Loading...
2001 05-17MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 17, 2001 The City of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 17, 2001, by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Keith Borup, Sally Norton, Bill Nary, Jerry Centers, Keven Shreeve Others Present: Brad Hawkins-Clark, Bruce Freckleton, Dave Swartley, Shelby Ugarriza Item 1. Roll-call Attendance: X Sally Norton X Jerry Centers X Bill Nary X Keven Shreeve X Chairman Keith Borup *** Due to a Tape Recording Malfunction, a portion of the meeting was not recorded. The following is a summary of the meeting *** Item 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of April 5, 2001 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting: Commissioner Nary made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda items, seconded by Jerry Centers. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 4. Continued Public Hearing from April 5, 2001: AZ 01-005 Request for annexation and zoning of 28.59 acres from RUT to R-8 for proposed Macaile Meadows Subdivision by Hillview Land Development, LLC – south of Fairview and west of Cloverdale Roads: Item 5. Continued Public Hearing from April 5, 2001: PP 01-006 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 115 building lots and 15 other lots on 28.59 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Macaile Meadows Subdivision by Hillview Land Development, LLC – south of Fairview and west of Cloverdale Roads: Brad Hawkins-Clark reviewed staff comments dated April 2, 2001. The Public Hearing was opened, and Mark Butler testified about the roadway; installation of the road prior to the 76th Building Permit; various home sizes, specifically, 1350 square feet minimum on the west side and a minimum of 1500 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 2 square feet on the south side; home sizes is Crossroads Subdivision and the fact there are 260 lots and 1 vacant lot. There are 31 lots in Crossroads Subdivision that have homes that are 1300 to 1350 square feet. Commissioner Centers stated that the north access is preferred by the Police Department and Fire Department. Commissioner Norton asked if the church has given the okay for a permanent road in the future. Holly Turney gave testimony and read the following: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Holly Turney. I am the President of Westdale Homeowners Association. First of all, we are not against development occurring to the north. We are, however, asking that development be done In such a manner as to provide compatibility with the neighboring subdivisions of Crossroads and Westdale Park. We are asking that the integrity of and investment we have made in our properties be protected. ACHD has required that the developers provide access to Cloverdale from Macaile Meadows before the building of any homes. This requirement does ease some of our concerns about the added traffic as long as the road is attractive to traffic. When would the choker be installed and what would it look like? The issue remaining is the one of compatibility. Compatibility is a word used to indicate how homogenous any given mixture is. In this case, the mixture is lot size and home size. At the last P & Z meeting on this development, April 5, Mr. Butler stated that he and the developers tried to have a subdivision that as far as design and lot size went, was compatible with its surroundings. Quite frankly, my husband and I initially had the same reaction. Then we began to analyze what is being proposed for Macaile Meadows and compare it to what already exists in Westdale and Crossroads. Let me tell you, appearances can be deceiving. On this diagram, I have figured out the approximate area in square feet of each lot. Then I quantified the lots into the following categories which you see here and compared them to Westdale. Each category is represented by a different color: green equals lots with square footages in the 6000s; read is 7000s; orange is 8000s; blue is 9000s; purple is 10,000s; yellow is 11,000s; pink is 12,000s; turquoise is 13,000s; and dark green is 14 and 15,000s. As you can see, the plot of Macaile Meadows is predominantly read and green while Westdale is predominantly purple, pink and yellow. If these two subdivisions were actually compatible with one another, you should see very similar amounts of the same colors on each plat. This is definitely not the case. Seventy-five point 6 percent of the lots in Macaile Meadows are less than 8,000 square feet leaving 24.4 percent of lots that are 8,000 square feet or larger. By comparison, only 1.3 percent of the lots in Westdale are less than 8,000 square feet and 98.7 percent are 8,000 square feet or larger. In fact, 106 of the 115 lots in Macaile Meadows are 92.1 percent smaller than Westdale’s averaged-size lot of 19,965.09 square feet. The Meridian Comprehensive Building Plan states the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 3 following in the Land Use section under residential policies: No. 2.3U, protect and maintain residential neighborhood property values, improve each neighborhood’s physical condition and enhance its quality of life fore residents; No. 2.5U, encourage compatible infill development which will improve existing neighborhoods. A policy in the housing section further states as follows: No. 1.13U, infilling of random vacant lots in substantially developed single-family areas should be considered at densities similar to surrounding development. Only under certain circumstances would increased densities be considered. Even though the lots in Macaile Meadows may be appropriate to R-8, they are not compatible with the already existing subdivisions of Westdale and Crossroads. An R-4 zoning or a development agreement that forces lot size to R-4 minimum s would assure better compatibility between these subdivisions. Westdale Park encompasses approximately 24 acres and contains 76 homes making the density per acre approximately 3.168 overall. If Macaile Meadows were to build at a compatible density to Westdale, 90 to 91 homes would be built upon their 28.59 acres, not 115. A the last meeting, Chairman Borup stated a concern about having a transition between Macaile Meadows and the potential R-15, and I respectfully remind him that Crossroads, zoned at R-4, backs right up to the commercial zoning of the shopping center without any transition. So it does happen sometimes. In the memo to the Planning and Zoning Commission from Brad Hawkins-Clark dated May 16, 2001, under the heading Revised Preliminary Plat he states the Commission requested the following items be addressed on the revised plat. I bring your attention to No. 3 which says add a note to the plat that restricts the houses adjacent to both Crossroads and Westdale Phase II to single-story; however, not only is this not shown on the plat, but Mr. Butler states in his memo that homes abutting the west property line of Macaile Meadows shall be single-story where they abut lots on Crossroads that have single-stories but neglects to say anything about Westdale to the south. Mr. Butler and the developers made an agreement with the homeowners of both Westdale and Crossroads at the second neighborhood meeting held on March 26, 2001, and I have another copy of those minutes submitted last time in case you do not have one, that single-story homes would be built along the borders of both of those subdivisions. We expect them to abide by their agreement. I have a document we received from our realtor when we were considering property in Westdale. It shows the prices on the lots the developer expected to receive. The lots on the north side were priced higher than the lots on the south side even thought many of the south-side lots were bigger. Location clearly was the thought by the developer to be worth more money. Also, along the north side of Westdale Phase II, a six-foot chain-link fence was installed rather than the typical six-foot cedar slats, put in, I assume, to enhance the view. Two-story homes will significantly impact this in a much more negative way than single-story homes. As you make your decision, please consider these points. Thank you. Commissioner Nary mentioned Westdale is an R-8 zone with lots being platted larger. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 4 Commissioner Borup wondered how many houses in Westdale have three-car garages. Cynthia Curtis testified over concerns with traffic, construction trucks and children, the choker and speed bumps stating she would request them in the subdivisions. *** Tape Switch to Side 2 *** Theresa Connolly testified there are at least 89 children in the neighborhood and she would like to see the chokers minus the speed bumps because people tend to avoid the speed bumps by driving up onto the sidewalks. Aimee Pope testified that she is a Kuna resident looking to purchase a single- story home in Westdale Subdivision. She would like to request speed bumps and voiced concerns over the children versus the traffic and lot-size compatibility. She discussed the views being obstructed by a two-story home versus trees stating a view being blocked by a tree is more acceptable than being blocked by the back side of a home. Mark Butler mentioned the concerns over two-story homes versus one-story homes; limited the homes on the south side to one-story; the homes, overall average, have a minimum of 1301 square feet; the homes on the west side have a minimum square footage of 1350; and the homes on the south side have a minimum square footage of 1500. He reviewed the possibility of fencing Parkdale; that ACHD is requiring Parkdale; a construction sign diverting construction and citizen traffic from Parkdale; the landscape chokers and the possibility they will be maintained by Westdale Homeowners Association; possibility of installing a vertical curb for drainage and keeping the drivers from riding up on the sidewalk; Westdale and the 65-foot widths on the lots; the fact that the lot sizes are smaller than Westdale; the open space, landscape and park; the use of Westdale as an access and making a second connection into the subdivision. *** Recorder started working again *** Hawkins-Clark: -- up there on the map for the access road. Butler: Right here, yes? That’s why it was so long I couldn’t figure out why it was so long. Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Butler? Still some questions on that choker and the concern about cross traffic crossing it. The vertical curb would be the solution so does that determine whether ACHD will allow that or may allow it? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 5 Butler: They are going to probably want to handi – you know a decreased spot for the handicap. I built one but I built it in a commercial area in Eagle and I’ve got vertical but in residential I don’t know. It would be up to ACHD. I don’t know if we could put something in that – Borup: Well I would feel that that would be real appropriate either a vertical curb or some landscaping that would prevent traffic across there. Something substantial enough to do it. Maybe whether it’s some landscaping rocks – Butler: -- rocks, boulders, that’s what Albertson’s put in on Eagle road. Borup: Then the aspect of construction traffic on Parkdale. Is there any reason a fence couldn’t be put up or barriers on the road or something like that? At some time the connection between the two is going to have to be made so a fence isn’t going to be able to stay there permanently there needs to be excavation and such in there and that’s where maybe a barrier into Westdale 10 feet or something – Butler: I’d have to check with the developers but maybe the barrier until the all of the infrastructure is in. That’s when you’ve got all of your heavy equipment, your asphalt vehicles and your dozers and backhoes. Then upon when we start issuing Building Permits maybe take the barrier down. Borup: Well yes at that point it would have to have pre-access once the Building Permits are issued. Butler: ACHD allowed us to do that on another development but we had to take the barrier down before we got our first Building Permit because they wanted access once those roads were accepted. During the construction of infrastructure – Borup: -- our department would require that I would – Butler: But for infastructure the developer is nodding we can barricade it off if that’s what you would like. Borup: Did you have questions Commissioners? Nary: Yes, when you’re talking a barricade you’re talking more fixed barricade then when you were saying in Eagle that they drove around I assume? That didn’t calm any of the people then on this side of the room that’s why we said that. Butler: Yes that wasn’t big enough. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 6 Borup: Can’t some of the concrete divider things be brought in and put there or something along that line? Merkle: Jim Merkle of Hillview Development. Regarding the barricade you’re right Commissioner Chairman we can barricade it off during infrastructure. I kind of cringed when Mark talked about the car that drove around. We’ve been in our construction six months and that’s the first one. It’s not a daily occurrence. We tell our contractors, hey abide by the rules you’re going to work for us. It’s a commitment we made at the City and to the neighbors to try to keep it to a minimum and that’s what we want. It has worked. Now I can’t account for everybody that drives out there at all times of the day but it has worked. We – Mark said one example, we had been under construction six weeks. Borup: What type of barricade was that? Merkle: It was just those type three, big red, three barricades and there was a sign on each side that says construction via Floating Feather Road and that’s worked. It doesn’t work for somebody who wants to get by it but it works for the people that are playing by the rules. That’s what we’re willing to do. Borup: So it’s barricading that one right clear across the paved area? Merkle: Not clear across but we put some signs up right next to it so that’s why they had to drive up and around. Borup: So they drove off of the road to get around? Merkle: Yes. Now please understand we have some connections of utilities to be through there so there will be some construction activity but – Borup: Well that’s what I was saying the barricade may need to be moved time to time or back into Westdale a ways so you can make those connections. Merkle: Right and once the pavements ready to go and Building Permit then it comes down and people drive in there. We still have our signs there that say Macaile Meadows Contractors and construction traffic via Cloverdale. We still have our signs up but the roads going to be open because somebody might move in there a month after construction starts and live there. Borup: Right and I think that’s a concern for the Fire Department too and the emergency vehicle access. Otherwise we wouldn’t have had all of this discussion about a secondary access. Merkle: There is one other clarification made. I think there was something stated about developers committed in a neighborhood meeting for one-story, two-story on the south side. That’s not true. We talked about having – there are Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 7 minutes I’ve never seen the minutes. I think that somebody took their own minutes. What was said was we will get with ourselves and do some research and look at the market and see what the surrounding homes have and then decide. We looked at the Crossroads and there’s only one two-story so it makes no sense to have any over there because that’s what they wanted. So we have no two-stories next to Crossroads. On the south you can clearly see, as Mark pointed out and I’m being redundant to what Mark said. There are five or six two-stories already there and we only have three lots that don’t touch a two-story. I just wanted to clear the record up. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: But on April 5th in our meeting, in our minutes, Mr. Butler did commit to doing single-story. At this meeting, in our minutes here he said if that’s what you want if you want single-story we will go single-story. That’s what these people heard. He did commit to us here so I wasn’t at your neighborhood meeting but I was the one who asked that question and it is in our minutes. Merkle: Well I don’t know that. Nary: So it was a commitment that was made and I think you were sitting here too. Merkle: Oh, I was sitting there but I – we’ve committed to Crossroads we’ve never committed there. Nary: You admitted here on April 5th if that’s what we wanted, if that’s what these neighbors wanted and that’s what we directed that that’s what you would do. So I want that part of the record to be clear too then. Merkle: Okay, crystal. Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Merkle? Thank you. Were you finished Mr. Butler then? Butler: Yes unless you had questions. Borup: Was there any other questions from the Commissioners? Nary: I had a question for Bruce actually. I know he’s somewhere on the other side of that board. Are you there Bruce? Freckleton: All present. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 8 Nary: I was curious on the question that we’ve obviously beaten around quite a bit but on the issue of traffic calming whether it’s speed bumps or something else. Is there any way for the homeowners to get that relief? Obviously ACHD doesn’t want to put that in or require that of this developer to put it in on someone else’s property. Can’t these folks go to ACHD? Can’t their Homeowners Association pay for that to put those things in? Freckleton: Commissioner Nary that is a question that I was personally asking myself tonight -- Nary: Well that’s why I thought you knew. Freckleton: -- for my own subdivision and Brad did tell me that ACHD now has a Traffic Calming Specialist that they have on staff that deals with these types of issues. I would recommend that they contact ACHD and contact this person and see what can be done. Nary: I guess that was always my understanding that it has to meet certain criteria but if they – if you want to pay for it then you can do it if it meets certain criteria. If you want them to pay for it the criteria is a little more stringent but I guess that was just my belief I don’t know that for a fact. Hawkins-Clark: I might add Chairman, Commissioner Nary there is -- every November the Ada County Highway District has applications that can be submitted by Homeowners Associations directly to ACHD for what they call Neighborhood Enhancement Projects. I believe that traffic calming can apply to that. It’s County wide so the competition is Kuna, Boise, Meridian but we have been told by ACHD in the past that Meridian has received very little of these funds. I think there’s something like 1.2 million dollars that they have allocated every year for neighborhoods to basically compete for this money and it is to be used only on local streets. It can’t be used on collectors or arterials and it is for the purpose of sidewalk improvements and I think traffic calming applies. Just to point that out that that money is there and it is competitive but the applications come out in November. Centers: And Brad I would think that they would want a petition signed by the majority of the homeowners? Hawkins-Clark: It’s 80 percent minimum. Borup: That already is a stipulation. Hawkins-Clark: That’s a stipulation – guidelines. Borup: That makes sense. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 9 Nary: Is that for them to pay for or if the homeowners want to pay for it or either one? Hawkins-Clark: The only commitment has to be I think for any right-of-way that might be necessary the homeowners have to agree to give that up but other wise it’s all – the cost is born 100 percent by ACHD. Borup: Thank you. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: I had one question for the applicant. Either or, it maybe more applicable to the developer. Every subdivision of this size especially has and entrance sign Macaile Meadows, stone or whatever – large signs. Where are you going to put them? So you’re not going to put it out on Cloverdale on the secondary access? Merkle: There may be one out of Cloverdale. There will be one here and there will be one down here at the south side right at the entrance of Macaile Meadows. Centers: Why wouldn’t you put it on Cloverdale? I mean your realtors sometimes can’t find the property. Merkle: I think there will be real estate signs but as far as a monument sign or landscape and stuff like that there will be marketing signs out on Cloverdale. Centers: But you don’t propose to put one on Cloverdale? Merkle: Of monument entry to the subdivision sign? Centers: Sure. Merkle: No because in two years it wouldn’t be the entry to the subdivision. It would be the entrance to the 15 unit per acre multi-family development. Centers: That’s my concern because in the Ada County Highway District’s letter here, in two different places that I see they mention secondary access. My concern for the neighbors in Westdale are people driving through there and that’ s the reason for the other access. I’ve got to tell you that I highly recommend that you put it on Cloverdale. It may run a few thousand dollars but you could – come two years and it will help market your homes and it will traffic people in that way. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 10 Merkle: It’s a good thought. Cost is not an issue on the monument sign it’s just appropriate. There might be a big billboard for a marketing sign but a monument permanent subdivision entrance sign I don’t think it’s appropriate because in two or three years it wouldn’t be. Centers: Well I live in (inaudible) Pointe and you’ve seen the entrance there and those aren’t that expensive. They are nicely done and painted and I don’t think they’re that expensive. Merkle: Well it’s all for a condition we can all work some kind of obvious entrance to the subdivision whether it be a (inaudible) sign or a permanent sign. Centers: Obvious entrance yes because I didn’t like the wording secondary access. Merkle: I can’t speak for them I’m just thinking originally there was one access provided so everybody started talking about a secondary. I think eventually in reality it will be a primary. Borup: Well that is what the traffic study shows. It is the primary access as far as what they’re projecting. Centers: Yes I would like it designated that way so that the buying public and the contractors that you’re trying to come in have come in that way a lot more easily directed and – Borup: Well I think you could do an attractive subdivision entrance sign there with maybe not going to the extent – Merkle: There will be plenty of room – Borup: -- with waterfalls and hills and everything. Merkle: I would like to point out one thing. I was unaware that that was in the minutes from the other meeting. But if Butler said that in the minutes we will stand by it. I was speaking of the other minutes. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Any other questions? Commissioners? I think we have a few things to talk about if we’re ready now. Centers: Mr. Chairman I would like to move – make a motion that we close the Public Hearing. Shreeve: I’ll second that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 11 Centers: For Item 4 and 5, annexation and zoning 01-005 and Preliminary Plat PP 01-006. Shreeve: I’ll second that. Borup: Motion second, all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Well I think we do have some discussion here. I don’t know if we want to go into that a little bit before the motions formulated or would someone rather do a motion and then do a discussion at that point. Norton: I think we should discuss it before we get started. Borup: What do we see are the issues here? Norton: I think some of the big issues are traffic. Close the secondary access and if there’s no representative from the church here how – are they going to want a sign out on their property and how temporary is a temporary road? Are they going to make it permanent if the subdivision wants it permanent? I think that road and the traffic going through especially Parkdale and Driftwood. That intersection is – I think that’s a killer to those neighbors. Borup: Did you read the traffic report? Norton: I glanced at it since I got it today. Borup: It showed 300 on Parkdale. Norton: With the extra access? Borup: Right Norton: The secondary access? Borup: Yes. I don’t belief it shows – it didn’t even indicate anything on Driftwood so that’s unrealistic to think there’s not going to be any at all. Norton: I think people would like to go down Executive to the stoplight. Centers: Excuse me you know the church I think if we required a dedicated monument sign or something on Cloverdale either the church would allow it or they wouldn’t get their subdivision. That’s the way I would look at it. The church Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 12 is giving them the easement. They’re going to give them a place to put up nice looking signs I think. Nary: I think they will because they own it all. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Centers: They want to sell that parcel of land that’s the bottom line. Borup: Well you can do a nice looking – with a sign without going to the big expense of – Centers: -- I’m concerned like you are Commissioner Norton that they use that so called secondary access for primary. That’s why they’re back here because we made that the requirement. Norton: I also don’t see there’s – I think there’s a possibility of delaying this project until there is a road to connect to that sub street to the north. Either Venture or the other one into Crossroad. Neither one of those would be quote temporary those would be permanent. It would be simply holding this project or not moving this project forward until there is some more development out there where we could have a permanent road. Centers: To the north and they’re talking a couple of years? Norton: To the north. Which is what our Fire Department and our Police Department would like to see that. Centers: But the other point and I guess you and I are going to talk here. The other point I think this is along the Mayor’s guidelines he likes to see the entail and that’s – even though it’s annexation it’s not jumping out there. I’m with you. I didn’t like the traffic on those people’s subdivision. They were there first and then another developer wants to come in and use them for access. Of course that’s why we got them back tonight. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I am pretty torn about this subdivision. I do think that if there is some improvement in this plat that’s been proposed in the second access and I think that’s what it’s referred to I think that helps. I think if we have a sign there that helps. I think if they’re going to be the roads first and build the choker at the bottom so that it’s less accessible to the construction traffic for the initial development. Not for buildings but obviously for sewer and those type of those things, and put a barricade that helps. I think they have done a lot of things here Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 13 that we’ve asked them to do. I do think that the neighbors have raised a legitimate point but I also believe that the – this property is going to be zoned to have residents on it. It’s going to be houses or apartments it’s going to be one or the two. There’s going to be people living there this year or next year or five years from now. There’s going to be houses or apartments in that location. Is this a good development for this area? You know it really isn’t – I don’t live there. Maybe for the folks living there it doesn’t seem to be that great but it’s not bad. I recognize what a couple of folks brought up about the compatibility of the north portion of this subdivision that the lots are small. I think they are pretty small but I think as Chairman Borup said the last time they provide some transition. There are going to be other types of lots north of this property that are probably going to be apartments. Those are transitioned from the other side and the ones that border the properties on both Crossroads and Westdale I think are – there again, they’re not perfect but the compatibility doesn’t mean they’re the same. The compatibility means that there’s some similarity to them and there is some similarity to it. They are smaller. They are not significantly smaller if they’re one- story which I think is what I would prefer to see. I think they’re compatible. I think they’re supposed to be kind of similar. There is going to be some traffic I think. There is less traffic here than if this was an apartment complex which in our rate could be. They could have more then what they’re asking for if they wanted to. I think this is a decent infill now that they have a road that we could put some requirements that make people use it. Is it perfect? No, it’s not perfect. (Inaudible) have the same views but I would rather have a two-story tree in my backyard then a two-story house. I don’t think it’s that bad. I think if we can do the best we can to get the traffic to use the other access and not have the big, heavy, cement trucks and the big, heavy, graders driving down Parkdale that’s going to help to some degree than what you have now or what could be in the future of – if it’s something else. I was really torn. I really came to this meeting thinking this just isn’t going to work. I’ve listened to both sides and there are things that can make it work. I don’t know whether or not there’s enough on this board here to approve it but I think there’s at least some things here that could make it workable for people and allow them to develop some property but provide as much buffer to the neighbors as we can and provide as much things that we can to make this a compatible situation. It’s again not ideal and perfect but it meets its compatibles. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: Question for Brad. We’ve got 10 percent open space landscape? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Centers it would be five. Centers: Five excuse me. I did a quick map and there’s 60,000 square feet of open space or landscape within there and Mr. Butler pointed that out earlier. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 14 That’s where you don’t have that in your subdivision. That’s all I wanted to add. I’m like Commissioner Nary I was torn when I first came in and probably leaning towards maybe a reject but then I don’t know when you look at everything and I agree with Commissioner Nary – and in the future as Commissioner Nary pointed out and I didn’t think of it you could have apartments looming over you there. Borup: Well that’s already what was proposed north of this subdivision on the Comprehensive Plan. Nary: Isn’t R-8 allowed for apartments? Borup: With a Conditional Use? Nary: With a Conditional Use, no. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: But that’s not a lot different a tri-plex. You put a row of tri-plexes it’s the same effect. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Shreeve. Shreeve: Brad are there any amenities going in onto the park? Has there been anything proposed on swing sets or anything like that on the park or just simply open? Because certainly those 89 kids would benefit from having a little bit of parking there. I can’t imagine they wouldn’t. Hawkins-Clark: One thing to point out. It is a Homeowners Association of Macaile Meadows Park and maybe if you want it up and I don’t know I’m not going to speak for the developer but there could be sort of a cross agreement between Westdale Park Homeowners Association of Macaile that says sure let’s share this space. It’s not like it’s a public park. Centers: They could get together later on. Nary: But there’s no pathways to the park it’s just sidewalk. Hawkins-Clark: Well it’s detached sidewalk which – Norton: Mr. Chairman. Hawkins-Clark: The amenities I’m sorry as far as the question Commissioner Shreeve there wasn’t any proposed. They’re showing a picnic table there and it Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 15 does have sort of a combination that – largely just open space at this point. We don’t have standards per say in the City Ordinance that say you have to have certain amenities. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners I just wanted to make another statement. I think it is a lot easier for this Commission to go with the flow and go with the developers. It looks good. They’ve done everything we told them to do. They’ve put in an extra road so let’s let them have what they want. I think it is important for the Planning and Zoning to start planning and coming up with some viable plans that would not only help the neighbors but also would be agreeable with the developers. At this point I still don’t see that this subdivision – proposed subdivision is compatible with the Driftwood or Parkview Subdivision nor the Crossroads subdivision. Isn’t Crossroads Subdivision R-4? Borup: Actually it’s I-L until a couple of months ago. Norton: Is it R-4 or is it I-L? It is R-4 is that correct? Borup: This Commission just changed that a couple of months ago. Norton: Okay it is R-4, thanks. I can see that – Borup: -- wait a minute it can’t be R-4. There are lots smaller than that in there are you sure it’s R-4. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Borup: How do you get 70-foot wide lots in an R-4? Hawkins-Clark: The – if I’m correct the Crossroads was developed prior to the R-4 standards coming in but we said that during the rezone process that even though the lot sizes are less than the R-4 the density is R-4 so it was a hard call because there were non conforming lots but we decided to go with the R-40. Borup: Today’s standards that would not qualify as an R-4? Well it wouldn’t have qualified for the last five years. Hawkins-Clark: 93, right. Borup: Yes but that was the point. I know there are lots now that are 70 feet and maybe smaller in there but – Norton: My point is that the very minimum in an R-8 house size is 1,301 which as most of these houses are going to be is my understanding. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 16 Borup: No. Norton: There are some houses that are going to be larger 1,350 -- ***End Of Side Two*** Norton: -- I can see this coming down to maybe fewer building lots – I will not vote for this. If the building lots were reduced – they’re not 115 building lots, less building lots and we could go by the word by the developer that he will not put in two story lots on the south side of their subdivision. It’s in our minutes, it’s in the minutes of the Homeowners Association which we all have a copy of and as he said play by the rules and do what they say they are going to do. Unless these lots are less building lots and they propose or we require less homes to go in here I won’t vote for this. I’m still am iffy about that extra entrance. We were talking about records that’s a permanent entrance and west fifth if that’s still an easement it certainly – I don’t know if it’s still an easement but it doesn’t have a sign on it. This is going through church property, you know maybe it’s benefiting the church too since they’re selling the property but it just doesn’t seem like a primary entrance to their subdivision and they’re just using the entrance to the other subdivision to get in and out. Borup: Anyone else? Centers: Mr. Chairman I would just like – I respect your comments Commissioner Norton I really do but I would like to comment on that we should be planners. I don’t think any of us here went to college to be planners and that’s why we had a staff. I don’t think we plan by reject or by approve. We follow hopefully a Comprehensive Plan and we follow the advice of paid planners who are college educated and they make their recommendations to us or what have you. I can’t agree with that comment that we should be planners and I didn’t – I’m not a planner. I don’t have a college education for that. I listen to both sides and make my opinion. I do respect your opinion and I know where you’re coming from but I just wanted to make that – Borup: I’ve got a few comments and the main concern I’ve had is I think the traffic on Driftwood. Having this subdivision connecting to another in my mind is not a lot different than a second or third phase of any subdivision that is developed. You always got, essentially and legally half the time a new subdivision right next door that the same traffic is going through. I don’t see where that is a lot different. I think the idea of trying to prevent that traffic down Driftwood is the concern and I – proper choker and from the traffic study seems to accomplish that. This has been stated several times, I think the only reason – not I don’t think. I know pretty much the only reason that the lots are the square foot as they are is because of the shape of the land. You’ve got a long, narrow piece. As Commissioner said there’s not much – or Centers I can’t remember Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 17 which one – but there’s not too many ways to develop a piece like that I’ve seen them in the past. I did a quick look at Macaile Meadows and there are 45 lots out of the 115 that are 65 feet. Actually, if you want to get technical there’s not even that many but – under 66 feet. There are only 45 lots in the whole subdivision so the size of a house that you can get on that lot is – you know when you’ve got another 5 to 7 feet there’s a difference (inaudible). There’s a difference on what you get as far as size I think that’s got to have something to do with the size of homes going in there. I’ve got a real concern on this Commission dictating the two story. If we’re going to get him doing that why aren’t we doing the same thing within a subdivision? Maybe we need to be doing that in Macaile Meadows that the interior lots can’t have two stories because it would block their neighbors backing up to them. It’s the same reasoning and where do you stop? They don’t prevent any landscaping, any (inaudible) trees. The other thing I took a look at is looking at the depth of the lots on Driftwood had 160 feet and some of them are bigger than that. Their neighbors across the street to the south, the houses would be as close or closer than the houses in Macaile Meadows. The people on the south side of Driftwood would have the same complaint or same concern about not wanting two story homes across the street from them. When you’ve got that much depth of favoring normal setbacks the house could be 70 feet away on Driftwood from your neighbor across the street and the house backing up is going to be 70 to 90 feet away. So I can see the houses on Driftwood is going to be closer to their neighbors and the neighbors to the north of them. I just – I don’t know. I just don’t feel it’s appropriate for us to put that kind of restriction just because it’s bordering any more than we would do the same thing on the second and third phase of a subdivision. Both neighbors would have the same situation there. The Planning and Zoning classes I’ve gone to the people come in and have stated that our consideration should be swayed by things that are appropriate and pertinent. They said as far as they were concerned any way those two attorneys – the view was not something that we could consider. It should consider an appropriate testimony. Centers: I agree but he offered. Nary: Mr. Chairman I would concur. I don’t know that we normally would be in the business of saying how big or what the size of the house is or how tall the house is on a bigger lot. We’re also looking as to what – does this make it compatible with those other subdivisions. The lot size doesn’t make it compatible. It’s close but it ‘s not great – it’s not real compatible. Without the restriction on the side of the house that they offered up basically as a piece offering to those folks at Westdale I don’t think it’s compatible at all. I wouldn’t even hesitate to want to deny it because I don’t think there’s anything that makes it very compatible along the edges except for those restrictions that they were willing to give. I don’t think it’s reasonable. Nobody’s here from Cloverdale so – because they already agreed to that. That’s why these folks are here is because it’s never been very clear – Crossroads because they’ve never been very clear Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 18 that that’s their commitment even