Loading...
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, }