2002 02-07Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting February 7,
2002
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. on February 7, 2002, by Chairman
Keith Borup.
Members Present: Keith Borup, David Zaremba, Jerry Centers, Keven Shreeve,
and Leslie Mathes.
Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Larry Moore, Sharon
Smith, and Dean Willis.
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
__X__ David Zaremba __X__ Jerry Centers
__X__ Leslie Mathes __X__ Keven Shreeve
__X__Chairman Keith Borup
Borup: Good evening, everyone. We'd like to begin our regular session of the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. It's our regular meeting for February
7th
. I'd like to open this meeting and start with roll call attendance.
Item 3: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of January 17, 2002 Planning and Zoning
Commission Regular Meeting:
Borup: Did anybody get minutes? How come I didn't get mine? Okay. The first
item on the agenda is the approval of minutes from January 17th
, Planning and
Zoning Regular Meeting. Do we have anybody that's got any additions,
corrections, to the minutes? If not, do we have a motion?
Zaremba: Chairman Borup?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move that the minutes of the meeting of January 17, 2002, be
approved as written.
Shreeve: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 2
Item 4: Public Hearing: CUP 01-042 Request for a Conditional Use
Permit for a Building Structure to be used as a Daycare Center in
an L-O zone for Dreamland Education Center by Monvand
Enterprises, LLC - south of East Leslie Drive and west of North
Eagle Road:
Borup: Okay. The first item on the Agenda is Public Hearing CUP 01-024,
request for Conditional Use Permit for a Building Structure to be used as a
Daycare Center in an L-O zone for Dreamland Education Center. We would like
to open this hearing and start with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, good evening, Commissioners, and good
evening to the Commissioner I have not met yet, Mathes. Hi. The subject
application here, which is -- the applicant is Monvand Enterprises and it is
proposed in the existing platted subdivision, here on the screen, the two lots that
they are proposing to locate the center on. Again, here is North Eagle Road.
There is a single point of access right now on a public street that comes in to
serve this subdivision, this cul-de-sac. It is -- the subdivision is zoned limited
office. The Development Agreement that is in place, which was in place when
they annexed it, required a Conditional Use, so that's the reason for the
Conditional Use on this daycare. Here is a couple of existing site
photos. It is located immediately adjacent to the River Valley Elementary School.
There is an existing chain link fence that would separate the school, which the
play area is back here from the daycare center, which would be in this area here.
This is the site looking west directly to the school. The site plan is fairly simple. I
won't go into too much detail. The building is situated here on the southern end.
They are requesting -- they would have a need to do a lot line adjustment in
order to accommodate it. They -- if you read in the conditions, one of our
conditions that they would have to get that lot line adjustment prior to a building
permit, so that they are waiting to receive approval through you and the City
Council on the Conditional Use Permit prior to submitting for the lot line
adjustment. They have proposed 120 children. It's 7,000 square feet. I think the
only other comments, Sanitary Service Corporation did submit a comment that
the trash enclosure was inadequate as currently located and the dimensions are
too small, I believe, so maybe the applicant could address that. That's all I have
on that one.
Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners?
Shreeve: Yes. I have a question. Excuse me. It shows the parking lot
continuing north on Lot 6. What's beyond that?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Commissioner Shreeve, this would be the first building in
this subdivision. Those are just simply vacant lots at this time. I did not check
that and maybe Bruce would know. I believe there is a Cross-Access Easement
-- have to create a Cross-Access Easement, so they are -- typically on a situation
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 3
like this we do require the Parking Ordinance to be met on the lot and in this
case it is, assuming that they don't exceed that 120 children. So all parking is
contained within what would be the new shifted lot line. I believe they are two
over. That's addressed there on Page four of our staff report, Number two.
Borup: Yes and that does mention the Cross-Access Agreement in the staff
report.
Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Correct.
Zaremba: Just a question. Somewhere it mentions that they are required to
have a see-through fence around their play area and then there is also
landscaping requirements. Is there any reference made that the landscaping
should not be vines that would grow up the fence and essentially eliminate the
see-through feature?
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Zaremba, that's not in the staff report. The
Landscape Ordinance doesn't speak to the opaqueness, if you will, of those
kinds of situations, but we could certainly add that.
Zaremba: Just a thought. I can see the reason for having a see-through fence
around the children's playing area I just worry about the landscaping changing
that.
Hawkins-Clark: Certainly we could maybe ask the applicant to address that, if
they can include that in their --
Borup: Is the applicant here and would like to make their presentation?
Knopp: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, My name is Larry Knopp,
355 South 3rd
Street. I'm the architect representing the applicant this evening.
As far as the -- let me start with the Cross-Access Agreement. This subdivision -
- Carroll Subdivision, was approved conceptually by Planning and Zoning and
the locations of the building pads and also parking and cross-access was agreed
upon and submitted and approved and we have tried to stay within those
guidelines that approved originally on the subdivision. This facility needed some
additional land, so the owner of the subdivision is willing to go ahead and go
through a lot line adjustment to make the one lot smaller and add some
additional ground. The concept of egress and ingress -- if I could
move over here. The entrance -- this was an established entrance that was
approved on this subdivision. Concept and parking was established in the front
with this as a common egress-ingress serving these three lots that were
approved on. We tried to stay to that concept, so we didn't have a problem with
the initial approval, the lot line will be adjusted, and we will maintain parking for
both independent separate lots to meet the City Ordinance. As far as the trash
enclosure, we will work with the city sanitation and make sure that the size
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 4
accommodates the enclosure -- or I mean the size of the dumpster that we are
going to provide there and make sure that it works for them. As far as
landscaping, we did submit a detailed Landscape Plan. There are no vines on it,
so we should be good there.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Knopp: You bet. We have read the conditions of approval and we have -- we
don't have any problems with any of it, so --
Borup: Okay. Any questions from any of the Commissioners? Thank you, Larry.
Do we have anyone here to testify on this application? Seeing none,
Commissioners?
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I did have one and it was a question, but just to make
sure that the applicant saw the letter from the Ada County Highway District
where they have no intention of lowering the speed limit on Eagle Road. Did you
see that?
Knopp: Yes, we did.
Centers: And they don't expect a request from you at a later date? Okay.
Knopp: We realize that.
Borup: Okay. I think we are concluded. We'd like to move on. Do we have a
motion?
Zaremba: Well, my only comment on that is that I think a mitigating factor of the
speed on Eagle Road is within the subdivision. This is not a property that backs
to Eagle Road, it's on the other side of the subdivision, which isn't that far from
Eagle Road, but it doesn't back up onto it.
Borup: No, but getting in and out -- I mean the only egress-ingress is Eagle
Road.
Centers: I just wanted to make sure the applicant had seen the letter.
Borup: Right.
Shreeve: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Shreeve.
Shreeve: I move to close the Public Hearing for CUP 01-042.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 5
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Shreeve: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Shreeve.
Shreeve: I move to approve CUP 01-042, request for a Conditional Use Permit
for a Building Structure to be used as a daycare center in an L-O zone for
Dreamland Education Center by Monvand Enterprises, LLC, south of East Leslie
Drive and west of North Eagle Road, with all staff comments as noted. Also to
work with the city on their trash enclosure to satisfy the city requirements.
Centers: Second that motion.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor. Any opposed? Thank
you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 5: Public Hearing: AZ 01-026 Request for annexation and zoning of
2.30 acres from R-1 to R-4 zones for proposed Hearthstone
Subdivision by Robert Lee - southeast corner of West Cherry
Lane and North Black Cat Road:
Item 6: Public Hearing: PFP 01-009 Request for Preliminary/Final Plat
approval of 2 building lots on 2.30 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for
proposed Hearthstone Subdivision by Robert Lee - southeast
corner of West Cherry Lane and North Black Cat Road:
Borup: The next item is AZ 01-026, request for annexation and zoning of 2.3
acres from R-1 to R-4 zones for the proposed Hearthstone Subdivision by Robert
Lee at the southwest corner of Cherry Lane and North Black Cat Road and the
adjoining application. We'd like to open that Public Hearing also, PFP 01-009,
request for Preliminary/Final Plat for 2 building lots on the same 2.3 acres. I'd
like to, again, open both Public Hearings and start with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup. Highlighted there in black is the
subject property, the 2.3 acres there, which has the frontage here on West
Cherry Lane. To orient you, Golfview Estates here on the north side of Cherry,
the Blackstone recently approved subdivision here to the west, Pintail Pointe is
adjacent here, and then the Parkside Creek Subdivision here. The annexation is
to an R-4, which is the same zone that the majority of this yellow property that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 6
you see currently has. Here are a couple of site photos. This is the existing
house that sits on the proposed Lot No. 1 and then the remainder of the Lot 2,
the vacant lot there. This is a shot looking at the existing
private road, which is on an easement that serves this existing house, which is
not a part of this subdivision, it is on a lot parcel behind this subdivision, but it is
served through this cross-access on this private road. Here is the plat. I don't
think there is anything much to point out. I think the applicant is in agreement
with most of our conditions. There is the notation that you probably noted about
the not currently serviceable with sewer. That was addressed there in terms of
how in the future, should sewer become available, they do need to design it to be
able to hook up and abandon the septic. I think the only other issue on the
annexation application is there is an existing home occupation on this Lot 1 here,
so we are just asking that that come into conformance with City Home
Occupation Code upon annexation. I think that's all I have.
Zaremba: That includes the removal of the sign and --
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Borup: Okay. Any questions from the Commissioners? Is the applicant here
and would like to make a presentation?
Ford-Rudel: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission for the
record, Ashley Ford-Rudel, Hubble Engineering, 701 South Allen Street in
Meridian. We are in agreement with the conditions by the staff for the
annexation, rezone, and for the Preliminary Plat. We request your approval this
evening and I will be happy to answer any questions if you have any.
Borup: So you're in agreement with all the staff comments?
Ford-Rudel: Yes, sir.
Borup: Okay. Brad had said most of them and I wondered what that meant.
Ford-Rudel: We are in agreement with all the conditions.
Borup: Thank you. Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Do we
have anyone here in the audience that would like to testify on this application?
Seeing none, Commissioners?
Zaremba: I move the Public Hearing be closed.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor. Both Public
Hearings be closed right?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 7
Zaremba: Yes. I did include -- meant to include the AZ 01-026 and PFP 01-009.
Centers: Same second.
Shreeve: Same aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Would anybody like to make a motion?
Shreeve: All right. Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve AZ 01-026, request
for annexation and zoning of 2.3 acres from R-1 to R-4 zones for proposed
Hearthstone Subdivision by Robert Lee, southeast corner of West Cherry Lane
and North Black Cat Road, with all conditions stated in the staff comments.
That's enough.
Centers: Second that.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Okay. Next, Item Number 6.
Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, propose that we approve PFP 01-009, request for
Preliminary/Final Plat approval of 2 building lots on 2.3 -- 2.30 in a proposed R-4
zone for proposed Hearthstone Subdivision by Robert Lee, southeast corner of
West Cherry Lane and North Black Cat Road, also including all the staff
comments.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank
you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 7: Public Hearing: CUP 01-044 Request for a Conditional Use
Permit for one ninety two room hotel, one single story office
building and one two story office building in a C-G zone for
Hampton Inn Hotel by Meridian Hampton Center LLC - southwest
corner of Allen Street and Gentry Way
Item 8: Public Hearing: PFP 01-010 Request for preliminary and final
plat approval for 3 building lots on 4.10 acres in a C-G zone for
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 8
Hampton Inn Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - southwest
corner of Allen Street and Gentry Way
Borup: Okay. Next, Items 7 and 8. Item 7, CUP 01-044, request for Conditional
Use Permit for a 192 room hotel, one single story office building, and one two
story office building, C-G zone, for Hampton Inn Hotel by Meridian Hampton
Center, LLC, at the southwest corner of Allen Street and Gentry Way. Public
Hearing PFP 01-010, request for Preliminary and Final Plat approval of 3 building
lots on 4.1 acres in the same C-G zone. I'd like to open both Public Hearings
and start with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, the property is
here at the south end of Allen Street, at the corner of Allen and Interstate.
