Loading...
1998 07-22MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING JULY 22, 1998 The special meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Malcolm MacCoy at 6:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Malcolm MacCoy, Byron Smith, Keith Borup, Mark Nelson. OTHERS PRESENT: Shari Stiles, Will Berg, Bruce Freckleton. ITEM NO. 1: TABLED FROM JULY 14, 1998: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW : REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 36.71 ACRES TO R-4 FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC – EAST OF BLACK CAT/USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD: MacCoy: Commissioners, you have read the material. Are there any comments? Borup: Mr. Chairman, I feel I think with the same mind I was last time. This is annexation and zoning, and I don’t have any problem with proceeding ahead with that aspect. MacCoy: Okay any other comments on that from you? Borup: Not at this point. I’m ready to proceed with the motion. MacCoy: Commissioner Smith? Smith: I don’t have anything. MacCoy: Commissioner Nelson? Nelson: I have no comments. MacCoy: Okay, what is the decision of Commissioners? Borup: Does staff have any comment on that before we proceed? I guess not. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approve these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Smith: Second. MacCoy: Very good. Thank you. ROLL CALL: Borup, yea. Smith, aye. Nelson, aye. De Weerd, absent. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 2 MOTION CARRIED: 3 ayes, 1 absent. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the city council of the City of Meridian that they approve the annexation and zoning as stated above in the conclusions for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and that the applicant be specifically required to meet all the ordinances of the City of Meridian and the conditions of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and if the conditions are not met that the property be de-annexed. MacCoy: All in favor of the motion. Smith: Second. MacCoy: Second by the way. Thank you. All in favor of the motion? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 2: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FROM JULY 14, 1998: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC – EAST OF BLACK CAT/USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD: MacCoy: It looks like we got a full house, but standing in view of the law, is there anybody here that would like to make a statement at this moment. I think you are going to have to – yes, sir, stand up and speak your piece. STEVE BRADBURY 877 MAIN STREET, BOISE, WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Bradbury: Thank you very much. As you all know, I am representing Steiner Develop in this application. You’ve seen this thing a number of times over the past several months, and during that process a number of issues have been raised and last month the hearing was continued in order to permit the applicant to try to work those issues out. And by the way I appreciate you folks accommodating us in setting this special meeting so that we can try to move this matter along as quickly as possible. I appreciate your accommodation in that respect. What I hope we can accomplish tonight is I guess in the big picture is to try to get a decision and perhaps as we go along try to work out whatever issues there may yet be to resolved and I’m hoping for some dialog and interchange between us and you so that when we leave here tonight we’re all pretty well assured of just where we are. I invite you to please talk to us so that we can try to work it out and get an understanding of what you would like to see to the extent of what my presentation doesn’t cover that we need to talk about. I identified Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 3 from the minutes of the meeting that was here a month or so ago seven different issues, and I am prepared to address those seven different issues, and it shouldn’t take me too awfully long assuming we don’t get too bogged down in a lot of questions and answers. Not that I don’t want them, but I can get through this quickly. You have had a revised plat was submitted to you folks at the last meeting. The blue line plat, and on that plat there’s a table that sets out the amount of open space that’s been set aside in the project, and according to the engineers, the total amount of open space which has been set aside consisting of the park areas and the landscaped areas if 5.5 acres, and the total of parcel size that’s being considered for development is 51.88 acres, and by my math that calculates out to a total of 11% of open space being provided. So we meet the ten percent requirement that’s set forth in the city’s ordinances. Issue number two as was discussed here a month ago had to do with the distribution and location of the open space. And let me show you a little bit about where things are so that you got an idea. You have probably in front of you a drawing that looks like this. It might be just as easy to point to this piece here. This lot is lot 76, and that is a park area, which is just about an acre in size. And that is the largest of the park areas that has been set aside. Well except for what we might call the path area along the lateral there, but that’s an acre that’s been set aside in this portion of the project. The reason that that’s the largest is because that’s the area that has the greatest density. There are more lots. There are 68 units, and our perception and belief is that that is the area where the greatest need for open space would located in this area. So we’ve got a large park there for the use of these residents. The next one is lot 51 which is this lot here. And that too is set aside for this portion of the project and that’s just about a half acre in size and there we kind of figured that’s about the second highest density in the project. Forty eight lots are included in there. So this piece would designed then to serve the residents of that area. The third park space is here, which is again it’s just over a half acre, and then of course we have the walking path which is in this location between what we’re calling the villages and Moonlake Park. Together those are – well they come close to two acres total, not quite. It’s half acre and then an acre and a third, and of course that park area is designed to be used by everybody in the subdivision. The thinking is of course that these are the larger lots. The location of the larger lots are here. And that the perhaps if you want to look at it this way, the per unit need for open space in these areas would a little bit less than the per unit need for open space in these areas, and that’s why it’s laid out and designed that way. Another thing that is probably worth pointing out to you is that this drawing that I provided to you is just kind of a sketch of the Dakota Ridge Subdivision, which was approved sometime back by the council. And it is located immediately adjacent to and east of this project here. And what they did in that is that there was a set aside of 12 acres for a school site. And that school site orders this proposed subdivision along the vast majority of its eastern border, and included in that school site of course is several acres of playground area, and our thinking is because we have a pedestrian connection coming across here, that’s lot 88 on the plat that there is also the opportunity for children who need some play space to easily access that school yard and make use of the open spaces that are Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 4 available there. And of course the point of all that is to let you know that we have attempted to spread the open space throughout the project. We have attempted to put the larger open space areas in the areas that we think have the greatest need, and of course we all need to recognize I think it’s fair to recognize that there is a school yard proposed for immediately next door to this subdivision. So that there’s even more opportunities for play areas for kids. Let’s see the third issue was density, the overall density of the project, and what we’ve done is since the last time – well maybe let’s do it this way, since this project was originally proposed, it was proposed for 260 lots. The plat that you have before has a total of 233 lots. As originally proposed the 260 lots came out to a density of about 5 units per acre, just a dead on. And now with 233 lots, we calculate that at 4.49 units per acres. So just a hair under 4.5 units per acre. In the northwest section of the project, the gated area that we are calling the Meadows, there’s a total of 48 lots. I think you got on your drawing, it summarizes those numbers for you. There’s a total of 48 lots, and that’s down 11 lots from the originally proposed 59. In the northeast portion of the project what we’re calling the Plains, we’re proposing 68 lots, and that’s down 6 lots from the original 74. In the central portion of the project in what we’re calling the Villages, that’s a total of 56 lots. That’s down 3 from the original 59, and actually that moved around a little bit because the last time we were here, we were actually at 63 – no that’s not true. Originally the numbers of those lots moved around they increased and then they decreased again as a result of the redesign for the connection through to the west. In any event the bottom line is we started with 59 and we’re at 56. And then the golf course portion what we’re calling Green Briar is proposed for 26 units now. That’s down a total of 7 units from the originally proposed 33. So what we’ve been able to accomplish is to get the density down just below 4 ½ units per acre, and have taken lots out of all portions of the project. Issue number four I think was and in my shorthand anyway was a concern that there were not enough or enough larger lots included in the project, and so what we’ve done in part of reducing the density is to increase some of the lots sizes and those are especially found it what we’re calling the Villages that yellow area on your drawing. In the project proposed there are 19 lots that are over 10,000 square feet. Six of those 19 are over 12,000 feet. And then we have 16 more lots that are over 9,000 square feet, and that makes a total of 35 lots over 9,000 and there’s a total of 58 lots that are over 8,000 square feet. We did a break down of them. Twenty five percent of the units are between 8,000 and over. Nine percent are between 7,000 and 8,000 square feet. Seventeen percent are between 6,000 and 8,000. If you are interested I can hand this out to you. If you are all writing it down, I can just hand it out to you. So 17% between six and eight thousand, 21% between five and six thousand square feet and then 28% at 4,000 feet and lower. What I wanted to point out to you is that among the dispution, but I think the most important point is to let you know that there are a number of lots that are well in excess of the R-4, 8,000 square foot minimum lot size. There’s 19 total lots that are over 10,000 square feet and 35 over 9, so what I think that shows is that although there are smaller lots in the subdivision, there are also some very large lots in the subdivision. Issue number five was the landscape buffer from the road that goes in Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 5 to Dakota Ridge Subdivision which is entering at their service access to the school site. On the (inaudible – off the microphone). You can see that from your drawings that I’ve given to you. What we’ve done is we’ve added a buffer strip that is the 13 ½ feet wide adjacent to that proposed roadway for Dakota Ridge. Now the conversation and I think staff’s recommendation was for a 20 foot wide buffer strip. I guess two issues, we are not proposing to provide the full 20 feet because we need to have certainly got to have enough room on those lots to meet some reasonable setbacks number one, and number two we thought that 20 feet was probably a bit excessive since that’s the amount of landscape buffer which is required to be placed next to an arterial like Ustick, and of course our project does propose 20 foot buffer strip along Ustick. Well this road here is simply a residential standard road and it doesn’t seem that a 20 foot buffer strip for that sort of road would be necessary given the fact that it is 20 feet for an arterial – well 20 feet for an arterial makes sense, but I’m not sure that 20 feet for a local road makes the same sense given that the volumes of traffic are going to be substantially less. In any event what we’ve suggested and designed into the plat is a 13 ½ foot landscape buffer along that road. Issue number six, I’m going to swap these because I was going to talk about ACHD, but I want to talk about fire department first. Mr. Campbell here met with the fire chief with respect to this access down here in the golf course lots in what we’re calling the Green Briar and the fire chief has indicated to Mr. Campbell that he has no problem with that design, that that would be acceptable to the fire department. Issue seven is the Ada County Highway District approval. I handed out to you a staff report which ACHD produced here this past week. In the staff report, excuse me, the staff was proposing to approve the design and the layout of the streets as proposed including the private streets and those two most northerly portions of the project. Apparently from what we gather there is an internal dispute among the ACHD staff and by the way it was scheduled to go to the Ada County Highway District Commission tonight for approval of the staff report that you’ve seen. There was apparently some internal dispute among the staff at the Highway District. Some members of the staff thinking that this proposal was appropriate and at least one member of the staff thinking that there should be a public road connection over to the Dakota Ridge Subdivision. The staff couldn’t work it out among themselves as to which way the recommendation ought to go. So we’re attempting to schedule a meeting with the staff and with the supervisors hopefully next week so we can get it to the ACHD commission. I spoke with Steve Arnold of the Highway District, one of the highway district staff people today, and told him we were coming to see you folks tonight and that I asked him if it would be helpful if he had some input from you about what you think you might like to see, what makes sense to you. So that you can either through your staff or through us or however you want to handle it, let the Ada County Highway District know what you think. Now they may accept it. They may reject it. They may ignore you. I don’t know, but I’m thinking that it might be helpful to them and Mr. Arnold seemed to think that it would be helpful if you folks put your two cents worth in. Here’s the arguments as I understand them. The staff person who is thinking that there ought to be a public road through to Dakota Ridge is thinking neighborhood interconnectivity Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 6 connecting this project into Dakota Ridge. Now of course we’ve only got, we’ve got a limited opportunity to do that because the school site covers most of the boundaries. There’s really only one reasonable place to put it which is adjacent which is across from that roadway which goes into Dakota Ridge. So connectivity is the one argument that would suggest public road access through there. The other side of that argument goes something like this, that because the distance between Ustick an arterial and this intersection is so short, a short distance. It’s only about 150 feet, about 150 feet between those two roadways that that intersection is potentially unsafe because you’d have cross traffic coming across just 150 feet after somebody turns in after an arterial, and so the argument from those staff people is the way he described it to me is that a T-intersection is much safer, many times safer than a full four way intersection and that’s their worry is that it’s maybe not very safe. Second, the other staff person’s thinking is that the likelihood of needing a connection between Dakota Ridge and this project at this location – let me back up and put it this way, among the argument for the connectivity issue is so that people can drive their kids from this project, from Wilkins Ranch over to the new school, and his argument is well wait a minute. If they really do need to drive their kids to school, number one it doesn’t make them go too far out of the way to have to come out on to Ustick to negotiate a right turn on Ustick and then negotiate another right turn in the Dakota Ridge and head on into the school. Second he’s saying the school site is immediately next door to this project and the likelihood how many people are going to be driving their children from this project over to that school especially given the fact that there’s the pedestrian access going to be provided in at least two locations. (Inaudible) And so his argument is with the pedestrian connections that the inter-neighborhood connectivity issue really isn’t an issue. I think the highway district staff you know, I don’t know, what do you guys think? Borup: One question, Steve. Moonlake Drive ties into Lakes at Cherry Lane, which also is tying into Dakota Ridge is what it looks like on – that’s what it looks like on here. So you do have connectivity at that location. Bradbury: That location. Borup: The ACHD map shows it. Bradbury: That’s right. Borup: Assuming that Moonlake ties over to the Lakes at Cherry Lane, Moonlake Street. So if those two still tie together, it looks like it’s got the connectivity. Bradbury: They do, and as a matter of fact that was one of the things I spoke with Mr. Arnold about is that there actually is connectivity to the east because of Moonlake, the connection at Moonlake. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 7 Borup: Speaking specifically to that aspect I’d would agree with the second argument that it makes more sense with the walk paths there. You’re talking like you say 150 feet back to Ustick and around if they really feel they needed to drive right up to the school. You’ve got the connectivity at the other end and that’s where you need it is at the back end of the subdivision not at the entrance in my mind. That’s where those concerns and problems are is people living way back at the back end and those are all tying together back in those locations. That’s my (inaudible) Smith: Extending that W. Corral Lane over to the east, it’s too close to Ustick. The way this plat is designed right now at that location doesn’t work. It doesn’t work. I don’t know that I agree with all the arguments presented for one way or the other but the one about it being too close to Ustick is – it just doesn’t make any sense. Bradbury: Those were all the issues that I had identified were concerns to you the last time we got together and that’s the extent of the comments that I had. Well I did hand out to you one more thing and maybe I ought to show this. I talked to you briefly about the reduction in the number of lots in the – down there in the golf course and the part that we’re calling Green Briar and it’s down to 26 units. Again we have in reducing the total number of units, it also required a redesign. We’ve abandoned the idea of the large triplex units and have returned to the original proposal which were two unit townhouses. I’ve handed out to you a front and rear elevation drawings and floor plans of the proposed units for this area and hopefully this time the elevations and the floor plans match. We think they do. And I guess the site plan showing they would be laid out in the portion of the subdivision and I don’t know if you have any questions or concerns or would like to talk about those. But obviously the idea there was to reduce the number of units and try to give a variety of – well we don’t want to present one big long blank flat wall and so you can see that the units are staggered to some extent. They’re off set a little bit different so they are not all just in straight lines. And the idea is to present something other than just a blank uniform flat appearance across there and to also preserve a little bit of the feel of some open space between the units. We can talk about details of that sort of stuff if you’d like. The other Mr. Campbell, Robert Campbell who does some of the layouts, he’s here and he can talk design if you are interested in that. Other than that that’s all I had to talk about, and I am please to respond to any questions or engage in any conversation or interchange that you folks might like to do. Smith: Mr. Chairman, Steve this map of Dakota Ridge the scale on that says it’s one inch equals a hundred. Bradbury: (Inaudible) Smith: So this has been reduced. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 8 Bradbury: (Inaudible – off the microphone). Smith: Can I see that a minute? I saw what I wanted to see there. MacCoy: Anything else Commissioner Smith? Smith: Not at the moment. MacCoy: Mr. Nelson. Nelson: The city had done quite a bit of work to reduce from 5 units per acre to 4 ½. Why aren’t we shooting for 4 if you don’t mind my asking? It is R-4 and all. Bradbury: Right and what we’re aiming for is the approval of the density bonus which is allowed under the PUD ordinance in exchange for – by reason of going through the planned unit development process and providing the open space that meets the requirement of the ordinance the city has the discretion to approve a density bonus of 25%. I think it’s 25% density bonus which would get us up actually if you go from R-4, 25% would take you to a total of 5 units per acre. Now, we’ve had a lot of conversations about what that ought to be multiplied off of and as we’ve gone through the process I mean we’re hopeful that we can have a density bonus that would get us up somewhere close to in the 4 ½ range, which is generally consistent with what was approved over at the Lakes at Cherry Lane. I think we calculated the 40 acre teeter portion of that project at 4 ½ units per acre as well. So if you’re asking me – you’re asking me why not 4. Well, because the ordinance allows for up to five and so we’re splitting the difference with you. That’s one way to look at it maybe. Another way to look at it is we’ve prepared a project that we think meets the requirements of the ordinance, and it gives you some good variety in housing types. And in order to be able to make all of this work and to provide all of the facilities and the amenities we need to be able to sell a couple of extra lots. Borup: Just some information for Commissioner Nelson, I did some rough figures along the same line, and we maybe starting with a not a hundred percent valid assumption but the comment was made last time and I think some staff verified that, 3.7 units per acre is fairly average for R-4. I know it’s going to vary from subdivision to subdivision, but taking that assumption 25% density bonus would come out 240 lots. And we’re looking at 233, so assuming the 3.7 is a valid figure, they would be a little bit under that. Nelson: Well, as far as the quantity of lots go. Borup: Yes, with the 25% density bonus. I figured 3.7 times 51.88 acres is 192 lots, and then 25% more is 240. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 9 Bradbury: There’s always a nature tension between a developer who by nature is going to want to squeeze every lot possible on to a given piece of property and the desire of the city, and zoning authority to try to provide a living environment that meets the expectations of quality of life whatever that may mean to you, and often times it means lesser density and what we’re hoping that you are recognizing is that we’re trying to meet you half way. We’re trying to find some common middle ground with you folks, and clearly I think the developer has certainly demonstrated a willingness to do that by taking about 30 lots out of the project. Borup: I guess I’ve got to say I think they’ve made a big effort here. I’m comfortable with the number of lots given the density bonus open space trade off, but the only thing I don’t know if I’m a hundred percent comfortable on is the open space. And you’ve got some nice areas on there, but some of the areas, I don’t know is any different landscaping than what any other subdivision would be without open space. Specifically the landscaped area along Ustick and the entrances. I guess maybe that – I don’t know if anybody got any comments on that. That’s really the only thing I wondered about. Nelson: My question is I’m not familiar with the bonus thing. I mean that’s the first development since I’ve been here that’s come – Borup: Well, it’s not that common. Nelson: Oh, it’s not that common and so if the bonus is a bonus, then we assume that it’s been somewhat earned. What generally justifies the additional density? Borup: Maybe Mr. Bradbury would like to expand on that. Nelson: I mean if we’re just barely – if we only have 10% more than required open space going from ten to eleven percent, and for that we’re giving them 12 ½ percent more developed lot or numbers of lots. Bradbury: The reason – Nelson: I guess the bullet item of what the bonus justifications are coming from. Smith: Commissioner Nelson in the subdivision ordinance, one of the items under bonus density there’s a number of items and one of them is provision for private common open space shall be considered for density increases not to exceed 25%. Character identity and siting variation incorporated in a PUD be considered cause for density increases. Part of that is landscaping, siting, design feature, street sections, architectural styles, publicly dedicated land, which could be considered under park and environmentally sensitive areas which are preserved in the nature state. What I’m hearing is the applicant is arguing for the bonus density based on the open space Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 10 provided meeting the ten percent of the land area. I don’t mean to put word in Mr. Bradbury’s mouth. Bradbury: No, you did a real good job because while I was hiding behind the podium here, I was trying to find my copy of the ordinance that the commissioner was reading from. Before I came here a week ago I actually pulled it out and read it again so that I could be prepared to answer this question and then of course I lost it in my file, but I found it now. In the ordinance in 9607F7, that’s under part of the subdivision ordinance which deals with planned unit developments, and I won’t read the whole thing but it says the following bonus densities may be granted within a planned development but shall not be treated as cumulative and then it sets out essentially four possible criteria for you to consider in granting a bonus density. One of the four criteria is the provision of open space. And then later in the ordinance it talks about the open space needing to be at least ten percent of the project area, so among the four possible criteria which would allow for that bonus density is the provision of open space. Another one of those criteria as Commissioner Smith pointed out is you know kind of these design features. If we’ve done some special design issues and provided some unique landscaping features and those sorts of things that too can serve as a basis for the bonus density even without the ten percent open area as a matter of fact. We can pick one or all of these four criteria. A third criteria that can give you the right to provide a bonus density is if there’s a public dedication made. A space set aside for a public park or maybe dedicated to the city for part of the golf course which is what was being proposed in the project we talked about a week ago, the Villas over there by the golf course on the other side of the golf course. And another of those four criteria is the preservation of these unique and environmentally sensitive areas, and in this case we don’t really have anything that probably very easily qualifies there. And so the idea for this bonus density is to encourage developers to give you something other than the typical R-4 8,000 square foot cookie cutter subdivision. It’s to encourage the developers to do what this developer has done and that is to set aside some of these open areas to provide additional landscaped areas above and beyond what you might ordinarily expect to see in a typical R-4 subdivision and I agree with Commissioner Borup that the 20 foot landscape strip along Ustick is standard, and so that’s not really special, but we also are providing a fairly significant landscape. We’re providing nice landscape entry areas. We’re landscaped area here what we’re calling Green Briar. We’re providing these three sizable park areas, and hopefully intending to provide the walking path along the lateral there. So that all together the landscaped areas and the park areas comes up to exceed the ten percent minimum requirement which theoretically by itself would provide you with the justification to allow that bonus density. In addition we’re trying to do other things. We’re trying to provide a variety of housing. We trying to do something a little bit different with some of the layout and all that of course costs a little extra money and the hope is that the developer can reap a reasonable return. Prior: Mr. Chairman, could I make a statement? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 11 MacCoy: Yes, you may. Prior: Just to point out to the commission, the bonus density and I think I said this last time, even if Mr. Bradbury’s plan does all of these things the bonus density and he said that may – and the important term is may be provided. You folks – he can put 20% open space here and you can say sorry the bonus density we don’t want to do it in this instance. You have a lot of discretion here. The other thing is as far as the open space requirements, it should enhance the common enjoyment of recreational pursuits or provide visual or aesthetic or environmentally amenities. What that means to me and I guess it’s a matter of interpretation is that visual aesthetic and environmental amenities are a little more than just grass on landscape in my mind. So that’s something that you folks may want to keep in mind. Obviously he has in my opinion there’s parks here and some other things here. It’s just whether you folks think that’s enough, but as far as the letter of the law is concerned, interpretation, it is subject to some interpretation on number five open space. If you perceive visual aesthetic or environmental amenities as more trees, more plants, more type of thing clearly that would be something that would be permissible. By the same token you could also say that what he’s done here is visual aesthetic amenities and would also constitute. It’s depending on how you individually interpret that. Is that neutral enough? Bradbury: I agree. I think Mr. Prior has presented that fairly well. I’m not going to try to trick you into – Prior: And I’m not trying to bounce you either way folks. That’s not my intention. Bradbury: There’s a whole laundry list of issues to talk about on open space and the first one says this and I think that Mr. Prior is right on the button. It says the location, size and shape of the common open spaces shall be suitable for the use proposed and shall enhance the common enjoyment of recreational pursuits or provide visual aesthetic or environment amenities. And so it’s not only just park lands but also landscaped area and things that look good to the eye. And all of those I think are appropriately considered as a part of the open space in a project, and can include the enhancement of an existing irrigation canal. Borup: Steve, I don’t know if you have addressed this because like you said this has been a few times. Have you addressed the landscaping? (Inaudible) Bradbury: In terms of what exactly is going to go there? Borup: Not exactly, but you know trees, shrubs. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 12 Prior: Mr. Chairman, may I say one more thing? And I’m going to stop. For your knowledge all PD’s, planned developments, are required to go through a design review. If you folks find this acceptable, you can also dictate that he’s going to come back for a design review and that time he’s going to have to come back and you folks can say okay, we’re not giving our final stamp until you tell us specifically and commit specifically to what kind of trees, what kind of flowers, what kind of bushes. Whatever you want to do and dictate that as well. That’s purely within your purview to do that. Like I said yeah, all PD’s shall be subject to design review by the city staff and the council. (Inaudible) Prior: Well the council in the past has passed the design review on to the Planning and Zoning Commission. I think that’s appropriate and they have the authority to delegate down to Planning and Zoning Commission is they wish, but there probably going to be some amendments in this thing anyway in the future. But at that time, you will probably see a design review on this if it’s your desire. MacCoy: Thank you counselor, I was going to raise the same thing. They do have that option still to do that. Prior: And I’m done now. Bradbury: I want to just answer Commissioner Borup’s question because there’s a couple of things that I can maybe help perhaps. One we would be happy to go through a design review process. We did it on the Lake at Cherry Lane and that worked out just fine. We haven’t got a problem in the world with the concept. Second if you want to get an idea for what you can expect to see in terms of landscaping in this project, go over to the Lakes at Cherry Lane and look at the landscaping that’s been provided at the entryways and the common areas over there. There will be a good example of what you can plan to see, and if that doesn’t suit you, then tell us what does. MacCoy: Mr. Borup, you have anything else? Borup: I guess we’re still looking for comments. I’m feeling pretty comfortable at this point. I guess the only thing that now I have any uneasiness about is they can do what they’re talking about doing on Eight Mile Lateral. If that’s eliminated then you’re definitely under the ten percent again. Bradbury: I can’t remember Commissioner if we talked about this last time, but apparently the city of Nampa is making good progress with Nampa Meridian. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 13 Borup: Yeah, that’s what I understand. Bradbury: So am I going to give you my personal guarantee that it will work? Borup: (Inaudible). Bradbury: I understand it’s Nampa Meridian. Prior: So Steve you wouldn’t be adverse to making it a condition of approval that you’re able to – successfully able to enter into a license agreement with the irrigation district. Bradbury: Certainly. Borup: And I would encourage the city to do whatever we can to facilitate that project too. Bradbury: I’ve said it in the past. Borup: I mean this has been city policy for the last five years or more well no, comp plan called for (End of Tape) Borup: .. never been able to accomplish it yet. Maybe this should be one to start making some progress on. Smith: Mr. Chairman I’m not really interested in splitting in how the open space was calculated. I guess I’d be a little reluctant to say that the islands in the street are usable from a recreation standpoint. However they are nice amenities to dress up the entryway and the roads a little bit, but this lot five over on the southeast part of the parcel, that’s an awkward space and I just can’t visualize how – that just seems kind of awkward and also the one up in the northwest side lot 53, -- 33. How that’s really going to be utilized and enhance the development. 38 and 39 down in the lower southwest portion, those could I guess be developed so that it kind of provides a nice entry to that finger sticking down on the south side of the development and I share Commissioner Borup’s concerns about the lateral there and would like to see something entered into what Mr. Prior’s suggested or brought up. But if we could get back to that other map behind this one. The – I’m just having a hard time. It seems real clumsy. You had to pull that cul-de-sac down back away from the last two lots there because I’m assuming you didn’t have enough room there to get a cul-de-sac in and develop any of those lots down there, and to do that you had to put in a narrower private street and I don’t recall anything from the fire department about what their comment was on that. Bradbury: Mr. Campbell met with the fire chief before the last meeting to talk about that issue. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 14 Smith: Did he tell him where the reverse gear on his truck was? Bradbury: Apparently the fire chief knows how to find it. I don’t know about everybody else, but he seems to feel – the fire chief expressed no reservations about that layout from his perspective. Smith: And the last time we talked about building designs, it was – there was a comment made that the intent was to just kind of show the character of the building, that it wasn’t necessarily the actual design of the residence that was going to go in. So would I be safe in assuming that the same is true what you presented to us tonight. These elevations are just maybe a representative of the scale and materials. Bradbury: I think that’s fair to say. Right. Smith: So there may be a number of different – you have two shown here. A Roma and a Florence so there could be a number of different floor plans and maybe they are not all two story. Maybe some are one, single story. Bradbury: I think that’s certainly possible what we’re trying to convey to you folks is that this is conceptually what the developer intends to put there. I don’t think either the developer – I don’t think that the developer would be comfortable saying this is exactly what you’re going to get and exactly where you are going to get it, and I am hopeful that that isn’t an expectation from your standpoint. We’re certainly willing to live with any perimeters that you wan to establish in terms of the material choices and the sizes and the general layouts. We can certainly work within perimeters that might be established. Smith: The only thing is from a design standpoint is I’m not interested in dictating materials or these are single story and these are two story. I don’t know that the site conditions warrant that, but what I am concerned about though is these are townhomes and that they are designed to break up the mass of the building to where it doesn’t look like a big huge box. Sensitivity to human scale and the siting of the proximity to the golf course, and they are not just humongous looming overwhelming structures. I am disappointed and this is what we see in all these residential developments is you just see a bunch of garages on the street site elevation and I hope – I’d like to see somebody come in here and start proposing something a little unique and different that addresses that and I am not – it’s just a comment. It’s not project specific necessarily, but – Bradbury: You know and I have heard you say it a couple of times, and I’ve thought about it some and ultimately my conclusion and in conversations I’ve had with Mr. Campbell, is that in this particular site which is the part we really want to have that good visual appeal. The part interior to the private roadway which is by the matter it is a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 15 private roadway and gated, so it’s not a public roadway or are we interested in trying to have the aesthetic appeal from the golf course side? And the choice was – the choice given the space we have to work with we’re trying to work from the golf course side. Smith: Well I don’t want to belabor that. But I did want to make that statement. I’m done, but when Commissioner Nelson is finished, I’d like to hear staff. They seem to still have some concerns about this. And I’d like to hear what some of those are if we haven’t already covered them. MacCoy: We’ll cover them again. Before we go on with Commissioner Nelson, I’d like to ask just one question about the same vein that Commissioner Smith is on. It’s just an information piece for myself is that are you as a Steiner Corporation, dictating, this is four or five designs you the buyer have to choose from or can they make some variation because they have some desires that they want and you’re minimal to making those changes. Bradbury: Let me ask Bob Campbell to come up and talk to you about these design things because you’re getting a filter through a lawyer and that’s not good. Bob can talk about these issues and he’s a lot better off. ROBERT CAMPBELL 2638 N. TURNBERRY WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Campbell: What we were trying to do with these particular (inaudible). I do apologize for the last time (inaudible). What we tried to do here in connecting the garages which I feel the same as Byron working in the architectural field for quite a few years is that you always have the garage aspect. It looks like a auto center, but I think that if we can get into more detail with the structures by recessing the garage doors and having them sit back and bring out columns in the front will help considerably to soften that. But what we did do on the back side where people will see these on the golf course and people from Ashford Greens and so forth is we really split the unit so they have the same setback as it would if there was a normal R-1 lot. You’re ten feet between these two structures here. Even though they are attached at the garage, so that from the rear they don’t look like they are townhouses, per say. So and in between these where we have these sidewalks going up walking through wrought iron gates, between each one of these units these blue things are fountains so that when you walk through that gate, you have this fountain and the amenities that go in that garden area which you share because all the common area within this development here are taken care of by homeowners association which is part of what we call Green Briar. And then we really enhanced Moonlake with a lot of landscape and visual things and this area here is a water feature with planting all the way around so that if someone comes up to enter the gate and they can’t gain access they have adequate space to turn around, this would become (inaudible) concrete and just be a first class looking development. As far as Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 16 the interior of the units, if people wanted to make changes, that would be no problem. The developer could do that, and I would think that the exterior would stay pretty much in line with what we’re doing on the sketches that were submitted. MacCoy: But they could make some changes minor as they may be. Campbell: Yeah, you know that’s a catch 22. All of a sudden you got some guy putting a (inaudible) up on top of the roof and it doesn’t conform. I think everything has to conform. You have to remember one thing. A developer when he gets into a project like this, he’s got all his money on the line. He has to make sure what he’s building. If he builds something here that is of a certain quality, he can’t go down here a little further and start cheapening it, and I think you have to understand how a developer should approach a project like this. He’s in it for the long haul. He’s not – MacCoy: Yeah, I’ve been in construction and I’m also an architect and an engineer, so I understand it. Campbell: Well then you understand exactly. MacCoy: Yes, I just wanted to know, because I’ve been with some groups that have said no, this is just it. You take my design and that’s it, or you don’t – Campbell: No, I think that we could work with the clients especially when you get into the price class of homes this is. It’s not the top end, but I would say this, like this particular project here as opposed to Ashford Greens townhouse area where they have 74 units they have an awful lot of these slit streets and so forth. There are 74 units in that particular project, but they are all garage. If you have ever been out there, and I think this deals with it a little bit better. Those are 50 foot wide, I think or 40 foot wide units, and we tried to give a good look from the outside where most people will be seeing these units from because this street here, the only people that are really going to see this are the people who live there, and if they are happy with that then we should be happy with it. So we’ve tried to give it our best shot as far as architecturally and what you see will be that or better. I will say one thing. I’ve worked for Mr. Steiner for quite a few years and he doesn’t do anything excuse me half assed. He does a nice job. MacCoy: Thank you for your comments. Commissioner Nelson? Nelson: I guess I would comment as far as this bonus thing goes, I’m still kind of have a tendency to not approve. Of course I don’t have the experience that some of the other board members, so I’ll let them sell it to me. But I would like some comment from the staff in that although 25% of the lots exceed the 8,000 foot requirement, that means that 75% don’t. How does that address frontage requirements and that sort of thing as far as the ordinances go, and as you look at the open spaces that are the visual Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 17 amenities and the like, for instance lot 5 and some of these others are really going to be visual to such a minor part of the subdivision. Very little drive through traffic is going to see that. And really lots 51 and 76 or whatever are really about the only ones you really see as you come in. It looks nice and all but with that being private you are really limiting access to some of that stuff. I guess for those issues I’m still not 100% convinced of the bonus because we are – it’s still at 12 ½% bonus and whether we’re the slight additional amenities or – space wise it’s barely over the 10% so that means to me things like this circle drive with the amenities have to be pretty nice. I’d like to hear the staff’s comments on if they had any issues on like I said the frontages and any of the other ordinances. Stiles: (Inaudible) Prior: No, what are you, dense? Stiles: Commissioners, I guess my biggest concern with this is the open space. Part of it that’s calculated I wouldn’t count the planting strip that required of all subdivisions along that arterial to be common area that’s available to all residents of the subdivision. Also they counted the medians and the roadway, this is designated as a collector to a point here, as such there would be no frontage allowed on that. The street setbacks normally it would be 20 feet, so on this stretch of the road here where they’ve shown, I don’t know how wide it is, 7 feet in some places up to ten that would normally per the ordinance be a 20 foot setback. They couldn’t have a fence within 20 of that anyway. It would be landscaped. The same goes for the area adjacent to Dakota Ridge. The reason for that 20 foot setback request is that is the setback for a fence along a street. Even giving them the Eight Mile Lateral the full square footage of the Eight Mile Lateral if you took out the pieces that are merely street landscaping, I calculated about 1.18 acres of that I would not consider to be common area at all. There is the golf course available there. There is a school available there. The PUD ordinance is very vague as to how these things are calculated. It’s not written well at all. I know that in Boise City what they do is they take the lots if you’re proposing say the R-4, which they are proposing, you would take all the lots that are deficient that are less than 8,000 square feet and the difference would the common area that they would have to provide. I don’t know what the number would be, I mean for comparison it would be interesting. I don’t know what that would be, but most of the lots in this one area don’t meet even R-15 requirements as far as frontage. In the Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, they did a PUD on that, but they also zoned it appropriately for the uses that were there. I don’t know if you have any other questions. Did I even answer any of what you asked? Nelson: Yeah, how compliant it was with the ordinances as far as the frontages and – Stiles: The minimum frontage in an R-4 zone for a typical R-4 is 80 feet. In an R-8, it’s 65 feet. In an R-15, it’s 50 feet. I guess I had one question of the applicant about Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 18 designating multi family housing for a lot of these lots, multi family housing is not permitted at all in an R-4 zone even with a PUD, and then in the comprehensive plan, it’s designated single family residential. I think that’s what they mean. Townhouses, and townhouses I consider single family homes, not multi family. Smith: Single family attached? Stiles: Yeah. Single family, I mean it’s separate ownership. They own their lot. They own the house. It’s still a single family unit. Multi family I would think of like apartments and four plex or something like that with no individual ownership. So I think that was a little question I had there. Smith: If I understand you correctly the setbacks off the street along this north Wilkins Way, which is a collector, your setback for the fence is 20 feet? Stiles: Yes, in a typical development. Smith: And that’s required to be landscaped? Stiles: Well typically it is. It’s part of somebody’s lot. Smith: Right. Stiles: There’s not a lot of lots out there that have the double frontage like this does. I mean even though it’s not frontage. They’re bounded on both sides by streets. Borup: Chateau Meadows is one that’s that way. I believe the entrance into Chateau Meadows? Stiles: With the collector in there. And they’ve got double fronting. Yeah. Borup: Only not a lot of landscaping. Stiles: No. Smith: So if I understand you and Commissioner Nelson correctly your main issue from getting behind this thing is the amount of open space. Stiles: Yes, that’s mine. Smith: I mean let’s say for example down here in the yellow the southeast part of the development to get around this exchange of the calculating the open space along Ustick in the islands and what’s being lost well the iffyness of the eight mile lateral, I Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 19 mean you could say we want lots 9, 10 and 11 to be designated as open space all contiguous with that. Lot 5 would be a lot nicer amenity to the development and maybe something like that would satisfy your concerns. I mean I am not trying to put words into your mouth. I mean I’m looking at that. I’m just saying that seems to be an area that makes sense to me to add more space. I mean it’s three lots, but still though if we’re haggling over the amount of open space being provided maybe that’s a compromise that we can make or a request that we can make that of course I don’t know how the applicant, you know, if they are adamantly opposed and I don’t know that that’s the right place to do it either. Maybe lot 10 here next to the Eight Mile Lateral is a good place to add green space and open up that whole corner there. I mean I could support doing both. Nelson: Yeah, I am not inclined to include the school’s amenities in lieu of this development providing both amenities. I know there’s a lot of discussion about keep in mind that the school’s next door. There’s plenty of green space there. But I’d rather see the green space being in the development itself. Borup: I just had a question for Shari, did you say Boise and calculating a reduction, it’s a straight proportional trade off? Stiles: That’s my understanding. I mean I don’t know what the exact wording of it is, but say you got a 3500 square foot lot, you subtract that from the 8,000 that’s required and for every 3500 square foot lot, you’ve got to come up with 4500 square feet of common area and it’s has to be in one place. Borup: Okay. There’s no incentive to do something like that. Stiles: Well they’ve done it. There’s no incentive? Borup: Well not in my mind there isn’t. I mean that’s Boise, not us. Stiles: Well I know, but I was just giving you that for an example. Borup: I was just curious. It doesn’t seem like there’s any incentive for a developer to do that, unless they are in a spot that they feel they can justify prices that would allow them to do that. MacCoy: Shari, do you have anything else? Okay, -- Stiles: I’m sorry other than I’m still not convinced three gated communities. I mean I don’t have a particular concern about the one that’s surrounded by the golf course. The other two I don’t feel that those are necessary and it’s just false sense of security and it tends to segregate neighborhoods rather than make it a overall neighborhood. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 20 MacCoy: Bruce? Freckleton: Nothing. MacCoy: You had nothing. Bradbury: Yes, I’ll try to go quickly. One of the things that I think you have to bear in mind in addition to just setting aside the space, the dirt, is that of course the developer is going to improve it, and in this case it’s going to have some landscape treatment in virtually all of these areas and park like improvements in the larger the park areas. So you’ve got to remember it’s not just a straight on dirt for dirt. We got to think about dollars and the developer, Mr. Campbell, is whispering in my ear and he says that he figures rough estimate there’s going to be between $350,000 and $400,000 minimum of landscape expense to improve these areas. So although I certainly understand the issue about how much ground, but you also have to think in terms of what it’s going to cost to do – I mean if it was just going to be left there in dirt, rocks and weeds, yeah, square foot for square foot. But there’s going to be money that’s going to be spent to improve these things. Let me propose something to you, if we take out the square footage that’s included in the landscape buffer between Ustick or between the subdivision and Ustick Road and the landscaped areas that are included in along Wilkins Way in those areas take out the square footages in there, which Mr. Campbell estimates to 18,000 square feet, and I haven’t tried to figure that number out, and included that into the parcel or the lot, the park area that Commissioner Smith was talking about here. So we take it out and just add the same number of square feet into that space, does that help? Smith: I think – like I said I’m not trying to split hairs on the amount of space, a lot of it too is the shape and configuration of that space. Bradbury: And by the way – Smith: That’s why I said 9, 10 and 11. Then you get a nice rectangular chunk of ground there. Basically you’re doubling the size of it or probably a little bit more. But you certainly are coming up with something that’s more usable from a recreation standpoint. Kids playing ball or throwing a Frisbee or whatever. The way it’s configured right it chokes down and it skinnies down the farther you get away from it. You get that perspective looking at a rectangle, that thing shrinks down to a point visually all ready and this is going to be even more that way although you are not going to get really far away from the open end. I guess I’d like to see all three of those lots go into that and I know I can appreciate the money part and the cost of doing that and so forth, but I think Commissioner Nelson and Shari bring up some real good points about the frontages on these lots and we’re in this kind of juggling thing. I support the mixed densities and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 21 developments going in if they are done properly and done appropriately but one of the trade offs you give for having a higher density is you provide those open space amenities to provide areas for people to go out and be able to be outside and enjoy the outdoors. I don’t know if I answered your question, but – Bradbury: Yeah, I know exactly where you’re coming from. I’m thinking in terms of amount as well as configuration, and I think you and I are on the same wave length there. Smith: I think from a design standpoint it would be a better design of that space than having the awkward shape there. And that’s I guess what my biggest thing that I’ve been wrestling with on this whole project has been some of the irregular shapes of land, not to say that’s bad, but because it would be very nice along the Eight Mile Lateral with some curvilinear paths and things going along and not having straight shots of stuff. But this particular space here in the middle of some single family lots I think is a different – raises different design issues and questions. Personally I think I would have a lot less reservation about this whole thing if – I still have some concerns about the gated communities up along Ustick, but I’m willing to listen still I get my way. That’s all I can say about it. Borup: I think the – isn’t the main thing we’re looking at here is the bonus density. Isn’t that what all this discussion is about? MacCoy: It’s a PUD. Borup: You can have a PUD without having reduced density, I guess. If you want to do some of the amenities. But the ten percent open space is not the only criteria for the bonus density as I pointed out that’s one of them. The street scape and other design features, and a lot of the other stuff. I think maybe we’re not – I don’t know if we’re focusing too much on the ten percent and not on the overall aspect. MacCoy: I think a lot of the discussion has been based on the overall view though. Borup: I think we’re down to where – three months ago I don’t know that we even had a marginal project. I think they’ve made some improvements on that. MacCoy: Yes, they have. Borup: And I agree with what Commissioner Smith just said about getting a larger open area, but I’m still on my one little kick on the water pathways. If they could get that approved and get a real walking path along that waterway, I’d feel comfortable the way it is now. If that doesn’t happen then perhaps something else, increasing the park like he was talking over there on lot 5 or block 5 would be appropriate. Because if Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 22 something can’t be coordinated with the irrigation district then you’re just talking a chain link fence and whatever along there. They don’t even want the homeowners to maintain. MacCoy: You’re raising a very good point. Borup: But I would feel comfortable the way it is if something could happen along the lateral. I don’t know how we address that. MacCoy: Well there is a way here. I want to hear what Steve has to say about it. Smith: I’d like to see both. Because again I’m not trying to split hairs on the ten percent, but I’m coming at this area around – this number 5 green space and just looking at it from a design standpoint. Borup: I guess I’m looking beyond this project. If they can get some type of agreement with Nampa Meridian on this, I would think that would open the door for other projects and maybe we can finally start accomplishing things on that line, and for them to do it, they’ve got a tough fight ahead of them. I guarantee you that. It’s just not going to be a phone call and they are going to say sure go ahead. So there would be some real effort there, but I think it would benefit the city long term down the road. I guess I would put some credence to that. Bradbury: Yeah, I think the answer to that is simply put a condition of approval and if we don’t make it, we don’t get the licensing agreement, then we’re back in front of you and trying to figure out where we’re going to make it up. Nelson: I would rather make it that it be – if you don’t make it – not that I don’t want to see you again mind you. But I’d rather the condition just be that if the Eight Mile Lateral doesn’t play, then we deal with the lot 5 issue, but I would recommend you deal with the lot 5 issue anyway because if I lived in there, I would even though the school is right there, I would be sending my kids to play over there where I can keep an eye on them and where I know the neighborhood around there. Not over to the school with the wide range of age of children and what not so we extensively use the open space in our subdivision, and – Bradbury: Let me make a suggestion. Because we’re going to be here all night going back and forth if we don’t try to find something that will work. What if we do this. What if we include lots 9 and 10 in that space and so we can square it off and will take some of that ground back from extend lot 11 back up, square it off so you got 9 and 10 in here included in this space so it’s squared. It’s a square space or close to a square space. Smith: That works for me. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 23 Bradbury: Does that do it for you? Smith: Yes, and then Commissioner Borup’s – Prior: What’s going to need to happen to interject, Steve is going to have a difficult time with the license agreement with Nampa Meridian having to deal with them on other occasions with license agreements, but what you can basically do is make it a condition of approval that they enter into a license agreement, and if they fail to enter into the license agreement with Nampa Meridian Irrigation, then they need to make necessary adjustments to make up the actual square footage somewhere else. And I think that the applicant would agree to that and I think that’s fair and then we can have them come back for a design review if that need be the case. I think everybody could be satisfied with something like that. Borup: I agree with that. Maybe it would be fair though to give them credit for lot 9 and 10 in that. Prior: Whatever your preference. Smith: I’m certainly willing to look at them recalculate the open space area and have that as part of their presentation to city council. I think we’re ready to make a motion on this. Prior: I think folks my preference having sat in on city council now and I sit from one entity to the next and Malcolm and I had this discussion I believe on Tuesday morning, when you folks have a tendency to say we’re going to pass this along and subject to well we’ll do this for the city council. The problem is the city council gets the plans as they were presented and then they hear there were some other things that were involved and those don’t always get incorporated Mr. Smith. There was discussion about something you wanted added to the project. It didn’t get added to the project. It was something you wanted to make a condition on one of the previous projects from last nights meeting. My preference is that when a plan comes forward, and you put your stamp on the preliminary plat or anything else, that preliminary plat goes forward as it’s been submitted to you, not subject to the condition that you do this, subject to the condition you do that. Subject that these lots get moved around for the city council. Well unfortunately the city council doesn’t see that and it has nothing to do with the applicant. It’s just that the applicant said well these were part of the condition, and the city council has a tendency to disregard all that. My preference in the future and I won’t drag this out is that when you folks put a stamp on something and say this is the project I want to go to the city council, make sure that what you have in front of you is exactly what you want. Not subject to what the applicant prepare. Make the applicant prepare Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 24 it the way you want it, look at it and then send it that way to the city council. Otherwise you are going to create a lot of problems for all of us in the future. Smith: So this needs to come back here. Prior: Well Steve will – and Steve just for your explanation these folks on the conditional use permit are going to require me to do Findings. The preliminary plat does not require Findings, so once I do the Findings on the CUP, the preliminary plat and CUP will go on at the same time anyway so you’re not losing any time on this. All I’m going to ask and I didn’t mean to turn this into a lecture on this, but please I implore you in the future as a commission, please, please, please when you say you’re going forward with something make sure that what you have in front of you is exactly what you want to send to the city council. If you do not do that, you’re not getting what you want. I guarantee you you’re not. Borup: But I have to agree with that. I sat in on city council last night and it came up a couple of times. Prior: At least a couple of times. Borup: Well it came up more than a couple of times. But it was on the specific projects. But I think where the potential is when it’s a controversial project. When there’s opposing public testimony. Prior: And this isn’t controversial with Steiner Development. I’m not implying that. Borup: So on this one, I don’t think we have potential, but on other stuff where there’s a lot of public testimony, -- Prior: And in all fairness to the applicant, would you please specify tonight maybe decide as a decision what exactly you want them to do so they are perfectly clear so there’s no misunderstanding and then when it comes we can just push this thing along for the benefit of them. Smith: So Mr. Prior, am I correct in assuming that – let’s just go back to the example that Mr. Bradbury was just proposing in that including lot 9 and 10 in this open space and extending lot 11 up to include that as part of lot 11, that next month when we are reviewing and voting on the Findings of Fact, they could present the revisions at that time. We would have them in front of us and as long as they incorporated these changes that we asked for then we could at that point forward it on to city council, and that’s what would be presented. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 25 Prior: I was going to ask you to table this preliminary plat anyway, because my preference is that you folks pass the conditional use permit on and then the preliminary plat. You’re basically saying we’re approving a preliminary plat. Then you are going to approve a conditional use permit. In my mind that’s out of order, and the listing on this agenda was incorrect, and I’m sorry I should have caught that. My suggestion on this is that we can continue the public hearing on this preliminary plat, allow the applicant to submit the very changes that we’ve talked about tonight that you folks decide you want to do. I assume that Steve is not going to say anything else about the conditional use permit. He’s just going to open it up and incorporate. We’ll move on and at that time I will prepare Findings. He will have the preliminary plat, and the game is on, and I would have the conditional use permit Findings ready by the August 11th meeting. Smith: Okay. I’m ready to vote on this. MacCoy: Before we do that I just wanted to make a statement to all the commissioners that Commissioner Borup and I have had discussion about this over the last year, and with Commissioner Johnson and when our counsel changed to John, we’ve had considerable discussion. I have met with the Mayor and we’ve got the approval and what John has just finished saying to you is the beginning of that very thing is that this commission here for the very reason that what John and Keith have mentioned has been very apparent as we go before the council, there is things dropped away and lost from what we do here, and we know for a fact that the council and I’ve talked to Charlie Rountree who is chairman of the council that they don’t do the detail work that we do here and they count on us to actually spelling it out to the detail. I think from now on we’re going to do that and we’re not going to release anything from this table until we are darn sure that what we have specified gets carried forward to the council. It’s going to be a cut and dried thing for them because we can’t afford in the future to have problems like this like we had last night. From a side point Commissioner Borup’s name was on the council last night. Your name, Commissioner Smith, was on the council several times last night. All for good points. The fact that the public that sat here those nights stood up in front of the council last night and said well Commissioner Smith said so and so and it’s not on the council tonight, and so it’s very apparent that we do make a point ,but we are going to have to say it so that the council understand that we have been putting that on the table and we want it acted upon and not passed over or forgotten. So as I say we have spent considerable time behind the scenes with all the people so that we will be allowed to do and what our laws says we can do we can do this. It is now approved. We will do it as we see it, and we’ll not foot around on it. Borup: I think that’s very important on substantial projects, and I hope we still have some flexibility on those. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 26 MacCoy: On all projects as we have stipulations that we want to make sure that council understands. Prior: Did you reach a consensus then? Borup: Yeah, are we assuming that this meets what the applicant (inaudible). Smith: To replot 9 and 10? That works for me. I don’t know if there’s anything additional that either of you want to add on to it. And do we want to table this or continue the public hearing? Prior: Actually you want to continue the public hearing is the proper procedure. Now how much the city clerk Berg may not want to hear this, we need to continue the public hearing to allow the applicant to make the necessary changes. The lots 9 and 10 if I’m clarified on this is to be incorporated into open space. Then it will be resubmitted. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion that we continue this public hearing on preliminary plat for Wilkins Ranch at the Lake, give the applicant time to revise the preliminary plat to include lots 9 and 10 along North Cowhide Avenue into the open space identified as lot 5 and incorporate the part of lot 5 that is now open space into lot 11 until our August 11th meeting. MacCoy: Do I hear a second? Nelson: Second. Borup: I believe that’s lot 8, block 5. Smith: I’m sorry. Borup: Yeah, that little one is too hard to read. Smith: I’m sorry I – block 5, lot 8, thank you. Borup: Are covered on the correction okay? Prior: You’re fine. There’s been a motion that lot 8, block 5 and lot 10 and lot 9 are incorporated. There’s been a motion. There’s been a second. I need a vote. MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 27 ITEM NO. 3: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC – EAST OF BLACK CAT/USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD. STEVE BRADBURY 877 MAIN WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Bradbury: Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I don’t have anything to add to this item. I’d simply like to ask that the testimony and discussion from the previous item be incorporated into this public hearing. But I would be pleased to respond to any additional questions. MacCoy: Mr. Borup, do you have any questions? Borup: I have none. MacCoy: Mr. Smith? Smith: None. Nelson: I have none. MacCoy: Commissioner Nelson doesn’t have any either. And we don’t have anybody in the house, so Commissioners what do you have in mind? Prior: Is the public hearing closed? I’m sorry I missed that. MacCoy: No, I didn’t close the pubic hearing. Borup: We have no other comments. We can close the public hearing. Don’t we need to close the public hearing first before we make a motion? MacCoy: Yes, we can. Since there’s no other comments, the public hearing is now closed. Commissioners? Smith: Is the motion on this – is the appropriate time to ask for the license agreement with the irrigation district? Prior: I wouldn’t worry about it too much. The public hearing has been closed at this point so no. Smith: I mean making that as part of a motion? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 28 Prior: That you prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. You can do that if you’d like. I’m going to do it anyway so whether you do it or not, it doesn’t make any difference. At this point Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law would be the proper motion though. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion that we direct the Assistant City Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on this item. Nelson: Second. MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Nelson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we adjourn. Smith: Second. Wait, I’ll withdraw that second and allow Mr. Prior – Prior: Mr. Chairman, very briefly I had an opportunity to speak with some of the special counsel and some of the concerns about the lengthy meetings, and I’ll be very brief here. I spoke with them. What we are going to try to do is pass some type of a resolution for a policy. What I’m going to ask the commission very briefly is come up with some ideas as to what they would like to incorporate as a policy for the next meeting. I’m talking about things such as requiring all people who come up to speak to be limited to a five minute discussion about their projects, and that will be it. Some things such as having a cap on the length of the meeting itself. In other words allowing the meeting to only go until 11:00 p.m. and anything after the 11:00 deadline will have to be considered at the next meeting. It’s purely within your procedural rights to set those kinds of things. Anything else that you would like to add then I’ll draft an ordinance with your approval within 30 days. That’s all I have. MacCoy: All right. Thank you. Borup: Are we going to discuss that sometime? Prior: I would like you to come up with some ideas and – MacCoy: He’s jumping the gun on me right here. He’s a head of me. Between now and the next meeting for the commissioners, we will have a meeting, and I’ve already asked you to come up with some suggestions of what you’re going to see. Some of the material we are going to discuss on that is just what John’s gone through because he and I have spent a considerable time like I already said going through some of these details because I have personally fed up with this 2:00 in the morning situation. Nobody Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 29 does well at that, and we are all going to end up looking up for a better timing. I am willing to go as we have discussed in the past all of us for two meetings a month if we have to based on the log that we have to review the material that is presented to the city. So that will be something we will have to discuss. But before our next meeting we will have had our meeting. Borup: So do we have a date? MacCoy: No, I want about that after we get out of here. Borup: That makes sense to me. I just hope we keep it not have it too restrictive where there’s some flexibility. (Inaudible) Prior: Mr. Chairman, my preference obviously is that you discuss that on an individual basis individually with each of the commissioners after the meeting. MacCoy: Yes, sir. That’s the point I am not going into any more detail. Okay. Let’s get the last piece on here. Smith: I’ll second that motion by Commissioner Nelson to adjourn. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:14 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: ___________________________________ MALCOLM MACCOY, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 30 ____________________________________ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK