2000 07-19MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 19, 2000
The meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at
6:30 p.m. by Chairman Thomas Barbeiro:
Members Present: Keith Borup, Sally Norton, Bill Nary, Tom Barbeiro
Members Absent: Richard Hatcher
Others Present: Steve Siddoway, Bruce Freckleton, David Swartley, Shelby Ugarriza
Barbeiro: Good evening everyone I’m Tom Barbeiro I will be sitting in for Chairman
Keith Bird for the moment until he returns excuse me Keith Borup. If we can we will go
ahead and take roll-call for those who are here currently. Richard Hatcher is absent,
and Chairman Keith Borup will join us shortly.
Item No. 1 Recommendation for Vacation of public utilities and drainage and
irrigation easement a long with common lots lines between Lot 23 and 22
of Block 10, The Lakes at Cherry Lane by Ron Leslie.
Barbeiro: Steve do you have (inaudible) on the agenda do you have anything from the
meeting on July 11th
to enlighten us on that? Okay is Ron Leslie here?
Steve: Commissioner Barbeiro the draft of the agenda that I have did not have this item
on it I was not prepared to speak to it. I didn’t know it was tabled from last time.
Barbeiro: It does not appear that the applicant is here at the moment. Lets go ahead
and hold that for the moment and move on to item two.
Nary: Mr. Chairman maybe I can clarify a little bit –
Barbeiro: Please do.
Nary: -- for the record. What happened at the July 11th
, meeting was there was not
sufficient information for the Commission to be able go forward on this request to vacate
public utilities. What we did was simply made a motion to table it until today’s meeting to
give either the applicant the opportunity to be here in person or to provide something in
writing. The information we were provided on the 11th
of July is really not any more than
we were provided tonight. I think what the Commission had been concerned at that
point was what exactly were we vacating the title was inconsistent with the application.
There doesn’t appear to be any more information than there was previously. I guess
what I would simply ask our staff is this something we should simply again move to
table it to the meeting in August. And again just to get the applicant either here in
person or writing so we have something to act on. I think we all have some idea what
they are asking but I don’t think we have enough information in the record to make clear
what we would then be recommending to the City Council.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 2
Barbeiro: With that if I can get –
Norton: Mr. Chairman I liked to make a comment on this. My understanding was the
staff was going to contact this individual and let him know what was happening. Had
that taken place, did staff contact this individual?
Ugarriza: I did.
Norton: Shelby, could you enlighten us what he said.
Ugarriza: I called him yesterday, I think it was, and told him it was going to be heard
again tonight, and he had made arrangements to be here tonight.
Norton: You told him six-thirty.
Ugarriza: I don’t if I told him six-thirty or if I told him seven because I was confused
about the time. It might be he shows up at seven.
Norton: Mr. Commissioner, I would suggest we hold this off until after seven perhaps the
applicant wasn’t sure what time we started.
Barbeiro: Okay. Chairman Borup has joined us so I will turn over the remainder of the
meeting to Chairman Borup.
Borup: I apologize I had down seven o’clock also. I thought I was getting here early.
What item are we on then.
Norton: Number two.
Borup: Number two. We finished with the Landscape Ordinance? How many are here to
testify on the Landscape Ordinance, do we have anyone? Mr. Siddoway I noticed you
went through the public testimony from our last meeting and incorporated I mean your
comments on good number of those have been incorporated with changes. Some of the
others you didn’t feel warranted to change and there is still one item you were looking
for some input. I’m assuming we don’t want to review the whole Ordinance again do we
Commissioners?
Unidentified: No.
Borup: Were you intending to briefly go over some of those items that need to be
changed?
Siddoway: I wasn’t going to go through them one by one. You have the memo dated
7/12. They are in response to the issues that were raised at the last Planning and
Zoning Commission hearing on this item. Then it specifically responds to written
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 3
comments submitted by Becky Bowcutt and from Scott Stanfield Earl and Associates.
Based on those concerns and comments this memo contains the full amount the
proposed changes at this time you mentioned there was on item of question but that’s
all I intended to present verbally tonight unless you have questions then I will certainly
stand for questions and answer them.
Borup: Commissioner one of the reasons this was continued to this meeting was to
address some of the comments we heard at the last meeting. Is there anything you
would like to ask Steve at this time? Have you had a chance to look at some of the
written comments and his responses?
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: For the record I’d like to make note that the minutes there was a tape recording
malfunction and in the minutes there was missing three of the testimonies on this
landscape in fact everybody’s but part Becky Bowcutt’s testimony is not in the minutes.
All those people had concerns regarding the landscape plan. Becky Bowcutt did give us
her synopsis of her written comments on what she said vocally and I do feel that those
should be – I would like to take those into consideration when we consider the
landscape plan.
Borup: Take which into consideration?
Norton: Becky Bowcutt’s testimony –
Borup: Oh yes.
Norton: In addition there was something that says Kristy Vigil on it and it says from
Daunt and quotes Daunt.
Borup: Daunt Whitman is the –
Norton: Who is Daunt?
Siddoway: Daunt Whitman is the building official for the City of Meridian.
Norton: Thank you.
Borup: Did you have any other –
Norton: I think we should – I liked to go through each of the points that Steve -- I haven’t
compared that to what Becky’s comments were –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 4
Borup: Steve answered Becky’s comments one at a time on page five of his starting on
page five and he went through hers item by item.
Siddoway: You have a line item by line item response to Becky Bowcutt’s –
Borup: I want to congratulate you Steve you did a real good on response I think
incorporating all the public comments.
Siddoway: Thank you.
Borup: But before we –
Norton: What date is that response because I don’t have and I don’t think Bill has it.
Siddoway: July 12, 2000. And it’s titled Landscape Ordinance questions and answers.
Borup: Maybe before we get into that we may have an individual here. I asked the
question earlier if had anybody to testify on the Landscape Ordinance and there wasn’t
anybody. Do we have anyone here now? Why don’t we go ahead with that and the staff
has gone through incorporated public testimony from the last meeting. A majority of it is
going to be effected into changes. If you would like to come on up I may depending on
lengthy you are Richard I may interrupt you. If those changes have already been made
because there is a lot of stuff that has been incorporated. If you would like to come
forward and state your name for the record.
McCaughey: Good evening honorable members of the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission my name is Richard McCaughey I’m here representing the Building
Contractors Association of Southwestern Idaho. We have discussed the proposed
Landscape Ordinance several times in several of our individual internal Councils
particularly the developers Council. We were pleased with some of the revisions that
were made and these comments based on the revised Landscape Ordinance assume it
is currently before you.
Borup: And there have been some additional plan revisions again based on last
month’s testimony so those you would not have.
McCaughey: No I would not.
Borup: That’s the ones I may stop you on if these are things that already been tenably
incorporated.
McCaughey: I actually have some written comments but I have not had a chance to
clean them up there still in somewhat of a rough draft form. But I also appreciate the
fact that regardless of what happens here this will be subject to an additional public
hearing at the City Council. We don’t feel particularly pressured at this point. We have
number of reservations about the Ordinance as drafted. Particularly relating to the fact
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 5
that much of the language in the Ordinance is not in Ordinance form its more in
statements of policy and there are a number of vague areas that were concerned about
that would lead to varying opinions of interpretation to this particular Ordinance. We
would like to address those. I think what I will do is just simply go through and if I’m
addressing something that has already been attended to then –
Borup: And that is one of the things Steve the comments from the engineer and most of
that was clean up type language. Some of it was semantics some of it was –
Siddoway: A lot of it was yes.
Borup: Just typos. And was the purpose of that to clarify the same thing Mr. McCaughey
just mentioned so there wouldn’t be –
Siddoway: To take out some of the empty used language.
Borup: Yes well that’s some of that covered.
Siddoway: Yes I don’t know that we have addressed everything that he is concerned
with –
Borup: Well no probably, I guess what I’m saying Richard some of that may have been
handled some what. This was from the individual you mentioned earlier I have forgotten
his name already.
Siddoway: Scott Stansfield of Earl Associates.
Borup: Yes. Are you going to try and hit those –
McCaughey: Rather than numerical. Rather than just run through the lengthy and
wordy. Well go through the draft Ordinance is written.
Borup: That is the easiest way for us to follow to.
McCaughey: Exactly. Although its the written comments I have do sight the specific
sections. I think its not clear sections 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 should be part of the Ordinance
they seem to be more of a background information or statement of intent. It therefore
becomes rather problematic if you incorporate that into Ordinance language. And that is
somewhat of our concern in a number of areas and I will go through them. 3.6
landscape plan preparation, landscaping should enhance that’s not codifible language
that is a statement of intent. Let me state up front we are not opposed to a Landscape
Ordinance. They have worked in other jurisdictions they (inaudible) worked well. Our
problem with this Landscape Ordinance is that it volves (sic) and attempts to codify a
number of design issues which are generally part of design guidelines that will
accompany a brief and concise Landscape Ordinance. For example the City of Boise’s
Landscape Ordinance is about four pages long and it seems it work fairly well over
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 6
there because of the design guidelines that accompany that. It is very difficult in my
work and the public sector and working advising a legislative body, design standards
when you try to put them in Ordinance form is a lot like nailing Jell-O to the wall it is
ultimately fairly subjective. We know what we want to achieve we know what the
development community wants we know what the citizens of the City of Meridian want
and I don’t think they are that far opposed. We want good development and the good
developers are doing I think an excellent job absent a Landscape Ordinance with some
of the newer projects that are going in here in Meridian. One concern we have is, this is
section 3.6, therefore landscape plans shall be prepared by a landscape architect,
landscape designer or qualified nurseryman all landscape plans for sites with a gross
area greater than one-acre must be stamped by a registered landscape architect. That
portion tends to lead me to believe that this is a full employment Ordinance for
landscape architects nurseryman. Virtually all subdivisions now that are in the planning
process or coming up sometime in the future are going to have at least an acre of open
space that must be landscaped to comply with this Ordinance. That means virtually
every subdivision is going to have to employ a landscape architect, which is not the
case now and is not necessarily necessary to achieve the goals, concerned about that.
One thing that was brought up in our discussions this is section 4.3 minimum plant
sizes, shade and ornamental trees two-inch Caliper minimum. I have some nursery
background having once worked for an ex-father-in-law in his nursery. The larger the
plant you are planting the longer the time it spends in kind of shock. And it most
instances a one and a half-inch Caliper tree after 18 months will meet or exceed the
size of a two-inch Caliper tree simply because of the period that it lies dormant
absorbing the shock of being moved and replanted. And it is a cost issue too and the
nursery stock that may be available out there could also be an on-the-ground issue.
Section 4.8 mulch. Plastic weed barriers prohibited under the mulch. I understand this is
common landscape practice I don’t if you are talking about an impervious plastic barrier
or one these kind of mesh-weave type things which allows the moisture to permeate
down through the soil but prevents external weed seeds from germinating. We would
like a little clarification on that. Again going back to Ordinance language verses
statement of purpose or intent for –
Borup: So you are saying under that one – lets maybe take some notes (inaudible) –
you are saying the concern – Steve isn’t the intent there non-pervious plastic?
Siddoway: It is.
Borup: Okay.
Siddoway: That’s why the statement is written that it restricts water and oxygen to the
roots those permeable weed barrier fabrics, they are usually fabrics not plastic they are
a woven fabric and those fabric weed barriers are fine. We just don’t want sheets of
visque being laid down as weed barrier because they are harmful to the trees, the roots
they don’t get oxygen, they don’t get the water –
Borup: So you feel it should say non-pervious plastic, to clarify that?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 7
McCaughey: Members of the Commission, Commissioner Borup yes that’s exactly – we
would like that clarified. Because some of these permeable mesh type things are made
from a plastic product so we could get into a hair splitting issue –
Siddoway: No problem with adding the word impermeable.
Borup: (inaudible) –
McCaughey: I think that was the intent and I think that would help us all out. 4.12
berms, berm slope shall not exceed two-to-one. Three-to-one maximum slopes are
recommended. We’re not sure what that means either you have a requirement or you
don’t. Throwing that language in there then casts a pall over the two-to-one minimums.
Either you have a standard or you don’t and if you want to fudge that standard you
might as well go the stiffer requirement in the first place at least we all know the playing
field that we are on.
Borup: I thought you said earlier it would be better if it was a little more flexible.
McCaughey: If you are talking Ordinance language, members of the Commission and I
think Mr. Nary would agree with me. That you don’t provide a standard and then provide
the fudge room that is vague it says or recommended. Which is the real
recommendation of this Ordinance that then put in codifiable form.
Siddoway: I can answer that.
Borup: Yes why don’t you – I think it will save time if we maybe do this as we go along
Steve.
Siddoway: If there is grass on the berm the maximum is three-to-one as it states in the
sentence after it. We wanted to allow them to go to two-to-one if they were using shrubs
and other things and trying to get a higher slope. A slope steeper than three-to-one are
not mobile. I would be fine with language that just said no steeper than three-to-one.
But when the committee was meeting on this they wanted to give the flexibility to allow
the developers to go two-to-one if they wanted to for example the berms out at Fred
Meyer are at two-to-one with shrubs and they work fine. If you have a two-to-one slope
with grass on it its unmowable especially if its eight feet tall like a nameless subdivision
has. Our maximum was three-to-one for grass and two-to-one for shrubs.
Borup: I think that’s clear so the only to clarify even more is to strike the three-to-one
recommended if you think that’s confusing.
McCaughey: I do think it is confusing members of the Commission. If you are making an
option to account for certain circumstances that are commonly incurred then it should
be spelled out. Again section 4.13 water efficiency lawn areas, where appropriate and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 8
sites where other landscape options can be incorporated and where appropriate who
makes the determination as to what's appropriate. More to the point large is large
expanses of lawn are discouraged. That is not Ordinance language. You either allow
them, allow them under certain conditions specify the conditions under which they are
allowed or you disallow them. Putting the term discouraged into Ordinance form is I
think is problematic. Moving down to section 5 irrigation, 5.3 irrigation water. While there
may be a process in place that I’m intimately familiar with the first sentence use of non-
potable irrigation water is required when determined to be available by the City public
works department. I’m assuming that this is in conformance with your pressurized
irrigation Ordinance and requirements. Is that true? You may want to sight that in the
Ordinance because that gives any developer the reference point to go to see how that
determination is made. Again 5.5 maintenance, we have vague language all irrigation
systems shall be maintained to ensure proper operation and water conservation those
are rather vague terms proper operation and water conservation. If in fact appropriate
language were contained in your irrigation I would again reference it.
Borup: How would you reword that –
McCaughey: I wouldn’t know the chapter and verse of the sections and subsections of
that Ordinance which you would say must be in conformance with section blah, blah,
blah of the Meridian irrigation pressurized irrigation Ordinance.
Borup: Do we have a pressurized irrigation Ordinance?
McCaughey: You are requiring it in subdivisions are you not? Street triangles we really
don’t have to much of a problem with except there might be some vague language in
there about the heights of signs. But I’m not an expert on sign Ordinances so I won’t go
there.
Siddoway: We changed that one anyway.
McCaughey: Section 7 street buffers, 7.2 location. Last sentence no fences are
permitted within required street buffers. Does that mean that couldn’t have a three-foot
fence on top of a berm where it would be appropriate that is a common practice in
development around here. You are saying strictly no fences are allowed what so ever?
Siddoway: That’s correct. It’s meant to keep all fences behind the required buffers so
that entire buffer belongs to the street.
McCaughey: 7.5 hardship, we all understand the notion in common law of hardship and
variances and those things that attend most land use planning rules and regulations.
But this doe not provide any reference to any kind of guidelines for the determination of
a hardship. It simply says its up to the planning director. We in the industry want to
remove as much of that kind of subjective judgement in (inaudible) process already. We
know that its – many issues come up that are subject to determination by the body
considering the application and the more areas you leave vague again the more areas
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 9
of misinterpretation or ultimately the butting of heads over small issues. Its not that I
have any specific recommendation for that but it – we’re a lot more comfortable when
guidelines are referenced or the guidelines are spelled out.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman I’d point out that hardship is defined in the definition section
and they would have to comply with that so those standards.
McCaughey: Get back to that because – fairly vague but –
Borup: Well (inaudible) every one of those is different I mean it’s – normally a hardship
situation is going to be different every time and how do you get non-vague on
something that is different every time?
McCaughey: I would agree, I would feel more comfortable if that was a little more
inclusive definition of a hardship. The one thing that is good in there it can’t be self-
inflicted a lot of people claim hardship when the situation is of there own doing.
Landscaping within right-of-way 7.9, again property owners aren’t encouraged –
Borup: Okay this is one we do have a new paragraph on don’t we Steve?
Siddoway: That is correct this entire paragraph has been taken out and replaced.
McCaughey: Excellent.
Borup: Do you want – have you got that handy on the new wording? Is that in your
memo?
Nary: Actually Mr. Chairman it’s the June 13th
.
Siddoway: Its in the first memo –
Borup: Okay the very first one that’s why I was confused I had it down from back at that
time.
McCaughey: Speaking for the association I would agree with this change it spells out
very clearly what a developer has to do.
Borup: So we’re okay there?
McCaughey: Yes. Again 7.11 berms and street buffers. Language berms are
encouraged but are not required. How does one comply with that as a statuary
requirement I’m not sure again that’s more of language of intent as opposed to
Ordinance language?
Borup: It does make mention to earlier sections.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 10
McCaughey: This is true but once it’s incorporated in this part it becomes Ordinance
language if it’s adopted as such. And to make kind of –
Siddoway: (inaudible) Ordinance that doesn’t require anything. Right is what you are
saying?
McCaughey: It’s the same as a statute the state would pass saying we strongly
discourage armed robbery. You have a tough time enforcing that if that was the
language that was brought into play.
Borup: So the choice either eliminate it or not even – otherwise we’re dictating to a
landscape designer how to design the project.
McCaughey: Honorable members of the Commission I would beg to differ. That’s the
kind of language that does belong in a preface or statement off purpose or intent.
Borup: So move that into the intent section maybe.
McCaughey: I think all of the language that says encourage, should -- those are the
objectives of the Ordinance that your trying to provide incentives and or disincentives
and some strict guidelines that are laid out and enumerated that’s what belongs in the
Ordinance. A statement of intent saying this is goal that we’re shooting for is pretty hard
to codify. And I think Mr. Nary would agree with me being the attorney. We’re not going
to comment on parking lots although I do have some written comments as I represent
the residential construction industry I think I may in fact be stepping on somebody else’s
toes when we get to commercial parking lots. Again section 9.2 responsibility for buffer
construction. A mix of materials fences walls and berms may also be incorporated into
the buffer area. Again the term may you either want them or you don’t want them.
Section C buffer walls, City may require inclusion of. It’s not clear who makes that
determination or what part of the process that determination is made. Section 10
preservation of existing trees, 10.2 site design, site plan shall make all feasible
attempts. Who determines what's feasible and under what guidelines is that
determination made? I didn’t really find much in this Ordinance to back that up. And
10.5 paving wherever possible, again who makes the determination at what point of the
process is that determination made? The statement C compaction its not a standard it’s
a vague statement of the conditions that exist that can result from compaction of soil
there it’s a fairly vague generality.
Borup: Just the first sentence you are saying?
McCaughey: Yes. I’m saying including the language in 10.4 C compaction you’re
incorporating language into an Ordinance that is not Ordinance language its almost
explanatory, its almost preface type material or statement of intent. If you’ll bear with me
what I’m trying to do I think we could pare this Ordinance down by about 50 percent and
make it easier for everybody to understand and everybody to comply with. When we
throw in continue to include vagaries shall, encourage, discourage what you are doing
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 11
you are adopting a statutory requirement that is – the requirements are not clear. Storm
water integration, 11.1 purpose, I understand the inclusion of a purpose in each of the
various sections but those are generally contained in a statement of intent or purpose
prior to the actual Ordinance language. Because again the City encourages again it’s
not a standard. Going down to 11.2 design guidelines again guidelines are something
that would attend a Landscape Ordinance it would give various options and the points
from which negotiations can begin. It says C expansive gravel, I don’t know what that
means what is expansive gravel? Section F ponds that are aesthetically designed with
special grading and vegetative features or the design guidelines. Residential
subdivision trees we don’t really object to this being in there. But I have yet to see a
subdivision where people on there own haven’t gone over periods of time landscaping
their subdivision their own individual property. And that’s (inaudible) by – simply if you
look at a ten year old subdivision verses a one year subdivision and even if they’re built
according to the same subdivision criteria street widths, lot size, placement of
structures. The ten-year-old subdivision is going to look far different than the one-year-
old subdivision. Essentially what your running into here is that the existing residents are
demanding more of the new residents or people who move within the community
demanding more of them that they in fact contributed themselves to the community
betterment. Section 14 residential subdivision common open space. I think this entire
section really belongs in the zoning Ordinance. And I know you will be revising your
zoning Ordinance soon because you’re going to be adopting a new Comprehensive
Plan. The landscaping aspect requirements for open space maybe in a Landscape
Ordinance but this addresses what percentage of land within a subdivision is going to
be dedicated open space. And open spaced defined 14.3. Storm water detention
facilities will not be counted towards the open space requirement unless they designed
in such a way as to provide usable open space as determined by the Planning and
Zoning administrator. In process that’s fine but again no guidelines, no direction
provided to the Planning and Zoning administrator. How would one appeal that
determination? They simply aren’t in this Ordinance. Section 14.8 design flexibility, in
lieu of common open space within the subdivision a fee may be paid to the City equal to
the market value of the land and trees required. Is that the market value of the land
prior to development and the value of the nursery stock that would go there? Or is it the
developed land and fully landscaped? Ordinance is very vague on that point. The fees
shall then be used by the parks department to purchase and develop parkland
elsewhere that serves the subdivision. I would highly recommend that you have your
City attorney look at that section for compliance with the impact fee statute that could
be construed in some legal circles as double dipping. Your in-effect through the cost of
the development process charging the people an impact fee for your parks system and
then tagging on another fee that can be used for public park acquisition and
development over and above their property taxes and the impact fees they have paid.
Which ostensibly the impact fee ostensibly pays the hundred percent of the bite they
are putting on the existing facilities. Could be construed as double dipping.
Borup: So how would you handle that? Eliminate flexibility?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 12
McCaughey: I think – how would I handle – I think this first needs a little bit more legal
analysis because there are some strict provisions in the impact fee statute that address
other fees how they are collected and what they are used for. To supplant as it were
impact fees or to supplant the use of other revenues for the local jurisdiction to meet the
requirements of eliminating of existing deficiencies to bring there service level up to the
standard at which they are basing the impact fee charge. This kind of throws in a huge
gray area and I know we will be consulting with our attorney on this particular issue.
Borup: So your question your issue is on where the fees – the fees going to the park.
Not allowing the flexibility –
McCaughey: Well what this does not state is -- your impact fee Ordinance has to be
very strict in creating your benefit assessment zones and your collection zones. In other
words you can’t collect an impact fee for a park on the East Side of town and use it
exclusively to build a park on the West Side of town where the residents who are paying
the fee have little opportunity to really make use of it. That’s something that must be
incorporated into your own Ordinance. And this may in fact conflict with that because
you are simply stating your saying – under the standards developed under the impact
fee Ordinance for benefits and assessments. This is just vague it really doesn’t hold the
City to anything as to where and when those impounded fees were expended. I’m just a
little uncomfortable with this language.
Borup: I don’t know – how comfortable are you with that Steve?
Siddoway: The intent was to serve the subdivision whether it could be construed as
double dipping I will just leave to the legal department. The – it has language in there
that the fees would be used for land that would serve that subdivision so I don’t know
that it would be used to – for a place across town.
Borup: Yes so definition is how close it has to be to serve the subdivision maybe.
Siddoway: Yes.
Borup: I think the intent here if a developer felt they just did not want to give up any
open space there was an alternative for them.
McCaughey: I don’t disagree with that.
Borup: I think that what intent here is to try to give some flexibility and give another
option. To give another option the money needs to be collected so then maybe the
question is what do you do with the money.
McCaughey: That’s exactly my point.
Borup: And where would it go if it didn’t go to a park?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 13
McCaughey: It should go to parks I would agree with that.
(Inaudible conversation Borup and McCaughey)
Borup: -- open space. I can see what you are saying conflict with the park Ordinance.
But we don’t have an answer. Is that also --
McCaughey: What I am saying is that this does raise some legal questions that I’m not
able –
Borup: The other choice is to not even allowing them any choice and say you will not
have any alternative option.
McCaughey: And I don’t think that’s wise either.
Borup: No.
McCaughey: But I would just like that to be – we’re going to look at it and I would simply
request the City of Meridian have their legal staff look at that in relation –
Borup: If your going to look at it then maybe could propose some options some
alternatives.
McCaughey: We could we don’t just want to be the sayers of nay. If we’ve got some
alternatives –
Borup: You understand what the intent is the intent is –
McCaughey: The intent is good –
Borup: -- make it easier for a developer and serve the people both. Okay.
McCaughey: It is just so easy to run afoul with impact fee statutes. That really pretty
much concludes my testimony. We would be willing to provide essentially what I’ve said
in written form if the Commission would like.
Borup: That is what Mr. Stanfield did he actually gave proposed -- he did propose
language changes didn’t he and that what's you either incorporated on the most part.
Siddoway: Yes he had gone through it and then we met one-on-one and –
Borup: Oh okay (inaudible) -- pretty specific wording. Sounds like – any questions from
the Commissioners for Mr. McCaughey?
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 14
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: Thank you. Mr. McCaughey would it – what I was understanding – you were
saying is that some of the sections that you thought were I guess not written in
Ordinance form. Some of that information though or some of the language in there is
something that is incorporated – like in the City Of Boise in the design standard
because its something that is essentially negotiated between planning design review
between the developer or something like that. Isn’t that correct?
McCaughey: That is correct but a design standard is a policy. There is a policy manual it
doesn’t have the force and effect of law. Where a zoning Ordinance does and this
Landscape Ordinance does.
Nary: So what you are suggesting though is the sections that you pointed out that were
a little fuzzy, the language in them itself wouldn’t be bad in a different format. It just – at
least from what your concern is doesn’t seem to fit as to an Ordinance in trying to either
hold somebody to that requirement or trying to enforce it as law as what an Ordinance
impact would be. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have it, it just needs to be in a different
form.
McCaughey: I would essentially agree. There is a lot of language in the Ordinance that
would be adopted as a code. That really is language that belongs in a statement of
purpose or intent. Most jurisdictions have fairly concise and brief Landscape
Ordinances accompanied by a large policy or design manual. Which are nothing more
than kind of beginning points for negotiations. Its very difficult you know one size does
not fit all. There has to be a certain amount of flexibility. That’s what a design manual
attempts to do although again design it's like nailing Jell-O to the wall.
Nary: I just want to be clear you weren’t necessarily saying we should eliminate those
particular provisions but rather that this is maybe not the format they should be –
McCaughey: That is correct.
Nary: -- incorporated into the City’s –
McCaughey: Absolutely correct. Thank you.
Borup: Any other Commissioners? Mr. McCaughey really I didn’t hear anything you had
any real objection to other than wording and language other than maybe the inch-and –
a half Caliper tree instead of two-inch. Was there –
McCaughey: I think if -- members of the Commission, Mr. Borup -- I do believe for
example if you’re siting irrigation standards and you have an Ordinance in place for
pressurized irrigation --
(Inaudible) Borup and McCaughey --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 15
McCaughey: -- be specifically referenced in the Ordinance that removes any doubt as
to what section of law that were referring to. A corporation by reference legal principle, I
think in some of the areas particularly just jump back here really quickly – one of the
most problematic areas for is I think it was in section 10 open spaced defined. That is
problematic we originally upon reviewing the first draft of this and also it was the same
with the county zoning Ordinance they a flat out prohibition for using any storm water
retention facilities as to be counted as open space. I think shooting ourselves in the foot
here we are facing – Boise is already under the gun, Meridian and the rest of the
Treasure Valley will soon be under the gun to comply with the NPDES requirements. In
other words you will be mandated to retain all storm water on site and yes its perfectly
appropriate that you say you can’t use a whole hole in the ground lined with rocks as
open space it has no value as open space. There are many approaches to storm water
retention that for 95, 98, 99 percent of time present nice grassy open areas that should
be able to count.
Borup: And that’s what we’re encouraging – most of them are doing now presently. I
think – encourage those who are doing it right.
McCaughey: Exactly.
Borup: And you’re saying maybe some more design criteria is that something –
McCaughey: Just the language 14.3 is a little bit problematic to me. (Inaudible)
determined by the Planning and Zoning administrator there is no reference to any kind
of what findings are applicable, what guidelines are in place and how that would be
appealed. It leaves it very open ended and frankly somewhat dictatorial because as this
is written the Planning and Zoning administrator can simply say no period. You submit
your plan and the Planning and Zoning administrator says no and I as a developer
come back and say why and City of Meridian doesn’t have to answer my question. We
don’t like it.
Siddoway: You could appeal that – you could always appeal that decision to the -- you
can appeal anything to the City Council.
McCaughey: You could appeal anything to the City Council what we’re trying to do is set
a process in place where these issues can be resolved before we get to the full tilt
battles. In the City Council – I worked for a City Council they don’t like vague things sent
up to them. They want the details worked out the problems solved and the issues
resolved.
Borup: Really what you are saying here is just more of a defintion of usable open
space?
McCaughey: I do believe it would be appropriate.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 16
Siddoway: I think we could do that by saying – I mean a lot of our standards that we
usually no slopes greater than three-to-one --
Borup: That’s what I was thinking –
Siddoway: -- see the ones that are just gravel and weeds and steep slided slopes, and
those are the ones that are really the problem.
McCaughey: Absolutely and we do not dispute that but the fact is, is that it’s not just
here its nation wide. Were all having to approach this problem storm water retention.
Siddoway: So we could add more specificity as to what would make it usable open
space?
McCaughey: Exactly.
Borup: Okay I think that would answer that. That was probably all that you had on the
specific stuff -- okay thank you.
McCaughey: Thank you.
Borup: I’m not seeing anyone else – oh we do have someone else.
Durkin: I just have a brief comment my name is Larry Durkin my address is 380 East
Park Center Boulevard, and some of you may know me as the developer of the
Meridian Crossroads Shopping Center in Meridian. I’m not a resident of Meridian I’ve
developed a number of projects in this City. I live in Eagle and I also do a lot in Boise. I
would really discourage you from lowering the tree size. It’s a big deal to me. In our
shopping center over here we planted 1600 three-inch Caliper –
*** End of Side One***
Durkin: -- I would suggest before you give that suggestion serious consideration you
have someone that is an expert in trees in this area give you some guidance somebody
like The Land Group. They would -- fairly certain they would disagree with the previous
testimony. We planted 1600 trees the cost difference was not significant the value to the
community is terrific. In Boise we’re doing a center, we planted 500 or we’re planting
500 three-inch Caliper trees the cost isn’t significant. The availability was there and in
Meridian we will doing a center next year were we will be planting 500 four-inch Caliper
trees and we’ve already sourced that material it is available. I think you hear a lot of
developers up here saying don’t do trees, don’t do trees, don’t do trees. If you felt like
going for a ride and looking at my favorite comparison at least from a commercial stand
point. Take a drive over to south east Boise there is a center built with a Shopko store
on Broadway Avenue it was built in 1988 with one-and-a-half inch Caliper trees, good
quality trees but they were one-and-a-half inch Caliper. There is another center right
down the street at Apple and Park Center with Albertson’s and a K-Mart that was
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 17
developed in 1993 with three-inch Caliper trees, just go take a look at that you will
notice a drastic difference. The survivability rate is greater the bigger the tree its much
better for the community. So rather than go down on that I encourage you to go up on
that but certainly would discourage you from changing it from two-inch. And then just an
observation in listening, I have not read the Ordinance the latest draft and I’m not an
attorney but I would – as a developer as a commercial developer and it maybe different
in the residential arena I would encourage flexibility in the Ordinance. We do a lot of
work in Boise; Boise City has a design review department. No disrespect I would rather
– I hate dealing – they’re nice folks they’re well intentioned but you never know what's
going to happen when you walk out of there. I would much rather have an Ordinance
that’s written with flexibility where you can get up in front of a Commission like this and
talk about. But on the other hand if there is a group of people that are requiring it to be
tighter they should go to the Boise City design review. When people say well in Boise
they let you do this, in Boise the sign Ordinance is only four pages and Landscape
Ordinance is only five pages. In Boise you have to go through in many cases and most
of the time you have to go through the design review and conditional use process
where the Ordinance is mute by the end of the meeting. My big thing is trees I think I’ve
testified over the years about it. I encourage you to make them bigger make them more.
That’s it.
Borup: Thank you Mr. Durkin.
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: I really enjoyed your comment especially about we’ve heard from different
developers over the years no trees, no trees. You’ve become a convert. And your
project really shows it with – Commissioner Norton.
Norton: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Durkin what is your opinion regarding a registered landscape
architect as compared to nurseryman or landscape designer?
Durkin: You know in all fairness the projects that we do are a different scope than the
projects that were discussed here. And the scopes of the projects that we do – we just
use a landscape architect. My experience is really minimal in the smaller projects or the
residential projects so I would respect the testimony that I think he may be accurate in
that. But my experience is only in using a licensed landscape architect it’s a lot different
when you’re building a 30 or 50 acre shopping center.
Norton: I appreciate that we’ve had testimony both ways. Thank you. And by the way I
did find Steve’s attached to the 20 pages of minutes.
Borup: Oh Steve’s comments. Okay do we have anyone else who would like to testify
on this? Commissioners oh come on up.
Baker: My name is Dennis Baker 250 South Beachwood in Boise. Amen to size of trees
in the respect of larger trees. Prettier development, better looking development to a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 18
degree larger trees a hard to – if you get two-inch, three-inch Caliper trees your in the
medium range. You get up to five, six and eight Caliper trees the root balls are so big
that they are extremely difficult to keep watered and keep adequate supply on them. I
guess you can drip line them to many don’t realize that and they don’t provide
adequately for them and then you’ve got some very big trees that are dying. So its
takes a lot of real specialized care. We grow our own trees for our own developments
not all of which we use our own trees we buy trees locally and we buy them and bring
them in from the Portland area for our developments most of mine I think Keith would
know Commissioner Borup would know. A lot of the development I do I believe Mr.
Durkin lives in Island Woods. Island Woods and Knorr Channel Center out in Eagle. You
are talking about landscape and requirements for landscape I’ve never run across any
that are more stiff than what they have in Eagle. And the protectionism they try to
exercise there for existing trees and new landscape. I would encourage that you be
specific in some of your requirements. The vague generalities are the first thing the
developer is going to pick up on then there going to have more controversy in
relationship to what the staff is doing and recommending and can recommend and what
your Ordinance and enforcement and teeth can be. As specific as you can get them I
think it really helps a lot. I’ll be testifying here tonight not necessarily in favor or against
a project and at a later date. Again I think what I will say later will be somewhat
germane to would what I would like to speak to at this second. And that is that
separation between existing uses of land more intensive use being industrial and as
you go down to commercial and to high-density residential and other type of uses.
Landscape is probably one of your best mediums for protectionism so as you go
through that protection be sure that in your Landscape Ordinance that address how you
separate zones. Perhaps not only in the type of landscaping and fencing that you allow
and you use or require. But perhaps also and size, the type -- but in the distance that’s
required to separate intense uses. Of course obviously –
Borup: That’s in the Ordinance with the –
Baker: -- your distances required in there – and Keith I have to Commissioner Borup I
have to tell you I have not read this Ordinance. I did not know you were hearing this
tonight so I did not come specifically to testify but when it comes to landscape
something that I feel very passionately -- I have to at least stand up and say the more
the better in almost all cases. I agree with Mr. Durkin up to a degree some of the bigger
sizes the better. I won’t take anymore of your time thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Anyone Else? Do you have any final –
Siddoway: The only final comment I would have in response to the vagueness issue
and those sections of the Ordinance that are intentionally vague to provide that
flexibility I would say that everything all the minimum standards that we want have the
word shall by them. Everything that we put the words should and encourage are things
that we are willing to -- if they didn’t do it then it would be fine from my opinion. I would
leave it to the codifiers as to whether that language belongs in an Ordinance or in a
separate policy document. The language that you have is the language that we want
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 19
but whether it is in the Ordinance or in a separate policy document is irrelevant to me.
As long as the language is there it states what we want all of the shalls are there that
we think should be shalls. Then the ones that state encourage or discourage are just
there as guidelines.
Borup: Commissioners any -- would we like some discussion maybe some back and
forth with Steve. Are there any specific sections any of you feel we ought to discuss a
little bit, Commissioner Norton? I had three written down here.
Norton: Why don’t you go ahead.
Borup: And I haven’t gone back and looked at the one comment on the irrigation under
maintenance and again maybe this isn’t the area the vague – the vague language that
(inaudible) maintain to insure proper operation. 9-1-28 does that get into specifics on
that type of thing or is that something that would need to be added.
Siddoway: I would have to ask Bruce if he has any specifics on the operation and
maintenance of it. I can tell you our intent on it was just simply to have a provision in the
Ordinance that says that they have to keep these systems functioning and keep the
landscaping alive the we required to put in.
Borup: Isn’t that wording in there elsewhere also? Or am I thinking of something else,
sufficient to keep the plants alive or anything of that affect?
Siddoway: No I mean it could be designed properly and then never maintained it was
just a statement in there to say that we expect maintenance of the systems. And if their
systems go down we’ll require them to repair them and make them functional again.
Borup: Do any of the Commissioners feel that needs a little different language there?
5.5 – I think it definitely conveys the intent –
Norton: Put the Ordinance number or what about leaving it out completely.
Borup: Leave that whole section out completely? I think Steve – the purpose right in
there – someone puts in a sprinkling system it may be designed properly and work
properly but if the pumps goes out or if a line breaks or something there is no
enforcement then. There may be somewhere else but this would be – its just saying you
put in you need to maintain it so it keeps working. Whether it needs to be worded
different I don’t know.
Norton: It’s referred to in section 5.1.
Borup: That was my question if that goes into that much detail and that I don’t know.
Looks like we don’t have the answer to that question right now. So really in that 5.5
maybe the only thing that maybe vague is water conservation. I assume Steve that
saying like you have a broken head or something and water spraying all over and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 20
running down the gutter Thais not conserving water. Is that something you think might
work on a little bit?
Siddoway: The section on –
Borup: 5.5 --
Siddoway: I just gave away my Ordinance so you’ll have to read it to me.
Borup: All irrigation systems must be maintained to ensure proper operation and water
conservation.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman I could speak to the conservation issue our Ordinances do
have some tooth in there for excessive use or wasting water.
Borup: So maybe just make a reference to that Ordinance in this section, would that be
applicable?
Freckleton: That would be applicable if the systems were run off of City water. Several I
would say a majority of the systems are ran off of pressurized irrigation system from like
Nampa/Meridian Source. I believe that there are also some state statutes that would
probably kick in as far as wasting water from those sources as well. I’m not sure I would
have to research that. I do believe there is some code on the book but who would
speak to that.
Borup: So really the question is do we need have wording any stronger on this?
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: What I’ve been thinking one of the things– and maybe it was said it at the earlier
meeting and I just don’t recall. Is the City Council is there an expectation that this is to
be before the City Council at any particular date, are they expecting this a their
September meeting? Or something like that or they’re just waiting until this is done and
then they are going to review it next.
Siddoway: They’re expecting it last month, no they were – I don’t know that there is any
particular expectation on City Council’s part as far as the date. I know they’re anxious to
get it but I know they want to get it in proper form.
Nary: It would appear to me one of the things -- I think that Mr. McCaughey has raised
some legitimate concerns that some of the things in the Ordinance may be don’t have
legal significance. I agree with what you are saying Steve it was intended to be that way
it wasn’t intended necessarily to be used as an enforcement tool to pound over a
developer or a homeowners enforcing it through a code enforcement method or
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 21
something like that. I wasn’t intended to do that. I had Mr. Swartley earlier if the City
attorney office had reviewed this Ordinance for legal sufficiency and whether or not they
had concerns and I believe they have not at this point. Is that correct?
(Inaudible)
Nary: Okay.
Siddoway: I have the marked up copy from Bill Gigray.
Nary: Okay. Because one of the things I am going to anticipate –
Borup: I don’t think he heard that.
Swartley: Gigray or Nichols?
Siddoway: Gigray.
Nary: One of the things I would anticipate -- the problem that you sometimes have when
you have an Ordinance that is trying to serve a lot of different things in policy
statements, some Ordinance things that are strict requirements and some of the things
that are meant to be very flexible is that eventually somebody has to make that
interpretation as to what did we mean. Either this body or the City Council when there is
a dispute is going to have to decide what did we intend this to mean and how are we
going to apply this to this particular situation. So I don’t disagree with what you are
saying that it makes sense to have that level of flexibility. What I think probably needs to
be done either by this body in making a recommendation to the Council or making a
recommendation to have brought back before this body. And that’s why I was asking
about a time table, is that I think it would be helpful to have a City attorneys opinion as
to some of these issues on vagaries in the Ordinance as to whether or not that’s going
to be problematic for them to deal with later in trying to make an analysis. Whether we
ask for that or the City Council asks for that I’m going to guess somebody is going to
because they are going to want to know how do we address some of things. Like on
this last one that Chairman Borup has brought up I agree I think there needs to be
something. It doesn’t make sense to design something and then they don’t turn it on the
trees die, the grass dies, the plants die and they have actually complied technically with
the Ordinance. That’s not exactly what anybody wants to have. So we want to have
teeth and to making sure the objectives of this Ordinance is carried out. I think what we
want to though to be sure is that we have the teeth there necessary that we have
language that we can enforce in the future. So whether or not I guess its up to this
Commission do we to ask that be prepared before we recommend this go forward to the
City Council or do we want to make a recommendation to the City Council that we
incorporate these comments. I think Steve has done an excellent job in incorporating all
of the comments and the requests that have been made. But do we want to just push
this forward and let the next level since there’s another public hearing and another
evaluation that’s going to be made of it. With simply our recommendation that that be
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 22
accomplished or do we want to see that accomplished now before we ask that it go
forward. I really don’t have a particular feeling it seems to me the one – and
Commissioner Norton sort of read my mind – I think we still don’t know how to
recommend really so I don’t know how to recommend the landscape architect issue. I
guess I don’t feel very clear that we have a defenseful position that we can state to the
City Council that the reason we said you must have a landscape architect stamp is
because – I’m not sure why. It makes sense in a large development that’s 50-acres
large it may not be as necessary if its two acres or five acres if it’s a ten home
subdivision verses a commercial development. That what it seems to me that it doesn’t
– there is a difference there and there is a reason there is a difference there. I guess
part of what I haven’t heard is did we – we don’t necessarily have somebody on staff to
verify that if a nursery designs this and there is no landscape architect that we internally
have a way to verify that’s going to be viable. Those plants are going to survive those
trees are going to be able to grow in that type of environment and set-up. Would that be
the reason that we wanted a landscape architect because we at least had somebody
who had that expertise, would that be a fair reason?
Siddoway: That’s one of the reasons. The main reason is just the issues on the site that
deal with the interaction of all the utilities, right-of-way, the easements, the interaction
with powerlines the size of the plant or the size that the tree gets. All of there – and I
would dispute as to whether there are really less issues on a smaller site. Potentially
there might be but potentially there could be even more potential conflicts on a small
site. That’s why I gave my own personal opinion in the memo that you have about
wanting to change it to just require it on all plans. Not giving a size stipulation of one-
acre or anything else. I think there is enough issues out there I think that it warrants
requiring plans from a professional the landscape architects are the ones that are
registered and qualified for that. Also it gives the staff and the City some assurity that
these plans are going to function and work properly over the long term. All of those
reasons are the reasons I would recommend the stamp. I also did the research into how
many landscape architects there are I think there were 16 in the phone book. So I don’t
know were just giving a select few a big chunk of work necessarily its line with the other
stamps that we require. That’s my own personal feeling on it I know that it is
controversial so I’ll just state my opinion and let you take as you will. I was going to
respond to one other issue you brought up, what did you bring up before the stamp
issue?
Nary: Simply –
Siddoway: Whether to forward it on to City Council –
Nary: (inaudible) –
Siddoway: I don’t know the proper protocol I would say – if you’re comfortable with the
language and the way it reads in terms of requirements my personal feeling is send it
on. And through the codification process – your recommendation is pull out those things
that – through the legal department or the codifiers who ever that is the things that
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 23
belong more in a policy document out into a separate document. I would be fine with
that.
Nary: Mr. Chairman I had just one other one of the – and I don’t remember the size of
the property so maybe its not a fair comparison. We had before us at our last meeting a
subdivision basically it was a two home subdivision according to this Ordinance – that
was one-acre – all we asked in that particular one was a berm and that they pipe the
ditch that runs next to the property. And that particular person didn’t even want to do
that. He would need a landscape architect to have a grass berm in front of this two
home subdivision. Not that I don’t – I guess I don’t know that that seems frivolous if this
person didn’t want to pay one cent more that what he had to to do what he wanted to.
Say then that he would have to go to a landscape architect and pay even a small
amount which would be three to five hundred dollars I think is a small amount may
seem onerous. I guess maybe because we have wrestled with the lot, maybe one of the
things the Commission may want to consider is at least providing some method of some
way to show that there is some equivalence that’s been done here some evaluation that
been done. Whether its by a nursery whether its by something else at least the
Commission or the Council can look at it and say okay they didn’t get a landscape
architect they explained what the reason was. It is a two home subdivision it is a fairly
small amount of landscaping that is necessary and were very comfortable that the local
nursery has the expertise to provide that. Some way – and then make record of that I
guess the language in there – they can always ask for a variance – but the language in
there allowed that level of flexibility again as we have been talking about. Maybe that
would satisfy because that seemed to be of all the comments we have heard that’s the
one we have heard the most by almost every person as to whether or not that’s the
right thing to do and that’s just one of the sections that doesn’t have any flexibility to it.
Borup: Do we need some clarification on the one-acre? The one-acre size is one-acre
of landscaping is that correct?
Siddoway: It was intended to be one-acre lot size and we were thinking of commercial
and industrial lots.
Borup: So an acre project.
Siddoway: An acre project the question comes up – we hadn’t thought about that acre
size in relation to subdivisions. Then the question is – did come up it did come up later
okay should it be one-acre of landscaping. That was discussed then we (inaudible) –
Borup: (inaudible) not take care of the commercial projects properly.
Siddoway: Right most commercial projects wouldn’t have – most standard commercial
projects that are just Econo-lubes and things like that that go in one lot at a time
wouldn’t have an acre of landscaping on their lot. Their lots are probably two-acres.
Then intent when we wrote the draft that you have was to have most standard lots have
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 24
to get a landscape architect stamp. But those truly small ones and those mom and pop
type stores where we thought it might be burdensome was to give them a way out.
Borup: As it’s written currently that’s not really handled then is it? Or were you looking at
changing that? The one-acre –
Siddoway: Well I was looking at changing it to just all period. That was my
recommendation.
Borup: Any project of any size.
Siddoway: Any project of any size that requires a certificate of zoning compliance a –
Borup: So how does that handle the two-lot subdivision that Commissioner Nary just
mentioned?
Siddoway: Under that recommendation it would have to have one and I agree maybe
it’s onerous. I don’t know where the cut off is we have batted this around for so long.
We went over should it be based on the size of the lot, should it be based on the size of
the landscaping none of those things really were defensible arguments as far – they all
seemed arbitrary cut of points well why one-acre why not two, two why not five, five why
not ten. The size of the lot has little to do with the number of issues on the lot and often
times small lots have as many if not more issues and potential conflicts that need to be
addressed in landscaping than large lots do. Based on that I just recommended that all
required landscape plans to have a stamp. Of course this has no effect on individual
residential lots they can still go to the nurseries and have the designers or have no
design and just do it themselves. This is dealing with developments that require a
certificate of zoning compliance and building permits or a plat or a Conditional Use
Permit.
Borup: Maybe we just need to make some recommendations from here and let City
Council handle it how –
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman
Borup: Commissioner Barbeiro
Barbeiro: For Steve or for Council under the current set-up where a site of more than
one-acre would require a registered landscape architect assuming someone came to us
to have a child care -- in-home child care, six children on a lot that is greater than one-
acre now they would have to have a landscape architect stamp their house? Because
they are coming to us for a Conditional Use Permit.
Siddoway: Yes the way it’s written it would.
Barbeiro: Okay that’s not right not at all.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 25
Borup: Even though we have never had that happen you’re saying –
Barbeiro: But it will.
Borup: Yes it could.
Siddoway: It’s the what-if game and that’s why the Ordinance is so long. It started out
short and then we started playing all the what-ifs and then started adding to it.
(Inaudible)
Siddoway: Yes it was a five-page Ordinance at one time.
Borup: Agree with what?
Norton: About the child care –
Borup: So then maybe we need some legal opinion how to handle those types of
situations. I would assume that would be – that be under the hardship?
Barbeiro: Regardless if whether it was a hardship if someone comes to us to do in
home child care there going to bring this before us and were going to say well you
haven’t done your landscape and they’re going to say what landscape. Well you can
apply for a hardship there is another month we have to go through for something that is
so totally irrelevant to the purpose that they are coming to us for. This is one example of
many that I can give you that a registered landscape architect would be ridiculous under
the circumstances.
Borup: So how do we handle that?
Barbeiro: First off I don’t think that any site under five-acres or a site that has less than
one-acre of landscaping should have a registered landscape architect.
Borup: No difference between a residential subdivision and a commercial project.
Barbeiro: I would prefer that it was considered in a commercial and that residential uses
for instance a child care or an accessory building if they want to build a barn or if they
want to build a separate garage that these don’t apply to the landscape stamp. But the
commercial uses in which the land will be used for profit or business. And that the site is
either larger than five-acres or the landscaping is greater than one-acre.
Borup: For a commercial?
Barbeiro: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 26
Borup: That’s a majority of the projects that come before us would be exempted then. If
you are talking under five-acre projects.
Barbeiro: It doesn’t exempt them from compliance with –
(Inaudible) Barbeiro and Borup
Barbeiro: Because I think your going to find in residential areas as we have discussed
before the CCR’S are generally going to be much more strict than our own Landscape
Ordinance.
Borup: Okay maybe lets come back to this go on to a couple of others that may be
easier.
Barbeiro: Yeah lets go ahead and continue this.
Borup: 14.3 on the use of storm drainage in the open area a comment made that
maybe it be a little better defined. I think Steve mentioned that some language in there
on the slope ratio and the –
Siddoway: (inaudible) language right now. No slopes greater than three-to-one and all
must be vegetated with lawn, trees, shrubs or other ground cover. There’s no open dirt,
gravel things like that.
Borup: That would be enough to get that in there?
Siddoway: Yes.
Borup: Commissioners would that be a recommendation we would want to make?
Norton: I think that’s fine.
Borup: Okay, I’m just trying to move this along. The other one I would like some
discussion on is back to 13 and the letter from the building official on requiring the trees
and the enforcement and the practicality of it. He has the comment I’ve got is the same
one I made last time is that virtually every set of covenants I’ve seen all require trees,
landscaping, shrubs, bushes already.
Barbeiro: I can tell you that 13.2 there must be a minimum of two one-and-a-half inch
minimum Caliper trees per each single family resident if that’s required for instance a
front yard that would be in conflict with the CCR’S in my neighborhood.
Borup: This doesn’t say it has to be the front yard. I think that’s the same way – this is
probably similar to Nampa. Nampa’s just says two trees it can be the front or they can
both be in the back it doesn’t matter where they are. I think that’s the way I interpret this
also because it doesn’t specify.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 27
Siddoway: Any place on the lot.
Borup: Most of the CCR’S are going to require one tree in the front with so many shrubs
etc. there wouldn’t need to be a conflict there right. I‘ve got to agree with Daunts
statement. Have any of the departments wanted to take on enforcing this?
Siddoway: Our intent was to have it to be as simple to enforce as possible going from
Nampas experience. It is fairly labor intensive if the Commission feels comfortable that
enough residential trees are being required this entire section could be removed. The
intent of it was to gets trees in our residential areas. When we were having discussions
with the committee we were talking about – one of the committee members lives in a
subdivision where the CCR’S require the trees but nobody has put them in (inaudible)
enforce it –
Borup: Nobody or some of them aren’t.
Siddoway: Many of them haven’t.
Borup: That must be a newer one and since they came up last time I have started
paying attention as I driven around – its really hard pressed – but I did find a couple that
did not have a tree in their yard but few and far between. I mean on a subdivision that
has been there more than a year.
Siddoway: Based on the enforcement and tracking and the dealing with bonds during
the winter time and the potential complexity of that I wouldn’t be heart broken if section
13 went away altogether. Its just intended to get trees in the residential subdivisions and
if you are comfortable there is enough or enough are being provided just simply through
the CCR’S that are standard today and the question is –
Borup: Look at the old section of town most of the older subdivisions are built without
any covenants and they all have trees. I think most people are going to do it naturally.
Comments?
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman if I may with respect to the people who are here for items three
through ten I would like to continue this discussion to the end of the meeting.
Borup: I think that would be very good – I was thinking of that earlier and I should have
done that. You would be in favor of that? We haven’t closed the public hearing yet.
Unidentified: Public hearings closed.
Borup: Yes it is.
Durkin: Can I just make a suggestion on your stamp I’ve given it some thought I don’t
mean to speak for the whole development community but – I think it might be
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 28
worthwhile to separate that – the commercial requirements from the residential
requirements. I don’t have any residential experience and we have an expert here who
would offer an opinion on that. From a commercial standpoint just remember they are
never owner occupied they’re rarely owner occupied. You use the example of an
Econo-lube that site is 28,000 square feet or 25,000 square feet an acre is 43,560 and
the guy might be as dentist in Omaha. And so its important I think to have a landscape
architect design it, stamp it say its going to work. If it doesn’t and they’re somewhere
else – on a commercial its generally going to be a non-owner occupied. And looking at
what's best for the City for the long run I think for commercial you should – you might
consider always requiring it. And in a residential limit the size. I would have no idea
what size but with commercial I think it’s an insignificant cost to an overall picture. If
they are not willing to spend 350.00 dollars to put have a stamp put on it I would be kind
of concerned about the development. I just wanted to offer that before you closed the
public hearing.
Borup: We appreciate that.
Durkin: I also encourage you to re-do the agenda.
Borup: We’re going to re-do it. Do we want to close the public hearing or just continue it
to the end of the –
Barbeiro: Just move it to the end.
Borup: Okay. Maybe before we – Mr. Baker you don’t need to come up here maybe just
nod your head in some of your residential projects have you always done licensed
landscape architect or a designer? Designer
Baker: (inaudible) not at microphone
Borup: That’s probably a good recommendation and I appreciate Commissioner
Barbeiro mentioning that we probably done this a little earlier so lets move item two to
the end of the meeting and continue on.
Item No. 3. Public Hearing Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.4 acres zoned I-
L for proposed office and shop by Chuck Elliott/Elliott Group, LLC – south
of Fairview and east of Locust Grove on Wilson Lane.
Item No. 4. Public Hearing: Request for Conditional Use Permit for proposed office
and shop by Chuck Elliott/Elliott Group, LLC – South of Fairview and
East of Locust Grove on Wilson Lane:
Item No. 5. Public Hearing: : Request for Preliminary Plat of 5.4 acres zoned I-L
for proposed office and shop by Chuck Elliott/Elliott Group, LLC –
South of Fairview and East of Locust Grove on Wilson Lane:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 29
Siddoway: With your permission Mr. Chairman I would like to combine my comments for
items three, four and five. I believe
Borup: Please Do.
Norton: Three, four and five.
Siddoway: Three, four and five Elliott Industrial Park.
Borup: In fact, Mr. Swartley can’t we open all three of these at the same time also?
Swartley: Yes you can Mr. Chairman.
Borup: I would like to do that then if that is okay with the Commission. We will open
public hearings on items three, four and five.
Siddoway: My numbers on these overheads are one number low because I was going
off of the draft. So Item 3 is proposed Annexation and Zoning of 5.4 acres to light
industrial for proposed office and shop. The proposed location is the hatched area here
Fairview and Locust Grove are the major cross streets. This is where Hollywood Video
is. This is D&B supply is that correct? Yes, Econo-Lube and Elm Tree Plaza is the
project just in front of it along Fairview. It is at the end of I believe this is Wilson Lane
the entire proposed annexation is 5.4 acres. The shot of that project from the south
looking north that is The Elm Tree Plaza in the background there. Item number four is
the proposed Conditional Use Permit for the office and shop on Wilson Lane. You can
see the parking – this will be Wilson Lane here. What you have is a parking area, an
office and shop in the back there is a fenced storage area. This is a site photo near the
south end of the property where the Settlers canal crosses it doesn’t show up very well
in black and white but it runs right in this location through here. The Jackson Drain is
also on the very southern end very much larger drain and you can see it there. There is
an adjacent existing house to the east, this is that house standing on the property
looking southeast. Then item number five is the proposed Preliminary Plat it’s a two lot
plat the first lot being the one we were just looking at for the proposed Conditional Use
Permit and the second lot behind it. You should have staff comments dated July 14.
There has been a response by the applicant there is four outstanding issues. Mr.
Chairman I don’t have the applicants response at my fingertips what I propose is just
have the applicant come up and make their presentation state the points on the staff
comments they have problems with and we can take the discussion from there.
Borup: That would be good I have mine here. I only know there is three items. Well let
the applicant clarify that. Is the applicant here? Okay would you like to come forward?
Nickel: Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission for the record my
name is Shawn Nickel I’m with Hubble Engineering office address is 701 Allen Street in
Meridian. I’m representing tonight Mr. Chuck Elliott for this proposed subdivision rezone
and annexation request and Conditional Use Permit.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 30
Borup: As noted staff recommended approval of all three –
Nickel: That is correct we do appreciate staff’s recommendations.
Borup: -- so I assume you would like to discuss two or three items.
Nickel: That is correct Mr. Chairman there were three items. And we did meet with your
staff several times prior to the meeting and we do appreciate their help on coming to
some conclusions on some of these. The first concern the developer has, he is also in
the audience tonight if you have any questions regarding the Conditional Use Permit.
Under general requirements, general requirement number one refers to the tiling of
Settlers irrigation ditch. In talking with your staff they have indicated that is an issue we
need to bring up in front of the City Council as far as a variance. I would just like to state
our intentions are not to tile that particular ditch. Which is located on the southern
portion of the property right here. It is a flush ditch rather than an elevated. And in talks
with a potential buyer of lot two that ditch would be used as an amenity and aesthetic
attribute to that lot. That’s the reasons for the request of the variance. I do understand
that is a code requirement therefore a variance will be requested by the City Council.
The second issue was under the Annexation and Zoning requirements and that was
item number three which is the construct of a multi-use pathway along the Jackson
Drain on the southerly boundary which is located right here. My client is not in objection
to a pathway there was some confusion by staff because the area out here nothing
really been developed. Staffs not sure which side of the drainage –
****End of Side Two****
Nickel: -- easement and for constructing the pathway we just want a clarification on
which side of the drain. If its going to be on the southern side of the drain it wont be on
our property and therefore there is no need to construct a pathway so that needs to be
clarified by the Commission. The third issue is under Preliminary Plat requirements
number nine that also has to do with the construction of the pathway. Then under item
number ten of that same reference that’s the requirement for 20 foot landscape strip
along the eastern boundary of the property we did in our final application request a
variance to that 20-foot requirement we would like to construct a 10 foot buffer.
Specifically because of the width of this five-acre lot which is approximately 205 feet in
width. We still are going to maintain the ten- percent open spaces required by code but
we wanted to vary from that 20-foot requirement staffs also indicated that is an issue we
need to bring up in front of the City Council. We would like to bring that up in front of
you now and see if you have any comments or suggestions for us on that. The other
issue is also on Preliminary Plat requirements Number 12, that is a requirement for a six
foot high solid perimeter fencing require along the entire western and eastern boundary
of the subdivision. We did meet with your staff I think Steve can address that in more
detail. But we have agreed if we put up the Conditional Use Permit site plan the
applicant has agreed with staff that it would be appropriate to fence the portion of the
western boundary from the back corner of the shop area all the way back to the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 31
southern boundary of Lot 1. I believe staff was going to move the fencing requirements
from the Preliminary Plat for the rest of the property to the Conditional Use Permit. So
when Lot 2 develops the fencing could be handled at that time with the Conditional Use
Permit, which is a requirement on the annexation for any other uses that go in the
subdivision. Hopefully staff can address that in greater detail. The last issue we would
like to bring up was the requirement under site specific requirements number one. That
is for the applicant to pave the entire area of the storage, the entire storage area and
we did address that with staff as well and we believe we can handle that through
condition of approval. The applicant can get together with staff and figure the most
appropriate location for a partial paving. This is future expansion area for the business
that is going on Lot one and so at this time the applicant does not want to pave this
entire area he would willing to do some partial paving around what he will consider his
storage area. He is going to have limited access back there to forklifts unloading trucks
for supplies in that area. Staff could probably address that as well. Those are the issues
we would like to discuss with you tonight. We are in agreement with the other conditions
of approval and be open for any questions you have.
Borup: Anything from the Commissioners?
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: You are asking not to tile the ditch. Will there be vehicles crossing over that
ditch?
Nickel: There will be.
Barbeiro: Okay. You have asked to –
Borup: Was your question will there be vehicles passing over the Jackson Drain, what
was question again?
Barbeiro: The Jackson Drain is the one to the far south there will be –
Borup: Oh the irrigation ditch you are talking about.
Barbeiro: Right.
Borup: I’m sorry go ahead.
Nickel: This kind of gives you a better idea of what that ditch looks like out in that area.
Borup: This is the irrigation ditch not Jackson Drain?
Nickel: Correct this is Settlers irrigation ditch.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 32
Barbeiro: Tell me again why you want to wait and fence the rear until it is developed.
You would prefer not to fence the southern lot until it is developed.
Nickel: The reason for that is because of the area we are in there is a good chance both
the property to the west and to the east could go commercial or industrial in the future. I
think it more appropriate for when that potential property owner comes in to applies for
Conditional Use Permit to see what the area is like and see what kind of buffering
requirements or landscape requirements need to be in place at that time. Rather than
having a fence put up at the beginning of the subdivision – when the subdivision is
platted.
Barbeiro: So there is no reason – my thoughts were that perhaps putting a fence up
early would interfere with the development of the lot. That’s not the case?
Nickel: Say that again.
Barbeiro: Putting up a fence now prior to development of the rear lot would not interfere
with the construction and development of that rear lot.
Nickel: No.
Barbeiro: Okay thank you.
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: Mr. Nickel its looks like you have two open ditches you have the Settler
irrigation canal and you have the Jackson Drain. Are you doing anything else with the
two open ditches that are going through your property?
Nickel: Commissioner Norton the other ditches will be piped, relocated. This is the
Settlers irrigation ditch that we are asking for the variance and that’s the drain back
there. So the other two ditches will be taken care of.
Norton: The other open ditches will be piped. And then my question the staff had asked
the Commission to discuss with you regarding the site-specific requirement about
asphalt and paving I believe that their concern is about the dust the vehicles, your big
construction vehicles or whatever would create for the residents in a close proximity.
Your applicant said he would do partial paving around the storage area. Would those
vehicles then be going further out into block two that would create dust for the residents
at this time?
Nickel: No he is going to completely fence in the storage area within lot one. Lot two
when it develops will be paved the entrance will be paved back and then parking lot and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 33
building will be back there. This is the only area right here that my client has indicated
he is going to need to use for storage the remainder is just future expansion area there
will be no vehicles back there.
Norton: So you are going to fence it I with some type of fence but – I just thought I
heard you say on the eastern boundary at all according to their plans.
Nickel: Only on lot two, lot one will be fenced back to this –
Norton: I see okay thank you.
Borup: Any other –
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: Mr. Nickel you have eluded to the development in the back. Can you tell us
what the intent of the development in the front and the intent of development in the back
is?
Nickel: The Conditional Use Permit for front will be the future home of Butte Fence
which is currently on Fairview Avenue, shop and office obviously parking and
landscaping. Lot two will be for sale and my client has been approached by a
gentleman that operates I believe – actually he is here in the audience if you want to
ask him. He doesn’t own the property yet but it’s a fly fishing supply operation. So he
would actually want incorporate the canal into the landscaping not necessarily – he is
not going to out there fly fishing in the canal but actually incorporate aesthetically the
landscaping of his site. The irrigation district wouldn’t allow get into the canal.
Barbeiro: Thank you.
Borup: Anyone else, any of the Commissioners? Okay does that answer the questions
that – some of the things you refer to staff mat have more comments on were they
indicated you may want to clarify. That what I was going to ask next.
Nickel: We have actually addressed every issue with staff and they have been great
working with – and I think we can come to an agreement on all of them.
Borup: Would we like to have some discussion first?
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman would you like me to respond from staff perspective from the
issues raised by the applicant.
Borup: Yes we would love that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 34
Siddoway: Okay general requirements number one the variance to tiling from a
planning perspective we can certainly see how leaving Settlers ditch untiled could be a
nice amenity its very attractive creek that runs through the property. At the same time
we have to acknowledge the fact that Ordinance clearly states it must be tiled. It doesn’t
meet the Council’s usual requirement for variances of not requiring tiling. They have to
have a pipe of 48 inches or greater. I believe downstream Settlers is piped with a 42-
inch pipe its close but it’s smaller. We simply state that the formal variance has to be
acted on by City Council. This Commission in your motion could make a suggestion
whether or not that should be given or not. Certainly the two open ditches farther north
from Settlers should be tiled and the applicant has no problem with that. Moving on to
annexation and zoning comment number three constructing a multi-use pathway the
issue there is timing and whether or not the applicant should be required to construct
now. We recently required – the copy of the plan first all states that multiple use
pathways to be constructed along the Jackson Drain. Recently Penn Station came
before you one of the requirements of that Conditional Use Permit was to construct a
pathway and that was agreed to in one of the conditions. It is on the south side of
Jackson Drain this property is on the north side of Jackson Drain the question is will we
continue the pathway along the south side or will it cross? I can tell you that further west
at the location of the Fothergill Pathway we have pathways on both sides. We have it
on the Fothergill side and we just recently required a pathway to be constructed on the
other side of the Jackson Drain by Heron Brook Townhomes. There is supposed to be a
pathway plan done when we will see it I don’t know. One potential solution is just to say
that if the pathway plan when it is done shows the pathway an the north side of the
Jackson Drain at the location of Elliott Industrial Park they will be required to build it at
that time. If it is not show then its not required. The other option is to require it now and
then risk of it not connecting or having pathways on both sides. I think that’s enough on
that issue.
Borup: You are saying one option to be show it on the plat with the stipulation that it be
built later when there is more development. Is that what you just said?
Siddoway: Yes I think the applicant is not opposed to constructing the pathway if it’s
going to go somewhere.
Borup: How would that be handled for enforcement if it were done later?
Siddoway: That is an issue I worry about. If the pathway comes out and it shows it
basically then we would have to go to the owner of that lot and say the pathway plan is
now done. It shows the pathway on your side of the Jackson Drain and one of the
requirements of annexation of the property was to construct a pathway if it was
required. It seems a little arbitrary to come in at a future date down the road. I don’t
have a great answer for that.
Borup: Were under a CUP though.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 35
Siddoway: The pathway would not be on the lot that has the CUP. The CUP lot is lot
one, which is farther north; the Jackson Drain easement is lot two, which is further
south.
Borup: So that is something that could be handled –
Siddoway: Potentially it could be handled in the development of lot two.
Borup: And is lot two development being under CUP?
Siddoway: You could require it as a condition of the annexation and zoning.
Borup: So then we could handle it that way?
Siddoway: Yes.
Borup: Which – does that make any sense Commissioners? If its under CUP it could be
on the plan stated that in the future if the pathway is on their side then there is
somewhere to connect whatever requirements then be done at that time. Which would
ensure it be done without necessitating doing it now or even bonding for it. I think.
Barbeiro: That works.
Siddoway: Preliminary Plat requirement number nine is the same issue and then is the
same issue. Then Preliminary Plat requirements number 12 deals with the fencing. This
requirement first of all should be moved to the Conditional Use Permit not requirement
of the plat. In my conversations with Brad Hawkins Clark he had recommended only
requiring the fencing as described by the applicant along the east boundary from the
rear of the building to the back of lot one. And then finally site specific requirement
number one that deals with the paving. We feel we can modify that wording to say
rather than having the entire storage area require to be paved that the drive aisles shall
be paved in the areas where they are actually storing the materials can be left gravel.
But the areas that are constantly being accessed by the forklifts and such be paved so
that the dust would be kept down. We would require them to come through with a plan
that shows drive aisles and storage areas where they are pulling supplies from and
have those aisles paved –
Borup: (inaudible) discussed with the applicant that will work for them?
Siddoway: Yes. That’s all I have.
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 36
Norton: Steve number 10 regarding the 20-foot buffer. You went from number 9 to
number 12.
Siddoway: Number 10, that’s a tough for me. 20 feet is what is required by the
Ordinance. It is a long narrow lot I believe lot one is 175 feet wide lots one and two the
entire is 200 and something. The question is 20 feet a hardship. Having it reduced to 10
feet will require a variance. The Commission should include in your motion whether a
recommendation to City Council whether or not to support the variance. You have the
proposed site plan in front of you the question is it adequate. Ordinance says that it is
not adequate the question is. Is there a hardship based on the width of the lot to cut that
in half to 10 feet?
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: Is it required we make a recommendation as to whether or not a variance should
be granted?
Siddoway: Its not required, no.
Borup: Steve increasing – the 20-foot buffer would not necessitate any change on the
building location or anything else would it?
Siddoway: I do not know. I think the area east of the building may include a drive aisle.
Borup: No I clarified that earlier and it did not. Looks like the only that would interfere
would be the entrance. I guess Commissioners maybe what I’m thinking of if they apply
for a variance the City Council would handle that anyway. But one option would be 10
foot at the entrance where the driveway entrance is. 20 feet where the building is not
going –
Nary: Mr. Chairman the only concern that I would have is that we have closed the public
hearing and we really have not had evidence as to why there is a hardship. I think
looking at the site plan we can guesstimate what those are. We have kind of done both
taken testimony and making a recommendation we’ve also not taken testimony and let
the City Council decide. It doesn’t seem like me have a very clear record to send to the
City Council if we were to grant this without really reopening the public hearing and
putting testimony on as to why there is a need for a hardship here and why a variance
is required. We can send it forward to them without really comment they still have to
make the ultimate decision anyway.
Borup: That would be appropriate for this then is no comment on that item is that what
you are saying?
Nary: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 37
Borup: Anything else we need to discuss?
Barbeiro: Where was the note about the fencing?
Siddoway: Its number 12 under the Preliminary Plat.
Barbeiro: Thank you. And the applicant has request a variance on the fencing or is that
something we are taking care of here?
Borup: My understanding is they’re talking about fencing – this is essentially a two-
phase project. Were looking at both lots they’re proposing to fence lot one, which is
what will be developed at this time. And lot two would be later.
Barbeiro: Since we are going to include lot two as part of annexation it would be an
additional Conditional Use Permit that we would come back then –
Borup: If it’s under Conditional Use Permit on lot two then yes.
Barbeiro: Okay thank you. Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: I wish to make a motion to recommend to City Council item three request for
annexation and zoning for 5.4 zoned I-L for proposed office and shop by Chuck
Elliott/Elliott Group, LLC. Since this is annexation I may need some assistance here as
to the discussion of lot two. Would it be part of annexation and zoning that we make lot
two a Conditional Use Permit? That would then make lot two an additional Conditional
Use Permit and include all staff comments. With the note of the pathway along the
Jackson Drain be addressed in the Conditional Use Permit process for lot two.
Nary: Commissioner Barbeiro right now only asking for the motion for the approval of
item three?
Barbeiro: Yes.
Nary: Second.
Borup: Motion second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Borup: I didn’t ask for any discussion did anybody have any? We got the ayes.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman I wish to recommend approval to City Council request for
Conditional Use Permit for proposed office and shop by Chuck Elliott/ Elliott Group,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 38
LLC. And that we do not send any recommendation to City Council concerning the
variance of the setback.
Borup: I think that was the only issue. Commissioner –
Swartley: Steve made a comment regarding condition 12 under the Preliminary Plat he
thought that should be moved to the Conditional Use Permit is that correct Steve? I
would suggest perhaps including that in your Conditional Use Permit motion.
Barbeiro: Okay we are talking about the six-foot high fence?
Swartley: Six foot high fence yes.
Barbeiro: So then fence will be our recommendation that only encompass lot one. Is
that the way we were pursuing that? The fence under lot two would be under the
Conditional Use Permit –
Borup: Yes that is my understanding –
*** End of Side Three ***
Swartley: Commissioner Barbeiro did you mention with staff comments too under the
Conditional Use Permit.
Barbeiro: No but thank you very much. Including staff comments thank you.
Nary: Second.
Borup: Any discussion?
Norton: I have some discussion regarding the site-specific requirement that would also
be under the Conditional Use Permit regarding paving to pave the drive aisles. It would
be partial paving and paving drive aisles with the storage aisles being graveled. Does
there need to be more comments regarding which staff comments are included under
your first motion the annexation comments the second motion the comments under the
Conditional Use Permit?
Barbeiro: My intent was would defer it to Council. Staff comments for annexation and
zoning would be the comments on annexation and zoning. Is that customary?
Swartley: Commissioner Barbeiro I have no idea what you just said.
Borup: (inaudible) staff comments on this (inaudible) –
Swartley: Yes but Commissioner Norton was referring to site-specific requirements
under the conditional use requirements not to the annexation and zoning requirements
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 39
site-specific comments. So why would you want to include the annexation and zoning
requirements?
Norton: That was just my comment because I know that sometimes it hard to type up
these – information.
Swartley: Why don’t you amend your motion to state that you approve with staff
comments with the addition of the comment 12 to the Preliminary Plat requirements and
address Commissioner Norton’s concerns with the site-specific requirements under the
conditional use requirements. I don’t know what you guys want there so I can’t speak to
that. I don’t believe you need to include the annexation and zoning requirements in this
motion.
