2000 05-24MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
MAY 24, 2000
The special meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to
order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Keith Borup.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Borup, Sally Norton, Thomas Barbeiro, Richard Hatcher,
Kent Brown.
OTHERS PRESENT: Steve Siddoway, Bruce Freckleton, David Swartley, Will Berg.
Borup: We’d like to begin on meeting this evening. This is the May 24th
special
meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. Maybe a little bit of
information on procedure. Our procedure on the majority of the public hearings would
be we’d start with a staff report. Then the applicant will come forward and give a brief
summary of their project. Commissioner's may have questions during that time. Then it
will be open for public testimony. Then the applicant will have a final opportunity to
make any closing comments. When the public hearing is closed, the commission will
discuss the project and hopefully make a recommendation. One of our purposes is to
gather information. We like to spend a lot of time to do that and get as much as we
can. To help us do that we also need to have some restrictions. If its going to be a
major project with a lot of people testifying, we have a 3 minute limit to hear as many
people as we can. Also, keep in mind the type of testimony and the information has got
to be pertinent to the project. Saying that, we’d like to begin with item 1.
1. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING OF 40.33 ACRES TO R-4 FOR PROPOSED TIMBER VIEW
SUBDIVISION BY VICTORY 41, LLC—NORTH OF VICTORY AND EAST OF
MERIDIAN ROAD:
2 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF
PROPOSED TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION – 91 BUILDABLE LOTS ON 40.33
ACRES BY VICTORY 41, LLC—NORTH OF VICTORY AND EAST OF
MERIDIAN ROAD:
Borup: Staff, do we have a report?
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, would you like me to address just the annexation or both.
Borup: I think we would like to address both. On some of these we would have
opportunity to open both public hearings at the same time, take testimony which we
have been doing but have had to turn around and open the other public hearing. If the
commission would be in favor on some of these, we could go ahead and open both at
the same time.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 2
Siddoway: Okay Commissioner's the proposed Timber View Subdivision has a name
change. Observation Point. I just saw the revised plat for the first time at 4 o’clock
today. This is Victory Road and Meridian Road. Meridian Greens Subdivision is directly
north of it. To the west is Victory Greens Nursery and there is a gravel here. To the
west is a rural residential county sub. To the south is irrigated farm land. The boundary
is there. The stub street that comes in from Meridian Greens to the property is in this
location here. Not all of that area along the south property line of Meridian Greens or
the north property line of Observation Point is fenced. There is a fence from
approximately half way point down to the east. The Kennedy lateral this course through
the southwest corner of the property. We have recommended in our comments that this
be left untitled as a amenity and the green space adjacent to it with the storm water
facility be developed as a useable recreation space with a pathway a long it. This was
the original plat. I don’t have a copy of the new one that was just submitted. I can tell
you just based on the quick review I did this afternoon, they have eliminated these 3
lots. They are talking about leaving that as a single residential lot on septic. They
decreased these (inaudible) 7 foot landscape buffers to 40 feet. The plat that has been
submitted still does not conform with the staff comments for the pedestrian connections
or the buffers between the land uses of the gravel pit and the Subdivision. Also noticed
in the file several comments related to the connection of this stub street. As planning
staff we would recommend that stub street go through. We see it as critical for the
interconnectivity within the city. The stub street that we have requested would be an
extension of this street where the grades do match is also not shown in the revised plat.
Borup: Any comment on the ACHD recommendations? Mainly the entry.
Siddoway: They recommended that the entry way shift from the point that it is shown
on here to the west because it was too close to the bridge that the Kennedy lateral goes
through. On the new plat they have shifted it to the east. We don’t see that as a
problem.
Borup: Is the applicant here. Becky are you doing this again.
Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt. I am back one more time. 11283 W. Hickory Dale, Boise.
Borup: I might just add we do have your written comments dated May 9th
or your
response to staff comments. The first question I have is there anything changed from
what you submitted earlier.
Bowcutt: Yes. The issue with the three lots adjoining Victory Road. I’ll go through
that. This property when you look at it with the lots and the streets it looks like any
ordinary Subdivision you may see, but when you look at the topographic map this
property is very unique to the City of Meridian. It is hilly. It has a good grade. A nice
knoll through the mid section. My client, Mr. Cavin, when he came to us to plan this
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 3
project, he main concern was I would like to create a view corridor for this lots and
maximize the views of the Boise front, the Owyhees as much as possible. The way this
is designed the lots are slanted in a north easterly direction. He did not want lots
backing up to Victory Road. We have a single loaded street all through this area. He
felt that gave him a better Subdivision. The density he intended was a low density.
This will be a high end Subdivision. We’ve got 2.21 dwelling units per acre. The lots
are ranging from 11,000 and we have one that is as big as 33,400 square feet. The
homes he intends to build are similar to the homes that have been constructed in
Brookdale Meadows which is located north of McMillan between Cloverdale and Eagle
Road. The smallest home that he intents to be constructed within this development is
approximately 2100 square feet. I know some of the resident were alarmed because
the preliminary plat in (inaudible) square footage said 1400. It states that because
that’s the minimum for that R-4 zone. As Steve indicated the Kennedy lateral
(inaudible) this property here on the southwest corner. This particular triangular area
currently has one single family dwelling which appears to be the old homestead house.
There is one other existing home that sits up here on the hill side. That is the home of
the previous property owner. We are platting that lot as part of this development. The
original plan we showed 3 lots down in this area and we had kind of a little knuckle here
to provide access to them. Ada County Highway District came back and said because
Victory Road will eventually be a arterial, we don’t want those homes taking access in
that fashion. Their recommendation was that those homes take access internally which
means coming across, bridging the Kennedy and bringing a short culdesac just to
access basically 3 lots. In the staff report they indicated that the Kennedy lateral is also
the demarcation line for the sewer drainage area, even through physically this particular
area can drain into the extension of the Ten Mile off shoot of the trunk out of the south
end of Meridian Greens. They indicated that these lots here should not take sewer
service. After multiple discussions with Mr. Cavin, we determined we will go ahead and
buy in to that and we removed those three lots and then this area here is 1.66 acres
and we will leave this existing home on its existing septic and well. That existing house
does encroach into the required 20 foot landscape area. There is about a 7 foot
encroachment. There is a stub street up here in Meridian Greens and sewer and water
will be extended through our development from that point. At this time they have a
temporary culdesac there and we would make an interconnection here and it was
mandated by Ada County Highway District. We had not choice. It is a platted public
right of way and was always intended to be extended. We have stubbed through the
east here. There is a long parcel here. ACHD did not want our entrance too close to
the Kennedy lateral bridge. One, visibility and two we need to provide a center turn
lane into our project and if it is too close to the bridge it would require complete rebuild
of the bridge. Their recommendation was we off set between 300 to 350 feet or go
align with this street. Our intent was to create a landscaped area with lots of flowers as
your entry way view when you come into the development. We’d have heavy
landscaping here and Mr. Cavin intends to build a wall all along Victory Road that would
consist of a rock fascia. We’ll have a pathway. Since these two roadways, Observation
Drive and Victory are only 40 feet apart, what we would propose to do is install our
sidewalk meandering. Our wall would be here. It would be north of the 20 foot
landscape area. Pull our sidewalk in and interconnect here and pull it in again and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 4
interconnect and come across here. We want to construct pathways doing the same
here. Then install a pathway along the Kennedy lateral and we’ve got landscaping
proposed there. In my comments to the staff, I indicated that we still would have to
Nampa Meridian Irrigation approval for any improvements within the easement for the
Kennedy lateral. That easement is 55 feet and runs right here. Going to the comments
that I made, one of the concerns was the request for pedestrian pathways. We did
submit a variance application. Staff has asked since we do exceed the maximum block
length of 1000 feet, that we put a pedestrian pathway connecting these two blocks. A
pedestrian pathway has to meet ADA standards, so there are some concerns. Since
this property is unique I am asking staff and commission to consider some factors. We
have kept our lot depths as deep as possible next to Meridian Greens. They range
between 124-125 in depth. We kept our widths which range between 90-94 feet. That
would be about 11,400 square feet. We have some lots in our development that have
more depth where we have the hill side to deal with because we will have to provide a
pad area for the home to be built and be able to accommodate the drainage due to the
slopes and so forth. In those instances where we have the greater slopes we went a
greater depth. Some of those are 165 feet and others 140 on the average. We intend
to fence our boundary. Along the Kennedy lateral we would have to discuss with the
district and the city some type of safety fence. We’d be required to fence this western
boundary here. Along Meridian Greens there are intermittent fences through there.
Staff indicated they want us to fence whatever has not been fenced and match the
fencing that is currently in place. The most objectionable thing in the staff report was
the issue of the buffer here. We have the Victory View Nursery here. This is an older
gravel pit. It think it is 15 acres. It appears to be played out. They do have some
activity going there. One of the concerns that we have was the Comprehensive Plan
states that in some point of time would be single family. I believe medium density single
family on the new Comprehensive Plan. Staff stated we want a stub street there to
provide inter-connectivity to the parcel. However, in the next comment it stated you
have a incompatible use adjoining you. Therefore, you need a 20 foot buffer. My
opinion it can’t be both ways. If it is intended to be residential then that is what it is
going to be in the future so therefore it would be compatible. I think it should be viewed
in that manner as far as the buffer is concerned. Anytime you put a buffer along a
perimeter that has no use—no pedestrian use or really any practical use, the chance of
that being maintained over time is going to be severely diminished when you compare it
to usable visible space. This is behind lots. It benefits only the lots that are there. We
have developed Subdivisions next to more intensive uses or what some may deem
incompatible. What we have done there, fencing was one but we also went with heavy
landscaping. East individual lot owner is going to make that determination on what type
of landscaping they want. I don’t think it is practical. We did not show the stub street
along the western boundary for one reason and that is because of our concern. If there
is still activity going on there, we don’t want any of those trucks coming through this
project. That public stub street is built and dedicated then aren’t they entitled to utilize it
as a public street. ACHD first required it but then got to thinking about it and the grade
separation because there is about 12 to 13 foot grade separation through here. This
property sits up high and that is another issue as far as they are low. We are high for
buffering. Ada County Highway District had a stub street right here hanging up in the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 5
air. When we discussed it further they said you are right. We don’t want trucks coming
through your development. We do have a grade separation, therefore maybe your right
and it is not a good idea. That condition was removed. The city staff discussed it and
they called the highway district it is important because we believe that property is going
to redevelop at some point of time as residential. Do you have any questions.
Norton: I don’t see anywhere in our notes that there will be a homeowners association
but you mentioned one. Will there be CC&R’s.
Bowcutt: Yes. They will be consistent with the other higher end Subdivision that Mr.
Cavin has done. The very same things you have seen in Meridian Greens.
Borup: Becky, are you familiar with the parcels to the west. Is that separate parcels or
ownership.
Bowcutt: Yes sir. Parcels are separated by the Kennedy lateral is the parcel boundary.
Borup: So, that triangle piece is a separate parcel.
Bowcutt: Under separate ownership and takes access through an easement. I think it
takes access south of Victory Road. I may be wrong. I stand corrected. To the west. It
is just a easement.
Borup: You said if that developed it would have access to Meridian Road.
Bowcutt: When that parcel adjoins it develops, then obviously you get another
opportunity for interconnection to Meridian Road and Victory Road.
Barbeiro: Did you read the petition that came from the neighbors asking for larger lot
sizes and the big one was they wanted to have similar roofing.
Bowcutt: No I have not received that. I did chat with the neighbors a couple weeks ago
out in the lobby.
Barbeiro: So we would request that the adjoining (inaudible) have the same roofing
materials those being either cedar shake or tile roofs. In your CC&R’s are those
addressed?
Bowcutt: Yes, the roofing would be addressed in the CC&R’s and I believe Mr. Cavin
indicated that in this Subdivision they have those architectural shingles. They are
different then the old asphalt shingles. They are attractive.
Borup: Somewhere we will have to discuss the conflicting comments with staff.
Commissioner's will have a chance to do that. We would like to open this to public
testimony at this time.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 6
Martinez: My name is Boris Martinez. I live at 521 E. Whitehall Street. I come before
you today to voice my opposition to Observation Point Subdivision in its present
embodiment. In the statement of compliance for the Timber View Subdivision now
Observation Point, dated March 30, 2000 submitted by Briggs Engineering, Item 10
states, the applicant would like to provide larger lots to accommodate homes similar to
the ones in Meridian Greens. Yet, I have a hard time finding any of these lots up
against the Meridian Greens Subdivision. The Comprehensive Plan states protect and
maintain residential neighborhood values. Improve each neighborhoods physical
condition and enhance its quality of life for residents. I do not understand how placing
the majority of the smallest lots up against Meridian Greens property line is in keeping
with the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. I took the liberty of reproducing
the Timber View Subdivision plat. I highlighted in yellow all lots that are less than
11,500 square feet. If you will notice they don’t appear anywhere in the front. They all
are against the Meridian Greens property line or in close proximity to it. It was
mentioned that examples of the types of homes that would be build in this Subdivision
were like the ones in Brookdale Meadows. I went and looked at some of the houses
being built there and I saw some very nice homes there, but I also saw some homes
like this one. This is a 2100 square foot home, 2 car garage for $204,900. Given what
they proposal for, this would be a perfectly acceptable home to abut our property lines.
This house is probably about $100,000 less than all the houses on the property line. I
would like to see covenants that prevent homes like this from occurring. They
mentioned shingles. Out of that whole Subdivision there was only one house with wood
shingles. Every other house had something else. So in my minds the covenants are
not indicative of what we would expect to see. I think there needs to be strict covenants
about the type of roofing that has to be on those homes. I would like to ask that the
homes that are built against our property lines are of comparable size and price as what
is in Meridian Greens. We should have either ceramic or wood shakes and we should
have 10 foot setbacks. The Subdivisions need to blend together. I please ask you to
keep that in consideration when reviewing this proposal. Thank you.
Borup: Do you agree that the same continuity needs to take place within Meridian
Greens Subdivision itself.
Martinez: Well from seeing it as we get toward the back of the Subdivision I think the
houses are pretty comparable. If you go toward the front, it seems as you move toward
the back, the houses get more and more expensive. If they want smaller or lower
priced homes, why not integrate those toward the front of the Subdivision. Or put them
to the east side. Basically what is going to happen if this goes through, probably 2 or 3
years ago when they started to develop the areas to the east, there will be a whole
bunch of people here before you again arguing about how their lots are big and the
things that go next to them are going to get small. If you create that environment now
where you blend in with us and then as you move east and west, if you start to put
smaller homes in there, then you have transition homes.
