2011 05-26 spcmtgMeridian Planning and Zoning Meeting May 26 2011
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of May 26, 2011, was called
to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Scott Freeman.
Members Present: Chairman Scott Freeman, Commissioner Joe Marshall,
Commissioner Steven Yearsley and Commissioner Tom O'Brien.
Members Absent: Commissioner Michael Rohm.
Others Present: Machelle Hill, Bill Nary, Pete Friedman, Tom Barry, Bruce Freckleton,
Warren Stewart, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Steven Yearsley X Tom O'Brien
Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall
X Scott Freeman -Chairman
Freeman: Good evening, Ladies and gentlemen. At this time I'd like to open the special
meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission on this date of May 26, 2011.
Could we begin with roll call?
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda
Freeman: Thank you. Okay. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the
agenda. I don't believe there are any changes this evening. So, could I get a motion to
adopt the agenda?
O'Brien: So moved.
Marshall: Second.
Freeman: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say
aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of May 5, 2011 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
11-001 Verizon Wireless Meridian High School by Nefi Garcia
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 26, 2011
Page 2 of 14
Located 1900 W. Pine Avenue Request: Conditional Use Permit
Approval of a 100-Foot Tall Wireless Communication (Cell
Tower) Facility in an R-4 Zoning District
Freeman: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have two items on
the Consent Agenda, the approval of the minutes of May 5th, 2011, Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting, and CUP 11-001 regarding Verizon Wireless Meridian
High School location. Could I get a motion to -- oh, first of all, are there any changes
noted to the minutes or anything there?
O'Brien: I have none.
Freeman: No changes? Okay. Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda?
Yearsley: So moved.
O'Brien: Second.
Freeman: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Freeman: All right. At this time I'm going to open the public hearing for ZOA 11-002. I
will review a couple items first. You probably all know what the process is, but this is
good practice for me. We will open the public hearing. We will begin with the staff
report and we will hear how the item relates to the zoning ordinance and the
Comprehensive Plan and, then, the applicant will have up to 15 minutes to present,
after which time we will take any public testimony. It doesn't look like we have anybody
here giving public testimony, if so you will have three minutes to present and, then,
when all the public testimony has been heard the applicant will be given another chance
to speak to any of the questions or issues that came up and, then, we will close the
public hearing, the Commissioners will discuss the item and, then, we will hopefully
make a decision this evening.
Item 4: Action Items
A. Public Hearing: ZOA 11-002 Unified Development Code (UDC).
Text Amendment by City of Meridian Public Works Department
Request: Amend the Surety Section, UDC 11-5C to Include
Clarifications, Increase Surety Amounts and to Provide for
Bonds as a Form of Surety
Freeman: So, with that I would like to open the public hearing for ZOA 11-002, Unified
Development Code text amendment by the City of Meridian Public Works Department,
beginning with the staff report.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 26, 2011
Page 3 of 14
Friedman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. 1 will make my
report very quick, because our applicant probably has a better grasp of what's being
requested. I have worked with them on this. The proposal is to amend the surety
section of Unified Development Code. We want to accomplish four objectives in doing
so. One is to distinguish sureties, which are for essentially public services and facilities,
such as water and sewer, from development amenities, such landscaping and fencing.
One of the more significant changes is now to include bonds as a form of acceptable
surety. Currently the code only allows us to take in cash or letters of credit for all forms
of surety, whether it's sewer, water, facilities or it's a landscaping plan. We also are
proposing to increase the amount of performance sureties for the installation of facilities
such as sewer and water from 110 percent to 125 percent and also include new
language addressing the inclusion of warranty sureties, where we didn't have that
before for our public infrastructure. The new language would include a process
whereby the performance surety would roll over to a warranty surety, which is reduced
from the 125 percent downwards to a much lower percentage, but that surety would be
held by the city for a period of two years until such time as the city engineer has
effectively verified and confirmed that the facilities are working and still up to the
performance standard that the city expects for them before we actually take possession.
So, that really is what the request before you tonight is. There is no real changes to any
other part of the code. Again, this is more part of the -- this falls under administrative
chapter, again, on how we reassure that both public facilities, as well as development
amenities are installed successfully. One thing I would note is there is a little bit of
difference, if you read the code, and even my staff asked me this -- they said, gee, are
we warrantying now the landscaping and the fencing and, no, the intent is that would
only be for things like sewer, water, reclaimed water and storm water in the event that
we have a city owned and maintained storm water system. Landscaping, things like
that, the code requires that they just be kept, you know, alive and thriving. If we note
that they are dead, then, it becomes a code enforcement action. So, with that I would
be happy to answer any of your questions.
Freeman: Thank you, Pete. Commissioners, do you have any questions of staff?
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do.
Freeman: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: Do we foresee this creating an increase in costs to public projects?
Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Commissioner Marshall, I believe Mr. Barry
will address this, but by having a bond as an option for providing a surety on a public
infrastructure, it actually may decrease the cost. At least it doesn't tie up the money, as
opposed to a letter of credit or cash.
Marshall: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 26, 2011
Page 4 of 14
Freeman: Anymore questions of staff?
Yearsley: No.
Freeman: Okay. At the time if the applicant would like to come forward. Please state
your name and address for the record. And speak into the mike. We have had some
difficulty with that. Thank you.
Barry: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and fellow Commissioners. My name is Tom Barry,
I'm the director of Public Works for the City of Meridian. I appreciate your time this
evening to hear this UDC change. I represent the applicant in this case, obviously, City
of Meridian Public Works Department and I appreciate Mr. Friedman's explanation with
regard to the changes as they are being proposed. The changes are quite simple, but,
yet, will have a profound impact on the City of Meridian particularly as it relates to
private development projects that construct public infrastructure that is, then, turned
over to the public -- or our department to maintain. There is some history that goes on
behind the reasoning for this change and I'd rather not get into all the details, but suffice
it to say that we have a couple cases where we have had problems whereby contractors
who were supposed to warranty work, i.e., the installation of their public infrastructure or
their constructive infrastructure that became the property of and, therefore, not just
ownership, but maintenance requirements of the city, became deficient in the one year
time period that it was constructed. The developers in both of the cases we had before
-- or, excuse me, the contractors went bankrupt, so we couldn't go after the contractor to
fulfill their obligation to set aside a warranty and, therefore, the city was left holding,
essentially, the cards, if you will, or the bag, to fix that public infrastructure. We brought
this issue to the City Council, they directed us to put together a team to evaluate sort of
the surety program in the City of Meridian and we did that and in our evaluation we put
together across-divisional, cross-departmental team and we brought in some outside
assistance in experts in other fields, both legal and financial fields, bonding fields, we
conducted over a nine month period 27 different meetings, many of those were with
these industry specialists. We also brought in the developing community, we had
several representatives sit on a focus group. We had three individual meetings with
them. We also visited the BCA and I talked with both the builders and developers
council. So, this thing has gone through, as I say, about 27 different meetings over a
nine month period, been briefed twice by the City Council. The UDC change does
require us to go through the Planning Commission process, so -- but the UDC change is
one small component of a broader program to bring about these changes to both the
performance surety amounts. Just as an aside, the amount in the UDC was 110
percent. In our evaluation we have evaluated that percentage against the risk that the
city would take and, in addition, checked it against -- I think it was 24 different agencies
in the Pacific Northwest and found that that percentage is actually low, so we are
recommending with this UDC change to increase it to 125 percent and, then, on the
warranty side, because developers are not currently required to fulfill any warranty
obligations to the city and that is currently the responsibility of the developer's
contractor, it's created all sorts of legal and financial implications in particularly the two
cases we have had recently come before us and there are a few that look like they are
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 26, 2011
Page 5 of 14
going to be coming our way as well as this economy continues to bear its burden on
many of our, you know, contractors and developers. So, the changes in the UDC really
do protect or are an attempt to protect the city's financial and legal liabilities and to
reconcile some of those problems that this economy and certainly a future economy,
whether it be positive or negative, might have. So, on behalf of the applicant we agree
and support the recommendation of the planning staff on this and I'd stand for any
questions you might have.
Freeman: Thank you. Are there any questions?
Yearsley: I have --
Freeman: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I guess I have one. With the warranty for the 125 -- or the guarantee for the
125 percent, how did that come about? I mean was it varying -- because I have seen
most of those come in about 150 percent and I was just curious what your take on that
was.
Barry: Yeah. Commissioner Yearsley, it's a fantastic question. What we did as a staff
-- an internal team is we reviewed not only what we had from a benchmarking survey
standpoint, but we also reviewed existing projects, both recent past and current and
came up with what we thought was a good balance between a forecasted risk and
experience. The amount could really be anything between. a hundred and two hundred
percent and that's what our survey sort of came up with. But the reality is we don't want
that to be overly burdensome for the developing community, but not cover our liability as
a city. So, by collecting a lot of different information, talking with bonding agents, talking
with those in other communities, we settled at 125 percent and we also established a
formu{aic approach to that, which I could bring up for you, if you are interested, but we,
essentially, looked at the amount of rework, the amount of rebidding, the cost
escalators, the surface restoration, a lot of different components, project administration,
that go into and substantiate that number as well. So, you're correct, it could be a
number far higher than the one we have settled on, but we figure we would try to be
incremental in increasing this and seeing if it wouldn't resolve some of the concerns we
have without being overly burdensome to the developing community.
Yearsley: Okay.
Freeman: Thank you. Any further questions?
O'Brien: Mr. Chair?
Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien.
O'Brien: So, first of all, I think you guys did a great job of going in and delving into the
complexities of -- of this kind of thing, especially when you're dealing between the city
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 26, 2011
Page 6 of 14
and the community, it's a fine line there, and I think that you folks have come up with an
agreement. However, I think that -- I just can't help feel that we are selling ourselves
short in some cases where you could look at something and there is a lot more risk in
this particular type of construction versus another and it seems like, wow, I hate to see
us open ourselves up to -- to something that was beyond the ability for someone to
comply with. And I'm sure that in focus groups that was discussed, I'm sure, you know.
At least I would bring it up. So, I don't know, what is your take on that? I mean 125
percent seems low to me in some things. So, was there any discussion on possibly
going job by job based upon risk assessment? Is that part of the formula there? I don't
know.
Barry: Commissioner O'Brien, I appreciate your question. That was discussed and the
reality as a public agency we want to preserve and protect not only our fiduciary
responsibility to our taxpayers and rate payers, but also make sure we have a level
playing field for all developers in the community and that means trying to come up with
policies and standards and procedures that do not place us in a situation where we
have to be -- or inadvertently are arbitrary or capricious in our decision making. So, the
across-the-board percentage is what we feel is a good percentage based on a risk to
the city versus cost to developer. The other component I wanted to mention is that as I
think your question was pointed at, there are two types of sureties that we are
discussing this evening. The performance surety, which is not a surety that's required
by any stretch of the means, unless the developer chooses not to construct the
infrastructure. If a -- if a developer decides that they want to construct infrastructure,
they do not have to post a surety of any kind, where it to be a bond, which is the
recommendation to be added as a surety vehicle, or our conventional sureties, such as
cash, letters of credit. Those kinds of things. So, that's all still the same. Under the
performance surety side, the only two -- the only two changes we are proposing here
are, A, to increase the amount from the existing 110 percent to 125 percent of total
construction cost to cover our risk and, two, to allow for the bond as a potential vehicle,
but not a required one, so they could still -- if they do want a bond or, excuse me, if they
do want to post a surety they can still do it under cash or letter of credit. On that
warranty side, just to be clear on that, we are recommending with the UDC to change
an ordinance that will go to the City Council next month, a two year warranty period for -
- and a warranty bond or surety I should say, a bond being one type of that kind of
surety. Again, we would still take a letter of credit, cash, those sorts of things, in
addition to the bond. So, hopefully that clarifies maybe -- I don't know if I have
answered your question --
O'Brien: Yeah. You have and I -- you know, it's -- it isn't something that needs to be
cast in concrete, but it's -- it just worries me that some things may be pressed for --
against our best interest at a higher risk environment. That's my only concern for the
city and it just seems like there is so many variables up there, especially with
contractors, some are prudent, some are not, and things can go array in a hurry and,
then, I'd just hate for something to really back up and they file bankruptcy and there was
-- whatever. So, I don't know how that's taken care of -- with a bond, I guess, if that's
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 26, 2011
Page 7 of 14
what has to happen, would do it, I guess, but -- anyway -- yeah, you have answered my
question and I appreciate your time.
Barry: Thank you, Commissioner. I do appreciate your question.
Freeman: Are there any further questions of the applicant?
Marshall: Mr. Chair, just a --
Freeman: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: Tom, I'm wondering just slightly -- as Pete said that it would actually -- this
potentially lowers costs simply by making a bond available, whereas before we did
either cash or letter of credit only. Is that correct?
Friedman: Correct.
Marshall: And now we are also introducing the option for a bond and that that potential
-- but if they were still coming in with an letter of credit or cash, I can't see how that
would lower costs to developers, it's got to increase, because they are tying up a larger
sum now over a period of time. So, it's the bond that actually potentially lowers the cost
for the developer.
Barry: I think what you have to do to clarify that subject -- or that issue is kind of look at
this from either the glass is half full or the glass is half empty. So, if you're the
developer you might look at it one way, if you're the city you might look at it another.