Barbeiro: Okay Commissioner Norton can you –
Norton: Just to repeat the site-specific number one. That asphalt and paving be partial
paving to pave the drive aisles only.
Barbeiro: Okay and I would wish to amend my motion then to include as Commissioner
Norton has requested site-specific requirements item number one for the allowance of a
partial paving. Under the Preliminary Plat requirements number 12 discussing the six
foot high solid perimeter fence. That this fence would be required only around the
perimeter of lot one and that the fencing for lot two would be addressed in the
Conditional Use Permit process for lot two at a later date.
Nary: Would it be easier so that we wouldn’t have to revisit this issue because the CUP
would be on going that simply what we would require is that all areas used for vehicular
traffic must be paved. So as they develop the rest of the property then – whatever they
use for vehicle has to be paved –
Swartley: I know this is only your third meeting but we do not do things easier.
Nary: Then we wouldn’t have to revisit it is what my thought was. That simply the site-
specific requirements said that area used for vehicular traffic shall have asphalt paving.
That allows them now to only use it for the partial and then requires it in the future as
they develop it further.
Borup: I like that.
Barbeiro: I would wish to add Commissioner Narys comments to my proposal.
Nary: I then reconcur with the second earlier.
Borup: That was all part of our discussion wasn’t it?
Barbeiro: We have a motion undecided.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 40
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman I wish to propose a recommendation of approval to City Council
item number five request for Preliminary Plat of 5.4 acres zoned I-L for proposed office
and shop by Chuck Elliott/Elliott Group, LLC. To incorporate staff comments and to
incorporate our comments and our motion for annexation and for the Conditional Use
Permit. Is there anything else in addition to that?
Nary: I guess to be consistent we will be deleting 12 from this Preliminary Plat
requirement since it’s been included in the CUP.
Swartley: That’s correct.
Barbeiro: I wish to include that from Commissioner Nary that we delete from the
Preliminary Plat requirement staff comment number 12 in this recommendation.
Norton: And staff comment number nine the pathways would go with lot two when that
this sought a Conditional Use Permit.
Barbeiro: I will include that item number nine with regards to the pathway along Jackson
Drain deferred to the Conditional Use Permit for lot two at a later date.
Nary: I second.
Borup: Motion second any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman before we do that would you object to a short recess.
Swartley: Before we do that Mr. Chairman may I suggest that see if Ron Leslie is here.
Okay may I make a suggestion on that then on the variance?
Item No. 1. Tabled from July 11, 2000: Recommendation – Vacation of public
utilities, drainage and irrigation easement along common lot line between
Lots 23 and 22 of Block 10, Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 6 by Ron Leslie:
Borup: I would suggest the Commission either recommends denial of the vacation of
the easement or once again tables it asking for more specific comments. Because we
can’t go on what he wants to do he’s asking for a lot line vacation which this
Commission can not do. I suggest we get another item out of here and the Commission
does that. And then we take a break. That’s just a suggestion though.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 41
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman I wish to move that we table item one the recommendation of
vacation of public utilities, drainage and irrigation easement a long the common lot line
between Lots 23 and 22 of Block 10 The Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 6 by Ron Leslie to
our next regularly scheduled meeting of August 8, 2000.
Swartley: Would the Commission like to ask put on the record what it wants from the
applicant.
Borup: Yes that’s just what I was going to recommend.
Barbeiro: I apologize I am not familiar with –
Nary: What I would since Commissioner Barbeiro started the motion all we simply ask
for more clarification from the applicant as to what he is seeking this Commission to
recommend to the City Council either in person or by letter. And whatever the staff feels
is the most appropriate method either by letter to the applicant or simply a phone call.
But we need more clarification the further information received was a list of the
address’s within 300 feet. They still haven’t provided enough information as to what
he’s really seeking. If I could simply amend the beginning of Commissioner Barbeiros
motion.
Barbeiro: We’ll accept that amendment.
Norton: I second that motion.
Borup: Motion I second, all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Borup: Okay you had said a short recess?
Barbeiro: Yes please.
Borup: Lets do that right now.
Recess at 9:08 p.m.
(Meeting reconvenes at 9:23 p.m.)
Borup: Yes we would like to reconvene our meeting
Item No. 6 Public Hearing request for annexation and zoning of approximately 7
acres RT County zoning to R-8 proposed LDS Church by Quadrant
Consulting Inc.:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 42
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners this is a proposed annexation and zoning
the lot is seven acres its in a hatched right area it is south of Overland Road and on the
east side of Locust Grove. The front of the property is on Locust Grove. The project has
already received a Conditional Use Permit from Ada County and is currently under
construction. Here is a site photo taken last week of the construction that is currently
taken place. They petitioned City Council to get hook up to City water and sewer one of
the conditions for that hook up was that they annex to the City. So this is the application
to take care of that. Here is another site photo from the northwest looking down at the
building that’s Locust Grove in the foreground. You have our staff comments I believe
the applicant has no objection to any of them so with that I am done.
Borup: Is the applicant here this evening? Would you like to come forward?
Stewart: My name is Warren Stewart I work for Quadrant Consulting at 405 South 8th
Street, and we have reviewed the staff comments and have no objections to any of
those. And we do accept them.
Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Okay Thank you. Do we have anyone
here who would like to testify on this application? I see none, Commissioners?
Nary: I move to close the public hearing.
Norton: I would second.
Borup: Motion second to close the public hearing all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Borup: Do we have a recommendation?
Norton: Mr. Chairman
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: I would like to make a motion to recommend to City Council the request for
annexation and zoning of approximately seven acres from RT to R-8 for proposal LDS
church by Quadrant Consulting be approved with all staff comments included.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
Borup: Motion is second any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Borup: Any opposed? Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 43
Item No. 7 Public Hearing request for Conditional Use Permit for the Family Center
of Meridian for an Arby’s restaurant with a drive-thru by Bailey and
Company.
Borup: Mr. Siddoway.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners this is a Conditional Use Permit for Arby’s
at the Family Center, which wraps around Crossroads. This area cross-hatched is the
lot that it is on. The actual pad site for Arby’s is in that location there. The Family Center
as you know already has a Conditional Use Permit but one of the conditions of that
permit was that any use that came through with the drive-thru had to have a separate
Conditional Use Permit. Arby’s is asking for drive-thru. Therefore you have a
Conditional Use Permit for the application. These are some site photos of the site
currently this is the pad site as seen from Eagle Road. That is the Sheplers building in
the background that is currently being constructed. Shopko is around the corner. This is
a site photo taken from the entrance off of Eagle Road this again the pad site. There
are existing parking stalls that have been provided. The proposed pad site modify that
with the drive-thru coming down this way and wrapping around back out as you can see
in your site plan. Again this is the third view of the pad site looking southwest you can
see the Blue Cross building in the background on the other side of Eagle Road. This is
the proposed site plan they currently have this entrance off of Eagle Road the drive-thru
loop would then follow this pattern here. You have our staff comments. I would make
one amendment to the first item in regards the ACHD letter that says they have
exceeded the allowance for 450,000 square feet that was required for the Family
Center as a whole when the required road improvements to the intersection of Fairview
and Eagle Road had to kick in. The only amendment I would like to make to that to
current wording after talking with the applicant and Larry Sale at Ada County Highway
District. It says shall not be approved until the improvements are complete and then just
add otherwise approved by the Ada County Highway District. They are actually working
on some bonding where they can bond and begin construction and still allow release of
these building permits. That would be the only addition to the current wording I would
make and with that I will stand for any questions.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Siddoway? Is the applicant here?
Durkin: My name is Larry Durkin my address is 380 East Park Center Boulevard, Boise,
Idaho. I am with Dakota Company. I am here tonight on behalf of Developers Diversified
Reality and Arby’s. We have read the staff report and with the modification that Steve
referred to we are in equal support of all the provisions in the staff report.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Durkin?
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 44
Nary: Mr. Durkin the way I’m looking at that where the drive lanes the drive-thru around
there is the stacking for that going end up being in the parking lot or around that corner
in the Eagle Road entrance?
Borup: I believe the window is on the south side so the stacking would be clear around
the whole building. Is that correct?
Nary: I understand –
Durkin: I have the big blue line drawings here let me just a dot on this aerial so
everyone can see. If you want verification I do have the bigger plan.
Nary: Oh that’s okay I was just curious as to where the traffic is going to end up being.
Durkin: That is the drive-thru window so the traffic comes in on the north side. Comes
around the building.
Borup: Any other questions, anyone?
Nary: Mr. Chairman I did have one more question I guess for Steve I neglected to ask.
What is the nearest residence to that location? Do you have any guesstimate to how far
way away the residences are?
Borup: Has far as you can get.
Nary: It seems like the lot is pretty large. Do you know Mr. Durkin?
Durkin: I will just show you a small diagram here.
Nary: There is actually a building between this site and these homes so we don’t have
another issue there.
Borup: Building is already there.
Durkin: No it is not. Actually the one that is straight in the sight line isn’t there yet.
Nary: But that is part of the overall build out there will a building to buffer those homes
from traffic, noise, lights all that stuff.
Durkin: Yes.
Nary: Okay. Thank you that’s all I have.
Borup: Anyone else? Thank you Mr. Durkin. Do we have anyone here who would like to
testify on this application? I see none.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 45
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman I move to close the public hearing.
Norton: I second.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman I make a motion to recommend approval to City Council for
request for Conditional Use Permit for the Family Center at Meridian for Arby”s with
drive-thru by Bailey Company and TFCM Associates Limited with staff comments and
the note Steve made this evening.
Borup: The amendment to –
Norton: I would like to clarify that a little further and because I like Arby’s so much. Just
to clarify for the staff comments. It was site-specific comments on page two of staff
report it was number one. It refers to Ada County Highway District to the very end of –
the last sentence starts no building permit shall be issued for the project until all ACHD
requirements improvements are complete comma and these are added words unless
other wise approved by ACHD period. And I would second that.
Barbeiro: I will accept Commissioner Norton’s amendment to my motion.
Borup: Okay more of just a clarification to your motion. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Borup: Thank you. Would we like to open all three of theses at the same time again?
Item 8. Public Hearing: Request for Annexation And Zoning of 10.19 acres
from RT to R-4 for Proposed Wilkins Ranch PUD by Steiner
Development – South of Ustick and East of Black Cat:
Item 9. Public Hearing: Request for Conditional Use Permit for proposed
Wilkins Ranch PUD by Steiner Development – South of Ustick and East
of Black Cat: Recommend Approval
Item 10. Public Hearing: Request for Preliminary Plat of 10.19 acres from RT to
R-4 for Proposed Wilkins Ranch PUD by Steiner Development – South of
Ustick and East of Black Cat:
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners these three applications for Wilkins Ranch
are located generally south side of Ustick Road west of Black Cat. Dakota Ridge
Subdivision is east of the proposed subdivision and Lakes at Cherry Lane currently
exists to the south. This empty lot here is a future school site. The proposed Preliminary
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 46
Plat before does not incorporate this entire crosshatched area although the hatched
area shows the full area of build out. The Preliminary Plat includes roughly that area; I
will show you a specific layout of that plat shortly. For reference all the photos I am
about to show you are taken from a location at this corner of the proposed subdivision
this I believe is Naomi and Ustick so from that corner looking west along Ustick this
being Ustick Road there is an existing structure here. This gives you a view of most of
the site standing at that same corner looking southwest directly in the proposed
subdivision. This is looking almost straight south along Naomi the school site is directly
behind it in this area right here. And this is the existing Dakota Ridge Subdivision to the
east of the proposed Wilkins Ranch Subdivision. Here is the proposed Preliminary Plat
of the site takes access off of Naomi and comes in this way. You have Shari’s staff
comments. There were a couple of issues that I need to cover. Okay just for clarification
this proposed plat is called Wilkins Ranch Village the subdivision that wraps around it
will be called Wilkins Ranch. I guess for clarification sake we are acting on Wilkins
Ranch village tonight. The first item I would like to point annexation site-specific
requirement number two there is an existing mobile home that is being illegally used as
a sales office that needs to be removed. We have just received tonight a response from
the applicant they are stating that they will comply with that; we just want to note that for
the record. They are requesting a reduction this is under Conditional Use Permit
requirement number two. The applicant is requesting a reduction of the required 1400
square foot house size in an R-4 zone to be able to construct some 1100 square foot
homes. Just for the record that will require a variance to the City Council. Those are the
main issues I need to cover if the applicant brings up others I would be happy to
respond to them. That’s all I have at this time.
Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners?
Norton: Mr. Chairman I have a question for Steve regarding R-4 zoning it looks like it
should be – it looks like this subdivision should be only be 40 lots instead of 48 lots if its
R-4, is that correct?
Siddoway: That’s correct.
Norton: They want more lots per acre more than what the R-4 states?
Siddoway: They are trying to petition for a bonus density as a planned unit
development. I am just reviewing the applicants’ response for a moment. They are
asking for a bonus density in response to the 1.09-acre pocket park they are locating
centrally in the development. The bonus density according to the planned development
standards say that shall not exceed 25 percent. The question is the interpretation of that
25 percent is it if you have 10 acres in R-4 you can have 40 and another 25 percent on
top of that and 48 in is compliance with that. The general interpretation of this bonus
density is based on lot size up to 25 percent reduction in the 8000 square foot minimum
lot size. I do not know off hand if the proposed lots would be in compliance with the 25
percent reduction from an 8000 square foot lot size I defer to the applicant on that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 47
Norton: Just one more question for you Steve. According to your comments and
according to their blue lines that they submitted R-4 standard minimum house size is
1400 square foot they are proposing 1300 square foot. And now they’re notes that we
just received are saying 1100 square foot house, is that right?
Siddoway: That is correct.
Norton: So they keep making the house go smaller, smaller, smaller.
Siddoway: I will let the applicant respond to that one.
Norton: Okay.
Borup: I think they proposed 1100 to start with. There was some confusion there
application said 1100 but the plat said 1300.
Norton: Okay thank you.
Borup: Any other questions for Steve? Is the applicant here, would you like to come
forward?
Arnold: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission for the record Steve Arnold
Briggs Engineering 1800 Overland Road, Boise Idaho. I apologize for the confusion
with the 1100 and 1300 that was part of our error we had some mixed signals. We had
originally thought we were going to go in with 1300 square foot minimums. Our client
has expressed – and there was some confusion between our client and ourselves. Our
client wishes to have the ability to provide for a mix use within this development and
allow per square footage less than 1400. I apologize for that confusion. Basically what
were proposing tonight is a 48 single-family dwelling unit under the R-4 zone. Our
interpretation of that is, you are allowed to do 40 single-family dwellings units or lots
within 10 acres. Because we are providing a one acre pocket park that allows us under
the provision of the City Ordinance 12-6-6 to go on for density bonus. The density
bonus of 25 percent we could come with 50 lots as we interpret it as we have
interpreted in the past. With 48 lots that’s only a 17 percent density bonus. The
applicant is – see along our site plan we are providing extensive landscaping both along
Ustick Road and the internal collector. Which will be constructed again with Wilkins
Ranch not -- this is the village. The standard requirement along Ustick Road and arterial
is 20 feet we are providing 25 feet try to give this development a little extra buffering
between the arterial and the lots. We are providing 20 feet buffering along the internal
collector also along the road that leads back into the school trying to buffer again the
use that were anticipating the school -- they are generally are high generators of traffic
so we would like to buffer this development against that site. The interior entrance going
into the site we are planning extensive landscaping. I don’t know if you are familiar with
the Lakes at Cherry Lane out on to Ten Mile Road with the waterfalls and the trees and
all the landscaping as you go into the entrance there. Our client is proposing a similar
type of entrance into this site. What we are proposing is consistent under the R-4
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 48
zoning with the density bonus. R-4 allows for 4 units per acre which is 40 lots our net
density right now is 4.71 units per acre or lots per acre. Again with the density bonus we
could have increased that up to 50 but we are trying to keep it down to 48. We are
again providing the park to allow for that density bonus. To give you a brief history of
this project before what you are seeing tonight we had proposed and approved by the
Planning and Zoning – we had a net number of lots of 69 lots that was approved by the
Planning and Zoning. Again we went in for the density bonus with a pocket park in the
middle we have reduced that by 48 lots. Our client feels this more marketable aspect for
the entire development. He’s also developing The Lakes at Cherry Lane No.9, Wilkins
Ranch, Wilkins Ranch Village and all the other Lakes Cherry Lane No. 9. Wilkins Ranch
No. 1 which was back before the Commission some time ago was originally approved
with 103 lots. The revision that was back before the Planning and Zoning Commission
was for 79 lots. The Lakes at Cherry Lane again was originally approved for 61 lots. It
got modified and came back before the Planning and Zoning Commission for 44 lots
total net reduction is this entire site that was originally approved is 62 lots. So we are
bringing the density down quite a bit from what we originally had approved. The reason
we are asking for the density bonus in this area is we feel the marketability for these
type of lots, that are not that many of them here in the City of Meridian. We are trying to
provide for some sort of mix use within this area of development try to give the people
that don’t want these large lots that don’t want their Saturdays and Sundays mowing
and taking care of the yard. The opportunity for smaller lots we also want to provide for
a mixed type of housing not everyone wants large houses to take care of. You have
retirees you have new starters people that don’t need large houses. Granted were not
going to make every house in there 1100 square feet. We just want the ability to do
1100 square foot homes on a few of the homes. Basically I think the perception of the
smaller lots and the smaller homes is that you are not going to get a quality
development that somehow you are going to get run down future slums within this area.
I can tell you with the amount of money spent with the entrances with the landscaping
with the school site we have to the east we’re not going to let builders go in there and
build dumps. We can’t afford it. The landscaping that went into The Lakes at Cherry
Lane fronting off of Ten Mile was upwards of around quarter-of-a-million dollars. Similar
landscaping is going to applied off of Ustick Road here. It just does not pay for us to
allow something to go in their that will not sale or will detract from the lots. To the south
The Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 9 we’re having 200,000 to 300,00 dollar homes
somewhere in the middle we’ll have 140,000 to 200,000 dollar homes. We are hoping to
start these homes at 120,000 within this 10-acre parcel. We are using the pocket park
to market these lots to try and get a greater return out of them. Our other option is that
we can go with the 8000 square foot lots we don’t get a good mix within this
development we don’t create a mixed development or mixed community. And frankly
you don’t give the different buyers the options of what they want to buy. We are asking
the Commission approve this development with the density bonus. There are some
interpretations how that density bonus is applied. The staffs report that Shari submitted
to the Commission she recognizes that. We have believed that the density bonus
applies to the entire parcel. Correct or incorrect? We would like the Commission to
approve that with this site. Sometimes not always bigger is better we have talked about
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 49
trees and larger things tonight we believe that providing the option of smaller lots within
this site will be a better solution for this development. I stand for any questions.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Arnold.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: Mr. Arnold you have used the term mix use and varieties of homes and things like
that. Is there any variety of homes here; are their townhouses, rowhouses anything
other than just single family homes?
Arnold: Mr. Chairman Commission Nary, no in this development they are all single
family dwellings. When I use mixed use, the mixed lot sizes allowing for a mix of house
sizes a mix of so to speak of socio-economic classes that we can buyers that are first
time home buyers, retirees, people who don’t want large yards, the ability to buy within
the subdivision. And we think we’re marketing not just a lot but we’re marketing a
development. And in order to market that development you have to provide your
customer a variety. So no there isn’t multi-family, it is all single family dwellings.
Nary: But you are saying variety what you are offering basically is a park that over about
one acre some landscaping on the entrance and the rest are just single family homes
varying in size up to 1300 square foot and most of them are going to be 1100 square
foot homes?
Arnold: Mr. Chairman Commissioner Nary, allowing 1100 square foot homes but they
will range 1100 and 1400 plus.
Nary: Thank you.
Borup: Any other questions? I was curious you had stated the project had been
approved previously. Was that with drawn? It never made through annexation? T is the
situation there?
Arnold: Mr. Chairman I’m not exactly familiar with that I recently had became –
Borup: How do you know we approved it previously then.
Arnold: Through the client.
Borup: Okay. Your are not sure the City Council approved it then?
Arnold: No I’m not sure that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 50
Borup: Somewhere along the line it dropped out if we’re still here for annexation.
Arnold: I know at the highway district where we I did come from I gave the client quite a
bit of grief I didn’t like the design of the roads. I know that had quite an impact on his
redesign.
Borup: On the first project.
Arnold: On the first project. Its ironic –
Borup: We may be able to get an answer to that I was just curious how far the first one
went.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman there was a conceptual plan that was for this, I have seen it. It
did have lots that double frontage you know roads on both sides of the lot. It was
though taken out of the plat for Wilkins Ranch left out so it has not been annexed and
zoned. But there was a conceptual plat that was done for the lot at one time. What
Bruce has is the plat for Wilkins Ranch that leaves that section out.
Borup: That part was left out.
Siddoway: Yes.
Borup: That’s why I ask I didn’t remember approving that.
Arnold: That might be my confusion I apologize –
Borup: -- a much earlier one I don’t think it went very far. Any other questions?
Arnold: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Yes.
Arnold: There were a couple other issues we were addressing one of which we are
going to be requesting a variance of the minimum lot frontage from 80 feet down to 52.
Borup: Right. Is that part of your 25 percent; is that another 25 percent reduction?
Arnold: That is a part of the 25 percent reduction trying to get the smaller lots in there
you can’t unless you built them –
Borup: No I was being a little facetious. 25 percent reduction 80 feet would be 60.
Arnold: That’s correct.
Borup: That’s the conflict in the two zonings I mean in the reduction.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 51
Arnold: In the Ordinance.
Borup: I don’t know if it’s a conflict in Ordinance but it’s a conflict of interpretation of the
density reduction.
Arnold: And then finally was the block way. The block way is measured the entire route
around here it exceeds the 1,000 foot it approximately 1,800 but we are providing micro
paths within the exceddence. One down here (inaudible – stepped away from the
microphone) pathway between.
Borup: Any other questions?
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: Mr. Arnold can you tell me please where you picked up anywhere in our
Ordinances the allowance for the placement of a house under 1400 square feet in a R-4
zone?
Arnold: Mr. Chairman Commissioner Barbeiro, we did not that is why we are asking for
the variance. We are trying again to get a mix of size of houses in there.
Borup: That was one of the questions I had in my notes. Was there any discussion on
asking for an R-8 zone?
Arnold: No Mr. Chairman there has not been.
Barbeiro: Because in there is no opportunity to down size an R-4 although in an R-8
and an R-15 that is allowable by percentage’s.
Borup: Are you saying the Ordinance doesn’t allow for density reduction in an R-4?
Barbeiro: No a home size reduction. There is no allowance in our Ordinances for less
1400 square feet in an R-4 only in an R-8 and an R-15 they go down to 1000 square
feet, 1100 square feet, 1200 square feet by percentages. As much as 50 percent of an
R-8 can be less than 1300 square feet the remainder must be 1300 square feet or
greater.
Borup: But I think under a PUD I don’t believe that applies.
Arnold: Mr. Chairman under a PUD process that wouldn’t apply. If we went to an R-8
zone we might as well reduce the lots not provide the park and go with I think they are
6,500 square foot lots. We are trying to provide the park and at the same time get the
availability to allow for smaller houses.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 52
Borup: I think it’s a PUD process that would allow that.
Barbeiro: That clarification helps thank you.
Borup: Okay do you have anything else Mr. Arnold? So essentially you are saying
house size reduction, lot size frontage reduction
*** End of Side Four ***
Arnold: We do have an illegal mobile home on the site that is planned to be removed
and we do plan to go through a conditional use application in the future for a single
family dwelling to be used as an office for marketing the lots.
Borup: I realize there is a problem with City Ordinance on that personally it doesn’t
bother me as long as its not they’re permanently.
Arnold: We are a temporary use I –
Borup: I don’t have a problem with it, but I’m not the one who has any say about that.
Any other questions for Mr. Arnold?
Barbeiro: Mr. Arnold are the any proposed home plans or CC&R’s that we could view?
Arnold: Mr. Chairman Commissioner Barbeiro these are some of the proposed homes
we are planning. These are the smaller home sizes the 1100 square foot homes. We
believe we have a builder that will do a quality smaller home not necessarily smaller is
not as good.
Barbeiro: Will you be seeking any variances on – site to site because I don’t know if you
are going to have ant two story homes?
Arnold: Mr. Commissioner Mr. Barbeiro no we will not be.
Barbeiro: Do you have any floor plans available?
Arnold: I would like to correct that last statement. The one variance we will be
requesting is on the existing single family dwelling. We do have an existing house on
the site right here. But do to the right-away acquisition and the wider landscape strip we
are proposing its going to be within three feet of the front yard set back.
Borup: The front or rear?
Arnold: I’m sorry the rear.
Borup: Within 3 feet or 3 feet into the 15? So a total of 12?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 53
Arnold: Three feet –
Borup: Three feet from the property line –
Arnold: 15-foot setback 3 feet will be 12 feet.
Borup: Okay that’s what I asked the first time.
Barbeiro: Do you have any floor plans for the homes?
Arnold: No I did not bring those.
Barbeiro: It would simply help that I could take a floor plan position on a lot and get a
vision how dense the neighborhood would look.
Arnold: I apologize.
Borup: I think we could assume the majority would be five-foot setbacks to maximize
the house size. I would – 40 to 42 foot homes you not going to get anything much
smaller than that. Any questions? Or final comments you had.
Arnold: I have no further –
Borup: Okay do we have anyone else do you want to add anything Mr. Campbell.
Campbell: Steve I think excuse me Doug Campbell 4085 W. Ustick Road Meridian. I
guess what we are trying to do we are trying – we developed The Lakes at Cherry Lane
No. 3,4,5,6 and 7. A couple of the questions -- that what more of a mixed use
development than what this is. This is a mixed use with basically with lot sizes. To
where that we had town houses, single-family, 1,000-, 6,500-square-foot R-8, R-15
zone in the Lakes. Wilkins Ranch No. 1 is all basically 8,000. Wilkins Ranch Village we
went under the R-4 basically because we thought it would be an easier way to
approach it under a PUD. Instead of going with an R-8 or an R-15 like we previously did
a few years ago at The Lakes at Cherry Lane. 1100-square-foot what we are trying to
do there – and you could put a max – we don’t have a problem we would just like to
start at 1,100 or 1,200-square-feet. It just helps as far as marketing. Maybe can put a
minimum because there not going to --I can guarantee you I’ve been in this business for
20 years where not going to be selling 48 1,100 square foot homes. Will have a
percentage of them. They will probably be 20 percent or 30 percent 1,100-square-foot.
We would just like to start there and move up. What we’re trying to do out there get a –
as Steve said a mixed – provide housing for people of all economic skill. Right now
we’re sitting out here in Meridian and if you went into the MLS we’re not doing justice or
service to our people out there. If you want buy a house in Meridian right now you pull
the MLS book from the realtors and you can’t find a house in Meridian for an 115,000
dollars. And if you do find them there are this many right here I’ve got to many fingers
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 54
up right now. And what were trying to do is we’re trying put a nice house on a small lot
in a nice neighborhood. We can not build junk out there our lot prices will dictate that
junk will not go in. This project is no different than Ashford Greens that the P&Z and City
Council approved three, four, five years ago. They have 40 foot lots go out there and
look at their development it is beautiful. We’re having bigger lots than they’re having the
quality of the homes are nice. That’s what we’re trying to do we’re just trying to create –
we don’t want to go in there -- 130 8,000-square-foot lots this town needs something
besides what we are doing. What we have been doing for the last seven years, ten
years whenever this R-4 8,000-square-foot lot 1,000-square-foot minimum we have to
get past that. I’ve been working in the City I have been here six and half years and I’ve
been probably through three or four different P&Z board members. And we got to start
opening our eyes and start providing houses and lot sizes and get off this 1,400-square-
foot and 8,000-square-foot minimum. I could take you through the City of Meridian and I
could show you what we’ve been doing for the last five years with this little 8,000-,
1,400 square-foot minimums. There is junk on those lots. I could take you through five
subdivisions ten subdivisions out there and then I will take you through my subdivision
the subdivision I’ve been doing when I’ve got lots, I’ve got 3,500-square-foot lots. I’ve
got lots that I got approved two or three years ago for 3,500-square-foot excuse me 35
by a 100-2 foot deep. And I will take you through any of my subdivisions and I will show
you what we do we do a nice we spend a lot of money. Like Steve said we spent a
quarter-of-a-million dollars on landscaping. We get it back and we’re not afraid to spend
it because we know it pays off in the long run. All we’re asking for is what we have
previously done in The Lakes at Cherry Lane if you can drive through there and tell me
that’s not a nice looking subdivision then I don’t know. That’s all we’re trying to do here
we’re asking for these lots are 50 – 65 foot widths 100 foot depths. The reason we have
to go with this R-4 is because your comp plans if you read through the books this blue
book right here the blue book doesn’t work. So as developers we have to work around
that compliance book that is so outdated and you guys are finally the City is finally
getting a new comp plan. Which hopefully will be better than got here because it is hard
for us as developers to work with that blue book some of the things we do we have to
massage to get what – to try and provide different types of housing. I think that’s about
it I don’t know if there is anything else – Steve mentioned yes we could go back and we
could take that 10 acres and put 40 houses an R-8 and take the park out. I’m trying to
put a park in there with play equipment for the kids. Its an acre of ground its going to
cost 35,000-40,000 dollars to put that park in and we can – the only other option is go
8,000-square-foot lots just like everything else and everybody in town. And I don’t think
that’s the way the City – they should start looking for projects like this the project like
you approved for Peter O’Neil The Woodbridge. You got a great developer and you’re
going to have a great project and he has a lot of different variations out there. The man
that was just here Dennis Baker another good developer they come in with different
concepts, they know what they’re doing they spend the money and those are the type
of projects City of Meridian needs we haven’t had it. I mean until the Lakes at Cherry
Lane came in, Hobble Creek came in Meridian Greens is a beautiful subdivision. We
have subdivision after subdivision in this town there probably a 1,000 subdivisions and
there probably only five or ten subdivisions that you could really run through and say
that they’re really done nice. Just like Steve says just because we’re putting a small
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 55
house on a small lot that doesn’t put up a danger sign that’s going to be a slum. It’s just
a different way we’re positioning ourselves as far as a niche in the market. We put in
The Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 7 we put in 56 townhomes senior gated area 55 and
older. We started to market April of last year we’ve got 46 lots sold. 46 houses built out
of 56. And we have another across the street it called No.6 it’s a senior single-family on
lot sizes that are about 55-60 feet wide about 85 foot deep there half out of that and
there is 52 lots there. We put 23 lots of R-8 65 by 100 those are gone. We need that
mix we can’t just start flooding the market with the typical 8,000-square-foot lots.
Borup: Thank you. Questions for Mr. Campbell?
Norton: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Campbell on your acre pocket park my question to you is I
assuming there is a homeowners association that would maintain that and I assume
there is going to be homeowners dues to the homeowners association.
Campbell: Right.
Norton: These small lots would that be one homeowners association paying for this one
park or will your proposed Wilkins Ranch the rest of this subdivision being paying for
this little park also?
Campbell: What we will probably end up doing, the master subdivision will be Wilkins
Ranch No.1 and then we will come in with the supplementary CC&R’s for the second
Wilkins Ranch. And probably be run by one homeowners association instead of having
two homeowners association they handle an 80-lot and a 48-lot subdivision. So it will
probably all be under one association. Handling all common areas.
Norton: In your experience with your subdivision how much would homeowners dues
cost?
Campbell: Currently in our CC&R’s our set-up fees are $200 our CC&R’s state $150 a
year. We have already reduced them – we have turned our homeowners association
over to homeowners and they have already reduced it to $110 a year.
Norton: Per year?
Campbell: Per year.
Norton: And that’s collected per month or per year?
Campbell: Per Year.
Norton: Thank you.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 56
Borup: Mr. Nary.
Nary: To follow up on that Mr. Campbell there is no physical separation of that pocket
park from all those other proposed Wilkins Ranch Subdivision, all those other homes,
that Wilkins roadway?
Campbell: No that’s just open there so when you are driving through that parks just
going to come right out at you.
Nary: And there is no physical separation to the Wilkins Village from the remainder of
the homes, is that correct?
Campbell: I don’t understand what –
Nary: There is nothing that separates it out –
Borup: Its not gated –
Nary: -- (inaudible) Wilkins Way larger lot subdivision south of that site and then these
smaller lots homes on this northwest corner of this site.
Campbell: Correct.
Nary: Northeast corner.
Campbell: Correct.
Nary: So really you asking for that pocket park to be consider part of this density bonus
for that little piece but really there is no physical separation from that from the rest of the
whole –
Campbell: The rest of the subdivision Wilkins Ranch No. 1 is the typical 8,000-square-
foot 1,400-square-foot minimum subdivision. It is an R-4 subdivision and it doesn’t
require any type of open area. To where this particular project that before you is a 10-
acre PUD R-4 PUD which requires 10 percent open space. And that’s why – is your
question why don’t we have any type of parks or anything in the other section or am I –
Nary: If I look at that whole big piece I going to say you have a 1-acre park when really
its going to be accessible and servicing all of those in that area. And I have a hard time
saying why should we justify this as a PUD with that little piece when really there’s
nothing that is going to prevent the rest of that from used by everybody else.
Campbell: Yes the kids from the other 80 houses can come use. It let me step back this
area right in here this will be a retention pond that will also be used as a play area the
kids can play. So that does have quite a bit of area in there. Like I say it basically
doubles as retention pond and as an area for kids go in there and play. That’s quite a bit
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 57
of area there for – the requirements like I said on – usually a typical R-4 zoning you
don’t have to put any open space they’re not required to. We have some open space
and they’re basically – going to be handling our surface water. The only time they won’t
be able to play in there is when we have a downpour and the thing will fill up. And the
water should dissipate within 24 hours or 48 hours depending on what type of rainfall
we have but 95 percent of the time somebody could go in there and throw a baseball
whatever they wanted to do.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: I just had one other question. Mr. Campbell is there another subdivision
comparable to what you are asking to do with this one to give us some idea what –
Campbell: Are you talking about the 10-acre? Ashford Greens its called James Place
it’s a – James Place we’ll have bigger lots than they have they 40x110 or 20 Bruce
might be able to help me out I’m real sure on the lot sizes. I think they’re 40x100,
110,120 we’re 15 to 20 feet wider than they are and that’s a very nice project. It’s a 55
and older type product. In that particular subdivision I don’t think there is a square foot
minimum on that at all. And it’s a PUD its under a PUD. Like I said we would like to start
off at 1,100 if the Commission doesn’t feel comfortable with that if they would give us
maybe a percentage of that, maybe 25 percent of the houses could be 1,100 I would be
happy with that. Like I said I’ve been doing this for so long I know what the
percentages—how it works. I think that’s our – as far as when we get done with the
project it will be a nice project the City will not be ashamed of it at all.
Borup: Thank you. Any other questions?
Campbell: Let me state one other thing, as far as the setbacks the only items we are
asking for here and we’re going under the PUD is lot frontage requirement we’re not
asking for any setbacks. We’re going to have 20 foot setbacks in the front 5 on each
side 15 in the back with the exception of that one existing house where we need a 12
foot variance 12 foot backyard on that one existing house. That particular house will be
fully remodeled and a garage will be added it will fronting the new street we will be
putting in right now it fronts out to Ustick. We will be adding a garage and remodeling
the whole house. There was one other question it was a setback. I think that about it.
The only thing we’re asking for is the square footage if you could work with us on that
and the lot frontages.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: Mr. Campbell going back to James Place as I recall James Place is a gated
community and its intent was a close nit walking community.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 58
Campbell: Correct.
Barbeiro: Your development doesn’t quite fit the same motif as James Place.
Campbell: The difference I guess I’m not saying it’s the same what I was trying to
visualize the houses on the lot size. You take James Place when they started that
wasn’t going to be a 55 and older development it was just going to be an open
development. They decided to go to a 55 gated if you look back in your records I think
that what it states. I don’t think gates were planned that’s more of meranding type
streets into a little more of a grid. What I was trying to tell you wasn’t comparable as far
as street layout or anything like that. I was trying to give you – if you saw the houses out
there and the lot configurations we have bigger lots than what they have out there.
Barbeiro: Following along the break down for the R-8 allowances for smaller homes
from section 1110-4. Would you consider this, homes between 1,100 and 1,200-square-
feet 10 percent, homes between 1,200 and 1,300-square-feet 15 percent, homes
between 1,300 and 1,400-square-feet 25 percent and the remaining 50 percent –
Campbell: I don’t have a problem with that at all.
Barbeiro: -- being more than 1,400-square-feet. Okay
Campbell: That would work fine. That would be perfect.
Barbeiro: That’s all I have Mr. Chairman.
Borup: You heard everything he said there –
Campbell: -- staggering your percentages as your lot square footages go up right?
Borup: But he gave some real specific –
Campbell: He had 10 percent for what 11-12 and 15 percent for 12-13 –
Borup: -- it’s the old figures we used to use a few years ago. Thank you. Do we have
anyone else like to testify on this application? I see none. Would you like to do a
summary Mr. Arnold?
Arnold: Mr. Chairman again Steve Arnold for the record, I would like to add that we are
planning a note on the final plat that will address the farm uses to the north. It is a
standard note that we’ve used in other subdivisions. Also going back to Commissioner
Barbeiros statement, I am familiar with the Ordinance since the client is willing to do
that. That’s more than acceptable that does provide the mix that we we’re trying to
achieve here.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 59
Borup: Thank you. Any final comments from staff?
Siddoway: Putting on my planning theory hat I would state it’s a good thing in my
opinion to try and provide a mix of housing sizes within the subdivision. The question
before the Planning and Zoning Commission in my opinion is how to interpret the bonus
density component of the plan development Ordinance. It says shall not exceed 25
percent if you -- this has been a debate in the past its unclear how it is to be interpreted.
In the past we have interpreted it as no more than 25 percent reduction in the lot size.
R-4 lots are 8,000 25 percent reduction would be 6,000. Many of these lots are
5,500ish. Which would be less than that. If the Commission interprets it the other way
which has been presented by Steve Arnold which could be a valid interpretation of that
Ordinance. Say its R-4 you have 10-acres you could have 40. 25 percent bonus density
we give you up to 50. You have 48 that are within that. It depends on how you interpret
that 25 percent bonus density. Is it 25 percent bonus on 4-units per acre or is it a 25
percent reduction in the minimum lot size. That’s a question for you to decide. This
proposal is in compliance with one interpretation and not in compliance with the other
interpretation. The minimum house size issue you certainly can make a
recommendation because this is a planned development to the City Council on it of
course it will require a variance because of the R-4 zone that is proposed. Unless City
Council deems that it can be approved as one of the standard reductions without
requiring a formal variance. It may not require a formal variance Shari has a comment it
in here that lead me to believe it required a variance I’m back sliding a little. The real
question is on this bonus density the Ordinance is 25 percent and the interpretation of
that is unclear so I will propose it to you like that.
Borup: Commissioners any question or comments?
Barbeiro: I would like a little discussion here between us prior to closing the public
hearing in case Mr. Campbell or Mr. Arnold wanted to make comments.
Borup: I think that would be a good idea.
Barbeiro: To my count to bring all of these lots up to 6,000-square-feet you would lose
no less than three and no more than four lots. I don’t know that’s a real hardship. Kind
of asked for the triple whammy here which is a frontage variance, a lot size variance
and a building size variance. That’s a tough sale.
Borup: But they all go together.
Barbeiro: I understand.
Borup: If frontage is going to be smaller the lots going to be smaller if the lots are
smaller the house by necessity are smaller.
Barbeiro: Mr. Arnold you are welcome to come up and talk about this if you wish that’s
why I left it open.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 60
Arnold: Mr. Chairman Commissioner Barbeiro our understanding of the PUD process
we don’t necessarily go through a variance for the lot sizes. Again the dimensional
requirements for our understanding of the density bonus you have to go down the lot
frontages what you are interpreting to be the 60-feet to the 52-feet. So in our opinion we
are not necessarily asking for the triple whammy because we are going through the
PUD process. If we go for the R-8 zone you pick up – the reason necessarily that we’re
not going in the R-8 zone is we’re trying to provide a park once you do an R-8 it
becomes real difficult to do a park and to design the site around that. Our estimates if
we lose those four lots it becomes difficult to provide a park. It does become financially
difficult for the site to be constructed with the park. Again its interpretation of the
Ordinance which City staff, developers – half-and-half understand it one way and the
other half-another way. In our opinion we’re at 17-percent not at 25 percent density
bonus.
Barbeiro: Steve did you have something you want to interject here?
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Arnold, and Commission. If this were zoned R-8 you could
come through with this exact same plat you wouldn’t have to get rid of the park and do
6,500-square-foot lots. If you simply zoned it R-8 proposed the exact same plat through
the PUD process you would then be in compliance with either interpretation of the 25
percent bonus density because minimum lot size drops to 6,500. The bonus density
would then drop it down below 5,000 and these 5,500-square-foot lots would be well
within that range. So you could do this exact same plat under R-8 zoning and be in
compliance with that bonus density requirement under either interpretation.
Arnold: That’s not our understanding –
Norton: Thank you because that was my question why aren’t we doing R-8 –
Barbeiro: I thought you (inaudible) completely discounted the R-8 that’s why I didn’t
bring it up.
Borup: That was one of my questions –
Barbeiro: -- came is an R-8 you would be in compliance and we would be here
juggling—
Norton: We wouldn’t be here arguing.
Borup: No R-8 a PUD with an R-8 he is saying --
Campbell: --(not at microphone) difference between R-4 than the triple whammy --
There is no different between R-8 –
Borup: We probably ought to get you on the record. But there is a difference
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 61
Campbell: I’ve been sitting at I shouldn’t say sitting at this podium for the last few years
arguing this project. Keith knows what I’ve been going through. The chairman does he
knows exactly the heartaches I’ve going through the last 3,4,5 years. I’m just trying to
do something nice and work within your book that really everybody I don’t have to tell
you that doesn’t work currently.
Borup: The comments that have been made are not about changing your project.
Campbell: Yes but – I don’t understand if I went to an R-8 –
Borup: Because an R-8 requirements 6,500-square-feet and a 25 percent reduction of
that.
Campbell: I see if you take the 25 percent off the 6,500 then you would be down to
(inaudible) –
Borup: (inaudible)
Campbell: Yes that would work I mean if that’s what you feel comfortable doing we
could change – recommend if the Planning Commission would like to recommend to an
R-8 zone instead of or an R-8 PUD instead of the R-4 I don’t have a problem. Then we
wouldn’t have – we’ll still get the triple whammy?
Barbeiro: No you would be fine everything that you presented would fall into
compliance.
Borup: My interpretation is there are more than four units per acre because you can’t
get four units per acre. Part of that R-4 is also an 8,000-square-foot lot and 80-foot
frontage.
Campbell: You can’t four lots per –
Borup: No you can’t --
Campbell: -- you can only get about 3.25 lots –
Borup: And That’s where the conflict you might say there is in that zone. So you have to
overlook the other two aspects if given a density reduction. I have a hard time doing
that but and R-8 would handle that. I don’t think we need to Mr. Swartley –
Swartley: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: We can make the motion with the different zoning can we do that with –
Swartley: I’m trying to decide that right now –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 62
Borup: That what I was wondering.
Swartley: Because I am looking at for the application for annexation and zoning –
Borup: Would that have to be re-noticed –
Swartley: -- which have been filed, stamped, signed. This has not come up before I
couldn’t tell you the answer I’m going to defer – has this ever-happened in Boise before
Mr. Nary?
Nary: Yes.
Swartley: And what has happened there?
Nary: Mr. Chairman my recollection is of the statute that you can not grant a higher use
of property.
Swartley: Right.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: That was why I asked.
Nary: This is a higher use of the property than an R-4 that has been requested.
Borup: The zoning is a higher use but the density –
Swartley: I think we should error on the side of caution –
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Borup: The lot sizes aren’t any higher that what they are already proposing or anything.
Nary: I would agree wholeheartedly with what you’re saying. I guess because there is
the potential that a person would object saying that would have probably if they knew
this was going to be an R-8 zoning potentially could build eight units per acre. Because
its all tied as one project you have annexation and zoning as one application you have
a Conditional Use Permit and a Preliminary Plat that are all being approved
simultaneously. And it all has to be subsequently approved by the Council. I don’t know
that you really have that significant of an issue but that’s what that statute says is that
you can not grant a higher use of property or higher density that what was requested.
Barbeiro: Than I have a suggestion Mr. Nary. Since we are a non-binding our decision
here is non-binding on this specific project. We can recommend to City Council R-8 all
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 63
the way through and recommend everything as is here. They could re-file bypass
Planning and Zoning and go straight to City Council. Would that be –
Swartley: I think that would be fine I would suggest erring on the side of conscious. (sic)
Campbell: That’s exactly what we did with The Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 5 we had the
same thing but Council didn’t want to go with R-15 zoning on one parcel of property.
The Planning Commission was Tim Hepper was the (inaudible) the night of the meeting
the P&Z felt more comfortable with the R-8 zoning –
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commissioners)
Swartley: I know this slows you up but I would prefer re-filing for the reasons that
Commissioner Nary stated. I think it would be the safest thing to do if we did this for
inner leniation or some sort of thing, which might be the easiest way to do it. It might
screw you up and you might get set back even further. I think the way to do it would be
to re-file your application as an R-8 as we discussed.
Campbell: What your saying is that the P&Z would recommend to the Council as an
R-8?
Swartley: Yes and this thing would fly right through here is what it sounds like.
Barbeiro: My suggestion was since were non-binding don’t we have the right to –
Swartley: I would just suggest re-filing that would be the safest thing to do.
Barbeiro: But I’m trying to –
Nary: It would appear Mr. Chairman –
Borup: Trying to get his through so we don’t have to hear it again.
Barbeiro: We’re going to approve it R-8 even though it hasn’t been filed (inaudible)
since we’re non-binding. Then he can re-file and go straight to City Council since he
has had it R-8 approved.
Borup: But I think the problem Mr. Nary is saying this thing was noticed to the public as
an R-4 (inaudible) R-4.
Nary: But I guess if we’re in error the City Council can remand it back and that may be
the risk they are taking at his moment. But if the City Council since they are making the
final decision they notice this up as an R-8 because we make that recommendation it
wont get to the City Council for at least a month.
Campbell: That’s got to be a public notice?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 64
Nary: Would that be correct?
Barbeiro: It would be 30 days after you file.
Borup: August 15th
.
Barbeiro: So if you file tomorrow –
Nary: If you file an amended application our recommendation is approve at as an R-8
you filed an amended application that’s what gets noticed to the public. (Inaudible) final
decision then you think you’ve cured whatever defect may have occurred here.
Campbell: So we could do that immediately then.
Swartley: Yes.
Campbell: We could file –
Nary: We reserve the right to be incorrect. If that’s the case then the Council could
remand it and the City attorney upon further review to the Council because they will
probably ask that question. The City attorney says no at P&Z we goofed you have to do
it over.
Campbell: Is this the P&Z that approved Peter O’Neil’s project? What zoning did they
end up going with, with all their mixed use?
Borup: They were a PUD also.
Campbell: A PUD under what zoning?
Barbeiro: I think R-4
Nary: I think they are R-8.
Borup: I think so.
Nary: It would appear Mr. Chairman and I guess Mr. Campbell the risk is yours. It
appears you would have two options. You could have the option to ask us to set this
over, re-apply, amend your application, request it to be an R-8 and bring it back and
we’ll end up with it next month or even the month after I guess depending --
Campbell: No I think I would like to go the other direction –
Nary: -- we try the other direction if again the City attorney advises the Council and the
Council decides that they are not comfortable that there hasn’t been any adverse
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 65
testimony whether or not we (inaudible) further adverse testimony. If there isn’t and the
Council is comfortable with it then we are probably okay and it moves you up a few
months.
Campbell: (inaudible)
Nary: As long as you understand the risk is more you’re than ours.
Campbell: So basically what I am understanding is that could probably work something
contingently. If the P&Z does the recommendation to the City Council as an R-8 and
then we can come back in and file for the -- re-file for the R-8 zoning. Is that correct?
We can walk out of here and tomorrow we can start working on our re-application.
Borup: An application would be changing from four to eight?
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: A further comment, Tammy deWeerd is the liaison between the City Council
and Planning and Zoning and she is a City Council member. We can let her know what
this discussion is tonight and what the unanimous recommendation of the Commission
that we feel uncomfortable doing this as an R-4 but we like the plan, we would
recommend R-8. And we recommend they would approve it because we have asked
you re-file this.
Campbell: I would appreciate that.
Norton: (Inaudible) –
Campbell: Every time I come up to this meeting I just don’t and I’m so confused in the
direction. I’ve been up here a few times I’ve been beat up. I’ve got most of my stuff
approved but I’ve had to work. You could ask Mr. Freckleton over there he is smiling
and he knows what I’ve been through and what we’ve been through. Some of the stuff
I’ve been asking the City because I’ve been asking for is probably like the kind of stuff
you approved for Mr. O’Neil with all the goofy setbacks and this and that.
Barbeiro: So you had hair before you were a developer.
Campbell: When I moved here seven years ago I had little bit here, now I have none
here.
Nary: Mr. Chairman it would appear that we do all that plus all this discussion is on the
record the Council should be able to act. As long as you understand Mr. Campbell I
guess if we are incorrect in our analysis or our process you be back here and you push
yourself back the other way.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 66
Campbell: I think it could work. Thank you.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman did we open all –
Borup: Yes we did. We opened all three.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman I move that we close the public hearing on all three of these
items here.
Nary: Second.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman I move that we recommend approval to City Council request for
annexation and zoning of 10.19 acres from RT to R-8 for proposed Wilkins Ranch
PUD –
Nary: Wilkins Ranch Village –
Barbeiro: -- excuse me Wilkins Ranch Village –
Swartley: Excuse me Mr. Chairman that’s going to change staff recommendations and
comments too. Do you want to amend your motion that way? It’s not going to affect
them?
Borup: Well it will.
Swartley: It will affect a few of them.
Borup: It will affect their comment on –
Siddoway: It will affect comments based on the R-4 zoning if they go R- 8 they wont
have this big (inaudible) –
Borup: (inaudible)
Siddoway: -- on the minimum lot size for example. That comment would basically go
away –
Swartley: Sorry for interrupting Tom was well ahead of me.
Barbeiro: Wilkins Ranch Village and Wilkins Ranch -- my concern is I’m going to say it
incorrectly.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 67
Swartley: Mine to.
Barbeiro: Staff can’t think so much.
Borup: Staff had a real long recommendation but an R-4 zone changes so much.
Barbeiro: so getting back – request for annexation and zoning for 10.19 acres from RT
to R-8 for proposed Wilkins Ranch PUD by Steiner Development to include staff
comments that would directly applicable to an R-8 zone as opposed to the R-4 zone
that the staff has commented on.
Nary: Second.
Borup: Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman I wish to recommend approval to City Council request for
Conditional Use Permit for proposed Wilkins Ranch PUD by Steiner Development within
the R-8 zoning to include staff comments that would apply to an R-8 development.
Nary: Second.
Borup: Motion is second, any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman I wish to recommend approval to City Council request for
Preliminary Plat for 10.19 acres from RT to R-8 for propose Wilkins Ranch PUD by
Steiner Development to include all staff comments that are applicable to an R-8 zoning.
Nary: Second
Borup: Motion is second, all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Borup: That does it.
Item 2. Continued public hearing: Review and consideration of the draft
Landscape Ordinance:
Swartley: We’re still on the record right? Okay lets go back to number two. Can we go
back and readdress what Mr. Nary was saying earlier.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 68
Borup: Which subject?
Swartley: Item No. 2.
Borup: The Landscape Ordinance we still have to finish that up tonight.
Swartley: Right. Does everybody understand what he was trying to get across?
Borup: No one ever listens to him we need to repeat it.
Swartley: I don’t think it’s the job of this Commission to re-write this Ordinance this
evening. I think what Mr. Nary was suggesting either we send back to somebody else to
make changes that were discussed this evening, stop me if I’m wrong, or we say this
good we know changes need to be to it. City Council you need to make changes to it
here's the record. Is that correct. I’m just making a suggestion but we might for a long
time.
Borup: I don’t think – I don’t want to – any exact word changes.
Swartley: Well we were kind of going in that direction.
Nary: Mr. Chairman the concern I have there is very good product we have in front of
us. There is some more information that needs to be added to it as I was saying before
I really don’t have a feeling one way or the other. It would appear to me that this
Commission would like to send at least a fairly completed –
*** End of Side Five ***
Nary: -- they will obviously have the opportunity to revise it with some further public
testimony and all of that. Because I think there is probably some need for some legal
review and some additional changes that even have come tonight. We will never get to
the end of this otherwise if we don’t decide which do we want. Do we want something
that we feel is pretty well done without a lot of changes and that the legal analysis is
done? Or do we want to give the Council that (inaudible) that’s really their call to say no
we want the legal analysis done as a part of what comes back to them.
Swartley: And I believe that’s why you were asking Steve what’s City Councils time line
on this. And if there is a time line well than yes lets –
Nary: Yes if there is an expectation they’re going to see this fairly soon then it may be
part of what motion or whatever direction we want to take from this. That we feel that
there needs – what else needs to be accomplished before it’s presented to the Council
so they recognize that we at least made that decision. That expectation is going to get
handled before it gets to the Council and it least gets off our plate and gets to them
anyway. Or we can set it up in another meeting and talk about it for four hours.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 69
Swartley: Steve probably tired of redrafting it.
Norton: Just for discussion also and this is on the Landscape Ordinance we’ve gone
back to number two. There were quite a number of changes that Steve went through
point by point what was it two-and-half hours. But it was never revised because there
was some paragraphs taken out some wording added that you had suggested. Then
tonight I think there was a very good suggestion that number one have legal counsel
divide the Ordinances and design -- the design purposes. And have two documents one
the specific Ordinances which I would assume legal counsel works with and then one
the purpose –
Swartley: I’m sorry I didn’t hear what you said –
Norton: Who comes – the Ordinances and the shalls as you said the shalls are in place.
Siddoway: My question is does that need to –
Swartley: -- we hire an English teacher.
Siddoway: -- my question is whether that could be handled during the codification
process –
Swartley: I wanted to ask you about that. How does that work? Is this the normal
process if we are just pushing this along and then there is a codification process and
some codifiers are going to change the language, is that how it normally works?
Siddoway: I was going to ask you the same thing.
Borup: -- come back to us again
Swartley: No I don’t believe it will come back the way you made it sound was go ahead
excuse me –
Nary: What I was going to say Mr. Chairman at least what we have done in the past in
Boise is the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Council approve essentially a
concept of what they want it to be. What comes back to them is the code in the form
consistent with those comments consistent with that direction but in more of a codified
form so that it can – (inaudible) whether its by Planning staff or legal staff. It can be
basically printed and put in the book and used as say as Mr. McCaughey suggested. So
those types – so there really is another step in the process which I guess is why my
suggestion was maybe we need to move it along. The only thing I would agree with
Commission Norton we are going to be – if we choose to do that tonight we are
essentially passing along something we don’t really have a final thing in front of us as to
what it says. But I think there is certainly more than enough staff comment and I
certainly think Mr. Siddoway is going have to put that in more finalized form than this
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 70
draft we’re looking at today. The final codification will come back to the Council with all
the legal –
Borup: Can’t we send this on with a few recommendations?
Siddoway: Certainly. And –
Borup: I assume that’s what we’re here to do.
Siddoway: This is my first code process and I would certainly say up front it’s not in
codified form. Its in the form of this is the – this is what we want the Ordinance to say
basically. Get that concept approved and then my hope was to get the codifiers to pull
the language out that belongs strictly in the Ordinance and then the ambiguous or other
language that’s more recommendation oriented that goes in a – what’s the supporting
document called – anyway the supporting document –
Borup: In my mind its easier to – for me going through that its easier to follow to have
all those recommendations in there right in the chapter that you’re talking about. But
you lose the flexibility to change those later too that’s the other advantage to having a
separate document isn’t it. You can clarify those recommendations you can clarify
design recommendations all that stuff can be done later without this whole process can’t
it?
Siddoway: What you have before you is what we want the Ordinance to say. And the
areas we don’t have shoals and we do say encourage, recommend, discourage, etc.
We’re saying that if someone doesn’t do those things we’re recommending there not
going to get denied because of it – simply a recommendation. Whether or not a
recommendation should be made Ordinance that’s maybe a good question. But the
language that you have is what we want. I would say the two real changes that maybe
heard tonight that maybe you would want to add and pass on is only require the stamp
of a landscape architect on commercial and industrial projects but not residential
projects. And second of all was those residential trees and whether or not that whole
section should go away. Other than that I think it stands.
Borup: Everything else is just clarification on design things like using the storm water for
open space and that kind of thing.
Siddoway: I could recommend language for that right now that you could include in your
motion if you want.
Borup: I don’t know if we need it in the motion –
Nary: I was just going to ask –
Siddoway: Just ask for more specificity in it.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 71
Nary: We talked about the landscaping thing I think the commercial development makes
a lot of sense. I wonder if – Commission Barbeiro had mentioned about having at least
a development for some of the – I don’t know if we have a lot of room left for large
subdivisions but if we do -- having larger subdivisions that are in excess of five-acres or
in excess one-acre of landscaping that also be. Because our concern is that it is
properly designed and properly maintained and properly –
(Inaudible discussion)
Nary: -- a better compromise. The large subdivisions because of the rationale that we
have and the commercial ones that Mr. Durkin had suggested.
Borup: That makes sense to me so we need to just maybe make a recommendation on
the size. Five-acre may be a good size.
Norton: I just want to add one more thing about the Preliminary Plat I know that there
exempt from having a landscape plan. And I’m talking about 3.5. If we could just add
the words conceptual landscaping. I think the developers wont flip out before they get to
those exceptions.
Siddoway: Those words in there actually.
Norton: Conceptional (sic)?
Siddoway: Yes let me find it for you. 3.2 application for a Conditional Use Permit in a
Preliminary Plat are exempt from requirements M, N, O & P of section 3.5 and may
instead show conceptual landscaping with tree locations and species only and
conceptual screening structures.
Norton: Okay thanks.
Siddoway: That language already there.
Norton: Yes that’s it. And my suggestion would be take out the subdivision what was
that site –
Borup: 13
Norton: Take out Section 13 completely. And rewrite the whole thing for Council
including all those paragraphs and extra language that you added.
Siddoway: All the proposed revisions just go ahead and make a clean copy of all that’s
incorporated.
Norton: With our –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 72
Borup: Plus with your memo stuff in there is that what you’re saying?
Norton: Yes –
Siddoway: I think we could have Shelby, I think the City Council has been getting copies
of these memos have they? From the Landscape Ordinance the proposed revisions. I
don’t know I addressed them to the Mayor, City Council and Planning and Zoning
Commission assuming the Mayor and City Council were getting them.
Borup: Do we want to decide on a recommendation for the size then? It sounds like we
towards (inaudible) --
Nary: (inaudible) –
Borup: Yes I’m sorry. But were saying all commercial, commercial, an acre and more.
Nary: It appeared to me at least with the testimony tonight that we got from Mr. Durkin,
which does make sense to me. That all commercial sites –
Siddoway: In industrial –
Nary: -- should have a landscape architect. Because one is cost should not be a
significant factor to that.
Borup: What the definition of a (inaudible) I mean how about an Old Town house
conversion? That’s a commercial site. Course it has Old Town zoning not commercial
zoning.
Nary: Anything in a commercial zone would probably be –
Borup: Well –
Nary: -- Conditional Use Permit or an Accessory Use Permit –
Borup: or commercial industrial –
Barbeiro: We could –
Borup: Then we have to start naming all the zones.
Norton: But then couldn’t they do a hardship and get out of it?
Borup: Well we don’t have a good definition.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 73
Siddoway: In Old Town if they are in a commercial I would say that should especially
apply because we are really trying to enhance the Old Town and focus on it as a
revitalization effort –
Borup: But how would you treat some of the stuff on the first areas that already has
mature landscaping? Most of those haven’t done anything they may (inaudible – tape)
parking they get there parking in compliance and that’s –
Siddoway: And apply for a variance. I mean we would work with them on what kind of
variance we could support and have them apply for a variance.
Barbeiro: (inaudible) tape had static
Borup: So are we leaning towards five-acre on residential subdivision or is that a good
number –
Nary: It seems to make sense –
Borup: Any comment –
Nary: City Council may feel more comfortable by zone and they feel that its more
concrete to people if they want to do that – makes sense that the five-acres and the
five-acre residential or the one-acre of landscaping that would have to have a
landscape architect stamp of approval. I agree with Commissioner Barbeiro just
because it doesn’t require a landscape architect doesn’t mean it doesn’t require
landscaping at all. Its just saying that if there is a large amount of landscaping we would
want somebody with some expertise to say what its going to look like and what needs
to be installed properly to maintain it the irrigation and everything else. But it doesn’t
mean it doesn’t require it, it just means it doesn’t require a stamp.
Siddoway: They still have to do a landscape plan –
Borup: So five-acre residential or one-acre total landscaping in a residential. One-acre
total open space I mean.
Nary: One-acre of total open space.
Barbeiro: -- one-acre of total landscaping because that would also include the strips
coming in at the entry.
Borup: Yes good comment that would be better. Okay then on commercial it already
says your intention was one-acre commercial.
Siddoway: My intention –
Borup: -- the first draft.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 74
Siddoway: Yes one-acre sites for commercial and industrial.
Borup: So that’s not going to be hardly anything in Old Town if we stick with the one-
acre.
Nary: I think the issue that was presented was that – I think that make some sense you
will more likely to have non-local owners who aren’t necessarily going to have an
interest in what it looks like at all. They may not be one acre in size but you know we
have trees in front of Minute-Lube and everything else.
Borup: Those are one acre aren’t they?
Siddoway: They might be smaller than that.
Nary: They might be smaller.
Borup: Not the Minute-Lube Schucks combination one.
Siddoway: Those are separate lots though.
Nary: At least in a recommendation to the Council that we recommended that all
development in commercial zones required it then the Council can choose whether or
not Old Town should be included in that or not.
Siddoway: What about industrial?
Borup: If we are going to start naming zones if we are going to say zone then we need
to name them all.
Nary: We said residential so we didn’t name R-8 –
Borup: I mean –
Barbeiro: The difference should be residential and non-residential.
Nary: True.
Siddoway: Yes just residential and non-residential.
Borup: There that would be better then we don’t have to name all the zones.
Siddoway: Just to play devil’s advocate just one more time you are fine with multi-family
non-residential not requiring it as well.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 75
Barbeiro: Okay lets go back to residential verses non-residential. Residential zoning an
R zones because we can put a school in an R-4 or an R-8.
Borup: And a church.
Barbeiro: So we are going to have to say non-residential usage. Regardless whether it’s
under residential zoning.
Siddoway: Because schools and churchs they should be required to have it in my
opinion.
Barbeiro: See the difference.
Borup: Yes I do. So how do we word that? So we are saying all –
Barbeiro: Developments for residential usage for five-acres or less and one-acre or less
of –
Borup: Do you want to say it negative or –
Barbeiro: -- developer generated – yes I want to say it in the negatives because then I
want to apply the positives so its on both sides – or one-acre or less of developer
generated landscaping. Because we can’t say one-acre – less than one-acre of
landscaping because then would include each of the individual homes. We must define
that it is developer generated landscaping in a residential development.
Siddoway: Or just say –
Barbeiro: Common area –
Siddoway: The acreage of the –
Nary: Because that –
Borup: That would cover everything on a common area wouldn’t it --
Barbeiro: Okay we can go with –
Borup: Street buffers and everything would all be in the common area.
Barbeiro: And of course for those of the 5.01 acres or greater and 1.01 or greater of
landscape common area for residential usage would be a stamped landscape plan. And
that all non-residential usage of one-acre or greater –
Siddoway: Or all –
Barbeiro: -- gross lot size –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 76
Borup: one-acre or all –
Barbeiro: You wanted it all?
Siddoway: Yes.
Borup: Your draft didn’t that. It said one-acre.
Siddoway: My revision memo says all.
Barbeiro: -- just like to stick with the one-acre.
Borup: I’m still concerned on like the little piece in Old Town and they’re all under an
acre. Have we approved any commercial projects that is less an acre –
Barbeiro: They still fall under the requirement for landscaping –
Siddoway: Sure Elegant Nails in Old Town for example –
Borup: I mean outside of Old Town I mean any of the new projects on Fairview or –
Siddoway: I think so.
Nary: Mr. Chairman again I think it goes back to what Commissioner Barbeiro was
saying it doesn’t mean it doesn’t require landscaping all were talking about is whether
or not it requires a landscape architect stamp.
Borup: Oh that’s right I’m sorry –
Nary: We’re just requiring the stamp. It doesn’t mean that it isn’t required –
Borup: I’m getting off the –
Siddoway: You still have to do a plan –
(Inaudible discussion)
Barbeiro: so I would stick with the one-acre or less does not require a stamped
landscape plan. 1.01 acres or more of non-residential usage development would
require landscape architects stamp.
Borup: On the most part I agree the statement sometimes the smaller pieces may need
more expertise then the other. Either way I think we’re going to lose -- we’re going to
have a problem on the borderlines either way so –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 77
Barbeiro: There is a guideline –
Borup: -- I would almost rather err on the side of the public.
Nary: If you a small little Minute-Lube that has a small grass strip with one tree in it, it
doesn’t seem to make much sense to require an architect stamp –
Borup: Well that’s (inaudible) –
Nary: That doesn’t mean it doesn’t require the tree or the grass it just doesn’t
necessarily mean that you have to spend that much more the other.
Borup: Okay so we are essentially making –
Barbeiro: (inaudible) –
Borup: -- two recommendations. We eliminated section 13 and then the architectural
stamp. Do we want to make that in a formal motion those two items?
Nary: Yes then we would incorporate I guess as part of that all the comments and
additions and deletions and the 7/12 memo that was provided as well as the 6/13
memo.
Siddoway: Correct.
Nary: So the motion would be the changes we have just put on the record as well as all
the changes 6/13 memo from Steve as well as the 7/12 memo.
Barbeiro: And also like to have a copy of the revised Landscape Ordinance available to
us. Not just scattered notes everywhere but –
Borup: Yes.
Barbeiro: -- a complete –
Borup: Is that what you are ready to do now? Compile all these all your –
Siddoway: If you are ready to make a motion I am ready to compile.
Barbeiro: (inaudible) the codification hell. Defining intent verses actual Ordinance, is
that right Bill?
Nary: Yes
Norton: A design plan and then the codification.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 78
Nary: Well I think what it is – that sort of going to get driven by the Council they may feel
comfortable having it all in the Landscape Ordinance. But it still will need the legal
review to make sure its written in a way that’s enforceable and that’s really the issue I
think both McCaughey and Durkin were saying they didn’t have a problem with it. But it
has to be something that is either enforceable or it doesn’t belong there. I guess the
Council can sort of make that decision on the drafting part.
Barbeiro: Well I –
Borup: Wouldn’t that give them more flexibility to have it separate anyway because then
it can be changed?
Nary: Easier to change that than an Ordinance.
Barbeiro: I like the idea having a separate statement of intent and a pure black and
white enforceable Ordinance. Because this would allow the planning administrator Shari
(inaudible) to come in and say yes you’ve done black and white to letter but you really
didn’t get the intent drammed (sic) all these trees together and it just doesn’t look right.
The intent was to spread it out was to be more – make a better design. And that gives
her the freedom and us and the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council
to interrupt the intent over the black and white. Much the same the way we were trying
to do here for Mr. Campbell. We took black and white and turned in into intent and got
him out the door.
Norton: My question is, is this done before we give it to City Council? I mean we
suggest that staff another project do it before it goes to City Council or give to them
another draft and let them –
Nary: What I would suggest is whenever we get to making a motion that we also include
that as we have been saying over and over that a final a proposed final revised draft
Landscape Ordinance is prepared. Also with the addition of the legal review you said
there was some other comments from Mr. Nichols as to what needs to be done. That all
be done prior to the City Council that type of analysis and review be done. What
normally would happen is the City Council would then review it decide we like this we
don’t like that we want to change the words we want it to be this instead of that. And
then the final Ordinance will come back again to them with it conformance with what
there suggestions are. I think all we are wanting it to put on the record that we would
like the legal analysis and review done to make it a little bit more understandable for the
City Council as to what it is we’re trying to accomplish. We are passing essentially a
conceptual idea with a whole lot of meat to it and we’re just saying lets dot all the I’s a
little bit more before we give it to them. But we don’t have to see it a second time we
don’t have to see it a third time.
Siddoway: Mr. Nary the – so would you say that one document goes to City Council
which is the revised, revised draft with all the incorporated changes —
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 79
Borup: You may want to start dating your revisions so they don’t start getting mixed up
too.
Siddoway: I think there are dates on them.
Borup: Well this has a date at the bottom 4/21 is that how you’ve been doing them?
Siddoway: Yes each draft has a date on it. But anyway in one document or do I need to
have the legal review and create two documents. One that’s black and white Ordinance
and one that’s –
Nary: I don’t that you –
Siddoway: -- the touchy feely recommendations?
Nary: I don’t know that you need to create two documents at this juncture. Council may
decide that they would prefer like we’ve discussed to have two documents. I guess
what I’m thinking what we might be recommending is simply there be a legal review
because is going to want it anyway. If there are things that in the legal review they say
this is really not enforceable, we would either draft it in a different manner or delete it
from this document at this point.
Siddoway: So what I would do -- this is what I propose is taking your comments
whatever you’re motion is tonight and the revisions that are proposed in the two memos
and draft a new Ordinance revised Ordinance based on that. Then giving it to the legal
department for review and we can meet and maybe draft a memo for City Council
regarding that legal review and maybe parts that should be pulled out for a separate or
whatever.
Nary: What I would anticipate is that you would have a legal review that the City
Attorney would be making a recommendation as to whether or not –
Swartley: Which by the way – sorry to interrupt – every recommendation goes to City
Council as a legal review.
Nary: There would be a legal review. And if the City Attorney wants to recommend that
it be severed into two different things, that there be a very concrete very simple shorter
Ordinance and there also be a design for lack of better terms design review plan that’s
incorporated by reference into that. That’s fine whatever Council wants to do is okay.
But I think to get it off the dime from us I think its probably best that at least there has
been some legal review as to whether or not this is enforceable. If it is meant to be
enforceable or if it is meant to be directional that’s probably okay.
Siddoway: Tonight you simply make the motion on the intent of the Ordinance and send
it on. Saying this is what we want it to say.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 80
Nary: Yes with just probably the additional things that we’ve been discussing.
Siddoway: Right.
Norton: Is there any – do you all go to the City Council meetings?
Siddoway: No I’ve been to one.
Norton: So nobody at the meeting tonight can tell the intent of Planning and Zoning to
City Council of the intent.
Borup: Well that is also why we have a liaison that why Tammy – Tammy and I talk –
Norton: So you and Tammy talk – and let her know what the intent –
Siddoway: I will talk to Shari – I would probably ask Shari if I could go.
Borup: This is one I would definitely talk – most of the time there hasn’t been anything
(inaudible) some questions.
Norton: So they get the intent of what we are trying to do.
Siddoway: And I would try to go to that City Council meeting to stand for questions
since--
Borup: probably been on this –
Siddoway: -- this issue.
Norton: Okay.
Siddoway: I usually do not go to City Council but I –
Borup: This is his baby
Siddoway: -- probably talk to Shari and probably go for that item.
Norton: Okay. Just so they have an idea what we’ve been discussing and our intent.
Siddoway: So give me motion and I’ll right it down.
Nary: I would move that we recommend to City Council a Landscape Ordinance Plan
incorporated basically the draft Ordinance that we have reviewed of April 21 with the
additional changes, deletions and insertions incorporated in Mr. Siddoway’s memos of
June 13 and July 12. As well as the addition that we’ve talked about adnauseam now
on the record in regards to the Landscape Plan requirements for a landscape architect
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 81
stamp that basically 3.6 be amended to read now that the landscape architect stamp
would be required on all residential developments in excess of five-acres or with a
landscape area in excess of one-acre and on all non-residential sites or non-residential
usage of any other sites. Is that right? Over one-acre all non-residential sites over one-
acre and that we also recommend the deletion completely of section 13 titled residential
subdivision trees. I think that incorporates all our comments.
Norton: I second that motion.
Borup: Motion second. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Siddoway: Got it.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman I motion that we close the meeting, adjourn.
Borup: Motion to adjourn I’m going to be gone next month Mr. Barbeiro will be – I
apologize for late tonight I had down 7:00. What I talked with Will about before I need to
write a letter about in behalf of the Commission requesting two permanent dates we all
in favor of that the second and fourth Tuesday.
Nary: That would be a lot nicer.
Barbeiro: I thought City Council wanted the fourth Tuesday.
Borup: Well I – we can still ask. Not for a Council meeting they want it for a workshop is
all. That would put Tuesday nights as a public hearing night. The public can start
depending on it and maybe have our meetings start at the same time too.
Norton: Do we need to set another time in August or are we only doing it once in
August?
Borup: Do we have a lot of stuff Steve or Bruce?
Freckleton: I’ve seen two applications so far.
Borup: For August?
Freckleton: August.
Borup: We have more than that I think.
Freckleton: No everyone keep your fingers crossed.
Borup: Don’t we already have more than two. Sounds like were in good shape.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
July 11, 2000
Page 82
Swartley: Do you know how many there are seriously?
Ugarriza: I would say less than ten.
Borup: But you say some of those ten are one project with three applications? That
would put us about – that’s what we had tonight we had ten tonight but we had the
Landscape Ordinance in there too.
Nary: Basically what you are asking whether or not we need to have a second meeting.
Borup: Sounds like we don’t.
Nary: Doesn’t sound like we do.
Borup: Unless there’s anything in there really – the stuff we have got so far I didn’t see
anything real controversial.
Barbeiro: We have a motion (inaudible) –
Borup: Did we vote on – no. I’m sorry all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:15 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
WILLIAM G. BERG JR., CITY CLERK