Interstate is not shown on this site plan. There is a frontage road between the
property and the I-4 right of way.
Centers: Brad, where is the Holiday Inn Express?
Hawkins-Clark: It's right here.
Centers: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: Immediately across the street.
Zaremba: And would you clarify for me, it is a frontage road, that's not the
freeway on ramp? It's two separate things?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Right.
Zaremba: I couldn't tell from our maps.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. It is a bit of an odd situation there, with the right of way
and the easement that is there, it's -- I don't know the full history of it, but -- if you
want a background, Bruce Freckleton is ready to give you an hour discussion.
The Hubble Engineering has their headquarters building here immediately to the
north. Texaco is situated on this lot here. The McDonald's, Chevron, and then
there is a proposed Subway, which you will see next month, on this parcel here.
It is already annexed in the city limits. Has a zoning of C-G, which does allow for
the uses as proposed with the Conditional Use. Site photos are here. The east
boundary on Allen Street looking north there then the southeast corner of the site
looking at the Holiday Inn Express. Then a site from the northeast corner and
then the western boundary. Just for you to take note of the western boundary
here, this is the existing residence with some abandoned vehicles right now and
you'll note in one of our conditions discussion about the landscape buffer. I will
come back to that in a minute. On Item Number 7 here, getting to the
Conditional Use -- continuing on the Conditional Use portion, the -- just a
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 9
quick layout of the site to orient you and then the applicant can hit anything else.
The hotel, which is proposed to be three story, is situated here at the northern
end of the property. Ingress-egress point here off of Allen Street. There is
another ingress-egress here off the Interstate. The two office buildings are here.
This would be the two. There is a Cross-Access Easement and I would just point
out to you in terms of the plat, this is the Landscape Plan and here are the
proposed elevations of the building -- of the hotel. Three story. Here is the
proposed elevation of the single story building and office building. Here is the
elevation of the two story, which essentially is two story, as you
will see here on these bottom elevations, because of the day-lit -- this has a deal
-- there is, topographically, a slope on the property from the higher point on the
west -- or on the east sloping down towards the west. I think the only item to
point out to you on the staff report, Item Number 5 on Page three, the applicant
shall provide ACHD and the City Clerk a copy of the recorded and Cross-Access
Agreement among the parcels. Just so you know, that came from -- that was a
special recommendation to the City from Ada County Highway District. We
included that in there. The discussion that we had with the applicant, the
agreement is -- for the most part, we have never seen this recommendation, first
of all. The City has never received such a request. Usually Ada County
Highway District makes Cross-Access Easements a part of their own conditions.
In this case, I'm not sure why they asked the city to, but essentially the
agreement stands as usually a note on the face of the plat, which I think typically
is considered binding just as much as an agreement would be. Maybe Counsel
can address that. We would be comfortable if either -- to modify that condition to
just simply read the applicant shall provide ACHD and the City Clerk a recorded
Cross-Access Easement -- or they shall provide a Cross-Access Easement
among the parcels and just leave out the agreement terminology or, really, you
could choose to delete that, because the plat would serve as the agreement.
Borup: Maybe the applicant might have some wording.
Zaremba: I don't know if it needs to be an agreement, but if it said Cross-Access
Easement on the face of the plat, that probably would satisfy everybody.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. I think the idea is just to get it there - and they actually
have it already. It has a note on their plat as proposed. It's there. The only
other thing to point out would be additional consideration on the last page of our
staff report, dated January 9th
. I'm sorry on Page 7. I will just go back to the
Landscape Plan here. The City Landscape Ordinance does require a 20-foot
landscape buffer between office, hotel use, and single-family residential use.
Staff is comfortable with reducing that to the proposed 10 foot, given that the
adjacent uses are likely to redevelop at some point in the future and the City
Comprehensive Plan called out this piece adjacent to it as a commercial
property. Upon annexation request, they have a potential to go commercial and
then at that point in the future you would have a commercial use
adjacent to a commercial use. We did just want to point out to you, though, that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 10
the Landscape Ordinance does require between single-family use and this use
the 20 foot. So I believe Wes, the applicant's representative, will be able to
speak to that more.
Centers: But you're okay, Brad with 10 feet? Under additional considerations,
change the 20 to a 10, if that's what the applicant wanted? Page seven.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
Centers: Okay.
Zaremba: As a personal opinion, I agree with the logic that the adjoining
property is likely to be commercial. Is the residence occupied now? The
residence that exists --
Hawkins-Clark: I have not verified that and I don't believe Dave, who wrote the
staff report, verified that. There is certainly a residence there and we --
Zaremba: Were they notified of this meeting?
Hawkins-Clark: They were notified in writing. Yes.
Zaremba: Okay. I would not have a problem with waiving that requirement,
assuming that it's going to be commercial at some time.
Borup: Any other questions from any of the Commissioners?
Zaremba: I do have two, actually, and while you have those landscape plans up,
the comment by the Fire Department is kind of their boilerplate. Number two, all
corners will have 28 foot inside radius and 48 foot outside radius on all internal
access roads. I see that on many of their comments. My question would be in
the far northwest corner that looks to me an extreme acute angle. Has anybody
-- I'm assuming that their boilerplate requirement is assuming a 90-degree
intersection. This acute angle at the far northwest upper left corner, has anybody
determined whether a fire truck can make that turn or do we have it to scale so
we can measure that it at least meets this requirement?
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Zaremba, we have not verified that. We have --
typically, the Fire Department does receive scalable copies of these plans. We
would typically defer those to them. We could certainly verify that prior to the
City Council and maybe the applicant has already verified that.
Zaremba: I don't see that they drew attention to that particular spot, so if they
have seen it and had the opportunity to measure it, that probably answers my
question. My other question would be -- and this probably applies to the other
hotel and motel properties around as well. Being near the interstate, they are
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 11
likely to attract 18-wheelers. In the parking arrangement, do we make any space
for somebody who is overnighting at the hotel with an 18-wheeler to park? It
would probably take up 20 parking spaces.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. In that situation, I think they would no longer be in
conformance with the Parking Code. Certainly, it's not made accommodation for
as presented.
Zaremba: Have we had problems with the other two existing hotels yet?
Hawkins-Clark: Our department has not received any comments on that.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, if I might, I'd like to maybe clarify one of our staff
comments and --
Borup: On the sewer?
Freckleton: On the sewer. Yes and maybe after reading this over -- I wrote
these fairly late at night, so I would like to add to a comment if I might.
Centers: What page?
Freckleton: Lot 3, which is the lot down in this corner, as Brad mentioned a little
while ago, there is site topography that this drops off quite rapidly. This lot -- this
building is not serviceable by gravity sewer at this time. My department is
agreeable to this building being served by a private lift station that would pump
back into the gravity line as a temporary solution. Sewer eventually -- sewer --
we have a main trunk line that crosses the Interstate in this location. There is a
lateral line that takes off about here, goes up and over, and serves the St. Luke's
area. Eventually, as this Magic View Subdivision develops out, which we think it
probably will, sewer would be brought down and up what is called Freeway
Drive, to serve these other lots. So my comment on Page three, comment
Number two, when I said -- I said consideration should be given in
the design for the eventual conversion to the gravity system when it is available
from the south. I would like to add to that, that per City Ordinance the applicant
will be required to connect to that sewer when it is available and that they would
be subject to the assessment fees and potentially latecomer's fees at that time
when they make that conversion.
Borup: Bruce, I assume you have already discussed that with the applicant?
Freckleton: No, sir, I have not.
Borup: Oh, you have not? This may have been a surprise to them?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 12
Freckleton: Judging from the looks on their face, sir, yes, I do think it is.
Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Do you have anything else, Mr. Freckleton?
Freckleton: No, but he just made a comment that he is correct, if he pays
assessment fees when he hooks up this lot for the pressure line going to this --
to this main, his assessment fees are done. So the only thing that he may be
subject to would be latecomer's fees for the -- to pay their proportionate share of
bringing sewer to that area. Yes. You're correct.
Borup: Okay. Do you know whether -- is it just the bottom floor or could the
main floor be serviced gravity? I guess that would be up to the applicant in their
design.
Freckleton: I'd have to defer that to them. Yes.
Borup: I've had a similar situation where we pumped the basement and gravity
fed the upper floor.
Freckleton: Can that be accomplished inside the structure?
Borup: Yes. I don't know what type of pump system he had in mind here, but
that -- again, that would be up to the applicant. Having said that, would the
applicant like to come forward with their presentation?
Steele: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Wes Steele at
1250 East Iron Eagle Drive, the architect of the project representing the Meridian
Hampton Center. In regards to that specific question on sewer design, it's our
anticipation that most likely to begin with, if this building ends up being
constructed as it is proposed, that the entire building would be serviced via the
lift station. Brad, could you put the elevation for that building up for just a
second? If you can see there on the bottom right elevation coming from the
parking lot to the building is actually -- right here there is actually a bridge coming
off of the parking lot to the building. That site slopes away and we are trying not
to affect the contours dramatically, so that we would anticipate that that entire
building would be serviced via lift station and had intended to -- or expect to
provide a service to the south for the future gravity line. I guess my question is,
Bruce, the last time I was in you gave me a latecomer fee assessment for the 4.3
acres. Am I going to be anticipated to pay that twice on Lot 2?
Freckleton: The latecomer's fee that we talked about previously is to repay the
developer of the Holiday Inn Express. He brought the sewer from the line I
showed going to St. Luke's. He brought it up Allen Street to service the hotel.
The hotel -- your hotel, your commercial building, gravity sewer into that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 13
Steele: If I pump into that I'm going to have to have to pay a latecomer's for that
lot into that to pump into and then I'm going to have to pay a latecomer's for the
other service line to hook onto it, too?
Freckleton: The service area that was calculated for the latecomer's fee for that
line coming down Allen Street included your entire parcel.
Steele: Right.
Borup: Have you faced this situation before?
Freckleton: No.
Borup: That's what it sounded like, the first time.
Freckleton: And I'm trying to play Devil's advocate more than anything, because
--
Steele: Okay.
Freckleton: -- there is no plan that I'm aware of to bring that line down Freeway
Drive and get it up into that area. Where I'm coming from is I know that's the
only way that you're going to be able to service that lot by gravity.
Steele: Right.
Freckleton: We are looking way out in the future. It's a crystal ball thing. I guess
I don't know how to answer your question exactly. I don't know how to answer
that question.
Borup: I think what you're saying is there is two different sewer lines that affects
this property, so --
Shreeve: Brad, go back to the overall area. So to come from the south, what's
the -- is that the configuration of that lot or is that really how it is configured, I
guess?
Freckleton: Yes.
Shreeve: So if they brought a sewer line from the south, theoretically it could
stop right there and you could live on a pump station forever.
Steele: Forever.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 14
Freckleton: No. City Ordinances require to and through on building sewer and
water lines. You have to bring it to and through your property. You have make it
available to the guy on the other side of you.
Centers: Are there any other latecomers to come along?
Freckleton: The --
Centers: That will help offset his?
Freckleton: When we talked before with the applicant, I told him the latecomers
that he would be subject to at that point. There are two latecomer's fees. One is
the Five Mile Trunk latecomer's fee and the other one is this one for the Holiday
Inn Express. The Five Mile Trunk latecomer's fee is a city administered, city
latecomers for when the city built the trunk line that came up through here and
then out to serve St. Luke's. That's a reimbursement back to the city. We
brought service to this area. The other one is the one that I spoke of for the
Holiday Inn Express. Those are overlapping service areas.
