2003 01-16Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting January 16, 2003
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order at 7:00 P.M., on Thursday, January 16, 2003 by Chairman Keith Borup.
Members Present: Keith Borup, Jerry Centers, David Zaremba, and Michael Rohm.
Members Absent: Leslie Mathes.
Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Steve Siddoway, Nick Wollen, Jessica Johnson and
Dean Willis.
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
X David Zaremba X Jerry Centers
O Leslie Mathes X Michael Rohm
X Chairman Keith Borup
Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to begin our regularly scheduled
meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for January 16th
. We'll start
with roll call of the Commissioners.
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of December 19, 2002 Planning and Zoning
Commission Regular Meeting:
B. Approve minutes of January 2, 2003 Planning and Zoning
Commission Regular Meeting:
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AUP
02-010 Request for an Accessory Use Permit for five or fewer
children out of home in an R-8 zone for Angela Deane by Angela
Deane – 770 Abernathy Way:
Borup: The first item is the Consent Agenda a motion to approve that would approve all
three, Items A, B, and C.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I have a comment on Item B, the minutes of January 2, 2003.
Borup: Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 2 of 132
Zaremba: On the summary page, the first two pages, on the second page of that
regarding the ninth item, the Public Hearing, PP 02-025, what we recommended
approval of was, actually, 119 building lots and 12 other lots. That was a change from
117 to 119 and from 15 to 12. I'm looking at the summary sheet that -- the Item Number
9.
Borup: Which page are you on?
Zaremba: This is January 2nd
.
Borup: No. I --
Zaremba: The summary page on top.
Borup: Oh there.
Zaremba: That says what we approved and forwarded in this --
Borup: Right.
Zaremba: On the second page of that, Item 9, what we approved were 119 building lots
and 12 other lots.
Borup: Yes. That's what I was looking at was the motion -- or the motion said 119 and
12 and that was the original application number, I think.
Zaremba: The original was 117 and 15. It was changed to 119 and 12.
Borup: Yes okay so noted.
Zaremba: Those are my only comments one either of these -- any one of these items.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: I would move that we approve the Consent Agenda as amended, Items A, B,
and C.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second all in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 4. Tabled Public Hearing from January 2, 2003: PP 02-028 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots and 1 other lot on 12.081 acres
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 3 of 132
in an I-L zone for Gemtone Center Subdivision No. 4 by Thomas T.
Wright – west of North Eagle Road and west of East Pine Avenue:
Borup: Okay. Next item is -- actually, four, five, and six are all tabled from the -- or not
tabled. I'm sorry. Let me try again. Item Number 4 is a Tabled Public Hearing from
January 2nd
, PP 02-028, a request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots in an I-
L zone for Gemtone Center Subdivision. I'd like to open this Public Hearing at this time
and start with the staff report.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. On the
PowerPoint overhead, you can see the area of the subdivision that we will be
discussing tonight. It's the area that's in bold. This is an aerial view of the site. I'll just
spend just a few moments on this. I wasn't here at the last meeting, so I don't know
your background on this from the time it was tabled before, but just to give you a little
overview.
Borup: We did not have a presentation on it.
McKinnon: I'll go ahead and give you a detailed review, then. The reason why this
project was continued at the last Public Hearing was that there was some discussion
concerning the existing Commercial Avenue, which is a private street. You can see that
it's dirt at this time. It now has been improved to an asphalt surface. As you might
remember a few months back, almost a year ago, we had some discussions about Elixir
Subdivision and whether or not Commercial Avenue should be a public road or a private
road. Well, they have improved it all the way up to this point. It does not meet ACHD's
requirements, and it's still a private road at this time. When this subdivision was
originally approved at Preliminary Plat, the last time this was approved as Gemtone No.
4, the subdivision essentially, encompassed the area that I'm highlighting right now. It
is, essentially, bordered on Pine Street with the other local streets on the sides ending
on the western boundary. At that time this lot -- this would be Lot 1 and Lot 2 of Block 6
-- those lots were not included with the original approval of this that took place a
number of years ago as noted in the staff report. If I can move forward, this will give
you a better view. As noted in the overhead, there is Commercial Avenue that runs
right along this northern boundary of these lots right here. This application before -- the
reason why it was continued is because Commercial on the original application did not
connect. You can see that they offset. Commercial is public on this site and did not
connect with Commercial over here. There was an offset of about 50 feet between the
two streets. In addition to that, the requested Preliminary Plat approval that was before
you included a driveway that went from Pine Street all the way down this long, narrow
flag lot, to Lot Number 2 down here, rather than taking access off of Commercial Court.
You should have all received a few items today. Let me go through what those are.
You should have received a staff report from ACHD. They gave us the final report
today. You probably haven't had a chance to review that, but I will go ahead and
highlight a couple things after I'm done telling you the information that you received
today. You should have received a copy of Joe Silva's updated memo. There was,
really, only one change on that and I will highlight that as well. It addition to that, you
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 4 of 132
should have all received an eight and a half by 11 tonight showing the changes that
were proposed to the Site Plan. I'm just going to go ahead and go in reverse order from
that. You have the Site Plan. If you can take a look at that down at the area that, I
have got highlighted on the PowerPoint that would be the area of Commercial Street.
They have added Commercial Street to run from the existing Commercial now to the
existing private Commercial Street. ACHD does not want the two roads to connect at
this time, because Commercial on the east side is not a public road, it's just a private
road, and so they would ask that they would connect with bollards and staff is in support
of that, as you have read in the staff report. We'd like to see those two connected. In
addition to that, there was a requirement to complete Machine Avenue. If you're not
familiar with ACHD's policy of half plus 12, what that essentially, means is that the
developer that developed this parcel that's adjacent to Machine, instead of developing
the entire roadway on their parcel, they improved the roadway to have two lanes of
traffic, which is, essentially, half of the road, plus 12 feet. The other 12 feet would be for
the additional lane of traffic. Machine Avenue does not have a sidewalk currently on the
eastern side of the property to where it dead-ends. One of the requirements of ACHD
now would be that Machine Avenue is completed to its full width and the curb, gutter,
and sidewalk is installed on the east side of Machine Avenue. The new Site Plan
shows how that would take place. Now, if I can get you to grab Joe Silva's memo. Turn
to the second page. This is the only change from the last time, is that Joe has now
asked for an approval turn around on the north end of North Machine Avenue. It's not
shown on the Site Plan that was given to you tonight. Becky didn't have a chance -- or
the applicant did not have a chance to make these changes, because this came over
from Joe just this afternoon. The turn around would be at this location at the end of the
northern terminus of Machine Avenue. That would be to allow emergency vehicles to
make that -- that escape from the dead-end road. We can go to Ada County Highway
District's approvals at this time. I wish you had the opportunity to read this, but it goes
through site-specific items. If you could turn to Page 6, I will just go through a couple of
the site-specific items that need to be brought to your attention. It's going to be Page 6,
Item Number C-1. If you can get to the very end of that paragraph, it says if the city
does not require the extension of Commercial Street, then, the applicant shall be
required to complete the intersection and improvements of Machine Avenue. City staff
does support that the two streets connect. It doesn't make sense for people to not have
access from the existing public road in the future down Commercial Street to get to
Eagle Road. It doesn't make sense for them to have to go on two other arterials back
out to Franklin to get to Eagle and so we would like to see those two connected. We
would like tonight that you require that the two roads do -- that the two roads do
connect. If I could get you to look now down to Item Number 3. Again, the final
sentence of this section of the report says that they need to provide a written approval
to the Meridian Fire Department that indicates a turn around is not required at the
northern terminus of Machine Avenue. The memo that we just read from Joe says that
there is a requirement for that so there will be a requirement for that. It won't be able to
comply with that unless they show that they can put that turn around at the end of
Machine Avenue. I have taken a second to talk with the developer just this evening and
it looks like it would be possible for them to put a turn around on that property, so that
does not appear to be a major concern. They will be required to place the no parking
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 5 of 132
signs on Machine Avenue. I have done several site visits out to the area and currently
there are cars parked up and down both sides of Machine Avenue, both on the east
side and the west side in order accommodate parking for one of the larger commercial
uses on the south side of the Commercial Street at the end of Machine.
Borup: David, while you're on that, can -- can you explain the purpose of that stub
street, Machine Avenue? I mean is it anticipated to access that property to the north or
-- it looks like this applicant has no need for Machine Avenue to be extended at all for
their -- is that correct?
McKinnon: That's correct. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Machine
Avenue is not being required to be extended tonight for this application.
Borup: Well, but they are requiring a turn around.
McKinnon: They are requiring that they complete the half plus 12 and that's what
ACHD's policy is. There is nothing on the -- right now it's just edge of pavement. There
is no curb, gutter, or sidewalk.
Borup: Right. That was my question. That stub street is designed to serve future
property. Is that what's still anticipated here?
McKinnon: That is what's anticipated. The reason that the applicant is being required
to complete the western -- the eastern portion of Machine Avenue, is because that's the
portion of the property that -- the portion of the street that's on their property. In the
future we could not require say this parcel right here to complete improvements on
someone else's property.
Borup: Right. I understand that so this is the only -- is that landlocked or is this a
secondary access or we don't know.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, that property is not landlocked.
In addition to providing access to this lot, it also would provide access in the future as it
connects to Pine Street. Pine Street is where Eagle Road does have the stoplight and
so people could access Pine Street by going up north to Pine.
Borup: Okay.
McKinnon: A future connection there but they are not required to extend this road any
further.
Borup: No. I understood that.
Zaremba: Well, is the assumption that at some time Machine will connect to Pine and
Commercial?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 6 of 132
McKinnon: I went to the tech review at ACHD last week for this -- and Becky's here
tonight. She was at the tech review as well. There was a lot of discussion about
whether or not that ever will connect and it, essentially, hinges on whether or not the city
would like it to connect. ACHD, in my opinion, was either -- it was sixes either way for
them, whether it continued up or if it --
Zaremba: It certainly would help people that intend, eventually, to go from Commercial
and go north on Eagle they would probably go to Pine to the signal.
McKinnon: Right.
Zaremba: The end result of that would be that this applicant would need to do the half
plus 12 on their side all the way up.
McKinnon: The problem with them having to do the half plus 12 on their side is that
they would offset the road right at that point that we are right at now all the way back up
to Pine and ACHD felt that at this time there wasn't enough push for that. Brad, Steve
and I -- all three of us got together to determine what -- you know, whether -- we
couldn't figure out whether or not ACHD was going to want to require them to dedicate
that amount of right of way that would be allowed to complete a half plus 12 all the way
up to Pine Street. In talking with ACHD, they don't believe that it should connect and
they are not requiring that additional dedication.
Borup: I'm assuming Lot 1, Block 6, is not intended as a building lot?
McKinnon: It, actually, is intended as a building lot. In ACHD's report -- I was going to
go on just one more site specific comment on that and that's Item Number 4, which is
just the next one I was going to go to. ACHD in their staff report talked about how Lot 1
should actually not take access off of Pine Street, but, rather, should take access off of
Machine Avenue. The reason for that is because Pine is a collector -- commercial
collector and they'd like to limit the number of access points on Pine Street. They felt
that in order to limit the access off of Pine Street, they could take access to this building
lot by accessing it here, providing a driveway from the terminus of Machine and running
it up to this lot and not allowing access to Pine from that lot. That's one of the reasons I
wanted to bring it up to you. It doesn't -- from staff's point of view, it makes more sense
to front the building onto Pine Street and provide access onto Pine Street. It is not in
violation of ACHD's policy, but it is something that ACHD would like to limit. That would
be something that I would ask for you to make a motion on tonight as to where you
believe they should be taking access to that lot. I was just looking at -- yes. It's still lot -
- the revised Site Plan shows this lot down at the bottom now as Lot 1, Block 7, and so
the number -- the numbering system that we have used is going to be a little bit off, but
throughout the staff report the lot down here is Lot Number 2 of Block 6. Lot 1, Block 6,
is still the same number so as far as where you would like to see access tonight would
be something that I think the applicant would like to hear from you and something that
we can hang our hats on, essentially.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 7 of 132
Borup: Any idea the explanation for that configuration, the curve and -- does the
applicant own the unplatted area, too?
McKinnon: It was an old railroad spur. It actually came up through there to serve --
Borup: Are those separate parcels under a different ownership? Same ownership?
McKinnon: A long time ago they were under different ownership, if I remember
correctly. It was all part of the entire rectangular shaped piece of property that was part
of the Elixir Group. It wasn't Elixir? It was Western Chemical? Which one was it?
Borup: Well, it just looks like a poor way to do a lot.
Centers: How wide is this, Dave?
McKinnon: It's 50 feet.
Centers: Fifty?
McKinnon: Fifty.
Borup: It is -- the lot is -- well, I don't know if it's larger than it looks. It's not going to
take a very large building up there in that triangle section at the top. Okay. Well, I
mean --
McKinnon: It's 1.66, but it's got that long flag that runs up at 50 feet for approximately --
Borup: That's going to be up to -- that's going to be up to them to decide what they
could put on there if it complies -- you know, if you comply with the setbacks from Pine
Street and everything else.
McKinnon: Right.
Borup: And leave room for right of -- so they still -- 50 feet is not buildable either, is it?
McKinnon: It's going to be really hard to build a skinny building on that.
Borup: Well, 25 feet of that needs to go to the -- for future Machine Avenue, doesn't it?
McKinnon: A portion of that would be part of Machine Avenue's completion. That's
correct.
Zaremba: Then a landscape setback and the --
McKinnon: Yes it would be really skinny.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 8 of 132
Zaremba: So they have a building that's two feet wide.
McKinnon: Right.
Borup: Down on the bottom.
McKinnon: If I could just continue on to a couple more things, before we get into
discussion, and I know Becky is going to have a few things that she's going to want to
add. With the original Site Plan that was submitted, there was no Landscaping Plan
that was submitted for this parcel, which is now Lot 1, Block 7. There is a requirement,
as you will note in the staff report, for a new Landscape Plan to be submitted that
includes a landscape buffer for the future pathway adjacent to the Union Pacific
Railroad. In addition to that, there was no landscaping that was shown for -- for obvious
reasons, in this location where Commercial would come across and you would need a
Landscape Plan for that as well for the public street frontage -- street buffer Landscape
Plan. We would need to know how the applicant intends on landscaping or treating this
area in the future, this 50-foot wide area, as you have noted that it's really not buildable
at this time. There should be some treatment to that area in order to either, one,
beautify it or to keep it from becoming a nuisance, keep it from becoming a 50-foot wide
-- or a 25-foot wide, jogging up to a 50-foot wide weed patch. There needs to be some
sort of treatment that's taken on that area. Unless, of course, you decide to go with
ACHD's recommendation to require a driveway starting at the end of Machine and
running the access to this lot from Machine Avenue. Those are -- that really covers the
information that's addressed in the staff report as well. We do support the new revised
connections to the Commercial Street and there are a number of items that I would like
for you to strike from the staff report tonight, items that they have met on the revised
Site Plan -- the revised Preliminary Plat. If I could have you turn to Page 4 of the
comments, it would be the comments dated December 31st
on Page 4. If you would
strike Item Number 3, that was the -- that was the requirement for an additional plat
note. The plat note has been included on the new revised plat. Item Number 7, the
applicant has eliminated the 25-foot wide cross-access easement. That item can be
stricken from the staff report. Item Number 8, the applicant would be required to extend
the existing East Commercial Street. The applicant has done that as well so all three of
those Items Number, 3, 7, and 8, should be stricken from the staff report. With that, I'd
ask if you have any additional questions of staff.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Zaremba: I have a question probably directed to Bruce. On the response from the
Water Department, which they signed November 25, 2002, is the statement that what is
now being called Block 7, Lot 1, was part of the Elixir project, which we have talked
about, and was never accepted by the Meridian Water Department. What does that
mean to us? Or what does it mean to the applicant? Just in general what does it
mean?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 9 of 132
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, the parcel that they are referring
to, to my knowledge, never was part of the Elixir project. It's always been in the
ownership of Gemtone so I think their comment is in error.
Zaremba: Okay. Just having nothing to do with this applicant, but if a parcel was not
accepted, what does that mean?
Freckleton: Well, I think what he's -- I think his word should have been accepted, not
excepted.
Zaremba: Okay.
Freckleton: There was a water main installed in Commercial Street coming in off Eagle
Road down into this location. I'm not sure where he's going with that, but I don't think
the final inspections were ever approved and the lines never were accepted by the City
of Meridian for ownership and maintenance.
Zaremba: But if this project went through, that inspection would happen and --
Freckleton: Yes. They would be two totally separate projects, because this would have
to get its services from extensions of services off of Commercial through this area, not
off of Elixir.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: So you wouldn't be looping the water line?
Freckleton: Well, we would be looking to make the connection at Machine with the lines
that were installed as part of Elixir, yes.
Borup: That's what I thought.
Freckleton: So we would just have to work that out, but it is two separate projects.
Borup: Any other questions?
Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Dave, you had been commenting that you wanted
Commercial Street connected and maybe I lost you and, then, you said strike Number 8
on Page 4.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, the reason I asked you to strike
Number 8 is because the applicant has submitted a plat that does connect to the two.
Centers: But in your first comments when you first started you were talking about that
being a requirement, but they have done it, then?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 10 of 132
McKinnon: They have done it.
Centers: Okay. Great. Thank you.
Borup: And maybe just clarification on that same thing, then. ACHD wanted the
bollards, staff does not is that correct? I'm not sure why they wanted the bollards.
McKinnon: The reason -- Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the reason for
the bollards is because Commercial Avenue is a private street.
Borup: Right.
McKinnon: And we cannot force the applicant to allow us to have access to their
private street.
Borup: Okay.
McKinnon: The reason -- we have to have --
Borup: Well, does their street go right up to their property line?
McKinnon: The street, actually, if I have -- in discussions with ACHD and site, the street
actually extends beyond their property line and goes into part of Gemtone project.
However, the street is a private street, it's maintained by the owner of that. If the city
were to require them to open that up, the city would also have to make that a public
road. We cannot require them to make that a public road at this time, because the road
does not meet ACHD's standards.
Borup: Oh. Right. I understood that but if that road already extends past their property
line, Gemtone goes ahead and just connects to it, if the other property doesn't want
access, it should be up to them to put a barricade up, shouldn't it?
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, there is a barricade that's up
right now.
Borup: Okay.
McKinnon: So they have placed a barricade there. The connection that Gemtone
would be making would be separate to that but currently, the -- where Commercial
Court comes and dead-ends is about where my laser pointer is at on the map. There is
actually a chain link fence that's located right at the dead end portion of that road so the
bollards would keep vehicles from traveling across someone else's private property.
Staff does not disagree with the bollards being placed there at this time. However, in
the future, when Elixir requests that their property be re-subdivided or -- subdivided and
other portions of it annexed -- I'm not sure if it would involve annex -- when they come
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 11 of 132
back in to subdivide, like they did previously with the Elixir Subdivision, we can require
them at that time to make that road public.
Borup: If I remember right, I think we already did that once.
McKinnon: We did do that once. However, the applicant for Elixir Industries has said
I'm not going to do it, I'm not going to record my plat, so we have no way of requiring
him to do his public road now.
Borup: And the project that that was made a requirement on didn't go through.
McKinnon: It didn't go through and so we have no way of forcing him to allow us
access to that private road at this time.
Borup: Okay. They moved drown the street is what they did. Okay any other questions
from staff? Is the applicant ready for a presentation?
Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt and I'm representing the applicant in this matter 1100 East
Valli-Hi, Eagle. Dave's pretty much given you, you know, some of the history on this
project. This is a Preliminary Plat. We had obtained Preliminary Plat approval -- or not
I, but another planner years and years ago multiple Time Extensions were granted by
the Council, a Variance and, then, the applicants couldn't decide exactly what they
wanted to do. They allowed the Preliminary Plat to expire. Basically, what this is, is a
new Preliminary Plat going through the second time. As Dave indicated, that's a -- the
curvature there is an old railroad spur that Gemtone purchased from -- I think it was
Union Pacific Railroad. It was never built and so they added it to this project. We went
through staff's comments, ACHD's comments, we adjusted our Preliminary Plat to
reflect the extension of Commercial Street along the dog leg and just, for your
information, the reason that the block changes and the lot numbers change is because
we separate that with a right of way. Once that right of way separates that, we have to
change block and lot numbers. You were correct, Commissioner Borup, this body and
the City Council required Elixir to make their Commercial Street public, they threw a fit
and -- because they had built it, I believe, in advance and it was not constructed as to
ACHD standards, nor did they put sidewalk on either side.
Borup: I believe they were told before they built it.
Bowcutt: You're probably right.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, and Mrs. Bowcutt, the City
Council at first required it to be a public road and, then, there was an appeal to that. Mr.
Clayton, representing Elixir Industries, convinced the Council to allow to that remain
private after the first time they went public, so they did flip-flop on that. The final
decision of Council was that that road could remain private as part of the Elixir --
Borup: It wasn't built to ACHD specs? They built it private?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 12 of 132
Bowcutt: Correct.
McKinnon: Yes.
Bowcutt: Anyway, at that time one of their arguments before the City Council to rescind
the requirement to make it public was that there was probably never going to be a
chance of a connection. They also got a letter out of ACHD that said they didn't care
whether it was public or private. Well, now, we come through and ACHD is saying we
need this connection, but, oh, shoot, it's private over there. I have talked to the
applicant and Mr. Wright has indicated he is not opposed to extending Commercial and
connecting that to the private section, so that in the future, if it ever becomes public, you
will have that connection out there. The dogleg, when you look at that, it's
approximately 72,491 square feet. If you look at -- if we come up say approximately
500 feet, we have got about 25,000 square feet in this area, approximately. It is
technically unbuildable. Probably the best bet would be to utilize that for a driveway, if
we have -- we have 50 feet here, driveways are typically 20, 25 feet wide, and, then,
have landscaping on both sides. This is approximately one third of these 72,491
square feet. You would -- you know, you could place a building in here, it would,
obviously, have to be, you know, designed the right way.
Borup: Excuse me, Becky. Does Gemtone own both parcels on both sides of that
curve?
Bowcutt: They only -- the only thing that they own --
Borup: Is Block 6 or Block 1?
Bowcutt: -- is what you see there. Yes.
Borup: Okay.
Bowcutt: Yes. Yes, so the other option is if one could not fit a building on Lot 1, Block
6, at some point in time it could be combined with a parcel to the east or to the west.
Someone could do -- when they came in to do a -- you know, to do a plat of -- to the
east or the west, that could be included so there are options there. I always feel it's the
responsibility of the developer to make sure that they are buildable. If they can't fit
something on it, that's their problem, that's not the city's.
Borup: Right.
Bowcutt: It is unusual and, like I said, the burden is on the developer. We have
adjusted the right of way -- excuse me.
Zaremba: Since we are on that spot, do you have an opinion about whether a building
would preferably face Pine or have this long driveway down to Commercial?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 13 of 132
Bowcutt: You know, I guess it could go either way. It would be more cost effective if it
fronted Pine, because driveways are, obviously, expensive. As Dave indicated, you
know, you have got to find something to do with those 50 feet. You know, maybe your
user is someone who has a need for some storage, you know, like say a plumbing
company or a roofing company, you could possibly fence off that 50 feet and store
certain types of materials along there. I mean there are all kinds, you know, uses that
you could -- you could have, but I am in agreement with Dave, I wouldn't want it to be
an eye sore. You know, if the Commission would feel more comfortable putting some
condition on there, that it be treated in some fashion, you know, staff level review to
make sure when that lot is developed that that 50 feet is treated appropriately with
either landscaping or screening or whatever, we are not opposed to that. The turn
around, that was kind of a surprise to me, because, typically, we go one lot deep and
without a turn around, but according to Dave, because that's 200 feet in depth and it
exceeds 100 feet, therefore, the Fire Department is asking for a turn around. We can fit
a turn around in there. This is a 100 scale. As you can see, based on the area that my
client owns and the existing 50-foot of North Machine Avenue, we can fit a turn around
in there. It is feasible to comply with the fire department's requirements. The other right
of ways, this particular project has more right of ways than anyone I have ever seen.
We are going to have to improve West State, North Hickory, and East Pine, Machine
Avenue, and Commercial, just to bring on these few commercial lots but the applicant is
fully aware of that. I have faxed him over our revised Preliminary Plats. He has read
through the conditions and I think staff and the client and myself are in agreement. We
would ask the Commission to go ahead and recommend approval of this to Council. Do
you have any questions?
Zaremba: I do have one very small. We have addressed now speaking in this area.
Bowcutt: Yes.
Zaremba: I guess this is Machine Avenue.
Bowcutt: Yes.
Zaremba: You have talked about making a turn around here.
Bowcutt: Yes.
Zaremba: That ends up leaving maybe, what, 20 or so feet -- 30 or so feet of Machine
Avenue. It still needs to be widened. Are you proposing to do that or --
Bowcutt: Yes. ACHD's --
Zaremba: To make it a finished road for that --
Bowcutt: ACHD said that we have to go ahead and widen it. Anytime we have thought
of something that is approved with the half right of way or half plus 12, usually, the City
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 14 of 132
Code and ACHD policy manual requires that we finish that out. Yes, there is an existing
50-foot of right of way there, we would utilize that, and if it -- if we have to add a little bit,
we have, obviously, got the area to finish that roadway off. Then, that turn around could
be temporary, so that Machine could go straight north. To swing it onto our dogleg, I
don't think would be appropriate. You would want it to go pretty much in alignment
straight up and intersect with Pine.
Zaremba: So let me ask -- that answered that part of the question. Let me ask both
you and maybe staff chime in. Assuming that someday this probably would connect to
Pine, it seems pretty logical to me. Would a restriction along this property line be in
order, that at least the setback had to be enough, if they build on it, the setback has to
be enough that a future right of way could be --
Bowcutt: For a flanking street you mean?
Zaremba: Yes.
Bowcutt: That it would have a flanking setback? I don't see a problem with that do you,
Dave?
McKinnon: That's very appropriate.
Bowcutt: Yes. That would be appropriate. You're right because, you know, technically,
the building could be built like it was just a side lot line and, then, you would have a
roadway. Therefore, it would impact the building. Yes. Good idea.
Zaremba: I don't know how many feet that is, if we need to specify it.
Bowcutt: Typically, it's 20, isn't it?
McKinnon: Yes.
Zaremba: Okay. That's an acceptable thing to do.
Borup: Oh, I see what you're saying. You're saying setback -- but you're still planning
for a future street right of way there, though.
Zaremba: Setback from this property line, if they build a building right up to the property
line, minus 10 feet of required setback.
Borup: No. That's what I'm saying. I think you're talking about two different things
here. Becky, are you anticipating a 25-foot right of way along your property line any
way future right of way?
Bowcutt: No, sir. No, sir because the 50-foot of Machine Avenue right of way would
extend straight north.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 15 of 132
Borup: Right.
Bowcutt: And it would be --
Zaremba: Probably only take up 10 or 12 feet off of this property.
Bowcutt: So what --
Borup: Oh, the existing Machine is already 50-foot right of way?
Bowcutt: That's right so if you --
Borup: Okay. I --
Bowcutt: If the RUT property is developed --
Borup: Right.
Bowcutt: -- then, they would dedicate 50-foot along their boundary.
Borup: And that would stay in alignment with existing Machine.
Bowcutt: So, then, Commissioner Zaremba's question is wouldn't it be prudent for us to
have a flanking street setback versus an interior side lot line setback.
Borup: Yes.
Bowcutt: To plan for that.
Zaremba: I didn't know that terminology, but, yes, that's exactly what I was asking.
Borup: I think we definitely should do that. Yes. Otherwise, 10 years from now when
someone wants to put a street in, they say where -- why did the city approve that don't
they plan?
Bowcutt: Right and the building could be as close as what? Dave, what's the interior
setback for I-L?
McKinnon: I-L? Oh, geez. I think it's zero.
Bowcutt: See. It could be zero.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Becky, Bruce and I are trying
to figure out a way to wordsmith that to add that as a condition of the plat. That way it's
a note on the plat, so that when they come to get Building Permits that, you know, the
Building Department is notified that they have to meet those additional setbacks of 20
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 16 of 132
feet. Bruce and I are kind of in a quandary as to how we would -- if anybody has any
ideas how we could either place that in the easement or if there needs to be a separate
lot for that, how would we indicate that on the plat? That needs to be --
Bowcutt: Setback for that particular lot?
McKinnon: Just as a note on the plat?
Bowcutt: A note on the plat.
McKinnon: Just a note on the plat?
Bowcutt: A note on the plat.
McKinnon: So there needs to be an additional note on the plat --
Bowcutt: Yes.
McKinnon: -- that would say that for Lot 1 --
Zaremba: Block 6, Lot 1.
Borup: Couldn't it be a note and a dotted line also?
Bowcutt: It could be graphically shown or shown in --
McKinnon: I think graphically depicted with a note would be -- okay. Thanks.
Bowcutt: Usually, graphically depicted is the best route. They see them a little better
than in the notes.
Borup: Yes. That's -- I have seen that happen. The notes don't always get read.
Centers: Mr. Chairman? Becky, I had a note here on Page 6 of the ACHD report. You
would really like to leave Item 4 in there and have that option, wouldn't you, to have the
driveway along Machine Avenue?
Bowcutt: I think -- I think we'd like the option.
Centers: Well -- and you mentioned maybe storage --
Bowcutt: Yes.
Centers: -- on that 25,000 -- I think that would be uglier than a driveway.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 17 of 132
Bowcutt: Well, yes, I guess it depends -- you would have to fence it out if -- if it were
storage it would typically be fenced out.
Centers: Yes.
Bowcutt: Then you would have some type of a corridor type fencing system.
Centers: But if you were going with the driveway, you're going to do your landscaping
and that type of thing, as you mentioned earlier.
Bowcutt: Yes.
Centers: So I think that that would look better. I just wanted to compliment you again,
as I have before, and other presenters, as I have mentioned, if they would take a
lessen, we have your memo here and all we had to do was just look down and done
this, will comply, you just specify each item. Good job. The only two things that we
need to add are the turn around and, then, what Commissioner Zaremba brought up.
Bowcutt: That's correct.
Centers: Excellent.
Bowcutt: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: I also agree that your presentations are very helpful to us. I'm not so sure I
would want you to have to train your competition, though.
Centers: She could charge for it.
Zaremba: It would be nice if they did it, too.
Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Seeing none,
Commissioners?
Centers: Well, I think it would be in order to close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: I will second that motion.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Borup: Do we need to discuss the wording of those two --
Centers: I made some notes here. Applicant to provide a turn around at the south end
of Machine Avenue to comply with the fire department --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 18 of 132
Zaremba: It's the north end of --
Centers: Would be the --
Zaremba: It's the south end of their property, but it's the north end of Machine Avenue.
Borup: Correct. Machine Avenue comes off of Commercial right now.
Centers: Oh. Okay. Okay at the north end of Machine Avenue to comply with the city.
Then, install no parking signs along the whole area and, then, the building on Lot 1,
Block 6, should be set back 20 feet from the Machine Avenue lot line would that be
correct and be noted on the plat?
Borup: Noted and graphically depicted.
Centers: Pardon?
Borup: Noted and graphically depicted.
Centers: Right on the plat. Anybody have anything else?
Zaremba: That and the few deletions that staff has noted.
Centers: Yes so I will --
Rohm: Jerry, is Machine Avenue platted all the way to Pine Avenue?
Borup: No.
Rohm: So it wouldn't be -- it wouldn't be 20 feet back from Machine Avenue, it would
be --
Zaremba: The western property line.
Rohm: -- from the west property line.
Zaremba: Of Block 6, Lot 1.
Rohm: Right.
Borup: Right.
Zaremba: West property line of Block 6, Block 1 and, then, the decision about do we
want this applicant to add bollards at the east end of Commercial Avenue. I think that's
a good idea. ACHD is requiring it. I think we just don't negate that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 19 of 132
Centers: Well, yes, I think they had said that they are going to comply with all the
ACHD requirements, so that's in there.
Borup: See, I don't think they should have to. It's a private street.
Zaremba: Well, it's not this applicant's problem, but what would it take to make that
private portion comply with ACHD?
Borup: I don't know now.
Zaremba: Just not put enough face under it or --
Borup: It's because of the attitude of the other landowner is the only reason it's not a
public street.
Zaremba: Well, the construction isn't adequate right?
Borup: We don't know. It was never pre-approved and inspected during construction is
the problem, I believe.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, there is numerous reasons
why it doesn't meet the ACHD's requirement for a public road, not the least of which is
there is some drainage issues and the lack of sidewalks on the full length of the
property.
Zaremba: I would support for now the bollards and when that property ever comes up
to put it on them to fix the road to standards.
Centers: That would be the case.
Zaremba: And, then, the bollards could be removed.
Borup: That's fine. I mean I just -- it's a private road. If they don't want anybody going
to it, they need to put the barricade up, which, apparently, is already there anyway.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if it's a requirement in ACHD's
-- if those are requirements of ACHD's, we don't necessarily need to adopt them as our
own, however, unless, you'd like to adopt them as our own in case ACHD changes their
mind, so --
Zaremba: I think my only question was whether we were going to countermand it and if
we agree we are not going to countermand it, then, we don't need to mention it.
Borup: Right. I think it would be up to the Commission. I wouldn't mind seeing us
leave it up to the option of the applicant.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 20 of 132
Centers: The bollards?
Borup: Yes.
Centers: And, then, they talk to ACHD?
Borup: Yes. If they can talk ACHD out of it, I -- which they probably wouldn't, but I --
Zaremba: The end result being --
Borup: The only reason I'm saying that, I guess I'm still bothered by the other
landowner's previous attitude.
Zaremba: Me, too, but that doesn't bleed over to this.
Borup: No. Well, it is, it's --
Zaremba: Well, it does impact, doesn't it?
Borup: It does impact them.
Centers: We could say that we don't necessarily require bollards on Commercial street
and it would be up to the applicant to talk to ACHD, but --
Borup: Sounds like it's not a big deal either way.
Zaremba: If we say nothing, that will --
Borup: I don't think they care either way.
Centers: Okay. All right. Well, I will make the motion here, Mr. Chairman, regarding
Item 4, is it, on our Agenda? PP 02 -- I would recommend approval to the City Council
for PP 02-028, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots and 1 other lot on
12.081 acres in an I-L zone for Gemtone Center Sub No. 4 by Thomas T. Wright. At the
west of North Eagle Road and west of East Pine Avenue, including all staff comments,
with the exception of Page 4. Strike Number 3, strike Number 7, strike Number 8, and
additional -- additional requirements would be to install a turn around at the north end of
Machine Avenue. Also, install no parking signs all along that area and, then, any
building placed on Lot 1, Block 6, should be 20 feet from the west property line and
should be noted on the plat, that language. I think that's it.
Zaremba: I will second that.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 21 of 132
Item 5. Continued Public Hearing from January 2, 2003: AZ 02-028 Request
for annexation and zoning of 81.54 acres from RUT to R-8 and L-O zones
for proposed Cedar Springs North Subdivision by Howell-Murdoch
Development Corporation – south of West McMillan Road and west of
North Meridian Road:
Item 6. Continued Public Hearing from January 2, 2003: PP 02-027 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 197 building lots and 33 other lots on
81.54 acres in proposed R-8 and L-O zones for proposed Cedar Springs
North Subdivision by Howell-Murdoch Development Corporation – south
of West McMillan Road and west of North Meridian Road:
Borup: Item Numbers 5 and 6, AZ 02-028 and PP 02-027, are both Continued Public
Hearings from the January 2nd
meeting, so we would -- well, we don't need to open
them. We'd like to proceed with those. I think we left that with a number of items that
need to be addressed and, Mr. McKinnon, would you like to speak to how those items
were addressed?
McKinnon: I sure would. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. You
should have all received a revised staff report for this application. You should have,
underneath the application summary, in bold stating that this is a revision and the date
of January 13th
by myself at the end of that paragraph. I assume you were all here at
the last meeting, but on the overhead there is an example of the plat. This plat that we
have on the overhead right now does not show the changes that have been made by
the applicant. However, we will be able to detail a lot of the information that you do
have from the revised plat that we still need to discuss tonight and some of the issues
that have been resolved. I'd like to have you all turn to Page 6 of the new staff report,
the revised staff report. Item Number 2 regarding the Development Agreement, we
have added a new sentence to this recommendation for approval -- for the condition of
approval that a Development Agreement also include a temporary building restriction on
Lot 4, Block 13, that's this area highlighted on this map. The new revised plat shows a
temporary emergency vehicle access at this location, heading diagonally through Lot 4,
accessing this irrigation maintenance road and, then, directing all the way back out to
McMillan Road. We would require that that lot be required to have a building restriction
until such time as the second phase of the project would provide a secondary means of
access to that area. That would be the only -- the only requirement that we had that
changed on the annexation. If I could get you now to turn to Page 7 of the staff report
concerning additional considerations. Item Number 1, again, an additional sentence
has been added to the additional consideration concerning lot dimensions and
setbacks. While the applicant was revising the plat, one of the requirements was that
he add a stub street in this location to the open space at the end of this cul-de-sac. The
applicant has done that. However, in making those changes, he's reduced the
minimum cul-de-sac frontage from over 40 to less than 40. There is a requirement for a
40-foot frontage -- there is a 40-foot frontage requirement, but there is now 38 feet, so
the plat will have to be changed. Not stub street. Did I say stub street? I'm sorry. I
meant minimum frontage requirement. Excuse me. Lot No. 3 -- Item No. 3 -- gosh, I'm
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 22 of 132
getting my words confused. I'll slow down. Additional considerations, Number 3,
micropaths. The applicant has added the micropath as were discussed at the last
meeting. We have eliminated the block length. These two go together because one of
the requirements at the last meeting was that they add some micropaths in order to
break up the block lengths and to submit for a Variance. The applicant has submitted
for a Variance for the block lengths and they have added the stub streets that were
requested. At this time staff would ask for further -- further micropaths in the locations
that are highlighted and noted in the plat -- noted in the staff report. That would be this
open space that leads to this open space. Rather than just have that be a grassy
narrow pathway, with no asphalt, we would ask that there be an asphalt pathway to
connect to this open space within this area, rather than -- and the reason for this would
be that although it meets and exceeds the width of the micropath requirement. Unless
it is a micropath there, the developer and people who buy homes in this location would
be allowed to put fences that are six feet tall adjacent to that. We'd like to limit them
from putting six-foot tall fences adjacent to that narrow access to the open space. In
addition to that, the open space, this long narrow piece, rather than just leave that as
grassy open space, we would require that that be developed as a micropath, giving
access there, just to keep it from becoming a six-foot tall fence corridor back to open
space.
Centers: A four-foot fence would be the maximum.
McKinnon: A four-foot fence would be the max and that is going to be another one of
the additional requirements of the plat that we are going to go through tonight. It wasn't
caught at the original time of review that the plat did not include a note to -- a note to
limit those to four feet. On Page 8 --
Borup: David?
McKinnon: Yes.
Borup: Could there be a requirement for a maximum fence height without making that a
micropath, which would accomplish the same thing as far as the fencing.
McKinnon: We could do that.
Borup: I mean that could be an option.
McKinnon: That could be an option.
Borup: Okay.
McKinnon: That absolutely could be an option. Onto Page 8, we were able to strike
three of the additional considerations. The first one being right of way. The applicant
has revised the plat to show the actual right of way. In addition to that, Item Number 8,
the street buffering and landscaping, that has been addressed by the applicant on the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 23 of 132
new plan. Number 10, the office park common areas, they have -- they have on the
new plat -- do you remember correctly -- if you remember from the last time you met on
this project there were a number of lots within the office park area that weren't common
and they weren't connected and the applicant has cleaned that up. Page 9, Number
12, the irrigation easement needs to be stricken. That was the small 10-foot wide
easement along the north, just from here to here. There was some discussion as to
why it was just in those locations. The applicant has addressed that. Staff to -- well, to
the staff's approval. We no longer have that as an additional consideration. Finally,
there is a --
Zaremba: David, I'm sorry to interrupt. Identify that again. To me north is here.
McKinnon: Oh, north. I'm sorry. Top of the screen. I usually have them oriented north
is the top. Sorry. There was a 10 foot wide irrigation easement running across the top
of the east side, I guess, of the property and that is a lateral, it's right up through there,
and it will soon be vacated, according to the developer. Item Number 13, a new
temporary vehicle access. I just brought that up, because the applicant has included
that. In talking with the Fire Department, that temporary vehicle access on Lot 4 down
in the corner of this plat is required to be improved in such a manner that a fire truck or
a vehicle that weighs 70,000 pounds would be able to pass across that. I have talked
with the applicant about that and they said that that would not be a problem to improve
that roadway and improve a vehicular access across that lot to standards that would
support a 70,000-pound vehicle. The site-specific comments are still the same until we
get to Page 10 and the License Agreement for Settler's Irrigation for the proposed trees
along the street buffer. I'm just going to go through the changes and I'm going to just --
I will go through and tell you how they made some of these changes. The applicant is
here tonight to explain some of the changes, because staff still has some concerns with
a few of them and we will address the street buffer in just a little bit in more depth. Item
Number 10. This is the new micropath that we requested that Chairman Borup just
talked about that would be possible to possibly limit the fence height at that location.
Item Number 12, we talked just a second ago about that, that the fence height adjacent
to the micropaths and they had to add -- they have to add a note to the face of the plat
regarding the dedication and maintenance of Lot 1, Block 1, and the other lots -- this is
all under Item Number 12. What lots those are referring to are these lots that run
around the periphery of the subdivision. These are the access roads for the
maintenance of the irrigation ditches and those are not addressed in the plat or by the
applicant as to who will -- who will be maintaining those and who the ownership will be
of those and the applicant can address that tonight. Typically, we require that those be
owned and maintained by the homeowners association, but I haven't had a chance to
talk with the applicant concerning their final decision on how they would like to handle
those. We'd like some information on that tonight regarding dedication and
maintenance of those lots. Again, the applicant has made several corrections to the lot
dimensions. This is Item Number 13. However, they haven't caught all of the lot
dimensions and they are noted in here to require that those minimum lot -- the minute --
not the minimum. Excuse me. Require that the lot dimensions be included on the face
of the plat. Item Numbers 14 and 15 were stricken. They have added phase lines and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 24 of 132
they have added labels as requested. Finally, going back to the recommendation on
Page 12, they have, essentially, addressed all the items that have not been stricken.
The bullet points. The micropaths have been addressed and included by the applicant.
However, there was still some discussion concerning the stub street that would have
been located at approximately someplace along this block to access the multi -- the
multi-family housing or the attached single-family housing area. The Lemp Canal
easement width, this is something that is out on the frontage right here, running from
top to bottom. There was some discussion as to how wide the Lemp Canal easement
was there and where it was located and whether or not it was properly located. In
discussion with the applicant in the last couple of weeks, they have determined that the
Lemp Canal is right on the edge of pavement. A requirement for the 40-foot easement
is not necessarily a requirement of Settler's, because of the fact that part of what would
be the 40-foot easement, 20 feet on either side of the center line, currently exists in
public right of way. There would be no requirement for those 20 feet to be in an
easement, because it's already public land and the applicant can address that a little bit
more. Staff does have concerns, however, that Settler's Irrigation has not yet issued a
letter saying that that's the case. We don't know that that's truly the case yet it was just
the developer saying that this is how they believed that Settler's would handle this. In
the past Settler's has requested that they have an access road on both sides of the
ditch. If that's the case, that could dramatically change what happens on the road
frontage in this subdivision. The right of way width has been addressed. The street
buffer and landscaping width was addressed. The office park parking has not yet been
addressed. The applicant still has all the parking shown on the plat for this and the
parking for the subdivision in the office park area does not meet the landscape
requirements and, again, staff would suggest that they just eliminate all the parking
shown on the plat, because we are not approving it the way they have shown that. The
easiest way to do that would just be to eliminate the parking and, then, come back in
with their Certificates of Zoning Compliance and show us what parking they are doing
and meeting the Landscape Ordinance. They have met the other requirement for the
plat notes and data. Those are the things that we have changed. The applicant is here
tonight and the things that we really need to have addressed tonight, just to put it into a
nutshell, would be that the lots around the periphery of the subdivision and the
maintenance roads. We need to find out who is going to own and maintain those and
whether they are just going to remain as access roads. We need to have some
discussion tonight concerning the Lemp Canal easement along the street frontage and
whether or not Settler's Irrigation would require them to have a 40-foot easement for the
entire width of that -- that irrigation ditch. If you would like, we can discuss a little bit
more, whether or not there should be a stub street in the original proposed location
here. I know there was a lot of discussion about that. I read the minutes from the last
meeting, it seems that you were in favor of allowing them not to have a stub street if
there was a micropath there. There is a micropath, but if you would like to re-address
that tonight, we believe that that would be something that would be appropriate for
discussion. With that, I would ask if there are any questions of staff and turn the time
back over to you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 25 of 132
Zaremba: Just a comment on the stub street that you were just talking about. My
recollection of that was it actually was a two-part choice that there should be a stub
street where you're talking about or, the alternative is a micropath that is shown and an
access directly onto McMillan.
McKinnon: Right.
Zaremba: And, according to the new plat that I have, they have a note that says there
is a future street access onto McMillan, so that there are two ways in and out of the
unplatted portion, if that is going to happen. In that case, then, the micropath was
satisfactory.
McKinnon: Commissioner Zaremba, Members of the Commission, your statement is
accurate and the note on the plat says that it would be in compliance with the ACHD
guidelines. However, it's not a street that actually has been approved by ACHD at this
time.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: Okay any other questions from the Commission? Would the applicant like to
make their presentation? I think Mr. McKinnon did a good job of summarizing. Is there
anything you want to -- is that what you're planning on doing is hitting those points that
he mentioned?
Fluke: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Daren Fluke, JUB Engineers, 250 South
Beachwood in Boise, representing the applicant in this matter. We did endeavor to
make all the changes that the Commission wanted to see from the last hearing and I
think we pretty did that, with a couple of small oversights, one of those being the
parking area that -- the office park. We don't have any problem with turning it off or
putting the landscape islands in -- turning off the line work that is for the parking. Not a
problem.
Borup: So that would be your choice at this time, you're just going to delete the
parking?
Fluke: That's fine, if that's staff's preference, or we can put the landscape islands in
compliance with the Landscape Plan. They are shown correctly on the Landscape
Plan. The line work just didn't get transferred over to the plat, so no big deal either way.
We did add the micropaths, as you wanted. Not a problem with fixing the frontage on
this lot. That has been done. We added the path here. We do have room for a stub.
We would ask that you not impose a condition of approval on us adding the stub street
there. We do have room, we can do it later on, but we would prefer to explore this
secondary access with ACHD when we come back with the subsequent application for
development of this parcel here.
Borup: Now, you're in agreement with having that as a non-build on that lot?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 26 of 132
Fluke: Fine with the non-build. I do want to take exception with the language and just
ask that we do modify that. If you want to look at Page 6 of the staff report, Number 2
at the top of the page, it says -- there is a dash about mid paragraph. A little further
than mid, where it says, until a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development is
approved for the project, we would just simply ask that that -- that you strike a
Conditional Use Permit for a planned and just insert an appropriate application for
development. We understand that we have to submit a new application for
development of the parcel. We just don't know that it will have to be a Planned
Development Application. We don't want, later on, to have that become a problem for
us.
Zaremba: Actually, we should discuss that. The staff has suggested that it does
require a Planned Development, that when it comes back, it does come back as a
Planned Development. What is the -- what difference does it make?
Fluke: Mr. Chairman, I can take a crack at that.
Borup: Okay. Go ahead.
Fluke: The R-8 zone would allow for lots as small -- we have asked for R-8 zoning on
all of this, except for the office park.
Borup: And that's what -- I was going to ask if that's what direction you're going. You're
saying you may -- you may end up designing something there that would be in
compliance with an R-8, possibly?
Fluke: Correct. R-8 would allow us to go down to lots as small as 4,500 square feet.
McKinnon: 4,000.
Fluke: 4,000, 4,500, somewhere in there. What we have always intended to do with
that, although it's not been decided, as largely due to the market conditions, but what
was intended was to do something higher density in there, attached single-family is
likely, you know, row homes, town homes, that kind of thing, on smaller lots. A zero lot
line type of development, which would require a plat -- we'd have to come in here and
create some lots on here, because all this -- this big lot will only be entitled to a single
Building Permit. I can guarantee you we won't be building a single-family dwelling or a
duplex on that lot, we are going to have to come back in and plat it. We wouldn't
necessarily have to do a Planned Development. If we get into a Planned Development,
when we don't have to, it raises other questions with open space, I mean -- and other
amenities that might have to be required, when we wouldn't be asking for anything
special that would require a Planned Development. Just bear in mind that we have
designed the development with over 10 percent open space, five being required. We
designed it with that in mind and we will provide open space, so you will get another
crack at it. It might be a Planned Development, it might be a Rezone on there, but just
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 27 of 132
know that you will see an appropriate application before it develops. We are not asking
for a Carte Blanch on --
Centers: Yes. Well, you want to remove the words Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development.
Fluke: Right and we would just say an appropriate application for a development,
because there will be an application required regardless. We just want -- we don't to be
locked into a Planned Development when the law might not requirement it. We might
just come in with something in compliance with the R-8 zone and you will review that as
a plat.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, and Daren, staff has not
objections to the requested change. That would be appropriate.
Zaremba: What I was focusing on and I finally found it -- on Page 5 under additional
considerations, one, two, three, four -- the fourth sentence in that paragraph says, staff
further recommends that the future project be required to be approved as a Planned
Development.
Borup: I think that was making the assumptions that they were going to go ahead with
the high-density project.
Zaremba: So we are all right with dropping the requirement? I tend to agree with the
applicant, as long as the entire -- I realize they are doing it in two phases, but as long as
the entire project complies with an R-8 zone, how far a field could they go on that one
little parcel?
Borup: And it still has to come back before us anyway.
Zaremba: Yes.
McKinnon: Again, staff has no objections to the request --
Zaremba: So we can release that?
McKinnon: Yes.
Fluke: Thank you.
Borup: And the other was just a Conditional -- I mean additional consideration for --
sensitive for discussion. It wasn't -- that part wasn't in their comments.
Centers: Yes. It wasn't a requirement, but as they say --
Zaremba: Paragraph two that Mr. Fluke was mentioning.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 28 of 132
Fluke: Right. It was Steve's preference that it be a Planned Development and I spoke
with him at length about that and, then, we discussed it at the last hearing as well.
Borup: So it would have to either be changed, the wording -- could we just cross out
Conditional Use Permit for a planned and just stay until a development is approved and
a project.
Centers: Appropriate application for.
Fluke: That would be fine with us. Moving on to Page 7, Item Number 4 on the stub
streets. Again, we would just simply ask that any condition that you put on, either or
condition, that we either provide a stub street here or that we provide an additional
connection, either -- it would be a street or a drive access, depending on the type of
development that goes in here to McMillan Road. Under the current conditions, there is
no problem getting another access there. We meet all the offsets. There are no
driveways or any streets that are in the way and that would be the preference. What we
don't necessarily want to have happen is to have vehicular traffic from the detached
single-family portion of the development winding its way through what will likely be
narrow roads and a higher density development. We have provided a pedestrian
connection right here, which is what we are -- what the staff was trying to get at was
connectivity and, then, the other consideration is secondary access or two points of
access to this and we think we can do it better by McMillan. If we can't get this access
for some reason, then, we will have to provide a stub here. We still have to have that
figured out by Phase 1 or 2 of the single-family development. We are just asking to
modify that one. We talked about the parking lot layout. With regard to these lots,
these contain irrigation ditches. In this one it will be piped here along the east
boundary. This is the White Drain here. It's a rather large drainage feature and it is
Settler's preference that that remain open. They did request that, the City Council, with
the approval of Cedar Springs No. 1. We anticipate that that will be true for this. We
can show that that's large enough that it wouldn't typically have to be piped, that, you
know, the pipe would have to be so big that it wouldn't be economical to do it. What we
did with Cedar Springs No. 1 right here was platted in a common lot that is owned by
the homeowner's association. An easement is, then, given to Settler's and they are
responsible for the maintenance of it.
Zaremba: Who?
Fluke: The Settler's Irrigation District and it was their preference that that's how it
handled and we anticipate that that's how it will be handled on this phase as well -- or
on this project, but, again, these are issues that we typically work out at the Final Plat
stage. We just never know at the preliminary plat stage. We have a good idea, but I
can't tell you for sure.
Zaremba: If that were the result, you're okay with that?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 29 of 132
Fluke: Yes I mean we have to -- we have to satisfy Settler's, unfortunately, and they are
somewhat difficult to work with. We have managed to comply with them in the past
and, you know, whatever it is, we have designed it the way we did, because that's what
they have indicated they are going to want, but until we get to the Final Plat stage, we
won't have anything in writing.
Centers: From the Settler's or the homeowner's association?
Fluke: The homeowner's association will own the lot, it will own the real estate, but
Settler's will have an exclusive easement on it and they will be responsible for the
maintenance.
Borup: And that's for the White Drain?
Fluke: Correct.
Borup: Okay. How about that other --
Fluke: We anticipate them doing that with this ditch as well.
Borup: That's Settler's also?
Fluke: Yes and that will be in a pipe on that one.
Borup: So they would be doing the east and the south?
Fluke: Correct. Now, with regard to -- and we may as well talk about the Lemp Canal
here on the north end of the property and the right of way issue. Right now, there exists
50 feet of right of way, prescriptive right of way along McMillan Road that would be 25
feet from centerline. Our description goes to the centerline of the road currently. If you
take 25 feet -- well, you see it on your new drawing. We worked it out on there. There
is 25 feet per the right of way. The existing ditch -- the edge -- there is only 12 feet of
pavement there from centerline on our side, so there is an additional 12 or 13 feet of
right of way that's not paved. The edge of the Lemp Canal comes right up to the edge
of that existing right of way so there is no conflict between the right of way and the
Lemp Canal currently. What we have done is left the right of way at 25 feet, as was
requested by ACHD, we have centered a 40-foot easement on the existing ditch per
staff's comments from the last hearing. That's why you see that easement line going
into the right of way, it's redundant, it's likely that it won't be shown that way on the Final
Plat, but we just did it because of the discussion at the last hearing. Then, south of the
right of way line, Settler's has an additional 20 feet of easement where we don't show
anything. Okay. I mean that's theirs. It's likely they are going to want a road in there.
What our preference would be -- to put grass creet in there nor something, that looks
nice and will hold their trucks, but we are going to be at their mercy on that. Then, we
show an additional 35 feet of landscaping south of their easement. We have
accommodated the canal in its existing location. We do anticipate that that will be left
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 30 of 132
open and we will either show hydraulically that it needs to be left open or we will get
Settler's to request it to the City Council and we don't anticipate that it will be a problem.
It's a fairly significant ditch.
Centers: Will they have an access road on each side?
Fluke: There will be right of way on the north side of their ditch public right of way. The
right of way comes right up to the edge of their ditch currently, so they will have -- there
will be a sidewalk there and, then, two feet.
Borup: They don't want to use that side for maintenance I take it?
Fluke: Well, they, initially, wanted a road on both sides.
Borup: Well, I think that's what Commissioner Centers is getting at, why on both sides?
Centers: Well, that's what the staff had mentioned earlier, that sometimes they do
require that.
Fluke: Yes. They will ask for everything initially and, then, you know, when we get to
the Final Plat is where we really try to get something that works for everybody. So --
and, like I said, they are somewhat difficult to work. If you'd like to -- if this Commission
would like to recommend that they don't have a road there, we would be certainly happy
to comply with that.
Zaremba: Let me see if I understand correctly. On the north side of the canal, if they
wanted to drive along and park maintenance trucks, they would actually be parking on
McMillan?
Fluke: Correct. There would be a sidewalk.
Zaremba: That's why they probably want a south side road. Or at least --
Fluke: Well, bear in mind, that there is 12 feet from the current edge of pavement to
their ditch.
Zaremba: Oh. Okay.
Fluke: So there will be sidewalk two feet within that right of way. In other words, ditch,
two-foot strip of land, then, a six-foot sidewalk.
Zaremba: They could park their trucks on the sidewalk.
Fluke: Well, they can. The sidewalks will support a truck, for as much as they
maintenance that ditch. I mean if you have been out there recently, you see they -- they
don't seem too worried about it currently.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 31 of 132
Zaremba: Once a year they come along and burn, probably, and that's about it.
Fluke: Or once in 10 years.
Zaremba: Yes.
Fluke: So, you know, again, this is something that we would love to have it worked out
now, but we have left plenty of margin there to work it out no matter what they want so I
think we are well covered on that. As far as the micropaths, these were intended to be
paths they just weren't indicated that way on the legend so not a problem with just
putting the hatching on those and developing those as micropaths to the standards of
the landscape ordinance.
Borup: Okay so that was your intention anyway?
Fluke: Correct.
Borup: Just those two or the wide one also?
Fluke: I think everything else is shown the way it should be.
Borup: Okay so it will just be those two?
Fluke: Correct.
Centers: If I understand correctly, it would be Block 14 up in the corner there, just
eliminate all of the parking indication on the plat, and you would do the landscaping?
Fluke: This?
Centers: Correct.
Fluke: We have a Landscape Plan in the application that I believe complies, so it's just
-- we can either make the line work here jive with the Landscape Plan or we can just
turn the line work off for the parking.
Centers: Right.
Fluke: We will just indicate it as parking and I think that's all. Dave, did I miss
anything?
Centers: Yes, I think it is.
Zaremba: Let me do one on that subject before. If it's just as easy for you either way, I
probably would prefer that you show the landscaping.
Fluke: Okay. That's fine.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 32 of 132
Zaremba: So that the two pieces look the same.
Fluke: Sure.
Borup: And the McKinney Lateral, will that -- oh, that's not a separate lot, that's just an
easement.
Fluke: That's an easement yes. We should maybe discuss this. This is a -- this is
going to be treated as a user's ditch, rather than as a ditch owned and maintained by
Settler's. It only serves one property to the west and it's likely that that -- this will not be
around very long, that's why we intend to put it in a pipe and a 10 foot easement, rather
than putting it in a common lot. We also have the option of running the water from this
ditch and simply running it through this stub through an easement through the park here
and I discussed that with our engineer and so we will work that out one way or the
other, but we don't really need anything more than that easement here on the north.
Borup: Okay so to the staff question on -- as far as ownership and maintenance, the
homeowner's association will retain ownership and Settler's will intend to do the
maintenance of this --
Fluke: Actually, we -- the homeowner's association will be responsible for the
ownership and maintenance of it.
Borup: No. I meant of the other two.
Fluke: Oh the other two? Correct.
Borup: Right.
Fluke: Yes.
Borup: No. I understood the homeowners would be maintenance on this one.
Fluke: Okay.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I think if you recall at the last hearing -- correct me if I'm wrong
-- we talked about additional tests on the groundwater from the year 2000 to date.
Fluke: Correct.
Centers: Did you bring those tests?
Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, thank you for bringing that up. I forgot to
mention that. The north part of this property is -- has been owned by a different owner
who had those test wells installed. The wells are there and we have -- we had them
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 33 of 132
checked when we did the application, but they have not been monitoring them through
time, and we are going to have to begin the monitoring now of those wells and we will
do that, you know, through the next year.
Centers: They are really not wells.
Fluke: Well, they are test bids.
Centers: Test holes.
Fluke: Yes.
Centers: I guess I would want to hear what staff thinks of that, but if you did have a
problem with the DEQ, the way I understood it at the last hearing, was that some of
your buildable lots could become open space.
Fluke: Well --
Centers: That, of course, didn't have structures on them.
Fluke: Right and I will just go ahead and address that. We have got ample open space
to accommodate about 10 percent or over 10 percent. What we anticipate and what the
initial investigation has shown is that we have similar hydrological conditions to Cedar
Springs to the south of us. Groundwater there was running about seven feet below
surface and that has been monitored through time. Our landscape architect was able to
design an open space system that complied with both the City's Landscape Ordinance,
as well as the DEQ requirements and that is what we anticipate to do with this future
phase. We understand -- or with this future development. We understand that if the
DEQ says that we are not able to infiltrate water and Settler's says we can't put any
water into the ditches, the drainage water, that the city is going to end up with some
very large, very ugly drainage structures and it won't be just our development, it will be
all kinds of developments out here. You will be in a bad way, but --
Centers: Well, you said you had ample open space of 10 percent. Are you saying,
then, that you would use part of that for drainage and not replace it, so that you still had
ten percent when you had a finished project?
Fluke: We will comply with the Landscape Ordinance and we will comply with the
requirements of DEQ.
Center: Yes. You're offering up 10 percent, which is in excess.
Fluke: Correct.
Centers: So if you need additional lots for drainage, are you going to take -- or
additional area, are you going to take it from the existing 10 or are you going to end up
with 10 percent period?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 34 of 132
Fluke: We don't have a problem with the condition the way it's written. I mean if we
have to take out more lots because the city, DEQ and Settler's want large drainage
structures on there, large ponds --
Centers: That's what I'm getting at. If DEQ becomes involved and you need more
drainage area -- and, let's face it, most of the area that you're supplying there now is
due to drainage correct?
Fluke: Well, it does accommodate drainage.
Centers: Right, so I'm concerned that we wouldn't lose part of that 10 percent.
Fluke: We understand that --
Centers: And you end up with 10. It may not be configured exactly that way and I
understand that, so --
Fluke: Okay.
Centers: As long as we are in agreement, that's fine.
Borup: Daren, the monitor wells were put in, in 2000 or prior to that?
Fluke: I'm sorry. Say again.
Borup: The wells the monitoring wells.
Fluke: Yes.
Borup: Were they installed in the year 2000?
Fluke: They were.
Borup: And so they were measured at that time?
Fluke: They were measured at that time and we have current data.
Borup: And you have got current data, so we are only --
Fluke: So it is measuring through time and we weren't checking the piezometer, you
know, several times a year like you should.
Centers: Yes four times a year.
Fluke: So we are going to have to monitor it through this --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 35 of 132
Borup: But you got measurements for then and now and --
Fluke: Yes.
Borup: And assuming that's consistent with the other, you sound like you feel
comfortable with the results.
Centers: Well -- and the other measurement, Mr. Chairman, was at a time when the
groundwater would be lower, if I recall. I'm not going to look back, because I'm sure I'm
right on that.
Fluke: I think it was in the fall.
Centers: Yes after --
Fluke: About the time water gets turned off.
Centers: Right.
Borup: Well, that's about the time about as high as it is, unless it's a long time after.
McKinnon: August is the highest time.
Centers: Whatever but --
Fluke: I don't remember when we checked them.
Centers: As the applicant knows, they need to measure it three or four times.
Borup: Right but I guess what I'm thinking -- and, apparently, they feel comfortable with
that -- if those measurements, the few that they have, are consistent with the adjoining
subdivision, the assumption would be the other ones in between that would probably
say the same ratio.
Centers: Oh, I don't think the applicant wants a problem like another leading builder in
town has presently. I think you're going to do your tests and you're not going to build
basements, I bet.
Fluke: No, I don't think there will be basements.
Centers: Or allow them. Well, what if the builder wants to go in there and build a
basement? I mean are we going to have anything on the plat or -- you know, when you
have a seven-foot -- pardon? What was mentioned is that the covenants will require
the builders to do their own testing, whether they could put in a basement correct?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 36 of 132
Borup: We need to get that on testimony.
Centers: Yes but --
Borup: I don't know if we can -- I mean you can't legislate against stupidity.
Centers: That's true.
Borup: If someone wants to do something against all common sense and advice, I
don't know if we can worry about every little thing like that.
Centers: Yes and I think if they put it in the covenants and, then, warn them there you
have got to do your own tests then, that builder is going to be held liable if they have
water in the basement.
Fluke: All of north Meridian has similar conditions and so the builders around here are
accustomed to doing that.
Centers: That's fine with me.
Zaremba: Let me ask just one kind of a housekeeping question, I guess. Is it still 197
building lots and 33 other lots since that sometimes seems to change on a revised plat?
You're not aware that you eliminated any lots or --
Fluke: Correct. Yes. The lot count didn't change from any of the amendments.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: The micropaths just made the others smaller and, then, we have got one non-
buildable, so that would be the only --
Fluke: Temporarily non-buildable.
Borup: Temporarily.
Zaremba: So it's still 197 and 33.
Centers: That cul-de-sac with 38-foot frontage, is that the one you're referring to as
temporary?
Fluke: No. I was, actually, referring to this.
Centers: Okay.
Fluke: What we have got is a temporary emergency access.
Centers: But you have corrected that 38-foot frontage?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 37 of 132
Fluke: Yes we have already done that internally. I didn't submit new drawings, but --
Centers: Well, we will just require it.
Fluke: We just had to scoot it around a little bit.
Centers: Yes.
Borup: Any other questions from the Commissioners?
Fluke: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you, Daren. Do we have anyone else to testify on this application?
Seeing none --
Centers: I have a question for staff. How did you feel about the comments about the
canal what's the name of that canal?
McKinnon: Lemp.
Centers: Yes. Lemp. I guess it's up to them to work it out with Settler's correct?
McKinnon: It is and it -- wow, just a couple issues that were involved. The idea that
Settler's could come back and say we want additional right of way, we want, you know,
some roadway on both sides, we want you to do something with this canal, other than
what's there right now, that option is still there. If Settler's comes back after you guys
have approved this tonight and makes a separate requirement of the applicant, all the
frontage on McMillan is going to change. All the Landscape Plans that have been
submitted and all of the office park area that fronts onto it will all have to be shifted.
That's something that makes me a little bit nervous.
Centers: So if we say if Settler's requires access on the south side of the Lemp Canal,
then, this applicant would have to come back?
Borup: They are okay on the south side, aren't they?
Centers: I thought it was the south side.
McKinnon: The south side has got the 20 feet. It's the north side that -- where there is
a public right of way.
Borup: But that's the existing right of way right now?
McKinnon: That's the existing right of way right now.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 38 of 132
Borup: So they have got to -- you're saying they can move their right of way just on a
whim?
Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I might, on the north, it's just not
ours to give. I mean we don't own it. The deeds show that the property line is the
centerline, which is -- of the road, which is the section line. ACHD has served a
prescriptive right of way there, because they have maintained that road for more than,
whatever it is, seven or eight years, whatever is required. They assert ownership of 25
feet from centerline, which 25 feet from centerline would take you right to the edge of
the Lemp Canal. Okay so, then, you have got your Lemp Canal and we have given
them from -- from the center line of the Lemp Canal another 20 feet south, before we
start our 35 feet of landscaping. It can only get better for us. If we don't have to give
them 20 feet, if they only want 12 feet and a road, we gain eight feet that way.
Borup: So, then, Mr. McKinnon is saying can they go in and shift their -- is that what
you're -- wouldn't they also have to move the canal, though?
Fluke: We would maintain that they cannot make us move the canal. We don't need to
move it. It's out of the right of way. We will give them --
Borup: Well, no, I don't think they will make you move the canal, but -- I mean to shift
the right of way, that would be the option is to move canal, wouldn't it? They are not
going to do that either.
McKinnon: There could be a shift in the easement.
Fluke: If --
Borup: But for what purpose?
McKinnon: For maintenance. Settler's -- I don't understand how they set their policy
and that's one of the things that has me concerned, is we don't have anything from
Settler's saying this is what we want on the Lemp Canal. We don't know what their
policy is on the Lemp Canal right now.
Centers: Will you have it resolved before the City Council Meeting?
Fluke: I doubt it. Typically, we have nothing in writing until we get to the Final Plat but I
mean, like I say, if, for example, ACHD said that they were going to want their typical 48
feet of right of way we had to, then, dedicate another 23 feet. We have then been,
required to give 23 feet of right of way to ACHD, sell it to them, and, then, take the
canal and move it outside of the new right of way. In that case, you know, yes, Settler's
is going to say, okay, take our 40-foot of easement and center it on there and give us 20
feet from center line on both sides because we are not required to move the right of
way. We are also not required to move the ditch it can stay where it has historically
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 39 of 132
been located. We will give them their easement, we will give them their access on the
south, but we don't have anything to give on the north, because we don't own it.
Zaremba: I think we had heard during testimony two weeks ago -- well, I'm not sure
whether it was you or one of the other people in the audience -- that they know for a
fact that ACHD is planning to take any future right of way on north side and not expand
any farther south.
Fluke: That's correct and that's in our staff report. That's why we are -- that's why we
drew this new plan the way we did. They only want their existing 25 feet of right of way
from us.
Zaremba: So ACHD isn't going to move south, which means Settler's doesn't have to
move south.
Fluke: Correct.
Zaremba: And you feel that 20 additional feet that you have left can only get smaller?
Fluke: Correct.
Centers: This is Phase 1 right?
Fluke: No I believe we are going to phase from the north end.
Centers: Are you?
Fluke: So it's likely that the --
Centers: Go ahead.
Fluke: -- the office park and the multi-family will remain out as later phases, we will
make the road connection, come in and probably do 50 to 75 lots south of the multi-
family and the office.
Centers: And the Lemp Canal is not a factor, because you're not going to be
developing -- right?
Fluke: Well --
Borup: That's a good point. At worst, case scenario that could be redesigned, if that's
what had to happen.
Centers: Yes. That's what I'm saying.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 40 of 132
Fluke: Yes. It's likely that we will want to build the front end -- why don't we let the
client come up and discuss that.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I have a question for the
applicant when he arrives concerning whether or not discussions have been made with
ACHD concerning the fact that the Lemp Canal is in their right of way and whether or
not they will allow it to remain in their right of way. Is it just adjacent to the right of way,
Daren?
Borup: Go ahead. Kevin, let's go ahead.
Howell: Kevin Howell 3450 Plantation River Drive. As far as the Lemp Canal, yes, we
have got plenty of time to work with that and find out exactly what that easement is
going to be there. If we do have to put a road on the other side for access, we will.
Probable concrete or pavement 10, 12 feet wide and just landscape right to it.
Centers: Mr. Howell, excuse me, I think he needs your name and address.
Howell: Kevin Howell 3451 Plantation River Drive.
Centers: Excuse me. Okay.
Howell: So if we do have to put a road on the other side, we will, but I think we can
resolve that issue. They have been cleaning out that ditch, actually recently, you can
see where they have piled the dirt on it they have been cleaning if from McMillan.
Whatever improvements we have to do to it, we will do to it, but we do have plenty of
time, because we are not going to do the office buildings probably for a year or two. As
far as the drainage is concerned with the water questions, if we had to use up any
space, there are places we can add in the parcel that we left out we could drain water
to. If you look at Cedar Springs No. 1 and landscaped all of it extensively, try to put
benches in there, rocks, boulders, try to make them not look like a drainage pond. We
realize, you know, it's a strike against the subdivision to have those drainage ponds, so
whatever we do, if we have to put in more, we will make sure that they fit in and not just
leave a pit.
Borup: Does that answer it?
Centers: Yes.
Borup: Thank you.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I have a question for the
applicant. Mr. Howell, just one question for you. Bruce and I were looking at the plat
and the whole Lemp discussion we were looking at the McMillan frontage. You have
Phase 4, which is the office park, and Phase 5, which is the attached single-family
dwelling. You show all of the frontage on McMillan Road, all the landscape buffer being
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 41 of 132
in the fourth and fifth phases. Is it your intention to leave that frontage unimproved with
no landscaping until the fourth and fifth phases?
Howell: No. I would like to landscape that whole quarter mile.
McKinnon: Okay.
Howell: Do the whole entry and everything, landscaped fully, so that the office building
and the multi-family sides are just basically pads left.
McKinnon: So that would be part of the first phase?
Howell: So it would be done.
McKinnon: Okay. It just shows it as Phases 4 and 5 and we'd like to see you do what
you have suggested you're going to do as well.
Howell: Sure.
Borup: Okay thank you.
McKinnon: Thank you.
Centers: I have a question that I -- correct me if I'm wrong. I think the canal issue will
handle itself if we require the landscaping, as you just discussed. If he has to give up
more land, he will still have to meet our Landscape Ordinance. Follow me? He'll just
have to move back into his commercial development, if he does that, he will have to
come back to us on the commercial development, because what we are approving is
the plat tonight, and if that changes, we have a problem. I think we ought to just let it
take care of itself.
McKinnon: You're absolutely correct on that, Commissioner Centers.
Centers: Okay.
Zaremba: Well -- and I think the applicant is comfortable that they have 20 feet to play
with, so --
McKinnon: Okay.
Center: I would move that we close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 42 of 132
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Borup: Okay. I think there were -- I had four items in this -- in the staff comments that
need to be addressed. I think we have got all those addressed adequately. Did we?
Zaremba: I would add only one that we discussed last time and have not discussed yet
this time. This would be an addition on Page 6, Paragraph 2 -- I keep trying to stick in
some kind of a statement to the Development Agreement that preserves some rights for
the applicant. It could be a statement something like the Development Agreement will
include a statement that the density calculations for Lot 18, Block 13, shall consider the
entire Cedar Springs North Subdivision.
Centers: You have an R-8.
Zaremba: I know, but I'm just saying when this comes back as a separate issue and
Development Agreement in hand, I don't want it calculated just on that one piece. The
density needs to be averaged over the whole parcel.
Borup: That's if it didn't come back as a Planned Unit Development, the density could
increase, and that's your concern.
Centers: That would be their only advantage, if they come back as a PUD.
Zaremba: I think they are allowed to have a higher density on there, as long as it's
averaged over the whole thing and I'm trying to preserve that for them, so that it doesn't
get considered just as an isolated issue.
Borup: Can we just state it pretty much just the way you said it?
Zaremba: I would just add that sentence to Paragraph 2 or something similar.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, are we going to strike the
Conditional Use Permit and Planned Development requirement from the D.A. on Page
6?
Borup: Yes.
Centers: Yes.
Zaremba: For appropriate application.
McKinnon: Thank you.
Zaremba: The change is to strike Conditional Use Permit for a planned and add the
words appropriate application for. That same paragraph -- this is Paragraph 2 on Page
6. At the end of that to add a statement that says the Development Agreement will
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 43 of 132
include a statement that the density calculations for what is currently Lot 18, Block 15,
shall consider the entire Cedar Springs North Subdivision. Let's see. The only other
thing that I -- on Page 7, Paragraph 6, under additional considerations, we are given the
opportunity to recommend our opinion to the City Council about whether the ditches
ought to be tiled or not. My opinion is that we should go with the applicant, not tile
them, and leave them as open amenities.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I believe the applicant stated
that the property on the east, that ditch, would be tiled and they were intending on tiling
that ditch.
Zaremba: I think I was just referring to White and Lemp.
McKinnon: Oh, just the White and Lemp? Okay.
Borup: That's what I assumed you were talking about.
Zaremba: White and Lemp that we would -- we would side with the applicant on leaving
them open and I think that also complies with the new Comprehensive Plan.
Centers: The applicant didn't address the -- I think they are aware of it, but they have to
provide -- how does the Fire Department word it?
Zaremba: A 20-foot wide --
Centers: Minimum of two points of access will be required for any portion of the project,
which serves more than 50 homes. They are aware of that yes.
Zaremba: That would affect the phasing to some extent.
Centers: Right. Exactly and I guess I'm in agreement with the applicant on the stub
street. I don't -- I don't see the need for the stub street. It could be worded stub street
or access via McMillan Road. I think that's what the applicant mentioned and I would
agree with that.
Zaremba: I would make it an alternate, that access to McMillan is okay, but if it does
not happen --
Centers: Well, that's the way it's worded.
Zaremba: Okay.
Centers: The stub street, we leave that in, and we add, or access being at McMillan
Road one or the other.
Zaremba: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 44 of 132
Centers: And the applicant agreed to make the micropaths, which would take in effect
the Micropath Ordinance for the maximum four-foot fence.
Borup: Do you have a comment, Mr. McKinnon?
McKinnon: Yes. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, specifically
Commissioner Centers, in your last comment before, you mentioned that the stub
street, they should be given the option to do either/or.
Centers: Yes.
McKinnon: In the site-specific comments there is nothing that addresses the stub
streets. Would you like to --
Centers: You're right. I see that on additional -- additional considerations.
McKinnon: Would you like to make that a condition added to the site-specific
comments?
Centers: On the Preliminary Plat we could just use that verbiage from the
consideration.
McKinnon: Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Centers: Right.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: I will try and stumble through it.
Zaremba: The original staff memo is dated December 13th
and the revised staff memo
is dated December -- I'm sorry, the 31st
. They are both dated December 31st
from staff.
Centers: Right. It's the revised one.
Zaremba: That we reference the revised one as received by the City Clerk on January
14th
.
Centers: Right. Yes, I had that. I'd like to recommend approval of Item 5 on our
Agenda. Item AZ 02-028, request for annexation and zoning of 81.54 acres from RUT
to R-8 and L-O zones for the proposed Cedar Springs North Sub by Howell-Murdoch
Development Corp, south of West McMillan Road and west of North Meridian Road.
Including all staff comments, and Page 6, Paragraph 2, strike the words Conditional
Use Permit for -- and insert appropriate application for. Then, I would continue on --
Zaremba: I believe strike the word planned also.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 45 of 132
Centers: And planned right. Then, continuing on, it would read development is
approved for the project. Then, you would add language that would be beneficial to the
developer per that would -- the density calculation would be -- would take into
consideration the entire subdivision for that parcel, which is referred to as Lot 18, Block
13 end of motion.
Zaremba: I will second that.
Borup: Motion and second. Did we cover --
Centers: That was just the zoning. Yes.
Borup: Oh. Okay. I'm sorry. Correct. Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Borup: Okay. Item Number -- yes. 02-027, the Preliminary Plat.
Centers: Yes. I would like to recommend approval for Item 6 on the Agenda, PP 02-
027, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 197 lots and 33 other lots on 81.54 acres
in proposed R-8 and L-O zones for proposed Cedar Springs North Sub by Howell-
Murdoch Development Corp, south of West McMillan Road and west of North Meridian
Road. Including all staff comments, and, in addition -- yes -- note that all staff
comments refer to the revised comments by Dave -- originally written by Steve
Siddoway and Bruce Freckleton, amended by Dave McKinnon and received by the City
Clerk on January 14th
. Under site-specific comments on the Preliminary Plat, which
starts on Page 9, add as 1-A the paragraph from Page 7, Paragraph 4, referring to stub
streets. That item would become 1-A under site-specific comments and in addition to
that paragraph, referring to stub streets, just add, or access via McMillan Road either/or.
The applicant has indicated that further tests are due for the groundwater and he will, of
course, comply with the DEQ and their present open space will be maintained,
regardless of those results, if they have to give up more lots to provide for drainage.
We are leaving out any reference to the Settler's, as we talked about, that should take
care of itself. Does anyone have anything else?
Zaremba: Just to express the opinion that we recommend leaving the Settler's Canal
and the White Drain untiled.
Centers: Correct. Which was --
Borup: And the applicant stated that the ownership would be through the association
and maintenance from Settler's.
Centers: Oh, Settler's was going to do the maintenance?
Borup: Right.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 46 of 132
Zaremba: The homeowners wee going to own the --
Centers: Right. The homeowners would own it right.
Zaremba: But Settler's would operate it.
Centers: And, then, we concur that the drainage ditches should remain untiled end of
motion.
Zaremba: I will second that.
Borup: Motion and second any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
Okay. That concludes those items.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 7. Public Hearing: CUP 02-046 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
bus facility in an I-L zone for Joint School District No. 2 by Joint School
District No. 2 – 2170 West Franklin Road:
Borup: The next item is Public Hearing CUP 02-046, request for Conditional Use
Permit for a bus facility in an I-L zone for Joint School District No. 2 at 2170 West
Franklin Road. Open the Public Hearing at this time and start with the staff report.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Those of you that
have been on the Commission for a little while might -- this application might sound very
familiar to you. It's dealing with the bus facility that we have originally discussed many
times over at the corner of Ten Mile and Ustick. They have found a new home that they
think would work for that, rather than the original proposed location. In front of you on
the overhead you can see a map that's giving the area. To give you a little more detail
than what's shown in the bolded area, approximately a month and a half ago, two
months ago, the City Council approved a Variance for a one time lot split of the lot that
you see that's bolded. Essentially, created a lot that runs -- it creates, essentially, what
would be a flag lot up to the area that's on the north that runs adjacent to the Union
Pacific Railroad. The reason for the lot split was to allow Sanitary Services to build at
this location and to allow the school district to have an opportunity to propose the
application that's in front of you tonight. The application that's in front of you tonight is
for a 350-school bus parking facility, a two-story administration building, and a service
building. You can see the elevations of the administration building they would like to
build. A storage -- a storage and maintenance building and, finally, the overall Site Plan
that shows all the bus parking, that would be all this large parking over here, the
maintenance building, the administration building, employee parking and additional
employee parking. A total of 456 car parking spaces, plus the 350 bus parking spaces,
in addition to a fueling station at this location. As you can see from the Site Plan that's
on the overheard in front of you, the Eight Mile Canal somewhat diagonally northwest
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 47 of 132
through the proposed development. They have proposed one crossing to allow
employees from this parking area and for employees coming from this parking area to
cross back and forth across the Eight Mile to access all of the bus parking. Within the
bus parking lot the applicant has proposed, rather than to pave the entire area, to use
some sort of mixture of recycled asphalt. When Brad wrote the staff report -- if I could
have you turn to Page 4 -- he addressed a number of special considerations and one of
those would happen to be the recycled asphalt. I have underlined it for emphasis,
stating that the city would like to receive more information regarding what type of
recycled asphalt this is, whether it's going to be poured or heated and rolled back out
through the pug mill again, or whether it's just going to be laid back out onto the surface
as if it were black asphalt type gravel. We'd like some more information on that, in
addition to the information regarding the drainage within that area. In the parking area
they also have a number of posts that would have electrical hook-ups, because the
vehicles are diesel and they would like to have the heater cores be able to be plugged
in. There is a perimeter driveway that goes throughout the subdivision -- through the
outside of the large lot here and this would be completely asphalted, rather than the
recycled asphalt. Special consideration E -- I'm going through this backwards, but that's
the way it makes sense to me -- is the perimeter landscaping. The applicant has
requested that the perimeter landscaping that's typically required, that's one tree for
every 35 lineal feet, be reduced to one for every 70, and that's because they have an
awful lot of perimeter landscaping that they would need to have. Staff can support the
property along the south and the property along the eastern boundary to have that
reduction. However, in no case would the staff support a reduction along the north
property line adjacent to the railroad. The reason why staff would oppose that is
because on the other side of the railroad happens to be residential homes and we
believe that those people should be the ones that receive the most amount of protection
and buffering from this project. This is a lot of vehicles. They do have back-up alarms
and they do -- they rumble just like a diesel engine would rumble. Going to the special
consideration one is the Franklin Road landscape buffer and I will go back again to the
original photo showing the site. This project that they are proposing, essentially,
encompasses the rear half of this property. The applicant will own property that fronts
onto Franklin. They are asking at this time that they not be required to improve
Franklin, because they are not developing at this time. The only part of the property
that they are developing is the property in back. They are proposing two private roads
that would run back to the property with temporary turn arounds to the property and
they are building those as private roads. In the future and they would be required to
dedicate those as public roads. Essentially, the --
Borup: Dave, how much property do they own on Franklin because none of our plans
indicate that, I don't believe? The ones we received don't show which --
McKinnon: They currently don't own any -- they don't own the -- they don't own the
land --
Borup: Well, how much frontage do they have on Franklin was my --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 48 of 132
McKinnon: They own -- this is the whole -- can you just give me one second to look
that up? Just a second.
Borup: Well, the parcel fronting on Franklin is going to the Sanitary Services parcel is
that correct?
McKinnon: A portion of that -- let me go back again. I wish I had the overheads from
that application. Essentially, Sanitary Services -- if you can follow my shaking hand -- I'll
use two hands. It runs up and, then, runs over and back down. That is what Sanitary
Services has is that area. The property on the left -- well, it would be the western side
of the project is owned and would be owned by the School District. It looks like the
applicant has got something he can show you a little better than I can.
Borup: Okay. We do have a plat that shows 300 by 282. Is that the Sanitary Service
parcel?
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, would it be okay if I came up there to see what you're looking
at? Wait Bruce says he's got it. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, the rest of the
Commission, that is Sanitary -- this is the map I'm looking at, second page of the --
Borup: That little section down in the corner, the bottom right-hand corner --
McKinnon: The bottom right-hand corner is -- Sanitary Services would own that, but
they are not planning on developing that right now. The property that they are planning
on developing right now is the shape -- the property that goes around that.
Centers: Are you looking at this, Dave?
McKinnon: I'm looking at this right now.
Borup: Correct. That's in the packet, too, Commissioner Centers.
Centers: Okay so the access -- the two points for this project are the two roads, the
one in the middle and the one on the right-hand side?
McKinnon: That's correct. Those would be owned by the applicant, in addition to the
property shown on the left-hand side of this map that we are referring to.
McKinnon: Okay. Do those access 50 feet, essentially or is that what that is, a 50-foot
right of way?
McKinnon: This is that 50-foot right of ways and then --
Borup: So they have a total -- so that's what they have is two 50-foot right of ways that
front on Franklin?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 49 of 132
McKinnon: No. They have all of the land that's -- all those three parcels -- you see the
three sectioned off parcels on the left-hand side -- that would be the western side?
Borup: Right.
McKinnon: That second road? That's all part of this parcel that we are dealing with
tonight.
Borup: Okay.
McKinnon: They are asking that they not be required to improve the frontage on
Franklin at this time for those parcels that front onto Franklin, excluding the SSC-owned
property.
Borup: So they are saying from the access road to the west?
McKinnon: Access road to the west. That's correct.
Borup: That was all I wanted to know.
McKinnon: Okay. Sorry. Just for the record and for the minutes, the map that we are
referring to is the Conceptual Site and Landscape Plan, South Meridian Transport
Facility, prepared by LCA.
Borup: Okay. I'm sorry, you were -- well, that's where you ended up. Is that your --
McKinnon: That's kind of where I was ending up just a couple small items to address.
Staff does recommend approval of this application. We find that this is a more
appropriate location for this type of use. It is currently zoned industrial. This is
absolutely an industrial use. It does have better separation than the last place that we
dealt with and we do support this project. I don't think -- do you have any comments,
Bruce, to add concerning the sewer availability? A couple things I would point out to
you, in case you haven't had a chance to review it, and they would be Item Numbers 2
and 3 on Page 5 of the site-specific comments and they do make reference to ACHD's
requirements. If you haven't had a chance to review those, please, take a little bit of
time tonight to review those before you make your motion. We have -- I'm sure you're
aware of some of the situations that we are dealing with right now with Ada County
Highway District and their ability to purchase right of way and that's the reason for
Number 3 having findings B-2-1 or B-2-2. There are actually three options originally
presented by ACHD that would be acceptable. We don't find the third option to be
acceptable and that third option is to build no sidewalk at all. If you'd take the time just
to review what ACHD has written for those two comments. Other than that, staff does
support this project. We think this is an appropriate location for this. There are some
findings that you will have tonight and it looks like there may be some people here to
testify concerning how it may affect property in the area. We would suggest, again, as
always, that you take into consideration all those adjoining property owners, the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 50 of 132
testimony that they offer concerning how this property may or may not affect them.
With that, I'd ask if you have any questions for staff.
Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners? Okay does the applicant have a
presentation?
Thomas: Mr. Chairman, fellow Commissioners, I'm Mike Thomas from Lombard-
Conrad Architects, 1221 Shoreline Lane. I'm the representative of the Joint School
District tonight. I'd like to just express some verbal testimony for this application, as
well as propose a modification to the Conditional Use submittal. Basically, since the
School District is a tax-based entity offering a service to Meridian and surrounding
communities with limited resources, I'm proposing a modification to the perimeter
landscaping, MCC-12-13-11.2E. The reason is, is on the north property with the
residential areas to the north, we would like to propose, due to the -- as previously
mentioned, that expanse of landscaping, irrigation, and perimeter landscaping around
this site, that 20 acre site is impacting the -- significantly impacting the cost of the
project. We would like to propose a slatted fence, vision fence, in lieu of landscaping
along the north property and go to a chain link fence on all of -- which we already
currently have a chain link fence on the east, south, and west property. Mainly, the
reason on the west property is we mainly are only screening the school bus facility from
the Sanitary Services' undeveloped parcel that in the future is proposed to be a transfer
station. With that said, we are spending a lot of money on this property right now in
good faith trying to develop this property to fit on the large 28 acre parcel, yet we are
bisected by the Eight Mile Lateral, too. We are not only constructing some large
crossings across that Eight Mile Lateral and it's using up a fair amount of good real
estate for this facility, the cost impacts of that, we would like to lessen that impact and
propose a slatted fence in lieu of the perimeter landscape buffer. With that said, I would
like to --
Borup: So this is a third option you're proposing now? Originally, the application
complied with the Landscape Ordinance. The staff report said you wanted to reduce
that --
Thomas: Yes.
Borup: -- from 35 to 70 and now you're saying you want to eliminate it.
Thomas: We are proposing right now at this point in time, just due to the cost
implications of the irrigation and the landscaping and maintenance, we would like to
propose a slatted fence, yes.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: On the north side.
Thomas: On the north side yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 51 of 132
Centers: And the remainder of it -- are you talking landscaping or do you just want to
fence it?
Thomas: We were just going to fence it.
Centers: Okay.
Borup: So the remainder is adjoining Sanitary Services.
Thomas: To the east is the barrier -- Jersey Barrier Storage facility. To the west is
undeveloped agricultural, light industrial zone, and to the south, again, is another light
industrial zone.
Borup: Okay. Go ahead.
Thomas: My next issue is considering that -- I'd like a clarification on the sidewalk per
the ACHD report. I believe their recommendations were to be on Findings for
Consideration D, Item 2, on the sidewalk along Franklin. If Item Number 2 is to
construct a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk on Linder Road in an easement --
easement on Linder Road does not adjoin the property and so I'm assuming that is
Franklin Road in an easement.
Centers: Are you reading from the ACHD --
Thomas: I am reading from the ACHD report.
Borup: Which page?
Thomas: Page 3 Item B-2.2.
McKinnon: That should be Franklin Road.
Centers: Yes it's Franklin.
Thomas: Talking with Jensen Bell on this perimeter landscaping issue, if I can continue,
we feel that the true obscurity of the 200-foot right of way from the -- between the right
of way, the new property, and the existing residential areas, the best obscurity would be
a fence with a slatted fence or trees. The shrubbery or the ground cover, really, I don't
see does any obscuring opportunity for the site. That is the main reason we are
proposing a slatted fence, in lieu of the landscaping. It would dumpish the impact of the
bus facility and it would significantly help forward the cost of this site not getting
classified as spending too much money for another school facility, which is cognizant of
imposing unnecessary costs on a school facility that's a tax-based entity. With that
said, the budget restraints of this facility are in question.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 52 of 132
Centers: Well, let's jump back to the sidewalk. You're saying you don't want to put a
walk in.
Thomas: On Franklin?
Centers: Right.
Thomas: We would prefer to not put a sidewalk in on Franklin at this time until that --
that whole future development is taken under. What is hoped -- what the plan is, is that
will be platted in the future and with the access road built to allow access to those future
developments. At that point in time put in all the landscape buffers to the ordinance
requirements, the sidewalks, and everything else that goes along with that
development.
Centers: No harm in asking.
Thomas: No harm in asking.
Borup: Are there any sidewalks on either side of this project presently?
Thomas: No, there is not.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: Good point.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Caparelli Subdivision directly
to the east of this project does have a sidewalk that abuts the 50-foot right of way on
the eastern side of the project.
Borup: Okay.
Thomas: That's the Sanitary Services corner.
McKinnon: That's correct. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Sanitary
Services was required on the large parcel, if they are to develop, they were required to
build a five-foot wide sidewalk across their property.
Borup: So there will be -- it's not there presently, but it will --
McKinnon: It's presently not there, but part of the requirement for them to build there --
their building there. Of course, they are developing right now and that would be the
difference between what the applicant is requesting and what SSC is doing. SSC is –
for Building Permits they would be required to, as part of their occupancy, be required to
build that sidewalk.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 53 of 132
Borup: Okay go on, Mike.
Thomas: Basically, that's what I have. What we would do, to continue on the perimeter
landscaping, though, is we could -- we will leave those five-foot buffers for a future
development and we could either put them in a dry land grass or a three-quarter inch
minus gravel, just mainly to mitigate the irrigation requirement there. Dry land grass
would not require irrigation, versus a wild grass or -- that does require irrigation.
Centers: What can you tell us about the recycled asphalt? I have heard of this before.
We had it on that automotive -- if you recall, Mr. Chairman. Why are you trying to go
that way, other than expense?
Thomas: Mainly it is an expense issue. What they are currently using -- the user is
currently using at their current facility -- or bus facility is the recycled asphalt, in lieu of a
gravel parking lot and what it is, is it basically is a mulch of asphalt and gravel and what
they are finding that it is still fairly permeable in its first year or two. As it wears, it
becomes denser and becomes more of a harder surface. They do come in and they do
wear the stripes off of it. We will stripe this entire facility under the main base contract,
but the school district comes in and stripes once or twice a year on their own accord,
just so they can keep their bus drivers in line. It does hold a fairly good stripe for a year
long, most likely.
Borup: Is that re-rolled at that time or is the compaction enough?
Thomas: The compaction usually is satisfactory just by the use of the vehicles driving
on it.
Centers: Do you have to bring more in every three or four years and redo it?
Thomas: A little bit. The potholes are significantly lessened and you do have to patch it
in. What we would do, though, is we don't rely much on permeability on the southern
portion of the site, we will be -- which is the low sloping part of the site. We are picking
up with catch basins prior to that asphalt perimeter drive, so we don't undermine our
asphalt perimeter and, then, piping it to the drainage basin shown in the left-hand
corner or the southwest corner.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I have a question concerning
the base that you have underneath it. Do you have any idea of the type of base that
you would have underneath this mix?
Thomas: We would put in an eight-inch roadway -- well, first, we estimated a 10-inch
base depth for that gravel. With that said, with a two-inch asphalt base and an eight-
inch gravel pit run base for the bus load.
Borup: So it does have a normal -- well, that's above a normal base for a parking lot
isn't it?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 54 of 132
Thomas: That's what we are currently recommending right now.
Borup: Yes because of the weight of the buses.
Thomas: And the turning criteria on the buses fairly heavy.
Borup: Okay.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner.
Rohm: I'd like to return to the subject of the landscaping along the north line.
Borup: Yes was there anything else in your presentation, Mr. Thomas?
Thomas: The only thing that I have noticed from an aerial, if I may say so --
Borup: And, then, we will want to get back to some of these --
Thomas: Yes. The residential area on the other side of the railroad tracks, from the
aerial and it appears to me -- and from the site visit out on the site, is that those are
currently screened with solid fencing right now, all of the residential areas along there,
so I just wanted to say that as well.
Borup: Okay. Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: Well, I was just going to speak to the sound level of the buses and what have
you. If you had trees in addition to the fence along that north line, it seems that it would
add an additional buffer to that existing subdivision to the north. I can see why you
would want to eliminate the landscaping around this entire property, because it's rather
significant, but the impact to that property to the north I think needs to be addressed. It
seems appropriate that some deciduous trees or some sort of trees along that north line
would be appropriate just to keep the noise level down for that subdivision.
Zaremba: Well, I would add to the defense of trees that they also exchange pollution
for oxygen, which, if you have a lot of vehicles warming up, I think we need some help
there, too. Just an opinion.
Centers: You weren't here the first time, were you?
Thomas: No, sir.
Centers: Yes.
Borup: You missed the fun.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 55 of 132
Thomas: Thank you. I'm glad I did.
Borup: Okay any other questions from the Commissioners at this point?
Zaremba: Not at the moment, no.
Borup: Okay.
Thomas: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you, Mr. Thomas. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify?
Mrs. Atkinson, come on up.
Atkinson: I'm Irma Atkinson. I live nowhere near this place anymore, but I live at 1124
North Lightning. I'm here representing my parents Wilbur and Eula Calnon, who live at
2155 West Franklin Road, which -- I have no clicker thing to point on. Oh. Wait. Wait.
Okay over to the left. Okay yes that one. That one. They are two-acre lots where they
have -- okay now, a brief history lesson. I will talk fast.
Borup: Which parcel does the church own now? To the --
Atkinson: It's the little one to the right that my brother used to own.
Borup: The church has that.
Atkinson: He sold out. He got married, he sold out, he moved to Columbia Village.
Please don't hold that against us. Okay there is one in every family. My cousin, Kathy
Causca, is turning beet red and wishing she never volunteered to come with me. She's
back from living in the east for 35 years? Somewhere like that. She's representing her
father, Mark Calnon, who owns those other 77 acres. Right that big spot. Okay so a
brief history lesson. There have been Calnon’s on that land since 1918. My parents
ran Calnon Floral there for over 40 years. Kathleen's father, my Uncle Mark, farmed, he
was a county agent for eternity and we did the thing about forgiving my brother. Okay.
I have been here not to testify, but for other things, and having to sit through -- you
know, the good news is there is not a standing room only crowd tonight right?
Centers: Well, where is my sweater? Remember last time?
Atkinson: Well, okay, now I know we have discussed this before, Commissioner
Centers. Kathleen here, she raises Angora rabbits. She is the one to be talking to.
Centers: Okay.
Atkinson: And she has a knitting machine. I don't send any --
Centers: Yes. Okay. I didn't want to get you off the subject.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 56 of 132
Atkinson: Okay. Well, I'm so easily distractible, especially --
Centers: Yes.
Atkinson: Especially after 9:00. Okay. That's why I write things down. Okay. We
forgave my brother so yes there is not a standing room only crowd tonight. There are
three things that I look at when I look at a development proposal, are the traffic,
pedestrian safety, and minimizing the impact on the existing neighborhood so, quickly,
we haven't really talked about the auto traffic bit. I didn't know until tonight and
remember how many buses and how many cars. Holy cow. Okay. It is, what, 50 miles
an hour on Franklin Road. I haven't had the chance to look at the ACHD letter or
comments for them. I'm hoping that's going to change if you have 350 buses rolling out
on there, but I certainly would want that addressed. It's a two-lane road.
Borup: Well, the buses themselves will change it, because the cars will have to slow
down for the buses.
Atkinson: That's true but let's be pro-active, not reactive two-lane road, lots, and lots of
traffic. I mean it gets backed up -- at 5:00 it will back up to mom and dad's driveway for
the four way stop on Ten Mile and Franklin. I'm concerned -- is there a turning lane -- I
really have a -- my big questions revolve around what's going to happen on Franklin
Road. I think, you know, the -- the plan, which showed the back, the north part of the
property, is great, but I want to know what's happening on Franklin Road. Is there going
to be a turning lane into -- that's Fairview. Okay. You're just seeing if I was, you know,
attending, weren't you? Okay so my questions are is there a right turning lane to -- on
the north side to get into that property for those buses or will they be slowing down, you
know, in the traffic lanes. Likewise, the ones that are eastbound, are there any
accommodations, like a turning lane, or are we going to get backed up, you know, all
the way to the four way stop at Ten Mile when we have buses come to turn left into that
property? Those are my traffic questions. My pedestrian safety questions -- you know,
I want to see the landscaping on Franklin. I want to see the sidewalk. I understand it's
a financial challenge. However, I think it's only fair to other properties, including
Sanitary Services -- I'm sticking up for them, that's really scaring me. Okay. I think it's
only fair to the other properties, as they develop, that they are required to put in the
sidewalk and the landscaping, that it be done here also. It could be 10 years before
they develop that piece between the bus area and Franklin. I think it's only fair to
pedestrians -- potential pedestrians to put in the landscaping and the sidewalks. Okay.
Minimize the impact on the existing neighborhood. I will be the first to admit that the
existing neighborhood may not be there that much longer. My parents are in their 80s,
my uncle is in his 80s, although Kathleen's moved in now, she may be there forever.
Okay so maybe that's changed but you know we are here to be advocates for our
parents. You know, they have been good citizens for this community their names pop
up in Lyle Hill's column every once in awhile. They have been quiet citizens and they
have been productive citizens. My questions are where exactly is that drive into the
property? Is it directly across from my mother's driveway? I don't want her scared to
drive out of her property. You know, she doesn't need to feel trapped that she can't
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 57 of 132
leave her property, because there are 350 buses and the 10 garbage trucks coming out
at her. I think Sanitary Services heard that loud and clear, but I have some concerns
here. That just doesn't seem fair to the existing neighborhood. Questions?
Centers: No but I would like the applicant to address what your comment -- and I think I
see it in the ACHD report -- regarding kind of turn lanes, especially coming from the
east and turning in. I think that's where most of the traffic might be coming from, is from
the east. I could be wrong but I think the applicant will address that. I understand
where you're coming from there.
Atkinson: Okay.
Centers: Thank you.
Atkinson: Do you want to be next or -- you don't want to say a word.
Borup: Do we have anyone else that would like to testify? Okay. Mr. Thomas.
Thomas: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. In regards to the traffic -- traffic
considerations, I guess I should say, we, in all hopes, would like to get a traffic light --
the School District would like to get a traffic light for this facility and we would personally
like to get it in regards to the most easterly access road. However, meeting with ACHD,
it doesn't even meet the quarter mile frontage distance from Linder Road, so our best
hopes of getting a traffic light for that facility would be on the secondary access road in
the future. That would be where the future developments would be, or, possibly, more
light industrial properties, but that is our best hopes of getting a traffic light at that area.
It's mainly due -- just due to the traffic distances of quarter mile, third mile, and that sort
of thing.
Centers: I thought the ACHD report on Page 4, under site-specific conditions of
approval, might be addressing her concerns or any -- any motorist concerns on Franklin
Road and I think it may. Are you able to extend the asphalt, so the buses can get over
and -- you know?
Thomas: Basically, our access roads will be developed to a 54-foot paved right of way.
ACHD -- I think -- I interpreted ACHD's comments just saying that due to the fact that
they are a private road, we do not have to construct to ACHD standards or any, way,
shape or form. They are saying if you do it as a private road, we request that you pave
the first 30 feet to keep gravel fodder from coming onto Franklin.
Centers: Yes. The access.
Thomas: Yes.
Centers: But is -- I don't know if it's possible. Can you -- can you pave from their
dedicated --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 58 of 132
Thomas: That is our intention, is we are dedicating --
Centers: So the buses can't -- coming from the east --
Thomas: We are --
Centers: Are they going to stack up in the middle of the road?
Thomas: Yes, they will. There is no turning lane. There is --
Centers: You're not going to -- you can't construct a 12 or 14-foot turning lane of your
own? You have a lot of frontage.
Thomas: There is none proposed at this time, for the fact that we are going to have a
traffic light in the future. There is -- and I think it is spelled out in the fact that ACHD
doesn't -- doesn't have the -- it in their Comprehensive Plan to widen that road in any
shape or form at this point in time.
Borup: They will widen it to the east on -- it's logical to assume that it's going to be
some day. Could you comment on the traffic routes of the buses, which direction most
of them would be coming and going?
Thomas: I could not. Basically, what the intention of this facility is, that's about as far
as I can go, is they will leave for their routes in the morning, basically, I would assume
they would try to take a right-hand turn with traffic, in lieu of crossing traffic. They would
return after their routes in the morning and the policy and this facility's whole basic
philosophy is to keep the bus drivers there. We are offering them a large administration
building with a lounge, training room, training center, work center, that they would stay
there the full period before their afternoon route, do their fueling, do their afternoon
routes, do everything else, in lieu of taking their buses currently home, as they
somehow do now in between their routes. They -- you know, they are trying to mitigate
that whole liability issue.
Centers: So you're not going to allow that? You're not going to allow them to take them
home.
Thomas: No. No. That will mitigate that entire thing. They will come back to the site
and stay there for the full term until the afternoon route and, then, return and, granted,
they will not be returning all at once, because I'm sure the routes have different time
sequences.
Borup: That was my other question. How often are buses coming in one directly
behind another?
Thomas: The school district could probably answer that better than I --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 59 of 132
Borup: Okay.
Thomas: I just would like to say that currently right now this is the maximum build out of
this facility. They currently won't have 350 buses --
Borup: Right.
Thomas: -- when they first come on line.
Centers: I think it's 150 now or 200.
Thomas: About 200.
Borup: Yes. That might be good to get some other questions answered.
Bigham: Wendel Bigham, Meridian School District, 911 Pine Street, Meridian, Idaho. I'll
stand for your questions. I would like to clarify a couple points. It is our desire to have
the buses return to the facility during the daytime to get them off of the right of way and
all the driveways they are parked in around the valley. Generally, the buses go out and
back twice a day. They go out in the morning, they come back late morning, and then,
they go out early afternoon and come back.
Borup: That was one of my questions also was the times.
Bigham: Anytime after about 6:30 in the morning you will see the buses starting to go
out. This site is advantageous to us, just as the previously unsuccessful site was. Our
routes are shifting to the west. As the subdivisions become more and more developed
to the east, as we butt up against Boise, more and more people walk to school and the
schools are built into those areas so our routes are shifting to the west. Over time the
majority of our traffic will move out of this facility with a right-hand turn to go west on
Franklin. Today if you ask me, I'd tell you it's 50-50, I really don't know, but those routes
do seem to be shifting to the west for us. Again, the accessibility to any future Ten Mile
interchanges is very advantageous to our north-south connection to the --
Borup: And the return time?
Bigham: Anytime after 3:30 to 4:30, pretty much. I mean if you think about when your
children get home from school and get off the bus, you know, the buses tend to go back
and --
Borup: So the majority of them would be in by 4:30?
Bigham: That's a very fair assumption.
Borup: Before the real traffic starts.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 60 of 132
Bigham: Because we looked at the traffic study, the information in trying to determine
this -- we are kind of an off-peak user, we kind of go before the world gets busy and we
tend to come back before the world gets busy in the afternoon. Arguably, 350 buses is
a lot of traffic. Arguably, one may maintain that more trips could be generated if you
had three houses per acre on 40 acres worth of land. You could maybe generate more
vehicle trips, if you will, on a daily basis in this type of facility. It does not operate on
weekends, with the exception of the odd school bus, athletic bus. Its activity during the
three months during the summer is reduced by -- pick a number -- 90 plus percent,
because the traditional school calendar is off during the summer. You need to think of
its operation much more like a school, if you will. The other clarification I would like to
just make is it's a public facility and the school district is a public entity, but the public is
not invited into the facility. It is truly a maintenance yard for the school district, other
than the auto parts store delivering parts it's highly, highly unlikely that there would be
any public wanting to come into that. The basis of that discussion is really, you know,
the paved parking lot versus the gravel surface. It's a big chunk of money to pave 20
acres. You can quickly hit a million dollars just in asphalt like that without ever dealing
with the added cost of additional drainage so it is a big parking lot. We have found that
we have had great success with the recycled asphalt in terms of its maintainability and
it's somewhat permeable, at least initially. Yes, that also speaks to the -- if you will, the
landscaping requirements that we are somewhat concerned with on the interior of the
property. It's not a destination for anyone, except the bus driver or mechanics.
Borup: That is rolled is that correct? When it goes down?
Bigham: The ones I have seen, yes. You spread it out much the way you would a six
inch leveling coarse, four inch leveling coarse under a concrete slab, it's graded out and
you roll it and you generally water it and it starts setting up from there.
Borup: Yes.
Bigham: It's not quite like roller compacted concrete, but it's pretty close.
Borup: No. No. I understand. I have been on straight road mix that's been rolled and
when it's new, it feels like pavement, but --
Centers: You know, what bothers me is those buses and the traffic in the afternoon, but
I think it could be remedied. I don't know if we can require it or the Council, but if the
buses -- the bus drivers were all required to enter from the east and make a right turn,
then, they'd just zip right in. If they are coming from the west and have a turn signal on
and traffic is not allowing them to turn left, they are going to start stacking up and I think
you will be the first to admit, a lot of them are going to returning at the same time.
Bigham: Absolutely.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 61 of 132
Centers: So if they were required to come from the east and just turn right, they are just
going to zip right in. I don't know if we can do that, but if there is no turn lane, they are
going to stack up if they are coming from the west.
Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, I don't know if you could place that
condition on us. I don't know that we would accept it. I just don't have a real good feel
about that.
Borup: This is a Conditional Use Permit.
Bigham: The reality is we are advocating a stoplight at our western driveway.
Centers: Yes but you don't have it.
Bigham: We do not have it and that was the third point I wanted to clarify. We are
buying land -- much more land, approximately eight acres is the amount of land that
was in question with the flag lot on the western side. Our intention is to be back here
before you very, very shortly with a plat. We are not developers and we have no
business speculating in the land market, we are simply being forced to buy this amount
of land to meet our bus parking. Our goal will be to get that platted in conjunction with
Sanitary Services, so they can carve off their future Western Recycling lot that you were
looking at. You will be seeing a joint plat from both of us and we will be trying to sell
those lots or trade that property immediately, because the investment in those dollars is
not in the highest and best use for the students of the district to be tied up in industrial
land. With that, we will be building that western road. We fully expect that road to be a
condition of the plat we expect all of the improvements, the setbacks and everything, to
be a condition of that plat for the improvements of Franklin Road. At that time, we are
hopeful that -- not hopeful, I would fully anticipate being required by ACHD to widen that
road to a turn lane, probably acceleration, deceleration lanes, and the whole nine yards
to accomplish that.
Centers: And that's all speculation. In other words, you're saying that the school
district acquired some additional land that you really didn't want, but you had to take it in
order to get what you wanted and now you're going to re-plat it and try and sell it off to
the general public.
Bigham: That is correct.
Centers: Okay because the owner of the land wouldn't sell part of it, he says you take it
all or none. Then, you decided, well, we can re-plat some of this other -- okay. It
sounds like you did get into the real estate business to me.
Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners Centers, beggars can't be choosers.
Centers: Okay. I guess that's a fair statement. Well, I guess whether we could require
access from the east, I don't know. I would recommend that to the City Council, if they
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 62 of 132
can do it and then -- because I can see traffic stacking up coming from the west. You
can, too. In the future you might have a signal, you might sell those lots if the buyers
come along and -- but until then, that's going to stack up from -- clear to Ten Mile, I
would bet, with -- what are those buses, 30-foot?
Bigham: Forty.
Centers: Forty.
Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, I would advocate that the buses do
move with traffic speeds. We do not speed, but we do move with the traffic speeds and
I would have the same concern about stacking at the lighted interchange at Linder and
Franklin Road if the decision was passed down that all traffic must come from the east,
one may create a nightmare. The thing that we are --
Centers: They will be able to return right in, though.
Bigham: But at the lighted intersection we will be having buses stacked up every
direction you can think of at that intersection. The thing we don't -- we are going to
route our buses to get them off the street. They are going to come from all directions, I
need say that, but we will route them in a way that gets them in there efficiently. We are
advocating that Franklin be widen to its designed width, even if it's not in Ada County's
five year work plan, our intentions would be to hold our setbacks back for any future
right of way that they may want or desire, but can't currently acquire we are trying to do
that. We are advocating the widening of Franklin and with that will come, probably, a
reduction in the speed to 35 miles an hour would be my guess.
Zaremba: Well, I would think not only the right of way, but also the acceleration and
deceleration lane in addition to that --
Borup: For the setbacks if they are leaving them.
Zaremba: I would feel that the existence of that should be a condition of this going in
there, though. That has to come first.
Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commission Zaremba, I'm not sure what right of way ACHD
has to the east of our eastern driveway in front of the Caparelli Subdivision, don't know
the -- even if we all wanted to do it, if the right of way exists for us to be forced to put a
taper in there, if you will. To east of our -- excuse me -- to the west of our eastern
driveway, any widening conditions that would be expected in there probably should be
incumbent upon Sanitary Services, since they are the frontage property there. When
we get to our western driveway, any approaches to the west from our western driveway
should absolutely be placed upon the school district to do that. We would be
advocating to do that, since we are going to put the curb, gutter, sidewalk and
landscaping in, let's bring the street out to it in a correct fashion, so --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 63 of 132
Borup: Any comments on -- I think Commissioner Rohm made some comments on the
trees.
Zaremba: I'm in favor of having as many trees as we can get along the northern border.
I'm not that stuck on having more on the other borders.
Centers: Yes I'm the same way. We didn't have anyone else here, Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Not from that subdivision.
Centers: Yes.
Borup: I mean there is a 200-foot railroad easement through there and that may be part
of the non-interest, there is a good separation.
Zaremba: Well -- and I -- I have a question that gives me a little bit of difficulty here.
When we were talking about this facility in the previously proposed location, this is
probably the exact kind of site I was hoping it would move to, instead of being in the
other place. I think this is a good, all-around choice, and a good design with some
things that can be adjusted here and there. My difficulty is not with the facility, but with
the zone that it's being put in. My direction is to see if we can change the zone, not the
facility. An industrial light zone is for quiet businesses, totally contained within a
building. That's the definition of it.
Centers: That hasn't been finalized yet.
Zaremba: No. That's already in the --
Centers: Is it?
Borup: It's already zoned.
Zaremba: What we were talking about doing at other times were definitions in a
different chapter than --
Centers: Okay.
Zaremba: -- that didn't include that and that needed to be added. The difficulty is we
do not have a definition for a real industrial zone. Heavy industrial. This, to me, is a
heavy industrial use. I think it's appropriate in that location. The problem is we don't
have in existence the zone that this should really be. The reason that that gives me
difficulty is that I don't want future applicants to feel comfortable that they can put heavy
machinery, heavy trucks, and heavy buses into any I-L zone. It's not the intent of the I-L
zone, industrial light zone, to have heavy vehicles coming into it. I feel like I'd like to
have this facility exactly where it's being proposed, but I don't like that zone designation,
precisely because it opens up -- it's exactly the reason that we refused it in its previous
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 64 of 132
location, it was being proposed as an I-L zone and we said this is heavy industrial. I'm
not wanting to expand the definition of light industrial to include what are clearly heavy
uses so my question is what can we do to change the zoning?
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, let me address a couple of those
comments. You stated correctly that we currently do not have a heavy industrial zone
and if I could direct your attention to the Meridian City Code 11-8-1, often referred to as
the schedule of use control, which is kind of an odd way of saying what's allowed and
what's not allowed in certain zones. Because of the fact that we do not currently have a
heavy industrial zoning designation, nor do we have a definition that would go along
with that, the City Council has adopted a schedule of use control that says what certain
types of uses would be allowed in specific zones. Although the definition does not
correlate specifically to all the uses that are permitted in Conditional Uses in the
industrial zone, the requested use that we have tonight, according to the schedule of
use control found in the Zoning Ordinance, is a Conditional Use in that zone. It may not
meet --
Zaremba: It's a Conditional Use and I'm looking at the chart. I know what you're
referring to I have it open in front of me.
McKinnon: Right and because of the fact we do not have a heavy industrial zone, we
have nothing that we can play that off of. The discussion would be that we should
adopt a new zoning designation and we are in the process of adopting a new definition
for a Heavy Industrial Ordinance as we discussed a month ago. We would need to
have a definition, plus, we would need to have a heavy industrial added to that. At this
time we have no other zoning designation where this type of use would be allowed and
this is the best appropriate zone for this use at this time, because we do not have the
other zone that you speak of at this time.
Borup: And the Comp Plan lists it just as industrial.
Zaremba: Well, as I say, I don't have a problem with the facility being exactly where it's
being proposed. The difficulty I have is with calling it light industrial and thereby
expanding the definition of light industrial where it might be used other places.
Centers: Well, that's why they have --
Zaremba: If it's referred to only as industrial, it doesn't --
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, I believe that that expansion took
place at the time that they -- that they adopted the schedule of use control allowing all
those separate uses to be either permitted or Conditional Uses.
Centers: And that's why they have to go for a CUP.
McKinnon: That's correct.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 65 of 132
Centers: Exactly so we are not opening up a Pandora's Box Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Okay.
Centers: Commissioner Zaremba, the next guy would have to get a CUP, too.
McKinnon: Commissioner Zaremba, we will get you that industrial zone. I promise.
We will get it for you.
Zaremba: We have got to fix these charts and make Chapter 7 and Chapter 8 agree
with each other.
McKinnon: Commissioner Centers -- Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, could
I just address a couple things that have been brought up tonight? One concerning the
slow down lane or the acceleration and deceleration lanes and turn lanes? We got
ACHD's report and ACHD's report has said that we want a 96-foot road here in the
future. The right of way is 96 feet and they would like to have 48 feet dedicated from
centerline for this entire project. That has no assumption for an acceleration or
deceleration lane. However, that five lane roadway that they would like to have here
would have the center turn lane for these buses that would be making the left-hand turn
when they come in from the western direction, west to east. ACHD has been forced to
adopt a fiscally constrained capital improvement program where they have said here is
everything we have got for 20 years, this is the money that we can spend. They have,
in fact, shortened that down to saying if it's in the five year work program we can fiscally
-- we can give you money for it and if we don't have the money for it, what we can do is
go ahead and give you some impact fee offsets. This section of Franklin is not in the
20-year work program, it's not in the five year, and so it's going to be a number of years
before we see this actually take any action for any expansion. Even with the
expansion, it does not give any language for an acceleration or deceleration lane.
Those acceleration lanes or deceleration lanes that Wendel brought up earlier tonight
that he thinks would probably take place, would have to be an improvement onto SSC's
property, because ACHD does not have the money to purchase that land from SSC
right now. Any acceleration or deceleration lane would not be part of ACHD's
improvements, but improvements on SSC's property. We do not have the authority to
require those acceleration and deceleration lanes on that property. If I could jump to
the landscaping issue. There has been a lot of discussion tonight how we have a tax
entity and an entity that should be given a break from the City Ordinances and be
allowed to not meet the requirements of the ordinance. As you will note in Brad's
comments under the special considerations, any alteration to that should require a
Variance and should be approved by the Council. It sounds like the direction that we
are going to go tonight is to require the trees on the northern boundary, but go with
some fencing around the rest of the project and, you know, that's one thing -- that's one
way you could look at it. Another way it could be looked at is that those agencies, such
as school districts and City of Meridian, other agencies that are supported by tax
dollars, should actually be setting the example, rather than saying we want to be
excluded from those things that would beautify the city so there are two ways of looking
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 66 of 132
at it. I wouldn't suggest either as better than the other, but I do believe, still, that the
landscaping along the north adjacent to the residential, although there is a 20-foot
buffer between the two, would be appropriate. That's really all that I had to add to those
comments.
Centers: I totally agree and I was just looking -- this is not totally relevant, but it -- I'm
pleased to see the school district didn't lay out the dollars and buy this property ahead
of time. Ronald Van Auker is the present owner and has given his statement to go
ahead and proceed. Correct?
Zaremba: Well, I would chime in on the landscaping that I agree setting the example is
good. The landscaping is attractive, but in most cases that's not the entire purpose of it.
It's a nice result that it's attractive, but its primary purpose is as a sound buffer, as a
pollution absorber, grass and trees and bushes exchange a lot of air for us. The
biggest reason for them existing is what they give back to us in mitigating pollution and
in absorbing sounds. It's a nice benefit that they are pretty, but that's not really the point
of having them there and I'm not too excited about giving it up.
Centers: Which part?
Borup: All of it or --
Centers: Yes.
Zaremba: Well, I'm not really exited about giving up any of it. I could be talked into not
having trees along the eastern and western and southern boundary, but other
landscaping that wants to be there and I think all the trees need to be along the north
boundary. Just an opinion.
Centers: I'd like to move that we close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: I'll second that.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Centers: Yes. I'm in -- well, 100 percent agreement with Commissioner Zaremba and I
think Commissioner Rohm. I think we need full compliance with the city's landscaping
requirements.
Borup: You're differing from the staff recommendation?
Centers: No. Staff is recommending perimeter landscaping.
Borup: Well, they recommend --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 67 of 132
Centers: In special considerations they are and I would make that part of our
requirements. I think --
Borup: I thought they recommended a reduction?
Centers: No. In special considerations they are talking about we need to consider that,
because if we don't, if we allow them not to have the --
Borup: Oh. They supported a decrease. Staff supports a decrease.
Zaremba: Half the trees.
Borup: Right.
Centers: Right.
Zaremba: The normal landscaping, but half the trees.
Centers: Right.
Borup: Yes. That's what I meant.
Zaremba: And the applicant is now asking to go even farther than that.
Centers: Right because I agree with Mr. McKinnon, it's -- you know, the applicant's
presenter talks about the tax dollars and preying on our conscience to save money, but
I -- you know -- and I'm all for saving money, but I have seen a lot of money wasted on
previous site acquisitions that didn't come to play. There was a lot of waste in that case
and other situations with the school district.
Borup: You're still bothered by the Pine Street thing.
Centers: That house is still sitting there and owned by the school district still sitting
there. They bought it before they could even determine if they could use it for that use
and, then, they made application for a bus facility at -- out off of -- well, I was here.
What street was it on?
Borup: Ten Mile.
Centers: Because I'm sure there was a lot of expense gone to promote that location
with no success. Then, they want us to cut corners for this facility. I don't -- I don't
concur. I don't think we should cut corners anyway. I agree with the recycled asphalt. I
don't have any problem with that. The Franklin Road landscape buffer, I don't have any
problem with them not doing that now. I think that makes sense. I think they should put
in the sidewalk, because we have got sidewalks on both sides. That's mine.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 68 of 132
Zaremba: And I'm not sure, except maybe in the short run that leaving out the trees
would save money. If the quantity of exhaust that 350 buses can put out coming and
going four times a day, leaving twice, returning twice, warming up and sitting there, if
that quantity were to go up one chimney, one smoke stack, the EPA would have a lot of
requirements about mitigating the effect on the atmosphere. The trees help with that.
Centers: I agree.
Zaremba: The EPA is beginning to go around and micro manage individual vehicle
pollution. They have gone beyond the smoke stacks now and they could show up at a
facility like this and say you have to put a dome over it and contain everything in it. I
think having trees would -- would help stop that. I think we must take measures to do
that so I'm on the side of trees. How about sidewalks?
Centers: I have told you my opinion.
Zaremba: Yes I feel we should have the sidewalks. Is that what you have -- I forgot.
Centers: Yes.
Borup: Well, yes, let's discuss where we are talking on sidewalks, then. Right now
you're talking on the undeveloped section, that they are going to come in with a future
plat?
Zaremba: Well, we require that as -- certainly residential developers and all other
developers, that they do all of the perimeter landscaping.
Borup: I'm talking about the sidewalk.
Centers: Well, per ACHD report, is the way staff puts it, along Franklin Road. Staff is
okay with B-2.1 or B-2.2. I think that was on Page 4 of the report.
Borup: Well, I'm just saying one option may be to do the sidewalk from their access
road to Sanitary Service's site and if we are not going to require anything on the
property to the west that the sidewalk could be done when that project is presented.
Will we see the -- we will see the platting back here, won't we?
McKinnon: Yes we will see the platting.
Borup: I don't know if that makes a lot of difference.
Zaremba: And not on the other parcel.
Centers: Yes I would agree with that. Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 69 of 132
Borup: So it would be from their access road clear to --
Centers: SDI or --
Borup: SSI sidewalk so that would be continuous. I'm not sure where the
Commissioners were discussing -- or end up going on -- well, all three items have been
listed under special considerations. One is the Franklin Road landscape buffer. They
are requesting it be delayed until a later date.
Centers: Right.
Borup: Staff recommends that a time frame should be part of the motion.
Zaremba: If that was --
Borup: The way we desired to go. On the perimeter landscaping, it would require a
Variance to the City Council, no matter which -- no matter what this Commission
recommended, they still need to apply for the Variance. I think we can put our
recommendation down also.
Centers: Well, no, if we required the landscaping, there wouldn't be a Variance needed.
Borup: That's true.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, regardless of the motion you
make on that tonight, Mr. Bigham and the school district has the opportunity to make a
request for a Variance to eliminate all of it.
Centers: Oh, yes.
McKinnon: But I just wanted to make sure that Wendel is aware of that. Okay.
Borup: If we are talking -- well, which way are we leaning? It sounds like right now the
trees every 70 feet on the northern boundary or are we talking different than that?
Centers: I'd like them every 35.
Zaremba: I'd like the 35 on the northern boundary.
Centers: Per the ordinance.
Borup: And, then, how about other landscaping? If they put a solid slatted fence on
there, is there any need for trees -- or grass and shrubs in that area, too? It's going to
be obscured by the fence, other than from the bus driver's view.
Centers: Well, I think Commissioner Zaremba makes a good point and Commissioner
Rohm, the more trees the better for the noise. It will absorb the noise.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 70 of 132
Borup: No. The Landscape Plan also shows low -- low shrubs and grass in that area.
Zaremba: I think all of those help.
Borup: I don't know if it shows grass, but it shows something. Ornamental ground --
shrubs and ground cover is what it says here. Other than -- other than -- well, it's not --
those are not a screening feature if we already have a sight obstructive fence.
Centers: Are you talking the north?
Borup: Yes I'm talking the north.
Centers: You know, I'd like to see --
Borup: They are having a solid -- they are proposing a solid fence there, a sight
obstructing slatted chain link.
Centers: In lieu of the trees and landscaping?
Borup: Well, that was what they were saying. We still have -- I guess I was assuming
the slatted fence would stay and the trees could stay and shrubs and grass could go.
Centers: Yes. I'm not -- I don't fence, because I'm looking at the railroad right of way
and it's 200 feet to the neighborhood. They may want the fence for security reasons. I
don't know. I think you can have a fence on -- they want the fence on three sides, don't
they?
Borup: Yes. They are planning on --
Thomas: All four sides regardless.
Centers: Regardless. Right.
Borup: Yes and north is going to be slatted, sight obstructing.
Centers: And which it doesn't have to be, really, if you're having landscaping and the
trees, because the railroad right of way is 200 feet.
Borup: Well, the trees aren't going to -- even every 35 feet are not going to be a sight-
obstructing perimeter.
Centers: Okay. Just make them do the --
Zaremba: Different issue. Did we discuss at anytime where their western access road
is in relation to the house across the street? Did we get that answered?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 71 of 132
Borup: It's on the property. I don't know where the house on the property is. Probably,
the map on -- the one that comes with the ACHD report shows all properties in relation
to each other very well. It shows the entire -- yes. About where he was pointing there,
it looks like. It looks like it's close to their western property line. Did you see that,
Commissioner Zaremba?
Zaremba: Yes.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: I have a question for staff. What is the zone where the current facility is?
McKinnon: The current facility is zoned I-L. It's down further off of Franklin, if you were
to go down --
Zaremba: I know where it is, off of --
McKinnon: It's zoned I-L.
Zaremba: I'm just asking what the zone is there.
McKinnon: I-L. I wasn't sure if everybody else knew.
Zaremba: You're hurting me.
Borup: Well, there is no other zoning that would be appropriate at this point.
Zaremba: It's not manufacturing. It's not commercial. It's not their fault it's our
ordinance that's a little bit screwy to me.
Borup: Okay. Are we ready to -- are we ready to discuss a motion?
Centers: Yes the Landscape Plan shows trees every 35 feet correct?
Borup: Right.
McKinnon: Yes.
Centers: And the Landscape Plan is showing grass and -- or bark materials or small
shrubs, which is required, Dave? Okay. It's not. I can tell by your --
McKinnon: It sure is encouraged. We'd like to see something other than perma bark
and, you know, the bark in and of itself is just placed there, it doesn't do a whole lot. Is
it required per se? No.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 72 of 132
Centers: Well, you know, where it's at and it's going to be high maintenance, you know,
I would like to require the trees every 35 feet and leave it at that. All the way around.
Borup: Except for on Franklin Road.
Centers: Exactly. Except for on Franklin Road.
Borup: I mean I don't see a lot of sense in landscaping between the bus parking and
Sanitary Services truck parking, which is the way it's shown now.
Centers: Right.
Borup: You know, that doesn't make -- that doesn't make a lot of sense. Perhaps it
may need something against a future property to be developed, but that could be
handled when that plat comes forward, too, I think. If we allow for full landscaping,
whether it's now or in the future on Franklin, that's what the public is going to see.
Centers: I can develop a motion here. Let's see if I can get some support. We got to
move on.
Borup: Yes.
Centers: I would like to recommend approval to the City Council for Item Number 7 on
our Agenda CUP 02-046, request for Conditional Use Permit for a bus facility in an I-L
zone for Joint School District No. 2 by Joint School District No. 2, at 2170 West Franklin
Road, including all staff comments. In addition, the Landscape Plan can be altered or
should be altered to include trees every 35 feet that surround the applicant's use,
excluding the parcel that is intended to be occupied by SSI. The landscaping fronting
on Franklin Road shall be as submitted. Fencing -- applicant has indicated that fencing
shall surround the property and at the north side they will include lattice or a shield type
fence. That's all we had, isn't it? In other words, our -- do you know where I’m at on
that -- every 35 feet on those trees?
Borup: Well, that's what's submitted now, but I'm not sure -- and, then, this is --
Centers: I will give the drawing to the -- this is what we are --
Borup: Essentially, you're saying along three sides of the property, then?
Centers: Yes like this, Mr. Chairman, and I will give this to the attorney.
Borup: Well, this is, actually, the property that --
Centers: Okay see, this is the SSI. They don't have to go around there do the normal
on Franklin Road go right around with your trees, down to the SSI property.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 73 of 132
Borup: Actually, no. I think their property is to the north of that where you see those
trees. That property is the undeveloped you're looking at there. Flip over to the next
page.
Centers: So SSI is down here.
Borup: Off that plat right. Well, I'm a little confused on that. Is there some vacant
property between SSI and the bus barn -- I mean the --
Centers: Where is SSI?
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, there is some land that's not
being developed right now by SSC. They intend to expand in the future.
Borup: Okay that 330 by 282 is just their present and they are retaining ownership of
the other?
McKinnon: They are retaining ownership of both of those large parcels at this time and
they are developing the property that's to the north of the smaller parcel and to the east
of that smaller parcel. They intend on either redeveloping that smaller parcel in the
future or --
Borup: Okay so the smaller parcel is not even being developed at this point?
McKinnon: That's correct. That's the parcel that's not being developed.
Centers: And that will be given to staff. The little master drawing will be given to staff
for the proposed landscaping end of motion.
Rohm: I will second that.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, before you take action on that,
did that include any recommendation for allowing recycled asphalt?
Centers: I think we agreed that the asphalt was fine.
McKinnon: Okay.
Centers: That would be part of my motion.
McKinnon: Thank you.
Centers: The proposed asphalt. It's not asphalt. It's ground up asphalt. That's fine.
McKinnon: Thank you. Was there a second?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 74 of 132
Rohm: Yes. I seconded it.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Borup: We will take a short break at this time.
(Recess at 10:10 P.M.)
(Reconvened at 10:27 P.M.)
Item 8. Public Hearing: AZ 02-027 Request for zoning boundary modification of
R-40 and C-C zones on 11.76 acres for proposed Locust Grove Place
Subdivision by Wardle and Associates – west of North Locust Grove
Road and south of East Fairview Avenue:
Item 9. Public Hearing: PP 02-026 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 74
building lots and 11 other lots on 11.76 acres in proposed R-40 and C-C
zones for proposed Locust Grove Place Subdivision by Wardle and
Associates – west of North Locust Grove Road and south of East Fairview
Avenue:
Item 10. Public Hearing: CUP 02-041 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for 74 townhouses and 2 office/commercial lots on
11.76 acres for proposed Locust Grove Place Subdivision by Wardle
and Associates – west of North Locust Grove Road and south of East
Fairview Avenue:
Borup: Okay. We are ready to reconvene our Planning and Zoning meeting so we will
start -- hello, Commissioners. Item Numbers 8, 9, and 10, Public Hearing AZ 02-027,
request for zoning boundary modification of R-40 and C-Z on 11.76 acres for the
proposed Locust Grove Place Subdivision. Along with that is PP 02-026, preliminary --
or request for Preliminary Plat approval for 74 building lots and 11 other lots on the
same property and CUP 02-041, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned
Development for 74 townhouses and two office commercial lots, again, on the same
property. We'd like to open all three Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff
report.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This project might
sound a little familiar to you, again, since it is pretty much the second one that you have
seen before. Originally, when this application came in front of you, it wasn't an
application for attached single-family dwellings it was an application for 180 apartments
with six commercial lots on the area that's highlighted on the overhead in front of you.
Locust Grove Road is running north and south. The property that fronts onto it is
approximately a quarter mile south of Franklin -- or Fairview Avenue. The property runs
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 75 of 132
adjacent the Jackson Drain and, accordingly, when the apartment complex was
approved there was a requirement for them to build a pathway adjacent to the Franklin
-- adjacent to the Jackson Drain. Boy, my brain is off. With that project there was a few
items that were discussed that need to be brought up tonight and I will go ahead and
jump right into the item I think tonight is going to be one of the bigger items of
discussion. As you can see within the subdivision to the south of this project, there is a
stub street. It comes into the southern portion of the property the northern terminus of
the stub street ends right there. The applicant has not proposed to extend that stub
street into the project tonight, for the reason being that the project itself will all have
private streets on the interior of this subdivision. The private streets were proposed by
the applicant, because ACHD wanted to have 50-foot right of ways on the interior of the
project. The applicant decided that they would like to have skinny streets, the 29-foot
street sections, rather than having the 29-foot street sections and a 50-foot right of way,
which would have really impacted their project, they decided that they would go all with
private streets. For that reason they don't want to connect the stub street into their
project, because it would be connecting a public street to a private to, again, then,
connect to another public street. On Pages 3 and 4 of ACHD’s, staff report. At the
bottom of Page 3 and the top of Page 4 of ACHD's staff report, there is a discussion by
the ACHD staff coming to an agreement stating that ACHD would -- although it's not in
accordance with their requirements, they would allow them to have the private streets
there and not connect Scrivner. If you haven't had a chance to take a look at that, I
really encourage you to take a look at that before you make a motion tonight. In the
staff report, Wendy, our new planner, this is her first shot at a staff report out here in
Meridian, she has made mention that she would like to see Scrivner Avenue extended
into the property in the future. Part of the justification at the last meeting for this project
and the reason why it was not required in the original approval when it came through as
an apartment, was that the neighbors from the south, the subdivision, did not want it to
connect, because it was connect -- it would have connected to commercial property.
Now, it does connect to single-family residential, but it would connect to a private street.
If we can go to the next slide, you can see how they have addressed that. They have
placed just a small -- actually, it's not that small, it's a 30-foot wide common lot with a
pathway that would connect the two subdivisions. Another reason for not wanting to
connect two roads, as you can see, there is a very short distance from where it would
connect out to Locust Grove, so if their subdivision became busy, they would use this as
a cut through and the applicant would not like -- would rather not have the cut through
with this project. Originally, as approved, this project has six commercial lots. As you
can see on the Site Plan that's been submitted that's in front of you tonight, they have
reduced that to two lots of commercial. It's basically been a reduction from two point
some odd acres of commercial down to .74 acres of commercial. The lots that they are
proposing now are 1,600 square feet or 1,700 square feet, approximately, and 15,000
square feet in size. This is a Planned Development. They have requested some
reduced setbacks and I'll jump to Page 2 of the staff report and just go over a little bit of
the setback requirements that they have asked for some reductions to. One of the first
setbacks is some city requirements for a front setback of 20-foot and applicant has
requested an 18.5-foot front setback or 20 feet from the back of sidewalk. The 18.5 feet
does not -- is not something that would concern us as staff, because we would prefer --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 76 of 132
what we are really looking for is that 20 feet from sidewalk to the garage. You don't
want to have vehicles parking in the driveway overhanging into the sidewalk so, the 20
feet is the more important, rather than the 18.5, to the staff. The rear setback of 15 feet
is a city requirement. The applicant has proposed on the western boundary, the area I
have highlighted, to be able to allow this section of property to be allowed to drop to the
13-foot rear setback. Unfortunately, Section 12-6-2A.5 of the Planned Development
Ordinance does not allow reductions of setbacks on the periphery of a Planned
Development. Setbacks and other dimensions within a Planned Development can be
reduced everywhere except along the periphery. They want Planned Developments to
impact themselves, rather than impact the properties that surround them. The 13-foot
is non-negotiable, according to the ordinance, unless there was a Variance that was
requested for that. Side setbacks, the applicant has proposed zero to five. Staff has no
problem with that and the street size. Staff has no problem with that -- with the street
size that has been requested. R-40 does not have minimum lot size. The applicant has
proposed a 3,600 square foot minimum lot size and staff is in agreement with that and
the lot frontage, there is none that is required by the City of Meridian for these lots.
However, the applicant has proposed a 40-foot and we are more than happy to agree
with that. If I can direct your attention to Page 3, we go into the annexation and zoning
analysis. I have just one thing highlighted in this section to discuss with you. It would
be under Subsection A, the finding that deals with whether or not the new zoning is
harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Wendy noted that
on the Comprehensive Plan, this property is entirely high density residential in the new
Comprehensive Plan, without any commercial. When the property was originally
approved, this was as a mixed-use zone, which would have allowed for the mixed uses.
Because the existing property is already zoned C-C and they are decreasing the
amount of nonconformance with the Comprehensive Plan, staff does not disagree with
what the applicant is proposing. We do find that it is in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan by bringing it into more compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
I'm going to skip through the rest of the comments concerning the annexation and
zoning until we get to the site-specific comments on Page 6, Item Number 2. She --
Wendy has pointed out, correctly I might add, that the minimum lot area of a C-C zone -
- for a lot in a C-C zoning is eight acres and the proposed rezone does not meet this
dimensional requirement. This is not to say that the staff disagrees with what the
applicant has proposed, but, rather, to point out to you that there is a discrepancy in our
Zoning Ordinance from what has been applied for by the applicant. My understanding
is that the legislative intent of saying eight acres was so that you have a large block of a
C-C, something like Fred Meyers to the northeast, as for C-C, it would be a community -
- commercial center. Because it's already zoned C-C, the lots are already in existence,
we don't have any objection to that, and that's more for informational purposes, rather
than any type of suggestion for denial. If I could get you to drop to the bottom of Page 6
under the additional considerations. This is where Wendy has addressed the issue of
Scrivner Avenue connecting to this -- connecting to the street right here that we talked
about just at the beginning of the application. She gives some justification for that by
saying that when this development was originally approved and the stub street from
Scrivner was originally, you know, not required, this project was drastically different. It
was, essentially, a stub street into a high residential, 180-apartment unit complex, with
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 77 of 132
commercial property. At that time members from that development, like I said, the
development to the south came and said we don't want to have any connection. I don't
know if there is anyone here tonight that would be there -- would be here to talk about
that, but I know that the applicant has some information that he'd like to present to you
tonight to further that discussion. Site-Specific Comment Number 1 on the Preliminary
Plat is, again, the Scrivner Avenue issue. Item Number 2 under the site-specific
comments addresses the requirement for a 15-foot buffer. It's in the Landscape
Ordinance that would require, actually, a 20-foot buffer behind the office commercial
uses and the adjoining residential uses. In the Landscape Ordinance, there is the
requirement that between the different types of uses there is a requirement for the
buffer and that you are required to put that on the property at the time of development.
Please keep in mind that this is a Planned Development and should the applicant
request a reduction in that, that that would be within the guidelines of the Planned
Development Ordinance. It was not requested. However, it is something that is
available to allow that to be reduced, because of the fact this is part of a Planned
Development. You will note that there is no Item Number 3. If you could skip to
Number 4, which, actually, be Item Number 3. The Meridian Fire Department has
recommended that parking be allowed only on side of the subdivision streets. Again,
this is a 29-foot street section road. The Fire Department typically requires a 20-foot
wide access drive. If parking were to be allowed on both sides of the street, they
wouldn't be able to get a fire truck through that. The applicant I know is ready to
address that issue tonight. Item Number 5, a Cross-Access Agreement, will be required
between the two. There currently is no Cross-Access Agreement. The properties that
front onto Locust Grove do not actually have any access to Locust Grove. They will be
accessed off of the road that comes in on the north part of the boundary, so, essentially,
this parcel would be landlocked -- the commercial property to the south would be
landlocked without a Cross-Access Agreement with the commercial property to the
north. Item Number 6 this is going to bring us back down to the Scrivner Avenue
discussion one more time. It has to deal with the applicant's request that Lot 41, that's
the lot that's on the eastern boundary of the pedestrian pathway that they be allowed to
not have any side setback and they be allowed to build their home right up next to that
property line. Wendy has noted in her site-specific comments that they should not be
allowed to go build right to that, that they should meet the five-foot setback from
property line on that site -- on that side yard setback. Detailed fencing. There are no
real issues with that until we get to the Final Plat. We get down to Item Number 8 and
there are a number of notes there. There is really nothing that makes a large impact
onto the property, so we will go through that, we will turn to Page 8, and there are
another couple of items that I'd like to point out to you that are of importance for this
application. Beginning with the mis-numbered Number 5, they shall construct a
micropath providing connectivity between Locust View Streets. That is the street that's
on the northern boundary of this property. They have provided -- the applicant has
provided a pathway along the Jackson Drain. However, the only access point to that
pathway is off of Locust Grove. There are no internal access points, other than small
open spaces here and here surrounding these two properties. What Wendy is
suggesting in that comment -- in the staff comments that they reconfigure, so that there
can be a pathway that can be built between those two lots to provide internal
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 78 of 132
connection to the pathway that's supposed to service this project. Looking through to
see if there is anything else that needed to be brought to your attention in the
Preliminary Plat and I don't see any other site-specific comments that play of major
importance that I want to bring to your attention specifically at this time. Turn to page --
Bruce wants me to just touch shortly for just a second for clarification's sake that the
Jackson Drain is intended to remain open and the city will allow it to remain open.
That's intended to be an amenity for the city, since there is a pathway there, and we
don't want them to cover that up. We would suggest that you not require them to tile
that drain. However, the Settler's Canal -- is that right, Bruce? Settlers will be tiled and
the applicant is proposing to do that, so that's not a major issue. We do intend on
keeping the Jackson Drain open. As you will remember, we have dealt with a few other
applications in the past, Butte Fence and Aire, Cooper Canyon, Fountain Park, those
were all required to build pathways and the pathways are built adjacent to Aire
Manufacturing right now just south of Butte Fence and it is an open -- the pathway
adjacent to the open Jackson. We have got Page 9. Those are some standard
comments. Page 10, we get into the Conditional Use and some of the Conditional Use
issues we have already discussed concerning the fact that they are reducing the
amount of nonconforming information -- nonconforming land uses, according to the
Comprehensive Plan. As we get down to the site-specific comments, the site-specific
comments are very general. Most of the major comments were handled in the
Preliminary Plat. It gives you a lot to think about. There are a couple of additional
issues that I would bring up. Within the plat that you have in front of you, this lot that's
in the very southwest corner, is, actually, an open space lot for drainage. It doesn't
provide any access to any other the lots and it doesn't provide any sort of open space
amenity, because it's not actually visible. This is specifically to be a drainage lot with --
it doesn't really benefit the city. The major benefit that you see within this development
on the southern portion would be the connection to the existing subdivision on the ped
path. Along the northern boundary of the property they have a large open expanse for
the Jackson Drain with the pathway, which they will build, to meet the requirements for
the Planned Development by providing those amenities, we do have the code for that.
You do have in front of you tonight -- I know Jon just handed this out during the break.
Mr. Wardle has prepared a written response to the staff report and gone through a lot of
the issues that Jon has addressed and he has quite a few issues that he does disagree
with. I won't steal his thunder, so he's got a few issues that he'd like to bring up. After
he has an opportunity to explain to you the reasons, justifications for his disagreements
and for his proposal, staff would ask that you give staff the opportunity to review what
he has to say and offer additional comments. With that, I would open myself up to
answer any questions that you have for us at this time.
Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Could you go back to the area map, Dave? There you
go. I wanted to look at the subdivision below regarding that stub street. Do they have
another access below the one access there into that subdivision? See, they have this
one. Does this subdivision have another access down in here or do you know because
I'm wondering if they really want to get into that subdivision? I don't think so but that's
my opinion.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 79 of 132
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, that is the only access into that
subdivision.
Centers: The only access.
Zaremba: I think if you wind your way through you can come out --
Borup: Except for here.
Zaremba: You can come out on Pine somewhere.
Centers: Yes right here.
Borup: Is this Pine -- or this is Pine here?
McKinnon: Bruce -- I think it's called Atkins.
Centers: Is this Pine?
McKinnon: Is it Atkins or Pine, Bruce?
Freckleton: Well, Pine is further south.
Borup: That's what I thought. Pine is way down there. This isn't even -- is this even a
road?
Zaremba: That's the border of the drawing, but I think that you can get to Pine Street --
Borup: It continues on. Okay. I think Jon can clarify that for us any other questions
from staff? Go ahead.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, Atkins is the street that runs north
south right here. This goes all the way down to Pine Street. That is the only other
connection to the subdivision. There are no other accesses to that subdivision off of
Locust Grove.
Zaremba: The same stub street -- I suppose at this point there is no way to build a turn
around there? Is it short enough that it doesn't require one?
Freckleton: Commissioner Zaremba --
Borup: It's met the requirement. It's only one lot.
Freckleton: It's one lot depth. We wouldn't require a turn around and there are
currently homes built on those lots, so --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 80 of 132
Borup: But for some reason they wanted it --
Zaremba: If I remember some of the issues from the previous -- the roadway that goes
along here. There was concern by one of these two property owners in the adjoining
subdivision. The elevations are such that the roadway is above the fence line, thereby
having headlights shine in their houses. We approved an eight-foot fence or something
like that or more trees -- I'm hoping that thought didn't get lost. I forget what the
solution was, but we did something that was sensitive to those homeowners.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, the gentleman that actually testified
at that last meeting concerning those issues was actually here earlier tonight. The
applicant has had discussions with him and he will be able to address that tonight for
you.
Zaremba: Okay and I seem to recall -- this is in the packet, a previous layout. I seem
to recall on the commercial properties there was some restriction about fast foods or
hours or something.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I wouldn't be surprised if there
was some restrictions on that. I think that the applicant actually addressed some of
those in his application material and he could probably address that better than I could.
I didn't work -- well, I had just come on to work for the City of Meridian when this made it
to the original Public Hearing, and so I'm really not the best person to comment on that.
Zaremba: Okay.
McKinnon: But I don't think that that's a bad idea for this application as well.
Borup: Anything else? Would the applicant like to make their presentation?
Wardle: Good evening. For the record, my name is Jon Wardle. My address just
changed. It's 4940 East Hill Station Drive in Boise. I'm representing LC Development
on this project and I guess just a point of clarification. Do you want me to answer your
questions first and then -- or -- I have written most of this down. I can address it at the
end of the presentation. Whatever --
Zaremba: Any order is fine.
Wardle: Okay. As Mr. McKinnon indicated, this project has changed significantly from
what it was previously. We had proposed 180 apartments with -- I think it was
somewhere around 15,000 square feet of commercial/retail space for the project. We
have changed it to a townhouse project with both attached and detached units, as well
as 6,000 square feet of commercial space, which we intend to be office. In terms of the
restrictions on the uses of fast food, that's fine. We are not intending to do retail per se.
It would be more office space or professional, but in terms of a restaurant or something
like that, that's not the intent of the project that's in front of you this evening or as
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 81 of 132
proposed. I had an opportunity to review the staff report and I want to say for the
record that we are pleased with the staff report. I use the disagree and Dave has also
used the word disagree I think that's probably a little strong. I spent a lot of time over
the last four or five months working in Utah and I have to say that your staff that you
have here is very professional and they do a good job. They are very competent and
they have been helpful in all the work that you have been involved in out here and as to
the things that I'm involved in down there, I don't have that pleasure so kudos to your
staff. We did have a neighborhood meeting on this project, sent out fliers, I was very
specific on what the project was, and included a plat as well. Unfortunately, we didn't
have anybody show up to that meeting. There were two neighbors here this evening,
one of which was the neighbor with the fence. The other neighbor that showed up
tonight was the gentleman across the street in that little triangle piece. I met with both
of them and talked about the project and they both left very happy with what's
proposed. As to the gentleman and the eight-foot fence, I showed him our Landscape
Plan. We show a few trees back in that area as well where that swale area is where the
open space is, where eventually some retention might occur. We talked with him about
a six-foot fence. He is fine with the six-foot fence as well. Mr. Centers has dropped off
plans to him, he received those, and he is delighted with the single-family nature of the
project versus the rental that was proposed previously. If I might just go through some
of the issues that were in the staff report. In the annexation file, AZ 02-027, I passed
this out in front of you. On the staff analysis, Pages 3 through 6, Items A through L, we
don't have any issues with any of those items. I just want to note for the record that
ACHD did approve this project on December 11th
and that staff report is included -- the
staff report and final recommendation is included in your packet as well. If we go to the
annexation and zoning comments on Page 6, the issue that we have -- not really an
issue, it's kind of a clarification. I think Dave did a very good job of describing it. I might
give you a little bit more background about why, perhaps, this would approve with C-C.
The recommendation was made from this body to the City Council that perhaps a
different designation be given on this property. Originally, it came through a C-G, which,
I believe, was a little more liberal in the type of uses that can occur. I think in order to
kind of bring that in a little bit, a compromise was made to the City Council to zone this
C-C. I don't know if at that point anybody paid attention to the amount of land that was
required for C-C, but that was what was zoned and approved and ultimately annexed
and is on the books today. We are reducing that from almost three acres down to about
eight tenths of an acre in size. As for the condition, if it's just informational only, we
don't have an issue with it. If it ends up being an issue when we come back in to do
Final Plat that we don't comply with that, then, we do have an issue with that. We just
made the recommendation that that comment be deleted. Duly noted, but that that be
stricken from the record. On the Preliminary Plat, Pages 6 through 7, comments on
Items A through E, we don't have any issues with those comments as stated. The
additional consideration Number 1 -- and this relates directly to Scrivner. There was a
lot of discussion that we had with ACHD staff regarding our road systems and the right
of way requirements. When it came right down to it, the roadway system that we
wanted to do, from the Highway District's perspective, would not qualify for public
streets, so we proposed private streets. The issue that we have is the connection of
Scrivner to Drucker, which is our -- I'll call our east-west street in the project. It would
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 82 of 132
go from -- if the roads were to connect, it would go from a public street to a private
street to a public street and if you look -- Dave, if we could back up to that previous
drawing.
Borup: Quick question, Jon.
Wardle: Yes, sir.
Borup: Has ACHD changed their policy?
Wardle: In what regard?
Borup: I'm sure I can remember previous projects that it has been improved on -- and
maybe they were private, but I don't think so 42-foot right of way.
Wardle: Commissioner Borup, if I could answer that. You are correct. In some
instances, ACHD will approve a 42-foot right of way. There are a couple issues that
they will approve it. It depends on whether there are physical constraints, so if you
have a tight, narrow piece of property that you could get homes on each side, but, you
know, you could only do it if you had a 42-foot right of way, instead of 50-foot, they
would do that.
Borup: That's not the one I'm thinking.
Wardle: The other case is -- it relates to the amount of homes on the road. The -- if we
can go to the other plan really quick our first road in front from Locust Grove, that one
technically -- that is just the north-south segment, would qualify for a 42-foot street right
of way. The rest of it, the loop all the way around connecting from Locust Grove back
onto Locust Grove, would not qualify under ACHD standards. We went through that
quite a bit with them and we couldn't do it and --
Borup: That's what it was then the amount homes on the street.
Wardle: That was the issue. We didn't qualify for that. ACHD does have -- they prefer
connectivity. That's what they have stub streets and I'm a firm believer in connectivity
as well. In this case, given our private streets and the public street connection, it
doesn't work. ACHD agreed with that as well. In fact, they waived their policy to make
it work, given that the turn around -- there would be no turn around required from
Danbury Fair. It was -- met the requirement of one lot in, didn't require a turn around.
The option was we could put a turn around on our property if we wanted to, but they
weren't going to require a turn around. That's why we don't make the roadway
connection. We do make a pedestrian connection, because I think that connection is
very important between those neighbors. There was a lot of discussion previously at
the hearing that those neighbors were in favor of a pedestrian connection, but not the
roadway connection, and we had that proposed and we are in favor of that as well.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 83 of 132
Centers: The neighbors to the --
Wardle: To the south.
Centers: To the south were in favor of the pedestrian connection?
Wardle: Correct.
Borup: This time you mean? I know they were previously but this time you don't know
no one showed up.
Zaremba: No one ever showed up but let's assume they feel the same way.
Wardle: I would assume so. Talking with the one neighbor, who is part of Danbury Fair,
and the fence, when he got it, our notice, he was thrilled to see the type of housing that
we were going to be going there. I think the fact that it changed from a rental property
to an owner-occupied property is the difference and we have done a pretty good job of
identifying what our market is for this as well. We are requesting -- that's the
clarification, that's the history on that issue. On Site-Specific Comment Number 1, the
Preliminary Plat, we don't agree with staff's recommendation that Scrivner be connected
through. I have stated what ACHD's report was and ACHD does state that typically
they do want those to connect, but in this case they agreed to a waiver of district policy
for that requirement not to extend Scrivner. We request that site-specific condition for
the Preliminary Plat be deleted. Also on Number 2, Dave did a good job explaining the
setback issue, what's required by the Landscape Ordinance and there is a little bit of
misinformation in there that I placed in here, but that was based on some information
that I got from staff and we got that clarified. The fact of the matter is this is one
cohesive project. We have proposed townhouses, commercial and we feel that a 15-
foot setback from the back of those office buildings to the property line and, then, a 15-
foot setback on the property line to those residences is sufficient given the intensity of
the use. With the Planned Development Ordinance, you do have that discretion to
allow us to do that. It was detailed in our application pretty specifically, on what we
wanted, as well as on the drawings showing a 15-foot rear setback and we just ask that
you concur with that and delete Site-Specific Number 2. Just to address, quickly, the
parking issue. We are in agreement with that, given that, you know, our connections
are to Locust Grove. We don't have any opportunity of connecting through and creating
kind of a gridded system. We are willing to -- for parking, restrict parking to one side
and we will show that on the plan as it goes to City Council as well. On Item Number 6,
Lot 41, we kind of all congregated this one little area, which is back to that common lot
with the micropath. Lot 41 shows a detached single-family residence and, in essence,
we are treating it as a zero lot line and we would build the unit right on the property line.
There was a statement made in the staff report that it doesn't comply with the R-40
zone side yard setback. If you read the ordinance, the interior side yard setback in the
R-40 zone is zero. That's in Meridian City Code, Dave can correct me if I'm mistaken,
but that's -- we do meet that setback. The thing that makes this one parcel unique is we
have got a 30-foot buffer there between the edge of this property to the next property
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 84 of 132
and from edge of property to micropath I think -- when I calculated it earlier was about
15 feet. There is a lot of space here. It's not going to be a burden that we feel and we
have talked with Dave also about fencing. The fencing would be in line with the house
and since it's adjacent to the common area -- and I know that the City Ordinances, the
maximum height would be four feet along those micropaths so it would be that portion
of the back that would be that, so it would just create a plane along the side there.
Borup: I do have a question on that. Why did you have a 30-foot for the -- halfway?
Wardle: You bet. That's a good question.
Borup: It looks to me like an easy solution would be to cut that down to 20 feet and you
have got 10 more feet on the lot.
Wardle: The one issue that we do have there -- and you probably can't see it very well
there, but if you pull out your drawing in front of you, there is a waterline there that we
have to connect that basically would loop our system through. We connect at Penn
Station on the northwest --
Borup: So you already have a water easement through there, right the utility right
through there? Oh, right over there. There it is.
Wardle: If you measure the water line right now from edge -- from the property line to
center of water line or whatever you propose, it's about seven, seven and a half feet, so
there is not a lot of room. I mean we -- if we needed -- if we needed to -- and I don't
want to suggest this, because it's going to cost -- cost money. I think there are some
things to move that, but that's why that line is rigid, because of where that alignment of
that water line was. We also looked at originally there was going to be the sewer line
through there, but found that we didn't need the sewer to service the project, but the
water line is necessary for the project, so we have a looped system. Did I answer that
correctly, Bruce?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the waterline does need to
connect. If they are not going to use the sewer line, that easement could be reduced to
20 feet.
Borup: But it would be on the other side, it wouldn't be on Lot 41.
Freckleton: We'd like to see -- we'd like to see it centered on the water main, though 10
and 10.
Borup: Okay. All right. That answers --
Freckleton: The water could be shifted.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 85 of 132
Wardle: So we just simply ask that you delete Site-Specific Comment Number 6,
allowing that property to be -- to be built as configured, unless we can all put our heads
together and come up with a better solution. Given where the water line is, that's why
that lot ended up that way. If we go to -- I guess we should be Site-Specific Condition
Number 5, the second time so if you go through 8.1, two, three, four, five, and, then, it's
the next page on Item Number 5, talking about the micropath connection from Locust
Grove Place up to the greenbelt and that's what it really is. There was a lot of
discussion of what that pathway connection is. Let me give you a little bit of history.
When Penn Station was developed, Mr. Centers built a 10-foot pathway north of his
project. When he brought this project in -- he's the owner of both projects -- he brought
this project in, he -- it was his intent to continue that pathway to Locust Grove to create
kind of a regional greenbelt system, which is occurring now downstream with Cooper
Canyon and some of the other properties, which I think you have identified earlier as
well. The issue that we have is the areas that we have identified for bringing that
micropath from our project out to that facility are constricted at the street. We feel that
given that it is regional in nature, it's a greenbelt system that it's not -- it will benefit, to
some degree, our owners, but it's not restricted to only our owners' uses, we have some
concern about safety between those residences. We feel that a better connection
occurs out at Locust Grove where it's visible, where they don't come between
residences, since it is a regional path way. We would just asked for your consideration
on that to not require a connection between those -- those residences at that location.
Zaremba: Let me -- I'll go over that in a moment, but there is a connection here?
Wardle: Correct.
Zaremba: Of some sort. I remember discussing that earlier also. What you're asking
not to do is connect --
Wardle: To one of those.
Zaremba: -- these spots --
Wardle: One or the other.
Zaremba: Is there any connection back here?
Wardle: Is there is not and Mr. Centers and I talked about this today, about what -- you
know, the best scenario. We are providing the open space there and we know that our
residents can get to it, because there is going to be openings for it. We just feel that
there might be some safety concerns about somebody who doesn't belong in that
neighborhood coming in between a couple residences that's not --
Centers: Well, you say there are openings for it. They can get back to it if they want.
Wardle: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 86 of 132
Centers: It's just not a dedicated micropath.
Wardle: Correct. There would just be grass through there and --
Zaremba: It's not paved.
Wardle: It's not paved. They could get to it. The openings are there for them to do
that. We are just asking that a physical pathway not be constructed. If we keep people
on the pathway, you know if it's their intention to just come through to get to Locust
Grove, that's great, because I think that's ultimately where they are going to go and if
they are familiar with the area, they are going to come in. We are just asking that that
consideration be given. We left it open with the intent for them to get there, just not
really show the path or show the way to get there.
Borup: So right now it would be a continuous path from Locust Grove to Stonehenge?
Wardle: That's correct and I believe in the city -- the city also had made a statement -- it
doesn't affect us, because we don't own the property, but the property to the east. The
city had made a statement in a previous approval that that owner provide a pathway as
well to continue the system. We are -- I think Mr. Centers has done a good job on
getting this online and being very supportive of it, and you know, turning this over to the
city as a good facility.
Centers: I think this is a good time to interrupt, because you keep referring to Mr.
Centers. This -- Lee Centers is no relation to Jerry Centers and we have made this for
the record a number of times before, so go forward.
Wardle: And if I refer to him, I'll call him Lee Centers.
Centers: No. That's fine.
Borup: He just wanted to make sure that --
Wardle: Thank you.
Borup: Either that or he wants a percentage.
Centers: Yes be a partner.
Wardle: In talking with my engineer today -- and this is on Item Number 11, this would
be on my Page 4. I'm not up to speed with this and maybe Bruce can answer it. I don't
know if this is a real issue, but he was concerned about the way that the City of
Meridian reviews storm drainage facilities and the way that DEQ does, he felt that there
were some discrepancies in the requirements. I know that DEQ reviews those pretty
thoroughly -- or not. I could be mistaken but it just -- he just asked that we at least
request that the storm drainage facilities be in accordance with the requirements of the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 87 of 132
City of Meridian and DEQ. On general comments on the Preliminary Plat, on Page 8, I
think staff did a very good job on clarifying what the intent was with the Jackson Drain
about leaving that open as a natural feature. I wrote underneath a requested action
and that language -- actually, it was pulled right from the previous approval, talking
about that facility. You can include that if you want or not include it. We are willing to go
with that. It just saves the City Council required approval, the proposed sign, tiling the
Settler's Canal, also known as the Flume Canal, and leaving the Jackson Drain untiled
with a pathway along the north side of the property that must match the pathway
constructed at Penn Station project. The proposed path shall be concrete or asphalt to
match the rest of the pathway. The property owner to the east -- and that's why I said
there was some additional language there. The path property owner to the east of
Locust Grove shall work to continue the path extension when the property is developed.
The city further requires that the pathway be paved after it is deeded to the city and the
city accept the pathway to maintain it before construction of pathway by the developer.
The rest of those items on the Preliminary Plat, we don't have any issue with and, like I
say, I don't have any issues with items on the CU for the Planned Development. The
one -- maybe just to clarify on the rear setback on this -- on the periphery of the project
there are actually two locations where we ask for a 13-foot setback. I will just put this to
rest right now. We can live with the 15-foot setback. We were looking at it today. We
can pick up, you know, the necessary foot or two that we need by making some of
those interior lots just a little -- like shaving a half a foot off of those interior lots in that
middle loop and we can make that 15-foot work for us. We are in agreement with that
as well. We did show up on the northern boundary -- I think they are Lots 12, 11, 10
and 9, those are shown as a 13-foot setback as well. I'm not sure if staff picked up on
that, but it was detailed in the report. We asked for 13 feet. We have enough room, we
can expand it, but if you look, there is quite a large distance between those lots and we
talking up in kind of the northwest corner between that and the pathway. If we need to
expand that property line up just a little bit more to get the necessary feet, we can do
that, or leave the 13 feet, whatever is easier for staff to deal with. The bottom line is we
can deal with the 15-foot setback and not compromise that condition as required on the
Planned Development Ordinance.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman? Jon, can you clarify that for me? You have some 13's up
here.
Wardle: Yes.
McKinnon: Okay that wouldn't be a problem for staff, as long as it's not on the real
edge periphery. If that can get to open space, we are okay with that.
Wardle: So those are okay right there?
McKinnon: That would be correct. I think it needs to be pointed out, though, that the
Site-Specific Comment Number A-1 says that the rear setback has to be 15 feet. That
would have to be modified to allow that on those northern areas, but -- let me see. The
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 88 of 132
reduction of -- north on the periphery -- that the north not be considered part of the
periphery.
Borup: When the ordinance say periphery, you're talking property line?
McKinnon: Property line edge.
Borup: Yes and those north ones wouldn't be on the -- are not on the property line.
Wardle: That's correct.
McKinnon: I guess I don’t need to be modified. I guess Wendy's got it written correctly.
Wardle: And I just want to state again the type of uses that we are intending for those
commercial lots. We really see those as office space for -- it could be a dentist, it could
be a builder, very kind of low intense use, your hours are typically 8:00 to 6:00. We are
not proposing a restaurant or retail -- the site of the project doesn't lend itself to a retail
center. Just to let you know what our intent is with that and if the requirements were
pulled from the previous Development Agreement to fine-tune that, that's fine as well. I
just wanted to put in your mind what we are intending to do there.
Zaremba: And I'm -- as we go on I'm remembering more about what that conversation
was. I think. I think the original proposal where that subject came up about restricting,
not having fast food and staff, you had commercial all the way down to the adjoining
subdivision property line.
Wardle: That's correct.
Zaremba: And their concern was that there would be noise and too much traffic at night
right next to their residences.
Wardle: Right.
Zaremba: And I think seeing that you have pulled it up and you have got two housing
sections between their subdivision and any of your commercial, I don't see that as being
an issue that it was at that time, because of the other locations, so --
Borup: I agree with that.
Zaremba: I'm remembering why that was part of the conversation.
Borup: Yes there was a buffer designed in the project now that --
Zaremba: So that problem doesn't exist. We earlier thanked Mrs. Bowcutt for providing
responses in this format and I would like to thank you also. To have it this organized
and clear is very helpful to us. Very good.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 89 of 132
Wardle: For the record, thanks for letting me come and testify this evening. Once,
again, staff probably doesn't get enough credit. They do a good job and appreciative of
the effort that they have given us on this.
Zaremba: It's interesting when you go somewhere else you appreciate how fine our
staff is.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, before we get too much into a love fest, I have got to beat
Jon up on a couple of issues here. Would it be okay if I ask a couple questions of the
applicant?
Borup: Yes. That was one of the questions I had was your comment on at least two of
them, but go ahead.
McKinnon: Yes let's jump to Page 3 of Jon's responses, if we could. Item Number 2 is
a disagreement. Something was itching at the back of my head when we started talking
about that 15-foot and we couldn't remember what the issue was. Wendy didn't
address it, but I remember discussing with Wendy -- and I don't know if you all have a
copy of the Landscape Plan. When we discuss buffers between land uses, there is a
requirement that they provide some landscaping between those buffers. The proposed
Landscape Plan shows only sod at the rear with a fence behind that project. The
Landscape Ordinance talks about the buffers and buffer walls and if there is a fence,
then, they need to at least plant one tree every 35 lineal feet. Would you be willing to
add some additional trees, one per 35 lineal feet?
Wardle: Yes, we will.
McKinnon: Okay. That's something that should be added. I don't have any other
problem with that. If we could jump down to Item Number 6, the disagreement on Lot
41 configurations. This is more of a technical question, but I'm sure -- well, I know the
answer, but I will go ahead and ask the question. If you build on a zero lot line, will you
be allowed to have any penetration such as windows and doors exiting or facing that
direction? Are we going to be stuck with a two-story building without any windows
facing onto the common lot?
Wardle: First off, that would be a one-story structure.
McKinnon: It's a one-story.
Wardle: All the units are one-story in size. I believe that we would have some windows
opening out on to that -- that area, instead of having a blank wall. I mean we can work
with you on that.
McKinnon: You can go back to the Uniform Building Code or International Building
Code question with building on zero lot lines, but not having any of the other sides -- it's
just a question that -- Keith might be able to answer it better than I would, being a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 90 of 132
builder. Typically on a zero lot line, you don't have the penetration, especially the type
of construction that you're using when you build a single family home. Lee might --
Wardle: The way that that unit is laid out, all of the windows currently will orient the
other way.
McKinnon: Okay.
Wardle: Essentially, you took a plan that we had and you divide it down the middle,
there weren't any windows on that side anyway. I don't -- I think a blank wall might be --
I don't know.
McKinnon: It was just a question.
Borup: Was your question concerning -- I mean you were wondering about esthetics
or --
McKinnon: Yes. It's more of an esthetics type of question.
Zaremba: Were you advocating windows or something?
McKinnon: You know it sure is nicer to look at windows than a wall with a fence that
extends on either side of it with a roof. You know, some sort of window -- from the
street. If you have a pathway, you don't have anybody that can look into the pathway
and it's going to lead into this -- the next question I had for Jon. There are no eyes on
the pathway. The second question would be -- because this is not a typical micropath
that we have established as a micropath, we have no guidelines that we have allowed
that would restrict the pathway to a four-foot fence. Essentially, the applicant could go
to a five -- a six-foot fence. If we -- rather than deleting that, if we could go the direction
of requiring only a four-foot fence adjacent to the pathway on either side of that
pathway, so we don't end up with a six-foot tall corridor, I think Jon addressed that, but
we could make that specific. Do you have any problem with that, Jon?
Wardle: I don't and I think -- actually, I'm looking for the condition, but I think staff said
that we needed to abide by the conditions that related to micropath design and --
McKinnon: Let me find that real quick.
Wardle: We are in agreement with that.
McKinnon: Okay.
Wardle: We don't have an issue with the four-foot fence --
McKinnon: Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 91 of 132
Wardle: -- adjacent to those micropaths.
McKinnon: Okay let's jump down to Number 5 at the bottom of your Page 3. It's
dealing with the Flume Canal and the pathway connection from within the subdivision.
Would it be possible at all, Jon, to take lots -- I think it's actually Lots 7 and 8 on the
plat, but I have got a copy of -- not six and seven that -- well, it's between six and
seven. It's Lots 7 and 8 that are kind of the two lots that have open space on either
side. You say you have a small section of land -- I could probably scale that out real
quick. Would it be possible to move that either to the -- either to the west or to the east,
these two lots right here I'm talking about -- move that either to the west or to the east,
so that you could have an open space that would be wide enough to accommodate a
micropath? The reason I ask that question is this micropath, per the Planned
Development, is supposed to be an amenity towards the subdivision. It duals as a
regional pathway system, granted, but if you can't access it from within the subdivision,
does it really offer any benefit to those people who live within the subdivision.
Zaremba: I think his earlier comment was the subdivision users would just walk on the
grass. Is that not acceptable?
McKinnon: Well, you get to the same issue of -- if you don't have the micropath that's
there, you end up with the ability of the homeowners to put the six-foot fences there.
With those six-foot fences there, all of a sudden you create a system that's actually
more disruptive or more -- it would cause more problems, because you had a six-foot
area that nobody can see into. Especially, if you take into consideration with their
Landscape Plan, it puts a tree right at the front on the street right there, so that nobody
can see in from the front so people can access that. It might be better to restrict that
access and put people in the right spot for that and put a four-foot fence requirement,
so that people can actually see into it, rather than allow a corridor with a six-foot fence
on either side.
Wardle: I understand what staff is asking. I think we are just going to leave our request
as stated and not require the micropath and leave it to your discretion on what you
would like to see there. Our position is we don't -- we feel that there are sufficient
accesses to it without actually having to make a pathway out to it, people can get to it,
we haven't blocked them off from it, and it will connect to a public sidewalk out on
Locust Grove as well, so --
Zaremba: Would you accept the restriction on fence height along that common area to
four feet?
Borup: It depends on -- I mean you have got access right here, too.
McKinnon: No, you don't.
Borup: Don't you?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 92 of 132
McKinnon: No. There is no access, except for Locust Grove. This is the only --
Borup: No, I don't mean a --
Zaremba: Access like a path.
Borup: Right.
McKinnon: But that is a house right there. That's a house.
Centers: Well, this is 10 feet and that's seven feet and -- to me, that's access. As long
as we restrict it and they don't block the access. As far as a fence along each home,
you know, I don't know if that's going to happen, but how will that restrict the access?
McKinnon: It won't necessarily restrict the access to it. A point that was made by Jon
was that you have a situation where you're dragging people in off of a regional pathway
into a --
Centers: That's my concern, too.
McKinnon: -- private subdivision. You got that. You have got those openings and
you're going to have those people coming through there. May point is that --
Centers: But they are not an advertised micropath.
McKinnon: It's not an advertised micropath, but you can see through from one point to
the other. It's not advertised. That's correct. That's a really good point. I didn't think of
it that direction. I think it would be -- I think it would be preferable, rather than not
having any access for people that live within the subdivision, except for going through
those. You're not going to -- if it's utilized like as an amenity, you're going to end up with
what I like to call a game trail through that landscaping. You're going to end up with a
human game trail where people are using that to --
Centers: You know, after this is developed and down the road, if I -- if I were there and
a homeowner and on the homeowner's association, they may want to build a fence
back there at some time, if they get a lot of traffic coming into their subdivision.
McKinnon: Yes and that's one question that, actually, wasn't brought up that I was
going to get to Jon. It's proposed for you tonight, is along the back of that regional
pathway system, there has been a lot of discussion in our office as to whether or not it's
appropriate to allow a six-foot fence to be built adjacent to those regional pathway
systems.
Centers: Well, I can see it happening if you get a lot of people that are using that
regional pathway system and they are wanting to take shortcuts through this
subdivision and maybe -- who knows what type of people -- you know, so I can see the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 93 of 132
applicant's point. You know, he talks about security, but I just see derelicts and
vandalism type people going through the sub so I can see a fence being built back
there.
McKinnon: Okay. The issue that would arise from that is if we had a six-foot fence that
was built across the back of that, those derelicts and other people that you envision are
going to be able to congregate back there without anybody seeing them.
Centers: That's true.
Borup: I don't know if derelicts do a lot of jogging.
Centers: I guess you see where I'm coming from.
McKinnon: I do.
Centers: I don't think we need to advertise the micropath.
McKinnon: At the same time, if we get away from the advertising of the micropaths, the
whole idea of a pathway system being provided regionally throughout the city should be
an issue that maybe needs to be revisited.
Centers: Exactly but they are providing access. I mean we can't deny that 10 feet and
seven feet. Those people are going to be able to get back there if they want to go
jogging.
McKinnon: The question that I would pose now, then, is the one I just posed a minute
ago is that do you think there should be any restriction of fencing adjacent to that
regional pathway? Should you restrict it to four feet in height? Should there be some
sort of restriction to --
Centers: Did I open a can of worms here?
McKinnon: Well, it's been something that has been a requirement on other plats, but it's
not something that's listed per se. The only point in our ordinance that it's required is --
I shouldn't say it's been required by the plat, it's been required through annexations and
through the Conditional Use Permits.
Centers: I think we could require them to come back and apply to the Fence
Committee, which are chairman heads. Well, he's a member of so, we could make that
requirement if they wanted to build a fence along the pathway, that they would have to
come back to the fence committee. Is that what you call yourselves?
Borup: Sounds good.
Centers: Yes. Close enough.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 94 of 132
Borup: I'm not sure where Dave's talking about the fences. Along the property line or --
Centers: He's talking back in here.
Borup: Okay. Those are 50 feet away from the path. Well, right here is. It's 50 feet
away.
Rohm: I think he's talking right here.
Centers: No. He's talking by the --
Borup: Along here there is about 50 feet, to the pathway along here. It's quite close
and, then, you have got that security problem.
Rohm: If we were to just put a limitation of a four-foot fence on the east line -- well, let's
see. Yes. The east line here and the west line there and on either side of those four
lots restrict it to a four-foot fence, that would address your issues, would it not, Dave?
McKinnon: It would address those issues. Jon, have you got any ideas?
Borup: Jonathan, had you thought about the idea of sliding these two lots one way or
the other and just making a wider access? Then, there would be just the one area that
the fence would be restricted on, rather than -- rather than two areas. Commissioner
Rohm, do you see what I was --
Rohm: Yes.
Borup: -- saying there, maybe?
Wardle: We are not committed -- committing to a four-foot fence. I think we are still
unsure on that property adjacent to that greenbelt. Interior where you have those little
triangle spaces --
Borup: Right. That's what we are talking about.
Wardle: -- possibly we could get away with a four-foot fence, but on the greenbelt side,
I think we want the flexibility to do a six-foot fence if they want to do a six-foot fence.
Rohm: I don't there was any objection to the six-foot fence on the back lot line. It's the
lot line that's parallel to the pathway --
Zaremba: The wedges.
Rohm: Right and that's where the pathway is in those -- on those wedges.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 95 of 132
Borup: Well, that's what I'm thinking. If that slid or those are combined, a six-foot fence
wouldn't be a problem, because that flares out so fast and it's wide enough. Right now
they are fairly narrow. You know, it went from -- to 17 on the front and, then -- you
know, it's going to be up to 60 or more on the back -- 60, 70 on the back and you don't
have that tunnel effect.
Wardle: And you got to keep in mind here that any fencing that would occur, it's going
to be in plane with -- from that house, which is 20 feet back. I don't have my scale on
me, but if you measured it, your wedge -- you know, where that point begins is 20 feet
back from that sidewalk. It shows 10 feet up there, but I mean it's going to open up
quite a bit.
Borup: The 10 foot one doesn't the seven-foot does. The 10 does a little bit it goes to
11.
Wardle: Is it just 11? Once you get 20 feet back there.
Borup: That's right where the angle starts. That's right where the angle starts in this --
Rohm: Are you thinking a resident would want a six-foot fence along the east and west
line of the lot; do you think?
Wardle: You know, that --
Rohm: Or you just don't want to put a limitation --
Wardle: I don't want to put a limitation on it at this point. There will be some human
activity in there, whether it's invited or not invited. We are hoping that we are not
inviting too much. We know that our residents can get there, it's just a matter of how
that is and whether they are just trying to protect --
Rohm: Curious. As far as from a maintenance perspective on those two wedges, what
do you propose is going to be on that --
Wardle: How will it be maintained?
Rohm: Yes. Is there going to be a grass area that the subdivision itself will maintain?
Wardle: Correct those open spaces will be maintained by the owners association.
That's probably more of a little swale than -- maybe six inches to a foot in depth. It
would be pretty subtle.
Rohm: I think this Commission kind of leans towards either sliding it one way or the
other or putting a limitation to the fence. That's kind of the consensus that I'm gathering
here and it's kind of an either/or issue.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 96 of 132
Wardle: So, if I can just restate, your -- the first option would be shift those two lots left
and right and so there would only be one opening, or the other option would be limit the
fences on the side to four feet.
Rohm: Bingo.
Wardle: Okay. Give me just one second.
Borup: David, on the previous project, was there any micropaths connecting the fence?
I don't see it on the plan we have here. We have got a small one that's --
McKinnon: Bruce has a large plan. We will look at it real quick. I doubt that there was,
but -- I don't believe that they had houses backing -- Mr. Chairman, on the previous plan
you actually had apartments that backed up to that with wider spaces in between than
what the applicant is proposing. There was no direct access or micropath to that in the
original approval.
Wardle: Dave?
McKinnon: What might just solve it -- and Bruce and I were just talking a little bit back
here. Rather than moving it back and forth, if there is no intention of providing access
there and if you look at the Landscape Plan, we have got trees planted in those
wedges. If there is the intent to fence across the back, it might be better served for that
area just to be incorporated into those -- the lots on the sides, rather than provide any
access period. Just get rid of the wedges and make them part of the lots and let them
fence that. If there is not intent for people to use those wedges to access that from the
subdivision, which it doesn't sound like there is, then, we would be just as well served
by allowing those wedges to be part of those people's front yards and part of those
people's back and side yards.
Borup: See, I assumed there was intent for them to use it, just they would cross across
the grass area, but --
Zaremba: Even if you close those up, if you have made a drainage lot, so that this was
tight, you could still walk across here.
McKinnon: That's a house, Commissioner Zaremba that you're walking across.
Zaremba: This is a house here?
McKinnon: That's a house.
Zaremba: Oh. I thought that was drain pit.
Wardle: No. That's actually a home.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 97 of 132
Zaremba: It is a house, isn't it?
Wardle: I'm going to defer this issue, because I don't want to speak for the applicant
and he said he could come up and address this directly, so --
Borup: I mean the plan shows this as a drainage lot right here, too.
Wardle: No. Pardon me, Commissioner Borup that -- I think that reference refers to
that entire area.
Borup: Oh. I see.
Wardle: The drainage that would come out --
Borup: That's just where the lettering is.
Wardle: That's on six and seven. Yes.
Centers: So, Dave, if I gather what you say, you're okay with just leaving it as
submitted and agreeing with the applicant that they disagree?
McKinnon: If they want to agree to disagree, that's fine with me.
Centers: Okay.
McKinnon: And leave it up to you guys to make that decision.
Borup: Well, he was saying do away with that common area between the lots and
increase the lot size would be an option.
McKinnon: If we want to discourage people from using that as a cut through, just
eliminate those two wedges.
Borup: Let's see what Mr. Centers has to say about that.
L. Centers: Lee Centers, 325 Meridian Street. You know, we never got that far on that.
I didn't think it was going to be an issue. I believe the intention would be to fence along
the property lines all the way, including those two open spaces. You have got a -- the
Parks Department is going to take the path over. They will have to be responsible for
maintaining it. It becomes public. We have got private roads and we have got private
common areas. I don't want to be responsible, nor will the homeowners want to be
responsible for maintaining -- and that's what's going to happen -- the pathway in there.
I don't know how the pathway got started. That wasn't our intention. It will be fenced.
Those are people's back yards, they all got patios, they all got barbecues, and I -- it
would decrease the value of those four homes allowing people to cut through there. I
wouldn't like that. You couldn't stop them. You know, you got people over, you're going
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 98 of 132
to barbecue, and here comes a flock of, you know, ice skaters -- or I mean
skateboarders and that kind of stuff. I would fence the back. They can -- the intent of
that greenbelt, the way I understand it, is from one public road to another public road,
not to go through people's back yards. I mean I wouldn't want that and I don't want to
be responsible for it.
Rohm: I think Dave's comment about just eliminating the wedges addresses it from
both angles. I mean you eliminate the pathways from the outside entity and you no
longer have a fence issue. That seems to address the whole thing and you don't have
people in their back yards.
L. Centers: Right.
Rohm: There you go.
Zaremba: Let me ask this -- propose this as a solution. I think there are 11 lots along
this arch. If you just widened each one of them one foot, you would use up almost all of
that space. Is that a solution?
L. Centers: You know, we would consider that and we will get with the --
Zaremba: And I'm not making that a requirement, it was just a suggestion.
L. Centers: What we were trying to do there was to give it some interest and that's to
be open space and landscaped as part of our open space and people will -- you know,
somebody will use that but it's for the esthetics, I believe.
Zaremba: I think because of the curve of the road you're always going to end up with
some little wedge there.
L. Centers: Yes.
Zaremba: I think what we are talking about is just closing it off so it's not -- doesn't
connect to the road.
L. Centers: Right.
Borup: Or make it part of the lot. It's going to increase the value of those lots.
L. Centers: If you can understand what I mean, if you do cut throughs through there,
you decrease that property value, if you ask me.
Zaremba: Well, I think people will cut through, so I'm trying to prevent that.
Rohm: That's why you put the fence up.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 99 of 132
Borup: I don't know. They have got to be going somewhere if they are going to cut
through and I'm not sure where that would go to that they would want to.
Rohm: Home.
Zaremba: On a different subject, I have a -- just a knowledge question for me that
maybe staff or Mr. Wardle can answer. With a private roadway, who owns that? Is that
a common lot that the homeowner's association owns and maintains?
Wardle: Commissioner Zaremba, that's correct. There is a little call out near the
bottom. I, actually, think it's called out of Lot 41 or something and it is a single lot. It
may not be 41. It's -- I don't remember the number.
Zaremba: Forty-five.
Wardle: Forty-five and that is a common lot dedicated to the owner's association. Their
dues would take into consideration the maintenance of that facility long term and there
would be reserves for that.
Centers: Snow removal and everything.
Wardle: Yes. Did we do snow removal on this --
Centers: Not this winter. We are getting it in the mountains. That's the good news.
Borup: Jonathan, did you have any additional comment on Mr. McKinnon's response to
your comments if we can remember what they were?
Wardle: I think the one issue that Mr. McKinnon brought up was the four-foot fence on
Lot 41. We agree with that. That's fine.
Borup: The other was on the setbacks.
Wardle: As for additional --
Borup: the 15-foot --
Wardle: Yes. On that -- on that commercial lot where we had to show the 15-foot
setback, we are in agreement or we concur with putting -- planting one tree per 35 lineal
feet, so --
Borup: Okay.
Wardle: That was just an oversight. I didn't mean to scare the public off, but I think I
addressed their questions pretty well, so --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 100 of 132
Zaremba: I don't know if we have asked if there was anybody else that --
Borup: No, we haven't yet.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we have in the staff report
requested that we get a -- I'm going to go back to the fence issue just briefly one more
time. I know we have beaten the fence issue a lot tonight. Wendy, in her staff report,
did require that they submit a detailed fencing plan with the Final Plat and that would
give us some time to determine what we are doing. A couple points that really haven't
been brought up that need to be brought up would be, one, that property to the north is
a project that is a junk yard, essentially, and there is not going to be any eyes on the
pathway from that side. I'll guarantee you there are not going to be people watching
what's happening on the pathway from that side. As it makes the bend at that location
up, the Police Department is going to want to be able to have some sort of visibility into
that and I think it would be good to have some comments from the Police Department.
One of the requirements -- when we went to the Landscape Ordinance, the Police
Department was very adamant about requiring some sort of visibility into the pathways
and some way to access those pathways in case there is an emergency, if there is any
other problem back there. We could address those issues with the Final Plat and at
that time, we could have the Police Department's comments concerning that. In
addition to that, one option that really hasn't been discussed tonight would a four-foot
fence with a two-foot lattice. The lattice would allow the privacy and at the same time
would allow eyes to be on that and allow visibility into that. Those are two options that I
would put for you for that. As far as the rest of the comments that Jon had tonight, I will
pat Jon on the back, after he got done patting ours. This helps us out a great deal as
well for organization and I appreciate him doing that for us. I was able to get us to
focus on the issues that we have got tonight and I think we have got the issues all laid
out. I think it's -- I think we are to a point now where you guys know the issues and we
can probably go forward.
Wardle: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Any comment before any additional testimony? I think we are
ready to move along. We had several sign up. Most of them are for. There is one --
oh, I'm sorry. That's the wrong subdivision. Do we have anyone else to testify on this?
Okay.
Zaremba: Wouldn't you know everybody that came is for the last item on the agenda.
A lot patience. We appreciate that.
Borup: Any discussion, Commissioners, or are we ready to --
Centers: Yes. I think we can go through it, down through the items real easily. Jon
Wardle makes it easy, as Dave said, and I would recommend, if you guys could do it,
make it a requirement that the applicant submit this in response to your staff report. It
sure helps us. It sure helps you. I don't know why we can't require it.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 101 of 132
Borup: Most of the time they do. He's just gone beyond that a little bit with some
additional wording that --
Centers: The other applicant, that's the --
Zaremba: Becky Bowcutt.
Centers: No. She always does. The other individual he never --
Zaremba: From JUB?
Centers: He just gets up and starts talking and --
Zaremba: I move we close the Public Hearing.
Centers: Second.
Zaremba: On all three items.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Borup: Okay.
Centers: Well, if you want to go down through them, he starts with the Preliminary Plat,
the additional considerations on Page 7 on Scrivner.
Borup: The first one was on the Scrivner connection.
Centers: Yes.
Zaremba: I'm happy with the micropath there.
Centers: Yes. I am, too. Totally.
Borup: Well, I am, too. I really like to see the interconnectivity, but in this case we have
an entrance on Locust Grove.
Centers: Well, then, you have two entrances to the subdivision.
Borup: But the other one that's there, that's not going to do --
Centers: But to this subdivision you have two entrances.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 102 of 132
Borup: Right and the one to the south has an entrance on Locust Grove. To do that is
really not that hard to do, all you do is make that section of Drucker a public road, if you
want to have the connectivity. It's not impossible to do and still keep the rest of the
project the same, but --
Zaremba: I'm satisfied with the --
Borup: It's not serving any purpose.
Centers: So I'm striking Site-Specific Comment Number 1? I personally struck it. The
top of Page 7 and, then, we went to Item 2 on that same page, the 15-foot buffer. They
want -- the city wants the 20. I don't know if we really resolved that. I just feel that the
20 around commercial is code and maybe we need to comply with that.
Borup: Oh, that's what I was going to -- Dave, was that -- was there confusion on which
section or which ordinance?
McKinnon: Yes I think there was. I can get that for you really quick. Do keep in mind
that we are not going to object to the 15 feet, as long as we get those trees. The
applicant does have it within his rights to ask for the setbacks to be reduced in a
Planned Development.
Borup: Does that need to be a formal application or is this tonight --
McKinnon: By the Planned Development Ordinance you're allowed to ask for those
without a Variance.
Borup: Right. I mean does that need to -- the requesting be a formal request or just --
McKinnon: I would consider the discussion tonight being a formal request.
Borup: Would be the request. Okay.
Centers: So you don't have a major problem with the 15 around that, especially --
Borup: As long as there is --
McKinnon: As long as we have the trees, I don't have a problem with it. I can get you
that section of the code, though, that actually does address that, if you want to give me
just one second. It's 12-13-12-4, land use intensity classifications and class one,
single-family homes adjacent to offices, which is a class three -- between a class one
and a class three is a 20-foot requirement. Then, we can go back to the little C
underneath that, it says buffers between land uses is required only along continuous lot
lines so those are continuous lot lines. Then, it goes on further in this section of code to
say that the buffer needs to be required on the heavy -- the higher intensity use. The
entire buffer, if it's available and that's -- responsibility for buffer construction. The
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 103 of 132
required buffer between different land uses shall be provided on the higher intensity use
so there is a requirement for 20 it's required to be on the office's side. Because this is
Planned Development, a request has been made to go to 15 feet. Staff doesn't object
to the 15 feet request, because this is a Planned Development and it's being developed
as an overall concept with that. If we were to go straight with code, however, it would
be at 20 feet, but because this is a Planned Development, we have a little bit of
flexibility with those rules.
Centers: And the fact -- and I think we will probably put that in the motion that he's
going with office and not high density, you might say, for retail --
McKinnon: And the higher intensity.
Centers: Right. Okay and we were in agreement to allow the zero lot line on Lot 41
and limit the fence to four feet.
McKinnon: That's fine.
Borup: I would like to encourage some architectural detail on there, whether it's
windows or -- I don't know what rather than a -- on the Lot 41 house.
Rohm: Rather than a blank wall.
Borup: Yes rather than a big blank wall but I don't know how -- I think that's to their
benefit to do that, too. I don't know if they want to do an ugly house. I guess I would
say just to encourage --
McKinnon: I wish I had the information for you tonight concerning what the International
Building Code does with this type of construction, but if I remember correctly, they don't
allow penetrations with that type of construction, because it's --
Borup: And I'm not familiar at all with zero lot lines. To me the factor would be you're
against a 30-foot -- a 30-foot pathway and the next house are 35 feet away.
Centers: I don't think the applicant would have a problem with some esthetics and
windows on that side. Then, moving on, on Page 8, I think we all agree to strike
Number 5 on the top of Page 8, construct a micropath. Then, in lieu of that, I would add
enlarge -- they will enlarge the lots how they see fit, but we could state that Lots 6,7, 8,
and 9 would become larger with no openings between lots -- with no openings. Then, I
think Dave wanted to add item 12, detailed fence plans prior to Final Plat.
Borup: So you're saying you're requiring them to ---
Centers: Just close it up.
Borup: Yes if there is going to be a fence along the back, what difference does it make?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 104 of 132
Centers: Where were you when we were talking about this?
Borup: Well, I was here, but I thought that's what they -- no, that was before we started
talking about a fence along the back.
Centers: I think that was Dave's suggestion, too, the way he started. Rather than have
any access at all, to just enlarge the lots and go from there. Wasn't that right, Dave?
McKinnon: It was kind of a --
Borup: Unless you want to leave it up to the applicant to do what they want, as long as
they don't change the lot configuration substantially.
Centers: They will enlarge, just -- they are going to have to enlarge them if they are not
going to have any openings there.
Borup: They could do it just like they have submitted and have landscaping in there.
Rohm: Yes I think the applicant actually, liked the idea of the open area available, even
though --
Borup: To the --
Rohm: -- to the homeowners themselves, as opposed to closing it off completely. Isn't
that what you were saying, Lee?
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I can offer just a clarification
point. The applicant was, as Chairman Borup pointed out earlier tonight, that they were
intending that area to be used partially for some drainage and if they need to use that
for drainage, we shouldn't, as a body -- we shouldn't, as a body, require them to
eliminate that, just carte blanch you can't have it, whatever you do with it, we are okay.
We should allow them to continue to use that for storm drainage if they choose to do
that. You know, we could go the and/or route with that. In my own mind I'm still
struggling with the -- with whether or not this is an amenity to the subdivision.
Zaremba: Well, I wasn't envisioning eliminating them, I was envisioning pinching them
off at the street side, so that they don't actually connect to the street, but I don't see
them disappearing.
McKinnon: Yes that's -- I can see where you're going with that, too.
Borup: Well, then, there is no access to them.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 105 of 132
McKinnon: There is no access it would be visual -- yes. As long as we leave it up to
the applicant to term what they are going to do with that. We have heard from the
applicant tonight that he definitely wants to fence the back of it adjacent to the --
Centers: I don't have a problem with that. I never did so I'm back -- we just strike
Number 5 like --
McKinnon: You just strike number and leave it the way it is and we don't have to deal
with it.
Centers: And, then, on Page 4 of the applicant's -- we agree to modify Site-Specific
comment on the drainage area --
McKinnon: Okay.
Centers: You know, in agreement with the DEQ.
McKinnon: Okay.
Centers: And, then, we will just put those in the record. Okay. Are we all in
agreement?
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, before you make that motion, two
additional points of clarification. On Page 2 of the response by Jonathan, he asked that
you strike Annexation and Zoning Comment Number 2. Did you guys want to keep that
in? That's basically for informational purposes saying that it doesn't meet minimum lot
size in a C-C zone. Do you want to keep that, eliminate that?
Centers: Are you talking about the eight acres?
McKinnon: Yes.
Centers: Yes. I did want to strike that.
McKinnon: You did want to strike that? Okay.
Centers: It's of the record.
McKinnon: Okay and just -- we were just going through a lot of this letter and you guys
were all discussing it and I just had one other question, I wanted to make sure you guys
were all in agreement on that before the motion. Would be general comments on -- turn
back to page four of Jon's comments. On Item Number 8 for the general comments on
the Preliminary Plat, he requests that you adopt the language that was approved at the
previous application. If that -- if you do go along with that, there should be some
modification to that, eliminating any reference to Penn Station -- constructed in the
Penn Station -- well, I guess you could leave it at that. The City Council -- you would
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 106 of 132
have to strike the language saying the City Council requires the approval of the
proposed design. You could state that Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval, if you want to go with that recommendation.
Centers: So just eliminate the first three words.
McKinnon: That might be the way to go and change that with the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends.
Centers: P&Z -- okay.
McKinnon: If you want to go with that requested action, staff doesn't have any objection
to that.
Centers: Okay. I'd like to recommend approval for Item 9 on the agenda -- excuse me -
- Item 8 on the agenda, AZ 02-027, request for zoning boundary modification of R-40
and C-C zones on 11.76 acres for proposed Locust Grove Place Sub by Wardle &
Associates, west of Locust Grove Road and south of East Fairview. Including all staff
comments and on Page 6 of the staff comments, Item 2, we would strike that and it was
duly noted end of motion.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Borup: Item 9.
Centers: I would recommend approval for Item 9, PP 02-026, request for a Preliminary
Plat approval for 74 building lots and 11 other lots on 11.76 acres in a proposed R-40
and C-C zones for proposed Locust Grove Place Subdivision by Wardle & Associates,
west of North Locust Grove Road and south of East Fairview Avenue. Including all
staff, comments and hereby amended Page 7, under site-specific comments, strike Item
1. Number 2, we will allow the 15-foot buffer around the commercial development.
Number 6 we will allow the zero lot line on Lot 41, with a maximum fence limitation of
four feet and we will require the home built on said lot to at least have windows facing
that common area. Item 8 --
Borup: Windows or just an architectural detail?
Centers: You know, architectural detail that would be pleasing to the eye.
Borup: Either/or.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 107 of 132
Centers: Either/or. Item 8, Sub Topic 1 all rear setbacks shall be 15 feet, except the
northern lots. Page 8, Item 5, and it is Item 5, even though the numbering system got a
little screwy there, but it is Item 5 at the top of Page 8. Strike that requirement add Item
12, applicant to submit a detailed fence plan prior to Final Plat.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, if I could jump in real quick on that. I
believe that that's actually Site-Specific Comment Number 7 currently in the staff report.
Centers: Right up above that?
McKinnon: Number 7 states that a detailed Fencing Plan shall be submitted upon
application of Final Plat. Previous Number 7 sorry.
Borup: Back on Page 7.
McKinnon: Back on Page 7 of the staff report.
Centers: Oh, we had that. Why did you bring it up again? Okay. Good.
McKinnon: I just brought it up as a clarification saying that's one way we could resolve
that issue. Sorry.
Centers: Number 11, too, on Page 8, should read -- add: Or DEQ required. Right?
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, did you want the suggested
language included from Mr. Wardle's letter stating that in accordance with requirements
of the City of Meridian and DEQ?
Centers: Which page of his letter, Dave?
McKinnon: It's Page 4.
Borup: Page 4.
Centers: Page 4 are we already there?
McKinnon: Yes.
Centers: Yes Item 11, include the language submitted by the applicant, which you have
a copy of.
McKinnon: Thank you.
Centers: The applicant's inclusion is on his Page 4 under requested action at the top.
Okay. Page 8 are we -- Item 8.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 108 of 132
Borup: And that was a question that previous --
Centers: Page 8, Item 8, correct the Preliminary Plat -- provide sanitary services and
water service -- where am I at?
Borup: The numbering is off.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, if we could take Number 8 that's on -
- well, Page 8, Number 8, with the requested action, that was the one we were going to
change the wording to Planning and Zoning.
Centers: Is it our Page 8, Number 8?
McKinnon: Their Page 8. Let's see where Wendy's got that.
Borup: I think it should have been Number 7. His comment was Number 7 and it's our
staff comment number --
McKinnon: No.
Borup: I mean Staff Comment Number 7, his comment Number 8 is that correct?
McKinnon: Page 9 -- okay. Hang on you guys go to the staff report Page 9.
Borup: There we go.
McKinnon: Irrigation ditches.
Borup: Right.
McKinnon: Item Number 8, if you guys could all do me a favor and just take that out of
general comments and let's make that Item Number 12 under the site-specifics.
Centers: So Page 9, Item Number 8, strike?
McKinnon: You could remove it from there and make it Site-Specific Number 12,
because it is more of a site-specific comment, because you guys are telling the Council
what you would like them to do with the Settler's Canal and the Jackson and the
pathway. Does that make sense?
Centers: Yes Page 8 will become Site-Specific Comment Number 12.
McKinnon: Okay.
Centers: Page 8 -- Page 9, Item 8, will become Site-Specific Comment Number 12.
There we go.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 109 of 132
Zaremba: As modified by the applicant.
McKinnon: As modified by the applicant?
Centers: As modified by the applicant in their submission, Page 4, the item at the
bottom.
McKinnon: Including the words, Planning and Zoning Commission recommends, rather
than City Council requires?
Centers: Yes the start of their verbiage should read, Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends approval of the proposed design and I think that's the end of the motion.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: That was a five-minute motion.
Rohm: Good job.
Borup: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just one point of clarification
that Bruce brought up to me, just so the applicant knows and you all know. In the
discussion, we talked about that landscape buffer, the 15 feet between the office and
the residential requiring some additional trees. The applicant agreed to that. The
motion did not include any comments for the trees. However, when I write my site-
specific comment I will say it shall be in compliance with the Landscape Ordinance,
which will cover that. It was in agreement with that.
Centers: Right.
McKinnon: I see nods from everybody, so that's the intention, that's the way it will be
written. Thank you.
Centers: And, excuse me, we have got to move on here with recommending an
approval for Item 10, CUP 02-041, request for a Conditional User Permit for a Planned
Development for 74 townhouses and two office commercial lots on 11.76 acres for
proposed Locust Grove Place Subdivision by Wardle & Associates. West of Locust
Grove Road and south of East Fairview Avenue, including all staff comments and I
would additionally state that the commercial development, as the applicant has stated,
is going to be limited to office-type development.
Zaremba: Second.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 110 of 132
Borup: I don't think he stated -- well, you're saying that if you want to do that. I don't
think the applicant stated that it would be. He --
Zaremba: The discussion centered around not having food businesses there, but I
don't think the reason it was --
Borup: I think he said he anticipated it would be office.
Centers: Well -- and I think -- again, we can certainly discuss it further. There is no
second but that's the reasons for the limited 15-foot buffer, the applicant indicated, you
know, office space, no retail, and I can't see retail being there anyway, but -- dentist
office, builders, realtors, people like that. I think we -- I think we should put -- you know,
I would be willing to give them some leeway, you know, with other uses, but --
Rohm: Well, office definition could be varied also, so --
Centers: Oh, yes.
Zaremba: Would you want to say any use that does not conform to L-O requires
another --
Centers: That's a good -- that would be good verbiage. In fact, I noted the L-O on my
notes. If it doesn't conform to L-O, they would have to come back for --
Zaremba: A CUP.
Centers: Yes that would be my motion.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second any other discussions? All in favor? Any opposed? Sorry.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 11. Public Hearing: PP 02-029 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 19
building lots and 2 other lots on 3.66 acres in an L-O zone for Scottsdale
Villas Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. – West Alden Drive,
southwest corner of West Franklin Road and Southwest 7th
Avenue:
Item 12. Public Hearing: CUP 02-045 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Unit Development for 19 single-family attached units in an L-O
zone for Scottsdale Villas Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. –
West Alden Drive, southwest corner of West Franklin Road and
Southwest 7th
Avenue:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 111 of 132
Borup: That does conclude that. Item Numbers 10 and 11, Public -- or 11 and 12,
Public Hearing PP 02-029, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 19 building lots and
two other lots on 3.66 acres in an L-O zone for Scottsdale Villas Subdivision by
Pinnacle, Inc. The CUP 02-045, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned
Unit Development with 19 single-family attached units in an L-O zone for Scottsdale
Villas Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers. I'd like to open both Public Hearings at this
time and start with the staff report.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. If you will allow
me to come up front, I'm getting a little tired of sitting and it would be helpful for me to
come up front. On the overhead that you have in front of you is a brief overview of the
project and I will give you some background on the site. The smaller Site Plan that you
can see -- I don't have my laser. Let me grab my laser. The project is located just off of
Franklin Boulevard, off of 8th
Street. This project is another project -- it's amazing
tonight, every single application that we have seen tonight has been a retread of
another project and this is what we are dealing with again tonight. This property, when
annexed into the city -- or when originally approved within the city for the first project,
this property came in as R-15 zoned and, then, the applicant decided -- or the owner of
the property decided it would be a better use for it to go to an office use and they
changed the zoning to an L-O use. Then, just recently, you received an application and
there was a denial given by the City Council to allow some four plexes on the western
side of the property. That should give you some idea -- jog your memory just a little bit.
The reason why the City Council recommended denial of that application was because
the adjacent property owners are all single-family, one story houses, and they felt that
the two story apartments adjacent to single-story, single-family, was an incompatible
land use. There was a lot of discussion with people from the neighborhood saying that
they didn't want people to look down into their back yards and that application, I believe,
was actually heard three times in front of you as a body to work out different
arrangements. However, it was finally denied by the Council based on incompatible
land uses. The application has come forward now stating that they would -- the owner
has come forward now saying they would not like to do the L-O uses and they would
like to revert now back to the R-15 zone. A couple things have happened to create a
little bit of stir and I will explain to you why the application tonight and the staff report
includes three proposals, rather than just the two that are on the agenda tonight. The
project is a Planned Development -- let me just get this out from the outset. This is a
single-story, single-family attached dwelling type of project. They are not proposing any
two-story buildings. In fact, the plat has a note on it that restricts them all to single-
story. The issue is two-story buildings adjacent to the single-story along the western
boundary. Those issues are all but eliminated. The Planned Development project
required that they provide open space and some amenities. The applicant has done
that and you would not have seen that with the other types of applications that have
come through with a different use. The use that they are suggesting would be a use
that would be attached single-family housing, with some townhouse uses up in this area
right here. All of the homes are attached. There is some possibility, if the application
would like, to take the townhomes, the lots in this area and come off the common drive,
these six lots, rather than attach all three of them together, attach two of them and have
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 112 of 132
one detached on either side and staff doesn't have any objection to them doing that.
The big problem that comes in is staff has no problem with allowing this type of use and
everything, because it is an appropriate use, it's a transition from four plexes to a
medium density, to a single-family density. It provides an appropriate transition
between land uses. The issue that comes into play is this property is currently zoned L-
O. In the L-O zone, the proposed uses that you have in front of you tonight are not
permitted uses, they are not Conditional Uses they are prohibited uses. The Planned
Development Ordinance states that all uses -- in a Planned Development all types of
housing is allowed in a Planned Development. Unfortunately, a residential Planned
Development is prohibited in the L-O zone so there is some confusion between the
language. After this -- the application for the Planned Development and for the
Preliminary Plat came to us, we, as a staff, got together and we determined that it
should be rezoned back to R-15 in order to comply with this and that's the reason why
there is a requirement for them to apply for the R-15 zoning, which they have done. We
received the application for that after the notice had been sent out for the hearing
tonight and so the hearing tonight is not on the rezone, but, rather, just the Conditional
Use Permit. The Preliminary Plat and this should not go on to Council, unless the
rezone is recommended for approval by you in two weeks at your next hearing so, we
can discuss the Conditional Use Permit. Right now it's currently prohibited. You can
add a recommendation on tonight's meeting if you would like to close the Public
Hearing and recommend approval or denial. If you recommend approval, you can
recommend that this not go on to Council, unless you make a recommendation for the
R-15 zoning. There is one other thing that comes into play with the L-O zone and what
makes this tricky is in the time that this was originally zoned R-15, changed to L-O, the
Comprehensive Plan changed and the Comprehensive Plan now shows this property
has L-O. With the L-O, we, as staff, don't believe that this -- so to pose the question,
thus, the staff is what would be the most appropriate way to handle this, to say that this
does comply with the Comprehensive Plan. There are arguments that would say this
complies with the Comprehensive Plan, because it's a Planned Development, we are
providing a transition of land uses. However, it's not a specific L-O use. The Zoning
Ordinance states that these uses are prohibited. However, we could have required that
the applicant submit an application for a Zoning Ordinance amendment. We have had
an awful lot of Zoning Ordinance amendments that we have brought in front of you and
in front of Council. We have got a book -- you have seen me with that big notebook
over there that was just the revisions that we have done in the last year. Since we have
done a lot of them, we decided it would be most appropriate, rather than to do one more
revision and create an additional amount of paperwork to support the L-O zone, that's
not what we are going to talk about tonight, that's two weeks in the future. What needs
to be discussed tonight is whether or not this use that is being proposed at this location
is appropriate and whether the Preliminary Plat for this project is done appropriately.
There is just basically one real issue that we need to work through with that and it has
more to do with Bruce than it does with me, but it goes -- it all ties back to this L-O
zoning. The sewer connections and the water connections that were installed in this
roadway are commercial connections and now they are proposing the residential
connections off of the commercial connections. There is going to have to be some
cutting of the roadway and some patching or possibly some relaying of the road, but
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 113 of 132
Bruce can address those issues concerning the commercial connections and the
differences between commercial connections and residential connections. Those are
the major issues that we have. We don't have an issue with the setbacks. We don't
have an issue with them requesting reduced street frontages. In the R-15 zone, if they
are allowed to have the R-15 zone, there is a street frontage requirement of 50 feet per
lot. We are okay with the lots that they have suggested so we don't have a problem
with it. The commercial connections would be one issue and before I turn the time back
over to you, I will tell you that there is one other thing that may be brought up tonight
that you may all remember, was that when this was approved as a Final Plat initially --
and, of course, this is a re-plat of that Final Plat. When the Final Plat was approved for
this project, when it was rezoned L-O, the applicant at that time was required to install
partial landscaping on the buffer on the western edge of the property. There was a
requirement that he put in all the pine trees and, then, in the future, as those lots
develop, the developer of each individual lot would have to complete that 20-foot buffer.
These lots will now be people's rear yards and their homes, the city does not want to
come in and say you're going to require a 20-foot landscape easement in people's back
yards and tell them what they have to plant in their back yards. The use will be
different, it will be a less intense use, it will be single-family use, rather than office use,
and so there won't need to be the buffer between the different types of land uses. We
have eliminated that requirement from this, so in case there is any confusion, if you
remember that, we have, essentially, ignored that and said because this is a re-plat and
people's back yards, we are not going to deal with that tonight. Staff feels that this is
appropriate and feel it's appropriate enough to rezone it in some conflict with our
Comprehensive Plan. We feel that this is a strong enough project that we can support
this and we feel strongly that this is an appropriate use at this location, based on the
uses that are in the surrounding area. In addition to the fact that this is an in-fill
development and all the properties around it are developed and so we are going to get
some density where we have nothing right now. With that, I would ask if you have any
questions.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, when was the Comprehensive Plan changed? Was it after it was
rezoned to the L-O?
McKinnon: The L-O was -- they were given the L-O zoning before the Comprehensive
Plan was adopted and the Comprehensive Plan was adopted just to mirror what the
existing zoning was.
Rohm: There you go. Okay. Thank you.
Centers: Surrounded by residential, too, mostly other than across the street.
McKinnon: Other than there is a commercial office, it's a -- I think it's Farmers
Insurance Office, it's right here, and, then, you have the Castle Day Care -- Dreamland
Day-Care.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 114 of 132
Centers: Yes that --
McKinnon: Yes.
Borup: And to the east is multi-family.
McKinnon: To the east you have four-plexes, two story four-plexes, and to the west you
have single-story, single-family detached housing. That was a big issue for Council.
That was the reason for denial. It's in the staff report. I'm sure you have seen the staff
report that references that. Like I said, I have talked with the applicant. There may be
some desire to change this from being the triplex style town home to being attached
single-family with a detached single-family and staff would not object to that -- that
change. The only other item I think that may be brought up and might be a concern and
the applicant can address tonight is on the plat they have said that we don't want -- they
only want to do single-story. I don't see any reason why staff would jump in the middle
of saying not to allow any two-story adjacent to the two-story four-plexes. It's not a
requirement of the plat -- of the staff to restrict that to one-story over there. I believe it
was very prudent of the applicant to require that over here that they are all one-story,
but if they wanted to go two-story over here, staff wouldn't have any objections to that,
should that be brought up tonight.
Borup: Anything else?
Rohm: I'm just curious. If we can't move forward without the rezone, it's seem like why
don't we act on all three issues at the same time? I mean there is nothing wrong with
taking public testimony, but you can't make a recommendation to Council.
Borup: We can go through the testimony, reach a conclusion, and table it.
McKinnon: And the reason --
Rohm: And maybe --
Borup: Well, we wouldn't have to continue it. We can close the Public Hearing and
table it, can't we?
McKinnon: Sure could. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner
Rohm, I will address that question specifically. The reason why we decided to do this
tonight, rather than hold all three of them together and continue it is because it was
noticed and there would be people here to testify tonight. You can see that there have
been a number of people that have stayed through the night to testify for this, and your
schedule is very heavy for the first meeting of each month. The next one is going to be
really heavy, so that would dump all three of these on you at once. You can determine
whether or not you think it's appropriate tonight and, then, the next meeting you guys
aren't going to need to spend as much time, because if you have already determined it
is appropriate, then, you have the rezone issue and that's the only one you deal with.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 115 of 132
Centers: Right but I'm with Commissioner Rohm that we table to -- and we are going to
have one new Public Hearing, a rezone.
McKinnon: Yes.
Centers: And we would have everything done.
McKinnon: Move all three at the same time.
Centers: Yes.
Zaremba: And I agree with keeping them and forwarding them to the City Council, all
three of them together.
Borup: Right.
Zaremba: So I think your suggestion of hearing these tonight and, then, holding it until
the zoning catches up with it.
Centers: Yes. That's good.
McKinnon: Thanks, guys. If you guys want Bruce to address the issue of commercial
connections or --
Borup: Yes.
Zaremba: There is a five-year moratorium on digging up streets, isn't there something
like that?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I will touch on that issue, too.
What we have got, we had -- the utilities when they were installed were installed for
commercial -- the commercial lots. The City of Meridian Public Works has a
requirement for commercial services that we stub in larger diameter mains or services
to commercial lots than we would residential lots. These lots, I believe, have eight-inch
diameter water mains stubbed into them, far more than you would ever need for a
house. So -- and there were fewer lots when it was a commercial subdivision than
there is now, so the location of those services isn’t hitting the right locations for the
residential lots. Some of them do hit and they will be okay, we can work with the
applicant on more or less converting them to residential type services to and try and
minimize the amount that are going to have to be abandoned and replaced. I guess
that's a point I just wanted to make, is that we will work with them on trying to preserve
as many of them as we can, but there are going to have to be some that are going to
have to be new. I do have some suggested modifications for the staff report and I can
either go over those now or later into the hearing. The item with the no-cut moratorium
that is an ACHD moratorium from their policies I simply put that note in there as more
informational. I do have some additional language that I would add to that that might
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 116 of 132
help the applicant feel a little more comfortable with that comment, too, so I will stand
for any questions you have or I can give you the wording or however you would like to
do it.
Borup: Questions from the Commission question on the stubs, both sewer and water?
Those connect -- well, maybe the sewer. Do the water connections need to be made
out of the main line in the street or can they come out of the right of way and T off within
the utility easement on the front of the lots?
Freckleton: That's what we are trying to get away from is --
Borup: I kind of assumed --
Freckleton: -- coming outside of the right of way, T'ing and more or less having parallel
mains behind the sidewalk that's going to serve several houses. There is locations
where -- I can't really see them on this map, but --
Borup: They are on our plat.
Freckleton: There are locations where a main will hit in the right location. I think that's
one right there. In that instance, you know, you can, -- we will just adapt residential
service to that existing larger commercial service and make it work.
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Would the applicant like to come
forward?
Boyle: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Clint Boyle with Pinnacle
Engineers, 12552 West Executive Drive. I want to start off by saying good morning this
morning. I'm glad that we are still all here for this hearing. I apologize I don't have a list
of comments. I tried to work everything out with staff in advance to minimize the
amount of time that you would spend here tonight. Unfortunately, we are going to get
home in the morning. This development proposal is an in-fill project. We have worked
closely with the staff and the staff has done a very good job of summarizing items. The
development proposes 19 homes on the site. They are all proposed as single-story
residences and, the staff has explained some of the history and the reason that we are
back in front of you with single-story, has had application denied that were two-story in
the past for some multi-family units by City Council. You guys -- many of you have
been involved in the discussions. The office development that the developer was
originally proposing here, he has decided to go with a residential development. A lot of
that is due to market conditions and the market conditions that he sees as far as the
marketing for offices and not being a very strong market right now. However, he does
feel that this community that he's proposing here has a strong market at this point in
time. This is proposed as a -- what I will call a seasoned citizen development.
Essentially, they are going to market this to older folks, so they are proposing what
would be a nice close-knit community here that would be a quiet area that would benefit
those type of residents. Now, just to explain the development a little bit, as far as the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 117 of 132
landscaping -- and the landscaping was discussed a little bit. This particular project
already has some evergreen trees that are planted around the entire perimeter
boundary on the west side and also the east side that are already installed that were
required when they came through with the office development. Now, that was in
anticipation that there would be offices there and they would need to buffer these
single-family homes and possibly the multi-family. Now he's coming in with single-
family residential. Those trees will remain, they will just become part of the property
owner's back yards, essentially, and they will have a nice evergreen tree in their back
yard when they purchase the lot. Now, in addition to that, there are two common areas
proposed, one on the east side of the project and one on the west side. Those
common areas actually qualify as being larger than 10 percent of the overall sight, so
even though this is an in-fill, the applicant is complying with the PUD requirements and
providing 10 percent in open space. They will also have a pathway system that loops
around the open areas on both sides and those pathways are proposed to have some
benches along them and, then, also some fairly heavy tree plantings around those
pathways as well. That will provide a nice walking area for those seasoned citizens if
they want to get out and exercise, it gives them a nice path. A lot of them like to walk.
This will give them a nice area that's somewhat secluded to walk in so, we think that
this is a -- going to be a really nice project with regards to that and I'm going to try to
make my comments very brief here. The rezoning request, I would like to touch on that
just briefly. Originally, when we submitted, it was a Planned Development request with
the Preliminary Plat proposal. We have had quite a bit of discussion with the staff and
that discussion has focused on the Planned Development Ordinance provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance that were adopted recently. The conflict that Dave was talking about
is the fact that in the L-O zone, single-family residential is not permitted as either a
permitted use or a Conditional Use. We kind of went back and forth on this
requirement, because there is another section in the PUD that says a variety of housing
types may be included within a single-family -- within a single Planned Development,
including attached units, single-family attached homes, townhomes, duplexes, et
cetera, regardless of the underlying zoning classification of the site. That's where the
confusion has come in, is because that specific provision says you can present a
residential PUD, regardless of the underlying zoning classification, thus the proposal,
even though it's an L-O zone that we originally submitted, however, there is the conflict
in the ordinance with the L-O saying you can't do single-family residential. To clarify
that whole issue, we agreed with the staff that we would present a rezone request and
take it back to the R-15 zone.
Borup: Was it decided that that -- that that probably meant regardless of the residential
zoning on the --
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman and Clint --
Borup: I mean that was the assumption I would have, because we have had various
residentials on these --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 118 of 132
McKinnon: Clint got that so close to my understanding of it as well, but let me explain
understanding. In the PD Ordinance and schedule of use control, they said in all the
residential zones you could do a residential Planned Development. Then, the L-O, the
C-C, and C-G, I-L, all the rest of them, they said Planned Development was a
Conditional Use in all of those zones, but a residential Conditional Use is prohibited in
all of those commercial zoning designations. Therein lies the -- it's not the fact that
single-family homes themselves are prohibited it's a Planned Development for
residential use is prohibited in those zones, including the L-O zone. Clint points out
correctly that the Planned Development Ordinance does state that regardless of the
underlying zone, so therein lies the conflict.
Borup: Well, that was what I was thinking, when it says regardless of the underlying
zone, do you think it intended to mean -- assumed it was a residential underlying zone?
McKinnon: Yes and that's a flaw in the ordinance that we are going to have to correct,
but rather than correct them point by point, we are going to hit a whole bunch of them at
once and try to get a bunch done at one time, rather than nickel and diming our
ordinance to death.
Zaremba: Including the I-L zone?
McKinnon: The industrial zone. Not the I-L zone. We have got one of those.
Borup: But I assume you're okay with the rezone?
Centers: Yes.
Borup: Which is what we are --
Boyle: Right and part of the reason that we are here tonight is when we discussed it
with staff, realizing that your agenda was very full for the next meeting, hopefully, we
could discuss most of the issues tonight, have everything worked out, maybe even have
the Public Hearing closed on these two items. Then, at the next meeting, the
discussion has taken place and we can move through it fairly quickly. That's the intent,
that's the reason we are here with you this early Friday morning. With that said, as far
as the staff comments, we are in agreement with the staff conditions and they are pretty
straight forward on this project. Bruce did explain some things related to the sewer and
water services and he is correct, there are commercial services stubbed out to the
properties right now. We would love it if the city would allow us to extend what they
consider to be parallel water lines adjacent to their mains, because we wouldn't have to
cut the road. In other words, if we can tap into these commercial services, extend them
either direction, and put residential service connects off those that would be great. The
developer, I'm sure, would be much happier doing that, because it would eliminate
some of this cost with cutting into the street. Unfortunately, our understanding -- and
I'm sure Bruce would agree with this, is the city policy is that they do not like to have
and do not allow those parallel line extensions. There will be some of the services that
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 119 of 132
we will have to actually cut into the street and tie into the mainline to bring into those
homes. Some of them fall where they need to currently and we can use those, because
they are falling right near the lot line or on the lot lines in accordance with city policy.
Site-Specific Condition Number 1, under -- this is a Page 5 of the report -- talked about
the applicant being responsible to abandoned the existing commercial and water
services in accordance with city standards. I guess, you know, we just wanted that
clarified, that we would abandon any unused services, but that we would still be allowed
to work with staff, just as Bruce indicated, to utilize whatever commercial services we
could. That was just a clarification there. Then Item Number 2, which was brought up
by one of the Commissioners, is related to ACHD, it talks about their no cut moratorium,
Bruce has some language, and maybe we would like to hear that. The discussion that I
had with Bruce on that is ACHD -- their policy is to restrict cuts into roads that are less
than five years old. However, they do -- they have allowed it, they do allow it in certain
instances and a lot of it is based on the type of patch back asphalt that you do.
Sometimes you have to do a 20-foot wide patch back if you're cutting into a new road,
rather than just a -- maybe your standard trench width of five feet or whatever, so they
required wider patch back on that. Again, Site-Specific Number 2 of the staff
comments, I was trying to get Bruce to just strike it -- or just put in the language that we
will comply with ACHD requirements. I mean it's an ACHD provision on the street cuts,
not a Meridian City provision, and we will comply with ACHD.
Centers: It says that.
Boyle: So, yes, and that's all we are asking for there, so --
Centers: It says that.
Boyle: Okay. Outside of that, I think everything else was in order as far as the
requirements. They are requesting some reduced setbacks within the subdivisions.
Some of those apply to the rear yards that are adjacent to the common areas. The way
-- do we have one that actually shows the buildings, the Site Plan with the building
footprints on it? Okay. Here we go. With the building footprints, the way that those lay
out, to accommodate a micro pathway connection back into these lots, I believe it was
in this particular area the setback will be roughly 12 feet from that common area. All the
others actually meet the required 15-foot setback, but we do have that request to -- only
along the common lot areas, reduce that rear yard to 12 feet. Again, to explain the way
the project is going to function, this particular project is proposed with no fencing, no
interior fencing. The lawns, the landscaping on the individual lots, will be totally
maintained by the homeowner's association. There is a similar retirement -- I guess I
shouldn't say retirement community. Maybe that's what you call them. Okay seasoned
citizen community that is called La Playa that many of you are probably familiar with.
It's going to be a similar concept here, where it's an open yard, open look, and the
homeowner's association is maintaining those yards, so if one of these seasoned
citizens, if they decide they want to go on vacation for a month and head south to
Arizona. They can come back to a well-manicured lawn, pruned trees, and everything
is in order on their lot. It is going to be somewhat open and we are trying to create that
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 120 of 132
openness to provide a sense of community among the residents there and so with that,
I know there was a lot of discussion about fencing along pathways. This is proposed to
be open, so there will be eyes and ears and whatever else out onto those pathways and
try to make this as pleasant of an experience as -- for the residents as we can. Outside
of that, the only other -- actually, two points I want to bring up briefly and that was the
staff -- Dave discussed the three-plexes, I guess, I will call them. There are three
single-family dwelling units attached here, three here, and three here. The applicant --
or the developer would like to have the option of splitting those out to where there are
two units attached and, then, a detached unit -- two units attached. Then, a detached
and it really isn't an issue, I don't believe, for staff. It's a pretty insignificant change, but
they would like to have the flexibility to go either way with those units. The only final
point that I wanted to make is the developer is looking to get some units in the ground
as soon as he can on this, because he feels there is a strong market. Presently, there
are seven platted lots within this area that were platted when it was originally going to
be commercial. He would like to have the opportunity to be able to pull up to seven
Building Permits before the plat was recorded, which is the situation that the city has
done in the past. Where after the Conditional Use Permit, the Final Plat is approved by
the City Council, in certain instances such as that where there are existing platted lots,
they have allowed for permits to be pulled on what would be those existing lots.
Basically, what that means is if, for some reason -- if they started a Building Permit on
one of those lots and the market went south on the rest of the project, you would still
just have a single -- you know, they could start out with some of the detached and
maybe the attached on those lot lines. The point would be that they would still be
entitled to those seven Building Permits, because the lots are platted right now. He
wants to keep the option open if he can to be allowed to pull those seven Building
Permits. I don't know if Dave has thought about that more, but we discussed that pretty
extensively on that and that is an option that the developer would like to keep open.
Borup: So you're saying it would be on house designs that would fit on the existing lot?
Boyle: Right.
Borup: I mean we don't know what the existing lot is. I don't know if any of those
houses split the existing lot lines. I'm assuming that they don't. Or at least the ones
that did you would not be able to get a permit on that.
Boyle: Right and part of that could also apply, like I said, he would like to keep the
option open to detach some of these units and, obviously, with a single detached unit in
each of these areas, let's say, then, those would potentially fall on their own individual
lots within what was previously platted for the commercial project.
Borup: David, have you thought about that? It sounds like they are saying a Building
Permit would be taken out on the existing lot design.
McKinnon: Well, the issue that we run into is we could allow a Building Permit to be
pulled on a lot, but if we allowed a Building Permit to be pulled on a lot for a project with
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 121 of 132
a Conditional Use Permit that hasn't been approved yet by Council -- at what point were
you wanting to pull those --
Boyle: Well, let me back up.
McKinnon: Prior to the plat being recorded?
Boyle: Prior to the plat recording. We will be through all the approvals with City
Council, the Conditional Use Permit, the rezone, and the Final Plat, it's just a matter of
allowing those permits to be pulled prior to the plat being recorded, which --
McKinnon: And we have allowed that in the past. The only thing that we would require
is the same thing that we would require on the Final Plat, that you have bonded for the
improvements that are required, just all the standard things that you need for a
signature on that plat.
Boyle: Right.
Centers: How much time does that save you two weeks?
Boyle: Actually, in this instance it will save quite a bit of time, just because it's not -- it's
not like your typical subdivision. Most of the improvements are already in, so the
developer is going to have some -- well, I won't say minimal cost, because it's a
substantial cost to me, but in the development world his costs are going to be fairly
minimal as far as him improvements. He's not going to be running new sewer and
water mains in the street, so he's going to be able to bond for everything, move that plat
through fairly quick and start his improvements. Basically, with all the agency time
that's required to get that plat through and to recording after we get approval from the
City Council, there is a very good chance that due to the minimal amount of
construction that he has here, that he will be waiting for that plat to catch up, when he
could be moving dirt and getting foundations going.
Borup: As soon as the rezone is done, you can take out a permit on houses that fit on
the existing lot is that --
McKinnon: That's correct.
Borup: Right.
Boyle: And this is something that isn't new to the city. I don't --
McKinnon: We have done this in the past.
Boyle: They have done it in the past, so it's not -- we are not treading new ground here.
It's the same old tires on that situation.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 122 of 132
McKinnon: The only thing that we have to work out is the public works and the utility
issues. Just a comment real quick on the whole, parallel water lines that Clint was
talking about. My understanding -- and Bruce can correct me if I'm wrong or Clint, but
the parallel water lines running onto the property and, then, out across, if the person on
the front end of that line has to turn off the water, that turns off the water to everybody
else that's on part of that parallel line. That's typically why you don't allow them to -- to
each have their own or they are all off of -- I guess you would call it a cone, you got the
spine and everybody else comes off of that. If you have to shut off the spine, then,
nobody gets any water.
Borup: Doesn't that depend on where you put the valves?
McKinnon: Yes it would.
Boyle: I mean, essentially, it would be like running another mainline, you know, that
would serve -- you know, we can take a situation -- there is a service here and we are
proposing to extend it over there. It may be -- you know, maybe we came off of the
service here and ran it -- ran it up to these lots as well, you know, and, then, just like
Commissioner Borup stated, it would depend on your valve. I don't know. I mean if the
city policy --
McKinnon: One of the issues as well is you have to provide an easement across those
private properties to run that across, is you have a bunch of easements strewn about.
Borup: Well, there is already an easement there.
Boyle: Right ad, like we mentioned, if the city would allow that parallel line, we would
be happy to have that option.
Borup: Well, that you're going to have to work out with Public Works, I'm assuming. I
would -- I mean I haven't studied this, but I would think that maybe some of them you
could do that where it was minimal and others where you would need to do the street
cuts.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, we will work with them on the ones that work and the ones
that don't we will have to -- we will work something out. Parallel lines -- we have
jurisdictional limits. You know, right now our jurisdiction is at the meters, that's where
our jurisdiction stops and the homeowner's responsibility takes off. If we have parallel
mains, that means we are going to have to be -- we are responsible for that main down
the sidewalk, all the way across the front of those properties. It's just not a good
situation. So -- but, like I said, we will work with them on trying to make the ones that fit
work. Some of them just flat don't work. I mean they fall right on the property line -- on
the proposed property lines, utilities are getting stacked on top of each other. We have
to maintain certain sanitary separation distances from sewer and water and any DEQ
standards and it's getting kind of tight in there. I don't see this is a -- something that
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 123 of 132
can't be worked out. We will just have to get together with Pinnacle and work out the
details.
Borup: That sounds --
Boyle: Yes I'm wrapped up here. I appreciate you staying very late or very early thank
you.
Zaremba: Let's see. While you're there, did I see that you have some of the elevations
on the slides also? Would you go to what we have in our packet as the left elevation?
That one. Is there any architectural detail or windows or anything that can be put on
that one big blank side?
Boyle: In fact -- well -- and, hopefully, the developer can correct me if I'm wrong. This
particular -- the elevations are probably more representative -- or the pictures -- this
particular elevation with this blank wall, the way that we have it proposed, the majority
of these, if not all of them, are going to have windows out on the sides to accommodate
the bedrooms and things that they have got proposed in there.
Zaremba: So nothing like that would face the street?
Boyle: No.
Centers: That is a garage.
Boyle: That is. That's correct. I didn't notice that. That is a garage side there but yes,
I don't know that we have any problem with providing architectural features adjacent to
the street or on all sides. I don't think that's --
Borup: You can get one window in there.
Zaremba: Or even a fake window.
Boyle: Right.
Zaremba: Something to break it up a little. That was my only question.
Borup: On the layout we have don't have -- all the garages are on the common line, too
so that picture is not jiving with our plat layout.
Boyle: Not exactly. I mean it was just more representative, just showing the kinds of
building styles, but --
Borup: Yes. We need to get any testimony on the microphone.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 124 of 132
Zaremba: Let me ask one other question. You're mentioning that these may be retired
people who can take off to Arizona every once in awhile. Are your CC&Rs going to
have any restrictions about parking RVs on the property? Since that would not be --
Boyle: Yes.
Zaremba: It doesn't look like there is space for it and --
Boyle: Right.
Zaremba: -- it wouldn't be very attractive.
Boyle: Yes. They don't -- I don't believe the developer intends to have any RV parking
and in talking with him, the covenants are going to be fairly restrictive. You know,
obviously, they are looking for a particular market and a particular look with the fencing
and everything else. He's shaking his head, no, that there wouldn't be any RV parking
allowed within the subdivision.
Borup: Thank you. Most of those that signed up were signed up for. Mrs. Epperson,
did you still have some questions?
Epperson: My name is Dorothy Epperson. I live at 214 South Outfield Way and my
house is directly behind that first parked area on the west side. Yes, right behind there.
My only question was regarding -- originally, when we got the notice was, great, we are
going back to the two stories again. After the break, I had a chance to speak with the
developers and I feel very comfortable with what they are trying to do. It wouldn't be
any different if it was residential lots and they built houses there. I like the park setting
that they are providing. I don't have any other questions, other than I was afraid it was
another two-story building that we were going to go back to originally so I feel very
comfortable with what they have proposed.
Borup: Thank you. Anyone else? All right. Thank you. Commissioners?
Zaremba: I agree, this seems like a big improvement over what we saw the other time.
Borup: It definitely answered all the concerns the neighbors had.
Zaremba: Yes several of us, even when we did approve it, were holding our noses.
This one appears to be a good solution.
Borup: Okay. It sounds like our earlier discussion, talking about maybe going ahead
and -- well, let's discuss any proposed motions. Would it be proper to not make the
motion tonight -- can we make a motion and, then, table it?
Wollen: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I would recommend against
making a formal motion on anything tonight.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 125 of 132
Borup: That's what I was thinking.
Wollen: Because you're still dealing with hypotheticals and something that's not
approved in the zone. I would -- it's up to you if you want to continue the Public Hearing
on this or if you want to close the Public Hearing and, then, table the issues.
Borup: That would be my preference, to close the hearing and table it. I think we can
maybe discuss what the motion may be.
Centers: Well, I think it's straightforward and clean.
Borup: We didn't have any -- do we have any changes from the staff comments?
Zaremba: Yes. I don't have any issue with the applicant choosing whether they are
three-plexes or two-plexes, with a single -- I think that's fine. What was the other
question?
Borup: Well, the applicant had one comment on a couple of site-specific comments,
about abandoning the sewer and water and he's saying he hadn't abandoned any
unused.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I have got some suggested language I would like to give
you.
Borup: On the street cut?
Freckleton: On the sewer and water and the street cut.
Borup: Okay. That's --
Freckleton: If you'd like that now.
Borup: Wouldn't we rather get the information down tonight and not worry about that
next time?
Zaremba: It would just be a slam-dunk next time.
Freckleton: Okay Page 5, staff report, under Preliminary Plat findings and
requirements. Item B, under the availability of public services to accommodate the
proposed development. I would recommend that we just strike everything after the first
sentence. Start there where it says existing and strike all the way through to lots and
then down --
Zaremba: And what if we take the first sentence and say staff finds public services are
available to accommodate the proposed subdivision with some modifications?
Probably be more appropriate.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 126 of 132
Freckleton: That's fine. Okay Site-Specific Number 1, same page. Strike after where it
says Scottsdale Subdivision. Strike a commercial subdivision, applicant will be
responsibility to abandon existing commercial water and sewer services in accordance
with city standards and install new residential services to each lot. Strike all of that so,
the comment will simply read, sanitary sewer and water services to this site shall be via
existing main lines installed as part of the development of Scottsdale Subdivision.
Period. Subdivision designer to coordinate sizing and routing with Public Works
Department.
Zaremba: So, the final sentence remains?
Freckleton: Yes. Okay and, then, Item 2 under Site-Specific Page 6, in regards to the
street cut moratorium. I would just simply suggest adding another sentence to the end
of that that says any cuts will need to be specifically approved by ACHD. Staff would
also like to make a recommendation that with the timing of the applications that we
have discussed tonight, that we work with the Clerk's Office to try and put these
applications at the first of the agenda for the next meeting.
Zaremba: I agree with that. Back on your Page 6, Item 2 any cuts will need to be
approved by ACHD. Specifically approved any reason to -- for staff to see that in
writing from ACHD?
Borup: You got to get a permit to do a street cut -- to do anything in the right of way, I
think.
Freckleton: Yes and before we got into any construction, the City of Meridian Works
with ACHD on pre-construction meetings and that sort of thing and --
Zaremba: It would all come out then.
Freckleton: Yes it all comes out then. I wouldn't hold the meeting if I didn't have their
approval.
Zaremba: Okay.
Freckleton: That's all.
Borup: Okay. Remember, we need to keep this to next time to make that motion.
Center: And, then, under the CUP was where we would -- you know, the Zoning
Department to cooperate, if possible, to issue seven Building Permits as soon as
possible.
Borup: So, that would be Item Number 7?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 127 of 132
Centers: Yes on the CUP yes. I don't think you're wasting your time coming back in
two weeks or whatever it is. Do we have a different owner this time?
Unidentified Speaker: Same one. It's been the same one for a long time.
Borup: Okay. Did we close these hearings? I don't think we did, did we?
Zaremba: We did not.
Centers: No, we didn't.
Wollen: The Pubic Hearings are still open.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on Items 11 and 12.
Rohm: I will second that.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearings on Items 11 and 12. Be open
for a motion to table both items.
Zaremba: We need to vote.
Borup: I'm sorry. I'm trying to go home. All in favor? Any opposed.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Borup: Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move that we table PP 02-029 and CUP 02-045, both actions requiring to --
relating to Scottsdale Villas Subdivision, until our first meeting in February, which I
believe is February 6th
, to be the first items on the agenda. Coupled with that, the
anticipated rezone to be handled first also. Actually, these two should follow the
anticipated rezone. That should be Number 1 and this should be 2 and 3.
Centers: Second.
Rohm: I'll second that.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 128 of 132
Centers: And, then, Dave, when these come back, the wording of the agenda items will
be more appropriate. I mean because of -- okay. You know what I mean.
McKinnon: I'll work with the Clerk's Office on that. I think we also need to change the
address from Southwest 7th
to Southwest 8th
, but we can get all that worked out.
Centers: Yes he picked up on that one.
Item 13. Discussion of North Meridian Area Plan Comprehensive Plan
Amendment:
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Next, Item Number 13, we have a three hour discussion on
the North Meridian -- the reason this is on the agenda is to -- probably for us to discuss
a time when we can hear this, I anticipate it will probably need to be separate from our
Regular Meetings. Is that -- that's all we need to do on this tonight and we are going to
want time to read it and -- but, then, decide. I guess I'm thinking maybe another
Thursday, but let's --
McKinnon: You guys pick a night other than --
Borup: What do the Commissioners prefer?
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, you can pick any night and
time, that would be up to you as well. We have done workshops earlier --
Centers: It's not a Public Hearing?
McKinnon: It's a Workshop. It can be handled as a Workshop, not as a Public Hearing,
unless you would like to jump directly into a Public Hearing, but --
Centers: Why is it coming to us?
McKinnon: Why is it coming to you? It's eventually going to become a Public Hearing,
so you have the option --
Zaremba: Because of the changes in the ordinances, I believe.
Borup: So, one option would be to hold -- one option would be to hold it prior to our
Regular Meeting, if that's what the Commissioners prefer.
Centers: Well, what's the opinion on the length of time that it would take, Dave? Are
you guys going to buy dinner again?
Zaremba: Hold it earlier than --
Centers: 6:00 is okay with me.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 129 of 132
McKinnon: We are buying you guys’ shirts. You guys want dinner now?
Borup: Do you know how -- Mr. Wardle --
McKinnon: It's going to be long.
Borup: Do you know how -- is he doing the presentation?
McKinnon: Jon, are you doing the presentation on the North Meridian Area Plan Comp
Plan Amendment?
Wardle: That's Mike.
McKinnon: Mike will be doing it?
Borup: Do you have any idea how long his presentation would be?
Wardle: He's long-winded, so --
McKinnon: Just for the record, that was Mike's son saying his dad is long winded.
Borup: We just want to know how much time to schedule for it.
Wardle: I would assume that his presentation would be a half an hour and based on
your questions at that point -- I think he could probably cover everything that needs to
be covered --
Centers: For the workshop.
Wardle: For the workshop and, you know -- so, if you can give him a half an hour of
time for that discussion and, then, whatever questions you have after that point. I'm
sure there will be questions associated with what he presents.
Zaremba: I'm a little bit familiar with the North Meridian Area Plan. I don't anticipate a
whole lot of objections, but if the goal is for us to make amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan and the ordinances, will those have been thought out and
suggested to us or is it up to us to find where it needs to be changed?
McKinnon: Well, it's going to be handled just like you would handle other applications.
There will be a staff report with some recommendations from staff. We don't catch
everything, there may be some things that you guys bring up or people from the
audience bring up that we might not have caught. In listening to what Jon had to say,
you know, about how long he thinks his dad will take and questions you might have, in
hearing the idea that this could be handled as a workshop prior to a hearing, that might
be an option where we could have you guys meet prior to a hearing and spend an hour
and a half -- start at 5:30, spend an hour and a half before the hearing, you guys could
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 130 of 132
hear it, and, then, we could schedule it for a meeting subsequent to that. Or if you guys
want to have more information, more time, you could schedule it again for another
workshop. That might be the easiest way of handling it.
Borup: That seems to make sense at this point. I'm thinking an hour and a half is
probably what we would need to cover ourselves.
McKinnon: Jon just informed me that if you guys do a workshop, they will bring pizza
for dinner, so --
Rohm: Good.
McKinnon: So --
Borup: Okay. The next question is a date.
Zaremba: If we are coupling this with another meeting --
Borup: If it's in February, we are looking at the 6th
and the 20th
.
Zaremba: I would personally prefer the 20th
. I would find it difficult to get here earlier on
the 6th
. I will be out of town and coming back the last minute, just barely making it to
the meeting.
Borup: That would give us plenty of time to read what we have got here, too.
Zaremba: Not that I want to put it off, because I think this is sort of urgent, but I
wouldn't -- I wouldn't be here that soon.
Borup: Does it need regular notification?
McKinnon: The workshop we would have to notice it. It doesn't require the same
noticing standards as a Public Hearing.
Borup: Is that two weeks or --
McKinnon: The Public Hearing will be noticed as well.
Borup: Well, all we have got is two weeks if it was on the 6th
. The 20th
we have got
plenty of time.
McKinnon: I think the 20th
would help out, but by pushing it back a little bit later it would
be helpful, because, then, we could get comments from the Smart Growth and from the
Realtors Association, BCA, all of those groups as well. I would write up comments for
you at that time, too.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 131 of 132
Borup: So the 20th
?
McKinnon: 20th
what time?
Borup: 5:30?
McKinnon: Do you have that, Jessica?
Borup: That's about as early as anyone could get here anyway.
McKinnon: 5:30 on the 20th
of February and Jon's here, so --
Borup: Okay.
Centers: Well, we will remind each other at the next meeting, too.
Borup: Yes.
Centers: The 20th
at 5:30.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we table the discussion on the North Meridian Area Plan
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to a 5:30 P.M. workshop on the 20th
of February.
Borup: And that was -- I mean the intention was not to discuss it tonight at all. It was --
I just told them to put it on the agenda, so we could discuss a time so, I don't know if
that's even being tabled. We are just going to set that up as a workshop.
Zaremba: Okay. Then, Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 1:05 A.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 132 of 132
/ /
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK