2006 08-31 Special
Meridian Plannina and Zoning Special Meetina
AUQust 31. 2006
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of August 31, 2006, was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Vice-Chairman David Mae.
Members Present: David Mae, Keith Borup and Wendy Newton-Huckabay.
Members Absent: Michael Rohm and David Zaremba.
Others Present: Ted Baird, Tara Green, (Craig) Caleb Hood, Bruce Freckleton, Jenny
Veatch, Justin Lucas, Amanda Hess, Sonya Watters and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Keith Borup
X David Mae - Vice Chairman 0 David Zaremba
o Michael Rohm - Chairman
Moe: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the special meeting of the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for August 31st, 2006. I'd like to have roll
call, please_
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Mae: Thank you very much. At this time I'd like to have the adoption of the agenda, but
there are a few items on the agenda that will be, for those in the audience, that we will
be changing. Items 4 and 5, which will be the request for annexation and zoning, 29;31
acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Trilogy Subdivision, as well as PP 06-032, request
for preliminary plat approval, of the same subdivision will not be heard tonight. They will
be continued to the regularly scheduled meeting of October the 5th, 2006. Then, on
Item No.1 0, which is CUP 06-024, which is a request for preliminary approval -- excuse
me -- request for Conditional Use Permit for the Grandview Marketplace Retail Building
No.2, the applicant has requested that to be withdrawn, therefore, we will not hear that.
When that comes up in the meeting we will withdraw that. And other than that we will
go forward with the agenda as noted. Could I get a motion to accept the agenda as
amended?
Newton-Huckabay: So moved.
Borup: Second.
Mae: It's been moved and seconded that we adopt the agenda. All those in favor say
aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31, 2006
Page 2 of 59
Item 3:
Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of August 3, 2006 Planning & Zoning
Commission Meeting:
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-023 Request
for Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 14,315 square
foot multi-tenant retail building with one drive thru window for
Grandview Marketplace, Retail Building #1 by W.H. Moore-
NWC of Overland Road and Eagle Road:
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-025 Request
for Conditional Use Permit for a 24,835 square foot Retail Building
on 1.76 acres in the C-G zone for Centre Pointe Retail 1 by W.H.
Moore Company - 3445 N. Eagle Road:
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-026 Request
for Conditional Use Permit for a 13,653 square foot Retail Building
on 2.03 acres in the C-G zone for Centre Pointe Retail "B" by
W.H. Moore Company - 3445 N. Eagle Road (Lot 10, Block 2,
Centre Point Subdivision):
Mae: The next item on the agenda will be the Consent Agenda and that would be the
meeting minutes of the August 3rd, 2006, Planning and Zoning meeting and B would be
the Facts and Findings, Conclusions of Law of CUP 06-023, the Facts and Findings and
Conclusions of Law of CUP 06-025, and the Facts and Findings and Conclusions of
Law for CUP 06-026.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we accept the Consent Agenda.
Mae: Well, I do have one change to make on the meeting minutes. Very minor. That
would be on page 32 it's noted that Commissioner Newton-Huckabay had been
speaking, Mr. Erickson I do believe, and, then, on 32 we are noting that the speaker
would be de Weerd. I would assume that would have been Newton-Huckabay still.
That would be the only change. So, therefore, could 1--
Newton-Huckabay: I must have been looking particularly intelligent.
Mae: As I was reading I went -- I don't remember her being there, so it had to have
been you.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we accept the Consent Agenda with the changes noted.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31, 2006
Page 3 of 59
Mae: Thank you very much. It's been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent
Agenda as amended. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 4:
Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006: AZ 06-032 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 29.31 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for
Trilogy Subdivision by Conger Management Group - south side of
Chinden Boulevard and east of Black Cat Road:
Item 5:
Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006: PP 06-032 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 148 single-family lots and 14 common / other
lots including 2 private street lots on 28.17 acres in a proposed R-8 zone
for Trilogy Subdivision by Conger Management Group - south side of
Chinden Boulevard and east of Black Cat Road:
Moe: The next item would be the continue Public Hearing on AZ 06-032, request for the
annexation and zoning of Trilogy Subdivision and PP 06-032, request for preliminary
plat approval for Trilogy Subdivision, to have these hearings continued to the regularly
scheduled P&Z meeting of October 5th, 2006. Could I get a motion to accept that
change for a continuance?
Newton-Huckabay: So moved.
Borup: Second.
Mae: It's been moved and seconded to continue the Public Hearing for AZ 06-032 for
annexation and zoning for Trilogy Subdivision and the Public Hearing for PP 06-032,
request for preliminary plat for Trilogy Subdivision to the regularly scheduled meeting for
P&Z of October 5th, 2006. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same
sign? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Mae: Before I get to the next hearing, some of you who haven't been before, I just want
to kind of go through the format that we will be going through this evening. We will open
the next hearing up at which time the Planning and Zoning staff will give their report on
the project. Basically, that will be an overview of the project, after which the applicant
will, then, be allowed to come forward and discuss the project's merits and whatnot with
the Commission. After which there will be rebuttal basically from anyone in the
audience. There are sign-up sheets in the back if you haven't signed. We will go
through those, at which time after that if there is still someone that wants to speak, you
will be afforded that time. After that the applicant will be able to come back up and give
rebuttal to any testimony that is heard and, hopefully, answer the questions that the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31, 2006
Page 4 of 59
folks in the audience talked about, at which time, then, the Commission will review all
that information and make decisions at that point. That was the long and short of that.
Item 6:
Continued Public Hearing from August 3, 2006: AZ 06-030 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 8.03 acres to an R-8 zone for
Northborough Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC - north side
of Ustick Road and east of Linder Road:
Item 7:
Continued Public Hearing from August 3, 2006: PP 06-030 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 35 residential lots and 4 common lots on
8.03 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Northborough Subdivision by
Gemstar Development, LLC - north side of Ustick Road and east of Linder
Road:
Mae: So, therefore, I now would like to continue -- open the continued Public Hearing
on AZ 06-030, request for annexation and zoning of 8.03 acres to an R-8 zone for
Northborough Subdivision by Gemstar Development and also the Public Hearing for PP
06-030, request for preliminary plat approval for the Northborough Subdivision and hear
the staff report, please.
Veatch: Thank you, Commissioner Mae, Commissioners. Tonight Gemstar
Development, LLC, is seeking annexation and preliminary plat approval for 8.3 acres
from RUT to R-8 zone. This property is located off of Ustick and Linder. Linder being
here and Ustick here. The annexation and preliminary plat for this will require the
vacating of a private lane, Momma lane. Here is an aerial view of that. The preliminary
plat -- this is, actually, north, but it's on its side, is for 35 single family residential building
lots and four common lots in the proposed R-8 zone. You have been provided with a
revised preliminary plat by the applicant. We have met recently with the applicant after
the report came out and they have made some changes. The primary changes being
that in -- in the block along the common lot, Block 8 was removed and they are now
providing more open space in that area along the drainage basin. So, there used to be
a residential lot right here. That's been removed to provide more usable open space.
They will also be providing a tot lot there. They have also taken the property line for Lot
5 and smoothed that out. There were some right angles in there and there were some
security concerns that blind spots were being created in the open space area and so for
visibility they are going to smooth that out and kind of eliminate those. They have also
widened some of the more usable open spaces here in Lot 1 and -- in Block 1 and Lot 1
of Block 2. So, those are due to some of staff's comments, creating more usable space,
taking out the Block 8 -- or, excuse me, Lot 8. The only thing that staff has an issue
with -- and all of this meets the UDC requirements for the R-8 zone. This is a difficult lot
to design with, it's an odd shaped lot, and they have tried to provide many points of
access to different things that will be developing or may develop in the near future.
They have Southwick Way over here that they will also be developing. This is going to
align with their main access road here. We have a rural parcel up here. We also have
rural parcels below. Excuse me. Down here. And, then, we also have an existing
home in this section that used to take its access through Llama Lane. They will now be
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31, 2006
Page 5 of 59
using the subdivision public streets to access their home. And this -- we have already
had preapplication with this gentleman and he may develop into quarter acre lots. The
one thing that staff takes issue with -- and, like I said, even though this meets the UDC
requirements, is the block length here. There is no minimum requirement on block
lengths and we definitely discourage long block lengths, but I actually went out to the
Settlement Bridge Subdivision off of Locust Grove and McMillan and this is also an R-8
zoned subdivision with a very short block. This one actually has four lots on it, whereas
in the Northborough they are proposing six here. It's hard to see. One. Two. Three.
Four. Five. Six. Even within the Settlement Bridge lot design the length is slightly
longer than the Northborough and the width is just a little bit shorter here, but yet when I
stood on this corner and took a picture back, you basically -- these are kind of
town home types, but this is one corner and, then, to the other side you can see the post
down here, hopefully. That's the end of the block. So, it is a very short block and with
the pavement it just makes for quite a lot of pavement out there, I guess, in the main
concern and that perhaps there might be another way of designing the site,
so that there would be less pavement in such a small subdivision. So, that was one
thing that we wanted to look at. And I know that the applicant has tried to compromise
and make some other adjustments. So, with that I will stand for any questions.
Mae: Any questions from the Commission?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, is this the best picture we are going to have? I mean not
this particular -- but can the screen get any brighter?
Veatch: Most of the problem is with the bulb.
Borup: The city is out of money and can't buy a light bulb.
Veatch: I know that the applicant has also brought a large color rendition of the site.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, the only thing I -- and I think you probably answered it, but the
existing house to the north of the property, that was not -- that outparcel was not
created when this -- when this property was --
Veatch: Originally they had come in with a preliminary plat that would include this piece
here, but due to some difficulties they have split it apart, so it was actually just this
piece.
Borup: So, until just recently it was one parcel?
Veatch: No. I'm sorry. This owner was just going to come in as part of the annexation
and rezone for the preliminary plat. I think the applicant can maybe confirm that.
Borup: Okay. I will ask him about that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31,2006
PaQe 6 of 59
Veatch: But he owns this piece back here, as well as this triangular piece that abuts up
to the school to the north.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Veatch: Uh-huh.
Moe: Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward?
Nickel: Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners. Shawn Nickel, 148 North 2nd
Street in Eagle, representing Gemstar Development. To clarify, I did hand staff over a
more recent revision than the one actually in front of you, with a couple very minor
changes. I can just go over these real fast and staff already indicated that
Borup: The one we have is dated the 29th.
Nickel: Yeah. The new one was actually sent in today.
Borup: Okay.
Nickel: I will just hold up the color version here. You probably can't see it. Just to
indicate what those new changes were from the revision you have, these two lots on the
north boundary were increased in size to provide more of a transition to that outparcel to
the north and the other change was -- I think that would be the only change. Oh. That's
right. And, then, that to avoid creating an open space that has hiding places in it, we
revised that lot line right here so there is no -- there used to be a corner, kind of a hiding
spot right there, so that's at staff's request, so you can see the open space now, visible
as you turn the corner right here and you can see all way down through it and that's per
the request of the police department. They want to make sure there is no hiding places
in the open space. The plat that you have does show the addition of the tot lot and the
deletion of that Lot 8 that staff spoke of to provide some more usable open space within
the development. In designing this project -- and it's our understanding that staff's not
real overwhelmed with the design, but considering everything that we have to work with,
including the odd shape of the property, the drainage ditch and the easement lining up
with the Southwick Subdivision to the south, there is big cell tower right here on this
parcel to the east and so we have to locate a stub street for future access to the eastern
parcel and access to the western parcel and to provide a future stub to the north, that
really made it quite a task to try to get frontage and access to all the lots. I think we
have done a good job. This is a -- it is a rather small block, but it does -- it doesn't go
against any requirements of the code, as staff has indicated. We think it actually kind of
adds to the development. There is six lots, you have three lots on each -- on each side
and I think it does provide with the ability for neighbors to get out and see each other
and walk around the block without having to go too far of a walk and it promotes more
togetherness in a subdivision. It's not -- I don't think it's anything that really should --
really should be a concern in such a small development and having only one block like
this I think -- I think we have done the best job we could. The developer has to look at
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31, 2006
Page 7 of 59
four other designs and just didn't -- it just worked out with all the other issues we have
with the surrounding properties. To answer Commissioner Borup's question, there is
actually two stand-alone parcels to the north owned by a separate property owner, so
those were not -- that parcel was not created as a result of this subdivision. I don't
really have anything else, with the exception of staff's comments on the design, we are
in favor of the conditions of approval. I believe we added to the quality of the project by
providing some usable open space, in addition to what's already proposed along the
drainage ditch. We will fence that off, of course, to provide a safety issue and that's a
nice pocket park there now. And I will stand for any questions you may have.
Mae: Questions from the Commission?
Borup: Just one. The two lots on the north you say were increased in size, so was that
extra space -- did come out of the drainage lots or some other lot?
Nickel: No. We had two open space lots here and here.
Borup: And those come out of that?
Nickel: And those were decreased by--
Borup: That's what I assume.
Nickel: Yeah. If you look at -- I have pointed on the vicinity map on our plat, that shows
the configuration of those two lots to the north. It's kind of hard to see on the screen,
but you can see --
Borup: It looks like there is three parcels.
Nickel: At one point we did -- or the developer did have one of those parcels tied up
and we originally submitted with that -- with that parcel, so our road -- we actually went
a little bit further to the north and we had a couple of additional lots. That deal kind of
fell through and those property owners backed out and we just went forward with the
one piece that we have.
Mae: Thank you.
Nickel: Thank you.
Moe: Okay. We have a couple of people that signed up to speak. Les Vogel.
Vogel: Yes. My name is Lester Vogel. My wife and I live to the west. 3610 North
Linder Road. And I'm concerned -- where is the street coming into our property? I can't
see it. And if that person to the north develops will there be another street come into
our property? That's what I'm concerned about. Also the irrigation department -- I
talked with Mike Shepherd, the engineer, and he -- we came to kind of an agreement
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31,2006
Page 8 of 59
and he's supposed to have it designed to where it would work. Right now we are on a
rotation with the water in several parcels and I guess he's going to put a diversion and
pull his out and the rest us will do with what's left. Has that been brought to your
attention?
Mae: Mr. Vogel, in regard to irrigation, however you're getting water now --
Vogel: Yeah.
Mae: -- it is required that you still get that water the same, even after this development
is in place.
Vogel: Well, it won't be quite the same, because we won't be on a rotation_ There will
be a diversion in the main ditch and he assured me they would do it right and I met with
him out there on the property. And the fence -- and we are going to need a fence in
there at all times, even if they put another fence up, because we have got livestock in
there all the time and who is the -- who does the inspection work on this? Is it the city?
Mae: Yes, it will.
Vogel: Okay. And I have talked with Shawn at Gemstar Development and he said that
fence would be taken care of. Also, the elevation of the dirt along the fence line, they
said they would try to keep high enough so our irrigation water wouldn't drift over into
theirs and we'd like to develop the -- welcome the developer as a Qood neiQhbor and a
development. We have no problems with that. Is there any questions?