Centers: Well, if I could take you off the hook, Bruce. Maybe this could be
negotiated and talked about prior to the Council, if this applicant clears the
Commission tonight, to hammer it out with you prior to the City Council where the
final approval would be given.
Freckleton: Certainly. Like I said, this is the first time that this kind of a thing has
come up and --
Centers: We don't have to decide that tonight.
Freckleton: No and we don't know how long it's going to be before this sewer
comes up here.
Shreeve: For what it's worth, I tend to agree with the applicant. It sounds like
they are getting socked from both sides, though. Something to think about.
Freckleton: Correct. If this did come up here and there was a latecomer's fee,
he would basically be paying three latecomer's fees. That's probably not
appropriate.
Borup: Question about the --
Zaremba: In addition to putting in the pump to make the service work now. He
has several expenses.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 15
Borup: That's their choice on the property -- question on the line up Freeway.
That would just go -- that wouldn't go beyond their property, would it? Would that
go up to the Holiday Inn Express?
Freckleton: No. No. That --
Borup: So if everybody -- and this is just a lateral line or --
Freckleton: Yes. It's not a trunk line. It would be an eight-inch line, more than
likely.
Borup: So if everybody does to and through their property, they are putting in for
their own. Once it reaches their property all they need to do is extend that trunk
line themselves and there shouldn't be any latecomer's fee in that situation,
should there? Each one would be bringing the sewer line to service their own
parcel.
Freckleton: There are a lot of what ifs.
Borup: Well, no, I don't know who the latecomer is going to be paid to in that
situation if everyone -- if everybody did the sewer line in front of their own
property and you ran it from the corner of your property to where they needed to
be, there shouldn't be anybody reimbursed. At least that would be my argument
if I were in your situation. Again, I think probably someone will be handling it at a
later date. I don't know that it needs to be handled before City Council. It
doesn't sound like, does it?
Freckleton: At some point in the future. I mean --
Borup: Okay. Any other -- or continue. Was there anything else that --
Steele: No. Other than that, I think Brad did a fairly decent job of addressing our
request for a 10-foot landscape strip on the west boundary.
Borup: Was that Well's property? Have you been in contact with them?
Steele: No.
Borup: I'm thinking that's what it was when I checked and there was a letter sent
to them, so they were notified and --
Steele: We didn't make an attempt to --
Borup: I'm assuming they have no problem. That was one of the comments I
had. I mean that is a City Ordinance as was stated, but, you know, a letter from
the neighbor would clarify that, but they have been notified and have not had any
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 16
comments, so it seems logical. So then, you're saying other than the comment
on the latecomer's fees on the second hookup, you agree with all the staff
comments?
Steele: Yes.
Borup: Well, actually, the wordage you gave me just said -- at least what I wrote
down -- they will be required to connect when available -- oh, you did add
something about latecomers fees, though, didn't you?
Freckleton: Yes but I think it could be worded -- what I put is applicant may.
Borup: Okay.
Freckleton: Not shall. May be subject to latecomer's fees. I feel like I opened a
can of worms here.
Borup: I was going to say a legal term.
Steele: That will get us out of here tonight.
Borup: Okay. Any questions from any of the Commissioners for Mr. Steele?
Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The applicant, he, or she is not here?
Steele: No.
Centers: I have a question and I wanted to ask it the last time I heard a hotel
applicant. Is there a bed tax to the City of Meridian? Does the city get anything
out of –
Steele: I don't know.
Borup: I think in Boise it's just for the auditorium district. I don't know if there is
anything additional beyond that in Boise either, is there?
Centers: So -- obviously, the recent tax levy failed in the City of Meridian. So,
you know, we are looking for tax dollars. But -- so the only additional tax for this
project to the City of Meridian is the fact that it's commercial and it's taxed higher
than, of course, residential and that's it? Okay. Of course, the revenue
generated with people staying there. Okay.
Steele: You got to get your fingers in as ACHD.
Centers: Right. Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 17
Borup: Okay. Any final --
Steele: Did you want us to speak any further to the requirements for cross-
access, cross parking?
Borup: Yes. Maybe just clarify that. It sounds like you got a note on the plat at
this point. Do you feel that it's necessary -- yes, that would be a change that
we'd need to make from the written comments if you want that change or do you
want them to stand as they are written?
Boyle: Planning Commission Chairman, Commission Members, Clint Boyle,
Pinnacle Engineers. I was hoping Wes would be able to handle it all. He almost
did. We are doing the engineering for the platting portion of this project and we
do have a note on the plat related to cross-access, ingress-egress, cross-
parking. In other words, this entire site will be kind of a package deal where the
three properties have access to drive anywhere on the site and have access to
parking anywhere on the site, between the offices and the hotel. So the only
comment I'd have on note Number five, rather than trying to prepare a document
and record it prior to the plat, I would just request the note be changed to state
the applicant shall provide a Cross-Access Easement amongst the parcels for
shared parking and driveway access to the public streets. Period. Then that will
be an item that the city can check, you know, make sure the note is on the
plat, you know, prior to them signing the plat.
Borup: Do you have any idea why ACHD worded this way?
Boyle: Do you want me to speculate tonight?
Borup: Sure.
Boyle: This is pure speculation. Of course, I'm on the record. Maybe I
shouldn't. Pure speculation. ACHD does have some new staff down there and I
know that it was a new staff person that prepared the report and it was
something that essentially slipped by me as far as the special recommendation
to the city. Typically, ACHD will just have it in their comments that you provide a
cross-access among the parcels and I'm not sure --
Borup: It sounds like they may have just worded it different, not trying to
accomplish anything different than they have in the past then.
Boyle: Right. There is -- yes. I mean there is no problem at all with ACHD, I
mean they are comfortable with a note on the plat and that's typically how it's
done, so I will quote that for the record.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 18
Boyle: Thank you.
Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners? Additional?
Centers: Mr. Chairman. Brad, did you note that and are you fine with that?
Okay.
Borup: Okay. Do we have anyone else here to testify in this application?
Seeing none, Commissioners?
Centers: Go ahead.
Zaremba: I was going to move the Public Hearing be closed.
Centers: I second that.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Centers: Mr. Chairman --
Borup: Yes. This one has two -- again, he did close both Public Hearings right?
Zaremba: Yes.
Borup: That's what I thought.
Zaremba: I did intended to cover CUP 01-044 and PFP 01-010.
Borup: Mr. Centers, did you start to say something?
Centers: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I would like to recommend that we approve Item
No. 7 on our Agenda, CUP 01-044, request for a CUP for a 90 room hotel, one
single story office building, and one two story office building in a C-G zone for
Hampton Inn Hotel by Meridian Hampton Center, LLC, at the southwest corner of
Allen Street and Gentry Way, including all staff comments.
Borup: I think that change would be on the --
Centers: And that was it. All the changes were related to the next item.
Borup: We have a motion.
Zaremba: I believe it was a 92-room hotel.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 19
Centers: Ninety-two.
Zaremba: I will second that.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Centers: Moving on. Mr. Chairman, Item No. 8 on our Agenda, I would like to
recommend approval for PFP 01-010, request for a Preliminary/Final Plat
approval for 3 building lots on 4.10 acres in a C-G zone for Hampton Inn Sub by
Pinnacle Engineers, Inc., southwest corner of Allen Street and Gentry way,
including all staff comments with amendments. Specifically Page three, under
Preliminary Plat, Item two, to that paragraph add Per City Ordinance applicant
would be required to hook up when available --
Borup: May be.
Centers: Oh, I'm sorry.
Borup: No. Would be. Go ahead.
Centers: And pay applicable fees and may -- underline may -- be required to pay
latecomer fees. Item No. 5 under Preliminary Plat, change the wording as
follows. The applicant shall provide and record a Cross-Access Easement
among the parcels for driveway access, ingress-egress, et cetera. Page seven,
under additional considerations, line two, change the 20 to 10 feet. End of
comments.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed?
Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 9: Public Hearing: AZ 01-027 Request for annexation and zoning of
77.9 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for the proposed Baldwin Park
by Capital Development Co. - 1/4 mile south of McMillan Rd., east
side of Linder Road.
Item 10: Public Hearing: PP 01-024 Request for preliminary plat approval
of 272 building lots and 16 other lots on 77.9 acres in a proposed
R-8 zone for Baldwin Park by Capital Development Co. -- 1/4 mile
south of McMillan Road east side of Linder Road
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 20
Borup: Okay. Our last two items -- and, Brad, I don't see the applicant here. Is
that true?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, that is correct.
Borup: Okay. I assume they still want to -- they didn't notify you of anything?
Hawkins-Clark: I had a discussion approximately two hours ago with the
applicant, who said they were on their way.
Borup: Okay. Let's go ahead and open, I guess. We do have some people
here, so either way we want to hear from them. I'd like to open Public Hearing
AZ 01-027, request for annexation and zoning of 77.9 acres for the proposed
Baldwin Park by Capital Development and the adjoining application Public
Hearing PP 01-024, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 272 building lots and
16 other lots on 77.9 acres. I'd like to open both these Public Hearings and start
with the staff report.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, may I get a clarification ahead of that? We have on
most of our records that the Item No. 10 is PP 01-024. I also have another
document that appears to be on the same subject that said it is PP 01-025 and I
just would like to get a clarification. This is a letter of transmittal dated January
31st
from the City Clerk.
Smith: Chairman and Members of the Commission, I was notified by Planning
and Zoning that there was a mix up on those file numbers and it is 01-024.
Zaremba: The correct number is 024?
Smith: Yes.
Zaremba: Thank you very much.
Smith: You're welcome.
Borup: So the Agenda is correct, the memo is -- needs changed is that right?
Okay. Brad.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you. Thank you for that correction. On Item Number 9
on the annexation, I will address those comments first. To orient you, McMillan
Road is here on the north. Ustick Road is here on the south. The property, 77.9
acres on the east side of Linder Road -- the map does not reflect how this
property is legally annexable. The colored items typically on our maps represent
city limits and the white represents Ada County zoning. In this case, our map
was not updated recently enough to reflect that Bridgetower Subdivision
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 21
annexed this parcel here approximately three month ago. In order to annex you
need to be contiguous to city limits and in this case, they are contiguous.
Centers: Did you note the comments that the Police Department doesn't think
it's
contiguous?
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, I did not see that, but we do have an ordinance
that has that property annexed, yes. It is contiguous at this point right here at
their northwest, because of the annexation of Bridgetower.
Zaremba: Would you clarify contiguous only at a point or along one whole
border?
Hawkins-Clark: State statute actually does not define that word. To my
understanding. Maybe Counsel could clarify, but I think -- I don't think they
define it.
Moore: It only has to be connected. If it's one point, that's enough.
Zaremba: So the two corner points would do it?
Moore: Yes, it would.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. As Mr. Freckleton pointed out, we do have Cedar Springs
application, which is another subdivision approximately 100 acres, here around
the city's -- the future city park, which would also be contiguous at one point.
That application has not been approved by City Council. This body had
recommended approval of it, but City Council has not acted on that annexation.
So at this point in time they were able to -- we have actually held this application
for approximately a year until this Bridgetower Subdivision was completed and
annexed and the Annexation Ordinance was published and so once it was
published essentially we are obligated to begin processing their application and
so that's what we did, but --
Zaremba: But am I correct that this creates an isolated island of county south of
this property that's wholly surrounded by city?
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Zaremba, are you referring to this --
Zaremba: Yes.
Hawkins-Clark: -- group here?
Zaremba: Yes. That's an island of county with no contact to the rest of the
county?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 22
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Other than across the road here, this is county property
as well on the west side of Linder. None this property has been annexed.
