2003 02-20Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting February 20, 2003.
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order at 7:07 P.M., on Thursday, February 20, 2003, by Chairman Keith Borup.
Members Present: Keith Borup, Jerry Centers, David Zaremba, Leslie Mathes, and
Michael Rohm.
Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Dave McKinnon, Nick Wollen, Wendy Kirkpatrick,
Tara Green, and Dean Willis.
Item 1. Roll call Attendance:
___X___ David Zaremba ___X___ Jerry Centers
___X___ Leslie Mathes ___X___ Michael Rohm
___X___Chairman Keith Borup
Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to open our regularly
scheduled Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for February 20th
and
start with roll call attendance of the Commissioners.
Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda:
Borup: We have the item of the minutes of our January 16th
meeting and I might
mention on the other item on the Consent Agenda is the Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law approval on that CUP has not been completed at this time, so that
will be moved to our next meeting. Any questions, comments, from the Commission on
the minutes?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we approve the minutes of the January 16, 2003, Planning and
Zoning Commission Regular Meeting.
Rohm: I will second that.
Zaremba: Motion and second. All those in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of January 16, 2003 Planning and Zoning
Commission Regular Meeting:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 2 of 84
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AUP
02-012 Request for an Accessory Use Permit for a Family Day
Care for five or fewer children out of home in an R-4 zone for
Carrie Herteux by Carrie Herteux – 2948 West Gemstone Drive:
Zaremba: Do we need a motion to table B for not having -- or is that automatic?
Borup: Why don't you go ahead and do it.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we table Item 3-B.
Borup: Table or do we just --
Centers: We approved that.
Borup: And we did. This is just --
Centers: If we approve it with the Consent Agenda, then, it's just --
Borup: Well, the Findings have not been prepared for us to review at this point.
Centers: Oh. I see.
Borup: This does not go onto the City Council.
Zaremba: We approved the application, but we haven't seen the Facts and
Conclusions.
Wollen: I apologize about that, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. That will
be available for your approval.
Borup: Yes. This one is not going to City Council, so --
Zaremba: It was an Accessory Use Permit so I move that we table Item 3-B for
consideration on our next meeting.
Rohm: I'll second that.
Borup: Okay. Motion and second. All those in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 4. Public Hearing Remanded from City Council: MI 02-011 Request to
remove certain parcels in Dunbar Estates Subdivision from City of
Meridian’s area of impact for Packard Estates Dev., LLC by Packard
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 3 of 84
Estates Dev., LLC – south of East Ustick Road and west of North
Cloverdale Road – said application having been remanded from City
Council for further discussion:
Borup: Okay. Our first Public Hearing MI 02-011, request to remove certain parcels in
Dunbar Estates Subdivision from the City of Meridian's area of impact for Packard
Estates Development. This item we heard a while ago, and sent it on to City Council. I
believe the City Council did not take our recommendation, they did their own, and, then,
after further study, they decided maybe they were wrong and remanded it back to us to
look at again. Is that briefly what we are looking at or --
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, that's --
Borup: We'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. Go ahead,
Mr. McKinnon.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. You should have
received two items in your packet this evening, one from Allen Kerkenheimer and I
won't spend much time with that, because you do have that. Just to go on to a second
item that was in packet was a memorandum dated today from Bruce Freckleton,
essentially, going over the items you just discussed. The City Council discussed the
item concerning the annexation and up on the overhead in front of you, you can see the
item, the subject property we are discussing tonight. The applicant requested that the
property be removed from the City of Meridian's area of impact and be allowed to be
placed in Boise City's area of impact. In the December meeting of last year, when you
met to discuss this, it was presented to you that this property could not be serviced by
Sanitary Sewer or water from the City of Meridian. That turns out to be incorrect and so
the City Council determined that -- as Chairman Borup stated, that that should have
been information that was available to you. They have remanded that back to you and
items of varied impact discussions, which -- basically three things in State Code that
need to be considered and water and sewer don't fall directly into those, but they do fall
into the third. Those basic three are -- is trade area and, then, the others deal with
whether or not annexation can take place in a certain amount of time or in a reasonable
time and that would be where the water and sewer would come in. The third reason for
those -- for the area of impact boundary adjustments would be based on geography.
There are really no geographical issues that we need to discuss, it's basically a flat
area, there is no geographical boundaries between Boise City and Meridian's area of
impact that need to be discussed. The thing that would be is whether or not it's
annexable and one of the things that we deal with, with annexations is whether or not
those properties are serviceable and as it was, again, presented to you it was stated
that it was not serviceable and it turns out that that property is serviceable. You have it
in front of you tonight to reconsider, because the information presented to you was
inaccurate and just take that into consideration. I know the applicant is here tonight to
discuss that and I'll turn that time over to you for questions of staff. If you have any
questions that you have for the applicant, they are here tonight.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 4 of 84
Borup: Okay. Questions from the Commission?
Centers: Mr. Chairman, yes, I don't think it was represented that services weren't
available. They would be available in the future as properties developed that become
contiguous to this property, but there was a big question mark and, correct me if I'm
wrong, there is still a big question mark.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm going to defer to Bruce on
that question.
Borup: And at the time I think what was stated to us is part of the sewer would be
serviced to the south and part to the north it would not both go into the same line.
Centers: Right.
Borup: And I think my recollection of -- Commissioner Centers is correct, we -- it was
not that it was not serviceable, it also would necessitate putting in a trunk line parallel to
the City of Boise's trunk line down the same road. That was part of the testimony that
we heard at that time.
McKinnon: Again, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to defer to Bruce on that.
Borup: Mr. Freckleton.
Zaremba: I would have to state that my recollection is that I specifically understood that
the topography was such that it could not gravity sewer to Meridian, that that was what I
based my decision on.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, there was a question on the
serviceability. There was some inaccurate information that was used in the
determination of -- that the applicant used in their determinations. The information I
believe was provided out of an old facility plan that we had. The new Facility Plan for
our sewer has the sewer deeper in the ground, which was necessary to provide service
to this area. We did go back and model this with the correct information and it is
serviceable. The South Slough Sewer Trunk project that is underway at this point in
time has sewer to this point right here. I believe the applicant has looked at the
properties between here and his property to try and come up with a route. The reason
that the City of Meridian spent the money on a facility plan is to try and determine the
serviceability of the areas and it's proved out that we can serve it. I guess that's what
we are kind of hanging our hat on.
Borup: Entirely to the South Slough?
Freckleton: I don't have a copy of the plan with me and I can't remember exactly what it
showed, if there was a break point in here.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 5 of 84
Borup: I thought previously you said part of it would have to -- would have to flow to
Ustick Road.
Freckleton: The applicant might be able to answer that question, Mr. Chairman. They
have done quite a bit of mapping and planning on that.
Borup: Okay. We will have to wait for that. Any other questions of the Commission?
Does the staff have any comment on the -- Mr. McKinnon, on the -- I was just curious on
the Fire Districts. How did they ever come up with the Fire District boundaries? The
staff report stated that the middle sections, site two -- well, I might have this backwards
now. One of the other Commissioners want to help? I think site two was in the
Meridian fire district and the other two were in Boise. One and three were in Boise.
Zaremba: I think it was the other way around.
Borup: Maybe the applicant would have a comment on that, too, but --
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I would have to
look at that a little bit further. I don't have an answer for you at this time.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Well, certainly, if they were eventually annexed into Meridian, they would be
in Meridian's fire district, wouldn't they? Doesn't annexation change the fire district's
boundaries?
Borup: It doesn't change the school district's boundaries.
Zaremba: That's true.
McKinnon: Again, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I don't have an answer
for you at this time. The boundaries that are set are for taxing purposes to determine
which agency would get the tax dollars for that and they provide services to those
areas. I don't know how they are determined or whether or not they follow individual
city areas of impact lines or not.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to make their presentation?
Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, 1100 East Valli-Hi, Eagle. Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Commission, just to inform you of what's transpired on this application. We came
before you, we discussed this in length, and we have received information from the
applicant's engineer on their analysis of the sewer. If you recall correctly, I indicated
that that information was preliminary, that we had not had time to allow your staff to
review it or to verify it from my standpoint. Approximately a week before the Council
Public Hearing on this matter it came to our attention that the engineer had used, as
Bruce indicated, the older Meridian facilities map and when they updated their facilities
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 6 of 84
sewer map they decided on that South Slough Trunk design that they would lower that
sewer line. In doing so, that changed the sewer perspective. When I went before the
City Council, my very first statement was that I needed to go on the record to indicate
that I had given this information to this body, you guys had made a recommendation in
favor of this -- of removal of this project from the area of impact and that information
that I had given you was not correct. One issue that we looked at was the fact that
based on the topography, the particular piece of property would have to sewer both to
the north and to the south, south going to the future South Slough Trunk as it's
extended eastward and, then, an extension of the upper leg of the South Slough Trunk
in Ustick and that information was not accurate. Based on the accurate information, the
entire property can sewer to the South Slough Trunk along the southern border if it were
extended, once it bores under Eagle Road. But as we stated in our previous hearings,
it would have to go through multiple properties and, then, a pathway of annexation
would also have to be found. When the Council reviewed this, one issue that came up
was the issue of emergency services. As you well know, the closest current station out
there is over here at Ten Mile between Ustick and Cherry Lane for Meridian. The
current closest Boise City fire station is at the southeast corner of McMillan and
Cloverdale Road and, then, as you know, the subject property is located south of
Ustick. Obviously, as of to date, the closest fire station is Boise City. In Mr. Bowers'
memo responding to Councilman de Weerd's question, he indicates that a portion of
this property is in North Ada Fire District, I believe he says site one and three, and that's
North Ada County. And, then, site two is in Meridian Rural Fire District and how that
happens I don't know, because it's kind of sandwiched between. So, I don't know what
that rhyme or reason is for those boundaries being drawn in that fashion. In the past
when we have annexed property into the City of Boise, it is automatically part of their
Boise City fire district. Projects I've had in the City of Eagle where we have annexed
there were some properties that were in Meridian Rural Fire District and we did have to
request to Eagle Fire District to officially annex them under their rules and regulations.
But I have never had to go through that process with the City of Boise. The other issue
was the issue of water. One discussion that we had was the fact that water would have
to be extended in Ustick Road. The ability or possibility of looping that line was in
question and what would the impact of that line be as far as serviceability meeting the
fire flow requirements if it were a dead end line and sat there without any chance of
looping for a many years. I did call United Water, who has a main line in Ustick Road at
this time. United Water indicated to me that they have got a main in Cloverdale, in
Ustick, that they do have adequate capacity to service additional area. In fact, this is
one of their best areas as far as pressure and serviceability. According to Bruce's
memo, the City of Meridian also believes that even with, I assume, the dead end line
issue, that they could provide 1,500 -- well, no? I will let Bruce answer that one, then.
This is a tough question. The City Council, like I stated before, it's, obviously, a political
decision. The City of Boise is not interested in this property unless the City of Meridian
willingly wants to release it from their impact area. The Council did not make a motion
to approve or to deny. After some discussion, they said, you know, we feel that the
appropriate action is to remand it back to the Planning and Zoning Commission, go
back to them, present the updated information, because we feel that they may have
made their determination or their recommendation based on some of the erroneous
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 7 of 84
information and we agreed to that, we thought that was only fair. So, the Council,
obviously, does value your recommendation and the question is, obviously, still on the
table. If they wanted to completely rule this out, they, obviously, would have just denied
our miscellaneous application to be removed from the impact area. We still feel that
one has to look at what can reasonably -- who can reasonably provide services to this
property and, as you know, Boise City has a sewer main in Ustick, they have a sewer
main on our southern boundary in the stub street of the adjoining subdivision and they
have indicated that this will gravity flow into their system and they do have capacity and
United Water has indicated that also. In order for this property to be developed and
utilize Meridian city services, you're well aware we have to request annexation. We are
not contiguous to the city limits. However, the city limits are I think to the west side of
Eagle Road is the closest city limits at this point in time. So, I guess I will stand for any
questions.
Centers: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: Mrs. Bowcutt, is Boise City contiguous to this property on the east side?
Bowcutt: Yes, sir.
Centers: Thank you. That's all I have.
Zaremba: I would just say that I agree, we knew that the information that we were
given was preliminary and not proven, and we had some discussion about whether to
make a recommendation the first time we heard it or whether to continue it until we
really had the information. So, we took the risk of acting on what we knew was
preliminary information and moving it onto the City Council. So, I'm aware you tried to
hide nothing.
Bowcutt: Thank you. I wanted to make that very clear.
Zaremba: Yes. And we agree.
Centers: Oh, I don't know.
Bowcutt: Boise City limits are also to the north of this subdivision. That Heather
Meadow Estates is also on its northern boundary.
Borup: Okay.
Bowcutt: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone to testify on this application? It looks like not. You need to
come on up, sir, if you'd like to.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 8 of 84
Smitchger: I'm Virgil Smitchger. This was my property previously and I think that we --
Meridian should leave it where it is at, Cloverdale Road has been a border straight
through. We come passed these places and Clover Meadows is there and they are
going to have a jog in there now with Meridian and Boise and Boise is on the other side
of Ustick Road all the way, except the border, that's the only property they got, let's
keep them on that side of Cloverdale -- I mean Ustick. That's all I have got to say, but I
would like to stay in Meridian. Thank you.
Adams: Kelly Adams, 3875 East Ustick. For what it's worth, I'd just as soon remain
living in Meridian and I'd rather my tax dollars went there, too.
Borup: Well, you're not living on part of this -- are you one of these parcels?
Adams: No, I'm not, but is the annex just to the boundary that's there on the west?
Borup: Yes.
Adams: There isn't anything off of Duane or anything further towards Eagle?
Centers: The shaded area is what we are talking about.
Borup: And at this point we are not talking about annexation, they need to be
contiguous before they can. I don't believe you're in Meridian right now either.
Adams: I'm in Meridian area of impact.
Borup: Right. And that's all they are saying, they are trying to remove that area -- that
parcel from the area of impact.
Adams: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else?
Stokes: Marvin Stokes, 2870 Duane Drive. My property abuts or adjoins the western
edge of this parcel and I guess my -- one of my concerns is that this area historically
has been flood irrigated and all of the homes, I believe, on Duane Drive are all serviced
by private wells at this time and when I bought the property four years ago I certainly
didn't expect that that area wouldn't be developed and I'm not here tonight because I'm
anti-development, but I am concerned, though, by moving that boundary line back, that
there is very little incentive for the City of Meridian to provide sewer and water services
to Duane Drive because of the low density down that street. And like the last
gentleman, I also would definitely prefer to see Meridian not give up the property, that
area. I have lived in Meridian all my life and I hate to see the city give up that area.
Also, Mr. Smitchger, who was up here before, his parcel is on the northeast corner of
this and he is not in favor of this issue and would basically be forced into the City of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 9 of 84
Boise. At the City Council meeting there were -- several of the councilmen were
concerned about the fact that he would be forced into it by approving this item, so --
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else?
Groves: Craig Groves, 3920 East Shady Glen Court in Ada County. Members of
Planning and Zoning, I'm going to speak -- I am part of the application, but I'm going to
speak on behalf of the existing landowners, Elvina and Bill Grant, as well as Archie and
Rosemary Wood. As you remember, they testified at -- the last time they were before
this body and the Grant and Wood families own the majority of this property in question
here. Mr. Smitchger owned part of it previously, but doesn't currently own any property,
except for the little corner up there on Ustick Road. If you remember, the Grant and
Wood family testified that they are in a position or in a time in life when they would like
to retire and they want to sell their property to one person in one lump sum and the
governmental bodies, Boise and Meridian, have divided their property in half, where
part of the property is in Boise's area of impact, it's got sewer, it's got water, it can be
annexed, it can be everything, and part of it's in Meridian. It's not necessarily that the
Grant or Wood families are opposed to being in Meridian, what they are opposed to
doing is not being able to sell their property, because of a political body, okay? They
would like to move on with their retirement and would like you to consider that in your
final decision. Thank you.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I had a question for the staff. Is this entire parcel in our area of
impact? The entire parcel?
Freckleton: Everything that's shaded is.
Centers: Okay. How many acres, without me looking back? I don't think I have that.
Freckleton: Seventy-five, plus or minus.
Borup: Any additional comments or information from the staff?
Zaremba: I know this is hard to predict, but is there any estimated time line in pushing
services through to this area?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the -- as I mentioned earlier,
the city has undertaken the project to bring sewer under Eagle Road to this point right
here.
Zaremba: That's already being done?
Freckleton: It's right to that point right there. We haven't made the bore underneath
Eagle Road, but the sewer stops right at Wesley Drive at Eagle Road. The bore is
going to be happening here probably -- I'm going to guess a couple weeks they are
going to be underway on the bore.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 10 of 84
Borup: We haven't heard any testimony on the feasibility of the trunk line continuing on
to this property. Has there been any study on that?
Freckleton: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Any study on the easement to bring the sewer line to this property from Eagle
Road?
Freckleton: Not by the City of Meridian. We haven't studied that -- looked at the
routing.
Borup: Okay.
Freckleton: You know, as obligated under our impact area agreement, we are required
to bring services to that area within 10 years, so -- whether it's extended by a developer
or whether it's extended by the City of Meridian.
Borup: Okay. Mrs. Bowcutt, do you have any final comments?
Centers: Mr. Chairman? So, all of these parcels are just area of impact, nothing is in
the city now.
Borup: Correct.
Centers: And are you saying that even if we don't annex any of these, because they
don't want to be annexed or they don't want to be developed, that we, within ten years,
have to provide service to this parcel? Is that what you just said? In order to keep it in
our area of impact, even if these folks don't want it?
Freckleton: The agreement states, I believe, that you have to be able to provide it and
that's for the entire area of impact that surrounds the City of Meridian, incorporated city
limits.
Rohm: Ten years from what date was that?
Freckleton: '97.
Borup: Well, that wasn't established until later than that. 2001?
Freckleton: The county still has not adopted our comp plan either.
Borup: Oh. But that boundary was just like 2001, wasn't it?
Freckleton: Yes. Correct.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 11 of 84
Centers: But you really didn't answer my question, Mr. Freckleton. If we didn't have
any of these parcels annexed and this property owner wanted to develop, would we
have to provide the sewer to it with their assistance?
Borup: Well, how can they develop without being annexed?
Centers: I know. That's the caveat.
Freckleton: No, we can't guarantee it.
Centers: Right. So you're saying --
Freckleton: There was earlier discussion about the route of annexation.
Centers: Right. Exactly.
Freckleton: Yes. That would have to be worked out.
Centers: Right.
Zaremba: Similar question. I think we heard last time that this parcel is in Boise. Do
we know -- is that in the city limits of Boise or is that county? A voice from the audience
says it's split.
Freckleton: It's split. I believe in that area this line extends due south right down that
line.
Zaremba: The area of impact line?
Freckleton: The area of impact line goes right straight south from there.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I'd move we close the Public Hearing.
Mathes: Second.
Zaremba: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Centers: This is -- Mr. Chairman, could I speak?
Borup: Yes. Please do.
Centers: Because that was on my Agenda tonight, too. Actually, to me, it -- as the
presenter indicated, it's a political situation. I look at it and it really hit me tonight, more
so than the last time, as a taking without compensation. The owners of this land had
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 12 of 84
the opportunity to sell it if it can be developed. We can't guarantee it will be developed.
The owners of this land, who I have a lot of empathy for, or anyone that owns land, if
they can't sell it to a willing buyer, that's sad. So, I really think it's like a taking without
compensation if we denied it. We say, no, we are going to keep you in the City of
Meridian's area of impact, take it or leave it, and there is no money from us. You know,
I -- you know, obviously, you know how I feel. I think the people that own this land
ought to have the opportunity to sell it. If it's developed down the road, fine. But, who
knows, it may not be either with today's economy.
Borup: I think that same argument can be made on a lot of different projects and I don't
know if that should be the only consideration. The problem you do have here is you
have got a parcel of land that is under one ownership and that is in two city's areas of
impact.
Centers: You're right. A Catch 22.
Borup: That, to me, is a little more of a problem.
Centers: Well, you know, the difference here, Mr. Chairman, is that Boise City has said
we don't even want to talk to you until Meridian releases it.
Borup: Yes.
Centers: So, that's the difference. And I don't blame them.
Borup: Well, I think they could develop the parcel -- their half of their parcel that's in the
Boise area. I don't know how much sense that makes, but -- any other discussion,
comments from the Commissioners?
Mathes: What about the water?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Yes. Forgot we were going to
get back to that. We did model this -- if we provided service only from Ustick Road, our
services are pretty marginal. It doesn't make us real comfortable. Our preference, for
several reasons, is to have a loop system feeding the development from two different
directions. It provides us redundancy in the system in case something happens with the
main. It also gives you a lot better flow characteristics and fire protection. So, another
component to that is that we are in the process of acquiring another well site north on
Locust Grove north of McMillan that will be able to provide better service to this entire
area, so to provide the best service we can, we would like to have that well site and we
would like to have this main looped. Now, having that well on line is not essential to
being able to provide service, but we would like to be able to have a loop to provide the
level of service that we strive for.
Mathes: What's the time frame?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 13 of 84
Freckleton: The loop would be dependent on whether this project goes or not to
Meridian.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, yes, one other comment that I just thought of and no one has
disagreed with me when I quoted this before, that single family dwellings in the 14 to 15
hundred square foot range, are a break even for a city when it comes to providing all
the services that we have to provide. So I guess -- I think the phrase bigger is not
always better and if -- you know, I can't see a lot of loss of tax dollars -- net tax dollars.
And, then, of course, I see the owners of the property being able to sell it if they want,
so -- thank you.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, the last time this came before this body it seems to me that we
were talking about the investment that the City of Meridian had made in its existing
trunk lines on the sewer and if, in fact, they were built with the intention of being able to
serve the entire area of impact, is there, in fact, an investment made that will go
unused, if, in fact, we vacate that and turn it over to the City of Boise? I suppose best
asked of staff.
Freckleton: Commissioner Rohm, when the area of impact boundary is set and the
urban service planning boundaries is out there, we undertook the study to do the facility
plan, which is basically you go through it and do a design for the entire impact area to
build -- to lay the groundwork for how we would serve that entire area. Part of that
study is -- it goes through and it tells you what size lines you have to run in order to
provide the service and so I guess the short answer is when you take areas away from
the area of impact, yes, you're taking away part of that design. We build in -- capacity
into those trunks for the area of impact, so if you take things out of the area of impact,
part of that capacity that you have built in is removed so that --
Rohm: It sounds something like a stranded investment, is my point.
Freckleton: To a certain amount.
Zaremba: Well, the actual capital improvements have not been made yet, it's just
planning investment that's been made so far; is that correct?
Freckleton: Well, it's capital improvement to Eagle Road, like I said. We built the trunk
line to this point. It's planning from that point on in.
Borup: Bruce, do you remember what -- and this trunk line would also service to
Fairview?
Freckleton: A branch of it would.
Borup: That's what I --
Freckleton: It branches off and goes south, yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 14 of 84
Borup: Right.
Freckleton: Yes.
Borup: And when that was planned for -- what type of development was that planned
for; do you know? Or did it get down to that much -- that much detail?
Freckleton: Oh, sure.
Borup: It was actually commercial --
Freckled: Yes. When the plan was developed, we look at the Comprehensive Plan and
we look at the type of development and the load that we would receive from that type of
development and, if I remember correctly, I think the piece you're talking about is the
Kleiner property on the north side of Fairview.
Borup: Yes. Then, there are some other properties along --
Freckleton: Right. So, the type of use is calculated into the facility plan, the type of use
for the different properties is taken into consideration when we do the sizing and the
design.
Borup: That was anticipated commercial development?
Freckleton: The majority of it.
Borup: The majority of that.
Freckleton: Correct.
Borup: Okay. Well, I think Commissioner Centers' comment on it being a political issue
and I think that was some of our discussion last time. I don't know if we ever -- if we
had real firm feelings from this Commission. We felt that maybe the City Council may
be the ones that --
Centers: Yes. That's the big sell.
Borup: I thought we handled it and they just -- they sent it back to us.
Centers: I think I'm firmer on it this time than previously, because of the way I view this.
It's just going to sit there and I don't think that's fair to the property owners.
Zaremba: Well, I think the City Council was correct to send it back to us for the actual
information, but --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 15 of 84
Centers: Oh, I'd go along with that.
Zaremba: -- and like Commissioner Centers, having reconsidered, I don't have a
problem making the same decision we made before, even for a different reason.
Borup: Someone ready with a motion?
Centers: Sure. Mr. Chairman, I would recommend that we recommend approval to the
City Council for MI 02-011, request to remove certain parcels in Dunbar Estates
Subdivision from the City of Meridian's area of impact for Packard Estates
Development, LLC, by Packard Estates Development, south of East Ustick Road and
west of North Cloverdale Road -- in short, recommend approval, removing that from
Meridian's area of impact.
Borup: We have a motion. That's it.
Mathes: I will second that.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion?
Rohm: I'd just like to ask one question before we vote on this. Is there anything such
as an exit fee that -- and I don't mean that to sound --
Borup: Greedy.
Rohm: -- greedy, but I mean once an investment has been made to service an area and
if, in fact, that's a standard investment, what do you do with that, just -- I mean it's not
like you can dig it up put it someplace else and that's my only concern on this issue.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the short answer on that is no.
Rohm: Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Any other discussion?
Centers: Well, in response, I think the investment there was overall in the major study
when they did the study for the trunk line, in which included this parcel or part of this
parcel. I don't think there is a major investment on the city's part and I think Mr.
Freckleton would admit that.
Rohm: Well, they have already punched it to Eagle Road and within two weeks it will
be under Eagle Road, which is capable of servicing this parcel in question.
Centers: And that's where it stays for ten years until somebody wants it along here.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 16 of 84
Borup: But whether that affects it, I don't think that question has been answered, is
would that trunk line be a smaller diameter than it is now if this parcel was not included.
And you probably can't answer that.
Freckleton: That's a real hard question to answer without putting it through the model.
Borup: Right. But I question whether the diameter would change with or without this
parcel.
Freckleton: It's hard to say. I can't give you an answer on that.
Borup: All in favor? Any opposed? Okay. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5: Public Hearing: AZ 02-033 Request for annexation and zoning of
104.77 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Parkstone
Subdivision by Hillview Development, Corp. – west of North Eagle Road
and north of East Ustick Road:
Item 6: Public Hearing: PP 02-033 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of
334 building lots and 34 other lots on 104.77 acres in a proposed R-8
zone for proposed Parkstone Subdivision by Hillview Development,
Corp. – west of North Eagle Road and north of East Ustick Road:
Item 7: Public Hearing: CUP 02-049 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Unit Development for 275 single-family dwellings, 52 townhomes,
4 office lots, 2 commercial lots, 1 mini-storage lot, 1 pocket park, 1 city
neighborhood park and 32 common lots on 104.77 acres for proposed
Parkstone Subdivision by Hillview Development, Corp. – west of North
Eagle Road and north of East Ustick Road:
Borup: Our next hearing -- I think that's probably what most of the audience is here for
this evening. That's concerning Parkstone Subdivision. I'd like to open Public Hearing
AZ 02-033, request for annexation and zoning of 104.77 acres from RUT to R-8 zones
for the proposed Parkstone Subdivision by Hillview Development Corporation. The
property is west of North Eagle Road and north of East Ustick Road and two
accompanying applications, we'd like to open both those Public Hearings also at this
same time, and that is Public Hearing PP 02-033 and Public Hearing CUP 02-049.
Those are the Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use for the same property. I'd like to
start with the staff report at this time.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I'm going to give
you a brief overview of the project and, then, I have got a little bit of housekeeping,
some additional memos that you received tonight that I'd like to discuss and, then, I will
take questions from you before we open it up to the public. On the overhead in front of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 17 of 84
you we have the subject property in bold. This is Summerfield Subdivision to the east
of the property and right at the very edge of the eastern -- I guess the eastern side of
this picture would be Eagle Road. The property itself fronts onto Ustick Road. This
gives you a little bit better picture of it. It's an aerial photo of the property. Again, Eagle
Road is on the eastern side. There is a large piece of property right here, a Winston
Moore piece of property, it's owned, it's currently in our Comprehensive Plan as a mixed
use, and Summerfield Subdivision, which is an R-4 subdivision with a number of larger
homes and up on the northwest corner of the property is the recently approved
subdivision for the elementary school and the new charter high school that we recently
went through, I think it was called Education Campus Subdivision. This gives you an
overview of the site plan itself. I'm going to skip passed this right now and move to a
cleaner copy without all of the dimensional standards and all the lot and block numbers,
and I will focus a little bit of my discussion at this point. This property is currently in our
Comprehensive Plan and it's shown as medium density residential, which would allow
between three to eight units per acre upon annexation. As you know, in our Planned
Development Ordinance we allow for a 20 percent land use exception, which would
mean the properties that are not currently zoned for a specific type of use, such as an
office use in a residential zone, would be allowed on 20 percent of the property within a
Planned Development. As along as the overall development met the requirements of
the Planned Development. They have included along the eastern edge of the property
some uses that would not typically be permitted in the R-8 zone. They have some
office uses on the left side or the west side of the entryway -- of the entry collector and
on the east side of that road they have commercial property and the property directly to
the western boundary would be the mini storage units that they would be proposing. All
of the commercial uses and office uses are conceptual at this time and they will come
back before you with a detailed Conditional Use Permit. Now, you are only looking at
those on a conceptual basis to determine whether or not those uses fit within this
Planned Development that's being discussed tonight. Some interesting items to think
about when looking at this. I will point out some of the highlights. It would be the six-
acre park that would be built in the center of this project. The six acre park has been
discussed with the parks commission, which you have received two memos and I will
discuss those memos later. The property itself has one stub street. The stub street is
on the north side going up to Jasmine Acres and there is no connection from Ustick
until you get to that north connection. There is almost a half-mile with no connection to
the east. There is a connection to Summerfield Subdivision, which interconnects the
subdivisions and there is a connection to the education campus subdivision. There is a
small one-acre pocket park provided to the subdivision, not to the city. The six-acre
park would be a city park. This would be a pocket park with an amenity that would be a
basketball court. With a Planned Development, there are requirements that need to be
met in order for them to have some of the benefits of a Planned Development, such as
a 20 percent land use exception, and one of those requirements is that they provide at
least two amenities. The two amenities that the applicant has provided would be the
pocket park and a pathway system that would run north and south through the project.
On our Comprehensive Plan -- as you can, it's down on the floor at this time, there is a
pathway that's depicted on our Comprehensive Plan that runs north and south. Sorry, I
have been -- had a little bit too much pop, I think, and I'm a little shaky with the laser
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 18 of 84
pointer. I will try to do better with that. They did not originally propose a pathway. The
applicant has agreed to install a pathway and they will revise their plat to include the
pathway to be in compliance with the comprehensive plan. That's a basic overview.
There are some additional -- a few additional items that I'd like to share with you.
Because, again, this is a Planned Development, they are allowed to request that some
minimum standards be reduced and they have asked for some of those standards to be
reduced. They have asked for the minimum lot size to be reduced and they have asked
for the minimum housing size to be reduced from 1,301 square feet in the R-8 zone,
down to 1,200 square feet for a detached home. In addition to that, they have
requested that the lot sizes be allowed to be reduced from 6,500 square feet to a
minimum for a detached house to 5,888 square feet and for an attached house down to
3,883 feet. Those are minor adjustments to the minimum standards of 6,500 and 4,000
square feet. The project itself has a small section of attached single-family homes.
Those are, essentially, the duplexes with individual ownership on both sides. There are
52 of them and they are adjacent to Ustick, with the entrance coming off of the collector
street in this location. The collector streets that are bringing the -- the collector streets
that come in off of Ustick, those are the two main streets, those will have detached
sidewalks, with the collector in the center having a ten foot wide pathway in compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan running north and south through it. The rest of the
sidewalks within the subdivision will be attached sidewalks. On to a little bit of
housekeeping. You should have received a few memos. I will go over a couple of
those with you right now. You should have received a memo I mentioned earlier from
Elroy Huff, the acting parks director, asking you to ignore his previous memo asking to
table this item. The reason that he's asked for this not to be tabled tonight is that when
they met on February 12th when the P&Z Commission discussed this, the parks
commission stated they had no problem with the site location of the park and that some
of the other issues can be discussed at a meeting on March 12th and the City Council
meeting on April 3rd, so they would not ask you to table this tonight for those reasons
that were stated earlier in the previous memo. You should have also received a memo
dated today from Jonathan Seal from the W.H. Moore Company, that was concerning
the property that was touched on briefly that's adjacent to this property to the east and
some of the items of concern within this memo had to deal with the mini storage and
how the mini storage would be buffered from their property in the future and whether or
not there should be an interconnectivity in the northeast corner of this property. I do
have a memo that I received today from Becky Bowcutt you should have all received
this from Becky Bowcutt Planning Services, giving a written response to all the staff
recommendations and site-specific requirements. I've had an opportunity to review this
today and I would ask that you follow with me to -- I guess we can just go right down
Becky's letter right now and talk about some of the items that are on her letter. In the
annexation and zoning Commission's approval, Item Number 1, Page 7, it's the first
item that she had to -- that she addresses. She states that she is in agreement with this
and I'd like to point out to you that one specific special instance with this piece of
property is that the Davis property is located right here. That's a brick home on the
property, and they have requested that they not have to connect to city services as part
of the annexation until such time as the phase for their project -- for their property is
Final Platted. And we don't have any problems with that. I wanted to point that out to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 19 of 84
you as a special note. Item number two, Becky has responded back that she would not
like to have all the properties zoned according to their use. Typically, we have property
zoned according to their use. If it's R-8, it's residential. That's medium density
residential. If we were to zone those properties as medium density residential and,
then, allow commercial uses on those properties, it becomes confusing for all people
concerned, people that want to develop on the property that contact us and see we
have R-8 zoned property and, then, we have -- and we say, well, actually, it's
commercial, you can use it for commercial, even though it's zoned R-8. In addition to
that, it would be confusing for the assessor's office to see commercial properties on R-8
zones, so we felt that it would be appropriate that we ask the applicant to provide legal
descriptions of the properties that are to be used for office commercial and otherwise, to
provide legal definitions for those and have those zoned according to use, rather than
just have a blanket zone of R-8 and allow commercial and office uses in those zones,
felt it would be cleaner on an annexation, on a zoning map. Just to give you a case in
point how that could be confusing, we have Wendy here tonight. Wendy, as you know,
is a new planner, she wasn't privy to the information concerning this tonight and if
someone were to call and say I have a piece of property that's zoned R-8, what can I do
on it, she might not know to say, well, this is part of a Planned Development and you
can actually do commercial. She would say, no, you can't do this and it creates
confusion. So, we would, again, state in opposition to Becky's new letter that we think
that those uses should be zoned according to the use. Onto item number three, there is
a lot of information that's provided in item number three. They state they are in
agreement with that, but I'd like to point out one thing to you that is a special
consideration. Mr. Davis, the owner of the property, has requested that he be allowed to
continue to use his property in an agricultural nature and be allowed to continue to raise
150 head of cattle on the property until the end of 2005. We, as staff, have no objection
to that. As the property develops, there will be less and less space for that, but there
should be adequate space for 150 head of cattle to remain on the property. It would be
a legal nonconforming use and it would be something that would be added to the
Development Agreement. It would be something that would be recognized and we, as
staff, have no objection to that. Onto Page 8, Item Number 1. Becky has stated that on
the pedestrian pathway, the interconnectivity is something that they would be willing to
work with and I'll show you exactly where this is going. Item Number 1, under the
additional considerations, has to deal with a pedestrian pathway that would connect to
the Winston Moore property. This aerial would look better. There should be some sort of
connection between these two properties. As I stated earlier, there is no connection on
Ustick Road to the east for over a half a mile north and south. This is the half-mile line
running right across here. This would be where the stub street is. It's just under a half a
mile with no interconnectivity. We propose that a pedestrian pathway be located in this
location to provide access for the people to the office park or the future commercial park
at this location. Upon thinking about this and discussing this as a staff, we felt that it
would be appropriate to let you know that staff would not be -- would not object to an
and/or language from the Planning and Zoning Commission tonight, whether you feel it
would be appropriate to add something that in that location or not. If the project to the
east develops as a big block store, a pedestrian pathway going into the back of the
loading dock does not make a great deal of sense. So, it could be an option for you to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 20 of 84
say that if this develops in a manner that is not conducive to having a pedestrian
pathway, that the pedestrian pathway could be eliminated at the Final Platting stage
and not be considered a significant change. Typically, if there is a change from the
Preliminary Plat to the Final Plat that is deemed significant, the plat would have to come
back to you for modification and we felt that if you included the language at this time to
allow for the additional flexibility, that would be something that would be appropriate at
this time. Onto page nine of the staff report. There is a few things that we need to
address, the block length, we have no problem with the block length and the multi-use
pathway and we agree with the multi-use pathway that Becky has indicated on page
one, that they would go ahead and add the multi-use pathway running north and south
as we have already discussed. That would require a multi-use pathway being brought
north, south, jogging to the east, and, then, following up through these two blocks and,
then, heading into Jasmine Acres to the north. Becky has proposed that they put a 20
foot wide buffer on this stub street to the north to provide a 10 foot pathway within that
and we, as staff, agree that that would be a good change to do that and we would
incorporate that change into our staff report and that that's one thing that they will do
when they revise the plat. Page 10 of the staff report. Site-specific comments for the
Preliminary Plat, Items 1 and 2, the applicant has agreed to. Item Number 3, the staff
recognizes the solid fencing notes that Becky has mentioned and we would agree to
include those notes as part of staff comments. That just has to deal with the fact that
there is some existing fence out there at this time. That they should not be required to
build a secondary fence adjacent to existing fences. Item Number 4, the Planned
Development site, the applicant stated that they will provide a 20 foot wide landscape
easement on the west side of the lots adjacent to the townhomes and so that's
something that they have agreed to do. Item number five they agreed to comply with.
Item Number 7 on Page 11 is the next item, which they object to and they have stated
that they would agree to do the first bullet point, place the micro-path between Lots 48,
49 of Block 12. However, they are requesting that the lot with the micro-path between
Lots 25 and 26 -- 24 and 25 be changed to 25 and 26. The staff does not object to that.
That would be the pathway right here in the northeast corner of the property going to
the Winston Moore property. Item Number 8, bullet point Number 4, the applicant would
like to have the opportunity to allow a four foot tall fence with a lattice placed adjacent to
the pathways and I'm not aware if the Commission knows the recent discussions that
have been -- that have taken place with the City Council just in the last week. The City
Council -- the last two weeks. The City Council held a Pre-Council Meeting where they
discussed the four foot tall fences with lattice on top and whether or not that would be
considered an open vision fence and they felt that it would be an open vision fence, as
long as the four foot portion of the fence was also see through. The slats within the
fence did not connect with each other. There was an ability to see movement go
through a semi-private fence. A good example of that, which the applicant is very
familiar with, would be within Bridgetower Subdivision where all the slats have a small
space between those. It's a vinyl fence with a lattice on top and they have been
approved for that and staff would not object to that type, nor would the City Council,
because the City Council has felt that that is appropriate adjacent to the pathways. As
long as they have met those standards, we can have the applicant address that,
whether they would be willing to meet that standard, it would be appreciative -- we
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 21 of 84
would be appreciative if the applicant would address that tonight, whether that would be
that type of -- whether or not the fence would be that type of fence. Now onto the final
page of the staff report, the general comments. Becky in her final note on the general
comments, she has noted that we are dealing with a Conditional Use Permit tonight for
the development of commercial office and mini storage lots. They, too, request that we
recognize the approval is a conceptual Site Plan and staff has no objection to that. Just
to let you know, again, this will all have to come back in front of you, the buffers will
have to come back in front of you, the parking designs, the building designs, all this will
be back in front of you for those buildings. This is only a conceptual use. It rest of the
items within Becky's report we agree with, we have no objection to them, and we would
not have any objections to having them incorporated into the staff report. You should
have received in your packet a number of letters in objection of the application. I just
want to point those out to you, that they have been received by staff and that they have
been read by staff and review with the Commissioners tonight. With that, I'd ask if you
have any questions for staff concerning this application and turn it back over to you.
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioner? Would the applicant like to make
their presentation?
Bowcutt: Can the Commission all see that? Since we have so many neighbors here
this evening, it's -- they kind of get frustrated when I point at the board and they can't
see what I'm pointing at, so this seems to work a little bit better. Becky Bowcutt, 1100
East Valli-Hi, Eagle. I'm representing the applicants in this matter. This particular
property is approximately 104.77 acres. It is designated medium density residential on
your Comprehensive Plan -- your new Comprehensive Plan. The definition of the
medium density residential designation is three to eight dwelling units per acre. It's
promotes Planned Developments for larger subdivisions, it talks about density bonuses
may be considered, promotes public amenities, such as open space, pathways, and
any land dedicated for public services. As Dave indicated, on the Comprehensive Plan
map, this is -- a multi-use pathway is shown traversing this property in a north-south
direction. Also on the Comprehensive Plan map an asterisk was shown on this
property, indicating that some type of a public park was to be located in this vicinity. As
you well know, the city cannot designate that a park be on a specific piece of property,
because that is a taking of that property. However, those asterisks -- the interpretation
of those asterisks is that it is within that general vicinity and that asterisk was within this
general vicinity. We met with the parks department and we came up with a concept of
incorporating a centrally located neighborhood park and that's what you see here. We
have two collector roadways coming into the project. Here we have Ustick Road. This
collector roadway is in alignment with Wingate Lane. This roadway is in alignment with
Wesley Drive. The westerly collector roadway comes up and terminates at this location,
where, then, the local street network takes -- takes effect. We call it a non-continuous
collector. The easterly collector roadway comes up and terminates at this location. As
you can see, the way we have designed this by clipping this particular pod of town
home lots, the focal point of this development, as traffic or residents, plus guests, enter
this development, the focus is on the park to maximize the exposure and the visibility of
that park. We have multiple pedestrian pathways, one coming out of this pod, a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 22 of 84
pathway coming here, and, then, a network of pathways here. Over along our western
boundary is the Meridian School District charter school site. At this point in time I
believe they are just either starting or getting to start construction on a new elementary
school. On this western portion of the property we have incorporated two pedestrian
pathways to facilitate the children getting out of this stub street, which will connect to a
collector roadway that will be built through the Meridian School District site and connect
to the subject property. That's where those kids would go to school. When we
submitted the application, we showed a detached sidewalk along the collector roadway
on the west. The staff recommended that we incorporate something a little larger, what
they call a multi-use pathway, which, instead of being five feet in width, is ten feet in
width. We have agreed to that and it is shown on my revised Preliminary Plat. We
have here, as you can see in the bold dark lines, it comes along this eastern side of the
collector, crosses, goes on an open space lot, comes around our pocket park, and,
then, comes through a pathway here. We have also added another pathway here.
Staff's concern in their staff report was when it terminates into this Connolly Avenue,
which is a stub street to the north, and then, that multi-use pathway would become just
a standard sidewalk. They talked about in their staff report adding another micropath,
but, then, it occurred to the applicants and myself the best solution would be to have a
separate 20 foot lot here separate from this buildable lot and, then, that ten foot
pathway could continue on and be stubbed to that northern boundary, so at some point
in time it could extend northward. In this project, as staff indicated, we are -- it's a
planned unit development, we have asked for an R-8 designation, which would fall
within that medium density residential designation. Under the planned unit
development ordinance it allows for some mixed use. In these larger projects we have
tried to incorporate diversity, as you well know, from some of the other larger projects
that I have brought through. We have got three different types of single-family
residential lots. We have got some town home lots located here, then, we have some
single family detached residential lots and these lots are ranging from 6,600, 7,000
square feet and as you go northward, the size of the lots increase until as we get up
into this area here, the lots are running 8,600 to 10,000, 13,000 square feet. So, we
have tried to provide the diversity that your Comprehensive Plan promotes in the
residential housing. Also, we incorporated these office lots. We have shown
approximately four and what we showed here is just in concept only. We are not asking
for any detailed approval. Each one of these uses that falls within the 20 percent
exception would have to come before this body as a site-specific Conditional Use
application. At that time you would be reviewing it for residential compatibility,
landscaping, obviously, the type of architecture and the type of use of that office
building. Over here we have two commercial lots, what we have called residential
compatible. What these provide for the neighborhoods and the first one we have done
in Meridian was in the Bridgetower Crossing project, we are getting dentists -- a dentist
office is currently under construction. The second user is going to be a day care, so
what we are seeing is types of users that intend to service not only the community that
we are going to build, but also the surrounding community, which, therefore, reduces
the number of trips on our arterial roadways. We also have a mini storage facility
proposed here. That's also conceptual. In our planning we were aware that the
property along our eastern boundary is owned by W.H. Moore Company. They are in
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 23 of 84
the business of doing office and commercial developments and it was their intent after
discussing the development of that property with their representative, that at some point
in time they intend to develop that to a more intensive use, than, obviously, just
neighborhood type office or commercial, it would be more a regional type commercial or
office development. On your Comprehensive Plan map that's designated mixed use
regional, so there could be even a big box user, I believe up to 200,000 square feet, I
think, is what your Comprehensive Plan states. Instead of creating a situation like we
had at the Crossroads development, most of you probably weren't on the Commission
at that time, I think Commissioner Borup was on the Commission at that time -- there
was a lot of controversy that Crossroads residential subdivision was extremely opposed
to that -- that Crossroads commercial development where ShopKo at Eagle Road and
Fairview is currently located. And a lot of discussion took place on how to appropriately
buffer those residents from that development. We took it upon ourselves to create our
own buffer. I have found in other developments that mini storage serves two excellent
purposes. One, all the protective covenants in these new subdivisions have one thing
in common, they do not allow RVs to be located on their lots, unless they are either in
enclosed like garages or some, but very few, allowed if they can place them behind the
homes. Secondly, we found that they are a very low traffic generator. The traffic that is
generated by them is typically non-peak hours, and the radius in which they service is
typically about two miles. They are really servicing a particular area and, therefore,
from what the traffic engineers have told me, they are reducing the trips on the arterials,
you know, when you go further out, because you're adding this particular service right
here located next to the subdivision. They make a good neighbor and a good buffer, a
good sound buffer from major arterials. I put one next to the freeway at the Cloverdale
overpass on the north side. I did a subdivision called Ironwood Subdivision and we put
those mini storage buildings right adjoining the interstate and, then, there were single
family residential on the other side and it made for a very nice subdivision. Had we not
done that, the noise level would have probably been quite a nuisance. Therefore, we
feel that we have really tried to come up with a good mixed-use development. We also
have a pocket park right here that's private. This is about 6.03 acres. This is
approximately an acre. We would be installing a basketball court. Our amenities under
the PUD will be the multi-use pathway, our pocket park, our basketball court, and, then,
for the neighborhood park we went before your parks commission about a week ago,
we presented it to them, the parks commission basically said that they were in favor of
the concept, they liked the location, they liked how we designed it, with the exposure
open on both ends of those roadways. Since that's a local street on the east side of the
park, you can have parallel parking along here, so residents from other areas could
come in and parallel park here, because it's single loaded, it's a local street. Since
there is no parking allowed on the collector, we have provided a little parking lot with
about six parking spaces there. We asked the parks commission to consider some park
impact fees for only half of what we are proposing and our discussion with them went
well, but they said they wanted to take it under consideration the issue of whether we
were eligible for impact fee credits under their new parks plan. That was the only
outstanding issue. This particular -- under your ordinance we are required to five
percent open space. If we take say five percent of the 104.77 acres, we are at 5.24
acres of required open space. Our project has an 11.79 when you include this
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 24 of 84
neighborhood park, which is about 11.25 percent open space. Density wise, when we
looked at our gross density -- and that is just taking the residential area, it includes the
lots, the streets, the open space, excludes office commercial, mini storage, our gross
density is 3.58 dwelling units per acre. On the lower end of that medium density
residential designation on your Comp Plan. In the net density that is under -- based on
your definition, you take out all the streets and exclude, obviously, the office and the
commercial and that density is 4.68. We feel we have a good mixed-use project. The
staff -- we have worked with your staff closely in trying to incorporate the stub streets,
the micro-paths. I think under -- under most -- most of the issues we are pretty much in
agreement, it is just kind of a matter of housekeeping, as you can see, based on my
responses to the staff report. The only thing that I did have a real problem with was the
issue of zoning the property C-G and L-O. I know Dave has his opinion and Dave is
absolutely correct, with these PUDs and their underlying residential zoning designation,
we have had some confusion with the staff when people have popped in to inquire
about a particular office lot with an R-4 or an R-8 type designation. But this is how it's
handled in other jurisdictions, other municipalities. The City of Boise. For example, the
PUD ordinance that the city -- this city adopted was modeled after Boise City's. It is
their preference that under the planned unit development ordinance you guys have
more control. If I could come in and if it was preferable that I zone that L-O and C-G,
then, there would be no need for me to do a Planned Development application, but
that's not the case, because your Comprehensive Plan designates this as medium
density residential. Therefore, that's why I feel from a planning perspective the Planned
Development application is the appropriate course of action. Do you have any
questions?
Borup: Yes. Becky -- maybe before some of the Commissioners, I'm sure they have
some, too. Would you like to comment on your neighborhood meeting? Did you hold
one?
Bowcutt: Sir, I tried. No, sir, I did not hold a neighborhood meeting and I do apologize
to the neighbors, because I always make it a point to have a neighborhood meeting
when I have a project of any size and I have adjoining neighbors. The problem that
arose was the Best Western Rama Inn is booked clear through March. The only day
they had available was Friday, Valentine's Day, and I thought that inappropriate to hold
a neighborhood meeting on Valentine's Day. I talked to Wendell Bigham with the
Meridian School District and he gave me the name of the Principal Janet Nichols of the
Charter School and I tried to make arrangements to hold one there. He thought that
that would be acceptable. Ms. Nichols said that they would have to pay a janitor to stay
after hours and she did not want to do that. I was put between a rock and hard spot. I
would like to offer to the neighbors that I will be glad to meet with them on one on one
or as a group, if we can organize a location, but the location is what hurt me, so I do
apologize.
Borup: You were aware of our new ordinance that this Commission forwarded to City
Council -- I don't believe they have -- I don't believe they have passed it yet, have they?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 25 of 84
Bowcutt: They haven't passed it yet.
McKinnon: It has been passed and it has been published in the newspaper and is
effective at this point.
Borup: Oh, it is?
Bowcutt: But it predates --
Borup: Just -- well, it probably --
Bowcutt: It predates this application.
Borup: No. I understood that, but -- and it's -- unless City Council changed it, it was not
mandatory either. It says the Commission may, I believe.
Zaremba: May require.
Borup: Right. Clarification on the park. The developer would be developing the six-
acre city park; is that correct?
Bowcutt: Yes, sir and I can go through --
Borup: So developing and donating to the city and you were asking for half -- try to get
half of the development cost back through impact fees?
Bowcutt: Yes, sir. The developer would be dedicating the land, hydro seeding or some
type of seeding, obviously, working with the Parks Department on the -- how that's done
and the variety of the seeding, constructing that parking lot. We are required to put
trees along our collector roadway, so we would work with the parks department on
some type of an appropriate design. We have a landscape architect and he just kind of
did a smattering of trees, but we will work with our landscape architect as not to burden
the budget of the Parks Department to come up with an appropriate design for the tree
locations, et cetera. We would provide you sewer and water service, power service,
and irrigation within the park, excluding the pump station, and that's based on the
comments we received from Elroy that it is the parks department's intent to have a
separate pump station. If they share one with residents -- residences, they get
complains. As you can see, the little blue area right there in the right -- just right in the
corner of the park – yes. That is an irrigation pond. We would be providing storage for
our irrigation water and our pump would be located there and, obviously, the Parks
Department would be able to install their pump there. Fencing along the north and
south boundary of the park, we would be installing would not be requesting any
reimbursement for the fencing. We would like to see something that, as staff indicated,
obviously, a fence that's either four feet tall that's site obscuring, possible some lattice in
it, putting some slats in it, or something along that line. We would be glad to work with
the staff and the parks department. We would not be asking for any reimbursement on
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 26 of 84
the 10-foot pathway either. It would just be 50 percent of the park and 50 percent of the
improvements. When I look at that, based on the land costs and the approximate cost
of the improvements, our participation would be 236,500 dollars, approximately, that
would be out of the developer's pocket. Then, they would only, obviously, be eligible for
whatever impact fees would be generated by this project and this project alone. Like I
said, that's still up in the air as far as the reimbursement. The parks commission will
make a recommendation to the Council at their next meeting.
Borup: Two hundred thirty-six was one half?
Bowcutt: Two hundred thirty-six five was one half.
Borup: Okay.
Bowcutt: And that was based on six acres of land at 46,000 per acre, and that was the
cost of the land, that 236, and, then, I figured 75 cents per square foot, which is kind of
a general average, which is 197,000 dollars in improvements. Those were just some
rough approximate numbers.
Centers: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: Am I jumping ahead or are you saying that the city is going to maintain that
property, too?
Bowcutt: The park?
Centers: Yes.
Bowcutt: It would be a city public park, yes, sir.
Centers: I got to tell it like is. I'm not impressed. I'm not impressed with the numbers,
because that park is for the total benefit of that subdivision and the marketability of that
subdivision and to pass those numbers along that you're giving this to the city and that
to the city and, then, we have to maintain it for the use of homeowners of that
subdivision, I'm not impressed.
Borup: That was where a park site was designated.
Centers: I understand. I understand. I'm just citing my view, because that park is for
the total benefit of that subdivision and to market that subdivision. Then, the city is
going to maintain it and, then, she wants half of the money back for the purchase of it.
Half. Not she. Excuse me, Mrs. Bowcutt.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 27 of 84
Bowcutt: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, I respect your opinion and we did
receive some comments along that line from the Parks Commission. The issue is that it
was designated for a park in this area. Due to the size of the property and the price of
the property, this was the best that we could do from a financial perspective. In locating
that along the two roadways, we try to make that exposure as great as possible, instead
of tucking it back. Most neighborhood parks are typically tucked back, especially
private ones, are tucked back away, so that the public doesn't -- is not aware that they
are there. This one we have tried to provide as much exposure as possible. You may
be right, the Council and the Parks Commission may agree with you that
reimbursement of any kind is not appropriate, but I don't think that that's something that
we could hash out tonight.
Centers: I just gave you my opinion.
Bowcutt: Thank you.
Zaremba: I'd like to ask -- and the subject is back to the zoning. Eventual ownership of
what will be the office and storage facilities, is that going to be continued as a common
area under the ownership and leasing of the homeowners association or do you plan to
sell those lots individually?
Bowcutt: So until it's developed -- your question is what would happen to it?
Zaremba: Once it's developed, the ownership of the lots where the offices are and the
lots where the store units are going, are those going to be sold separately?
Bowcutt: They have the potential to be sold separately if they were platted, yes, sir.
Until -- if the residential area -- typically, we find the residential portion develops first, so
we try to keep as much in agricultural production as possible, because, then, that
minimizes your weed maintenance and so forth and dust, et cetera. They would have
the potential to be sold off separately, yes. As I indicated, they would have to come
back before this body with a site-specific Conditional Use Permit and they would have
to contend with their new residents that would adjoin them. Now, the developers can, in
their covenants, when they plat those, specify, you know, very strict requirements and
most of my projects we have seen that the developer, obviously, just like with the
residential, retains architectural control to make sure that somebody does not put an
atrocious office building on that lot, something that is residential compatible, and so that
-- I mean that's typically how it's handled. That doesn't necessarily mean -- if your
question is would the developer build that office building or build that mini storage.
Potentially, but not necessarily. It could be sold to another individual for development.
Zaremba: Well, but even if the developer builds it, they would still sell it to somebody;
right?
Bowcutt: They could do that, too, yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 28 of 84
Mathes: But it's still classified as a lot in the subdivision?
Bowcutt: Yes.
Zaremba: My direction with that is that my instinct I feel supportive of staff's idea that
those should be zoned separately. If they are going to come under separate ownership
or could even come under separate ownership at some time, you have a piece of
property that has no relationship to the rest of the R-8, that has an office building on it,
and somebody owns that piece of property with an office building on it and to have that
be zoned R-8 I think is confusing. I agree that when you take the whole development, if
less than 20 percent of it is being used in that way, I still think it meets the purpose of
the planned unit development. I don't see any conflict between having a planned unit
development have several zones in it and my instinct is to say if it's going to be an office
unit and it's going to be under separate ownership, why not make it L-O. That's not
going to stop the project.
Bowcutt: No, sir.
Zaremba: Could you live with it if we decided that it needed to separate zonings?
Bowcutt: Yes, sir, I guess -- yes, I guess, you know, that would just be one of the
conditions. If you feel it's appropriate, then, obviously, we would have to accept that.
Borup: Other questions from the Commission?
McKinnon: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Commission, I have a question if I could ask at
this time.
Borup: Please do.
McKinnon: Mrs. Bowcutt, the maps you got hanging -- the colored map on the tripod, is
that your revised plan or is that just a color rendition of the original plan?
Bowcutt: No. That is the revised one. You can see that Block 19, the pedestrian
pathway through Block 19 --
McKinnon: Okay. I was going to --
Bowcutt: And, then, a pedestrian pathway to the east.
McKinnon: Okay. On Block 12, the one that would go over to the Hollister property,
Setter Cove Subdivision --
Bowcutt: Yes, sir. I doubt -- that was not added, because I wasn't aware that you guys
were going to take that position. I think in our discussions -- but we are not opposed to
that. We would be glad to revise our Preliminary Plat to incorporate that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 29 of 84
McKinnon: Okay. There is just one -- there may be some discussion on that, Members
of the Commission, just to point that out. The Setter Cove Subdivision has applied for a
Preliminary Plat and it does not proposed any connection to this subdivision. Lot --
Block 12 is, essentially, one of the longest blocks in the subdivision, the access being
into Education Campus here, running all the way down to Summerfield without a break
a pedestrian pathway going to the Hollister property would be at this location. However,
it, essentially, creates a very short block that connects to another very short block, it
would only provide interconnectivity to very few homes. The Hollister property is being
developed with two cul-d-sacs and that -- there should be some discussion determining
whether or not there is a need for a pathway at this location to connect to a cul-de-sac,
that would, eventually, just connect up to an elementary school at this site and it would,
essentially, be the end result of the crossings. If we require them to put in a ped path at
that location, we will be requiring the ped path be placed at the other location within the
other subdivision. I think it's something you should consider tonight when you look at
this -- I'll move backwards so you can see how the property lays out. The Hollister
property is this long narrow piece with the little bulb out here at the end. It's a very short
piece of property, it's coming down with two cul-d-sacs in a horseshoe shape and the
interconnection would just be at this point, providing just a very short interconnectivity
between subdivisions. It would break up the block length, but it still would not take it out
of the over 1,000-foot length for the rest of Block 12. I think there should be some
discussion tonight by the Commission to determine whether or not you feel that there is
one -- a need for one at that location. That's something that we talked together as staff
today, Brad and I and I think Steve and Wendy as well, we talked about whether or not
that truly -- there truly is a need for one at that location.
Zaremba: David, not on this drawing, but on -- that one.
McKinnon: Okay.
Zaremba: Is this a building lot or is that a roadway into that Hollister?
McKinnon: This is a roadway and, then, it turns left. There is no connection between
the Hollister property and Summerfield.
Zaremba: So that's a building lot?
McKinnon: That is a building lot.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: Do you want discussion right now on that comment, Dave? Would that --
McKinnon: That would be great, if you can just -- and, then, just secondary to that
would be just a statement from Becky whether or not she could agree to do the semi-
private fencing. Would you want to do the four-foot --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 30 of 84
Bowcutt: Yes. I consulted with the applicants and they are in agreement with you.
McKinnon: Okay.
Bowcutt: They would -- they will look at that option and they will comply with staff and
the City Council's recommendation on that.
McKinnon: Thank you. Becky, this would be an appropriate time, I think, to discuss that.
It's something that's site-specific in the Preliminary Plat. I think it's on Page 10. We
have the pathway connection to the northeast, put to that -- I think it's Item Number 7 on
Page -- it's Item Number 7 on Page 11, is where the discussion of the two micropath
lots are. The one that we just talked about would be between Lots 48 and 49 of Block
12. It would be at this location connecting to the Hollister property. As I stated earlier,
the only connection was to provide the connection between these two small -- the small
subdivision and the larger subdivision that would connect to the school, be just one cul-
d-sac. The house product types are very different. The lots within the subdivision to
the east are going to be larger, in the 15 to 30,000 square foot range for lots and, then,
the lots -- I talked a little bit in my staff report about adding some language regarding
the elimination of this lot -- of this ped path, possibly, if there is no reason for that to go
into the back of a big box store, if it develops in that manner.
Centers: What's the lot numbers on that, Dave?
McKinnon: The lot numbers on that would be between Lots 25 and 26 -- or 24 and 25 of
Block 15.
Centers: Right. Right.
Borup: Becky, any comment on that westerly connection that we discussed?
Bowcutt: The pedestrian pathway?
Borup: Yes.
Bowcutt: We are in agreement.
Centers: Well -- and that was called for in their comments, between Lots 48 and 49 of
Block 12.
Borup: I think Dave was asking is that necessary. How many lots are going into the
proposed subdivision do you know? Approximately.
McKinnon: Into that next subdivision, I believe it's nine. I think that it would connect to
five or six other --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 31 of 84
Borup: So, we are talking run a pathway into nine lots, whereas they still have access at
the roadway 400 feet or -- 450 feet to the north from where the pathway would be.
Zaremba: I'm not sure I see how that benefits this subdivision. I can see it benefiting
the little pocket subdivision next to it, and, actually, by giving them access to this
subdivision's pocket park. I'm not sure, because of the ease of going this way, anybody
going to the school is probably going to go that way anyhow and I'm not sure --
Borup: They can slip into the park the same way.
Zaremba: I just think the neighbors would use this subdivision's park.
Centers: Well, they are entitled to it. The city is going to own it.
Borup: No, I'm talking about the --
Centers: They can get to the other one, too.
Borup: Well, I guess I've always --
Zaremba: That being said, I'm in favor of pathways, but -- as a general statement.
Borup: I am, too, and I think they good and necessary. If someone is going to the park
to get some exercise, because they don't want to walk another 400 feet, I don't know if
that makes a lot of sense either.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it seems there is an agreement
to keep that -- as a Commission would you be willing to modify my staff report -- the
staff report that Bruce and I prepared for Lots 25 and 26 to make that something that
could be removed at the Final Plat stage, if it does not -- it's not --
Centers: Yes.
McKinnon: -- feasible to place a micro-path there based on the adjacent development?
Borup: You're saying -- if we are talking loading docks or backing up docks or
something.
McKinnon: Right.
Borup: Right now what the owner of the property said, they are envisioning a campus-
type project.
McKinnon: And if they build a campus type project I totally stand behind having a
connection, pedestrian, to that. However, if we are talking about loading docks, I don't
see a purpose for that. The reason why I bring that up to you and ask you to add that
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 32 of 84
in, so that in the future, if that comes in the Final Plat, and they have to change the
Preliminary Plat, that it does not have to come back before you, that you are okay at
this point to allow that to be eliminated, if the Council sees that it's not reasonable to
place it there.
Zaremba: I would be okay with calling that a minor enough change that we don't have
to see it again. My question on timing would be when do we think we will see a plan for
the neighboring project, as opposed to when this would go to Final Plat?
Borup: Do you know when that phase would come on line, approximately?
Bowcutt: I believe it would be after 2005. After 2005.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, while we are on that, that's the eliminated pathway we are
talking about, correct to the adjoining landowner? We don't want them walking into
commercial development. Why do we have this stub street here? Isn't that the same
landowner?
Bowcutt: No, sir.
Centers: It's not?
Bowcutt: That's a five-acre parcel with one existing very large single family dwelling in
the middle of it.
Centers: So is that residential in the Comp Plan?
Bowcutt: Yes.
McKinnon: Yes.
Centers: Good. Okay.
Borup: Okay. Any other questions from the Commissioners? Anything else, Becky?
Bowcutt: Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Do we have anyone that would like to testify on this application, now is the
time for you to come forward? We see none. I guess we are done. You would like to
come forward? Okay. Now is the time.
Clapp: I'm Dick Clapp, 2255 Paradise Lakes, the subdivision to the immediate north up
there. I just had some questions. There is an irrigation ditch that's behind our property
and right now the elementary school that's under construction they have covered over
their portion of that irrigation ditch. Does the fence line go to the middle of that ditch or
where does it go?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 33 of 84
Borup: You mean you're talking about the ditch that's on your property and your fence
line?
Clapp: Yes.
Borup: And we are supposed to know where you fence line goes or --
Clapp: Well, no, I think my property line is the middle of that irrigation ditch that runs
behind Heritage Subdivision. Keith, you live there, so you know where that is.
Borup: Well -- but I don't live on that boundary.
Clapp: I just wanted to know where the property line to this subdivision is and if there is
a ditch, does it get piped?
Borup: Did the school site do theirs?
Clapp: Yes so it would be the same thing, then, I would imagine.
Borup: Right. The city ordinance requires piping of all ditches.
Clapp: Okay. Now, what kind of a fence is going to go in between my property and this
new subdivision? Are you taking about a four-foot fence?
Borup: That was left -- well, we can have the applicant address some of that. I believe
they did. They had a concern -- was that the one they were wondering about the
burning, because it's buried, so that would not be -- need to be a noncombustible.
McKinnon: The one that was noncombustible was on the northern boundary of the
subdivision.
Borup: Well, that's what he's talking about, but -- that's on the other northern boundary?
McKinnon: That's my understanding is the other northern boundary. Typically, we
require that there be a six-foot fence adjacent on the surrounding perimeter.
Clapp: A vinyl six foot fence, is that --
McKinnon: There wasn't one that was proposed at this time. Typically, we get into that
with the Final Plat. We may require that they submit a new fencing plan prior to Final
Plat at that stage.
Clapp: Okay. But it would be a six-foot fence or whatever --
Borup: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 34 of 84
McKinnon: It would be a six-foot fence.
Clapp: Okay. Is it possible to request that we get single level houses put back there,
instead of two story? From the developer, I guess, is who you make application to?
Borup: Well, would your subdivision do the same thing, have single level houses on the
other side?
Clapp: I'm sorry?
Borup: I'm just saying maybe -- can that -- would that be appropriate to go both ways?
Clapp: Well, we already have existing structures there that --
Borup: And they are all single level?
Clapp: No.
Borup: Okay but, yes, I mean as -- in your testimony you can ask for it.
Clapp: I so ask.
Borup: Anything you would like.
Clapp: Okay. That's basically my -- my big concern was that irrigation ditch and where
the fence line is actually going to be.
Borup: And I don't know if we can answer where the fence line will be on their property.
Clapp: Okay.
Borup: And along that continuing piping of the ditch.
Clapp: And is this supposed to be developed after 2005? Is that --
Borup: Well, they said by the time the -- by the time it gets to the northern part of the
property it would be done and I'm not sure what the total build out time frame would be,
but it's --
Clapp: A couple years from now anyway?
Borup: -- a multi-phase subdivision.
Clapp: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 35 of 84
Borup: So It would be for over several years.
Clapp: Thank you.
Centers: Thank you.
Blakeslee: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is John Blakeslee, I
reside at 2546 East Ustick Road in Meridian and the property that my wife and I own is
immediately across the street from the proposed development and I thought I would
start by simply saying if Mrs. Bowcutt had taken the effort to have a meeting with us as
neighbors prior to this meeting, I would have anticipated that we -- that she would
probably finish by now.
Borup: That's why I asked that earlier.
Blakeslee: And I think it would be a tremendous gesture if you might consider, if you
don't decline this application outright, that you at least table it until she pays us the
courtesy to do that. I had the dubious opportunity, as all of you have now, of serving on
the Ada Planning and Zoning Commission for six years and went through literally
hundreds of these applications and we determined about seven or eight years ago that
it was indispensable to have that interaction with the applicants and the neighbors, it
would save everybody a lot of heartburn by doing so. I would strongly urge you, if you
have the opportunity to see that the City Council does what it sounds like you have
initiated. As a procedural point -- and this is probably something for Mr. Wollen, the city
attorney, to help us with is I would like to know if there is some way that you can
demonstrate to us that the statutory requirement for noticing and posting this application
was performed according to the code.
Wollen: Well, how does that --
Borup: Do you have a question that it was not posted? I mean a concern that it was not
posted?
Blakeslee: I saw the 11-by-20 inch signs posted on Saturday morning, which would
have been the 15th
of February. If I read the ordinance correctly, a posting is only
accurate seven days before the date of the hearing, which would have been the 12th
of
February. From a procedural standpoint, if we could determine if it had been mis-
posted, it might determine that we are sitting here this evening reviewing something,
which has no force and effect in law.
Borup: Let's maybe look into that right. Have you got the affidavit?
McKinnon: The Clerks Office would have the affidavit.
Borup: Okay. We will look at that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 36 of 84
Zaremba: I think we were given a copy of it. Usually we are.
Blakeslee: If I -- in reading your ordinance correctly, if I have interpreted it properly,
that's one of the obligations of the applicant to post that seven days prior to the hearing;
is that correct?
McKinnon: That is correct.
Blakeslee: And that they would provide a certified -- actually, a notarized certification of
that posting.
Wollen: Well, that is handled by the City Clerk's Office, that notarization of the affidavit,
actually, of posting.
Blakeslee: Mr. Chairman, if I could direct a question to Mr. Nicholas. If, in fact, that had
not been complied with, would that throw this out of proper hearing from this panel this
evening?
Wollen: Well, if notice is determined to be not proper, then, it would not be proper to be
heard in front of this Commission this evening.
Borup: And we have had those before where we were notified -- we were made aware
prior to the meeting and those meetings were tabled.
Centers: Mr. Blakeslee, did you get your written notice in the mail?
Blakeslee: I did receive written notice. I'm concerned about --
Centers: So that's covered. That's covered.
Blakeslee: I'm concerned about the multitude of people that might not have been.
Centers: I understand and you said that you saw the posting on the 15th -- Saturday,
the 15th?
Blakeslee: That's the first time I saw it.
Centers: So it's possible it could have been there a couple of days prior to that?
Blakeslee: It's --
Centers: When you saw it was on the 15th
.
Blakeslee: Anything is possible. It's very unlikely.
Centers: Or it could have blown down and somebody put it back up.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 37 of 84
Blakeslee: When I stop at my driveway to get on Ustick Road, I would be looking at the
signs.
Centers: Yes.
Borup: And we do have an affidavit signed that it was posted seven days -- or one week
prior to the Public Hearing, so --
Centers: So it's possible it could have been on the 13th. That's --
Wollen: Well, and -- yes, it's my belief that we have to take the affidavit at its face value.
That's, I mean, the reason for the affidavit itself.
Blakeslee: Well, I would simply submit -- because I thought that you would probably be
able to produce the affidavit, however, that does not determine in my mind as a -- from
a practical matter, that it could not have been posted later than that, but I would hope
that that might induce you to further consider the fact of the need for more involvement
from the community who is affected by this application. I appreciate your response and
I hope, in fact, that it was posted in a timely fashion, but I doubt it. The application in its
general form I believe is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and I think it should
be declined on that basis. I think that if you examine your ability and your capability in
this -- in this proceeding, as you do in all of them, that you will find that it is an attempt
to somehow determine that the consideration for this property should be evaluated
purely from an easterly heading westerly direction and that leaves three-fourths of the
rest of us out of the equation for some reason, because the Comprehensive Plan
designates the property to the east as regional mixed use, which could be construed to
anything from a big box or let's say a Target or something along those lines, to
something like an office campus, it would appear to me that the applicant is trying to
convince you of the fact that the -- that they are going to mitigate that somehow, when,
in fact, the Comprehensive Plan allows you the right to mitigate it going the other
direction. I would hope that that would not be a point of confusion for you as you
carefully consider this application. To the contrary, if you were to go over into the
Summerfield Subdivision, which is a medium density development, with the same
definition of medium density that's placed on this subject property in your
Comprehensive Plan, the movement to the east from Summerfield is diametrically
opposed to what Summerfield is with the same designation, density transfers
notwithstanding. I think Mr. Centers appropriately identified the give and take, which
the applicant would have you believe they are giving by giving up a pocket park and a
city park, that that is not truly a basis for granting these density transfers. If I were living
in the Summerfield Subdivision and saw the approach that's being taken, it would
definitely reduce my compatibility with that new development and it would also reduce
the value of my property. Now, if we looked from the north heading south into this
development, what I just said about Summerfield is many times more obvious, because
to the north and west of the development are one acre parcels that have been
preexisting there for 25 or 30 years and, then, as you head to the center and easterly
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 38 of 84
portion of the north of this development, you have five and larger acre residential
developments. From the south where I live, you have developments from one to seven
or more acres. I would hope that you would not be misled by believing that you're
having to mitigate a regional mixed use with a planned unit -- well, the zone change, the
planned unit development, and a CUP, because I think that that is only one-fourth of the
equation and the other three-fourths is strong in opposition to it. My wife and I, who
have lived there for 20 years and we have raised our family, have anticipated that Tom
and Sue Davis would eventually cave in to the pressures that are constantly put upon
them to develop this ground. I might add that they are probably the two of the finest
neighbors that a person could have and I certainly respect their right, as has been
brought up earlier in another hearing with regard to private property rights, to sell their
property and have it developed. That is not the issue. The issue is to develop it in a
consistent fashion with what is in the area and which would provide for the long-term
maintenance of the concept of living in Meridian, Idaho. Now, if you read the
Comprehensive Plan, there are numerous paragraphs, which talk about that distinction.
The thing that -- when I read it that stuck out in my mind the most was that Meridian did
not want to be become and be known as a bedroom community and, yet, everything
that the application has proposed this evening is consistent with us being another
bedroom community to Boise, because there is not that much in this plan, if anything,
that differentiates us from them. Now, I believe that it's good to be friends with your
neighbors and city to city I guess those are neighbors and that that should be
considered, but this development is too dense. It maximizes the profit for the
developer, which, as a capitalist, I agree in principal is okay, as long as it's not taken to
the extreme and this application I think is extreme. This six acre park is something that
I find to be -- to be interesting -- and I'm going to read to you, as requested, a letter from
my neighbors John and Shirley Schey, who were unable to be here, who are traveling
out of town. They apologize at the beginning of it and ask at this time for me to read
this letter to you. You have the letter and so I'm not going to -- I'm not going to bore you
by reading it again, but I believe the neighbors here are as entitled as you are to hear a
couple of these comments. They say -- and I quote: When we received your letter we
were both shocked and dismayed, not with the fact that things do change and progress,
but what shocked us was the overwhelming density of the layout of this planned unit
development. The small lots and the density of a large portion of these homes and
townhouses are not even close as comparison to the surrounding existing subdivisions
and/or neighbors in the areas. Thereafter, this propose is not in the best interest of the
neighborhood in the areas. Therefore, this proposal is not in the best interest of the
neighborhood and their existing residences. They go on and cite a paragraph or two
about the safety on Ustick Road. For instance, Wingate Lane, which is -- which this
park -- what's the name of the entrance street on the east? On the west? Park what?
Borup: Oh, on there -- this subdivision you mean?
Blakeslee: Anyway, for some reason they wanted to change the name from Wingate in
that westerly entrance point -- and I forget what the name of it is. It starts with Park. At
any rate, the access to get on -- from Wingate onto Ustick Road right now is taking your
life into your own hands. It's a private lane, unimproved, most of the people who live
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 39 of 84
there are -- live on acreages sufficient enough to have horses and there is, actually, a
horse training facility or two down there, and this application doesn't provide for that
preexisting condition in any way, shape, or form. The Ada County Highway District
report, which the transmittal which I read, which was some 15 to 20 pages long, and
having sat with you -- or not with you, but as you are sitting, I know how tedious these
are to read, particularly, if you have multiple items on the agenda, but if you have read
this and if you are in the same boat that the average commissioner would be in handing
off to them the responsibility for our roads, you have made a fatal mistake, at least in
this one application transmittal. The two conclusions of law that they have stated are,
number one, and the proposed site plan is approved if all of the site-specific and
standard conditions of approval of satisfied. You can go through those in their volume.
Paragraph 2. ACHD requirements -- and that's the ones just referred to in Number 1 --
are intended to assure that the proposed use slash development will not place an
undue burden on the existing vehicular and pedestrian transportation system within the
vicinity impacted by the proposed development. In my opinion, the first statement says
we are going to approve it based on the conditions and, Number 2, this is why we exist.
If you, like me, were reading the newspaper about ten days ago, you understand that
they are in a fiscal turmoil right now and they are not going to be able to do many of the
things that they want to do with regard to our transportation system, particularly as it
pertains to new roads. Excuse me. I have a cold here this week and it seems to be
coming back. Getting back to the park, you have this park that is sitting in the interior of
the subdivision and because I am a real estate agent for the last 24 years in this town
and in this valley, I can assure you that Mr. Centers was absolutely correct in his
observation with regard to who benefits from this park. They give it to us and, in return,
ask for more density and, then, they come in and ask for half of the cost back and, then,
they provide six whopping parking spaces for the public to come in and utilize it. That is
laughable on its face. And, then, the transportation department tells us on the westerly
side that we can't park there, because that's a theater street, but that we can park,
according to the applicant's representative, on this westerly approach, which,
incidentally, if you count that long string of north and south running lots, are 15 or 16
lots without a curb in the street. I can well imagine if anybody could ever find that park
who was a member of the public and not in that subdivision, got there and had their little
one playing anywhere near that speed zone that's going to be created by having such a
long and straight street, that there is going to be a horrible result and so not only is it too
dense, what they have planned is ill-conceived, in my opinion. The letter that I was
reading from the Scheys, my neighbors, also indicated that if a public park was truly
going to be part of this plan, it should be out on Ustick Road where the public can
benefit from it and I might add that would keep, from a selfish standpoint, those of us on
the southern boundary used to looking at the one hundred plus acres that our kind
neighbors allowed us to view for these last 20 years, we wouldn't be looking at the back
of what were termed duplexes or double units on small lots and I think that is something
that, hopefully, that you would consider. The only other thing that I thought was really
quite interesting and I notice that Jim Merkle and Don Hunt are the co-applicants, I
know Mr. Hunt was a renowned football player from Borah High and, then, Boise State
University, but I find it very interesting that the majority, if not all of the streets in this
subdivision are named after the old coaches and male teachers, as I recall, at Borah
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 40 of 84
High School where I attended as a sophomore in high school and I compliment them on
that, I think that's a nice legacy for the people who spent those many years at Borah
High School. In summary, I would simply like to remind you that as your commission
implies, you are to try to make the tough calls in our community and my heart goes out
to you. There is never a winner in any of these -- in any of these applications, believe
me. Particularly sitting there where you are. But I would submit to you that upon
careful consideration you will feel as good as the applicants on Setter Cove, which you
will be hearing, I think, on March 6th
, an application for 15 lots adjoining this subdivision,
where they have made these lots approximately a half an acre, which is a nice
mitigation between Summerfield and Heritage to the north and which is, in my opinion,
truly a medium density. One other item that I'd like to mention about having commercial
-- particularly, the kind of commercial that's proposed here with regard to storage
buildings, there is a storage complex within a statute mile of this application that has
approximately 750 units in it and it's in a commercial zone and it impacts the residential
only slightly, because it's built on a busy street. It's open 24 hours a day and, in my
opinion, whoever is living by those is going to feel the impact of that kind of use virtually
24 hours of the day. I appreciate your letting me air my concerns and encourage you
to, if nothing else, table this until we can get better organized as a neighborhood or to
decline it as it's presently constituted and ask the developer to go back in and try to do
a more compatible application. I'll stand for questions if there are any.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Blakeslee?
Blakeslee: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify?
J. Blakeslee: I'm Julie Blakeslee and so you're going to get the full shot here from both
of us tonight. I hadn't planned on saying anything tonight, but just have a couple of
things that are very -- are very near to my heart that I feel like I need to share with you
and, first of all, it is a fact that we have known for -- ever since we moved on our
property that there would eventually be development across the street and this is not a
surprise to us. As my husband has said, I think our biggest surprise is the fact that the
density is so -- is so small and one of the things that only we can know that you need to
be aware of of living right where we live, is the fact that whenever there is a problem on
Eagle Road with congestion or if the roads are ice -- which we haven't noticed this year,
but traffic gets backed up to our driveway and that's a half a mile down from the
intersection at Ustick and Eagle and that is without this subdivision going in. When I
can see on the plat map that there are only two main streets coming out of that
subdivision onto Ustick Road, I cannot imagine what kind of extra traffic that is going to
put on that little segment of road between that half mile to Eagle and I'm not just saying
it, because, you know, I live across street from there, I have seen it get very, very
congested and it's going to get horrifically worse with that many homes going into that
area. The third point that I wanted to make is I was really surprised that there was not a
neighborhood meeting about this. I think, you know, it's hard to stop a train when -- you
know, if you have got the big engine going down the road and we don't mean to stop it,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 41 of 84
we just need to be able to let the little people voice their concerns. Those of us who
have lived on the south side of Ustick Road have been there many years. As John
said, we raised our family there, we have been there for 20 years, and we are in the
minority of the time of people that have lived there. The Holidays that are sitting beside
us have lived there since 1950 and I know that the Scheys have been there for 30 years
-- 30 some odd years and we are little people, we -- you know, we are single home
dwellings on acreages and, you know, maybe we don't have a lot of voice behind us,
but our feelings have not even been heard or considered regarding this very dense
subdivision that's going in right across the street from us and I would really hope that
you Commissioners would take that into consideration and give us a chance to maintain
the quality of life that Meridian has to offer to us and give us a chance to be able to
open this up a little bit and make it -- make our feelings heard and considered and not
just the developer who is out there to try to cram as many homes as he can into the
allotted spots and thank you for your time and I hope that, you know, you will be able to
make a wise decision on this.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Becky, do you have any final
comments?
Bowcutt: As I stated before, I will gladly meet with the residents and they don't realize
how difficult it is to find a location so that we can have these meetings. I called around
to JB's I asked them if they would allow us to have a room. I called the Sandman. The
only one we found was Best Western Rama and we had difficulty in scheduling. There
is, I guess, shortage of meeting rooms in Meridian. Nonetheless, I will be glad to meet
with these residents and discuss these issues. Concerning the irrigation ditch along the
north, the question came up as far as where is that ditch located in comparison to the
property line. It is my understanding, based on the property owner, that that ditch is
located north of this property line, so we are -- we are south of the ditch, so the ditch
lies solely upon their parcel.
Borup: Is that your understanding on the ditch. That it goes through the school
property also?
Bowcutt: It's just along -- as it goes through the school? I don't know. Ditches
meander when it goes through the school. What I'm told by the existing property owner
is right through there.
Borup: Right through here is on the north side?
Bowcutt: That ditch is on the north side.
Borup: Okay. I guess we need to -- has that property corner been surveyed?
Bowcutt: I believe the boundary survey was done on the property. A legal description
was provided.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 42 of 84
Borup: So there should be a pin there.
Bowcutt: There should be a pin there. Well, to answer Mr. Clapps' question, if the ditch
is on this property it will be tiled. I guess if it's on the other property --
Bowcutt: Yes, sir. Based on your ordinance, if it is --
Borup: If it's on someone else's property --
Bowcutt: If it were on this property we would have to pipe it.
Borup: Yes, this owner would not go on someone else's property and mess with it. Go
ahead.
Bowcutt: Thank you, sir. To kind of go through Mr. Blakeslee's concerns, I have known
Mr. Blakeslee for a long time. He was on the Ada County Planning and Zoning
Commission when I worked for Ada county and, then, as I went into the private sector
was on there for many years. We did post the site. My assistant posted the site. She
did an affidavit of posting that it was done one week prior to the hearing. Also, another
thing that I do, just as a safety catch, is I always drive by the site the same day it's
posted just to verify that they have posted the right property, because I have an
instance where the wrong property was posted. It's sometimes confusing. I did go by
there. I also took a precaution with your staff, I asked for two posting signs, not just
one, in the event that it gets blown over, because we -- the week it was posted we had
a lot of rain and wind, so we put two. It was posted, you have an affidavit, and I go on
the record that we did meet the criteria of the law.
Borup: So that was the 13th
or prior?
Bowcutt: Yes, sir. It was the seven days -- at least seven days prior. We met the
criteria. It was stated this application isn't consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Your Comprehensive Plan talks about medium density, three to eight dwelling units per
acre. I'm quite aware of the fact that no one is guaranteed the maximum allowable
density, but we are not asking for the maximum allowable density here, we are talking
3.58 dwelling units per acre and that calculation is based on the standard industry's
manner in calculating what your gross density is.
Centers: Becky, just --
Bowcutt: Yes, sir.
Centers: -- along that line -- I don't like to interrupt. Would you know what Summerfield
is?
Bowcutt: Yes, sir. It is approximately three dwelling units per acre. There are about
204 lots on approximately 69 acres, I believe.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 43 of 84
Centers: With very little open space. I think that went in prior to --
Bowcutt: Yes, sir. I have a copy of their plat right here. As you can see, their open
space is right here, it is approximately 1.25 acres, which, based on the 69 acres, would
be 1.8 percent of their gross site is open space. The bulk of their site is single-family
residential, 8,000 square foot minimum lots.
Centers: Let the audience know, I didn't know that you wanted me to ask that question,
but you were prepared for that question, weren't you?
Bowcutt: Yes, sir.
Centers: But I was concerned about it, because Mr. Blakeslee talks about density and I
figured that this subdivision wasn't near as dense as the one next door. Doesn't even
compare and it does meet the Comp Plan.
Zaremba: Well, while we are on that subject, I was just visualizing the back lot lines of
your proposal that back up against -- is that Summerfield?
Bowcutt: Yes, sir.
Zaremba: The fence lines don't line up exactly, but it appears to be just about one for
one.
Bowcutt: Yes, sir. That is correct. There are ten lots on the Summerfield side and 10
lots on our side.
Borup: And that is correct. From this street north -- this street north there are ten lots
on each side.
Bowcutt: Yes. When we talk densities, when Summerfield was done I was doing
projects in the City of Meridian and the philosophy at that time was the city wanted to
see 8,000 square foot lots. They had -- they did not require any minimum open space.
Very few subdivisions came in with any significant amenities and your staff can attest to
that. Since, then, the city's direction has changed and they have asked the
development community to look at differing densities. They are not asking for the
maximum, but they are asking us to look at alternative densities and try to provide
amenities that will benefit the neighborhoods that we are going to construct, plus
provide some amenity or possible use for the community as a whole and that's what we
are trying to do here. This is not a high-density development. 3.58 dwellings per acre is
not high density. If you look over as we -- if you move eastward toward the City of
Boise and you look at some of those subdivisions, Mahogany Park, some of those other
developments, they are hitting 4.5, some of them are dense, some are four. Heather
Meadows, I believe, is four dwelling units per acre. I did Madison Park. I believe it's
3.3. I did the Legends. We were approximately just shy over three. I did Cameron
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 44 of 84
Park. This is the average type of urban densities that we are seeing. The other thing is
you had a presentation this evening on the North Meridian Plan. One of the main
criticisms of Smart Growth and some of the other members of the public is the fact that
we are not providing self-sufficient neighborhoods that allow for differing uses to keep
those people in the neighborhood, so that they have access to schools, access to
parks, access to a dentist, a mini storage, whatever the case may be. They are harping
on us that our densities are too low, that the amount of land that we have is finite and at
some point in time, if we continue say with extremely low densities, one, we will never
been able to have public transportation and have it be cost effective and so they were
pushing the group, which included myself, that worked on that North Meridian Plan, to
bump those densities up, get them up, get them up to five, get them up to six. Not
every development, but try to get a balance. I think what I'm trying to get across is this
is not high density. This is not at that eight edge. We are at that lower tier. They talk
about the development that Mr. Hollister is proposing. I know Mr. Hollister very well I
have worked with him on some projects. When his project comes through, you guys will
struggle with the fact that he does not meet his minimum density. That is a minimum in
your new Comp Plan, because of the input from Smart Growth and other agencies.
The other issue was mitigating for future uses. Mr. Blakeslee indicated that it should be
the responsibility of Mr. Moore to mitigate against us. Well, from a planning perspective
that's why we have designations on your Comprehensive Plan map, so that we can plan
what our adjoining uses will most likely be, so we can provide buffers -- provide
transitioning uses, all those things. We have looked at the larger picture, not just at this
and say, well, when Mr. Moore comes in, then, he will have to deal with these residents,
he will have to build a 10 foot masonry wall, like what went on at the Crossroads
development. Traffic. If you look at ACHD's report, it states in there the level of service
out here is better than level C. Also, Ustick Road is on their CIP or their Capital
Improvement Plan, so it is planned for improvement. Secondly, we are connecting to a
collector roadway that heads west out to Locust Grove, so our sole access is not just to
Ustick, there will be an alternative and it is a collector. Also along Ustick Road we will
have right and left-hand turn lanes as a requirement for both entrances out to Ustick
Road. There was a discussion about the park and the location of that park. We were
chastised for putting the park between two roadways. However, your parks plan states
that they want these parks to be open and visible and to -- like if we look at a
community park, for example, they don't want any lots backing up. What's happening is
you're seeing them placed between roadways, collectors and arterials. If it's not safe
for children to play in that park next to a local street, how is it going to be any safer if I
move it south and put it next to a minor arterial Ustick Road? I would say that we are
making the problem even worse. I mean you can look at these things from different
perspectives. I understand their concerns and I always try to do as much as possible to
mitigate the impact and try to do the best planning that I can. I work with staff, I work
with the Highway District very closely, and I typically try to accommodate the neighbors
as best I can. Obviously, some of the opinions here, they just flat out don't like the
project. I don't know what I can do. If they think 3.58 dwelling units is too dense, I don't
know what I can do. We can't provide the diversity and the amenities and push these
down to two dwelling units per acre. This is a good project, it's a good quality project,
and I ask that you recommend approval. Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 45 of 84
Borup: Any other comments from any of the staff?
McKinnon: Not at this time. Thank you.
Wollen: Mr. Chairman? Do you have the affidavit of posting?
Borup: Yes.
Wollen: I just want to know, does it have an actual date on it or does it simply say that it
was posted seven days prior?
Borup: it just states seven days prior. Okay. Discussion from the Commission?
Rohm: Yes. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that has been passed on to the City
Council was the discussion of the neighborhood meetings, that we believe from an
ordinance perspective that that's the best way to mitigate these concerns brought forth
by the public and at the time that this application was made it wasn't an ordinance then,
but it is now, and it's something that it sounds like from the discussions that have been
put before us need to take place and I think Mrs. Bowcutt --
Borup: That was one of the reasons I allowed extra time for the testimony tonight,
because they had not had that opportunity.
Rohm: Well -- and I think that both parties have done an excellent job of presenting
their position, but, notwithstanding, there isn't any opportunity to move in any direction
based upon where we are right here and now. It seems to me that it would make more
sense to get back together and say, okay, let's see if we can come up with a consensus
opinion that we could both support and it's not -- it's not as if they are saying that they
don't think that the development is going to occur, because they believed all along that
that property will, in fact, be developed. There are some minor issues that seem to be
sticking between the two sides of the fence here and I don't think, personally, it's our
position to solve that here tonight. That would be my position.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
(Voice from audience.)
Borup: Well, the hearing is open, but this isn't really a back and forth debate. Let's go
ahead and get your comments on the record. Why don't you go ahead and come on up
and --
Blakeslee: John Blakeslee, 2545 East Ustick Road, Meridian. A lot of the people who
may have come this evening who did not wish to testify may have a strong feeling and if
you allow it, we could take a poll, so that all of you would know that instead of two or
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 46 of 84
three of us opposing the -- as my wife called it, the fast moving train, that there may be
more that were of like opinion.
Borup: That may be good. I guess my assumption was everyone was opposed, but I
may be wrong, so let's go ahead.
Blakeslee: Thank you.
Borup: Would you like to invite them to -- well, all those who are in opposition to this,
would you like to raise your hands? Let's leave them up and let's go ahead and get a
count, then. Four, five, six, seven, eight.
Centers: Mr. Chairman? While the word opposition -- so, in other words, the
neighborhood meeting maybe wouldn't help if they are in opposition to the project.
Rohm: They are in opposition based upon its current configuration. That doesn't mean
that they are in opposition to development. I think that to put it back to a community
meeting may resolve the issues at hand. I don't -- I don't think that anybody here is of
the belief that that property should not be developed. I think it's just the minor issues as
to maybe the density or maybe the park location or maybe a number of issues that were
brought up by discussion are things that they would like have an opportunity for input
and I'm not suggesting that you throw the project out, because I agree with Mrs.
Bowcutt, that it is a good project, but if it was -- if there are differences that can be
resolved through a community meeting, then, everybody benefits from having that
opportunity and, then, bring it back at the next scheduled -- what would that be, the third
-- four weeks out from today or can we hear it again in two weeks or what's the --
Borup: It would depend on what time. Well, it would probably be -- yes, a month from
now. I think we are already filled up on the next meeting, so --
Rohm: Well, it's --
Borup: And maybe the one after that.
Centers: March 20th
.
Rohm: I think that from my understanding of things, it's our job to make sure that we
meet the expectations of the community as a whole, as well as the developers
themselves, and if, in fact, there is this diametric opposition to the development as it's
currently laid out, to give them an opportunity to work together to come up with
something that's mutually agreeable serves everybody's interest and I think I stated that
enough. That's my position.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I do have a couple things, if I
could jump in at this time.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 47 of 84
Borup: Okay.
McKinnon: If that's okay with the Commission. Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Commission, just a couple things that haven't really been addressed tonight that I think
should be addressed, if you want to go to the neighborhood meeting, some of these
items probably should be addressed as well. One of the items that was brought up by
Mr. Blakeslee that was not addressed was hours of operation of the multi -- I guess the
mini storage facility.
Centers: Excuse me. That would have to come back through a CUP.
McKinnon: That would have to come back through a CUP.
Centers: And we would address it, then.
McKinnon: As part of the Development Agreement that's typically something that's
addressed in a Development Agreement as well, so that would be something that you
could address at this time as part of the annexation through the Development
Agreement.
Centers: I hadn't heard of that.
McKinnon: And, then, just to go back to what Commissioner Rohm was discussing with
the neighborhood meetings, we don't have -- when this application came before us
there was nothing in our code requiring the neighborhood meeting, there is nothing in
our code now that would require the neighborhood meeting. Neighborhood meetings
are strongly recommended, but there is not an outright requirement for that. You, as the
Planning and Zoning Commission do, understand the new ordinance, have the ability to
require the neighborhood meeting take place. In requiring the neighborhood meeting to
take place it seems like there is a few items that have been brought up that need to be
discussed or that were requested to be discussed. Among those would be the fact that
Mr. Blakeslee felt that it was -- that the proposed application is not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and that it's diametrically opposed to the Summerfield application
in front of you and that it's too dense and I think we have heard that we have a
Comprehensive Plan that supports the density that has been requested and as part of
the state code requirements you are required to approve a Comprehensive Plan, so we
went through a process of three years and we went through and said here is what we
want to do with this piece of property in the future. Now someone has come before you
and said here's what you asked for, here is what we have got, so you have got an
application in front of you that meets the requirements of something you spent three
years working on. To say it's diametrically opposed to the Comprehensive Plan, the
Comprehensive Plan says three to eight units per acre or more density as you go
through the Planned Development, plus a 20 percent land use exception. To require
them to go back and mitigate for that in a neighborhood meeting I don't think we are
going to get an accomplishment, especially when we have something, as Mr. Centers
pointed out, that -- the statement was diametrically opposed. Residential medium
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 48 of 84
density and residential medium density adjacent to each other, there is no diametrical
opposition. These are residential adjacent to residential. They may not be the same
size of house, but in our Comprehensive Plan it calls out for a mix of housing types. It
doesn't say that only like housing types can be adjacent to like housing types. If there
is a requirement for a neighborhood meeting from the Commission, I would suggest that
specific items to be addressed at that neighborhood meeting to be resolved. It sounds
like there are some items that may need to be resolved and some items may end up
being in opposition, regardless of what happens at the neighborhood meeting, and I just
wanted to point that out to you that you do have a Comprehensive Plan and it does
comply with the Comprehensive Plan.
Centers: That's a good thought. Yes and, Mr. Chairman, I was thinking about it and I'm
in agreement with Commissioner Rohm, but, then, what are they going to talk about,
was what I wondered, because they are low density now, it fits the Comp Plan, I mean
are you going to get -- are you going to go back to a meeting and just do this? I mean
there is nothing to resolve. The only thing that I can see that you might want to talk to
them about is moving the park and that's not going to be up to you, that's kind of the
City of Meridian, too, that's involved in that. Since I have the floor regarding the park,
my position still stands. That doesn't impress me. However, that's the city parks and
their decision to make. Now, I don't work for the City of Meridian, so I can voice my
opinion. I'm not paid by them. My opinion is that their policy is not a good one.
However, they have a lot more open space there due to that park. The city may go in
there and mow that, but they have got a lot of open space in that area, so they more
than meet the open space requirement. I think they have eleven percent and they are
required to have five. I'm close so -- but my opinion and my comments on the park, you
took them out of context. That was -- you know, they have the space. I don't agree with
the way it's handled, I think they -- and their homeowners should mow it and not me, as
a city taxpayer, pay the bill. I don't call that shot, so -- but I'm in agreement, I don't
know what they are going to talk about at the neighborhood meeting. I had some other
notes here and we covered them all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Zaremba: Let me ask staff a different subject, like that subject. If we were to insist on
the zoning L-O and a C-G in the appropriate places does that suddenly, create a need
for a 20-foot landscape buffer that currently doesn't exist?
McKinnon: Give me one second to look at what I wrote in the staff report. If I
remember correctly, I addressed about the buffers between separate land uses being
required already based on the uses. The zone is irrelevant to the Landscape Plan -- to
the Landscape Ordinance. It deals with the use, rather than the underlying zoning. If
you could give me just one second?
Zaremba: I like the idea of having it be different zones, but if it suddenly creates a
burden that otherwise doesn't exist --
Borup: They might have a buffer there already.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 49 of 84
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, page 10, item number four,
detail Landscape Plan already calls out for a 20 foot buffer between the mini storage lot
and the western boundary of Lots 2 and 5, Block 7. That's the office lots adjacent to the
office park.
Zaremba: Okay.
McKinnon: So I did have that covered in the staff report.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, along that same topic, you know, you stated that we would
have to have, of course, a Development Agreement and, then, specify the hours, which
I didn't know we covered in a Development Agreement I thought we did that with a CUP.
Borup: You don't have to specify the hours, but that would be an opportunity to do it.
Centers: But the way it reads -- and, then, the applicant presents conceptual
warehouse, conceptual office lots. By us -- if we were to approve this, we agree with
that conceptual plan. We agree with that so they come back with a mini warehouse and
we are almost obligated to approve it, period. Even though it's a CUP so what good is a
CUP, because we have conceptually approved it tonight? Follow me? The only thing a
CUP allows us to do is set the hours, maybe make them put up a better fence, and the
construction that we don't have a lot of control over, we don't have a design review
board and that type of thing. I would like, if this is possible, in our agenda, we cross out
the four office lots and put other, and we cross out the mini storage lot and put other
that we don't necessarily agree with the concept. We will look at it when they come
back and we bring everything in R-8 the way it is right now and we are approving all the
lots, if we approved it, the way they have presented it, with 275 single family, 52
townhomes, four other lots, two commercial -- two other lots, one other lot, one pocket
park and one city neighborhood park. I don't like to be tied to having to approve that as
a mini warehouse down the road. So could we do that?
McKinnon: You could.
Centers: She wants it all R-8 -- or they do. We bring it in as R-8 and we have all those
lots and we look at it later. They come back to us, it's a planned unit development, and
so they have the authority to come back to us. It's conceptual, but that has always
been one of my little pet peeves, conceptual, and, then, we are drawn into it, we almost
have to approve it later.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, would you feel more comfortable if
it's -- if we had the underlying zones, the L-O, the C-G and --
Centers: We are committed to that, then.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 50 of 84
McKinnon: We are committed to that, but not committed to the proposed uses that are -
- that area could be zoned -- that area is zoned commercial, that area is zoned office,
but not being tied to the concept that's been presented to you tonight.
Centers: But the way I'm thinking -- the way I feel right now, I'm comfortable with R-8
just like that applicant. Bring it all in that way and then, you know -- because in the
Comp Plan it doesn't provide for L-O and C-G there, it's medium density residential. I
got my Comp Plan out and looked at it.
McKinnon: Yes. I don't -- Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, I don't disagree with
that. The -- there is so much flexibility written in our code to allow a 20 percent land use
exception for something that would be -- to take place without the underlying zone
being the same as the use. That goes with the Comprehensive Plan as well. The
Comprehensive Plan says medium density -- same thing we did with Lochsa Falls.
Same thing we did with Bridgetower. All of those said medium density, low density, and
we allowed them to go with the underlying -- with a use differently than the underlying
zoning definition, but with those we have left those as the R-4 and created some
confusion for us and we would like to eliminate that confusion. Within our ordinances
that were adopted of a Planned Development, it does allow for a conceptual Planned
Development, which is what they are requesting. If you're uncomfortable with it at this
and you would like more time to discuss it, or you would like to not have to be tied --
and, you're right, we are tied somewhat by conceptually approving this, saying that this
is something that we can agree with.
Centers: I'm okay with the vision.
McKinnon: So they have got the vision for that. I'm wondering if there is some way that
you would feel comfortable by restricting certain uses from those areas, rather than
saying that those areas can be used for a specific use. We do have the right -- the
applicant has the right to request those uses under a conceptual approval to our
ordinances.
Borup: Well, I think that opens up more than what they are proposing. I understand
what you're saying, Commissioner Centers, but if a concept plan is presented to us and
we don't agree with the concept, I think maybe this is the time that we say, no, we don't
so agree with that.
Centers: Well, the one thing I have to agree with Mr. Blakeslee on -- well, more than
one thing -- is the storage units and 24 hours normally they are open and you don't
normally see them in an area like that, as Mrs. Bowcutt stated. She did a development
and she put it -- back of the property adjacent to the freeway as a buffer.
Borup: Well -- but that had a whole row of houses adjoining those.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 51 of 84
Borup: And, again, there is -- that -- the property that that's going to impact is going to
be the people living right there in this subdivision, any nighttime storage like -- I don't
know if you have visited with -- or been by storage buildings at night, but they are -- the
traffic studies show that there is --
Centers: They are not there that much. Right.
Borup: Right.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think it was Mr. Blakeslee that
brought it up that within one statute mile there is another storage unit. I believe he's
referring to the Avest Mini Storage that backs up to Fred Meyers that-- on the south
side, but on the north side of that it's surrounded by residential. If you don't believe that
this is a good concept and like to have additional discussion on that concept, you could
make a motion, if you're okay with the rest of it, except for that, pass that along to the
Council as your recommendation, that they not approve that for that use and that they
have to come back with the use another time and that's not approved.
Zaremba: Is a motion in order to close the Public Hearing?
Borup: Well, I think it --
Centers: Well, are we going to close it or postpone it?
Borup: Okay. There has been some additional testimony, so, Mrs. Bowcutt, would
have a chance for final comment.
Bowcutt: I will be very brief. I'd just like to answer Mr. Centers' question. To give you
an example of why we --
Borup: Becky, maybe --
Bowcutt: Oh. Becky Bowcutt.
Borup: Yes.
Bowcutt: To give you an example of why the Planned Development Ordinance and the
underlying R-8 zone is preferred, let me give you a scenario. The City of Boise, some
applicants came through and asked that a particular piece of property be zoned L-O-B -
- or L-O. Excuse me. In that -- with that property they said it was going to be office.
Under Boise City's ordinance, as a Conditional Use Permit, a hotel is allowed in an L-O
zone.
Centers: With a CUP.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 52 of 84
Bowcutt: With a CUP so, a few years go by, the property is sold, somebody comes in
and they said -- come through with a hotel and the residents are just horribly upset,
because it was said that it was going to be office. They argue we have got an L-O
zone, by darn, you know, and it says we can have a hotel as a Conditional Use and it
was a real fight. The planned unit development gives you that ability to say this concept
is approved for residential compatible uses. When they come back with a site-specific,
if they came in with a horrible site plan, a very poor buffering, very poor building that
you considered not residentially compatible, because there are office buildings that are
residentially compatible and there are others out there that are not. Since -- you're
correct, Meridian has no design review. I would expect this body -- that is your only
mechanism to say, hey, we approved this as a concept for residential compatible, with
residential compatible hours, uses, you know, architecture. What you're proposing is
not what is in the Development Agreement and I think that can be placed in that
Development Agreement to protect the --
Centers: Yes. But, then, that verbiage I like, residential compatible. I like that.
Bowcutt: Because --
Centers: And I was never in agreement with the L-O or C-G or designated with a zone,
because I -- well, we saw the same thing she's talking about with that hotel and an L-0
zone and a CUP. It was turned down eventually, but it took a lot of time. Yes,
residential compatible.
Bowcutt: Because it is a privilege to the exception and they can't demand it, because of
the -- there is no underlying zone for it. That's what I call the beauty of that. Thank you.
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Okay. David, did you wish to make a motion? Like I said, we have given an
opportunity several times and it's not really a debate back and forth. I don't know if we
have heard anything new. Commission Rohm, you have got someone out there in
support of your comment.
Rohm: That was my thought, so --
Centers: I'd like to hear what they are going to talk about, Mr. Chairman, at the
meeting.
Borup: Okay. Let's come on up. What would you propose for items of discussion?
Lundgren: Marty Lundgren, I represent Summerfield Subdivision. What Summerfield, I
think, would really like to talk about in that meeting is the transition from our subdivision
to theirs. You're going to have houses that back up to their subdivision, 2,000 plus
square feet abutting houses that are 1,200 square feet. You're going to kill property
values. It should be your responsibility to protect those homeowners and transition in.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 53 of 84
If we could talk to them and say those homes, you have to be compatible with
Summerfield and, then, work into your smaller ones, that's fine, but our houses should
be blend with theirs, not a solid transition, and we could work that out in a meeting.
One more additional topic that has not been mentioned -- and I will be brief -- is the
school. They are taking credit for that grade school and our kids -- their kids are going
to go there. The school -- my wife was on that for the school. They didn't know about
this subdivision. That school is going to be overcrowded with that many homes.
Borup: Just a minute. The school boundaries I saw didn't even have this -- this -- is
that correct the boundary for this -- for that new school is north of McMillan? That's --
Lundgren: Within the boundary of the school.
Borup: No. No. The boundaries that are attending the school are north of McMillan.
That was the map I saw in the paper. The paper was wrong?
Lundgren: Or approximate. I don't know.
Borup: Well, no, I mean -- yes.
Lundgren: Okay.
Borup: Has the paper ever been wrong before?
Lundgren: Okay so that school will be overcrowded much to soon with this much
development. They were not part of the planning for that school population. That was
never even considered. They are trying to take credit for that in this application and they
never communicated with the school district.
Borup: Well, I don't know that they are taking credit for --
Lundgren: Look at the application. They do. They say that our kids will be close to the
school.
Borup: Do you know about what size the lots are in your subdivision?
Lundgren: 8,000 square foot plus.
Borup: Okay.
Lundgren: And she even pointed out we have three acres -- three houses per acre on
average. Okay. They will have 3.68. That's 40 percent more.
Borup: Well, your concern was the property abutting your subdivision.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 54 of 84
Lundgren: Yes and they are all very tiny sub lots that in this application say they are
going to be 1,200 square foot homes. That's much different than a 2,000 or 2,500
square foot home. They should have to transition like any other neighborhood does to
their neighbors, transition into what they want.
Borup: Okay. Well, no, I understand your concern, but they do have the transition.
Lundgren: Where?
Borup: They have got three -- approximately 14,000-foot lots abutting your subdivision.
Lundgren: But what's the home requirement? 1,200 square feet.
Borup: And what's the requirement in your subdivision?
Lundgren: 1,600, I believe. I don't know. I don't know if there are any that are that small.
Mathes: Yes, but if you have a 14,000 square foot lot, you're going to put a 1,200
square foot home on it?
Lundgren: I don't know what they are developing. You're assuming. And you can't
assume that.
Mathes: If you're spending that kind of money on a lot, you're not going to --
Lundgren: You cannot assume that.
Centers: I think the square footage of the home that you heard was the minimum.
Lundgren: Exactly.
Centers: Right.
Lundgren: Who's to say that they are not going to be there?
Centers: No. On the larger lots only a fool would do that.
Lundgren: My point and in a meeting with the homeowners --
Borup: You could work that out.
Lundgren: We could work that out.
Borup: So that would be one item you would like on the agenda.
Lundgren: Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 55 of 84
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Becky, could you just -- well, question on the lot sizes. We didn't answer that. I
mean on the home sizes. Maybe that would be good to have here. Is that the same
throughout the subdivision or do you have a different -- okay. Let's read the covenants.
Okay. The covenants 1,500 square foot, so that's larger than Summerfield.
Bowcutt: No. That is Summerfield's.
Borup: Oh, that's Summerfield. I'm sorry.
Bowcutt: Yes. 1,500 square foot.
Borup: Okay. Yes. Summerfield has 1,500 square foot on single, 1,800 on a two story.
Bowcutt: That's correct.
Borup: Now, can you explain -- are you 1,200 blanket through the subdivision? Do you
have different sections that have different square footage requirements?
Bowcutt: The town -- the square footages vary from the townhomes to the single family.
I think our bottom for the detached single family is 1,200, but we are -- minimum. We
are willing to match the Summerfield covenants for those lots along that Summerfield
western boundary.
Borup: How about the northern part of your subdivision, too? Weren't those larger lots?
Bowcutt: Oh, with the larger lots --
Borup: Which is on the north of the subdivision. I assumed you would want to do the
same thing.
Zaremba: Only the request for those five or six lots was single story.
Borup: Well, we just -- yes. This is not a discussion back and forth.
Bowcutt: I don't know what the square footage to the north is. I guess you could
technically have that 1,500 around that perimeter along Paradise and, then, wrap down
along Summerfield.
Borup: Those are your lots that were from, you know, nine to -- nine to 12,000 -- 14,000
square foot lots.
Zaremba: Well, let me ask you, do you think some of these issues could be resolved by
having a neighborhood meeting?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 56 of 84
Bowcutt: I feel --
Zaremba: You seem willing to work with the objections that have been made.
Bowcutt: I would like the opportunity to proceed forward and meet with these residents
before I get to the City Council and get these square footage issues, fencing -- like I
said before, some people are just opposed and I don't think there is anything that we
can do to satisfy them. We are willing to work on fencing and the square footage issues
and I think -- I think that can be done between now and City Council. If not, we will be
there battling like we are here. It is in our best interest to get with these residents and
see if we can find some middle ground. We want to be a good neighbor to Summerfield,
to Paradise Estates.
Borup: Okay. Anything else from -- while she's up there? Thank you, again, Becky.
Commissioners? Did everyone -- anyone else have any other comments they'd like to
make?
Zaremba: Well, there are some issues and I -- on the one hand, I feel that some of them
could be resolved at a neighborhood meeting. I know the applicant would like to have it
move forward faster than that, but we have been told many times by the City Council
get things resolved before you send them to us, don't have hanging issues in front of
the City Council. I think the opportunity for a neighborhood meeting is important. As
Commissioner Rohm said and I think Commissioner Centers has agreed that I think --
Centers: Well, if they had something to talk about.
Zaremba: -- as a whole the project -- yes, if there was something to talk about and I
think there are a couple issues that could be discussed and resolved. I agree that the
whole project fits with the Comprehensive Plan. There is -- we are not going to turn this
down lock, stock, and barrel, but maybe there could be some adjustments, and my
sense of it is the City Council would like us to hear the resolution before we send it on.
Borup: Well -- and they have stated they want -- they want a clean application on -- I
think on most parts. That means the plat not have any redesign issues and et cetera.
But I guess this could be close to those areas.
Zaremba: Are we ready for a motion? I would make a motion to continue the Public
Hearing pending a neighbor meeting.
Rohm: I'd second that motion.
Borup: Motion and second. Discussion, then? Oh, you're --
Centers: Yes. Mr. Chairman?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 57 of 84
Borup: Well, part of that -- if we are going to do that, I'd like to have some -- I think as
Mr. McKinnon said, at least some specific items to be discussed at that -- what is it that
we want them to --
Centers: Yes. Go ahead.
Borup: What information would we like to gain from that?
Centers: Yes.
Borup: If it's something different that what we --
Zaremba: Transitions along the entire borders.
Centers: Didn't the applicant just agree that they would do the homes to meet the
CC&R's in Summerfield on the west and northern boundaries? What more can they do
to that? They will build 15, 1600 square foot homes on the west and north. What are the
other issues that they are going to talk about?
Borup: Commissioner Rohm, this was --
Centers: And we can place that requirement on the west and north boundary lines.
Rohm: I agree with Commissioner Centers that the plan as presented meets the criteria
of the Comprehensive Plan and so to the end -- if, in fact, you took that just at face
value, we wouldn't have to have Planning and Zoning meetings. Anybody that
presented something that meets the Comprehensive Plan is automatically stamped and
I don't concur that that's the intent and so I still maintain that there may be some issues
that could be resolved in a community meeting that are specific to this development and
if, in fact, it's --
Borup: And that's what I was asking. What are the issues you'd like to see?
Rohm: Well, the transition for sure, and I didn't make very good notes on Mr.
Blakeslee's presentation, but --
J. Blakeslee: I would be more than happy to restate them.
Borup: Okay. His comments were location of the park and turning -- that was Mr.
Blakeslee that made these comments. The location of park and -- well, I don't know how
they can -- are you saying you're differing from ACHD's report requiring turning lanes?
Okay. He would like to see something else. We have got to get you either on record
or --
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman -- Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, have you guys
closed the Public Hearing?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 58 of 84
Borup: No, we haven't.
McKinnon: Thank you.
Borup: Well, let's let the Commissioners finish what discussion we are going to have
first.
Centers: Well, we can close the Public Hearing and still talk about it. I move we close
the Public Hearing.
Borup: It depends on what this motion is.
(Inaudible comments from Mr. Blakeslee.)
Centers: Mr. Blakeslee, I'm not. I mean we have heard a lot of testimony. Yes. That's
right. But the others might be. I don't know.
Borup: Okay. Who had -- you were --
Zaremba: I'm ready to make the motion.
Borup: You had a proposed motion that was not -- would not allow closing the Public
Hearing.
Zaremba: My motion would not close the Public Hearing, it would continue it until our
second meeting in March, which is the 20th
, with a requirement that there be a
neighborhood meeting between now and then.
Rohm: I will second that motion.
Zaremba: It would be to continue all three hearings.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just a clarification on the
motion. The applicant is -- I guess there is another meeting in front of the parks
commission I believe on the 12th
-- is Becky still here? Would you prefer, then, to have
that meeting prior to meeting with the Parks Commission or after you have had a
chance to meet with the Parks Commission? The Parks Commission has had an
opportunity to look at the park location and they are in support of that and if they are
going to be changing that, if they are going to be changing the location of the park, if
that's one of the issues to be discussed, should that be held prior to this meeting?
Borup: Well, Commissioners, we do have a 400 acre subdivision on the agenda for that
night, for one, and a --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 59 of 84
Zaremba: But this one is going to come back with all issues resolved and take five
minutes.
Borup: Well, we can limit it to what -- what specifically we want to hear. The other is a
smaller 40-acre subdivision and a couple minor items. That's what's on the agenda for
the 20th.
Centers: Well -- but you have a motion and a second. Can we discuss it, Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Yes. I thought that's what we were doing.
Centers: Just briefly. I think the attempt to postpone this is a blatant attempt to postpone
the whole project. I think it's just -- when Mr. Blakeslee came up and started talking
about the fact that it wasn't posted with no proof and we have an affidavit that says it
was posted, then, he said I doubt it, so I think this is just a blatant attempt to postpone
the development and postpone the transition from here to the City Council. The
applicant has stated they would work on the home sizes along the west and north
boundary line, what else is there to resolve? They are not going to put the park on
Ustick Road, I guarantee you. The city won't allow it. They are not going to contradict
what ACHD tells them to do. There is nothing that can be resolved -- I shouldn't say
anything -- there is very little that can be resolved at a neighbor meeting, other than
delay the project. That's my discussion. You bet I'm going to. We have a motion and
second, Mr. Chairman. I call for the --
Borup: All in favor? Opposed? One aye. Three opposed.
MOTION FAILED: ONE AYE. THREE NAYE.
Borup: Do we have an alternate motion -- or another motion?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on all three items.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAYE.
Borup: Okay. Are we ready to -- we still need a motion. Do we want a little bit of
discussion before we --
Centers: The Public Hearing is closed, Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Yes.
Centers: Could we take a five-minute break?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 60 of 84
Borup: Okay. We will take a five-minute break at this time.
(Recess.)
Borup: We'd like to reconvene our meeting. I believe we had closed the Public Hearing
and contemplated a motion.
Centers: Yes. Mr. Chairman, did you want to -- was there something, Commissioner
Zaremba, that you --
Zaremba: I would say I discussed and said my peace about having this be three
different zones and I was swayed by Commissioner Centers' comments at one point -- I
forget when in the discussion that was, but I could see having it be all R-8. I think I'm
the only one that was supporting having --
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Bruce brought up a point, too,
and I'd like to add it to that, if I could. It would be possible -- and I'll double-check on it,
but we could add another layer to the map and say R-8PD, so that it designates the
Planned Development for that section. Would that make everybody happy? That was
Bruce's comment. I don't want to take credit for it. He mentioned that earlier, so --
Zaremba: Well, if Bruce said it, then, it's --
McKinnon: That's what I said. I think that that would probably alleviate that concern if
we added the PD to it, if that's something that you guys would be amenable to, we
would probably add that and go with the -- and go site-specific Number 2 on the
annexation. We would be agreeable to that.
Borup: I'd just like to see that we keep control of that, which --
Centers: Add what?
Zaremba: Call it R-8PD. Planned Development.
Centers: Oh. Okay.
Zaremba: Planned Development.
Centers: Okay.
Zaremba: So it's not just, in fact, any R-8.
Centers: Okay. Moving along. Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 61 of 84
Centers: Regarding item five on our agenda, I would recommend approval of AZ 02-
033, request for annexation and zoning of 104.77 acres from RUT to R-8PD zone for
proposed Parkstone Sub by Hillview Development Corp., west of North Eagle Road and
north of Ustick Road, including all staff comments. Regarding Item Number 2 on their
comments, the annexation, strike Item 2 from the staff's comments, and including all
other comments. End of motion.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion?
Rohm: I thought we were going to include in the motion the transition?
Borup: This is just the --
Rohm: Oh, that is just the annexation. Okay. Okay. End of discussion.
Borup: Okay. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, moving along. I would like to recommend approval for Item 6 on
our agenda, PP 02-033, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 334 building lots and
34 other lots on 104.77 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Parkstone Sub by
Hillview Development Corp, that's west of North Eagle Road and north of East Ustick
Road, including all staff comments as amended. Page 11, Item 7, strike the second
bullet item. We would just simply strike that. Hopefully, you know, a second will agree
with me, that why have that pathway when we have mixed use -- high density mixed
use next door. I think that's obvious. Turning back to Page 10, Item 3, under site-
specific, we are okay with the applicant's request as submitted in the applicant's memo
dated February 19, 2003. Item 4, Page 10, under site-specific. We are okay with the
applicant's verbiage per her same memo dated February 19th
. Item 7. I covered that
ahead of time.
Borup: Probably some discussion on that. I'm not sure if we -- if that was what staff was
recommending.
Centers: They were stating and/or on the micro-path.
Borup: Yes.
Centers: As I said, if you agree with me, then, there would be a second. I'm just
eliminating it. We know what's going to be next door. It's not going to be residential. We
know that for a fact.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 62 of 84
Borup: Right.
Centers: Why would we want a micro-path to --
Borup: So the people can get to the commercial.
Centers: To a Target?
Borup: Well, it's campus office proposed at this time.
Centers: Okay. Okay. I guess I would agree with that. Item 7, Page 11, do not strike the
second bullet point and leave it and/or up to the adjoining developer and this developer
to decide that. If so, it would be placed between Lots 25 and 26 in Block 15.
Borup: In agreement with -- concurred by staff.
Zaremba: The issue there is that would be a staff motion and not be considered a major
change.
McKinnon: Thank you.
Centers: Item eight, staff is in agreement with the applicant's verbiage on her memo
dated February 19th
, with the insertion that they would like the option of a four foot fence
with see through slats, if allowing a two foot lattice. The applicant has stated that that
was fine. I need some help here, Dave. I added site-specific 13, additional pedestrian
path at west property line. Had we talked about that?
Borup: That's in number seven.
McKinnon: That's -- Yes. That's the --
Centers: That's 48 and 49.
McKinnon: That's correct.
Centers: Okay. Forget that. End of motion. Including all other staff comments.
Wollen: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers.
Centers: Yes.
Wollen: Just a clarification on your motion. First of all, were you proposing -- or were
you moving to recommend on the initial statement a request for Preliminary Plat
approval of 334 building lots and 34 other lots on 104.77 acres in a proposed R-8PD
zone?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 63 of 84
Centers: Correct. PD.
Wollen: And another one -- I just wanted to make clear for the record that your initial
motion that the comment -- comment 7 on Page 11, that it be that -- that that bullet item
be stricken out, that instead that was replaced with leave it as an and/or option.
Centers: Correct.
Wollen: Okay.
Centers: Thanks for the clarification.
Zaremba: And/or at a staff level.
Borup: Staff level approval.
Zaremba: Before I second it, a question of staff. Is this where we would give approval
for maintaining the 150 head of cattle and no sewer hook up?
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba. That was handled with the
annexation.
Zaremba: Okay so we approved that. Right?
McKinnon: Correct.
Zaremba: Okay. I'll second the motion, then, as stated.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would like to recommend approval for Item 7 on our agenda,
CUP 02-049, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for
275 single family dwellings, 52 townhomes, four office lots, two commercial lots, one
mini storage lot, one pocket park, one city neighborhood park, and 32 common lots on
104.77 acres for proposed Parkstone Sub by Hillview Development Corp., which is west
of North Eagle Road and north of East Ustick Road, including all staff comments and
adding Item 4 -- excuse me. Would it be Item 4? I want to add one. I know that. Is it?
Did you find it? Item four would be that the referenced office lots, commercial lots, and
mini storage lot, any approvals there would have to be residential compatible. In
addition, Item Number 5 -- that would be on the Preliminary Plat. Question for staff.
Can we -- you know, we wanted to make sure the developer built minimum 1,500
square foot lots on the west and north property line that abuts other subdivisions.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 64 of 84
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, I believe it would have been more
appropriate to place it at the -- with the Preliminary Plat and I believe the applicant
would be willing to make that a note on the plat in the future, even though it's not part of
the motion. In addition to that, you do have the ability to place certain conditions that
would minimize adverse impact on other developments within a Conditional Use Permit,
so you can include that as part of your Conditional Use Permit requirement.
Wollen: And I would suggest that --
Centers: So I can put item five, the minimum square footage?
McKinnon: Absolutely.
Centers: It took him awhile to tell me that.
McKinnon: I had to make sure it was in the code.
Centers: Item five under site-specific for the CUP would be that the west property line
and the north property line homes that abut other subdivisions must be a minimum of
1,500 square foot for a single level home, 1,800 square foot for a two level home, which
complies with Summerfield CC&Rs. End of motion.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed. Did I ask that?
Okay. Want to get it on the record.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Okay. That concludes those items. Thank you, everyone, for coming. There will,
of course, be another hearing at the City Council and there will be notification of that
approximately a month and a half is that about right, David?
McKinnon: That's about right.
Item 8. Public Hearing: PP 02-034 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7
building lots on 14.31 acres in C-G and R-40 zones for proposed Devon
Park Subdivision by Tamura and Associates – 824 East Fairview
Avenue:
Borup: Okay. Item No. 8 is PP 02-034, request for Preliminary Plat approval of seven
building lots on 14.31 acres in a C-G zone and R-40 zone for proposed Devon Park
Subdivision by Tamura and Associates, 824 East Fairview. I'd like to open the Public
Hearing at this time and start with the staff report.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 65 of 84
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if it's okay if I stand. I have
been sitting for a while? The highlighted area on the map in front of you shows the part
of the property that we are going to be dealing with. Originally when you saw this
project it was called Fairview Lakes and the part they are trying to plat right now is the
commercial portion of Fairview Lakes. Could you go to the next slide, Wendy? As you
remember, there was a lot of discussion with the adjoining neighborhoods concerning
Tierra Street and you asked for the placement of bollards on Tierra Street and I believe
you have all had a chance to read the staff report and there is some issues that have
been raised with Tierra Avenue and the bollarding of that street. Ada County Highway
District was not made aware of your recommendation to City Council. City Council took
your recommendation and required bollards be placed in this location on Tierra Street
on the south side -- or the south terminus of the existing Tierra Avenue. If you could go
to the next slide, Wendy? As you can see, there is a stub street that leads and goes
directly in that would connect. The placement of bollards would be in these locations on
the south terminus south of the road. Ada County Highway District did find out that that
was a requirement made by the city and now Ada County Highway District has said,
you know what? we are not going to let a stop light be in this location. Part of the
reason for allowing a stop light at this location is because there was interconnectivity
with the existing neighborhood and that we would rather see the stop light at Jericho,
because that's their first choice of where the stop light should be and if there is no stop
light at Jericho -- if there is no stop -- if there is no interconnectivity, they don't want to
see the stop light go in there, they would rather have it at Jericho. We met with Ada
County Highway District and the City Council at a Pre-Council Meeting on Tuesday of
this week. The City Council has asked the applicant, Doug Tamura, to submit a
miscellaneous application to revise the Development Agreement and to revise the
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law to remove the bollards from the road, that it
will connect, and there will be the possibility for a stop light there. In addition to that,
Ada County Highway District has submitted a memo, which you should all have,
requesting that the city not take action on this application until such time as this issue of
Tierra is resolved. The applicant in his submission did submit a site -- the site plan
showing the connection. They do not show bollards within the roadway on the plat. It's
not a requirement on the plat, because it is a survey document, so those bollards were
not shown there. Removal of those bollards would be something that would be held
separate from this subdivision. If you feel comfortable with moving forward tonight, with
or without bollards, you could recommend approval and leave it up to City Council to
make the final determination yes or no that they do not want those bollards in place.
You could make a recommendation with that that they either stay or go to Council at this
time with your recommendation. The plat itself aligns and is correct with the Preliminary
Plat that was approved -- not the Preliminary Plat, but the Conditional Use Permit that
was proposed, all except for the bollards. It meets the requirements that we set up for
them. It's in compliance with the conditions of approval. As you remember, there was a
requirement for them to plat this property to make the road that goes north and south a
public road and it was approved as a private road by the Council, with the caveat that
prior to occupancy of these buildings here they'd make this -- they'd plat this as a public
street. The major issue that we are dealing with tonight, just to crystallize is the bollards
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 66 of 84
on Tierra and whether or not you're comfortable sending it forward to Council with that
issue not being resolved at this time. I'd ask if you guys have any questions.
Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McKinnon, if I recall -- and I'm almost certain I'm right --
the residents on Tierra didn't want it to go through.
McKinnon: Absolutely correct.
Centers: Right and, then, what I read -- or what I read, is it a Catch 22? I mean does it -
- and, of course, the developer is going to answer this question. Do they want it to go
through or what's the preference here? Ada County Highway says no signal if it doesn't
go through. Well, okay, where do they want the signal, then?
McKinnon: For Jericho.
Centers: For Jericho.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, to address that directly, the -- Ada
County Highway District has not said they will not allow it. They said that staff will
recommend against allowing it and taking it back to the Commission saying Mr. and
Mrs. Commissioners, please, do not allow this to happen, because of the fact that this
no longer connects. There is no guarantee that they won't get it.
Borup: But are they -- if the bollards stay, are they intending to put a stop light at
Jericho?
McKinnon: No. They haven't decided yet. That's -- that's the issue at hand. It still is up
in the air. Okay. And the City Council has requested that they submit an application to
revise that to open up Tierra. There is a special notice being sent to those that testified
and everybody within 300 feet that will be discussed and rediscussed again.
Borup: It sounds like ACHD is saying to justify a stoplight they need the combined traffic
from both subdivisions?
McKinnon: Absolutely.
Borup: Or, potentially, both subdivisions, so that they are -- they would have an access
to Fairview in heavy traffic conditions, they could go either way.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Dave, I think it might be important to point out that, excuse
me, when the application was really submitted, the traffic report that was submitted with
the application was showing the connections going through. I believe that ACHD based
their decision on the connection and the traffic flows warranted the light. When bollards
are put in, traffic is blocked off, you don't have the same traffic flow and that's probably
what dropped it out of consideration.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 67 of 84
Zaremba: Let me throw another monkey wrench in. The way I read the ACHD letter,
there is a sentence that says: However, on July 10, 2002, the ACHD commission
approved the Planned Development as proposed, that included extending Tierra
Avenue to Fairview Avenue. That, to me, sounds like they thought -- they thought this
was going to go straight down.
McKinnon: That's -- Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, that's not entirely true.
They thought there would be a connection. It wasn't a straight down connection. The
one they did look at is this same layout that we are looking at right now.
Zaremba: All right so they consider that the extension?
McKinnon: It was a time line issue. Ada County Highway District dealt with this before
you and City Council did and so they made their decision and, then, all of a sudden, the
decisions that we made altered their decision and so they would like a chance to
reconsider the decision they have made based on the changes that the city made to a
plan that they had already approved.
Borup: I think we delayed -- I think we continued ours until we had the ACHD report.
Zaremba: I thought we did.
McKinnon: And, then, we changed it and so, then, they are saying we don't want to do
this. If I could address back to Bruce's comments? If I remember correctly, the traffic
count was actually much higher just for the Fairview Lakes Subdivision, much higher
than the traffic count on Jericho and the proper location, based on traffic count, would
be at the higher location. However, if there is not a connection between the two, ACHD
does not typically permit a stoplight that serves a single subdivision.
Borup: Well, my feeling at the time -- and I still feel is that this is a much greater benefit
to the people of the subdivision -- of the residential subdivision. They are the ones that
are going to be using it. There is no incentive for people in the commercial
development to cut through the subdivision to get somewhere when you have a
stoplight -- traffic light to go out. They are not going to wind through the subdivision. So
I think that this is still a benefit to the residential neighbors all along.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, let me ask you -- obviously, all those residents were noticed
again?
McKinnon: The applicant, Doug Tamura and Hopkins Financial, the original applicants,
did not -- I don't know if they have got an application yet. The applicant is here tonight. I
did e-mail Doug Tamura and I have talked with Doug Tamura since the City Council has
met and instructed him that a miscellaneous application would be required and he said
that there would be one forthcoming for that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 68 of 84
Borup: A separate application to remove the bollards is required; is that what you're
saying?
McKinnon: As part of the agreement and the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law
for the original project, it was required to install those bollards. In order to change that,
they are going through the miscellaneous application to change an existing report,
rather than starting over and modifying the Conditional Use Permit.
Borup: And that would require another Public Hearing?
McKinnon: It would require a Public Hearing, but it won't come back to you, it will just --
our legal counsel has stated that it would only be required in front of City Council so we
would notify all those people to tell them that that is being discussed again.
Centers: This wasn't noticed, the Preliminary Plat approval?
McKinnon: The Preliminary Plat approval was noticed.
Centers: What we are hearing tonight.
McKinnon: What we are hearing tonight was noticed, but those people that came to the
original hearing left with the understanding that there would be bollards there.
Centers: Yes. That's why they are not here tonight.
McKinnon: That's why they are not here tonight.
Centers: Okay. That makes sense.
McKinnon: I feel comfortable in recommending approval of this, because it meets the
requirements if there is a requirement for bollards -- if they keep the requirement for
bollards it wouldn't change what we have got. If they take the bollards out, it wouldn't
change what they have submitted. They have submitted something that shows the
connection. It meets the requirements of the approved Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law and the Development Agreement as they have submitted it. The
City Council shouldn't take action on this as a final approval until they get Tierra worked
out, but --
Centers: So you're okay with it being approved with the bollards? You know, I don't want
to take an end run on those people that were here.
McKinnon: Yes and --
Centers: A few months back.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 69 of 84
McKinnon: And we won't be making an end run, we will have to send out those notices.
I believe that you guys should have received a copy of the memo I sent to City Council.
I talked with Jessica -- yes, they should be in the packet. Their recommendation was
that we notify those people and have a miscellaneous application to let them know why
we -- we don't want to do an end around on them. If we were to approve it tonight
without bollards, it would definitely be an end around.
Centers: Yes. Yes.
McKinnon: And we don't want to go that direction. The only thing that I think that would
be of a concern from staff's position is if they keep the bollards there, this East Carol
Street would -- East Carol Street would serve no purpose and the applicant may want to
revise his plat to take out East Carol. If they did that -- if you recommended approval of
it the way it is tonight and, then, they decided to change East Carol Street, it would be a
significant change, it would have to come back to you. That's the only speed bump I
really see for you tonight.
Centers: Do you, then, approve that at staff level if they make Lot 2 a little bigger?
McKinnon: I don't know if that would be considered insignificant to take out East Carol
Street.
Centers: If we made that in our motion.
McKinnon: I would be okay with that. Bruce?
Freckleton: If you take out Carol Street in that stretch, you won't have public street
access to Lot 4.
Borup: That's what I was just going to -- that's what he's going to say.
Centers: Yes. It would be land locked, wouldn't it?
McKinnon: It would actually -- if you just tweaked it a little bit you could have public
street access on Tierra, but you couldn't get through the bollards. I guess that's
somewhat sarcastic. This was approved as a Planned Development and that's -- we
could make some modifications to that, but --
Borup: Another question, Dave. Was that the same lot configuration on Lot 4 that we
originally saw?
McKinnon: If you could go back, Wendy, just one more. I believe the original
configuration was very similar to that.
Borup: That's it there?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 70 of 84
McKinnon: That's it right there so I mean it --
Borup: I see it. I was looking at the access point at what, I guess, would be the rear of
that building.
McKinnon: Right.
Zaremba: Well, the driveway is on a curve and the question would be to the fire
department, is there enough room to turn a truck around in there. What if the truck got
to the far end of that --
McKinnon: This direction?
Zaremba: Yes.
McKinnon: Coming in -- well, this -- this is fun, because this is one of those conceptual
approvals.
Zaremba: Now it's conceptual?
McKinnon: Well, it was when you guys heard it originally, so what you're seeing tonight
is still conceptual. We haven't given any approval to this. When they come in, we don't
know if they are going to come in exactly like this. They may come in with a building half
that size.
Borup: We are just looking at the plat --
McKinnon: That's correct.
Borup: Okay.
McKinnon: And we have conceptually approved this layout, but, you know, there is not
landscaping issues, they have got a bunch of lots in a row without landscaping. This is
an issue that we are going to have to work out once we get to the detailed Conditional
Use Permit. It was just the concept that has been approved.
Centers: Okay. I do know the applicant is here tonight. I just turned around and saw
him, so if you have some questions for him, I will turn the time over to him.
Borup: Yes. Do you have anything the applicant would like to add?
Hopkins: Thank you. I'm Randy Hopkins, 1390 East Mallory Lane, Meridian, Idaho.
83642. Thank you. In general, there was no -- this is a -- almost a Catch 22 situation.
When we had the property under purchase agreement from Bill Curtis, the past owner,
one of our conditions was getting a traffic light approved. The reality is when the --
when we did the approval here, we thought it was of benefit to the subdivision owners.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 71 of 84
Well, to our surprise that night at the meeting, we said, well, I guess if -- you know if
everybody wants to put a bollard up, then, we don't have a problem with that. Well,
ACHD had approved it with the connectivity, so now we are in a box. Well, simply,
Doug, who had a friend pass away, my partner, said, Randy, simply what we just want
to request for the Commission tonight is approval of this plan subject to us submitting
the miscellaneous application, which, then, requires us to give notice -- and I'm going to
be sending the letter out tomorrow of showing what we are doing in the entire
development, that the miscellaneous application to remove the bollards, because we
don't want to do an end around on them, we didn't plan to, it was -- just came through
the media, it was just -- it was a timing situation where we didn't think it would be an
issue. Well, then, ACHD comes back and says, of course, that. One reason why we
didn't think it was, Pat Dobie -- Dobie, our traffic engineer, we are going to generate
about 12,000 vehicle count per day just from inside the development, so it's a little bit of
a misnomer to say that that mandation of the connectivity, because as your staff
mentioned, they still might approve it. Well, obviously, that wasn't our intent is not to
have a traffic light. I mean we proceeded with the acquisition of the property and
everything with it. Recognizing that neighbors affected, they need their -- they need
their air time again, and the reality is we would like simply your recommendation to
approve to City Council, subject to the miscellaneous application being made to remove
the bollards. Then, they get public notice and as your staff mentioned, it would not
have to come back to you, if you just simply approve it that way. That is my request.
Are there any questions?
Borup: Any questions of Mr. Hopkins? What is your understanding that -- I mean ACHD
wants the traffic light -- or would you prefer a traffic --
Hopkins: Yes.
Borup: -- at this point?
Hopkins: Obviously, there was some kind of -- whether -- it's not miscommunication, but
it's with the general -- internally generated traffic expected upon the build out of this and
I just read in the folder Dobie's report about in a three to five year build out of the traffic
count going to internally generate 12,000 cars, but it was based on connectivity.
Connectivity. Again, we looked at it, again, as a positive thing to the owners and when
they came here and it was negative, we thought, well, okay, I guess it's okay to put a
bollard up, because, really, we don't care as long as everybody else doesn't care so
now ACHD came back and said, well, we do care.
Centers: Mr. Hopkins, is this where the apartment complex is?
Hopkins: Yes. On the backside.
Centers: How many units was that?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 72 of 84
Hopkins: Our initial plan is 192 and the -- we are going to be most likely modifying that
request and I don't know -- I guess, to me, I'm just a full disclosure guy, so the reality is
we have reduced the size of that to 96 units and in the center -- and I -- if we had an
overall plat I could show you -- or I can hand this around. We have -- in the center of the
development, we are going to be coming back and requesting of building 24, own-your-
own office building complex in the center, where you can build a 1,500 square foot to a
5,000 square foot building and own your own pad site and own your own office so,
actually --
Centers: You are going to be seeing us again.
Hopkins: Yes. Yes, we will but that doesn't --
Zaremba: Inside the apartment complex?
Hopkins: What's that?
Zaremba: That's inside of the apartment complex?
Hopkins: That's not inside, no. We are reducing -- the apartment complex would be on
the northern -- that's not the entire plat. Do we have another map of the entire plat?
Borup: The apartments are up here?
Hopkins: Yes. Half of that -- the top half of that -- the original was about nine acres for
192 units. We have reduced that because of just the vacancy in the markets, 12
percent, to reduce it to 96 units for predominately one bedroom, the Jackson Drain
goes through there. We have met with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation, we know how to deal
with that, so we have reduced that, so that the apartments line up on each side and will
be very nice and on the other four and a half acres on the south part of that, then, this is
where we want to do the office use. Yes, we will be coming back to that. And Doug is in
the process of preparing that. The reality is the traffic counts, if anything, will be at or
above apartment use, because we have about 55,000 square feet or 24 businesses
now that will be there. Just as another note, because you mentioned the landscaping
issue, too. As I -- I do plan to do something along a -- as I mentioned Lexington Hills,
where we recirculate water and we create the Fairview Lakes image. The slogan that I
have thought of is Meridian's premier living and working environment. That is going to
be integrated into this, but yes, we have to come back for that. Oh, simply, I think in
front of the Commission right now is simply just a recommend of approval subject to this
miscellaneous application, which makes us deal with the -- with the bollards with the
neighborhood, so that we didn't -- there is no intent of an end around on us either, it's
just what -- ACHD's position and, of course, we would like a traffic light in front of our
project and we bought the property with that and I think, actually, it was an emotional
situation and we just kind of found it surprising, actually, it was recommended with that,
just in general, because, again -- it was required, I guess, but we thought, okay, fine, if
that's good with everybody, then, it's okay. That’s where we are at.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 73 of 84
Zaremba: Refresh my memory. Isn't your main entrance on the half-mile?
Hopkins: Yes. Basically at it, yes.
Zaremba: So that's --
Hopkins: It's slightly -- the half mile is, actually, I guess, the -- it might be our westerly
boundary. Yes, it is -- and so we are about -- the entry is about two or three hundred
feet from the west boundary -- our west boundary. Basically, that half mile marker, yes.
Zaremba: That's still closer to the half mile than Jericho, isn't it?
Hopkins: Correct.
Borup: Well, then -- and Main Street kind of throws that half-mile concept off as far as
traffic.
Centers: And you really want that signal and I don't blame you.
Hopkins: Oh, absolutely.
Centers: Yes. I don't blame you.
Hopkins: Yes. I mean -- Yes. Exactly and I think, again, I will talk to the local subdivision
owners nicely, definitely, and cultivate that. In fact, I just talked to some of the neighbors
tonight and they said, well, we understand. We came here more -- they got the
previous entertainment that we had, they decided just to go home, because I showed
them the plat and I told them I'm going to be sending a letter out and here is what's
going to happen, you're going to get a Public Hearing again, because here is what's
happening, it was a weird situation and they -- one of the neighbors, they didn't -- they
thought it was, actually, of benefit. It’s just kind of where we are at. No, we don't want
to drive over the bollards to get to that one lot.
Centers: Okay. Thank you.
Hopkins: Thank you.
Borup: And maybe -- and we are not approving that, but the one concern I have -- and
that's the two neighbors -- the two neighbors right here. I think -- I would like to see if
that's -- if that opens up, some real intensive buffering and screening --
Hopkins: We will be glad to do that.
Borup: -- for those --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 74 of 84
Hopkins: And we already did agree to like ten or 15 feet and the reality is if we need to
-- in essence, we will be generous with that and I agree, because that -- and he's -- I
can't remember the gentleman's name, a very nice guy, though, and he expressed his
concern and we said we are going to take care of you nicely and we just haven't quite
got to that stage.
Borup: Well, I wasn't quite so concerned with the bollards, but now with that -- you
know, if that changes, I think that may necessitate some fencing and screening.
Hopkins: Yes and, to me, I think that can be decided at the Council, if this is the issue,
because that's exactly what it will be subject to.
Borup: Thank you.
Hopkins: Thank you.
Centers: I had a question for staff. The subject that Mr. Hopkins referred to, are you
comfortable with that and the homeowners that would be totally protected?
McKinnon: I would be --
Borup: We will also be taking some more testimony. Go ahead, David.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, I would be happy -- I think those are
great additions and we have no objection to those.
Centers: You heard that subject to --
McKinnon: No problem with that. I think the additional landscaping is something that is
important and they did originally -- they did, with their original application, redraw that to
include additional landscaping.
Borup: Anything else, David?
McKinnon: I don't have anything else.
Borup: Would you like to testify, ma'am? Come on forward.
Morgan: My name is Bernadine Morgan. I live at 1187 East Fairview, right directly south
on Jericho, and when we try to make a left-hand turn out now, we can't. We have to go
around down to Locust Grove, turn on Pine Street, and, then, into Meridian. Right-hand
turn, yes, we can make. Then, the other subdivision on the other side there,
Stonehenge, they come in on us. Then, across the street on Jericho they come in on
us.
Borup: So you're right around here, somewhere in there?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 75 of 84
Morgan: Yes.
Borup: Okay. That's close enough. That's all right.
Morgan: This is our property right here. This is Jericho and if the stoplight is here, it may
be of benefit to us and, again, maybe not.
Borup: Well, yes, I don't know that we can -- okay. Now we can now that you're on the
microphone.
Morgan: It may be of benefit to us and, again, it may not. It just depends. We would be
approximately a quarter of a mile from that stop light, by that time the cars are
beginning to pick up speed, so --
Borup: But that would provide a break in the traffic when they stop at that light,
providing you a chance to get out --
Morgan: Well, we still have so many major ones coming in there. You know, all of this --
we are going to want to sell eventually and do something with our property there, but,
then, we are not -- we don't want to move yet. Give it to our son. We don't want to
move. I don't know, what is the answer? Just how is it going to work?
Centers: Well, ma'am, are you -- you're not really necessarily here opposing it, you're
wanting to --
Morgan: No but, then, I'm just wondering if there is going to be 12,000 more cars out of
the place, what -- what is the answer? Is it better for us at Jericho or --
Borup: Well, it sounds like ACHD would not -- is not interested in doing one at Jericho.
Centers: Or at least not both.
Borup: Well, no, they wouldn't do both.
Morgan: No. Probably not but also -- now see we have --
Borup: You need to grab that microphone right there, if you --
Morgan: Yes. Right here. That is stubbed off at our property. We have water and sewer
right to that and that is the back of our property. In time, we are going to be wanting to
develop something in there and so, with that in mind, what is the traffic going to do for
our plans? I would like to see something nice and quiet go in there, like, frankly, a
bunch of senior citizen homes, because we sure can't find them around Meridian. You
know, you talked tonight about the size of the lots and so forth in these other
subdivisions. We can't handle anything like that and going to a townhouse, 145,000
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 76 of 84
dollars for a townhouse? We still have to live on Social Security. No, we can't go that
way. We will have to sell our place and for something and subdivide, but, then, we have
got to also protect the most that we can, so we can sell for something commercial,
probably. It's shows on the map.
Borup: I thought you wanted to build senior citizen housing?
Morgan: That would do. If they can give us one then, something we are going to have to
put on there. We are going to have to get some money out of it, so we can live for the
next five to 10 years. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you, ma'am. I believe that is it for everybody in the audience, unless you
had something, sir? Did you have -- any final comments, Randy? Okay.
Commissioners? Do we understand what the -- what that open-ended approval needs
to entail?
Centers: Yes and -- well, I guess, you know, we are caught in the middle here, too. We
approved this once, you know. Yes and he gave me the verbiage that I figured out here
and Dave is okay with it.
Zaremba: I will move the Public Hearing be closed.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would recommend approval on Item 8, yes, PP 02-034,
request for Preliminary Plat approval of seven building lots on 14.31 acres in a C-G and
R-40 zone for proposed Devon Park Sub by Tamura and Associates, located at 824
East Fairview Avenue. Including all staff comments, in addition to -- subject to the
submission of a miscellaneous application to remove bollards to allow -- and to allow
public notice to neighbors prior to the City Council hearing. End of motion.
Zaremba: Second.
Wollen: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, was there also going to be language -- I
thought that you had brought up earlier that you wanted, in addition, that if the Council
does approve the road without the bollards, that there be an additional buffering zone
for those two parcels?
Borup: I would like to see --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 77 of 84
Centers: He's earning his money, Mr. Chairman. I would like to amend my motion and
add that, that if the bollards are removed and the street goes through, that additional
buffering will be allowed for those adjoining landowners on each side of the street.
McKinnon: Required?
Centers: Required.
McKinnon: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: The second accepts the amendment.
Borup: Motion and second. Any other discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank
you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9. Public Hearing: AZ 02-032 Request for annexation and zoning of 5.0
acres from RUT to R-2 zones for proposed Northbridge Subdivision by
Centennial Development, LLC – west of North Meridian Road on West
Ustick Road:
Item 10. Public Hearing: PP 02-035 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 5
building lots and 4 other lots on 5.0 acres in a proposed R-2 zone for
proposed Northbridge Subdivision – west of North Meridian Road on
West Ustick Road:
Borup: Public Hearing AZ 02-032, request for annexation and zoning of five acres from
RUT to R-2 zones for the proposed Northbridge Subdivision by Centennial
Development, LLC. This is west of Meridian Road and off of Ustick. We’d like to open
that Public Hearing at this time and also we'd like to open Public Hearing PP 02-035,
request for Preliminary Plat on the same parcel.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, again, this is an application for
Northbridge Subdivision and annexation and zoning of five acres from RUT, the
property is currently located in Ada county, to R-2, which is a rural residential district
zoning and Preliminary Plat approval of five building lots and four other lots, and a
miscellaneous application for a private road. I will go ahead and put that -- all right. The
surrounding land uses are to the north we have West Ustick Road and to the north of
Ustick Road is zoned L-O. To the south we have Salisbury Lane Subdivision, which is
zoned R-4. To the east we have rural residential development zoned RUT located in
Ada county. To the west we have rural agricultural property zoned RUT, also in Ada
county. The Strausser Farms Subdivision zoned R-4. Meridian Road borders Strausser
Farms Subdivision to the west. I will highlight what -- a couple of the major issues that
you're going to hear. Staff is recommending approval. Probably the primary issue we
will talk about this evening -- the applicant is proposing that the road be designated a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 78 of 84
private road. Staff is recommending that this either be made a public road or a private
road meeting all public road standards, including drainage. And we are also
recommending that the applicant provide a stub to the western portion of the property.
Are there any questions of staff?
Borup: Go ahead.
Zaremba: I'm sorry. Would the stub be satisfied by tweaking the traffic circle that's at the
end to touch the property line, so that it eventually could be connected?
Kirkpatrick: As long as it is 50-foot wide, yes.
Zaremba: Well, I, actually, would enlarge it, but -- you have this -- I'm focusing on the
little bulb that's at the south end of it here.
Kirkpatrick: Yes.
Zaremba: If it either were enlarged or twisted just a little bit, so that this side actually
contacted the property line.
Freckleton: Commissioner Zaremba, that is what staff is proposing.
Zaremba: Oh. Okay.
Freckleton: That would basically turn into a 90-degree corner with a knuckle.
Zaremba: Yes.
Freckleton: Yes.
Zaremba: Okay.
Freckleton: More or less just follow the alignment of the sewer and water that you have
got shown there.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: A clarification on the staff approval. You had said either a private road to public
standards or a public road. Didn't ACHD recommend a public road with modified design
criteria?
Kirkpatrick: Correct.
Borup: And that's still --
Kirkpatrick: And we support that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 79 of 84
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Well -- and I would support that also. If this is going to become a stub street
and eventually connect to another subdivision it needs to be a public road.
Centers: And, Mr. Chairman, from what I read, any private road is direct to the City
Council and we have no involvement in that. It was clarified by the Planning and Zoning
that this application is to go to City Council only. That was MI 02-013. And that was with
a private road, wasn't it?
Borup: We don't have the applicant here to --
Centers: Right so why are we talking about the private road? We either approve it with a
public road or nothing.
Borup: Yes. Well, that's what I feel.
Centers: Yes.
Borup: We can approve a public road as modified.
Centers: Right.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: And, then, if they want to go to a private road, then, they make their appeal
there direct to the City Council. Correct? Okay.
Borup: Would the applicant like to make their presentation?
Amar: Mr. President, Commissioners, Kevin Amar, 114 East Idaho in Meridian. The
decision on a public or private road was determined yesterday when ACHD wouldn't
allow us to do an alternative design standard that has not been allowed in the past.
Borup: They would not allow it?
Amar: In the past they would not.
Borup: Oh.
Amar: They made an exception for us yesterday. The hearing was yesterday. With that
exception, we can go -- or we think we can go public. The question in this area is the
high ground water and that was the whole -- the initial thrust to do a private road in the
first place. We can meet DEQ's requirements, but DEQ and other agencies don't always
agree or see eye to eye and so I think with that, putting that stub street in and as long
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 80 of 84
as we can meet the requirements, obviously, of DEQ, we would be happy to propose
this as a public road and the alternative design standards. For your information, the
alternative design standard would only include a sidewalk on the lot side or the east
side of that road, separated from the street and, then, a borrow pit on the rural section --
rural road style, than an urban style. But that's all I want to say. I'll answer questions.
Borup: So is that designed for the drainage to go to the west or -- entirely or does half
the street still drain to the -- does the street still drain both ways, still --
Amar: The street still can drain both ways. This is a section that they started doing in
Nampa, putting that borrow ditch to actually get a grass swale and separated sidewalks,
and, then, using that area as a runoff retention area. The majority of the runoff,
however, would go to that west area.
Borup: So you still have to have another drainage area for the other side in addition?
Amar: That's what my engineer tells me.
Zaremba: What you're talking about is Lot 7 right? Is the drainage?
Amar: Yes. This area and, obviously, we still have to redesign to meet the drainage
standards and the --
Zaremba: And that's a common area maintained by the homeowners association?
Amar: The homeowners association. Uh-huh. My only concern was going -- if we are
doing a public road, I have no concerns with the stub street. I don't want a stub street
onto a private road.
Borup: Oh, it makes sense to think that a future street would follow that sewer
easement anyway.
Amar: You would think so.
Borup: Any other questions from any Commissioners?
Mathes: Is there high groundwater everywhere in the parcel?
Amar: The groundwater is about three and a half to four feet.
Mathes: How are you going to build houses with high groundwater?
Amar: You can elevate the pads. We can also do a -- another way with high
groundwater is done with a slab on grade or a cement floor.
Mathes: So there is no mold in the foundation.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 81 of 84
Amar: Exactly. We may think we are in a desert, but there is a lot of water in the ground
and so we do have to come up with alternative building methods and one of those is a
concrete floor or elevate your building pads where you groundwater is above an
unknown elevation. That is something that we are extremely interested in.
Borup: So there have not been test holes here yet, then?
Amar: Yes, there has. That's where we determined the groundwater would be at when
we did the test holes and they are monitoring those by Materials Testing. The initial
result that we had for the last few months of the irrigation season for the groundwater
was about three and a half to -- four feet to three and a half feet deep in this area. In
talking to the contractor that developed this subdivision, they had -- the whole area out
there has high groundwater. They put in this -- and that was -- when ACHD has
different standards and so all of their storm drain pipes are surcharged with water, they
always have water in them and always will have water in them and ACHD does not
allow that anymore. Not only do we have high groundwater and mold problems, the
West Nile virus is rapidly approaching also. I think this may be -- we will see how it
works in here and in Nampa, but this may be something that could be considered on
other areas of Meridian that does have high groundwater.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? If I could maybe add to that just a little bit, just for
informational purposes. When Mr. Amar speaks of the DEQ BMP's, the requirement as
it stands right now is three foot of separation from the bottom of the drainage swales
that he would have here -- from the bottom of those swales you have to have at least
three feet of separation to the high groundwater mark. The City of Meridian also
requires that the streets centerline finish grade is a minimum of three feet above the
high groundwater elevation. The purpose of that three foot from finish center line grade
is that by the time you grade the lot back and, then, you have your foundation wall and
your footing, you're going to be at least a foot above that groundwater mark. That's our
goal is to have at least a foot above, so --
Amar: I consider it quite a bit of confidence. If we are only a foot above that
groundwater, it will be a concrete floor. I can't take the risk of letting mold be in this area
on any of my subdivisions. That would be a bad thing.
Centers: Not many concrete slabs in this --
Amar: There are a lot. We have done a few of them in Nampa and they have worked
out fine. People seem to be adverse to them until they go to a basement and they don't
think about it, that a basement is a concrete slab. You build it on the first floor and that's
a bad thing, but if you build it in the basement they seem to be okay with it. I can tell
stories, but I don't think any of us want to hear stories.
Borup: Any other questions?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 82 of 84
Amar: Very good. Thank you.
Borup: I don't think we are going to take any other testimony. There is no one else in the
audience. They have all gone home.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing on both these items be closed.
Centers: Second.
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Well, again, this is probably one of those subdivisions that doesn't meet the
minimum lot standards.
Zaremba: All right. Then, Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council
recommending approval of AZ 02-032, request for annexation and zoning of 5.0 acres
from RUT to R-2 zones for proposed Northbridge Subdivision by Centennial
Development, LLC, west of North Meridian Road on West Ustick Road, to include all
staff comments.
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All those in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending
approval PP 02-035, request for Preliminary Plat approval of five building lots and four
other lots on 5.0 acres in a proposed R-2 zone for proposed Northbridge Subdivision,
west of North Meridian Road on West Ustick Road, to include all staff comments, and
the decision made that it will be a public road and stubbed to the west at the turn
around.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: We need a second. Did we hear a second?
Rohm: Second.
Borup: I'm sorry. Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 83 of 84
Borup: Thank you.
Centers: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Yes.
Centers: I wanted to mention this before the 7:00 meeting. I'm just as guilty as
everyone here, just as guilty, maybe more so. I think we should make -- or I would like
to not make a motion, but I think we should make an effort to use a lot more protocol.
Mr. Chairman. Mr. McKinnon. Wait for the staff comments before we have questions.
Afterwards when they are done. Wait for an applicant to finish before we ask questions.
Because I think -- to be honest with you, I think if we follow those protocol rules I think
our meetings will go faster. We saw it tonight. I interrupted people -- you know, we
interrupt each other and, you know, I was discussing it with our able note taker, for lack
of a better term, and he agreed, of course, and it would make his job easier. He said, I
will tell you. The City Council does a lot better job than you guys and I said no doubt. I
just wanted to bring that up and, as I said, I'm just as guilty as the next guy, so --
Borup: Oh, I think I agree with that. Sometimes I think it can move things along faster
overall if maybe things are discussed at the time they are brought up, maybe, than
waiting to the end. They are fresher on the mind, but --
Centers: Well, as I thought -- and, you know, like I've done with an applicant, to make
our notes and, then, ask our questions. With the staff, make our notes, ask our
questions when they are done. The same applies to staff, too, as far as interrupting.
But I think it would move faster and I think it's just good to have the protocol.
Borup: Point well taken.
Zaremba: I agree.
Mathes: And I have a question about the 26th
. I guess it's the 26th
. Right?
Borup: Yes.
Mathes: I thought we were just hearing the north Meridian thing.
Borup: On the 26th?
Mathes: Yes. We have three things that came through for the 26th
, in addition to the
north Meridian thing.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Mathes --
Borup: Well, three things -- it's three hearings, but one project.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 84 of 84
McKinnon: I believe it's actually two projects. And the reason why is because of the
Comp Plan amendment nature of that, we had to add another Comprehensive Plan
amendment request with that hearing for the North Meridian Area Plan. It was for a
piece of property on the south side of Overland to the northwest of Black Cat and
change the Comp Plan map. As you know, you can only make a map amendment once
every six months, so we placed both of those on the agenda on the same night.
Borup: Well, one of them is a Comp Plan -- a Comp Plan change on the project -- it's all
the same project.
Zaremba: I'm embarrassed to say that I'm the one that made the motion to have the
third meeting in March and discovered later that I will not be here. Sorry about that.
Centers: The other thing that I wanted to mention -- and mentioned to Mr. Freckleton
earlier, in lieu of a turkey annually, I'll take another shirt, because they will wear out. I
think we should have the choice of a turkey or a shirt. Our annual compensation.
McKinnon: So noted.
Centers: You don't make the decision on that. With that, I make a motion that we
adjourn.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:20 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
/ /
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK