2002 01-03Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 3,
2002
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. on Thursday, January 3, 2002, by
Chairman Keith Borup.
Members Present: Keith Borup, David Zaremba, and Jerry Centers.
Members Absent: Keven Shreeve.
Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Steve Siddoway, David Swartley, Sharon
Smith and Dean Willis.
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
__X___ David Zaremba __X__ Jerry Centers
______ (Vacant) __O__ Keven Shreeve
__X__Chairman Keith Borup
Borup: We'd like to welcome everyone to our meeting this evening. This is the
regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
for January 3rd
. We'd like to begin with roll call of the Commissioners in
attendance. In fact, we do have a new Commissioner with us this evening. We
are glad to have with us the -- and I think we recognized him at our last meeting,
but David Zaremba is our newest Commissioner. This is his first meeting this
evening. He has been attending the last several times, so he's -- and he's had
all the same information that we have, so as far as information he should be up
to speed with the present Commissioners. In fact, I think he's probably ahead of
a lot of the Commissioners that come on, so back to the roll call.
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of December 20, 2001 Planning and
Zoning Commission Regular Meeting:
Borup: The first item on the agenda is our minutes from -- approval of minutes
from the December 20th
meeting that we had.
Centers: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I would move that we approve the minutes of the December 20th
meeting Consent Agenda Item A.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 2
Zaremba: I was in the audience and they are as I remember it. I will second
them.
Borup: Okay. Motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT, ONE VACANT
Borup: It looks like we know who is going to be doing the motions and seconds
this evening.
Zaremba: I'll do the seconds.
Item 4. Public Hearing: PFP 01-008 Request for Preliminary/Final Plat
approval of 4 building lots on 1.57 acres in an R-8 zone for
Kearney Place No. 4 by Margaret Wood – south of East Chateau
Drive and east of North Laughbridge Avenue:
Borup: Between the two of you -- yes. That's how it will be handled. Okay. Item
-- the first item on the agenda is Public Hearing PFP 01-008, a request for a
Preliminary/Final Plat of 4 building lots on 1.57 acres in an R-8 zone for Kearney
Place No. 4 by Margaret Wood. I'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with
the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. You
can see the current plat up on the board there. The square with the dark X is the
-- or the dark border is the subject property. It is surrounded by already platted
subdivisions. Kearney Place Subdivision, Wingate Place, Chateau Meadows,
and all are zoned R-8. This is a copy of the proposed plat. It's a little hard to see
at this scale, but Chateau Drive is just north. The square property that we were
looking at is here. It's proposed to be subdivided into four building lots and two
lots here and two flag lots. You should have a staff report dated December 18th
.
Staff recommends approval of this Preliminary/Final Plat combination with the
comments noted in the staff report and I'd also like to note the recommendation
that staff has that the applicant record a Cross-access Agreement for the central
driveway, so that the two -- let's see. Yes, basically so all the lots have access
off of that common driveway. It will cut down on the number of curb cuts on the
Chateau itself. With that I will stand for any questions.
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners?
Centers: No.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant's representative like to make a
presentation?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 3
Wood: My name is Dan Wood. My mother Margaret Wood owns this piece of
property. I will be short and brief. My mom has lived there for 30 some odd
years. The original Preliminary Plat showed six lots, what we were going to do
with the six lots -- originally with six lots we were going to remove my mom's old
farmhouse. Since then they have put quite a bit of money into it, so what I have
done is just laid it out so that there are only four lots. Staff, as well as ACHD,
has recommended that I do away with the curb cuts there for the two lots in front
on Chateau and just share the common driveway and I'm in agreement with that,
but I think in the long run that would be best for everybody. So they are nice lots
and we'll leave my mom's house there and I think two of them are 12,000 square
foot and one is 17,000 and my mom's is 26,000. Other than that that's --
Borup: Okay. Yes. That was the only thing I had and that was really staff's only
comment, so you -- any questions? Any questions from any Commissioners?
Centers: Just one. Dan, how are you doing? Did you read the Central District
Health's recommendations?
Wood: Yes.
Centers: Okay and a couple other notes -- and the Nampa Meridian --
Wood: The Nampa Meridian's comments there, Jerry, were that they wanted a
looped pressurized irrigation system that's already in the other subdivisions and I
had already planned on doing it that way all the way, so --
Centers: Good. What I want to know is how has that piece of ground has stayed
there so long without being developed sooner? The mother held out, I guess?
Wood: No a year ago when dad passed away. Otherwise, it was an acre and a
half for my dad to play on, be a little mini farm until he passed away. Couldn't
convince him to move. He waited too long.
Centers: That's what they call in fill.
Zaremba: I do have one question and it kind of clarifies the staff's
recommendation of the Cross-access Easement along the driveway.
Wood: Yes.
Zaremba: It's conceivable the way it's presently configured that at some time the
person who would take -- I think it's Lot 16 might decide to fence their property
line. Would you be agreeable to a stipulation that there cannot be a fence put on
the property line for the length of that driveway?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 4
Wood: I guess it's not clear as to what your concern is. What I anticipate what
they are going to do or what my hopes for is along that 40-foot area, you know --
Zaremba: The driveway will look like one driveway right?
Wood: Right.
Zaremba: But legally it's owned by two different people with easements to the
other two.
Wood: Right but there also has to be a spot where they can actually have their
particular access into their garage, so I'm going to have to address that in those
actual deeds, as well as the CC&R's.
Zaremba: So my question is --
Wood: It would be part of the CC&R's that -- Kearney Place already has
CC&R's.
Zaremba: -- would your CC&R's prevent a fence from going down the middle of
the 40-foot driveway, because it is technically a property line?
Wood: We will make sure that that -- because it's going to be paved, that 40-foot
will be pavement. I think I'm answering your question.
Zaremba: I'm just assuming, you know, 20 years from now if they are not all
friends and I want to put a fence on my property line and it would go right down
the middle of the driveway.
Wood: No. We will put something in there at that point.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify or any questions on this
application? Seeing none, Commissioners?
Centers: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I'd like to move we close the Public Hearing for Item 4.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 5
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT, ONE VACANT
Centers: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I would like to move and make a motion that we recommend to the City
Council approval of Item 4, which is PFP 01-008, request for Preliminary/Final
Plat approval of 4 building lots on 1.57 acres in an R-8 zone for Kearney Place
No. 4 by Margaret Wood, south of East Chateau Drive and east of North
Laughridge Avenue. Including all staff comments and noting that the applicant
has agreed with staff's recommendation for a Cross-access Easement and the
applicant has read all the attachments regarding the Central District Health and
the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, et cetera.
Zaremba: I second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT, ONE VACANT
Item 5. Public Hearing: AZ 01-022 Request for annexation and zoning of
2.66 acres from R-1 to C-G zones for Queenland Acres by White-
Leasure Development, Co. - southeast corner of South Stoddard
Road and West Overland Road:
Borup: That covers that. The next item is Public Hearing AZ 01-022, request for
annexation and zoning of 22.66 acres from R-1 to C-G zones for Queenland
Acres by White-Leasure Development at the southeast corner of South Stoddard
Road and West Overland. We'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with
the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Again, you
have the vicinity map on the wall and you should also have a staff report dated
December 27th
. This is a rezone -- or an annexation and zoning request
currently in the county. They would like to annex it to the city. This same
property went through a Comp Plan Amendment procedure about two years ago
where that -- the Comprehensive Plan was changed at that time to allow for
commercial. We'd just like to point out a few things in the staff report. One, the
applicant has not stated any specific use for this property at this time. I don't
know how much information they have that can address that tonight to you if you
have any questions about the intended use of the property. The main issue on
this one is related to a couple of lots and their sewerability and I will let Bruce
address that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 6
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the lots that are on
Stoddard, this lot right here and this lot right here. These two, will have to sewer
into the future Black Cat Trunk Line. We have run some grades off of the
existing line at Overland Road and we figured that all the rest of the lots can
serve gravity sewer to those, so --
Borup: How about the big lot? A portion of that also is on Stoddard, is that not
true?
Freckleton: I don't think that's right. I don't think that's included.
Borup: This is -- I don't know if it's considered a lot or just a parcel --
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that that map is correct. I think the
only lots that are -- or the only thing that's included in the annexation request is
just this boundary around the lots. I don't think this is included.
Centers: Are those platted lots? We don't have a plat.
Freckleton: Yes. The existing Queenland Acres Subdivision is platted in the
county.
Centers: Okay.
Borup: Well, the other documents we have show this -- the whole site as
outlined there in the dark.
Freckleton: I don't think that was included. Well, we'll have to get the applicant
to clarify that. My recollection is that it was not.
Borup: Well, it shows that there is a separate parcel number for that -- that area.
Whether it's considered a lot or just a parcel, I don't know. We'll get clarification
on that.
Freckleton: One thing I just wanted to bring to your attention, if you can
remember back when Bear Creek went in. The Council was very specific about
their approval of the lift station and the service for that lift station that it was only
for the Bear Creek development and nothing more. So sewering this to the Bear
Creek lift station is not an option as far as the Council approvals for Bear Creek.
Borup: Okay.