Bridgetower Subdivision had this piece, this piece, this piece, but they did not
annex this -- any of these properties here on Linder, so -- the current site photos
are here. Here is the north boundary looking to the east and the south boundary
along the existing White Drain there. As you probably noticed in our February 4th
staff report, we do have the proposed future middle school on this site here,
about approximately 40 acres. The White Drain more or less courses along this
southern boundary right here and that is where this photo was taken from. The
staff report -- before I go on, February 4th, we do ask that you incorporate any of
our conditions if you do move on this tonight -- we do have a recommendation
that you not do a final action tonight, that you continue both Public Hearings, so
that staff has an opportunity to review a revised plat based on the changes that
we are asking for. I won't leave this drawing up very long, I'm sure you all
have looked at it. The blueprint is a little tough to read, but I'll go -- this was a
little simpler. Generally, the quick orientation -- again, here is Linder Road. They
have one point of ingress-egress into this parcel on Linder and that's essentially
in the middle of their parcel north and south. There is an existing residence
here. This is an out-parcel that is not included as a part of Baldwin Park
Subdivision and it would at this point remain county. They have a collector road
that enters here that is -- does not have any houses that front on this collector
road that is the standard Ada County Highway District policy. They have called
this a collector back until essentially the center of the project here. They have
these landscaped islands that are in the center of the road. There is an entrance
here to a -- let's call it a pod of approximately 62 houses, I believe, that only has
the one road in and out right there. That is the reason for the request in our
report to provide -- as well as the Fire Department is asking for that -- to have
another point of vehicular access to serve these 62 homes. The
application is not a Planned Development, so as many of the applications that
you have seen recently -- at least most of the Commissioners -- if it's a Planned
Development they have to have two amenities. If it's just a straight subdivision
and it's just no Planned Development, then they have to provide five percent
open space, but they don't have to provide amenities. So, in this case, five
percent open space is a requirement by ordinance and for the most part, they
are providing that in two locations. They are providing open space on the lot
here and they are providing open space on a lot -- on a lot here. Those are the
two primary internal open space areas. The White Drain is here along the south
-- along the full southern boundary, which does have an existing easement to --
in favor of Settler's Irrigation District. They are proposing just to -- it says to work
with Settler's and to see if that's going to need to be piped or tiled or not. As
you're aware, Meridian City Code does require all ditches and laterals, except for
natural waterways, to be piped.
Zaremba: Can I ask you a question on the open space?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 23
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
Zaremba: There was note or a comment in here that one of the drawings that
apparently you have seen shows a double use of the open space as drainage.
Has that been resolved? That doesn't sound fair to me. It should be two
separate things right?
Hawkins-Clark: Are you referring to the White Drain being calculated as open
space and --
Zaremba: No. I think it was a comment that water runoff, settling ponds, or
something like that, were counted in the open space.
Borup: The Landscape Ordinance allows for that, as long as it's usable space.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. They would need to demonstrate to us that the slopes of
that -- that that retention pond were not such that a child would get stuck in there.
It needs to be pretty flat but we do allow for those to be used -- particularly for
non-nuisance water. It's just, you know, one hundred year kind of stuff and
you're not going to see it. So in terms of general overlay, I think that's it. You will
notice that these narrower strips right here, there are these micropaths that
essentially they have provided as their open space feature to the subdivision.
This is another micropath here. This area here that goes north and south,
comes down to the White Drain, that's all micropath lots. Another micropath lot
here. All of this is micropath. It's open approximately 20 feet in width that
courses along the rear of these properties. Another one here. I have included
generally the City's Ordinance on how to landscape those lots. They do -- we do
ask that they be hard surface pathways in there, that they be landscaped on both
sides, minimum of five feet in width, and that if your house backs up to it you
have to provide a maximum of four foot high fence, so that it doesn't become a
tunnel effect and create a safety problem. One other thing to point out on the
application. The staff report, dated January 4th
, in my discussions with Steve
Arnold, who is representing the applicant, generally they are in agreement. What
we have a difference on is Item Number five on Page seven. I do point out there,
first of all, that they have -- they have a formal variance application that has been
submitted. This body does not see those applications, that goes straight to the
City Council. The reason for the variance is here up in this northeastern portion
of the subdivision, this block right here, and the block length is -- exceeds 1,000
feet there and exceeds 1,000 feet here. That's -- they have submitted a variance
to get the -- to exceed the 1,000 feet. What we have asked for in Number five
are four additional connectivity points within the subdivision. If you will see on
the bottom of that page, the first bullet to provide the three new boundary stub
streets mentioned above and those are requirement of Ada County Highway
District. One of those stub streets is here in this general area to the north. That
would -- that's the Fire Department's request as well, so that's one of ACHD's
new stub streets, so they would connect up to this property at stub. Another
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 24
connection would be in this general area here. It would not be a direct extension
of Buckstone here, it would be more in this area, and I believe about 600 feet
from the east boundary. So that would provide another stub to the south there.
They have an existing stub here and an existing stub there on the east boundary
and then there has been discussion about another stub street here to serve the
future middle school site. That, according to the school district, they do not want.
They do not want to see, as you probably saw, a stub street to their future middle
school site that is vehicular in nature. They do want a pedestrian slash bicycle
connection that would serve that. If you will see there is a micropath right here
existing proposed and what we have discussed -- I have discussed with the
applicant's representative is to -- instead of providing that vehicular, essentially
insure that that micropath is 20 feet free and clear in width and hard surfaced
that would allow for emergency vehicle access only into the school site. It would
require a bridge.
Zaremba: Is that the area where they are proposing not to pipe it as well? There
is a rain there right?
Hawkins-Clark: There is a drain.
Zaremba: That they don't want to pipe?
Hawkins-Clark: There is a drain along this bottom here, yes. That, of course, is
largely the decision of Settler's Irrigation District, since they control that
easement, and they are the jurisdiction that has oversight there. So the city's
general policy -- and maybe Bruce can speak to that, for that 48 -- if it requires a
48 inch pipe or greater, then the City Council has waived the requirement to pipe.
If it's less than a 48-inch pipe, then they would have to pipe it. So that would
have to be determined by the engineer and they would need to come with a
formal request if they did not want to pipe it or would demonstrate that the pipe
size is that size.
Zaremba: If it's not piped, then whatever bridge would go over it must have
some side height or safety factors, those things?
Borup: Those safety issues would need to be worked into that, yes.
Zaremba: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: Going on on the bottom of page five, that second bullet, provide
a connection between West Yosemite Drive on the west side of Lot 12 and then
West Yosemite Drive on the east side of Lot 12. That is -- here is West Yosemite
Drive here along the south. This is the common micropath lot here and then
West Yosemite Drive continues here. It was not made clear there, but we were
not asking for a vehicular connection, we were asking for a connection that is
similar to this micropath up here. If you were to provide a vehicular connection
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 25
here, you would essentially have about 2,000 feet of a straightaway road the full
distance of the subdivision. So -- but we would like to see an ability to get across
this subdivision on the southern side across this Lot 12 for pedestrians, rather
than being forced to go up here to the main drive and around and down. So
that's the second bullet there on Page five. The third bullet, provide a connection
between West Crescent Street -- this is Crescent here and here. We are asking
for that connection to be made to break up this long block here, which would be
going up and around. It would provide some connection internally
between these two pods of the subdivision.
Borup: Yes. That one had me real confused. Have you got the right to lot
numbers designated in your --
Hawkins-Clark: I believe Lot 17 should be the micropath lot.
Borup: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: This one here.
Borup: I was looking at the other lots there.
Hawkins-Clark: Lot 17, Block 10, should be there, so --
Borup: Yes.
Hawkins-Clark: And then the fourth bullet there, provide a third stub street to the
north property line somewhere between Lot 29, Block 5, and Lot 49, Block 5.
That refers to this area here in the center of the subdivision and, as mention
before, Ada County Highway District is asking for a stub in this general area.
Then there is an existing stub here and the distance between those two stub
streets would be approximately 1,200 feet and so what we are asking for is
maybe an extension of this street here that would be a third connection to the
north, so that when these properties redevelop there is adequate access there. I
guess I won't hit the other items in the staff report right now. I believe that we are
in agreement with the rest of those, so it's mainly those connection issues, so
that's all I have.
Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners? I had one more on item
Number five. You referenced three more blocks length over 1,000 feet. Is that
still -- my measurements didn't show that. That's why I was wondering. Up on --
third line down on Item Number five, Page seven.
Hawkins-Clark: Okay.
Borup: Blocks 5, 10, and 14. Five and 10 are the ones I was wondering about.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 26
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, Chairman Borup -- and some of this gets down to how one
defines and measures a block. Our department staff has typically measured
block lengths --
Borup: Center to center --
Hawkins-Clark: Not off the center of the street, but going off of the rear of the lot
and that is for an emphasis on the pedestrian connections within the subdivision.
So, for example, Block 5 I believe is -- no. This is Block 10. Let's take that as an
example. If you were to begin right here on the block, this is the middle of the
block, and you were to follow the rear of the lot. If you went there and then you
followed up here and you measured around the rear of these lots and you went
up around and back around to the point of beginning, that's all a single block. So
if you -- just for example, you reside in this lot here, even though the block that --
if you were going to take the block as the street, this cul-de-sac, that certainly
meets City Ordinance. In terms of getting connection between Block 10 -- that's
all within Block 10, but if this person that lives here wanted to go over to this lot
over here, they would be force to come down here and around on this street.
The extension of Crescent would provide a direct connection between these two
areas of the subdivision. So if you measure it that way, it turns out to be greater
than 1,000 feet.
Borup: Are you talking a pathway connection or a street connection? You only
mentioned a pathway connection there.
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Borup: I may be thinking two different things. I thought the 1,000-foot block
length had to do with a straightaway --
Hawkins-Clark: Vehicular.
Borup: Right. Is that correct?
Hawkins-Clark: Well, no, we have got a one thousand feet block is if you
measure from the rear of the lot.
Borup: But it was also a straightaway without any connecting streets.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. We have kind of -- we have used both definitions and,
frankly, we could probably use some internal work on that, but, you know, we
have used both.
Shreeve: I have never heard of outside --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 27
Borup: I don't think I have seen that either. That's why I brought that up.
Perhaps the applicant may have some comment on that. You will? Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: But, yes, just to clarify, I mean there is the vehicular -- and that
wasn't made clear, but the West Yosemite, the second bullet, we were looking for
just a pedestrian connection, but the other two were vehicular. So maybe those
words need to be added. So the second bullet would provide a pedestrian
connection between West Yosemite, the third bullet would provide a vehicular
connection.
Borup: Oh, you were intending on a vehicle there? You're worried about a car
driving to see his neighbor going another few hundred feet when they have got a
pathway they can just walk? I guess the answer is yes.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
Borup: Okay. Any other questions from the Commissioners?
Zaremba: Well, I marked about ten places where staff suggested that the plat
needed to be redrawn. That is still pending? That has not happened yet?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Zaremba: Okay. One other thing -- and I'm not sure how we deal with this. The
Joint School District has said their schools in that neighborhood are already
overcrowded and they are not likely to be able to serve the additional students
without busing them some distance. Does that have any impact on our decision
about whether this ought to be happen or not?
Centers: Commissioner Zaremba, that's perfect timing, because I had pulled this
letter out of the Hearthstone application where we approved the sub with two
lots, with one existing house. We had one existing home and it's the same letter.
If the school district is going to pull the form letter out of the box and send it to us
for every subdivision, whether it two lots or 100, I'm not going to even pay
attention to it. This letter was on the Hearthstone Subdivision where there are
two lots and Wendel Bigham signed it just like he did for a subdivision that's
going to have -- how many lots?
Hawkins-Clark: Two hundred seventy-two.
Centers: Right. Same letter. I don't take any credence in the letter whatsoever.
