to just go
ahead and front those houses on, instead of trying to put those with no frontage, which
was the plan initially. So, Jake actually has that property under contract with Go
Properties, LLC, and will close on that property and develop it with the rest of this
property, rather than this third party that's out there. The five acres to the other side,
Jake has deeded that over. It was originally two parcels of ground. He has sold it to
somebody. He no longer owns it. Doesn't want to do anything with it. Wants to
develop this piece of property. In doing his market study and market research, as you
know, we started this project -- I think I submitted the original application June 5th of
2005, so almost full circle a year later and this is what we have ended up with. In that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 9 of 36
time he's done some market studies and the market studies say people want bigger lots
with bigger houses. This piece of property is 655 feet in length. It's 325 -- 335 feet in
width. So, he wanted to create some lots that were big, not too skinny, but they are,
obviously, going to be deep, because once you take out the 50 feet of right of way in the
middle and you have some deep lots -- he didn't want to create 65 foot wide lots with
130 feet deep, so twice as deep as they are wide. So, he tried to create a lot that's big.
And, more often than not, when people talk about the Comprehensive Plan, they are
trying to jam as much density as possible into a project. We have, actually, got a
developer who wants to do less density than is required and note number two on the
Comprehensive Plan allows you to go up and down at your discretion as to whether or
not you want to allow more density or less density without going through a
Comprehensive Plan amendment. Craig, can you go to the next slide? We have a
couple of elevations. No. I had submitted a couple elevations and I have got some
copies of those and I will hand those out and I have some additional colored photos that
I had sent in, just showing what the houses would look like. I had sent those to planning
and zoning. But we are trying to do a wider, larger product, and there is a large demand
for that and that's what Jake Centers would like to do on this property. Craig had
mentioned that the reason for staff denial is this doesn't connect all the way over to
Jericho. To that end we have provided a stub street to the west, so that when the new
property owner of the five acres wants to develop, he can develop that all the way
through to Jericho. We haven't eliminated the ability for that to happen, rather, we have
just come back with a smaller project and Jake's decided that this is what he wants to
build and does not want to include that five acres anymore. It's hard for me to evaluate
fully the comments from staff. The only comments we received were those from the
Planning and Zoning staff. We didn't receive comments from fire or Public Works
Department, or any of the others. You didn't receive them either in your packets. I don't
know how we can evaluate fully what all their comments are unless we receive those.
Because they recommended denial, they decided they would not include those at this
time. In the future we'd like to be able to receive those, so we know what the other
comments are from other agencies. There may be some comments from the other
agencies that would create some changes here, we just don't know what those are. So,
in the future we'd like to see what those are, but -- even if there is a recommendation for
denial. With that we think we actually have come up with a project that's going to work.
Craig, if you can go to the aerial. Just point out a couple things that may need to be
pointed out. The long skinny pieces, this has been purchased. Recently contacted
Jake Centers. It's an out-of-state buyer wanting to know what was going on in the area.
He bought it -- he just came in, bought it just this last week and said what's going on in
the area? I see that you're the property owner to the north for this portion of it. Just
wanted to know what's going on. So, we are going to start seeing some more
development in this area. It's a long skinny piece. We have provided a stub street to
the south for them to develop in the future. In the last year or so Jake has tried to work
with that property owner and they wanted more than what Jake was willing to pay. So,
we decided that a stub street would be appropriate at that location. ACHD has
reviewed this. We sat down with their staff numerous times on this project. They are
happy with our stub street locations. They recognize the fact that in the future when
that property to the west develops, the city and ACHD will require that property to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 10 of 36
provide a stub street to Jericho -- stub street to Jericho to connect Saguaro and Arcadia
all the way through to Locust Grove. So, in the future you're going to have everything
that the city wants to have happen. You have the authority to do that by your
discretionary authority with annexation. I'll hand out a couple of those pictures of the
elevations, what we are trying to build on this property, and at that point I'll ask for your
questions if you have any, and we can move forward. Sorry I didn't have copies for
everybody, but -- we are trying to build larger homes on this site and Jake Centers will
be the builder for this area. Tahoe Homes.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Mr. McKinnon, as far as the low density on this thing, is there a possibility --
would you anticipate that you could put another lot in there to where we can maybe
increase this just a little bit, because the -- we are a little bit lower than the city would
like to see.
McKinnon: Oh, there is definitely a possibility to do that. Like I said, we don't often get
asked by the Commission to add lots. Usually we have recommendation to lose some
lots. One thing I thought was kind of interesting, just up to the north of this site we have
some one acre lots that were approved by the city, developed in the county, with city
services. Also shown in the medium density residential area. And so we do have some
large lots in this area in what is the medium density area and --
Newton-Huckabay: Are you talking about the houses on Jericho?
McKinnon: Yeah. Those are all on one acre lots.
Newton-Huckabay: I just shake my head every time I drive by.
McKinnon: Seems kind of different, doesn't it. But across the street we have
Dunwoody and as you might remember when Leeshire came in that was the property a
little bit south of this, the Dunwoody people came in and said we don't want these small
lots, we want big lots, because all our houses over here are on two and a half acre lots
and we'd like to see some bigger lots. So, there is definitely a possibility that we could
add a lot to it, but the market research shows that people would really like to see some
big lots in north Meridian and so it provides some choices for people, rather than just
the 8,000 to 9,000 square foot that you typically see in the R-4 zone in Meridian, which
is the predominate size of lots in Meridian.
Moe: Basically, the reason for my question is is that, again, this body is trying to adhere
to the Comprehensive Plan and, basically, so I'm trying to get just a little bit closer to
where we are in agreement with that. I don't know whether you can answer this
question, but I'm going to ask it anyway. Just, basically, reading through the report and
whatnot, I was struck somewhat that your client, who was pretty adamant about not
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 11 of 36
wanting to put a street over through that other five acres and so he's turned around and
sold the property. Why was he so adamantly not wanting to do this?
McKinnon: Can't I answer -- I can answer that question. It's really pretty simple.
Originally Jake Centers lived near this area. His bffice is on Locust Grove. He wanted
to build a very nice large house at this location, like many builders, he builds his own
houses and sells them after he builds a new one and moves up. This is where he
wanted to be. He wanted to be at the very back end. Craig, do you have a bigger
map? Can you go to the GIS map? There we go. He wanted to build at the very back.
That was a cul-de-sac there and what he wanted to do was live at the back of a cul-de-
sac lot where there is not any traffic, where all the traffic would peal off before it got to
his house, and so that's where he wanted to build. But when there was a requirement
for -- to connect all of Saguaro, 450 homes, plus all of Arcadia, was the only access to
Locust Grove, because Leeshire was denied right through there, right passed his front
yard, what he wanted to build, he decided he didn't want to do that anymore. So, he
said I don't want to deal with this piece of property. He mayor may not build his own
personal house in this new section, but he said at this time I don't want to create a traffic
lane that runs right here. If someone else wants to develop this property, someone else
stepped up, said they would purchase it from him, he sold it. In the future you guys
have the ability to provide that connection. He's provided a stub street for that and there
is 60 feet of right of way, like Craig pointed out, on Jericho with Arcadia.
Moe: Thank you.
Zaremba: Well, the difficulty with that is that when Arcadia was before this Commission
I know there was a great deal of discussion about providing some kind of a stub there.
The people who at the time lived along Jericho and the future were going to live in
Arcadia, were promised that they would have other access out of there at that point, as
well as -- along with that public access it would -- it would make it easier to have a
pathway that would get to the school. The difficulty I have is that the developer of
Arcadia and the current application had the key piece of property under his control at
one time -- I don't know him personally, but I'm -- when we talk about a spite strip we
are usually talking about something that's 20 or 30 feet wide. I suspect he would have
the wherewithal to provide a five acre spite strip and I have got to admit my personal
feeling is that's what's happening here. This is something that ACHD feels should
happen, something the city feels should happen, something that I believe we have
promised to the people on Jericho and even before they moved there, the people in
Arcadia, that this is where the access would be by providing a stub street and it's
difficult for me not to take this as an intentional frustration of the city. And that being the
case, I agree with staff that it isn't in the best -- regardless of the merits of how it's laid
out, that it isn't in the best interest of the city to go along with that. That's just a personal
opinion that I'm having some struggle with.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just a comment back.
Zaremba: Yes, please.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 12 of 36
McKinnon: There is some definite stubbornness by the developer of this. He really
wanted to build his house there and he did not want that street to connect through.
When Arcadia was developed there was, actually, no right of way that was proposed to
be on Jericho. He did not want to have any right of way on Jericho to connect to this
piece of property and that was -- I got a little bit of history with that, because I worked on
that project and on the project Saguaro. He didn't want to connect to Saguaro initially,
because that's a whole lot of people running through his property and the city said
you're going to put a stub street here to Saguaro and I worked on Saguaro, so I came
and said we agree to put a stub street here and Jake came in and wanted to block that
off and we said you can't block that off, Jake, that's a stub street. We have to provide a
connection up to the north. So, we came through and there was a lot of discussion as
to what this 60 foot strip of road was here. It's a 60 foot strip of road, but ACHD did not
call it a stub street. Remember, we had a lot of discussion of whether or not that's a
stub street or if it's actually just right of way and we had a lot of discussion about that.
We had a lot of discussion with ACHD. They didn't call it a stub street in their staff
report either. When he came back in for Arcadia he did not want that to connect. It's 60
feet, it would create a jog -- it's only 60 feet down, so it would come down, you would
have to have a 50 foot wide road, come down right here, start, and, then, droop up --
you know, run up to the top there and he just felt that it didn't work well for his project.
He didn't want to do that, so he fought against it. It's that initial -- like I said, there is
history. Initially he fought against that and --
Zaremba: It was a battle type discussion when Arcadia was before us.
McKinnon: And so it's been like that and Jake has been of the opinion that he doesn't
want that to come through his neighborhood, because he felt he was going to have a
lot. But don't forget at the same time this was all happening Leeshire Subdivision was
also being discussed. Leeshire Subdivision being this larger piece here, which was
promised that this is where another large access would be. In fact, a collector road was
proposed at that location, because that's the half mile location, which is the appropriate
location for a collector. The city denied Leeshire, because of density, because the
people in Dunwoody came out and said the density is not right. I think the comment
was it's a kingdom with the shire down below. I can't remember. Peasants -- the
smaller lots with the big one. I think in that hearing the Dunwoody people came out in
opposition to it. You had opposition from the neighborhood down below as well. And
they said density is too much. So, Jake brought the density down. He said let's make
some bigger lots. Let's not fight the neighbors on this. And he said if we got a collector
here that would get built first, this would not become the highway out. All these people
over here in Saguaro could get out through the collector at the proper location.
Leeshire hasn't been -- hasn't sold. It hasn't been resubmitted to you. The only access
that would have been built all the way out to Locust Grove would have been at this
location. The traffic light is going to be built at Locust Grove, people trying to get out to
turn left onto Chinden, probably run all the way through there and he felt that that's not
what he wanted to do. That wasn't the market he was trying to reach, so he fought
against it. The two properties -- Jake definitely knocked heads with the city. I've tried to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg-
December 8, 2005
Page 13 of 36
say, Jake, let's just build it this way and get it over with. The city's recommending
approval. The developer wants to build what he wants to build. He doesn't own the
property anymore and so if he doesn't own the property, we don't have -- I don't have
the ability to convince him now to say you have to build that road in there. If it's not in
the best interest of the city, as you mentioned, Jake could hold that out as a five acre
spite strip. He doesn't own it. But even if he did own it and was holding it out as a five
spite strip, are we better off with a five acre spite strip or are a ten acre spite strip? If
he's got the wherewithal to hold a five acre, he's probably got the wherewithal to hold a
ten. I think it's in the best interest of the city to provide a road that would in the future
connect, rather than not have a road that would connect and leave that where it is right
now.
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners?
Borup: The comment I'd have is I find it kind of refreshing to see a larger lot
subdivision. We have had a little bit more going that direction lately, but -- but for so
long it was -- everyone was wanting to do a step down -- or step up in density, not a
step down, and it seemed like just about everything coming through was asking for
variances and below minimums on lot widths and setbacks and just everything. From
the past testimony -- I mean that was the other project's -- proposed for this area that
the neighbors -- we don't seem to have any here tonight, so I think that says something,
that at least the neighbors are satisfied with it. We had a lot of opposition from both
those subdivisions previously on the density. That, to me, seems to answer that
question. You know, whether a house on the other five acres develops or what's going
to happen, I -- you know, that's not up for anyone here to probably know, but I do agree
that the Leeshire project is probably the more appropriate one for that connection to be
made anyway. You know, this is only 12 lots at this location. And I guess that's -- what
I'm saying, I'm in favor of it.
Newton-Huckabay: I wanted to comment if I can, Mr. Chair.
Zaremba: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: If I remember on the -- on the Leeshire, the biggest problem with it
that I had was the layout, was the -- he had all the green space in the back, surrounding
the big house, and, then, he had a bunch of row houses up front and it just was
lopsided. There wasn't a real problem with the density at this Commission level -- in
fact, I think this Commission actually recommended approval of that, but that being said,
I don't -- myself don't have a big problem with this -- this particular layout of this
development. It's a lot better than the last one before us. I think this is a bad area
anyway, the way that they -- the Jericho was built out I think was a prime example of
really bad planning in the county myself and I think no matter what you do over there,
it's going to be -- I just -- I think this is as good as anything you're going to get, because
I just don't think it was well thought out how all that was going to interconnect. Because
those are county properties, aren't they? On Jericho?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 14 of 36
Zaremba: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: But -- I mean as far as --
Zaremba: Well, they were developed in the county. We had -- I'm trying to remember.
They may be in the city now. I know this thing on the corner is in the city and the school
was in the city.
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I don't know if they were annexed --
Zaremba: I think that was part of that annexation. But, you're right, they were
developed in the county when -- at a time when people thought that was a long way
from the city and the city would never get there. So, yeah, it was not planned to be an
urban area.
McKinnon: Actually, Commissioner Zaremba, those homes are still under construction.
Those are brand new.
Zaremba: Oh, they are?
McKinnon: Oh, yeah.
Newton-Huckabay: No, they are all built.
McKinnon: They are built, but it was just in the last year.
Zaremba: Along Jericho?
McKinnon: Yeah.
Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh.
McKinnon: Those are brand new.
Zaremba: Oh, I thought they had been there for awhile.
Newton-Huckabay: No.
McKinnon: Those have city services. They are not on septic. Those have city water
and sewer and they had to come through and get approval from the city in order to build
there.
Hood: Mr. Chair, just maybe some more history, because that -- all of this, actually, did
get annexed here recently into the city. The ordinance just was approved a couple
weeks ago. There are five one acre home sites there, as Dave mentioned. Some of
them may even be occupied now. But the Comprehensive Plan designation for this has
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 15 of 36
changed, just because the county did allow all this, Jericho was a county sub.
Basically, a long story short, they threatened to go and do septic and well and get
United Water, so the city said we will let you develop, we don't want you to bring other
services in, we will provide you the services, but we didn't really get a comment on what
they were doing, we are like we will just provide you the services, so, anyway, that was
kind of how we ended up with a little bit of these five acre lots next to a school site. And
primarily that's why this area makes sense to have a little bit higher density, is because
there is a school right here and some folks -- you know, so the kids can walk to school --
I mean this isn't a huge parcel, it isn't going to make a big difference, but, generally
speaking, I mean those -- that's why we have these designations on our Comp Plan is
because it does make sense to have that medium density or -- and they shouldn't be
estate lots, they should be more of a size where you can get a few more folks in there,
so their kids can walk to school and the infrastructure makes sense. Just on the
Leeshire thing real quick, another point of contention for the neighborhood was they
also had some office and commercial zoning there and that was a huge thing for them.
So, density was a major portion of that, but also the mixed use that they were proposing
I think is what ultimately brought them down and the layout. So, I just want to point
those things out and maybe just a couple other things that Dave brought up in his -- his
testimony tonight, is that I think that planning staff can include other agency's comments
in the future when our recommend is for denial, because primarily it's the planning
department's recommendation for denial. The fire department didn't say we
recommend denial. Public works didn't say we recommend denial. Mainly the issues
were planning issues. So, I think we can include those other agencies. What you won't
continue to see is the planning department's conditions of approval when the
recommendation is for denial. And, generally, when we can recommend approval,
when we can condition something for approval, that's the direction I like to go 99 times
out of a hundred, if I can condition them. Unfortunately, the two reasons that we are
recommending denial on this you can't condition. You can't condition that they add the
five acres, you know, over there and you can't condition more density, because you
have to, basically, hold another hearing, because now the property owners were noticed
that you have 12 lots and we wanted 14. So, both of those reasons we can't
recommend denial of this project as submitted, so -- or recommend conditions for
approval as submitted. So, I think that's alii really wanted to touch on for now, so thank
you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Let me --
Newton-Huckabay: Is there public testimony?
Zaremba: I was going to say, let me do one thing. Let's go the public testimony portion,
which I believe is going to be very short. We have no one signed up to speak, but this
is an opportunity if anybody wants to add something that didn't sign up, you're welcome
to, and I see heads shaking no. So, Mr. McKinnon, we are ready for you to rebut all the
things that the audience have said.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 16 of 36
McKinnon: Thanks for your time tonight, guys. I know you guys had this special
meeting. It wasn't your fault. It was a notice thing. I know you guys have given up your
time for us tonight. Jake wanted me to pass that along. He's thankful you guys were
willing to have this hearing tonight. I want to pass along my gratitude as well. Thanks
for meeting with us tonight. Regardless of how this turns out, I'm thankful for your
patience with us. I know this is the third time you guys have had to deal with this one.
You've had to deal with me and I know how hard that can be. We'd ask for your
recommendation for approval and we think we have got a product here that the larger
lots I think is the right thing in this location. There is a market demand for it and I think
that this is what needs to happen in this area. The future stub street will connect --
there is a stub street for it and there is a stub street to the south. We have provided
connection to the city school. But I'll sit down and ask for your approval. Unless you
have questions.
Moe: I do have one more question. Is the new property owner to the west, does he
understand what may happen to him in the future when he bought that property?
McKinnon: That's a question I can't answer, because I haven't talked to him. I do have
the name on the deed and that's alii have dealt with him.
Moe: Thank you.
Zaremba: Is it your opinion that that new property owner is unrelated to Mr. Centers or
his --
McKinnon: He is not related to Mr. Centers.
Zaremba: Okay.
McKinnon: I don't know where or how or who that is. All I know is Jake said it's no
longer mine, it's this other guy's, and that's where I left it.
Cole: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Mike.
Cole: If I might ask one question of the applicant regarding that.
Zaremba: Yes.
Cole: The western part of the small five acres would have to sewer from Arcadia. If you
don't know that person that owns that, are you confident you will be able to secure the
necessary easements to route the sewer to this to sewer it?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 17 of 36
McKinnon: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Mike, my understanding is that in
Locust Grove we actually have a gravity line that can get back to the lifter in Vienna
Woods.
Cole: The conceptual plan shown that was submitted shows that you run out of grade
about a half to two thirds through the project in the western third to a half that sewers
Arcadia.
McKinnon: This direction?
Cole: That's correct.
McKinnon: Okay. We have already worked with the easements. In fact, there was an
easement that was granted that actually went onto that five acre parcel already and it
was for the water system, if you remember that.
Cole: I know -- well, but the water was going to go through as a condition that Arcadia
needed the --
McKinnon: Yeah, that's --
Cole: -- which has gone away, basically. They have bonded for that through the
Saguaro -- the Saguaro Canyon.
McKinnon: Okay.
Cole: The conceptual plans your engineer has submitted show that the western third of
this has to sewer back to Arcadia.
McKinnon: Sewer back to Arcadia? Yeah. I -- you know, Jake -- I know Jake has
talked to the guy. I don't know who it is, but I'm sure that's something that has been
worked out, because they are going to have to get sewer back that direction anyways,
there is no other way for them to get sewer --
Cole: Well, yeah, they would sewer through Arcadia, obviously.
McKinnon: They would sewer through Arcadia and you guys in the future would say it
has to be to and through.
Cole: It would have to be to and through. However, Wendy platted this, those back lots
would be subject to Sanitary Sewer restrictions until -- until that developed to bring you
sewer.
McKinnon: That's -- it's those kind of comments that we don't get that would have been
great to have, so I'd have an answer for them, we just didn't get them until tonight.
That's something we can definitely address. I know if there is a recommendation for
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 18 of 36
approval tonight, you can't move it onto Council, because we haven't seen what those
conditions are or what the comments would be and they can definitely come forward
with an answer for that and get in touch with Jake and talk to him about that. I do know
that the pace of development for Saguaro has gone so fast that the sewer is actually
back to here already. It's gone that fast. All those lots are basically sold in Saguaro
Canyon. Build out has been a lot faster than expected. Jake initially had planned to put
a lift station here to pump back in Arcadia -- and which direction was that going, do you
remember, Mike? The lift station? Was that going back up through Jericho?
Cole: Yes. The lift station was originally planned in Westborough and, then, Mr.
Centers struck a deal with Mr. Jewett to locate the lift station roughly there where your
pointer was. That's as soon as Saguaro's sewer is installed and approved, the lift
station will be brought offline, essentially never having being built and never being
operated, essentially.
McKinnon: So, the gravity line would actually be able to service back --
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, my question is if we -- we can't recommend approval on
this development tonight, it will have to be continued; is that correct?
Zaremba: I sense we have two choices. One, we can recommend denial.
Newton-Huckabay: Denial. Flat out.
Zaremba: Or we can ask staff to bring us conditions for approval and add into that
anything we wish the staff to consider, but that would mean continue it.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I was going to say that I don't know that -- we need to have
the sewer discussion then, rather than this extra planning meeting on December 8th.
McKinnon: I will sit down.
Zaremba: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: It just seems that there is a lot of details yet to be worked out.
Zaremba: Do you have a sense of which direction we want to go of the two choices that
I mentioned? Are we working towards a resolution that we want to ask staff to make or
are we working towards denial?
Borup: I'm ready to make a motion right now.
Moe: My biggest concern is -- well, I guess I would ask staff -- as far as the other
agencies were there comments that they just -- that we just did not get? I mean are
they -- I'd be curious to know what the other agencies' opinion of the project is.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 19 of 36
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, there was an agency comments
meeting held. Boy, it's been awhile now. Probably a couple few months. From what I
can recollect at that meeting the main concerns from the fire department had to do with
that turnaround and sse -- actually, both had concerns with the turnaround, people
parking there and it not being signed adequately enough to know that, hey, you can't
park here, this isn't your driveway, this is a turnaround. And parking across the street,
because if you park on the north side of that road, you effectively have taken away
where you can back up to. So, that was pretty much the main comments that I had.
And a lot of standard comments from the fire department It was radiuses and things
like that. The police department I believe commented --
Zaremba: Before you go on, is it your sense that if that turnaround is temporary or for
however long that other five acres isn't developed, but for the duration of the turnaround
would no parking signs in the area and across the street be okay, which could also be
temporary, when the turnaround goes away, the no parking signs go away?
Hood: That's what I envision. Correct. Yeah. And if you -- it doesn't really show up
well here. It's really an extra long driveway. They have got -- I don't know if that's 20 or
30 feet, but, then, they have got, really, a 20 foot pad on the other side of that and, then,
the garage. So, it's really -- it's really quite deep. But, yeah, signage is going to be
huge out there and just letting people know that you can't park basically anywhere at the
end of that road, so people can turn around.
Borup: I don't see a problem with the turnaround. It's deeper and you have got a
radius. It's a lot easier than pulling out of a parking lot -- parking spot in a parking lot.
You have got a lot more backup area.
Hood: But on paper it works fine. It's just when you get people that are parking there,
that you can't actually turn around, because --
Borup: But I mean even with somebody parking there you got more room than you
have got in a parking lot.
Hood: Yeah. It's for the ladder trucks and, you know --
Borup: Oh.
Hood: -- not your standard vehicles. It's not generally for the public, it's more for--
Borup: For emergency vehicles. Okay. Yep. That's the difference. But I thought -- I
didn't think you needed an emergency turnaround on that short of a stub.
Hood: It's longer than 150 feet, which is ACHD's maximum length you can have without
requiring a turnaround, so -- just briefly, I guess, maybe another one popped in my head
is the police department had some concerns about lighting of the micro-path. They
wanted to make sure that visibility in there is taken care of. They asked that it be -- it
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 20 of 36
could even maybe be taken care of with a street light. They just want to make sure it's
not some dark alley, you know, there. That's probably the main concerns now. As far
as Mike's concerned, I'm going to give it to him a little bit, because he has his own little
section on the staff report and he could have added -- there is a little thing that says any
issues or concerns from the Public Works Department and he put in none, so we could
have -- that could have been a topic of discussion -- not off the cuff tonight, but --
anyway, we can discuss that more, but -- but, again, for future reference we will include
all our agency comments in the staff report. And just so the Commissioners know, I did
draft -- on page one there are the two proposed motions that we envision. There is a
third one I guess if you wanted to continue it again, that one is not proposed on there,
but, basically, the motions are there for you, so --
Borup: So, it would be my understanding -- if we did a recommendation to remand for
approval, as long as we didn't close the hearing and continue it, if there were any
concerns on any of the other agency reports, I mean that's not saying we have to
approve the -- or approve the application, just because we made a motion to have
conditions of approval.
Zaremba: Well, the motion would be to ask staff to provide us with conditions of
approval.
Borup: Right.
Zaremba: That doesn't automatically mean that we are going to approve it.
Borup: Exactly. We'd still have the -- well, we'd have the opportunity to hear any of the
agency reports.
Zaremba: Yeah.
Moe: That would be the one to do.
Zaremba: And if that's the direction we are going, I think there are some things -- Craig
has already mentioned some of them that -- how the driveways around this traffic circle
are going to work and that my first instinct, at least on these two southern lots, is that
they ought to take their access off this stub street and remove themselves from
Commander Street entirely, but I mean those are things that staff and the applicant
would look at if we remanded it back to them to discuss. We can certainly give some
direction to staff. We want them to look at the access around the traffic circle. Do we
want them to be firmer about the density? My thinking is we probably made the
Dunwoody people happier with this kind of density and even during those public
hearings I've said that I'm all in favor of density closer to the core, but I can listen to less
density farther out in an area like this.
Borup: Yeah. We are about as far out -- I mean Chinden is the boundary.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8. 2005
Page 21 of 36
Zaremba: About the end now.
Newton-Huckabay: Well -- and didn't -- didn't we just have a development there,
though, at Chinden with a bunch of four-plexes or something like that? I mean it's kind
of a --
Zaremba: Jericho and Chinden has four-plexes.
Newton-Huckabay: It's a bit of a mixed bag out there in that area, that --
Borup: These are going to be half a million dollar homes. Might be nice to have more
of that in Meridian. Or more.
Newton-Huckabay: So what was the --
Zaremba: If we are moving towards hearing more of this at a later date, anything else
we want to tell staff to put in their staff report?
Borup: Well, I considered this as a conceptual design, that that's not necessarily where
the driveways are going to be going, you know, but I don't see a problem on those two
lots on the south of the roundabout and maybe that one on the north is kind of pulling
right in where it could be a traffic thing if there is --
Zaremba: The Public Hearing is still open if Mr. McKinnon cares to comment.
McKinnon: When we got this drawing back -- oh, sorry. Dave McKinnon, 735 South
Crosstimber. When we got this drawing back from the landscape architect who drew it
up, that was the first thing we saw was that jogged driveway on the north side and said
that's not going to work. So, we are aware of that. This is just a landscape architectural
rendering of what it could look like in the future. The things we thought were important
was to show you what it would look like with houses on it. A lot of times you get a black
and white drawing and it doesn't show anything. It's hard to envision what houses
would look like on it and this just gives you a better representation of what it would look
like. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: I had one --
Zaremba: I assume we are not discussing immediate denial tonight, so let me throw in
another mix, would be discussion of when we would continue it to. Next week is not an
option and I think January 5th is no longer an option, so we are probably talking about
our second Thursday in -- or third Thursday in January. Second meeting in January,
which I think is the 19th. At the moment that schedule doesn't look terribly full.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 22 of 36
Moe: Oh, I'm sure we can change that.
Zaremba: Yeah, it will change between now and then, but there is one subdivision on it
at the moment. A couple other little things, but --
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I have one question that I don't really understand --
Zaremba: Okay. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Was the reason for -- and I probably read it and I just let it go -- the
City wanting the five acres was just the connectivity? Was that the main -- and we don't
think that without that connectivity now that it's going to work? Is that kind what that -- in
a nutshell?
Hood: Yeah. Connectivity to Jericho is the main reason for denial of it. Having that
connection to Locust Grove Road is in the best interest of the city and anything else
isn't.
Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh.
Zaremba: Well -- and I continue to think that's important. I mean there are --
Newton-Huckabay: But if that -- there are stubs on the west side of that five acre parcel
already as well, right, so that -- that it's going to connect if it -- when it develops.
Zaremba: Let's say there is the opportunity there for a connection. As Mr. McKinnon
pointed out, it's not physically a stub street, but what happens is the existing street
comes right up to the property line.
Newton-Huckabay: Right. Well, I remember that.
Zaremba: For some distance and the anticipation is that that will become an
intersection.
McKinnon: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, ACHD and city staff made it very
clear at ACHD's commission hearing that that is intended to be a stub street on the
other side of Jericho. So, the east side of Jericho at this location is a stub street. That's
60 feet. They made it really clear and staff from your P&Z came to that meeting at
ACHD and they made it very clear that they wanted that to be a stub street. So, it is a
stub street and it would connect in the future when the five acre parcel develops.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I'm sorry to belabor this, but I got to ask one more question.
Can I ask it of staff?
Zaremba: Please do.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8. 2005
Page 23 of 36
Newton-Huckabay: Craig, under what circumstances, if this Commission does
recommend approval, could this whole thing get messed up and we end up with no
connectivity to Locust Grove, other than one, obviously, the property never develops,
but what -- what risk are we running to -- do you understand what I'm asking? Because
I don't think I'm articulating it very well. What kind of -- like I said, I think that this is
really bad planning all up in this area anyway when they approved that -- the county
one. I think it just set the stage for a real conundrum out here, but if we annex -- if we
annex this or recommend that we annex this, it develops, what are we setting ourselves
up for potentially?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I don't know that we are
necessarily setting ourselves up for anything. The stub street is there. What I don't
know is if a home's already been constructed on that five acre out parcel in Ada County
that's right where that quasi stub is what Ada County Highway District calls that 60 foot
piece that touches that five acres. They could go in there and pull a building permit in
the county, pop a house right there, you never get the connection. That could still
happen if you deny this, though. You don't get that connection. So, that's why I said
before that the only thing that's in the best interest of the city is to have the whole ten
acres come in, we get the connection, and it's done. I don't -- again, I don't think we are
setting ourselves up for anything. We will get another connection when Leeshire comes
in, when Mr. Lee's property develops, and it will, but the problem is going to be is that's
going to be your only east-west and is going to be a collector. This one was trying to
come and alleviate and split those -- the traffic distribution in this area from either having
it all go through Lee's property or all go through this property. If you get both of them
coming in, the traffic is going to be somewhat evenly dispersed. Now, obviously, the
traffic split isn't going to be 50-50, but it's going to be fairly split. So, that's -- again, no
setup. I think either way it's just more of -- we are throwing it back at the developer and
say, hey -- you know, it's similar to that one that was over by the freeway that we had
the skinny narrow parcel -- show us how it's going to develop. Until we see the whole
picture together, is piecemealing it together in the best interest of the city and that's
really the question. I mean we can -- if we say -- we can wait. We can just wait until it
all just comes in together and, then, that's when it's appropriate, but, again, you know,
this isn't setting the city up for anything.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I guess I'm trying to -- let's poke holes -- let's poke holes in
the logic that this is a good idea and, you know, what could happen -- what could go
wrong, I guess is what I'm asking is -- other than you thinking that another parcel -- or a
house gets built in the county on this property, that's been -- and that risk stands either
way, as you see it?
Hood: It does. I mean I have seen a letter from Ada County saying that they recognize
that five acres as a build-able parcel. So, that in itself -- that letter was kind of
disconcerting, because it really has only 60 feet of street frontage, which we provided to
it recently and that's, actually, below what their minimum street frontage requirement is,
but, anyways, yeah, I don't think I have anything else to add. It's just that's the best
interest of the city. This isn't necessarily the end of everything. I don't think it's a good
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 24 of 36
point that, you know, because some bad planning has happened in the past, though,
that we just say, yeah, it can be okay, because we have pretty much given up on the
whole -- the whole area. So, I disagree a little bit there. I think we can make -- we can
make lemonade here, you know, so --
Newton-Huckabay: No. I agree. I think that's what I was trying to get at, is what's the
best way -- because I think the way they developed Jericho has messed up the whole
thing. If they would have done something a little more in the spirit of the
Comprehensive Plan out in that area, I think it might have come together better and I
agree with you, we need to make lemons out of lemonade and I guess I'm just not
wanting to throw any --
Zaremba: The one issue that helps me not be so certain that this is in the best interest
of the city is just the problem that you suggest. This developer had it within his power to
solve that problem and is intentionally not doing that. Is it in the best interest of the city
to let developers treat the city that way? That's my struggle.
Moe: Mine as well.
Zaremba: But not to belabor that point, do we want to ask staff for conditions of
approval and discuss it again on January 19th, I believe it would be? As well as all the
other agency comments.
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: If we deal with it tonight, I would vote for denial. If we are -- if we are
considering it, then, I would like to see all of the other comments and the conditions.
Borup: Okay. Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: In the spirit of moving along, I'd move to remand AZ--
Moe: We need to close the --
Borup: Not if we are going to --
Moe: Oh. I'm sorry.
Borup: I move to remand AZ 05-050 and PP 05-051 back to staff so staff can draft
findings and conditions of approval, to be accompanied by all other agency reports and
continue this to January 19th, 2006. End of motion.
Moe: I will second that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8,2005
Page 25 of 36
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. So, that was to January 19th, I believe. Has anybody
confirmed that day? I believe it's the 19th.
Borup: Yes. I looked on a calendar.
Zaremba:
Item 6:
I have the agenda. January 19th it is. Thank you.
Continued Public Hearing from November 17, 2005: 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:
Item 7:
Continued Public Hearing from November 17, 2005: 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: Okay. Next we'd like to open the Public Hearing for PP 05-054 and CUP 05-
050, both of these relating to Touchmark Center Subdivision. And, again, even though
these are continued, we had no prior discussion. They were continued for a notice
problem. So, this will be our first discussion. And we will begin with the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission; I am pinch hitting this
evening for Josh Wilson. He's at home with his kids. So, I will give this a shot. I did
make some notes here. This project also has quite a history behind it. I'll touch on that
in a minute. The subject applications are for a preliminary plat approval of 22 building
lots and one other common lot and conceptual Conditional Use Permit approval for
office uses on 15.35 acres in an L-O zone and those 15 acres are bolded there on the
map. The site is located on the south side of Franklin Road, west of Touchmark Way,
approximately a quarter mile east of Eagle Road. The site is currently vacant. There is
a single family home, I guess, on that property, I believe. The Comprehensive Plan
future land use map designates the land to be mixed use community. We'll go back to
that map for just a second. To the north are future commercial developments. This is
the road that goes around RC. Willey, zoned C-G. To the east are existing future
phases of Meadow Lake Village residential development. This is the zoning code, so
everything in purple here is office district. The reds are commercial. That's industrial
there, the gray. To the south are professional offices and St. Luke's, which is -- their
campus is right here. To the west are the existing -- quickly going away residences in
Montvue Park Subdivision. That's -- most of those are zoned R-1 still in Ada County.
You can see the -- some of them are going to an office zone. We envision a lot of these
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 26 of 36
will become office tied in with the hospital type clinics, et cetera. The subject property is
made up of Lots 2 and 3, Block 2, and Lot 2, Block 1, of Touchmark Living Center
Subdivision and an un-platted parcel, which kind of bisects the property there. The city
annexed most of the subject property in May of 2001 as part of a larger development for
Touchmark and approved the CUP to develop the property into a mixed use retirement
community, consisting of various types of residential dwelling units, medical offices,
commercial retail businesses, and a senior community center. That CUP approval was
modified in 2003 to move the office portion of the development to the south side of
Franklin Road, so where we are at today. The CUP was, again, modified in 2004 to
allow the additional -- addition of a multi-story retirement center. A portion of the site
abutting Franklin Road was annexed in the City of Meridian in July of 2005 and was
required to be included in the current CUP application. That's what you have before you
tonight is the addition of that recently annexed parcel. The plat is cut up into two
sheets. Here is the north section. So, this is Franklin Road here. And, then, here is the
south section. And, again, south section. So, the north part that ties into Franklin Road
is right here. Makes it a little bit difficult to do a presentation, but I will just touch on a
couple of things, especially on the north side. There is a private street proposed -- a
private loop street proposed with the subdivision. They did submit a private street
application for administrative approval and with that approval a cross-access will be
provided to those lots -- all lots within the subdivision to use the private street for
access. There is an existing driveway to Franklin Road and the staff report has been
conditioned to state that that driveway needs to go away when -- before the city
engineer signs the plat. And the final thing I think I want to talk about is the landscape
buffer -- land use buffer that's -- that the staff report requires along the western
boundary of the plat. In our review of these applications today I noticed that there was a
public utilities and drainage easement along that same 20 feet, so the standard
requirements for trees and things aren't going to work in there. So, I do have some
language -- one change to the staff report that I'd like you to read into your motion when
making your recommendation and that is on page one of Exhibit B and it's condition
1.1.9. The condition reads: The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show a 20
foot land use buffer along the western boundary of Lot 6, 7, 8, Block 14. I'd like to have
the sentence end right there. Add a period after the 14 and strike out the rest of the
sentence and just add a new sentence -- are we all there?
Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh.
Hood: The new sentence would state: Due to the existing public utilities easement on
the west side of the plat, comma, install shrubs and other ground cover within said
landscape buffer. End of sentence. So, staff is recommending approval of this office
subdivision and conceptual CUP. I would also like to note that it is just a conceptual
CUP, so you will be seeing detailed conditional use permits for the buildings within this
development in the future. So, with that I will stand for any questions. Staff is
recommending approval with the conditions as outlined in the staff report with the one
change.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 27 of 36
Moe: No questions.
Zaremba: I do have one question that I ask every time there is a private street. Either I
missed it or I didn't see -- and that refers to future maintenance of it. Is that private
street in its own separate common lot for maintenance by the business owners
association? I didn't see it that way.
Hood: You may want to ask the applicant or applicant's representative, because I
haven't looked that closely at it. I will do some research. It doesn't look like the -- like
it's a lot. It may just be an easement over the lots, it looks like. The other thing I'm not
quite sure of is that was an administrative approval and Josh may have some other
document stating that that does need to be owned and maintained by the business
owners association, that they are responsible for maintenance of it, but I'll do some
more research while the applicant comes forward, if that works.
Zaremba: Thank you. That works. Any other questions? We are ready for the
applicant, please.
Whitehead: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, hello and good evening. My
name is Sabrina Whitehead. I am here on behalf of Touchmark, Treasure Valley, LLC,
as well as Briggs Engineering. My address is 1800 West Overland Road, Boise, Idaho.
83705. For the record. And as staff notated, I am here concerning the two requests.
One for preliminary plat for the 22 lots, plus the one additional common lot, as well as
the concept conditional use application on the 15.35 acres. Now, I know that you are
well acquainted with Touchmark's project, so -- and familiar with their scope and what
their vision is for the project, so I won't summarize it all entirely, just this portion of it, the
northwest portion. This application is designated as L-O and it will be for light office. It's
-- as you see, it's in two plats. There is phase one and phase two. Phase one is the
northern one and phase two is the southern portion of the plat. As mentioned, there is
22 lots with the one additional common lot, which is designated as an individual well. I
had read the staff report and I have reviewed with Josh the concerns concerning the
landscape buffer, as well as a few additional comments, and as far as a
recommendation of approval, of course, we agree with and as set forth all the
requirements through the staff report, we will adhere to. So, on that note I will finish and
answer any questions that you might have.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Moe: None.
Borup: I assume you agree with the proposed change on the landscape -- on that
landscape buffer?
Whitehead: Yes. Absolutely. Absolutely. We will be -- actually, on Fairview it needs
an additional five feet to make a 25 landscape buffer, which we will make changes to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 28 of 36
the landscape plan, as well as the 20-foot buffer that they are wanting on the west side,
buffering the residential from the L-O. That will be done and submitted for final plat.
Zaremba: The last one you mention I think is the wording that Craig asked to have
changed.
Borup: Right. That's what I was referring to.
Zaremba: And I understand that the issue there is there is a utility easement that goes
under that, which precludes the normal landscape requirement of trees. We can't plant
trees in there, so --
Moe: That is correct.
Zaremba: -- the discussion is -- because where the landscape buffer goes there is also
a utility easement. It has to be some other kind of compliance. So, that's what I believe
all that's about. The only question I have is about the public roads.
Whitehead: Right.
Zaremba: Is that going to be in a separate lot or how is it --
Whitehead: It's not -- it's not designated on the plat as a separate lot. I haven't
reviewed the application, but I know that it is -- it will be private. We will adhere to all
requirements and it will be owned and maintained by the business owners. And that will
all be designated in the CC&Rs and can be a condition, if you guys would like to add
that.
Zaremba: I just think we have found it's easier to maintain if it is --
Whitehead: Yeah. Oh, absolutely.
Zaremba: -- no one office owner, then, says, wait a minute, I'm maintaining my ten
feet --
Whitehead: Absolutely.
Zaremba: -- but you're not maintaining your ten feet.
Whitehead: Absolutely. A road use agreement can be made between all the business
owners explaining everyone's, you know, responsible for maintaining it. That can be
another solution we can --
Zaremba: Let me ask a question, then. This would be -- what is easier to administer in
the future? If some year -- 50 years from now the city discovered that this private road
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 29 of 36
was not being maintained, would it be easier to have it in a common lot or would an
inter-agency agreement -- or inter-business agreement be workable?
Guenther: Mr. Chairman, I did the OB-GYN and the Dr. Wigod Center. Both of those
projects already own to the center line of that private street and they have a permanent
recorded easement for that road, which would be one of the standards of our private
standard of the UDC, which insures that that maintenance will be taken care of.
Zaremba: So, if they continue that pattern around the whole rest of it, that's okay?
Guenther: Yes.
Zaremba: Which is what you're proposing to begin with.
Whitehead: Yes.
Zaremba: All right. Then I have no comments. Any other questions?
Hood: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Mr. Hood.
Hood: To answer your original -- original question, condition 1.1.6 does have the -- it's
not spelled out, it just says that the applicant needs to comply with UDC 11-3F-3. That
basically gets to your point of maintenance of the private road. I understand that there
is two other properties there that have just had easements across there. There is no
reason that this couldn't be a lot. They are going to have to go to -- there is two
property owners, if this scenario plays out, if they ever need to go and ACHD takes over
maintenance of it, which I don't think will ever happen, but if it did go that way, definitely
having a lot and just going to the business owners association, rather than knocking on
the door of each adjacent lot would work. But I think either way works. The easement
works fine, so -- but if you wanted to add to that condition, 1.1.6, and add in new
language that makes you feel more comfortable about the maintenance of that. Also, in
the CC&Rs that were submitted with the development, they do have a provision about
access drives in there and who is responsible for them at this point. I haven't reviewed
them in detail, but I just looked in the section in there anyways, so --
Zaremba: Well, I agree that it could work either way. I think the only reason that I lean
towards the separate lot is we are trying to be consistent around the city as well and we
have been encouraging other people -- it's a little bit of redrawing and a little bit of
renumbering on the plat. It's not moving anything, but --
Whitehead: Will a separate hearing have to be done, since it was notified as the 23,
with an additional?
Zaremba: It's not a building lot.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 30 of 36
Whitehead: No.
Zaremba: It only needs to be if it was a building lot, I think.
Whitehead: Okay. Okay. That's fine, then.
Zaremba: Just trying to be sure. Any other Commissioners have that same concern?
Do we need to add that or am I alone in that?
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I -- does it complicate things with the way we approve the
other -- the other -- the OB-GYN and the other --
Zaremba: It would probably exclude those two easements and begin behind them.
Hood: And, Mr. Chair, the only other thing that I see the problem being is that the
setbacks for those two lots are going to be from the center line, effectively, of the private
street, where now you're making new property lines and property line setbacks for those
buildings and so they are really losing 20 feet or so. However, the width is half the
width of the road to where their building pad area gets shrunk by that distance as well.
So, that's the only other real implication that I see with making it a lot, because now you
got a setback to a lot line and not -- but to actually have a condition that says that it's to
the sidewalks anyways and there may be sidewalks on both sides and I don't remember
how --
Baird: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: You know, I'm not absolutely locked in. That's not a deal breaker for me. I'm
just -- Mr. Baird.
Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, as a practical matter, whether it's
defined as an easement or a common lot, as long as there are provisions in the owners
agreement that require that it be maintained, it doesn't matter how it's identified, So, it
may make sense just to leave it as is so as to not complicate things.
Zaremba: I can be comfortable with that. Okay. Let's go on with the Public Hearing.
We have nobody else signed up to speak, but there is somebody else in the audience, if
you care to speak. Nothing to say. So, in that case we have no rebuttal that needs to
be made.
Whitehead: Great. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, discussion?
Borup: I think we have discussed everything.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 31 of 36
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on PP
05-054 and CUP 05-050 oh.
Moe: 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 will continue -- I move to recommend approval to the City
Council of file numbers PP 05-054 and CUP 05-050, as presented in the staff report for
the hearing date of November 17, 2005, and the preliminary plat dated September 8th,
2005, with the following modifications to the condition of approval and, basically, in
Exhibit B, page one, item 1.1.9 should read: The applicant shall revise the landscape
plan to show a 20 foot land use buffer along the western boundary of Lot 6, 7 and 8,
Block 14. Period. Strike: Which complies with the requirements, et cetera, to the end
of the statement, and add: Due to existing public --
Borup: Would that have been a period or a comma? Minor detail, but you're setting --
Newton-Huckabay: Are you interrupting my motion over semantics?
Borup: No. I'm saying your sentence may make more sense.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Sorry. Shall I start over?
Borup: No.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Block 14. Period. Strike: Which complies with the
requirements of UDC to the end of the statement. Due to existing public utility
easement on west side of plat, install shrubs and other ground cover within said
landscape buffer. Period. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries. Thank you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 8:
Continued Public Hearing from November 17, 2005: 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:
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 32 of 36
Item 9:
Continued Public Hearing from November 17, 2005: 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:
Item 10:
Continued Public Hearing from November 17, 2005: CUP 05-049
Request for a conceptual Conditional Use for retail, restaurant, drive-thru
and office uses 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:
Zaremba: And I will open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-052 and PP 05-053 and CUP
05-049 and entertain a motion to continue all three of those to our regularly scheduled
meeting of January 5th, 2006.
Moe: So moved.
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.
Guenther: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Where did that voice come from?
Guenther: That's from me.
Zaremba: Go ahead.
Guenther: Thank you. At the behest of the applicant, I just want to just make you
aware -- and this Commission has scheduling rights all to its own, which is kind of nice,
but the Bienville project may not be heard on the 5th. And in respect to the applicant
here, I think a lot of it is they have been here for -- scheduled for at least a month and a
half now and they will be scheduled out a month and a half due to the noticing error
from the November 20th hearing. The Bienville project is sounding like it's having some
ACHD issues with its road system and they may not have it complete by the 5th, as well
as, you know, there is other issues that might require a tabling of the item and I think
that, just to be fair to this applicant, that we should either give her some confirmation
that she will be heard on the 5th or if she's going to be tabled out indefinitely until the
Bienville project, so that there is consistency with what we are looking at.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 33 of 36
Zaremba: I would express the opinion that it's specifically the results of ACHD's opinion
of Bienville that will affect my opinion of Sadie Creek. So, if there is anticipation -- I
think my answer is whenever anyone of them was heard, I would want to hear them
both at the same time. So, if you raise the issue that Bienville may not happen on the
5th, I won't be chairman at that time, but as a voting member I would vote to continue
this one as well. Do we have a consensus on that?
Borup: Mr. Chairman, well, I had a question -- ACHD's concern, is that with the internal
roadways or with access?
Guenther: What they are looking at with Bienville -- and I got the project here. Craig,
can you unfreeze that, please? Okay. Never mind.
Zaremba: Just concerning my own opinion, before you go on on this, is what a real
good concept plan that this Commission asked for and they didn't provide, but, see, it
was our mistake not to ask for us to see it.
Borup: Well, but --
Zaremba: This is a case where we said would you put a concept plan together before it
gets to the City Council.
Borup: But Sadie Creek was the one that wouldn't cooperate with that.
Zaremba: They withdrew their annexation, yes.
Borup: So, I don't -- I mean, yeah, I'm sorry they got delayed, but --
Zaremba: You can say something to staff, because this is not an open public hearing at
the moment.
(Inaudible discussion from audience)
Borup: Well -- oh, yeah, we already continued it, didn't we?
Newton-Huckabay: Well, yeah, we had public -- people here left under the
understanding that we could not be --
Borup: So, my question still was -- is ACHD's concern on internal roadways or access
points?
Guenther: They are on internal roadways and they are all -- and this is why I mentioned
this on behalf of the applicant. All the internal roadways are located within the Bienville
project, not on the Sadie Creek project. The public road system that would attach to
Ustick Road and come through the Sadie Creek project -- the Bienville project is
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8. 2005
Page 34 of 36
definitely reliant on the Sadie Creek project being approved. If the Sadie Creek project
is not approved, the Bienville project loses its road connection to Ustick road and so,
therefore, is most likely going to have to be eliminated. But this project is not dependent
on the Bienville project. It's got all of its access points to Ustick Road already and that's
why staff would feel comfortable going forward with this project alone if the Bienville
project would be tabled out and stuck in ACHD review.
Borup: We can still -- I assume we can still review the proposed design and layout for
Bienville. That's on the agenda. So, we would have that information. So maybe --
you're saying with these stub streets and cross-access would stay the same?
Guenther: Yes. And currently, the -- currently, the projects do not align perfectly. They
are very close. These are still general projects that will need to come back for detail
review, most likely through certificate of zoning compliance where the cross-access
points will be further defined. But this applicant was in first and we are approving their
project first, regardless of the timing, and the Bienville people are the ones who would
be required to lineup with their access points for the cross-access. So, this project is
not dependent upon Bienville, but Bienville is dependent on Sadie Creek, is what my
point is.
Zaremba: I'm not sure I agree with that. One of the questions about this project is
whether they should have a right-in, right-out on Eagle. And the solution to that is what
Bienville was doing.
Borup: Well, we already -- we do have the letter from lTD.
Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission --
Zaremba: Mr. Baird. I know what you're going to say.
Baird: -- I would caution you to avoid any discussion on the merits. You have already
changed the hearing. You're not on the record. Unless you want to reopen.
Zaremba: No. And I think that the discussion -- as Mr. Baird points out, we need to
remain focused on whether or not we can tell the applicant that it will be heard on the
5th or whether we are going to try and keep it together with Bienville.
Guenther: That's correct.
Zaremba: And my opinion would be to keep it together with Bienville. But let's get
everybody's opinion.
Moe: Well, quite frankly, that's why we voted earlier this evening to continue, is
because we did want to have it all together.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 35 of 36
Zaremba: And even if Bienville is having ACHD issues, that's still why I want to hear
them both together. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I guess I'm going to have to agree with you. I don't have enough
information to make an opinion otherwise, so I think that's the whole, was to get them
closer together, so we can make a better planning decision on this larger piece of
property, then, that would be appropriate in my mind as well.
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: We can still hear it. You know, if we keep postponing so many things,
continuing, we are going to just get jammed up further down. It doesn't mean we have
to approve it. We can still continue it, but that doesn't mean we can't hear it and
assuming that we would be able to see how it does tie with the adjoining project. I
would need to see that before I had a final on whether it would continue on or not, but --
Newton-Huckabay: And that's fair.
Borup: But the hearing that -- again, depending on the agenda for the 5th. If it looks
like it's going to be too full, then, maybe we might not want to spend a lot of time. But I
think we'd make that decision that night and my intent -- my preference would be to go
ahead and hear the application and, then, decide at that point whether to -- what action
to take.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I just want to ask a clarifying -- so, you're say irregardless, if we
hear it -- we will at least make the commitment to hear -- to hold the public hearing on
the -- but not necessarily make a recommendation?
Borup: Well, yeah, we'd make a decision then. We don't have to. We don't have to
approve it at that meeting. We are just saying we would have a hearing.
Zaremba: I would say they probably should come to the 5th prepared to present. But
they may not get an answer that night.
Baird: And, Mr. Chair, I would caution against making any definite assurances. There
are always other reasons why matters could be continued. But I think what you have
done is you have given the applicant some direction and some guidance and I think
that's all that you can do at this point.
Zaremba: And express it as an opinion action.
Baird: Yeah. Just a legal disclaimer.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 36 of 36
Moe: SO, having said that, then, what I would do is -- Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn.
Zaremba: Could I get a second?
Borup: Second.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:37 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
MAN
0\