Siddoway: Okay. One thing I'd like to point out is there is an issue of a stub
street that exists in Bear Creek to -- that stubs into the Queenland Acres property
at its south boundary. The application requests that they be allowed to abandon
that stub and not connect. The staff report in Item 6, Page 6, addresses that just
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 7
by saying that -- that we don't want to address that at this time. Actually, my
personal feeling as staff is that it should be required to go through, period, unless
there is some overriding consideration that would make it infeasible. The stubs
are there for a purpose and for connectivity and it would give -- eliminating it
would increase the block length within Bear Creek, eliminate access into Bear
Creek Subdivision from Overland in the future, and access from Bear Creek to
the commercial development when it goes in. The recommendation at the end
basically focuses on that sewerability issue that Bruce mentioned. If it's all or
nothing we would recommend nothing, but if they are willing to take the two lots
out, we would recommend approval. Or if they are willing to sign a Hold-
Harmless Agreement noting that those lots are not currently sewerable, then
that’s fine as well. I have a couple of site photos. The photos on the left are the
existing houses on those lots. The road is Overland. This is looking southwest
and those are the existing lots on those -- I'm sorry, the existing houses on those
lots. The picture on the right is the stub street. This photo was taken from inside
Bear Creek Subdivision. You can see the barricade at the end of the street and
where it stubs to the property and I guess that's it. I will stand for any questions.
Borup: Any questions of the Commission?
Centers: Yes. Would you go back to the area map? So this is platted Bear
Creek, it's just not updated right there?
Siddoway: Right.
Centers: The stub street would be right here?
Siddoway: Yes. Basically right there.
Centers: This is all platted, isn't it?
Siddoway: Yes.
Centers: Okay.
Zaremba: Clarification on pretty much the same subject. You referred to that
little stub street as South Alaska a couple times. On the map that we were given
that would be South Malayon, which is also what ACHD calls it. Are they talking
about the same thing? It appears to me that South Alaska is the stub that goes
south far to the right of Bear Creek and Malayon goes north towards this project.
Siddoway: That's probably correct. If ACHD --
Zaremba: All of the information would be the same, but I think the name is just --
it's Malayon, not Alaska.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 8
Siddoway: Okay.
Zaremba: If I'm reading the map correctly.
Borup: Yes. I agree.
Zaremba: So all references to Alaska, regardless of who made them, should be
changed to Malayon.
Borup: Did you have any questions, Commissioner Centers?
Centers: No. Not at this time.
Borup: Steve?
Siddoway: Yes.
Borup: I think by the staff report it may have been eliminated because you didn't
want to go into that, but there were two references to a list of uses that would be
excluded. I didn't have a copy of that in my packet.
Zaremba: Likewise.
Siddoway: I haven't seen a list.
Borup: Okay.
Siddoway: What number is that?
Borup: Well, both the applicant and staff report refer to that, said that it was
attached, but we will discuss that with the applicant.
Siddoway: Okay.
Borup: Any other questions, Commissioners?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Yes.
Freckleton: I went back and I looked at the legal description and it does appear
that the entire piece here is included in the annexation description as well. So I
guess I would have to include that in my comments that it's non-serviceable by
the existing sewer as well.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 9
Borup: Essentially what you're saying is no sewer tie in -- is the sewer line down
Stoddard or --
Siddoway: Unless it fronts on Overland, no. It's on Overland Road.
Borup: I mean this Bear Creek Sewer you're talking about, how would they
access it anyway?
Freckleton: How would they access it if they could?
Borup: Yes. Right.
Freckleton: They would have to come all the say down Stoddard to the lift
station that's down about here.
Borup: Okay.
Freckleton: We have sewer on Overland Road that stops right about there and
that's where the lift station pumps. There is a force main that goes up Stoddard
Road that pumps into that last manhole and then it gravity flows out through
Roaring Springs.
Borup: So just making a statement that the only sewer access would be through
the existing sewer line on Overland Road would handle it, without making
specific reference to lots necessarily, then, wouldn't it?
Freckleton: Siddoway: You wanted a Hold-Harmless Agreement with it.
Borup: Right. Right. Yes. We will discuss that with the applicant. Is the
applicant ready and would like to come forward with their presentation?
Huber: Members of the Commission, my name is Jeff Huber. I represent
White-Leasure Development Company, the applicant.
Borup: Mr. Huber, maybe just a quick question before you start that might clarify
some of this. Is it the intention of leaving the existing lot lines as they are or
would there be a re-plat with the --
Huber: No. We would do a lot line adjustment or a replat at the time of the
development.
Borup: That was kind of my assumption taking the type of development that
you're talking about, you're probably not going to keep the existing lot lines, I
assume.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 10
Huber: No. Our goal tonight is to get an approval for the annexation so that we
can move forward to City Council. It's very difficult to develop a piece of property
that is not annexed or even to present it to tenants, so I'm going to explain to you
the situation here. The entire parcel that is outlined in black there is what is
before you tonight for annexation. As far as the sewer goes, I'm not an engineer,
but the staff report didn't indicate that there was a problem with the sewer.
Obviously, we can't develop without sewer and we are going to find some way to
provide sewer at the time we come forward to you with some sort of development
for that property.
Borup: I think part of that confusion is in the lot configuration. That's why I
asked that question. Right now the only way those lots on Stoddard Road could
access sewer would have to go through existing lots that didn't have an
easement, so I think that's probably what staff is -- is that what you're referring
to? Because it's the only way they could --
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, the sewer that's in Overland Road is extremely
shallow by the time it gets to --
Borup: Oh, so it's a grade problem.
Freckleton: It's a grade problem. It's a depth and grade problem.
Borup: Okay. I didn't understand which --
Freckleton: Yes so regardless of where the lots lines are it's still the same issue.
It's a depth issue.
Borup: Okay. Okay. So staff's concern was that by annexing this they didn't
want it to be implied that the City would be providing sewer to those lots that
didn't have it at this time, but that would be somewhere down the road.
Huber: That's correct. We would have to face that problem when we came in
with a development. We are in agreement with the staff report as it's written and
that calls for a Development Agreement, Conditional Uses on each use that goes
in, and we will have to address those -- that sewer issue at that time. As far as
the stub street issue goes, ACHD originally wanted the extension of Malayon
Street, which would be this particular street here. Somewhere between then and
now the plat was changed and I've got the current plat here for you and the stub
street that they are proposing go through is right here, it's called Alaska, south --
or North Alaska Street.
Centers: So our little plat is correct. It is Alaska.
Borup: No, our plat doesn't show the next phase.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 11
Centers: The plat is incorrect then?
Huber: And that street -- that stub street is right here, approximately, leaving a
50-foot strip of land on this side, which is undevelopable. Now that's the issue
we had with the street going through there. In the worst case scenario Malayon
would be the best street to go through, but we don't think that either of them
should be really go through what we are proposing to develop there in the future.
That can be addressed at the time that we come in with a Development
Agreement or a Conditional Use Permit. There are other connections out to
Meridian Road. I think it's called Hollywood, which would be this connection --
this connection here and there is also another connection that comes around and
goes through up here. There is several ways for emergency vehicles to access
through those subdivisions and for traffic to flow out to Meridian Road or
Stoddard Road. The original -- here is a copy of the original plat I will hand out
to you. When ACHD was requiring that Alaska Street go through, you can see
that was the -- that was the road in the middle but that has been changed. So
the applicant is in complete agreement with the staff report as written and we
would request that you approve the annexation and send it on forward with a
recommendation of approval to the City Council and I'd take any questions that
you might have.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Huber?
Centers: Yes. Mr. Huber --
Huber: Huber.
Centers: Huber. Excuse me. Bear with me here. I have some notations. So
you don't have any problem with the Development Agreement and a Conditional
Use Permit each time you come in for a separate development?
Huber: That's correct.
Centers: And this is -- I have some more questions, but this is directed at staff.
Is that pretty much surrounded on three sides by the City of Meridian?
Siddoway: Surrounded on two sides.
Centers: This is the city?
Siddoway: All the colors are city property.
Centers: This is city? This is?
Siddoway: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 12
Centers: That's city right now?
Siddoway: Yes.
Centers: How about this?
Siddoway: Yes.
Centers: Okay.
Huber: I might point out to Commissioner Centers there is also a mini storage --
Centers: Right. I remember.
Huber: -- just to the east that's just been approved.
Centers: Yes. That was just a month or so ago. How do you feel about limiting
the hours of operation when we do a Development Agreement here? You don't
know -- you don't have any idea what you're going to put in there at this point, do
you?
Huber: Not -- at this time we do not, but we have done many many
developments in this valley and we have entered into agreements with the
neighbors to make sure that all the uses are compatible and that the hours of
operation are compatible with the residential uses to the south.
Centers: And how do you feel about a Hold-Harmless Agreement?
Huber: I haven't read it, but --
Centers: He hasn't written it yet.
Borup: He's referring to the sewer -- to the sewer question.
Centers: Regarding -- and I think the best way to put it is that sewer would only
be available to lots fronting on Overland Road right? That what you hold the City
harmless -- we don't want to be obligated to provide sewer for any other part of
the property. I think that's staff's position. So you don't have a problem with
that?
Huber: No.
Centers: That's all my notes.
Borup: Any questions, David?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 13
Zaremba: Let's see. It's probably just a comment reversing my earlier comment.
Since we have shown a portion of Bear Creek that we did not have in our notes,
staff was correct in the fact that we are talking about South Alaska, because it's a
different portion than what we see. Let me just ask Mr. Huber, if I may, if the
decision came down from ACHD, who seems to have a heavy foot in some of
these things, that you did have to put South Alaska through, could you just put a
little curve in it and run it along your property line? That way you wouldn't lose
50 feet of --
Huber: We would certainly have to abide by the Conditions of Approval, which
may include the Ada County Highway District -- which often includes Ada County
Highway District recommendations, but we -- they want to limit out access points
to three access points along there and the way that -- we did send in a
conceptual layout with the application. I don't know if it's in your packet, but it
doesn't call for a road there, it doesn't make sense for it to be there. As far as
the pedestrian access into the commercial, we would be happy to do that. As far
as -- but if the road is going to be restricted to three accesses on Overland Road,
South Alaska, doesn't fit with our plan very well.
Zaremba: I think I saw someplace that they plan to signalize Stoddard and
Overland as the halfway point between Meridian and Linder. I would agree with
your logic that there doesn't need to be an extra residential access street there
necessarily, but, unfortunately, that's your battle to fight with ACHD, not us.
Huber: And the other issue was the length of the road in Bear Creek Subdivision
exceeding your ordinance limit and we would come in for a variance on that if
ACHD would eliminate the need to put South Alaska through to Overland. It's a
minor issue, but it's exceeded it by, I don't know, 100 feet or so.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: Mr. Huber, just a clarification, then. I realize Commissioner Centers
probably really recovered that, but the staff gave two options on the
recommendation. I assume your choice would be a second that would have the
Development Agreement and the Hold-Harmless, rather than not annexing those
-- the property on Stoddard. Is that a correct understanding?
Huber: Correct.
Borup: Okay and then your other choice would be to address the issue of the
stub street at the time of development of the property when you plat it or have a
full Development Plan?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 14
Huber: Yes. All right and it's important that we do move forward tonight,
because our agreement with the property owners is on a timing issue.
Borup: I might just mention for the record the -- I did talk with the developer, one
of the partners of Bear Creek Subdivision, and I did ask them his -- if he had any
comments on the stub street from their perspective. He was fine either way.
They had no -- he felt there could be some benefits to having it and some
benefits not to have it. So it was not -- and that was Greg Johnson that I had
talked to, just to put it on the record.
Huber: Commissioner Borup, I had that very same discussion with him also.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: I think that was in your letter, too.
Borup: Okay. Anything else you'd like to state at this time?
Huber: No.
Borup: Thank you. You may -- if you have more you will have the opportunity to
come up at the end in response to any other testimony.
Huber: Thank you very much.
Borup: Okay. We do open this up for public testimony at this time. Shawn and
Sandy Carroll signed. Did you wish to come forward, sir?
Carroll: I don't know exactly know what --
Centers: You need to state your name and address for the record.
Carroll: Okay. My name is Shawn Carroll and my address is 1750 Stoddard
Lane, Meridian, Idaho. My number, too, you said?
Borup: No. That's all.
Carroll: Okay. Mine is the third location on Stoddard -- exactly.
Centers: Right down in here?
Carroll: Right there. No.
Borup: Right here?
Centers: Excuse me.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 15
Carroll: And I'm just wondering -- questioning about not being able to bring
sewer down to that location, but accepting it as part of the annexation. Would
that limit us in being able to sell our property independently if White-Leasure
does not intend to buy us or how would that impact us?
Borup: You would still be able to sell your property. I think what they are saying
is right now that trunk line -- your lot would not be able to sewer into -- is that the
Eight Mile -- the existing -- which trunk line would that --
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, it's a branch off of Ten Mile.
Borup: Okay. It is being from a pump station on up to that trunk line, but there is
no more -- the agreement was that that was made just for the Bear Creek
Subdivision.
Freckleton: Exactly.
Borup: To be able to sewer that, other than onto the Overland, would -- and
apparently there is a grade problem, would require the new trunk line to come in,
which is planned for somewhere in future years.
Zaremba: May I ask you – you're currently on a septic system that works?
Carroll: Yes. Yes.
Zaremba: I can't see that you would be prevented from selling your property.
You're using it, as it's currently zoned and currently being used.
Carroll: Okay.
Zaremba: The only question would be whether it was annexable at some time.
Carroll: Okay. As part of the annexation plan that whole piece would be
annexed right? But let's say if White-Leasure did not buy our parcel or our piece
of property, would it be harder for me to sell that piece of property --
Zaremba: I don't believe your situation would be changed from what it is exactly
today.
Carroll: Okay.
Centers: I have a question, though.
Carroll: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 16
Centers: You own that property you're talking about?
Carroll: Yes.
Centers: You signed on with White-Leasure for the annexation request?
Carroll: Yes.
Centers: Okay. All right.
Carroll: Yes. To annex it at Queenland Acres, as part of Queenland Acres, yes.
Centers: Okay.
Borup: If they did not purchase your property do you still wish to be annexed?
Carroll: This is the only thing that I wish -- and you did answer my question.
That's why I'm here, really, is if it were annexed, would the property taxes then
be commercial property taxes and would I have to pay those during that time?
Borup: I don't know if we are the ones to answer that.
Centers: Well, did you ask White-Leasure that before you signed on?
Carroll: He didn't have all the answers either.
Centers: Well, we can't play taxes assessor.
Carroll: I understand that.
Centers: You have to decide one way or the other and I guess maybe you need
to put your heads together.
Carroll: Right.
Centers: We don't want to bring people into the City of Meridian that don't want
to come in.
Carroll: Well, I want to come in. However, again, I don't want the depth and
grade problem with my property -- maybe I'm just --
Borup: Well, Mr. Huber said they are intending to annex and develop the entire
site, so, you know, assuming that they go ahead with what he says their intention
is then --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 17
Carroll: Okay. This is just the annexation of the property, so when this comes
down to actual detail in front of the City Council, then I will be able to get a better
clarification on whether I will be paying property taxes or --
Zaremba: Probably the City Council can't answer question either. You should
call the County Tax Assessor's office between now and when this comes before
the City Council and gets the clarification. If it is annexed and zoned C-G and
you do not sell it, will your taxes change to the C-G tax?
Carroll: Right.
Zaremba: That question needs to be asked of the Ada County Tax Assessor's
Office.
Carroll: Okay.
Centers: And, conversely, you need to talk to someone and consider the
possible value compared to what you have now if it was zoned C-G, to be --
Carroll: Oh, absolutely. Yes. There is quite a difference.
Centers: Okay.
Borup: Did staff have a comment?
Siddoway: The only potential glitch I can see, which is another one, is if it were
annexed and zoned commercial and then didn't sell, you then have a residential
property that is zoned commercial and when you go -- if you go to sell it as a
residence and not as a commercial piece of property, then whoever is purchasing
it can have a difficult time getting a bank to loan on it.
Carroll: Right. Exactly.
Centers: Correct.
Carroll: And that's why I definitely want to keep it commercial -- or let's say the
person who is buying it would then -- I don't know logistics around buying the
property, but I'll get with White-Leasure and I will get with the Tax Assessor's
Office and re-address it in the future.
Centers: Mr. Carroll, I'd like to hear it from you. Would you like to us to proceed
tonight and annex this property?
Carroll: Yes.
Centers: Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 18
Carroll: I would.
Centers: I just asked. That's fine. I just wanted that on the record. Thanks.
Carroll: Yes.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else come forward on this application?
Okay. I don't know, Mr. Huber, if you had any final comments?
Huber: No.
Borup: Okay. Thanks. Commissioners?
Zaremba: I'd move we close the Public Hearing.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT, ONE VACANT
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Mr. Freckleton.
Freckleton: I just -- when you get ready to make your motion just one point of
clarification is our staff comments refer to 12 lots and that was --
Borup: Oh, I was going to mention that.
Freckleton: That was faux pas on our part, because we didn't -- I guess it didn't
dawn on us at the time that the bottom portion is also inclusive, so --
Zaremba: I think we may be able to solve that. Mr. Centers -- Commissioner
Centers' wording for that was that we would only offer sewer connections for
whatever -- the present lots facing Overland and that eliminates calling the other
ones 11 and 12 and the empty lot.
Freckleton: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Isn't that correct? There are 13 lots? Or 14?
Freckleton: There are 12 lots in the platted subdivision and then I believe that
other is a remnant parcel.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 19
Centers: Is the whole thing Queenland Acres Sub, though? Even this part?
Freckleton: I do not know.
Centers: The whole tamale? Queenland Acres Sub. The whole thing. I would
like to refer to that in any motion as Queenland Acres Sub, rather than any lots
and --
Freckleton: Our maps up here don't indicate that it is. In the case of Queenland
Acres it's just the platted lots --
Centers: Right.
Freckleton: And not this piece.
Borup: But it's under the original -- I assume the original individual that
developed those other lots owns the remaining parcel, probably. Actually, it
doesn't matter. Never mind. It doesn't matter either way. Any other discussion?
Commissioner, I think in the motion on the sewer issue it may be beneficial, in
addition to just mentioning lots, to mention the grade -- I mean it must be gravity
-- gravity flow sewer lines and as far as what portion of the property gravity flow
takes care of or what will not, I don't know that we necessarily know at this time.
Zaremba: Wouldn't we be able to leave it open to the developer and the
applicant to --
Borup: Right. Yes.
Zaremba: -- if they want to put a pump on the lower part of this --
Borup: Well, no, that would be up to the City. That would be the Public Works
Department. They would need to approve that. At least on other things they can
-- I mean it can be a parking lot or a lot of other things in an area that can be
sewer serviced.
Centers: The way I look at it, Mr. Chairman, I'm just looking at it as an
annexation request --
Borup: Right.
Centers: -- with a Hold-Harmless Agreement on sewer on lots fronting on
Overland and the stub street issue can be addressed later with any development
or plat. Just a simple annexation and that's why I wanted to pin down the legal
description and I would really like to refer to the description that was in our
handout and make that part of the record, rather than Queenland Acres or
whatever. That describes the whole parcel, 22.66 acres, more or less.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 20
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, that is the legal description
that is submitted for the boundary in the annexation.
Centers: Yes so I think that would be, in my opinion, the right way to do it, so --
Borup: Mr. Freckleton, would you want the Hold-Harmless to make reference to
specific lots or to the project as a whole based on grade and sewer
serviceability?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I think that the Hold-Harmless could reference lots 11
with 12 and the large remnant parcel to the south. I've got a map here that has a
record of survey number 5452. It's got a parcel number on it, too.
Borup: Well, the applicant said they are probably going to be replatting the entire
project, which --
Zaremba: Which means we would lose this description if we put it that way.
Borup: But that's fine. I guess the description is applicable at this time.
Centers: Do we just want to describe it?
Zaremba: Okay.
Freckleton: Lots 1 through 10 would be sewerable. Everything else is not.
Zaremba: What is currently platted or as one --
Borup: That's what I'm saying, if those lot lines are going to be done away with,
the others could be sewerable, assuming the grade was adequate. Possibly. I
mean is your concern the grade or crossing lot lines?
Freckleton: No. It's grade.
Borup: Right.
Freckleton: And if you want to put it that the property just has to be sewerable
by gravity to Overland Road, I think that would cover it. I mean they can only
sewer so much of it.
Borup: Well, the Legal Department is going to need to prepare that statement
anyway, I think.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 21
Centers: Right. Right. The wording of the Hold-Harmless has to come from
them, as long as we referenced it for Lots 11 and 12 and the large remnant
parcel to the south.
Freckleton: Okay.
Borup: Okay. Do we have any other discussion before we -- ready for a motion?
Centers: I don't. I think we should get the parcel into the City of Meridian and it's
got a lot of city property around it and it's part of our in-fill program and then go
with a Development Agreement later and see what we get and what comes in
later.
Zaremba: My own feeling is that not only is annexation appropriate, but I think
C-G in that location is appropriate.
Centers: Yes.
Zaremba: With the other -- except for the residential to the south and that would
be mitigating factors required, I'm sure, when that happens. The other properties
around it are commercial and it's near a freeway and it would be a good buffer to
the residential zone.
Centers: I have a question for staff. In the motion we talked about a
Development Agreement. Did we need to be specific on uses? Do we need to
talk about the hours at this time, the operating hours, or would that be covered --
Borup: Well, that can be covered with the -- if it's annexed with a conditional use
will be covered with the application. But that staff recommendation, the
applicant said that they were fine with conditional use.
Centers: Okay. For each?
Siddoway: Yes. What I was going to say is you can -- if you have some specific
thoughts on that that you want to have part of the Development Agreement for
the entire thing you can, but the fact that this has to come back for Conditional
Use allows you to take another look at that.
Centers: Right.
Zaremba: I would add that the developer of Bear Creek has had the opportunity
to come in and ask for time limitations and stuff. The hearing was open to them
and they haven't.
Centers: Very good. Mr. Chairman?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 22
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I would make the motion that we recommend approval to the City
Council for Item 5, AZ 01-022, request for annexation and zoning of 22.66 acres
from R-1 to C-G zone, as they specify Queenland Acres by White-Leasure
Development Company, southeast corner of South Stoddard Road and West
Overland Road. The legal description for the motion shall be the description that
was attached by staff in our packet, which is a metes and bounds legal
description, including all staff comments. The applicant agrees to sign a Hold-
Harmless Agreement on Lots 11 and 12 and the large remnant parcel to the
south, said agreement to be prepared by the City of Meridian and per the staff
comments a Development Agreement with the CUP. Anything that I missed?
Please jump in.
Zaremba: That the Hold-Harmless would be on the subject of no sewer
connection that was not gravity.
Centers: Correct. Well, no, I -- yes. I mentioned Lots 11 and 12. Right. All
right.
Borup: Okay. I don't know if we need to mention the stub street at this time.
Probably not, because that would come up when the project was designed.
Centers: Talk about that later.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: I will second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT, ONE VACANT
Item 6. Public Hearing: AZ 01-024 Request for annexation and zoning of
4.0 acres from M-I to I-L zones for Idaho Trucking Specialties by
Victory Properties LLC - 600 N. Eagle Road:
Borup: Thank you. The next item is Public Hearing AZ 01-024, request for
annexation and zoning of 4 acres from M-I to I-L zones for Idaho Trucking
Specialties by Victory Properties, LLC. This is at 600 North Eagle Road. Let's
open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Again, you
have the vicinity map on the wall beside you. The property is at the intersection
of Eagle Road and Commercial Court north of the railroad tracks. This is a photo
of the existing business that sits on that property. If I go back to that map you
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 23
can see that it is basically surrounded by City of Meridian property. This is a
project that was developed as a county project and they are requesting
annexation in the City and an I-L zone, which matches all the zoning around it.
Borup: I might just mention to the other Commissioners that the map we had in
our packet was the wrong map. I don't know if you caught that. The one on the
wall there was the correct one.
Zaremba: I have seen the applicant's location and I guessed that our map was
wrong.
Borup: Yes.
Siddoway: The photo on the left is looking north. You can see their sign for
Idaho Truck Specialties. There is a billboard issue, which I will cover in a
second. You can see the -- that billboard in the background. You should have a
staff reports dated December 17, 2001. The billboard is noted on Page 2,
annexation and Site Specific Requirement Number 5 and just note that the
billboard sign is not in compliance with the Sign Ordinance and will be subject to
the Sign Ordinance upon any redevelopment of the property. Other than that,
staff supports the annexation and zoning request and stands for any questions.
Borup: Any questions, Commissioners?
Centers: When you say redevelopment, Steve, wouldn't you mean if the
business changes and they put up a different sign? Say they move out and ABC
moves in and they want a different sign, then they would be subject to the sign
ordinance at that time.
Borup: Yes. I think the staff report said redevelopment or change of use.
Centers: It just says redevelopment.
Borup: Well, I'm sorry.
Centers: Item 5.
Borup: Item 3 said change of use, so maybe that needs to be added to Item 5.
Centers: That was the landscaping.
Borup: Right. Yes.
Centers: Or change of use should be added to Item 5.
Borup: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 24
Siddoway: Our intent was anything that required the issuance of a Building
Permit. At that point we would review it and catch it.
Zaremba: The difficulty is that this applicant could grow and move into a larger
thing and another business could take this without changing the building and
there would be -- it would not be a redevelopment, it would be a new business,
without a redevelopment. So there are two possibilities that I think need to be
covered, the redevelopment and a different business being in that same
development.
Siddoway: I think that would be fine.
Zaremba: The only comment I would further that is that then to me that
statement contradicts statement two in the annexation and zoning standard
requirements and I would only add to Number 2 the words except as noted
above. Number 2 -- Number 2 under annexation and zoning standard
requirements it says all signs shall be in accordance and this is making a
grandfather clause exception, which contradicts Number 2, so I'm just saying
except as noted above at Paragraph 5.
Siddoway: Or all new signage.
Zaremba: Yes. Okay. All new. Just insert the word new.
Siddoway: Yes.
Borup: Anything else? Is the applicant here this evening and would like to make
a presentation?
Hayden: Terry Hayden, 6508 West Wintergard, Boise, Idaho. I'm one of the
owners of the facility. We don't have any problems with the staff report and with
all the requirements.
Borup: Okay. Any questions?
Centers: That's easy.
Borup: Any questions of Mr. Hayden?
Zaremba: Thank you for having your business here and wanting to join
Meridian.
Borup: Okay. We have no one signed. Was there anyone here that wanted to
testify, questions on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 25
Zaremba: I would move the Public Hearing be closed.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT, ONE VACANT
Borup: Any discussion before a motion?
Zaremba: I have nothing to add to what's already been said.
Centers: I think we ought to move on. Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I would like to make a motion regarding Item 6 that we recommend
approval to the City Council AZ 01-024, request for annexation and zoning of 4
acres from M-1 to I-L zones for Idaho Trucking Specialties by Victory Properties,
LLC, which is located at 600 North Eagle Road. Including all staff comments and
Page 2, Number 5, under annexation and site specific requirements add the
verbiage or change of use and Item 2 at the bottom of the page insert the word
new after the first word all. All new signage. That's all I see.
Zaremba: I second it.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT, ONE VACANT.
Item 7. Public Hearing: RZ 01-007 Request for rezone of 3.35 acres from
R-8 to C-C zones for Sol C. Yaun by Hubble Engineering Inc. - 725
East Fairview Avenue
Borup: Thank you. The next item is Public Hearing RZ 01-007, request for
rezone of 3.35 acres from R-8 to C-C zone for Sol C. Yaun by Hubble
Engineering at 725 East Fairview Avenue. I would like to open this Public
Hearing and start with the staff report. We almost had something on this several
months ago.
Siddoway: Yes. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, some of you may
remember this property coming before you for a rezone as Golden Corral. That
was then withdrawn at that time, but they are coming forward and asking for a
rezone at this time from R-8 to C-C and you should have a staff report dated
December 20th
with the staff findings. I can show you a site photo. This is
looking from Fairview to the south. You can see Creekside Arbor Apartments in
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 26
the background. The foreground property is the property in question. The
adjoining parcels along Fairview are zoned commercially, so staff supports the
rezone with the conditions of approval noted in the staff report.
Borup: That was your report? I'm sorry.
Siddoway: Yes. I stand for any questions.
Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners?
Zaremba: I have a couple of extremely picky little probably typo questions that
don't mean much I don't think. On Page 2 of the staff comments, Item C, the
second line refers to -- this is in accordance with uses permitted in an L-O zone.
Should that C-G? Okay. Okay and on the same page, Item F, staff finds that the
rezone to L-O, that probably should be C-G as well.
Siddoway: I don't know. Hold on a second.
Borup: On Item F. You're referring to Item C and Item F?
Siddoway: I see that and I'm just -- it's possible that they were agreeing to
develop --
Zaremba: Asking for a C-G, but agreeing to the L-0?
Siddoway: I would ask the applicant to see if that was something they intended,
because I didn't talk with Dave about that specifically today and he's the one that
wrote this report. So I will read through their application briefly and see if it
mentions that and maybe we can get the applicant to clarify if they had any
intention of developing under L-O standards.
Borup: The letter from the applicant only mentions C-C, but we will clarify that.
Zaremba: And I have one other question that actually applies to this one and
probably a couple others that we are hearing tonight.
Siddoway: Okay.
Zaremba: Let's see. This is not our staff report, this may be ACHD, but at some
point it talks about the applicant should construct a five food wide concrete
sidewalk on Fairview. This is Page 2 of somebody's report. I'm sorry. Other
conversations at other times with the City of Meridian is encouraging people to
do separated sidewalks. Do we need to specify that, because it's not specified?
Siddoway: We are -- in an in-fill situation where there are attached sidewalks on
both sides we are not requiring that they be detached. Basically on the fringe of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 27
all the current city limits growing out for our impact area we want to require
detached sidewalks, but I believe the sidewalks are attached adjacent to this
property.
Zaremba: Okay. So staff is watching for that and putting it in where it's
appropriate?
Siddoway: Yes.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Any other questions? Is the applicant here this evening, have a
presentation?
Carter: Chairman and Commissioners, I’m Craig Carter, Hubble Engineering.
Basically the staff report is fine with us. If you have any questions I would be
happy to answer them. The L-O question, it was C-C. We --
Zaremba: All references should be C-C?
Borup: Probably just a typo.
Carter: Yes. There were no thoughts of anything with an L-O zone.
Centers: Mr. Carter.
Borup: And you'll make a Conditional Use Application?
Centers: I was going to ask that, too. That's all right. At Page 3 of the staff
report, Item G, you don't have a problem with that dedication of an easement for
the Meridian Public Works Department? Paralleling the Five Mile Creek?
Carter: Would that be within the --
Centers: That's in the staff report.
Carter: Would that be within the easement of -- would you put that within the --
Centers: The location?
Shreeve: -- an easements or would that be outside of the Nampa Meridian
Irrigation?
Centers: Maybe Mr. Freckleton can address that.
Carter: I'm not sure how you usually do that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 28
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, as we did note there,
we are pretty flexible on where that can be. If we can get an Encroachment
Agreement -- or not an Encroachment Agreement, but a License Agreement of
Nampa Meridian we could place it within their easement along Five Mile Creek.
Carter: I'm sure we have the flexibility to work with the City that it doesn't --
Zaremba: If it could not be located you still would be willing to work it out?
Carter: Well, I would say yes. As long as it doesn't, you know, go to places that
are really detrimental to the development of the property.
Zaremba: Right square down the center you mean?
Carter: Yes.
Zaremba: Sure.
Borup: Okay. Mr. Freckleton, the City's preference would be either within the
Drainage Easement or as close as possible, you know.
Freckleton: Correct.
Borup: You know, that's normal.
Carter: There is probably going to be some conditions from the Nampa Meridian
Irrigation anyway along that -- is it Five Mile Drain? Five Mile Creek?
Freckleton: Right.
Borup: Okay. Any other questions, Commissioners? That was the one that I
had marked also.
Centers: We can handle that.
Carter: I think that was all.
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you, sir. Do we have anyone in the audience to testify in this
application? Seeing none, Commissioners?
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: Second.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 29
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT, ONE VACANT
Centers: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I would like to recommend approval and -- recommend approval to the
City Council for Item 7, RZ 01-007, request for rezone of 3.35 acres from R-8 to
C-C zones for Sol C. Yaun by Hubble Engineering at 725 East Fairview Avenue
and including all staff comments, but eliminate all reference to an L-O zone -- of
course, the applicant has requested C-C zones and regarding the Item G, page
three, of staff comments, the applicant has agreed to work with the City of
Meridian Public Works Department regarding the dedication of an easement at
the property.
Zaremba: I second that motion.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT, ONE VACANT
Borup: Thank you. We have been moving right along tonight.
Centers: Could we take a break?
Borup: Do you want a break or are you just fine? Okay. Let's -- we are on our
last application and it looks like that's what most of the audience is here for. Let's
take a -- just a short rest break and we will reconvene in a few minutes.
RECONVENED AT 8:15 P.M.
Item 8. Public Hearing: AZ 01-023 Request for annexation and zoning of
5.97 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Inglenook
Subdivision by Providence Development Group, LLC - 2720 South
Locust Grove Road:
Item 9. Public Hearing: PP 01-023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval
of 20 building lots and 24 other lots in a proposed R-4 zone for
proposed Inglenook Subdivision by Providence Development
Group, LLC - 2720 South Locust Grove Road:
Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting this evening and start with Items No. 8 and 9. The first being a Public
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 30
Hearing AZ 01-023, a request for annexation and zoning of 5.97 -- annexation
and zoning of 5.97 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Inglenook
Subdivision by Providence Development Group and accompanying that
application is PP 01-023, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 20 building lots
and 24 other lots in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Inglenook Subdivision. I'd
like to open both these Public Hearings and start with the staff report.
Siddoway: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The
Inglenook -- proposed Inglenook Subdivision is located on South Locust Grove
Road. Surrounding properties include some unincorporated parcels just to the
north and then -- and also one to the south that is owned by Mr. Shipley. He's
here tonight. To the east is the Nine Mile Drain running along this boundary and
then beyond it is Tarawood Subdivision. Across Locust Grove to the west is
Salmon Rapids Subdivision. Both of those subdivisions are zoned R-4, which is
also the zone that's been requested by the applicant. You should have a staff
report dated December 27th
. This project has been before the Commission
before. It was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning
Commission at that time, but was then denied at City Council. The reasons that
were listed for the denial were three. One, they said the open space was not
well located. Two, they had some public safety issues, which were not well
defined and I honestly don't know what they would be. Then they also
mentioned difficulties related to the Shipley property south of the proposed
subdivision. These are some site photos. The first one is standing on the
subject property looking west into Salmon Rapids. You can see the berm up
against Locust Grove Road. Then looking from that side to the east you can see
the subject property in the photo on the right. Currently just undeveloped
pasture. This is the plat that originally came through and you can see that the
open space was a linear open space behind the lots along the Nine Mile Drain
with a connection through a micropath from the street here. The proposed plat
tonight is this one. It's looks similar. The stub street to the north has shifted east
a couple of lots, but this lot in the southeast corner is now their proposed open
space, as well as the property that is in the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District
Easement and they are in agreement, I believe, to construct a pathway within
that easement and then have the open space at this location in one block. I don't
know if there are any specific topics for me to touch on in the staff report. Staff
does recommend approval of the application with the comments in the staff
report and stand for any questions.
Centers: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: Steve, that cul-de-sac, would that also serve as a stub street for the
property to the south?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 31
Siddoway: Yes, it would. It will be a cul-de-sac for the time being until such time
as it's extended.
Centers: Okay.
Borup: I might just mention there was a reply to the first staff --
Siddoway: Oh, yes. Thank you. There was a reply from Ashley Ford-Rudel.
She's here tonight. And then a response back from Brad Hawkins-Clark, which I
handed out at the beginning of the meeting with today's date, January 3rd
. It
does address those elements in Ashley's letter and cleans up some of the
language and I will let her address -- she has a copy of this. I think she's had
time to read it tonight. This should clean up those items and so we would just
ask that you incorporate Brad's memo dated January 3rd
into any motion that you
have. Thank you.
Zaremba: Question on the walkway I guess we are talking about that will run
along the drain. When the property to the north and the property to the south are
presented -- and I'm sure we will ask that they do it also -- is there a walkway at
Los Alamos -- I'm sorry, Los Alamitos Subdivision, which is the next property
north, and Sherbrooke Hollows, the next property south? What I'm asking is if
they put this walkway in does it connect anything? Does it go anywhere?
Siddoway: The main city pathway is actually on the other side. The public
pathway. This would be a private amenity not required to be dedicated to the
City, is my understanding, but the good part of it is it would connect up to the
street in Los Alamitos and allow people to access the public pathway and
continue on.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: Any further questions from the Commission? Okay. Would the applicant
like to make a presentation?
Ford-Rudel: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record Ashley Ford-Rudel,
Hubble Engineering, 701 S. Allan Street, Suite 102, in Meridian. I am
representing Providence Development Group this evening. We have reviewed
the memo from the Planning staff in regards to our concerns and we are in
complete agreement to their modifications. I would like to address, however,
comment number three in the Preliminary Plat comments regarding the location
of the open space and an argument can be made that it be shifted to the west.
The applicant agreed that open space is needed and is providing those on Lot 5,
Block 2, on this revised plat.
Centers: Hold on. Hold on.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 32
Ford-Rudel: Yes, sir.
Centers: Excuse me. Page -- what page and --
Zaremba: Page 3, item -- at the lower bottom. Item 3.
Centers: Okay. Got you.
Ford-Rudel: With the original application a year ago the applicant proposed a
micropath to a common lot that ran along the Nine Mile Drain. With this
application the applicant has increased the open space to .42 acres and has a
common space in the southeast corner of the parcel and this reduces the
number of available lots in order to provide an acceptable open space. There
are reasons as to why the open space lot is placed in this location and rather
than in the center of the subdivision. The first reason is because the possible
pathway connection along the Nine Mile Drain to Los Alamitos to the north and
Sherbrooke Hollows Subdivision to the south had an open space in conjunction
with the greenbelt is -- will improve accessibility among the subdivision. Second,
due to the parcel shape this corner would provide the greatest amount of square
footage for open space, rather than placing it on a smaller lot in the middle of
either Block 1 or Block 3. The other space it's located at the end of the property,
which will provide ample safety from traffic for the time being until the project to
the south develops. It is also approximately 400 -- or 740 feet to the open space
from Lot 2, Blocks 1 and 3. This is not a large development. I have a done a
number of studies on what is walkable space and according to urbanism
comprehensive report and the guide, which was just published in 2001, open
spaces are considered a focus of a neighborhood. The authors of this book
state that they should be within a five-minute walk. We average roughly around
2,000 feet of the center. Clearly the lots of the subdivision meet this
requirement. As you are aware, the City Council denied this application in April
2001 because of three findings, the first being open space, which we have just
discussed. The second finding was the creation of additional residential lots that
create an unreasonable public safety issue. This is an in-fill project with large-
scale developments to the north, south, east, and west that is included in the City
limits of Meridian at this time. I have spoken to Kenny Bowers with the Meridian
Fire Department and he does say that public safety services can be provided to
accommodate this development without any issue. Then on Item 7 we are in
agreement with the staff report and we request approval of the project and I
would happy to stand for any questions.
Centers: Yes. I have one. What is the width of that pathway?
Ford-Rudel: We have not -- we have not done the construction drawings for the
pathway at this time.
Centers: Approximately.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 33
Ford-Rudel: Approximately -- I would way 10 to 15 feet. Is that grass or -- the
easement is 15 feet from the top of the bank to the ditch. So we will provide a
pathway --
Centers: And you're going to improve that --
Ford-Rudel: Yes, sir.
Centers: In what way?
Ford-Rudel: We will be providing some sort of walkable space that will connect
eventually to the property to the north and the Shipley property to the south.
Centers: Gravel? Blacktop?
Ford-Rudel: At this point I don't --
Centers: You don't know?
Ford-Rudel: I'm not sure. I would defer to the developer on this project and he
can maybe clarify it for me.
Centers: Okay.
Zaremba: The Parks Department requested just a gravel at this point.
Centers: I read that.
Zaremba: If they asked for a 10 foot wide gravel. Would that be a problem?
Ford-Rudel: At this point I don't think that would be a problem.
Centers: To be honest with you, I don't agree with gravel. I think it needs to be
blacktop so that they could use their rollerblades. We did that with another one.
Do you remember? The young folks like to rollerblade and they go through the
open space to -- because I think staff commented that that's not going to connect
to any pathway that's going to be within this subdivision.
Borup: For now.
Centers: For now and it could. It could. But it will be awhile anyway. Thank
you.
Ford-Rudel: Any other questions?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 34
Borup: Did you have some, David?
Zaremba: Well, I don't know if it can be answered. It addresses the third
problem that the City Council had in that it isn't really anything that you do on this
property, the Shipley property to the south is a narrow, long strip of land and I
cannot in my imagination see how they are going to develop it to full efficiency no
matter what you do with yours. So I guess I don't really have a question. I'm
sorry.
Ford-Rudel: We are in agreement with that. We have approached Mr. Shipley
and -- to come into this development with us and at this time he's not willing to
enter into that. He's I think quite happy where he is.
Zaremba: I think that would be the only possible other option. If Mr. Shipley and
your project and the people to the north in another narrow space all got together
and presented one plan, that would be fine, but if they are not ready, that's not
your fault.
Ford-Rudel: Thank you for acknowledging that.
Centers: Well, I think -- I would suspect Mr. Shipley is here to talk about that.
Borup: Yes, he is. Okay. Thank you.
Centers: Thanks.
Borup: In fact, that's the first name I have is Mr. Shipley. Do you still want to
testify?
Shipley: I'm John Shipley, 2770 South Locust Grove. I have lived at that
property for -- since 1973 when it was all nice farmland and -- could you put the
plat map back up for me?
Zaremba: Sir, would you speak a little more directly into the microphone.
Shipley: I have some references to make to what she said. They have
approached me, but when you approach a person to buy their property, it should
be if they want it they should replace it or enough money to replace it. Not half of
what it costs to replace it. Sending me on 25 to 30 different trips out looking at
different property from here, there, and everywhere, all the way to the Can-Ada
line, everywhere, and nothing will come close to the price that I would have to
replace it with. You know, it's just cheap. They want land and they want to pay
30,000 an acre for land, which is probably fine for land. Even though the
Highway District appraised my place when they built that bridge on the Eight Mile
Lateral there at 37,000 an acre and the Highway District wasn't doing me any
favors by doing that. I have a real suspicion that the quality of these houses that
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 35
they are going to build are not going to be the same quality. Looking at some of
Hubble's developments around Kuna, the bathroom fixtures and things like that
are not at the same standard that they are with some of these other subdivisions
and I have a safety problem. When they built the stub in for Sherbrooke Hollow
and lined it up to Salmon Rapids there, that's pretty darn close to my driveway
and when I come out of my driveway and somebody has to -- to swerve because
they never even stopped at their street and they get in a wreck out in front of my
house and then they blame it on me for coming out of my driveway and they
didn't even stop. I have a real problem with that situation and then to put another
road in on the other side of my driveway and that -- you know, that's my -- where
I live and it used to be safe there, but it's like a freeway there. The other morning
I had to go to church early in the morning at 8:00 o'clock. Traffic was lined up
from Overland clear back in front of my driveway. I couldn't even get out of my
own driveway that's 8/10ths of a mile from Overland and they haven't put a light
on Overland. Then when I irrigate that was all one field at one time, so my
irrigation water always migrates on an angle over there and gets onto that other
property. There has been so many problems with Sherbrooke Hollow with
people throwing their trash over the fence into my cattle field and things like that,
you know, and rocks, my gosh, I could get a whole pickup truck full of rocks that
come out of people's back yards that threw them into my field. I try to be a good
neighbor, but there is just -- you know, I had to have the dog catcher out and
have them catch some dogs that were chasing the cattle last year and those
people were really mad and why were their dogs over there? Why do they put
me in this position? The whole thing is just a big mess and I would just love to
be out of there, but they won't give me a decent price and that's all I got to say. I
have had to put up with over two years of chiseling. Well, just give us the back
part or just do this or do that, you know, and it's my home and I can't replace it
for what they want to do and I'm close to things now. If I need to go to the
hospital or something I'm close and put me out there on the Can-Ada line in a
house that the taxes are three times more than what my place is, it just isn't a
deal, you know.
Centers: Mr. Shipley, how many acres do you own there?
Shipley: There are 5.2.
Centers: What's the frontage? How many feet of frontage?
Shipley: It's 100 foot. I think it's 95 feet.
Borup: The frontage of your whole property.
Shipley: The front of my whole property I think is about --
Centers: That fronts on Locust Grove.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 36
Shipley: That fronts on Locust Grove.
Centers: About 195 feet?
Shipley: Yes. My driveway is probably right about -- right about there.
Centers: It appears, Mr. Shipley, that without a doubt that you have been a
victim of the growth of Meridian and --
Shipley: Absolutely.
Centers: -- that's either unfortunate or fortunate, depending on how you look at it
and as far as --
Shipley: Well, they have the stub in in my property there, so that it can be
developed, but I'm not too sure that you can put a road in on Locust Grove closer
to that other road to develop it on, you know. I think that if I was to try to develop
that myself you wouldn't allow me to put a road in up there where my driveway is
at, because it would be illegal. The setbacks would --
Centers: I couldn't answer that.
Shipley: You know, because it's already dangerous, you know, so --
Zaremba: Mr. Shipley, do you have any thought of developing it yourself into
residences instead of --
Shipley: I have talked to Collins Engineering on it and he told me that I would
probably have trouble because of that --
Zaremba: Because of the narrowness of the lot.
Shipley: Of the property.
Borup: Did you realize there were two stub streets available?
Shipley: There is only one on my property. There would be one on the other
side, I suppose, but --
Borup: I mean if this project goes in you would have two stub streets.
Shipley: Yes.
Borup: Was Collins aware of that at the time?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 37
Shipley: Yes. Well, that's a real possibility I hadn't thought of, so I haven't been
totally tied into it now, I suppose, but --
Centers: Mr. Shipley, you referred to looking at other properties in other areas.
Shreeve: Well, I have. I have looked for two and a half years.
Centers: And were they similar in size and acreage and that type of thing?
Shipley: Yes and they wouldn't even come close to it, the price.
Centers: So what you were trying to do was get out of all the residential
development around you?
Shipley: Just get out, because -- you know.
Centers: Of course, that's been five, six, seven years that that's all been coming
around you.
Shipley: Well, I know and I have been trying ever since but the Sherbrooke
Hollow guy tried to buy it and he wouldn't pay me anything for it either. I have a
home there, you know.
Centers: Well, I mean and you're still going to have a home and --
Shipley: I'm stuck between a rock and a hard spot, because I don't have to live
there, but I have to have enough money to replace a place. You know, that isn't
even close to a deal unless you replace it and she indicated that I was -- I was
happy there and that sort of thing. Well, I have to be happy there, because if I
got to get up another 100,000 dollars to replace it -- the last place I looked at I
said would you move my shop over on that place, even though it is out on Can-
Ada Road. Oh, no, we want that shop there on that property. That's a good
building.
Centers: Did you say the Sherbrooke developers approached you also?
Shipley: Yes 10 years ago.
Centers: Okay.
Shipley: Well, eight -- probably eight years ago.
Centers: You could have been out at that time and gone --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 38
Shipley: Yes, I could have, but he didn't want to pay only -- I think he said
15,000 an acre at that time and it wouldn't replace it and my home anywhere
either and he didn't want that house.
Centers: Well, we are not appraisers or --
Shipley: No.
Centers: You know, that could have been good value then, it could not have
been, but --
Shipley: You know exactly that any house in Sherbrooke Hollow, just the house
on the lot, on the quarter acre lot, costs about 50,000 dollars more than they
have offered me for my five acres, my home, and my shop and the other old out
buildings that aren't any good. How do I replace those things? That's why I don't
want to -- I don't want to down size, I want to stay the same. You know, why
should I deal with less? Then there has never been any mention of all of the
problems -- it costs you a bunch of money to move and it costs you a lot of effort,
you know, and upset and learning something new and, you know, it's -- I'm going
to stay there, because I'm there, but I have a real problem with another street
coming in so close to my driveway. That's a safety issue as far as I'm
concerned.
.
Zaremba: Where is your house set on the property? I don't have anything that
tell us. Do you have a long, long driveway and your house is set way back or --
Shipley: The driveway goes back to the old barnyard and into the barns and the
driveway starts right there. Right in there somewhere, you know.
Centers: And their street is going to be right in the middle of the parcel?
Shipley: Yes. It's going to be -- it's just about the same distance from one area
to the other.
Centers: Sherbrooke Acreage here is a lot closer than where they are going to
be.
Shipley: Now I got to be real careful both ways, because people are accessing
Victory now, because they can't go down to Overland anymore, they all go on to
Victory. You can't get out on Overland anymore.
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you, sir.
Shipley: There is just too much growth and --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 39
Borup: Anyone else like to come forward? Mr. Parrish has signed up and King.
Parrish: My name is Martin Parrish and I live at 2875 South Limousine in
Sherbrooke Hollow. This is the first one of these I have ever been to. This is
kind of fun. My only concern is, you know, all the development around it, pretty
nice developments, Sherbrooke, Los Alamitos, Thousand Springs, and I think we
need something comparable if they are going to develop this. I think we need
either a minimum square footage or a minimum selling price or something, so we
are not affecting the other neighborhoods. That's it.
Centers: The R-4 zone requires a minimum square footage and what was that
again, staff, without me looking it up?
Siddoway: 1,400 square feet.
Parrish: Can we do anything better than that?
Centers: Well, 1,400 are minimum.
Parrish: But there aren't very many -- I don't think you'll find a 1,400 minimum
house in Sherbrooke Hollow.
Borup: No. That's probably -- do you know what -- that was the same
requirement the city put on Sherbrooke Hollow also.
Centers: It's R-4, too, isn't it?
Borup: Yes, it is.
Parrish: Okay.
Borup: So it was -- that part would be the same.
Parrish: Okay.
Borup: I guess after that it's the marketplace.
Parrish: All right.
Borup: Thank you.
Parrish: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else? Any final comments from the applicant?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 40
Tomlinson: Rich Tomlinson. I work with Providence Development Group, 701
South Allen Street in Meridian. Just to answer a couple of questions,
Commissioner Zaremba, you had talked about whether or not the pathway -- the
proposed pathway was connected north and south. Actually, the pathway that
comes out of Sherbrooke Hollow is on the west side of the drain and there would
be no way for that pathway to extend north without coming through Mr. Shipley's
property at he back of this subdivision and the Suiters to get up through the open
space that would connect it up to Los Alamitos and out this road.
Zaremba: Do you know if those two little pieces are paved, the ones that do
exist?
Tomlinson: Neither of them are paved. They are both grass.
Centers: Grass or weeds?
Tomlinson: What?
Centers: Grass or weeds?
Zaremba: I mean the little stub in Sherbrooke Hollows and --
Tomlinson: The stub in Sherbrooke is only grass and I'm sure there was an
intention at some point when that was to go on that maybe they would have that
paved and -- we can pave that section right now, I don't know how wide of a
pathway that they would -- I could get with the Parks Department or the Public
Works Department, but the width that we have to work with is a minimum of 15
feet, because we didn't want to put the easement for the Nampa-Meridian in the
backs of those lots, so we are at the easement line at the back of those lots and I
believe we have 15 feet from the back of the lot line to the top of the bank of the
drain, so we wanted to put a path, a ten foot or seven foot or whatever --
Zaremba: You're saying that the Nampa-Meridian easement is part of your
common area, not part of anybody's lot?
Tomlinson: Right. It's only part of the common area, it's not part of a lot, and we
can work out as far as paving it or graveling it or however. I agree that, you
know, kids would like to rollerblade on it and asphalt would be better and --
Centers: You don't have a problem with that?
Tomlinson: I don't have a problem with it. At this time it doesn't have anywhere
to go.
Centers: I think it would make your development more salable. I really do. The
Parks Department went to gravel. I think they are wanting that to make sure it's
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 41
a walking path. Would that be a correct assumption? But then with gravel
you're still going to see the weeds growing up.
Tomlinson: Right.
Centers: You know, that's --
Tomlinson: Around that area and --
Centers: And blacktop is a little more expensive, but --
Tomlinson: We would have to do whatever the -- we'd have to get a license
agreement for whatever Nampa-Meridian -- it is their easement and stuff, but
what kind of pathway is on the other side of the drain? I just -- I haven't really
noted -- the curb was just recently developed and I don't know that they are
completed yet, but whatever they are doing with. But I'm not opposed to doing
asphalt if that's what, you know, people would rather walk on. I know it's a lot
easier to take care of, the asphalt, than it would be to take care of grass. You
know, I could keep talking about asphalt pathways all night, but the other -- I
guess that was it. The other tissue was just that it will be connected on the north
and the south eventually and that –
Centers: Do you have your CC&R's done yet?
Tomlinson: We submitted a set of draft CC&R's with the application. I don't
know if you got a full application in your packet.
Centers: We don't. What were the square footages that you were mentioning in
your CC&R's? Or what do you plan?
Tomlinson: What we have planned -- well, with -- to keep the market -- you
know, to keep the houses in line with what the market is looking for out there we
kept them at the minimum for the R-4 zone. Right now the homes that we are
building are larger than the 1,400 square feet, but to be consistent with the other
developments in the area I don't know that we would want to lock ourselves into
something else. I agree with one of your statements earlier that the market
should dictate on the size. The R-4 zone does have a minimum home size on it.
Centers: Right. That's all I had.
Zaremba: I'm not sure this is an element that -- this doesn't affect our decision,
but I'm just curious. Do you have any idea of amenities that would be in this
open space, the 18,000 square foot open space?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 42
Tomlinson: We hadn't really talked about it. We could do -- I'd like to keep it
open somewhat, but we were planning -- we weren't going to just have it grass.
There would possibly be a half court basketball court --
Zaremba: A couple picnic benches and --
Tomlinson: Could be a couple of picnic benches, a basketball hoop, or make a
volleyball net.
Zaremba: Make it worth people walking from the far end of the subdivision to get
there.
Tomlinson: Yes. Yes. One of the nice things about the open space is to keep it
open so -- you know, kids like to play a little ball, football, baseball, soccer or
something. If you stick an amenity right in the middle of it you can't, so we may
put some picnic tables out to the side or to the back and for the most part keep it
green and some trees around the outside just to spruce it up a little bit.
Centers: Pretty good.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you.
Tomlinson: Thanks.
Borup: Any other questions we have, Commissioners?
Centers: Did you have another comment? Okay. Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I would move that we close the Public Hearings.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT, ONE VACANT
Centers: That would be both Items 8 and 9.
Borup: Yeah. Both Public Hearings.
Zaremba: Second on both 8 and 9.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 43
Borup: Okay. We need to handle them one at a time.
Centers: Well, yes, and item --
Borup: First would be the annexation and zoning.
Centers: Yes. I guess I kind of disagree with staff on the location of that open
space. That would be my preference to put it at the back end close to that
pathway. I would like to see that blacktopped and maybe it's just something
personal, but -- because I can see weeds otherwise but I think the location is
perfect. A lot of people don't like to live next to open space and that limits the
number of houses next to it, which would be one.
Borup: And I agree with that, too, mainly because of the pathway. If there is
going to be a pathway there it makes sense to have it alongside the open space.
Centers: And I have a lot of empathy for Mr. Shipley. However, as he admitted,
he was approached seven years ago and maybe it wasn't the fair value, I don't
know. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. It's unfortunate, but that -- as I said earlier,
he's been a victim of the growth of the City of Meridian and there is a number of
us, including myself, that have been the victim of that, so -- and -- did you have
anything?
Zaremba: I have no further comments. No. Everything's been said.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion to approve Item 8 and
recommend approval to the City Council AZ 01-023, request for annexation and
zoning of 5.97 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Inglenook Subdivision
by Providence Development Group, an LLC, at 2720 South Locust Grove Road,
including all staff comments and in addition the comments made via memo from
Brad Hawkins-Clark dated January 3rd
, addressing the annexation part of this
applicant.
Zaremba: That memo being in response to the January 2nd
letter from Ashley
Ford-Rudel.
Centers: Okay.
Zaremba: So they know that.
Centers: Okay.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any other discussion? All in favor. Any opposed?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 44
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT, ONE VACANT
Borup: Thank you.
Centers: And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion to approve and
recommend approval to the City Council Item 9, specifically PP 01-023, request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 20 building lots --
Borup: I was going to ask that. Is it three others? I only counted three. There
are four others? Oh, there we go.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, the pathway should be on its own common lot. The
land is there, but the lot's not numbered.
Centers: So we have two other lots? We have 20 building lots?
Borup: The landscaping on Locust Grove.
Centers: Okay. Okay.
Borup: Okay. There are four lots at this time. Is staff saying they want to have
five?
Siddoway: It can be one lot with the open space.
Borup: Oh. Okay.
Centers: So four other lots? So we are talking the approval of 20 building lots
and four other lots in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Inglenook Sub by
Providence Development Group, an LLC, in property located at 2620 South
Locust Grove Road, including all staff comments and also including comments
from Brad Hawkins-Clark in a memo dated January 3rd
in response to a memo
from Ashley Ford-Rudel of Hubble Engineering, which the applicant has agreed
to all comments. That would be it.
Zaremba: I second that motion.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? It may be a little late to get on the
record, but you were talking a total of three parcels here. I think we assume that
some day they would need to be developed and so there would need to be at
least one access to those three parcels to Locust Grove. With the stub streets it
could accommodate the development of the other projects as now designed.
Zaremba: If you're referring to, for instance, the cul-de-sac in this project that
appears to be right on the property line and could eventually be a stub street --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 45
Borup: Right and we also have a stub street to the north.
Zaremba: It does need to stay that way.
Borup: That would accommodate both those. I would -- okay. We have a
motion and a second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT, ONE VACANT
Borup: Thank you.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Mr. Siddoway.
Siddoway: Mr. Centers, just for clarification on your motion, it includes keeping
the open space where it is.
Centers: Correct.
Siddoway: And --
Centers: Good point, Steve. Yes. Exactly. Where the applicant proposed the
open space.
Siddoway: Okay.
Centers: Right.
Zaremba: Would you like to specify that the walkway is paved?
Centers: I'm not going to make that a requirement, because the parks
department recommended gravel, but I would -- you know I, think they are going
to do it. I'm going to go out there in a year and it will be done. But I would say at
least gravel per the Parks Department's recommendation, which is part of the
staff comments anyway.
Borup: We have closed the Public Hearing, but you can talk to Steve or we
would be glad to talk to you after the meeting.
Shipley: I heard nothing about pressurized irrigation.
Freckleton: It's in there.
Item 10. Planning and Zoning In House Laundry List – Subdivision and
Zoning Ordinance Amendments:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 46
Item 11. Park’s Department Report
Borup: The question was about pressurized irrigation. That was in the staff
report and that was covered. Okay. Commissioners, before we -- and that
concludes our public testimony this evening. Thank you, everyone. We did have
one other item of business I did want to take up and that's concerning -- last time
we talked about looking at additional business and if we are still in agreement to
talk about doing that, rather than hold a special meeting and doing it an hour
before our regular meeting so -- Commissioners, this is the -- some of the
information that's been accumulating. One is a memo from Commissioner -- or
Council Member de Weerd about making ordinance changes and the other is a
list of in-house laundry list of subdivision Zoning Ordinance amendments that the
Planning and Zoning Department has been accumulating from amendments and
things that kind of need to be cleaned up and changes they'd like to see and
then the third is --
Zaremba: On that subject let me ask are these aiming towards compliance with
the current draft of the Comprehensive Plan, which we assume will be approved?
Borup: Well, they were started before that, but I think any changes we made we
would want to keep that in mind. I guess what I'm asking is maybe each of us
could take a look at this, come up with some order that we would like to present it
-- I mean like to -- some priorities we may want to look at. I think some of them
probably are more housekeeping cleanup things, others may need some input
and discussion. Some of these have been around for quite awhile and it's just
been a time thing that the staff has not had time and this actually is -- and this is
really our -- one of the items is that we are supposed to be handling anyway. So
unless there are any other questions, I just want to get that out. We are talking
about our next -- the parks department decided that we do need to hear their
plan. I know we asked for them to do it and legal staff seemed to feel that we
needed to. It's not something that's probably going to be real time consuming.
We are talking about doing that an hour before.
Centers: Does it have to be a Public Hearing?
Borup: Yes.
Centers: Are they going to notice it?
Borup: Yes.
Centers: When? At our preference?
Borup: Pardon?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 47
Centers: At our preference?
Borup: It has not been noticed yet, so it could be -- the date that was discussed
right now was February 7th
.
Centers: That's what I was going to suggest for this, too.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: February 7th
.
Zaremba: We continued or -- I'm sorry. Before I joined I heard the continuance
of several items into the January 17th
meeting and I suspect that's going to be a
fairly long meeting.
Centers: We always to the continued items on the second meeting.
Zaremba: So I suspect January 17th
is going to be a lengthy meeting. Is one of
the options to take a 10-minute break to read through this stuff or spend an hour
on it now? We are ending pretty early tonight.
Centers: It's not an option for me.
Zaremba: Okay. Then I will not suggest that.
Borup: I think it's something we probably want to study at home and decide
where we would like to go.
Centers: Yeah. That's what I'd like to do.
Zaremba: I think the January 17th
meeting is very likely to be long enough. If
parks wants the 7th
--
Borup: Well, parks wanted the 17th
. It didn't get noticed in time. But I think we
have got a full agenda for the 17th
. I don't see anything real -- well, we got
Berkeley Square that's back. The others don't look to me like they are going to
be real controversial, but you can get surprised. But, you know, the last item --
well, anyway, you know, some of them have three -- like 11, 12, and 13 are all
the same project and 7, 8 and 9 are the same project, so --
Zaremba: Well, I certainly can come in an hour earlier on the 17th
if that's what
we are trying to do.
Borup: Well, I guess we are saying do we want to pick a date to start -- an hour
earlier would be for the parks department.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 48
Zaremba: Well, that has to be the 7th
of February.
Borup: Right. Right.
Zaremba: So we could talk this stuff over an hour early on the 17th
.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Or put it off to what would be the 21st
of February.
Borup: Or we can hit it at the -- I mean depending on how the 17th
goes, we
could do it at the end of that meeting and maybe get a prioritized list of which
ones we'd like to tackle first. I'm anticipating we may need some input and
maybe some draft wording from staff. Our staff has been wanting to do this for
quite awhile, but maybe we just need a little push to give some incentive.
Siddoway: And time.
Borup: Right. But if we gave a list on priorities and say, hey, by next meeting
we'd like to have these three things -- a draft -- you know, a draft copy? Would
that help?
Siddoway: I will let you take that up with Shari.
Borup: Well, that's who I got the list from was Shari.
Siddoway: I think she wants you to come up with the draft.
Borup: Oh. Okay. Well, I don't know if -- we can get the wording, but I don't
know if that's our training.
Zaremba: Would this be workable? Let's say that we will come to the meeting
on the 17th
of January at the normal time and if it doesn't go until 1:00 o'clock in
the morning, at least talk about prioritization?
Borup: Yes. That was what I was leading -- that's what I was hoping for.
Zaremba: Okay. That's fine with me.
Centers: Yes.
Borup: I'd say if it doesn't go past 12:00 we could talk about --
Zaremba: Yes. Whatever. Yes. 11:00, maybe. I mean if we are still alive and
awake we will talk about prioritization and not the wording.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 49
Borup: Yes. That's what I had in mind. I mean just to get started on it. This list
has been accumulating for a long time and I don't want to keep putting these off
forever.
Zaremba: It's workable for me.
Borup: Okay. Then we are okay, Commissioners, for the 7th
, an hour before for
the parks --
Centers: Yes.
Zaremba: Yes.
Borup: Okay. We will make sure that gets noticed.
Zaremba: 6:00 on February 7th
.
Borup: Yes. Right. That is -- thank you. One more motion.
Zaremba: I move we adjourn.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT, ONE VACANT
Borup: Thank you. That concludes at 9:02.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:02 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
/ /
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 3, 2002
Page 50