Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 5, 2006 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 34 of 93 he may continue operating the business that is already there while the paperwork catches up to the legality of that for a period of 12 months from approval by the City Council. End of motion. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-020. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Traditionally, we take a break at 9:00 o'clock, but I think that due to the rapid pace that we have set tonight, I think we will take a break now and we shall reconvene at 9:00 o'clock. (Recess. ) Item 18: Public Hearing: AZ 05-059 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.71 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Meridian High School ball fields and Technical Center by Hummel Architects, PLLC - 2090 West Pine Avenue: Item 19: Public Hearing: CUP 05-053 Request for Conditional Use Permit for ball field lighting adjoining a residential district for Meridian High School ball field & Technical Center by Hummel Architects, PLLC - 2090 West Pine Avenue: Rohm: At this time I'd like to reconvene our Planning and Zoning meeting and let the record be noted that all Commissioners are present. Okay. At this time I'd like to open the public hearings for AZ 05-059 and CUP 05-053. And this is for Meridian High School Ball Field and Technical Center. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Due in part that the company I work for are construction managers for the school district and I'm heavily involved in those projects, I do believe this would be a conflict of interest for me to be involved in this hearing. Therefore, I will recuse myself from this hearing. Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Moe. With that being said, I'd like to hear the staff report, please. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 35 of 93 Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. and Commissioners. The application for Meridian High School Technical Center and Ball Field, there is a couple of components to the application. First off, there is the annexation of some additional lands into the City of Meridian. If you will recall -- I'm forgetting a time frame now, but recently the Meridian School District did annex the southern parcel here as R-4, probably new enough that it doesn't show up on our GIS system here as being annexed as R-4. It would be yellow if that was the case. So, this property is annexed into the City of Meridian as an R-4 zone. The proposal -- the request tonight is to annex the property found in purple here as an R-4 zone and, then, a Conditional Use Permit that does encompass both properties for some lighted ball fields requiring a Conditional Use Permit under the new Unified Development Code, as do public school facilities in the R-4 zone. So, if we go to a site map of the property, you can see that the property that is already annexed as R-4, the northern boundary would be hereabouts and, then, encompasses this part. They are annexing the triangular shape to the north that lies between the existing subdivision and some RUT property that does contain one house or two houses. To the south of this property -- this is the recently approved Arnke Subdivision -- was an R-40 subdivision with 18 townhouses in it. And, then, of course, the large Meridian High School existing campus that does encompass the corner of Linder and Pine there. A few items to talk about on this one. The Conditional Use Permit required for the ball field lights, that is a new requirement in the Unified Development Code that anytime a lighted ball field is proposed it is a Conditional Use Permit. And the City of Meridian has adopted lighting standards. The applicant is going to address those standards and how their proposal meets them and perhaps does not meet them. We have adopted some fairly stringent lighting standards that talk about fixtures over 1,800 lumens, which I'll let the applicant address it, but I'm almost certain that ball field lights falls into that category. Do have some fairly tight standards that they have to meet, that is that they are fully shielded and the bulb is not visible and that light from these lights cannot trespass onto adjacent properties. So, they are fairly stringent standards. This is the first ball field we have seen under these new rules and I guess the applicant has to make the case that they can meet those standards. If they cannot, if the bulb cannot be not visible -- and with a ball field light I think it's probably pretty tough for the bulb not to be visible, frankly. Really, the only mechanism we have to approve that is through a variance to the city code, which would be heard by City Council. So, if that -- if the applicant represents that they cannot meet that, that the bulb will be visible, really, the only way to get around that is a variance, which you, as a Commission, could approve this application, but not approve ball field lights that don't meet city code and they would have to get that variance, then, at City Council to put in said lights that don't meet city code. So, that would definitely be a topic of discussion. Another item -- and this came up fairly late in the process. The applicant is proposing a PA system -- was proposed -- had discussed a PA system on the property. That is a specific request that needs to be made with the Conditional Use Permit and notice as such. The Conditional Use Permit before you tonight was for a technical center and the ball fields and was not noticed as a CUP that would allow a PA system. The code says that it cannot be within 100 feet of a residential district. The property to the west here is zoned RUT, but code says that when that is the case that the Comprehensive Plan designation does govern that property and that is residential. So, the 100 foot separation between this residential Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 36 of 93 property and the PA system can only be approved through code by a Conditional Use Permit. So, the applicant had two options -- and I do apologize that this was kind of late in the process, but I was made aware of it late as well. The two options are we move forward tonight without approval of the PA system, come back for a separate CUP for that PA system before it is installed. Or this hearing is continued until such time that it can be re-noticed, that this Conditional Use Permit also includes a request for PA system. So, that's their two options. They did indicate they would like to move forward tonight without the PA system being approved and, then, come back in for that later, so -- and that's not discussed at all in the staff report. That is a late development. The other issues that I think will be discussed tonight, the Meridian fire department has requested -- they have a standard condition that they need to get within 150 feet of any point on any building on the property. There is a concession stand at the baseball field - - or at the softball field -- to kind of orientate you here real quick -- I probably jumped past this at the beginning. I apologize. The technical center building is located here at the south portion of the site. The varsity baseball field is, then, located above that, with a softball field in the northwest corner, and a practice football field is located on the property, as well as a practice softball field. The softball field does have a concession stand, which the fire department cannot get their 150 feet -- to within 150 feet of. I did talk to the architect for the applicant and they can get some access -- fire department access and meet that standard and they can talk about the changes that they will make to the site plan to accommodate that. There is -- and that will also accommodate the concern of the fire department for emergency ambulance access back to that field. They do like to be able to get back there, it being a sports complex and -- with bleachers and sporting events, you know, there is the possibility of quite a few people being back in there. So, they have indicated that they can meet that requirement by routing an access road through the property that would hold a fire truck and be to the fire truck standards. The second agency concern in the staff report was one of the police and on the technical center there is an enclosed courtyard -- I'm not completely clear on what it will be used for. I think equipment storage and such. Dumpster and things like that. There is a doorway on that that the police department felt they did not have good visibility to. The applicant has stated that they could address that through the use of motion detector lights or other ways of lessening that concern of the police department. So, staff is supportive of that, if they work with them and get some kind of solution there that works for them. So, I think those two agency concerns can be addressed by the applicant. One other thing -- and this -- code does say that this is the decision of City Council, but it's certainly up for discussion tonight as well, that the applicant is proposing to tile a portion of the Rutledge Lateral. The Rutledge Lateral, if -- starting in the northwest corner of the property, it does follow the south boundary here and, then, it would cross right through this varsity baseball field. So, the portion that would cross through there is being rerouted and piped around the field. A portion that, then, starts on the southern boundary and goes to the northwest is proposed to remain open. City code states that you must tile canals and laterals, unless that requirement is waived by City Council. So, they will be making that request to City Council and that is their decision, but that is also up for discussion tonight as well and I think it will be brought up. I think other than that, staff is supportive of the design and the location, certainly, adjacent to the existing Meridian High campus. It does seem that we can make the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 37 of 93 finding that it is in the best interest of the city to annex this property as part of the Meridian High School campus and continue on the existing facilities and, then, expand on them. We do recommend approval provided that we can kind of hammer out some of these -- some of these concerns, you know, the lighting -- how the lighting can meet city code and how we address that. And, then, the site plan can be adequately modified to meet the fire and police concerns. And I think with that I will take questions. Rohm: I'm curious about the lighting code. Is there a section in your lighting -- in the city's lighting code that specifically addresses ball field lighting or is it just a general lumination code and trying to fit ball field lighting into a code that's really designed to address another issue? Wilson: I think that's the case. This code was -- this lighting code is written for all outdoor lighting. I don't think that ball field lighting was taken in consideration when that code section was written, because -- I'll let the applicant address this, but I don't think a ball field can meet these standards. I don't think it's possible that bulb cannot be visible. That doesn't seem possible. So, these standards were not written with ball fields in mind, so, therefore, you know, the variance may be entirely appropriate. Rohm: I'm pretty sure we are going to have more ball fields. Borup: How about the other high schools? Rohm: But, in any case, thank you. Any other questions? Any additional questions of staff from the Commission? Wilson: I'd just -- maybe I could add I did hear Commissioner Borup ask about the other ball fields. This is a new section in UDC, so this has only been in effect since September. So, any ball fields completed previously, the city did not have any specific lighting design requirements. So, that's how those were constructed. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Josh, is it safe to say -- I mean we are going to have all the ball fields -- will we see the ball fields that are going in at Settler's Park? Is that going to -- I don't know if any of those are going to have lights, though. Wilson: I think it's specifically called out in the UDC that it's lighted ball fields that accompany a school. I do think that is specifically called out. I will check, though. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Wilson: The requirement in the UDC is that if it is a public school with lighted ball fields adjoining -- specifically adjoining a residential district. Rohm: Well, that happens quite frequently. Any other questions of staff before I ask the applicant to come forward? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 38 of 93 Kennedy: Chairman, Commissioners, thanks for listening to our application. My name is Marge Kennedy. I'm an architect with Hummell Architects representing the Meridian School District. Address 2785 Bogus Basin Road in Boise. I'd just let you know that the Meridian High School is very excited about these applications. The annexation will add much needed acreage to their campus that they have been -- feel that have been short of for a number of years and the addition of this acreage will give them something that they haven't ever had before, that being the varsity baseball fields and stuff. So, they are excited about having a place that they can call their own and not have to go outside for that amenity. In addition, the tech center, a new addition to their building as well. It will encompass a program -- welding, auto tech -- that they have in place right now, but it's very popular, very successful, they are having to turn away kids all the time due to their capacity. So, they are excited about having this extra room and just having a little bit more modern technology that represents today's -- what the kids would be doing out in the field today. So, they are very excited about this happening. I will touch base first about the lighting, since Josh brought that up. It is very similar to the Mountain View High School that was built not too long ago. It's almost exactly the same, other than; actually, technology has come a little bit further than that. So, it would actually be a little bit better. But the code that Josh is referring to talks about how you have to prevent up- lighting, which these fixtures do. You can imagine it's like a cone shape and lamp inside the cone. So, it can, actually, direct the light specifically kind of where you want it to go. My drawing -- I don't know if you can see the outlines, the two ball fields, and we have actually done a photometric plan of it showing how the -- I keep calling it a saucer -- keeps the light direct within the field. We have also spent some time designing the height of these light fixtures such that they are not low and going straight out at you, they are, actually, you know, high and the lights are shining down, so that we keep the glare and the light within the field, not spraying out into the neighborhood. Although I can't tell you there is zero foot candles, which is kind of a measurement of lights. For instance, in the middle of the field it's 50 foot candles, whereas in the middle and to the north it would be less than one foot candle, which is almost nothing, but there is a smidgen of spill. And, then, to our neighbor to the west in his driveway he would like one or two foot candles in his driveway, so -- I mean I'm sure you can imagine the ball field lights. They is a little bit of spill, but it's very minor, very minimized. Also, the way that the sports lightings are -- I have to admit the bulbs are exposed, as they are in almost all sports complexes that you see these days. So, we will have the exposed bulbs within our light fixtures that we do have. But, like I said, these are the best that we can buy as far as technology has come. They are preventing the up lighting, the minimizing the side glow that we have talked about. The saucers or reflectors that try and keep it within the ball field area, though. So, we have tried to come up with the best design and trying to keep them within our campus there, but they are sports complexes and baseball players and all the other practice fields have to have them, so -- and the other comment that I'd make -- and I know it's been a concern -- is once games are over with, there is -- the lights are like nine bulbs that make up the whole pole system and after the games are over, we will have the fixture designed such that all the lights, except for like one bulb, will remain on from maintenance and clean up for after the game. So, I know the neighbors had commented that they would -- you know, games are over, just one light bulb is on. And so we will design the features of the lights Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 39 of 93 fixtures so that they can do that. And you have to remember it's just a seasonal amenity. It's not every night, it's not all the time, but it's just during baseball season that these lights would be on, so -- the other thing I'd just like to comment on as well that Josh touched on on the fire department and I have been working with the Meridian Fire Department in the last few days and we had come up with a solution and, actually, it wasn't too different, because we have also had to accommodate the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District as far as the ditch riders getting from right in the bend in the property line, he's got to be able to get onto our property, come down the west property line, and cut over across the campus and his requirements -- and he's going to be driving a truck across there, so it was pretty natural for us to run the fire truck -- let's see. It would be -- Zaremba: There is a hand-held microphone right here, if you'd use that, please. Kennedy: The fire access would be right along here. There is a road that loops around the school -- there is an access road that loops around the school presently that will be wide enough for fire access as well. But this road will go across to here and, then, there is a 20 foot wide road that heads straight up to that corner -- there you go. And it will continue up right about there and, then, there will be a hammerhead. So, there is plenty of room to get the fire truck, the little hammerhead right there and we just have to make sure -- the only extra thing that we really have to do is make sure that the sidewalks and the pavement can withstand the weight of a fire truck. So, we won't have any problem with that. And they seem to be happy with that, too. So, we are not too concerned about that right now. And, then, working with the police department on the comment about the security for the door that's kind of tucked back in the corner, we had proposed to put in a motion sensor light, so that if there is any activity or movement around, the light will come on. The school district also will be having security cameras around the building, so -- I mean they have that now, so there will be those type of cameras around the building. That little courtyard, as he referred to, is fenced and gated and locked. So, it's not like somebody will just be wondering around going back there. They have to make an attempt to jump the fence and get back there. So, it will be secure back there. Borup: What type of fence? An open chain link or -- Kennedy: Yeah. It's an open chain link fence. Just kind of continuing on, we -- although we do know that you are not the approval body for the Rutledge Canal that was brought up by Josh, we will be going forward with them to not tile that portion of the Rutledge that's along our south property line headed up there by the softball fields, due to that we still have to maintain access for Nampa-Meridian Irrigation, their ditch riders. Even if it's tiled they still have to have access along there and so if we keep them an access road, our fence would probably be in the same position -- location that it's in right now and we kind of don't feel like spending a lot of the taxpayers dollars to spend for tiling that, just wasn't real justifiable in our mind, so -- but we will take that to City Council. Josh also touched base on the PA system and we will address that further. We are about right now 65 feet from the property line of just the one west neighbor and so we know we will have to come back and address that and work with our neighbor and see what we can come up with there and workout a good solution. Let's see. Have Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 40 of 93 been working with Public Works a lot on the utilities, water lines, sewer lines. I think we are all in agreement with everything, all of their conditions that are in the staff report, we are in agreement with and we don't really have any problems with that. We -- well, actually, even improving some of the drainage right now, there is -- the school has been there forever. There has been some off-site drainage from the front parking lot there and we are doing improvements that will keep all of our drainage on site from that parking lot. So, we are improving things as we go along there, so -- with seepage beds and swales we will contain all of our drainage. So, just to let you know that Meridian High is excited and would like to go forward and they haven't had any improvements out there for several years, so they are excited about the expansion. Rohm: Good. Thank you very much. I have a question. On this Conditional Use Permit that's associated with the PA -- and I know that it's not been part of this application, but it seems kind of tied together and it seems logical to me that maybe the Conditional Use Permit for all the conditions that you're to be applying for should run concurrently and I'm wondering if maybe to -- I don't know if you continue and amend the Conditional Use Permit application to include applications for the PA system would be in order, but it seems like it would be better to keep all the issues associated with the project together from my perspective. How do you feel about that? Kennedy: Well, I guess our feeling is that -- I mean there is different PA systems out there and there is probably other maybe possible locations that we could look at as far as the PA system, so I think we'd like the opportunity to work with our neighbors and continue forward with the CU and -- Rohm: Yeah. I guess if we process or complete the process for this CUP and, then, we -- you still have the issue of completing the project until that portion of it could be addressed and it just seems like if you're not going to be able to have a green light as a whole, it seems it would be more appropriate to keep everything together, but -- and I'm not trying to tell you how to do your project, but it just seems like it would work along those lines and that's just my comments on that. Thank you. Any other Commissioners have any questions of this applicant? Borup: One, Mr. Chairman. That's pertaining to the lighting. Do you have any idea how close -- and it sounds like the lighting you're talking about is a lot different than what you usually visualize in a ball field, but how close it comes to complying with the UDC? Have you tried to look at the requirements? Kennedy: The UDC, they do have the requirements, if you're over the 1,800 lumens, which we are -- ball fields are. We are over that. You have to have reflectors and we do have reflectors that help contain the light. Borup: And it looks to me like it would be impossible to comply with everything, if it will do any good, but it sounds like it -- from what you were saying it would go a long way to -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 41 of93 Kennedy: You know, we can't -- ball fields, I mean you have probably seen them, it's hard to not have an exposed lamp on the ball field and that's kind of the nature of sports light fixtures and so -- Rohm: Yeah. I think that that was just something that was overlooked at the time that the code was written and if, in fact, you're going to have 50 foot candles of light on the ball field, some of that is going to spill over to the adjacent property and so it sounds to me like something that a variance request is -- that's what variance requests are specifically designed to address is when compliance is not possible. So, that doesn't seem to me to be a major concern. Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I would like to ask about the building. Kennedy: Okay. The main focus, the main project. Zaremba: Yeah. The main construction focus. It's stated that it's going to be used as an auto tech, welding, and horticulture building and -- Kennedy: Correct. Zaremba: -- I certainly appreciate the expansion of those services by the school district. But those are the kind of facilities that would necessitate having toxic materials around, I would think, or hazardous materials, any fertilizer for the horticulture or gas and oil for the cars, things like that, are -- Kennedy: The UDC limits us to the amount that we are able to contain and store within the building. So, we are not considered a hazardous occupancy that repair shops, auto shops, are these days. We are -- they kind of limit us and so we do have to stay within those limitations. So, I mean, yeah, there is some antifreeze and oils and stuff, but the way that the building officials look at it, they don't consider us as hazardous or anything like that. Yeah, there will probably be a little bit of fertilizers in there, but, again, we are not allowed to exceed or be anywhere near what a retail store or nursery is. So, we do have building codes that restrict us. Zaremba: Okay. And you'd work with the sanitary company for any waste disposal issues? Kennedy: Yeah. I mean we have sand and grease traps that will capture the oils and keep them out of our storm drain systems and stuff like that and paint we have to have a specific paint mixing room for mixing paints and stuff like that. So, there are codes that keep us within our limits. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 42 of 93 Zaremba: Okay. Around the automotive tech portion of it do you envision defunct vehicles or work in process to be around the outside of the building or would most of that be interior? Kennedy: That's kind of what that courtyard is for. We kind of -- we call it the bull pen. We kind of kept it sandwiched in there for that reason and that's probably what's going to be in there is if you had a car that was being worked on that wasn't the prettiest looking thing, that's the area that they would store it in. So, that right now is our chain link fenced area and they have to keep that under security as well. So, that's what that's for. Zaremba: Good. Thank you. Kennedy: Okay. Rohm: Any questions of staff before we move onto public testimony? Okay. At this time I'd like to ask Paul Geile if he would like to come forward. Geile: My name is Paul Geile and I live at 4717 Willow Lane in Boise, Idaho. And my father owns the 28 acre vacant area to the west of this and south of this proposed project and he asks me to just kind of ride herd on the future development interests of his property and I have several that -- first, I'm not opposed at all to the annexation or the rezone. I'd like to address an issue that might go into the Conditional Use Permit, however. The tiling of the ditch is probably the biggest issue that -- I have personally seen kids throw other kids into that ditch and it has been a constant source of trespassers down our property, which is where this service road appears on that map. But the -- if they are going to fence off their area with what I think is proposed to be slatted chain link, which would go -- at some point they would start way down here at the seminary and fence this entire area, there will be a stretch between the canal and the fence that's, I don't know, ten, fifteen feet wide, probably, that will be inaccessible to the high school supervision, because they won't be able to see it and it won't be available for the police department to see either, even if they were successful in driving up the service road. So, we have had kids in -- when the water is there it's a risk for both of our properties. When the water is not there, they get down in the ditch and smoke and the problem we have had in the past, which is going to be gone now, is in this area right here, they would be down in the ditch and smoke and as soon as they stepped onto our property they were out of the jurisdiction of the high school and we are going to have similar jurisdictional problems if kids get anywhere in between those two spaces, because they could jump the ditch and be outside of the jurisdiction. They could walk over the tiled portion and be outside the jurisdiction. But it would certainly be safer for the public's interest to have that ditch tiled and I realize there is some financial costs to doing that, but if the rule says do it, then, let's go ahead and do it and I will discuss that with the City Council when it comes to that. But if you would forward a recommendation to have it tiled, I have seen a lot of developers come forth and ask for variances and not be able to get them for that sort of thing. The noise spillage -- it's not the distance away from our property, it's the volume of the sound. The noise ordinance Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 43 of 93 in Meridian is relatively weak. I can hear announcements inside my father's basement from the existing high school and it's probably 800 feet away. The light spillage, I don't expect a perfect limitation on light spillage, but I do expect a really good faith effort to limit it as best as possible. I didn't see fencing on the drawings or the specifications. I would like clarification on that. There aren't any elevations for other buildings that are being built there. There appear to be three -- three of the buildings. The other kind of interesting point is most businesses have a limitation on hours of operation. I don't want lights running until all hours of the morning. I am the victim of poorly designed baseball lights in Boise where I live. I can read the Wallstreet Journal at 11 :00 o'clock at night 800 feet away from the nearest pole. But a reasonable limitation on the hours of operation in Boise, it's absolute lights out at 11 :00. And one very small question. If there is a road inside their -- their property line there, is that -- is there a setback and is the road outside of that setback? And those were the issues I had. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: We don't have anybody else that has signed up for this application, but at this time it's open. If anyone would like to step forward, you're certainly more than welcome. Bigham: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Wendell Bigham, 911 Meridian Road, representing Joint School District No.2 as the applicant. I want to provide just a little bit of clarification to a couple items and I will be as forthright and as brief as I can. The first question, Commissioner Rohm, you asked why we don't roll all of these into one CUP application. One is the late hour at which we realized that we needed to do a second CUP. But the bigger answer is the jurisdictions approve our drawings sequentially, not consecutively. So, by moving our primary building design forward, we can go on with our approval processes to the city and through the highway district and ultimately to the state of Idaho. So, there is a sequencing of things. In a perfect world, had we known it, you bet, we would have preferred to put all the eggs in one basket and just dealt with them in one fell swoop. But we believe the PA intercom issue can be resolved as a separate issue and it does allow the rest of our things to move forward, it's doesn't delay the start of our construction and the ultimate completion. We are all about getting school open in September or we have missed our primary charge. To go back to a couple of the comments that were made, the site is entirely fenced. We have worked diligently initially -- if I have a pointer -- to have a pedestrian walking path within the campus just north of our property line within the fence down to this point. We are still willing to do that. We are desirous to do that. It's just that we can't get from there to any public street through the private property ownership. If we can solve that problem, we, the district, would be advocating that we give a way for those kids to walk within our property. We do not encourage the kids to walk on the canal in any way, shape, or form. Our desire is to have a fence there that discourages those. We understand the Gieles' concern, but the school district can't be everywhere. So, our best chance is to make it very difficult. I believe Mr. Nesbitt, the school principal is here. If you want he can speak to those operational issues. But we Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 44 of 93 will try very diligently to keep the kids out of that area. So, help us find a way out there, please. The second item -- Mr. Giele has talked. about the ditch. The property line basically follows the center of the flow line of the ditch and the ditch's elevation is slightly higher -- this thing runs downhill south to north, if you will. So, tiling of the ditch - - the school district or the taxpayers, if you will, have no enjoyment of that investment. It doesn't give us anything, except a hillside with which to mow. And because the ditch is the property line, at the neighborhood community meeting I approached the Gieles and said if we work a deal with Nampa-Meridian and we are in a situation here with Nampa- Meridian whereby if the school district simply acquires the material and Nampa-Meridian uses their forces at no expense to the taxpayers to install it, that's a very good deal. We offered that deal to the Gieles that said if they were willing to share in 50 percent of the cost of that material, we would share in the 50 percent cost of the material and we could probably get Nampa-Meridian to tile the whole thing. They declined that joint venture. So, because the public doesn't get any benefit from that investment, our position still stands that when that property is developed, we would entertain stepping up on half of our cost to do that. It's just that we would like to be partners, not simply the banker for that development improvement activity. The roadway that Mr. Giele was talking about - - getting to the ball fields. Okay. I can understand it. It will be burnt down before the fire trucks get there. It's a 10 by 12 concession box. But the roadway is probably a good thing to get over there. I'd like to point out that this is a driveway. The house that used to exist back here, it was an access easement to this house for sole residential use. Because it's no longer residential, this easement has gone away. Nampa- Meridian needs a way to get their ditch rider down the ditch. This ditch is our ditch. It is also Gieles ditch. We approached the Gieles to say can we keep this driveway open and provide access to this point for the ditch rider. The response was, no, thank you. We, then, said, okay, can we shift the driveway so that the 20 foot access easement for the ditch rider, which is a benefit that accrues to both Gieles and the school district, can go ten foot on each side of the property line dedicated easement and we can get them down to this point and out through our property. The Gieles declined to participate in that. So, the ditch rider access, which is driven by the fact that we are closing this off, although the ditch rider I don't think has driven down this in the last 20 years. He simply comes to this point and comes down the driveway -- is now entirely on school district property. So, we were able to take advantage of that serpentining road, if you will, through there to provide access for the fire department, the ditch rider access, and, ultimately, for us to get maintenance vehicles to and through and around. So, we believe we have addressed that issue. Lastly, we are concerned about the slats that we would be proposing in that fence as an obstruction to visibility from the Gieles to see what's going on, we would gladly remove those slats from the fence. We took the initiative to put those in there to screen, quite frankly, whatever future development potential this has beyond the RUT zoning. We thought fencing would be the first right neighborly thing to do. I think those were the issues I wanted to address. I will stand for questions on any of the issues I have talked about or the bigger issues as you see relating to the school district. Rohm: Wendell, would you care to address the comment about the light hours as in when the ball fields -- you would intend to have them shut down? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 45 of 93 Bigham: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I'm absolutely mouthing for Mr. Don Nesbitt, the school principal, to come up here. I will simply say at the district level and, hopefully, it's mirrored by Mr. Nesbitt at the school level, that first is these are seasonal and hours of operation are really great, but if the game goes into overtime, somebody may be pretty unhappy if we pull the plug on the lights. Our intent is to be a good neighbor and from the district's standpoint, the good neighbor policy, first and foremost, is conducted through the neighborhood to and through the school administrator and since Don has to answer to the baseball patrons and the parents of those kids, I will let Mr. Nesbitt-- Newton-Huckabay: Excuse me. Before -- in all fairness to the public, was that applicant response or public testimony that Mr. Bigham was just giving? Rohm: I, actually, think it was applicant response, to tell you the truth. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Rohm: Which is fine. Borup: If it wasn't, I would have asked him for additional comments anyway. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Just wanted to -- Rohm: And this is a continuance of that applicant response, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Nesbitt: And, Commissioners, like all sports, you know, I'm really happy -- Rohm: Give your name and -- Nesbitt: Oh. Don Nesbitt and I'm principal at Meridian High School. And like all sports we have -- I'm really happy when they are over before 10:00 o'clock, then, 1 get to go home and usually I'm back at 6:00. So, like Mr. Bigham said, we like to shut the lights off as soon as we can. There have been instances in the past, for instance, where the football stadium lights have been on and I think we have dealt with that. We turned, for instance, suggestions from the neighborhood was to turn one bank of lights off, you know, and so we do that right after the game. It still allows one bank and that's the lights from shining in. We do all those things, but -- also, like in baseball, the time limit isn't set. They play nine innings, sometimes they go extra innings. Most of baseball is when it's starting to get lighter anyway, so, hopefully, you know, we -- you know, I can't say that the lights would be off at 11 :00 o'clock every time, you know, because if we go extra innings and we have lights on, then, everybody's mad. But I do say that we try to shut things down as soon as possible. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 46 of 93 Rohm: And just in response to that, I think that all of the comments made associated with lighting demonstrates that the school district is cognizant of the desires of the neighborhood as a whole and have always strived to meet their goals and objectives. Nesbitt: The other thing I would add, Mr. Chairman, is that we had two extra inning games last year, one was at Borah and one was a home game. Rohm: Who won? Nesbitt: I don't remember. Hope we did. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, just -- what is the high school baseball season? It starts when and ends when? Nesbitt: High school baseball starts -- well, they are throwing now, but the actual games -- Newton-Huckabay: The game. Nesbitt: Yeah. The games are going to start, you know, sometime in March and, then, the state baseball is finished before that. So, if you go through all the playoffs and make it to the state playoff game, that's finished before school is out. So, June. Rohm: Is it the intent to use these ball fields for public recreational leagues during the summer? Nesbitt: We are -- you know, it's our goal at Meridian High School and with the district that we are part of the community. If the community wants to use our fields, you know -- folks right now are using the fields, the one that we have, and it seems like folks are always looking for baseball fields and we would be happy to do that. I mean that's -- it was paid for by the taxpayers, so as long as they don't tear it apart, you know, we will pretty much let anybody use it. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Okay. At this time I'd like to ask Josh if you could comment on the -- on the tiling of the ditch. That seems to be still kind of an open issue here. And the staff report indicates that they'd like to see a tiled ditch and just -- I'd like further comment on that. Wilson: Yes. Currently the staff report does contain our standard condition, which says that all ditches must be tiled, unless otherwise approved by City Council. So, as it stands right now, City Council -- according to code, City Council must find that it is in the public's -- I believe it says that public safety can be preserved and also that best public interest can be preserved or something along those lines. They have to make that finding at their hearing and, then, they would remove that condition that states that it must be tiled. But as it stands, as it moves forward from this body, it does have to be tiled and City Council has the authority to remove that condition. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 47 of 93 Rohm: Do you have a recommendation for a change in verbiage to address the fact that that's been a -- an item of discussion, so that we could say we want to move this forward, but there seems to be some gray area there on that tiling and leave that specific issue to the Council for their action? Wilson: When applications go forward from your body to City Council, the staff report is modified to add a section at the beginning that talks about what happened at your hearing. It talks about who testified in favor and opposition, it talks about the major topics of discussion, it talks about any changes of the staff report and, then, it also talks about outstanding issues for City Council. So, the tiling of the ditch would show up under -- Rohm: Outstanding? Wilson: -- outstanding issues and topics of -- discussion items of interest at the hearing, a special notice that this was a topic of discussion and it is still an outstanding issue for City Council. So, that's -- I guess that's really your -- that's really your mechanism that let's City Council know that you discussed it and you're concerned about it. Rohm: Okay. Thank you, Josh. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Just to clarify on that same subject, is this the same ditch that continues on and crosses Ten Mile right on the border of Albertson's -- and the reason I'm asking that, that's a pretty large ditch. Isn't there an over 48 inch waiver for a pipe? Wilson: I'm not specifically familiar, but maybe Mike could address this. The Rutledge I think he said flows into the Nine Mile. The Nine Mile Creek is, actually, on the top of this property, which is a much more major facility and this Rutledge Lateral may flow into it. Cole: Public Works concurs with that assessment. Zaremba: That this would be smaller than a 48 inch pipe? Cole: Yes. The Nine Mile Drain to the northern portion of this is the -- would be much larger than the 48 inch that we just -- that City Council generally waives that on. The Rutledge could be piped with a smaller facility than that. I believe they have plans now that -- on 24 inch, I believe, is what it's being piped at. Zaremba: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 48 of 93 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I would suggest since the two outstanding items we don't have the authority to address, that we close the Public Hearing and move on. Zaremba: If that's a motion, I will second it. Newton-Huckabay: Consider it a motion. Rohm: That was a motion. Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-059 and CUP 05-053. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed same? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: I would just continue my statement to say that I believe most of the questions from public testimony will also have to be addressed at the City Council level. So, with that said, I would move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 05-059 and CUP 05-053, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 5th, 2006, and the site landscape plan dated October 13, 2005, and I believe we have no modifications, other than make note that there will be the lighting discussion and the tiling of the ditch discussion at City Council. End of motion. Item 20: Public Hearing: RZ 05-021 Request for a Rezone of .94 acres from R-8 to C-G and Rezone of .95 acres from R-8 to C-N for Champion Park Addition by Hillview Development Corporation - north of Ustick Road and west of Eagle Road: Borup: Second. Zaremba: In discussion, I would just clarify that since it's been mentioned and discussed, that the public address system is not approved along with this CUP. It's not a part of this CUP. Rohm: Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Newton-Huckabay: Add that to the motion. Rohm: Okay. We have a motion before us and motion to forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-059 and CUP 05-053. All in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.