But the reality is it probably will increase the cost slightly and if we break the two kinds
of sureties up, performance, that's, again, for the guarantee of improvements that are
not constructed, right, let's look at that for just a moment. Simply the increase in the
amount of the surety from 110 percent, as it's currently required, to 125 percent, will be
an increase -- a slight increase in cost. Now, if you are a good developer and you have
a good bank and you can get a letter of credit for no charge, right, it's really
inconsequential, except that it ties up that credit, that additional amount, that additional
15 percent of credit, which you could argue you're not getting interest on or whatnot. It
sort of depends on how you look at it. If you do want to get a bond, in either case,
whether it be warranty or performance, that is an insurance vehicle that does require a
premium payment. So, you would have to buy that insurance vehicle and that would
come at a cost. Now, the bonding agents and specialists we had on our project team
said that, essentially, to purchase bonds you can get those generally between three-
quarters of a percent to about three percent. That just depends upon your financial
backing, your performance as a contractor or alternatively a developer. It has a lot to do
with sort of your -- your rate has a lot to do with your financial stability and performance
and those kinds of things. So, that's why there is a variance there. If the developer
wants to pursue a bond in either case, like I say, there will be a premium. So, there will
be a slight cost. Now, our analysis shows that the cost itself is inconsequential for the
guarantee that you get. Now, I shouldn't say that lightly, because the developers will
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 26, 2011
Page 8 of 14
clobber me over the head for using the term inconsequential, so I don't want to
disrespect the fact that there is a cost, but it's very very minimal. And so our -- I think
our numbers have shown on the warranty side for the cost to be -- if you're subdividing
land to be about 20 dollars a lot for the warranty guarantee. And, then, on the
performance side, you know, again, it depends. If you want to build the improvements
you don't have to get a surety at all, whether it be a bond or letter of credit or cash. If
you do want to build those, then, you have got choices. You have got the existing
choices, which are the letter of credit, cash, those kinds of things, which -- which may
not cost you money; right? But if you want to buy the performance bond, then, there will
be a premium for that. Now, the good news is if you buy the performance bond it will
cover also the warranty period. So, you buy one insurance vehicle to cover both the
performance and the warranty -- the two year warranty at the same time. If you choose
not to buy a performance bond and you build your improvements at the time of
acceptance, the city will require you to go out and guarantee the warranty, either in cash
or letter of credit, or a warranty bond and, then, you would do whichever you chose at
that point in time to guarantee that warranty for the next two years. So, I just wanted to
be real clear and, yes, there is probably going to be an incremental cost and, you know,
I think -- I think what we have heard from the developers is not just some concern about
that, but some concern about a change in process, really. Kind of we don't want to do
bonds and we said you don't have to do bonds, you know, you can still use a
conventional vehicle that we have available, we are not taking those away from you,
which is giving you more options. So, we think that it's a good balance between risk to
the city, as well as being cost conscious with the developing community.
Marshall: Well, actually, I'd like to commend you for offering the bonds, because there
are -- my financial background screams that there are opportunities costs to tying up
money and that potentially other options might avail themselves during that two year
cycle that they may want to take advantage of and they would have the opportunity to
move towards a bond instead. So, that could be a change mid stream -- is that
possible?
Barry: Generally you would make the decision on the performance side right at the
beginning.
Marshall: Right.
Barry: If you did purchase a bond and you're paying one to three percent or so for that,
Commissioner Marshall, you made a very good observation, which is one we have
made to the developing community, and that is you're not tying up 125 percent of your
cash, you have already bought an insurance vehicle, leveraged that 125 percent as an
opportunity to go after something else and so there is some support by developers who
really do see the bonding options as a legitimate and viable way for them to maximize
their credit, as well as their cash on hand.
Marshall: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 26, 2011
Page 9 of 14
Barry: Sure.
Freeman: Great. Thank you, Mr. Barry.
O'Brien: I have one.
Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien.
O'Brien: Thank you. So, I'm sometimes a little bit confused, since I'm not involved in so
much of these kind of things all the time, so when you talk about performance and, then,
you -- and you also said that if they are putting in an infrastructure that this doesn't
apply. Can you explain that? And also give me an example of performance issues.
Barry: Absolutely. So, the term performance I can understand could be confusing. The
term we use performance surety is a type of guarantee, cash, letter of credit, and now
we are recommending bond, to guarantee the developer will construct the
improvements that they have come in and, essentially, applied for a short plat, so -- or
plat in general. So, if you're coming in and you're dividing land or you're making
improvements to land and you have the obligation to construct improvements -- in our
case in Public Works we are concerned about four types of utilities, storm water,
reclaimed water, water and sanitary sewer. If somebody says, well, I want to sell lots,
right, but I don't want to have to build that infrastructure, but I need to sell those lots -- I
will just give you the example here. I want to sell those lots to generate cash, so that I
can eventually build those improvements that are required of me, they could post a
bond, for example, and we would sign the plat -- the city engineer would sign the plat
and say, yes, you are now allowed #o sell those lots, because you have posted a
guarantee that you will build the infrastructure. Otherwise, we are not -- we are not
allowed to allow for the subdivision and land, unless those required utilities are installed.
So, that's what we call performance. Performance isn't so much related to warranty
here -- I think the two terms might be confusing you. Performance is just did you
perform your obligation to build the improvements? That's all performance means here.
And if you say, look, I'm not going to ask you to sign off the plat prior to me building the
improvements, I'm just going to build the improvements before I subdivide, well, then,
you don't have to guarantee your performance, because you're going to go do it; right?
We just won't sign off on the plat until it's done. If in the first case, as I mentioned, you
decide, well, I want to subdivide the land, for example, but I don't have the money to put
the improvements on it. You can guarantee that you will put those on, sell the land,
generate cash, the problem is, you know, if you have got a letter of credit or cash, it's
really difficult to use that performance vehicle effectively, which is why we think a bond
is better. You know, if you take a hundred thousand dollar project, for example, just to
use round numbers, the UDC says on performance if you don't want to build the
infrastructure and you want a plat signature so you can sell lots, you have got to come
in with either a letter of credit, meaning you're trying up legitimate money or cash
currently of 110,000 dollars; right? A hundred and ten percent -- 110,000 dollars. What
we are saying is, look, we will let you bond for that 110,000 dollars -- and, again, we are
recommending here that it's 125 percent. I'm just using the current reality. So, we'd let
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 26, 2011
Page 10 of 14
you bond for that 110,000 dollars at one to three percent of the total cost. So, now all
you need is maybe three to five thousand dollars; right? If my math is right. To bond for
that and take the remainder that you might have had as cash on hand or as credit and
apply it to something else. Another project or something else. So, we see this as a
tremendous vehicle, not only in our economic climate to sort of institute the recovery
locally, but also as a way to not tie up that money and give the developers other options
here. Now, the warranty side it's a little bit different, because once they complete the
installation of the improvement or the infrastructure, what we want to do is we want to
make sure that it works, right? And we have found out that a one year evaluation period
is not enough, particularly in slow economies, right? Because they will come in, they
will build the improvements and they will put one home in, maybe two homes over a
couple month period, maybe the third home goes in, so we don't even have a period of
time to realistically test the system. That's why we want a two year period. And, then,
in addition, we have no way to guarantee that this system is going to work if it fails or to
correct the system if it fails, right? Because in some cases -- and we have two cases
right now as mentioned -- we have had contractors go belly up and there is no one left
to fix the problem, even though they are under our existing ordinances obligated to do it.
The only way we can do it is to take them to court and that's, of course, costly and who
knows what the outcome would be. So, I don't know if I have helped to --
O'Brien: Yeah. Tremendously.
Freeman: I think you have. The examples really helped clarify quite a lot I believe.
Barry: Great. I'm sorry I didn't start out with that.
O'Brien: No. That's great. That's -- you answered my question perfectly. Thank you
very much.
Barry: You're more than welcome.
Freeman: Thank you. Thank you for answering all of those questions, too. I think we
are done with you for the moment.
Barry: Okay. Great. Thank you for your time.
Freeman: I don't have a list of anybody wanting to give us public testimony. Is there
anyone in the audience? Okay. No public testimony to be taken. Therefore, can I get a
motion to close the public hearing on ZOA 11-002, Unified Development Code text
amendment.
O'Brien: So moved.
Marshall: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 26, 2011
Page 11 of 14
Freeman: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Freeman: Okay. Commissioners, discussion?
O'Brien: I like It. I think it's -- I understand it a lot better now than I did an hour ago,
that's for sure, and I can understand the appreciation of the -- of where they are trying to
go and how they are trying to do it and I think it's a good move for the city to enter into
this.
Freeman: Thank you. I believe it looks -- you have, obviously, done your homework,
you have spent a lot of time with this. You know, risk is a funny thing. Being an
architect I know you can't guarantee the building will stand no matter what happens
catastrophically, so you target something less then everything possible. There is a
balance there and it sounds like you have done your homework, you have set that
number at 125 percent, I believe that you're correct, that's a good number, you have
done your homework, so I'm all for this. It sounds like a great improvement to -- to our
UDC as it stands currently. Any other comments?
Marshall: I simply want to agree that I would defer the choice of the percentage to the
experts in this case, that have, obviously, looked over historical values and I think it's a
good move on the city's part and I'm very much for it.
Freeman: Well, in that case, could I get a motion?
O'Brien: Mr. Chair?
Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien.
O'Brien: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to the City Council of file ZOA 11-002 as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of May 26, 2011, with no modifications.
Yearsley: Second.
Freeman: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve ZOA 11-002 with no
modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
B. Request for Approval to Create/Change New Development
Application Forms/Checklists by City of Meridian Planning
Department
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 26, 2011
Page 12 of 14
Freeman: Thank you. The next item on the agenda -- I'm going to turn it over to staff to
discuss some changes and creation of some forms, I believe. Pete.
Friedman: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Actually, in
accordance with the UDC when we have major changes to our development application
checklists we run them -- have to run them by you -- by the Commission for your review
and approval. We are proposing two changes. One to the preliminary plat checklist
and one to the certificate of zoning compliance checklist. Right now our checklists
require that when those applications are brought to the city that they include a copy of
the traffic impact study that goes to ACRD. Well, since the city does not have any
authority over the road system, nor do we have the technical expertise in-house to
evaluate those, we thought, well, this is -- you know, it doesn't make sense for us to
hold something until that study has been made, so what we are proposing is that with
those applications that they merely bring us written confirmation or a-mail confirmation
that either a traffic study has been submitted to the highway district or that the highway
district has determined that one is ,not necessary, rather than having to burden them
with having to provide the city with a traffic impact study that goes into a file and does
absolutely nothing. So, those are the proposed changes and that would be for
preliminary plats, certificates of zoning compliance, and certificate of zoning compliance
verification.
Freeman: Thank you. Are there any questions of staff?
Marshall: Just as a point of clarification, Mr. Chair, I do.
Freeman: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: As a point of clarification, Pete, we still have that check-off for ACHD's
response?
Friedman: We still get their response as part of the normal transmittal of the projects.
Marshall: And does ACHD still make the choice as to whether or not to require a traffic
study?
Friedman: They make the call. We have nothing to do with that.
Marshall: Thank you.
Friedman: Yep.
Freeman: Any other questions?
Yearsley: Mr. Chairman?
Freeman: Commissioner Yearsley.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 26, 2011
Page 13 of 14
Yearsley: Would it make sense to go one step farther to actually say that it has been
approved by ACRD, instead of just submitted to ACHD?
Friedman: Well, Commissioner Yearsley, Members of the Commission, we don't want
to hold an application up based on their approval, we just want to make sure that it's
been submitted, because to get back to Commissioner Marshall's question, we still
wouldn't move forward with the recommendation to this body anyway unless -- in most
cases we already had their --the district's recommendation.
Yearsley: Okay.
Friedman: We have on a couple of occasions gone forward, but knowing that typically
their comments will get to us between the Commission and the Council. So, we are
doing this as a -- actually, expediting the process.
Marshall: If I recall, Pete, in those cases we were pretty confident what the traffic study
was going to show anyway, but -- but ACRD was overwhelmed at the time and not able
to respond in a timely manner, so --
Yearsley: Okay.
Freeman: Okay. This is not a public hearing item, but you are requesting approval --
Friedman: Yes, I am.
Freeman: -- of these changes; correct?
Friedman: Yes, please.
Freeman: So, could I get a motion? Unless there is further questions.
O'Brien: I have none.
Freeman: Okay.
Yearsley: I'll make a motion that we approve the changes to the application checklist.
Marshall: And I will second that.
Freeman: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the application checklist
revisions. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Freeman: I need one more motion.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 26, 2011
Page 14 of 14
O'Brien: Mr. Chair?
Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien.
O'Brien: Move to adjourn.
Marshall: Second.
Freeman: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Freeman: Thank you.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:35 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
/ r'~o / II
_ DATE APPROVED
woe ~l~ s ~ l I ~ U i` ~e - Chu,' ~
ATTEST: ,~V(Lc r(~uC~._~ ~
JAYCEE L. HOLMAN, CITY CL
OpPOgAT ~~~T `~'
V `tea ... ~~
c --- ,~'
1
O•~ ST ~~J~~. A, }