Seegmiller: My name is Lee Seegmiller. I live at 512 E. Whitehall. I share the same
concerns as Mr. Martinez. My biggest concern is a matter of safety. This as mentioned
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 7
is a choice building site but it is hilly. It is not appreciated by looking at the map. There
is approximately 1000 feet of down hill straight road headed north bound and it dumps
into a culdesac. This map is incorrect. That was a culdesac at the end of Andros Way.
It is 9200 feet in diameter. It was built and paved and curved as a culdesac. Now at
this date, change it to a through way at the end of a long straight street coming downhill
is a concern to me. The curbing in Meridian Greens is a very low contour and does not
offer protection to keep the cars off the sidewalk. There are small children in the area
and there has been numerous instances where cars have driven up on to the sidewalk.
My mail box has been knocked over by a car who failed to negotiate the turn. I have
concern about cars coming down that hill in excessive speed and entering that culdesac
and failing to negotiate the corners. I would like to see that street made into a curve of
some kind so that the speed could be controlled. I was informed by the builder when I
purchased the lot that that was to be access for emergency fire department use only.
There were never any signs there informing the buyers that was to be temporary
culdesac. I feel at this date to change that to a through street is a breech of faith on the
part of the commission. My second concern regards the lot sizes and the roofing
material. I will refer to Mr. Martinez’s comments. My third comment is referring to water
pressure. If the new Subdivision is tapped into our supply it will aggravate an all ready
unsatisfactory condition. On many occasions I have measured the water pressure at
my home of 25 pounds per square inch. That is inadequate to water the lawn or even
fight a small fire. I would like to ask the question what is to be done about water supply
to this new Subdivision. Are they going to have a pressurized irrigation system or will
they be watering from the city’s supply.
Borup: Pressurized system.
Seegmiller: That is good. In Meridian Greens we depend upon the city water supply for
all of our irrigation needs. I would like to also request that the board require a more
protective type of curbing. In the winter when that down hill road is covered with ice I
can anticipate there will be out of control cars coming into that area.
Oward: David Oward. I live at 1019 E. Dominica. I’d like to add a few comments to
what Mr. Martinez said. The principal concerns we have are obviously with the lot
sizes. I have personally no complains with the land being developed. I am concerned
that it be developed in a manner that it does not hurt our property values. Obviously
that property has had its value enhanced virtue to the fact that it is sitting adjacent to
some very expensive home. I would like to see that increase in property value not
come at our expense. Concerning home sizes, I spent time down at the county court
house determining what the size of houses on Whitehall are and I pulled up the square
footages and the average comes out a little higher then on the letter. It is around 3100
feet. The covenants in that neighborhood on our street are 2400, 2500 square feet. I
would like to encourage the commission to insist that the lots as well as the housing
square footage be at least similar so there is not a drastic discontinuity. Another
concern is that in Meridian Greens there is not a lot of green open area and that is
because the lots are large and the big 10 foot setbacks in there. Based on the number
of lots in a small Subdivision I don’t presume they will put a park in there. I would like to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 8
propose that the 10 foot setbacks be maintained to keep some what of a green space
field in the neighborhood. The back half of Meridian Green has no pressurized
irrigation. We do have a serious water pressure from time to time. Looking at the plat I
noticed it appears there will be a pressurized irrigation system running down the back
fence of Whitehall. If that system is being ran by Nampa Meridian Irrigation would it be
possible for the lots sitting on that line to be able to have some service. I would be
willing and interested and would pay some burden of the cost to do that. Thanks.
St. Clair: Randy St. Clair. 1775 E. Dunwoody. I own the gravel pit that is just to the
west of the project. As you know, the property operates now under a conditional use
permit and the easement to it is temporary. I would like to assure myself of is that the
property does not become land locked at some point of time. If we don’t access
through this property that only leaves one property left to access it through.
END OF SIDE ONE
Borup: Mr. St. Clair your accessing to the east right now through this property.
St. Clair: To the west off Meridian Road right now. Temporary easement. It goes
through the corner of Victory Greens right now. The access is probably the north
boundary of Victory Greens property. Also I would like to mention, if they do provide
utilities through there that they are compatible. It is zoned residential now that the
utilities are compatible with the gravel pit—the elevations of the gravel pit. It is my
understand that if my property is to be developed, that the sewer will go through that
property of the new Subdivision.
Borup: Your saying they are going to bring the sewer line presently through your
property. In the future if you develop yours. Okay. I thought that was through the Black
Cat Trunk line.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, northeast of the Kennedy lateral goes back to the Ten Mile.
I guess the question I would pose to Mr. St. Clair is how deep you going to dig your pit.
St. Clair: The pit right now is being reclaimed. There is some mining activity going on
now but for the most part it is being reclaimed.
Freckleton: The gravel pit would go to the Ten Mile.
Hatcher: I believe that the sewer issue for the future development of the gravel pit is a
design issue that would be resolved at the time of development of the pit. Whether or
not your pit is (inaudible) reclaimed and level with the property at hand, nobody in this
room have control of what you do with that land. At the time that you develop it then it’s
a design issue as to how you do.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 9
St. Clair: It operates under a conditional use permit now but if the conditional use
permit ever lapses it reverts back to residential. I ask you guys what is the intent for
sewer and water for that parcel.
Hatcher: Basically it would be appropriate to develop based upon the Comprehensive
Plan. It would be in your right to develop it residential and if you do and the city
annexes it, then the city will provide utilities to your development. How it is to be
provided is a design issue which will be dealt with at that time.
St. Clair: Long range planning thought couldn’t we make the sewer—
Hatcher: We don’t know what elevation to put the sewer at because it depends on
whether you reclaim the pit, leave it or keep digging.
Freckleton: Commissioner Hatcher. The City of Meridian did commission a study that
is a facility plan for the entire city. The purpose of the plan was to try and define
boundaries. Define where sewer lines need to run in order to service the properties.
That property is included in that facility plan. You are correct in what you said about the
design issue, but as far as the service ability of your property Randy, it has been
accounted for in that facility plan.
Widdison: Sue Widdison. I live at 2594 S. Abaco Way. My concern I also the road that
is going through our Subdivision into the new one. This is a map that one neighbor
received. It has always been shown as a culdesac there. I can understand for
emergency purposes they might need to have that open. We gave you petitions to try
to close the road off completely but I understand that it might need to be there. Now I
am hoping we can have an emergency break down fence. We have 17 children under
the age of 12 on that street. By opening that up to new construction and with only one
opening on Victory Road into the new Subdivision so that only gives them they can
enter on Victory or into our Subdivision giving us a lot of traffic and trucks where we
have little kids.
Porter: John Porter. I live at 2650 S. Andros Way. I submitted a letter with concerns I
have. Some have been address by the developer. The road that they are trying to add
on to Andros Way is a down hill access. They could redo the road. They could put a
design that the road is not a straight shot. There is alternatives to that road coming into
Meridian Greens. I was under the impression it was going to remain a culdesac. The
traffic flow will increase. I see no need to have that second road come through there.
Why couldn’t they get 2 egresses in there –one at each end of the lots. That would
push the traffic or make it more favorable to go out on Victory Road. The size of lots is
a very high issue with us. The average lot size on the back adjoining property is 11,000
square feet and find that unacceptable. I have talked to the developer. If he just
consumed one or two of those lots make them larger it would probably appease a lot of
us. I am not opposed to the development but I am opposed the way the plat is, the
design of it.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 10
Markel: Karen Markel. 661 E. Whitehall and I would like to add my concerns to the
other residents. The small lots sizes also are my concerns. All they would need to do
would be consume one of those lots across the back. Make them larger. I believe
Becky Bowcutt painted a pretty picture of what architectural shingles look like. All they
are is a composite shingle that looks a little bit different in shape. On the other side of
Meridian Greens toward the front, there is a Subdivision that abuts against the east side
and similar changes have been made to that Subdivision. They were required to put in
wood shakes along where the lots a join Meridian Greens and also required to
substantially increase their square footages. For some of us our homes are our only
investment. We went into this home expecting a profit in the future.
McKinley: Dennis McKinley. 2665 S. Andros. Right where that road bends that is
where they’ll be in my front yard. I offer opposition here as well that I bought that –told
it was a culdesac, there was not sign that it was anything other than a culdesac. The
curb went all the way around and I would like to maintain my properties and keep the
people out of my front yard. All the requests here this evening I agree with.
Borup: You said that showed that was a culdesac. Are you referring to the recorded
plat shows that or –I am talking about the recorded plat. Did you see a sales drawing
that showed that.
McKinley: I received a copy with my CC&R’s and that showed it. In fact it was
mentioned to me at one time it was going to be a golf course out there. It does affect all
of our values.
Diehl: My name if Paul Diehl. 2569 S. Aboco Way. I am surprised about this whole
development because—We never received a notification that this thing was going in. A
lot of people did not receive anything either so the neighbors informed us. We bought
into a quiet neighborhood and quiet street. We were told at that time this was a
culdesac period. I am not opposing the development but I am opposed to that road
opening up.
Nicholas: I am Luana Nicholas. I live at 545 Whitehall. I am here with all of my many
neighbors. I will mention that my home is one of the ones right on the edge there. The
white fence that you saw in the first picture that he put up tonight--the beginning of the
white fence is my backyard. Those 2100 square foot homes will be built right across
the fence line from me. That size of home is 2/3 size of my home. It would significantly
depreciate the property value of my home.
Debenham: Brett Debenham. I live at 737 E. Whitehall. I have a few questions and
maybe some observations. Is the minimum square footage 2100 square feet or the
minimum 1400.
Borup: We will get an answer for you on that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 11
Debenham: The fence line will be going along Whitehall. ¾ of the housing along there
has very expensive fencing. The attitude I got from the developer was they would be
willing to split the cost on that other quarter fencing. That kind of shows to me the spirit
of how the developer is taking this.
Barbeiro: I don’t know if you can speak for the group but can you tell me what the
minimum building size in Meridian Greens is. I believe it is 2400.
Siddoway: The minimum house size in Meridian Greens as per the plat is 1300 square
feet.
Borup: He’s got the plat. This is what was recorded and submitted by the developer.
Debenham: When we moved into the Subdivision the minimum house price was
$250,000.
Barbeiro: I am asking the square footage of the property of the home.
Borup: Commissioner Barbeiro I think I can answer that for you. I do have a set of
covenants Meridian Green number 1. The recorded covenants for that says that a
house size shall not be less than 1700 square feet.
Barbeiro: What my point is for you and the neighbors is I don’t think there are very
many homes in your neighborhood at or close to the minimum. I think you might find
that in this new Subdivision is will be equal. That you will find few is any homes that will
come close to the minimum.
Debenham: Let’s say things go wrong here. He is not selling the lots as quickly as he’d
like to. He is going to put 1400 or very small houses back up against there. What is
going to stop that from happening
Barbeiro: NO, no.
Borup: Same thing that stopped it from happening in Meridian Greens.
Debenham: What was that. When we bought into it, there was a minimum price that
the house had to appraise for and that was $250,000.
Hatcher: Requirements that numerous people that have mentioned here tonight are all
driven by CC&R’s not by Planning and Zoning Ordinances. We state that certain
residential tones shall be made. The size of lot and house is different than the zoning
ordinance because it is being governed by the CC&R’s by the developer. The best
interest to everybody involved is to work in a cooperative effort with the developer that
is looking at developing this land. We don’t have any way of governing what size of
house he builds so long it meets the minimum requirements per the ordinance.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 12
Debenham: We are asking that they blend and we don’t get 1400 square foot houses.
I don’t think that is unreasonable to ask.
Diehl: Paul Diehl again. I was on the Meridian Greens homeowners association for 3
years and on the architectural committee. That 1700 feet is correct for the first phase.
The other phases next to the new development is 2500 square feet minimum. With
respect to the question about the houses, we would make reviews of the houses
periodically through Meridian Greens checking on fences, etc. In essence, there are no
homes in Meridian Greens that have down graded the value of other homes being built
up in higher prices.
Brown: Bob Brown. 695 Whitehall. I share the same views as everybody else. I know
at Sportsman Point, I purchased a couple lots over there that back up to Meridian
Greens the canal and all those lots back there were the biggest lots in the Subdivision
and that is where the higher end houses went in at Sportsman Point. They did make
them do the shake roofs so it is not unreasonable to comply with these things.
Mussle: Tim Mussle and I am the owner of the nursery. What I want to ask if there is a
way that –I don’t have a problem with this at all. I just want to make sure that down the
road if I do anything with my property that I don’t get a room full of folks. If there is a
way to make sure that in this approvals or something that those folks or the developer
or somebody along that whole fence line makes sure it is a consistent berm or buffer so
when those guys move in to these wonderful homes and look across to my nursery and
they don’t have a problem with it then anything I do all of a sudden becomes a big
problem. If that is something that can be addressed.
Barbeiro: Mr. Mussel, as I look at the Comprehensive Plan it looks like you have some
prime commercial property there for you to let the residents know that on that corner the
possibility of a commercial development does exist. When everybody knows when you
come to us in 2 or 3 years with a commercial development, we didn’t know that was
commercial. The new Subdivision people should be aware of that too.
Borup: Anyone else. Becky any final or wrap up you’d like to do.
Bowcutt: When we designed this Subdivision we were sensitive to the lot sizes. The
question has been asked how come some of the lots next to Meridian Greens are some
of the smaller ones that are in this development. The main answer is topography. With
the hilliness of this property we had its design in a fashion that we need some of that
depth to be able to handle the grading necessary for the streets and the homes. Just
because a particular lot is 6 feet less in depth than its adjoined lot does not mean it is
not compatible. This is intended to be a very high end exclusive Subdivision with views
out of these homes which also enhances the value of the homes and the lots. It is not
intended to be a 1400 or 1600 square foot Subdivision. Mr. Cavin is willing to go on the
record that the minimum square footage will be 2100 square feet for the dwelling. That
will be put in the covenants. As far as the issue of roofing, I never in 10 years of doing
this ever had any governing body dictate a particular type of roofing. I have a shake
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 13
roof on my house and my house is a 2 story, 3250 square foot. Very comparable and it
is not going to last. My neighbors that built their house a couple year before me, my
house is 7 years old, are all ready replacing their roofing. I had a roofing company
come out and the gentleman said we do not have the appropriate climate for shake
shingles. Too many extremes in our weather. The expansion and contractions limits
their life span. The shingles have come a long way. Those homes have architectural
shingles and look very, very nice. Like I said compatibility does not mean exactly the
same. Mr. Cavin is going to have strict covenants just like Meridian Greens does.
Brookdale Meadows are very good looking homes and that is what he intends for this
development. The culdesac---we don’t have choices when it comes to inter connection
with the stub street to the north. Ada County Highway District dictates that and I
understand and we face this time and time again. Some of the things we can do if the
highway district will agree to it is put a choker up there at that intersection or East Lake
Creek Street. What that does is funnel the traffic into all most one lane and it requires a
driver to slow down and functions well. The other thing are speed humps which are not
popular with emergency services. Second was construction traffic. Mr. Cavin can tell
the subcontractors that construction traffic will take access off of Victory Road. He
intends it to be a two phase project. He may build it all as one phase. He has not
determined that but we will start at Victory and do the first loop for sure and then go on.
Obviously the closest point of ingress and egress is Victory Road. For them to drive ¾
of a mile through Meridian Greens winding through the residential streets is not
practical. The contractors will take the shortest route. I have seen signage put up and
it is Ashford Greens I believe have a sign that directed construction traffic to a particular
street. We have done it before. This development will have pressure irrigation. Mr.
Cavin has not determined whether is will be under the association or under Nampa
Meridian Irrigation Districts owner and maintenance. He will decide prior to the
submittal of the final plat. As far as blending the home, just as Meridian Greens when it
first started up at Overland Road as you went southward and the Subdivision started
developing, the value the homes increased. That is a standard thing with a
development with this low of density just like theirs. The price and value of the home
increase as you develop each phase. We feel this is a good project. A good quality
project. We have made great effort to come before you with a low density project. Our
2.21 dwelling units per acre is right there with Meridian Greens on their density. We
calculated their phase 3 and it is like 2.2. With the rock wall on the exterior, being able
to utilize that Kennedy lateral and make some esthetic improvements out there, I think it
will be a asset to the city. Any questions. Excuse me. There was a comment about the
10 setbacks. Their zoning designation in Meridian Greens is R-4. That is the same
zone we are requesting. Any two story house under the zoning ordinance requires 10
foot setback, 5 feet per story according to the ordinance.
Barbeiro: I am going to try to solve your problem. You talk about a choker and we do
know that while the plat shows this as being a stub street, it is a culdesac. With the use
of a choker would the developer consider taking about 5 to 10 feet to halfway through
each of these lots, widen that road. Work with the 2 neighbors at this lot and this lot to
widen their road a little so you could take the choker about half way into their
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 14
Subdivision. That would be enough to slow the traffic down, give them some
assemblance of a culdesac. It essentially will be an island.
Bowcutt: Your thinking a island and then choke it up with two lanes one on each side.
Barbeiro: Yeah and passing through into your subdivision if your developer would
consider the added expense in moving into their Subdivision if ACHD would allow—
Bowcutt: Ada County Highway District will not allow us to put that median in their
existing right of way. We can do it in a new Subdivision because the common lot or
median is a separate and not a part of the public right of way. They have never allowed
us to put those in a right of way. My concern is we may have to go in and either vacate
part of the right of way or go to the commission with some sort of license agreement. I
don’t know if they would favor that. They will work with us but that one, I don’t think it is
possible.
Hatcher: On the same line, the recorded plat of Meridian Greens is showing a public
stub street to be (inaudible) to the southern property. When it was developed, the
developer put in a temporary culdesac. Since that culdesac is not recorded I am at a
loss as to one of two things are going to have to occur. Either the adjacent property
owners in Meridian Greens actually own a chunk of that culdesac and when the street
goes all the way through, then it will have to be reclaimed and those people be given
their property back. Or, the culdesac was built out of violation to the recorded plat.
Freckleton: I can clear that up for you. The recorded Subdivision plat for Meridian
Greens Unit 3, there is a 50 foot right of way platted to the southern boundary. There is
also a temporary emergency vehicle turn around ingress egress easement that goes
into lot 50, block 8 and also lot 37, block 12 which is both sides of the right away. It
says that this easement is to revert back to adjacent lot owners upon the extension of
the public street. That is right on the face of the plat.
Hatcher: So the culdesac would be – into a straight street. The adjacent property
owners would reclaim how much land?
Freckleton: Well, it’s a 50 foot straight through right of way as platted. The culdesac is
encroaching into the lot by an easement right now.
Hatcher: By an easement—so there was a legal means in which that encroachment
occurs.
Freckleton: That is correct and I believe if we went back in the record, I think the City of
Meridian was instrumental in requiring that because our requirements typically or any
time you have a street that goes in more than one lot depth, you have to provide a turn
around.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 15
Hatcher: Okay. In reverting the culdesac to a through street, is it the Meridian Greens
Association that does this work or the adjacent developer going in and making the
adjustments within Meridian Greens?
Freckleton: Typically it is the developer of the Subdivision that is effected by the
culdesac. It would have been Meridian Greens. When this street goes through, if they
choose to leave the culdesac where it was, that is there choice. If they want to reclaim
it as their plat provides—
Hatcher: So it would be the land owner or the association would have to go back to the
original developer and say we want our land back.
Freckleton: That is correct.
Norton: I have a question regarding the homeowners concern about pressurized
irrigation. They indicated they have difficulty with the water pressure and would be
willing to help with expensive if they could tap into the pressurized irrigation that your
Subdivision seems to be able to have. When the issue is resolved of who is going to be
owning that, the Subdivision, homeowners association or the irrigation district, would
your developer be willing to work with the neighbors to tap into that.
Bowcutt: I have faced this before when developing next to adjoining properties that had
no access to irrigation water. Nampa Meridian in two other instances took that to their
board and came back and said unless we can provide water for the entire development
of the adjoining Subdivision, they would not allow the lots that adjoin my development to
connect to our system. It had to do with their water rights. Some Subdivisions have
forfeited their water rights, some retain them and pay for the water rights, but don’t get
any water. I have dealt with this before and developers say yes they will do that but
they would not allow it. I don’t think that will happen. We could ask.
Borup: Is Nampa Meridian going to be operating this system.
Bowcutt: Either they will operate it or the association.
Borup: So, it has not been decided yet. You stated that the 2100 square feet would be
part of the covenants. Any reason that couldn’t be put on the plat also.
Bowcutt: If Mr. Cavin agrees.
END OF SIDE TWO
Borup: The warranty on a cedar shake shingle roof is non-existent. There is no
warranty. What there any discussion on the type of architectural.
Bowcutt: Presidential or better Mr. Cavin has just indicated for the record. 40 year.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 16
Borup: That will be in the covenants also.
Bowcutt: Yes.
Borup: And that is a very good quality shingle. Top of the line. That will look better in
the future than a shake roof. I would like some more discussion on the stub street to
the west. You mentioned concern about the grade. You also said that the steep grade
in the one area but tapers off as it gets to each end. (Inaudible) stub street have to be
where the embankment is rather then where it tapers off a little bit.
Bowcutt: Where the highway district originally asked for it was between lot 10 and 11.
That was the steepest point or –
Borup: I don’t think they realized about the grade.
Bowcutt: My first meeting they agreed it was not necessary. They have left it the same
but they have concerns about truck traffic coming through us. That was one of their
concerns.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I contacted the (inaudible) Ada County Highway District on
this issue and they originally recommended the stub street going this location which is
the ideal location to prevent high speed traffic from going through on a long straight
away. That location has the highest grade change so you can go there without some
type of bridge structure or something. The grades meet from about this point north and
the grades do meet at the location where East Lake Creek Drive would be extended.
My last conversation with Dave Splitz suggested that that is the logical location for that
because they are also grade elevation differences that still exist down here until you get
on the other side of the lateral. We also voiced a concern about the possibility of gravel
trucks now being able to use this to get out, but he was saying it could be barricaded
with the sign saying this street will be extended in the future when that property is later
developed as a residential Subdivision. We feel the connection is needed for the inner-
connectivity. The grades do match at that location and I believe that it can be
barricaded while the use is a gravel pit to keep trucks from using it.
Borup: Did ACHD express what their—did they say what they really wanted?
Siddoway: They agreed they wanted to get a stub street and when I pointed that
location out they said that was where it should go. But I have not seen anything in
writing. They do want a stub street.
Borup: Your comment on the buffering, if it is going to be an incompatible use, the
buffering needs to stay there. Your saying you don’t want the stub street because its
going to be residential and then its going to be a like use and the buffering would not
need to be there. Along the same line, if it is going to be residential the stub street
needs to be there.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 17
Bowcutt: Yes sir.
Borup: Had there been any design consideration to a less direct route on Andros,
turning at Lake Creek rather than extending through.
Bowcutt: You mean try to ninety it and then bring it in perpendicular. That may be a
possibility where you take it – what I was contemplating is softening the curve as we
come around a little bit and then take Andros and intersect it 90 degrees like this
instead of taking it straight. If the district would agree. We’ve done that before.
Borup: Has there been any discussion about one less lot on the north boundary and
distributing that between them.
Bowcutt: The differences in the depth, they are approximately 130 we’ve got 124, 125
so it is 6 or 7 feet. In the width we’ve got 94 to 90 in our widths. They appear to be
about 96 I think. On those that are squared. With the 92 that we have, there is about a
6 or 8 foot difference.
Borup: So is that a way of saying no, there has not been discussion.
Bowcutt: We felt we were pretty darn close and that we are compatible. I would hate to
loose a lot in there. A little bit of shifting could possibly be done to enhance.
Borup: The lot you lose there could you add it back in somewhere else.
Bowcutt: No, I don’t think so not to meet the frontages that we need for the zone and
the due to the slopes. Our first thought we’d try to move the lot lines, shift them a little
to enhance the width. To the east probably, around the corner. I don’t think there is
enough room to bring every single lot there up to 100. That one on the end, lot 14, is
105.
Borup: Whether you can gain that lot somewhere else in the Subdivision that is a
design thing. You do have the larger lots on the north or on the south and the smaller
lots on the north. It does seem you leave the smaller lots near an entrance. We’ve got
the plat. Any other questions Commissioner's.
Hatcher: I move we close the public hearings, both of them.
Norton: I second.
Borup: All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: We can do the discussion on both. We will need to make motions on each
separate.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 18
Hatcher: There was a comment earlier from one of the Meridian Greens residents
about a violation of commitment from this commission. (Inaudible) we were to allow
that road to go through. I wanted to address that. It is not a violation of the city or this
board. It is a ACHD and Meridian City requirement that adjoining properties be
harmoniously tied together so there is a free flow of traffic through out the city.
Borup: The violation would have been to not have the road go through because that
was what was on the plat and committed to.
Hatcher: I am getting to that and what I would really say is that if there is any violation
of commitment it is from the realtor and builders that you have dealt with because that
road on the recorded plat has always been a stub street, always intended to be a stub
street and if your swayed or deceived by the people you dealt with, I empathize with
you. As far as the traffic because of the stub street, I think you will probably fine I look
at the Meridian Greens Subdivision as it is currently platted and I would find that the
back third of that Subdivision is going to take advantage of going through this
Subdivision. You guys are going to benefit by this Subdivision and the traffic flow of the
Subdivision. Every single house in that Subdivision will most likely go to Victory
because it is a block away rather than driving ¾ of a mile through meandering roads in
your Subdivision. The likelihood of them going through your Subdivision is pretty
minimal. Another comment about curbs and having a turn down curb or rolled curb, a 6
inch curb. It doesn’t matter what type you build it is not going to stop a car. The other
issue is the culdesac and design standard. All of the culdesac that are in Meridian
Greens by what I can see here were designed in a oval or oblong fashion which provide
for guest parking in the middle of the culdesac and that looks like a Subdivision design
standard. That should have been a red flag to anyone that through that other culdesac
was permanent because it doesn’t have that feature. I am discouraged about Meridian
irrigation districts policy of not servicing adjacent lots. I encourage the Subdivision and
the developer to come to means with that. If the Subdivision decides to maintain it
them selves and make it as a homeowners association, then I think the Meridian
Greens property could benefit from that with a joint venture with the developer. The
three items I would be in favor of adjusting if I were to put a motion together on this
would be the northern lots adjacent to Meridian Greens that they be adjusted so that
they are no smaller than the smallest lot in the adjacent Meridian Greens. The second
is to ask the developer to coordinate and work with Meridian Greens homeowners
association to develop CC&R’s that reflect similar conditions. The other issue would be
that a western stub street in alignment with Lake Creek per staff recommendation be
added in and that the buffering requirements be dropped as a requirement. Under the
assumption that the gravel pit would be developed as residential. That is my
discussion.
Norton: I would concur with that but would also like to do or have something regarding
this Andros Way meander so its not a straight shot downhill into Meridian Greens.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 19
Hatcher: I would not be opposed to that. I calculated the slopes of that and it would be
a 3 percent slope, which is well within the standard means of a road.
Norton: Do we want to do anything about helping the neighbors with the fence line
along that back group of houses.
Hatcher: Most of its there.
Barbeiro: Steve could you go back to the photograph showing that fence line.
Hatcher: I think we should maintain our current requirements and if that means the
developer has to add what is not there then he adds what is not there.
Barbeiro: I was pleased with Becky’s answer to doing that curved Y road there. That
would work well to slow down the traffic. I would like to see access to the St. Clair
property and I like the access there between lot 11 and 12 as opposed East Lake
because we have a Y there. Between lot 7 and 8 on the (inaudible) plat.
Hatcher: The problem we have moving it down more toward the middle of the gravel pit
is adjacent grades.
Barbeiro: Agreed but I think when Mr. St. Clair develops his land he will figure out a
way to match up with that road.
Borup: 7 and 8 was probably the only spot on there that doesn’t work very well.
We will let Becky worry about the design.
Barbeiro: The difference between a lot that is .27 acres and a lot that is .31 acres which
the argument is between Meridian Greens group is not sufficient enough to have me
request that the developer make those northern lots that much larger. I am satisfied
that the homes minimum of 2100 square feet will be exceeded and the vast majority of
these homes will be far greater. Since the homes in the middle of this are much larger
lots, I would expect to see those home far of in excess of 3000 and 4000 square feet.
By putting in that extension road we then loose the buffer.
Norton: Mr. Barbeiro would you be in agreement to change these lot lines toward the
back if commission Hatcher made a motion.
Barbeiro: Yes.
Borup: The only two comments I had—well one you said you’d like the CC&R’s to be
similar. What does that mean.
Hatcher: I’d be asking the developer to work with Meridian Greens so that—
Borup: What aspects do you have a concern with.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 20
Hatcher: No specific aspects.
Borup: Most covenants are very similar. Some of them get a little bit but I think at one
time a number of years ago one attorney prepared them and everybody else copied.
Hatcher: I am not going to sit here and tell them they need to have so many trees and
bushes, etc. All I am saying is I am –not in the motion. Go to the developer and work
with Meridian Greens and have comparable CC&R’s that are all ready establish.
Borup: Your statement that no lot would be smaller than the adjoining lots. It may be
appropriate along there to have the lots at a larger—I don’t see—if it was so
incompatible then the Meridian Greens Subdivision as a whole would be having a
problem. The first phase a large one which was 1700 square feet. Looking at the plat
there is a fair number of 90 foot lots in there. Granted as the phase went on it went
from 1700 to 2400 and higher. But those 1700 and 90 foot lots are across the street
from the others that are larger. I don’t see an incompatibility there. If there were doing
within the same Subdivision definitely should not be a problem.
Hatcher: You bring up the same point that Commissioner Barbeiro had mentioned
about not being opposed to the site—
Borup: One lot along there and distributing that through there would add –that would
not get up to the 100 foot but—
Hatcher: I did not say dimensions. I said size, so if they are wider and not as deep, so
be it. Your suggestion of taking one lot and dividing it equally amongst the remaining 11
lots would satisfy my concern.
Siddoway: First of all both plats are out of compliance with the current zoning
ordinance on exceeding block length. We put in the requirement to put in those
pedestrian walkways in saying that if they were able to do that it would bring them into
compliance. I am not convinced if this street slopes are at 3 per cent that they would not
be able to put those in and still meet ADA, but if they are not able to put those in and
have a valid argument and they can’t, it’s still will require a variance from that ordinance
submitted to the City Council. If they can demonstrate that hardship that they can’t
provide those pedestrian walkways due to the slopes and ADA standards, then it would
be a variance that we could support. If the facts don’t show that that is the case, then
we would say those pedestrian walkways should be put in and not support the variance.
But if they are not going to do the pedestrian walkways the block length exceeds the
required maximum in the ordinance of 1000 feet and would require a variance from the
city council. Second issue on the buffer between the land uses, this is also just straight
out of the ordinance and would also require a variance from City Council. I don’t think
we can simply just drop it from the requirements. The existing land uses are
incompatible as commercial industrial adjacent to proposed residential and would
require those buffers. I believe we could support based on the fact that it is planned to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 21
go residential in the future based on the Comprehensive Plan, maybe to support a
variance to have those be an easement on the lot as Becky suggested with minimum
number of trees and have them belong to the individual lot owners rather than our
standard situation of a common lot owned and maintained by the homeowners
association. The requirement for that buffer is straight out of the ordinance and I don’t
think we can waive it away without a variance. The bigger issue to me is the house
they are leaving on septic and well in the southwest corner. We’d be annexing a
property with the house sitting inside of the required landscape buffer. We would stand
by our comment number 11 that would ask that that lot be turned into a common area
for the Subdivision. That the house be removed out of the required landscape buffer
and –
Borup: Steve could that parcel be excluded from the annexation. Is that their other
option.
Siddoway: That’s their other option. I don’t know if we could annex it without being
along a lot line. That would be the option is not annexing that portion and leave it in the
county.
Borup: What is that going to look like. What problems the city going to have down the
road.
Siddoway: Exactly. It would go against city policy to annex a house that is not able to
hook up to city water and sewer. I was not at the last meeting but Bruce told me that
discussion was even through that is where the line is, it can gravity flow and is possible
for it to be hooked to water and sewer. ACHD does not want that lot taking access off
of Victory road and was requiring a costly stub street for a relatively few number of lots.
Borup: Looks to me like if your saying the house has to be moved your probably forcing
the applicant to exclude that from the project. That would be one of their options.
Siddoway: It doesn’t sound like a great option, but yes. That area is not a separate lot
at this point in time. It is proposed to be a separate lot as this is subdivided but they
would probably have to go through some sort of a lot split so that they could annex a full
lot that excludes that portion, if they decide to go that route. That is not what I am
recommending, but-- We already discussed the stub street at length. On all of these
design issues I would just state as far as minimum lot size and house size, roofing types
and things like that, I do not believe that we as a city can require more than this stated
minimums unless this was a planned development which with a conditional use permit
we could impose whatever we wanted. They are exceeding the minimum lot sizes. The
1400 square feet is the minimum house size by ordinance. If the developer is willing to
put 2100 square feet on the plat, that is fine. He can volunteeringly make that more
restrictive, but this isn’t a conditional use permit, it is not a planned development.
Therefore, we have to make our recommendations based on the ordinance. I don’t
know if Mr. Swartley has more to say on that but that would be how I interpret the code.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 22
Swartley: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Siddoway is correct. We can’t control the CC&R’s. We
have no jurisdiction over that.
Borup: I think he is going beyond that saying we can’t be doing anything more
restrictive than what our city ordinance says either.
Swartley: That is correct as well.
Borup: I had a question on the pathway. I am not sure what the ADA standards are.
Looking at the one lot in the middle of the block, it looks to me like just the length of the
lot, 137 feet or so, it falls about 10 feet. It tapers off to another 5 or 6 feet on the other
lot is not quite as steep. Street to street that is about 16 feet, 15 feet.
Siddoway: Eight percent, one in twelve with landings and it would be the burden of
proof on the developer to show they can’t do that. You need a level area. Get the
pathway in or request a variance on the street thing. That would need to go to the
council. I am wondering if Becky may want to talk to you right now on this lot with the
existing house. If she could talk to Steve, we could go on with our business. Any
other discussion. Will you kind of put some points together for a motion. At this point
we are talking about annexation.
Hatcher: None of my modifications to staff comments apply to annexation and zoning.
Borup: The only thing that would apply to annexation is this one parcel that on a new
revised plat is showing as a single lot with no sewer.
Hatcher: Even though it doesn’t go per normal standards, the option we have is that
the developer withhold that parcel from annexation which is he legal right and he could
proceed in that fashion. But, is it truly to the City’s benefit to allow him to do that as
where they are currently proposing to put that landscape buffer in right of way
improvements along Victory the full length with a variance for the existing building. We
can make it a condition that prior to that lot being developed in any fashion, that these
deficiencies be corrected prior to development.
Borup: That may be one more variance they need to look at.
Hatcher: Yes. I think it would be to the City’s interest to allow what was submitted
rather than have them pull it out. The water sewer issue, correct me if I’m wrong legal,
to be able to annex a piece of property we need to have the ability to provide sewer and
water. You don’t mandate that they hook up. We can leave it as it is because otherwise
we are running those utilities across the lateral.
Borup: That is the only access at this point is they’d have to come across the lateral
even though it is—
Hatcher: It is going to be 25 years before the Black Cat trunk gets to---
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 23
Borup: Right. That would be a good criteria for a variance. Steve, we’re about ready
to make a motion on the annexation and zoning. You got any final comments.
Siddoway: The solution is unclear. The option for making any common lot park area is
not looked on favorably. The problem with leaving just that portion out of the
annexation is that our Comprehensive Plan says that no lot should be created in the
county less than 5 acres in size. This one is three. They would have to split off more of
it based on that policy or ADA County would have to make a determination that this is
just annexing the part north of the lateral would be okay. Or, we annex the whole thing
which is currently against City Council policy of annexing a property that will not be in a
sewer district not sewerable that will remain on Septic and Well, I don’t have a good
answer for you right now.
Hatcher: Steve, while you were distracted we discussed the possibility of being
submitted as a variance—the sewer zoning issue on that lot.
Siddoway: That would be the other option. Just add all these things to a variance
application. Ask for a variance to the block length, to annexing a property that is going
to be served by well and septic, a variance on the landscape buffer issue and make it
an easement. All of those things could be rolled into a variance to City Council.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I motion that we recommend approval to City Council request
for annexation and zoning of 40.33 acres to R-4 for proposed Timber View/Observation
Point Subdivision by Victory 41, LLC incorporating staff comments.
Norton: I second that.
Borup: Any discussion. One observation, the applicant was in agreement with all the
staff comments on the annexation and zoning. All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Item number 2, request for a preliminary plat.
Hatcher: I am ready to make a motion. I would motion that we recommend approval to
the City Council on the preliminary plat for the proposed Timber View/Observation Point
Subdivision which comprises of
END OF SIDE THREE
Hatcher: 90 lots on 40.33 acres by Victory 41, LLC to include staff comments and the
following modifications. First one would be that the adjacent lots on the north property
line adjacent to Meridian Greens be modified from 12 lots to 11 lots distributing the
difference amongst the 11. Next I would encourage the developer to coordinate the
writing of the CC&R’s to reflect similar CC&R’s of Meridian Greens. I would encourage
Greens homeowners association to work with the developer on the irrigation issue once
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 24
that is finalized. Second issue on the motion would be that the western stub street be
provided per staffs recommendation and I’ll leave that to the design professionals for
locations. Third is we need to as suggested by Becky Bowcutt that we modify the
intersection at Lake Creek Street and South Andros Way to have it as a offset Y
intersection rather than straight through traffic. Those would be the modifications. As
far as the buffering, we will let that be submitted as a variance.
Barbeiro: I had some confusion on the requirements for the fence.
Borup: I do too. The Subdivision should put the fence in would have been Meridian
Greens. They were developed first. Steve is the city required fences put between
residential Subdivisions.
Siddoway: Standard perimeter fencing is a standard requirement.
Borup: Perimeter against non use land, isn’t it. Why are we requiring fences between
different phases of the same Subdivision. What’s the difference. Then why aren’t we
requiring fences between different phases of the same Subdivision. I did not think we
were. I can’t think of one where we required fencing against abutting adjoining
residential Subdivision.
Hatcher: What I am getting at is if Meridian Greens did not have the requirement to
provide fencing at an adjacent agriculture land, then so be it. If they did then the
Meridian Greens developer needs to put some fence in. If our current applicant is not
required to put in fencing then so be it. I don’t think this board needs—
Borup: I think we do depending on how you want to incorporate the staff comments.
The comment on the north side fencing should be stricken on the staff comments.
Hatcher: That the word north be stricken from Item number 9.
Borup: The other two things in staff comments that the applicant would like to do a
meandering pathway along Victory. That was strictly in disagreement but maybe just
a—okay. The other was the buffer to the west. Staff recommended easement.
Applicant would like to have landscaping by each individual lot owner.
Hatcher: I thought that was being dealt with as a variance.
Borup: The buffer, okay.
Norton: I second that motion.
Swartley: Mr. Chairman. Just a point of clarification, is a meandering sidewalk
becoming part of the motion? You brought it up as discussion. I want to hear if it is
going to be part of the motion.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 25
Hatcher: I don’t see a conflict.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman. I would recommend from staff position that the applicant
bring a revised plat back to you with these modifications rather then sending it on to
City Council and requiring them to see that all these modification were made property
so that they are made to your satisfaction that is come back to you with those
modification and in the mean time require that the variance application for those
variances that they are going apply for, be applied for to City Council. That way they
can be heard at the same time.
Borup: It would go a lot smoother at City Council.
Norton: Do we need an amendment to that motion?
Hatcher: I think we do. Point of clarification wouldn’t a final plat come before us for
final review..no never mind. I amend my motion to make that a requirement.
Borup: Would we also want to table the annexation then.
Swartley: That was my next question. Make a motion to hold it.
Borup: We’ll do that as another motion after this. Any other discussion. All in favor?
Swartley: Mr. Chairman, yes the motion needs to be withdrawn if your going to follow
Steve’s advice and that is to have the applicant go back, make changes to the plat,
bring them in front of the commission again and then you can vote on it. To ensure that
those changes are being made which I believe that one of Becky’s associates was
writing down all those changes, correct. Yeah. Yes, table it so the applicant will have
the opportunity to make those changes.
Hatcher: After all that work of making the motion.
Swartley: You made the motion. Its on the record. We can make it again at the next
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
Borup: Okay, we straight on that. Do we want to withdraw this motion.
Hatcher: I withdraw this motion.
Norton: I concur.
Borup: Do we have an alternative motion?
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, in order for them to bring it back before you, you may need to
open the public hearing and leave it open. Otherwise they can’t present.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 26
Barbeiro: I move we re-open the public hearing.
Hatcher: I second the motion.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman I move that we continue the public hearing to our next regularly
scheduled meeting June 13th
pending a variance application and presentation of a new
plat.
Hatcher: Second
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Do we have another motion on item number 1.
Hatcher: I motion that we hold item number 1 and not move it on to City Council
pending outcome of our next meeting on June 13th
.
Norton: I second that motion.
Borup: All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
3. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
TEMPORARY OFFICE TRAILER FOR 24 MONTHS TO BE PLACED ON
PROPERTY ZONED I-L BY JAMES L. AIMONETTO—2204 LANARK STREET:
Borup: Steve.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner's this is a property that is on East Lanark
Street. This would be Nola Road. Locust Grove here. This is Franklin, this is Lanark
Street. Back here is where all the buses are and adjacent to that there is an existing lot
asphalt right now or maybe gravel. These are site photos. The applicant is requesting
a temporary office trailer to be placed on the site. He has requested 24 months. At the
last City Council meeting, City Council entertained a variance on this property for
landscaping, granted that variance for one year, not two. Therefore we would
recommend that the temporary office trailer be approved for a maximum of one year
and at that time the temporary uses should be out and the site should be in full
compliance with permanent structure and the landscape requirements as required by
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 27
the City Council. We have asked the temporary trailed be located 35 feet back from the
right of way. We would recommend approval with that modification of one year instead
of two.
Borup: Is the applicant here this evening.
Glenco: My name is Mathew Glenco. I live at 1011 N. Maple Creek Avenue. I have
been in the employ of Mr. Aimonetto for over 4-1/2 years. I operate a branch of his
company here in the Treasure Valley.
Borup: Have you had a chance to review staff comments.
Glenco: Yes I have. There are a couple of issues I did want to bring up. The first and
biggest is item number 6, requiring a bond of (inaudible) percent or cash for the tiling of
the drain. Aside from the obvious issues of the financial burden on a small company,
the point I’d like to bring up is I’ve noticed there is similar drain exists to the west of the
Jabil facility. That has been fenced rather than tiled. In the interest of consistency, I
propose the same sort of requirement be made in this area. The other issue also is that
the status of most of the property owners along that stretch of the drain is probably fairly
stable and don’t expect to have either new development and some of those issues
taken place in the near term. At least to my knowledge it is any body’s guess how soon
the tiling of that could be done, if ever.
Borup: Do you know the size that would require.
Glenco: Off hand I do not. I do know that drain is quite large. It is probably nearly as
big as the one that is there adjacent to the Jabil property. I would be asking for a waiver
for that requirement there on number 6.
Borup: You understand we are not the ones that can grant that. The reason is that is
part of the City ordinance. That would be another variance for City Council. Correct.
Siddoway: Correct. Unless the pipe that would be required—if they are not going to tile
it, it would require a variance with City Council. Also just to make it clear, he does not
have to bond for it with cash. He can bond with a letter of credit as well.
Glenco: Regarding the matter of the time frame. When we initially proposed, we sat
down with staff before making the purchase on the property. The number of 24 months
came up because the realization we are at the very front end of development of the
project. The site is such and selected because we can utilize it as it exists now with
these very minor modifications. 24 months is simply with recognition of the time we
would like to take to plan out the building, get the variances and then construct. So 24
months to plan it and construct it. Twelve is a little unrealistic. If I may, I have some
photographs of the property to show what I am proposing is actually not a lot different
than what is going on in that neighborhood. We will be more tidy. It is a very large lot.
I’ll have my office which is the mobile trailer we’re talking about. I currently run 4
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 28
medium duty rigs which are single axle straight trucks, plus 2 or 3 refrigerated trailer
types and then a tractor. Most of our operation will be confined in one small portion of
the lot. The other matter is also related to number 16 regarding the corridor for the
pathway. In the landscaping of this with the drain there, I don’t really have access to
where I understand where that pathway would be.
Borup: I think they were talking about landscaping on your property. Is that right Steve.
Siddoway: The landscaping would be on their own property line adjacent to the railroad
right of way as it is deemed a future pathway corridor multiple use.
Glenco: I don’t have a fence on our side there, but the neighbors do because there is a
bit of an easement on the south side of the drain. That is what I have.
Borup: Any questions from the commission.
Norton: Your business is transferring milk products. Will you be storing milk products
on the property. So your permanent building is going to require some refrigeration.
Does that take more time to build then just a normal warehouse, for instance.
Glenco: Again, I am very early in the stages. I can not see how it would not. A normal
warehouse could be a very simple structure. Special provisions need to be made in
determining refrigeration. There is a time frame to get a hold of the equipment and then
to have it installed.
Norton: You have single axle trucks coming to bays to pick up milk products, is that
correct.
Glenco: Yes.
Norton: Only single axle.
Glenco: Yes. The trucks that I use to distribute our product are single axle. They come
in on larger or dual axle trailer rig. We break out those loads and load them into smaller
straight trucks.
Brown: Steve, on item 15 you are recommending there not be an extension. I am
curious about that. Would the ordinance allow an extension of temporary permit.
Siddoway: (Inaudible) 12 months and it would be considered a modification of a
conditional use permit which under the current system basically a new conditional use
permit they would have to submit.
Brown: You don’t have any extension provisions in the conditional use permit.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 29
Siddoway: No, unless you write them into conditions. For example you could make
one of the conditions to the permit that a potential 12 month extension can be granted
by City Council and then apply for that in 12 months. Unless it is specifically stated in
this conditional use permit that an extension would not require a new conditional use
permit and 12 months from now they wanted to extend, it would require one.
Brown: Do you have a substantial completion that you take in that to activate it.
Siddoway: I don’t think so. In 12 months the temporary trailer goes away. Substantial
completion would certainly help their argument for extension to council.
Brown: Matt, what is going to be your process. Are you going to build a warehouse.
Are you going to pave. What are you looking at.
Glenco. The first priority in construction would be the office—1000, 1500 square feet.
Issues as far as the warehouse itself, yet to be determined. We have taken a fairly
rapid approach to doing this because of circumstances we are faced with as a
business. What I am proposing to do on this lot, we’ve been doing for 3 years but on the
property of our main supplier. The conditions there have—we have been reading the
writing on the wall for months and feel the need to get off the property. Also to open up
new opportunities but I am not too surprised at some point if I get a letter or phone call,
we need you off by X. Our first priority was finding a property and securing it then going
with the process. So, unfortunately I don’t have as many answers as I’d like to. That is
why 24 months is more realistic than the 12.
Brown: But how long do you anticipate the temporary trailer being there.
Glenco: I think 24 would be the outside.
Brown: Your going to have the temporary trailer even through the office is going to be
built first.
Glenco. That would be the first priority. Obviously the trailer would need to be used.
Brown: Once the office is done then would the trailer be gone even thought the
warehouse might not.
Glenco: Oh yes.
Barbeiro: The plan is to build a separate office from the warehouse or to build an office
in the warehouse?
Glenco: I would expect it to be separate buildings because the needs of a warehouse
in a construction need to be dock high and things of that. An office would be self
contained. There might be a doorway into the warehouse.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 30
Barbeiro: It is not unreasonable that you could build an office, later build your
warehouse connected to the office and you could have a 1000 square foot (inaudible)
up within three months from the time you break ground. I think it is reasonable that 12
months because you could have an office up in 90 days. The permitting process would
be 2 months and a month to get your architectural up so, 6 months—if you started
tomorrow, in 6 months you could have a building up. That gives you an extra 6 months
beyond that to get an office up.
Glenco: I could take a modular unit such as what I am proposing to use, knock the
wheels out from under it and be in compliance as I understand things. I am not sure
through since we have talked to architects and gone that route, that is necessarily how
we want the final thing to look. We pride ourselves on a high level of quality and our
presentation, the way we do business and that is going to carry through. I am saying, I
don’t know.
Barbeiro: I never suggested a modular unit. You could do a complete slab (inaudible)
building or a –
Glenco: Perhaps some of this is based on my ignorance at this point. I am learning as
I go. I have never done this before. I would like it to be done in 12 months and the
concern is that there be a buffer there so that we get the whole thing plus I would
expect if we are building one it would make sense to be doing the other at the same
time.
Brown: We are trying to help you here. You might not think that. The recommendation
is for 12 months and we are trying to get the 24 months but what we are looking at is—
lets say in 12 months the trailer is gone and you’ve got an office. If that is the case then
we could recommend to City Council that they do an extension to get your warehouse,
which would give you the other 12 months. That is the way I am viewing it. To keep
going back to the 24 months keeps telling me well we will just stick with what staff is
saying because you don’t know what your doing and we don’t know what your doing.
We have to have some time frame. With the condition and the way I understand what
Steve is telling me is that at the end of the 12 months you have to file a whole new
application and start over. I think that is crazy in my opinion so I am trying to help so
that 12 months down the road you just ask for an extension.
Borup: Kent I was interested in you statement on if construction had started on the
project.
Brown: Mr. Chairman, in some of the other jurisdictions that I have dealt with it is a
determination that the planning director can make water sewer and maybe some street
improvement if those are required, landscaping, they view those as substantial that they
are going to do this project so that it doesn’t end up like a Smiths grocery store on
Fairview. That is what the city realistically is looking at. We just have to have a time
frame.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 31
Borup: Where do we go from here. Do you see any problem with having the building
under construction in 12 months.
Glenco: I do not see a problem with that.
Borup: How you planning on handling the landscaping. That was discussed at City
Council last week. You had 12 months on that and your saying even if the building isn’t
done that you’ll have the landscaping done.
Glenco: That should not be a problem. Landscaping for the full lot will come into play
as we’re looking at construction. The initial phase of the landscaping could be done
separate from the building. As I understood I need to have the black top and the
landscaping completed before I occupy the site and that I see as being doable and then
we dig in with the construction.
Hatcher: I think under a very conservative approach what your looking for the scope,
size of your outfit, would be a phased project and to satisfy everyone’s requirements
here is that the office space of the project be under construction within a 12 month
period. I would encourage you to have it done in 12 months but if it is not done you can
come back for an extension of the conditional use permit. That way a simple review.
Under a conservative approach being able to –you mentioned attacking the warehouse
and the office at the same time. Seeing your not even sure what you want yet. Lots of
details to be done and if you try to roll it into one big project I would be skeptical that it
would be under construction in 12 months. I would recommend (inaudible) as a phase
and I would recommend to you that you immediately get going on a office space so the
trailer can be removed.
Swartley: Mr. Chairman, may I say a couple things. I hate to say this but I get this
strange feeling that we are setting ourselves up for another Cherry Lane problem. I
want to go back to Steve on number 15. Didn’t you say that City Council just approved
a variance for a 12 month period?
Siddoway: On landscaping.
Swartley: Before we go for another 2-1/2 hours like the last item, these require
variances, both number 6 and 15. The CUP is allowed for a 12 month period and then
he will have to reapply. Your setting yourself up for the same sort of Cherry Lane
problems, I foresee, that had with the golf course. If you saying something along the
lines of starting construction, or part of the project being finished, that is too ambiguous
of a term. I just wanted to bring that to your attention and I believe staff’s
recommendations are what should be followed.
Brown: Do you have a problem with putting landscaping along your northern boundary.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 32
Hatcher: With legal councils comment do you feel that being able to have the office
space constructed within 12 months. I see it as a potential but the biggest factor is
obviously finances, not so much construction and design and all that.
Glenco: To my knowledge and I am hedging now because it is not my name on the
bottom line, I believe that to be feasible and doable. I am not however, in a position to
say that. That is just being perfectly honest.
Borup: Do we have anyone from the public to testify on this. Thank you.
Brown: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearing.
Barbeiro: I second it.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Brown: Mr. Chairman, I move approval of item 3, conditional use permit for the
temporary office trailer for 12 month to be placed on the property I-L by James
Aimonetto, 2204 Lanark Street subject to staff recommendations. I would recommend
to the applicant minus the motion that he submit for a variance for that time to be
allowed an extension and I think it applicable that you look at phasing because if you
are totally sure that you have the size of your building, you can be like Food Services
and they are continuing to grow on their building and I know that is why the other
jurisdictions that I have dealt with look at a substantial completion. You show the
overall size of you building and then work toward that in phases. That is how I would
approach to City Council in approving you variance.
Barbeiro: Are you open to an addition to that. I would like to include that the temporary
office trailer be removed on a certificate of occupancy for an operable office, so if they
were to get it done in 9 months, the trailer be removed.
Brown: I’d ask the question of staff. Is that a requirement of code to do that?
Siddoway: By requiring the trailer to be removed upon occupancy of the office? I think
if you had a conditional use permit they’d allow it to stay for 12 months, even if the office
was complete.
Barbeiro: Okay then pull that.
Hatcher: I just had one for staff. I am reading you recommendation on enforcement. If
I understand this right, at the end of the 12 month period your means of enforcement
would be that utilities be disconnected. You’d cut them off basically at 12 months.
Borup: That’s if they weren’t given an extension.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 33
Hatcher: Right. Obviously the extension would have to be approved before that 365th
day.
Siddoway: The temporary office would be disconnected from sewer and water if it
continued beyond the time frame of the conditional use permit.
Hatcher: I second it.
Swartley: Is it just with staff comments. Thank you.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
4. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO CONSTRUCT SECOND BUILDING ON
LOT IN I-L ZONE BY TERRACE PLAZA, LLC—199 NORTH LINDER ROAD:
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman & Commissioner's this is a property zoned IL along Linder
between Franklin road and the railroad on the west side of Linder road there is a
existing building all ready on the front portion of the property adjacent to Linder Road.
This is a application to do a second primary structure at the rear of the property.
Basically, staff recommends the approval of the project with the comments submitted.
We have had some discussion before the meeting with the applicant. In general no big
issues in this one.
Borup: Is the applicant or representative here.
Wildwood: Susan Wildwood. I am a attorney to practice law with offices in Boise and I
am here on behalf of Terrace Plaza, LLC. The only comment we have with regard to
the staff comments has to do with paragraph 5 and 6. Staff had questioned the
purpose of the 9 foot graveled area west of the proposed building and had
recommended that shrubs and trees or sod be placed in that area to provide a cooler
effect on the west side and then made additional reference in paragraph 6 with regard
to the additional trees that need to be planted in order to meet the minimums for the
ordinance. I indicated Tuesday that we would be happy to place those additional trees
as recommended in paragraph 5. We would be removing that graveled area and would
put the additional landscaping there. That is the only thing we would add to the staff
comments.
Borup: Any questions from the Commissioner's. Anyone who would like to testify on
this application. Seeing none, Commissioner's.
Brown: I move we close the public hearing.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 34
Hatcher: Second the motion.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Barbeiro: I motion that we recommend approval to City Council request for conditional
use permit for a planned unit development to construct second building on lot in IL zone
by Terrace Plaza, LLC with staff comments.
Norton: I second it.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor.
END OF SIDE FOUR
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
5. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CHILD
CARE CENTER (12+ CHILDREN) IN AN R-8 ZONE BY TARA L. GORTON—
420 E. BROADWAY:
Siddoway: This is a conditional use permit request for a child care center located at
420 East Broadway Avenue by Tara Gorton. It is an existing house that is currently
vacant. The main issue to bring up here is off street parking. There is a gravel
driveway somewhat overgrown. There are parking requirements for child care centers.
They are one for every 10 children plus one for staff. I need to verify that. There has
not been a maximum number of children placed on this permit. It is over 12 which
requires it to be a child care center. The number of parking spaces that they need—it is
really not know without knowing the maximum number of children they’ll be approved
for. The applicant should address that and talk about some site plan issues as to how
that parking is going to be provided. That is all I have.
Borup: Any questions? Steve do you know whether there is a maximum number of
children (inaudible) square footage of the building.
Siddoway: There is a fire code issue. There is not in the zoning and development
ordinance.
Borup: And not in the child care—
Siddoway: Over 12 requires a conditional use permit is the extent of our ordinance. No
maximum number based on square footage.
Borup: Would the applicant come forward.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 35
Gorton: My name is Tara Gorton and I reside at 1155 S. Linder Road. I actually have
not purchased the property. It is pending until the conditional use permit. There is a 20
x 30 foot area in the back for parking. I can get at least 3 spaces in there. I was going
to reserve that strictly for staff parking. Concerning the amount of children,
approximately –its 35 square feet per child, so I am going to be able to have at lease 22
children in there. That is what I am going to be allowed. That does not necessarily
mean that is how many I am going to have. That requires at lease 2 spaces of
additional parking and at least 3 staff members. The front of the building with the
parking there is quite a bit of room for widening that driveway right there to
accommodate a handicap parking area. There is some grass in front that can also be
taken up in parking. I have a question on the pavement. It was brought to my
knowledge I would have to have that paved. Is that concrete or cement or any specific
type of material I need to have for that.
Borup: Concrete or asphalt.
Gorton: Okay.
Norton: Do you have your day care license yet.
Gorton: No, that is all pending.
Norton: Are you a member of the Treasure Valley Association for the Education of
Young Children.
Gorton: No I’m not.
Norton: Are you familiar with child care connections?
Gorton: Yes I am.
Norton: Are you caring for children at this point.
Gorton: I have a small day care center in my home right now. I would like to get it out
of my home and someone else. I have been working in child care facilities for the last 9
years.
Norton: Do you have degree in early childhood development.
Gorton: No, I’m just a mommy.
Norton: My next question is repair to the fence and open drainage ditch in the back.
Gorton: The open drainage ditch was allowed for some (inaudible) of the irrigation and
it is my understanding that that’s not even connected at that time so there is a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 36
possibility of me being able to remove that completely. The fencing in the back, like I
said I have not made any repairs to the building because I have not purchased the
building. I am just currently renting it until this is approved. That would be a completely
closed off fence. Central District Health required no more than a 4 in gap in any
fencing.
Norton: Are you familiar with the complaints we have, letters from neighbors that are
not too happy with having 20 or 35 children in there neighborhood.
Gorton: It is actually 22 and no I am not. I spoke directly to the gentleman who lives
next door. He had no objections to it.
Norton: Do you think it is fair to the neighborhood to bring in 22 children in a 1000
square foot house.
Gorton: If you look at the property there is a huge lumber yard across the street with
trucks and loud speakers. I think that would be a lot less desirable than having a few
kids in the neighborhood. I am not planning on packing the center out to have a bunch
of children. When you take a center and have 22 children, a majority of those children
because I am doing all ages will be infants and then a couple preschoolers and after
school care as well. It’s not going to be like 30 kids in there at one time. It will be split
up throughout the day. I am willing to be a very good neighbor as far as what they
would want me to do. If they have a particular time of day they don’t want the children
out, I’d be happy to comply with that. If they want me to limit the amount of time the
children are out or a number of children on the playground at one time, I’d be happy to
do that as well.
Norton: What are your hours of operation.
Gorton: The hours of operation are simply going to be a 12 hour day. I have not
decided if I will start at 6 or 7. Basically by 6 p.m. everyone will be gone and the center
will be quiet. No evening or weekend care at all.
Norton: Do these children include your own children or additional children.
Gorton: I have 2 school age children and have a pregnancy and a small as well. At
least for the majority of the day 2 of those children will be mine.
Norton: Included in your 22.
Gorton: Yes. Also I have one potential staff member who has a child as well.
Borup: Any questions from the other Commissioner's.
Barbeiro: Steve, could you go back to the floor plan please. A single bathroom for 22
kids and 2 or 3 staff.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 37
Gorton: I do have a plumbing bid. We are going to expand the bathroom to two toilets
and a sink and then 2 additional sinks on the facility. That does not include the kitchen
sink. I will have 2 toilets handicapped approved and a separate hand washing sink and
a mop as well.
Barbeiro: Will they be two separate bathrooms.
Gorton: The toilets right now are going to be in one bathroom. Eventually what I’d like
to do is expand to use the back garage area. That is actually a shop and I would like to
put a bathroom back there and have that additional classroom as well.
Borup: Anyone else. Okay. Anyone here that would like to testify.
Munson: My name is Corrie Munson. I live at 406 E. Broadway. I got the letter in the
mail and it said a small daycare of 12 and up. I have seen small daycare’s in
residences and have never seen 12 but the idea of 22, that I just found out, worried me
a little bit more. Residential is on the north side of East Broadway. The whole south
side is commercial. As she stated, I am on the corner of East and Broadway, two
houses away, and all of south Broadway is commercial. Lumberman’s is across there
at the end of Broadway. It does not go all the way through. We have so much truck
traffic going on day and night. These businesses impact our lives. The idea of having
another business such as any kind of business—enough is enough. It is a narrow lot
and the additional parking—the alley is narrow and with that shed in the back there is
not—it is hard to get our cars out of the garage. We also if you show the picutre of the
front of the house, the neighbor next door and my self both have open irrigation ditches
that we use to flow irrigate once a week and there is water in there 6 months out of the
year. I am a young mother and am constantly on top of where my children are at
because it is such a danager. I am worried that it increases my risk of having so many
children in the neighborhood and risk of injury and drowning. I would have to get an
awful lot of liability on my home and I would hope that you would not grant this permit
because it is so commercial as it is right now and we are just trying to live as normally
as possible. We love the neighborhood and have good neighbors. A lot are elderly. I
have spoken to a neighbor next door and because of certain reasons he has a invalid
wife and he is directly next door to the property. Thank you for your time.
Borup: Any one else. Commissioner's any additional questions?
Barbeiro: I move we close the public hearing.
Norton: I second it.
Borup: All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 38
Norton: I have a question for staff. Did staff have recommendations on this.
Siddoway: I think there needs to be a scaled site plan submitted showing that the
parking can be accommodated. It does not appear to us that those 5 or 6 parking
spaces that would be required, could be accommodated. It may require some sort of
variance and parking lot width. I think this width is dimensioned here as 15 feet. We
have a 9 foot wide parking stall ordinance. It is not enough width for 3 cars.
Borup: Any problem with stacking on the staff parking. It looks like it is 30 feet, so they
could add a couple more feet to that and have--
Siddoway: I think it is 25 from here to here and minimum length is 19. You need a
minimum of 36. Or submit a variance to City Council, but it does not seem like the
required parking can be supplied. That is the main issue I see.
Norton: I move that we recommend to City Council deny this request for conditional
use permit for child care center (12 plus children) in a R-8 zone by Tara L. Gorton at
420 E. Broadway.
Barbeiro: Motion and second, discussion.
Brown: In the Comprehensive Plan for the downtown Meridian area under goal
statements and policies it says to support these kinds of uses but it says to support
them when they are compatible with the neighbors and the existing. That is where I see
the problem. Maybe if the daycare was smaller it would be different. I will go along with
the motion.
Borup: All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
6. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
MARKETING EDUCATION CLASSROOM TO ACCOMMODATE 2 NON-
CONCURRENT CLASSES OF 25-30 STUDENTS IN A C-G ZONE BY JOINT
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2—357 WATERTOWER LANE:
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner's you have recently seen this lot come
before you for approval of two buildings on one lot. This is to propose a classroom on
the existing building on the front portion of the lot. The schedule of use control doesn’t
specifically list classrooms under any zoning district, therefore they have been required
to go through a conditional use permit. Here is a site photo of that existing building on
Watertower Lane in Central Valley Corporate Park. You have staff comments dated
May 18th
. We recommend approval of the application.
Borup: Is the applicant here?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 39
Baxter: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner's my name is Jim Baxter, 1720 W. Pine
Street. I am a vocational education coordinator for the Meridian School District. We
agree to the conditions from staff for approval.
Borup: Any questions from the commission? Do we have anyone from the audience
who would like to testify. Seeing none.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman I move we close the public hearing.
Norton: I second it.
Borup: All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Barbeiro: I move that we recommend approval to City Council request for conditional
use permit for a marketing education classroom to accommodate 2 non-concurrent
classes of 25-30 students in a C-G zone by Joint School District Number 2 at 357
Watertower Lane with staff comments.
Norton: I’ll second that.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Brown: Mr. Chairman, before the hour gets too late I would seeing the people that are
here—I would imagine most of them are here for the next item and the item after that. I
don’t see us getting to 9, 10 or 11 personally. Since this is my last night, I am going to
get up and leave when it gets too late for a change instead of staying till two o’clock in
the morning and being sick all week. Just putting you on notice, but I would
recommend we tell some of these people to go home, personally.
Borup: Comments from other Commissioner's. It feels early. Should we get into it and
see what we will be looking at first. Either way we are going to proceed ahead now.
Are you recommending we continue some of these others or wait and see how people
are going to go.
Brown: I’ll make the motion Mr. Chairman that we continue 9,10 and 11.
Borup: How many people here for Item 9. How many here for 7 and 8. How many
here for number 10. No testimony on number 11.
Brown: I’d remove 11.
Borup: How long do you think these next two are gong to take?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 40
Brown: How ever long it takes, I am ready to go home after they are done. I am willing
to stay here until the majority of these people are heard, but what has happened in the
past is we stay here and it is twelve o’clock and then we tell the people its too late. I
don’t want to do that tonight Mr. Chairman.
Borup: I don’t want to stay all night either. We have all ready continued one thing to
the next meeting. If we do some more, then we won’t get through the next meeting
either. Let’s quite talking about it and get into it.
Brown: I guess I don’t have a second.
Norton: I’ll second that, I’m sorry but these are way to late. When I get home at 2 a.m.
and have to be at work at 7:30 in the morning, it is hard all week to try to get caught up.
These are way to long agendas.
Borup: Motion and second, all in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Swartley: Mr. Chairman, why don’t you make sure that the people who are here—
Borup: Your saying we are only going to hear one more application.
Brown: I think what we need to do is tell the people who are here for the landscape
ordinance and the preliminary plat that we are not going to get to them tonight.’
Borup: Which is item number 9 and 10 will be proponed to June 13th
.
7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 3.4
ACRES TO R-15 FOR PROPOSED 40-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX (TO BE
CALLED PENN STATION) BY PANGAEA LAND PLANNING—SOUTH OF
FAIRVIEW AND EAST OF STONEHENGE WAY:
Siddoway: This is Penn Station Apartments for a proposed 40 unit apartment complex.
The requested zone is R-15. There is 3.4 acres total. There is two canals on site. The
Settlers Canal is the northern most. It is proposed to remain untiled. This is the Flem
Canal which sets just south of this one. This is proposed to be tiled with a –this is the
location of the pedestrian pathway that they are proposing on their site plan. South is
Danbury Faire Subdivision. Some lots have fence and some do not. There is a junk
yard to the east. This property does not go all the way to that. Directly north there is a
vacant parcel that is zone C-G. The proposed apartments would sit between the
existing Subdivision and these commercial properties. Parking half covered, half
uncovered and they have 10 buildings with 4 units per building for a total of 40
apartments. This is the landscape plan. You have our staff comments that are dated
May 18th
. We do have a written response from the applicant. One of the issues they
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 41
brought up was that they were not submitting for planned development, but I would
point out that this is in the mixed planned use zone in the Comprehensive Plan and as
such is required to come through as a planned development and meet those standards.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman and members of the commission, I just wanted to point out
that Steve’s comments he talked about the fact that the applicant was wanting to leave
the Settlers canal untiled. It is city ordinance that it be tiled so I believe that the
applicant would need to file an application for a variance. In our staff comments we do
state in there that staff would support the design with leaving the Settlers untiled with
pathway along the north side of the property. The proposed 5 foot gravel walk path
must be concrete or asphalt to match the rest of the pathway system. Also, we did not
that due to the high density of the proposed use, safety may be a concern with the
Settlers Irrigation District and also the City of Meridian if there is no fencing along that
canal. I wanted to raise those points.
Borup: I did neglect to open both hearings. I’d like to do that right now.
8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
PROPOSED 40-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX TO BE CALLED PENN
STATION APARTMENTS ON 3.4 ACRES BY PANGAEA LAND PLANNING –
SOUTH OF FAIRVIEW AND EAST OF STONEHENGE WAY:
Borup: Mr. Siddoway I assumed you’d like to incorporate your previous comments with
item number 8 also.
Siddoway: Please incorporate my comments.
Borup: And Bruce Freckleton’s. Any questions from the Commissioner's. Do we have
the applicant or their representative here this evening.
Fluke: Mr. Chairman and members of the commission my name is Daren Fluke. I
represent the applicant in this matter. 408 W. Idaho in Boise. As staff stated, we are
asking for 40 units on this 3.4 acre site. The site is well located for this particular land
use. It is a very difficult shape. It makes it impractical for the site to develop with single
family dwellings. When the applicant looked at buying this site, the first consideration is
what does the Comprehensive Plan say. It is designated at a mixed use site. That is
because we’ve got single family dwellings on side of us. We’ve got commercial on one
side of us and we’ve got good access to a large number of services which is what you
want for a higher density development. People in this development will not have to get
in their car to go to the store. The proximity to commercial makes it very attractive for
this type of land use. This isn’t that high density of a project. The R-15 would allow up
to 15 dwelling units per acre. We come in at something just over 10 to the acre. That
makes sense given the land uses that are around us. It will act as a nice buffer in-
between the commercial land uses, Fairview Avenue and the lower density single family
dwellings to our east. When we came in to look at designs on this parcel, the
configuration is extremely difficult to work with because we come to a point in this area.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 42
There is a lot of wasted land. Our primary consideration was, how do we buffer these
folks, these single family dwellings, from what we want to do on this property. With that
in mind, we design it with a 10 foot buffer strip which we will be building a six foot
screen fence and extensive landscaping in there. We’ve got a 25 foot internal drive.
We’ve got 20 feet of parking before you ever get to the building. So your looking at 60
feet before you ever get to one of those buildings. I would point out these folks have a
20 foot set back between their dwelling and their rear property line. These buildings are
something like 85 feet away from these folks houses. They are two story units. They
have balconies off the back, so our objective here was to create an internal courtyard
where we could focus the patios internally rather then having these buildings that lord
over the single family dwellings. You gain (Inaudible) scale with the two story building.
You have the same footprint. You have the same utility requirements as far as hooking
as you would with a single story, but you get double the number of units. If you think
about what may be going in to the west of us, it has frontage on Locust Grove.
Currently it is designated mixed use in the current Comprehensive Plan. Under the new
one we are not sure. It is likely that this would develop with something even at a higher
density than what we are proposing. In summary we think we have developed a quality
product here. We’ve made very efficient use of this site. Again, we are only at 10 units
to the acre and it is a good high quality project. It works very well for this particular site
and for what the city is looking for in this area. I need to address some of the issues
that came up in the staff report. I hope you have my written responses.
Borup: We did not get a copy of response.
Fluke: On page 2 bottom of the page, small a and small b, driveway width at 20 feet
instead of 25. I think that was a miss-reading of the plan. We show a 25 foot drive. On
the provision of the maintenance building, several of these issues all point out deals
with specifically with whether we are a conditional use or planned development. From
my reading of the ordinance as well as the Comprehensive Plan, I did not believe that a
planned development was required and was not aware that that was the policy of this
body. It is not a problem for us. We meet most of the standards but would have to ask
for consideration on a couple of items. One would be the provision of a maintenance
building. For a 3.5 acre site, it is simply not necessary. The land owner contracts with a
company that maintains all of his facilities. He operates several of these type of
facilities. We simply don’t need a maintenance building on the site. The RV and boat
storage, Again it is not practical on our site. These units are not typically the sort of
units where we have a lot of recreational vehicles, boats. We do have a storage facility
just across Fairview from us and we’d ask for some consideration on that. On the tiling
of the Settlers Canal, again we feel like this acts as (inaudible) to the project. Our site
plan does show that we have a path along that providing a connection to the east. We
anticipate that that will develop to something at a higher density and that pedestrian
connection will add to both projects. We don’t have a problem installing street lights per
condition number 13. It is written awkwardly and we are not exactly sure what staff is
asking for there. We would point out that we did indicated to our neighbors that we
would keep the lighting to the minimum on the site and that we would fit all of our site
lighting with cut off shields. This developer will own and maintain this project so number
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 43
15 is not applicable. He will also own and maintain the irrigation system. We would
prefer to provide all of our irrigation from the water right that we have on the property
from surface irrigation water, water (inaudible) hooking to the municipal system to
provide irrigation. Number 20 is a key item for us. It is talking about an additional
parking above and beyond the two required per dwelling unit. Again we are working
with a constrained site here. I originally laid this site out with one and a half parking
spaces per unit and it worked well. But, of course, we need two so we did that and that
ate up a bit more land. If we were required to add an additional parking spaces, it
would really eat into the amount of land that we are able to devote to open space. I did
submit calculations in my written response showing that we are per your definition of
what can be used for open space, we are at something like 30% has been left open
either in landscape or in usable common open space. That is all I have.
Borup: Any questions from the commission. I didn’t see where you really had any
question on any of the staff comments other than the parking.
Fluke: The parking. The provision of a maintenance building and out door storage.
Otherwise, we are fine.
Borup: Do we happen to have anyone who would like to come forward on this?
Fastabend: Greg Fastabend. I live at 1101 N. Shreveport which is in the Danbury Faire
Subdivision and I am here speaking on behalf of the homeowners association to
discuss our concerns not only from us as board members, but also from the
homeowners that they have raised about these two motions. First of all, the change in
zoning from multi-use to R-15 and the proposed Penn Station Apartment project. First
of all in our concerns about the zoning issued, we understand the Comprehensive Plan
of Meridian. We oppose the change in zoning and that approving an apartment
complex immediately adjacent to our low density residential housing would not in any
way be compatible with our existing homes and development. Mr. Fluke has raised a
lot of issues about the constrains that he is under due to the small property size that he
is working with. We do not feel that is planning and zonings problem. You should not
have to make concessions to this proposed development in an extreme nature to allow
it to go forward. We are concerned that a change in zoning of this property would set a
precedent for the neighboring undeveloped parcels. We know that Dennis Baker who
originally developed our entire Subdivision owns the property that is behind
Intermountain Sports and that other owners own the other two horizontal properties.
We are concerned that if this small 3.5 acre parcel is zoned to R15 there would be very
little opposition to the rest of
END OF SIDE FIVE
Fastabend: being placed within this close proximity of our subdivision. We have also
been informed that Dennis Baker had some sort of an easement agreement with
Settlers Construction which is the developer under the Pangaea Group, that he would
be granted some sort of a road easement into his larger property which would allow him
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 44
2 points of egress. Ada County has declined a traffic study for the impact of this
development although they have given us an estimate that 264 car trips per day would
come out of this apartment complex. Another issue with traffic is that the entrance or
turn lane into the Idaho Athletic Club is exactly opposite of the turn lane going west on
Fairview to come into Stonehenge. All of this will increase the traffic coming into this
Subdivision. Regardless of what development goes on here, the traffic will increase in
our Subdivision. We are concerned about high density development. In the initial
proposal it was suggested that the apartment complex would benefit the area and
increase property values and we do not believe that is true. We are thankful that this
development has been proposed with our concerns in mind and that they have gone to
great lengths to buffer us rather then place the apartment buildings right on the rear
property line. We still do not feel the two story buildings will be compatible with our
Subdivision. They will be visible from Penrith through the houses and there will be a
large visual landmark as you gone in on Stonehenge. For those reasons we would
greatly appreciate a that this zoning is not approved and the landowner find some other
way to utilize this property and regain his investment in it. In addition to that, Mr. Fluke
did mention that the berm that is going in will include a screen fence, his original design
called for a 6 foot cedar fence, which is compatible with the covenants for our
Subdivision. We would be greatly opposed to a screen fence. Other concerns are the
types of trees, the nature of the berm and—
Brown: Are you telling us you don’t want a berm.
Fastabend: No. Our concern would be what types, how fast growing. Some of the
concerns our homeowners have raised to us and ask that we present to you. Another
concern is we have been told the leases on these properties would be month to month
rather than long term. Long term tenants take better care of their property than short
term. We are concerned about our property values because of the way this project is
nested in along our entry to the Subdivision. It may be permanently associated with our
Subdivision. In closing I would like to reiterate that we do not agree with the possibility
this could be rezoned to high density. We would hope that the commission would vote
along the lines of the master plan. Inclosing I would like to present a petition that we
gathered signatures of members of our Subdivision who are opposed to this
development. 99 percent of the people we contacted were will to sign the petition
against the rezoning and possibility of the Penn Station project.
Brown: You said that you think there should be single family homes behind
Intermountain Arms. Is that what your recommending to us.
Fastabend: We would recommend that any development going in would be compatible
with our development that is currently there. Intermountain Arms is a commercial that
would have to be contended with. Next to it is a junk yard
Brown: From previous comments that this commission received from staff, at a
minimum for the mixed use areas that would be a R-8 zone, which is definitely higher
then what would be considered a single family.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 45
Fastabend: Our largest concerns would be the increased density of having two story
apartments on the property. I do not think the majority of residents would be opposed
to duplexes of a single story that would allow the developer to place a higher density of
tenants or owners on the property but would not create a two story building which would
look down into the back yards.
Brown: You would be closer when you abut two neighbors together and one is two
story and one is not. You only have forty feet between the buildings and they are
looking down in. They are similar uses. Somewhere you have to have a transition from
the commercial to the residential. Typically apartments and higher density are
recommended as you transition to the commercial area. That is historic where ever you
are and that is why in my opinion the Comprehensive Plan is put this as a mixed use.
Fastabend: Is it possible that duplexes or patio lot properties would provide the same
transition. Are apartments the only answer?
Brown: Well, lets say that they were townhouses. Most townhouses that I have been in
contact with are still two story. What you still have is something that is taken a greater
distance away from you. When you have a townhouse like every other single family
owner, you don’t want your own backyard so then you have the units closer. This is
what I do for a living. I would put them closer to you if I put townhouses in. I would butt
them up to you. You’d have a two story townhouse that would be closer to you then two
story four plexes. At a bare minimum from what staff is telling me, we could go with a
R-8 and they are asking 10 to a acre. I telling you this is an appropriate land use from a
annexation standpoint. The highway district required you to line up and the reason
Idaho Athletic Club entrance is where it is at is because someone (inaudible) first and
they had to line up with you. That way they can control the traffic.
Fastabend: If a proposal is not made at this time for a road to be made or access off of
this proposed—as far as I have seen so far that has not been proposed to the
commission (inaudible). Is there anyway that would change and they could be allowed
to add in a access which would connect to—
Brown: That would be modifying the conditional use permit and they’d be back before
us again.
Fastabend: On your comments about higher density homes, it may be true that
townhomes would be closer to the existing homes and some of the residents on Penrith
may feel it would be a better solution to have if we are destine to have high density two
story buildings. They may feel it might be better to have apartments that are farther
back from their properties. I personally would feel that although a townhouse solution
would be closer to the residents at Penrith that it would provide a better mix with our
Subdivision in the long run because the townhouse owners would personally own their
own proprties and they would be more inclined to maintain them and be more of a
permanent residnet to their property then a apartment renter.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 46
Brown: Now their owned units instead of rented, then does the homeowners
association not have as much a problem. Lets leave them right where they are at and
they are condos. You buy the space inside that building. Now you have buyers.
Fastabend: That would greatly appease the homeowners association in that that would
change the nature of the tenants and the way that they would interact with the existing
homes.
McNitt: My name is Steve McNitt. I live at 1472 N. Penrith. As far as the project that is
being proposed right now, the traffic issues are a major concern. I live right on the
corner of the proposed project. Whether or not Planning and Zoning Commission can
do anything about what Ada County allows through there is another story. Stonehenge
Way goes all the way through Pine. It is used regularly. A couple of issues I have is
some of the wording under the Comprehensive Plan and the way that Daren perceived
it. First off he said it would be a good project for people to be able to access the
commercial areas around. The only business that this group would be able to access
safely would be Intermountain. Currently there is no sidewalks on the south side of
Fairview or any of the commercial going to Locust Grove. There is no sidewalk on
Locust Grove that would accommodate without crossing either Fairview or Locust
Grove to walk to these commercial areas. I have lived there for 6 years and I am not
walking on Fairview. One problem I have with the two story complex the way they are,
even with the 6 foot fence, I am still going to have people looking into my backyard. It
was first understood that that would most likely be zoned R-8 with single family
dwellings. I would be much happier with a R-8 single level house behind me 20 feet
from my property line than I would be 60 feet away with a 25 foot building looking down
into my backyard.
Brown: That could still be a 2 story because of the site constraints to get the 8 units per
acre—
McNitt: Only if that person was willing to lose month the minute you built it. So, R-8 is
not just single family dwelling. Danbury is a R-8 zoning is that correct. Okay. In their
multi area space they say 2 acres of the site is to be given to open space. Problem with
that is the end down there they must build a swale by the ordinance to allow for their
100 year plane. One point of interest that effect just my house and that’s as you make
the turn into that complex there my house sits right there on the corner where the
proposal is set to go in. When those cars come in and make an immediate left hand
turn into that property, I will be visiting with headlights all night long into my bedroom
window. Something has to be addressed there.
Brown: Are you bothered by them coming down Stonehenge now.
McNitt: No I am not.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 47
Borup: Not on the plat we’ve got. Once they turn left they are going away from your
house.
McNitt: (Off microphone).
Glenco: My name is Matthew Glenco. I live at 1011 N. Maple Creek Avenue. My
comments are brief and not raised by anyone else. One of the greatest concerns is the
nature of the residents in this kind of construction particularly being a month to month.
The problem I see my having entrance as part of Stonehenge which is effectively part of
our Subdivision they by default become part of the Subdivision enjoying some of the
benefits in the Subdivision which we as homeowners association pay our dues to
maintain landscaping between Fairview and along Stonehenge until you get into the
houses. We have a couple parks that are close to that area that will also be utilized by
people living in that structure. I do very much prefer the concept of condos. Part of that
community that is in the Subdivision I do like the idea better if people who are vested in
the area and that would possibly able to be incorporated within the Subdivision as part
of our program participating with the homeowners association and also especially since
I don’t see any other way that they can have egress or ingress so they may as well be
part of what we are doing there and participate with landscape.
Powers: My name is Rob Powers. I live at 1348 N. Penrith right where the pie comes
to a point. My concern is that empty space and the adjoining property that is going to
have a access. Looking at that site plan there where it is empty, some day there could
be a road right through there to go to the acreage behind it. I am just wondering. There
is no other access back that way.
Borup: That is not part of this application. There is no road or road easement. Using
your analogy they could build a 30 story office building back there and that is not going
to happen. They would have to come back before us. One of your previous neighbors
said it wasn’t even a usable area because it is a swale. This is the drainage swale in
this area.
Powers: What I was told is they were granted access to Dennis Baker who owns that
land behind there.
Borup: We will ask the applicant about that.
Powers: One of the other concerns was lighting. I purposely built my house with the
livingroom facing the back so I would not have headlights. If the road does go in there it
defeats my whole purpose and my property value is shot.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else.
Billings: My name is Janelle Billings. I live at 1265 N. Sanlan which is right in the very
center of the neighborhood. I have a large concern about traffic that comes through
there. We have a large amount of traffic that comes from Pine through to Fairview and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 48
vice versa. We have had several problems with the speed of people who are not
residents of our neighborhood.
Jewett: Jim Jewett. 4002 W. Teter. Just for a point of clarification, I was the previous
owner of this piece of property. I did enter into an agreement with Dennis Baker for an
easement and as of yesterday we signed an agreement vacating and doing away with
it. There is no more easement across this property.
Centers: Lee Centers. 325 Meridian Street. We designed this not to impact the
neighbors. The four plexes the only windows facing that way are the bedrooms. The
rest are all out the back. I don’t know how it got started but we always do a six month
lease. Never a month to month. We are going to screen with a lot of arbavitas and a
six foot fence. There will not be any light penetrations. The gentleman who is on the
corner, we’d be glad to screen him with anything that would deflect light there.
Brown: Mr. Centers is the same unit on the north side of your property. Do their
windows and so forth face the back of the building and is that where if everything is to
the north and it looks like the same units up there, are those different or all of their
windows in their living space facing toward Intermountain Arms.
Centers: All the living spaces are the opposite side of the parking. The only thing in
front are two bedroom toward the parking.
Norton: What type of construction materials are these apartments going to have.
Centers: These will be a 25 year composition roof. They have metal fascia and soffet
and they will be the new vinyl siding. Vinyl windows. Iron Railing. Concrete treads.
Low maintenance.
Norton: Do you have a maintenance or management company.
Centers: We do our own.
Barbeiro: Mr. Centers will these be similar to the properties you have behind your
office.
Centers: Just like them.
Fluke: I’d just like to touch on some of the concerns that were brought up. We heard
quite a bit about compatibility. I stress that these are similar land uses, residential land
uses. Compatibility means what can this land owner do with his property and so it in
such a way that we don’t have adverse impacts on other people. We think we have
addressed those concerns by this layout. We anticipated that this would be the big
issue and that is why we laid it out the way we did. We are proud of the layout.
Regarding the comment for setting precedent for higher density’s I just say that your
Comprehensive Plan envisioned higher densities in this area and this zoning
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 49
designation is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan that this body has adopted. As
far as traffic, 264 trips a day sounds like a lot. In actuality that is quite a low number.
The highway district anticipates each unit in a development of this nature generates 6-
1/2 trips per day per unit. If we were to come in and do an R-8 on this with attached
single family, townhomes or detached single family, we would be looking at probably
4500 square foot lots with 50 foot frontages. To do that we would be building skinny
two story structures. If we were able to fit 25 of those units on this parcel, we would be
looking at 10 days a day from each one of those units, which is 250 trips. Right there
we are all most at the number the highway district anticipates. As far as reduction in
property values, there has been no evidence submitted to you that would collaborate
that. The weed patch that is sitting back there now is more likely to reduce your values.
This developer lives in the community and maintains and operates them himself. It
doesn’t do him any good to have junky looking facilities with nasty people living in them,
so they are well kept facilities. Clarification on the fence. When I said a screening
fence I confused somebody. We have committed to a six foot cedar fence that will
screen views at least for that six feet. We were not intending on putting a berm on that
property line, however, we only have 10 feet there to work with and we would rather put
our resources into putting dense landscaping along that road. Cut through traffic—
you’ve got connections, your ordinance supports connectivity –yes there will be some
traffic that goes through that neighborhood, but again we are a pretty low number of
trips. Those 264 trips are spread out during a 24 hour period as well. Peak hours will
see more traffic but not the majority of traffic. That is all I had.
Siddoway: A couple final comments. I have had a chance to review in more detail Mr.
Flute’s responses to our comments. His response to number 7, I have no problem with
the modifications. Number 13, I have no problem with the modifications. Number 14,
we have no problem with the service irrigation water being the primary source of water,
but we do require year around water and we would need to make sure that that is clear.
No problem with number 15 and 19. No real problems with number 20, but I would
bring it up that there are no visitor or parking spaces on this site. Strickly the two
parking spaces per unit and the ordinance provides that the commission can
recommend to council to require up to 13. I don’t know where they will put it. It is very
maxed out but I just point out that they are meeting the minimum standards of two
spaces per unit with no additional visitor parking and that needs to be addressed by the
commission. Number 21 and 25 no problems with those.
Brown: Your telling me that the ordinance only requires 2.
Siddoway: Two per unit. There is four units we have 80 parking spaces.
Brown: The ordinance does not require the three that your asking for.
Siddoway: What the ordinance does is allows in planned developments that are
residential, one additional parking space beyond that which is required by the zoning
title may be required for every three dwelling units to accommodate visitor parking.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 50
It is the commission’s call. It say’s maybe, not must be. One per 3 dwelling units, that
would be up to 13 additional parking spaces.
Borup: Any other questions. Steve, what would be the normal secondary source of
water then. You mean tie into city water to be continuous year around.
Freckleton: Members of the commission, the requirement by the City of Meridian for
the year around source is mainly to provide water pre irrigation and post irrigation
season. We don’t want people watering their yards in December. We do request that
they look at other alternatives and if they do have surface water that is there from a
drain that may run preseason and post season that they would use that as a secondary.
If there is an existing well on site that they could utilize. Typically they look at the city
for secondary source. You may have seen in other comments as a single point
connection.
Borup: Thank you.
Siddoway: My final comment would be in the Comprehensive Plan specific to this area
page 28 for the mixed use area at Locust Grove road and Fairview Avenue. 5.17U – A
variety of coordinated planned and compatible land uses are desirable for this area,
including low to high density residential, office, light industrial and commercial land
uses. 5.18U – That existing residential properties will be protected from incompatible
land use development in this area and that screening and buffers will be incorporated
into all development requests in this area. As staff we feel that both these are met by
this plan with the conditions that we requested and placed on it.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman I move that we close the public hearing—both of them.
Brown: I’ll second.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: The motions will be on one at a time. Item number 7 is request for annexation
and zoning. Any discussion.
Barbeiro: I would like to address my discussion to both item 7 and 8. I know Mr.
Center’s properties to be very well maintained. His management is a excellent property
manager. The site really does not have a real good access. It will –the neighbors
arguments that this will become the Danbury Faire Apartment complex is compelling
and I have to follow along with that. The single access into this Subdivision road does
worry me and knowing that it is on that turn and I do know that turn is not a well planned
turn. It will be a blind corner at times. I am a little concerned that they move the
buildings far away from the neighbors but that now the neighbors have the traffic going
back and forth in their backyard as opposed to having a building in the backyard. There
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 51
is a poor access to a left hand turn on Fairview and this property is going to have a
negative effect on that. I would prefer that there were visitor parking in there. While the
new proposed Comprehensive Plan is not in effect and can not be implemented on this,
that land is called for a public use not for a mixed residential.
Borup: Anyone like to add to that? Anyone want to make a motion.
Norton: I’d like to ask staff, is there anything that can be done regarding that road?
The other question is can the apartment building contribute to the homeowners
association or to maintain that long extension out to Fairview.
Siddoway: It is a land locked parcel. It is the only frontage that it has. No, not unless
the property to the east developed and provided a stub street to them. Currently, the
only frontage this parcel has is at that point. The maintaining would have to be
voluntarily done by the owners of the apartment complex.
Borup: Anyone else have thoughts other than sit here and make it till midnight.
Barbeiro: With all due respect to Mr. Centers and his plan, I would submit to City
Council that we do not approve the zoning request for annexation and zoning of 3.4
acres to R-15 for proposed 40 unit apartment complex.
Brown: I would ask a question to Commissioner Barbeiro what is
END OF SIDE SIX
Brown: high density office and commercial. What would be the finding for that
recommendation.
Barbeiro: I am finding along with a large number of neighbors who are here the poor
access to the entrance. I would like to have seen a combination of single family homes
that went along the existing neighbors at Danbury Faire and then perhaps combine that
with apartments that would go right up against where the Intermountain Arms is at and
giving the neighbors the single family home buffer and putting the apartments up
against there will give yourself a buffer against the commercial zone. That was my
preference.
Borup: And, how does that help their main concern of traffic.
Barbeiro: I don’t have a answer for you. I was just giving a proposal of what I thought
would be preferable design in keeping with a poor piece of land and the neighbors
desire to have single family housing abutting their own homes.
Borup: So you saying put some more single family housing in abutting the apartments.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 52
Barbeiro: Yeah, very similar to what we say at our last meeting there Fairview as we
move in to just west of Locust Grove. We have commercial, single family housing and
apartments along that existing mobile home park.
Borup: We do not have a second so do we have any other motions.
Norton: I’ll second that on the reasoning that the traffic situation is a very serious
concern and if we have to wait a little longer until another site is developed until these
people have access in and out another way, might make more sense to just hold off on
annexing that property at this time. The traffic situation on Stonehenge would my
reasoning to deny this.
Borup: Motion and second. Discussion. Would anyone like to reiterate ACHD’s
concern on the traffic. Steve. No I don’t think they had any. That is why I asked.
Siddoway: ACHD hasn’t mentioned traffic concerns as one of the residents testified
they declined to do a traffic study. Most of the site specific requirements have to do with
curb gutter and sidewalk. Utilities, street cuts, location of driveway, paving
requirements, access points. They do state the estimate trip generation of 264
additional trips per day with zero existing but don’t elaborate any farther then that.
Borup: Does that usually mean they don’t have any added concern on the added traffic
to the road system. If there was they mention it. Any other discussion. We have a
motion and second. If not more discussion, all in favor.
TWO AYES, TWO NAYS
Borup: This was a motion for denial. In light of our constrains on the ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan I am going to have to go nay. You open for another motion. What
is something that is going to be logically be able to put on the back side of a commercial
building and near a junk yard. It is hard to make an argument for single family
residential in a location like that.
Brown: Along Fairview the other uses that have been used in similar situations are
storage units, like the ones behind Fred Meyer. The other ones we have recently
approved have been apartments and other commercial uses.
Hatcher: Although I feel this project has some problems I think with staff’s comments,
most of the issues will be resolved. I find myself torn to make a motion to approve it
just on the status of my architectural background and not having any information in the
conditional use permit as to the appearance and design of the building themselves.
Because of that lack of information, I can’t approve or deny this project. Architectural
design information I believe is typical application information for a CUP.
Siddoway: The architectural design information was submitted, it is required with the
application. It should be in the City Clerk’s—they probably just submitted them on large
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 53
sheets that did not get reduced down to the packet size. I believe we could retrieve
those. I know they exist. They show the elevations and the construction materials that
was required to be included with the application.
Borup: The only additional comment on that I guess that it was testified that it was the
same design as the existing apartments they have on Meridian Road across from the
Bowling Alley.
Hatcher: That does not help me on this project.
Borup: Will has looked through the file and there is nothing in there.
Hatcher: Seeing that that information has not been submitted, I personally would
recommend that that this be tabled until that information is properly submitted and had
adequate time to review it.
Borup: That is one option. Are we comfortable with the parking spaces. That was the
one thing from staff comments that was not addressed.
Brown: I think they do need some additional visitor parking. Like staff and the other
Commissioner's I don’t know where they are going to put it.
Borup: I see a real problem trying to get 13 additional spaces. A couple maybe. Have
you had a chance to review the plans commissioner Hatcher.
Norton: Staff are these one bedroom apartments or two bedroom.
Siddoway: I believe they are two bedroom apartments.
Hatcher: In light of the additional information I will motion to City Council that we
recommend approval of the project as submitted including all staff comments that would
be approval of the annexation and zoning of 3.4 acres to R-15 for proposed 40-unit
apartment complex to be called Penn Station Apartments.
Brown: I’ll second.
Borup: Any discussion. All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: 3 AYES 2 NAYS
8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
PROPOSED 40-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX TO BE CALLED PENN STATION
APARTMENTS ON 3.4 ACRES BY PANGAEA LAND PLANNING –SOUTH OF
FAIRVIEW AND EAST OF STONEHENGE WAY:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 54
Hatcher: I motion that we recommend approval to City Council for the conditional use
permit of the proposed 40 unit apartment complex to be called Penn Station Apartment
on 3.4 acres by Pangaea Land Planning as submitted to include staff comments and
modifications.
Borup: That includes the 13 parking spaces.
Siddoway: Comments say up to 13. If you just want us to work with them with an open
ended ticket trying to maximize parking we can do that if you can give us a number.
There is also the staff comments related to the maintenance building, the RV and Boat
Storage and I just went through the response and most of those we did not have a
problem with. They are recommended modifications to staff comments.
Hatcher: When you were commenting on his response you weren’t stating –you were
stating you were okay with their stated response.
Siddoway: Yes with their modifications to staff comments in those situations. One
exception of the irrigation –14 and 20 were the two.
Hatcher: What I would do is I would modify my motion to include their response
comments, modifying them. To address Item 14 in the underground year around
pressurized irrigation that they work with the city to provide year around secondary
means of irrigation and to address the item number 20 that they work with staff to
provide additional parking spaces and I would have to state that they at least
accommodate an additional ten spaces. I think it is fair to say 10 visitor spaces for 40
units.
Swartley: Steve, do you have the applicants responses to those. I will go over them
with you later. Oh, I have them too. Thank you.
Brown: Would you be willing to modify that to 7. I would rather see grass then the
parking I guess.
Hatcher: Yes.
Brown: I’ll second.
Borup: All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: 3 AYES 2 NAYS
Swartley: Mr. Chairman, did you want to open up the public hearing on number 9 and
10. It is up to you. You’ve done it in the past. I’m just checking with you. I wanted to
stay here a little longer. Go ahead and do that and make a motion to continue them to
the next meeting.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 55
Borup: I’d like to open the public hearing on Item number 9 and Item number 10. I’d
entertain a motion on those two items.
Hatcher: We all ready motioned to move them to the next meeting, did we not. I
motion we continue the public hearings to June 13th
.
Brown: Second.
Borup: All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
11. COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR VACATION
REQUEST OF A 30’ NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR VEHICULAR AND
PEDESTRIAN INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITY SERVICES BY JEFFREY L.
MANSHIP—BLACK CAT AND TEN MILE:
Borup: Do we have any kind of a staff report.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman and members of the commission. I believe this is just a
house cleaning issue. There was an existing easement there that Mr. Manship needs
to get cleaned up in order to proceed forward with his Subdivision. You can see it there
on the west side of his property. It was a access easement back to the Brown property
that has sold. It was a ingress egress easement. Per ordinance, we need to go
through this process.
Borup: Didn’t you have his proposed Subdivision layout.
Siddoway: Nope.
Borup: Is there egress to the property to the south.
Freckleton: I believe that access was provided to the parcel to the south through
English Gardens Subdivision.
Brown: I move approval.
Hatcher: Second.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Brown: Mr. Chairman, I’ve got a couple items since this is the last time I get to do this.
Going through the land use planning act that we received in our packets, there was a
couple house cleaning items that I was wondering if staff is working to change the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 56
ordinance. As I read this ordinance it looks like the only way that staff can be kind of
directed is by this commission to do so. I had the question 67-6508 the planning duties,
they made some changes with regards to manufactured homes. First of all, they made
one change to the Comprehensive Plan that it can be changed at any time as long as it
is a text change. The map can only be changed every six months. Does our
Comprehensive Plan do we have anything written in there that reflects this.
Siddoway: No, it is simply regulated by the state code.
Brown: 67-6509 with regards to manufactured homes. It says that they can be placed
on any residential lot. Does our ordinance restrict that.
Siddoway: No. We currently allow manufactured homes on any residential lot as long
as they conform to the requirements in section 11-10-8 of the Meridian City Ordinance.
One confusing part of the to me is that a. With development standards the
manufactured home shall be considered single family dwellings within the R-8, R-15
and R-40 and Old Town zoning districts, providing they meet the standards set herein.
R-2, R-3 and R-4 although in conversations with Shari just this week on a request from
a property owner by policy we would allow them—I guess this house cleaning should be
added to the ordinance.
Brown: That is what this is telling us. All governing bodies shall make amendments to
Comprehensive Plan and land use regulations and for all zoning of single family
residential uses.
Siddoway: I was told by Shari that we do allow those uses. We do allow manufacturer
housing in all residential zones providing they meet those design criteria. The other
restrictions state that it has to have more than one section. Shall be at least be 20 feet
wide and (inaudible) area of 500 square feet per section, which would be a total of a
1000.
Borup: The main restriction is the Subdivision covenants.
Brown: Right and this state law allows CC&R’s to restrict mobile homes from coming in
there, but what state law did not allow is that your zoning ordinance because you
perception has been in many cities that they do not allow mobile homes as a
compatible neighbor. Looks like (inaudible) federal guidelines.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman Mr. Brown it is clear to our department that we are to allow
manufactured homes in all residential zones per state code.
Brown: 67-6517 talks about the agencies, city’s county’s can put a future acquisition
map together. Since I am not going to have this opportunity again, that would be my
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 57
recommendation that this commission make a recommendation to the parks board or
director that they put a acquisition map together.
Siddoway: I know that the parks department is actually working on one. Right now it is
park of their park master plan. They are doing it with dogs so it isn’t seen as a taking
but they are restricting that to a certain tolerance zone that it can move within. They
are designating those locations. We are trying to include that in our Comprehensive
Plan.
Brown: That’s great. I appreciate that information. That’s all that I have.
Borup: Reminder, we have workshop the 30th
with City Council out at the sewer plant.
Six o’clock. One final thing, Kent has mentioned this is his last meeting here. I would
like to thank Kent for his contribution on this commission. It has been appreciated and I
think he has done a good job of several times of bringing us back in focus on some of
the testimony. We have appreciated your expertise and what you contributed. Sorry to
see you go.
Barbeiro: I’d like to add to that. Kent and I disagreed a number of times but I always
wanted to make note that he does have a great depth of knowledge and he was always
respectful in every time he disagreed with me. I really appreciated that.
Siddoway: And I want to say he is going to miss a great landscape ordinance
presentation.
Brown: I will be here.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 24, 2000
Page 58
Norton: Mr. Chairman, I wish to adjourn this meeting.
Hatcher: All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:15 A.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
___________________________
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
______________________________
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR. CITY CLERK