Mae: Commissioners?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Mae: Thank you very much. Next on the list would be Betty Vogel.
B. Vogel: I'm Betty Vogel. I'm Les's wife. We live just west of the property and I think
he covered pretty much what we were concerned about, but I do have one more thing,
along with the fence, what recourse do you have when they are constructing and things
go over the fence, when people live there and you throw things over the fence. I know
this happens, because friends of ours have had it. What do you do? Who do you
contact?
Mae: Well, basically, I would anticipate code enforcement or the city would have to go
out and take a look at that and, basically, I would anticipate that they could shut down
the construction until things are cleaned up.
B. Vogel: No, I don't really think the construction is much called for as it is when you get
houses in there. But -- and I know wind can cause havoc with construction. They are
usually pretty good. But I guess that's probably all along with the fence, we wanted to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31, 2006
Page 9 of 59
be sure, because we usually have livestock in there and when the school, which is just
north of us, put their -- well, they did put their fence in, they asked us to take our downs,
so they could put theirs in. We took ours down and it was almost four weeks before
they put one up. And we had to contain livestock or -- sometimes they ran onto the
school yard. And this is not -- so, the fence is another big item.
Borup: Madam, just a question on your fence.
B. Vogel: Yes.
Borup: Is it a barbed wire fence that's on there now?
B. Vogel: No. It's a hog wire with a hot wire on top.
Borup: Okay. And is that -- did the -- I was just curious why you had to move it for the
school? Was it a property line situation?
B. Vogel: They wanted to put a chain link fence.
Borup: But they couldn't put theirs up and leave yours in?
B. Vogel: They could have, but they asked us to take it down. I presume ours didn't
look good enough for them. I'm not sure. And, then, if I could really sound off, we took
ours down, which went to Linder Road. Well, of course, the school widened the road,
didn't go that far, and they left a blank spot and we still had to fit --
Borup: You had to put your fence back up. Well, they are showing on the plans a cedar
fence going in, but I -- I don't know if you have talked with the developer about whether
your fence would need to come down or do you still leave both fences there. And it may
not be bad to have both of them there. I don't know.
B. Vogel: Thank you.
Mae: Thank you very much. That was all that was signed up. Is there anyone else that
would like to speak on this? Would the applicant like to come back up?
Nickel: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, again, Shawn Nickel. And we have spoken with
Mr. Vogel several times and just so he knows that the -- the stub street to his properly
has not changed location substantially from the neighborhood meetings when we
showed him that location. We will continue to work with Mr. Vogel on both -- regarding
the irrigation and with the fencing. We will make sure that there is no gaps either in
time, nor in the actual construction of the fence, so no livestock will be harmed and we -
- like I say, I have talked to him several times and he's a good person to work with, so I
think we will have no problem meeting his approval for those. And, again, with the
irrigation we will make sure that Mr. Shepherd from Bailey Engineering works with him
and confirms that he will not lose any water at anytime and continue with his irrigation.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31,2006
Page 10 of 59
Borup: But he had indicated that the timing may be different. Is that --
Nickel: I'm not aware of that.
Borup: I assume that the water is going to be diverted for -- to go to a pump station for
the subdivision or --
Nickel: Yeah. We will have to work that out with -- we will get with Mr. Vogel out on the
site and kind of explain how it's going to work and, you know, make sure he's aware of
everything.
Borup: And I assume that -- do you know whether the fencing -- whether the new
fencing can go up and theirs can stay in place to --
Nickel: I don't -- I can't recall what kind of fence Mr. Vogel has.
Borup: It's a -- they said it was a hog wire.
Nickel: It's the intent of the developer to actually put the fence up up fronL--
Borup: Right.
Nickel: -- as opposed to waiting for the builders it put it up, so --
Borup: Right. That's what the plans indicate.
Nickel: Yeah. So, we will get that up and make sure there is no problems with it.
Borup: And I realize that it doesn't strictly have anything to do with the other question
as far as stub streets, if the parcels to the north are developed, but it doesn't look to me
like there may be any need for any other stub streets.
Nickel: Mr. Chairman. Probably not, b~cause he does own all of this property right
here. So, one stub street is probably going to be sufficient to meet ACHD and the city's
interconnectivity requirement.
Borup: Okay.
Nickel: So, to answer his question, there probably will not be a second stub street.
Borup: But this is not the meeting to decide that. Thank you. That's alii have.
Mae: The only thing I would ask -- a question in regards to the building pad elevations
and such to where it concerns the irrigation and whatnot at the property line.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31, 2006
Page 11 of 59
Nickel: Yes, sir.
Borup: I think you're going to want that for a subdivision.
Nickel: For a lot of reasons, yeah.
Newton-Huckabay: I don't think your microphone is working.
Mae: Time out.
Nickel: Were there any further questions for me, Mr. Chairman?
Mae: Are there any other questions?
Borup: I have none.
Mae: I have none also. Thank you very much.
Nickel: Thank you all very much.
Mae: Well, Commissioners, what do you think?
Borup: The only comment I would have is I agree with this -- what the staff said on
design, but I also feel that on these in-fill subdivisions you're restricted by -- by what you
got to work with. I don't know that a lot different can be done. The other -- and there is
probably not -- it's not going to be high traffic through there either, so I --
Newton-Huckabay: Well -- Mr. Chair?
Mae: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Now these houses will just -- all six of them will face the road; right?
Or --
Borup: I don't know if it's -- probably, but--
Newton-Huckabay: There is no common driveway?
Mae: No, there are not.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. That's what I understand.
Mae: No. Two and five will --
Newton-Huckabay: Would face north and south.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31, 2006
Page 12 of 59
Mae: That is correct.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Moe: Yeah. When I reviewed this, you know, I think they did pretty much the best they
could, quite frankly, with the area they had. I think if you were to reduce a few lots and
whatnot, then, you might have some problems as far as getting around the subdivision
any better, so I realize there is a little bit of concern on those six lots, but I think, again,
that they pretty much have done the best they can in the design and I don't have any
problems with this subdivision now. I'm glad they did get rid of the lot number eight that
was up there. It looks a lot cleaner the way it is now.
Borup: I agree.
Mae: Well, having said that, then, can I get a motion to close the Public Hearing?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Freckleton: Mr. Chair?
Mae: Yes, sir.
Freckleton: Sorry. Chairman Moe, Members of the Commission, just a couple of the
items I wanted to touch on. In our staff report Item 2.13 we talked about the White
Drain along the eastern boundary of the subdivision. In our staff report we asked that
the applicant clarify their intention for this facility at the Public Hearing. So, that's one
item. And, then, just real quickly on the issue of Mr. Vogel's ditch, just wanted to
mention to maybe give him a little bit of peace of mind on this thing, too. Prior to Public
Works approving construction plans for this development, the applicant will be required
to provide us written documentation of approval from Mr. Vogel that he's happy with the
design. So, he will have a lot of say in the way that this is done, so --
Mae: Thank you very much.
Freckleton: Thank you.
Mae: At that point I'd like the applicant, maybe, to come back up and address the issue.
Nickel: Mr. Chairman, again, Shawn Nickel. The intent of the White Drain is really to
leave it as it is right now, because it is completely within an easement, half on our
property and half on the property -- or the parcel to the west -- or to the east. Excuse
me. We are planning to fence it at the easement line, but we aren't intending to do any
improvements or really get in there at all on the drain.
Mae: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August31,2006
Page 13 of 59
Borup: Did that answer his question?
Nickel: Mr. Chairman, did staff just want that on the record or there -- okay.
Mae: Thank you very much. Staff have any other questions? Would staff have any
other questions? No? Okay. No other questions.
Newton-Huckabay: Do we have changes to -- we have no changes, then?
Mae: I see none.
Borup: Right. The only question is that one that -- yeah. There is no changes that I
could see.
Newton-Huckabay: Did we close the Public Hearing?
Mae: No, we have not.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ
06-030 and PP 06-030.
Borup: Second.
Mae: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on AZ 06-030
and PP 06-030. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? Motion
passes.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-030 and PP 06-030, as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 31 st, 2006, with no
modifications.
Borup: Second.
Moe: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending
approval of AZ 06-030 and PP 06-030, to include all staff comments for the hearing date
of August 31st, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 8:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-041 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 8.95
acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Harpe Subdivision by Larry C. Harpe
- 4715 N. Locust Grove Road:
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31,2006
Page 14 of 59
Item 9:
Public Hearing: PP 06-042 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 24
residential lots and 3 common lots on 8.95 acres in a proposed R-8 zone
for Harpe Subdivision by Larry C. Harpe - 4715 N. Locust Grove Road:
Mae: I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-041, request for annexation and
zoning of 8.95 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Harpe Subdivision and PP 06-042,
request for preliminary plat approval, 25 residential lots and three common lots on the
8.95 acres for Harpe Subdivision and start with the staff comments.
Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Mae, Commissioners. The applicant has applied for
annexation and zoning of 8.95 acres located on the southeast corner of the intersection
of Locust Grove and McMillan Roads. To the north is some rural residential properties
zoned RUT in Ada County, along with a large parcel currently zoned R-4. To the east is
a future school site within the Settlement Bridge Subdivision, zoned R-4. To the south
is the Havasu Creek Subdivision, also zoned R-4. And to the west is some more rural
residential properties zoned RUT in Ada County. With that context, the applicant is
requesting an R-8 zoning designation on this property. All of the property is currently
zoned RUT in Ada County. I don't think the aerial helps us too much in this situation
with our protector, but this is just an aerial view of the site. We will move on to the
preliminary plat. Along with the annexation and zoning the applicant is also requesting
preliminary plat approval of 22 single family building lots and three common lots. As
you can see, one of the proposed lots is approximately 89,000 square feet. This lot has
been designed to retain an existing home and is, therefore, much larger than the other
proposed lots which range in size from approximately 7,500 to almost 9,000 square
feet. With the current configuration of lots, the total gross density of the project is 2.45
units per acre, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for this
area of low density residential, allows for up to three units per acre. Although this
proposed density is consistent with the low density residential designation, it is
important to note that the applicant is requesting an R-8 zone, which is designed to
accommodate medium density developments. This zoning would allow the large lot that
contains the existing home to re-subdivide and develop lots in the future that are only
required to meet the R-8 standards. If in the future this large lot is subdivided and
developed with similar lots as proposed in the current subdivision, the gross density for
the entire area could reach up to four units per acre, which is above the low density
standard, which it has on the Comprehensive Plan. Even if this scenario I just
mentioned above played out, the potential gross density for this area is still in general
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan because of the step up provision. This
provision described on the Comprehensive Plan future land use map allows for the city
to consider other residential densities than those shown on the future land use map, as
long as the proposed density is within one step. For example, from low to medium of
the density shown on the map. Due to this flexibility, the Comprehensive Plan and the
applicant's attempt to include larger lots in this project, staff finds that the proposed
annexation, zoning, and preliminary plat are in general compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan, but staff also recommends that the Commission consider that
situation of this -- this lot being able to redevelop in the future as an R-8 lot. Therefore,
they would be able to subdivide this lot in the R-8 standards, which is, indeed, a step up
Meridian Plannin9 & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31, 2006
Page 15 of 59
for this area and it's something that could set a precedent as the rest of the lots in this
area, which are all five acre lots similar to these, develop. Now, we can take a look at
the landscape plan. Due to some -- some late changes that were basically imposed by
ACHD, the landscape plan shown is not the landscape plan it will end up being, but this
is just an example. You can see the difference. There is a small cul-de-sac that was
placed instead of this common driveway. But the plat is correct and this is just an
example just to show you the buffers along McMillan and I believe this is Linder Road
here.
Borup: Locust Grove.
Lucas: Locust Grove. I apologize. You can also get a clearer view of where that
current house is located. This access will be vacated and the house will take access off
of a new driveway here. The applicant is also proposing parkway planters with trees, so
it would be an eight foot parkway with five foot detached sidewalks and it shows up
actually better here on the plat. There is going to be two micro pathways connecting to
McMillan and Locust Grove. One micro pathway right here connecting up to the
sidewalk and landscape buffer and another micro pathway right here connecting to the
one on Locust Grove. In total it's .85 acres of open space, which is approximately 9.9
percent of the -- of the total project. Other than the issue of density, which I already
mentioned, the only other issue that staff sees as a major issue or an issue for this
project is the design of this -- this cul-de-sac. After -- because of these late changes
that occurred, the fire department didn't have a chance to take a look at this necessarily
early on in the project and it's just a little bit under what the fire department would like to
see. So, staff did include a condition that -- that before submittal of the final plat that the
applicant work with the fire department to insure that this turnaround meets their
emergency vehicle turnaround requirements. The other issue is the requirement by
ACHD that this lot here remain a non-build lot until this stub street is able to move
through, due to the fact that, once again, there is a required turnaround there and rather
than put the turnaround and allow a house to be built there, ACHD decided to acquire a
non-build lot until that stub street moves through. But other than those issues, as stated
earlier, staff is -- generally approves the project and I stand for any questions,
Mae: Commissioners, any questions?
Borup: Just one. The fire department -- we didn't see that on -- no, they didn't have
comments earlier. Did they review the original plat and they didn't have any concerns
with that?
Lucas: Chairman Mae, Commissioner Borup, they did have -- this, actually, shows a
little bit of what the original plat was --
Borup: Right.
Lucas: -- before there was a -- they were using his driveway as an emergency vehicle
turnaround, but the distance, actually, from the end of this common drive all the way
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31,2006
Page 16 of 59
down to this was -- still exceeded the distance that the fire department wanted. And so
that's why it originally went through a redesign. The issue is that the fire department
doesn't have a chance to make official comments on it. They have a chance to make
official comments on it at the comments meeting and after that it was more of an
informal comment from Joe Silva, the assistant fire chief, saying that he was just
concerned about that -- that proposed cul-de-sac. He just wanted to take a closer look
at it and that's why that comment is in there that, really, he needs to have a chance to
take a closer look at the --
Borup: Well, my observation was that without even driving around the cul-de-sac the
fire trucks would still be closer on the new design than on the previous one. Closer to
the houses and where they need to be.
Lucas: Yeah. It's not the issue of being close enough, it's the turning radius of that cul-
de-sac, being able to get that -- the 60 foot fire truck around the cul-de-sac.
Borup: Well, I mean don't even -- don't even drive in the cul-de-sac and they'd still be
as close as they were --
Lucas: The issue is of them being able to back up and turn around.
Borup: And can't they still back up in the same -- back up before? But that was too far
for them?
Lucas: It was too far.
Borup: All right. I understand. Thank you.
Mae: Any other questions? One question. I'm a little bit -- I just kind of want to get a
handle on this. You know, I -- the step up that we are going for it -- basically, the area
around it we are in R-4. Basically, these lot sizes here -- am I hearing you that if, in fact,
at a future date that they want to go ahead and develop the other lot, that is why the
density is going to go up, therefore, the step up was considered the thing to do at this
time?
Lucas: Chairman Moe, correct. Staff felt it was only logical to realize they are stubbing
to this large lot and in the future their -- the subdivision is set up for that stub street to go
through and to have lots there. It seems fairly clear on how they designed it and that's
why staff felt it was important to realize that while currently, including this 89,000 square
foot lot, they may meet the density requirement or density -- up to three units per acre
described in the low density residential on the Comprehensive Plan land use map or
future land use map. The staff felt it was important to look at a scenario where if this
were to develop in -- as R-8, because that is the zoning designation they are asking for.
If this is all zoned R-8, then, when this develops it can develop at the R-8 standard. In a
sense, staff loses its -- they don't have to meet a higher standard, because they already
have the zoning of R-8 to put as many lots as they can fit in there with the R-8 standard.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31,2006
Page 17 of 59
And so there is options that the Commission can look at regarding how they want to
condition this project. One of those options may be to allow some of the project to be
zoned R-8 and maybe zone this large lot -- as this large lot to be zoned maybe an R-4
to insure that the lower density residential requirements are met in that area.
Borup: That now does raise a question for me, but go ahead.
Mae: Well, I think the main thing that I struggled on when I started reviewing this was
the simple fact that at the present time it is noted as low density area within the Camp
Plan at the present time and I know many of the folks that worked very hard to develop
the UDC the way it is at the present time and the main reason that was done was to
possibly try and curtail changes along the way, realizing that the step up does happen.
I think he did a very good job explaining the reasons for the step up and I just wanted to
make sure that everybody is aware that the low density and within the UDC, R-4 should
be within this area, but I don't really have a real problem with the step up either.
Borup: The question I had -- the project we approved two weeks ago a half mile to the
west of here, was that also an R-8?
Moe: Yes, it was.
Borup: And weren't they about similar lot sizes? And was the Camp Plan the same on
that one -- Camp Plan designation the same?
Mae: No. That was -- I do believe that was mixed use there and we had R-4 to the
south of that area, was it not?
Borup: Yes. Same as we do here. R-4 to the south. But mixed use?
Hood: The Camp Plan designation is the same. It's the same lots, in the same
subdivision.
Borup: Yeah. They are all five acre lots. This is just opposite ends of the same
subdivision. And it's not -- I mean the subdivision was just five acre lots that was platted
along McMillan. The developer didn't do anything other than survey it.
Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may just real quick, I don't know if Justin was at the pre-apps. I
just wanted to go on record and actually thank the applicant for providing the stub
street, if you will, over that -- the out -- it's being platted, but the existing home. We did
request that through out pre-apps. There is an existing access to McMillan_ We wanted
to see them relinquish that access and actually take access internally here. So, that is
something that we, basically, pushed. I don't know that at this time they have any idea
of when that property may redevelop. Just to let you know, they are not doing this to
circumvent the system and trying to come back in next year and re-subdivide this and
have ten dwelling units per acre here. It is something that may happen in the future and
if you do look at these eight acres or nine acres all as one, you may end up with
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31,2006
Page 18 of 59
something above the three dwelling units that the Camp Plan calls for. Again, I just
wanted to point out that we were the ones -- staff was asking them to provide a stub
street to that property so access to the existing home could be provided internally,
rather than the driveway to McMillan. So, I just wanted to point that out. Thank you.
Borup: And that was kind of my -- along with that, I think we are being consistent with
what's developed at the other end, so -- and I assume the ones sandwiched in between
are probably going to want to do about the same.
Mae: Okay. Well, can we have the applicant come forward?
Elg: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Van Elg. I'm with the Land Group, 462
East Shore in Eagle. I'd like to thank staff for the great explanation. They did a good
job explaining this. And they have been good to work with. Justin, do you have that
PowerPoint? Will that go in?
Lucas: I'm attempting to load it right now.
Elg: Okay. Okay. This is Harpe Subdivision. It looks like Harpe, but it's Harpe. And
as Justin described, the southwest corner of McMillan and Locust Grove -- you can go
to slide two, Justin. This plat just -- and I'm not sure if this represents some more recent
tweaks to that cul-de-sac design or not from what you showed up there_ It may not
Maybe the same one. But we did talk to Joe Silva. I know I was concerned about the
cul-de-sac. And we thought that we had that worked out initially with the first design
that we showed, but through discussions with ACHD and with Joe Silva, we realized
that we better go back to the drawing boards and come up with something that was
more palatable for all. And in coming back to the cul-de-sac design like this, we did end
up giving up a -- what, two -- a couple of lots I think from the beginning -- from the initial
design. But I think this cul-de-sac design will meet Joe's standards, that meets ACHD
standards. We have gone to them in tech review already. So, I think -- I don't think Joe
will have any problems with it. But as stated, Justin does have that condition of
approval and we are completely satisfied and comfortable with that condition. If it
doesn't, if it's a foot or two off or something, we have got a little bit of room to play with it
and make it work. One thing that you need to note here -- these lots right here are all
8,000 square foot plus, 8,500. Across the street I think this is zoned -- Justin, if I'm not
mistaken, unless my NGB thing is wrong, I think it's zoned R-8 across the street.
Borup: Settlers is. Right directly across the street.
Elg: Yeah. This whole area right here is zoned R-8 and down below Havasu, this area
down -- this is R-4 right here and, then, there is R-8 right here. But it's R-4, R-8 mix for
the most part. So, I think we are real compatible with what's there. The other thing is
you can't quite see it, but see there is a line right there, that's one of the lots for Havasu
Creek and I think those lots are at 65, 68 hundred square foot, somewhere around
there. These lots here are 8,000 plus, 84, 85 hundred. So, we think that we are being
very -- that this design is very compatible and sensitive to what's gone on in that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31, 2006
Page 19 of 59
development there. These lots right here are still larger than the Havasu lots, although
these lots right here in Havasu -- I believe the reason that they are larger in size is
simply because they are going around a bend and in order to get that they had to pay
for those lot lines. But. in general, these lots are all probably similar in size to every lot
that's around it. We tried to maintain some compatibility with the aligning the lot lines
there. I think there is four lots down here and there is six lots up here. So, it's a fairly
consistent ratio of lots. It's hard to line up lot to lot when you have lots going around a
corner down there along the south side of you. Again, this -- the new plat that we have
talked with ACHD and with the staff and this lot will be designated a non-buildable lot
until this stub street is punched through or some other alternate means of connection or
turn around can be provided that satisfies ACHD and fire department's requirements.
Although that lot will be undeveloped -- of course, all the stubs and everything will be
there, but there will be a little area of asphalt that comes down here that meets Joe's
requirements for fire truck turnaround -- emergency vehicle turnaround. Again, we have
provided the stub street up here. This lot right here -- we have absolutely no intention to
develop that at R-8, we just needed the step up -- you know, we are talking on these
lots right here 60 foot frontage versus 57-foot frontage. So, you know, we are this far
and that's basically -- besides the step down in, you know, four or five hundred feet of
square footage, that's what we are looking for right there. That's where the step up
really occurs. Everything else will be designed according to an R-4, basically. So, we
have no problem if you wanted to place a condition of approval, a note on the plat for a
condition that requires a note on the plat or for -- if you see it necessary to enter into a
development agreement on this piece right here saying that we don't develop it at R-8
densities, it will maintain a similar density as this development here or similar lot sizes.
We are comfortable with that. That doesn't alarm us at all. You might note also that
part of the reason we had to go through a redesign wasn't just for the cul-de-sac here,
but ACHD had some -- and Justin can verify this. We went back and forth and back and
forth. They are trying hard -- they are trying to develop a plan right here for the
intersection, just not there yet, so we developed this with worst case scenario in mind
and I -- they have given us statements and -- written statements that if we design to this
-- they are adjusting the staff report now, but what we show here is what ACHD will
adopt and be satisfied with for that -- for that design of that intersection. So, we should
be -- I think we are fairly safe. If for some reason it requires a little bit of extra right of
way, which it shouldn't, we have discussed that thoroughly with them. These lots are a
little bit larger and they can absorb some of that if they had to increase the size of those
turning lanes right there. I have got lots of notes here, but I think Justin's covered the
bulk of those. The next slide, Justin, is the landscape plan and I do have those
revisements for you. I forgot to give them to you tonight. But this shows the -- a new
pathway or landscaped area here, common area, open area with the covered gazebo
structure for barbecue, picnic area. We have rotated it from up here, this narrow area,
to this larger, more usable area down here. And, again, we are maintaining 9.9 percent
open space versus the required five percent. Again, a meandering pathway connection
through the -- the landscaped areas up to McMillan and over to Locust Grove and, then,
of course, a circuitous connection there down into the subdivision. I believe we have
provided more than the required amenities in this and the open space requirement. The
other thing that we did in designing this -- we could have probably picked up another lot
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31,2006
Page 20 of 59
right here, but we felt that with the changes in traffic that were going on right here, that
we ought to make these lots a little bit larger, rather than try to squeeze them in, and so
providing a larger buffer there to the traffic and what was going on in that corner and,
Justin, you can go to the next slide I think. This is a colored rendering of our landscape
plan where you can see some of the street trees treatment, the shrub beds, the shrub
beds along here. The planter areas along this street. And the pathway connections up
through to there. It's a -- with this piece being -- in essence, it's a part of the plat, but it's
not a part of the plat. You know, we have this large chunk that just didn't -- just didn't
come on board and so -- fully. So, we are left with this configuration of property and we
have tried to be very creative in how to come up with something that will work and still
blend with all the subdivisions in there and I think we have come up with a plan that's
very palatable. Justin, you can skip the next slide and we will just show you briefly a
couple of the -- several of the elevations that the builder plans on putting into this
project. They are not going to be whimpy little designs, they are pretty substantial
buildings. If we could show the floor plans -- I don't have them on this slide here, they
are pretty lovely homes. The stucco -- a treatment of stucco and stone, brick, and a
couple of modulation changes and color changes for each of the buildings. This is the
Spruce A and the Spruce B over here and you can see some of the modulation changes
on that, as in the next slide. We have the Aspen. you can see some modulation
change in the roof and colors there. And the next one. There is four slide variations
there. The Pine. And is there one more? Okay. We will just end with that one. I'll
open myself up for any questions_
Moe: Any questions?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Borup: I have one -- or maybe a little bit of a question and a comment. I notice on the
setback and consistent with the R-8 zone it shows a side setback of four feet.
Elg: Oh, do we? On the plat?
Borup: No. On the note. On the zoning -- well, no, that -- it's stating that's a zoning
setback and that's correct, but on your plat note --
Elg: It's four feet. Yeah. That's a typo. We will correct that.
Borup: No, I don't -- well, it's not a typo. No. I'm saying that is correct. Four feet is a
correct setback in an R-8, but you do have a note up there on -- note number three that
says you are creating a five foot permanent public easement -- public utility easement
along each lot line.
Freckleton: Chairman Mae?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31,2006
Page 21 of 59
Borup: So, is that -- can they change the size of that easement? It's got to stay five.
So, is the city going to correct that some day? You're requiring a five foot -- you're
requiring a five foot easement with a four setback.
Freckleton: No. This isn't the first time this has come up.
Borup: I know, but --
Freckleton: We took this to the utility coordinating council and asked how they felt
about reducing their overall easement to eight feet versus the ten that they currently
have and we got a resounding not interested at all. Five is even too tight.
Borup: And which utility people are on that?
Freckleton: You have power, gas, telephone, cable companies.
Borup: How many of them have lines in those easements?
Freckleton: That's a good argument.
Borup: I mean have we seen any subdivisions in the last five years --
Freckleton: They actually utilize those side yard easements for the service lines to the
home.
Borup: Right. Exactly. That's it.
Freckleton: The power company -- with the exception of the power company. The
power company basically they go where they can get to the meter. But gas and
telephone, they typically use that side yard easement.
Borup: Just to get to the house.
Freckleton: Correct. And that's the intent for it and that's what it's there for.
Borup: So, why do we still have four foot on the books?
Freckleton: I'll let Caleb answer that question.
Hood: Commissioner Moe, Commissioners, I'm not exactly sure how that all came
about. I think we were optimistic in thinking that we could get the utilities to accept a
lesser easement. In effect, it takes your building setbacks to five. I mean if there is an
easement there -- you can't build to four if you have got a permanent easement there.
So, it's a little misleading in that -- I haven't talked to Anna in awhile about it, but we will
probably clean that up with our next UDC text amendment, which should be coming
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31,2006
Page 22 of 59
here in the next month or two. So, it's something -- again, it will be something that's
cleaned up here in the near future.
Borup: That's what I was wondering. But I do agree that the utilities can get in -- I
mean they can get in -- they don't have any machinery that won't fit in eight feet.
Mae: But what they have they will never give up. I do have a question for you. In the
presentation you discussed those lot sizes as being over 8,000 square feet. Am I
looking at the wrong plat?
Borup: Yeah. Just some of them were.
Elg: Just some -- just on the -- right here along Locust Grove.
Borup: And we do have the wrong plat. We don't have a revised --
Mae: We have the wrong one, because I don't see an eight anywhere.
Borup: You don't have the cul-de-sac one, do you?
Elg: Yeah. If yours doesn't have the cul-de-sac, that's the open one.
Moe: Might help to get the right plan. Thank you.
Elg: If I could, I will pass these to Caleb -- or to Justin.
Borup: But I was wondering if it went all the way down and apparently it does. I was
wondering the same thing.
Mae: All right. We have one person -- Ollie. Mr. Palmer, come forward.
Palmer: I have some questions for the Council. Ollie Palmer.
Borup: Address?
Palmer: 1615 East McMillan.
Mae: Okay.
Palmer: The berm across McMillan where they shut the road off from my driveway
there, how did the city come to the conclusion that they could take an extra 13 feet of
easement to make this subdivision when I was only selling the back two and a half
acres. I wasn't selling nothing on this little short side here that you got for the walkway
that goes off to the side of the property and I didn't sell my driveway entrance and all of
a sudden it comes to the place where they have taken that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31, 2006
PaQe 23 of 59
Borup: This is your property?
Palmer: This is my property. Yes, sir.
Borup: It's not Mr. Harpe's property?
Palmer: No. That's my property. And I called the board about that and told them that I
didn't want my driveway being gone, that I would --
Borup: Which is your driveway?
Palmer: Well, it would be right out front. Straight out front.
Borup: The large parcel?
Palmer: On the large parcel on McMillan.
Borup: Okay.
Palmer: And they said, well, they are going to have me come in the other end and we'd
have the same size driveway through the subdivision, which is real narrow, and with my
equipment and stuff that I bring in through there, it would be really hard getting in and
out of that street, because I have got a boat and motorhome and it's just -- you know,
it's just -- turning out into there is going to be difficult to get out of that on the new street
that they have got there and I called them and asked them and said, well, they were
going to do that, that's part of the requirements, the city said they was going to do it and
so that's why I'm here this evening to find out about that and, then, he said they are
going to have a real elaborate landscaping across McMillan and all I can see there is
some trees. I thought there was going to be a 25 foot big mound covering that, plus the
little point that comes out right up here -- this was never part of the property either,
somebody just put that in there and I just got rid of another parcel of land there and I'd
just like to have the clarification of all those points.
Mae: Well, we will have the applicant come up and clarify that.
Baird: Mr. Chair, before we hear from the applicant again, can I make sure we don't
have anybody else that wants to testify?
Mae: Yes. Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this? Okay.
Elg: Well, I stand here with my jaw dropped, too. Mr. Palmer, I apologize. We have
worked with Larry Harpe on this project, who has a purchase agreement on the
property, as I understand, and to our knowledge the information that he has given us is
what he had negotiated with you. So, it sounds to me like Larry needs to probably
discuss some things with Mr. Palmer.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31, 2006
Page 24 of 59
Mae: Absolutely.
Elg: So, If possible, perhaps we can defer this or -- to the next hearing and gives us
some time to -- for Larry to discuss this with Mr. Palmer.
Borup: So, could you clarify the ownership of the -- Mr. Harpe has an option on the
entire parcel?
Elg: He has an option on this part and we -- Mr. Palmer is a co-applicant on it as well.
He will have to sign the plat as well.
Borup: So, I was --
Elg: Because he's maintained ownership of the large piece.
Borup: Okay. It looks like one of his questions was that that landscaping pathway
buffer -- so, is there a question on who owns that parcel of property -- that piece of
property?
Elg: You know, that discussion came up and to my knowledge that was part of the
purchase deal, so that's --
Borup: And that was the original configuration of the lot?
Elg: Uh-huh. So, that sounds like the applicant -- Mr. Harpe and Mr. Palmer need to sit
down again and discuss what those bounds might be or if there is any lot size -- lot
adjustments that we need to make on this plat still.
Mae: Okay. I probably would like to ask staff a question thallhe point was made that
the land owner made a statement that the city was the one that was requiring this berm
across McMillan. Was there any discussions with Mr. Harpe in regards to this berming
and taking that access off of McMillan away?
Lucas: Chairman Mae, Commissioners, I stated earlier, I believe -- I wasn't at this pre-
application meeting, but Caleb did state earlier that this was discussed at the pre-
application meeting, the need to relinquish that access to McMillan Road and the
landscape buffering, that's -- that's just -- the UDC requires the landscape buffer, the 25
foot landscape buffer along arterial streets, which both of these streets are. And so
that's straight out of the UDC, the buffer requirements.
Mae: Okay. Thank you.
Elg: Could I make one other suggestion?
Mae: Please do.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31, 2006
Page 25 of 59
Elg: If you're comfortable with this, we could move forward with the plat and make any
adjustments to that landscape lot, even if we had to skinny it over to the boundary line.
I guess the biggest question, then, would be --
Mae: And I guess what I would tell you is I'm not comfortable with that at all. I think
there are some things to be resolved between the landowner and the developer in
regard to what's going on here.
Elg: I think that's fine.
Mae: There are some things that need to be resolved.
Borup: And I would have thought that a lot of that would have been covered in their
purchase agreement and --
Elg: Well, alii know is that when Mr. Harpe came to us and told us what -- where those
lines were --
Borup: Right. And that makes sense.
Elg: So, we assume that Mr. Palmer was well into --
Borup: Yeah. I think Mr. Harpe would have something in the agreement if -- if it wasn't
approved that the contract would be void and --
Elg: Yeah.
Borup: -- and Mr. Palmer gets his property back.
Elg: These two need to talk and, then, we will adjust as we need to, but if we could be
tabled for -- until the next meeting, I think that would work for us_
Mae: Well--
Elg: That won't work for you, probably.
Mae: It definitely will not be the next meeting, I can guarantee you that.
Borup: It shouldn't be something that takes a long time, though, should it?
Mae: Pardon me?
Borup: How much time do we need to spend on this in the next meeting? It would be a
one issue question, wouldn't it?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31, 2006
Page 26 of 59
Mae: The problem is is our next meeting we are already full. We probably won't get
through --
Borup: Right. On that one.
Mae: The earliest, basically, is going to be the 5th of October would be the earliest
meeting.
Borup: And I don't know if Mr. Palmer had another question. I don't know if you wanted
to --
Mae: Mr. Palmer, do you have another question? Please come forward.
Palmer: One of the big concerns that I forgot to mention is that they have got this piece
where the cul-de-sac is up here --
Mae: Please take the microphone right there.
Palmer: This piece right up here -- my house sits right here and there is no way that I
could keep the house there with that street coming in there.
Borup: Well, there is no street coming in there unless you put the street in there.
Palmer: Well, yeah, but if it was to be developed -- if I want to develop and keep my
house, I couldn't keep my house there, because I can just sell the land, because of the
way the street's coming in, and I was told by the city -- I called and talked to two or three
different people -- I didn't bring their names with me this evening -- and they said that
the berm had to be -- we had to cutoff and that's what they agreed to and this is the way
that I was told and that's why I'm here this evening to see what -- who made that
decision.
Borup: So, Mr. Palmer, you didn't have any type of agreement with Mr. Harpe on the lot
sizes or developing this or --
Palmer: None of the lot sizes was -- that I can recall. He was just going to buy the back
two and a half acres. I wasn't going to be doing anything to the front of the property,
anything to the side of the property, he was just buying two -- the back acres to connect
it wilh his four acres or three and a half on Locust Grove. And, then, when the plat
came back and I seen the picture of what this was, we initially had a conversation on it
and I said I don't want my driveway to be dismissed and not be able to have access on
McMillan and he says, well, it has to be, the City Council is saying it has to be and I
says, well, I'm going to call them and find out why it has to be and, then, I'm going to go
to the meetings and see if I can't get that changed, because I have got -- I have been
there for 30 years with that same entrance and I think it de-values my property, because
if they ever did change and rezone it or whatever for commercial down the road, they
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31,2006
Page 27 of 59
would have no access to that from the property anymore. So, all of that property has
been just eliminated.
Borup: The Camp Plan I don't think is allowing commercial there.
Palmer: At this point in time.
Borup: Yeah. You're going to be sandwiched on three sides with residential property
and you're only -- you're less than 200 feet from the intersection. I think that's a big part
of the -- of why that needs to be eliminated, because of the access to that intersection.
And you already know what that intersection is like at busy times.
Palmer: It's not a problem to us getting in and out of there with the intersection being
there. We haven't had any problems and traffic's thick, but people are courteous
enough to let you in and out of your driveway. You know, we don't have any problem
there. And the stop signal is 75 feet from --
Borup: But if you had a business there that couldn't get in and out, that wouldn't be
very --
Palmer: No. No. As commercial, yeah. But I just don't like the fact that I have to go
through a subdivision and make all kinds of turns with an 85-foot motor home and boat
with the trailers on them and trying to get in and out --
Borup: So, I assume you have something in the agreement that if that -- the property
revert back to your ownership if this is not approved?
Palmer: Not necessarily along --
Borup: It sounds like that's what you're saying; you'd just as soon not sell the property.
Palmer: I have already sold the property. It's already been sold and closed.
Borup: Okay.
Palmer: I just didn't -- and, then, another reason why I was here this evening, because I
didn't how my property -- this two acres that's left, which should be two and a half acres,
is part of this five acres or eight acres that we are talking about in this meeting, because
if those two and a half acres -- or two acres that's left out, they took the half acre for the
berm and that side piece is my property and is not part of this subdivision.
Borup: It sounds like there is some things to get worked out.
Moe: Absolutely. Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Make a motion to continue?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August31,2006
Page 28 of 59
Mae: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we continue AZ 06-041, PP 06-042, to the
regularly scheduled meeting on October 5th, 2006.
Borup: Second.
Mae: It's been moved and seconded to continue this hearing on AZ 06-041 for
requesting annexation and zoning of the Harpe Subdivision and PP 06-042, request for
preliminary plat of Harpe Subdivision. All those in favor -- to the regularly scheduled
meeting of the Planning and Zoning of October 5th, 2006. All those in favor signify by
saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Borup: Just one comment. I'm surprised that Mr. Palmer didn't ask Mr. Harpe about
this back when he was aware of it. That would be the time for that to come out, rather
than at this meeting.
Mae: I'm not sure how long he knew --
Borup: I don't know either, but --
Mae: Okay. Thank you very much.
Item 10:
Public Hearing: CUP 06-024 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the
construction of an 11,029 square foot multi-tenant retail building for
Grandview Marketplace, Retail Building #2 by W.H. Moore Company-
NWC of Overland Road and Eagle Road:
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, do we just --
Mae: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: -- recommend the acceptance of the request to withdraw. Is that
how the motion should go?
Moe: Pretty much. Can I get a second on that?
Newton-Huckabay: Do we need to open it?
Mae: Do we need to open it?
Borup: Yes. We need to open it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31, 2006
Page 29 of 59
Mae: Okay.
Borup: No. Well, yeah, 1--
Newton-Huckabay: We are behind schedule.
Baird: Mr. Chair, let's at least identify it by its item number and then --
Moe: Okay. On Item No. 10, which was CUP 06-024, there has been a request from
the applicant to withdraw this hearing. Can I get a motion to do such?
Newton-Huckabay: So moved.
Mae: And a second.
Borup: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to withdraw CUP 06-024. All those in favor signify
by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 11:
Public Hearing: PP 06-037 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for six
single-family residential building lots and one common lot on 1.96 acres
within the R-4 zone for Moose Creek Subdivision by Moose Creek
Construction - 4275 N. Jones Creek Lane:
Mae: The next hearing will be a Public Hearing for PP 06-037, request for a preliminary
plat approval for six single-family residential building lots, one common lot, on 1.96
acres within the R-4 zone for Moose Creek Subdivision. I'd like to hear the staff report,
please.
Hess: Thank you, Commissioner Mae, Members of the Commission. The application
before you is the Moose Creek Subdivision. The applicant has requested preliminary
plat approval of six single family residential lots and one common lot on 1.96 acres in
the R-4 medium low density residential zone. As you can see, Moose Creek is
generally located south of Cherry Lane and east of Black Cat Road, which runs here.
The site is currently vacant land, as you can see on the aerial photo here. That's the
property. To the east there is the existing Cherrywood Village Subdivision right here,
zoned R-8. To the north is the Golf View Estates Subdivision, zoned R-4. South and
west are residential parcels, this one here and this one here that are still under the
jurisdiction of Ada County. As previously stated, the applicant has proposed preliminary
plat approval of six residential lots between 8,000 square feet and about 13,000 square
feet. There is a connection provided by Cherrywood Village that will serve as the sole
access to the subdivision upon development. Moose Creek has provided a stub
connection right here at the west property line to provide connectivity to the county
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31, 2006
Page 30 of 59
parcel on the west here when it redevelops. Now there are three important issues to
mention here. The first being the proposed Moose Trail Drive, which is the street right
here. It does not meet ACHD's road design standards. ACHD is requiring at minimum
29 foot street sections, with 42 feet of right of way, with curb, gutter, and five foot
attached sidewalks. ACHD is allowing the portion of Moose Trail Drive which abuts the
south property line to be constructed as 40-foot right of way, with curb, gutter, and five
foot attached sidewalk solely on the north street section. So, right here this area will be
40 feet street section and out through here will be 42. Earlier today the applicant
provided staff with a revised site plan reflecting these requirements. So, they are up to
code with ACHD at this point with their new site plan. The second is that it looks like
perimeter fencing along the eastern property boundary is not shown on the preliminary
plat. Staff would like the applicant to clarify along here whether permanent fencing will
be constructed on that boundary. And the most important issue to mention here is that
the property is encumbered by a 30 foot easement, which runs the entire length of the
west property boundary. That is right here. The neighbor to the south, which is still an
Ada County district parcel, utilizes that access easement to access their 2.5 acre
property. In 1999 the southern neighbor applied for and was given tentative approval by
Ada County to construct a private street called Jones Creek Lane on this access
easement. Staff has contacted Ada County and discovered that Jones Creek Lane is a
de facto road only. The conditions to establish Jones Creek Lane as a legal private
road were not met by Ada County's required date and the private road application has
since expired. However, these neighbors still do have that legal interest to cross the
Moose Creek development in the form of that 30 foot ingress-egress easement and are
not willing to relinquish their rights at this time. As ACHD does not recognize Jones
Creek Lane as a bona fide private road, they would require that the easement be
vacated and access to the proposed Moose Creek development and this property to the
south be taken from Summer Tree Way upon development of either of those properties.
Staff has conditioned approval of this application upon vacation of the access easement
as well. Staff would like the Commission to note that we recently set up a meeting
between the applicant -- the applicant's representative Sabrina Whitehead, who is here
tonight, with -- along with planning staff, ACHD, this neighbor to the south, and the
property owner to the west over here, who is also looking to develop shortly. This
meeting is set to take place on September 8th, which is two Fridays from now. Staff is
hoping at that time an agreement can be reached on how this entire area will develop
that is acceptable to all parties. And that is all staff has. Staff is having me note that,
hopefully, the Commission has received that large packet from this property owner to
the south that discusses the access ingress-egress and I think just recently we received
a letter from that property owner's legal counsel requesting a continuance of this
hearing until an agreement can be reached with -- with this property owner, so --
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Yes, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Amanda, were you -- were you done?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31,2006
Page 31 of 59
Hess: I'm sorry. Yes. That's all staff has.
Newton-Huckabay: I, myself, would prefer not to even hear this application since we
have some serious outstanding issues that would be better heard possibly at another
meeting in the future.
Mae: Mr. Borup, what is your opinion?
Borup: Well, I had the same opinion and I mentioned something to Commissioner, but I
might have changed my mind just from one reason only. As we got a fairly light meeting
tonight, if we could see if there is any other issues and get them out of the way, the next
time the hearing would be much shorter. And that's the only reason. If there would
have been two more things on the agenda I would have completely agreed.
Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. I have one other question.
Mae: Go ahead.
Newton-Huckabay: Possibly based on -- and I'm sure lots of conversation has gone on
-- people who are under the assumption or may have believed that this hearing was not
going to take place this evening at all. And if that is the case, I, again, would not want to
hear it this evening, because we will, at whatever time we hear it again, have to hear it
again, if people were under the impression that --
Borup: Why would they have that assumption?
Hess: Well, Commission Members, I was notified about 3:00 or 4:00 this afternoon that
the -- by the applicant's representative that they would like to have the hearing tabled to
the --
Borup: Oh.
Hess: -- but it was the 11th hour and in order to give everybody sufficient notice, we felt
that they should at least come and open the hearing and if people were planning to
speak at this time that they would be able to, because that's what they were noticed for.
Moe: Just to follow up on that, I, actually, was notified at about 3:00 o'clock that this
came about and I, for one, said that I did want to go ahead and be able to open up the
meeting and pretty much as you suggested, Commissioner Borup, I would like to get
some of these items, you know, cleared up. The easement is going to take time and
thereof we pretty much anticipated we would continue this hearing --
Borup: Okay. So, I'd like to go ahead and open the meeting and hear any testimony
that didn't -- that had -- other than anything to do with the private road easement,
because that's not going to be handled tonight.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31, 2006
Page 32 of 59
Moe: That's correct.
Borup: So, I would not be interested in any testimony on that. That needs to be worked
out, but anything else would make sense to me.
Mae: I would agree and I don't know that it's going to take all that long and I think,
basically, it would be design standards of ACHD, they have got a new plat that's been
brought in to take care of that. They have got some fencing issues and if there is
anything else that you guys have questions on, we will go from there.
Borup: Okay. Is that okay?
Newton-Huckabay: Well. I seem to be in the minority.
Mae: Therefore, may I have the applicant come forward.
Whitehead: Chairman Mae, Members of the Commission, hello and good evening. For
the record, my name is Sabrina Whitehead, I am here on behalf of Moose Creek
Development with Briggs Engineers. My business address is 1800 West Overland
Road, Boise, Idaho. 83705. And tonight, as stated by Amanda, I'm here concerning the
-- actually, the preliminary plat for Moose Creek Subdivision. Do you have -- by chance
have the -- the updated plat?
Hess: Did you want to put that up on -- we have the hard copy that we can put up on
the --
Borup: Is this the one you're referring to?
Whitehead: No.
Borup: Oh.
Whitehead: That would not be it.
Borup: Okay.
Whitehead: A whole bunch of variations. As stated, this is -- this property is located
south of Cherry Lane. It is 1.96 acres. And we are requesting six buildable lots ranging
approximately 11,500 to 8,500 square feet. And as stated, you know, this is a small in-
fill. A lot of my in-fills -- they can be quite complicated and they can be just as
complicated as some of the larger plats and originally I had requested to have this
tabled, just because there is some issues that we did fully want to have addressed and
completed before we come before you tonight and as requested we are here this
evening just presenting -- to kind of explain some of the issues and some of the issues
-- I know I'm not supposed to address the easement issues, but some accusations were
made by their attorney and I would just like to be able to clarify and explain on our part.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31,2006
Page 33 of 59
So, this is the basic parcel right here. The one issue concerning was the not a part
parcel. This parcel we will be funding and servicing hook up for sewer and water. Two,
there is another easement -- and I believe it's for utility drainage that needs to be
vacated and we are completely aware of that issue as well. Three, there is the private
road easement and we are very familiar with the issues at hand. One, when we are
going from agency to agency trying to get some, you know, information before we
formulated the plat, it was requested that that private easement be removed.
Newton-Huckabay: Excuse me. I'm sorry. Can I -- I need to ask a question. If Ms.
Whitehead is going to discuss the easement, then, anyone else who has testimony is
going to want to discuss the easement. Are we going to discuss the easement or are
we not?
Borup: I think that in presenting the application it's a little different situation, isn't it? To
kind of get a feel for the overall project. I'd like for her to go ahead.
Whitehead: And we have no problem with anyone else responding. It might give us a
little more information when we do have our meetings to concerns.
Moe: I would like to go forward.
Whitehead: Okay. Thank you. We are very familiar with the Jones' property and this is
their private easement road. We are well aware that they cannot be landlocked and,
therefore, we are providing a private easement for them to use, the same easement __
same edge of paving with a 20 foot landscape strip for some buffer and some privacy,
as well as the 28 radius turnaround for the fire trucks for them. With this consideration
we feel that this would be accommodating. Now, in the letter that I received from the
attorney it discloses that we did not notify for a neighborhood meeting and this is not
true. I held a neighborhood meeting on May 17th, 2006. It started at 6:00 o'clock p.m.,
ended 6:45 p.m. that evening and it was on the subject site. The Joneses were
notified. I do have labels that I brought with me from my office and that were sent out
for that hearing. During that meeting a few issues of concern. One issue of concern
was that this street, which ACHD required us to center line with this existing road, street
car -- or street lights from the cars would shine into the residents homes and we
completely understand this issue. It's kind of hard for us, since we are required to align
this road and so it's kind of an issue that I don't know if there is a possible solution.
More than willing to hear solutions if you know one that would work for that. The other
issue that was brought up -- and these neighbors were in attendance -- was the sewer
and explain the hookup that we would provide for them. As far as the meeting, the
Joneses never attended and I did not hear from them until a couple weeks prior to our
meeting. And so what we have decided -- our firm has set up an appointment next
Tuesday with their attorney to meet, as well as Friday, as Amanda has noted -- not this
Friday, but the following Friday we are going to meeting again with ACHD and with the
neighboring neighbors. On that aspect I feel that that's as far as I can explain the
easement. We have just kind of been doing what we have been told by the agencies.
This is the layout that we felt would be the best, most compatible for this area. As you
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31,2006
Page 34 of 59
can see from the elevations, it's going to be a great in-full project. The site -- it's going
to be a very quality development. The developer is the builder as well and so a lot of
heart and soul has kind of been put into this project and I feel it's going to be a great
project. I just ask, since we weren't able to table the hearing, that you be able to give a
recommendation, even if it's denial, to go to City Council and we would have the issue
situated before then, so we don't have to have a third hearing. That was my only kind of
complaint. Instead of having to have two meetings with Planning and Zoning, have a
meeting tonight, get a recommendation, and go to City Council and we would have all of
our meetings and everything resolved and if it's not resolved, then, we can redesign,
withdraw, there is other options, so -- and that, basically, summarizes my __
Borup: Did you just say you'd rather we recommend a denial than to continue it?
Whitehead: Well, we'd rather for you to give a recommendation to City Council.
Borup: Tonight.
Whitehead: Tonight. And have a hearing.
Borup: That's your request?
Whitehead: That's what we'd prefer, instead of coming back in October for another
meeting with Planning and Zoning, being pushed out another month for City Council.
We feel that we can get resolution through the following meetings and that's what we
would prefer. And you're more than welcome to talk to the developer about it.
Borup: It makes it clear. The only other question I had is did you have any -- any other
concerns on any other staff -- staff report? Any of staff comments?
Whitehead: No. The conditions were fine. We agree with all the conditions. Basically,
just the major issue of just getting the easement issue resolved and we feel that we can
fully do that before City Council's hearing.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. That kind of changes things.
Mae: Okay. We have a few people signed up here.
Borup: How many do we have on there?
Mae: There is five. Well, four. Sabrina has already spoke, so --
Borup: Maybe I just -- I'd state in light of the testimony, my recommendation would be
to recommend denial and pass it on to -- if they wanted an answer tonight, it would be to
recommend denial because of the unresolved easement and pass that on to City
Council and just wanted to mention that now, if that has any light on any of the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31,2006
Page 35 of 59
testimony that -- but I guess it's going to depend on what the other two Commissioners
would feel.
Mae: Well, I'm getting the high sign from the attorney at the end of the table, so I'd like
to hear from him now.
Baird: Mr. Chair, I just might want to remind you and perhaps point out to the applicant
that you risk having the Council remand this back to this Commission, because what
you're asking for them is to pass on a recommendation without fully developing the
record that this Commission is supposed to consider and resolve all matters before
passing something forward. So, I'd just remind the Commission of that before you take
any further action.
Mae: And, quite frankly, you took my thunder. I, quite frankly, anticipated that the one
thing that -- what we have done for quite some time now is we have taken great care in
making sure that before we send something onto City Council that we have gone
through it and, quite frankly, I see that she's looking for the quickest way to get to City
Council, but, quite frankly, I think it would come right back to us. So, therefore, to me it
would be a recommendation to continue this thing out to a meeting sometime in October
and, then, bring it back and, hopefully, these issues would be resolved and we can go
forward. Because at the present time what we are looking at is the easement issue, is
basically the only thing that we are not sure of right now.
Borup: The question I would have, did the applicant understand that, that they are
taking the risk of the City Council sending it back?
Whitehead: We are fully aware that it could be remanded back. We feel that if the site -
- if there is not substantial change to the layout, the layout staying the same, that we
would hope that City Council would just go ahead and continue to hear it and, hopefully,
we will have some resolution to the -- that we would have a resolution.
Borup: You're willing to --
Whitehead: The developer can speak on their behalf.
Borup: Maybe he ought to. Well, there is only three of us, so -- if that's what they are
asking for, my feeling is let them take their chances, but I mean -- but when we pass
something onto City Council and want it clean and everything resolved, that's usually
when we are passing on with a recommendation for approval, not for denial.
Newton-Huckabay: I'd just like to restate I thought we should continue this hearing
without opening up for testimony.
Mae: So, what would you like to do now? I have public testimony or we can just flat
deny it, I guess. And I guess the other point I'd like to --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31, 2006
Page 36 of 59
Newton-Huckabay: I'm going to abstain from commenting, because I don't have a clue.
My preference was not to open anything until we get difficult situations like this to try to
understand. I don't think it's wise to send -- purposely send a project on to City Council
with a motion of denial just for the mere fact that the developer would like the option of
doing that. We do too much of that and we don't have to come every other Thursday
night.
Mae: Well, I'm not sure we do too much of that, but I guess by your comment __
Newton-Huckabay: We'd set a precedent.
Moe: Okay. By your comment, then, I'm going to go ahead and take public testimony
and the first one on the list would be Terry Jones. Terry Jones, want to speak?
Jones: Hi. My name is Terry Jones. I reside at 1490 North Jones Creek and live south
of the easement that they are speaking of. And I was called by my attorney, who spoke
with these people earlier today, that said that this was not even going to be addressed
tonight, so I'm going to decline and wait for our meetings that we have in place that they
set up. Thank you.
Mae: Thank you. Next on the list would be -- is it Oliver? I'm sorry. Last name?
Cleaver. Thank you.
Cleaver: Good evening. Thank you for aI/owing my publiC testimony. My name is
Oliver Cleaver. I live at 1520 North Wintertree Avenue. I -- that's one of the parcels to
the east in Cherrywood Village. I'm also the president of the homeowners association
and they have asked me to come and speak on their behalf. Early in May I was notified
-- we were notified of the public -- well, the neighborhood meeting. We did go on site
and I met with the applicant and we discussed -- I discussed my opinion at that point
and, then, I took it back to the neighborhood association. We also discussed it and I
guess right now I'm speaking not only on behalf of myself, but mostly tho neighborhood.
I'd like to go over to the map. I'll grab the mike over there.
Moe: That's fine.
Cleaver: From what I have seen, I think there is -- I expressed to the applicant a
change in design, one not coming through our subdivision up on the top here, but
establishing their own entrance where the easement lies and, then, having the --
Borup: Sir, would you like a pointer?
Cleaver: Yeah. Having their subdivision entrance come in here, do a turnaround, that
would still allow this gentleman here to develop his parcel, they would still have their
easement down on the bottom to develop if they want, or just to have their private lane
at the bottom and not having a substandard road here and allowing us the quiet
enjoyment that we have now in our subdivision, which is very nice, very quiet, we have
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31,2006
Page 37 of 59
ten town homes here that a lot of empty nesters have been buying and I built the ten
townhomes, still retain some of them, but they very much enjoy the quiet serenity that
this offers in terms of just not a lot of through traffic. If this design continues, then -- I
don't know, it looks like the likely choice is there would be another connection down
here, should -- I believe it's the Joneses. I have not met them formally. If they want to
develop their property, then, it just puts a big burden on our subdivision by having
through traffic this way, through traffic this way, and also creates safety issues. There is
tall grass here, which I'm fine with, but if you're asking to pull cars out this way, we have
got young kids playing down -- these are not town homes, these are residents and
children. As they come out, then, there is safety issues here I think, plus the applicant
doesn't control this property here, there is a sidewalk we have here that meanders
down, but, then, it stops here, it doesn't cross over, because this subdivision,
Cherrywood Village, doesn't control this, they didn't put in the sidewalk, nor should they
have to, but the applicant's not --
Mae: You go right ahead. You're representing your subdivision.
Cleaver: I don't think the applicant -- doesn't control this property, so they can't put a
sidewalk in here and I don't -- that bothers us as well. Let me look at my notes here real
quick. We are not against -- the subdivision is not against them developing their land,
we are for it. Right now it's just -- it's a grass -- they have got grass and they have got
weeds, so it would work well. They responded at the time of the meeting we had in May
that the City of Meridian was telling them they couldn't have an entrance here on
Cherry, that they had to come this way, which I was a little suspicious of. I don't know if
that's the case. Maybe your staff wants to comment on that. And, typically, I know
ACHD requires that either subdivisions line up their entry, we line up with Golf View
Estates over here, or they are offset 150 feet. Golf View also has an entrance here. I
measured from across the street here to this location and that's about 180 feet, so that
would make ACHD standard in having another entrance onto Cherry. I would -- on
behalf of our neighborhood, I would very much like to see them take a design that's
more friendly to this person down here, coming through down, looping around, and
taking care of their business over here, allowing all these parcels to have future
development and leaving our subdivision alone. That's politically incorrect, but there
you go. Thank you for your pointer. Any questions from the Commission?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Thank you, Mr. Cleaver.
Mae: Thank you very much. Next on the list is Monica Lee. From the audience she
declines. Robert.
Lee: Chairman Mae, Commissioners, my name is Robert Lee, I'm am the -- my address
is Post Office Box 8433, Boise, Idaho. I am the former owner of Hearthstone
Subdivision, which is now Moose Creek Subdivision and I would like to go on record
and say in the last two or three years of all my business dealings with Moose Creek
Construction, I have found their business ethics and their character to be complimentary
and above board in all our dealings, even if issues arise, regardless of what those
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31, 2006
Page 38 of 59
issues are. I know that some issues have been brought up with regard to an easement.
This is -- as an owner of that property I have always discussed openly with all my
neighbors that I would potentially either build a home there, which was my original
intent, or that I would do something with it. That something turned out to be selling it so
somebody else could develop it. The subdivision to the east, when I owned that land,
my concern was all the houses that would be there and all the traffic that would affect
my lot as well. So, I understand where you're coming from as a homeowners
association president representative, but in all my business dealings I would have to say
six lots are not going to generate that much traffic. At the most maybe two cars per lot,
12 more cars in and out of there. I am in support of the subdivision, for the record.
Mae: Okay. Any questions from the Commission? Okay. That's all that signed up. If
there is anyone also that would like to speak? Seeing none, would the applicant,
please, come back up.
Whitehead: Thank you again. Sabrina Whitehead. Business address 1800 West
Overland Road. Just to address a few concerns which the neighbors have had, we did
go to ACHD, we did talk to the City of Meridian. Since Cherry -- and I don't know what it
-- is it an arterial?
Borup: Yes.
Whitehead: Arterial. They were really trying to limit how many access pOints that are
onto Cherry, as I'm sure you guys are well aware of and that's why they would not allow
us access. If we had access from Cherry it would, again, solve a lot of our issues at
hand. And so that really wasn't an option that we were given, unfortunately.
Borup: That's what I was going to mention for Mr. Cleaver, the ACHD report says all
access points will be closed and prohibited. That was what ACHO's report said.
Whitehead: We are also giving five feet additional right of way. The street section
wasn't a full street section, so that will complete it to this point, excluding this point that's
not a part. Again, I really just want to reiterate it's going to be a great development, a
great in-fill project. We have some issues that we need to hash out. If you decide to
table it, that is completely your decision. We do need time to work through some
issues. If you decide to let us move to City Council, we will definitely have those issues
handled before we do reach City Council. But, again, that is in your hands and your
decision. Again, I thank you for your time and will stand for any questions that you may
have or concerns, so --
Borup: Just a comment again on what our attorney mentioned is that past experience
the City Council has quite often remanded those back when there is unsettled issues.
Whitehead: Want to comment or--
Borup: Well, he's just stated a fact.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31, 2006
Page 39 of 59
Whitehead: Sure.
Borup: It's going to be up to the City Council to make that decision, but--
Whitehead: You can see our position, I'm trying to relieve the developer from having an
additional hearing. If it's just going to -- if that additional hearing is going to happen
regardless --
Borup: It just may be in December, instead of October.
Whitehead: Yeah. And, then, your decision will be whatever you think would be best,
that would be fine.
Mae: Do you have any other questions?
Newton-Huckabay: I have possibly a suggestion. Is there any possibility, Ms.
Whitehead, that the owner of the property that isn't in this that would allow to have a
sidewalk placed to Cherry Lane? I know we have had some developments come
through where the developer has continued the sidewalk.
Whitehead; I would hate to speak on behalf of those residents, since the last time I
talked to them was at my neighborhood meeting, which was in May. It's a very older
couple. They were very concerned. They have existing trees and whatnot. It may be
something I'd have to go back and talk to them again. She was very concerned that the
trees would have to be taken down if additional right of way and curb and gutter was
taken. I do remember that point being heavily stressed to me. And so we'd have to
maybe go back and talk to them again.
Borup: Could you comment on why Summertree was only a 40 foot right of way? How
did that subdivision ever get approved?
Whitehead: I have no idea. I wasn't the planner on it.
Borup: Yeah. I realize you weren't, but did you look into how that got approval?
Whitehead: Well, usually, when we do -- when ACHD approves half sections, they are
usually --
Borup: Is that what that was intended to be?
Whitehead: Right.
Borup: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31, 2006
Page 40 of 59
Whitehead: No. No. No. Usually, when the half street sections are done it's usually
the general idea that the development adjacent to it will one day come in and do the rest
of the street, which we are up to our end of the subdivision. So, if this area ever
decided to redevelop, then. they would have to provide the additional right of way, curb,
gutter, sidewalk and continue the road up. But, ideally, what --
Borup: Okay. And that was my thought for Mr. Cleaver is that they didn't do a full
street section, so that was intended that that would be shared by the adjoining property.
If they would have done a full 50 foot right of way, there may be some merit to saying
don't drive on our street, but it looks like it was designed that way to start with.
Whitehead: And it's a public street.
Borup: And it was forced that that's the way it would be.
Whitehead: Yeah.
Borup: Okay.
Whitehead: Can we have public testimony for one extra person?
Borup: Was this from the developer? So, that would be the applicant, then, wouldn't it?
Mae: That would be fine.
Loosli: My name is Julie Loosli and do you want my business address or residence
address?
Mae: Business is fine.
Loosli: Okay. 1220 North Meridian Road, Suite B. And we just want to make it known
here this evening that, of course, we are willing to work with any of the neighbors and
make sure it's done. I think I would prefer to have this tabled, if that is going to be an
issue, and get into an earlier meeting, than possibly have it kicked back. But a couple
points that I had wanted to make is when we originally bought this property from Mr.
Lee, he was told -- we were told that there was an easement and there was an
agreement with the neighbors and everybody that there was a development, because
it's already been developed once. It was Hearthstone Sub, knowing that there was
going to need to be access going in and that was the most -- you know, that was the
best of our knowledge of what was going on. It wasn't until two weeks ago that I
received a phone call from Mrs. Jones and it was about the time they put up the public
hearing sign, saying what are you doing and I said, you know, excuse me and she said I
had no idea that this was going on and I said, well, there was a neighborhood meeting
held and she made a point of saying that her mail had been stolen between the months
of April and May and possibly June. I don't know. And that she didn't receive the
notice. And I think I even said to her, well, you know, we are -- we are giving you
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August31,2006
Page 41 of 59
access through -- you will still have a private road and maybe that will help not having a
mail box on Cherry Lane where you won't have to deal with these issues, because we
gave you the rights of notice. It wasn't until today, the day of the hearing, that Briggs
Engineering received a letter from her attorney. I did not receive a letter from the
attorney as being the owner. We just received a phone call this morning from Briggs
Engineering that said we have received a letter from the attorney wanting you to
completely vacate this project.
Borup: But you knew there was an easement through your property.
Loosli: We knew there was an easement, but we were under the understanding that it
was a right of way easement and we were providing another access into that home that
will still --
Borup: So, your understanding the deed didn't specify a location?
Baird: Mr. Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt. I thought it was your desire to avoid this sort of a
debate tonight and have it worked out and brought back to you.
Moe: Thank you very much, sir. Anything else, other than the --
Loosli: No. That would be it, other than that we would probably prefer to see it tabled, if
that's going to be an issue, and get to our meetings for next week.
Mae: Thank you very much. Comment from the Commission?
Newton-Huckabay: Do we want to table this until when?
Borup: Do we have more room on the 5th?
Mae: Yes. The 5th would be fine for this one as well.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we continue Public Hearing PP 06-037
until the regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on October 5th,
2006.
Borup: Second.
Mae: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue the Public Hearing on PP 06-
037, request for preliminary plat approval for six single family residential building lots on
-- and one common lot on 1.96 acres for Moose Creek Subdivision to the regularly
scheduled meeting of Planning and Zoning to October 5th, 2006. All those in favor
signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. That will be moved to
October the 5th.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31, 2006
Page 42 of 59
Mae: At this time -- we usually take a break at 9:00 o'clock and we are going to go
ahead and take a short one. We will come back in session at 9:15.
(Recess. )
Item 12:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-035 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 12.06
acres to C-C (1.50 acres) and R-40 (10.56 acres) zones for Regency at
River Valley by The Regency at River Valley, LLC - east of Eagle Road
and north of Fairview Avenue:
Item 13:
Public Hearing: CUP 06-022 Request for a Conditional Use Permit
approval to construct a multi-family development consisting of 204 multi-
family dwelling units on 12.06 acres in a proposed R-40 zone for Regency
at River Valley by The Regency at River Valley, LLC - east of Eagle
Road and north of Fairview Avenue:
Mae: It's 9:20. I'm going to reopen the Planning and Zoning meeting for August 31st
and open the public hearings for AZ 06-035, request for annexation and zoning of 12.06
acres to C-C, 1.50 acres in R-40, 10.56 acres as zoned for Regency at River Valley,
and CUP 06-022, request for Conditional Use Permit for Regency. And we will start
with the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before I jump into those applications you just listed, a
little bit of housekeeping. I think everyone now has met Sonya Watters. She is not new
to the city, but new to the position. She got a promotion and will be an associate and
will be preparing staff reports. The 21 st I think she has an item or two on that, so
become familiar with her. Just to kind of complete the story, Jenny, this is her last
hearing presenting before you. She is, actually, going to be an assistant and do some
of the front counter planning stuff in our office. So, that's kind of what's going on in the
office and so get familiar with Sonya and Jenny did a great job the few months she was
here and really filled the gap for us nicely and I wish I could have stated that earlier
when she was here, but Sonya will do a great jab for us as well I'm sure. So, with that
being said, there are some other applications that are also running concurrently with this
application. They are not on your agenda tonight. One of them is for a private street
application. There are four or five different private streets actually shown within this
property being proposed. Most notably there is one proposed out to Eagle Road. I will
touch on that in just a second. That leads me to the next three applications. Three
variances. The Council -- by ordinance only the Council has to act on a variance
request. However, they are included as part of this staff report, because they playa
pretty big role in what is being proposed. Without the variances the development as
shown would not be able to happen. So, the private street is a staff level application_
The annexation and zoning and CUP you make recommendation to the City Council on
and the variances are just a City Council review application, so -- but feel free to
comment. In the staff report it is talked about that they all are intertwined together and
rely on each other quite heavily to get the finished product somewhere near, anyways,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31,2006
Page 43 of 59
what the applicant is proposing. So, with some of that background information, the
project is 12 acres. There is about 1.5 acres right on the edge of Eagle Road -- pointer
is dying -- right in here that's going to be zoned for community business district. There
is no use proposed at this time in the staff report. They talk about it being on Eagle
Road, an entryway corridor and being subject to design review in the future. Also -- I'm
kind of getting some of the easier items out of the way first and we will jump into the
meat of this project. There is a requirement for some landscaping adjacent to that. It is
part of the 12 acres and so that landscape buffer is required as part of the Conditional
Use Permit and in the conditions of approval. Quickly, just to orient you, I guess, a little
bit before I go too much further, the red surrounding this property is the commercial
portion of Redfeather Subdivision, which is primarily a residential subdivision. This map
is pretty accurate. I think phases five and six are going though our platting process
now, but there are homes being construct in here. This is Duane Drive and some one
and two acre parcels in the county. There are Kleiner property, the turf farms. This is
Stokesberry, I believe, office park and, then, this is elementary -- River Valley
Elementary is here. Carol Subdivision. Leslie Drive. And, then, some of the other
recent applications that we have reviewed there with Sadie Creek and Bienville and
whatnot. So, just to kind of orient you a little bit and you can see the zoning on that
map. It's kind of a mixed bag of county and city zoning in the general vicinity. As was
done in previous presentations, I'm just going to fly right passed the aerial. There is a
fairly large lateral that runs along the north side of this property, it's called the Finch
Lateral, the South Slough, I'm not quite sure when it changes from one to the other. It's,
essentially, the same body of water. They call it different things and different people
recognize it as different bodies of water. I guess I bring it up, because it is a big -- a
large body of water. The UDC does allow any -- it says large body, actually, in the
UDC. It does allow the City Council to waive the requirement to tile any water facilities if
they take a -- generally it will be 48 inches or larger pipe to tile them. It just gets too
costly and they allow them to leave it open. But we did want -- the applicant did not
address that in their submittal letter. We can get behind that and support that if there is
some engineering showing that, in fact, it would take a larger diameter pipe to tile that
thing. So, just putting them on notice, basically, that unless you prove that up, basically,
it would need to be need covered by ordinance, so -- now, to the meat of the project.
The remainder -- the majority of this -- this project, about ten acres, is zoned R-40, high
density residential. They are proposing to construct 204 multi-family units on nine -- in
nine different buildings and this is a clubhouse here. There is a pretty good mix of one,
two, and three bedroom units. I think -- let's see. The gross density is 17.86 dwelling
units per acre. Most of these buildings are split up with two and three bedroom units,
one and two bedroom units. I can't remember if this is just one or just two bedroom
units, but there is a pretty good mix of, you know -- throughout the development of two
and three and single bedroom units available. I'll let the applicant do a lot more of the --
more of the detail going through, you know, some this common area and pool and the
hot tub they are proposing. There are quite a few amenities. They are detailed in the
staff report. I'll let the applicant kind of touch on those a little bit. I guess I'd like to
spend the rest of my time talking about some of the -- particularly the variances and
some roadways that are proposed and going to be required by not the city, but ACHD.
So, the first variance I'd like to talk about is parking. With the UDC we did require for
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31, 2006
Page 44 of 59
multi-family developments that two or more bedroom units provide two covered parking
stalls. One bedroom units need to provide one covered parking stall and one over air
stall or it could be covered, I guess, if you wanted to, but that's the minimum that there
needs to be one per one bedroom and two for a two plus bedroom. The parking __
covered parking proposed now -- there are some garage units, as well as some carport
units. It's hard for me to make them out now. I know there is a few over here. I thought
there was a few over here. The numbers are detailed in the staff report. Essentially,
everything else is -- is open parking as submitted on the site plan. I did get an e-mail a
little after 5:00 today. I think that the engineering company is working on making the
changes. It was hard for me to tell, just based on where they are at with the changes, if
they are truly intending to cover all of them, but for the ones that are encumbered by the
irrigation easement that run along the northern boundary or not. I guess I'll let them
touch on that point when it's their turn_ Our requirement or my recommendation to you
is that, except for the parking stalls that are in front of this building here and around the
roundabout and in front of this building here, that everything else that's not within an
easement should be either a carport or a garage and, then, that gets you pretty close to
the requirement of the UDC to have two covered car parks. And, again, that is in a
carport or a garage, so they have some options there. It leaves something like -- 93, I
think, is the number that's up along this northern boundary that would still be left open.
The reason, I guess, just to kind of follow that thought through, this will be, once River
Valley Street -- and I'll come back to that in a second -- gets pushed out to Eagle Road,
this will be a very focal point of the subdivision -- or, excuse me, not a subdivision of the
development and I imagine this will be where a lot of guest parking will occur and it can
be a very visual entrance into the site and being able to see the clubhouse and not
cover that up with carports and parking and things, makes some good sense to us,
anyways, and give it a little more open feel as well through the -- to the open space and
the pool area behind. So, that's kind of what's behind that recommendation. I think I'll
jump to the access variance next to Eagle Road. As you can see this parcel is
configured a little bit differently than most. It does have some frontage out to Eagle
Road. There is no other public street access to this property as of today. The applicant
is -- there is a little bit of discrepancy, I guess I should say first. The site plan states --
there is a note on the site plan talking about a temporary access out to Eagle Road here
that will be converted to right-in, right-out once River Valley Street gets extended. I did
talk to the -- I think it was the president of the corporation here last week or the week
before when I was preparing my staff report and they fully intend to have that actually
closed when River Valley is a full access street and, hopefully, there is a signal here.
The big picture idea is that there is a signal here. And, then, this will be the ingress-
egress into the development. So, staff is supportive of this access -- a full access in this
location to be abandoned when River Valley Street gets pUShed through. Also, with that
we'd like to see that this parcel also shares in that temporary access and that when
River Valley -- the idea was when this public street comes through there will be cross-
access agreements with all of these parcels, so they can use the drive aisles anyways
to get to the signalized intersection, so you don't have, you know, three driveways here
adjacent to a signalized intersection. So, that's what we are looking for as staff. And
the final one has to do with private usable open space. That's the third variance that's
being requested. In the applicant's letter I just wasn't convinced that there is a hardship
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31,2006
Page 45 of 59
there. We do require 80 square feet of private usable open space per unit. At 240
units, that's quite a good chunk of private usable open space, but when you look at it for
each unit and each family that lives in there, 80 square feet for a patio or a deck to call
your own, something that's outside that you can say is yours, I think is -- when the UDC
was put together something we thought made a quality of life amenity for people that
were living -- that were living in any multi-family unit, that they should have at least 80
square feet of something that they can use. In the letter, I guess, just for -- real quickly,
it talked about in the past these areas have been used to store barbecues and I can
imagine bikes -- I have seen things like that stored out there. Those types of things can
be addressed in CC&Rs and some type of, you know, control committee or property
management that can cite people if there is -- you know, if there is excess storage or
things hanging down or whatever. So, a lot of -- I think the concerns and the reasons
that they asked for the variance could be addressed in a separate legal document that
says, you know, their residents can't do X, Y, and Z or whatever some of the concerns
may be about not having it be esthetically pleasing with the storage being within those
patios or decks. I did want to note they do -- they do have it on the ground floor for the
units, they do have a little patio for the ground units, and, essentially, that's what we are
looking for for every single unit that's within the development. As I promised, River
Valley Street -- let me -- and maybe I'll jump back to this. I won't tell the whole story, I'll
try to kind of paint the picture. ACHD, you may remember, annexed this property not
too long ago, earlier this year, anyways. This development is also going through the
annexation process. Allys Way, which Lowe's is right here, there is that public street
and they have got the -- the streetlight conduit run and I think even a couple of the arms
are up, I don't think it's turned on yet, but, anyway, the idea is that there will be a
collector road that will come through here, go through the Kleiners when they develop
and come back out to the Records Avenue intersection. So, you will have, essentially,
in this location you will have a major collector roadway that can alleviate, at least
between Ustick and Fairview, the heavy traffic volumes that are experienced on Eagle
Road and give residents and people in this area an alternative route that is a collector
roadway, not just a local street that they can cut through on, but a route from a signal to
a signal. And, again, coming back out to River Valley there will also be a signal at the
half mile. Now, the offset with that it's just -- the way I understand it, it's just offset from
the corner section right here and it's south a little bit of that. So, it will take a little bit of
alignment work, there maybe a little tiny jog in it, so you get a true four leg intersection
to line up there, but we are working with ACHD and I believe, from what I understand
from ACHD staff, too, that the applicant's been very good to work with and very
cooperative and is trying to work with that property owner as well to get River Valley
Street and maybe even they are working with these folks to get River Valley Slreet to
happen sooner than later and not piecemeal it in, but let's get it constructed and done.
So, that's encouraging to hear from ACHD staff. We would sure like to see that happen.
It's much needed in this area, although a lot of this hasn't developed yet, but when it
does it would sure be nice to have infrastructure in place. The other collector roadway -
- I talked about Alleys Way. They do have a small portion of Allys Way that they will be
constructing as well. The biggest portion of -- the biggest cost -- out-of-pocket cost for
this -- it is going to take probably a bridge, because, as I mentioned, this is a big lateral.
If they can culvert it, that's fine, but it's probably going to be some type of a bridge.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31,2006
Page 46 of 59
They are going to need to road trust for one half of whatever that cost is to cross that
and, then, when Redfeather comes through it will be put into that developer's pocket,
basically, and, then, they construct it and if it's less than, you know, what they road
trusted for, they would get back anything that wasn't used, essentially. But that would
be -- what ACHD is looking at doing is having them do half of the road trusting,
construct their portion -- I think it's all of Allys Way there, like a 70 foot right of way, but
it's not a very big run. I guess while I'm talking about ACHD, I did get a phone message
today from Andrew over there, he's a staff planner on this. Originally I thought in their
staff report they were going to require a 40 foot right of way along the south property
line for River Valley Street. I didn't talk to him, but he left me a voicemail today saying
that they think they will be all right with a 35 foot wide right of way. that is, essentially,
right at half of the right of way, which is a little bit odd. Usually you have them -- the first
guy in construct a little bit more than half, but I'll let them work that out if that's what they
agreed to and can have worked out, I guess, I should say. That's fine. So, I feel like I'm
rambling on now, so I think I am probably going to let the staff report stand. We are
recommending approval of this project, but for the one variance and, then, parcel
approval of the other variances, but I will stand for any questions you may have.
Mae: Any Commissioners have any questions?
Borup: Just so I'm clear on -- even though we are -- we are not voting on the variances,
but the objection was to -- the private area was the one variance objection; right? The
80 square feet; is that correct?
Hood: Correct.
Borup: And, then, the partial was on -- which was the partial one on?
Hood: The parking. You need some variance, because you're still not going Lo have--
Borup: Right. Okay. Thank you.
Hood: I do have -- just so you know and the applicant knows, I have also the elevations
in here. I have -- I will briefly just go through those, not talking about them too much,
but just showing them to you and they can -- we can go back or if they have some other
ones they want to show as well, we can sure, you know, do that as well, but I did have
Barb coming in, so I would hate for her to do all that work and, then, not show them to
you, so --
Borup: It looks like -- yeah, it looks like that's the same ones that are in our packet.
Hood: Yeah. And this is the garage. You probably don't have that. These are six day-
- actually, there is more -- is there six there? Yeah. Okay. There are six there. So,
that's what the garage units are going to look like. I think there are five or six that were
shown on the site plan, so that's what they would look like. But this is the clubhouse.
So, that's it, so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31, 2006
Page 47 of 59
Moe: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward?
Rindlisbaker: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, good evening. My name is Greg
Rindlisbaker. I'm with Balk Corporation. The address is 11650 South State Street,
Suite 300, in Draper, Utah. Just to give you a little bit of background about our
company. Are we new to the Boise metropolitan area. We are a residential and
commercial developer and we have been in business for about 30 years now and we
primarily focus on residential communities. We build single family homes and multi-
family apartment communities and town home projects. We are excited to be here in
Meridian and, hopefully, we can proceed with this project. We have built -- we have
done some work in Idaho before. We have done some projects in Idaho Falls and Twin
Falls and we feel like we do a really good job building projects and we try to build class
A projects that the communities will be proud of. You can see from some of our pictures
the examples of the projects that we do. We put in a lot of amenities for the residents,
so that they can have a sense of pride and sense of ownership in their community,
things such as a pool, hot tub, open areas for the kids to play, tot lots. Inside the
clubhouse we have a 24 hour fitness center. Billiards room. A little cyber cafe where
they can kind of meet with friends and surf the web, things like that. A few other things
that we have. We have the garages available for residents to use and covered carports.
The individual units themselves, we have different types. We try to reach different types
of market. We do executive units on the high end, but we will put fireplaces, garden
tubs, microwaves, washers and dryers, things like that. Extra amenities. They do cost
a premium, but we have known there is a great demand for those as well. And we are
trying to reach more the upper end market, the upper end renter. We want these -- this
property to be nice for a long time and to be an asset to your community. We build --
we are the builder and developer of the project. We also are the owner. It's a single
owner. We do have a couple of investors, but we are the majority owner and control the
property and we are the property managers as well and we have a vested interest in
maintaining and taking care of the property. So, you can know going forward that it will
be well maintained and cared for. As far as the issues tonight, I wanted to just -- I don't
know if I need to address the variances or not. Maybe I can just touch lightly on the 80
feet of private open space. We have been doing apartments now for over ten years and
we have constructed quite a few apartments with this private open space and it's our
experience that they are not the best thing to have from a management standpoint. It's
easy to say to a resident don't store your barbecue, don't barbecue on your patio, it's a
fire hazard, and -- but they will -- when you're gone or when you're not watching they
will barbecue and it is a fire hazard and that's where most fires start in an apartment
building. Also, they do store bicycles, boxes, it's a constant battle to try to get those
from -- to keep them cleaned up and we do have rules and regulations against that, but
it is a property management difficulty. But we do have those provided on the first floor,
the patio, so if somebody is really requesting and wanting to have some private area,
there is a patio available if they want to rent a first floor unit and use that. We have
chosen to put the money in amenities and to put the money -- instead of putting them in
those private areas, to put them inside the unit and make the units larger and also to put
the money in common areas. There are common areas where they can barbecue and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31, 2006
Page 48 of 59
gather to do that type of activity. Anyway, I think we are going to have Scott, our
engineer, he's with Mason Stanfield, talk about some of the other issues, but we feel like
we have resolved quite a few of those and are excited to be part of the community and
ask for your approval or a recommendation for approval of this. Thank you.
Mae: Okay. Any questions so far? Okay.
Stanfield: Good evening. Scott Stanfield. Mason Stanfield Engineering. 314 Batiola,
Caldwell, Idaho. It's good to be back in Meridian. It's been awhile and I want to thank
Caleb. It took me awhile to figure out who Caleb was and I figured it's Craig, so I want
to thank Caleb and Kristy both in the P&Z department and Andrew at ACHD. I do a lot
of work in a lot of different jurisdictions and it's always nice to come home and work with
normal people. That's all I'm going to say. So, thank you to your staff. Greg went over
the amenities real quick. That was, I guess, not a question in the staff report, but it's left
to the City of Meridian to approve the amenities, since we are over X number of units.
As Greg indicated, we are going to have a clubhouse. There will be a billiard room in
there. A 24 hour fitness. A cyber cafe. The office is going to be in there. Some
storage will be in the office. There will be barbecue areas out on the lawns. There is a
pool. A hot tub. A tot lot. He missed the putting green. There would be the putting
green. Overall, the open space accounts to plus or minus 22 percent. So, that's just a
quick rundown on the amenities and you will probably see some of them in the pictures
we have here. And a water feature up front and a roundabout just to kind of set the
theme. The staff report listed a question regarding storage of maintenance type
material. One of the garage units will be used for storage and maintenance items and
that is not included in the covered parking count, so we have excluded that. In addition,
the clubhouse will have closets and whatnot for additional maintenance items. So, on-
site storage of maintenance features and equipment can be taken care of. The staff
report discusses fencing briefly. We understand we are going to have to put a six foot
chain link along the north boundary, depending on at the Council level if that's tiled or
closed and I won't get into that tonight, because the staff report kind of leaves that up to
the CounciL But if it's open, a six foot chain link fence is going to be required. And,
then, we contemplated putting a fence along the westerly boundary of the multi-family
between the office and the multi-family and a neighborhood parcel putting a six solid
probably vinyl fence along that corridor there. Parking is pretty much probably the only
issue, but I hope not to make it an issue real quick. We can and will provide at least
408 stalls. That's probably hard for Greg to read -- it's rather late today, but we did
verify and we laid it out and we can get at least 408 total stalls. We have negotiated
with Joe Silva and he's been a lot of help. There was a concern, a question about
putting the covered parking in front of the units and we sat down with Joe Silva just the
other day and he found a requirement in the code where, gee, we can exceed the
maximum distance -- it gets real complicated, but there is a certain distance that we can
and can't do with the covered parking for the units if these builders would upgrade the
internal fire sprinkler system, then, that separation can be waived. So, we are willing to
upgrade that, get all stalls covered that are in front of the units. We can comply with
Caleb's condition 1.1.6 regarding parking, both total count and covered counts.
Basically, in a nutshell we would cover all of them, except for, as he mentioned, these
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31,2006
Page 49 of 59
items on the north boundary, because we are in Nampa-Meridian Irrigation easement
and they don't allow structures in there and, then, Greg wanted a corridor left open to
the south, which makes logical sense and we can keep that open and basically cover
everything else in a combination either carports or garages. So, that condition can be
met. Access -- Caleb touched quickly on the access points. Originally, before Greg got
involved with the project with his company, the thought was to request a right-in, right-
out. Ultimately, when River Valley was punched through Greg became active in the
project and said, no, we don't want to do that. Once River Valley is punched through
let's go ahead and block off that approach. So, there is the discrepancy that Caleb was
referring to, the original drawing -- and probably the one, actually, now probably still
stays that, but I'm here to tell you tonight that when River Valley punches through that
access will go away and the developers are more than happy to create a -- start
creating a north-south ingress-egress, as Caleb pointed out, to benefit all the parties
and I'm assuming that as the two parties south of our proposed office area, as those
applications come in, staff will more than likely require them to continue the ingress-
egress, so that all parcels can benefit to that access as it occurs to River Valley. So, a
lot of coordination going on. Things are moving forward. Accesses -- we have been
working with ACHD to have verbally approved today the 35 foot right of way, that puts a
meandering sidewalk along River Valley, a seven foot meandering sidewalk in an
easement inside of our landscape buffer. So, with that I think I have tried to quickly
answer any point of contentions that may exist, but we can meet all the conditions and
we just agree to disagree on the 80 square foot variance_
Borup: That's not bad.
Mae: Okay. In regards to the tiling, are you going to be able to bring any
documentation to City Council?
Stanfield: We definitely will. I tried to look around and it's a rat hole mess down there,
so I couldn't look at the size, but the concern I have, regardless of the size -- and that is
that for the facilities is we generally are in and out of the center line as property
ownership. We don't have a right to tile that, because it's not wholly on our property and
I couldn't even get my surveyor out to tapa the north side of that without a threat of
bodily harm by that landowner to the north. So, I -- I don't think tiling it is going to be an
option regarding this site.
Moe: Okay.
Stanfield: So, that's my honest answer.
Borup: You're talking a small piece. The property owner there?
Stanfield: No. I think he owns most of it.
Borup: I thought they said Redfeather -- that's a -- you mean this small piece right --
this is what I meant by the small piece.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31,2006
Page 50 of 59
Stanfield: No.
Borup: Oh. You're saying all this?
Stanfield: All that. Correct.
Borup: I thought the presentation said that was Redfeather?
Hood: It is the commercially zoned part of Redfeather, which -- there is no development
on it now and it's all just a field, but it is zoned C-G. They didn't have a concept plan,
either, when they annexed that. It was kind of before we started the --
Borup: So, the property owners of Redfeather are now allowing you in there?
Stanfield: Well, I know my crew called me and said -- and I told them don't go on that
property, then.
Borup: Well, that surprises me and, frankly, bothers me a little bit that someone else is
-- that's talking about having a project approved -- and I suspect it may be a tenant or --
Stanfield: You might be right, Commissioner, it might not--
Borup: -- something like that, not the true owners of the property.
Stanfield: And you may be correct. It could have been a lessee out there. But we can
certainly work with that landowner. If I knew we were able to dig down there and find
that pipe site, I would have that for you, get your answer tonight.
Borup: Have you looked at what's going on on -- anywhere else where those laterals --
through any other subdivisions? Are they piped anywhere else? I don't believe so, but -
Stanfield: I don't think that that one has been tiled. That one -- Bruce may know more,
but I think that runs year around.
Borup: It splits at -- actually, I know where it splits, it splits in Finch Creek and at the
diversion it's tiled and, then, the rest is a drainage.
Stanfield: And Nampa-Meridian calls it a lateral, because there are some water rights
users, but I think it -- personally, I think it intercepts groundwater and that's why it's so
deep. It's a drain to me.
Borup: The only other question I had was you -- did you state that -- is it Regency that
you're planning on abandoning when River Valley goes in?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31, 2006
Page 51 of 59
Stanfield: If that's -- I can't remember what we call that --
Borup: Just the one street -- the one street?
Stanfield: Yeah. That would be -- once River Valley Street -- the east-west southerly
connection is made --
Borup: Right.
Stanfield: -- and that was staff's, really, the requirement in a staff report and we can --
Borup: To abandon it to -- oh. Okay.
Stanfield: And turn it into landscaping or combination landscaping parking. And, then,
that -- as River Valley is punched through and the part that is to the south we will
continue the ingress-egress to that parcel, plus the outparcel that we don't control to the
north, will have a direct shot to River Valley and in the future signalization to Eagle
Road.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Stanfield: So, we can conform to that. No problem.
Newton-Huckabay: Can I possibly see that board a little closer, please? If you could
hand it to me for a minute. Thank you.
Hood: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Yes.
Hood: While Commissioner Newton-Huckabay is looking at that board, can I ask Scott
a question? Is that okay?
Mae: Yes, sir.
Hood: I was a little bit confused and I'm not -- this is the first 30, 40, 50 foot multi-family
development that I have processed. In working with Joe Silva a little bit, he throws that
NFPA 13 quicker than I understand what's going on, so can you help me with the
roadway widths? Because I think I'm with him on -- you know, if you got a ladder truck
and you had to go up over a carport to get to the back side of some of these, you're too
far back to get up there. So, he's requiring you to fire sprinkler the attic, the whole
building, and that's kind of how they can get around that requirement for having an extra
wide roadway and the separation between the building and the street. You know, being
parking in between them. My questions, I guess, is some of the roads are 24, 25, some
of them are 26. Does that affect that at all? Do they still need to be 26 or can they go
down to 25 and you can pick up that foot again?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31,2006
Page 52 of 59
Stanfield: I would like to reduce them down to 25. Right now with the revision they are
all 26, because in the staff report there is a requirement for 26 and we have made them
all 26. The dilemma still is between the face of carport and the face of the -- what is the
stairwell on this project. We could take -- we could reduce our front walk down to five
foot and we can take the building and shove it closer to the carport, but, then, you're
going to eliminate the green space that we have in front of them. So, there is other
ways to fix it short of upgrading the fire suppression system. But the end product, in our
opinion, is going to be carport, sidewalk, unit. So, it's kind of independent. Sure, if we --
if we were able to narrow our drive aisles we could pick up a couple feet, but I don't
think it would be enough.
Hood: Okay. And, again, I just didn't know -- it sounds like there is two separate
issues.
Stanfield: Correct.
Hood: But usually requiring -- because you are 30 feet or taller, but there must also be
another requirement that says, okay, if you're 30 feet or taller you still need to be within
a certain distance from the road.
Stanfield: Yeah. Horizontal distance_ It's backwards to what I thought I would and it
took me awhile to get my arms around it, but, yeah, two different requirements.
Hood: Okay. Just throwing it out there and giving the Commissioners a chance to look
at your pretty board there and just so I was clear, too, for future --
Stanfield: I had to draw it up several times just to get my arms around it.
Hood: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: I'm curious -- the pictures of the buildings on there has open space
-- personal open space on each of the three levels.
Stanfield: I'm going to guess that Greg, when he made the comment about they have
done that before and they haven't had good luck with them, that's probably some that
he's been referring to. Or it might have been a variance they requested in another city
and they were told no.
Newton-Huckabay: So, the ones on the upper left-hand corner, that's the front of the
building?
Stanfield: Correct. That's the front. There is some brick columns -- they look like brick
columns jutting out, but there is no -- what you see is your stairwell --
Newton-Huckabay: Right.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31, 2006
Page 53 of 59
Stanfield: -- right in the middle. That's the brick. You have a question, I can tell.
Newton-Huckabay: I just don't like that building. It looks like a dorm.
Stanfield: Well, we don't have to build that building. We can block it with carport. They
have various product types.
Borup: I think it depends on what you compare it with. I mean we -- the other
apartment complexes we have in Meridian are a lot different than this in a negative way.
I mean this is a big improvement over what we have seen so far. Though we haven't
seen one this size for a lot of years.
Newton-Huckabay: I was kind of comparing this one more to the Renaissance at
Hobble Creek. It kind of strikes me as that type of development. Is that -- is that what
it's called, Renaissance at Hobble Creek?
Borup: Yeah. I think so.
Stanfield: Yeah, the brick --
Newton-Huckabay: The three story -- desperately needs paint.
Stanfield: Heavy landscaping.
Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh.
Stanfield: That's -- I don't think my client has seen that one, but --
Newton-Huckabay: This is similar?
Stanfield: Only better. Because it's in Meridian. And I'll add I think some of the city's
experience are duplexes and townhomes and not one owner controlling it. This is not a
condo plat, this is not a townhouse project, it's not a duplex, this is builder-owner --
Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh.
Borup: Well, we have got the one over off Meridian Road, is it -- I want to say Aspen.
Aspen Hills. That would probably be the closest thing as far as size.
Stanfield: I can't picture Aspen Hills.
Newton-Huckabay: Where is it?
Borup: Meridian Road and -- James Court. Yeah. Off of James Court. That's the
street.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31, 2006
Page 54 of 59
Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Okay.
Borup: It's, what, ten years old.
Newton-Huckabay I'm thinking just drive by and just don't look at them anymore.
Borup: I mean it's three stories also and that's why -- I mean it's got the carports in front
of them and I believe -- has the fire code changed from ten years ago? Well, I had
understood that one of the requirements -- there are three levels. Technically, they got
around the regulations by calling that a two and a half story, because they bermed up
dirt around it, but it -- it's the same building. Would that make some difference on fire
code, didn't it? But it doesn't make any difference on how high the ladders have to
reach.
Mae: Well, Scott, did I understand you to say that in regards to the carports that,
basically, what was presented by Caleb tonight you guy are -- have no opposition to?
Stanfield: Correct.
Mae: Okay. So, in regards to the variance you're going after, are you saying that you
would -- you would adhere to that and the variance would go away?
Stanfield: No. That was the partial variance I think Caleb was referring to, because we
don't quite -- because we are leaving the visual corridor open to the south and the
Nampa-Meridian drain area, we don't quite meet the ordinance. We could, but we don't
-- we agree with staff, it's not in the best interest of the final product, so --
Moe: I agree with that.
Stanfield: -- we would still need a variance.
Borup: I agree with that.
Moe: Okay. Any other questions?
Borup: So, the issue is just the private space, then?
Mae: That's the only issue we have. No one else has signed up to speak. There is
other guys out here, but I assume you're all together, so anyone else that would like to
speak, now is the time.
Vallentine: Chairman Mae, Commissioners, Michael Vallentine, 250 South 10th. Just a
couple quick questions, just to make sure I understand. The Kleiner family owns
property to the south. We are asking about secondary fire access for -- during the
interim before River Valley went in. When would the secondary fire access be required
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31,2006
Page 55 of 59
and, if so, where would that be coming from? And I want to make sure I understood.
Are they going to be required to build part of Records Road, Allys Avenue, even though
they won't be able to take access off of it? Maybe that's their secondary fire access.
And, then, just to ask Scott, I thought the tiling of the lateral was based on the flow as
determined by the irrigation district, so they said if X amount of cubic feet or whatever,
therefore, it requires a 48 inch pipe, therefore, you don't have to --
Borup: I think that may be a criteria they may have used, but I think the ordinance says
all ditches be tiled and, then, I think City Council has taken that type of stuff in
consideration. Is that a correct statement, staff? I think it is.
Vallentine: Based on my limited role as a developer, which is very limited, it just -- I just
thought that rather than having him to have to avoid shock and -- that the irrigation
district just tells them what the capacity is or the flow and, then, they determine whether
or not it requires 48 inches and, then, he comes back for a variance.
Borup: That makes sense.
Vallentine: So, those are my questions, basically, for staff.
Moe: Thank you.
Hood: Commissioner Mae, would you like me to answer those?
Moe: Yes, I would.
Hood: I think I have answers to all of them. I hope anyways. The secondary fire
access, we did talk with the fire department at length and Rich Green was there and he
reviews most of the commercial projects in the city, as well as Joe Silva, they came to a
meeting here -- oh, boy, it's probably been three or four weeks now and their cutoff for
multi-family units is 200, I think, without requiring secondary access. There are 204
here. They said you can have those four units, basically, if you fire sprinkle all the
buildings and that's how we can kind of let you go under that requirement for only the
one access point. Allys Avenue, Way, whatever it's going to be called, they are
constructing that. ACHD is going to require, basically, a bunch of barricades at all ends
saying, you know, to be extended in the future, but the public is not going to be able to
get to this yet until the road gets pushed through. So, the idea there is each developer
in this section, as they come and develop, they construct their portion and, eventually,
they all tie together and you have a continuous roadway. And, then, finally, the Finch
Lateral saying we left it up to the City Council, the applicant, basically, has to do some
research. They don't have to go out there and survey it, but they need to come up with
something that appeases the Council saying, yes, you have done enough research to
show that this is a large facility and it doesn't -- it shouldn't be tiled. So, there are a few
different documents and Nampa-Meridian would be one or Settler's, I can't remember
whose lateral that is now, but -- you know, or even just, you know, showing that no one
in this section had tiled it before, may be enough, but the impetus, really, is on them to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31, 2006
Page 56 of 59
convince the Council that they shouldn't have to do it, so, hopefully, that answered the
question.
Mae: Okay. Anyone else want to speak? Okay. Thank you very much. Does the
applicant have anymore they want to say? Any questions?
Borup: Not right now, but we could. I don't have any questions right now.
Mae: Okay. Well, we are at the point now where--
Borup: Do we want to express an opinion on any of the variances?
Mae: I think that would be --
Borup: I know we are not voting on them, but --
Mae: Yeah. I do believe it would be a good idea, so that at least Council has an
indication how we feel about those as well.
Borup: Okay. So, are we down to, basically, two? We don't have all of the covered
parking, but staffs in agreement with what they have said there and I certainly am, too.
It would -- much less desirable project to do anymore than what's proposed. At least in
that entrance area. That doesn't make sense. And then -- so, the other issue was the
80 square feet, I guess.
Mae: Well, in regard to the 80 square feet, quite frankly, again, I'm going to go back to
what I was speaking of earlier this evening and that is, basically, within the UDC that is
a requirement. Quite frankly, we haven't had enough of these projects come through
since the UDC has come through that -- that I, for one, am not wanting to start right out
of the chute making changes to the UDC, so that projects coming forth later will have
the same opportunity, number one. Number two, I'm of the opinion that I think that the
residents do need to have some of their own private space per se and so I would like to
see the 80 square foot be required. And I want to talk -- ask staff one more time. I'm
getting a little bit confused in regards to the covered parking and what you are accepting
or what you would approve in regards to us making any recommendation tonight on this
application, less the variance.
Hood: I don't think that any change to the staff report regarding parking needs to be
made. The applicant stated they can propose -- or they can construct 408 parking
stalls_ I didn't put a number in there, but, essentially, anything that's in front of Building
I, south of Building I, and south of Building -- I think that's A and I. Buildings A and I.
And around the roundabout in front of the clubhouse, do not have to be covered or
garages and anything that lies within the irrigation easement along the north doesn't
have to be, but pretty much everything else -- in fact, everything else needs to be --
have a carport or a garage. That's how the staff report is written.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31, 2006
Page 57 of 59
Mae: And that's where I was getting confused, because I thought that's what it was.
Thank you very much. And I would adhere to the staff report in that, so -- either one of
you have anything more to say?
Newton-Huckabay: I just don't like these kind of projects, because there is no win in my
opinion. I think carports are ugly, but I know you need them, so I'll just go forward as is.
Borup: Well, I'm -- go ahead.
Moe: No. Go right ahead.
Borup: I felt very strongly -- I like the idea of the private space and when it became a
part of the UDC and I'm not so sure I feel the same on a project of this size. so I'm glad
we don't have to vote on it.
Newton-Huckabay: I would prefer to see the 80 square feet of personal space.
Borup: But I have seen a lot of projects just like they described. I mean I -- in -- well,
just in Boise things all kind junk on those balconies. You know, they can start looking
like a slum if you -- if you get -- one spreads to the other, but --
Mae: Well. I think --
Borup: Maybe that's an exaggeration.
Moe: I think the comment was made earlier that, you know, that a property
management --
Borup: Yeah, they got to be on top of it. They got to be on top of it.
Mae: -- the items on that -- I would -- the one last thing I'd like to say, I think it is a very
nice project. The amenities and whatnot, I -- that's something we have not touched on.
I do believe that they are well within, you know, what we are looking for in the amount of
amenities for this project and whatnot. It's a very nice project and I look forward to
seeing this, hopefully, go forward.
Borup: The one statement they said that I was curious on is that most of the fires are
started from barbecues. Did the fire department mention anything about that?
Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Borup would like validation on that statistic.
Borup: Well, no, I mention it, because that's what you see -- you see a lot of barbecues
on those balconies. That's a real common thing and they are a small space.
Newton-Huckabay: I do want to tell you, I don't think this is a bad project. I might have
come across that way. I think it is a nice project. It's got great amenities. I like the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31, 2006
Page 58 of 59
green space in the middle and the sense of community that I think you get. What I don't
like in these kinds of developments is when you look at it you see rows and rows of
carports and I think carports are ugly, but I know that we need them and I don't like the
look of that building in the upper left-hand corner. But other than that, I like where
you're going with this as far as an apartment community goes, just to clarify.
Borup: And I agree with her statement. I think the one thing here is it's got good
landscaping around it and the location. You know, if this was somewhere else it may be
different, but Eagle Road is probably a good spot for it is on Eagle Road. Other than all
the extra traffic.
Mae: Having said that --
Borup: Are we done?
Newton-Huckabay: Yep. Do you want me to do it?
Borup: I can do it, I just got to get my --
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing -- you can do
the motion.
Borup: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: -- on AZ 06-035, CUP -- I close the Public Hearing on all of these;
right? And, then, we --
Mae: On both of them.
Newton-Huckabay: CUP 06-022.
Borup: Yeah. Just the two.
Newton-Huckabay: End of motion.
Borup: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on 06-035 and CUP
06-022. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move
to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-035 and CUP 06-022
and PS 06-006, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 31st.
End of motion.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31, 2006
Page 59 of 59
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Mae: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending
approval of AZ 06-035 and CUP 06-022, to include the staff report for the hearing date
of August 31st, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
Borup: Should I have also made recommendations on the variance? I was thinking that
we weren't doing them, but--
Moe: We are not doing a recommendation on that. It's up to Council. We just were
making comment.
Hood: And, that's fine, if you guys want to make a statement to the Council, I can sure
include that in the revised staff report. If not, we will go through this again at Council, so
it's really up to you.
Borup: We don't need to do a motion on that.
Mae: Well, therefore, that motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Moe: There is only one more motion that needs to be made this evening.
Newton-Huckabay: I move we adjourn.
Borup: Second.
Mae: All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED. THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:15 P.M.
(TAPE ON2UQILE OF TH SE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVE
't"-
DAVID MOE - VICE-CH IRMAN