2004 04-15
~-- -1
9,i.
CITY OF MERIDIAN
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Thursday, April 15, 2004, at 7:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
1.
Roll-call Attendance:
X David Zaremba X David Moe
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay 0 Michael Rohm
---2L-Chairman Keith Borup
Adoption of the Agenda:
2.
3.
Consent Agenda:
A.
Tabled from April 1, 2004: Approve minutes of February 5, 2004
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting: Approve
B.
Approve minutes of February 19, 2004 Planning and Zoning
Commission Regular Meeting: Approve
4.
Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2004: AZ 03-038 Request for
annexation and zoning of 21.38 acres from C-2 to CoG zones for proposed
Mussell Comer Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - northeast
corner of East Victory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway:
Recommend Denial to City Council
5.
Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2004: PFP 03-007 Request
for Preliminary Final Plat approval of 4 commercial building lots on 21.38
acres in a proposed CoG zone for proposed Mussell Corner Subdivision
by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - northeast comer of East Victory Road and
South Meridian Kuna Highway: Attorney to Prepare Findings of Fact
and Conclusion of Law for Denial
6.
Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2004: CUP 03-071 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development to allow the
construction of a combination feed store and gas station I convenience
store on one of the proposed lots and to allow the existing commercial and
residential uses to remain and the property for Mussell Comer
Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - northeast corner of East
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda - April 15, 2004
Page1of3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of Ihe City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodatlon for disabilities releled to documents and/or hearings
please contacllhe City Clerk's Office a18884433 alleaet 48 hours prior to lhe public meetlng.
11.
12.
13.
14.
'" !
,.',
Victory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway: Recommend Denial to
City Council
7.
Public Hearing: AZ 04-006 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.06
acres from RUT to L-a zone for Southstone Subdivision by Pinnacle
Engineers, Inc. - northeast corner of South Eagle Road and East Girdner
Lane: Recommend Approval to City Council
Public Hearing: PP 04-008 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8
commercial building lots on 3.06 acres in a proposed L-a zone for
Southstone Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - northeast corner
of South Eagle Road and East Girdner Lane: Recommend Approval to
City Council
8.
9.
Public Hearing: RZ 04-004 Request for a Rezone of 9.47 acres from R-
4 to L-a and R-8 zones for Southwoods Subdivision by Calderwood
Community, LLC - 2090 South Meridian Road: Renoticed to April 29,
2004
10.
Public Hearing: PP 04-007 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 15
building lots (14 office and 1 residential) and 1 common lot on 9.47 acres
in proposed R-8 and L-a zones for Southwoods Subdivision by
Calderwood Community, LLC - 2090 South Meridian Road: Renoticed to
April29,2004
Public Hearing: CUP 04-008 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for office and assisted living in proposed R-8 and L-
a zones for Southwoods Subdivision by Calderwood Community, LLC -
2090 South Meridian Road: Renoticed to April 29, 2004
Public Hearing: AZ 04-005 Request for annexation and zoning of 5.27
acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Packard Acres Subdivision
No.3 by Packard Estates Development, LLC - south of East Ustick Road
and east of North Locust Grove Road: Recommend Approval to City
Council
Public Hearing: PP 04-006 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 20
single-family residential building lots and 2 common lots on 5.273 acres in
a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Packard Acres Subdivision No.3 by
Packard Estates Development, LLC - south of East Ustick Road and east
of North Locust Grove Road: Recommend Approval to City Council
Public Hearing: RZ 04-006 Request for a Rezone of 16.1 acres from R-4
to R-8 zone for Sutherland Farm Subdivision No.4 by Sutherland Farm,
Inc. - east of South Eagle Road and north of east Victory Road:
Continue Public Hearing to May 6, 2004
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda -Aprli 15, 2004
Page20f3
All malarials presented et public meetings shall become property of Ihe City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodatlon for dlsabilfties relaled 10 documents and/or hearings
please contacl the City Clerk's Office et 88~3 alleast 48 hours prior 10 the public meetlng,
15.
16.
Public Hearing: PP 04-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 79
single-family residential building lots & 8 common lots on 16.1 acres in
proposed R-8 zone for Sutherland Farm Subdivision No.4 by
Sutherland Farm, Inc. - east of South Eagle Road and north of east
Victory Road: Continue Public Hearing until May 6, 2004
Public Hearing: CUP 04-009 Request for modification of the original
Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development to allow the
elimination of five office lots and the addition of 47 single-family lots in
addition to the 32 residential lots previously approved for a total of 79
single-family lots for Sutherland Farm Subdivision No.4 with request for
reduction to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage and
front yard setbacks by Sutherland Farm, Inc. - east of South Eagle Road
and north of east Victory Road: Continue Public Hearing until May 6,
2004
Meridien Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda - April 15, 2004
pege 3 of3
All materials presented at public meetings shail become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disebiliiles related 10 documents and/or hearings
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 88~3 alleaat 48 hours prior to the public meeting,
Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meetina
Acril15.2004.
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order at 7:00 P,M. by Chairman Keith Borup.
Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay,
Commissioner David Zaremba, and Commissioner David Moe.
MembersAbsent: Commissioner Michael Rohm.
Others Present: Chris Gabbert, Jessica Johnson" Bruce Freckleton, Anna Powell,
Wendy Kirkpatrick, Brad Hawkins-Clark. Craig Hood, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X David Zaremba X
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay
X Chairman Keith Borup
David Moe
Michael Rohm
Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to begin our regularly
scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for April 15th.
Start with roll call attendance.
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Borup: First item is the adoption of the agenda.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would -- I don't know if this affects the agenda, but I would point out to the
audience that Items 9, 10 and 11 tonight on Southwood Subdivision have been re-
noticed to April 29th. That means we will not have any discussion on those items
tonight. And, then, we have been requested by the applicant to continue 14, 15, 16,
which is Sutherland Farms Subdivision No.4. Is it expected that we will do that?
Borup: I would anticipate --
Zaremba; Anybody in the audience that's here for Sutherland Farms Subdivision No.4,
we are likely not to discuss tonight either,
Borup: Was there anyone here for Sutherland Farms that wanted to testify? Okay.
Zaremba: That's my only comments on the agenda,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Aprii 15,2004
Page 2 of 60
Borup: Okay.
Moe: Then I will second the --
Borup: Adoption of the agenda, Okay.
Zaremba: Move that we adopt the agenda.
Moe: I second that.
Item 3:
Consent Agenda:
A.
Tabled from April 1, 2004: Approve minutes of February 5, 2004
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting:
B.
Approve minutes of February 19, 2004 Planning and Zoning
Commission Regular Meeting:
Borup: Okay, Consent Agenda, which consists of minutes, Do we need any other
discussion on that?
Zaremba: Yes, I have an amendment to Item A, the minutes of the special meeting of
February 5, 2004. On the very first page, on first line, the special meeting was called to
order at 6:35 p.m. by myself David Zaremba.
Borup: Yeah, I had noticed that.
Zaremba: Okay. And on Item B, the minutes of February 19, 2004, on page 43, the
first line down from the top of the page where I am speaking, I am quoted as saying: Mr,
Chairman, I'd like to say that this meeting has been educational, but we are -- the word
should be straying, s-t-r-a-y-i-n-g, not strained. Straying. Again, my mumbling gets me.
Those are my only comments on those two minutes,
Borup: Okay, Do we have a motion?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we accept the minutes of February 5, 2004, as
amended and the minutes of February 19, 2004, as amended,
Moe: Second,
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 15,2004
Page 3 of 60
Item 4:
Item 5:
Item 6:
Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2004: AZ 03-038 Request for
annexation and zoning of 21.38 acres from C-2 to CoG zones for proposed
Mussell Corner Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - northeast
corner of East Victory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway:
Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2004: PFP 03-007 Request
for Preliminary Final Plat approval of 4 commercial building lots on 21.38
acres in a proposed CoG zone for proposed Mussell Corner Subdivision
by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - northeast corner of East Victory Road and
South Meridian Kuna Highway:
Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2004: CUP 03-071 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development to allow the
construction of a combination feed store and gas station I convenience
store on one of the proposed lots and to allow the existing commercial and
residential uses to remain and the property for Mussell Corner
Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc, - northeast corner of East
Victory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway:
Borup: Okay. First hearing is Items 4, 5 and 6. This is a continued Public Hearing from
our March 4th meeting. AZ 03-038, PFP 03-007, and CUP 03-071. All three are
concerning Mussell Corner Subdivision. I'd like to start with the staff report, an update
on this application.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'll just briefly try to
refresh your memory. It's been about six weeks, I guess, since this was before the
board. The application is for a four lot commercial subdivision on the northeast corner
of Victory and State Highway 69, There is an aerial view of the subject site. There are
currently some commercial uses on the site on two of the proposed four lots. There is a
landscape nursery that takes up the majority of the site and also an irrigation sprinkler
business and an expresso shop currently on this site. This is a copy of the preliminary
plat site plan and I will -- hopefully, that kind of jogs a few memories. I will let you know
that at that last hearing the Commission asked the staff and the applicant-owner to get
together to try to address some of the issues that were originally raised in staff's report
and through the -- the letter from Ada County stating there were five issues that they
specifically called out as being issues that they had had in the past with this property. I
want to give you -- I apologize, I thought the letter -- I just realized that it's addressed to
the owner of the property and not to this board, so I had the clerk make some copies --
and I thank you, Jessica, The letter dated April 7th to Mr. Mussell from -- it's from Jerry
Armstrong, but I got it from Mike Williams, who is the Ada County code enforcement
officer, after a meeting that was held, I believe, a day or two before it's dated with the
applicant trying to get some of these things addressed. I can let you know that staff
also went out there and did a site inspection. The day before the memo that you have
in your packet was drafted, just to kind of see what was going on out there, and as the
memo states, they have taken care of a few of these items, There are still -- at least
there were at that time still some outstanding issues, in addition to the other issues that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 15,2004
Page 4 of 60
weren't addressed by the county in the staff report, more of the city -- the lack of design
issues that staff had with what was being proposed, I guess just to touch on those a
little bit more, in the recommendation for denial of this project, due to the fact that the
access to State Highway 69, that that still has not been resolved with ITD, I talked this
afternoon with Dean Golden at ITD and asked him if they had a chance yet to review
the traffic impact study that the owner had done for this site and if their board had had a
chance to address access points and had approved any other access points. If you
remember, I believe there is three deeded access points to this property, They were
showing -- with this PD they were showing two access points to State Highway 69 and
three to Victory Road. We got two correspondences originally back from ITD stating
that no access -- you have a thousand feet of frontage on Victory, basically, you don't
get any access to the highway. The applicant will maybe be able to give you a little bit
more of an idea of where that is in the process, but when I spoke with Mr. Golden today,
he said they hadn't -- they didn't -- he didn't have a copy of that traffic impact study or
the safety analysis that was also required by lTD. So, you didn't have any update from
me on that. And, again, one of the other things that was still outstanding as far as
what's being proposed -- I guess one of the sticky points for staff is that the applicant is
only proposing to landscape adjacent to the Double D store that is proposed right on the
corner and leaving the remaining portion of the site unimproved at this time. Those are
a couple of the things that I just wanted to touch on, They are outlined -- all of the
issues that still remain are outlined in that updated staff memo, There was some good
faith effort, I believe, on the applicant's part, just the timing, there was not enough time, I
don't believe, to address all of those issues, and for those reasons staff is still
recommending denial of this project, just the design and for those outstanding reasons,
There weren't any conditions of approval included in that memo. I guess I will leave it at
that and if you have any questions I can answer any questions, but, hopefully, that did a
decent job of kind of explaining what's happened in the past five or six weeks.
Borup: Questions for Mr. Hood? Okay. I had one on -- concerning the traffic study.
There was a traffic study done by the applicant's engineer, is that what you were
saying?
Hood: I spoke with Mr. McKinnon on Friday, I believe it was, and he was reading from
that over the phone when I talked with him and there just wasn't enough time for me to
do anything with it, even he would have gotten it to me. I believe he got it just that day
or the day before or something like that.
Borup: That was my question was when was that delivered to ITD?
Hood: And ITD said they didn't have it anyway --
Borup: Oh, they said they didn't even have it --
Hood: It was in Mr. Golden's possession. So, like I say, maybe Dave knows whom that
was submitted to --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 15,2004
Page 5 of 60
Borup: Okay.
Hood: -- but he couldn't find it, so --
Borup: Okay.
McKinnon.
Unless there is any other questions from the Commission, Mr.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr, Chairman, Members of the Commission Dave McKinnon,
735 South Crosstimber. I'll just address that last question that you had Commissioner
Borup. It was submitted on April 7th to the Idaho Transportation Department. I have
got a copy of it if you'd like to see it. I did receive it that same day that Craig and I were
talking. Actually, I received it the day before Craig and I talked and, essentially, it was
done by Pat Dolby, who is a traffic engineer, and he went through and included the
three deeds, that we have deeded accesses to State Highway 69. He went through
traffic counts and through the different right turns and left turns and it's all in here if you
want to review it. It's traffic engineering to me. It means a lot more to the guys at ITD
than it would to me. So, I have been through it and just talked with Craig about it. If you
want to have a chance to review it, I would be more than happy to hand that to you.
Borup: My question is when did ITD receive it and why they haven't had a chance to
look at it yet is what I was wondering.
McKinnon: Well, in talking -- I didn't talk to Dean Golden today and I don't believe it's
submitted directly to Dean. There is three separate people at District Three. It could
have gone to Matt Ward, Dan Koontz, or Dean Golden, Dan Koontz is Dean's boss
and, then, above both of the -- and below both of those is Matt Ward. So, I'm not sure
who has been assigned to review that. It doesn't mean that ITD didn't receive it. Pat
Dolby submitted it on the 7th, the same day that we received it. I'm not sure who got it.
But if I can just address a couple more things about the access on the 69 before we
jump into the rest of it. As you remember, we talked last time about another application
that you had recently heard called Southern Springs. It's -- would you go to the bigger
vicinity map, Craig? Go ahead and go back.
Hood: It doesn't go all the way up,
McKinnon: Okay, We can go back to that other one. It's located right here. It's a
triangular shaped piece off of Overland Road and the only access that it has, besides a
small sliver up onto Overland is State Highway 69. That project was approved by the
city without any access to ITD State Highway 69. The Commission approved it and the
Council approved it. There was never any correspondence with Idaho Transportation
Department. When they went to the Idaho Transportation Department to get access for
their project, they were denied access at that time, just like ITD has requested denial of
this. Just last week they met with the attorneys, it's Mitchner and Ross are the
attorneys that ITD met with. I talked with Steve Holliday about the -- from ITD about
that meeting and he said that they did grant them the access to that site, but they are
still in negotiations, because rather than just the two deeded accesses, their traffic
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 15,2004
Page 6 of 60
engineer wants to have three and says that they should be able to have three and that
three is more appropriate than just the one that they would give them. So, in talking
with Steve, I said let's talk about this site and let's talk about Double D and the access
there and he said because you have three deeded accesses and because of the length
of it, he said I agree that, yes, you probably will receive one access, at least, for this site
with the deeded accesses, He wouldn't give me anything in writing, it's something that
has to go through their process, and so it has to go through the process which we are in
right now, but his opinion was from ITD that we would receive access for this site,
whether it was one, two or three he wouldn't say, but he said he felt that we would
receive at least one access to this site, so that's what we are asking for at this time is to
just have the opportunity to approve this with an access to this site. One access could
work, as long as it's located in the center northerly location where people can come
back to the gas station,
Borup: Mr. McKinnon, when you say one access, you mean one access for this whole
stretch?
McKinnon: Well, for right now we -- you know, this can work for the development we
are trying to do --
Borup: Yeah. I realize this is all that is before us tonight, but when you're talking about
one access, you're talking about the whole property?
McKinnon: We are talking about the whole property.
Borup: Okay.
McKinnon: And, like I said, Steve wouldn't say they could give us all three, but he said
that he felt that at least one would be given to this project during the appeal process,
because they are three deeded accesses and those three deeded accesses were
granted at the time that State Highway 69 was widened. So, that's -- I guess -- I wish I
had a direct full answer from ITD, but we have to go through their process, just as we
are going through this process with this body at this time. So, we are working with ITD
on that and we are staying in constant communication with ITD concerning this project.
So, if I could get you to just -- I'm just going to follow Craig's outline that he had, rather
than go through the whole staff report again, just the most recent staff report that you
received. It's a three-page memo from Craig Hood. Just start and address the issues
that he's brought up and, then, just ask if you have any questions at that time and go
into discussion, I guess. I'll just go ahead and start on page two. We have already
talked quite a bit about the access to State Highway 69 and if you have some questions
about that, I would be happy to answer those. Onto the landscaping issues. This is an
interesting discussion. We have a nursery, essentially, on the large area here and it's
an existing nursery and we are not planning on increasing the nursery at this time or
doing anything with the nursery, other than annexing it and bringing it into the City of
Meridian, It's a landscape nursery, which is one of those things that how do you
landsape a landscape nursery and provide a buffer for that. This property will not
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 15,2004
Page 7 of 60
always be a landscape nursery. Eventually, it will be developed and as it redevelops,
then, the landscaping would be installed on the remainder of the site, but as it is right
now, it's somewhat of a rural landscape company and they'd like not to have to do that.
Temporary landscaping can be installed there, but that's an area for sales and the
landscaping could be moved back and forth on that. Landscaping across Victory Road,
again, the only area that we are redeveloping at this time would just be the area in front
of the gas station. There is some landscaping in front of the single family home right
now and as you go further back it becomes the landscape company. There is a large
driveway currently located -- do you have that aerial photo, Craig? If you could go back,
that would be great. You can see there is a wide driveway and parking area for this
metal building that's right there. It's a sprinkler irrigation, well drilling type business.
There is a large driveway. That driveway will be narrowed down and made much --
much smaller in accordance with ITD requirements, but there is not a whole lot of room
for landscaping out in front of that and we'd ask that as that redevelops or redevelops
that they would be allowed to put in landscaping, rather than take out the parking that's
currently there. But the remainder of the site is part of the landscape nursery and as
that redevelops you will have the opportunity -- oh, wow, Thanks, Craig. So, it will
change the look as it redevelops. Craig, can you go ahead and just tell everybody
where these pictures are taken from, This is looking at the well drilling --
Hood: Yeah, That's the area Dave was just talking about. The irrigation sprinkler shop
is right here, They have parking that's in front of that building. This is Victory Road
here, This is -- looking where this truck is, you're kind of looking back into this site now.
This is in the north direction looking back into the site. And, then, these other -- these
remaining two pictures are looking down State Highway 69.
McKinnon: Okay. Thanks, Craig, As you -- if you could keep it at that picture. You can
see the parking and the overhead doors for this site actually -- and the man doors are
facing to Victory Road and so to eliminate that and to replace it with landscaping would
be a hardship for this business at this time, but as it redevelops it would be something
that could be accommodated, As far as the building setbacks and right of ways, Craig's
third bolded item in staff analysis and recommendation, there is a little bit of discussion
that Craig has in here about State Highway 69 meeting a required 120 feet to center
line. It's in the first sentence. For state highway, 120 feet center line, If you take a look
at the ITD letter that was sent, it was stating that if there is no frontage road or
interconnectivity, there is a requirement for 120 feet from center line. If there is a
frontage road, the requirement is only 70 feet from center line, And I had that
conversation with Dan Koontz and with Matt Ward. Actually, I had all three of the guys
together down at ITD and we said if everything is interconnected and we have cross-
connections for all these uses -- and that's the intent is to have all of these
interconnected, they said that 70 feet would be appropriate. It doesn't have to be a
publicly dedicated right of way, but, rather, it can be an interconnected driveway system.
As long as you get from point A to point B without having to go back out onto the
highway, they would be satisfied with the 70 feet as a frontage or backage road, as their
letter suggests, rather than 120 feet. So, we talked about that and talked about how
landscaping would get together and ITD was satisfied that if they were all
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 15,2004
Page 8 of 60
interconnected through the driveway system, rather than a public or private street, that
would be acceptable to lTD. So, there is the room for that. So, rather than the
additional 50 feet of right of way that would be needed, it works out with the 70 feet, as
long as everything is interconnected, That's the reason they asked for that additional
right of way, so that if there is none provided, they can provide some in the future. As
we get into Craig's next issue, the open space and amenities -- if you can go back,
Craig, to the overall site, Thanks, Craig, The area that we are really trying to develop
right now is the gas station area, the area I'm highlighting with the laser. That is, really,
the area right now that we are really trying to redevelop, And because there are
multiple uses on this site and we are annexing it all together, it's being required to go
through the planned development ordinance and under the planned development
ordinance there is a requirement for two amenities within the subdivision and we
suggested that we could do a 550 foot long sidewalk along the area that we are
developing right now, It's detached. It's not something that's required by ITD or by the
city or ACHD. It would be something that would provide a meandering sidewalk or
pathway out there for pedestrians, should they choose to use that. It does not extend
the full length right now, because that is a large expense to go across here and we don't
know at this point what the full use is up here and so there may be an additional curb
cut that would come through there and at this time we'd just like to develop this portion
of the site, As far as the other amenity, there will be a gas station there and it will have
a small food court inside of that. We could do some outside seating and benches for
that, so that it would be a small amenity, The hard part about this site is we do have
some existing businesses, We have a nursery, we have the well drilling, we have an
existing coffee kiosk, which is going away, but to try to shoe horn two amenities into this
is something that becomes a little bit more difficult. We would be more than happy to
construct that sidewalk the full length, add some additional amenity someplace, you
know, near the building, maybe some outside seating, and we do have a large amount
of open space for the landscape area, One of the things that you can do as -- in
approval of this project is place a condition on this that if there is a way to approve the
amenities, that if you want the ten percent that would be a requirement of the
annexation, the ten percent open space is required within this area as the property
develops, So, you would have the opportunity to require that should you approve this
subdivision, because it's not approved right now or a recommendation, it's something
that you could recommend as part of -- to Council as part of the approval for this project.
So, we have some options there and if you have any suggestions as to what type of
amenities would be appropriate for a gas station and a nursery and a well drilling
company, we would be more than happy to take those, because there is not a whole lot
of things that really fit with that, what type of amenity works with that, and that's why
there is some degree of give in the code saying whatever is appropriate for the type of
use that you're asking and so you have that authority under what is appropriate and
what's not appropriate. So, if you have any suggestions, I'm open to those. On the
third page of Craig's report is the parking drive aisles and we have addressed a few of
these and I think it probably needs to be readdressed. We spent a lot of time talking
about Victory Road last time we met and what type of improvements on Victory Road
would go in, because originally this site that you have right here, there was not plans to
improve all of Victory Road and after meeting with ACHD and meeting with you at the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 15,2004
Page 9 of 60
last meeting, it was agreed at that time that we would do all the curb, gutter, and
sidewalk along Victory Road and limit the amount of curb cuts along Victory Road. And
if you can go back to that aerial, Craig, you can see the number of curb cuts that we
have got right now, There is one, two, three, four curb cuts and that's going away. The
one curb cut going directly into the nursery for the single family home that's located right
here, that curb cut's going away. That's where a lot of the parking is. If the parking
needs to meet code, make that a condition of approval and that's something that we can
deal with. Part of the problem with the landscape nursery, however, is that they do use
a lot of skidsters and heavy equipment. The heavy equipment does chew up asphalt
and so a large portion of this area with the dirt roads that you see will not have typical
transportation, but they will have heavy equipment moving across it that gets ripped up
and so we would ask that none of that area be required to have additional paving,
because it would be paving that would be hard to maintain, it would be very expensive
to install and continually maintained. So, if there is a need for the parking to be
asphalted and that's a condition of the annexation, that's something that can be taken
care of, with some limitations as to the amount used for the nursery, because it is
somewhat of a rural type of use in this area, Down to the public services portion of the
comments and these comments I find interesting that this is outside of the fire
department's five minute response zone, but the interesting thing -- the reason why I
find it interesting is that right now the fire department is responsible for any fires that
happen on this site. This is in the City of Meridian fire's department -- it's a rural fire
department. It doesn't follow the city limits. The fire department already has to provide
service to this site. So, the idea that not bringing water to this site through the utilities
and just leaving it as it is is better for the fire department seems odd to me, because we
could bring water service to this area -- I'll show you where the water is coming from.
The water is coming from Observation Point, dragging the water main -- it's a 12 itch
inch water main, dragging it from Observation Point down to this location to provide fire
service and to sprinkle the building, will make this actually have better fire service than
what's currently provided, although it's outside of the five minute response area, it's
going to remain outside of the five minute response area if nothing happens, but they
still would have to provide service to it. In talking with Joe Silva, if the building is
sprinkled, he has no problem with that. Additionally, the fire hydrants that can be
installed off of that 12-inch water main could provide additional fire protection that
currently does not exist for this site.
Borup: Mr. McKinnon, maybe while you're on that subject, are there any other fire
department sites south of the freeway, other than the one on Eagle Road, that you know
about? Are they -- in their long-term plan are they designating any other sites?
McKinnon: I haven't seen their plans since lief! the city. I haven't talked with Joe about
any additional sites.
Borup: I wasn't aware of any others, That's why I was wondering.
McKinnon: No. No, And just for point of observation with Observation Point, is that this
is actually further away than this is for the five-minute response area. This is, actually,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 15,2004
Page100f60
closer than Bear Creek or Observation Point for a fire truck to get to. It's a more direct
route and those are things the fire department has okayed and has allowed construction
to take place in those areas. And, finally, the -- we spent a lot of time last time talking
about the sewer service and where the sewer service would come from and whether it
should be a pressurized irrigation -- a pressurized system on a lift station or if it could be
a gravity fed system. I have talked with Bruce Freckleton, you see it in your memo, that
they would be okay to bring the sewer down from Elk Run and bring it down to a
distribution -- or -- what is that called, Bruce? The big --
Freckleton: Diversion structure,
McKinnon: The diversion structure. Thank you. The diversion structure at this location
and continuing the trunk line down to Victory and State Highway 69 as a full trunk
system and the City of Meridian is okay with that. It actually falls in line with what is --
who is your consultant on this? Is it JUB? And JUB has found that that would be the
way to go for the future of the city. And so the sewer problems have been worked out.
That's something that would have to be installed by our client. So, basically, the City of
Meridian would get, by annexing this property, is to have all of Victory Road curb, gutter,
sidewalk, widened to its full width. You would have basically an eighth of a mile up
State Highway 69 completely -- completed with curb -- not with curb, but with sidewalk,
landscaping, and a new access off State Highway 69. You would have additional water
and sewer lines that would be brought down to be able to provide service for this area.
You would increase fire suppression systems by bringing the water system over. So,
you would gain utilities, you would gain improvements, and you would bring a large
commercial piece of property into the city to have additional tax based for the city that
currently sits outside of the city. So, there is a lot of advantages to bringing this into the
city. And it's unfortunate that we can't develop this whole site right now, but the owner
of the property does not want to develop the whole site right now, He enjoys running
his nursery, but, eventually, the nursery will go away and take place -- and it will be
replaced with commercial development. So, there is good reasons to bring this into the
City of Meridian right now. I guess it is unfortunate that that whole site is not developing
right now, but there is a great advance for the City of Meridian to take this in at this time.
Should it remain in the county those improvements would not go in until it develops and
it may wait and sit until such time as the whole site can be developed. But there is a
comparative advantage now from the status quo to bring it into the city, because a lot of
improvements would be made that otherwise won't be made. And with that I will ask if
you have any questions. Or if you have any additional questions, I would be more than
happy to answer them at a later time,
Borup: Questions from Commission?
Zaremba: I do have one main question. It's been known since the hearing on March
4th that tonight is about annexation and that decision would be based on compliance
with outstanding deficiencies with the county before the city would consider annexing.
Who either suggested or accepted that compliance would be five days after this
meeting?
Meridian Planning & Zcning Commission
April 15,2004
Page110f60
Borup: You mean the 20th? You're looking at the date of the 20th?
Zaremba: The letter that you're going to do it all by the 20th.
McKinnon: Okay. The light's down,
Zaremba: Why didn't anybody insist that it needed to be done and inspected?
Borup: I believe that came from the county.
McKinnon: That was from the county. Yeah. It wasn't--
Zaremba: But wasn't the applicant able to insist, no, I need to have this answered
before the meeting on the 15th?
McKinnon: Oh, I know -- okay. I know where that came from. And that was -- we are at
the meeting -- okay. I'm sorry. We were at the meeting with the county, we met with
Mike Williams and the person the letter came from, actually, wasn't in attendance at that
meeting, it was the interim director at the time, and the owner of the property, the
applicant for the property, the developer as myself, and we were sitting in the meeting
and they said when is the next hearing and I said, I don't know, because we were just
sitting -- I didn't have the note pad with me and I said I think it's on the 23rd, which I --
that was just my mistake and, then, afterwards we -- Craig called me after we got that
memo from the county -- after he got a call from Mike Williams that, oh, actually, it's on
a different date and so we called and talked to Tim Mussell and we talked with Dick
Davis and said the date I guess you guys was wrong, everything needs to be taken care
of, and so those issues have been taken care of. The light is down. The power pole is
down. Slats were purchased for the screening of the fence around the water service
area that we saw pictures of. The slats have been purchased. The signs have been
removed and those were the items that were to be corrected by the 20th, which are
already corrected. And those are the notes that you see in Craig's memo. Those things
have been corrected. And Craig and I have talked and before Craig wrote that memo I
had written him a memo saying those things had been done. The slats have been
purchased, but they hadn't been installed when I drove by, And so the slats for the
fencing for the screen area -- that was my mistake on the timing for that letter. We said
we will do it a few days before the hearing. And so we called Mike and said these are
the things that -- you know, the timing was off on that, but that is -- those things are
done at this time. And that was my mistake at that meeting and that's the reason why
the letter says what it says,
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: Any other questions? So, the light is down?
McKinnon: The light's down, The power's --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Aprii 15,2004
Page 12 0160
Borup: The screening is being started.
McKinnon: I didn't drive by it today, but --
Borup: It's in the process,
McKinnon: Uh-huh. The signs have been moved, That was the large -- oh, gosh, the
storage container that had the Victory Greens painted across it, that's been moved from
the prominent location on Victory further inside, so it's not used as signage. Temporary
signage has been removed as well. So, the one thing that was left outstanding was that
same item that was left outstanding at the previous meeting was what do you do to
screen a rock area and I talked with the owner about that and he said I would be more
than happy to go ahead and put some of my trees out there that are for sale to hide that
and so that can be screened. He just needs to be told that that's what needs to be
done. Just one further item, The owner and the applicant at that meeting that we had
with the county -- I think it's detailed in that letter. It talks -- from the county -- about how
that property has already changed hands somehow and there was a subdivision that
was performed legally for that and they have agreed to do a one-time split for that, to
have that taken care of in the county and that's a process that's already started. The
subdivision itself would alleviate that as well, but that was something that they agreed to
do, if that was something that needed to be done and Ada County felt that that was a
good faith effort as well,
Borup: And, then, what did -- you say that process is started, What does that mean?
McKinnon: What does that mean? A record of survey has been prepared and a legal
description has been prepared,
Borup: That is done at this time?
McKinnon: It's done, It just hasn't been submitted to Ada County yet for approval,
because if you guys agree to annex it and subdivide it, the final platting of this project
would do the exact same thing as the one time split, it would just create the same
situation. So, we have it done, we just haven't submitted it yet.
Borup: Why don't we go ahead and see if there is any other testimony, then, I think
there may be some more questions for you and staff.
McKinnon: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? That was short, Mr,
McKinnon, We are done with public testimony. Do we have -- I have got a couple more
questions, I think, for Mr. McKinnon and maybe from staff's end. So, what you're -- you
are asking for approval tonight; is that --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Aprii 15, 2004
Page 13 of 60
McKinnon: I would love approval tonight. One of the --
Borup: I wasn't sure if you had ever really formally stated --
McKinnon: I understand that we don't have conditions of approval yet and those are
something that would need to be formulated as part of the approval. I would love it if
you had the opportunity tonight to formulate those, but I know there is other hearings
tonight and people for that. I think that staff has said that they haven't prepared any yet,
but that's something that could be prepared. I think that Greg's done a good of outlining
the issues that need to be addressed. I have tried to address those. If you have any
questions concerning those, I could address that. But I do understand that without the
conditions of approval formally being in front of you and having to formulate them right
now, it could take quite a bit of time to do that. I would love approval tonight, but if that's
not possible, I understand that. But I would love to have some direction.
Borup: One of the main questions I have is ITD and lacking a report from them. Now, I
understand what you're -- and that seems logical to me, that they are going to allow at
least one access point, if we go by what they have done in the past, but that doesn't
address the location of that access.
McKinnon: Central would be better.
Borup: For them.
McKinnon: Uh-huh.
Borup: Which would mean a redesign of your -- of your plat, wouldn't it?
McKinnon: We have actually had, I believe, a curb cut located in this location, as well
as one down here. We actually showed two on this original plat.
Borup: So, if it went to one, you're saying you just eliminate the one and, then, just
have --
McKinnon: You drive down to --
Borup: You just have a driveway down that showed -- other than -- that would be the
only redesign.
McKinnon: Uh-huh. Yeah,
Borup: Okay,
McKinnon: If we could get two from ITD, it's just gravy. It would work great for us.
Hood: Mr, Chair?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 15,2004
Page 140f60
Borup: Yes,
Hood: I'd like to just talk about -- since we are back on ITD's -- regardless of what
happens with that, this plat, if we go forward with this, will be restricted, you know,
access points and if that future property develops -- if they get one from ITD, staff is still
recommending -- they have 1,000 feet of frontage on Victory Road. They have
adequate access to this site. They do not need a driveway to the state highway.
Southern Springs, which Dave brought up, is a different situation. They have less than
200 feet of frontage near an intersection, so they wouldn't have adequate spacing to get
a driveway on Overland Road, They had to take access to the state highway in that
situation.
Zaremba: I would add that I think part of that 200 feet included a canal crossing.
Hood: And there was a canal there. Yes. So, really, it was triangular shaped -- and I
apologize for not -- it's almost shaped just like this one is with their flag being their
Overland frontage, And so access -- it was necessary to have access --
Borup: I understand that, but no matter now much frontage there is, the size of the
access road is the same in either situation, isn't it?
Hood: The size of the access road to be the same, but --
Borup: The driveway width is the same way,
Hood: No, I'm not talking about width, I'm just talking about a driveway period, Access
at all. If they had access on Overland, they wouldn't need access to the highway. In
this case we have access --
Borup: Well, they did have access on Overland.
Hood: I don't think they did.
Zaremba: It was not far enough from the intersection.
Hood: Yeah. They would be right at the intersection. It would make it a five-legged
intersection with Overland and the state highway.
Borup: Well, they had to build a bridge across the canal --
Hood: To build a bridge across the canal to continue with their next phase up and, then,
eventually to Overland Road.
Borup: Right.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissicn
April 15,2004
Page 15 of 60
Hood: But that would be like having this property stub across the canal and, then,
eventually, come back out over to the highway. And I guess that's just -- no one really
knows how this is going to play out and I guess that's the biggest concern that I have.
We don't know if it's going to be one, two, or three accesses that ITD approves, but like
the highway district, I think that this board should have a recommendation from ITD
saying it is one, two or three and, then, we make a motion to either approve that or we
say, no, you get one, even though they approved three, or you get all three, whatever
that case may be. Right now it's up in the air and that's what happened with Southern
Springs is the city approved a development prior to ITD and now there is conflict, that
applicant is using the city's approval to say, well, the city approved this, now you have
to, Similar to the highway district, I just believe that some of these issues, specifically
ITD, should be worked out before this site is evaluated. We are not looking at what is
going to be constructed there, This site plan is inaccurate, What's proposed there,
more than likely, is not going to be where the accesses are going to be approved.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, just one question for Craig. Mr. Hood, if the access was here
or the access was here, would that be a significant change in the request?
Hood: For annexation, probably not. If you're looking at your plat, I would say yes.
Your circulation patterns change. There are a lot of internal factors, I think, that we look
at with a planned development. We look at the size of the whole and if you have got a
gas station there and you have one access that's 400 feet away say, you know, how is
that going to be utilized by people using the feed store or the gas station. I don't know --
I think it would be significant in that fact. It would change the parking layout and
circulation of the CUP.
McKinnon: Okay. Thanks.
Borup: Do we have -- go ahead.
Zaremba: I know one of the other things that I would like to see is a better concept of
what the rest of the property is like to be and my question would be would a delay
provide anymore information to us of a concept plan on how the rest of the property is
likely to layout once the caretaker's house is removed and the landscape and the --
Moe: That isn't being removed, is it?
Zaremba: The business -- well, it isn't being removed now, but, eventually, it will be and
at the current time it's a constriction to how they can configure what they are doing. I
mean this is a nice piece of property that could have a nice development on it and to
work around the caretaker's house and keep the landscaping -- I mean not
landscaping --
McKinnon: The other existing business?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 15,2004
Page 160f60
Zaremba: The existing business going, we are going through all sorts of other
constructions and hoops that are non-complying with the city and my question is would
there be anything to be gained by giving you time to give us a whole concept?
McKinnon: Well, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, if I had a planning ball that
was a crystal ball as well, I could tell you really accurately what's going to happen. I
could put together a quick, you know, site plan, saying this is how it could develop and it
would only take me a matter of minutes to get some onion paper and overlay it and
draw it in. But there is no guarantee that that's how it would be developed completely.
The only thing I know right now is the area that is pretty much shown right here is that
this area right here is pretty much known as to how that's going to develop. You know,
there will be another commercial building up in this area and, then, the feed and gas
station, that's the only area that I can really say for certain. As far as putting a
conceptual plan together, I could put one together and have that for you, but there
would be no guarantee that's how it would be developed, It's owned by one gentleman
who has a nursery there and he'd like to run his nursery, but in the future the property is
going to become worth enough that the nursery will move off to some more rural
location and this property will be developed in another manner. It's commercial on the
comp plan and it's going to develop commercially, it's not going to develop residentially.
It will develop commercially, whether that's one large building in the back or if it's
multiple buildings, I don't know. But if you want me to put one together, I could put one
together.
Borup: A concept plan wouldn't mean anything to me. I mean it's meaningless, I think
the things that are important is the access points, that -- that's going to have somewhat
to do with how it's going to develop. At least in how the circulation is going to be. I think
we would want to know where those access points would be, but as far as internal
development, I don't know what that would really tell us. I mean there is all kinds of
layouts that could be done.
McKinnon: I was going to say, just thinking back to my experience of working in the
city, we had numbers of planned developments that came through conceptually and I
can't think of one that stayed very similar to what we originally came up with. You know,
there was the Sparrowhawk -- I don't -- I think you were here when we went through
Sparrowhawk off of Franklin. That changed a couple of different times and now it's
totally different than what it looked like the first time, We have got the Silverstone
project and how that's changed with the inclusion of T-Mobile and Citi Bank. The
market conditions change and it could change so dynamically just in six months that
anything that we prepared now, two months from now could be completely different. It
just depends on the market conditions at that time and who is willing to buy and who is
willing to sell at that time, A really good example would be Fairview Lakes, We went
from 196 apartments, down to 92 apartments and adding, you know, several hundred
thousand square feet of office and retail to that site, Things change rapidly on a
commercial site and things have to be modified quite a bit.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 15. 2004
Page 17of60
Borup: I think it may be good to have some kind of direction on which way we would
like to move and maybe a feeling from the Commissioners what we'd like to do tonight.
Moe: Well, quite frankly, I'm a little bit concerned to do anything but go ahead and
continue this. I don't want to -- I don't think we need to deny it, but I do believe there is
quite a few items in this application that do need to be reviewed and basically get
conditions of approval on this project. I'm very concerned that what I have heard tonight
is not so much that you're in agreement with staff on some items and you can work
around them, as much as you have been able to kind of go away from some of the staff
comment and, basically, give an explanation that, quite frankly, is -- I can agree with you
on some of the items, but I just don't see very much working relationship between staff
and you to get this thing resolved. And so I'd like to see that it could go back and,
basically, find out what we can do with Idaho Transportation to get that resolved, as well
as some of the issues that staff has recommended and see if we can't work some of
those back into this project.
Borup: That might be one of the first questions. How much time -- do we know how
much time ITD is going to need? I mean so far it's been a week and they haven't even
found the report yet, so --
McKinnon: I'll follow up on that. I'll call Dan tomorrow and find out what the story is with
that and follow up with the traffic engineer. That's -- I don't submit those applications to
ITD and I will follow up with Pat Dolby as to who that went to, I can find out and I can
actually get in touch with Craig tomorrow and --
Borup: Well, that doesn't help us on --
McKinnon: No. I'm stalling, because I don't know how long it's going to take for lTD.
I'm trying to work it through in my head, It can take some months if we have to go
through the appeal process, just like it did through Southern Springs. They have made,
you know, the offer to Southern Springs to give them the access. In talking with Steve,
he said, you know, that's -- a similar thing is going to happen for you guys, so the
precedence is set. It could go faster, it could go --
Borup: If there is a precedence set, does that affect the time?
McKinnon: Just because --
Borup: Or is it still a case-by-case --
McKinnon: It's still a case-by-case, but it may go smoother because of that.
Borup: Okay,
Meridian Planning & Zcning Commission
April 15,2004
Page 180f60
McKinnon: I would have to check with ITD to find out the exact time frame and I know
their response is that we can't give you an exact time frame, so we don't know how long
it's going to take,
Borup: Okay, The other thing I think that may be useful, if we could touch on some of
the issues -- some of the items that staff maybe has an issue with and maybe express
at least what our feelings would be, And I don't know if I have got good notes on those.
Maybe you could help us, Mr, Hood. I know one of them was the landscaping along
Highway 69 and so maybe we start with any input on this that I -- go ahead.
Hood: I was just going to say that -- just kind responding to what the applicant brought
up in response to the bullet proofs just kind of to help lean towards approval, I guess.
My only concern with continuing this to a date uncertain -- I mean we can't do it to a
date uncertain and just for a reference point, Southern Springs is still in the process of
getting their approval form lTD. So, it's several months, I would guess -- I mean no one
really knows, that's the problem with continuing this again, Staff has concerns with just
continuing it and continuing it, you know, on and on, when there are these issues and
there hasn't been a lot of -- you know, the access one is one that there can be -- there is
going to be resolution to il. There are some other sticking points with what's been
submitted, but there doesn't seem to be really any --
Borup: That's what I was hoping we could discuss a little tonight are those points.
Hood: So, the landscaping, for instance, on Victory Road, you know, regardless of how
this develops, I don't see our ordinance changing. There is still going to be a 25-foot
wide buffer on Victory Road. The buffer requirements may vary a little bit, but those --
The general landscaping adjacent to the right of way is going to be somewhat the same.
So, installing it at this point should have no effect on what type of uses go internal to the
site, A tree of two may have to be removed if they add another access to Victory Road
in the future, but that would be it, basically. And this is a little bit different, too, than
some of these -- it is -- I said this at the last hearing, it's an existing commercial
business, it's not vacant ground they are waiting for some, you know, business to come
in there. It's in there and we don't know when it's going to leave, And if it gets approved
like this, it may stay there forever and I don't think that will probably be the case, but I
would argue that right now it's somewhat rural in nature as Dave has stated, but it's
changing very quickly to a built-out environment and, you know, those improvements
should be in place. There is a -- you know, as you get further south it definitely has a
rural feel, but this is becoming the city, That's what we are looking at is making this part
of the city, so those improvements landscaping wise -- I don't have -- I mean I can just
tell you what the code is up and down State Highway 69 on Victory Road for the
landscaping, but that just seems to be something we -- you know, that would be a
requirement of approval and if you -- if you guys decided to change that requirement,
that's fine, but the applicant is well aware of that, that that's a requirement that you
landscape adjacent to your property.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 15,2004
Page 19 of 60
Borup: It sounds like you're almost making an arrangement to just annex the portion of
the property that this application affects. Was that ever discussed?
Hood: We actually did discuss that. There is a couple of problems, One is that the part
that they are proposing to develop would not be contiguous to any part of the city, so
you couldn't do that.
Borup: That's enough reason right there.
Hood: Yeah. So, that probably puts the kibosh on that. I guess just the landscaping, I
don't really see the hardship with that. That building that's there near Victory Road, I
just measured it; there is 80 feet from the building to the centerline. You couldn't get
your full landscape buffer in adjacent to the building, but there is over 400 feet of
frontage that you could put a full landscape buffer in on. So, maybe, you know, a little
bit of a variance where that parking is there, but they don't have a full parking lot on
Victory Road. Some of the other things that Dave touched on a little bit, too, was the
drive aisle internal. We are not -- staff is not so concerned about where, you know, the
fork lift type vehicles, heavy machinery, are going to be moving trees around inside, we
are concerned more about people parking at the landscape nursery and the sprinkler
business having paved parking lots and drive aisles for those specifically. Service
drives are not as big of a deal I don't believe, Some of the other reasons why that
applicant has stated that this would be in the best interest of the city, the improvements
to Victory Road that the applicant has agreed to construct were previously required of
this site that you see before you now. The existing business was supposed to do that a
long time ago and it hasn't been constructed. So, that being a part of the city, whether
this application is or approved or not, they should have had to do the improvements on
Victory Road a long time ago. And just so the applicant knows, too, if we are looking for
compliance with county standards, that was the original at the last hearing that we
wanted something from the county, Slats are not approved material for screening, so if
you had something from county, that's not an approved material for screening anyways.
And, then, also the one time division, you know, but like Dave said, that's not a huge
one for us, because a preliminary plat would clean that up, but it hasn't been cleaned up
and that goes back to the original point that there is a lot of lingering issues out there
and that's why -- you know, I tried to touch on some of the landscaping things that I
think we could get there sometime, It's not this application, we do not believe, and
that's why denial is still the recommendation.
Borup: Okay. I, basically, had two issues, That's why I like to get them down, so we
know what we are talking about here, One is landscaping, both on Highway 69, then,
on Victory and, then, paved parking at the nursery, And I didn't hearing anything else
that you said that you felt was a real -- I mean you mentioned the platting and that type
of thing. Is that, essentially, what we are down to?
Zaremba: Well, there is the issue of a residence in a CoG zone. We have several
ongoing things that aren't resolved until the nursery goes away, and --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 15,2004
Page 20 of 60
Borup: Well, that's what I want to get listed, those ongoing things.
Zaremba: And who knows how long that is. I mean I have to be honest, my instinct is
to thank staff for their due diligence in researching the problems that have come up with
the county and seem to continue and to say that it's premature to. annex this at this time.
It's easily going to be months and uncertain dates before anything is going to be
resolved. I think the application is premature. I think when it's known when the nursery
is going to go away and what's going to develop on the site, would be the appropriate
time for the city to consider it. The staff's bottom line is at the present time this is not in
the best interest of the city to do and, unfortunately, I'm inclined to agree with that at this
point. I'm not saying that's true forever.
Borup: See, I -- maybe I interpret the staff comments different. I thought as presently
submitted it wasn't, but not saying that there can't be some changes.
Zaremba: As presently submitted it includes keeping the landscaping business, the
nonconforming residence, and a number of things that can't be resolved in the short
term.
Borup: But how is this any different than any other -- a lot of the other commercial
projects that they are phasing in? The difference here is you have got an active
business -- landscape business, the others you have got a weed patch.
Zaremba: Yeah, but you usually have a plat for the whole thing, usually, and some
concept of how it's going to go and what traffic circulation is going to be and the answer
to what the accesses are going to be.
Borup: Well, I still think the access needs to be resolved.
Zaremba: And that could be months.
Borup: Yeah.
Zaremba: My instinct is this is premature and we -- I don't think we can, in the best
interest of the City, put it off indefinitely. Or the applicant. I mean the applicant needs a
decision one way or the other. I mean they may be able to go to the county and apply
for the gas station. I don't know.
McKinnon: Mr, Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, if I could jump in real quick just on a
couple things there, We don't know where the access is going to be. We have a pretty
good indication that there will be an access given to this site. We have talked with the
county about going in through the county and one of the things that we run into in the
county is the -- in order to build this we would need additional fire safety concerns for
that and the only way we can get the water is if we annex into the city. And so the water
is not going to be there, we can't do it in the county. This is a permitted use in the
county. It would be much easier for us to go into the county. If we could, we would.
Meridian Planning & Zcning Commission
April 15,2004
Page 21 of 60
But we need the water service and the sewer service would also be helpful, so we don't
have to create a gigantic septic system for this area. You will get the water and sewer
through the annexation and would be bringing that down as part of this development.
The access issue is something that we can work out. I have concerns myself -- I have
had concerns with these type four roadways on the state highways that run through,
When I worked for the city it was a great concern, we went through the same type of
discussion with Lochsa Falls with their multiple accesses to Chinden Boulevard. This
was a site that was designated as commercial on the Comprehensive Plan. It was
anticipated that this would be something that would have traffic. It's a traffic generating
area and the city anticipated that in the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant's trying to
abide by that and doing what the Comprehensive Plan says, this is going to be
commercial. It's like Chairman Borup said, this is something that has to be phased in.
The applicant is not ready to develop the whole thing. Does that mean that you hold up
development and the rest -- of the rest of the site until the whole site is ready to go,
because you're going to get what's there right now and things won't change until the site
develops and we don't know how long that is. We have a comparative advantage over
the status quo if it's approved, because we start to get those improvements installed.
As those things move in, things start to snowball, people start seeing that there is
activity there and that's how things happen. You see the north Meridian, as soon as the
sewer and water went there, that whole area has blossomed out and there is a whole
bunch of developments going on in there. As the water and sewer moves further south
into this area, you're going to see a higher demand for development in this area and it's
probably going to speed up the transition of this if that's in there and that's one of the
advantages you would see for the city to go through with this. I would love to have the
opportunity to talk with ITD again before there is a denial of this project, because I don't
believe that it's premature for this site to develop at this time, I believe that there is a
need for the services that are provided there, it's something that people have asked for
for having a gas station, other than having to go up to Overland where there is the
congestion once you get to the overpass. This is something that people would like to
see happen. Victory Greens is a very successful nursery right now, but as the
development starts to happen and the land becomes more valuable, it will -- it will
snowball and things will start to happen there. So, as far as the existing residential unit
that's there, it's very similar to those that you see for the people that run mini storage,
it's an accessory use to what's there right now. It's also used as an office, it's not just
caretaker, but that's where the business and money changes hands there and the
owner just happens to live there, because he likes to be there and he likes to work
there, so -- and in the county right now it's a permitted use, That's something that's
allowed for him to go there and I don't believe that that's a major concern of staff at this
time, I see that there is a lot of advantages for the city to have this in the city. I don't
see an advantage for it to remain in the county, because those improvements aren't
going to happen in the county, because they are not -- they haven't been enforced on by
the county, there has been a lack of conversation between the county and this
developer and it's been instigated by this application, So, we are already seeing
benefits for the city on this entryway corridor, because you're starting to see changes
there right now. And so even without the approval of this, you're starting to see
changes on this site, so you're already seeing an advantage over not having heard this.
Meridian Piannlng & Zcning Commission
April 15,2004
Page 22 of 60
So, I think it is in the best interest of the city. I guess I would have to disagree that -- I
think there is a lot of advantages to it.
Zaremba: If we were to continue this, would you like to offer a target date to which we
could continue it?
Borup: I was going to suggest maybe two months. Does that sound --
Moe: That would be June the 17th.
McKinnon: June 17th.
Zaremba: June 16th.
McKinnon: June 16th.
Zaremba: Would be two months from now.
Moe: No, 17th.
Borup: Or you need longer?
Zaremba: Or 17th, I'm sorry. June 17th,
McKinnon: I'll take June 17th over longer. June 17th I think we could have something
and --
Borup: And if not -- I mean the comment I think Commissioner Moe made about
continuing -- the next time it would just be a matter of continuing it, it wouldn't be a --
probably a hearing to -- or testimony that would take any time, so it doesn't need to -- I
can't remember who mentioned that, which Commissioner. But it's not something that
would need to take a lot of time out of the agenda if there was nothing really --
McKinnon: I don't have an answer for your questions. I can come back and say we
need another month to continue it.
Borup: Well, there is a couple things I think would be good to work on in the meantime
and that's probably, you know, landscaping design on Victory. Some paved parking for
thenursery business. And maybe some discussion from -- I mean we know what the
ordinance is and what staff feels, but -- on the landscaping and buffering on -- on
Highway 69. I don't find it objectionable the way it looks, again, realizing that it's
temporary, but, you know, there is a lot of trees along there and probably adding a few
more would help even more, but what I'm getting to, I think the applicant would probably
-- it would help to have maybe some -- a little bit of direction and feeling how this
Commission would be feeling on that. Or anything else, I mean I stated landscaping on
Victory. Maybe others feel differently,
Meridian Planning & Zcning Commission
April 15.2004
Page 23 of 60
Zaremba: Well, I think that's important. You hit some important ones.
Newton-Huckabay: I just want to comment that there is so many issues that are
convoluting this application for me to sort out and --
Borup: Well, that's what I'm trying to --
Newton-Huckabay: -- make an informed decision. 1--
Borup: Well, that's what I say tonight, let's get those written down, then. That's what I
think we need to do. I have got three of them, That doesn't seem like so many issues,
And one of them is lTD.
Newton-Huckabay: There is the driveway issue. There is --
Borup: Right. That's the first one, lTD. The other is the landscaping on both roads
and paved parking at the nursery, If there is another issue that needs to be added, let's
get it on the record.
Moe: Basically, the amenity situation as far as the sidewalk on Highway 69, as far as
not going all the way through the property. And if we are going to be reviewing the
landscaping to be taken care of all the way down through the property, I would
anticipate we want to have the sidewalk do the same,
Borup: Okay. Any other issues?
Zaremba: I would think that the staff should have the opportunity to decide if there are
more issues.
Borup: Yes,
Zaremba: And not necessarily on the spot this evening.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I can let you know that I have tried to
highlight the most -- the biggest issues with this application, There are other things that
could be -- that are normally taken care of in conditions of approval, not -- you don't
hardly ever see an application that there aren't -- there isn't something left out by an
architect or an engineer that needs correcting. I have tried to address in that memo,
you know, the six biggest issues that were still outstanding with this, that there didn't
seem to be enough of a resolution to tonight to have conditions of approval and, again,
continuing this for another two months with a possibility of another continuation for
another two months -- I have several applications in my office and if we got rid of this
one and they came back with something that addressed whatever you decide -- if you
want to give them some direction and say, you know, we don't necessarily think that
landscaping is appropriate for the north half of this property on the highway. That's fine.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 15,2004
Page 24 of 60
We can give them direction that way, I believe. But to take what they have submitted
and try to re-tweak that, we are looking at something different anyways. It is a different
application, It will be a new application. So, continuing this one just doesn't seem to be
appropriate and baby-sitting this until these issues are resolved -- it seems backwards
to me, They should be resolved and, then, an application is brought forward, But,
again, that's -- I'll quit there,
Borup: I think we are open for a -- maybe ready for a motion.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on these three items.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing, Any discussion? All in favor?
Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Powell: Chairman Borup, if you close the Public Hearing --
Borup: I know. Was that the intention of the motion?
Zaremba: Yes, it was,
Borup: That it cannot be continued?
Zaremba: Yes.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending
denial of AZ 03-038, to include all staff comments,
Moe: I will second.
Borup: Motion and second, All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT,
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending
denial of PFP 03-007, again, including all staff comments for denial.
Powell: Chairman Borup, you actually deny it. You don't recommend denial on this
case.
Zaremba: Okay. I cancel that motion and I will make a new motion.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 15.2004
Paga 25 of 60
Borup: Now, you're saying denial for the preliminary plat.
Zaremba: Yes.
Borup: Yeah.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, move that we deny PFP 03-007, for the reasons stated in the
staff memos and, in addition, we don't have jurisdiction if the land is not annexed,
Moe: Second,
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: Is the CUP a recommendation or a final?
Powell: Recommendation.
Zaremba: I thought so. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City
Council recommending denial of CUP 03-071, both because we don't have jurisdiction if
it's not annexed and for the reasons stated in the staff memo.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT.
Borup: Thank you, Mr. McKinnon, I guess you get to face your applicant.
McKinnon: I guess I get to go to Council, too, so - got to face both.
Item 7:
Public Hearing: AZ 04-006 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.06
acres from RUT to L-O zone for Southstone Subdivision by Pinnacle
Engineers, Inc, - northeast corner of South Eagle Road and East Girdner
Lane:
Item 8:
Public Hearing: PP 04-008 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8
commercial building lots on 3.06 acres in a proposed L-O zone for
Southstone Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - northeast corner
of South Eagle Road and East Girdner Lane:
Borup: Okay. Next on our agenda is Items 7 and 8, pertaining to Southstone
Subdivision, I'd like to open Public Hearing AZ 04-006, request for annexation and
Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
April 15,2004
Page 26 of 60
zoning of 3.06 acres from RUT to L-O zone for Southstone Subdivision and Public
Hearing PP 04-008, request for preliminary plat approval of eight commercial building
lots on the same property. Okay. Both public hearings are open and we'd like to start
with the staff report.
Kirkpatrick: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. Again, this is an
application for a rezone of 3,06 acres. It's currently located in the county with RUT
zoning. The applicant's proposing a rezone to L-O, which would allow light office uses.
And there is also a request for a preliminary plat for eight commercial building lots, The
subject property is located at the northeast corner of Eagle Road and Girdner. I'm going
to go through some of the surrounding land uses, because it's an important part of why
we are recommending this zone change, Sutherland Farms Subdivision is located to
the north. It was approved as a planned development and while there is R-4 zoning, the
planned development allows light office uses. Sutherland Farms Subdivision surrounds
the property to the north, to the east, and to the south, To the east of the subject
property Sutherland Farms Four, which you will be seeing soon, is a revised plat, will be
proposing some single family and attached -- attached single family home, but, then, to
the south, again, to Sutherland Farms is R-4 zoning, Again, the planned development
allows light office uses on that property to the south. So, the combination of the
surrounding land uses with the light office uses to the north and to the south and the
property's location on a major arterial and the proposed consistency matrix, which
. Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval on April 1st, 2004, and is
going to go to City Council April 27, 2004, the combination of those -- those factors of
surrounding land uses and the compatibility of the matrix, we -- staff felt that this rezone
was entirely appropriate for the area and we are recommending approval. Actually, the
actual subdivision -- let's see -- is an eight lot light office sub, There were a couple of
minor changes that were recommended by our police chief and the applicants conceded
to go ahead and make those changes, They wanted to make sure that the access point
on the southern part of the subject property did not line up with the access point to the
north, so we didn't have a straight shot. The applicant's agreed to go ahead and shift
that access point on the north side of the subject property to the west, so there will be
kind of more of a circuitous route to get through the parking lot. And since the staff
report was written, we have received a revised plat, so we now know that the drive
aisles do meet the approval of the fire chief. They will be 25-foot drive aisles. Are there
any questions of staff?
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Zaremba: I did have one. ACHD made a comment about their proposed driveway on
Eagle Road and your comment was that they do not have direct access off of Eagle
Road. From the small drawing I had, I could not interpret as well as I can from the one
that's on display now, but it does appear that they do have a driveway going to Eagle
Road, which ACHD, apparently, is asking that they not have.
Borup: I think that's an existing driveway.
misinterpreting that?
Isn't that what that is? Or am I
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Aprii 15,2004
Page 27 of 60
Zaremba: We will ask the applicant.
Borup: Oh, there we go. You're right. It does. Okay. Now I see that. Did you have
anything else, Mr, Zaremba?
Kirkpatrick: I did want to point out that with the consistency matrix not having been
approved yet, this applicant is, essentially, following the consistency matrix through the
process, If the matrix is not approved by Council, this application will lose it's ability to
ask for the L-O zoning and it would die, essentially, So, just kind of keep that in mind.
But the director's determination was that it was okay for this to follow the matrix through
the process.
Zaremba: Well -- and I would support that. I anticipate that the matrix will pass and it
seems to me appropriate that this should be L-O. If that doesn't happen, then, we need
to fix the matrix, But I'm agreeing that this is something that should happen, but I did
have the question about the driveway access to Eagle Road. And the applicant is now
here and that may not be what you want to start with.
Borup: Mr, McKinnon.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, again, Dave McKinnon, 735
South Crosstimber, I'll just go ahead and address ACHD, If you can go back to the full
site, Craig, not -- just the overall vicinity map, Or Wendy. I'm sorry,
Kirkpatrick: Oh, I'm sorry.
McKinnon: You will understand a little bit better about ACHD's comments. ACHD right
here at the Ridenbaugh Canal -- and that's the cutoff location for Eagle highway and this
is -- it no longer becomes a highway at this point. It's no longer ITD's jurisdiction once it
crosses the Ridenbaugh to the south, it becomes ACHD's jurisdiction. And you see the
site there, They wanted to have a shared access at this site, Their staff report says
that it doesn't meet policy, but they would like to see this access at this location and
they asked for a waiver for that and that was approved and so they approved that for
shared access for that and the site to the north, so that's how they have asked us to
modify that. So, you can go back to the site plan, Wendy, the one we were just looking
at. They want this to be moved up, so that it's more towards the center, so that the
property to the north can have access, because they felt that there should be access to
that property between the Ridenbaugh Canal and the collector street going into
Sutherland Farms. So, that's the comments from ACHD and they were, actually, very
supportive of this site and the location for the driveway, so that they could both receive
access for that. In addition to that --
Borup: Could you explain that again? You said on that driveway access to be moved
up?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 15.2004
Page 28 of 60
McKinnon: Well, just to allow access to the north.
Borup: On this application it would be eliminated.
McKinnon: This -- it's right here. They want cross-access to the property to the north.
Zaremba: It would be half on this property and half on the other property.
McKinnon: It would be all on ours with a cross-access.
Borup: Okay. It still stays, but there would be a cross-access?
McKinnon: It's a cross-access, And you should have received a letter from me stating
that the only change that we had to the staff report that we wanted to see was on page
seven, it was item number 14, and there was a requirement for a cross-access and
cross-parking with the lot to the north and we don't know exactly how the lot to the north
is being developed and so we are more than happy to give them a cross-access, but at
this point to require a cross-parking agreement seemed premature, so we would ask
that we not be required to provide parking for that property at this time, because we
don't know why they would need parking on our property, because everybody is
required to have parking on their own site, so if we can just have it modified, so that we
don't -- we are not required to have a cross-parking agreement with the property to the
north, we would be happy with that. Just one other thing that came up. Just recently
we found out that there was an application from Sutherland Farms to revise the office or
multi-family to the east of this site, Originally when Sutherland Farms was approved,
this was to be office with multi-family and we designed it with that in mind and the
reason why it's important now is because this ten foot landscape setback, which is the
dotted line you see running up through there, but all of a sudden, if it does single family,
it would jump up to a 20 foot setback, because there is a requirement for a 20 foot
setback adjacent to residential. When we designed the project we were looking at ten
feet, because it was going to be like against like, which requires just the ten-foot buffer.
Now there is a change in that and I'd just like your opinion on that as to how to deal with
that. Sutherland Farms has not come in to ask for this to be changed yet. It was
supposed to be on the agenda tonight and they have moved it off the agenda, so that
would be something I would love to receive comments on, if we can continue to keep
the ten foot buffer there or not. We have some flexibility in here to maybe move this
over, We have got a large landscape area between these two buildings, They could
possibly be moved, but we'd much prefer to see the ten, because we designed it with
the intentions of this being zoned the way it was and now it's being modified as a
planned development, so that's just something I would like to receive comments back
on.
Zaremba: I would ask for confirmation from staff, but my instinct would be they have not
officially made the change in their request yet and if you go in under the assumption that
it's going to be the way that it was, your requirement is a ten foot landscape buffer, If
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 15. 2004
Page 29 of 60
they change their impact on the area, I would think that the additional buffer would have
to be on their site,
Kirkpatrick: That's the director's interpretation also,
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: So, I would say regardless of what their application does, you're currently
obligated to ten feet and we don't know otherwise at this point.
McKinnon: Okay, Thank you.
Borup: I would agree with that. The only thing that may change is if their application
changed before yours was approved, then, that may put a different light.
Zaremba: Well, I --
Borup: But at this point I would -.
Zaremba: I would still think the extra buffer would need to be on their side.
Borup: That seems -- I agree with that.
McKinnon: Okay.
Zaremba: But that's an opinion, but it seems to be shared by staff as well.
McKinnon: And just so I'm clear this time, I am asking for approval tonight on this one.
Zaremba: I guess a question to staff, Are you comfortable giving up the parking part of
the cross-access agreement at this point?
Kirkpatrick: If I would talk to Dave for a second, I just wanted to clarify -- so you will just
be doing this before the final plat is signed? Your concern is coming up with an
agreement before everything --
McKinnon: No, Wendy, it's just the cross-parking. You know, you're required to provide
parking for your entire site on site and, typically, a cross-parking is only required if you
can't fit all of your parking on your site, but you need to use someone else's parking,
We are not agreeing to let them use some of our parking, which is what a cross-parking
would be, So, we will do a cross-access, we have no problem with providing that. We
just don't want to provide them with parking on our site and so that's all we are asking
for.
Kirkpatrick: That's fine.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 15,2004
Page 30 of 60
McKinnon: Okay. Cool.
Borup: Okay, Any other questions? Comments, Thank you, Mr, McKinnon.
McKinnon: Okay,
Borup: Do we have any public testimony on this application? Seeing none.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Moe,
Moe: I move to close the Public Hearing.
Borup: Do we want to second that?
Zaremba: I'll second that. On both items.
Moe: Oh. Excuse me.
Borup: Yeah, That motion was for both Items 7 and 8?
Moe: Yes.
Borup: Okay,
Zaremba: And second.
Borup: Motion and second to close Items 7 and 8. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Borup: Thank you. Okay. It sounds like from what staff was saying maybe the only
staff report would be item 14 on page seven that would need modified.
Zaremba: Well -- and the access point to the property to the north, which the applicant
has agreed to move, means that a new plat will need to be done for the hearing. That's
probably a standard condition anyhow, Let me look real quick,
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, one other way to modify that
would be just to strike the third word parking and, then, again, the -- I think it would be
the fifth, sixth, and seventh word that -- the phrase for shared parking. If we were to
strike that it would delete that from the --
Borup: That would be a lot simpler, That would be a lot simpler than to put in a new
sentence.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 15,2004
Page 31 of 60
Moe: In his letter he had a recommendation.
Borup: Yeah. But I like Wendy's recommendation better. She's saying just cross -- just
eliminate the word parking and, then, the three words for shared parking, which would --
the sentence would, then, read: A cross-access agreement between the subdivision lots
and -- well, maybe that is a little awkward. Between the subdivision lots and for the
property to the north, the subject property must be submitted, Pardon?
Freckleton: You could scratch the word for, too.
Borup: I did it. Oh, do you mean -- oh, the second for.
Zaremba: But, then, we need to add --
Borup: -- oh, right. And the property to the north.
Zaremba: We need to add a paragraph 15 that says a new plat will be submitted ten
days before the next hearing showing the movement of the access to the property to the
north; right?
Kirkpatrick: Yes. Go ahead and add that.
Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending
approval of Item 7 on our agenda, AZ 04-006, request for annexation and zoning of 3.06
acres from RUT to L-O zones for Southstone Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc.,
northwest corner of south Eagle Road and East Girdner Road, to include all staff
comments of their memo for the hearing date April 15th, 2004, received by the city clerk
April 12th, 2004, and I would just note for the applicant that there is an unlikely event
that the -- what are we calling it, the zoning matrix may not be approved by the city
before this, but we assume it will be and that this is a safe recommendation. End of
motion.
Moe: I would second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending
approval of Item 8 on our agenda, PP 04-008, request for preliminary plat approval of
eight commercial building lots on 3,06 acres in a proposed L-O zone for Southstone
Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc., northeast corner of South Eagle Road and
East Girdner Lane, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of
April 15th, 2004, received by the city clerk April 12th, 2004, with the following changes:
On page seven, paragraph 14, will be changed as follows: A cross-access -- delete the
Meridian Planning & Zcnlng Commission
April 15,2004
Page 32 of 60
word parking -- agreement -- delete the word for shared parking -- between the
subdivision lots and for the property to the north of the subject property must be
submitted, And on page 17 we will add a paragraph 15 that says: Ten days prior to the
next hearing the applicant will submit a revised plat showing that the north access to the
north property -- that the access point to the north property is moved to the west. End
of motion.
Moe: That was on page seven; correct?
Zaremba: That is on page seven, a new paragraph 15.
Moe: I second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT.
Borup: Thank you. Okay,
Zaremba: I did have one left-over question. How did McKinnon get the first two items
on the agenda when last year he was always the last one? You have moved up in the
world, sir.
Item 9:
Item 10:
Item 11:
Public Hearing: RZ 04-004 Request for a Rezone of 9.47 acres from R-
4 to L-O and R-B zones for Southwoods Subdivision by Calderwood
Community, LLC - 2090 South Meridian Road: Renoticed to April 29,
2004
Public Hearing: PP 04-007 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 15
building lots (14 office and 1 residential) and 1 common lot on 9.47 acres
in proposed R-B and L-O zones for Southwoods Subdivision by
Calderwood Community, LLC - 2090 South Meridian Road: Renoticed to
April 29, 2004
Public Hearing: CUP 04-008 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for office and assisted living in proposed R-B and L-
0 zones for Southwoods Subdivision by Calderwood Community, LLC -
2090 South Meridian Road: Renoticed to April 29, 2004
Borup: Maybe, He got denied. As mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, the next
project, Items 9, 10, and 11, there will not be a hearing tonight. It has been re-noticed
for April 29th. And also as has been mentioned, Sutherland Farms -- are we okay on
that? That's also continued to the 29th. I think maybe we will want to take a look at that
at the end of the meeting and see if that works,
Zaremba: We can choose a date -
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Aprii 15,2004
Page 33 of 60
Item 12:
Public Hearing: AZ 04-005 Request for annexation and zoning of 5,27
acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Packard Acres Subdivision
No, 3 by Packard Estates Development, LLC - south of East Ustick Road
and east of North Locust Grove Road:
Item 13:
Public Hearing: PP 04-006 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 20
single-family residential building lots and 2 common lots on 5.273 acres in
a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Packard Acres Subdivision No.3 by
Packard Estates Development, LLC - south of East Ustick Road and east
of North Locust Grove Road:
Borup: Okay, Our next item -- not only our next, but last is Items 12 and 13, Public
Hearing AZ 04-005, a request for annexation and zoning of 5,27 acres from RUT to R-4
zones for the proposed Packard Acres Subdivision No.3 and Public Hearing PP 04-
006, request for preliminary plat approval of 20 single-family lots on these 5.273 acres.
At this time I'd like to open both public hearings and start with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. On the first
Item, No. 12, the annexation and zoning request, the applicant has proposed a rezone
to R-4, The property is here on the north, the bold actually outlines two five-acre
parcels more or less. We are just -. the subject property tonight is just on the north
here. There is two separate Ada County tax parcels, both owned by the applicant and
both are the subject of the application, Ustick Road is here on the north part of the
screen, on the top of the screen. Several Ada County undeveloped parcels on the
south side of Ustick, Wingate Lane, private lane, does extend at the mid mile between
Locust Grove and Eagle Road down to the property, Packard Acres 2 is to the north.
Chateau Meadows East is to the west. The parcel on the south zoned RUT, separate
ownership, Packard Acres No.1 is located here. Carol Subdivision has also had about
half of their properties annexed last year and, then, of course, you have an office park
and River Valley Elementary School. So, that's generally the vicinity that we are talking
about. Packard Acres -- existing Packard Acres Subdivision is also R-4 zoning, so they
are proposing the same zone for this five-acre in-fill parcel. The Comprehensive Plan
does designate the property as medium density residential, which is three to eight
dwelling units per acre and they are proposing the R-4, which does conform with that.
Our staff report lists several other Comprehensive Plan policies, as well as the
applicant's cover letter, a couple of -- that they felt fit the policies, particularly in fill, is a
goal and policy of the Comprehensive Plan to get these annexed and on city services.
So, the findings that we listed for annexation and rezone did generally find that -- that
the application meets the required findings for that and there is a recommendation for
approval. On item number 13 -- I guess this aerial photo zooms in a little bit and shows
you more or less existing conditions. I think this was taken about mid 2003, I believe, It
does reflect the street construction that was part of Packard Acres that exists. The
parcel is outlined here and it does have East Challis that is already constructed here on
the north boundary of the parcel. As you can see, there are some existing houses and
some out buildings on the site, This is just a photograph to give you a sense for the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 15,2004
Page 34 of 60
intersection that is at the comer of this parcel, which is the intersection of Wingate Lane
and Challis and, as you can see, it is fenced on, essentially, all four intersections. Here
is a copy of the preliminary plat for Item No. 13 that was submitted with the application,
It is a 20-lot build -- 20 building lots and two common lots. Generally, they are
proposing to just extend the existing stub streets that are in the area. The lot layout is
similar to existing Packard Acres plats. The existing house that I pointed out on the
aerial is located here in the middle block and they are proposing to retain that house,
They have an application for a variance for the front setback, which certainly the
Commission as often does, gives comments to the Council on those variances, even
though you don't have recommending authority under the code, but your input is
certainly welcome. Staff is probably recommending approval. The required front
setback is 20 and they are proposing 13.5, I think, or 13.6. The next slide shows what
they are proposing for their two common areas. The one up here in the north -- in the
northwest is an ACHD storm water easement that, essentially, receives street runoff
and -- but they are also proposing to improve it, of course, and to plant a couple of trees
there. That is a part of what they are proposing as their five percent open space. And,
then, the other open space they are proposing is here on their east boundary,
immediately next to Wingate Lane and this is basically the one issue that I raised in my
staff report for the Commission tonight was the Police Chief Musser's comments, as
well as staff's original concerns about the location of this being immediately next to
Wingate Lane, which is gravel and immediately north of this there is a -- as I showed
you, a six foot solid cedar fence, which the staff report right now recommends they
continue the same type of fencing, That was our assumption at the time. This plan
actually proposes to have a split rail fence, instead of a six foot cedar, along Wingate
Lane on the east side and, then, they propose a five foot high wrought iron fence on the
west boundary for the existing house to have view into the open space and, then, the
new house as well. We did receive -- the applicant contacted Chief Musser and tried to
get more information from him as to his concerns about the surveillance on the property
-- on this common open space, which the application originally -- we assumed that that
would become basically like a tunnel and patrol officers would have a difficult time
seeing into it. After he reviewed this with the applicant, he did submit a letter for the
Commission that says that he is -- he says it originally was a concern, but he believes it
does now provide for guardian presence of the common area and he is satisfied that the
developer has worked to create a beneficial amenity for the proposal. So, his original
concerns about the patrol officers being able to have view into that is apparently taken
care of with the fencing. So, I wanted to point that out. I think the other standard
conditions are in the staff report. Those were, really, the two main special
considerations, We are recommending that the same conditions for these lots -- I'll go
back one slide here. There is three build-able lots that back up to Wingate Lane and we
have recommended the same conditions that Packard Acres No.2 has been applied to
those and that is no access to Wingate, that the existing driveway be terminated here at
the east boundary and that the Wingate easement be widened from 15 feet to 20 feet
and that the developer have their attorney draw up a release of dominant parcel interest
for the private lane easement, which, basically, just prohibits that access in perpetuity
as it runs with the titles, so -- do you have any questions?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 15,2004
Page 35 of 60
Zaremba: Mr, Chairman, Brad, while you're on that subject, has there been any
discussion of going the other way with that? Is the issue with Wingate Lane that a
property owner to the south still wants to drive straight up to Ustick, as opposed to using
what are now other public roads in between?
Hawkins-Clark: That's correct.
Zaremba: And there is no way to work that out, to just buy this easement from them
and have them use the public roads that are being put in?
Hawkins-Clark: Well, the property owners to the south -- the Sharps are here tonight
and I'd ask you to maybe present that to them, but they, obviously, do have -- along with
the other property owners there to the north -- and I can go back to the vicinity map that
shows there -- as you can see, there are several properties that c- that, you know, front
on Wingate Lane and part of their -- you know, their deeds have the Wingate Lane
easement and there is an association for that, so --
Zaremba: Well, I'm sure have one to it, I'm not questioning that, I'm just wondering
whether that's practical for the future for them and I will ask them.
Hawkins-Clark: Sure.
Borup: Any other questions? I would like some more clarification on Wingate Lane
also. All this yellow is all already Packard Acres or Packard Estates or whichever phase
of the subdivision; is that correct?
Hawkins-Clark: That's correct.
Borup: And this is their subject property right here?
Hawkins-Clark: Just the -- correct. Yeah. The one you have your dot on. Right.
Borup: Oh, just this little one right here?
Hawkins-Clark: No. The -- not the one on the south.
Borup: Okay,
Hawkins-Clark: Not this one.
Borup: So, what properties -- so what properties south of the road is Wingate access
to?
Zaremba: That lower.
Borup: Oh, this whole half here,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 15,2004
Page 36 of 60
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Borup: Okay. Okay.
Zaremba: But their easement crosses what's going to be several public roads on the
way to Ustick.
Borup: Okay. And those photographs you showed, you said it was gravel -- I thought I
saw some paving on --
Hawkins-Clark: It's approximately 30 feet paved on both sides.
Borup: Both sides of the public --
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
standard policy that --
Yeah. The Ada County Highway District does have a
Borup: Don't track gravel on.
Hawkins-Clark: No tracking for, right, about 30 feet.
Borup: Okay.
presentation?
All right.
Thank you.
Would the applicant like to make their
Tealey: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Pat Tealey, office
address 2501 Bogus Basin Road in Boise, and we are here tonight to ask for approval
of the annexation and preliminary plat for 20 building lots and two common area lots.
We have read the conditions that staff has prepared and we have been in contact with
them in regards with the common area concerns that he had. I'll just go through this
special plat considerations one by one and address those, so we can try to keep orderly
and comment on each item,
Borup: I think the ones we are most interested in are any of those that you had any
concerns or disagreement with the staff.
Tealey: Okay. Just to let you know, item one has been taken care of. We did add an
additional 220 square feet to that open area and Craig has got the -- or, excuse me,
Brad has got the amended drawing. We'd like to address the -- item number three of
site specific, the fencing, that it be agreed upon here tonight will be what will be required
in the final plat, so we need to go over that. We felt this open area was going to be a
nice feature to the -- not only to this subdivision, but it's a portion of what will be the
open areas for all of the Packard Subdivisions, not just the use of this 20 -- 20 lots. So,
it's centrally located within the Packard development. Also, this subdivision will be
eligible to join the swimming pool complex also. The developer is donating 1,500
dollars a lot to the association for membership in that swimming pool complex that they
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 15,2004
Page 37 of 60
have for all of Packard also, So, they, actually, end up sharing that open space also.
We are requesting that we be allowed to put a three foot high two pole fence along the
western edge of Wingate Lane in order to maintain that openness. It's a very low traffic
road. There is only one person -- one -- excuse me, There is one residence that
accesses it and, really, the -- doesn't use it exclusively, he uses the public road system,
believe it or not, quite a bit to get in and out of there, the travel along that road isn't even
used all the time. So, there is very low traffic, low impact, so we are hoping that you
see it as a good thing for the open area to maintain the openness of the area. So, we'd
like to request that the two-rail fence and the wrought iron fence be approved. In item
number five, the developer does not want to widen the Wingate Lane private road
easement to 20 feet. The reason that Wingate road -- road easement was widened to
the north of this application was so that ACHD had access to a storm drainage pond
back there. This need isn't there for this development, so there is no reason to give an
additional five feet to that easement. I mean there is no -- there is nothing that says this
has to happen in order for it to function properly, It's functioned that way for 50 years,
so there is really no reason for us to give up another five feet of ground. In item number
11 --
Borup: So, that would be -- in number five that would be items Band C is what you're
contending?
Tealey: Correct. Then, item number 11, just to -- as a matter of information, that
pressurized irrigation system will be owned and maintained. by Nampa-Meridian
Irrigation District. It will be part of the overall Packard irrigation -- pressurized irrigation
system. Are there any questions?
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Zaremba: The existing house on the property, which, apparently, originally had access
to Wingate Lane and probably has the same legal rights as the other people, they are
willing to give up that access, I assume?
Tealey: Yes, The owner -
Zaremba: According to the drawing.
Tealey: According to the drawing, Yes. The owners of Packard Estates and Packard
Acres had access to that Wingate Lane all along and we have agreed to not access that
in the future.
Zaremba: Have you had any discussions with the people to the south, apparently the
Sharps, about buying out their right to use that portion? I'm talking about this area right
here.
Tealey: While that would certainly be nice, that's been a sticking point through the
whole eight years that this application has been running, so -- there has been several
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 15,2004
Page 38 of 80
discussions, to answer your question, but no resolution. And I don't believe they would
be willing to give that up.
Zaremba: Offers have been made, I take it?
Tealey: I don't think so. Given the discussions, I don't think an offer would be worth
presenting,
Zaremba: Okay. That's enough answer right there as well.
Tealey: Yes.
Zaremba: Those are my only questions.
Borup: Okay, And item number six -- or maybe you -- you did mention that on the
fencing, but that would also affect that. On page eight it says that the fencing
construction would be the same material.
Tealey: Yes,
Borup: And that would go to your two rail and your wrought iron that you had
mentioned?
Tealey: Yes, That's correct. Right now there is an existing fence along that western
boundary,
Borup: There is you say?
Tealey: Yes. And we'd like to -- which we paid for to put up, but we'd like to take it
down and put in the split rail, just to give that open feeling in there
Borup: Okay. Well, I don't have any other questions at this time. I may later.
Commissioner?
Newton-Huckabay: I'm still a little confused on the layout. So, just to the west there is
homes that are part of --
Borup: I don't think that helped.
Newton-Huckabay: No. I'm trying to figure out where -- on the Wingate Lane -- I'm still
not clear. To me it looked like it ends right there at the corner.
Borup: It continues clear down to access this parcel.
Newton-Huckabay: Oh. And that's the parcel --
Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
April 15,2004
Page 39 of 60
Borup: And even though -- because it's an easement -- am I stating this right? Because
it's an easement it's not shown on there as a public right of way, so it's -- it's part of
these lots right here,
Tealey: That's correct. But if you go -- maybe if you could go back to that picture, that
intersection that you had, and you might explain -- right there. That's the Wingate Lane
going north from the -- basically, the northeast corner of our subdivision.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay, And the split rail fence, then, would kind of continue --
Borup: This is the property here -- is this the subject property right here?
Tealey: I'm not good with these things, This is our -- this is what we want to replace
with the two rail split rail fence. Right there.
Borup: Okay, That's what I -
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you.
Tealey: And this right in here is the western edge of the 15-foot easement for Wingate
Lane, This is Wingate Lane here that accesses that property to the south.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay, Thanks.
Borup: All right. I think we are clear. Do we have anyone else here that would like to
offer testimony?
Moe: Still have a question for the applicant.
Borup: Okay.
Moe: Could you go back over one more time as far as the widening Wingate Lane, why
you're opposed to the 20 foot?
Tealey: I guess I can use one of these things after all. This is the part of Wingate Lane
in Packard Acres No, 2 that got widened to 20 feet and the reason that it got widened
to 20 feet is when you go north here behind this garage, there is a storm drainage pond
and ACHD needed 20 feet -- that's their minimum -- that's what they require for access
to their -- they don't require that here, because there isn't any drainage structures and
this part of Wingate Lane has been used in its existing condition since inception of the
easement. So, there is really no reason for us to give another five feet of easement for
that road.
Moe: Okay, Thank you. Appreciate that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 15,2004
Page 40 of 60
Tealey: Plus, right now as it's being used, this is on the 15 foot line right now.
Moe: Okay,
Borup: Okay, Does that conclude the Commission's questions? Is there anyone else
who would like to testify on this application? Now is the time,
Sharp: I'm Dale Sharp and I live on the property south of the one that's in discussion
tonight and we do have a private road agreement that's been in effect for about 91
years now for the entire length of that half mile and we do not wish to give up our -- that
easement, because we do have our sewer -- I mean our garbage and our paper and our
mail and our friends and relatives come down there and use that and it is used quite a
bit, regardless of what was said here.
Borup: You're talking about this section here you use quite a bit?
Sharp: All the way up,
Borup: Right. Okay.
Sharp: From our property up to Ustick and if you try to go -- explain to people how you
get into our place and you try to say, oh, come in from Fairview, you'd have one hell of a
time. Same thing with Locust Grove, And this way if we have an emergency or
something, those people -- emergency vehicles can come right from Ustick straight to
our property without any problem, And we are asking that they widen that to 20 feet, so
that we do have -- if emergency vehicles need to get in there, they have that. If you try
to turn off of the public street there or what they are proposing as East Meadowgrass
onto that 15 foot, it's going to be -- that's real difficult and this -- safety and liability
concerns here, because we do have -- we do have people that come down Ustick and
turn off onto Challis and -- or else come on down to East Meadowgrass or they come
from both sides of -- on the east and west of Wingate Lane from Challis and go north or
they come down to East Meadowgrass and turn there or they come from East
Meadowgrass and turn north and go to East Challis or up to Ustick and we do have a lot
of kids and just people trespassing on that lane there and it is -- if you see that, it's a
dangerous situation, because you have cars coming from East Challis or East
Meadowgrass turning onto Wingate Lane and they don't look, they just turn on there,
and you have a blind spot there.
Borup: This is cars going to Ustick?
Sharp: Both, Every way,
Borup: But it doesn't go anywhere to the south, other than your place, does it?
Sharp: All right. You come from Challis, you come from --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 15,2004
Page 41 of 60
Borup: Could you back up one more -- yes. Right there, Okay. This is your property
right here? This is your house right here?
Sharp: Yes.
Borup: Okay.
Sharp: They will come -- I got to see where -- okay. Here is Meadowgrass. They come
here and turn up here, they either go up there or out here or this way or they come here
and come down Wingate Lane and turn here. And the kids and walkers are also going
through there and we are -- when you say two rail fence, if they try to park there, they
are blocking our easement and this happens, too, a lot of times and --
Borup: People are parking there now you're saying?
Sharp: They will, They will, In fact, there is a fellow that lived right here on the corner,
he was -- parked his pickup there, because he was doing some work over the -- into his
property. That was just yesterday. And that blocks our easement. And if you have
maintenance or something on that common area here, I'm afraid that they will come and
try to block our easement there, too, So, safety and viability concerns is a real concern
here. When -- before this is all developed, that -- they have ditches -- they have ditches
on the east side of the lane right across from where our property is and, then, right at
the property line of -- just north it crosses over and went up and fed the properties to the
north. I mean we had -- and that lane was wider than it is now, because people would
come down there and do the maintenance on the ditch or have to access the ditch -- the
water from the lateral down right on our property, So, it was wider than it is now. That's
just the way it was. It was that way until they started developing. And Jerry --
Borup: So, you're saying it was wider because you were encroaching on someone
else's property?
Sharp: Well, that's just - that was the way it was when we move there. That was 30
some -- 36 years ago, because the farmer back then, they just -- you know, they --
Borup: They just kept widening the road as they used it?
Sharp: Yeah, They worked it out. Now, Jerry Kirkpatrick said -- he lived just the --
north of East Challis on the west side of the lane there. He thought there was a ten foot
additional footage there on the east side of the lane, but he couldn't find it and I do have
a letter saying that he thought there was that ten foot.
Borup: That's probably not pertinent to what we are --
Sharp: But, anyway, I'm just saying that, you know, it allowed for people to access
there relatively easy, but --
Meridian Planning & Zcning Commission
April 15.2004
Page 42 of 60
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Sharp?
Sharp: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: What was -- I didn't get your comment on the landscaping. You
approve -- you --
Sharp: We don't -- you know, as far as the common area, I'm just concerned that
people don't try to use that lane there and park there to do maintenance on the common
area,
Newton-Huckabay: To mow the lawn?
Sharp: Yeah. Because we go through there. That's our -- that's our access. We have
used it for 36 years and that easement has been in existence for over 91 -- about 91
years now.
Borup: Is the current part of Wingate in use, is there any no parking signs on there at
all?
Sharp: There is -- we have -- there is a sign on East Challis and there is one on -- that
would go -- as you're going north you can see it off of East Challis. And, then, there is --
Borup: There is no parking on Wingate?
Sharp: It's a no trespassing. Private lane, no trespassing,
Borup: Okay.
Sharp: And, then, there is one on the -- on the west side of -- that would -- if you're
coming south there is one there and, then, there is one up at Ustick, but we need -- if
this is approved and you go through with East Meadowg rass , you need some signs
there, too, to try to keep these people from trespassing and creating a hazard. It is
dangerous for those kids. Every time I look down there and people will just whiz out
East Meadowgrass and head up north or vice-versa. Come down south from -- so that
was -- as far as the -- as far as the subdivision, we have -- I have no objection to that. I
think they did a fine job as far as it looks nice and everything else, but our concern is the
safety and liability on Wingate Lane.
Newton-Huckabay: Are any of those issues that -- did you work with the homeowners
association in that subdivision? I'm assuming it will be the same homeowners
association.
Sharp: Pardon?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 15,2004
Page 43 of 60
Newton-Huckabay: On the homeowners association of Packard Estates, I mean could
they be involved in not parking vehicles on the private road?
Sharp: It's hard to control. I know that.
Borup: Right.
Sharp: Because there are people that live right next to Wingate Lane that have used it
and we have gone over and told them that is our lane, you know, and that is a private
lane and they are not supposed to be using it and a lot of them are real -- they say, oh,
okay, we won't use it, but others get real mad. But we are the ones that maintain it, we
pay for the cost of maintaining it, we pay the taxes for that lane and -- our portion of it.
We do. And I suppose --
Zaremba: That's why I wonder wouldn't it be cheaper and less headache to sell for a
profit --
Sharp: We can't do that. We can't do that. It's all the homeowners on that lane that
own that.
Zaremba: Yeah, but you're the only one that uses it this far south.
Sharp: No, I'm not. We got -- we have got people come down there and access their
ditch water and everything else, so --
Borup: Okay. Anything else that you wanted to mention?
Sharp: No. I think that would probably -- thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify?
H. Sharp: I'm Helen Sharp, 2445 Wingate Lane, to Chairman and the Commissioners
and the staff. I'd like to show these pictures, so it would make it a little bit clearer to you
where we are talking and what it looks like, if I may, please,
Borup: Do want to enter those in the record?
H.Sharp: I'm sorry?
Borup: Are you prepared to enter those in the record?
H.Sharp: Yes.
Borup: Okay. You realize they will stay in the --
H,Sharp: They also have a copy of them there, too.
Meridian Piannlng & Zoning Commission
April 15,2004
paga 44 of 50
Borup: They have got them there? Okay,
H. Sharp: They can look at them. And I have another copy. They can have these,
because I have another copy at home,
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, it's possible -- if the clerk's okay, we could put them on
the overhead, so everyone can see them and, then, you could point to them from the
overhead, if that works okay.
H. Sharp: I thought this just might clarify, because, you know, you can look at lines on a
piece of paper, as we are doing here, and it doesn't make an awful lot of sense. You
can see -- this is Wingate Lane. The house here -- I'm supposed to use this thing. Let's
see how smart I am. This one down here, the existing house that they want to keep,
starting at this fence is ours, the southbound property. Over here you can see -- right
here on this one you can see where they are coming -- this is Meadowgrass. You can
see where they are coming off Meadowgrass, turning down and using Wingate Lane.
And, of course, then, it goes down further and you can see where Challis Road is, too.
But this will give you a little bit longer view, because that lane is a half-mile long and
that's what I want to address tonight. We have one public road crossing Wingate Lane,
that's Challis, and if the subdivision goes through as proposed, we will have two public
roads across a private lane, A private road agreement was written in 1913, which was
established for our property -- our first title to our property was 1913 and we would
respect or hope that this body would honor that 1913 road agreement and I wanted to
read one portion of it that says -- and I quote: Use of all the owners -- to be used for the
use of all the owners. The developer does own part of that land, the lane. They don't --
they do own this, but when they sell it, they don't. So, then, why would the people want
to use it? Ada County Highway District has a road agreement or an easement to use
that to cross there, but what right would the public have to use it, if they are not owners.
We have a -- and if we are not going to abide by this contract -- it's notarized; it's a
recorded deed. If we don't have to abide by this, why do we have to abide by any? Ada
County --
Borup: Ma'am? Ma'am? Is there something that's not being -
H. Sharp: Well, they crossed Wingate Lane. They crossed our private lane at Challis
and --
Borup: Okay.
H,Sharp: They crossed there. This is my comment. Ada County Highway -- Ada
County says -- and I have a drawing here -- that a private lane cannot have a public
road at either end, We have Ustick and Challis. If it is done, then, it needs to be
brought up to standard and improved, If you go from Challis into Meadowgrass, we
have got the same issue, It can no longer be a private road, My husband spoke to Mr.
John -- a gentleman that was working with us on -- we have to take down the signs,
Meridian Planning & Zcning Commission
April 15,2004
Page 45 of 60
because -- who identifies Wingate as a private lane. If it's a private lane, then, the road
should -- the private lane should not be crossed. And we all know this might be past
history, We went through this before, you know, from 1995. It was decided that when
this property that they wanted to develop and ours were to be developed, as one of the
conditions for granting the subdivision number two for Packard Estates, that when those
could be developed, then, they could partition off -- or vacate Wingate Lane, because
we wouldn't need it. But this has just been one piece and not ours. So, technically,
they were supposed to keep -- and one of the conditions was that they keep the gates
across Challis and Meadowgrass, so they couldn't cross Wingate Lane. That was only
to be for emergency vehicles. And Ada County -- Ada County Highway District decided
they were going to turn it down and redo it. When my husband and I went to the city
and said, you know, these are the conditions, the first meeting they said all conditions
were to be adhered to. Then, they decided they couldn't make them -- they weren't
enforceable, so nothing was done, and so we have a private -- or a public road crossing
a private lane. My husband and I have a lawsuit -- unfortunately, we sued Ada County
Highway District and the developers. It was dismissed by Judge Neville who said the.
Only one that could enforce the conditions for granting that subdivision was the City of
Meridian and nothing was done, My argument tonight is what laws, what codes are we
going to adhere to? There is also one here that's a private use arrangement that's in the
Idaho law book -- I went down to the law library -- that states, in fact, if there is
interference by the subservient, which is the developer north of us, causing -- changing
this condition, they are liable. The City of Meridian police department has confirmed it's
a very serious hazardous condition. We have had it at Challis and Wingate and now we
are going to have it at Meadowgrass and Challis and this, of course, has not been
addressed. Nothing has been done to confirm or work that problem out and I find it very
very difficult and I think that rather than going on and on, that we either honor the codes
or why have them. If conditions are made and we are not going to enforce them, why
bother? We have a real serious problem here and I think that decision, hopefully, that
you make is based on fact and not as I was told Ada County Highway District has the
final say and we find out that's not true, that if it's new road construction, the city has the
say. When it becomes part of the system, then, Ada County Highway District does.
Now, this, of course, has not been pursued and this is the thing that is so frustrating for
those of us who live on Wingate Lane and I'm very sorry to say that there aren't other
representatives here from Wingate Lane. I was told that I was -- you know, that the
Sharps got the exclusive rights on this lane. We have never professed or tried to think
we did. We are fighting for what we think is ours and that's a private lane. The land that
was granted for the private lane is on the west side of Wingate Lane, Fifteen feet was
contributed to make this lane and, like I say, 1913 when our house was built, so that we
could get to our property and I have been told that they can't stop us ever from using
that, because of the -- not only is it grandfathered, but it's a contractual agreement. Not
with just us, but all the members of the lane, and I'm sure that if people would read the
files -- and it's a pretty thick one -- they would find that there have been numerous
letters from the residents on the lane stating the same things that I have done and I
would just like to reiterate -- I would like them to adhere to some of the things that are in
black and white to protect not only us, but you as the Commissioners for Planning and
Zoning and also the City of Meridian,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 15,2004
Page 46 of 60
Borup: Could you maybe just reiterate briefly what you'd like them to adhere to? Are
you saying you don't want them to build Meadowgrass?
H. Sharp: What I'm wanting them to do is to adhere to the conditions that the City of
Meridian, the developers, and Ada County Highway District agreed to and that was to
put fences across Challis and Meadowgrass, so you could not go east and west on
Challis.
Borup: So, you want us to tell ACHD what to do you mean?
H. Sharp: I'm not telling you what to do, I'm just saying that someone needs to enforce
what's supposed to be on the records.
Borup: Okay.
H. Sharp: And I'm saying --
Borup: It sounds to me like you may have made an argument to have Wingate Lane
vacated, because it's between two public roads right now,
H. Sharp: No, One of the conditions I think -- if you went back and read them -- it
could be vacated from Challis --
Borup: No, you said it shouldn't be allowed because it's between two public roads, so it
sounds like ACHD has made --
H, Sharp: Well, no, it wouldn't be -- it couldn't be -- it can't be private between Challis
and Meadowgrass, because there is public road on either end of it.
Borup: No, You stated between Challis and Ustick.
H. Sharp: That couldn't be a private lane either. In the definition --
Borup: That's what I'm saying, You're making an argument to have that vacated and it
sounds like ACHD has made a special exemption for you,
H. Sharp: No. I'm not -- I'm sorry, sir, To vacate would mean that they developed the
property they are trying to do a zoning for, the five acres north of us, and us, so, then, if
they blocked off Wingate at Challis, it wouldn't make any difference, because the
property is beyond -- or south on Wingate Lane.
Borup: So, you want that blocked off?
H. Sharp: I want them to put the gates on there, so they can't cross our private lane.
The question is what's private. We have got some in the County; we have got some in
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 15,2004
Page 47 of 60
the City. If someone drove on your driveway, what would you do? You would call the
authorities and they will say, hey, listen, Mrs. Sharp, you cannot drive on their driveway,
it's private property, so you have got to define what is private property. Our lane is a
private lane,
Borup: Okay. I'm just trying to --
H. Sharp: And I just don't think that we should be allowed to have public roads crossing
it.
Borup: Well -- but that's already happened, so that's something we can't address, But
what we can address is --
H. Sharp: You can on Meadowgrass.
Borup: -- the application that's before us now, so that's what I'm trying to find out what it
is that you're trying to say here. It sounds like you're saying you'd like a gate.
H. Sharp: I'm hoping that they don't cross Wingate Lane at Meadowgrass. According
to the guidelines from Ada County -- and I'm not too sure they have even dealt or talked
to Ada County on that, but some needs -- they need to have definites, because we
know there are other private lanes. In fact, I think there is five or seven between Eagle
Road and Linder off Ustick and they need to have some definites and not this I heard or
I think or I have been told. We are dealing with fact.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Did Mr. Hall want to testify?
Hall: Justin Hall. I'm a current owner -- well, eight property owners in Packard Estates
in both number one and number two. My concern this night is the 13-foot easement on
the front property line of the home that's currently there, I support the annexation
process of the subdivision, I think it will be nice to have the 20 lots, but our concern as
a group of homeowners that live close by that would devalue the subdivision having a
13 foot front easement granted in this particular subdivision and I don't understand how
-- you know, if we had one granted, what would stop me as a home -- a builder wanting
to go in and grant another 13 foot easement?
Borup: Because there would be no reason for it. This is an existing structure.
Hall: But is there a hardship developed on why there should be a 13 foot versus upping
the price of lots 3,000 dollars to bulldoze the house and not make the value -- I mean it
doesn't seem like we are imposing a hardship on the landowner by requiring him to
adhere to all the other, you know, current 20 foot setbacks in the rest of the subdivision.
Zaremba: Well, what is happening is what used to be the side of his house is now, by
definition, becoming the front of his house. It's still the side of his house, he hasn't
moved his house, but because a new road is being put foot there, the side suddenly
Meridian Planning & Zcnlng Commission
April 15,2004
Page 48 of 80
becomes subject to the front setback and to mitigate that we are saying the existing
setback is okay,
Hall: Thirteen feet.
Zaremba: Yes. The reason for the 20 feet is so that it's possible to park a car in the
driveway without having your tail end of the car hanging over sidewalks or streets and
their driveway is certainly long enough, since it comes in an L-shape --
Hall: And how many feet from that west boundary to the front of the house will there
be? Will there be 20 feet there?
Zaremba: That I don't know, We can ask the applicant that.
Borup: There is a representation of it right here. So, I'm assuming that the 13 feet is at
this corner, the closest point. If that's correct, that's -- so you have got this distance
here, plus the width of the garage would be the distance off.
Zaremba: And your other point is that -- making that exception in this case does not
give anybody else the right to build a house -- a new house without the proper setback,
Hall: So, how can current concerned homeowners deal with that issue if there is no -- I
mean I guess that's why I came and I don't know this policy very well.
Borup: Well, you have done exactly the right thing,
Hall: You know, that we have been joined with quite a few other people, you know, and
I made the comment at the first meeting to try to up the price -- I mean we are
concerned as a homeowner on the whole community and how it's going to retain value
for our current home sites and we think -- you know, as "m voicing a concern from many
other people, because I built 35 or 40 homes in the subdivision, is we have a valid
concern. If it's about money, I would be willing to pay a few extra thousand dollars per
lot or whatever it would be to mitigate that problem and put it in -- you know, change the
home, put a front easement, so it's consistent with the other home sites. There has
been another home --
Borup: How did the developer respond to that?
Hall: I can't recall, I-.
Borup: I mean --
Hall: I think it kind of got shot down. I'm not sure. How did you respond to that?
Borup: Well, we need -- we can get that --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 15,2004
Page 49 of 80
Zaremba: They will come up and respond afterwards.
Borup: Or if you wanted to express that. I mean you raised that as a question, You
said, you -- it was related as a possibility. I just wondered what the response was.
Hall: Yeah. Commissioners, I have you -- you know, just a concern to express that to
you, as a group of people that I have been here to talk about and, you know, busy
lifestyles haven't permitted some of the other people to be here. But the only concern
that we have for the subdivision -- some people have been against it. Easements, I
respect the Sharp's ideas on -- you know, concerns on safety and everything like that,
which I think having it -- you know, cross there is going to be adequate, as long as
people -- maybe they are going to have to move the -- recommended move the fences
back a little bit so you could see up and back of Wingate Lane, so they can safely cross
that with the Sharps coming in and out. But the only concern that I have -- and a lot of
other people have expressed -- and that's why I'm here -- is the 13-foot setback. I don't
understand why -- you know, how to express a concern as a group of homeowners in a
large development like this to maintain the same look throughout the subdivision when
we got a -- you know, Mr. Pantell here, we built a house right here, the realtor has
expressed -- the representatives that this house would be not there when they chose to
do this and that was a representation of the people to him as a person that that wouldn't
be there and that they would demo that out and it wouldn't affect him and so I have a
concerned homeowner asking me, well, what happened here, it's not happening and
that's'why I presented the question to the developers, which I don't want to do this,
because I have stakes and I'd like to continue building there to further my business and
stuff like that, but I just think that in the overall scheme of planning and zoning, that that
home could be a condition of approval of the subdivision that it could be moved, it could
be passed on as a lot, the future 20 lot owners, that they could divide that up into a fee
that -- we could do that and --
Borup: It sounds like you're asking the Commission to step into the private --
Hall: No, I'm not -
Borup: -- into private business and dictate value of property, though.
Hall: No, No. The only option that I'm saying is that as a condition of the annexation
of this subdivision, is there any way that we can put a condition on this --
Borup: Well, that's what -- that's what you're asking for us to dictate. I mean if that's --
if it is a detriment -- and I don't disagree with anything you have said. That should
reflect in the price of those lots, I mean a homeowner may be hesitant and so that --
you know, that lot may not sell at the same price. That's how you control that is speak
with your pocket book I would think.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, if I could just point out, in approximately one month
there will be a public hearing for this exact issue before the City Council. I just wanted
Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
April 15,2004
Page 50 of 60
to point that out. There is a variance application hearing that will be held before the
Council.
Borup: On a similar issue?
Hawkins-Clark: On just this issue of the front setback for that lot.
Borup: Oh, for this lot?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Hawkins-Clark: That's the whole purpose of -- it technically is not a part of this hearing.
Borup: That's -- and I should have explained that when we started. As was mentioned,
this Commission can make a recommendation -. I mean we can express an opinion, but
not make a recommendation to City Council and that is where that is decided is at City
Council and, as was mentioned, that would be definitely where you would want to go
and express your -- so, we have taken note of what you have said and, you know, the
most we could do is maybe express how we feel about it, but we would not be even
making a recommendation to the city.
Hall: So, there is no reason chatting, because it doesn't matter?
Borup: Well, you have had an opportunity to express and this is on the record, but the
official place to express that would be at City Council.
Zaremba: It does, however -- but the correct forum is not here. The correct forum is
before the City Council.
Borup: And you said at what date?
Hawkins-Clark: Well, the date has not been set. Typically, it's about one month
between the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings and the City Council.
Borup: After this -- whenever this application would be moved to City Council, then, part
of -- the variance would be added to what -- the applications we have before us.
Zaremba: And that will be publicly noticed that that is happening?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, it will.
Hall: On site?
Borup: Yes.
Meridian Planning & Zcning Commissicn
April 15,2004
Page 51 of 60
Hawkins-Clark: There will be three ways. One would be on site. One would be
everyone within 300 feet would get a direct mailing to their house. And, then, in the
newspaper. So, there is three ways, But unless you like to read eight point font in the
classifieds, you probably won't pick up on the latter one.
Borup: So, probably, the site sign would be the best notification for you. And just being
aware of it. You can check the agendas, too, knowing, approximately, that time,
Hall: Well -- so, I guess just basically stated, that's our concern .on annexation is that's
a big concern for us as a homeowner to approve this, which I guess this is what we try
to do, so --
Borup: Thank you.
Zaremba: Well -- and I think the point for us to understand is that we could approve or
disapprove -- or I mean a recommendation on this annexation and on this plat and it has
no affect on the request for the variance; right?
Borup: Right.
Zaremba: So, that's another issue that was only decided by the City Council whether or
not that 13 foot setback is going to be accepted. But that wouldn't affect whether the
plat is acceptable or not.
Hawkins-Clark: If I could just add one point on that. It was brought up in the pre-
application meeting if they swung the street a little bit to the south, obviously, the
setback wouldn't be needed and the applicant did raise that very early on in the process
to say, you know, should we even go this route, Staff felt since it's only one lot and it's
only a six and a half foot difference between the required setback of 20 feet and the
requested setback of 13.6 and our experience has been that that -- it doesn't have that
large of an impact on property values when you have existing residences, you know,
that have -- obviously, if it had an impact on the street circulation or on the -- you know,
the other impacts on adjacent property owners, maybe there is some concerns, but we
felt to swag the street just to accommodate a six and a half foot setback, it's better to
keep the street alignment consistent and predictable.
Borup: If this is an R-B zone, 15 feet would be allowed, wouldn't it?
Hawkins-Clark: It's an R-4 --
Borup: I said if.
Hawkins-Clark: Oh, if. I'm sorry. No. It would be the same. It would be 20.
Meridian Planning & Zcning Commission
April 15,2004
Page 52 of 80
Borup: It would be considered side loaded in this case, But I mean that's academic.
This is not an R-B zone.
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Borup: Okay. Any final comments the applicant would like to make?
Groves: Members of the Commission, my name is Craig Groves, I reside at 3920 East
Shady Glen Court in Boise. I wanted to take a few minutes and wrap up a couple of
issues that were raised in the application regarding safety and liability and let you know
that as a member of Packard Estates Development, LLC, we are just as concerned with
safety and liability as Mr. and Mrs, Sharp are. If you could back the screen up to the --
right there. From about that point right there north, the lane is exactly 15 feet wide, but
there are no fences anywhere from that point north where there is a fence on both sides
of the lane, Okay? So, it appears to be more open. Okay? The only place that there is
dual fences on the lane of any significance right now is about from that point to that
point, which is about 190 feet. Okay? We recognize that when there is dual fences like
that, you have issues in terms of turning onto the public street or from the public street
to the lane, that's why these fences are tapered to three feet for public safety issues.
Our proposal in developing this five acres here is to open up the visibility in this lane by
eliminating -- removing the fence on the west side of the lane that exists now, putting a
two rail split cedar three feet high along the edge of the lane at the 15 feet. From that
point to the houses there is an additional 42 feet that will be landscaped with a
meandering path from Challis all the way to East Meadowgrass, so that pedestrians that
would need to walk to school, children, or people that walk in the neighborhood, they
don't have to come down this lane, they can come down through the meandering path,
across the public right of way to walk to school. Okay? So, we are looking out for Mr.
and Mrs. Sharp's issues on public safety, The second point I'd like to make is in
regards to the private road agreement. We have no issues with the private road
agreement. If you can back up two more screens. Again. Again. Right -- forward,
Okay. From that point down to that point at one time we had fee title to the lane. Okay?
We owned the lane. Currently, these property owners here own that lane, they have
agreed not to have any access to the lane or use of the lane. However, when this five
acre parcel here redevelops, okay, if they do not use that lane, the rights to that lane will
revert to those property owners, so now with that in mind, if you will move forward to the
landscape drawing -- there is your lane right here. And right here is an additional 20-
foot of homeowners association property. It was our vision in placing this common area
where it's placed, that at the time that the Sharp property redeveloped down here, and
the need to use that lane would go away, that the property owners association could go
in and expand this common area, which is centrally located in the community, for a nice
open space for the entire community. Does that make sense? Okay. And in regards to
the 20 feet that staff has asked us to dedicate an additional five feet here along the lane
and an additional five feet down to the Sharp properties, which would be right here, we
made offer and proposal years ago to Mr. Sharp to give him a deeded access of 20 feet
from the edge of his property here to East Meadowgrass, deeded to him, pave it for him,
and, if necessary, put up a private gate for him. They rejected that offer and at this
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 15. 2004
Page 53 of 60
point, you know, we have spent thousands and thousands of dollars protecting our
rights that we could be reimbursed, but we have agreed to let it go, We don't see any
need why we should have to give anymore ground on that and we would request --
Borup: That was a written offer?
Groves: No. It was a verbal offer.
Borup: Verbal offer?
Groves: Uh-huh.
Borup: Okay.
Groves: Okay? We see no reason that we should have to do that at this point. Thank
you.
Borup: Questions for Mr. Groves from anyone? Any comments on the gate. Would
there been any problem, other than what ACHD would allow, of putting the gate up on
Meadowgrass?
Groves: Are you speaking about the gate that originally was right here?
Borup: No, I'm talking about putting a new gate right here.
Groves: What Mrs. Sharp wants is she wants a gate across the private -- across the
public right of way. She doesn't want the gate --
Borup: Oh.
Groves: -- across the lane, she wants it across the public right of way and that's more
of a public safety issue --
Borup: Oh. I misunderstood that.
Groves: Yeah.
Borup: I thought she wanted it across the private lane, so cars wouldn't drive down it.
Groves: No.
Zaremba: I understood it this way,
Borup: All right. I misunderstood.
Groves: Any other questions?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 15,2004
Page 54 of 60
Borup: No. Thank you, Maybe the only thing -- I think might -- comments from staff
would be on -- on the 15 or 20 foot. To me is that mainly our issue? Anything else any
Commissioners feel that ought to be discussed?
Zaremba: That would be the only discussion I would think and my opinion would be if
the traffic on Wingate Lane is only moving north and south and they are not turning onto
the other public roads, there is no need to widen it. Their stated desire is to use
Wingate Lane to go from their property to Ustick and back.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, that was a little bit of an
oversight on my part. I didn't look into that as weill should have. I was thinking that the
reason for the expansion to 20 feet was emergency access.
Borup: And you thought it went the whole way, from how I read the staff report,
Hawkins-Clark: So, I do understand Mr. Tealey's testimony and would agree.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: So, we could give up on page eight, paragraph five, give up Band C.
Hawkins-Clark: B only,
Borup: Oh. Right. That's limiting the access and -- and that same C is the same thing
they have done on the other as far as the .. releasing the interest and -.
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Borup: -- and nothing happening on the rest of the subdivision up to this point? Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: And just to clarify that the -- condition number two and three on page
seven, regarding the accessibility of the open space and the fencing, could potentially
be deleted by the Commissioners. I think that -- if you feel that those have been
addressed tonight.
Borup: Well, they have in these exhibits only, I think, and plus the testimony. Is that
what you mean?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
Borup: Okay,
Hawkins-Clark: I don't think it would - it wouldn't benefit this council for you, in your
recommendation, to keep those in there, I guess is my point. They have been
addressed,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 15,2004
Page 55 of 60
Borup: Right. Okay. Yeah, Both of those have been addressed.
Hawkins-Clark: And, then, item number six regarding the permanent fencing, if you're
agreeing with the applicant's proposal, it would also change, regarding that split rail
fence on the open space, because right now it says a solid fence. Where it says a
permanent fence matching the existing one, which is --
Borup: So, it could state a permanent fence as proposed by the applicant shall be
constructed?
Hawkins-Clark: Sure. Yes,
Borup: I think the only other clarification Mr. Tealey made was that Nampa-Meridian
was the irrigation district maintaining the system for item number 11.
Zaremba: That's item eleven.
Newton-Huckabay: I just wanted to clarify Mrs, Sharp wanting a gate across the public
road, We have no jurisdiction in that area to make a decision on it one way or another,
do we?
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, that's correct. In the summary of my staff report I
mentioned a plat -- final application that the city initiated last year, which proposed --
and the City Council did approve it -- to remove that condition, because it was a
condition of Packard Acres to begin with, that they had to construct that gate. The City
Council approved that. But, then, Ada County Highway District. went back and held a
hearing and they determined that that was obstructing a public right of way and that the
gate should be removed. So, then, after ACHD made that decision, the City Council,
then, last year chose to remove the condition that was originally part of Packard Acres
final plat that said they had to have a gate, So, you know, I think we have been down
that road and that's been removed, so I -- yes, I guess I would agree with you, that it's
Ada County Highway District --
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. That's fine. I just needed to clarify, Thank you.
Borup: Okay. I think we still have a hearing open. Commissioners?
Zaremba: Mr, Chairman, I move we close the Pubic Hearing on Items 12 and 13.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing on Items 12 and 13. All in
favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT,
, !
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Aprii 15,2004
Page 56 of 60
Zaremba: Mr, Chairman, I would move that we forward to the City Council
recommending approval of Item 12 on our agenda, AZ 04-005, request for annexation
and zoning of 5,27 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Packard Acres
Subdivision No.3, by Packard Estates Development, LLC, south of East Ustick Road
and east of North Locust Grove Road, to the include all staff comments of their memo
for the hearing date of April 15th, received by the city clerk April 12th, 2004.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending
approval of Item 13 on our agenda, PP 04-006, request for preliminary plat approval of
20 single family residential building lots and two common lots on 5.273 acres in a
proposed R-4 zone for proposed Packard Acres Subdivision No.3 by Packard Estates
Development, LLC, south of East Ustick Road and east of North Locust Grove Road, to
include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of April 15th, 2004,
received by the city clerk April 12th, 2004, with the following changes: On page seven,
under site specific conditions of approval, preliminary plat, paragraph two can be
deleted, Paragraph three can be deleted as satisfied by the applicant.
Borup: When you say paragraph three, you mean item one and two under special
conditions?
Zaremba: Under site-specific conditions of approval preliminary plat, paragraph two,
that starts: At least ten days prior --
Borup: Okay,
Zaremba: That can be deleted, And the following paragraph three that says at the P&Z
Commission Public Hearing, which they did, That can be deleted. Am I in the right
place?
Borup: Yes. I think he also mentioned that the two up above could be deleted also,
The whole special considerations. Am I stating that correctly?
Zaremba: I didn't hear that.
Hawkins-Clark: We do not include special considerations in --
Borup: Okay. That's not part of the --
, , l
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 15,2004
Page 57 of 60
Hawkins-Clark: -- in the recommendations. We only include site specific and general
conditions, not special considerations.
Zaremba: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: Unless you want us to.
Borup: Well, no, they were eliminated anyway.
Zaremba: Okay,
Borup: All right. So, two and three,
Zaremba: All right. Continuing with the motion, On page eight, paragraph five,
subparagraph B can be deleted, Again, on page eight, paragraph six, shall be changed
to read: A permanent split rail fence, as proposed by the applicant, shall be constructed
by, the developer on the western boundary of Wingate Lane road easement. And in
reference to paragraph 11, which begins on page eight, the applicant has answered that
Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District will own and maintain the irrigation system. End of
motion.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second, All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 14:
Item 15:
Item 16:
Public Hearing: RZ 04-006 Request for a Rezone of 16.1 acres from R-4
to R-8 zone for Sutherland Farm Subdivision No.4 by Sutherland
Farm, Inc. - east of South Eagle Road and north of east Victory Road:
Public Hearing: PP 04-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 79
single-family residential building lots & 8 common lots on 16.1 acres in
proposed R-8 zone for Sutherland Farm Subdivision No.4 by
Sutherland Farm, Inc, - east of South Eagle Road and north of east
Victory Road:
Public Hearing: CUP 04-009 Request for modification of the original
Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development to allow the
elimination of five office lots and the addition of 47 single-family lots in
addition to the 32 residential lots previously approved for a total of 79
single-family lots for Sutherland Farm Subdivision No.4 with request
for reduction to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage and
front yard setbacks by Sutherland Farm, Inc. - east of South Eagle Road
and north of east Victory Road:
, " !
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 15,2004
Page 58 of 60
Borup: Thank you. That concludes our hearings for this evening. We do have one
other --
Zaremba: Do we need to open 14, 15 and 16 and continue them?
Borup: Yes, I mean that concludes the items we were going to have hearings on. Yes,
we still need to address -- oh, I'm looking at the wrong page. We need to address 14,
15, and 16. The proposal was to continue that to April 29th. Two of the Commissioners
were here when all of these were continued the first time, so I don't know what your
feelings are. What we have is one, two, three, four subdivisions on the agenda -- four --
I mean four residential subdivisions. No. I'm sorry.
Zaremba: For the 29th?
Borup: Yeah. Presently on the 29th we have Jaydan Village, which is a 16-acre R-8
subdivision, We have McNellis Subdivision, which is an L-O, CoG -- a commercial -- 16
commercial lot subdivision,
Newton-Huckabay: There were quite a few people that showed up for the public
hearing on that one last time,
Borup: Okay. That's what I was going to ask. Maybe, staff, any comments on -- is the
McNellis a pretty clean application? Do we know? It is the Southwood that the people
were --
Newton-Huckabay: No, The industrial park there at the Ten Mile and Ustick or--
Borup: Okay. That's McNellis,
Newton-Huckabay: McNellis. Yeah. There were quite a few people here for that.
Borup: Okay. So, that may -- okay. And, then, we have Rock Creek, which is a down
zone from L-O to R-15,
Hawkins-Clark: I do believe that Rock Creek, Chairman Borup, will probably take some
time.
Borup: Oh, really? Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: That one had --
Moe: Try and move it to the 5th of May.
Borup: And, then, Caparelli is a little two acre two lot I-L zone subdivision. The last one
is Southwood, which is a L-O R-15 on South Meridian,
". ~
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 15, 2004
Page 59 of 60
Zaremba: And we already moved Southwood's.
Borup: Yeah, That was on tonight. So, that's the last -- so that's what we have got,
which is one, two, three, four subdivisions and, then, that little two lot, two acre one.
Zaremba: We have to do the same analysis for the 5th of May.
Borup: Pardon?
Zaremba: Do the same analysis for the 5th of May.
Borup: Well, I'm assuming May is -- I didn't look at May.
Moe: The 5th didn't seem to be as full yet.
Borup: Well, we have 11 items, but it's -- oh, no, there are not. Okay. So, really, we
have got a two-lot subdivision, a communications tower -- what subdivision is this? A
commercial -- a commercial subdivision, Another commercial subdivision. Another
one. So. everything is commercial on May 6th.
Zaremba: Oh, 6th, Yeah. I'm sorry, I said the 5th, but the 6th is correct.
Borup: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Why don't we put the --
Borup: That is -- yeah, that's a pretty light schedule on the 6th.
Zaremba: If you would care to open the hearings, I would suggest continuing them until
the 6th.
Borup: We'd like to open Public Hearing RZ 04-006 and PP 04-009. These two
hearings are now open.
Moe: And also --
Zaremba: And the CUP.
Borup: Oh. I'm sorry. And CUP 04-009, the third Public Hearing also open.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move that continue these three hearings RZ 04-006, PP 04-009, and CUP
04-009, to our meeting of May 6th, 2004,
~ CO!,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Aprii 15,2004
Page 60 of 60
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to continue those hearings until May 6th. All in favor? Any
opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT.
Borup: Thank you. One more motion,
Newton-Huckabay: I make a motion that we end this meeting.
Moe: I second it.
Borup: Okay, Motion and second to close at 9:45,
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT,
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:45 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
~t~~AN
.-'