though they have committed to it. That’s why Crossroads isn’t here is because they did. I agree with what you’re saying I don’t think we normally would dictate that and I don’t think the reason we want to dictate that is view. I think the reason we want to dictate that is to make it compatible with – Borup: -- so by forcing smaller homes on those lots we’re making it more compatible? Nary: I think we’re making it more compatible as a transition like you stated the last time. It’s going to be apartments R-15 to the north of this as a transition to the larger homes and larger lots both to the west and to the south. That’s my perception of transition. You have multiple family dwellings. You have some smaller homes as the buffer as the homes get larger as they go further south and west of here. That’s what transition means to me. That’s what I think it is. I don’t think that’s that unreasonable because they offered it. I don’t know whether or not as a Commission we would normally be in the practice of making those determinations. I think we would say the lots are too big or too small. Borup: Yes. Nary: I think that’s all we would say. I guess this seems like a pretty pretentious subdivision for 115 homes but the four of us up here aren’t really sure where we’re going. I guess Commissioner Shreeve is really the one that’s going to make the decision tonight. Centers: But let me add to that. I think rather than compatible and the single story lots Mr. Chairman, I think the developer is showing them that he can be a good neighbor, good friend and will make those single level. I totally agree, I don’t think we should ever require single or two story et cetera. I think that’s what he did and I think he wants to be a good neighbor with the people that he’s going to be a neighbor with and marketing homes in there. He’s going to get buyers from Westdale, referrals. I mean they have to be good neighbors. So I think if he wants to be a good neighbor and he wants to do that I think we ought to let him. Borup: I guess I would have to agree with that. The lots houses are going to be smaller I mean statistics tell you that. So it’s going to be smaller, less expensive homes that would be there otherwise. Nary: Maybe, Mr. Chairman unlike my last comment and again I haven’t really decided which way to go on this. It really is a very difficult call. I really do respect what Commissioner Norton said and I think it’s a hard job sometimes sitting here. We do trust and rely very much on the staff to give us some recommendations of compliance with our code. A compliance with our plans and I haven’t read anything in here that says it’s not. I haven’t read anything that Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 19 says there’s no reason not to annex this property. I haven’t read anything to say that this plat and what’s being proposed is not compliant with our Comprehensive Plan and the codes that we currently have. That makes it real tough. I do agree that we’re here to oversee the planning process. I don’t think we’re planners but I think we’re here to oversee that processes make good planning decisions to the City of Meridian with our reliance on the staff of the City to give us some guidance as to their perception or at least their recommendation of how this fits in the big picture of the planning. I haven’t heard anything to say this is a bad plan and this is a bad planning to have it. It is a shoehorn and it is how tight you want to squeeze this shoe in here. If that’s really what it is whenever you have an infill which is what this is, you have a piece of property and don’t have anything on it can we squeeze it in there and make it right, make it pretty good? Could we make it better, we sure could and I think that’s what Commissioner Norton’s view was that I have a lot of respect for that we could make this a lot better. We could also make it a whole lot worse and it would probably still be compliant. That’s the ballot that we have to deal with up here. They can come and propose something else you won’t like at all. It’s still compliant and we might say that’s okay or somebody else is sitting in our places saying that’s okay. That complies that’s all that’s required. It’s real tough. You set up a bunch of rules that the City Council has to follow and we have to follow. We set up the rules and if they comply with those rules then we have to really try to give at least some pretence to that. It is their property. They get to develop it within those guidelines and rules. I guess that’s what I’m still torn about. Commissioner Shreeve will make it all better. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman I do have just another question of clarification. Once again on that easement road I guess probably through agreements with ACHD is it will be once there is a connection with Venture then that easement will be null and void revert back – is that the condition of reverting that or getting rid of that easement is that there is a connection? Borup: I don’t know if it’s automatically. It can be. Nary: I think that was what was anticipated. Borup: (inaudible) but if you want to talk to staff I think they could – we could handle that. Either that or we need to open it. Nary: At least that’s the way I read the (inaudible) is that that was anticipated in the future that that’s what would happen. I don’t think it’s a requirement but it reverts back. Centers: Right. Borup: I think it would – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 20 (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Shreeve: -- at least until it’s connected – Borup: -- yes it will stay intact until there’s connection through to Fairview. I think depending on what type of connection that is ACHD would make their determination and whether it needed to stay or go. Norton: It almost looks like they’re going to use a connection on Crossroads. In Crossroads Subdivision because they moved the stub street way over to the east to the west. It almost looks like they’re going to connect to that stub in Crossroads and go through Records is what it looks like. Borup: Well or to Venture. Norton: There’s no stub street to Venture anymore they moved it. Borup: Venture is the one that’s there by the pink. Norton: Yes they moved their stub street way over to the far, far left. Borup: Right but that still connects to Venture. Nary: -- it’s closer to that connection than it is to (inaudible). Borup: -- or it can connect to both. It could go to both. Brad have you got any comment that might clarify that? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup yes. The ACHD staff report states that once a permanent connection goes to either Fairview or Cloverdale then the temporary would go away. It does not state that it has to move from its proposed location. It could stay there. It could go to Venture. It could be either one but it is (inaudible) fairly flexible. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman I guess to state my two bits on this I too, as well coming into this meeting was not overly anxious about this but in my opinion the access is appealing as long as it’s there. It’s a paved road you get a signage, you stripe it and make it look attractive. Basically all of the above that’s been stated but I cut it short. I don’t know about the speed bumps. I still think that those would help be a deterrent and certainly I agree absolutely with the residents getting some kind of a lift put together. I do believe that the added potential traffic, granted you will barricade you will do what you need to, but there is always that potential of additional traffic created by this development that otherwise would not be there. Back on the Homeowners, I don’t think it’s necessarily appropriate. However to get the Homeowners to buy off on it again, 80 percent whatever the conditions may be I think is appropriate. If the residents can certainly Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 21 accumulate those types of signatures I think this development ought to be willing to put those in or required to put those in per ACHD standards. Borup: For the speed bumps you’re saying? Shreeve: Speed bumps. If that’s what they want again. Let’s abide by ACHD’s standards of the 80 percent and if they don’t get it than the developer is relieved of that obligation. Borup: I noticed that the ACHD report I don’t even think even mentions traffic on there so I’m not sure how much we’re talking about. I think from public testimony their concern, and maybe I read it wrong. I don’t think their concern is so much that the traffic during the most parts of the day but at the peak traffic periods when Executive Drive light starts backing that people are going to turn in to avoid the congestion at that intersection. I assume that’s going to be 7:30 in the morning and 5:00 at night or to whenever. That is probably the times where the concern is going to be. I guess the real answer to that is how effective the choker is. It’s not going to do anything on traffic off of Cloverdale. It’s coming out of the subdivision the choker is going to be effective coming the other way. I don’t see – it wouldn’t have any effect but the speed bumps would. Here we go. It does have – its got 200 on -- Driftwood is the projected added traffic. Shreeve: Well and you can project but I think there are scientific studies and there’s just being reasonable. Borup: Wait a minute I’m looking an old one. Shreeve: In my minds eye there’s going to be some traffic coming through there. Norton: Page 4 it does say 200 on Driftwood, 500 on Parkdale. Are you still looking at traffic studies? Borup: Yes. Norton: Okay on Page 4. Borup: That’s the new one? Norton: Yes. Shreeve: Of course recognize that’s hypothetical because the secondary access if we’re calling it that isn’t even constructed. It’s all hypothetical of what – Borup: No that’s taking that into consideration. Norton: Otherwise it would have been 1,000. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 22 Shreeve: Okay. Borup: There’s – the new entrance is taking up 800 or 900 – Norton: -- 600 wait. Wait a minute Option B. They have Option A and then Option B. Borup: We’ve got a map that shows that too so you don’t have to read it but somewhere under all of my piles of paper – Norton: Okay Option B is the one we’re looking at. Borup: But what page? Norton: I’m on Page 5. 300 to Cloverdale Road, 600 to Parkdale Avenue and 200 on Driftwood. Option B is the connection to Cloverdale. Borup: That is still saying 200 on – both of them show 200 on Driftwood. Norton: Yes 600 on Parkdale and only 300 on Cloverdale. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Shreeve. Shreeve: May I be so bold as to make a motion? Borup: Please do it’s almost 9:00. Shreeve: If I can get it all straight and I certainly welcome any interjections as I proceed – Borup: -- yes and if anyone else – why don’t you go ahead and do the motion and then we’ll see if anyone else has any items they want to add. Shreeve: I make a motion that we approve this subdivision. We approve AZ 01- 005 request for annexation and zoning of 28.59 acres from RUT to R-8 for proposed Macaile Meadows Subdivision. Also we approve – Borup: We need to do one at a time. Shreeve: Sorry about that. I don’t know where to throw these comments in. Borup: Probably under the plat rather than the annexation I’m anticipating unless you’ve got something that would apply to the annexation. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 23 Shreeve: Well and I don’t know if this applies or not but I concur with the thoughts of not mandating whether it be single story or two story in the motion. I’m going to intentionally leave that out. Borup: That would be part of the plat. Shreeve: That would be part of the plat okay. Borup: Do we have a second? Swartley: Was that a complete motion? Shreeve: No sir. Borup: I’m sorry did something get left out? Swartley: You say with staff comments and conditions. Borup: Yes he sure did. Shreeve: I did now. Centers: I would second that. Borup: Motion is second – Swartley: Mr. Chairman I’m sorry real quickly. Brad you made some comments at the start did you want those in? Was that in the – with the plat too? That was only two hours ago so I’m sorry if I forgot. Hawkins-Clark: There were a couple of changes in yesterday’s memo of mine that would apply to the annexation. Swartley: Okay why don’t you just real quickly note the memo of May 16th . Shreeve: Note the memo of May 16th that – include that as part of my motion. Centers: I would still second it. Nary: Which sections of your May 16th of the modifications? The Development Agreement? Hawkins-Clark: The Development Agreement correct. Nary: Those three. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 24 Borup: Probably just one would be the only one that would apply to the annexation. We have a motion and a second, discussion? Any discussion all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAYE Borup: Next item is – Shreeve: Propose approval of PP 01-006 request for Preliminary Plat approval of 115 building lots and 15 other lots on 28.59 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Macaile Meadows Subdivision with all staff comments and the following. That if the residents can obtain 80 percent signature rating that the developer put in the speed bumps per ACHD requirements. That they landscape the chokers per ACHD requirements and do what needs to be done there with the vertical curbing. That the construction access that they do signage, they stripe the road, they absolutely provide due diligence on the easement road to get all of the traffic going down that road down the church. That they barricade also the entrance certainly as much as possible. Of course when you’re digging your water and sewer those will probably be removed for that time. Then as a matter of clarification I’m not making part of the proposal that we dictate whether it be a two story or not. Whether the developer on his own benefit or integrity of what he stated in the past I’ll leave that up to him. Just to make that clarification that is not part of the motion. Borup: Anybody like to add anything to that motion? Any suggestions or additions to the motion? Nary: Well it appears that the – on the memo from Brad on May 16th the modifying condition No. 13 about Building Permits is probably not necessary. I think what we talked about was that they would build the easement road and install the chokers on Parkdale prior to any Building Permits and that they had agreed that maybe what the No. 2 of the conditions should read is that all construction traffic related to the development of the subdivision shall instead of should use the Cloverdale Road access. I think you said they would barricade that – that’s practical I guess. It sounds like we can either eliminate or modify one because we’re not – because it wasn’t that they built it before they – they already agreed to build it before they get the Building Permits. Shreeve: Good point. Nary: Did you want anything regarding – we talked about having some sort of signage on Cloverdale as a – Borup: He mentioned that but I wouldn’t mind seeing something put on a permanent sign. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 25 Centers: Yes I would like to see a permanent sign similar to all new subdivisions within the City of Meridian where that’s the main entrance. Borup: You see permanent signs from a sand blasted wood one to the 50,000- dollar waterfall. Nary: This is (inaudible) sign on a stick. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: I think that can be done without going extravagant. Centers: Well if you want to get specific make it similar to the signage at Sportsman Pointe Subdivision in Meridian, Idaho. Borup: Is that wood signage? Centers: With the same square-footage and mounting techniques if you want to get specific. Use that as an example. Borup: Do we want to get that specific? Centers: Well I don’t think it hurts because as Commissioner Nary pointed out I don’t want to sign on a stick. Shreeve: I agree. Borup: Okay good that was one of the comments that I had. I think -- were specific enough on the barricade during construction? Do you remember how you worded that Commissioner Shreeve? Centers: In Westdale. Borup: Yes. He mentioned. Commissioner Shreeve mentioned that but do you remember how you worded that? Shreeve: No just make sure they do it. Nary: I think what they had – at least what they spoke about was a concrete barricade but as practical (inaudible) they would have to move it occasionally – Shreeve: Well they would need to move strictly for utilities but once the utilities have been put in – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 26 Borup: -- but I don’t think he was talking about concrete he was talking about one that went across most of the road. I understood that he was talking about the normal barricade like you on a dead end. Shreeve: Well a barricade simply will not allow people to drive around it. That’s the kind of barricade whatever that it. I don’t care what it is as long as cars cannot drive around it. Borup: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Excuse me Commission for a minute. I’m sorry just to point out that the sign Ordinance doesn’t not allow off premise signs. It would require a variance. Centers: For the sign on Cloverdale? Well then you’ll ask for a variance. Borup: You’re not referring to the one on Cloverdale? Hawkins-Clark: It is in Boise. That’s true it’s in Boise. Borup: Okay good point. Centers: That would still be in Boise yes. Nary: I don’t think Boise allows an office premise sign. Hawkins-Clark: I don’t think so either. Nary: I think you can allow an off premise directional sign in Boise so they can have a directional sign. I think they can do that. Borup: Is there a limit to size? Centers: On a stick. Shreeve: That’s a really big stick. Borup: That’s what I meant it could have a real nice look and – Nary: I believe you can have an off premise directional sign but I’m not positive. Borup: That’s a real nice looking directional sign. Nary: -- but I don’t know that you can have a – I don’t know that they can have an entrance sign on there. I don’t know. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 27 Borup: Well at this point it’s still part of the motioning. I don’t know that we need to remove it. Maybe that’s something that needs to be worked out. Nary: They obviously can’t violate the law here in Meridian so they have to put whatever they can. Borup: Do we have a completed motion here then? Do we need to restate it Mr. Swartley? Would you like to restate it? Shreeve: No. Borup: Okay we brought it down good enough then? We have a motion no second yet though and I see none. Would someone like to modify a – make a modification of a motion? Has that gone up to a point where it could be modified or do we need to hold a motion? Nary: I think you can make a substitute motion. Borup: Yes we have no motion at this point so we’re ready for our – Nary: Mr. Chairman I will vote approval with the other conditions that we’ve had but with the additional condition that the properties that border the Westdale Subdivision on the south side of Macaile Meadows, it’s approximately nine that all of those residences will be limited to a single story. Borup: Even though they’re backing up against another two story? Nary: Yes. They said single story then single story it is. Borup: Okay. It just seemed to me like that goes both ways. Nary: They’re coming from the neighborhood so that’s the way it goes and that’s what they told the folks so – that’s if nobody wants to second that then we can just keep doing this (inaudible). With all of the previous amendments that we’ve had to the Preliminary Plat including the barricade and the light that all of the property, the (inaudible) piece of property that borders the Westdale Subdivision be equivalent to a single story structure. Shreeve: Speed bumps part of that? Nary: Yes speed bumps. Everything else that – Borup: -- so you’re saying Commissioner Shreeves motion adding the (inaudible). Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 28 Nary: I just simply want to make a substitute to add that all of the property on there would be single story that bordered Westdale. Centers: Anything about a sign on Cloverdale? Borup: That was included wasn’t it? Nary: I think the sign – I think what’s included in the motion is that they have an entrance sign, a monument sign to direct people to that entrance to the subdivision. They have to comply with whatever Boise’s Sign Ordinance requires. Whatever Boise may require so I don’t know we can require any more than that. That they make an entrance sign that’s compliant with the Boise City Code on Cloverdale I think is – Borup: I think what we’re saying – our motion be into a substantial sign and that’s what we would like them to apply for. Then submit and apply for. Centers: You could also say it as he had proposed another entrance sign at Westdale so you could state that there wouldn’t be allowed any other entrance signs to the subdivision. That would have to be their main entrance. Nary: For an interim – the only thing and I do like that. I think that’s a good idea. The only problem I’m concerned with is if Boise City doesn’t allow them to have an off premise sign that it’s nothing with an arrow with a name on it, they won’t have anything else to tell people how to get there. Somebody’s going to drive up, turn down Parkdale and go look at all of these houses there what is that? They’re not going to have any idea what – Centers: -- they would have to come back then or something right Commissioner Nary? Nary: If they could not build a – I guess it’s something that they’re going to have to answer to the City Council when it gets there. Centers: Well I want to see them have that sign on Cloverdale. If we deny any other subdivision signs they’ll concentrate on that one. Nary: So would you be interested in seconding this motion given (inaudible) if we included that there would be no sign on Parkdale at least at this time? Centers: Correct, I would definitely second that. Nary: That’s fine. That there be no sign on Parkdale at least at this point as an entrance to this subdivision? Centers: Right I would second that motion. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 29 Borup: Yes other than just identifying this – I don’t know that a sign at that location does a lot of good. You don’t see it from anywhere. Centers: Right it’s just another phase of another subdivision. Borup: Well how about having – I’m thinking of Hunter’s Pointe has a small sign about like that that says entering Hunter Pointe Subdivision and they’ve got it between the phases of the subdivision just so people know it’s not a great big large sign. Nary: So what you’re thinking is a smaller identification type of sign on Parkdale? Borup: Yes. Centers: After the subdivision’s built out there’s no problem with that. It’s a pride thing with Hunter’s Pointe or any other subdivision I want to identify where I live. Borup: They just want to show – because it was a continuous street like this is I just wanted everyone to know I (inaudible) start at the other end of the thing. Nary: How about at least if it was until they start building houses in there. That’s how people are going to find – once they start building houses, once they get Building Permits to build houses in there they’re going to get traffic from both directions. They’re not going to have any way to prevent that. So rather than waiting until they build 115 homes how about once they at least get Building Permits to build homes in there that they can have an identification sign. Is that adequate or no? Centers: No. I wouldn’t support that though. Maybe – (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Nary: Let’s leave it what I said that they’re not going to have a sign on Parkdale at this time. There wouldn’t be any signage on Parkdale identifying this subdivision. Centers: The only sign would be on Cloverdale. I second that motion. Nary: Okay and the City Council can change (inaudible). Borup: We do have a motion – Nary: -- they probably will. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 30 Borup: So we do have a motion and a second finally. Any other discussion, all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAYE Centers: Can we take a break? Borup: Yes let’s take a short break at this time. I thank everyone for being here and we’ll go on to Item 6 and 7. (Return from break at 9:30 p.m.) Item 6. Continued Public Hearing from April 19, 2001: PP 01-005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 336 building lots and 58 other lots on 175.91 acres in proposed R-4 and C-G zones for proposed Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision by Primeland Development, Co. LLP – north of Ustick and east of Ten Mile Roads: Item 7. Continued Public Hearing from April 19, 2001: CUP 01-006 Request for Conditional Use Permit for 692 single-family lots, 59 townhomes, 17 office lots and 10 commercial lots on 370.55 acres in proposed R-4 and C-G zones for proposed Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision by Primeland Development, Co. LLP – north of Ustick and east of Ten Mile Roads: Borup: Okay we’re ready to reconvene our Planning and Zoning meeting. The next Item on the agenda is also Continued Public Hearings. Item 6 and 7, PP 01-005 request for Preliminary Plat approval of 336 building lots. Item 7 is Continued Public Hearing on a Conditional Use Permit 01-006 request for a Conditional Use Permit for 692 single-family lots, 59 townhouses, 17 office lots and 10 commercial lots on 370.55 acres both projects for proposed Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision. I would like to continue these and start with staff comments. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, members of the Commission, I think the issues that are left open were all addressed in my memo dated May 15th which you should have received in your packets. In terms of presentation on power point I don’t know that we really spend any time on that since we’re all well familiar. In terms of the highlights on this memo, I tried to address I think what all of the outstanding issues are from the April 19th meeting. There was five major points that I hit. The ACHD action, the issues raised in the April 19th letter from Brian and Margaretha English, the Settler’s Canal Easement, the design of the White Drain and then a couple of other considerations. I just assume that you read that. If you want to address questions to me then that’s fine. The only I think, proposed change that you may consider in your motion as far as the conditions Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 31 is on Page 2 of my memo. No. 3 about mitigating headlight glare, although that could easily be addressed in a future Preliminary Plat since this Commission will see any future Preliminary Plat on the east side of this project. That could happen as a part of the CUP, it could I suppose happen as a part of the Preliminary Plat in the future that would be your call. That was regarding the options to consider a slight relocation of Copper Cloud Way in order to avoid the traffic headlight glare. Becky can refer to her discussions with Settler's Board but my understanding is they do now have easement widths that have been determined on the three facilities that are involved in this. The Coleman Lateral, the White Drain and the Settler's. We have not received anything in writing or a revised plat but for your information the White Drain has a 60-foot wide easement. That would be 30 feet from centerline. The Settler's up along McMillan has a 40-foot easement and then the Coleman Lateral has a 30-foot. The biggest question of course that’s pending before you is this whole question of Ada County Highway District not having taken any final action on their Conditional Use Permit. They haven’t taken action on the Preliminary Plat on that matter either but we do have a staff report that has proposed conditions on that. This highlighted portion on the screen is the Preliminary Plat boundaries. That is the only portion that the Highway District has made recommended conditions on. We really don’t have any issues with that as staff as far as their staff report. The Conditional Use Permit – this thing isn’t working. I guess it’s not going to go. On the bottom of Page 1 of my memo I refer to the main issue that we have as far as the Conditional Use Permit that’s pending is a connection to McMillan which we still feel is appropriate. That’s sort of an unresolved issue that’s hanging out there that is within the CUP boundaries not within the plat boundaries. I think the main issue there that may serve as a mitigating factor is that the Preliminary Plat that would be required in the future, this project goes to the east of course, they will have to submit a new Preliminary Plat at that time, the City will have a chance to make comments on and ACHD will have a chance to make comments on. That will be another opportunity to address other issues on this whole project. I think the main issue is that you’re comfortable with the overall design conceptually on the Conditional Use. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: What was that again Brad you said – which one was the one you said is not really resolved? Borup: Is he talking access to McMillan? Nary: Access to McMillan? This bottom part -- Borup: -- be in a future plat. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 32 Hawkins-Clark: So I would stand for any questions you might have of me. You got anything Bruce? Centers: Yes Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: Brad on the White Drain I still read the verbiage, has required that the drain either be piped that’s the preference of the Irrigation District or the City take on liability. How do we stand there or what’s the liability? I don’t like that word. Hawkins-Clark: There is an agreement between the City and Nampa Meridian Irrigation District on pathways that are adjacent to these drains. I’m sorry I don’t have a copy of that here but I think essentially it states that we’ll take that on right? Borup: Isn’t there also – Hawkins-Clark: -- it’s sort of a case-by-case. It refers to the pedestrian pathway more than the drain itself of course, in which it sort of weaves and intersects with this drain – the pedestrian does. Centers: Maybe the applicant wasn’t going to address it. The other verbiage here was the applicant told staff that regardless of whether or not the White Drain is piped so I think Becky will address that so moving on. Borup: Wasn’t that mentioned last time was also state law that applies to that as far as liability issue? That relieves the Irrigation Districts of liability? I thought that was mentioned – no one else remembers that? Did I read it somewhere else? Maybe I read it somewhere else. Nary: Mr. Chairman my recollection was that the City, in other sections of the City where they’ve had pathways along drainage ditches have been willing to accept that it was just kind of their call and whether they wanted it or not. I thought we heard from the developer, we’re going to pipe it unless you don’t want us to pipe it but you want a pathway there then you’re – we’ll build it but you’re going to have to be responsible for it. I think in the past if the City wanted it that’s what they did. Borup: The City’s always wanted them. We’ve had not a lot of success in getting them until recently. Nary: I think the issue usually is it doesn’t connect to something. Is it going to be out in the middle of nowhere and no one’s going to use or something that’s going to have some connectivity to the project or something. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 33 Borup: Yes and when you’ve got a mile long it doesn’t need to connect to anything like that. Nary: That’s true. Borup: But that would be the future intention is would it connect but nothing’s ever going to connect if we don’t start. Nary: Correct. Borup: Anything else Brad? Any other questions from any of the Commissioners. Applicant Becky? You’ve had a chance to look at the latest staff memo? Bowcutt: Yes sir. Becky Bowcutt 11283 West Hickory Dale in Boise. I am representing the applicant in this matter. As you instructed us at the last meeting, this evening you asked us to come back and address only those items that required additional information or clarification. That’s what we’re going to do this evening. I’ll start by bringing you up to date on the White Drain issue. When we designed this development with the White Drain we went before the Board of Directors of Settler's Irrigation District, we met with them. We talked to them about our concept we had it in pencil form and asked for feedback. Their comment to us was they thought this was a good plan and they believed they could support it. We went back before their board here not too long ago. Their attorney raised up issues such as liability. In one of our Conditions of Approval was that the City would like to incorporate this pathway into their official Pathway Plan which would mean that it would be available to the public and not just the residents to this development. Settler’s attorney picked up on that and said well then I would want the City of Meridian to accept liability. He does have a copy of the agreement between Nampa Meridian and the City of Meridian on the issue of indemnifying the Irrigation District. We’ve also got a copy of it. Irrigation Districts, they always want you if at all possible to pipe any facility that they have because it minimizes their maintenance and takes away any chance as liability such as for drowning et cetera. Their attorney sent a letter to you guys at the last meeting. It talked about their preference was that we pipe it but their board did state if we get the City to agree to indemnify them and enter into an agreement that they would allow it to be utilized as a water amenity. However, they did not want any of our storm drainage to be over flown or intermingled with their drain and they wanted our ponds to be separate. One of the things that we did is we had our Civil Engineer – ***End Of Side Three*** Bowcutt: -- and do what we call a Preliminary Drainage Plan where they calculate the volumes that will be required for all the storm drainage runoff in a 100 year event on this property and determined that all of the ponds that we Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 34 have more than exceed the storage that will be required to meet the standards that Ada County Highway District will impose upon us. What we wanted to do was make this drain an amenity but I don’t want to get ourselves in the position that we promised the City that I’m making this an amenity and then Settler rains on our parade by making it so stringent that we can’t either meet their rules or comply with them. We’ve looked at this from both directions and I guess for the record what we want to do is our intentions to create a water amenity and a pathway running along it. Whether that’s a natural amenity or an artificial amenity with these ponds then that’s what we want to do one or the other. At this stage of this process we can’t give you the exact design and criteria and so forth until we get into it. What we do need is a little bit of flexibility. We’re creating a water amenity and we’re creating a pathway. We may end up having to pipe the White Drain and we’ll have these ponds and waterfalls or fountains or something along that line intermingled with landscaping and so forth. Our No. 1 priority is the aesthetics. This is the corridor and the main entry to this development and we assure you that whatever we come up with will be in conjunction with our Civil Engineer and our Landscape Architect and we’ll meet your requirements of your Landscape Ordinance. I did get a verbal confirmation from Nathan Draper concerning the easements as Brad indicated for the Settler's main canal un-piped. That’s open ditch 40 feet. For the White Drain un-piped open 60 feet, and for the Coleman Lateral 30 un-piped. We will be piping the Coleman. This area here – Borup: -- where is the Coleman at? Bowcutt: The Coleman sir comes in right here and comes over and exits and services some property on the west side of Ten Mile. We’ll be piping the Coleman through these common areas and exiting out at its historical location. The other issue that you asked me – before I move onto that when we pipe these facilities, typically what we try to do is negotiate with the district to reduce those easements so I’m giving you the worst case scenario on those easement widths. One question that came about at the last meeting is do we have enough room along McMillan road for the Settler's Canal Easement. Along the commercial we have 40 feet and along the townhomes 40 feet. Through this area here, this dimension here is 56 but I do have some dimensions here that are going down to 35. As you can see I’m isolating here so all I have to do is straighten that line out. These lot depths are like 143, 134 feet. Over in this area this was our narrowest point we had 25 feet. I will have to allocate from this block, just this block here’s additional width. We calculated the depth of our lots because like I told you before we always put a little play in there. We have 40 additional feet that we can allocate. All we do is compress this block to the south nothing changes and allocate additional area. Along this office here we have an excess of 40 feet. The other question that came about was these transmission poles. I went and took a look at the transmission poles east of us it’s the same lines. Those poles are as close as two or three feet to the existing Settler's Canal but most of them are between four and six feet. Then as you go westward Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 35 the distance or separation increases. In the one that I looked at that was very close they’re base is a concrete base that goes straight down. It looks like they went in and they poured concrete in with rebar and that’s what holds those down. With that existing canal being that close I don’t see that we’re going to have any problem. If they tell me my offset’s going to five feet, six feet or ten feet then we have ample area to accommodate them. Like I said we’ll know that in the design phase when we do that phase through there. Borup: What’s the average width of the canal from bank to bank do you know? Bowcutt: It varies. I would say it is probably 10 approximately. Borup: And you have 40 feet so there’s plenty of room. Bowcutt: Mr. English could probably answer that. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) English: It’s about 10 but there are places that go 15 to 20 – Bowcutt: It just depends on when the banks erode they will widen out. Borup: We need to get – Bowcutt: The other issue was the issue of Mr. English’s letter. I did get a copy of that from the City Clerk’s office we have reviewed it. We will work with the English’s as far as the glare and then entrance location. As I stated before on the record we can move it. We always have a little bit of adjustment area so that it’s not shining in a bedroom window. We want to be a good neighbor and will do what needs to be done to make sure that we’re not causing any harm to their property there. The other issue that was brought up before was working with the neighbors and I just want to reiterate that, working with the neighbors on the south parcel here located off McMillan Road on their drainage issues and coordinating that street connection to them. Lastly, to bring you up to date on Ada County Highway District. Ada County Highway District Commissioners met with your City Council. They discussed this north area on this expanded study. Some of the things that were kicked out, one of the Council members indicated that it may be prudent for them to clear to the western boundary of their impact area and then clear over to their eastern boundary of the Meridian impact area to expand the study even beyond the seven miles that they’ve developed right now. They also voiced the willingness of the Council to work with Ada County Commissioners to make sure that they are in sync with the City of Meridian on how this area is going to develop. ACHD Commissioners met with Ada County Commissioners about a week ago. They decided that they would all have a joint meeting. COMPASS will be invited, the School District, ACHD, Ada County Commissioners, the Meridian City Council and the Mayor then some developers Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 36 in that area. What they’re going to do is discuss this area and the priorities of street improvements, schools, parks and try to look at the whole picture. ACHD’s main reason for sending this staff report for the Preliminary Plat to you but not officially giving it the Commissioners blessing was that they wanted us to go ahead and move through this process. They thought that that was reasonable. They understand that we can’t sit in limbo forever. However, there main concern was this issue of the extraordinary impact fees. They estimate it will take three to four months and that’s I think optimistic to come up with some type of an extraordinary impact fee schedule for this particular area. What they asked of us and placed in our staff report was that they want us to agree in writing that we would be subjected to that extraordinary impact fee even though this project was submitted prior to the implementation of that fee. We have stated on the record at Ada County Highway District and again before this body that we agree with the extraordinary impact fee within reason. I would hope that they wouldn’t come up with something unreasonable and it would be proportionate to the impact of the development and taken into consideration any improvements that that particular development is already installing at the time. Borup: Am I assuming that those fees would be determined by some type of formula? It’s not arbitrary is it? Bowcutt: Yes sir I believe it would be some type of formula. Borup: Similar to what they’re doing on impact fees now? Bowcutt: Yes and there are certain extraordinary impact fee areas that are already in existence like the foothills area I believe has one. Harris Ranch area I think has one. Borup: So there would be some guidelines. Bowcutt: It’s been done before to answer your question. It’s just going to take time. They’re going to have to figure out a criteria. The other thing ACHD said is if they have a lot of development going in that north area they’re going to have to get some guidance from your City Council on what roadways are going to be the priorities. If the interchange is going to be a priority of the City then obviously Ten Mile Road may be one of their top priorities. There’s discussion in that expanded study about another ITD river crossing. They want to get ITD involved to find out what’s there time frame for that, which roadway do they anticipate looking into. They’re trying to look at the big picture but one thing that I think needs to be focused on is you still have to focus on the project itself. Capacity exists on the roadways and at these intersections based on the improvements that they’re asking us to do. Trust funding and turn lanes et cetera. We’re here today with this PUD and I wanted to stress that it’s a concept. It’s a concept only. I’ve got to come back here again with another Preliminary Plat for every – most of this property that’s along McMillan, all of this on Linder and then clear down Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 37 south to this location. The Preliminary Plat that we have before you is just this band here that interlinks with our Phase One. The Public Work Staff is getting close to acquiring all of the easements that they need for that White Drain trunk. Mr. Smith indicated to us at Council Tuesday evening when our PUD Ordinance was before the Council that he’s anxious to get that easement. We’ve kind of held off on that easement because we weren’t sure what responses we were going to get back from some of these governing bodies. We’re getting positive responses. I think the only issue that’s really in conflict is this issue of connection to McMillan Road. I guess if to solve that problem, if this body adopts staff’s conditions as outlined than that condition is in there. Then when we would go before the Council, when they think the time is right we would obviously argue otherwise. That’s one way to answer that question as Brad put in his memo. Borup: But if – does the connection of McMillan have any affect on the easement for the White Trunk line? Bowcutt: No sir. Borup: So they’re not really related then? Bowcutt: No sir, the White Drain trunk line will come – it’s about 100 feet here. We’ve taken it through our mini storage facility up Ten Mile within 100 or 200 feet of this proposed entrance. It will go down this main Collector roadway here, turn, come through this loop and exit through this property here to the east. Borup: I understood that I just wanted to make a point that there’s really no relationship between the two. Bowcutt: Yes sir – Borup: -- other than what you want to make it. Bowcutt: We provided the City Engineer with a legal description of that too. We’re cooperating. Borup: You have provided the legal description of the easement through your property at this point? Bowcutt: Yes sir, we provided that to Mr. Smith about a month and a half ago l think. Mr. Watson wasn’t aware the Mr. Smith had it but we made – Borup: -- at the last meeting I don’t think we were aware of that were we? However long that’s been? Bowcutt: No sir I don’t think it was discussed but I think they had it at that – when we were here before you. I guess to sum up what I’m asking you this Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 38 evening, I think we’ve answered the questions we’ve beat the project to death and we’ve got a good project, low density and nice mixed use. We would like to move forward. Now the Council, they’re the one’s calling the shots with the Highway District. They’ve asked the Highway District to kind of sit tight so they can do some of this long range planning. I anticipate we will go to the Council and be sitting tight for a while but I would just like to get through this phase. Thank you. Borup: Any questions for Ms. Bowcutt? Norton: I have a question. Borup: Mrs. Norton. Norton: Mr. Chairman, Becky could you please clarify, in Brad’s letter it said that there is a meeting with City Council and ACHD on May 21st . You had indicated that the City Council and the ACHD Commissioners have already met. Are there two meetings? Bowcutt: Yes ma’am. Norton: Is the COMPASS included in the May 21st meeting? Bowcutt: Yes. Borup: And the School District and all of those other (inaudible)? Bowcutt: COMPASS, School District, I don’t know if Park’s – I think Park’s. Norton: Ada County Commissioners. Bowcutt: Ada County Commissioners. They are getting every agency that all of the developments combined in that north section will impact. Norton: When did City Council and ACHD meet? Bowcutt: Two weeks ago. I believe two weeks ago Brad attended the meeting. It was two weeks – because I think they met last week with the Ada County Commissioners. Wasn’t it last – last week was the Ada County Commissioners meeting. The week prior to that was the City Council ACHD meeting. Norton: Would you review according to – what was the result of that meeting that has to do with your project? Could you review that again? Bowcutt: The results of that meeting – Ada County Highway District is looking to the City Council and the Mayor for direction. They understand that once this Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 39 trunk line gets moving that there are a lot of developments that are in the early stages or either ready to submit. They think that they need to take a look at this area and implement an extraordinary impact fee to pay for intersection improvements, signalization and additional lanes so that unlike some of these other areas in the City where you see these subdivisions are almost built out or have been built out for two or three years but you still have the two lane substandard arterial. They don’t want to see that happen. What they would like to see is as these subdivisions are going in that these upgrades are taking place. A good example of that is McMillan Road – Norton: -- that’s fine. You have answered my question on that one. Then I noticed there was a comment in here in one of your notes that you would not grant easement for the trunk line for the sewer until you have initial assurance is that -- Bridgetower will be approved? Bowcutt: In our past discussions with your City Engineer and some of the Council members prior to submittal of this project. We indicated that we wanted to get some feedback from agencies and get through this Planning and Zoning Commission phase so that we kind of had a comfort level that we are on the right track. If for example, which could happen, we granted these easements, the City designed the trunk, the trunk’s under construction and then all of a sudden somebody wants to move this main street north or south. That obviously impacts that location. Now the way this – Borup: -- in your experience have you ever seen that happen in Meridian? Bowcutt: No but there’s always a first. I’ve been surprised more times then I can count. Borup: Go on continue it. Bowcutt: Anyway that was just my clients comfort level. Once we got feedback from Ada County Highway District, they reviewed our traffic studies, we got feedback from your staff as far as the staff reports which they’ve analyzed the project and it’s entirety, and we got feedback from this body that’s when we felt comfortable that hey, let’s get this easement thing going. Norton: So if it passes out of Planning and Zoning then you would feel comfortable – Bowcutt: -- that’s what we have indicated that that is our intent. It was not our intent to hold up until we have City Council approve on our hand and it appeared that I’m – Borup: -- so then would you feel comfortable to grant that easement prior to the meeting at City Council? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 40 Bowcutt: Pardon me sir? Borup: Would you feel comfortable if that was one of the requirements that that easement be granted prior to the City Council meeting? Prior to the City Council hearing? Bowcutt: Reviewing the Planned Development? Borup: No granting the easement. Bowcutt: But our annexation has gone forward. It is coming up on the sixth. Borup: Right. No, I’m talking about – Bowcutt: -- you’re talking about the project itself? Borup: Yes. Bowcutt: I think that’s a question for the applicant. Borup: I think that’s what Commissioner Norton was leading to. Norton: No, I’m just not sure which phase she’s talking about. Borup: But you stated that once it got past this, you felt comfortable and you are ready to go ahead my question is do we have a date? Bowcutt: I don’t know when this will go to the Council – our annexation is up on the sixth but I don’t anticipate the Council acting on it without these catching up to it to be honest with you. Centers: Excuse me isn’t that irrelevant? You’re going to have to create the easement to get the sewer trunk so I mean whether it’s today, tomorrow or next year they’re going to have to do it before they develop. I don’t see why you would even be concerned with requiring it. Borup: Go ahead. Centers: Is that true staff? Borup: I’ve got what I feel is the reason but Bruce, Mr. Freckleton you had a comment? Freckleton: Members of the Commission I guess from my perspective I would like a little clarification. Becky stated that it’s there intent as soon as they get out Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 41 of Planning and Zoning what does that mean? Does that mean get out of Planning and Zoning and then go through Council or does that mean as soon as – if you guys have a favorable recommendation to Council then the easements come or – Borup: -- and that’s why I asked that question because with that statement it sounded to me like after Planning and Zoning prior to City Council. That’s where I was trying to clarify and Mr. Varialle did you have some comments on that? Varialle: Mr. Borup if I may attempt to answer that question. My name is Frank Varialle I’m the managing partner of Primeland Development. It has not been our intent to withhold this sewer easement unnecessarily. This project is quite large as we all know and as your previous discussion indicated just what’s going on with the White Drain has been a big issue since the time we started designing this. Our initial design had a smaller area along the White Drain. We had lesser acreage in there. We found that we were going to need to increase that to make a larger pond. When that happened we then had to realign that road, spilt the lots further apart and so forth. If we had given that easement to the City we would have been locked in and not been able to reach the pond size as we would have needed without totally destroying our design. That was the fundamental reason that in the early stages that we have been reluctant to – Borup: -- oh yes we understood that. At least I did because you didn’t have a completed plat design. Varialle: That’s correct. Borup: But at this point you do? Is that correct? Varialle: Currently we are at a point now where we feel that we are fairly comfortable with what’s transpiring and what we need to have along – Borup: -- we hope so. If this is a plat to present to us we wouldn’t be expecting it’s going to change. Varialle: Exactly Mr. Borup. Tuesday evening I spoke with Gary and I asked him how the easement acquisition was coming along and I explained to him that we did not want to be a hold up, that if they – we appreciated being on the tail end of that but certainly when he was ready we were ready. He indicated that they were about there they only had a couple of more easements to sign and I told him then let’s proceed. He indicated – Borup: -- a couple of more to extend it how far? Varialle: To complete the entire three miles is what my understanding of was. That being the case we told them to begin preparing that easement. As Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 42 Commissioner Centers has indicated, we too want that trunk line. We have already built the trunk line up Ten Mile to the proximity to our entrance and if we don’t have that thing built we can’t do anything. We also know that so we have a lot of motivation to proceed with, with that also. Does that answer your question adequately? Borup: Yes I think so. What are reasons just for Commissioner Centers – I think the last five years or so the City has been emphasizing this White Trunk line. It’s been stated as for what the – the City stated that’s why we want the development to go, that’s where it should be, that’s close in, and that’s the next proximity to the existing City limits. I don’t know what the applicants have been told when they come into make applications but that’s the word I’ve heard (inaudible) since 96. That’s the next trunk line that’s going in. That’s where we want development to take place. It’s not happening yet and an easement needs to be there before the other three miles can be developed and where it can happen so that it can be developed like the City says they want it to. Then maybe there’s more of excuse to not doing some of these outlined areas you know the far extremities of the City. That’s kind of where I’m coming from. Varialle: I understand that – Borup: -- there’s already been two subdivisions on this trunk line turned down in the last month or two and those developers have complied with pretty much what – I mean they’ve gone in and developed where they’ve been told the City wants to see the development and then they get turned down. That was my reason for asking that. Becky, I don’t know if you were done – I have one other question I don’t know if some others might have too. I think you’ve probably answered that but you talked in my mind the issue on the drain, the White Drain itself was still a little bit up in the air as far as liability and as far as whether it needs to be piped or not. I thought you said there was still some liability question? Bowcutt: No sir I think I clarified that. What I stated is we’re going to be creating a water amenity whether it’s natural or artificial. If Settler's makes it so difficult that we can’t comply. Borup: I think that’s what I picked up on. Is there a concern that they still might do that at this point or has there been some (inaudible)? Another thing is I still had understood there’s some release of – there is in reality do they have that much in liability issue? Bowcutt: They seem to think so I disagree. We sloped these at four to one, that’s – Borup: -- am I making something (inaudible) by the State Law along that line? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 43 Bowcutt: There was a current court case I think against Nampa Meridian that they lost. Borup: The Washington Federal. Bowcutt: The Washington Federal case right. That was the issue – Borup: -- maybe when I was (inaudible) that. Maybe there was a statement in that or something. Bowcutt: Yes there was an issue if exclusive easements, an issue of liability and so forth. Nampa Meridian lost out. I believe it was the Idaho State Supreme Court. Borup: Yes it did go to the Supreme Court. Bowcutt: I just – Borup: -- and have you analyzed that and how that could effect this project? I just read a summary. Bowcutt: I have read that case. That’s probably a better question for the applicant’s attorney to answer. It’s a legal interpretation I wouldn’t want to step over the line. Borup: I guess the bottom line is you have already said you’re going to have a walk path and (inaudible) amenities and that was what I was interested in. Centers: Wasn’t it the City that wanted the pathway? Borup: Well the City – is that one that’s designated in the Comp. Plan? Centers: That’s the way I made my notes. Bowcutt: We proposed the pathway. The City thought it was a great idea and said they would like to incorporate it into their pathway network yes sir. I don’t think it’s shown the White Drain on their current pathway plan. Borup: That’s not one of those that are mentioned okay? Bowcutt: Is not listed that’s correct. Borup: That was all I had thank you. Bowcutt: Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 44 Borup: We’re ready for some public testimony. Mr. English you signed up. I assume you still want to come forward. Did you have an opportunity to read Brad’s response? English: We just got the memo we’re going over them today. That was why Brad left to make copies of them for us. Borup: I think in my mind probably one of the pertinent things there is that, at least the thing on the property that directly affected yours is part of the Conditional Use but is not part of the plat. English: That’s correct. Borup: There would be another plat hearing for that and that’s the time that’s – English: -- I was not going to raise that issue tonight but thanks Commissioner. Brian English 4650 North Linder. The Ada County Meridian City Council meeting was on April 30th . One of the points that they brought out there was that any one of these large subdivision plats that are being proposed for this area can be built with and not exceed the traffic studies. Miss Dianne White indicated that you approved two of them and you exceed the current traffic bearing capacities of these roads. When they addressed Bridgetower, ACHD only looked at the – not the entire plat but only half of the plat. The traffic study that Bridgetower did and all of the other developments have done have not taken into account the approved and under construction but not existing. Turtle Creek is under construction the throwing of houses at the corner of Ustick and Linder. The traffic that’s going to result from that exceeds the 5 percent growth rate but it’s not factored in to the traffic studies. There are other issues that are raised but we raised some irrigation questions that – I don’t think those have been addressed but (inaudible) in the later half of this subdivision as you said a future plat. I think we’ll defer those. The other issue right now is you’re looking at approving the eastern half of that. It does not meet the open space without the – the western half does not the (inaudible) open space requirement without the eastern half. You do not have comments from ACHD on the eastern half and the plat plan you know the preliminary designs. The March 14th letter does not specifically exclude comments on that so the issue of the roads by the school which we raised last week actually has not even been looked at by ACHD at this point in time. Thank you. Borup: And the part on the percentage was brought out in the testimony last time that the applicant mentioned that it needs the whole project together to – I believe. English: My point Mr. Commissioner was there were just some loose ends here that should be tied up. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 45 Borup: Okay thank you. Any questions for Mr. English? Do we have anyone else that wanted to – Kelso: I’m Don Kelso 2745 West McMillan. Borup: What was your first name sir? Kelso: Don Kelso. Borup: Don Kelso? Kelso: I’m concerned over this ditch in the back end of our property. If they close this what are we going to do for water? Our drainage and where’s it going like this and how do you close a ditch or – Borup: -- is this your – you’ve got the out property – this is your property here? Kelso: Yes. Mine and Henderson’s are right together. Borup: Okay. Kelso: I feel that that waterway -- they’re a part of it. It belongs to me as much as it does to them. Borup: Are you talking about the White Trunk line? Kelso: What? Borup: Are you talking about the White Trunk drainage? Kelso: It’s a White drainage I guess (inaudible). Borup: Or are you talking about the drainage on McMillan? Kelso: No. Borup: The one to the south of you? Kelso: Yes. Borup: That’s your runoff drainage at this point? Kelso: That’s our runoff yes. Borup: Your concern is where is your runoff going to go – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 46 Kelso: -- that’s right. Borup: -- when the road goes in. Kelso: Yes. Borup: Okay well that’s a good question. Kelso: Yes and I need some verification on it you know. Borup: We’ll get that applicant (inaudible). Anyone else? Anderson: I’m Tom Anderson 2795 West McMillan Road. I also have an issue with the White Drain. Not only with the runoff as Mr. Kelso stated but the amenities I mean we kind of like that drain right there. It runs year round it’s a year round creek. I kind of like it where it is. Borup: So you would like it to stay open and not pipe? Anderson: That’s correct. As far as the pond pathway system I think there is a way that it could be actually included to make a separate one where the – connecting the townhomes they would have a walkway leading through a drain or waterway as an additional amenity. That drain provides wildlife. If they take it away that’s some of my property right there. Borup: I think that’s their intention. They want to leave a water amenity and enlarge it if anything is what’s been stated. Anderson: Well they say they want to move it. Borup: Yes. Anderson: So – Borup: Yes but that’s not removing. That’s not – Freckleton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Yes. Freckleton: The current location of the White Drain does parallel or is along their southern boundary. Borup: Of there property there? Anderson: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 47 Borup: You’re saying it is an amenity adjacent to your property rather than moving it further down. Anderson: That’s correct. Borup: Okay I understand. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: But the drain isn’t on your property it’s on their property correct? Anderson: No half of it’s on my property. It borders his property so that’s my concern. Borup: So 30 foot of that easement is on your property you think for that 60-foot easement? Anderson: I don’t quite understand that 60-foot easement. Borup: That’s what Nampa Meridian is claiming the size of their easement to be. Anderson: If they went right down the middle of the drain then yes 30 feet of it would be mine. Borup: Well and from past experience it’s not always down the middle but the drain can meander in the 60 feet. Anderson: Everyone wants open space, walkways and little natural paths throughout the subdivisions. If this townhome goes in right there they could connect that utilizing the current drain and connect it down to the other drain that they propose with their ponds. Borup: We’ll see if we can get the applicant up here to come in on that. Thank you. Becky a couple of questions on the drain. I think the first one would be on the White – on the runoff from the out parcel. Where would that go to then? Bowcutt: Yes I spoke with the residents that live here and their properties drain here. What we discussed with the engineer was if they gravity irrigate then you would obviously intercept that with like a ditch or you could intercept it with some type of a sub surface system and then we’re going to open up this here meaning open space and then it would come down sub surface into that White Drain whether it be open or whether it would be piped. Or you could bring it down on the surface. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 48 Borup: Put a (inaudible) in there would be a ditch from the new White Drain to the existing area south of your property so that would take – Bowcutt: -- their south boundary. We cannot cut off their drainage, their historical drainage. Borup: Yes and I understood that. I didn’t see anything on the plat indicating how that would be handled. Bowcutt: The drain comes in right here and this is a historical location. It comes in here and then it comes and runs parallel here. Then it kind of turns and exits right there. This location here is the historic and then we’re bringing it through this section. Then it turns and then I left this as open space and open to the townhomes here. It turns and then exits to the west. Then my clients own that property to the west. It comes here and dumps into the Settler's Canal. We’ve ped pass here, ped pass coming through here and then we’re going to have to create some additional open space between these two loops to accommodate them. What – I believe what I told them at the last meeting that I would schedule time for the Civil Engineer to go out to their house, I would attend the meeting, we would walk it and talk about it and figure out some type of a solution. The body that has jurisdiction over this facility is Settler's. Borup: You’ve got quite a large area tying into the townhouse area it looks like. Bowcutt: Oh yes sir. Borup: I mean (inaudible) green area, then a pathway will go right – there will be a branch on the pathway to there too then? Bowcutt: Yes sir. This is close to 100 feet wide. This here is like 200 feet wide so this is one inch I think that goes 200 feet. Borup: Could you comment on the location of that easement? On which side of the property lines and how much? Bowcutt: The easement along this property line? Borup: On the existing White Trunk line easement. Bowcutt: Settler's indicates the easement is 60 feet, 30 from centerline. There would be an easement on their side and our side based on the topography. Borup: But you’re not sure – is it 50/50 – 30 on each or do you know? Bowcutt: It depends on where the centerline of the ditch drains meander. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 49 Borup: Oh they want 60 feet from the centerline of the ditch? Bowcutt: No 30 each way. Borup: That’s what I meant to say. Bowcutt: 60 total so it’s about split. The drain – they’re correct. The drain is running right on the boundary – Borup: -- so there’s no recorded or surveyed easement at this point? Bowcutt: No sir not that we have found they couldn’t – I asked them to provide me with any documents and they said they thought it was prescriptive. That’s why we had to wait two months for them to determine what is that prescriptive easement width. Borup: How do they come up with 60 feet if there’s not written easement anywhere? Bowcutt: I believe with the prescriptive easement it’s how much area they need to maintain the facility and – Borup: -- based on the size of the canal? Bowcutt: Based on the size of the ditch. Borup: The easements I’ve seen most of the time they’re not centered. I mean it’s off to one side. Bowcutt: He said these were all from centerline. Borup: Maybe those are existing easements that have ended up that way. I don’t – did that answer your question Mr. Kelso? There will be – yes let’s – come on up Mr. Kelso. What she’s saying is there will be a new ditch that we brought from I don’t know if that’s your property right there but that property clear to that wall. There will be a ditch brought from here down this line that ties into the drain here. Kelso: Right that ties into the drain. Borup: Right and whether it be an open ditch or a pipe they’re not sure but it would take whatever water it would accumulate on your property and drain it down to the new relocated White Drain. You’re drainage would not be interrupted it would still – it maybe a little formalized is if it’s going to be channeled a little more than it is now. I don’t know how you’ve got it – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 50 Kelso: -- my deed (inaudible) my south line as the drainage ditch and that’s the way it is on the deed. Borup: So it does a number of feet? Kelso: It’s so many feet back to the drainage ditch. (Inaudible) drainage ditches all of the way through it. Borup: Thank you. That was probably established 100 years ago or something. Do you have another question Mr. Anderson? Anderson: Yes sir I do. I would like to know if we are still going to have running water year round back there to White Drain adjacent to or right along the border of my property. It runs year round. Borup: The White Drain does? Anderson: Yes. Nary: Is it irrigation water sir? Anderson: No. Borup: It would be drainage and runoff. Centers: How long have you lived there Mr. Anderson? Anderson: Six years this summer. Borup: I’m assuming by what’s said that the work that would be done there would be taking care of drainage not supplying live water is that correct? I guess the answer is no. At the way it’s designed to this point that it would be designed to drain off the water but not provide running water. It’s because it’s just drainage but irrigation water will not be interrupted and that’s assured. Nary: I think what maybe the Anderson’s and Mr. Kelso need to understand is that the law requires that they maintain irrigation water and they maintain drainage water. That’s why I asked which one that was. They’re not required to provide essentially an amenity to your property the Settler's Irrigation District has the authority as to whether or not they move it and what these folks are telling us is that Settler's – and what we have evidence of is Settler’s Irrigation District says they have to move it. That’s what they’re told they have to do. Settler’s is the one that makes that decision so your (inaudible) is with them just so you understand. If you don’t want them to move it then you would have to talk to them. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 51 Norton: Mr. Commissioner. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: Does anything have – like are there wetlands, is this a wildlife refuge. Do the wetlands have anything to do with this particular ditch? Borup: I think that was testified at one of the last hearings and the answer was no with my recollection. Mr. Kelso you had another comment? Kelso: Yes I have been there for 12 years and that has run water every – all winter every year. It goes down but it runs water all year long. There is even fishing. Dale Rupp that owns the land next door bought that place in 1952 that he came up and bought that place. I know Dale real well and it’s run all of these years. I don’t know how you can stop running water because that’s not draining. That’s not drainage water when it’s running all year around like that. Borup: Where’s it coming from? Kelso: I don’t know where it’s coming from I never followed it clear out. Borup: I understand what you mean. My father’s property had the same type of thing and as kids we played on that thing all year around. Kelso: Yes right. Borup: Now it’s a subdivision and half of it’s been piped and the other part was relocated. It is a nice amenity. Kelso: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Final comment Becky? Bowcutt: I think I can answer that question. That drains picking up sub surface water. Out there you have got clays and silts and stuff like that and you’ve got some perched water. As they flood irrigate then that water perches between those silt layers and then it picks up. It seeps into those low points those drains and that’s why those were dug. This is – Borup: -- how about in the winter time same thing? Bowcutt: It’s still picking it up because we have been monitoring. We have like 12 monitoring wells out in that area. Now what Ada County Highway District said this morning in the meeting that we had with their Drainage Specialist on our concept, if Settler's Irrigation District does not allow any storm drainage Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 52 discharge to it and as all of those properties go out of agricultural production so they’re no longer flooded the drain will stop. You won’t have that ground water level being at that high of a level anymore and there won’t be anything in there. Borup: I agree with that only I would say almost nothing. Bowcutt: Or close to nothing. Borup: If it’s going year round there’s still water coming from somewhere. Bowcutt: Yes and it’s year round – Borup: -- whether it be road runoff or whatever it’s getting in there – Bowcutt: -- it’s getting up some sub surface. Borup: Thank you. Commissioners have we exhausted the – what we can do on this for tonight as far as testimony? I think so. Are we ready for some discussion? Do we want to keep the hearing open during the discussion – ***End Of Side Four*** Borup: -- we can close the – Centers: I have a question for staff. How concerned are you about those easements and some kind of requirement at what stage or what – I still feel that he’s got to grant the easement if he wants to develop. Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Centers are you referring to the canal easements or the sewer easements? Center: Sewer. Hawkins-Clark: That’s Bruce’s category. Freckleton: Commissioner Centers we are anxious to get the sewer going. There is a lot of stuff that is lined up out there. We do have other easements we need to acquire as well. City Councils allocated funds – we are very anxious to get this going. Borup: Is this holding up anything at this point as far as design? I mean is it – are you waiting on all of the easements before you start the design? Freckleton: Yes until we have an alignment that we can design too it makes – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 53 Borup: -- I mean are you needing the whole three miles to start the design or can you start with those easements that you have? I don’t know where the gaps are but assuming there aren’t any gaps for a mile and a half or whatever is there anything preventing – Freckleton: -- the best-case scenario is to have everything in line. If you had Bridgetower – Borup: -- you’re saying if you don’t get a major gap then the whole thing may need to be redesigned and then you need to go back and get a new easement is that the concern? Freckleton: Bridgetower’s the first. You’ve got to start at the bottom and work up. Borup: So do you have the easement adjoining Bridgetower? Freckleton: I don’t believe so. I personally do not know the status of the easements. Borup: So is it waiting for the Bridgetower easement before you can get the adjoining one then? Freckleton: Commissioner I don’t know how to answer that I don’t have – okay Becky just said that we have Locust Grove to Meridian but we don’t have Meridian to – Borup: -- Meridian to here? Freckleton: Meridian to Linder Road we have that mile section. We have easements for that. We don’t have Meridian to Linder – okay so we have the top mile. We don’t have the middle mile, all of it – Borup: -- aren’t there some projects within the middle mile that are probably anxious and – Freckleton: -- definitely. Borup: -- and so that’s not going to be a problem getting that either. Freckleton: No. Borup: Well it still sounds like getting this thing is a beginning point and this has to start before anything else can move down the line. If you want everything I mean you’re not even going to be able to start the design which is going to hold Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 54 up this project. Does the whole three miles need to be designed before anything is built in this development? Freckleton: We (inaudible) as one project. We’re going to design the whole three miles. Borup: Right and it will go in as the development occurs. Freckleton: No, the City of Meridian has the funds. As soon as we have easements and we have design we’re going to start throwing dirt. Borup: Well I still think it’s a good idea to get that easement taken care of as soon as possible. I can’t remember what got on to that but – Commissioner Centers had said something – Centers: -- I started it. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Brad, I guess so we can have another five minute discussion, on the concern about moving this forward without ACHD, City and COMPASS – I just don’t see that as a slow process. The bigger the people at the table, the longer it takes but – to me if we wait till that I mean we could be talking next year. I think COMPASS has a 35-member board of people to have to back to tell them I mean it just is crazy. I don’t know whether or not it makes – I know it is our normal preferred practice to get all of that information before we move it on to Council it just doesn’t seem very realistic at this time for this project to do that. Is that just my perception or does that seem reasonable? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Nary I would agree. That’s why I did point out at the end of the memo that this is a little bit of a red (inaudible) and that this easement is in the picture. I think we would like some direction and I think the Council would like some direction on your feelings about a connection on McMillan Road one way or the other. At least give some direction there and if you do that then I think ACHD whenever they do pick up the CUP application and act on it which they haven’t – they have not done any reports on the CUP application for the overall concept. I think you’re right. Since they’re looking at a 7 square-mile area from west of Black Cat clear over to Meridian Road – Nary: -- or maybe even larger. Hawkins-Clark: Or maybe larger yes. From Chinden down to Ustick you’re right it’s a big question and it’s not going to get resolved this next Monday. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 55 Nary: No way too many hooks in the (inaudible). Borup: And we normally do want to wait to get all of the stuff in but it hasn’t been for this type of thing this is way beyond. Nary: Well and I guess I think what Ms. Bowcutt brought up which I think is fair is that it may set at City Council for that very reason. It’s just that we want to have it sit here for another six or eight months and then go okay now that’s fine go ahead and put it to the City Council and then let them decide it. Borup: And I would hope they wouldn’t let something sit that long. Nary: No they would probably deny it. That’s probably what they’ll do anyway. Borup: Well I think the other aspect if there was a major problem with that study and I think it’s been stated that the plat that’s before us the roads can accommodate and maybe another small one. It would have affect on their future phases and that’s a risk the developer I assume would be willing to take. Nary: I think that’s the point Mr. English brought up too Mr. Chairman is that – and I think that’s right and I think we’ve seen that in Boise quite a bit but it doesn’t seem fair to penalize the first people who comes with the completed project because other people that may come even themselves may make the roads over the (inaudible). I don’t think that’s very fair. I think you look at it the other way when the other people come then they’re going to say no, we’re not ready to do that rather than – Borup: -- and I’ll agree. I say that if it did affect the last part of their project, if things weren’t straightened up by then, then that’s the risk they’ve taken. That’s no reason to affect what we see before us tonight. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: Getting back to the easements I just can’t see asking anyone to grant something prior to knowing if they have an approval. I don’t – I just can’t see that personally. Borup: Show of good faith? Centers: Getting that back as – you’re going to show good faith in helping get it back? Borup: How about the other three miles of the easement, they don’t have any subdivision projects at all in a majority of that? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 56 Centers: I don’t know. We just said that it could be held up for months. Borup: Your hesitation is to require an easement to be granted prior to the City Council hearing? Centers: Exactly. If the City Council wants to require it then let them require it. They’re a month and a half away from City Council I guess, something like that. Borup: Well I guess – I don’t know – Centers: -- they have a number of other easements – Borup: -- maybe so. It seems to me like the longer that’s delayed the longer this project is going to be delayed because they’re not going to start on the design without that easement though. Centers: Right. Borup: Maybe that’s something that the developer needs to consider on their own then. Nary: Mr. Chairman I think the one thing I would add to Commissioner Centers statement too. The concern I think that we would have as well as the City Council is we are really (inaudible) although there is a significant relationship between this project and the ability to build that White Drain. I think your all was in a very tenuous situation when you require somebody to give you something or at least sell it to you at a cheaper price an easement or anything it could – tying into the approval of the project, tying into the approval of something else. It’s not – it’s certainly I wouldn’t say clearly is an extraction type but it certainly sounds like that. It’s certainly arguable with those types of things and those are issues I think that the City would prefer to stay out of. If they can’t build it without this White Drain or they’re not going to be able to build it very successfully or quickly or whatever they would like to without it. We’re going to need that they know that. I guess I think it’s – it just makes me uncomfortable to require them to do it as a condition of some sort to approve their project. I think they are two separate things or at least they should stay separate. I think the City needs to proceed with that if these folks hold it up shame on them. They are only hurting themselves as well as other folks. (Inaudible) and they’ll build the drain they’ll build it some place else. They will just move the pipe a little different way. They will get it done it will happen. Borup: I think that’s well put. Like I say if there was I assume that would be remembered at a future date by this Commission and others. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 57 Nary: The next phase would probably take a whole lot longer if it was a (inaudible). Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Chairman getting to Mr. Centers. The only condition that I remember that I had in my staff comments is that we wanted to get the easement completely through the project and that included the young parcel. The concern there was of course that our easement would get through the first phase and stop then have to wait on another phase. I wanted to get it through. Borup: Completely through the CUP project? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. The developer has agreed to that condition. According to my staff comments that was the only thing that I had conditioned was to get it all of the way through. Borup: I think both comments are well put. Are we ready to move on on that item? Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: I would like to revisit the White Drain. If the – if Becky if you could comment again is number one, why did you move the White Drain? I understand that you cannot mix the water of the White Drain with the water of your ponds. Borup: I don’t know if that’s established 100 percent but they said there was a – they didn’t want any runoff into the White Drain. I don’t know if it was answered that it could be mixed. Norton: We have closed our Public Hearing? Borup: No she can still come up. The Public Hearing’s still open. Norton: We didn’t close it. Borup: Just because we wanted to hear from you. Norton: That’s right. Borup: It seems to me like what they stated before is that’s where the best place for the entrance so that the main entrance of the subdivision was not too close to McMillan. Bowcutt: Could you repeat the question again? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 58 Norton: Well I’m concerned about the property for Mr. Anderson. Borup: I think her question was why are you moving the White Drain? Norton: Why are you moving the drain away from the back of these peoples property? Bowcutt: The drain location we have to work around these facilities. We looked at multiple options with the drain. In this location here it’s in it’s historical – Norton: -- right I understand that. Bowcutt: When it ran through here it ran diagonally through here. You try to work around it and we could not. You could not – Borup: -- you could have made your main entrance. Norton: What you’re trying to do is get the main entrance not more than what was it a third of a mile from their intersection? Bowcutt: This one yes. Norton: Is that why – Bowcutt: -- we try to get this – Norton: -- so you moved the drain so that you can have a nice water thing for the entrance is that right? Bowcutt: Yes and then we have a collector roadway here and you have to have a wide swath to accommodate the drain. Norton: The White Drain? Bowcutt: The White Drain. Norton: But you can’t mix your ponds with the drain water? Bowcutt: That’s what they asked us. That’s one thing their board stated was that they wanted our ponds separate from the drain because we are utilizing our pond as a water amenity but they would also take storm drainage from the streets. Norton: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 59 Bowcutt: And they said they didn’t want that water mixing with their drain water because of liability. Norton: So the out parcel, Kelso and Anderson’s out parcel, was that property property you did not want in your project or did you offer to buy the out parcel? Why do they have this little thing in between all of your stuff? Bowcutt: There are three parcels here. If it was one large parcel – Norton: -- because I think we went through this but I can’t remember. Bowcutt: You went through this before. You asked the same question the last hearing. It’s broke up in – there’s a flag parcel back here, another kind of flag and then another one back in here. The Rupp’s used to own this and we did purchase that from them. Then I tried to provide some street frontage here for future re-subdivision if they so choose. That’s also another problem with the drain running here I’ve got to give them street frontage. They’ll have to have access to sewer and water we went through that last time. Borup: That’s right and they were very adamant at wanting the street frontage so I don’t know how you have both. Bowcutt: Whether it be stub or frontage or –k Norton: Thanks for revisiting that. Anderson: I just don’t think – Borup: -- this is Mr. Anderson speaking. Anderson: Tom Anderson. It just doesn’t seem fair to me to take away a water way to put a street there. Borup: Would you rather not have the street there? Anderson: Well I would rather have the waterway there. Borup: Instead of the street? I mean how do you have both? Anderson: Yes right. Borup: There’s one or the other isn’t there? Anderson: You would have to move the street. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 60 Borup: Well and maybe it wasn’t you but the property owner last time was very adamant that they wanted a street connection there. Anderson: (Inaudible) for future development they did not want a street – Borup: No they did want one. Shreeve: I recall that the owner did not it was ACHD that was requiring it. Anderson: Correct, that is correct. Borup: Is that right? Anderson: Yes we did not want the stub road there because if you put – Borup: -- well you didn’t want a stub road but you wanted to be able to have access from the street for future development. Shreeve: Nope, not necessarily. Anderson: Not necessarily. Borup: Somebody did, one of the three did. Anderson: I want to build a house right there where your so-called stub road is going to be and then you said well that may be a street somewhere down the line 10 or 20 years ago. What if I want to put a house right there? It just doesn’t seem to make sense to put a stub road there I mean it seemed like it would save some money. I don’t – that’s not my expertise. What I’m saying – I like the creek there that’s a big amenity to us and I don’t understand why three people – how many people did it take to acquire all of this land? All of this land for the whole project and what’s three more? Norton: That’s right you didn’t even get offered. Anderson: Right thank you. Borup: So are you saying you want to sell your property is that what you’re saying? Is that right? I assume the right price would be the same as they paid for their neighbor but I don’t know that’s beyond what we need to be talking about. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 61 Nary: How many times have we had a hearing on this project? This is the third or this is the fourth? I guess I understand – I truly understand what Mr. Anderson’s saying. I guess I’m a little bothered that we heard it today, we didn’t hear last time and we didn’t hear it the time before because none of this has changed. It’s all exactly the same. Now today it’s the water amenity, the last time it was the road. I guess it’s very difficult to try to make a decision if it’s always something different. This wasn’t what we left the hearing open for was this. So I guess I was – Borup: -- yes we did leave it open for some specific items to cover. Nary: For some new items. This is not a new item. Not that – so I guess I’m a little concerned that that’s part of the discussion today is something that has been on the table twice and is not why we left this hearing open. Now it’s another issue before us. Anderson: It was just never made clear that they were taking that water away. Nary: I thought it was clear. I thought it was clear at both times that there would not be water running by there that it would be further down. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: I would like to move that we close the Public Hearing. Nary: Second. Borup: Motion second to close the Public Hearing all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Was that for both Public Hearings? Was that for both? Centers: Items 6 and 7 you got that didn’t you? Borup: Okay thank you. Do we have some pertinent items we need to discuss? Centers: Well I think this is obvious where I’m coming from I would like to move this on to the City Council with as much speed as possible. I think the applicant has gone to great lengths to give us what we need and let’s move it forward. Borup: Do we have – are there any of the staff comments that would need to be modified? I’m not seeing any in the – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 62 Norton: -- no the only thing that – in the previous staff comments. I would look at the – Borup: -- do you remember anything Brad in your previous comments that – Norton: -- it’s No. 10 – Borup: -- that we’ve changed or – Norton: -- of March 12 there are comments about connecting the Meridian Road. Borup: Page 14? Norton: Yes Page 14 of March the 12th . That’s that stub street that they’re talking about that he’s talking about again in his notes. Borup: You mean to McMillan Road? Norton: I’m sorry to McMillan Road. Centers: That’s on his memo. Norton: That’s on his recent memo also. I think that was the only thing we agreed that anything else was agreeable. Borup: Yes and Brad brought that up again tonight. He also stipulated that that was to be part of the CUP, the Planned Unit Development part of it. That does not effect the plat that’s before us. In the Concept Plan was the only place that it would be effected which we do need to do a whole nuther plat. That could be mentioned in the motion that – to encourage (inaudible) look at it or we could just decide that something be handled when the next plat comes before us. I would hope by that time, by the time the next time came that it would have an ACHD report and probably some better information to make a decision on that too. We better have something by that time. Norton: I just want to make another comment. On the notes that we have from the last meeting I do have that – Tom Anderson and his wife Laurie they both comment they did not want a sub road. Borup: Right. That was talking about having a dead end stub road with the split – Norton: -- yes and then regarding the drainage ditch when there were questions about the drainage they simply said that it would be fenced off on the developers property. I don’t recall anything saying there was not going to be a – oh, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 63 nevermind. That it was not going to be relocated. It’s kind of new information tonight. Nary: Mr. Chairman I guess my recollection is that we’ve always talked about that drainage for the White Drain being along that little corridor – Borup: -- along the collector. Nary: -- along that collector street and it would no longer run along that property. Now again, we didn’t talk about it a lot but I know we did talk about and that was the whole attempt was that that’s where the waterway would be and it would no longer be where it was. I guess to me it was clear maybe it wasn’t clear to the Anderson’s. Borup: But the plat didn’t show it continuing on, on either side of the properties so if that was there it would have to assume that it was either discontinued or piped one or the other. You mentioned that the – perhaps the item on the McMillan entrance – Norton: -- that would probably be a good thing to add in a motion. Borup: -- pardon? Centers: I haven’t really – how do we want to present that? The staff’s concerned about it and the Ada County Highway District hasn’t acted on it – Nary: -- and the school doesn’t want it. If the school doesn’t want it (inaudible). Borup: I guess the thing to me is it doesn’t affect this plat. Centers: It doesn’t? Borup: No, not the plat that’s before us. It affects the whole PUD as a whole. Centers: Okay we’re just talking about the lower part then tonight. Borup: The part on the west. Centers: On the west? Borup: Yes pretty much from the lower entrance to the west of it and right here Commissioner Centers I kind of outlined it in blue pencil or blue pen right there – right there Jerry. Centers: Gotcha. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 64 Borup: That’s the plat that’s – Centers: -- so we can address that with the next – Borup: -- one of the other documents you have – here we go this right here is what is the plat. Centers: Right. Borup: So all of that – the only part of this plat that borders on McMillan has an entrance. Centers: As far as Item 3 I think we can address that for the headlight glare. We can address that with another part. Borup: Yes I think Mr. English acknowledged that that’s something that’s not a risk factor at this point. His comments were more on overall traffic. Norton: The developer said that they’ll work with their crews. Borup: Yes and there’s time to do a lot on that. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I’m going to move that we approve Item 6 and Item 7 PP 01-005 and CUP 01-006 a request for Preliminary Plat approval of 336 building lots and 58 other lots on 175.91 acres in proposed R-4 and C-G zones for the proposed Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision by Primeland Development. Do we only want to do these one at a time or does it matter? Centers: It doesn’t matter (inaudible). Nary: Well I don’t believe – to include all staff comments for both the Preliminary Plat and the CUP. I don’t believe there are any staff comments to change. I think the staff comment regarding the access for the Elementary School site to McMillan is something that we’ll just leave off at this point until we do have a traffic study. The drainage questions I think have been answered at least to my satisfaction and I don’t think we want to ask them or require them to grant an easement as a Condition of Approval. I think to include all of the staff comments as stated in the March 12, 2001 memorandum and additionally of any other pertinent comments of the May 15th – Centers: -- delete that one off. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 65 Nary: Yes May 15, 2001 staff memo as well. We could probably not have to deal with No. 3 on the item raised by the English’s letter. That’s the headlight glare that we’ll deal with on the next Preliminary Plat. Centers: That applies to both. Nary: It applies to both the CUP and the Preliminary Plat yes. Centers: I would second that motion. Borup: The only other thing I would add is part of verbal testimony as the applicant would agree to abide by extraordinary impact fees assuming they’re reasonable. Nary: Yes I would amend my motion to include that the applicant has agreed to abide by reasonable extraordinary impact fees that may be opposed by the large group of people that are going to decide that. Borup: What’s a definition of reasonable? Nary: That’s not us – Borup: -- is that going to be in there too? Nary: Someone else can figure out the easements. Centers: I will still second that. Borup: Okay motions second any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 8. Continued Public Hearing from April 19, 2001: PP 00-023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 30 building lots and 2 other lots on 16.4 acres in an R-4 zone for proposed Autumn Faire Subdivision No. 2 by Gemstar Properties, LLC – east of Black Cat Road and south of Ustick Road: Item 9. Public Hearing: AZ 01-008 Request for Annexation and zoning of 12.71 acres from R1 and RUT to C-G and R-40 zones for proposed Baltic Place Subdivision by L.C. Development, Inc. – Franklin Road west of Locust Grove Road: Item 10. Public Hearing: PP 01-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 10 building lots and 3 other lots on 12.71 acres in proposed C-G Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 66 and R-40 zones for proposed Baltic Place Subdivision by L.C. Development, Inc. – Franklin Road west of Locust Grove Road: Item 11. Public Hearing: CUP 01-015 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for mixed use Residential/Commercial in proposed C-G and R-40 zones for proposed Baltic Place Subdivision by L.C. Development, Inc. – Franklin Road west of Locust Grove Road: Item 12. Public Hearing: PP 01-010 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 18 building lots and 2 other lots on 11.57 acres in R-4 and C-N zones for proposed Cherry Crossing by Albertson’s, Inc. – northwest corner of Linder Road and West Cherry Lane: Item 13. Public Hearing: CUP 01-016 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for single-family dwellings and drug store with drive-thru, fuel pumps, office/retail and fast food in R-4 and proposed C-N zones for proposed Cherry Crossing by Albertson’s, Inc. – northwest corner of Linder Road and West Cherry Lane: Item 14. Public Hearing: CUP 01-017 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for expansion of the chamber office and visitor center in a C- G zone for Meridian Chamber of Commerce by Meridian Chamber of Commerce – 215 East Franklin Road: Borup: Thank you. Now you have the City Council to contend with. We have seven more items on the agenda. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: Sorry Commissioners we do need to address these other set of items. Centers: What if they have – Borup: -- right then we have not opened these Public Hearings. Autumn Faire is requested to the next available meeting. Baltic Place is requested to June 7th . Baltic Place asked to open it and then defer it but I don’t – we don’t need open do we? So they’re asking for the 7th ? Norton: Cherry Crossing is asking for the 7th . Nary: It would make more sense to me – I don’t know how lengthy any of them are but Baltic Place – I don’t know that the Autumn Faire (inaudible). Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 67 Borup: We’ve heard it. I think the question was what the roadway around the park or something that they need to work out with the Park’s Department and the ditch that was – Norton: -- this is the third time they’ve requested to have it continued. It’s already continued – Borup: -- yes I think they just haven’t got it worked out or something I guess. Norton: Could we defer that one until June the 21st since nothing’s on June the 21st and it will give them more time if they want to do that? Borup: I think that’s (inaudible) rather than doing that and maybe it will give them enough time. Do you remember what items were on the 7th ? You said there was three or four but are there any big, big ones? Ugarriza: No I don’t know what’s on the – I haven’t seen it. Borup: Who has seen it? Ugarriza: Tara. Borup: I should have done that today huh – Ugarriza: -- do you want me to get one? Borup: Why don’t you do that real quick? Ugarriza: Sure. Nary: Why do we – Borup: -- she’s checking to see what was on. I guess my thought was if we don’t have a big application and if those four items are – Nary: -- (inaudible) take us two hours. If we were to get out at 10:00 I think that would (inaudible) maybe if we put – we’ve already agreed to Cherry Crossing for June 7th . The Chamber of Commerce is not a real lengthy thing we can do it on June 7th and put the other two projects on June 21st . Borup: Brad when’s the cutoff date for the 21st ? Nary: Autumn Faire and Baltic Place if we put those on the 21st – Borup: -- have we hit the cutoff date? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 68 Hawkins-Clark: We don’t have a separate cutoff for your second meetings. Nary: Because that’s supposed to be for continued items. Hawkins-Clark: That’s right we’re only setting cutoff is the 15th of every month for only the first Thursday meeting. Borup: That’s why we have nothing on the 21st ? Hawkins-Clark: Yes we’re not setting any new hearings for your second meetings. We’re trying not to. There are a few times where we had to – Borup: -- we have a few times. So at this point -- okay let’s do that then. If these guys can’t be ready then let’s put them to the one that it’s intended to go to. Nary: It we could put Item 8 and then 9, 10, and 11 all on June 21st and I guess we could put the Chamber one on June 21st as well. (Inaudible) building give them a little more time. Borup: What’s the deal with that? Nary: We can put them on June 21st and just leave the Cherry Crossing on June 7th with whatever is already there. If things were to get out at a decent time both nights hooray for us. Borup: Brad is Chamber in a bit of a – do they have a timeframe or schedule – Hawkins-Clark: -- the Chamber letter specifically asked for June 21st . Borup: Did – I didn’t get to that letter. I was going down through the file and didn’t get that for. Freckleton: They didn’t realize that the drain ditch goes right underneath where they want to build. Borup: What’s under there just the easement? Freckleton: No the drain. Hawkins-Clark: The drain itself. Borup: A pipe drain is under there. Freckleton: Nampa Meridian I doubt is going to be very willing to move it. They may totally withdraw. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 69 Hawkins-Clark: Baltic Place is pretty concerned about getting on to the 7th . That’s what they had in their letter. Norton: They asked for the 7th . Borup: Did they say why they – why has Baltic Place asked for a deferral? Hawkins-Clark: Well they were told by our office that they could be on the first meeting in May and there was a – we just screwed up basically. We overbooked the first meeting in May so they got booted to today. Borup: The reason is because the representative – Centers: -- you overbooked? Hawkins-Clark: Yes we – Borup: -- the representative couldn’t be here. Hawkins-Clark: They’ve got two of their main people out of town tonight. Centers: Well I think we ought to give them June 7th then if you can – Borup: -- well here’s what we’ve got. Staten Park – we’ve had Staten Park before. It’s back again. Hawkins-Clark: Yes it’s a new app. Borup: It didn’t change did it? Hawkins-Clark: It’s very small changes. Borup: That was a little infill subdivision. North Black Cat and West – Shreeve: -- where? Borup: That was before you were on but it was North Black Cat and West Ustick Road. We recommended approval last time. Looking at the plat I didn’t think it was any different but Brad said – Centers: -- which one is that? Borup: Staten Park. Centers: (Inaudible) Wilkins Ranch? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 70 Borup: No I’m looking at this agenda for the 7th . That’s one item and it’s a project we’ve already seen and approved and City Council denied it. The other one is continued – The Assembly of God. I don’t know if any of you read that thing. Their CUP expired and they just want to continue it. The other one is Meridian Crossroads wants to put in a bank and they’ve got a drive-thru so they need a CUP for that. Centers: Which bank? Hawkins-Clark: Syringa. Borup: Yes Syringa. Centers: You don’t have any there for CUP’s on – Borup: -- then the last one is a Preliminary Plat, Seven Gates Industrial Subdivision on Commercial and Nola. That means it’s another re-plat of industrial and those things never have any public testimony. We’ve done something down the street on the same street before. Nary: So what’s this information (inaudible) shouldn’t be very lengthy? Borup: They shouldn’t be unless we want to spend a lot of time on Staten Park. Last time there was no public testimony on it. Shreeve: You know Sally she’ll take forever on those things. Mr. Chairman and Shelby? Borup: This shouldn’t take and I’m always wrong but I don’t see this taking much more than an hour or an hour and a half. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Shreeve: I just wanted to tell what my personal schedule is for the summer. Borup: So the question was Baltic Place if we feel we can get it on the 7th wasn’t that the – Centers: -- I think we should based on – Borup: -- that they were planning on being on May 1st . So Baltic is going to the 7th and everything else is going to the 21st . Baltic and Cherry Crossing are on the 7th . Ugarriza: Keith? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 71 Borup: Yes. Ugarriza: Did you make a motion on Autumn Faire while I was gone? Borup: That’s going to the 21st . Ugarriza: You’re doing this in one motion? Borup: Well – Norton: -- we haven’t even – Borup: -- we haven’t made a motion yet but the discussion was that Baltic Place and Cherry Crossing got to the 7th and everything else to the 21st . Hawkins-Clark: We do have on – I’m sorry we do have – we do need to nail down a date for the Comprehensive Plan Hearings. We forgot to do that the last meeting and we’re pretty much ready to start distributing hopefully within a week or so. Borup: I think it was decided we would need to do it – (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Norton: Don’t we have a workshop May 29th ? Borup: With City Council. Nary: That’s the City Council meeting though – Borup: -- and we’ve got nothing specific on the agenda – Norton: -- I thought it was the fifth Tuesday. Borup: Yes I’m going to be out of town then. If one of you would like to represent the – Nary: May 29th ? Centers: We didn’t have anything scheduled though. Borup: Well the meeting is scheduled we just don’t have an agenda. The only thing I thought and I put a copy of – did all of you get a copy of all of the Ordinance changes and stuff. I put that in everybody’s box a week or so ago. That I thought maybe an item for discussion on that meeting. Maybe get a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 72 priority. There’s such a long list I don’t think we want to say we’re going to do all of them. Maybe pick out six of them or something and start widdeling away (inaudible). Yes there’s – yes that’s probably the best one. Centers: Laundry list? Borup: Yes. Norton: I’m not going to be here on the 21st either. Keven you’re not going – Shreeve: -- yes that’s when I’m not good. We talked about this before I will be gone June 21st and August 16th just so Shelby can maybe help us – Borup: Oh you’re going to be gone on the 16th ? Shreeve: August 16th and June 21st those are the dates I will be gone the next three or four months. Borup: We may have a problem in August – does anybody else got a problem in August? Centers: I’m gone the first meeting in August. Nary: Me too I will be gone August 2nd . Centers: Me too. Nary: I will be here August 16th . Centers: I have the airplane tickets. Shreeve: Me too so there’s negotiation. Borup: No I’m okay it’s July that I’m going to be gone. Norton: Shelby I’m going to be gone June 21st also. Borup: I’m going to be missing the July 19th meeting. Shreeve: So stack on the meetings for June 21st . Norton: But I think I’m going to be gone June 7th also. Borup: Okay we’re going to have a quorum and everything it looks like then. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 73 Nary: (Inaudible) workshop prior to having the Public Hearing meeting for the Comprehensive Plan? Hawkins-Clark: Last time you talked about just tacking – we’re just going to talk about how to conduct the hearing. Borup: I think we would like to go into some of the details. Hawkins-Clark: So it wouldn’t necessarily need a separate whole meeting is what we talked about before. You could just tack it on to the end of the shorter – Borup: -- that could be – I think we still do a workshop don’t we? Nary: -- June 7th looks kind of – Hawkins-Clark: -- that’s true I wouldn’t want to do it. Borup: That’s right now we’ve filled up the 7th and the 21st . We could have done it on the 21st . Norton: Well we might still be able to do it – Nary: -- well if we do it on the 21st that’s really pushing it far out the door. Hawkins-Clark: Yes we won’t – we’re probably going to try to send out the Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing notices the last week of May so we were looking at June 27th or June 28th to have your actual first hearing at the – Borup: -- hearing or workshop? Hawkins-Clark: Hearing. Borup: Are we still going to have a separate workshop? Hawkins-Clark: It’s up to you. Certainly if you want to – Borup: -- after our experience with the Landscape Ordinance and the Sign Ordinance I thought we – Nary: -- why don’t we do this. The only thing we have set for June 21st is a couple things but Keven’s not going to be here. Norton: I’m not going to be here. Nary: And Sally’s not going to be here. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 74 Borup: How much time do we need to decide on the process part? Forty-five minutes? Hawkins-Clark: Probably 45 minutes to an hour. Borup: Just to talk about how we do the procedures. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: Can we take a look at doing that on the 7th ? If we go past 10:00 on the 7th we’ll do it on the 21st ? Nary: That’s fine. Remember when we had talked about the workshop idea with that – part of it was to try to not have that lengthy staff stuff and then we also thought that does educate the public that comes to the meeting. It helps them understand what it’s all about as well as us. Borup: I think it’s good to summarize that but I think we can ask some questions and not look so ignorant on the whole thing too. See we could get our dumbness out of the way at the – Nary: -- would this remind people that we’re working for free? Borup: At the workshop. Shreeve: Again we’re still on. Borup: Yes we haven’t closed the meeting. It looked to me like we should get through the 7th in an hour and a half. I don’t know that’s me. Nary: Could we – I know we would have to give some public notice but you don’t have to give mail notice. Can we meet earlier than seven and talk about those issues? Can we start before 7:00 and notice of the meeting earlier? Hawkins-Clark: Or you could set your workshop from six to seven and then start your hearing – Nary: -- but can everybody be here to do that? Centers: Yes I can be. Shreeve: What day? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 75 Nary: On the 7th . Talk about this workshop idea because should we start having a special meeting at six, talk about those issues and start the regular meeting at seven. That way we have to finish that stuff in an hour or less and start the meeting at a regular time. Then we’re not going to two in the morning and get it done up front. I would be – which I would rather get here at six than stay till three. Centers: Yes good idea. Nary: Can we do that? Centers: On the 7th – Borup: -- we’re not staying till three anymore. Nary: No can we have a meeting at 6:00 to discuss the Comprehensive Plan, the – essentially the strategy talking about the process those kinds of issues. Borup: And we would still get our pretty early. When I said an hour and a half I meant the original before we added the two items. Nary: Right but that way we would still start the meeting on time and it would give us a time to get that done so we would have to be expeditious so we’ll start at 6:00. Borup: Is that okay with everybody 6:00? Centers: That’s on the 7th . Borup: We have talked some and there were problems – Shreeve: Who was it that said they had trouble getting from work? Norton: Well I’ll just get here at six I get here anywhere between 5:30 and quarter to six. Borup: Well we had talked about 6:30 before. I don’t know if we ever talked about 6:00. Norton: Are we talking about June 7th ? Borup: Yes. Norton: Okay I’m not going to be here anyway. Borup: So you don’t care. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 76 Norton: I don’t care. Shreeve: You’re not – you’re going to be gone June 7th and June 21st ? Norton: I’m going to – yes I’m taking two different trips. Borup: The whole month of June is like that. Norton: I wish. Ugarriza: Yours is July 19th ? Borup: Yes July 19th is my only one and the 29th . June 7th – Shreeve: -- June 21st and August 16th . Borup: Okay so the 7th . Nary: So on June 7th we’ll meet at 6:00. I think you would still have to give – you can post a public notice about that. Dave? Swartley: Yes. Nary: I don’t know if you would know or not. City Code has a specific requirement of when we meet. It doesn’t say anything regarding special meetings whether or not we can have them or not have them it doesn’t say anything. I think we would just have to give the open meeting notice. Swartley: Yes that would be required for any type of meeting so we can do that. Hawkins-Clark: So then the question is do you want the Wednesday or Thursday, the 27th of 28th of June to actually have the first Public Hearing on the Comprehensive Plan at the – it will probably be at the old High School in the Convention Center. Nary: I won’t be here either day it’s my wife’s 40th birthday. Borup: She has two days? Nary: Well we are going the 27th and her day. We’re going out of town the 27th and her birthday’s actually the 28th so I won’t be here for either one. We’ll have more than one – Hawkins-Clark: What about Monday the 25th ? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 77 Norton: June 25th I won’t be here. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Nary: I can do June 25th I just can’t do the 27th or 28th . Shreeve: I can’t do the 27th . Nary: Are you coming to my wife’s birthday? Shreeve: Sure. Norton: We’re coming with you. Borup: So it’s either the 25th or the 28th ? Nary: The 28th I won’t be here. Borup: The 25th Sally won’t be here. So it’s up to you two to fight it out. Norton: I don’t care. Nary: It doesn’t matter. I won’t be here the 28th it doesn’t’ matter to me. I don’t care. Centers: It doesn’t matter to me – Borup: Does staff have any preference? Hawkins-Clark: Well another three days might be nice. Borup: The 28th is your first preference? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Nary: That’s fine. Will you be here the 28th ? Norton: Yes. Nary: Don’t we have more than one? I’ll just read (inaudible). (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: So when are we doing the workshop? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 78 Centers: -- Comp. Plan Public Hearing and I didn’t even write down where it’s at it’s some gymnasium some place. Shreeve: The old High School. Borup: We’ll hear something before then – oh in there. The Convention Center. Norton: Are you talking about the Meridian Convention – Borup: I thought you said – Hawkins-Clark: -- old High School – Borup: -- that’s really old. That’s even before my time guys. That’s all I know it as. The old High School used to be the Junior High. ***End Of Side Five*** Nary: It was an intermediate when I moved here. I was the last year -- was an intermediate when I was here but they closed right after that. Norton: Have we got those figured out? Borup: We’ve got everything except for the workshop. Shreeve: The workshop is June 7th at 6:00. Borup: I thought that was the – that wasn’t really the workshop. Nary: No that’s just to talk about how we’re going to do this, what we’re going to do and all of that. I don’t know whether or not -- Borup: -- can we try to do both that night? Get into some of the stuff to get some highlights. Nary: Or we could talk about that on the 21st . Norton: May 29th is a Joint meeting between City Council and P & Z. Nary: Right. Norton: We only have a little bit on the agenda which – Borup: -- maybe the process would be the thing to discuss at that meeting. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 79 Norton: Can we discuss some of this process of that at our workshop on the 29th ? Borup: They would probably want to know that wouldn’t they? Go for it. So then on the 7th we can still do a workshop? Nary: Sure and the 21st if we need to we can always set it the – Borup: -- if the meeting finishes by 9:00 we will only stay till 10:00 and have a workshop after? Nary: That’s fine. Borup: If we don’t have anybody here we can cut it off at ten? Nary: The issue that the Clerk’s Office would have is how would they notice that. Would they notice that they’re going to talk about the Comp. Plan and then 150 people are here thinking we are? That’s the only concern I have. Borup: Yes then we can just tell them that we can meet in the other meeting and we may or may not do it at the end. Nary: Then we may not if it runs long and everybody will talk bad stuff. That’s the only thing I’m – Borup: -- but we’re not taking public testimony. They can listen is all they can do anyway. There’s going to be plenty of opportunities. I don’t know unless it’s a real legal problem. Nary: I don’t think it is I think it just wants to make sure they give actual notice of something of what we’re doing. Borup: Okay good so then we’re going to try to work the workshops in with the 7th and the 21st and not have to do a special one. Nary: Right not have to do a separate meeting but we – start at 6:00 on June 7th correct? Borup: Yes. Nary: And we may even consider starting at 6:00 on June 21st . Borup: See how the 7th goes. Ugarriza: So you want me to notice one for June 7th at 6:00? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 80 Borup: Yes. Ugarriza: Do we want to make a motion those last – Nary: So moved. We haven’t adjourned yet either. Borup: No we haven’t. Nary: I would so move that we do that. Norton: I’ll second. Borup: That was to do the workshop stuff. Nary: We’ll start at 6:00 on June 7th (inaudible) necessary. Norton: We haven’t made a motion on the last seven items yet have we? Borup: Yes. Nary: Yes we already did that as well. Borup: Two items went to the 7th everything else went to the 21st . You already asked that. Centers: You were coughing when we did that. Norton: Okay. Borup: Baltic Place and Cherry Crossing – Norton: Baltic and Cherry on the 7th – Borup: -- everything else goes to the – Norton: -- 21st . Borup: Yes. Norton: Okay now we can – Shreeve: (Inaudible) second. Borup: Motion second to adjourn all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 81 Meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN Shelby E. Ugarriza, Deputy City Clerk Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2001 Pg. 82