I have heard the school district just the other night, you build them, and we will
school them, something to that effect, so --
Borup: I think what they are saying is, you know, they do have a problem. I
mean --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 28
Mathes: The problem is everywhere, though.
Borup: Right. They just want us to be aware of it. I guess the extenuating
circumstances here, they do have a school site adjoining this property for a new
junior high, I believe, is what they are --
Mathes: Isn't there a new school site within just --
Zaremba: Proposed.
Borup: Oh.
Mathes: Right.
Borup: Right now there is a junior high.
Zaremba: So we create the short-term plan. They have a -- the school district
has a plan to eventually solve it.
Borup: They do now.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: And just like every other plan, it just takes money.
Zaremba: Okay. Impact fees.
Borup: On that same thing, you may -- there was a statement there that there
was an existing landlocked parcel. Is that the one in the center to the north? I
didn't see any that was landlocked, that's why -- oh, to the south. Is that the
one? Or tell me which one.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, no, actually that is an error. I did not see in my
review this flag right there.
Borup: That was my first assumption.
Hawkins-Clark: So this piece is the one I was referring to, which has a flag, so it
does have legal frontage on McMillan Road.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any other comments, Brad?
Hawkins-Clark: No.
Borup: Would the applicant like to -- or the representative like to come forward?
Are you prepared for a presentation?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 29
Arnold: Oh, yes.
Borup: Okay.
Arnold: I have prepared a position statement. Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Commission, for the record Steve Arnold, I'm with Briggs Engineering, 1800
West
Overland Road, Boise, Idaho. I'm here representing Capital Development for
Baldwin Park Subdivision. I apologize for my tardiness in getting you that
position statement, I just finished that up tonight. I got your report I believe late
Tuesday and I worked on some of that yesterday. To go through a brief site
information, again, we are proposing 272 lots, 16 common lots, for a total of 288
lots. Open space I have calculated, not including the White Trunk or the required
buffering along Linder, to be 7.5 acres. As you can see, we are providing a
myriad of micropaths within the subdivision, hopefully to break up some of the
block lengths and allow for a variance of those. We are proposing a pedestrian
connection between the school site and our subdivision. We will be -- at this time
we are not sure if we are piping the Settler's -- excuse me, the White Drain. That
will be based on the Settler's Irrigation District requirement. Also as determined
by the City Engineer, if it is greater than 48 inches we are not generally required
to pipe that. We will be moving the access road along the -- or currently it's
along the northern boundary of that drain. It will be relocated south of -- on the
southern portion of that drain. Part of it on our property, part of it on the schools.
The part to the -- where the school is not adjacent, it will be all on our property.
Average lot size here is about 8,112 square feet. We have got a mixture of --
Borup: Excuse me. That's a true average?
Arnold: That's -- I'll go -- I'll follow up on that, but that is a true average. I had
my staff calculate it before we came here tonight, of which we have got 6,500 --
or 6,500 square feet or approximately -- there is 34 lots 6,500 and greater. We
do have several that are less than 6,500. We will modify those to meet the
minimums. 7,000 square feet and greater we have 93 lots. Eight thousand and
greater we have 102. Nine thousand and greater we have 23. The 10,000 and
greater we have 20 and mixed in there is some 12 and 13 thousand. I didn't
show those. Yes, that is the average lot size, which is similar to the R-4 zone.
We believe this it does comply with the Comp Plan, we are supportive of the staff
for the annexation requirements, and that's something that we are in agreement.
We have looked at the transportation issues. The main road there off of
Linder will be designated as a residential collector, no front-on housing. We will
be provide a center turn lane out on Linder Road to help the left turns into the
site. Sidewalk will be provided meandering along that residential collector, along
with a meandering pathway along Linder Road. To the north, we have got
undeveloped parcels. To the south, we have a school undeveloped. To the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 30
south and east, we have Cedar Springs, which is a similar density of 3.49 units
per acre.
Centers: That is proposed at this point.
Arnold; Correct. Proposed. Approved by this board, I believe.
Centers: Yes.
Arnold: So we do have a similar density then. South of that you have Tumble
Creek -- or Turtle Creek, I believe it is, Numbers 2 and 3, which are the 8,000
with the R-4. That's on the other side of Ustick there. I guess basically the only
issues that we have with this project and the staff review comments -- and I will
briefly hit on those -- is the interconnectivity within the subdivision. The
additional stub street to the north, and on that behalf basically when I first looked
at the subdivision. I, having experience with the transportation end, I looked and
I immediately recommended to the client that we provide a stub street to the
north off of that first loop area, a stub street to the south, and then an additional
stub street to the south on the other portion of the development. Not only my
experience with ACHD, but part of the North Meridian Developers Group
that's coming up with this grandiose idea that we are going to be presenting to
the City Council next Tuesday. The intent of the interconnectivity and the
connection within -- I should say within the subdivision and external is probably
to provide access to other subdivisions, other developments, without having the
pedestrian or the vehicle driving out onto the arterials to get to another
subdivision or the site or internal to the subdivision. So the idea is when you're
transportation planning you're looking at the issue of the interconnection so that
you can avoid additional trips out onto the arterials and or excessive trip lanes.
Hence, I'm getting to the point we are providing two stub streets to the north.
The third one that's proposed there, approximately at the center of the
subdivision, we don't believe is warranted. I think that it would cause more
negative effect and than positive effect. As you can see there at the north, the
35 foot wide micropath going east and west was sufficient to help break up that
block length. We are in agreement with the -- I have talked with my client. We
are willing to provide an east-west connection there down at Yosemite Drive for
pedestrian, but we don't want -- we are in agreement with staff, we don't want to
do a vehicular connection. If you did that, you're going to get almost a half-mile
straight shot. That will encourage speeding and it does create additional
pedestrian vehicular conflict. We would support at this point -- it's not our
preference -- an east-west pedestrian connection between Crescent and -- on
the west and Crescent on the east. We don't want to do that as a vehicular
connection. Again, it creates straight shots and I don't think that it's necessary. I
think we have provided adequate vehicular connection within the subdivision and
I think that adding that doesn't provide any additional benefit. The pedestrian will
suffice to allow the pedestrians so that they don't have to walk over 1,000 feet.
Another issue is the question about piping the drain. Again, I'd like that to be a
requirement of Settler's Drain -- Settler's Irrigation District. We are going to have
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 31
to comply with them and we are going to have to either pipe it or leave it open in
a fashion that they agree to. If we do leave it, open we will have to put
pedestrian bridges, and/or we could pipe it -- we could try to pipe it where we
would have pedestrian crossing. So that would be our preference, that the City
make that as a condition that we comply with the Settler's Irrigation District for
their requirements on the White Drain. The perimeter fencing, I know that that
wasn't an issue and we are in agreement with staff's comments, but right now,
the lots currently backed up to the White Drain. We don't want to have to put a
perimeter fence south of -- at the border of the subdivision. We'd like to put that,
as the Commission has approved in other situations, along the south border of
the developed lots. Therefore, we can leave that as an open amenity and not
boxing it off in the future with other homes, putting a fence, and then you have
this long corridor of basically a no man's land and we'd like to keep that kind of
open. We would request that we leave the fence at the southern end of the
developed lots. I think those were all the issues that the -- that we have with the
development. Again, we are in agreement, except for a lot of the interconnection
issues with the staff report. We will modify the Preliminary Plat prior to City
Council. I know the recommendation is that they defer this item for one month.
If it is this board's direction that they want to see these modifications prior to
moving it on to City Council, I would request that we get scheduled at the next
Planning and Zoning meeting, so that we are not put off a whole other month.
Within those two weeks, we can make the changes showing the stub streets and
all the other issues that were requested, the stubs, the phasing lines, all that
work, we are in agreement, we can make those changes. So with that I will
stand for any questions the Commission may have.
Borup: Questions for Mr. Arnold?
Centers: Yes. I had a question, Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: Why would you have two lots with less than 6,500 square feet within
your Preliminary Plat?
Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, I have got a response. We
weren't smart enough to check the plat before it went before you.
Centers: Did you know you had two lots with less than 6,500 square feet?
Arnold: Yes, I do now. This project came --
Centers: I was searching for more, but two just jump right out, but I know the
minimum is 65.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 32
Arnold: I know exactly what the minimums are and I can make sure that the plat
reflects that. I apologize for that. However, this was handed me recently.
Centers: I don't have any other questions.
Zaremba: We had lengthy discussions about our requirements regarding
Preliminary Plats at the last couple meetings and I think we are required to see it
in a more final form. If we were to schedule that for our meeting of the 21st
, staff
needs to have your copies 10 days before that. Would you be able to have new
copies to them by the 11th
? That's like four days from now.
Arnold: I'm not sure how to pronounce your name, Commissioner --
Zaremba: Zaremba.
Arnold: Zaremba. I'm sorry. This is my first hearing in front of you. We will
make it so. We will get what staff needs 10 days prior to hearing.
Centers: I think we need to address the staff's concerns, though. They have
other applicants, other issues, and do you want to tackle it if he gets it to you? I
mean the second meeting of the month is our normal meeting for postponed
issues or applicants. I would rather have the staff answer that question and not
the applicant.
Borup: I had the same question. It looks like -- and maybe that needs to be
ironed out. At this point the applicant is talking about -- they are proposing
adding two more stub streets and a pathway connection to the school. Is that -- I
mean without changing any of the street layouts, I mean it doesn't look like it's
that substantial of a change to me, that every -- does every agency need to
review it again I guess just because it says so in the City Ordinance or -- I mean
how much review is needed for a change of that magnitude? I'm just adding that
to Commissioner Center's question.
Moore: Bruce, are you looking at me?
Freckleton: You looking at me? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moore, the only thing I was
kind of wondering is there are -- you know, the other agencies have commented
regarding stub streets and the like. If this plat is changed and brought back
before us do we need to send it back to those agencies for their review?
Moore: I think we've had this discussion before that the statute is not clear on
what a substantial change is and that we made a determination that if this body
determined it was not substantial, then it wasn't, and I'm happy with that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 33
Borup: So maybe just a little more clarification from the applicant on what you
would be proposing. I mean at this point you said another stub street to the
north in the middle of White Sands, the middle of that block; is that correct?
Arnold: Correct.
Borup: Somewhere in there?
Arnold: Yes.
Borup: And so I assume you're going to be either eliminating a lot or shifting lots
to do that?
Arnold: Mr. Chairman, it will be probably a combination of both we will have to
eliminate and as Brad pointed out, is that ACHD, they have acted on this
application with the recommendations to provide these stubs, so they directed us
to do it, so I don't think that we need to go back before them on that issue. We
would be proposing one stub street to the north, one additional stub to the south.
What you have before you tonight I'm showing a pedestrian connection to the
south and we could add that east-west pedestrian correction between Yosemite
Drive on the east and Yosemite Drive on the west.
Centers: Well, according to this you have five -- still have five stub streets.
Arnold: Correct.
Centers: According to your memo.
Arnold: Correct.
Centers: Three right now. Or two.
Arnold: Three.
Centers: Three right now, so two more.
Borup: Staff has recommended one more to the north that they are saying they'd
rather not do, so other than -- so that's really the only -- as far as stub streets,
that's the only thing that -- would that be correct, Brad? As far as stub streets,
that one extra to the north is the only thing that would be different from the staff's
recommendation?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, plus one internal.
Borup: Right. Well, maybe we need to discuss that one.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 34
Zaremba: Yes. There are actually two more pedestrian accesses talked about, I
think.
Borup: Right. I meant just outside the subdivision is what I was --
Mathes: What about the stub street for the fire --
Borup: Right. I said pedestrian pathway. Would you like to address that, the
emergency access to the school site?
Arnold: To the south there?
Borup: Yes.
Arnold: They have over -- I estimated well over 1,000 feet of frontage. Our
preference wouldn't be to be providing them emergency access. I don't think
that they will need it from our subdivision. ACHD will grant them -- in the past
they have granted numerous times emergency access where ever emergency
access is needed and I had a talk with Brad tonight, as Fire Departments, when
they get built, ACHD doesn't look at their access. You don't want to restrict the
developments -- or the Fire Department's access. Whenever it usually comes to
fire access, ACHD is pretty lenient when granting that. In this case, the fire
access into the school site will comply with their policy. They have got a ton of
frontage.
Mathes: There is one fire access, though, off of Block 5. Number 10 in the --
Arnold: Which one is that?
Borup: Lot 9, Block 5.
Mathes: Up top.
Borup: Oh. That's -- isn't that the same one that ACHD said they wanted also?
Mathes: They had one moved over towards the side --
Arnold: This one? We are providing a stub there.
Centers: Yes. In your memo.
Borup: Which is the same one ACHD wanted.
Arnold: Correct.
Borup: Okay but isn't that the same one that the Fire Department was referring
to also?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 35
Arnold: Mr. Chairman, if I understand correctly, the Fire Department was asking
that a stub street be provided up here, because this parcel was considered to be
landlocked. It's not landlocked, but we are providing stubs streets to that parcel.
So regardless of the Fire Department's issue, we are providing a stub there.
Borup: Okay. I guess the other issue maybe -- I don't know whether we want to
discuss it now or later, but that would be the vehicle access between the two
Crescents. That was the other request --
Zaremba: Vehicle or pedestrian?
Borup: Vehicle is what staff was requesting.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, if I could just clarify that. Given that this is not
a Planned Development, it's not like we have great latitude with adding a bunch
of conditions. I mean -- so we are simply trying to enforce the ordinance and,
granted, ordinances are open to interpretation. In this case this is the way that
staff has interpreted the 1,000-foot block length to be broken up and so we are
simply just stating what we believe the ordinance is stating.
Borup: And that's why I brought it up to start with. I don't think I have ever seen
it interpreted that way.
Hawkins-Clark: To measure block length along the rear of the lot line?
Borup: Now when there are curves and angles. On the straightaway blocks,
yes, but not when -- not when there is that many curves and angles. I may be
wrong, but I would suspect there are a lot of other subdivisions that are in the
same circumstances.
Shreeve: I agree. That's -- I have never heard of that. Therefore, I don't know if
I agree with a street through there, but maybe putting some kind of a pathway
connecting, I don't think that would be an impractical -- but I don't know about
putting a street through there.
Borup: And I -- and that may be an appropriate spot. I wonder how many
pathways this subdivision needs.
Shreeve: Yes. Yes. I mean there again --
Borup: I mean if the purpose of pathways is to walk and get some exercise, do
you put more pathways in so they don't have to walk another 200 feet? But that -
- you know, that kind of is a -- and, Steve, didn't you say that you were looking at
adding a pathway in that area anyway or you would open to it or --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 36
Arnold: Mr. Chairman, we would be open to that more so than we would a street
connection. That to me makes more sense. I think we have got plenty of
streets. I think that the pathways we have got, again, are sufficient, but if it's the
direction of this Commission -- or if you're looking for the pathways or a
connection, we'd prefer it be a pathway, than a vehicular connection.
Shreeve: You know, even whether you went straight across or just -- you know,
what -- from the East Crescent just one way, so at least they could come in, up,
and out, even though there would be some coming around about -- of course a
pathway typically is just for pleasure of walking. You're not necessarily --
Borup: Wanting to go --
Shreeve: Yes.
Zaremba: I think we are talking like maybe there?
Shreeve: I'm just talking one lot like --
Arnold: I believe we have got some width there that we can play with if need be.
That's something that would be --
Zaremba: And the other one that you were talking about --
Arnold: That one.
Zaremba: Down there right?
Arnold: Correct. Maybe that -- makes a nice jogging subdivision.
Borup: Well, I don't know that we have seen that many pathways in a
subdivision this size before. It's got a lot already.
Centers: How many square feet is that open space?
Arnold: 45,236.
Centers: How about that one? A little smaller?
Arnold: This one is actually a little bit larger 78,386.
Centers: This one right here?
Arnold: Correct. This is the area that would be utilized for overflow for storm
drains. It's the -- we will be providing it such that it's the four to one twelve
minimum. We will be providing -- we will meet the minimums, which are required
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 37
in the Landscape Ordinance. It only handles the 100-year floods, not the
nuisance water. We'll treat the water before it gets in there with sand and grease
traps.
Centers: Brad, you never answered the original question.
Hawkins-Clark: I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question?
Centers: If we postpone this until the 21st
, does that give you enough time to get
together with the engineer and the developer and iron out the wrinkles and then -
-
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Centers, we need 10 days prior to.
Centers: You had requested --
Hawkins-Clark: Right and, frankly, that was given just past experience on the
amount of time it takes to send these back to the engineers and have them get a
revision and get ten copies made and get copies to everybody and we just didn't
expect that to happen in four days. If they can get it to us 10 days prior to the
next meeting, that's what we want, so -- it doesn't really matter. Your next
meeting is a fairly light agenda, so if -- we are certainly open to reviewing it.
Borup: Brad, are you -- have we already reached the cutoff for the March
meeting? Will there be any additional items on that agenda?
Hawkins-Clark: No, there will not. The March 7th
meeting?
Borup: Yes.
Zaremba: March 7th
is pretty full.
Hawkins-Clark: The cutoff is past.
Borup: I thought we had only like four items or more on that.
Hawkins-Clark: March 7th
is quite full.
Borup: Okay. So –
Shreeve: Let's go to the Public Hearing and maybe postpone that for a minute.
Borup: Yes and you will have some time at the end anyway. Okay. We'd like to
continue with any public testimony. Those that would like to come forward.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 38
Fisher: Frank Fisher. I live at 4450 North Linder, which is directly north of this
where they are proposing their last stub street. I'd like to know what kind of
fence, first of all, will be put between us and them. I'd also like to know -- there is
a road that runs down along that side --
Borup: And, Mr. Fisher, your property is the one that's got the little flag going to
Linder or is it the piece in the back?
Fisher: No. It's right on the right -- right on the --
Borup: Okay. The large one or the small square?
Fisher: It's both of those.
Borup: Okay. You own both parcels?
Fisher: Yes.
Borup: Okay.
Fisher: Along between us -- right now there is a road -- there is a main ditch runs
down through there and then there is a concrete ditch that feeds that property
there. I don't know -- I was curious if that road is part of their stub -- their
planned subdivision or if that road is a right of way or -- I don't know that part.
Borup: Okay. We will clarify that and that road is not on your property?
Fisher: It's not on my property, it borders my property. It borders my property
and the ditch that runs the full length of that.
Borup: Your two properties abut and it's not on yours that --
Fisher: I don't know. Well, see, on the other side of their property there is a right
of way that runs through there for the irrigation.
Borup: Okay.
Fisher: But it runs down that drain -- what they call the White Drain, I guess. I'm
just curious on that part. Also they say that the property has to be adjacent --
what I heard that the property had to be adjacent to the property trying to get
annexed into the thing. Well, you're talking a county road between the two
properties and they are only touching barely on the corner.
Borup: Right.
Fisher: That is legal?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 39
Borup: Yes.
Fisher: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that also. Also, what are they planning --
I'd like to know what they are planning on doing with Linder Road to
accommodate the traffic. The traffic on Linder Road now is horrendous now.
You can hardly get across to get your mail. Are they planning on -- what are they
planning on doing to the keep cars from backing up in front of my house trying to
get into the subdivision that they are talking about? Right now we can't get
across the road as it is and all -- everything heading south crossing in front of my
house is going to be stopped there trying to turn into that subdivision. If they
have only got one access there and they put 300 -- 272 houses in there, you're
talking a lot of vehicles trying to make that turn in front of there. I'll never get in
my driveway or out of my driveway, either way.
Borup: Okay. We'll get some answers on that.
Fisher: Other than that, I think that's about all I got. I'd just like to know those
answers.
Borup: Okay. Just a clarification on a couple items. You want to know -- did you
say you had some questions on this stub street or --
Fisher: Well, no. I'm assume that's going to -- I just want to know if that's all
going to be fenced off from my property and how much trouble I'm going to have,
because I have farm animals out there.
Borup: Right.
Fisher: And this is still a farm area all out through there and they are still farming
that property right there and there is a lot of people with a lot of animals right
through there and they are not always in, but I want know what kind of a fence
there is going to be across there.
Borup: Okay. Does your property end at the curb line --
Fisher: Yes. To the north.
Borup: -- to the east?
Fisher: To the north of it. It's on the east side of Linder.
Borup: No. On the east side of your property. That's where the line kind of
curves there --
Fisher: The curved line, yes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 40
Borup: Okay.
Fisher: We also -- well, we also rent that other piece that's back there, but that's
not mine, I just rent it.
Borup: The one with the -- the flag lot?
Fisher: Yes. Right there.
Borup: Okay. Well -- and I don't know if the applicant stated exactly where that
stub street is going. I had the impression it was basically between the two
parcels. Close? Have you got a preference or would you just as soon not have
the stub --
Fisher: I'd just as soon not have any on my place.
Borup: So you would rather have the stub street go through the other parcel?
Fisher: Yes.
Centers: Well, it wouldn't be on your place.
Fisher: No. I understand that. I mean basically -- people have a tendency to
make paths through those things, you know, sometimes.
Centers: A lot of time they put a barricade and, you know, it would be
advantageous -- there is pros and cons.
Fisher: Yes.
Centers: But I think it might be advantageous for you.
Borup: But it sounds like they were planning on doing it further to the east
anyway, so it would probably be off your property, from what I understand, and
we will clarify that. Okay. We'll get some answers for that.
Fisher: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have someone else that signed up?
Converse: Tawnya Converse. I live at 4550 North Linder, just north of Mr.
Fisher's property that he was just talking about. I just have a quick question.
Why R-8 instead of R-4? Most of the other subdivisions, including the
Bridgetower, are R-4.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 41
Borup: Yes and the applicant has addressed that. I don't know if any of the
Commissioners have any comments.
Converse: He said that the lot sizes were similar and --
Borup: Well, the overall average -- the overall average is -- the reason needed to
fit with this -- with this project, the reason it needed to be R-8 is some of the lots
were smaller and some of them were larger, but to have that variety of lot sizes it
needed to have that zoning.
Converse: Another thing is I was here during the whole Bridgetower deal and
this plan looks really limited as far as just the one road off of Linder for all those
homes. I remember all the rigamarol and everything that Bridgetower went
through and access off this road and that road and how many houses went
through one access and how many cars pass by everybody's home and this just
looks like a lot houses going out one road.
Borup: And that's why additional stubs streets were being asked for, so that
there would be six points eventually out of this subdivision.
Converse: What is the time frame for this?
Borup: I don't know that. We can get an answer if you like.
Converse: That's it. Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Any questions from the Commissioners? Do we have anyone
else that would like to testify or ask any questions? Okay. Steve, I guess it's
your turn again. Did you get some of those notes down or --
Arnold: Yes. I guess I'll start with Mr. Fisher's comments.
Borup: Yes.
Arnold: The road along the north -- I'm not exactly sure what road that is along
our common boundary, if there is. Is it east west?
Fisher: It runs east west.
Borup: I think it's kind of like just an access road for the property or something.
His main question was on the fence, what type of fence was going to be along
that north boundary.
Arnold: We are providing a perimeter fence, cedar, six foot high, dog-ear cedar
fence along -- as well as for each phase as required by the staff. The Linder
traffic -- to help accommodate the traffic turning into the site we are doing a
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 42
center turn lane out on Linder Road to take in the left turn movements and so
that shouldn't be an issue. We are adding additional traffic out there. ACHD has
standards for a two lane minor arterial, approximately 14,000 vehicle trips per
day where they have a two-lane arterial. This road has 6,182 existing vehicles
trips, so we are adding 2,720 trips to it, so we are well within capacity. In long
term out here, I know that part of this North Meridian Developers Group, we are
looking at options of taking impact fees from the Highway District and building
streets or wider sections. The District is looking at LID's to do the roadway
improvements. So there are some longer-term solutions out there. In the short
term, we are not overburdening it based on ACHD's standards. I know it's
perceived that you have got a lot of traffic out there and we will be adding to it.
Most of the traffic will be going southbound, some will be going -- some from the
north.
Borup: But at this point you're having a center turn lane both directions from the
access point?
Arnold: We will have a center turn lane for southbound left turn movement into
the site.
Borup: Right. You don't need it for northbound, do you.
Arnold: And then going to the stub issue, we are -- based on ACHD
requirements, we are providing a stub that will be to that ten acre -- I believe it's
the Huffman parcel, so it shouldn't affect Mr. Fisher's property. However, I'm
assuming once that Huffman redevelops there will be interconnection between
the sites. Mrs. Converse, I believe?
Borup: Maybe one other question Mr. Fisher had, a question on that irrigation
line that was between the properties.
Arnold: I'm not familiar with that line, but if it is on our property, we are required
to pipe it, so --
Borup: And if they are accessing water out of it, then that also is --
Arnold: We cannot interrupt his access to that based on not just city ordinance,
but a long history of water rights issues. We won't be disrupting that usage. If
we have to pipe it, he will be able to be required -- he will be receiving the same
amount of water he did prior to our development. If I may, I'll move on to Mrs.
Converse's issues. Why the R-4? Basically, the R-4, as opposed to the R-8, R-4
has a minimum requirement, unless you do a PUD, of 80-foot frontages, 40 foot
along corner lots. Our frontages are narrower, so we are providing within the sub
some deeper lots. That's why eventually we went with the R-8, instead of in a
PUD. Basically it was for frontages and provides some use within the
subdivision between 6,500 and 13,000 square feet that we have, as opposed to,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 43
again, the one access point that was a concern out there, we are providing
additional stub streets that will give future outlet to the subdivision, so that
shouldn't be an issue in the long term.
Borup: I think her other question was on -- if there is any approximate time
frame at all or is that up to market conditions? Time frame on development.
Arnold: I'll just say, yes, basically. When those stub streets will be constructed, it
will depend upon the market and we will have a phasing plan to you Monday.
Zaremba: There was a question from staff also about phasing, too.
Arnold: Yes. We will have that Monday.
Borup: So at this point you don't have an approximate build-out time frame
then?
Arnold: No. The typical subdivision as far as -- I mean five to eight years total
build out at current market.
Centers: What's the -- go ahead, Mr. Chairman.
Borup: I was just -- did you get all your questions answered, Mr. Fisher?
Fisher: One more question --
Borup: We need to get you on the record, though.
Fisher: Where is the sewer coming from for all this stuff? It isn't -- there is
nothing out there yet.
Borup: Yes. Go ahead. Unless Bruce wants to, but -- yes. I think the right of
way is -- I mean the design is done. Go ahead.
Arnold: The sewer is coming from the White Drain across from Linder Road. I
believe your guys are 90 percent done with the design and -- or 80? I don't know
what it is. It's coming.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I think maybe --
Borup: You weren't aware it was planned into this property specifically?
Fisher: Yes. I wondered when and where. I heard it was coming across where
the White Drain is, but I just wondered when.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 44
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the -- as we stated in
our comments, the design is in our review right now from our consultants. We
anticipate that contract will be let for the construction and we anticipate the
construction will commence the White Drain sometime in the month of April. It's
about a 180-day contract, so it's going to take some significant time to get that
trunk line in. Like Steve said, it does come -- this project, the White Drain Trunk,
starts on Ten Mile Road, has to come all the way through the section between
Ten Mile and Linder and, you know, make it all the way through. That's where
sewer is coming from.
Borup: Did you have any other --
Arnold: I guess in closing I'd like at minimum -- at best, we'd like to get
somewhat sort of approval of some recommendations tonight for City Council. It
doesn't look like that's the direction, but we don't want to be put a month out.
Put the burden back on Briggs to get something to these guys by Monday.
Centers: I had a question, Mr. Chairman. How many feet -- well, let's use this --
from that point to that point? I tried to look on my plat and I wasn't quite sure.
Borup: Well, from the center --
Centers: Their ownership -- right. No. No. Their ownership -- frontage on
Linder Road.
Arnold: Mr. Chairman, if you'd like we can answer. Approximately 886 feet or
868.
Hawkins-Clark: 860.
Arnold: 860.
Centers: You know, your comment regarding the stub streets and -- I think you
have said would provide future ingress and egress. You have got one ingress
and egress point and to me I don't like it. I have got to be very honest with you. I
would hate to be this person way back here and trying to get out of that sub, you
know. It -- you know, when I looked at the plat initially it just -- I think you need
more ingress and egress. I really do. I mean the stub streets are great, but, you
know, you can't go in and out of those stub streets and you mentioned yourself in
the future six, eight years, I don't know. I just got to be very honest with you, I
just -- I have a problem with the access off Linder Road and I have to agree with
Mr. Fisher, you have got people coming in and out of there when you're built up
and the property around you is not. You have got all those homeowners trying to
get in and out -- I think of my own sub, Sportsman Pointe off Overland. We have
got two accesses and I don't think we have that much frontage,
I really don't. We have two accesses not including the accesses off Locust
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 45
Grove and through Hunts Bluff, et cetera, et cetera. I mean I can get out of that
subdivision five, six different ways. This sub I'm stuck. There is one way in and
one way out. That's just my comment when you come back.
Borup: Would you -- did ACHD have any policy on this type of thing? What's
their preference?
Arnold: Mr. Chairman, they have reviewed it, they limit -- I mean their standard
policy is to limit the number of access points on collectors and arterials. We are
providing future interconnectivity to another subdivision, they see that as meeting
their requirement.
Borup: What are we looking for on access on --
Centers: They don't want to add to it?
Arnold: I'm not exactly certain what they are doing now. I knew that they
reviewed this and it was sufficient.
Borup: And the reason I asked, Mr. Centers, I know that's kind of the direction
they are going in a lot of other areas. They want to limit the access when it
comes time -- I mean maybe I'm assuming things -- when it comes time to
warrant it, then you have got the traffic light at one location and you don't have a
lot of access points along that mile. I don't know that this is where a traffic light
would be, within 30 feet, but it seems like on other properties they are trying to --
Centers: If that's the case and they only want one --
Borup: Right. I don't know. That's why I questioned -- I asked.
Centers: I don't know. They might.
Borup: Is that the official policy or just kind of heading that way or what?
Centers: Then I would think it might come down to marketability of the homes on
the interior part of that sub.
Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, I mean the two access points --
ACHD would look at two access points when you meet a certain traffic threshold.
I'm not sure that a secondary access out on Linder would help anyone on the
southeast corner or the northeast corner. They still have to travel through the
whole entire subdivision. From a traffic standpoint, ACHD looked at it and the
one access point was --
Centers: Yes but you're going to have two ways to get out at 7:30 in the morning
or whenever people are going to work. You know, I could see these people
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 46
being backed up here trying to get out onto Linder into the interior of the
subdivision can't you?
Arnold: I don't think, Commissioner Centers, that the peak hour traffic at this
point will back up that much. Eventually -- that's probably a prime location for a
traffic signal, because of its location between McMillan and Ustick. When it does
get bad enough, that's when they would do something like that. At this point, if it
did warrant a traffic signal, ACHD would require it of this development.
Centers: And it may come down to the marketability of the lots and the homes.
Arnold: And that may be something that we'd look at.
Hawkins-Clark: Excuse me. Chairman Borup, if I could just throw out one
thought on that. One thing the city has done on situations like this is place a
maximum number of occupancy within the subdivision before a second
ingress/egress point is available.
Centers: Or Phase two, Phase three.
Hawkins-Clark: Or Phase two. Right. I mean the assumption here -- we haven't
seen a phasing plan, but the assumption -- I mean you are going to build from
Linder east right? I mean it's just going to happen that way and so, you know,
you get up to 150 lots and that's it and then until one of those stub streets can go
out to Linder Road, then that's it. I just looked, by the way, on -- Sportsman's
Pointe has about 1,600 feet of frontage on Overland, just about twice this. So in
terms of vehicular -- one thing to bear in mind, imagine in 15 years ACHD -- this
is a 96 foot right of way, two through lanes, and -- I mean four through lanes and
a center turn lane, that's Eagle Road. The idea, you don't want -- you want to
keep those points as restricted as possible on streets like that until you get
signals. I mean that's the whole idea. So -- yes. Bruce is recommending
possibly, unless the capacity of Linder Road is increased, you know, you could
add a condition like that. We did not put that in our staff report, but it could be
something like a maximum of dwelling units. I believe on Woodbridge we did
150 dwelling units, which would be 1,500 vehicle trips and then until either Linder
Road capacity is increased or a full second vehicular access is provided, then
they would not get anymore building permits.
Zaremba: And the other access could be off one of the stubs connecting to
McMillan even.
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. As long as it connects to an existing arterial.
Centers: Okay. That's all I have. Thank you.
Shreeve: Well, I would say to make that part of the condition.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 47
Borup: Well -- and we -- did you have a final comment, Mrs. Converse?
Converse: Just with what you're saying, it is -- Linder Road is really really bad. I
mean you may go up and down it and think, you know, there are four cars in line.
Anytime in the morning or afternoon and -- it may take me, you know, three to
five minutes sitting in my driveway trying to take a left going south, which is the
direction he's saying most of the traffic is going to be flowing and most of the
time when I try to go to Albertson's I go right to McMillan, right on Meridian, and
back in a circle. So it is really bad, so you can consider that.
Borup: Which traffic -- Mrs. Converse, which traffic is giving you the most
conflict, the traffic heading north, or the traffic heading south?
Converse: You know, it goes both ways.
Borup: Okay.
Converse: Probably -- I don't know. It seems like if it was not coming from one
way it was coming from the other.
Centers: That's because it's a two way street.
Converse: Oh. What are they going to do about the mail service out there, so
we are not crossing the road? Who handles that?
Borup: Well, the mail would be in front of these houses.
Converse: Our mail. We have to cross Linder to get our mail right now.
Borup: The post office would be --
Converse: I have to call the federal government?
Zaremba: Afraid so.
Borup: Okay. So are we looking to continue this to --
Shreeve: Yes.
Borup: -- the 21st
or --
Centers: Well, there a couple lots he's got to make bigger and, you know, I think
he's going to have to do that whole plat --
Borup: Well, is the representative from Briggs here? Oh. Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 48
Centers: Yes. I'd like to see some refinement.
Borup: Well, we have got two stub streets, but I think we need to give -- I think
we need to give some -- right, some specific things that we want to see. I mean
they already -- ACHD has already said the two stub streets, so I guess we are --
Shreeve: Well, I would say you want the stub streets, you'd want the pathways
shown, obviously the two lots that are less than 6,500 --
Borup: Which pathways are we talking? Are you talking the two -- at the bottom
between Yosemite?
Centers: This one here? Correct?
Shreeve: Just the lot.
Centers: Just one lot?
Shreeve: Yes.
Centers: I think the applicant really has an advantage with this preliminary
hearing tonight, you know, because he's coming back and hopefully we get it
done right?
Shreeve: Then I think as we understood right down here; right? Somewhere
right there somewhere would be --
Centers: Then this one is extending to the school district site; correct? Okay.
So then --
Zaremba: Can a decision about piping or bridging be made that fast?
Borup: That's going to be up to the irrigation district of which way --
Shreeve: Then I would -- of course, I think based on Commissioner Center's --
which I agree with, with the condition of so many lots to be built, that certainly
that is part of your phasing plan, you know, that you phase accordingly to some
number and that gives them the advantage to put in a phasing plan on that.
Centers: Are you going to build out the front first and then --
Arnold: One option to address that concern is we could -- you know, the
pathway there that goes from the first loop road out to Linder Street there, we
could widen that out and ACHD has done that in the past where traffic concerns
were considerations. Obviously, we don't want -- long term we don't want to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 49
make that a through street up to Linder. We could put non-build agreements
along those lots that are adjacent to it, do a 24 foot roadway -- 24 foot wide
roadway from that street out there to get that secondary access should in the
future we don't get the stub streets connected out. So that's an option.
Shreeve: I think that's been done, too, where a lot has been temporarily
dedicated for an access and then, of course, once you get the stubs it can revert
back into a --
Arnold; But that would meet your concerns with the second lane in and out?
Centers: It's another option.
Shreeve: You can work that out with staff, would be my recommendation, one
way or the other.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question?
Borup: Mr. Freckleton.
Freckleton: Steve, how many lots do you figure you have got from this point --
Borup: Halfway down there?
Freckleton: Yes. Basically, if it was right across here forward, how many lots in
the front part of the subdivision?
Arnold: It's about 60-40. Sixty over on the east --
Freckleton: So 40 percent of your lots are in the front part of the subdivision?
Arnold: Approximately. I have not counted that out. Approximately 60 and 40.
Sixty to the east, 40 to the west. So 40 times -- I'm not sure where --
Borup: And Bruce or Brad, can you remember the reason for the stipulation on
Bridgetower -- or I mean on Woodbridge? I was trying to remember why and I
couldn't.
Arnold: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Do you know why?
Arnold: I think someone from ACHD said that was a requirement, if I remember
correctly.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 50
Freckleton: I believe also it was the city. There was a lot of concern with the
secondary access to the north through that existing subdivision for that
emergency access. Do you recall that?
Borup: Yes.
Freckleton: I think the reason they ended up with kind of a different number on
Woodbridge was because the Five Mile Creek basically bisected the property
and it made a barrier or a natural -- you know, a good line to design to.
Borup: But why was it restricted to the 150? That's what I can't remember.
What was the concern? Was it traffic access onto Locust Grove or was it
emergency access or ACHD thought it was a good idea?
Arnold: Someone from ACHD thought it was a good idea. I think there was –
Freckleton: Was Steve working there then?
Arnold: I thought it was a darn good idea. We didn't get that sub street to the
north of the subdivision at that time. They made it an emergency access. So at
the time it pushed the threshold over the local street and I remember someone
with the foresight that required them to do a secondary access and I -- that
person gave them the option that I threw out here to you tonight, so I think that's
why.
Borup: Well -- and I guess one difference there is Woodbridge had no sub
streets to the north or south and one to the east.
Arnold: Correct.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, if my math serves me correctly, the line that we are --
that I had pointed out roughly here, if it is a 60-40 split, that's roughly 108 lots or
109 lots in that front portion. Forty percent.
Borup: Okay. Which means what? Other than that's just the number?
Centers: Four years. Three, four years. Current market for the frontage.
Freckleton: I guess what I was looking at it, when you look at the -- you look at
the layout, if the second access point was put in here like Steve was suggesting,
really, the only thing you're doing is providing access to these front portions --
this front portion. This back portion of the subdivision still has to funnel through
this one -- this one point. This seems to be kind of a break, you know, where
everything has to kind of funnel through that point, it looks kind of the natural
point to me.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 51
Zaremba: So our suggestion is they focus their phasing on that line?
Freckleton: Well, unless they want to do it in a smaller first phase.
Borup: Well, they probably -- I mean, yeah, that would be up to the developer,
but that is a natural break point if they phase it, I think. That's fairly obvious.
Freckleton: I mean they could have some minor phases, but that would be --
yeah. I throw that out just in case you're leaning towards setting a limit on the
number of lots before they can have that second access point, because I think
that until an access point is provided out here or out to the east or to the south,
you're really not helping this back portion of the development.
Shreeve: So my recommendation, just have staff and the applicant work that out
and those are our concerns and our issues and so come with a plan.
Borup: Well -- and after looking at the difference between some of the others, I
mean is it up to -- is it up to the City to make it convenient for a homeowner so
they don't have to drive as far? I mean that should be something that the
developer should worry about, because has to do with marketability of their lots,
if they are back too far or if it's going to be a problem. Remember, we did do the
other where -- and that was -- wasn't it about 300 -- I mean 150 was about half of
theirs, wasn't it?
Freckleton: Roughly.
Borup: Roughly and -- but that subdivision had only two access points in the
whole design, as compared to --
Freckleton: Two access points on the emergency access.
Borup: Right. Compared to six.
Centers: But, Mr. Chairman, it is up to the City to look at the traffic that will be
generated due to -- you know, and as the individual stated, the backup on Linder
Road -- if they get Linder Road to a five lane like Overland and the rest them, not
a problem, you know. Until then, I think it would be, so --
Shreeve: And, of course, there, again, they can choose not to do that and see
what we feel like.
Borup: Well, the other stub street would relieve traffic anybody wanting to turn
north, you know, they would have a nice right turn out of there. I would assume
anybody going south would want to --
Shreeve: Which is probably going to be most of the people to get into town.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 52
Centers: Unless you want to go around the block like --
Borup: But anybody going -- anybody going south has the turn lane there. I just
want to make one comment on the lot size in the R-4 versus R-8 and I got to say
I really like the looks of this. This is something that I have been wanting to see
for a lot of years, it would require a subdivision ordinance change, and that's to
get more variety in lot sizes. We have, you know, subdivisions with lots from 65
on up to 90 feet and a fairly nice overall average. You know, average 8,000 feet,
it would probably still average less than maybe a lot of R-4 subdivisions would,
but I really like the variety of sizes.
Centers: Yes. Yes. I agree.
Borup: It gives you a good option on a variety of house sizes, which is
something that's been lacking. We have what -- with the requirements we have
got now, I mean all R-4 subdivisions are 80 by 100 foot lots, you know, 90
percent of them, no variety at all, and I do like -- I do like the size variety that this
subdivision has. Something I have been wanting to see for a long time and so
far no one's had the foresight, I guess, to come in with an R-8 zoning, but still do
the larger lots. Everybody else has done the R-8 zoning and had the minimum
lot sizes along with the development.
Centers: Right.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, if I could throw one thing out before you get to your
next step. Current City Ordinance requires piping of all ditches. It does not have
any language in it that talks about this 48-inch requirement. The 48 inch cutoff
has been -- has been around for a long time. However, it's been a matter of
policy, it hasn't been ordinance. The reason we came up with that 48-inch cutoff
was because of several discussions that we have had with the Nampa-Meridian
Irrigation District. Nampa-Meridian has told us that the trash racks or safety
grates that they put in front of a pipe, when you get to a 48 inch diameter size
pipe, the grates are so far apart that you lose the safety factor of those grates.
It's kind of a moot point even having them, because the grates have to be so far
apart that larger stuff can pass through. Forty eight inch was kind of a cutoff
point where they said, you know, you're really not doing any good by having a
trash rack in front of these, because it's big enough that a kid or whatever else
could get through as far as a safety concern. That has been kind of a matter of
policy. In a Planned Unit Development Council can just waive that requirement.
However, this is not a PUD, it is coming through as a straight R-8
development and the current ordinance is very specific and it does not have an
exclusion in there for a 48 inch. I guess what I would throw out to you is that
unless legal counsel can correct me, I believe that this application would require
a variance application to the ordinance, not a waiver. It would require a variance
for the tiling requirement and the applicant has stated in their response that the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 53
Settler's Irrigation District -- and, you know, that's one that we haven't dealt with a
whole lot in Meridian. The majority of Meridian is covered by the Nampa-
Meridian Irrigation District, so I'm not sure what Settler's stance is on the 48-inch
aspect. They may have a total different mindset on that, but the applicant did
state in his response that Settler's is leaning towards requiring them to pipe.
That seems consistent with what our ordinances are saying, too.
Borup: Okay. Is that aspect on the 48 inch, is that maybe something we should
add to our list of ordinances to look at revisions on and make suggestions to?
Freckleton: Yes, it is.
Borup: I don't know if that's on -- I didn't think that was on there. Okay. Add that
to the list.
Freckleton: I throw that out, because I don't know how you're wanting to lean on
-- I mean if they are basically going to have to get this thing turned around by
Monday -- is that correct?
Borup: Yes.
Freckleton: You know, we are talking a variance application as well.
Borup: Does that need to be in by the same time you're saying?
Centers: That would have to go to Council, though, wouldn't it, Bruce?
Freckleton: If they are seeking a variance to the piping, yes.
Borup: Right. Oh, so you're saying they probably won't have an answer from the
irrigation district by --
Freckleton: Well --
Borup: But do we need to --
Freckleton: -- to support the variance, they would need to get some input from
the Irrigation District. The Irrigation District would basically need to say with the
flows that are in that ditch it would require a pipe of X.
Borup: And so that --
Freckleton: They have got to make their case that that size pipe is too big and
we are going to lose the safety aspect and they are going to seek a variance.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 54
Borup: So to move things along, they would want to have that variance turned in
before it goes to City Council?
Hawkins-Clark: I would say it's up to them. I mean they can choose not to and if
it comes down the line and they have to, then they will just lose two months until
the variance is done.
Borup: Right.
Hawkins-Clark: I mean I don't think we need to necessarily require it by Monday,
no.
Borup: Okay. That's what I was getting at, it would be up to them to get it in in a
timely manner if they didn't want it to be delayed later on.
Hawkins-Clark: It would need to be in prior to the City Council's hearing on the
plat, because they wouldn't be able to approve a plat if they were seeking -- but if
they are not seeking a variance, then it's a moot point.
Borup: Okay. I think that's clear.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, don't you think we want to leave the Public Hearing
open, then, just –
Zaremba: Just continue it.
Centers: Yes.
Shreeve: I'd like to make a motion that we continue AZ 01-027 and PP 01-024
for February 21st
.
Centers: I would second that.
Zaremba: I'd like to add the provision that that's provided that the applicant gets
their materials to staff by Monday, the 11th
.
Centers: If they don't, they don't make it.
Arnold: At the close of business?
Borup: Does that work?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
Borup: Okay. Close of business on Monday.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 55
Zaremba: Does the motion maker accept that amendment?
Shreeve: Yes.
Borup: Okay. Motion and second. Any other discussion? All in favor? Any
opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: What -- the other thing that does is what we have already continued is --
we had the 21st
scheduled for our laundry list and we are probably going to have
a pretty full meeting. We may not get too much of that done.
Shreeve: Is the 21st
pretty full?
Borup: Well, we have a few items on there that hopefully would not --
Centers: Winston Moore's won't take that long.
Borup: No. The El Dorado should be --
Zaremba: That will be quick.
Borup: There were a couple others that Shari told me about, I told her to go
ahead and put them on. There was one longer one I told her not to.
Shreeve: I think we just get as much done as we can before 8:00.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: May I make a comment before we adjourn, Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Yes.
Zaremba: I received in my city mailbox -- and I assume we all did -- a copy of
The Works, which was apparently a first effort at a newsletter by the Public
Works Department and I would like to applaud this effort and would be
enthusiastic about it continuing. I found it very informative and helpful.
Freckleton: Thank you.
Borup: All right. Anybody else have any final comment?
Shreeve: No. I'd like to move to adjourn.
Zaremba: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.
February 7, 2002
Page 56
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: We are adjourned at 9:37.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:37 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
/ /
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK