2005 05-19Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting May 19,
2005.
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of
May 19, 2005, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Zaremba.
Members Present: Chairman David Zaremba, Commissioner Keith Borup,
Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner David Moe, and Commissioner Wendy
Newton-Huckabay.
Others Present: Ted Baird, Jessica Johnson, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Bruce Freckleton,
Craig Hood, Joe Guenther, Josh Wilson, Mike Cole, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
___X___ Keith Borup ___X___ David Moe
___X___Wendy Newton-Huckabay ___X___ Michael Rohm
___X__Chairman David Zaremba
Zaremba: Good evening, everybody, and welcome to this regularly scheduled meeting
of the Planning and Zoning Commission for May 19th, 2005. We will begin with a roll
call of attendance.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda:
Zaremba: Next is the adoption of the agenda and we will take these items in order, but
let me let anybody in the audience know of a couple of things that will happen. Items 5
and 6 that refer to the Reserve Subdivision, the applicant has withdrawn that. So, we
will not discuss that this evening. Nothing's happening there. Item 14 and 15, which
refer to Silver Oaks Subdivision, the ACHD has not met on that and our staff has not
been able to prepare their report yet, so we will not discuss that one tonight. We will
continue it until June 16th. And Items 17, 18, and 19 that refer to Crossfield
Subdivision, there has been a request from the applicant to continue that one to July
21, 2005. So, Items 5, 6, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 will have no discussion. If you're hear for
those, we invited you to come back at another time, please. Unless there is any other
changes, we will consider the agenda adopted as stated.
Item 3: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of April 21, 2005 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
Zaremba: Okay. Next is the Consent Agenda, consisting of the minutes for our regular
meeting of April 21st, 2005. Any comments?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 2 of 67
Rohm: No comment.
Zaremba: A motion to accept the Consent Agenda?
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move we accept the Consent Agenda.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 4: Presentation by Ada County Highway District:
Zaremba: All right. Tonight we are pleased to have a presentation from the Ada
County Highway District. This is another in a series of our educational presentations.
Tonight we are very pleased to have Mr. Errol Morgan, who is the manager of
maintenance and operations for ACHD, and he is going to tell us a little bit about
maintenance and operations.
Morgan: Chairman Zaremba, Commissioners, Erroll Morgan, Manager of Maintenance
and Operations for the Ada County Highway District. This is the season -- this year the
downtown Meridian area -- core area gets chip sealed. This is our -- on a regular nine
year cycle, this is the season for Meridian downtown. The area from Overland Road to
Cherry Lane, from Ten Mile to Locust Grove, as mainly for the local streets. The main
routes are on -- major routes maintenance plan, they are a little different schedule. But
in the nine-year plan, Meridian -- this is the first -- this is the first year and the second go
around on this plan. We started with Meridian nine years ago -- ten years ago and we
are now starting over again on the cycle. We have a DVD -- or we have a presentation
on DVD that explains a little bit about our chip seal process. I grabbed a DVD to come
over here tonight and I grabbed a laptop that plays CD's. So, this old logger kind of got
my electronics mixed up. I don't know if we have had any luck. The guys were going to
try to burn a DVD to a CD and I don't know if they have got that done yet or not.
Zaremba: Do we have a way to play the videotape on this equipment over here?
Morgan: I do have a tape --
Zaremba: The DVD directly on that?
Morgan: We do and I think he has the DVD in the other room trying to burn us a CD.
Zaremba: If there is a delay, I might ask a question --
Morgan: Please do.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 3 of 67
Zaremba: This might be putting you on the spot, but I have read statistics about how
many miles of roadway ACHD has to maintain. Can you, off the top of your head, give
us a comparison of ten years and today, what the difference and how many miles
ACHD is responsible for?
Morgan: We have 1,950 miles -- in the neighborhood of 1,950 miles today and we have
been adding in the neighborhood of the 40 miles a year. I would say over the ten year
period an average of maybe 35 miles a year for the last ten years in subdivisions alone.
Zaremba: So, the job is just getting bigger and bigger.
Morgan: Last year we added 53 miles, I believe, to our system. Three hundred and
fifty miles -- 1,950 is about where we was ten years ago. The seal coating processing
costs about 12,000 dollars a mile. We, through a lot of research done in Minnesota and
other parts of the country through the Strategic Highway Research Program, they are
determined that preventive maintenance is by far the cheapest way to go to keep the
roads -- keep -- to preserve the roads in the condition that they are in, to further
deteriorate, it's much more effective than letting them go and trying to rebuild and that's
the whole idea behind this program. We have found we get more miles and more wear
and tear out of the chip sealing than any other kind of a seal coat program and so that's
primarily what we do. Will it work? We had a lot of questions and concerns about the
chip seal program, so last year we commissioned a little short 15-minute video that kind
of explains the process. It's not real professional, but it's done with our -- when I get
back to the office, I'm going to burn some of them DVD's onto CD's, so I can play them
alone.
Zaremba: Have more choices. Is there a baseball game on or anything? Let's give
him one more minute to see if he can engineer the solution and --
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Yes, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: While we are waiting can we -- can we open and continue 5 and 6
or do we have to simply withdraw those?
Zaremba: Oh, we got it to run. That was a good idea, but we are on. Thank you.
(Videotape played.)
Morgan: That's the presentation.
Zaremba: All right. Thank you very much. I think we understand that much better.
Commissioners, any questions for Mr. Morgan?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 4 of 67
Newton-Huckabay: I was just curious when we start this season -- you're already
started?
Morgan: Well, the preparation -- in answer to the question -- the preparation work has
already begun. You have probably seen our crews around town repairing curbs and
sidewalks and doing some of the things. The actual chip seal work will start right
around the 1st of July. July and August, the hot weather, that's our chip sealing season.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Let's see. Can we accept questions from the audience?
Baird: In the discretion of the chair.
Zaremba: Sir, you had a question.
Audience Member: It appears that you spend about four million dollars a year to do
this. Is that labor and materials and does that include depreciation of equipment and
overhead when you quoted 12,000 dollars per mile? I mean does that include a portion
to overhead?
Morgan: That includes overhead and all. The equipment is not all depreciated out just
on the chip sealing process. It's depreciated out through -- a lot of the equipment is
used for removing snow and all of the work that we do, so --
Zaremba: Thank you very much. We appreciate that. Glad it got working. Thank you,
Mr. Morgan. Okay. Now, we come to the Public Hearing portion of our meeting and let
me just discuss the process a little bit. On each of these items our professional staff
has already spent some time with the applicants and they have gone through a lot of
issues and details and ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. We will begin each
hearing with a report from our professional staff on where the project is, what the project
is, and any issues that are remaining to be discussed and considered as far as they
know. Following that, the applicant will have up to 15 minutes to answer any concerns
that are remaining from the staff, tell us anything more that they think we all ought to
know. Within the applicant's 15 minutes are included any tag team, other engineers or
architects, or anybody that they need to have fits in there. After that it's time for the
general public to give us your comments and, as with everybody, if it's important
enough for you to come down, we want to make sure we hear you, so, please, only
speak when you're at the microphone. We do ask that everybody, including applicants
and everybody else, begin by giving their name and address, so that that can be on
record as well. But since we want to make sure you're heard, please, do come to the
microphone and speak up even when you're on the microphone, to make sure that we
can hear you. After the public testimony -- I'm sorry. Let me back up a minute. We do
ask that you limit your comments to three minutes, each person that we call. There is a
variation to that. If you have a spokesman, for instance, the president of a homeowners
association or something equivalent to that that many of you have chosen and you are
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 5 of 67
giving up your time to that person, we allow the spokesman to have ten full minutes to
speak. After everybody has spoken, then, the applicant has a final opportunity to come
back. They will have taken notes while everybody was talking and respond to
questions that were raised or resolve anything that can be resolved. Then, after that we
will close the public hearing and the Commission will deliberate on it and we will
hopefully conclude with a recommendation to the City Council where there will be
another Public Hearing and, in theory, that's the way the process goes. We have a
handy lighting system over here. When the green light is on you have time to talk.
When the yellow light comes on, I believe you have got 15 or 30 seconds left, you
should begin to conclude. And when the red one comes on, we ask that you conclude
or stop, if you would, please. This helps us not have our meetings go until 1:00 o'clock
in the morning, which they sometimes do. So, we appreciate brevity. We also
appreciate anybody that cares to come to the microphone and say I agree with what
Sam said and we know what you mean. On many of these items we also have
received written letters from people who have mailed in on the items. We have all read
those and you may tell us you're the person that wrote the letter and hit the high points,
but you don't necessarily need to read us a whole letter that's been sent to the City
Clerk, because we do have those, so -- we appreciate that.
Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from April 7, 2005: AZ 05-004 Request for
an Annexation and Zoning of 9.08 acres to a R-4 zone for The Reserve
Subdivision by C5 Development, LLC – west of North Locust Grove
Road and south of Chinden Boulevard:
Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from April 7, 2005: PP 0-006 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval for 22 single-family residential building lots and
7 common lots on 9.01 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for The Reserve
Subdivision by C5 Development, LLC – west of North Locust Grove
Road and south of Chinden Boulevard:
Zaremba: And with that we will begin with Items 5 and 6. We will reopen the continued
Public Hearing for AZ 05-004 and PP 05-006. These relate to the Reserve Subdivision
and the chair would entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing and accept the
applicant's request for withdrawal.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move we --
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: -- move we close the Public Hearing on Items AZ 05-004 and PP 05-006.
Zaremba: Is there a second?
Moe: Second.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 6 of 67
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay.
That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: Do we need to have a motion to --
Zaremba: Technically probably not, but we have been doing that in the past, just
closing the loop.
Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept the applicant's request for
withdrawal of AZ 05-004 and PP 05-006.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from April 21, 2005: AZ 05-012 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 6.34 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for El Gato
Subdivision by C2B Development, LLC – 701 Black Cat Road:
Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from April 21, 2005: PP 05-014 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 17 building lots and 2 common lots on 5.89
acres in a proposed R-4 zone for El Gato Subdivision by C2B
Development, LLC – 701 Black Cat Road:
Zaremba: Okay. Now, we are ready for Items 7 and 8. We will open both hearings
simultaneously. This is AZ 05-012, request for annexation and zoning of 6.34 acres
from RUT to R-4 zone and PP 05-014, request for preliminary plat approval of 17
building lots and two common lots on 5.89 acres in a proposed R-4 zone. Both of these
for El Gato Subdivision by C2B Development, LLC, 701 Black Cat Road, and we will
begin with the staff report.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a request for an annexation and rezone to
an R-4 district for El Gato. There is 17 lots that the applicant is proposing. The location
is immediately north of the Union Pacific Railroad and off of Black Cat Road, south of
Pine Lane. This subdivision in this area is Castlebrook and that is an R-4 subdivision
as well. The Comp Plan designation for all of the area in this vicinity west of Black Cat
is low density residential. Low density being less than three dwelling units to the acre,
as defined by the Comprehensive Plan. The first issue with this one is there is several
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 7 of 67
natural features to be identified in the area. The first is right north of the Union Pacific
Railroad, it is a large drainage ditch called the Purdom drain and it has been indicated
that on your staff -- I mean on the packet submitted by the applicant that this would be a
portion of the open space of Lot 1, Block 1, that is incorrect. It has been redefined that
this is not a part of the subdivision, it is either owned or maintained -- or owned by
Boise Project Control Board or Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and needs to be
removed from the calculation. The second feature is that there is a dual roadway
system on Pine Lane right in this location immediately north of the site, which is a 50-
foot wide roadway and, then, there is El Gato Lane, which is immediately adjacent to
Pine Lane, which puts together an entirety of 110 feet of right of way north of the site.
The reason why this application was tabled from the previous meeting was to allow
ACHD more time to try and address this issue. With the ACHD recommendation, their
recommendation was to vacate Pine Lane in this location and it was their determination
that this was ACHD right of way. There was some -- if you read the letter that was
submitted on the 11th and 12th, there was some confusion as to who owned that
property. Staff is going by ACHD's recommendation that their staff knows what they are
talking about and that it is ACHD right of way. Regardless of the designation of Pine
Lane, we can still annex and subdivide this property, because we are not looking at
subdividing that property for houses. It is a portion of the annexation which would be
brought into the city and as per ACHD's recommendation, would be mitigated, so that it
is landscaped through a license agreement with ACHD in order to move the traffic from
what is existing Pine Lane and -- which is an unimproved surface, gravel surface, to El
Gato Lane, which, actually, lines up with Pine Street across the -- across the way, which
is great in this location and that is the preferred option for ACHD and staff. Meridian city
staff is supportive of that and has conditioned this application accordingly. The next --
well, I guess I should have shown this before. This shows where the Purdom drain is
on here. This is a very deep, wide canal. Actually, I'm not sure if it's a canal or if it's just
a drainage ditch. With that, the applicant is -- without that, the applicant only shows the
landscape buffer to the Black Cat Road and, then, internal parkway buffers, which are
going to provide eight feet of off-street landscaping that will be for internal open space
calculations. Again, Pine Lane is shown on here, but the actual access for this internal
street system, which is defined as Ligar Street, would take access to El Gato Lane,
which is, again, 50 feet north of this site and that's where ACHD requires the connection
for a light or court to be -- to take access. This is a picture I took on Tuesday. I was
sitting approximately in this location, which is right at the intersection of Pine and -- this
is Pine. This is El Gato. And this is the right of way from Pine, which ACHD claims,
and is requiring to be landscaped and, then, bollarded, so that it moves traffic from Pine
onto El Gato, which is the improved surface. This is a picture of the Purdom drain. As
you can see, it is a fairly deep, wide drainage ditch and approximately the location of
the property line is on that fence line. This mud in the front is the new sewer trunk that
is going in on the Black Cat Road system and it's normally not that muddy, it was just
raining when I took the pictures. This is a picture from Pine Lane facing south. This is
the El Gato Subdivision fence line. Again, approximate. The existing house that's on El
Gato would be removed and El Gato goes approximately down to this location, which is
-- would be the Purdom drain. The topography is fairly flat there and we don't see any
problems with anything. This is the property immediately to the west of El Gato -- or the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 8 of 67
proposed subdivision. Currently it is being farmed as pasture. One point of
clarification. In one of the letters that was submitted, the -- it was claimed that there
was a project going on. There is currently a project -- I did get the wrong parcel here.
It's not this parcel, it is one of these two parcels further to the west off of El Gato. This
is an Idaho Fish and Game project, habitat improvement project, which is done at the
owner's expense with the expertise of the Fish and Game staff and it is a program for
developing and maintaining natural habitat for fish and game in the area. And that
would lead into the discussion for the density for the site. Currently, the applicant has
shown 17 lots, which gives an approximate density of -- as they have calculated it, 3.08
dwelling units to the acre. As far as I could calculate, the applicant has indicated in his
notes that there was -- in the letter submitted yesterday there was 6.35 acre parcels --
I'm -- staff is very confused as to what the actual survey parcel size would be. When I
calculated it I came up with a 5.13 acre parcel and 17 homes, that would give a density
of 3.31dwelling units to the acre. And that assumes that all of the right of ways, all of
the landscaping, all of the lots, and all of the roadways are incorporated into that density
calculation, which they would end up changing that slightly. With that, staff -- or the
applicant has recommended -- or requested a density bump up, which is a
Comprehensive Plan note, that indicates that in low-density areas or medium density
areas that are residential to residential uses, the applicant can make the request. It's
not a guaranteed bump up, it's a request to this board for a consideration for higher
density. This is not a -- something that is given to a developer just because they are
requesting it and staff has made the recommendation that you do not increase the
density higher than three dwelling units to the acre. And, even so, would recommend
that the portion to the west be reduced in density further to accommodate larger lot
uses. Similar subdivisions that this has happened on -- we heard less than a month
ago for Kingsbridge, which has one -- which had one -- one acre, three acre, and five
acre parcels that surrounded their site and their smallest lot in that subdivision was
12,000 square feet, which is approximately a quarter of an acre and that is what staff is
recommending for the western portion here, is a minimum of 12,000 square feet. That
is not a condition of approval at this time. If this board so sees fit, in order to make that
a condition, then, you can take that into consideration, but that is staff's
recommendation for a redesign, as well as to incorporate additional open space into
this subdivision, because as currently -- with the -- losing the Purdom drain and a lot of
the other calculations in there, they are not allowed to take into any consideration that
they are required to landscape Pine Lane. That is an ACHD issue. That cannot be
calculated into the open space calculations. As for our -- as to the City of Meridian's
landscape plan, Chapter 13 indicates -- or says that dedicated landscaping has to be
within a subdivision and it also has to be exclusive of right of way, which means that you
cannot include the right of way for El Gato or -- I'm sorry -- Black Cat Road or what will
be El Gato in this location. It has to be internal landscaping for open space. And there
is currently no lots designated for open space within this proposal. Staff has indicated
condition number five, site specific condition number five, and three -- or the minimum
residential density and the open space being those two concerns. The last concern,
before I quit talking, is that due to maintenance issues with the Purdom drain, a lot of
times the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District will burn those ditches and staff has
requested a non-combustible fence be put in the southern portion of that as to not
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 9 of 67
impede any maintenance issues with the Purdom drainage system. At this time I most
likely have -- oh, one more thing. On page ten, condition number two, there was a typo
in there. It says Locust Grove Road. That should be changed to Black Cat Road. And
that the staff is recommending approval of this subdivision, as outlined by the conditions
of approval listed in the staff report, and I'll stand for questions.
Newton-Huckabay: Where on the --
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Newton-Huckabay: I have a question on the --
Zaremba: It's the second paragraph of paragraph two. It starts open space and it's in
the very last --
Newton-Huckabay Oh. Okay.
Zaremba: -- on the last line, not quite the last short sentence.
Newton-Huckabay: Joe, on the Kingsbridge development, didn't we, as a Commission,
recommend half-acre lots around the perimeter and the City Council reversed that?
Guenther: Craig Hood was the planner on that and I'll defer to him, if you will.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, what they did at Kingsbridge was 12,000 square foot
lots along Zaldia Lane. There were some other parameters. The eastern and
somewhat the north that did have some half acre lots, that the developer agreed to put
in there at your recommendation, that the Council did require them to do, but there were
some on the perimeter that went down to 12,000 square feet.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thanks.
Zaremba: Other questions? Thank you. Would the applicant care to come forward?
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Dave McKinnon,
735 South Crosstimber. It's good to be back in front of you again. It's been a few
weeks or months, maybe. Joe did a pretty good job of explaining the subdivision.
There was a lot of really interesting issues and we will jump into those pretty quick, but
just to point out, we have read the staff report. The conditions of approval we agree
with. There is some points of clarification that we'd like to make. You have all received
a letter from me. I hope you have had a chance to read it. I won't be reading it to you
tonight. I think Joe hit on the main issues and I'd like to stick with those issues tonight.
I have prepared a DVD as well, a CD, and I don't think they are working for that tonight,
so I went ahead and made some copies for Joe. We have got some color copies and
he's going to put those on the overhead. Joe, if you could turn the overhead on, we will
just go with those -- the first issue. We'd like to jump just directly right into a discussion
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 10 of 67
on the density issue. Kind of where Joe ended that discussion was with the 12,000
square lots and in the first three pages, basically, the staff report deals with issues
related to density. As Joe pointed out, in the Comprehensive Plan this property -- as
you will see the Comprehensive Plan sitting over here -- the audience can't see it. I
know we have got a crowd tonight. Sort of light green to the light density, up to three
units per acre. No matter how you slice this piece of property up with the density -- with
the number of lots we have requested, it's either right under three acres, depending on
which legal description you use, or it's just over three acres, depending on the legal
description that you use. We have got a number of legal descriptions and I will explain
some of the confusion that goes on with that. If you can go to that first slide, Joe, and
give us that, there is a number of pieces of property that Joe mentioned. There is Pine
Street that is 110 feet wide and so, obviously, it would be a lot easier to explain once it's
on the -- the overhead for you. If you could put it so that it's right side up, it would be
awesome. Just for orientation, up is north. With this subdivision -- no, it's not north.
North is that direction. Thank you very much. It's -- okay. This is west. The Purdom
drain -- this is the Purdom drain. The railroad track. As Joe pointed out, the Purdom
drain is not part of our subdivision. That was an error in survey and we have corrected
that. There is, however, a 20-foot right of way that's called out in this back -- on the
back -- south side of this piece of property. A 20-foot right of way. ACHD claims
ownership of that as well and that was discussed at the ACHD hearing. At the ACHD
hearing it was determined in their staff report that we were to vacate that piece of
property. Regardless of whether we vacate it -- and at that hearing they also said if you
don't vacate it, we would understand that as well. Twenty feet wide. ACHD has no use
for it. Twenty feet wide you can't drive two lanes of traffic up and down. It was tied to
the deed and so the deed included a 20-foot wide right of way and, in addition to that,
they included this right of way over here, Pine Street, which is the privately signed Pine
Street. This is the gravel road that you saw that Joe took those pictures of where it jogs
funny. Then we would have El Gato, which is on the north side. So, the legal
description included this 20-foot right of way, this right of way, this 50-foot right of way.
In addition to that, it showed a prescriptive dedication of right of way on Black Cat to the
center line of the road 25 feet. So, one legal description, we had to provide all of this in
the legal descriptions for an annexation and, then, after talking with Joe initially,
because this initial drawing didn't go to the center line of El Gato, you had to provide
another legal description to get to the center line of El Gato to be contiguous with the
city. The contiguity for this project is with Castlebrook caddy-corner, since we had to
provide it all the way to the center-line, instead of just to the very edge of our property.
So, we had to provide a number of different legal descriptions. The first legal
description, which is based off of the deed, came up with 6.35 acres. So, we took the
density based off of that, because this was all one parcel. None of these were
dedicated easements as far as we were initially. And so if you take 6.35, multiply that
by three, you end up with 19 units, plus change. We asked for 17 units. Now, we can
start paring down all the rights of way. ACHD claims ownership of this right of way.
They said we can vacate it. So, we add that to our property, in addition to this area.
Can't count the 25 feet down here. It's already improved as right of way for ACHD. But
this portion right here, ACHD claims ownership, but they say either we own it, we don't
own it, we are not exactly sure. Their best judgment at the hearing was we do own it,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 11 of 67
it's not yours, we want you to do a license agreement. They give us the option of
vacating it -- if we vacate it because part of our property is part of a subdivision.
Regardless, the homeowners association is going to have to own and maintain that
piece of property. The deed says this is for a road -- a right of way for this road. It
doesn't say it's the county. It's doesn't say it's ACHD. This was done in 1976 for this
right of way right here. ACHD wasn't organized at that time. ACHD has since been
organized and claims ownership of all rights of way. If you go to your Ada County
assessor's map and you go to the GIS system that the City of Meridian uses, this 20
foot wide right of way and this right of way right here are shown as ownership under
ACHD. And that's on the official records that we use from the City of Meridian and Ada
County uses as well. We will talk a little bit more about that. As far as density, if you
take out this 25 feet wide section of road that's part of Black Cat and leave the rest of
this property in and this property in, you end up with roughly 5.89 acres, multiply that by
three, it gives you over 17 units. 5.67 acres would equal exactly 17 units. So, we are
right around that 17 unit ballpark number. So, it keeps us around the density for the
Comprehensive Plan. Now, we start talking about the Comprehensive Plan. We had a
lot of discussions; we have had a lot of discussions with you about the Comprehensive
Plan, about how it's a guide. The Comprehensive Plan is just that, it's a guide, it's a
goal, it sets a threshold for what they'd like to see developed. 3.08 dwelling units per
acre, the number that Joe threw out, the number that's in your staff report, is 800ths of a
dwelling unit more than what would be allowed. So, we are right there at the goal. We
are either right under it or right above it. The density is just at what the goal was set for.
We don't have so many units in this site that they are asking for a large bump up. Joe
mentioned that we requested a density increase. There was no request for a density
increase by us. When we looked at this, we said there is enough room on here for 17
lots, it meets the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. We weren't asking for a
density increase. If we need a density increase to get to 3.08, I guess we are
requesting it at this time. But there is a lot of legal descriptions that are out there for
this and we will try to clarify that. And the legal description, Joe and I talked a little bit
about how we don't go all the way to the railroad property and so the properties to the
south may not be able to annex, unless we annexed all the railroad properties adjacent
to it as well. So, there may need to be another legal description for this piece of
property. So, sorry for the confusion. It is somewhat confusing, but we are right at the
three mark, no matter how you cut it, you're just under or just over, so we are trying to
meet that goal of the Comprehensive Plan of three units to the acre. The 12,000
square foot that Joe broached on, up on the north side, these lots are all above the
standard 8,000 square foot. These average 9,500 square feet in size. As Joe pointed
out to you, we would be buffering cows right now. It is agricultural use. If you have
seven across here or six, you're still buffering cows and right now it's an agricultural
use. The Comprehensive Plan anticipated this type of development when they came
through. These lots are all broken up into lots larger than five acres in size. The
reason for that is that they are zoned RUT, which is rural urban transition. That zone is
a transitional zone for future development. They are not broken down into something
smaller. We require larger lots back there. Whatever happens in the future on the next
piece of property that develops is going to have to buffer for those larger lots and so it
becomes larger and larger lots as you go back. We need to set a standard now for
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 12 of 67
what those -- those uses are. We feel that lot size of 9,500 is bigger than the minimum
for that zone. We feel it's appropriate at this time. There is some things we can do and
we will talk about those a little bit later for maybe making this a little bit bigger. Joe had
some pictures for you. Joe, can you go to the next slide -- the next overhead? Joe had
some pictures and we talked a little bit now the Black Cat trunk was recently
constructed in this area. Black Cat trunk is a multi-million dollar sewer trunk project.
The City of Meridian installed this sewer trunk in order to provide sewer for development
that's happening. This runs right in front of this project. All the neighbors that are here
behind me can testify that it's been broken up for a number of months now and it's
going to be nice to have it all asphalted again and have this large sewer trunk several --
20 to 30 feet deep in this area. We have got a lot of sewer capacity in that area. The
City of Meridian is planning on this area for development. It's turned sideways for you,
but what this map illustrates -- you can see where our project is, it's this green spot right
here. I believe this is -- this is Black Cat Road running right to the left here. This is
Black Cat. The Black Cat sewer trunk area only includes this area that's in brown. The
city has drawn a line in the sand with their Black Cat trunk. They said nothing further
west than that area. All that yellow area, nothing further west can be developed right
now until the McDermott trunk is constructed and recently at -- as recently as last
Monday night there was discussion about what's happening in north Meridian and
discussion about the -- when that -- when that would be able to be constructed and we
are two or three years out. I have had discussions with City Council, they said they
don't want to see the McDermott lift -- McDermott lift station and the McDermott trunk
be built until the Ten Mile interchange is constructed. They want to limit development in
this area and they have drawn a line in the sand saying you can go no further west than
this boundary that you see in front of you. And so all the properties to the west of this
area will have to wait several years before they can be developed. So, we are,
basically, one lot in from being able to go as far west as this sewer trunk will provide
sewer to. So, there is a -- there is a boundary set right now in the City of Meridian for
where development can reach and we are just inside that boundary. Onto the next
slide, Joe, if you could. This is where it's going to get really interesting. We had a few
neighborhood meetings with the neighborhood and both neighborhood meetings
focused generally -- and specifically there was a lot of discussion at both those
meetings and at ACHD about what's going on with the 110-foot wide access to these
properties. Joe did a very good job explaining that to you. On the north side there is a
public road that's improved with asphalt. It's not improved to today's standards, but
there is asphalt. And that would be this side. We had our engineer go ahead and do a
rendering as to what it would look like with curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Across the road
with Castlebrook -- you recently approved this subdivision. They improved this roadway
for 24 feet of asphalt and curb, gutter, and sidewalk on this side and this piece of
property right here isn't where the 110 feet wide right of way is right now. This is a
schematic, I don't know if it's to scale, I'm sure it's not something we can scale off right
now, so we went ahead and put a number right here. From centerline of the road to the
ten-foot buffer, this is over 68 and a half feet from where the new center line will be.
The rest of this roadway, outside of 36 feet of right of way -- outside of 36 feet of curb,
gutter, sidewalk and roadway, has to be landscaped with a license agreement to ACHD.
So, you have approximately 50 feet of landscaping entering into the subdivision. That's
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 13 of 67
a lot of landscaping and in doing our open space calculation, we took only half of that
dimension, because the code says you can only count half of your dimension -- if you
do above and beyond your -- above and beyond the ten foot minimum, you can only
count half of your open -- you can only count half of your open -- you can only count
half of your improvements towards your open space requirements. We only counted
half of this area towards that open space. At the ACHD hearing, Joe put in his staff
report, the perfect comment is on page five from ACHD explaining what this area -- and
it's actually a paragraph long and this might be something we could look at if you want
to. And I'm trying to move through this pretty quick. ACHD came in and said you either
vacate it, make it part of your project, or go ahead and landscape it with a license
agreement and we have chosen to landscape it with a license agreement and we will
have almost a 50-foot wide entry into a subdivision for landscaping to be maintained by
the homeowners association. As Joe pointed out, this will align with El Gato. ACHD is
in support of this aligning with El Gato. We are in support of an alignment with El Gato,
it makes it safer than having 110 feet wide where you can access this property. From
the picture that Joe showed you, you could see that people further down are, actually,
coming off of this road and coming onto the improved road section and driving it right
now. Recently construction for the Black Cat trunk extension was parking in this area,
they are using this as a staging area, and everybody that lives in this area is unable to
use the gravel road, but they are still able to get out onto Black Cat. And so by
eliminating the private road that ACHD claims ownership to, everybody can still get out
to Black Cat. It's better to have one controlled intersection than a very large
intersection without control and two different accesses. And if we get rid of the gravel
road it will probably save on car wash expense as well. Into open space -- Joe, can you
go to the next drawing? This is how we calculated open space and Joe and I may have
a different interpretation of your code, but in open space you count this area. This is an
eight foot wide detached sidewalk. It's eight feet wide. Typical in subdivisions you will
see at five-foot parkways. This is an eight-foot parkway. We are providing open space.
In addition to that, because ACHD is requiring that either we vacate it and buy this
property from them and make it ours or landscape it and the homeowners association is
maintaining and -- maintaining and landscaping, we counted half of this area towards
our open space. We did some calculations down below. In addition to this open space
and this open space section, we actually come up with just over five percent open
space for the area. We had some neighborhood meetings and we tried to get through
all these issues. As you can see, there is a lot of people --
Zaremba: Your time is up. Can you conclude quickly?
McKinnon: I'm going to conclude right now. We couldn't come to an agreement with
the neighbors. They don't want -- they won't want to see this happen. We think it's,
actually, in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. We would ask for your support
tonight. We are in agreement with the conditions of approval with those clarifications
that have been made tonight and I'll stand for questions at this time.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 14 of 67
Newton-Huckabay: Not at this time.
Zaremba: I suspect we will defer until we find out what other questions are raised.
McKinnon: And there probably will be a couple.
Zaremba: Thank you very much.
McKinnon: Thank you.
Zaremba: Okay. We have a sign-up sheet that I will begin calling names off of and,
again, if you would, please, come to the microphone and state your name and address
and, then, make your remarks. Let's begin with Paul Sharratt.
Sharratt: Thank you very much, Chairman. My name is Paul Sharratt. I live at 5556 El
Gato Lane. I am speaking for the majority of the homeowners on El Gato Lane, as well
as West Pine Lane. So, I hope you afford me the ten minutes that you will.
Zaremba: Let me do it this way. Are there people here for who he is speaking, if you
would raise your hand a minute. You have ten minutes, sir.
Sharratt: Thank you very much. Our residence is approximately a half a mile west of
the subject property on El Gato Lane. I have lived in this residence since 1990. Some
people in the neighborhood have lived there since the mid 1970s when this Skyview
Ranchettes was originally platted. As I said, I am representing the majority of the
homeowners who live on El Gato Lane. These homes are on approximately three to
five acres lots. We object to the subdivision as platted and want to review some of the
pertinent points that were addressed in letters sent to the P&Z Commission, dated April
14th and May 12th, 2005. We don't believe that this subdivision meets the expectations
of the Comprehensive Plan in several areas. As stated on page three of the staff report
-- let me go ahead and read that. The Comprehensive Plan states on page 104,
Objective D, would require new urban density subdivision, which abuts there in
proximity to existing low density residential land uses to provide landscape screening to
transitional densities with larger, more compatible lot sizes to buffer the interface
between urban level densities and rural residential densities. This is the main reason
that we object -- one of the main reasons we object to this subdivision is we are one of
those larger acre rural residential areas and believe that we need to have that
transitional area. As stated in our letter dated April 14th, there is a housing -- about the
house philosophy, that a vibrant community needs a good cross-section of housing and,
therefore, must guard against an abundance of subdivisions in like density and price
range. We believe that this is very similar to the Castlebrook Subdivision and other
subdivisions that continue up both Cherry Lane, as well as Black Cat. We believe that
we have -- that we have a transitional area in between the higher density subdivisions
and the much larger lot acreages that we have. We believe that this proposed
development is contrary to Meridian's goal for future development. One of those goals
is to maintain a small town agricultural heritage. Many areas around this proposed
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 15 of 67
development are actively pursuing this goal of agricultural heritage. There are animals
being raised, plots of ground actively being farmed by row crops, as well as pasture and
hay fields, large gardens, as well as game habitats have been developed. The point
that we want to make here is that there is one chance to make the right choice for the
west side of Black Cat between Cherry Lane and Franklin. We believe that the largest
possible lot sizes are needed as a transition to the existing homes in this area. There is
no small lots along the west side of Black Cat at this point in time and we urge this
Commission to use their discretion and their judgment, as best as possible, to grant that
large as possible lot size in this development if it's approved. I would now like to
address concerns of our neighborhood that are addressed in Article E and F of the staff
report. We agree with the staff report that the developer has not met the open space
requirements as equal to or exceeding five percent. It looks like they have addressed
some of those issues and I will bring up another issue in a little while as well that will
probably cloud the picture even further. We also believe that as proposed this
development will change the essential character of this area. The staff report is correct
that this area is changing. We realize that and -- we recognize that. Many of the
residents in this area would like it to stay the same. In other words, we didn't want to
see the Castlebrook Subdivision go in. But knowing that it's changing, we wanted to
stay as close to the way it is as possible. By bringing small lot sizes to the west side of
Black Cat, it is our belief that this will be a significant change. Article F. Will the
proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses.
We believe that this development will be hazardous and disturbing to the current
neighbors. As stated, there are a variety of uses currently occurring in this area from
animals being raised to ground being farmed. As more families are added to the area
on smaller lots, the larger agricultural lots become attractive hazards. Animals can be
fed inappropriate food, gates and fences can be damaged or left open, equipment a
source of curiosity and a hazard, all causing problems for us the existing homeowners.
Most of this area is also irrigated from -- irrigated ground with the source being open
ditch -- open ditches, excuse me, which also become attractive hazards. The point that
I was going to -- one of the points that we want to bring up is the easements and right of
ways on both the north in dealing with the Pine Lane -- the Pine Road issue, as well as
on the south with the Purdom Gulch drain, are complex and need to be understood. As
the staff report says in special considerations number four, staff is unaware of the
official status of the Purdom Gulch drain. So, even the staff is not fully aware of all of
the details and/or possible ramifications that the easements and setbacks on the
Purdom Gulch drain may have. As well, residents of Pine Lane are contesting ACHD's
decision on the status of West Pine Lane as referenced to in a letter from J.C. Brown,
dated May 11th, 2005. We do not believe that any development on this site should be
approved until all easements, right of ways, and all of the over issues are understood
and resolved. As stated, the developer has gone in and done several different legal
descriptions of this property, which, there again, continue to cloud the issue of the rights
of ways and easements on both the north and the south ends of this property. We
believe that it should be once and for all finalized with the proper easements and the
directions that those need to go, before any development is done on this property. As
declared in the letters to Planning and Zoning, there are 24 homeowners who objected
to this development as -- excuse me -- as proposed. I would now like to ask those in
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 16 of 67
support of my comments and opposing this development to please stand up. As you
can see, the majority of the property owners that signed the original letters had enough
concern and interest to show up tonight to support hopefully the Planning and Zoning
Commission's either changing of this proposed subdivision or denial of this proposed
subdivision. That's all. I would now entertain questions.
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: In your statement you didn't define what you folks feel is
appropriate density.
Sharratt: We would recommend or like the Commission to approve the largest lot size
density as possible. It's our understanding from talking with the staff that half acre lots
would be the maximum lot size allowed, being that it would be annexed into the city.
So, we would encourage the Commission to go with half acre lots, if possible. If the
Commission chooses to make those changes, what we are really looking for is the
transition from smaller density lots to larger density lots which we currently own. And,
like I said and like I stated, we believe that we have one chance at this, that whatever is
decided on this subdivision will detail what is done on the rest of the west side of Black
Cat Road, being that the rest of it has not been annexed into the city and so we urge
and encourage you to go with the largest lot size possible.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And that's -- where is the middle ground?
Sharratt: Where is the --
Newton-Huckabay: The compromise. I mean in your --
Sharratt: In my opinion -- and I will not speak for the rest of the homeowners in the
subdivision, because this is my opinion. We would like to see at least -- we would,
actually, like to see one acre lots, if possible, but knowing that one acre lots are
probably not acceptable to the city, half acre lots would be acceptable, in my opinion,
because that decreases the density of the homes in that area, it turns them, then, into
more agricultural type or large lot homes, rather than the smaller lot homes, which,
then, blends better with our neighborhood. And as I stated, that is my opinion, not the
opinion of the people that, you know, I'm representing.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Then I have one other question. Isn't the density of
Castlebrook like eight units per acre?
Zaremba: It's an R-8. I don't know if it's --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 17 of 67
Rohm: Yeah. I would say it's probably about five and a half.
Zaremba: I don't think they achieved an eight density.
Rohm: Yeah. I'm sure it's not eight. It's an R-8, but not eight lots -- not eight lots per
acre.
Newton-Huckabay: On the one south of that -- wasn't there one of them that had eight -
- they had like patio homes and --
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, you're correct. The subdivision that is on the south side
of Pine on the east side of Black Cat did have the R-8, but Castlebrook was R-4.
Recognize that the Comprehensive Plan designation is different over there. It's medium
density.
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Black Cat is the --
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Sharratt: And I believe with that the developer decreased the density on the south end
of that property to accommodate the larger lot sizes that are approaching on the
opposite side of Pine Lane.
Newton-Huckabay: Right. Yes. You're correct. I have no more questions.
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: A couple questions. You made a statement that there is still a cloud as far as a
right of way and easements. I didn't know if you had some information that -- that Mr.
McKinnon didn't have, because in his presentation I thought he made it clear that there
was an understanding between ACHD and what -- what was their claim and what the
options were. So, I don't know if you had some other information that we did not have.
Sharratt: As I stated, in reference to J.C. Brown's letter dated May 11th, the
homeowners along Pine Lane are contesting the finding that that is an ACHD right of
way and that there is an ingress and egress right of way to the associated properties
down West Pine Lane and, there again --
Borup: So, do they have any documentation for that?
Sharratt: Yes. If you refer to his letter, he has talked to the Ada County commissioners,
as well as --
Borup: No. I mean as far as that easement. Have they got a recorded easement or --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 18 of 67
Sharratt: It is recorded with each of the properties that are on West Pine Lane and it's
not an easement per se, it is an ingress and egress across that property and that's the
issue that's clouded, in our opinion.
Borup: Okay. In lieu of at least presently, if that sewer boundary was accurate, it looks
like it's not going to affect too many properties, at least in the near future, but do you
have any information on the immediately adjoining property, the one that the stub street
would go into is --
Sharratt: Is to Mr. Wilder's property? I believe Mr. Wilder is here, so --
Borup: He was the one that raised his hand. Okay.
Sharratt: So, the issue -- if you'd like to address the question directly to him, you're
more than welcome to.
Borup: Okay. Well, I just so -- so many times over the years we have seen similar
things and on -- on these larger lots that some day they get redeveloped and I have
never seen anybody that was willing to -- to guarantee that that would never happen.
Sharratt: Currently there are protective covenants on Skyview Ranchettes No. 1 and
No. 2, which is the entire length of El Gato Lane, which prevents any further
subdividing of any of the properties along those lines. This property is not in Skyview
Ranchettes No. 1 and/or No. 2.
Borup: Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Sharratt: Thank you very much.
Rohm: Back to this compromise, if we would for just a moment. There is -- currently
there are seven lots that are along the west line of this property and I believe staff had
made a comment about maybe recommending that these lots be at a minimum of
12,000 square feet and if, in fact, you were to go to 12,000, I think that you would end
up having to drop a lot or maybe two lots off of that west line and, then, leave the
balance of it as platted. Is that any kind of compromise that even comes close to --
Sharratt: There again, stating my opinion, we would like to see, really, both sides
increase lot size due to the fact that as you get larger lot sizes, you're going to attract
people that are more like minded to the people that are in the three to five acre lots.
You're going to attract people that want to have large gardens, that want to have
animals, that -- and that's what we are fearful of and we have already seen -- as I
stated, we are already seeing changes occur. We are seeing more and more people
from subdivisions across the street being -- walking up and down our road. We are
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 19 of 67
seeing people on the backs of our properties -- which concerns us, being the fact that
many of us have animals and many of us have, you know, livestock -- not only livestock,
but also, you know, habitat -- there is two different habitat properties, one that they
registered with Fish and Game, the other one hasn't, as well as large garden lots. And
so that's a real concern is as -- you know, as the development continues to encroach, it
makes us nervous and is going to cause us grief and hardship in the fact that we are
going to have to continue to either protect our property more, continue to monitor our
fences, you know, it is -- it is not an everyday occurrence, but it's not abnormal for
horses to get out or -- you know, we had the occurrence the other day where a -- one of
our young ladies was riding her horse down the road and one of the trucks from the
construction zone came by and spooked the horse. It probably took her 15 minutes to
get the horse to calm down and neighbors came out and helped her -- you know, and
those are the concerns that we have, is you get increased traffic, you know, and they
say there is not going to be that much increased traffic on El Gato Lane, we believe
there will be and that it will pose a hazard for a hardship, as well as hazards to the
people currently living in that area.
Rohm: Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. I will continue down the list as you signed up, but if I call a name
and Mr. Sharratt spoke for you, would you, please, just indicate that. Tom Noll.
Noll: My name is Tom Noll. I live at 5947 El Gato Lane. My wife and I submitted a
letter to you. Paul spoke largely -- and I support and concur with Paul's comments. I
just wanted to add a couple of points of clarification. One is on -- as far as the
compromise, our compromise, the way we see it, is that this is identified as low density
in the Comprehensive Plan and we -- we proposed, you know, one acre lots and we are
compromising to half acre. We think that's a reasonable solution. And I'm speaking for
myself. I believe I'm speaking for some others. I want to also address the easement
issue. The existing easements and ingress and egress rights are held as deeds by
some of these property owners to the west. As was pointed out, the property title here
has -- I couldn't follow what the developer has proposed. I could not follow the
arithmetic and I couldn't follow all the legal descriptions, you know, this one, and, then,
we changed it to this and we changed it back to this and, then, we had five percent
here, but now it's 3.0 and this -- so I found it -- well, I just couldn't follow it, so -- but,
anyway, the point is that easements are very complex and I believe the developer
needs to do his homework, he needs to get his locker in order, as my dad used to say.
Get your locker in order. And he needs to work with the existing landowners, he needs
to work with the title companies, he needs to work with the county recorder, and he
needs to work and get all those easements vacated prior to development, or else there
are going to be landowner issues down the road and you're going to be hearing about
them. And so I think it's -- he's premature in his development. He hasn't done his
homework. And I think he can do better. That's another thing that we have all heard a
few times and we don't like to hear it, but sometimes it just needs to be said. That's the
conclusion of my comments and I will stand for questions.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 20 of 67
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Thank you. Kathy Farerra. We had a letter
from you with a lot of other names. Are you speaking for a group as well?
Farerra: I think so. I'm sure that they will let you know if I'm not.
Zaremba: Okay. Let me just see a show of hands if she's speaking for people. Thank
you. Okay. We will give you ten minutes.
Farerra: My name is Kathy Farerra. My husband and I have lived at our home at 4950
El Gato Lane for 18 years.
Zaremba: We are discussing whether the same people that gave their time to Mr.
Sharratt are --
Farerra: I think we are probably almost done.
Zaremba: I think we did see some overlap, but I think there was others that weren't.
So, please go ahead.
Farerra: I have something I want to read. I know some of it's already been said, but I
want to read it. The City of Meridian's leaders, having the power to make policies for
areas outside the city limits, also have an obligation to make development transitions
into long established rural neighborhoods in a fashion that is least intrusive to the
residents of those neighborhoods. We believe that the best reasonable way to
transition from a new subdivision from the east side of Black Cat Road into the multi-
acre properties to the west is by limiting these subdivisions bordering Black Cat on the
west, to the largest possible lot sizes allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. We
understand that would be half-acre lots. Homes situated on half acre lots,within what
amounts to only the length of a football field in distance from Black Cat to the adjoining
acreage residential properties, is the most reasonable and responsible manner in which
to accomplish this transition, creating the least intrusion to the long time rural residents,
while still accomplishing the city's goal for future development and establishing a
standard that can be followed along the rest of Black Cat Road to the west between
Cherry Lane and the railroad line. And I would like to comment -- and I'm -- if any of
you agree with this back here, maybe you can raise your hand -- if half acre lots are not
feasible for that entire piece of property, then, I believe that they should be half acre lots
bordering the western boundary and a minimum of 12,000 square foot lots on the east
side. I don't think we should get into 9,000 square foot out there. It's just not the right
place to do it. Black Cat Road is a natural -- well, it's not natural, but it's there. It's a
border. It's a boundary between the city as it exists in the small unit subdivisions to the
farm ground that most of us plan to stay on. We don't plan to leave. That's all I have to
say.
Zaremba: Thank you. Questions? Apparently not.
Borup: I had a question, Mr. Chairman.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 21 of 67
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: Just your last comment. I'm trying to understand -- it sounds like you're saying
that we should ignore the Comprehensive Plan as far as future land use designation.
Farerra: No. It was easy for the developer to say that the Comprehensive Plan is
simply a guide.
Borup: No, that --
Farerra: What I would like to say -- that's not ignoring the Comprehensive Plan. That is
allowing, I believe, reasonable transition into these acreage properties and as was
shown on the map, you have like, what, 600 feet that you can go into the existing --
Borup: Well, the Comprehensive Plan calls for medium density rural there, if I
understood that --
Farerra: That may be what the plan calls for, but I believe that --
Borup: Low density?
Zaremba: Low density.
Borup: So,then, it is a bump up in density.
Zaremba: Yes, it is.
Borup: Okay. I needed that clarification. Thank you.
Farerra: Thank you.
Zaremba: Okay. David Farerra. Okay. Has been spoken for. I believe it's Rebecca
Sharratt. Okay. Spoken for. Thank you. Carol Bishop. You need to come to the
microphone, if you would, please.
Bishop: My name is Carol Bishop and I live at 5751 West El Gato and I agree with Paul
Sharratt and Kathy Farerra and, basically, if I wanted to live in a subdivision, I would
have moved to a subdivision. And that's it. Any questions?
Zaremba: Thank you. Ron Jackson. Oh, you spoke first. Okay. Ron Jackson's
opinion has been given. J.C. and L. Sue Brown. It's been covered. Okay. Thank
you. Amy Dierr and Mike -- I'm sorry. Seward. Spoken for. Thank you both. Let's see.
I need to interpret this one. It's a short name. Something like H.J. Brower? Brown?
Okay. Spoken for. Thank you. H.J. Brown that was. Ed Wilder.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 22 of 67
Wilder: My name is Ed Wilder. I live at 4961 Pine Lane. I have adjacent properties to
the west. Lived out there -- first person to move on the lane in 1972. As far as I know
on the -- my main question is -- is on the ownership of that ground. We have never
once had a highway department road grader, maintenance, oil. Now that they want to
do a subdivision -- I think I could fax you a copy of my grounds paper that shows
nothing about ACHD owning the front part of my property. If they do that -- that legal
description doesn't quite show the way El Gato curves off to the north. That would force
all 17 of our property owners, of which over the years has got quite a bit of traffic,
everybody's got kids, grand kids -- they would be pulling out onto El Gato at -- some of
the cars 60, 70 miles an hour. I was the one that forced the double road there to begin
with. A guy wanted to use my property -- he was a land down when he subdivided that
and I said -- and I said no. So, that's how the -- that's how we got the double road to
begin with. That was about 1974 when they -- when they subdivided the north side of
El Gato. It blows me that they can say they own in front of my house. Looks like a little
bit of a land grab to me. And the back -- the back easement -- now they are saying they
own that. Last year the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation Company was in there and got their
big tractor stuck on the end of my place about this time of year. I don't think they own
that either. That's all I have got to say.
Zaremba: Thank you. Questions?
Borup: Mr. Wilder, your comment on the easement or whatever it is on the front of your
property, you said you don't think ACHD owns it, but what is your understanding, then?
Wilder: I think it's on my property that -- our property line goes to the -- what used to be
down between the separation of the road.
Borup: So, your understand that is a right of way or an egress-ingress --
Wilder: It's a right of way and everybody has got an egress --
Borup: So, it's a legal right of way?
Wilder: Legal right of way. Yes.
Borup: Okay.
Wilder: For all the years before -- before that the property line -- not the line, but right
down between the two roads. The fence line was there. The original property. Now --
and over the years I have never had no communication from ACHD that they own it or
that they are willing to maintain it. Never once.
Borup: All right. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 23 of 67
Rohm: I have a question for you, too, then. You're saying that this 20-foot right of way
that is in question between Ada County Highway District and the proposed
development, which would continue west along your south line --
Wilder: Yes. That continues -- that continues three lots.
Rohm: And it's your contention that it's not Ada County Highway District's property, that
is -- it's --
Wilder: That's right.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Marilyn, I think it is, Pettingill. Bettingill? Okay. Thank
you. Gene Bray. Mr. Bray.
Bray: Thank you. Yes. I'm Gene Bray and I live at 5654 El Gato and I'm the one that
has the habitat improvement program with the Idaho Fish and Game, which I have got
20 years invested in. But my main comment is going to be on -- I have been doing
some work on the traffic going down our lane and even though the subdivisions to the
east -- those traffic surveys indicated that there would be no traffic increase on El Gato
as a result of the subdivisions on the east side of Black Cat and that is just not the case.
We are finding that now probably two-thirds of the traffic that now zoom up and down
our residential lane are people that are not associated with the lane and they are just
trying to escape and, boy, when they get on that 60 foot residential lane, they put the
pedal to the metal and going westbound, even though it -- the speed was 30 miles an
hour, the average speed going westbound is 40 miles an hour. Going eastbound it's --
they slow down a little bit, because as you get passed my vantage point and the ranges
I have set up there are about a thousand feet of length and I do a timing with a
hundredth of a second stopwatch and as they pass those ranges, so I can get the
speeds very accurately. Going eastbound, the turn -- as the road veers to the south
toward the confluence with Pine Lane and the traffic going eastbound, that is 35 miles
an hour and, again, that's routine day after day, just picking an hour at random to go up
and spot just the speed of cars and going west with a straight shot all the way down to
McDermott. The cars go down there some of them as fast as 50 miles an hour. And
those are people that are not tuned into the agricultural and the pastoral pursuits of the
people that have invested over the 20 and 30 years that -- I have lived there myself for
18 years, just like Kathy -- just like the Farerras have and there is a lot of children, there
is a child care facility there, animals, and people who are outside of that area, they just
don't have any sensitivity to the fact that that is a residential lane, they just go as fast as
they can. And I have got the facts and figures to prove it.
Zaremba: Thank you. Questions?
Rohm: I have just a quick question. Do you think that some of the increased traffic that
you're seeing on El Gato is related to the road construction on Black Cat?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 24 of 67
Bray: I would say that the -- it's a lot of construction tradesmen and I have noted, even
particularly, a City of Meridian maintenance -- I wrote it down -- maintenance
department truck. It was barreling through there, just like the best of them, and so we
have -- you know, we have agency people and -- as well as private individuals bogeying
down through there and I'm afraid it's going to be much more frequent once this -- once
El Gato gets opened up and gets black topped, because the traffic down at the end
there has been pretty impeded, because for the last about three or four months the
passage through there is restricted. So, once they cleared the way through there, boy,
they get on that paved road there going west and 60 feet wide and they let her -- they
let her rip.
Rohm: Make up for lost time.
Bray: Yes. Make up for lost time, I'm afraid.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: So, El Gato doesn't go through clear to McDermott, then?
Bray: Yes. It's just one mile long. Section line to section line.
Borup: So, the subdivision goes that far also?
Bray: Yes, it does. Yes, sir.
Borup: Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Bob Ewing. Okay. Thank you. That goes for Maurene Ewing
as well? Okay. Thank you. Fran -- I believe it's Jorgensen. Come to the microphone,
if you would, please.
Newton-Huckabay: She said she agrees.
Zaremba: Oh, I'm sorry. If all you're saying is you agree -- okay. But not yet, let's go
through the rest of the list and then --
Borup: Mr. Chairman, wouldn't it be faster if you just asked if there is anybody else that
wanted to testify? I don't know. Since so many of them have already --
Zaremba: It might be, except that the list is the public record and I want to make sure
it's accounted for. Sorry. Let's see. That was Fran Jorgensen. L. Jorgensen. Okay.
Going to be covered. It looks like John Anson, maybe, or there may be a few more
letters in there. Spoken for? Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, some of these people are
on both lists. One moment while I do paperwork here. Okay. Jan Husky. All right.
Thank you. Rick Venteck, Possibly.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 25 of 67
Vincha: Rick Vincha, 5442 El Gato and I just had one clarification, is a compromise on
density for me would not be half-acre size lots, but I would like to have a lot less density,
minimum of one house per acre.
Zaremba: Any questions? Phil Jeppesen. Spoken for as well. Okay. And -- oh,
probably Jo Vincha. Okay. She's covered as well. Okay. That concludes our list. The
first thing I'll ask if there is anybody who didn't sign up that cares to add anything. And,
then, we have had a couple people ask for Mrs. Farerra to add a few words in their
behalf and we will give you another three minutes.
Farerra: Thank you. I will make this very quick. And it goes to the question of Pine
Lane. We did not have the foresight tonight to bring with us a deed that had all the
attachments with it and there has not been anything that has been filed with the city, to
my knowledge, with you people, or with ACHD, that contained everything that was
recorded with those deeds. The deed for this particular piece of property -- I'm going to
read you something very short out of it. It says this tract of land is subject to a right of
way for a county road along the east 25 feet, semi-colon, a right of way for a road along
the south 20 feet, comma, a right of way for a 50-foot road as now located and
constructed along the north boundary, which would be Pine Lane, and to all other
easements and rights of way. The only reference to the county road for the deeds for
that piece of property is along the east side, which is Black Cat Road. Now, attached to
every one of the deeds -- and there are -- how many of them? Eight? Seven? Seven
deeds from when this property was split. There is a written -- there is an agreement
that is signed by every one of the property owners that is serviced by Pine Lane, saying
I can get from Wilder's house to Mr. Jorgensen's house, to here, to here, to here until I
get home and I can get back out. Us and our family and our friends. ACHD has
addressed this issue by not providing any deeds to say they have -- that they own
anything there. They have -- they said that they have shown through the assessor's
office records that they own that. However, every one of these people is still paying the
taxes on Pine Lane. Every one of them. And when a person -- a senior supervisor type
person was contacted by Mr. Brown, who could not be here tonight, because he had a
death in the family and he had to travel, that guy did some independent research at the
assessor's office and he said I don't know where they are coming up with that from. I
can't find anything that says they own any of that. So, I think there has been some
material that has been left out and I agree with Mr. Noll, I think this is going to turn into a
stink down the road if it's not cleared up. Thank you.
Borup: Question.
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: What was the date of that deed you just read from?
Farerra: The deed I'm looking at now is the deed for this particular piece of property.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 26 of 67
Borup: Have you got the date?
Farerra: 1976. September 1976. A warranty deed.
Borup: Okay. Is that what most of them are on there? I was just going by --
Farerra: Some of them are, actually, a little earlier and, then, they figured out, as Mr.
Wilder said -- it kind of started with Mr. Wilder saying that he wasn't going to give
access to what is now the El Gato Lane Subdivision by the use of the road that the
people on Pine Lane had already started to construct.
Borup: No. I understand. And I'm going back to Mr. McKinnon's statement that ACHD
wasn't formed until 1976, so they couldn't have --
Farerra: I'm sorry?
Borup: ACHD was not formed prior to '76, so they could not have had that -- a claim
prior to that time, because they weren't in existence.
Farerra: They also have been able to show no claim since then, except that they say
that they own it. And the people on Pine Lane say, wait a minute, I don't think so. And
so that is the official position and that was how the case came to be.
Borup: Okay. I understand. I just wanted to clarify the date.
Farerra: Okay.
Borup: Thank you.
Zaremba: I'm not sure -- remembering now whether it was your letter or somebody's
else letter, but --
Farerra: There was -- I think Mr. Brown wrote a letter.
Zaremba: Okay. Well, there, actually, were several. Just to clarify, ACHD throughout
this entire period has provided no maintenance to it. How has the maintenance been
handled?
Farerra: Mr. Brown has done some. I believe Mr. Wilder has done some. But ACHD
has never spent five minutes on that road. They have ever graveled it, they have never
graded it, they have never done anything. And the neighbors just went in and put in
some speed bumps, because they were having problems with some teenage drivers
who live on Pine Lane. So, they got a little bit of black top and they put it over in these
strips across the gravel road.
Zaremba: Great. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 27 of 67
Farerra: You're welcome.
Zaremba: I believe everybody has had an opportunity that cares to. At least their
viewpoint has been expressed and we appreciate that and we have heard it. Does staff
have anything to add at this point?
Guenther: In discussions with Mr. Hawkins-Clark, our principal planner here, I guess a
little history on the Comp Plan. Mr. McKinnon keeps referring to it as a guide, but in
certain areas -- and this being one of them, it was set up more along the lines of being
more of a detailed layout of how the neighborhood wanted to have their neighborhood
exist and this neighborhood, according to Brad, was very active in the Comprehensive
Plan enactment and was very adamant in that this was a designation that they wanted
and wished to maintain for their very rural lifestyles. The other issue is that Mr.
McKinnon says that on his deed it indicates that there is a right of way. The open space
calculations, even if you wanted to take half of that, still says, according to our Chapter
13, that exclusive of right of way, are not to be incorporated into open space
calculations and, again, if you did choose to go with the neighborhood recommendation
for a compromise to go with large lot sizes, then, I would recommend that the board
draft a condition of approval to -- to the report in order to accommodate that type of an
issue.
Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. The applicant has been taking notes and we will give you
ten minutes, sir.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Again, Dave
McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber. Let me just start with where Joe left off. I said we
would probably have a disagreement early in the way we define open space and the
way he just defined it, let me read it to you, how it says, and you've got your attorney
here tonight, he can maybe help us out with this. It says open space shall mean land
area exclusive of streetlights and street buffers, except for right of way specifically
dedicated for landscaping within a subdivision. It says you can't count street lights -- it
says you can't count street lights and street buffers, except for those -- excepting those
saying you can count these, except for right of way specifically dedicated for
landscaping within a subdivision. I need to get a clarification from you, but the way I
read that when I see it --
Baird: I'll stand with staff's interpretation. We just got that this afternoon.
McKinnon: Did you?
Baird: And we will stand by that.
McKinnon: And the reason why I bring that up is in the past you have counted right of
ways, which are parkways. Parkways between sidewalks and asphalt, so you guys
have a precedence for this. Halfway -- the parkway is between sidewalks and asphalt
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 28 of 67
and the roadway, curb and gutter, has been counted as open space in the past under
this exception. Those parkways are located in the right of way, typically, with the
sidewalk being outside of the right of way in an easement, which has been counted
towards open space. I don't know if we are going to argue about that tonight, but is this
accepting that, those are the ones you can count. You can't count the ones that aren't
landscaped, but the ones that are specifically landscaped you can count. And I have
had discussions with staff about that in the past and in the past they deal with
parkways, they said, yes, you can count parkways towards open space. So, there is
some precedent that's been set by that -- by staff and by the city. And I said there is a
disagreement on that. Regardless of what it is, we have a 50-foot buffer at the entrance
to the subdivision that needs to be maintained by the homeowners association. It is
open space, it's maintained by a specific person and a specific group, and if it's owned
by a specific group, maintained by a specific group, you can't say that that landscaped
area is not open space and, in fact, it is open space, it's being paid for and maintained
by a specific party. Just because the ordinance says that you can't count it, doesn't
mean it doesn't exist and we would suggest that it does exist and should be counted
towards open space. We are onto something kind of fun. Joe, could -- oh, you've got it
up right there. Awesome. Commissioner Rohm touched on something -- touched a
little bit about compromise and it's been touched on by a couple of Commissioners,
Commissioner Newton-Huckabay -- about compromise. And while there was some
discussion going on, I leaned over and met with one of my -- one of my coworkers,
talked about compromise on this site and if we went to 12,000 square feet, what would
that do to this area. We have got, basically, seven units to back up to this one -- one
site. These are all approximately 9,500, 9,000 square foot lots. Some of these are over
10,000, some of them are a little bit smaller. Regardless, you pick out on the north side,
if would you take -- if you took this lot out and shifted the road up and, then, took the
land that's separated between this, added it to these three, and to these three, shift it
this way over to the north. There is a pie-shapped lot down here, it's a little bit difficult,
we are not going to be able to fit anymore or less in this area if we went to 12,000
square feet. We still have six that would be backing up to the subdivision. If we were to
take out one lot, it actually does a couple of other things. It's kind of neat and it makes
for a good compromise. It gets our density down. We will lose one lot. It gets us down
below three units to the acre, so it complies with the Comprehensive Plan, regardless of
how you take your legal description. We are below three units to the acre. It provides a
larger buffer, as far as transitional use, if we get rid of one. There is fixed use
requirements for the distance from the roadway down to the south, so this is an
additional stub street. We'd end up with one less lot, so we meet our density
requirements, we would be able to continue to meet our open space requirements.
Some of the major issues with this plat concerning density, concerning the buffers, go
away and, then, we'd just have to deal with the open space issue that we have already
addressed a little bit. And, Joe, if you can go back a couple more slides that you guys
have. One -- there we go. Perfect. That works. Let's talk a little bit more about Pine
Street. Pine Street is the private road that's signed as a private road. At the ACHD --
that's this road right here. Commissioner Borup, I think there was some confusion as to
whether or not this road goes all the way through. Pine Road itself goes and dead ends
at this location. El Gato continues. El Gato is a public road. It's not a private road. It
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 29 of 67
goes up -- it comes up and -- I don't see that it continues all the way through. Okay. It
right turns and, then, comes down -- okay. El Gato goes through. That I know. Not
that it was discussed tonight. Again, we have 110 feet of right of way there. Staff is
supportive of reducing that down to one road that lines up with El Gato. ACHD has a
policy in place that says you line up with the adjacent roadways. When you have tried
to put 110 feet to line up with a 50-foot roadway and a 50-foot right of way, it doesn't line
up. Especially when you have two roads that are coming out at the exact same point
onto the same road. The point that ACHD made -- and this was discussed with their
legal counsel, Mr. Price was at this hearing and Mr. Price's legal opinion was that these
right of ways -- and there is a number of them throughout the county that are signed as
private roads, are owned by ACHD, but not maintained. The right of way maintenance
supervisor got up and said at that public hearing that there is a number of private roads
that are not being maintained with signs on them and those signs that are private as an
indication to ACHD not to maintain those. And the reason why is ACHD will not take
over maintenance of a roadway until it meets their standards. ACHD doesn't build the
roads, developers build the roads. ACHD will not take over maintenance of Pine --
maintenance of El Gato in this area, or Pine, until it meets their policy. So, that's the
reason why they haven't done any maintenance. It was a surprise to me to hear that
there is a lot of private roads that are actually owned by ACHD. But ACHD claims
ownership of all rights of ways in Ada County from the time that they are organized.
There wasn't a massive process -- go over deeds and saying this is now all ACHD. It
would have been too cumbersome. But ACHD claims ownership of all the rights of
ways. Mrs. Farerra -- the report, I guess the deed, for our piece of property, talking
about a 20-foot right of way, a 50-foot right of way, and, then, a right of way 25 feet to
center line for a county road. The reason why it says county, instead of ACHD, is
because at that time the county maintains those roadways, not ACHD, because ACHD
wasn't in existence. We have ACHD for better or for worse. They maintain the
roadways and they take ownership of the rights of way and that was their determination.
I think that the compromise -- if we can -- if we can go back to that, Joe. It's in my head
now and there is -- I guess it's something that would be able to work for -- for us, at
least. You know, if we were to reduce this back here, that pushes all of these lots
towards the 12,000 square foot. It may not meet the specific 12,000 square feet, but if
we take one lot out and spread it equal distance around there, if we push those all to 11
thousand plus square feet, maybe just under 12,000 square feet. If we can add a
condition that says we could make this six units on the western edge, rather than
seven, with space of one of these going through or added as a compromise, we create
the transitional densities, we allow this area to develop within the Comprehensive Plan.
It reduces our density, makes larger lots, which is what the neighborhood has requested
and I think we have a project that is a viable project. It complies with the
Comprehensive Plan and, again, staff is recommending approval of this and we would
ask that you recommend approval as well to the City Council. With that I will end
testimony. Ask if you have any questions on that. I know there is a lot of issues that
were brought up, but I think those cover the majority of the issues.
Zaremba: Commissioners?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 30 of 67
Borup: I do have a few questions.
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup, please.
Borup: I guess I have got to agree, these are nice size lots. Anywhere else in the city
they would be 300,000 plus homes that would normally go on this size lot. But I do
have a couple of -- you had -- I'm sure your client understood from the beginning what
the Comp Plan said for this area.
McKinnon: Three units or less.
Borup: Pardon?
McKinnon: Three units or less. Less than three.
Borup: Well -- I thought we were at low density?
McKinnon: Commissioner Borup, this is low density. Low density on the
Comprehensive Plan is three units or less.
Borup: On the Comp Plan.
McKinnon: Yes.
Borup: Okay. I'm --
McKinnon: This is not already zoned. This is an annexation request.
Borup: Okay. Yeah. There is a difference in the definition between low density on the
Comp Plan -- I mean on the Comp Plan low density and the -- on the ordinance. So,
there wasn't any -- you had made a statement that you did not request a bump up in
density. That was when you were assuming that you maybe had more acreage than it
may appear that you do. So, you're -- what you're saying by your last comment is that
by reducing one lot that you would be well under the three units acre, is that what you're
getting, too?
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, if you reduce one lot --
Borup: And I agree with your calculation. That had 11,000 plus square foot --
McKinnon: It would get it down underneath the three, depending on where you take
those measurements from, but, yes, it would put you down below three. If you take one
out, that's how close you are on the threshold of three units.
Borup: It appears you still may have some trouble on your -- I mean on your open
space. Earlier you had stated that ACHD gave you the option of vacating that property?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 31 of 67
McKinnon: ACHD says with right of ways you either improvement it or you vacate it.
Borup: Okay. And vacate it, it would pass to your ownership, then?
McKinnon: It would pass to our ownership and, then, all of a sudden we have --
Borup: And that would be on the open space at that point.
McKinnon: Then, it could be open space. That's correct.
Borup: And why are you -- why are you not pursuing that option, or was that too early?
McKinnon: It's a process that's both cumbersome to the owner and to ACHD. It takes
several months to go through the process. It requires public hearings to vacate right of
way and through the ACHD process there is an exchange of money or property that
takes place as well, because they can't just vacate it for no money, because it's
privately -- it's not privately, but publicly owned land, because it's right of way. There
has to be an exchange of money. They felt that it would be easiest to leave it as ACHD
right of way, with a license agreement. Same thing happens. It's either owned by
ACHD with the homeowners association maintaining it or it's owned by the owners of
the homeowners association maintaining it. Rather than go through a cumbersome,
you know, monthly -- a several month long process, why not just landscape it.
Borup: Thank you.
Zaremba: Other questions?
Moe: Yeah. I'm still kind of hung up in regards to the open space as well. What I'm
hearing staff and legal tell us already is that they pretty much do not believe the right of
way area can be noted as open space in your calculations. So, I guess having said
that, do you have any second plan of attack on this? Because I'm not anticipating that
changing.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, just like Commissioner Zaremba just
mentioned, if we were to take that right of way area, vacate it, purchased it from ACHD
or land swap it with ACHD, then, it becomes owned by the subdivision, the homeowners
association, then, you can count it, according to staff -- all it is is a matter of process. If
it were owned by ACHD, and maintained by us, or it's owned by us and maintained by
us -- does that make sense? Commissioner Zaremba -- Commissioner Borup said if
you vacate it, you purchase the right of way, and, then, all of a sudden it's part of our
subdivision, it's right of way that can be included. You can only count 50 percent
beyond the ten feet that's required. In a local road the ordinance requires ten feet of
landscaping for the local road. We can count half of whatever is extra to it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 32 of 67
Moe: Okay. Having said that, you already -- you also mentioned that to vacate you got
a time frame to deal with in order for that to happen.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, that time frame typically takes place
during the final plat construction drawings. That's something that takes place through
the final plat construction drawings. That's something that takes place with --
Moe: Okay. We are getting somewhere now. I understand. I want to thank you.
Zaremba: If you have people who have a deeded right to cross this and what today
would probably be called a cross-access agreement among -- it sounds like seven or
eight property owners here. Isn't that something of value that you would also have to
purchase from them by agreement?
McKinnon: Well, that would depend if -- from what we have been told by public
agencies, ACHD, is that ACHD owns it and if ACHD owns it, these people can still get
out to Black Cat, there is no harm to these people, because you have a roadway that
will be improved that run parallel to each other. You can get out on one and there is
access to both of them all the way throughout, you're still getting out to Black Cat,
everybody can get through on those roads -- all the way through. It's all getting to the
same point, Commissioner Zaremba -- Mr. Chairman. ACHD says they own it. In fact,
we wish we could have stayed out of this. Our initial plan for this was let's take access
off of Black Cat, we don't have to worry about Pine Street and El Gato, we don't have to
worry about coming across any sort of easement. We went and sat down with ACHD,
ACHD said, boy, we'd really rather not have another access to Black Cat. We
understand what you're doing, I understand why you don't want to do that. We can live
with that. We met with the city. The city said, you know what, we'd rather you take
access off the side and Joe -- we got to pre-app and said, you know what, why don't
you look into it a little bit more, maybe there is something else going on here. We went
back to ACHD and said what's going on here and ACHD looked at the map and said,
you know what, we own that and it would be best to come in off of that, you know, and
even if you want to come in off of Black Cat and don't come in over here, you're still
stuck at ACHD to either improve or vacate right of way. ACHD would still even make us
improve or vacate that right of way, regardless of where we took access, because they
claim ownership adjacent to this.
Zaremba: Thank you.
McKinnon: So, we are stuck having to appease ACHD, regardless of where our access
was, because they claim ownership. So, we are kind of -- we are stuck between a rock
and a hard place and ACHD said -- their attorney said we own it and so that's what we
have to go with.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any other questions? Thank you.
McKinnon: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 33 of 67
Zaremba: Discussion?
Newton-Huckabay: You want to close the Public Hearing first?
Zaremba: That's fine if you'd like to. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close this Public Hearing on AZ 05-012
and PP 05-014.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second to close these public hearings. All in favor
say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Discussion?
Newton-Huckabay: I think they need to lose three lots.
Zaremba: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: That's -- by my calculation that's about 2.39 per acre.
Rohm: Three lots in the whole subdivision?
Newton-Huckabay: Yes.
Borup: How many acres are you calculating on the --
Newton-Huckabay: 5.98 -- okay.
Borup: 5.89?
Newton-Huckabay: That's what the staff report says.
Guenther: Commissioner Zaremba, we are not sure what the survey says. They have
indicated -- there is one survey in our application that says 5.51 acres. There is one
survey that says 6.35 acres and there is another survey that says 5.89 acres, which is
the preliminary plat that is in your sub that -- your application.
Newton-Huckabay: That's the one I'm using to make my calculation.
Borup: The smallest one.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 34 of 67
Newton-Huckabay: I got to pick -- you know, we got to -- you know, I got to pick a
number in our scale.
Guenther: That's why there is a condition of approval in the conditions that says that
they have to come back with a proper survey and proper calculations for the overall
density.
Rohm: And to follow Commissioner Newton-Huckabay's thought, if they dropped it by
three lots, does the open space, then -- that issue, does that go away or are we -- are
they clear with that recommended change?
Guenther: Well, with the open space calculations, I did my own calculations today
based on what was presented and what was interpreted by the subdivision. I came up
with -- that they have 7,865 square feet of open space on -- according to the 5.51 acre
subdivision, which means -- or survey that was submitted. That would mean that they
have 3.2 percent of open space. They only have to come up with another roughly three
thousand, thirty-eight hundred square feet in order to get to where they need to be.
Zaremba: Then, I will express a couple of opinions that I think may surprise a few
people. In the subdivisions on the east side of Black Cat, we received similar testimony
and in that area I admit that I was not convinced and still am not convinced that it has
that much impact on El Gato. On the west side of Black Cat I feel entirely differently
about it. The Comprehensive Plan envisions in a low-density area a maximum of three
dwelling units per acre and the discussion we are having noodles that limit. I mean
whether we get to 2.99 or 2.98, I don't think is the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. In
addition to that, as staff has pointed out and others have, there are areas where the
Comprehensive Plan envisions that even that's too much density and the subject is the
transition to the neighbors. I have no problems supporting the idea that half-acre lots
are as small as these ought to be. In addition to that -- and I deliberately didn't put Mr.
Wilder on the spot, but I personally feel that development of this small acreage is
premature. If the two lots combined, if Mr. Wilder some day was thinking of developing
-- and I'm not going to ask him to answer that question. But if you could combine those
to pieces of property, you could do far more with this that would be much more
advantageous, not only to the City of Meridian, but to the neighbors, have larger lots
that would that be a much better transition to their area and what I'm admitting is I feel
much differently about the west side of Black Cat than I do about the east side of Black
Cat. I still feel eventually when Pine goes east, all of those people are going to go east
and stop being a problem. I can admit that they are being a problem now, but I don't
think they have a reason to go that direction once the sewer is done, once Pine goes
east, which could be years, unfortunately. This is different. This is the entryway to this
group. It's part of the existing properties and the Comprehensive Plan envisions taking
into account the existing properties and I will have to say I feel it's premature at this
point even to annex this small piece, which could be made much better for both the city
and for the neighbors by having a discussion with Mr. Wilder as well. That's my
personal opinion.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 35 of 67
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Mr. Moe.
Moe: I will weigh in, okay? Quite frankly, I have got a couple different issues on this
project. In regards the Comprehensive Plan in regards to the three dwelling units and
to anticipate it to be as per the Comprehensive Plan, which, in my view as a
Commissioner here, we are somewhat under a duty to somewhat follow the
Comprehensive Plan. So, therefore, I would anticipate that by what the developer is
anticipating, reduction of one lot and whatnot, to somewhat get into -- under the three
dwelling units, I happen to like that very much. My biggest problem on this -- and I'm
going to kind of point at staff a little. I'm a little bit concerned that -- we have a lot of
open issues on this project and in my opinion I do not think that I can vote for this
development when I have to vote for it to go to City Council with all these open issues
still out there. I think there is -- and it's been noted by a few people here tonight, there
are issues I still think need to be resolved, i.e., legal descriptions and whatnot, as well
as what we are doing with the open space, realizing that they may take and get the right
of way from the county. I just think there is too many issues in here that I just can't
support an approval tonight of this project. I'm not so sure I want to really deny it, but I
don't think I can support it tonight. Thank you.
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: Just a couple notes on calculations. If we take the lowest number, the 5.51
acres -- I think that was Commissioner Huckabay was -- was that the number you were
using?
Newton-Huckabay: I used the 5.89.
Borup: Okay. Well, I used the lower one, so it can't go any lower than that. Sixteen
lots would be 2.9 per acre. Fifteen would be 2.72. So, eliminating one lot would meet
the three per acre. It doesn't address the open space. That's more for information. My
comment would be that I think -- I believe -- I believe there should be an implied
expectation when someone looks at the Comp Plan that that's what would be expected
that you can develop in that area. I also feel, you know, that some transition is
appropriate and because of -- because of this location, feeling the neighbors, I don't feel
that there is any need to give any variance or any extra. I mean I -- the staff has
already stated what their interpretation of the open space and right of way is and -- you
know, and everything else is pretty black and white already in our codes and
ordinances. So, I think I'm agreeing with what Commissioner Moe said, I mean these
are larger lots from what we normally see. I think there is still a market for larger lots.
At what point you reach where it's not practical to bring sewer and water services in, I
don't know. Staff has commented on that in the past, but, you know, I think the
developer can still -- still has a market for larger lots, but I think there still is an implied
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 36 of 67
expectation to be able to develop it as the Comp Plan says and how that's being
already approved and run through the process, but I think maybe they need to work at
complying with all aspects of that. And so I'm agreeing with Commissioner Moe that I'm
not ready to deny it. Whether approving it tonight is -- it sounds like it could be a long
laundry list of things that they would need to do and I'd feel much more comfortable
maybe having that worked out before it goes to City Council also.
Zaremba: Let me ask what you're thinking we should do as a process. In order to get
some of these resolved, we would probably want to continue the hearing, which we
have closed at the moment, but we have in the past reopened and continued. Are you
thinking there are things that can be resolved? I have expressed my personal opinion
that I think this is premature at this point and we have gotten burned other places where
we annexed a piece of property that was too small to really do what needed to be done
there.
Borup: Well, I don't know. See, I guess I look at --
Zaremba: I'm just one person and we were looking for a consensus here.
Borup: I'm in a -- somewhat of a rural subdivision, but -- and five acre lots surround it.
One-acre lots with five-acre lots around it and in our area all the five-acre lots are
developing. We never will. It's too small. I mean ours are too small to ever develop.
You're not going to develop one acres into anything. So, at some point -- and it's not
going to be next year, but maybe at some point something's going to happened here.
Maybe in someone else's lifetime. And a lot of times that's what it would be, but, you
know, that's part of planning is what's going to happen in 40 years. We have got the
sewer line there. I mean the city has already got -- you know, that's saying something,
too.
Zaremba: Let me get the sense, though -- are we thinking that there are issues that
could be resolved that would earn a recommendation to the City Council? I know all of
my issues can be resolved.
Borup: Right. Yeah. You're saying you want half-acre lots.
Zaremba: And the more we talk about it, the more etched in stone is it, unfortunately,
but there is --
Borup: Well, I feel like I could -- I could support a redesign with something with fewer
lots.
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: That's my sense. By my calculation, reducing three lots would be
about an 18,000 -- provided I did the math right, on average, just about a half an acre. I
mean I -- from a land planning standpoint, I don't even know if that would work, but --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 37 of 67
Zaremba: Well, the applicant has expressed a willingness to do that. What about the
open space and easement and --
Newton-Huckabay: You know, I have to confess the open space issue is pretty
convoluted and I'm having a little hard time following it, so I'm just going to defer to Joe
on that, because with the people in the audience, I -- it's kind of a circus of points. But if
we could come back with that resolved, which it seems to be -- everybody agrees that
could happen and three -- you know, three or more or less lots -- it would only take
three less lots, I think. I think it's not a bad design and I don't necessarily think it's
premature to develop -- what you're doing, then, in my opinion, is setting the standard
for how development is going to go to the west and basically you're getting, on average,
half acre lots between Black Cat and McDermott, with a whole bunch of stub streets.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Just a clarification. Commissioner Huckabay, made the comment about losing
three lots and you made the statement that that was what the developer was saying,
thought he was only losing the one lot.
Zaremba: I'm sorry, I thought I heard her say one.
Newton-Huckabay: No. I said three.
Moe: Three.
Zaremba: Oh, I'm sorry.
Moe: Thank you.
Zaremba: No. I agree. The developer has agreed to lose one lot.
Newton-Huckabay: How many were you thinking?
Borup: Two.
Newton-Huckabay: Two?
Borup: Well, I mean it would need to be at least that to get the open space.
Moe: Yeah.
Borup: Three would be a nice size, though.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 38 of 67
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm, do you have an opinion to weigh in here?
Rohm: Well, yeah, I have to voice my two cents worth here. To start off with, the
Comprehensive Plan is something that we use as our guide as we move forward with
development in this area, as well as the entire area of impact and I believe staff has
commented that the people from El Gato had weighed in and expressed significant
concern about larger developments or dense developments adjacent to their rural
lifestyle and I think that the lowest development that could be assigned was assigned to
this property. The low density, which is up to -- is up to three dwelling units per acre.
Up to does not mean that you have to develop up to three. You don't have to go to
three dwelling units per acre. I think that it would behoove the developer to reconsider
and move to some compromise to address the concerns of the adjacent neighbors.
The issue of the open space, I really think that at the end of the day the open space,
whether they purchase that from Ada County or have it vacated, it's all going to be the
same open space at the end of the process and so, quite honestly, even if we should
not consider it as open space as part of this hearing, if, in fact, it was vacated, you
would end up with the exact same open space at the end of the day and so I personally
don't think that the open space is as significant of an issue as what has been
expressed, simply because through time that would be resolved and would end up with
the same open space. So, anyway, that's as I see it. So, in conclusion, my thoughts
are that the developer should go back and reconsider reconfiguration with a reduced
number of lots that is in line with what Commissioner Newton-Huckabay had suggested,
with at least a three lot reduction and that would get them down below the three -- I
would imagine that would get it to 2.7 or something like that.
Newton-Huckabay: 2.3.
Rohm: 2.3. And I think that that's working as a compromise to the concerns of the
public and giving credence to the fact that the developer has a Comprehensive Plan
that he's also tried to adhere to and once those issues have been addressed, then,
that's something that we all, hopefully, could live with. End of statement.
Zaremba: Thank you. I would ask a clarification from staff. We often in our discussion
are talking about usable open space and to me I envision a place where people could
actually have a picnic or the kids could play ball. Is usable part of the code or is that
just an interpretation that we make?
Guenther: That is an interpretation that we have kind of defined, as there are no
amenities associated with any type of open space. Typically, with open space we get a
gazebo, a park bench, or a bus stop or something along that line and there is nothing
presented with this. That's what usable is as we interpret it as when we drafted the staff
report.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: As a suggestion --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 39 of 67
Zaremba: Okay. Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: As a suggestion, I would say that we should reopen the Public Hearing and
continue them to a later date and give the developer an opportunity to come back in
with the -- with a response that addresses the concerns that have been expressed by
this body and come up with a design that addresses the concerns of the public, as well
as the comments made by the Commission here and we will continue it to a point where
they feel comfortable that they can address all issues that have been brought up this
evening. That would be my recommendation.
Guenther: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Would you care to make that a motion?
Borup: Mr. Chairman, there is one other option and I would be interested in the
applicant's feelings on this. I mean the other option is we could just vote on it tonight.
And that may -- you know, that may be appropriate to have them express how they feel
about that and if we are going to reopen the Public Hearing, we can go either way.
Rohm: Well, I don't think we can ask the applicant for his desires without reopening the
Public Hearing.
Borup: Right. That's correct. Unless he wants to express it to staff. But we can find
out if he would -- if he'd like that idea, to continue it or he'd just as soon that there was a
vote tonight.
Zaremba: I would express, again, regardless of my original opinion being
uncomfortable with a vote to recommend anything that has this many loose ends to it.
Borup: Well, it would be real easy to recommend --
Zaremba: -- has asked us to --
Borup: It would be real easy to make a recommendation for denial.
Newton-Huckabay: Yes. I think that's where we go with that is to recommend denial.
That would be my vote.
Zaremba: I'm not trying to brow beat anybody, but I was already there.
Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we reopen the Public Hearing AZ 05-012 and
PP 05-014.
Moe: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 40 of 67
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. That motion carries.
Sorry.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Okay. With that being said, I guess we just need to talk to --
Zaremba: Do you have any further questions for the applicant?
Borup: I think we can get an answer just by a nod of their head if they would like it
continued or a vote tonight.
Rohm: I'd like a date certain for a requested continuance.
Borup: Well, that's -- yeah, that would be helpful to have that, so we could put that in
the --
Zaremba: We aren't looking for new testimony here. I'll need to ask Mr. McKinnon to
answer this question.
Beecham: I'm, actually, the owner.
Borup: I think he can answer.
Zaremba: Okay. Come forward.
Beecham: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Scott Beecham, 405 South 8th Street. I'm an
owner of C2B Development. We would appreciate the opportunity to go back, tie up
some of these loose ends. I think there was some misunderstanding we can work
through pretty quickly and we can redesign and run a detailed pro forma, see if that's
feasible, whether it be minus two lots, minus three lots, and let staff know whether that
makes sense to us or not and we can be back before you or not. I think the direction of
the Commission is clear.
Rohm: Do you have a date certain?
Moe: While we are waiting on that, I do want to make one statement that was -- as I
heard the Commission, it was more like three lots, not two.
Beecham: Yes, sir. I got that very clearly in sign language.
Rohm: It looks like June 2nd, June 16th, or --
Zaremba: Those are both pretty full.
Rohm: Are they both?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 41 of 67
Zaremba: It would be July before we could do anything.
Moe: If I might add, because we still have legal issues on this as well, I mean do you
think it's -- I think the neighbors still have issues in regards to that right of way and I'm a
little bit concerned that we are -- it's going to take a little longer than everybody thinks to
get this thing resolved.
Newton-Huckabay: How about August 4th?
Zaremba: I certainly would want to see something in writing from ACHD and from the
property owners as well.
Moe: Exactly. I mean at some point --
Zaremba: We aren’t going to make the legal decision, but there needs to be supporting
documentation.
Moe: A hundred percent agreement.
Beecham: Mr. Chairman, if I could, if we could do a July date, I will go to work on
getting that in writing from ACHD. If we can't do that, I will notify staff in advance and
make sure we are not wasting anyone's time.
Rohm: Thank you. We have got the 21st.
Zaremba: A suggestion has been the 21st of July. That would give staff adequate time,
then -- if this is revised, staff needs everything ten days before the hearing in order to
get agency comments and everything, so that --
Moe: If at all possible, could we make it the 4th of August? I think there is members
that may not be present on the 21st.
Zaremba: That works for me. I'm not making the motion. Would that be a problem?
Beecham: That would work.
Zaremba: Okay. All right. A motion to continue is in order.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue public hearings AZ 05-012 and PP 05-
014 to the regularly scheduled planning and zoning meeting of August 4th, 2005.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 42 of 67
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Thank you all for coming in.
Zaremba: Thank you all. We will see you again.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move we take a short break.
Zaremba: This is the appropriate time for us to take a break. We will reconvene in
about ten minutes.
(Recess.)
Item 9: Public Hearing: AZ 05-014 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of
19.72 acres from RUT to a R-8 zone for Sicily Subdivision by Landmark
Engineering and Planning – south of East Victory Road and west of South
Locust Grove Road:
Item 10: Public Hearing: PP 05-016 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval of 74
building lots 5 other lots on 19.72 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Sicily
Subdivision by Landmark Engineering and Planning – south of East
Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road:
Zaremba: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we will reconvene our meeting and let the
record show that all Commissioners that were here before are here again with us and
we will open the Public Hearing for Items 9 and 10 on our agenda. This is AZ 05-014,
request for an annexation and zoning of 19.72 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone and also
Public Hearing PP 05-016, request for a preliminary plat approval of 74 building lots and
five other lots on 19.72 acres, in a proposed R-8 zone for Sicily Subdivision by
Landmark Engineering and Planning, south of east Victory Road and west of South
Locust Grove Road. And we will begin with the staff report.
Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application
before you is for Sicily Subdivision. It's proposed for 72 building lots, five common lots,
in a proposed R-8 zone. Bordered on the east by the recently approved Roseleaf and
Chatsworth Subdivisions and, then, South Locust Grove Road. On the southwest
property line bordered by the Ridenbaugh Canal and undeveloped RUT properties and,
then, also bordered by an undeveloped RUT property on the north. It is also nearby to
Tuscany Village and, then, across Locust Grove portions of Tuscany Lakes Subdivision.
The Comprehensive Plan designation of this property is medium density residential.
The applicant has proposed 3.75 dwelling units per acre, which is in accordance with
that medium density residential. Actually, on the low end. the Comprehensive Plan
designates medium density residential as three to eight units per acre and this is much
closer to the three than the eight. The staff doesn't have many issues for the
Commission's resolution. I had spoke with the applicant and they are in agreement --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 43 of 67
my understanding is they are in agreement with the staff report and any conditions in it.
A few things I will point out. The applicant was required to submit a block length
variance, because of the Ridenbaugh Canal for this block, Block 1, exceeds the 1,000
foot block length variance, because of the limited opportunities to cross the Ridenbaugh
Canal. This is a variance application that staff will support and has been submitted and
would go to Council concurrently with these two applications. The applicant has
proposed 6.7 percent open space in five open space lots. I will switch here. The
landscape plan does show the large central common lot here with a basketball -- a
proposed basketball court, walking paths, and landscaping. There is also a landscape
lot in the northeast corner and, then, over here in the western portion of the property
and, then, near the cul-de-sac here by the Ridenbaugh Canal. Those four lots,
exclusive of the fifth lot along the Ridenbaugh Canal, do make up that 6.7 percent of
landscaped open area. So, technically, by code, that's what can be included in that
calculation is actual landscape, accessible open space to the residents. So, they do
exceed the five percent by quite a ways with those four lots and if he did factor in the lot
number five along the Ridenbaugh that's quite large -- I believe it's 74,000 square feet --
that's open space and along the Ridenbaugh it just, per code, isn't included in that
calculation. So, it's just above and beyond. They did provide a stub street to the north.
They take access from the east, from the Roseleaf. That road there does go into
Roseleaf -- the approved Roseleaf Subdivision that is not constructed currently and,
then, takes access to Locust Grove Road. The Chatsworth -- the road here goes into
Chatsworth Subdivision and that is a second access to Locust Grove Road, meeting fire
department requirements for two separate accesses to the property. Other than
requiring the applicant to submit the variance application, which they have done, there
was no conditions that were above and beyond what would be pretty standard with any
pre-plat and annexation request. They have requested to not tile the Ridenbaugh
Canal. Staff -- the Public Works Department has not required tiling of waterways that
would require a pipe larger than 48 inches and it's my understanding that that would
require a pipe substantially larger than 48 inches. And with that I think I'll end staff's
comments.
Zaremba: Okay. Commissioners, any questions?
Moe: I have none.
Borup: Just one of curiosity. How did this property have access to -- to the other
roadways? Is it landlocked?
Wilson: Currently until Roseleaf and Chatsworth are constructed and, subsequently,
that's also where this subdivision is getting its sewer and water service from, so --
Borup: Yeah. Assuming that.
Wilson: -- it can't be constructed until those are. So, effectively, it --
Borup: So, it is landlocked.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 44 of 67
Wilson: Currently, yes.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: I guess on that subject of the clarification, we often put in a requirement that
they can't have more than 50 dwelling units until there are two accesses. You're saying
they can't even get in there to start building until the accesses are there, so we don't
necessarily need to add that requirement?
Wilson: That's my understanding and I believe that was Joe Silva's take, the fire
department representative, as well. And he did not include that requirement on this
subdivision.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Would the applicant care to
come forward?
Boyle: Commissioners, Clint Boyle with Landmark Engineering and Planning.
Business address of 104 9th Avenue South in Nampa, Idaho. And I will try to make this
brief and not use up the entire ten minutes, unless you want to chat about any movies
that are coming out or anything like that. But I would request that the Commissioners
use the -- that the force be with them tonight as they consider this application and we
have worked with staff on this, we have met with the parks department, and had
discussions with the planning staff as well, and I believe we have worked out all the
issues. We are in agreement with the requirements here. One of the things that I do
just want to point out on the subdivision is we did try to design this subdivision with
some usable, active open space. I know there was comments from the previous
hearing requesting that. We have a large central area that is proposed with some
basketball facilities, some walking paths, and, then, trying to leave space open as well
for people to go out and throw a Frisbee or ball or et cetera. The way that we designed
the open space coming into the project was so that with both of the connections --
street stubs, the one from Roseleaf and the one from Chatsworth, you would get a nice
look at that open space coming into the subdivision from either of those directions. We
also provided a stub street to the north for future connectivity to the north. The staff has
indicated that this particular piece of property is landlocked and that is correct. The
developer understands that Roseleaf and Chatsworth, those streets need to be
improved and platted before they will be able to proceed with the development. Both of
the projects are well on their way to accomplishing that. Construction drawings have
been submitted, my understanding, on both of those and so they are definitely in the
process of being -- being followed through and constructed. The Ridenbaugh Canal is,
obviously, a significant water feature. I'm sure most of the Commissioners are familiar
with the Ridenbaugh Canal and so we certainly are requesting that we not be required
to tile that facility. Staff has supported that request, because it would require
significantly larger than a 48-inch pipe. And I'm sure staff can attest to that as well.
With that said, I'll stand for any questions. And, again, we agree with the staff report
and the conditions found therein. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 45 of 67
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? No questions. All right. Thank
you. We have the opportunity for public testimony at this point. One moment while we
get the sign-up sheet. Okay. There is nobody else signed up, although there is an
opportunity, if anybody cares to speak on this subject, to come forward. I guess the
opportunity has been taken by all who wish it, in which case Mr. Boyle does not need to
provide a rebuttal on anything and, Commissioners, what's your pleasure?
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I just have a question for staff and, actually, Commissioner
Newton-Huckabay brought it up and I'm kind of curious as well. The road leading out
through Roseleaf Subdivision, are we not longer than a thousand feet now by having
that access in like that? Is there any -- anything planned going into that subdivision?
Zaremba: You're saying the Roseleaf part of it gets longer than a thousand feet?
Moe: Well, by the time you add up everything going into the -- into the new area here,
I'm sure you're over a thousand feet. And I'm just curious --
Borup: It already was.
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. We are just making it longer.
Borup: Well, yeah, they only added a hundred feet.
Moe: No. I understand with the new subdivision. Correct. I'm just kind of curious --
any type of -- my concern is that we are going to have a nice raceway all the way
through there, then.
Wilson: Yeah. Commissioner Moe, where this application is adding one lot depth, I --
this is where you're speaking of?
Moe: Yeah.
Wilson: To that roadway, you know, the length of that would have been considered in
the previous application and where this one is only adding that little portion, we don't
have any concerns with that and wouldn't require a variance or anything like that.
Moe: Thank you very much. That's all I want to know. Mr. Chairman, I move we close
the Public Hearing on AZ 05-014 and PP 05-016.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 46 of 67
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. I'm sorry, there appears to be a question before we
proceed. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I'm trying to remember back. Did we do any traffic calming in the
Roseleaf Subdivision for that?
Zaremba: I see a wide spot in the road. There could be other --
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. It looks like there might be -- I mean -- but I think I'm
digressing off the issue, but I just would like to know that we did. You can continue with
your motion.
Moe: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending
approval of AZ 05-014 and PP 05-016, for the hearing date of May 19th, 2005, received
by the city clerk's office on May 13th, 2005.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Zaremba: You're referring to the staff comments?
Moe: Staff comments. I'm sorry.
Zaremba: Thank you. Did I hear a second from Commissioner Newton-Huckabay?
Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh.
Zaremba: That's a yes? Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye.
Any opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Did you combine both of those in one or did you just do one?
Moe: I did them both.
Item 11: Public Hearing: CUP 05-021 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
an addition for a gymnasium and commons area to existing junior / senior
high school for Cole Valley Christian School Gymnasium by CTA
Architects Engineers – 200 East Carlton:
Zaremba: Okay. That solves that. Okay. We are ready to open Public Hearing Item
11, CUP 05-021, request for a Conditional Use Permit for an addition of a gymnasium
and commons area to existing junior-senior high school for Cole Valley Christian School
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 47 of 67
Gymnasium, by CTA Architects Engineers, 200 East Carlton, and we will begin with the
staff report.
Wilson: Thank you, Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission. The application
before you is a Conditional Use Permit for the addition of a gymnasium and a common
area to an existing 42,790 square foot junior and senior high school on -- in downtown
Meridian on Carlton and 2 ½-Street, the northwest corner. The property houses Cole
Valley Christian School. It is -- it is zoned Old Town and in Old Town public schools and
accessory structures, they are conditional uses in the Old Town zone. That's what has
brought this application before you. The portion the applicant is proposing to construct -
- and I'll let the applicant correct me on anything if -- architecturally if I mess up here,
but starting approximately here and attaching to the existing building and, then,
constructing the new the gymnasium and associated locker rooms, restrooms, what
appears to be maybe a concession area, to the existing school and, then, also providing
a little common area there in the rear of the building. Some considerations on this
application were land use buffers. Meridian City Code does require a land use buffer
between single family residential and a middle school or high school use and that would
be 20 feet along this boundary here. I apologize; I should clarify the surrounding uses
maybe a little bit. To the north of the property we do have some existing single family
residential. To the west that United States Post Office. To the south a mix of
businesses. There is a coffee house, a couple of businesses, I believe a funeral home,
a church, and, then, to the east of the property, again, there is a mix of homes and a
professional office. In regards to the single-family use to the north, Mr. Freckleton has
corrected me that that is multi-family to the north. Okay. It sounds like it's duplexes, so
that would remain the same landscape use buffer that would be considered single
family attached. So, it still falls within that single-family residential category. The
required land use buffer on that north property line would be 20 feet per Meridian City
Code and that is required to have one tree per 35 linear feet and vegetative ground
cover. The applicant has not shown the full 20 feet as mentioned in special
consideration number two on page five of the staff report. And similar properties in Old
Town that are redeveloping and have space limitations, it's not uncommon to have
buffers that can't meet the full width. Staff does support in circumstances that qualify,
as this does, alternative compliance, meaning that because they cannot provide that full
buffer width, they do have space limitations on the lot to qualify them for alternative
compliance, meaning they can provide landscaping that is perhaps above and beyond
the ordinance in other locations on the property or along that property line, provide
substantially greater than the -- than the trees required to, quote, unquote, beef up that
buffer and can meet that requirement through alternative compliance. Staff would be
supportive of alternative compliance on this application and we did include a condition
that they need to work with staff to obtain alternative compliance prior to the issuance of
a certificate of zoning compliance for the property. Another issue raised in the staff
report, special consideration number three on page five, would be in regards to the
landscape plan and this might actually better illustrate the buffer I was just speaking of
along that line. But also in regards to the landscape plan, Meridian City Code does
require that no more than 12 parking spaces are in a row without being interrupted by a
landscape island, with at least one tree, 50 square feet of planting area and no less
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 48 of 67
than five feet in any dimension. The applicant has not proposed those along 2 1/2
Street adjacent to the gymnasium and along the north end of the parking lot. In my
conversation with the applicant's representative on the phone, they were aware of that
and did not seem to have any objection to that requirement to provide those landscape
islands. There is an associated variance with this application for parking that will be
heard concurrently at City Council. The parking required for the school and gymnasium
combined would be 278 parking spaces. Currently, and as part of the variance, they
are asking to provide parking -- curb side parking along the street as part of the
required parking and, then, with another 143 on-site parking spaces, that would take
their total parking to 171 spaces of the 278 required. The justification for this being that
the gymnasium use would not be used during the same hours as the school use.
Meridian City Code does state that when you have two different uses like that that
require parking, you have to provide parking for both uses in the sum. You can't say,
well, this parking space, you know, is for the school and the gymnasium. What they are
requesting is a variance to that to allow parking less than is required by code for the two
uses combined, because of the unique circumstance that the gymnasium and school
would not be used in the same hours and staff is supportive of that variance application
and staff has been supportive of similar applications in Old Town recently. The most
recent one being the -- a similar situation where some street-side parking was
considered towards the required parking and, then, also a variance on a much smaller
scale for parking for a church on I believe State Street and 3rd was approved earlier
this year. So, is supportive of that variance and is pretty typical of redevelopment in Old
Town and concessions that can be made for that. I believe with that I will end staff
comments and stand for questions.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Then, we are ready for the applicant,
please.
King: Good evening. I'm Jeff King with CTA Architects Engineers, 1185 Grove Street,
Boise, Idaho. 83702. We are in agreement with staff's comments and make it easy on
you tonight, we don't have comments.
Zaremba: Great. Thank you. I did have one question and, unfortunately, this is
dredged up from a couple of years ago when there was a previous request to put a
gymnasium actually closer to the road.
King: Right.
Zaremba: Which got approved. During that application there was discussion about
food service within the gymnasium and how close to the food service the dumpster
would be. Is there a provision -- is there going to be food service and --
King: There will be a concession area --
Zaremba: Concession stand.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 49 of 67
King: -- within the gymnasium.
Zaremba: And how close is the dumpster to that?
King: There is a dumpster -- currently the dumpster is right in this location right here
and I believe there was a second dumpster -- is that correct, Mark? Okay. I guess
there is only one dumpster and it is right in this location.
Zaremba: And you don't feel that people cleaning up the concession would have a
problem carrying trash that far?
King: No, I don't think that would be an issue at all.
Zaremba: All right. That was my only question.
King: Okay.
Zaremba: Thank You.
King: You bet.
Zaremba: Okay. We have Rob -- Rod, I guess it is, Rettinger. Please come forward.
Thank you.
Rettinger: My name is Rod Rettinger. I represent the Apostolic Bible Church. We are
the X in the middle. We have worked with Mark and the school and it seems to be
working out pretty well and I'm the assistant pastor there and we'd like to see them
move on. We are for them. That's all I have.
Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Michael B. Morrison, please.
Morrison: Michael B. Morrison, 3405 North Curt Drive, Meridian. I, actually, own
property on 2 1/2 Street and my biggest concern is parking. Several years ago a
beauty salon was okayed there, parking wouldn't be as usual. You can drive by there at
any time of the day and find seven, eight cars, nine cars, parked along the street and
now you're wanting to add more parking there? I have counted as many as 15 cars
parked along the north end where the duplexes are, you know, because that beauty
salon parks all over that location in front of the neighbors' houses everything, so now
we want to give a parking variance to the school. And my kids went to Cole, okay? It's
a good school. They usually do what they say. Okay? I don't have a problem with that.
My concern is that we are going to be compounding an issue of parking by using street-
side parking, okay, adding traffic to 2 1/2 Street. I have been passed on 2 1/2 Street by
someone who was a lot younger than I was doing the speed limit and was passed on
the street. That's my concerns. Okay. Thank you much for your time. Any questions?
Zaremba: I guess none. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 50 of 67
Morrison: Thank you for your time.
Zaremba: Lupe Pineta.
Pineta: My name is Lupe Pineta from Boise. My address is 4866 Alworth. I'm here --
he pretty much said everything. We are with the church. To go forward.
Zaremba: Thank you. That's all we had signed up. Does anybody else care to add
any comments on this subject? Okay. We will have the applicant return. Come on
back up, please. The parking variance, actually, is not before us as a Commission, that
is only decided by the City Council, but you might address that for us a little bit more, if
you would, please.
King: Sure. You bet. Cole Valley Christian School has had discussions with the
neighbors, with the church, you know, on occasion using their parking lot at times.
They have got agreements with the funeral home, you know, to use their parking lot at
times when they may have game days, you know, where buses can park over there. In
addition, most of the parking -- the off-street parking would occur in the nighttime, would
be, you know, after school, so that those parking stalls there would be, you know, for a
game day, basically. Any further questions?
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any other questions?
Borup: Has the school -- has the school been doing basketball games presently or --
King: Not at that location.
Borup: I realize that, because there is no building there. So, they have been doing it at
other locations?
King: That is correct. Yeah.
Borup: And I assume parking has not been a problem? Or where have they been
going?
King: They have been going to different facilities within the area, renting out different
facilities.
Borup: Okay. I just wondered if you had a feel for how many cars are usually at those
games anyway. Don't know?
King: I really couldn't answer that question.
Borup: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 51 of 67
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Does staff have any further comment?
Wilson: No. Not at this time.
Zaremba: Okay. Commissioners?
Borup: I'm assuming in the counting you did not take into consideration the parking in
the -- on the church property; is that correct? Because that's off-site.
Wilson: Oh, yes. That is off-site parking. Yes.
Borup: Okay. It looks to me like the parking thing could be good for both -- both groups
there, because Sundays the school would not be in session and there is extra parking
for the church and, then, probably on game nights vice-versa.
Zaremba: Works for me. Who is next?
Rohm: With that being said, Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on
CUP 05-021.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Commission Rohm.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward on to City Council recommending
approval of CUP 05-021, to include all staff comments for the hearing date of May 19th,
2005, received May 13th, 2005.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 12: Public Hearing: PP 05-018 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 16
building lots and 1 other lot on 6.26 acres in C-G and R-40 zones for
Devon Park Subdivision No. 3 by Fairview Lakes, LLC – 824 East
Fairview Avenue:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 52 of 67
Item 13: Public Hearing: CUP 05-023 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to
allow the Department of Motor Vehicles and a request for a Planned
Development for a 16 lot office complex for Devon Park Subdivision No.
3 by Fairview Lakes, LLC – 824 East Fairview Avenue:
Zaremba: Okay. We are ready to open the Public Hearing for Items 12 and 13 on our
agenda. That is PP 05-018, request for preliminary plat approval of 16 building lots and
one other lot on 6.26 acres in C-G and R-40 zones. And also CUP 05-023, request for
a Conditional Use Permit to allow the Department of Motor Vehicles and a request for a
planned development for a 16-lot office complex for Devon Park Subdivision No. 3 by
Fairview Lakes, LLC, 824 East Fairview Avenue. And we will begin with the staff report.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Devon Park
Subdivision No. 3 is, essentially, a mirror -- mirrored version of Devon Park Subdivision
No. 2, which was before you in the end -- middle to end of 2003. It's located off of
Fairview and there is currently -- this is -- this is the Devon Park entire site. There is the
Alzheimer's facility and the living care in this location. Devon Park 2 is over in this
location and, then, the Department of Motor Vehicles is where Hastings is also located,
in the same building, and that's closer to Fairview here. There has been a new
intersection put in and it is signalized at approximately there where I have got it
indicated. Devon Park No. 3 is for these 17 lots, with Lot No. 3 being the common drive
and this road here has been recently dedicated to ACHD. It was originally platted as a
private street access and through the developments a lot of different items have been
taken care of through the previous approvals. The landscaping shows where the
Hastings is. The DMV portion is right here. The purpose for the CUP is for allowance
of a public, quasi-public, use. The DMV, actually, is there. This is basically to clean up
some other zoning issues. It's -- public, quasi-public, uses are conditional uses in this
zone. I believe they are conditional uses in any zone. This would, essentially, allow
them to get their certificate of occupancy and clear up some other legal paperwork.
This is -- there is one condition that was submitted. They did not submit the deed for,
essentially, this lot of -- this is Devon Park Subdivision No. 1. Staff just requests as a
condition that they submit the deed in order to verify this building is completed and
meets the application requirements. This landscaping, the layout, the building type is
all consistent with what has been constricted in Devon Park Subdivision No. 1 and 2.
Staff is recommending approval with the conditions as listed and I will answer any
questions.
Zaremba: I wasn't clear whether the DMV is planning to stay in the location where they
are now or are they moving into one of the new buildings?
Guenther: No. That is their location.
Zaremba: I always thought they were going to move into one of the other ones.
Newton-Huckabay: I did, too.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 53 of 67
Zaremba: That's their permanent location?
Guenther: That's what has been indicated in the request.
Zaremba: All right. If they did choose to move into one of the other buildings, there
would be a new CUP hearing?
Guenther: Yes. I anticipate they would have to do a CUP, yes.
Zaremba: Okay. All right. Any other questions from the Commissioners? Would the
applicant care to come forward?
Hopkins: Randy Hopkins, a partner in Fairview Lakes, LLC. Do I need to state my
address? I live at 1390 East Mallory Lane, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. Thank you. You
just covered the DMV. It does reside in the 25,000 square foot building, the Hastings
building, and they occupy about 3,000 square feet. Actually, Hastings has an option to
expand in that space in the future, option to, and we would not be moving DMV to the
back area, it would be -- hopefully, if they stay within Fairview Lakes, which it's worked
very nice for them with the increased parking, versus the old school, we would be
moving them on what we call retail east, which is not on this plat, it's -- so it would be
more on the frontage, so they wouldn't be going back in the office area, just for
clarification. So, the -- there is two things that we'd like to draw attention to in this and
that is Hopkins Financial is in Devon Park 2 right now and when we did, actually, Devon
Park 1, the Planning and Zoning allowed the ability for us to build buildings -- of course
not to get a certificate of occupancy until the plat is recorded. It allowed us to move a
little more quickly in getting structures built and so we would like that request -- or that
clarification that was allowed, actually, in Devon Park 1 for Hopkins Financial and, then,
in Devon Park 2, actually, we allowed that to happen. Now, our plat just got recorded
on Devon Park 2, which is just on the -- we call it kind of office east and this is -- this
Devon Park 3 is office west, is, actually, Hoff Industries is moving from out here in
Nahas's development, I believe, and they are going to be occupying in the next week.
Actually, in our development, and that allowed us just to move a little quicker. So, we
would like the ability to, you know, issue -- have you issue a building permit, but, of
course, withholding the certificate of occupancy until the plat is recorded. Number two,
the only other thing in your general conditions, item number four, we have metal halide
lights, not the 250-watt high pressure sodium streetlights, in our development, just a
tone that we have set. We would like to stay consistent in our development and that
was allowed before also. So, those just -- those two clarifications. Hopkins Financial,
we moved out of Boise. I'd just it's -- the development is getting underway. It's been
very nice and Banner Bank is going to be building on the corner, so we'd just like those
two considerations with this CUP.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Hopkins: Any questions?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 54 of 67
Borup: Questions?
Moe: What's your wattage on your metal halide?
Hopkins: Doug just wrote that -- I don't know what the wattage would be. He didn't
inform me of that. Generally Doug, as my partner, has come to these. I don't know.
Whatever is appropriate for the public -- you know, for the public need or whatever. But
I just know that we have -- we have those versus the sodium streetlights.
Moe: So, they would be --
Hopkins: Be consistent with the rest of the --
Moe: They would be the 250 -- 250 watt --
Hopkins: I would say equivalent, yes. Equivalent, I guess, luminance or whatever.
Moe: Okay. All right.
Zaremba: And repeating the ones that are already there.
Hopkins: Yes. Yes. Because that's what we have down North Lakes Avenue right now.
Zaremba: Staff have any issues with that?
Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the only criteria that we have is on
public streets. Metal halide -- you do -- you do have to have a different wattage with
metal halide than you do with high-pressure sodium. It's a totally different kind of light.
I would, I guess, suggest like you were headed, that the light should just be consistent
with what was approved previously and that should be good enough.
Zaremba: Whatever wattage that is, it needs to be the same wattage.
Borup: Yeah.
Freckleton: Yeah.
King: That is fine.
Zaremba: How about a building permit before the plat's recorded? Was that the
question?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, Members of the Commission, just for clarification, the
request was to be allowed to submit for a building permit prior to the plat being
recorded; is that correct?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 55 of 67
Guenther: Correct.
Hopkins: We did that on the two previous developments, which allowed us to get some
buildings up, of course, without a certificate of occupancy.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. I think one difference in these scenarios is that the -- the plat --
the prior plat was one large lot; correct? So, I think the number of building permits has
already been used up for the property, meaning that you started with a 23 acre and,
then, you divided and, then, you got your buildings that were permitted for that. So, I
don't think that staff would really support it.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Hopkins: Understand.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. We will discuss that. Okay. Mr. Hopkins spoke and Beth
Ingreth, is it? Okay. She's marked as for and she supports what's already been said.
That's all we have signed up for that. Anybody else care to make remarks? Testify?
Thank you. Okay. I guess, Mr. Hopkins, we don't need rebuttal again.
Commissioners?
Rohm: No questions.
Newton-Huckabay: I think this development is coming along quite nicely whenever I
drive by there.
Zaremba: It's very attractive.
Newton-Huckabay: It's certainly an improvement over that vacant lot.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move we close the public hearings on PP 05-018 and CUP 05-023.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe, you're on a roll.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 56 of 67
Moe: Okay. I could probably do this. Let's see. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward
on to City Council approval of PP 05-018, with all staff comments for the hearing date of
May 19th, 2005, received by the city clerk's office May 13th, 2005, with one change --
thank you. Under the preliminary plat general requirements, item number four -- under
number four where it notes high-pressure sodium, I'd like to change that to read metal
halide streetlights at a wattage as approve previously in the subdivision.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move we forward to City Council approval of CUP 05-023, to include all staff
comments of the hearing date May 19th, 2005, received by the city clerk's office May
13th, 2005.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 14: Public Hearing: AZ 05-016 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 28.65
acres from RUT to R-15 and L-O zones for Silver Oaks Subdivision by
Charter Builders, Inc. – north of West Franklin Road and west of North
Ten Mile Road:
Item 15: Public Hearing: CUP 05-024 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for multi-family / clubhouse / office / daycare
development with no minimum street frontage and multiple buildings on a
single lot on 28.65 acres in proposed R-15 and L-O zones for Silver Oaks
Subdivision by Charter Builders, Inc. – north of West Franklin Road and
west of North Ten Mile Road:
Zaremba: Thank you. Thank you. Next we will open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-016
and CUP 05-024. Both of these relate to Silver Oaks Subdivision and we have a
request to continue these immediately to June 16th, '05, for both the ACHD action and
the staff report. Is there a motion to that effect?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 57 of 67
Borup: So moved.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second to continue Items 14 and 15 to June 16th,
'05. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 16: Public Hearing: CUP 05-025 Request to modify the previously approved
Conditional Use Permit / Planned Development to include changes to
building elevations, parking area and amenities for Troy Place
Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. – 1236 East 2 ½ Street:
Zaremba: I'd like open the Public Hearing for Item 16, that's CUP 05-025, request to
modify the previously approved Conditional Use Permit and planned development, to
include changes to building elevations, parking area, and amenities for Troy Place
Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc., 1236 East 2 1/2 Street and we will begin with
the staff report, please.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. As you know, this a
modification to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit located on the east side
of 2 1/2 Street, just across the street from the gymnasium and the parking that we
talked about earlier. This was approved in early 2004 and has come under separate
ownership and they have made the changes you just mentioned in your summary to the
structures, the parking, and slightly to the amenities. I will touch on those here in just a
second. There is an aerial view. To the north is single family. To the east is some
multi-family units. To the south is the salon that was talked about on the 2 1/2 Street
frontage. And there are single-family homes on the southeast of the subject property
and, again, duplexes and Cole Valley Christian across 2 1/2 Street. This is the subject
site plan. The pad sites are approximately the same as the previous project, which is
shown here, in the same general location. The parking layout has significantly
changed. They have added, in addition to the tandem parking stalls that are proposed,
so each unit has a garage stall and another spot behind that for another car. In addition
to that they have three visitor parking stalls located in this general location. The on-
street parking in this area was discussed with the previous application, so they are
showing some visitor parking, in addition to the existing triplexes approved in 2003 by
the city, this home was converted into a triplex in 2003. They do have six parking stalls
for that triplex and two per unit there as well. As I mentioned, in addition to the parking
change, the elevations, which I breezed through briefly, are -- I'm going to jump back to
those just real quick and try to explain the units, how they layout. The two inside units
have livable space on the ground floor and second floors, with the outside units taking
access through the stairwells to livable space on the second and third floors above. I
believe that's how it works, from what I can tell from the floor plan, anyway. It's a little
different. Here is the rear of the building, which is, actually, if you go back to the site
plan, this would be the front. The buildings face each other, so the rear of the building,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 58 of 67
that elevation I just showed, would be this elevation. This would be the side elevations
would be the north and the south, which I will get to those here. Pretty blank facades to
the sides. There was discussion at '04 hearing when different units were proposed
here, from the property owners to the south, talking about -- concerned about people
peering off of their porches into the back yards and things of that nature. So, they have
addressed that with enclosing porches and not putting any windows on those sides to
kind of help the privacy of those neighbors. Here is a picture of the north property line
adjacent to the single-family residents. It shows up pretty well here. What the applicant
is proposing to do -- and I guess I would touch on those couple of things with the
application. Generally, a 20-foot landscape buffer is required between multi-family and
single family. Again, being in Old Town, there are some constraints, that triplex being
one of them and getting access to the rear part of this building with a 20 -- 25 foot wide
drive aisle. There is not another 20 feet to construct a landscape buffer. This property
owner did testify at the previous hearings and it's my understanding that the current
applicant has met again with him on what he would like to see along that north property
line and that is detailed with a slight modification, I believe. The applicant did submit a
letter yesterday and it sounded like from the original application submitted, they were
not going to do any fence from a large oak tree, which is in this location, they would do
a six foot fence back, is what the landscape plan shows and my understanding was
there wasn't going to be any fence from there to 2 1/2 Street. The letter submitted
yesterday does talk about a four-foot fence, so it must have been a change of mind of
the applicant. So, you may need to modify that. Site-specific condition number five
does not talk about any fencing requirements, so if that's the case that one may need to
be modified. Then touching briefly on the south as well. Again, that landscape buffer --
I'll go where that salon is first. The salon was granted a variance by the city when that
came in in 2002 or 2003, I can't remember now, but they were the higher intensity use
at that point and weren't required to construct the landscape buffer adjacent to the -- at
that point a single family home and so staff does not believe that it's fair to now put that
on what was done from the family home, because the higher densities did not construct
that at the time. Now, the two single family residences that front on Carlton are -- do
not have the landscape buffer and there is a ten foot wide setback proposed to that
building and leaving the existing fence that's up along that property line. I have not
talked to either one of those property owners, but the staff report is written up to grant
that modification. It's similar to the previous modification that was granted for this site.
The one thing I guess I would like the applicant to further clarify, just to go on record, it
is in the letter, again, dated yesterday, but the one hundred square foot of private use
open space per unit, just to clarify it does state in the letter that they will meet that, I
was just wanting maybe to point that out to show how that's being met, so when we look
at the certificate of zoning compliance we can actually make sure that -- that it's being
complied with. So, with that I believe I will stand for any questions.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? All right. Thank you. Would the applicant
care to come forward, please?
Leatherman: Megan Leatherman, 12552 West Executive. Thanks a lot for your time
tonight and thanks, Craig, for your work. I'm just going to be brief and touch on a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 59 of 67
couple things that Craig brought up and also get on record some of the work that we
have done with the neighbors and the agreements that we have come to with them.
Oh. And he also -- well, first of all, the hundred foot open space -- square foot open
space requirement, we are going to meet that, like he said, with the deck on the second
floor for each unit and, then, on the bottom for two units with the patios and we have
talked to the architects and that's not going to be a problem at all, we are going to be
able to make that. And, then, for the neighbors -- in the previous CUP there -- Mr.
Stevens, who lives on -- right here on this property, he, actually, uses a wheelchair and
so he -- and this driveway is really very close to this property line and he was kind of
concerned about him and his caretaker being able to maneuver around the fence and I
did meet with Mr. Stevens several times and he, actually, says -- and the caretaker
agreed -- that a four foot fence would be okay at this point and it would also be better
for them to have the fence there, because it would keep some of the people from
crossing over onto his property. He has a gas tank there, I believe, and he's kind of
concerned about people getting to that. So, we believe that would be fine, you would,
we would taper it down starting at the big fence, down to four feet to the end and so I
guess that would need to be adjusted on item number five. And, then, for the other
neighbors on the northern boundary down here, we sent out notifications of the
changes to our plan and also held a neighborhood meeting and one of them came and
talked to us, Mr. Row -- Mr. and Mrs. Row. They were fine with the plans, as long as we
run along and didn't have the windows on the side and agreed to put on the balcony on
the upper floors a wall, so you couldn't look through it. Does that make sense? And we
said that was fine, we would do that, we had no problem with that. And so I -- they
were, actually, here earlier to speak in favor of the project, but they kind of got tired and
so had to leave. It is across the street from the gymnasium that was proposed earlier
and accepted, I guess, and next to -- on -- down here are some more apartments as
well. So, we feel it's a good suit for the site. Any questions?
Zaremba: Commissioners? I do have one and it's either a mystery or a bad
recollection on my part, but I think it was also shown in a photo that we were looking at
a minute ago. Isn't there on this -- back there. Stop. That A frame garage -- now go
back to the plan that we were just looking at. Shouldn't that be just about right here? Is
that being removed?
Leatherman: Yes.
Zaremba: Oh. Okay. Because I didn't remember in the earlier version that that was
going to be removed.
Leatherman: Yeah. We are removing it.
Zaremba: It's now going to be removed?
Leatherman: Uh-huh.
Zaremba: That's great. That gives you more space for the neighbors.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 60 of 67
Leatherman: Right.
Zaremba: I though that was one of their objections, that they didn't want the cars so
close to their property line going around that garage.
Leatherman: Yeah. Before on the project, yeah, the parking was on -- closer to their
property line.
Zaremba: So, you have solved a lot of problems by removing that. Good.
Leatherman: Yeah.
Zaremba: Any other questions?
Freckleton: Mr. Chair, just one question.
Zaremba: Mr. Freckleton.
Freckleton: Megan?
Leatherman: Yeah.
Freckleton: Did I hear you correctly that you said that there was some sort of a gas
tank?
Leatherman: Well, I think so. I think that's what he said.
Freckleton: Okay.
Zaremba: You don't mean like oxygen gas or do you mean fuel gas?
Leatherman: I'm not sure. I'm sorry. He did mention something about being scared
that people were going to steal gas.
Zaremba: We are hearing that there is a small shed in the backyard for a lawn mower
and he, apparently, has supplies for that.
Freckleton: Okay. That's --
Leatherman: I'm not sure. I'm sorry. I just thought -- we just thought that he would
have more privacy that way with a fence.
Freckleton: Okay. I was just -- when you said gas tank, I just got all concerned.
Zaremba: You haven't noticed the pumps in his front yard? Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 61 of 67
Leatherman: Yeah. Thanks.
Zaremba: Bill Row. Care to say anything? Oh, they were the ones that left. Bill and
Vera Row have left. Okay. And Michael Morrison, you're signed up. Care to say
anything?
Morrison: Michael B. Morrison, 3405 North Curt Drive. I own property on 2 1/2 Street.
I spoke on the gymnasium. Unlike the other gentleman that had this property, this
gentleman is easy to work with, he's provided more parking, worked with all the
neighbors, very nice, cordial, done his job. I'm for it.
Zaremba: Thank you. Appreciate your comment.
Newton-Huckabay: You're a very concise speaker.
Zaremba: Well, we understand on the other one. We weren't ignoring your parking
issues, but it's the City Council that's going to have that hearing, so --
Morrison: I realize that, but with the salon that you did have issues with, like I say, when
I drive by there is 15 cars parked there. They are parked on the front of this unit, they
are parked across at the gymnasium, they are parked -- they are parked everywhere
and it's causing an issue parking, driving, more use of the street and everything. As
long as you're aware of it. And like I say, when I have people parking in front of my
house going to the salon, that's not good.
Zaremba: And I agree, we don't want to add to the problem.
Morrison: Thank you very much. Anything else?
Zaremba: Thank you for your help.
Morrison: Okay. Thank you for your time.
Zaremba: Let's see. We probably don't need any rebuttal, unless you have anything
further you wish to say, Mrs. Leatherman. Okay. Commissioners?
Newton-Huckabay: No comment.
Zaremba: Okay. Are we ready for an action? Close the Public Hearing would be in
order.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Go right ahead, sir.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 62 of 67
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we close the Public Hearing on CUP 05-025.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Before I make a motion, I need to ask staff where we need to address that
fence -- you had mentioned that --
Zaremba: What page is it on?
Rohm: Oh, what page is that on?
Moe: Is that page 11?
Hood: Page 11. Yeah. Mr. Chair.
Moe: Item number five?
Hood: Yeah. You could do that there or you could add a whole new condition, if you so
choose, regarding fencing, because there isn't --
Moe: I didn't note any fencing anywhere.
Hood: There isn't. So, it would be a modification to -- the third bullet talks about the --
excuse me. The fourth bullet talks about a buffer -- a landscape buffer along the north
property line, so this could be considered part of that buffer. It would fit in there. Or if
you wanted to add a whole new condition, that would work, too.
Rohm: And I guess I need some help with that condition a little bit, just that it's
acceptable that they put a four-foot fence --
Hood: Yeah. We don't have any fencing requirements per se. The applicant, again,
was showing a six-foot fence from their east boundary to that oak tree, approximately.
Previously we tried to accommodate that neighbor and it was pretty much left up to his
discretion, whatever he wanted to see, some shrubs or fence, was kind of left open to
accommodate him. So, if you -- so with those directions, trying to make sure that
someone's complied with the condition. But a four-foot fence would be agreeable to
staff, if that's what the property owner to the north wants.
Rohm: It's a four-foot fence from the oak to the street?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 63 of 67
Hood: 2 1/2 Street. Yeah. And that would also taper down to, you know, three feet and
be clear vision within 20 feet of the right of way. But we can work with them on
designing that.
Zaremba: Or you could just say there is more fence than shows on the drawing.
Rohm: Well, I have already written this now.
Zaremba: Okay.
Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman --
Borup: That landscape drawing does show a fence all the way to the street, I believe.
It just can't -- doesn't -- the height is maybe what's changed.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of CUP 05-025, to include all staff comments for the hearing date of May 19th,
2005, and received May 16th, 2005, with one change, which would be an additional
bullet on page 11, item five, and the bullet would read: Applicant to build a six foot
fence to the oak and a four foot fence or less the remainder of the distance to 2 1/2
Street.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: End of motion.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 17: Public Hearing: AZ 05-015 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of
59.30 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Crossfield Subdivision by
Packard Estates Development, LLC – 955 West Ustick Road:
Item 18: Public Hearing: PP 05-017 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 246
building (244 residential units, 1 daycare & 1 pool / locker facility /
restroom) lots and 26 other lots on 59.30 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
Crossfield Subdivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC – 955
West Ustick Road:
Item 19: Public Hearing: CUP 05-022 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for single-family residential units with a request to
allow for reduced setbacks, reduced lot size, reduced frontages, reduced
house sizes and block lengths in excess of 1,000 feet in a proposed R-8
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 64 of 67
zone for Crossfield Subdivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC
– 955 West Ustick Road:
Zaremba: Thank you all. Okay. We'd like to open the Public Hearing for Items 17, 18
and 19. That is AZ 05-015, PP 05-017, CUP 05-022. All of these regarding Crossfield
Subdivision. And a motion would be in order to continue these to July 21st, 2005.
Borup: So moved.
Zaremba: So moved. Do we have a second?
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 20: Discuss Request for Continuance for Bellingham Park Subdivision:
Zaremba: Okay. Item 20. This is a discussion and we are cautioned that we cannot
discuss the merits of the case itself, but we can discuss the continuance. Bellingham
Park Subdivision, I believe, has been continued too many -- three times and is now
scheduled for us to hear on June 2nd. Staff has been supplied with the details that they
need. They are prepared to write the report. The applicant has requested another
continuance, just because it's inconvenient for them to be here that night. Our
discussion is do we want to -- on June 2nd come prepared to continue it again or do we
want to insist that the applicant show up on June 2nd?
Moe: In our -- in our last discussions on this issue we set it out to the 2nd, so they, in
fact, would have everything done, over with, and we made statement, then, that if they
couldn't make the 2nd, it was over. And as far as I'm concerned that's -- if they can't
make it on the 2nd, I guess it's over.
Zaremba: I remember a similar discussion.
Newton-Huckabay: I would want to know what works for you guys, because you're the
ones that are going to have to do the work over again, potentially, and we certainly don't
want to -- you know, that all costs money.
Borup: And along that -- and along with that, it seems like I remember their last
meeting that we were pretty full that night. And I agree with Commissioner Moe, but --
was it the 2nd one that -- where you said we wouldn't get through everything? Or was
that the 16th?
Zaremba: Actually, it was tonight.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 65 of 67
Moe: It was tonight. Yeah.
Borup: Oh, tonight was the one that was going to take us until 2:00 'clock?
Moe: Well, yeah, but don't forget, we --
Zaremba: We lost a few. And the 2nd looks the same way to begin with.
Borup: Okay. So, maybe that's -- that is one thing in consideration, if we are that
jammed up.
Rohm: I think sending the signal along the lines of what Commissioner Moe spoke is
exactly where we want to go.
Zaremba: And in --
Borup: But what if they show up and, then, we don't get through everything? Or are we
assuming they won't show up?
Rohm: Boy, that's a --
Zaremba: I suspect they would -- they ought to be able to send somebody to represent
their case, even if it's not the principal.
Moe: Well, would it be in a continued hearing? Would that not be up front anyway?
Borup: Right.
Moe: So, they are either here and we have our hearing or they are not here and they
are gone.
Zaremba: And it's over quickly. And my instinct is this is unfair to the public to keep
pushing it off, pushing it off. I mean if they go to the effort to show up when we have
said it's going to happen and, then, it gets delayed -- I mean you just get the feeling that
somebody's trying to wear them out and --
Rohm: It wears me out.
Zaremba: Yeah. It does.
Borup: And I agree. I don't think we had any public testimony on this one, did we? But
--
Zaremba: We may not have had.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 66 of 67
Borup: And Mr. Freckleton can remember back -- when I came on this Commission, I
had been here six months and there was a thing that got continued again and been --
found out it had been continued for two years. Packard Estates, when it first started. I
don't know how that ever happened, but it -- I mean every few months it would get
continued again.
Newton-Huckabay: I still maintain -- I'd like to know how staff feels on that, because,
like I said, I mean if you have to do the work again, that costs money.
Freckleton: Mr. Chair, I guess just a point of clarification. When you opened up your
comments for discussion, did you say that we did have everything we needed and we
were prepared to write a report?
Zaremba: I think it's Joe who is the --
Freckleton: Joe's the planner in Planning and Zoning.
Zaremba: The planner and I asked him before he left this evening and he said he did
have what he needed. I didn't ask him whether you had what you needed or not, but --
is it to -- to state what he said to me, his wish was that we either fish or cut bait, that we
have it on the 2nd and they are either here or they are not, but he did say that he had
the materials that he had asked for.
Freckleton: Okay. The last I knew we hadn't -- we still did not have a resolution on the
pathway issue and we have received some additional data on the groundwater study,
but -- I wish he was still here. The pathway -- Mike was just saying that he thought that
Joe was pretty happy with the pathway issue. So, I guess I'm ill-informed, so -- I guess
if it's your pleasure to move forward, we will have a staff report ready for you.
Zaremba: It would be my preference to leave it on the 2nd. The public's been told that
and --
Rohm: I think you know the position of the Commission.
Zaremba: It doesn't require any kind of a vote, but that was discussion and we will now
entertain a totally different motion.
Rohm: I move that we close the Public Hearing.
Newton-Huckabay: There is no Public Hearing.
Rohm: Excuse me.
Zaremba: Adjournment is the appropriate motion.
Rohm: There you go. I move we adjourn.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 67 of 67
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Thank you very much.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:43 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
______________________________ _____|_____|_____
DAVID ZAREMBA - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTESTED:_____________________________
WILLIAM G. BERG JR., CITY CLERK