2004 09-02
- ~
Meridian Planninq and Zonina Meetina
September 2. 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 David Zaremba,
Commissioner Michael Rohm, and Commissioner David Moe.
Members Absent: Wendy Newton-Huckabay.
Others Present: Chris Gabbert, Jessica Johnson, Anna Canning, Brad Hawkins-Clark,
Craig Hood, Bruce Freckleton, Wendy Kirkpatrick, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X David Zaremba X
X Wendy Newlon-Huckabay X
X Chairman Keith Borup
David Moe
Michael Rohm
Borup: We'd like to begin our regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and
Zoning Commission for September 2nd. We'll begin with roll attendance.
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Item 3:
Consent Agenda:
A.
Approve Minutes of August 5, 2004 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
B.
Approve Minutes of July 15, 2004 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
Borup: We would like to begin with the Consent Agenda, which consists tonight of
minutes of August 5th and July 15th.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I have a change that I would like to -- actually, two changes
that I would like to request on the minutes of August 5, 2004. They are on page 98,
one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen,
fifteen -- the sixteenth line down, the first words are Council reminded. I would change
the word reminded to remanded with an A, instead of an I. And on page 99, the very
bottom paragraph, credits a statement as being made by our Chairman Keith Borup
and, in fact, that statement was made by me. It should be Zaremba. We didn't continue
the annexation. Those are my only two changes. And I have no changes for the July
15th one.
~
. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2,2004
Page 2 of 81
Borup: Do we have a motion?
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept the minutes as amended.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 4:
Continued Public Hearing from July 1, 2004: AZ 04-012 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 1.82 acres from RT to C-C zone for proposed
Wrinkleneck Project by Wrinkleneck Partners, LLC - northwest corner of
East Overland Road and South Locust Grove Road:
Borup: Thank you. Okay. The first item on the agenda is a continued public hearing
from July 1st, AZ 04-012. We do have an e-mail memo on this project from the
developer asking that it again be deferred. They are asking for it to be the 16th. Well, I
guess we need to decide if that's -- we have seven -- we have thirteen items at that
date.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup?
Borup: Yes.
Hawkins-Clark: If I could just clarify that while that's a different name, Wrinkleneck, it is
the same project as Maverick. So, that would technically be opened at the same time
and you could hear the --
Borup: That is Item No. 17, then.
Hawkins-Clark: That's correct.
Borup: For the proposed --
Hawkins-Clark: For the 16th.
Borup: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: It was staff's recommendation that they continue that item, so that both
items could be - the annexation and the CUP could be together on the same night.
Borup: Okay. Yeah. I remember the discussion on that.
Zaremba: That's August -- or September 16th?
? Melidian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2,2004
Page30f81
Borup: 16th.
Zaremba: Somebody didn't change this calendar. September 16 we are talking about.
Mr. Chairman, I move we continue the Public Hearing AZ 04-012 to our meeting of
September 16th and at that time that it be coupled with the agenda item for Maverick.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: That was pretty quick.
Item 5:
Public Hearing: CUP 04-030 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
gymnastics center in an I-L zone for Danik Gymnastics by Viktor
Danilovitch - 345 South Adkins Way
Borup: Moving right along. Our next item is Public Hearing CUP 04-030, request for a
Conditional Use Permit for a gymnastics center in an I-L zone for Danik Gymnastics at
345 South Adkins Way. We'd like to open this hearing at this time and start with the
staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The subject property is
located on the southwest corner of Adkins and Kallispell in Medamont Subdivision. The
property address is 345 South Adkins Way, just south of Franklin Road and just west of
Locust Grove Road. Now here is a 2003 aerial of the site that's in the black there. This
picture kind of shows that it's vacant. In fact, construction of the building and tenant
space that this applicant will be taking has been underway, it has begun construction,
and it's pretty close to completion it looks like. There is a vacant parcel on the upper --
opposite side of Kallispel and also to the south of the subject property. To the west is
the Schwans Sales Enterprises warehouse and on the east side that also is shown as
vacant, but there are some industrial uses, and Intermountain Woods Products has a
building over there, as well as a car shop restoration -- I don't know the name of that,
but they are across the street as well. The applicant is proposing to utilize 6,000 square
feet of the 16,000 square foot building that is currently under construction as a
gymnastics center for children. You can see the applicant has wrote in the lease area
on the above -- the picture above representing the building, which shows the whole site
for that lot in the subdivision and the proposed use is considered a private school on the
schedule of use control, which does require the CUP in an I-L zone. In the staff report
staff did ask the applicant to clarify a couple of things, particularly regarding the parking
situation on this site and in the general area. There are only about 27, I think, parking
stalls on site and 16,000 square feet of building. There was some concern initially
brought up by the police department, the police station is not too far away, maybe 200
feet away, and they had some concern with parking along Adkins and that conflicting
with emergency vehicles during competition events. Since the staff report has gone out
, Melidien Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2.2004
Page 4 of81
the applicant has submitted a letter to staff and the Commission should have received
that, dated August 31st is the date I have on my letter and the applicant did state in that
letter that there aren't going to be any competitive events, the SAG, which is the
gymnastics federation, does not allow -- basically, this facility is not regulated to hold
competitive events, so it will just be a learning environment for these children. They do
expect about 10 to 15 children per session and they will be allotted 13 to 15 of those 27
parking stalls. I haven't received anything from the police department, but based on
what the applicant -- and he has dealt with this more than I did and I don't know how
much traffic and parking a gymnastics center will generate, but just based on those
numbers and the availability and the peak time that the center is going to be open, I
think it should be sufficient, but I'll let the Commission follow up with him if they wish and
staff is recommending approval of the application. If you have any questions, I will
answer.
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, Craig, the -- the one discrepancy that I note is in the staff
report you counted 24 spaces available to this building as a whole. The applicant's
letter states 27 and you just repeated that number. Are you satisfied that 27 is the right
number?
Hood: I did -- Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, I did go off of the applicant's letter
when I just stated 27. The site plan should be reflect that certificate of zoning
compliance that was approved for the building -- my eyesight's not that good, but that's
how many parking stalls there are, so if someone could count them up real quick. And I
think that probably the applicant could clarify if that number, then, decreased from there,
13 to 15, that they are going to be allotted if you take a proportion of the existing
building before or -- I really don't know. I think my 24 in the staff report was based on
the CZC as well, just reading that I was going off the applicant's letter, so that's why I
stated 27. I need to cross-check that. I apologize.
Zaremba: Well, you brought up the second half of my question, which would be if he's
renting 6,000 square feet of the 16,000 square foot building, if the right number is 24,
then, his proportional number of parking spaces would be nine. Does the owner of the
building have the right to assign an overage to one tenant?
Hood: They can. This is just one -- I mean it's one lot with cross-access and cross
parking from all appearance and it can be striped for each -- each business, each use. I
don't know if that's how they are going to do it or the two buildings are more industrial in
nature and the parking requirements are quite low for industrial type uses, so they may
-- you know, if you take how many spots each -- even though it's a high square footage,
they may only have two or three vehicles in the operation and no traffic from the general
public coming to this business. So, maybe that's -- the applicants probably should
clarify that a little bit for you. I'm speculating a little bit there, so --
Y Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2,2004
Page 5 of 81
Zaremba: Okay. Then, I would ask one other question that you mayor may not be able
to discuss, but would you go back to the aerial view? I think it was the first slide you
had. Yes. Thank you. I guess the main discussion is whether this is an appropriate
use in the I-L zone. I believe it is this piece of property which was recently approved for
an indoor soccer stadium that had some variation from the traditional use around it and I
think not too far away, probably at Franklin and 5th, roughly, there was a dance school
in an either commercial or an I-L. Do we know how those are working out?
Hood: I personally have not had any complaints from the public or the police
department or anyone, for that matter, regarding those uses in the industrially zoned
subdivision. The one exception to that is on the south side or -- there are some
residents that are in the county that butt up to Medamont Subdivision and we have had
some complaints about noise, but those are more from the industrial type uses than
these less intense, if you will, uses for school and office. There is some other office
leases in there. So, the less intense uses, even though it is industrial, seem to be
working a little better than the industrial uses in the industrial subdivision, so --
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Anything the applicant would like to add?
Danilovitch: Okay. If you look at the --
Borup: We need to go ahead and have you state your name and address.
Danilovitch: Okay. My name is Viktor, last name Danilovitch. I am applicant for Danik
Gymnastics and about parking, concern about parking, number. one thing, we cannot do
competition in this building, because it is pretty small building for competition. We have
to rent some big building, like high school or something like this and it's from my
experience, because I'm here seven years already and I do a lot of competition and
usually we just rent space, like high school or fairgrounds, Idaho fairgrounds, or
something else, for competition. Number one thing, our business mostly is drop-off
business, because parents bring kids, drop them off, and they pick them up after one
hour, one and a half hours or two hours, it depends how long practice. And that's the
one question another one think about this. I talked to -- two days ago this building
owner and she say it will be between 13 and 15 parking lots. It's kind of good for me,
because I will be not worried at all and mostly our kids coming after school. In morning
also we have classes, but it's not big classes. Mostly after school and it is after 5:00
o'clock and both businesses probably will be already to close after 5:00 o'clock. That's
why it's not the kind of question for me, it will not be a problem at all about parking.
Borup: Okay. While you're on the parking, you had mentioned 27.
redesigned the site?
Have they
Y Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2.2004
Page 6 of 81
Danilovitch: What they say -- no. What they say it is 24, but parking will be available
from one side of the building. J don't know which side he mentioned, but there will be
parking so that --
Borup: Any questions from the Commission?
Moe: As far as employees, how many employees are you planning to have that would
possibly be taking parking spots?
Danilovitch: Usually -- like I said, usually just two, maybe three classes in one hour, just
me and two or three people, two or three coaches will be inside.
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: I would comment that for myself and maybe for all of us, we certainly
welcome this kind of a business to Meridian. I think it would be a good addition to the
community.
Danilovitch: I think so.
Zaremba: The main question is whether this is really the right location for it or not. The
question I would have, children that are being dropped off before class or maybe have
completed their class and are waiting to be picked up, how will they be contained and
supervised?
Danilovitch: They stay -- usually they stay inside the building. Parents coming in and
taking them and --
Zaremba: So, they wouldn't be allowed to wonder out the exist and --
Danilovitch: No.
Zaremba: -- about the parking lot and --
Danilovitch: They always inside the building.
Zaremba: Okay. That's my question.
Borup: Okay. Anyone else? All right. Thank you.
Danilovitch: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone here to testify on this application? Okay. We had no one
sign up.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing.
,
- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2, 2004
Page70f81
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and Second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of CUP
04-030, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a gymnastics center in an I-L zone for
Danik Gymnastics, Viktor Danilovitch, 345 South Adkins Way, to include all staff
comments and conditions of the staff memo dated for the hearing date of September
2nd, 2004, received August 23rd, 2004, and the letter from Mr. Danilovitch received by
the city clerk's office August 31st, 2004 -- excuse me, not city clerk, but Planning and
Zoning. End of motion.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 6:
Public Hearing: CUP 04-031 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
retail candle and gift shop in an O-T zone for Kathy Hinshaw (Aromatic
Sensations) by Kathy Hinshaw - 128 East Pine Avenue:
Borup: Next item is Public Hearing CUP 04-031. This is a request for a Conditional
Use Permit for a retail candle and gift shop in an OT zone for Kathy Hinshaw, 128 East
Pine Avenue. We'd like to open this hearing and start with the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner -- Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission.
This is another CUP application for a retail candle and gift shop on Pine Street. The
mailing address is 128. It's located on the north side of Pine, just west of 2nd Street,
between 2nd and Main. To the north of the subject site is an alley and on the other side
of the alley are some single-family residences. To the south are -- is a single-family
home directly across street. You can see our city parking lot to the south and west.
Directly to the west of this site is a used children's clothing and toys, I believe, also, so
used children's items anyway there and that business to the east is the High Desert
Construction office. Everything, including this parcel is zoned OT, in Old Town. The
site plan submitted by the applicant -- I apologize that this didn'tcome through very well,
it didn't scan in very well, but you may have a hard copy in front of you, but there is only
one on-site parking stall proposed. That is the biggest issue, I think, probably, with this
application. There are a lot of existing homes in Old Town that are converting to retail-
office type uses. This is another one, but parking is definitely an issue to be discussed.
The city does not have any special regulations for Old Town parcels when it comes to
parking requirements and there is only one on-site parking stall and it is a handicapped
stall located off of the alley. There is currently a concrete slab with a covered carport, in
,
- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2,2004
Page 8 of 81
fact, it will be utilized. And current city code does require retail uses to provide one
parking stall for every 200 gross square feet of the building. This is a 924 square foot
building, so rounded; they would need five parking stalls. Also there is on-street parking
on Pine Street that is utilized quite a bit. They would be able, according to our
standards for dimensions, which are 23 feet long per stall, would be able to fit two
parking stalls in front. So, it's on site, but in front of this business there are two and,
again, the city parking lot is in the general vicinity. Just one other thing of note
regarding parking. Last year there was an application, again, for that used children's
clothing and/or toys and they asked for a variance. The subject business has also
submitted a variance that will be heard by the City Council with this application after
your recommendation. That application -- that applicant was allowed to utilize the on-
street parking and one on-site parking stall for that business, with those other
considerations, because there are on-street and across the street parking for the
business. Being such, this is just kind of a little bit more of staff's analysis, I guess, is in
the staff report, but oftentimes these specialty retail shops don't generate some of the
traffic that a more general retail store may, something just to take into consideration. I
believe one of the other things that back in 1901 when this was platted people weren't
thinking about parking requirements. There is only 46 feet of frontage and you have
pretty narrow lots. It is .18 acres, so just to keep those things in mind, I guess,
anyways. I think that's everything I wanted to touch on. With that, I will stand for any
questions -- oh, staff is recommending approval. I did want to point out to you, to make
the legal department happy, that there is no conflict of interest; the applicant did put
down me as the engineer, planner, surveyor for this. I did help the applicant in pre-app
meetings, but I am not working on this site consulting, so I did just want to go on record
with that and with that I'll stand for any questions.
Borup: Questions from the Commission? I noticed that, too, but I assumed that was the
case.
Zaremba: I would comment on these smaller projects it sometimes speeds it along to
have the department provide a little extra help than they might on somebody who can
hire their own engineer, so I personally don't have a problem with that. I would have
two questions, though. One of them -- and the fire department doesn't mention it, but
other than their first point on page seven with the acceptance of the water supply for fire
protection will be by the Meridian Water Department, are you aware of any special
requirements that they might put on for the storage and making and display of
flammable items, such as candles?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, I do know they have a manufacturing
standard condition. I do not know why it was not included here. I'm recalling when the
agency meeting was held, Chief Bowers, who used to do this for a long time, was there,
but has since turned over the reigns to Joe Silva. He may have just missed it, but there
may be some special for a manufacturing -- or a business of this type that may have
candles there lit to show their work -- there may be. I do not know that, though. I'm
sorry.
~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2, 2004
Page g 0181
Zaremba: But having the adequate water supply for fire protection probably would give
them the right to introduce that part if they needed to? It seems appropriate to me. I just
wanted to make sure that thought was included. I see a head nodding. The other
question I had -- on the staff report, page -- I lost the page number, but it's the page
before the one that I was just talking about, so it must be page six. Yes, it is. About
item number 11, it says the applicant or successor -- maybe I'm wrong, but I was
surprised. Does the CUP go with the land, so that it can be sold along with -- there can
be a successor owner of the CUP?
Hood: That's correct. The Conditional Use Permit runs with the land, not the applicant,
so if you don't move your CUP, the approval is for the use, so, yeah, the successor part
would be true.
Zaremba: Okay. Good. I was thinking differently, but I'm glad to have that clarified.
That, then, leads me to a couple other questions, though. Is it limited to this specific
use? In other words, it does not automatically turn this into a retail property, as opposed
to a residential, it has to remain a candle shop and within that candle shop they cannot
on their own set up a booth for Madam Zelda's Taro Card Reading and stuff like that?
It's limited to their specific stated uses?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, we go off of the schedule of use control, so
this would be a retail business. You could open up another retail business not
specializing in candles and gift shop. If there is not another closer classification, you
would not have to gain CUP approval. If they wanted to convert this to an office, that's a
different use and they would have to come back in for CUP approval based on the OT
zone. But this is approved for a retail business in general, more specifically for this
applicant, a candle shop. So, it can be converted to Madam Zelda's or whatever you
just said. A clothing store, any type of retail business could move in there, potentially,
with this CUP approval.
Zaremba: And that leads me to the question of whether that -- if your assessment of the
parking situation would stay the same if it were some other retail use --
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, the existing home, to convert that to
anything other than a somewhat specialized -- I don't see it happening. If they were to
tear it down and start anew maybe -- some of these homes that are converted, those
tend to be of this variety and staff is kind of put in a little bit of a bind when reviewing
these, just because of the history of Old Town and what the city kind of wants to see in
these mix of uses, but you don't take into account fully -- you got 40-foot wide lots and
where are you going to put parking and a structure on site. So, they are -- that is
difficult. I think in the next year or year and a half or so we are going to have some
specific guidelines for developing downtown and possibly some sites for parking
garages and those type of things that can fully address those issues. But I thought
about it, I guess, in the analysis and probably will get a little more detailed in the
variance application, but it would be hard to recommend anything other than approval, I
think, just based on what else has happened in the Old Town with similar situations.
-' Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2, 2004
Page 100f81
So, I know that doesn't fully answer the question, but at least that's my perspective on
this.
Zaremba: It does answer my question and thank you.
Borup: Questions from any of the other Commissioners? Does applicant have anything
they'd like to add? Is the applicant here? Okay. Kathy.
Hinshaw: Good evening. I'm Kathy Hinshaw, owner of 128 East Pine Avenue and I
know there is not a lot of parking there and I like the home and would like to convert it
over to retail and I guess that's about it.
Borup: Okay.
Hinshaw: Do you have any questions for me?
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners?
Zaremba: I guess not.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I just had one question. From a manufacturing perspective, can
you kind of fill us in on what you will be doing with candles? Are you bringing in pre-
made candles and its just retail or are you going to manufacture, to a certain degree, or
what?
Hinshaw: Yes. I have the -- I buy the wax and I buy the scent and I melt them and,
then, I just pour them into containers or molds and that's how I sell them.
Rohm: How do you melt the -- is it propane? Is it natural gas? Is it on the stove?
Hinshaw: No, it's not on the stove, but it's like a crock-pot. That's what you would
compare it to. And you just heat it up to probably about 130 degrees and the wax just
melts and you just pour it -- pour it into your containers with the wick.
Rohm: So, you're not going to have a big bunson burner sitting there --
Hinshaw: No. Things have changed.
Rohm: Okay. Well, that's alii had.
Hinshaw: Yeah. And one other thing I wanted to let you know about. If there
happened to be a fire and the wax -- the way that you put it out is with baking soda
and/or a fire extinguisher. Water just kind of makes it worse. So, I have those.
Rohm: So an abundance of water wouldn't necessarily help.
J Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2, 2004
Page 11 of81
Hinshaw: No. No. It would just make it worse.
Zaremba: But I'm hearing you say you have plan to have plenty of baking soda and
some fire extinguishers?
Hinshaw: Oh, yes. Yes. I have plenty of that.
Zaremba: The concern would be that the age of this building and being a wood
structure that you would need to act fast, of course.
Hinshaw: Well, it's stucco and lath and plaster, so -- okay. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone to testify on this application? Seeing none,
Commission?
Zaremba: Mr. Cháirman, I move the hearing be closed.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: As we all know, the Old Town area is a transition area and we have reviewed
applications next door and around us, which we have approved for this kind of transition
and I think all the questions have been answered as satisfactorily as they can be
answered and I would be in favor of approving. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we
forward to the City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-031, request for a
Conditional Use Permit for a retail candle and gift shop in an 0- T zone for Kathy
Henshaw, Aromatic Sensations, by Kathy Henshaw, 128 East Pine Avenue, to include
all comments of the staff in their memo dated for the hearing date of September 2,
2004, received by the city clerk August 27,2004, with no changes.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 7:
Public Hearing: AZ 04-022 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.91
acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Redfeather Village Subdivision by
Packard Estates Development, LLC - east of North Eagle Road and north
of East Fairview Avenue:
Item 8:
Public Hearing: PP 04-029 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 20
single family residential building lots on 4.91 acres in a proposed R-8 zone
Y Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2,2004
Page 120f81
for Redfeather Village Subdivision by Packard Estates Development,
LLC - east of north Eagle Road and north of East Fairview Avenue:
Borup: Thank you. Next item is Redfeather Village Subdivision, Public Hearing AZ 04-
022, request for annexation and zoning of 4.91 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for
Redfeather Village by Packard Estates Development and Public Hearing PP 04-029,
request for a preliminary plat approval for 20 single family residential lots on 4.19 acres.
And CUP 04-029, request for a Conditional Use Permit for -- I'm sorry. That was it.
Those two. I'll stop at that. So, I'd like to open those two items, both those public
hearings at this time, and start with the staff report.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, as you stated, the applicant has
requested annexation and zoning and preliminary plat approval on 4.85 acres, generally
located south of Ustick Road, mid mile between Eagle Road and Cloverdale Road. The
land is designated as medium density residential on the Comprehensive Plan future
land use map. The applicant has requested that all of the property be zoned R-8. To
the north, to the east, and to the west of this subject site was the recently approved
Redfeather Estates Subdivision No.2. This was the five-acre out parcel platted in
Georgianna Milks in 1909 that Redfeather Estates went around. If you recall, Granger
comes in off of Cloverdale and then -- Cloverdale is over here and it kind of shoots
down and around to service the other part of that Redfeather Estates. To the south are
some county zoned single family residential lots in Clovermeadows Subdivision and that
is zoned R-1 and there are some -- and you can't see it on this, but there is an existing
home and some outbuildings on this site that do take access to Granger currently. And
I just mentioned the subject lot is Lot 8 in Georgianna Milks Subdivision platted 1909.
The applicant is proposing to re-subdivide that lot into 20 new lots. The proposed
subdivision includes road access via one stub street from Redfeather Estates to the
west, which was Tahiti Drive right here, so they will be extending the stub street from
Tahiti, which feeds up to Granger, which will be constructed with Redfeather Estates
No.2. The gross density of the subdivision is 4.0 dwellings -- 4.07 dwellings unit per
acre. The 20 proposed building lots range in size from 6,712 square feet up to 12,412
square feet. All housing types are single family residential. The minimum house size is
1,301 and no variance, exceptions, or reductions to the city adopted dimensional
standards or uses are requested with this preliminary plat application. I did want to
point out one thing in the staff report, just that Redfeather Estates does currently
surround this site on three sides, the fourth side being in the county. That annexation
has not been -- the ordinance has not been recorded yet. The site is currently not
contiguous to the city limits, but we are processing this, because the City Council has
approved that application and we are just waiting for a development agreement to be
signed and recorded and, then, the ordinance to be recorded as well. So, I just wanted
to point that out, that there are some provisions in the staff report that, you know, that
has to happen, it cannot fail to happen, since it's approved, and so -- the other thing is
the response letter from applicant dated August 30th commenting on the tiling of the
ditches. I will let the applicant expand on this a little bit, but there are -- it's my
understanding there are two laterals that run along the southern boundary. One -- they
may both be concrete -- is a user's ditch for the Clovermeadows Subdivision. The other
y
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2,2004
Page 130181
one just to the north of that runs parallel to it, is more fully on the Redfeather site and
they will be tiling that one, but have asked to leave the southern most user's ditch for
Clovermeadow open, so that those people can continue to utilize that. I will let -- like I
said, I'll let the applicant expand on that a little bit. Just noting that, they are proposing a
fence on the top bank of that -- of that concrete ditch that does remain. Staff is
recommending approval of both the annexation and zoning application and the
preliminary application. And with that I will conclude this report. Thank you.
Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Seeing none --
Rohm: Just a comment.
Borup: Okay.
Rohm: It's nice to see an application without significant requests for variances.
Borup: I was thinking the same thing.
Zaremba: That is true.
Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation?
Stiles: Sheri Stiles, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Akins Street in Eagle. 83616.
Thanks, Craig, for that presentation. He did an excellent job. I don't think you can see
this any better than what's already up there. This is a parcel of land that really
completes this subdivision for Red Feather Estates No.2. We did run into some
surveying issues during Red Feather Estates No.2 and it had to do with the right of way
of Granger Street and in order to get rid of the problem, the applicant purchased the
property, and that's why we are here tonight. I would like to, I guess, explain a little
further about the concrete ditch on this very south border. There is an existing lateral
there and also the concrete ditch is used by those property owners with the large lots to
irrigate -- to flood irrigate those properties. With that exception, I -- we agree with
everything in the staff report and are here tonight asking for your recommendation to the
City Council.
Moe: Mr. Chairman? Sheri, on your conditions on number two in regards to sidewalks, I
guess I'm a little bit confused. You have made note that the city code does not address
perimeter sidewalks in this section and perimeter sidewalks are not proposed as part of
this development. What exactly did you mean?
Stiles: Well, I guess the word perimeter in the report was what confused me, because a
perimeter -- perimeter fencing and perimeter sidewalks, we weren't proposing for a
sidewalk all around.
Moe: Exactly.
! Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2. 2004
Page 14of81
Stiles: That's why I just wanted clarify. I don't think it was really a -- I think it was just
an error in the staff report. I just wanted to call it -- I didn't want that to end up in the
findings and have somebody try and enforce that at some point.
Moe: Well, I got very confused when I read that. I am assuming that we do have a
sidewalk, curb, and gutter and everything down through the main street in the middle --
Stiles: Yes.
Moe: -- and, then up on top, that is Granger, and there will be a sidewalk up there as
well?
Stiles: Yes, sir.
Moe: Okay.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I just would like to clarify kind of how
that made it in the staff report. They are standard conditions. I don't modify these
conditions. Some of them mayor may not apply. But they are pretty standard to every
subdivision that I write, so, you know, there may be some other ones in here that may
not be applicable, but they are that standard condition and if they apply you would have
to meet those requirements. If not, you're done with it. So, that's just kind of how that
one is -- why it's in the report, I guess, and it's noted that there aren't any perimeter
sidewalks required because Granger will be constructed also, so --
Borup: That's perimeter refers to joining any other material streets or any other streets.
Hood: Primarily collectors and arterials that are already established.
Established streets. Yeah.
Yeah.
Moe: And, then, the only other thing is in your comments also you talk about
Clovermeadows Subdivision No.1. Do you mean number two? Is it not number two?
On the south side where those ditches are.
Stiles: I'm sorry, Chairman Borup, Commissioner Moe, Which -- where are you
referencing?
Borup: I think the question is the subdivision to the south, the plat says number two and
your note just said number one.
Moe: I wanted to make sure that that's the one you were speaking of.
Stiles: One of them is correct. I'm not sure.
Moe: Okay. It is the one that's south you're speaking of right?
, Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
September 2,2004
Page 15 0181
Stiles: Yes.
Moe: Thank you.
Borup: Any other questions. Mr. Zaremba?
Zaremba: Ms. Stiles, it's nice to see you again. On the same subject I believe I'm
understanding correctly that there actually is a prior agreement between your developer
and the property owners adjoining that ditch that it be left open.
Stiles: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Zaremba that is correct. We met at the site and
discussed it with Mr. Gary Piva, who was representing that subdivision, and that was
the agreement that was made as part of the previous Redfeather Estates No.2.
Zaremba: Great. Thank you.
Borup: So, did that agreement also include who would take care of maintenance
between the fence? The developer's putting up a fence, it sounds like, on -- in from their
property line and so to accommodate the ditch for the other subdivision. So, would
Clovermeadows be maintaining that area, then?
Stiles: Chairman Borup, yes, I believe that it was just going to be part of the backyards
left open. I imagine they're already maintaining it now to some point.
Borup: So, whatever has happened has --
Stiles: I don't know what shape it's in, but --
Borup: Okay. Okay. Any other questions? Thank you, Ms. .Stiles. Do we have
anyone else here to testify on this application? Now is the time. Seeing none --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the hearing on AZ 04-022 and PP 04-029 both be
closed.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close both hearings. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending
approval AZ 04-022, request of annexation and zoning of 4.91 acres from RUT to R-8
zone for Redfeather Village Subdivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC, east of
North Eagle Road and north of East Fairview Avenue, to include all staff comments of
the memo for hearing date of September 2, 2004, received by the city clerk August
27th, 2004, with one change and that is on page six, under annexation and zoning
'.
.' Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
September 2,2004
Page 16of81
conditions of approval, there is a paragraph three that begins on that page. I would
follow over to paragraph seven on the end of -- on page seven, paragraph three, on the
end of that I would add that we will accept the applicant's commitment to leave the
portion of the ditch that they have already agreed was Cloverdale Meadows
Subdivision, either one or two, to leave open, that we are agreeing that that would be
left open. End of motion.
Moe: 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 PP 04-029, request for preliminary plat approval for 20 single family
residential building lots on 4.91 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Redfeather Village
Subdivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC, east of North Eagle Road and north
of East Fairview Avenue, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing
date of September 2, 2004, received by the city clerk August 27, 2004, with one
change. And that is --
Moe: Page nine.
Zaremba: On page ten, actually, site-specific conditions of approval -- I'll come back to
that in a second I think. And site specific conditions of approval on page ten, the bottom
paragraph, page seven, again, as it carries over to page eleven, we will add a sentence
that says: As agreed between the applicant and the subdivision to the south Cloverdale
Meadows Subdivision, that that ditch may remain untiled and clarifying that the
applicant has offered to build a fence on their side of it. And was there something --
Moe: Well, I was looking through special considerations under six as well, brings it up
again for the ditches.
Zaremba: Okay. The -- on page nine of the staff note, paragraph six has the same
discussion, which later was turned into requirements and we will include in the
discussion on paragraph six that there is a previous agreement to leave a portion of that
named ditch unliled.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT,
Item 9:
Public Hearing: CUP 04-029 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
daycare facility for 30 to 40 children in an R-8 zone for Condra Steeves
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2,2004
Page 170f81
Daycare Center by Condra and Donald Steeves - 1258 East Cougar
Creek Drive:
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Next item is Public Hearing CUP 04-029, request
Conditional Use Permit for a daycare facility for 30 or 40 children in an R-8 zone for
Condra Steeves Daycare Center by Condra and Donald Steeves at 1258 East Cougar
Creek Drive. I would like to open this hearing at this time and start with the staff report.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, this application is for a daycare
facility, but I wanted to go ahead and point out that what the applicant is going to
actually be running out of the existing home will be more of a preschool and we'll go
ahead and address some of the details, including the operating hours and the schedule
for that -- for that preschool. I wanted to go ahead and point out that for you information
that the facility is for a preschool. That subject property is located in Cougar Creek
Subdivision, which is south of Ustick and just west of Locust Grove Road. And I wanted
to go ahead and show you -- this is where the subject property is located. It sits in the
middle of Cougar Creek Drive and there is an aerial of the property. And this is the site
plan. Let me know if you have any problem seeing that. We also have -- you should
also have a printed copy in your packets, if you have trouble reading that site plan. And
I wanted to go ahead and point out, before I got started, the packet that the applicant
had submitted for this project and I have been working as a planner for five years and
this is definitely one of the most amazing pieces of homework I have ever seen an
applicant put together -- put together. The -- when we initially met with the applicant we
told them one of our primary concerns was going to be the impact of this daycare
potentially on the neighborhood and we told her that it was going to be critical that she
not have opposition from the neighbors if there was going to be any chance of this
application being approved. And the applicant has submitted both a petition from the
neighbors of the subject property saying that they are in favor of the project and she's
also submitted another petition for neighbors who are neighbors of an existing daycare
facility or preschool that she's operating in another neighborhood. And there is one
letter of opposition to this project and I think the applicant will speak -- or the applicant's
representative will speak to that. They have, from what I have been told, have recanted
and submitted another letter, saying that they are now in favor of this application. Just
want to say this is a very impressive piece of homework that they have turned in and if I
had had this last week when I ran the report, I would have rendered a different report.
But I still want go through some of the concerns that I initially had when I was working
on this report and I will tell you how some of those concerns were addressed through --
through the submittal the applicant has brought in today. Our primary concern was that
this daycare operation -- here is another site plan. It's in a residential setting. It's
surrounded by single-family homes in an R-8 subdivision. I have found out, since I
originally wrote the staff report, the subject property immediately to the west of the
home is, actually, a group home. Those aren't registered and they are not permitted
through the planning department, they are considered to be a single family home, but it
is a commercial use that is immediately to the west of the subject property. But our
main concern is that potentially we have 30 to 40 children and the traffic that is going to
be generated by that -- by the daycare facility with that volume and the noise impact on
Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
September 2,2004
Page 180f81
the neighbors, but the applicant is -- the submittal that the applicant has brought in
shows that they have support from a large enough number of the neighbors for this
project. So, a lot of my concerns have been alleviated through this submittal and the
proof that they have done a lot of homework, had a meeting with the neighbors, and
gotten their approval on the project. I believe there is a number of neighbors who are
going to speak in favor of the project this evening. I do still want to go through some of
the site requirements for this project. But the first of these the applicant is not able to
meet the landscape requirements for this site due to site constraints. They are not able
to meet the required landscape buffer, because of an existing home, and they are
asking for alternative compliance and we are asking for the applicant to go ahead and
give us some more details on what they are going to do in exchange for an alternative
compliance request, if they are going to put in some additional trees, bushes, fencing,
we need some more details on what the alternative compliance will consist of. And,
then, the second main issue -- this was an interpretation I went for -- for the
Commission to make, if you want to make a recommendation on this, is the parking in
the driveway. They are requesting to use two parking spaces in the existing garage and
two compact parking spaces. And the one in use, three parking spaces in the existing
driveway. Now, the issue that's opened up to interpretation is for you to make a
recommendation is what -- what should the setback be for those required parking
spaces. The code for the R-8 Subdivision has a setback of 15 for living areas and 20
feet for garages. This parking in the driveway doesn't clearly fit into either of those two.
So, there is an interpretation for you to make whether you believe it meets the intent of it
being closer to the living areas, with a 15-foot setback. If you decide that it really needs
a 20-foot setback, they'll need to go forward with the variance when they go to City
Council with this application. So, go ahead and keep that in mind. So, those are my
two primary concerns about this site and I did also want to point out that while this
applicant has done a lot of homework, that when this application is permitted, a
conditional use on this site wouldn't -- it doesn't -- wouldn't transfer with the owner. It
runs with the land. So, if someone else were to come in with a daycare they would be
able to move in and just kind of do a change of ownership and it wouldn't go through the
same process again. So, I just want you to keep that in mind, too. That this -- this
permit would run with the land. So, with that, do you have any questions of staff? I
know I have kind of flip-flopped a little bit, but on my original recommendation for denial
they have presented a very strong case and done a lot of homework with neighbors.
Borup: Okay. Any questions for the Commission? Or from the Commission?
Zaremba: This may be a question to the applicant, but do we have knowledge of the
state required ratio between students and workers? I guess my question is is two
workers enough for 40 students?
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I will have the applicant address
that. From what I understand, they will be receiving state licensing. We don't enforce
the state daycare requirement as part of this permit.
Zaremba: But it affects the parking -- the number of parking spaces.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2,2004
Page190f81
Kirkpatrick: It does affect the parking. They -- in order to meet parking requirements,
they can only -- they could have a maximum of 30 students.
Zaremba: Okay.
Kirkpatrick: And two staff members.
Borup: And, Commission, maybe the amount on that line with whom the applicant can
address here, but some of the letters we have stated they are going to not have the
students there continuously, there are only 10 to 15 students per session, in four
sessions a day.
Zaremba: And the original letter, I believe, from SNL or SLN planning only states 30.
Borup: Right. Yeah. They didn't explain the session, so we can get some clarification
on that. I'm assuming that if that was the case, then, the ratio would be a lot less. It
would just be the number of students in there at that time.
Zaremba: Then, I would add one comment. You referenced that we had one letter
opposed and in our packets we have a letter from Dave and Wyn Wildeman stating
some objections to this project. That letter is dated August 30th, 2004, received by the
clerk August 31, 2004. In the packet provided by the applicant there is another letter
from the same people. Dave and Wyn Wildeman, dated September 1st, 2004. So, two
days after their original letter, in which they state, just to summarize, that they have met
with the applicant and applicant has made some promises that overcome their
objections and so they are, essentially, writing this letter that -- they don't reference their
earlier letter, but they are writing this letter, I believe, essentially, to come down on the
side of agreement with it. That's alii had to say.
Borup: Okay. Anything from any other Commissioners? All right. Would the applicant
like to make a presentation?
Nickel: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. For the record, Shawn
Nickel, 52 North 2nd Street in Eagle. I am representing Condra Steeves for this
application this evening. Thanks to Wendy for her staff report. I think we are really
close to having her change her recommendation once she did see that packet that we
did submit and I do compliment my client as well, they did go out and I think by -- they
held a neighborhood meeting first in which they sent out 54 letters to the surrounding
neighbors and, then, they went and walked the neighborhood and met with everyone
that would talk to them on the street to explain in more detail exactly what this use was
going to be. As you know, we have to post the site, so there is a humungus white sign
right out in the middle of the property that -- and to correct that, there is going to be a
maximum 30 students on the site and that's what that sign said and I also had the sign
maker put Condra's name and phone number on the sign, so if the people wanted --
had more questions they could contact her directly. So, she talked to some people that
~. Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
September 2. 2004
Page 20 of 81
way, but mostly it was by just walking and canvassing the neighborhood. She had 49
people on that petition that are immediately adjacent to the property and, in addition,
she has 103 signatures from past and existing parents of her other facility that she
operates. In addition to that, if you look at the last page, she has got a nice letter from
the state senator and also from a restaurateur here in town, which I thought doesn't hurt
the cause. Again, she did meet with the neighbors, she did give them some assurances
regarding parking, drop off, noise. If you notice in the application, the hours of operation
are 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. So, with regards to traffic and
people in the neighborhood leaving for work in the morning, I don't think there is going
to be too much of a conflict, because the earliest time that parents would drop off their
kids would be 9:00 o'clock and they are staggered throughout the day depending on
those -- the times that those sessions start. They are two and a half hour sessions
each. As far as the ratio -- and the state does regulate how many teachers per student
and it's one teacher per ten students. So, with 30 students we'd have three parking
spaces, plus the spaces for the teachers. I also want to point out that one of the
teachers lives in the neighborhood and she's actually going to walk to the school, the
preschool. Her teachers are licensed by the state. They are -- they do have the
background checks that are required by states -- the state. There is not going to be a
sign on the property, so what we are trying to do and what Wendy suggested very early
on is that the character of the neighborhood is what's going to be important and that's
why we are not proposing a sign in front of the property. As far as the location, if you
look at, again, that map that Wendy put up there of the subdivision, this is right in the
center of Cougar Creek Subdivision and the intentions of Condra are to draw from that
subdivision, so moms can -- or dad's can walk their kids, if necessary, or it's convenient
enough where they can drop them off on the way to and from work or whatnot. So,
again, the location I think is appropriate. I think the use is appropriate. Again, the
neighborhood has a couple of other commercial uses, more specifically is that group
adult care center or facility, which is immediately to the west of the property. So, I think
that that alone makes it a little more compatible than say your standard subdivision
where it's all single family residential. And, again, that -- those hours of operation, I
think, are very important to understand, because of that overlap. Most of the people are
going to be at work. I also asked Condra to explain to me how many kids would be
outside at one time, because, again, you're in a residential neighborhood, you're going
to have kids out playing, and keep in mind that this is a preschool more so than a day
care center and so Condra told me that the kids, on average, are outside about 45
minutes a day is what they average outside at any given day and, then, during the
winter months they are not out there at all, because I guess the state regulates
temperature and how long the kids can be outside. So, I thought that was kind of
interesting. Regarding landscaping -- and stop me at anytime if you want to ask me
questions, I'm just going to keep rambling on here. Regarding landscaping, the code
requires a 20 foot buffer for this type of use and as you can tell, because of this type of
subdivision, because of the size of the lots, it's impossible to do that. So, what we're
asking for is the alternative compliance with that ordinance. I didn't really put on the site
plan any specific landscaping. I wanted to kind of get a feel from the Commission and
from staff to see what they would recommend. However, we met with both of the
neighbors on each side and the neighbor to the east doesn't care if we have any
. Melidian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2, 2004
Page 21 of 81
landscaping or not along the side. I think what we would like to propose, as a minimum,
is to have -- plant some new trees, a minimum of 35 feet from each other, along the
boundaries -- I guess it would be the eastern boundary and the western boundary of the
property, just to provide some sort of landscaping. As far as the rear of the property,
there is a lateral on the other side of the fence and there is an existing chain link fence.
What we propose to do is to slat that fence to provide a little bit of a visual buffer from
the people across the canal and also to keep children from being able to climb up that
fence and provide a little more safety for that. Regarding the parking setback, we didn't
meet with Anna Powell before we submitted this application and. she was, actually, the
one that gave us the idea to request the 15-foot setback that the R-8 zone requires and
if we apply the 15-foot front yard setback, our parking would be within that setback, we
wouldn't have to ask for a variance. Also, so you know, that .the way that it's laid out
right now, none of the cars would be encroaching near the sidewalk, they would be
completely on the concrete driveway. And the last thing -- and I just talked to Condra
very quickly about this -- if you see it fit, she would agree to a condition of approval that
if she was to relocate or leave, the daycare center would go with her. In other words, it
would stop with her, it wouldn't be continued on, and I don't know if that's something that
you are interested in doing, but she would be willing to do that, because of the
promises, I guess, she's had to the other neighbors that she is going to do these
specific things. I mean she feels that if she was to leave that, you know, rather than
hoping someone else would continue that, those promises, she would just stop the
facility once she is gone. I will just stand for any other questions you have. One other
thing. You were correct, Commissioner Zaremba, that one letter was kind of recanted
and that was the only letter that we received in opposition. I think there is a couple of
people here that want to speak in opposition, but the majority of the neighborhood, once
Condra got out and explained exactly what was going on, were very much in favor of
this application. So, thank you for your time.
Moe: One question I have for you, just so I -- I get the -- you said there is going to be
two or three sessions a day for the school and at any given time there is going to be 30
kids in each session or -- or I heard somebody say 15 kids at one time or whatever. I'm
trying to get an idea of just how many kids we are going to have in this --
Nickel: Thirty total at any given time.
Moe: At any given time.
Nickel: The applicant has told me that they come ten at a time.
Moe: Well, the reason I'm asking that is we have a 1,390 square foot facility and 30
kids in there, you're giving them 45 square feet to deal with and this is a house, walls,.
bathrooms, everything else, we are starting to squeeze a lot of kids in a very small area.
Thirty kids. And so I just wanted to get an idea of what we are talking about session
wise, because 30 kids in that little small house is going to be pretty tough.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
September 2,2004
Page 22 of 81
Nickel: That would be the maximum and I will have Condra get up and kind of explain.
She runs another facility and she can kind of tell you what that --
Moe: Thank you.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: I did have one comment, if I may, and it's a fairly minor thing, but I noticed on
your original letter of July 1st, 2004, that one of the features of the play area is a sand
box and I know that the parks department prefers to use some alternate substance
other than sand, because, apparently, it attracts cats who think it's a litter box and that
wouldn't be healthy for children. So, is there any alternative that you can propose?
Nickel: She just -- Condra just stated that she does cover that at night --
Zaremba: Okay. I agree that --
Nickel: -- when it's not in use.
Zaremba: Okay.
Nickel: If you forget it once, the cats will use it. I agree.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Does that conclude? Commission, questions? Did you say Condra had
some --
Nickel: Yes. She will get up. Just some more questions for her. Thank you.
Steeves: Hi. Condra Steeves, 7035 North Linder Road. To clarify, my classes come
ten students at a time. One class might come at 9:00, one class will come at 9:30. We
would have two classes, two teachers. It is 1,390 square foot, though our intention is to
turn the whole thing into a preschool, which we have done at our other location. The
state does have requirements of square footage per child, so we have to stay within the
state. Is the house plan up there? I guess not. The house, when you come in, is a big
room and, then, there is a bonus room and a master bedroom. All of them have been
inspected by Central District Health. Those are our main classrooms. That's where the
30 children will be. It is a preschool. It is not a daycare. The kids are four, sometimes
you have three year olds, but we have them potty trained. We don't do anything like
that. And it is a teaching environment. They have their teacher. They are doing
structured activities. So, you don't have them running through the house just trying to
pick up -- and we have centers around the rooms that the children are actively engaging
in projects. There is also two rooms off to the side. One will be used as a computer lab
and one as a circle time room. So, we have used the entire house plan as part of our
preschool setup that way. Also, our parents come in car pools. There is not one class
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2. 2004
Page230f81
that doesn't car pool. The people who -- I already have people who want to move there
that are at my site right now and would love to move over there. That was why I
targeted that area is I have so many children who live near there. And from when class
-- I can tell you right now -- which could change next year, but I always do encourage
car pools. For one class at 9:00 o'clock when they drop off for the ten children, there is
going to be four cars coming in and dropping off the children and leaving. Half hour
later we are going to have six cars come in and drop of their children and leave.
Monday, Wednesday, Friday, there is only two classes there. But on Monday through
Thursday afternoon we have a pre-K class and also will run to Monday, Wednesday,
Friday classes. So, on Monday and Wednesday you may have 30 kids -- you will have
30 kids there for an hour of the day. On Tuesday and Thursday you will only have 20.
So, that's how we stagger our classes. It's very much an educational program. It is not
a daycare, but for licensing we have to do that, because the state does not provide any
means to have a preschool be considered school.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any questions, Commissioners?
Zaremba: I would only comment, as has been stated, we. appreciate your putting
together the packet of support and certainly from some impressive people that are
supporting you. To reconfirm what Mr. Nickel said, though, I -- it looked like a scary
project when I was reading the report and I personally am much comforted by the
packet that you have supplied, but I have a feeling that my comfort applies to you only
and not to a successor.
Steeves: And that is --
Zaremba: And are you comfortable with what Mr. Nickels said, if we apply the condition
that this conditional use would not survive your --
Steeves: I am more than comfortable, because a daycare of 30 children would not work
in this home. I have seen daycares and they are not preschool. And I agree with you, a
daycare center where 30 kids are dropped off at one time and stay all day, there is not
cooking places, there is not eating places -- so, yes, I am very comfortable with that
permit going with me.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, code is actually a little unique
in that respect, that we don't allow transfers of conditional use permits for daycares. It's
specifically called out that they need to come and get permission to transfer a daycare
to a separate owner. So, it would come back before the -- I guess, it's Commission and
Council, I believe, so --
Borup: If ownership changed that would automatically require a new --
Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
September 2, 2004
Page240f81
Canning: Right. It's the only CU that doesn't run with the land and the owner. It doesn't
run with the land, it runs with the land and the owner.
Zaremba: So, your statement is that we don't need to add that condition.
Canning: Yes, sir. In a round about way, yes, sir.
Borup: Okay. I think that would add some comfort to any neighbors that may have
some concern, too, that that was understood. Okay. We do have an opportunity here
for public testimony. We do have petitions and letters from quite a number. And with
this -- I'm not sure how many are still going to want to testify, but we do have an
opportunity for up to three minutes. But let's -- and I may not go through this on
everyone, may just let some come up, but is Karen Finholt and Elaine Ackerman, do
you still want to testify? Okay. Come forward. One at a time is fine.
Finholt: Hi. I'm Carolyn Finholt and I live in the neighborhood --
Borup: Address?
Finholt: My address is 1197 East Cougar Creek Drive and I have lived there for two
years. It's a lease purchase and I'm seriously considering purchasing the home next
summer. If this goes in I definitely will not purchase the home. There is the group
home that's next door to where this daycare preschool is supposed to go in and the
group home takes up all of the parking on the street almost every day and when they
have their monthly staff meetings they take up every single space down the entire
street. There is no leftover space for anyone else to park. Not to mention the fact that
we have police calls there considerably quite a bit, because as in most group homes,
sometimes the people that live in them get a little unruly and I don't think I would want
my preschool child or grandchild to be going somewhere that's right next door to a
group home that's got violent characters in there and I don't think anybody's thought
about that, the safety of-the children that are in that preschool next door to that group
home. There are many times when the staff members are beaten up by the people that
live there and the people that live across the street from them, which they went out of
town on a vacation and left, they are always worried about their children's safety and
they are across the street from the group home. Another thing I am very concerned
with is the fact that the woman came to my home and she told me that everybody on the
street, except for me, signed and was approving this and I thought that was kind of odd
and she told me that my neighbors two doors -- yeah, two doors down to the right of me
had signed it and would approve it and that they were going to send one of their
daughters there, when I knew very well that was not to be true and I spoke to both of
them today and found that was a blatant lie. I also found out that the people -- several
of the people that she told me that had signed this petition had not signed this petition
and are still against it and for one reason or another could not make it to this meeting.
So,. if they are going to lie about one thing, I'm wondering what all are they going to lie
about. Are they going to lie about the sign? Are they going to lie about not putting a
fence around the property? I mean it worries me when people start lying to --
Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
September 2,2004
Page 25 of 81
Borup: Well, those are conditions that would be part of the application -- part of the --
those would be conditions as part of the --
Finholt: And it also worries me when I know for a fact that realtors do say that the price
of the property will go down and Elaine will bring that up. And that's all.
Borup: Thank you. Okay.
Ackerman: Thank you. My name is Elaine Ackerman and I'm at 1210 East Cougar
Creek and I don't know what I can say in three minutes, other than I'm pretty upset
about this. I live directly next door to the group home and I can tell you what goes on
next to the group home. I have teenagers, so they pretty much -- they know what goes
on there, too, and I have talked to them and there is broken windows and like Carolyn
said, employees that get hurt, there is lots of traffic, very, very, fast traffic that goes go
down there. And if you look at the other ones you had up there, if you look at the street
it's -- actually, our point is -- and a lot of the petitions that she got signed and including
when they came to me last night and told me even the president of the association
signed it. Well, of course, he would. I asked the president to come down and see what
goes down on our side of the street, because we are towards the very end just about
and they don't -- they aren't impacted like we are. And the neighbors that could not be
here tonight, because they are going out of town, we are directly impacted by the traffic
and it gets really narrow right there, right where Condra wants to buy that house. And,
in fact, the lady that's selling the house doesn't want to be there, because of the group
home next door, so there is more concern than what you might think having that next
door. And the other thing is -- my main thing is that you can say -- we can present it,
whatever you want, and you can have this good plan and I know you have to abide by
laws and such, but things can change. You can end up having, you know, how many
student cars at one time. My understanding -- and this is what I heard from one of the
neighbors, is that they are going to try to get the moms to car pool. That's not for sure.
I don't appreciate all that traffic coming down there and I don't appreciate the value of
my house going down in value and I am going to sell my home if this gets approved,
too. So, I am very concerned about putting those kids there. And also for the group
home, not only for anger and rage and employees that get hurt, there is also, you know,
not meaning to, because they are not all there, exposing themselves. I mean that's
pretty traumatic for a young person see that, too. So, I just have got a lot of concerns.
And, then, also not residing in the house and it's going to be a business, right, it's not --
they are not going to reside in there, it's just a business, it's not our neighborhood. So, I
know that I'm just one and -- here tonight, but I just wanted to present how I feel. And it
sounds like she's just trying to put a good effort for everybody, but I still have my
concerns and those are them. And thank you.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Maybe just -- I'm not sure how many houses are on Cougar
Creek, but I count about 27 signatures on Cougar Creek. Hold on. We need to address
up here and so we'd like to -. anyone else that would like to come up and testify come
on forward.
, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2, 2004
Page 26 of 61
Irish: My name is Christy Irish, 5313 Joe Lane in Nampa, and I am actually here to
assure all of you that Condra runs a very first class operation. This is the third year for
my children to be going to her operation and she has been in this neighborhood that
she's in now operating in and it's a very very controlled environment. She does an
excellent job. Never ever would she ever put children at risk at anytime. As far as car
pooling goes, it happens everyday, every year since I have been there. Everybody is
very good about it, because no one likes to have 50 cars in the driveway at one time.
As far as I'm concerned, the concerns that are being had at this point aren't really
concerns, they can be put at ease very easily. She is an excellent operator. She's very
organized and she does a very fine job at what she does. And she will make sure that
everything is very well kept and kept up well and the children will be safe.
Borup: Thank you.
Irish: You bet.
Borup: Anyone else?
Kendric: Santha Kendric, 1076 East Cougar Creek Court, and my son has also gone to
this preschool for three years and it is very excellent. They never have to have any kind
of -- people just flock to them. The preschool is so good that by word of mouth
everybody -- and they have huge waiting lists and it's just -- it's an awesome preschool.
I have six spots at my house if parking is a problem. There are six spots that teachers,
parents can stay and walk to that preschool. I live only one, two, three, four, five, six
houses down from it and I walk down that street very often with my three little kids and I
do not worry about a group home there. I see the people very often. They walk right by
my house, they often -- and I don't -- I don't say there hasn't been a problem. I have
never heard of a problem, but, obviously, I don't live next door. So, something could
have happened, but I do not see any kind of problem there. I will still have my son go
there next year. Hopefully, it's right there, so it's really close. Like I said, I offer my
parking, I have got plenty there, and I am very for this preschool and think it's a
wonderful program and I endorse it.
Borup: Thank you.
Kendric: Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Who is next?
Perry: Stephanie Perry, 458 East Cougar Creek Drive. We are the current
homeowners of the residence we are talking about. We lived there for eight years. We,
actually, built the home there and we want to come and say that we fully support this.
But our children have gone to the Small House preschool for -- this is the fourth year
and we also have nothing but the upmost respect Condra and Small House preschool.
She runs a wonderful facility. We have no complaints whatsoever. We do live next
. Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
September 2, 2004
Page 27 of 61
door to the right of the group home, to the east, and the way that it's laid out, you have
the group home and the garage. is setback to the right and so it has a very long
driveway for sufficient parking of the group home. They do park on the street. But
being to the right we do hear -- you know, see the most of the group home. We have
lived there eight years and my husband and I have never seen anybody expose
themselves. It may have happened, but we have never seen it. We see them walk up
and down the street and go to Fred Meyer. There -- we feel that this will fit in perfectly
in this neighbor. We would not -- like I said, we have been there eight years, so we do
not want to just leave and have the subdivision go downhill. We want something that's
going to be just as good as a residence or better for the neighborhood. There is several
children that are coming from surrounding areas that will be walking. We have a fully
fenced back yard with a locking gate. The children are allowed to play in the backyard,
so they won't be allowed to go out front if there is any issues of the children getting hurt
in the road. Let's see. We have tried to sell our home twice with a realtor and once for
sale by owner with no success and I think that with the preschool there -- it's only run
from 9:00 to 3:00. A lot of issues that we have with the group home are after 10:00
o'clock at night with the noise ordinance, with the basketball playing, the stereos, and in
the evening while the employees would smoke, we would smell the smoke -- you know,
never in the day, but in the nighttime with the windows open. So, I think also we have a
lawn care company do our lawn care. We just purchased the lawn section of it May 1st
and so currently we have two trailers, a business truck, two of our own vehicles, along
with two employee vehicles that come everyday Monday trough Friday. All of that will
be alleviated, it will be gone, so -- along with the equipment that comes with the
company. So, we also have a contract signed with Condra with our lawn care company
that the front -- that the landscape of the whole area will be maintained on a weekly
basis. Also shrub pruning, lawn care, weed eating. So, we will maintain the look of the
residence. I guess that's everything. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you.
Zaremba: May I ask you one question? I'm sorry, Stephanie. There was a comment
made about cars parking on the street, theoretically, for the facility next door to you. If I
am interpreting the aerial view that's displayed now correctly, I see one car, I think,
parked in front of that and no others on the street. Could you describe your experience
with your ability to park or cars up and down street, if you would.
Perry: The 15 passenger van that they have for the facility is always parked in front of
the facility. The employees pull in and out of the driveway. There is probably --
probably could fit six or eight total, so like three or four deep double parked and so, you
know, you will get people moving out to get new cars in and stuff, but -- but I didn't know
they had a monthly meeting, but there are times when there are more vehicles than
others, but not everyday, not even -- you know, probably once a month. But I didn't
know that was why that was there. But to answer your question, you know, there is --
there is also other businesses like a -- that are run out of the homes, so some of the
vehicles are there. There is also a rental property with a few families living there. So,
there is a lot of parking from that home. So, to tell you the truth, I don't know where the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2, 2004
Page 28 of 81
parking is coming from. I don't know if it's from one of those businesses also or just the
group home specifically, so --
Zaremba: Thank you.
Perry: Okay. Thank you.
Davis: Paul Davis, 1315 East Cougar Creek Drive. I live three doors down and across
the street. I am one of the early birds in the subdivision when it was being built and
developed. What they are talking about, all the cars also have their families of these
group home residents come visiting, too, besides the staff members. We have had
problems with staff members drag racing in and out of that subdivision. We have called
the police a few times about talking to them and stuff. But one thing I'd like to ask is if
you go talk to the owners of the group home that run it, the development or corporation
or whatever, to straighten up the individuals that are there attending the residents, to
have them, you know, obey the speed limit through there at least. In the morning time
when people are -- at 6:00 o'clock in the morning, there is a lot of drag racing in and out
of there. Also there is a 25-mile an hour speed limit sign. We have had a deaf child
and in the same individual in a wheelchair. I have myself called to try and get the speed
limit lowered. We did get Locust Grove totally rebuilt where the canal runs. They put in
a whole brand new bridge. Countless times I called the cops because it's a drag race
through to get to Ustick and I am not going to have drag racing through the subdivision.
We all have kids. We have animals. I like to have my animals out in front with me. My
neighbors do, too. We all grew up together with our animals and we know each other.
We play ball. Run around. I don't have a problem with it, but parking -- there is a big
major parking problem, because there is an angle in there and it's hard to see,
especially when the sun is going down in the west and it's a blind spot through there.
People running through there 30, 40 miles an hour, there is going to be a big accident
one day. So, you need to do something about the speed limit. That's what I would like
to request. Lower the speed limit to at least 15 miles an hour. It's 25 right now.
Borup: Thank you. Appreciate the comments. Appreciate your comment, but you
realize that we have got no control over --
Davis: Oh, I have called everybody under the sun to try to get the speed limit lowered
when the rebuilding model was on due to the fact that --
Borup: You talked to ACHD?
Davis: Oh,everybody.
Borup: All right. They are the ones that --
Davis: Nobody would do nothing.
Borup: Okay.
, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2. 2004
Page 29 of 81
Zaremba: Well -- and I would also comment that I do know they put deaf child area
signs around places, so they should be reminded that that should happen.
Unfortunately, that's not within our --
Borup: Is there anyone else?
Bodily: Hi. My name is April Bodily, I live at 2728 South Simms Place in Meridian, and I
just came here tonight in support of Small Hands preschool and Condra Steeves and
from what I heard a little bit, I did feel like I should probably come up and take a minute
to alleviate maybe some of your concerns. My children have been going there for three
years and I also have a baby and I can't wait until he's old enough to go as well.
Condra puts children first always. And I guess the hardest thing tonight is to sit and
listen to so many people who seem to have more of a problem with the. group home
than the preschool. So, I just want to make sure that that is seen, that problems will not
come from this. And perhaps maybe as, you know, new people in the community, we
can make sure that maybe some of that is changed, because it sounds like they have
not gone through the right channels to do that and perhaps that shouldn't be there. I
don't know the law. But I do respect Condra for getting a permit, a use permit, trying to
go through this. I know there is many people who just open this up and do this out of
their home and just, you know, create more problems and she would not do that. It's a
superior preschool, it's a learning environment, and I must say as a mother of small
children and children who attend preschool, that you will not find safer drivers either.
We are there dropping off our prized possessions and leaving them in the care of
teachers and staff who love them just much or more than we do sometimes. So, I just
wanted to go on record tonight and support that and ask that you, please, look at her
separate from that group home, that I think this will do nothing but add good things to
the neighborhood. The home will be maintained beautifully. As I mentioned, the hours
our small, you know, parents come in and drop off. It's a short time. They drive
carefully. And, you know, their main concern is children as well. So, thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Is there anyone else that has anything new to add?
Young: I am Amy Young, I live at 2690 North Milder Way, which is near the subdivision.
I'm ecstatic that the Small Hands preschool is coming so close it's walking distance from
my home. We walked it just last night and we found that I think the neighborhood will
be presently surprised that Small Hands will actually clear a lot of the parking problem
on the home. As the homeowner stated, she has several vehicles that are parked there
and I -- it's very congested as it is right now and I think they will find that in the evening
hours when there isn't any parking, because it is very brief when the parents come and
go. I will be walking my child to preschool and we -- I've also got a car pool that right
now we have to take them out, we have three moms that take them, we are walking the
three children, so --
Borup: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2, 2004
Page 30 of81
Arnell: I am Corina Arnell at 2647 North Caribou. I'm also just connecting to this
subdivision, so I am also very excited for it to get there, but I want to come and
personally vouch for Condra and the kind of person that she is. My children -- this will
be the third year that's she's going and like you have heard, she runs a very organized,
concise, strict preschool. She expects a lot out of her teachers. I have never seen a
teacher not know where each one of her children are in her classrooms. They expect a
lot -- she expects out of her teachers, she expects a lot out of the parents that come.
There is specific rules and I think being a home it just will go smooth. Condra, as you
have seen, has lots of set rules and stuff for it. But she is very very organized and runs
a great great preschool.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Brown: Todd Brown, 623 East Cougar Drive. My children have also attended Condra's
preschool and I just wanted to come and vouch for her also. She runs a very
professional organization and everything she does she does by the book. And also for
the kind of person that she is I want to vouch for, because I know that from what it
sounds, maybe the things aren't so great in the neighborhood right now, but -- and
maybe the group home needs to work on their manners a little bit, but there will be
nothing like that from Condra. In the past I've had dealings with her as my children
were going through and everything she does she documents really well and she takes
care of it and I think that the neighborhood will actually be better with her there. She
has a calming effect on a lot of people and I'm sure that if there are issues, maybe with
the group home, that Condra will be able to -- if anyone, to be able to help them to
control their environment a little more. That's alii have to say.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, do you feel you need anymore testimony or
Zaremba: I personally feel that we have a pretty good understanding of the balance of
opinion.
Borup: Okay. Anything final that the applicant would like to say, either one of you, to do
your concluding remarks?
Nickel: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman. And I know Condra wants to get up and explain one
thing to you. Very quickly, again, I think the key to the concerns with the traffic and the
parking is -- are the hours of operation. Again, 9:00 to 3:00, Monday through Friday.
You're not going to have any weekends. You're not going to have any evenings. I don't
know if you got a full size copy of the site plan, but if you look at the parking that's in this
driveway, we can actually get three -- you can actually get three vehicles side by side
on that -- in front of the garage and that's just to meet the standard parking requirement
and you can actually get four wide if you wanted to. So, I feel that -- because Condra
stated that probably no more than five vehicles would be there at one time, that we can
probably handle the majority of the drop offs in the driveway and, then, maybe there
might be one that would be out in the street. And when Condra and I talked earlier, one
, Melidian Piannlng & Zoning Commission
Septembar 2,2004
Page 31 0181
of my suggestions was -- she can put some rules to the parents that are dropping off,
one being no parking in the street or you can drop -- typically she has the teachers
come out and escort the kids inside, unless the parents get out and drop the kids off,
and so she can -- she can put some rules on her parents as far as parking in the street,
that do no parking -- the parking would be in the driveway and that would also allow for
back up and turn around and exit of the subdivision. As far as the speed limit, you're
correct, only ACHD can mandate that and if you look at your packet and see how many
signatures Condra can get for support of the subdivision, I bet she would be the one
that could help petition ACHD, if need be, to try to lower that speed limit and I'm sure
she would volunteer her services for that. And, finally, with all due respect to the
neighbor that spoke initially, I guess I kind of question the danger aspect. If it's so -- if
that group center is so dangerous, why would she want to purchase the house. It's
something that, if anything, a regulated day care center or preschool, compared to I
guess an unregulated group home, I would rather have a daycare center that's going to
be regulated by the city and know that those conditions will be met at all times. So, I
just wanted to point that out. Condra wants to get up and say a few things and if you
have any other questions, I can address a few.
Zaremba: While you're still there I actually have a question of staff. On page four of the
staff comments, under special considerations, number two addresses the chain link
fence. Mr. Nickels has proposed that they make it less climbable by slatting it. Is that a
satisfactory solution?
Kirkpatrick: That would work.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Kirkpatrick: I believe that since they are next to the canal, they can't put up vinyl or
wood fence, because when they come in and do the burn, they want to make sure that
it's chain link, so I think the slatting should take care of it. Well, you might want to place
a condition that we get approval from NMID prior to City Council on that.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Steeves: I will be very short, because I know that there is other people waiting, I feel
okay with the group home, probably because my background is in special ed and I
taught in the school district and I did have special ed classes. I know what these people
are like. I know that they can be violent. I also know how to handle it. I talked to Tim
Moss today, the administrator of the group home; .1 talked about some of the concerns
the neighbors had brought up. We had a good conversation. We talked saying that we
would work together to try and make things better. He also told me that they take those
guys out in the community normally around -- from 9:00 to 3:00 or 9:00 to 5:00, so that
they wouldn't be there a lot of the time I would be there. That's what he told me. Also, I
wouldn't put children in a situation where they would not be safe. The yard is fenced.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2,2004
Page 32 of 81
They stay in the back. Their parents walk them in. We walk them out. There is fences
between the houses. So, my -- what I heard, the primary concern was the group home.
I am not concerned. I have researched it and I feel it will be okay.
Borup: Thank you. Wendy, do you have any final comments on anything?
Kirkpatrick: No, I don't.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing on PZ 04-029 be closed.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: I think I have already stated that when reading through the prepared
documents I was alarmed and that I am greatly comforted by both the written
presentation and the testimony tonight and the satisfaction that the CUP would expire if
this applicant were not the owner and I think they have addressed the issues that have
been raised and expressed a willingness for ongoing solution of problems. I'm inclined
to recommend approval.
Moe: In regard to the landscape buffer, are you in agreement with the change that they
are requesting?
Zaremba: Yes. I have no problem with that.
Rohm: Okay. I think my only comment on this that lends support to this applicant is the
fact that they are only going to be open from 9:00 to 3:00. If it was something where
they were dropping kids off at 6:30, 7:00 in the morning and staying through 6:00 in the
evening, I would have a little bit of reservation, but these shortened hours seems to be
in keeping with the lesser traffic flow than what you have in the morning and in the
evening.
Borup: That being said --
Zaremba: Okay. In that case, Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-
029, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a daycare facility for 30 to 40 children in
an R-8 zone for Condra Steeves daycare center by Condra and Donald Steeves, 1258
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2, 2004
Page330f81
East Cougar Creek Drive, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing
date of July 29, 2004, with the following changes -- or, actually, additions. On page
four, under special considerations, paragraph one addresses the landscape buffer and
we will add a sentence that applicant agrees to work with staff on whatever alternative
compliance may be needed. On paragraph two, we will add a sentence that the
applicant has agreed to slat the chain link fence to make it more difficult to climb. And a
second new sentence that says there will need to be approval from Nampa-Meridian
Irrigation District to do that. And that's it. End of motion.
Rohm: Do we want to--
Kirkpatrick: Excuse me, Chairman, Members of the Commission, I wanted to go ahead
and make sure we verified the parking setback for the driveway. We didn't cover that.
We covered the landscape buffer, but we didn't cover that driveway setback.
Zaremba: Okay. This is discussion, not motion. Are you satisfied that the 15-foot
setback is appropriate for this zone or do you need it to be 20 feet? The 20 feet,
apparently, would not allow long enough cars.
Borup: I would say the 15 feet setback is now for building in an R-8 zone; is that
correct?
Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, it says in resident -. that for
living areas the setback would be 15. I guess my thought is that no portion of this
building is really a living area at this point. It's a commercial area. And, therefore, the
20-foot setback is really the appropriate setback.
Zaremba: Would it require a variance application -.
Canning: Yes, sir.
Zaremba: -- to get the 15? And if we make that suggestion, is that -- the suggestion that
the variance be applied for before this goes to City Council?
Canning: Whichever way the Commission wants to go on that. You can make a
recommendation either way and, then, when it gets to Council they can decide if the
variance is warranted. At that time you could follow up with the variance application is
what I'm trying to say, if it were a condition of approval, yes.
Zaremba: If we don't make that a condition of approval, then, they need 20 feet.
Canning: Correct.
Zaremba: Which knocks five feet off of the length of the cars they can park there. Is
that correct? Fourteen foot long cars.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2. 2004
Page 34 of 81
Canning: If you put in a recommendation that they get a valiance, then, I guess, then,
you would be recommending that they have a variance. If you don't put a
recommendation that they get a valiance - or a condition of approval that they get a
variance, then, you would be saying that you're comfortable with the 15 feet. So, those
are your two options, I suppose.
Zaremba: I personally am comfortable with the 15 feet, which means we don't need to
make further remark; is that COITect?
Canning: Correct.
Borup: Okay.
Moe: I would agree.
Zaremba: In that case, I was previously finished with my motion.
Rohm: Were you going to say anything about the trees that Shawn had mentioned that
they are going to put on the east - east and west side of the -
Zaremba: I did mention that staff would work out with the applicant the alternate
compliance to the landscape ordinance.
Rohm: Fair enough. Second.
Borup: Motion and seconded. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Borup: Okay. Thank you, Commissioners. Thank you, everyone, for coming. Are we
ready for a break? We will take a short break at this time also.
(Recess.)
Item 10:
Public Hearing: AZ ~21 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1 0
acres from RUT to R-B zone for Arcadia Subdivision by C7 Development
- 3665 Jericho Road
Item 11:
Public Hearing: PP 04-028 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 33
single family residential building lots and 3 common lots on.1 0 acres in a
proposed R-8 zone for Arcadia Subdivision by C7 Development - 3665
Jericho Road:
Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our Planning and Zoning meeting for this
evening. Next item is Arcadia Subdivision. I would like to open Public Hearing AZ 04-
021, request for annexation and zoning of ten acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Arcadia
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2. 2004
Page 35 of 81
Subdivision. And also request for preliminary plat, Public Hearing PP 04-028, request
for preliminary plat approval for 33 single-family residential lots and three common lots
on the same project. Okay. Now, both public hearings will be open at this time and
start with the staff report.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, this application is for Arcadia
Subdivision. It's a residential subdivision on ten acres. It's currently located in the
county with RUT zoning. The applicant's proposing 33 building lots through a
preliminary plat application. So, that the applications we have here tonight are
annexation and zoning and the preliminary plat. There is no planned development
associated with the application, which is unusual. I haven't done one of these in awhile.
The subject property is located approximately a half-mile west of Locust Grove Road
and a half-mile south of Chinden. And we have a number of recently approved projects
and projects in the works surrounding this. Just to the west of the subject property we
have Saguaro, to the south we have Leeshire Subdivision, which is going to go to City
Council next Tuesday. And at the northeast corner we have West Burough Subdivision,
which is a residential subdivision located in the county with a proposed school site. So,
I just wanted to go through some of the surrounding areas. There area a couple of
considerations for the preliminary plat I wanted to go through. And here is the site plan.
The first of these -- and we definitely wanted to make sure it was changed, is a common
drive accessing Lots 5 and 6 of Block 3. They propose sort of an angled common drive
and we wanted that to be straightened out and also per the recommendation of the fire
chief. We want to make sure that is changed. The second preliminary plat
consideration I wanted to bring up -- and this is something that we really want to leave
up to the Commission or the Council to decide how ultimately they want to deal with
this, but I wanted to kind of address some of our concerns. The subject property -- so,
unfortunately, for them they are, you know, a relatively small site, just ten acres in size,
and they are providing three stubs and staff is going to request that they do a fourth
one. That's -- we want to leave up to you. And realize it is a small site. They already
have three stubs. I think there is a -- there is a good potential the subject property -- I
am going to put the overhead of the site plan up. That there is a good chance that the
properties located to the east of the subject property will develop. Currently, there is
two homes on those three parcels, almost 19 acres in size. So, I think there is a good
chance that that will be developed and it would improve connectivity if we had a stub
street to the east. Initially, when I wrote the staff report, I wanted the support for
wanting that stub street to the east was that we wanted to run a sewer line to access the
development to the east through there. Since I have wrote the staff report, they have
changed the location of the lift station, so that's no longer as pertinent as it was when I
originally wrote the staff report. Actually, as I look at this again, yes, it is. And I will let
Bruce talk about that. I thought that had changed. This is something I want to leave up
to the Commission and the City Council. They have definitely provided a lot of
connectivity with the three existing stubs and it is a small site and it is a lot to ask for, for
them to provide four stubs. The applicant is asking for alternative compliance for their
landscaping. I will put up the landscape plan. Let's see. I think that's it. Through their
proposed site plan they are preserving a number of trees at the northeastern part of the
subdivision and in exchange for that they are asking for the standard mitigation plan to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Saptember 2, 2004
Page 36 of 81
be waived and to go ahead and come up with an individualized mitigation plan with the
parks department. And staff is in support of that. Let's see. There were a couple of
changes I wanted to make to the staff report. Let's see. Under special considerations --
let's see. Under -- let's see. Actually, site specific number one, under preliminary plat,
the intent there was to make sure that for the micro-path -- what I called the micro-path
area is actually -- our code has a restriction on how long a micro-path lot can be and
after it reaches a certain length it's no longer a micro-path, it's sort of this undefined
open space area. But I wanted to make sure that those areas -- and I will go through
the lot numbers here. The first of these would be -- just a second. We are getting the
lot numbers, so we can reference it. So, it's at the southern leg of Block 4, Lot 6, so it's
technically not -- not a micro-path lot, it's just a leg, kind of an extension of the open
space lot. I wanted to make sure that the fencing along there wouldn't be -- would not
be six feet in height. I'm suggesting that it be either a four-foot solid fence or a six-foot
open vision fence and, actually, the appropriate place for that recommendation would
be under annexation and zoning, to do that through the development agreement. So, I
wanted to go ahead and suggest that change. And related to that, the fencing along the
open space lots, while the applicant is proposing to not do fencing, I wanted to make
sure that if they did fence the area, one of the open space areas, that it's either a four
foot solid fence or a six foot open visual fence. And this is not regulated by our code,
it's a suggestion by staff and I would recommend that it be done through the
development agreement for annexation and zoning. Let's see. The last thing I wanted
to sort of clarify and make sure this was taken care of before City Council -- this is under
site specific condition number two. There are several of these lots that don't meet
dimensional standards. They don't have the required frontage for the R-8 zone, which
requires a 65-foot frontage. She wanted to make sure that the applicant went through
and revised these lots and provided a plat, which met dimensional requirements ten
days prior to the City Council hearing. So, those are the main issues that -- what I think
is the largest issue up for discussion will be whether we are going to require a stub to
the east. The staff is recommending approval of this project. Do you have any
questions of staff?
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Seeing none -- okay. Okay. I'd like
to turn the time over for any presentation by the applicant. As we are trying to
implement some of our new rules, you will have 15 minutes and that would be for total
time for the applicant, you and anyone else on staff. Mr. McKinnon, go ahead.
McKinnon: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. Dave
McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber. Wendy, if you can move forward to another slide. I
think you have got a slide in there that shows the overall site. There you go. That one.
As you well know, Commissioners, there is big mega subdivision just off to the west
here, Saguaro Subdivision, a very large subdivision. To the south of us you recently
saw Leeshire. I'm trying to develop this little 10-acre site. We tried to do something a
little bit different than your basic cookie-cutter design, instead of just putting in a couple
of cul-de-sacs and calling it good and matching up with the stub streets. I, actually, tried
to create something that's more of a small neighborhood in and of itself and we have a
problem with that in the fact that we have got a number of streets that have to run into
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2, 2004
Page 37 of 81
this one mega subdivision to the west and, then, the smaller subdivision Leeshire to the
south, trying to keep this as contained as possible. So, when you come in off of
Jericho, which is a road with five acre lots and with a one-acre lot that's been recently
approved in the county, and you come down and you enter into the subdivision. As
Wendy pointed out, the large number of trees in the subdivision, we are trying to keep
all the trees that we can. In fact, we have brought the sidewalk in around the trees in
order to help keep all the trees that we can. So, you come in and you have a nice park
setting coming in through trees and as you come into the subdivision you pull in and see
that we have a large open space area. Throughout the subdivision there is over 12
percent open space. That's a lot of open space for a ten-acre subdivision. The
minimum is five. So, there is actually a little more than twice as much as would be
required. Stub street into Saguaro. As you remember, in the Saguaro Subdivision
discussions, there was a lot of discussion as to the need for that to connect all the way
through to Chinden. This subdivision provides that connection up through Chinden, as
well as providing access through Leeshire Subdivision all the way out to Locust Grove.
So, within a quarter of a mile we have access to Chinden and access to Locust Grove
and access into Saguaro, which would give you access all the way down south to
McMillan. So, there is a lot of stub streets into this site already. Wendy pointed out
there were several items that we had discussion that needed to be made for this project
tonight, the first of which -- and I guess the most important one that Wendy stated and
we agree with, would be a discussion of the stub street in this location. Wendy, if you
could go to that handout I gave you and put it on the overhead, we will be able to
discuss this a little bit more clear. You can see all the subdivisions and all the stub
streets that, actually, are provided. Especially, in light of all the developments that are
around it. For those of you who don't know, just recently there was an elementary
school that was approved just to the northeast of this site. There is a 50-foot wide
easement that goes from Jericho Road right to the northeast corner here, all the way
over to the school. A stub street right next to an existing access, you have a 50-foot
easement there for access to the school, plus a stub street there to the school, it seems
like overkill. We'd have a hundred feet of right of way, essentially, right next to each
other and there is no need for an additional stub over to the school to gain access here.
The stub street in this location -- Wendy, if you will -- okay. Thanks. Well, a quarter of a
mile from here there is a stub street coming out of Leeshire right at this location, one
mile in depth coming to the north. So, there is already a number of stub streets here
and in the ACHD staff report, if you have a chance to read it, there is some interesting
language in there, they called it a quasi-stub street. And a quasi-stub street, that kind of
threw us for a loop trying to figure out what a quasi-stub street was and what they said
is this isn't a true stub street, it was an area that would have the right of way extend
down the property line. Thanks, Wendy. This is the piece of property we are talking
about. Leeshire Subdivision, the property line, the stub street I was just mentioning is
right here. Elementary school right here. The 50-foot easement off of Jericho going to
the school. But for the stub street built right here will be right next to the 50-foot wide
easement going into the school, so you would have an awful lot of pavement right there
in that location. This is less than a quarter of a mile in length to this stub street and
same to right here. If this stub street is placed right here, what you would have to do is
immediately take it along this property line and jog it south in order bring the property
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2,2004
paga 38 of 81
into here. With the stub street already being connected to the north and Locust Grove
being a quarter mile -- less than a quarter mile away from this location, there is no real
need for a stub street. Therefore, ACHD said make it a quasi-stub street. If there is a
need for it, we can extend it in the future, but there is no need to have a true stub street
here. ACHD is not requiring that that be noticed with a sign that says this street to be
extended in the future. There was just something put in there to say there is access if
there needs to be access and we don't believe that there is a need for access at this
time. School children within the subdivision with Saguaro Canyon can access the
school site via the 50 foot easement that's already located and there will be a stub to the
north and some sort of pedestrian pathway and access to the school site through the
nine acre parcel located right here, as this area develops. So, I don't believe there is a
need for a stub street in these locations. If I could get you all to pull out your staff report
really quick. Wendy went through a number of items that she wanted to change within
the staff report. I'm not sure if those are all noted. Well, if you could all turn to page
seven in your staff report, just a couple of items that I would to like hit on. Wendy
touched on each of these, but if you could turn to page seven, item E, within the staff
report, it's the second paragraph down, talking other health and safety concerns. And I
found that the common angle driveway -- Wendy, if you could go back to the first
overhead. The common driveway, how they wanted that straightened out. We agree to
straighten that out and we have no problem straightening that out and we agree with
that condition. That was one of the things that Wendy wanted answered. We have no
problem making that correction, as we agree with that condition. That is condition
number one at the bottom of page seven -- I think it's condition two on seven -- page
eight. Excuse me. We do agree with that. We will straighten out Lots 5 and 6. That's,
again, item number two on the staff report. If you can go with us, the common drives for
Lots 5 and 6, preliminary plat special for considerations, we agree to make those
changes. We just talked about the stub street, which is item number two. Wendy
touched on the alternative compliance. Again, the alternative compliance was the trees
that we are trying to save here. Staff is in support of that. And in talking with the parks
department they, too, are in support of it and we will receive written documentation from
Elroy Huff and Doug Strong saying how we can meet this alternative compliance. There
is some large old growth trees. The site is small enough that there is really no place to
plant as many trees as would be required within this site, so, therefore, we are looking
for alternative compliance and we agree to work with the parks system for that. Bottom
of page seven, item number one, has to do with fencing, fencing adjacent to the micro-
path. As Wendy pointed out, this really is not a micro-path lot. The section of code that
she refers to Meridian City Code 12-13-15-9, it references only pathways. This isn't a
micropath system, this is an open space area. We'd ask that there be no requirement
for fencing, other than meeting City of Meridian requirements and we agree to meet the
City of Meridian requirements for this area. We don't believe that there should be any
special considerations placed on this. as this is just open space. We are not dealing
with the Conditional Use Permit tonight, we are just dealing with the subdivision, to
make sure it meets subdivision standards. Onto page eight, item number two. As
Wendy pointed out, there are several lots that don't meet the dimensional standards and
we agree to meet those dimensional standards. In the past on the outside of the 90
degree turn in this location, the City of Meridian in the past - and when I worked at the
Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
September 2, 2004
Page 390f81
City of Meridian and recently, they have found -- public works believes that the outside
curve radius of this 90 degree turn, they have measured that at 40 feet, like they would
for a cul-de-sac, and there is some discussion with Anna now as to whether or not we
should be measuring it that way. Regardless of how it's measured, we agree to meet
what the minimum requirements are for that. So, we agree to that condition as well,
regardless of whether it's 40 or 65, and we will work that out with staff. Item number
three on page eight. Again, this is per Ordinance 12-13-15-9, a six-foot fence for open
vision. Again, we would like this condition dropped. We will go ahead and meet the
requirements of the code, but this isn't a micro path lot, this is an open space lot. There
is no requirement for fencing around the open space lots. In fact, we would just like to
see that condition dropped from this, as that section of ordinance does not apply to the
open space within this subdivision. Just a footnote to that. The requirement for it to
either be six feet or four feet, those are just minimums. You can have a three-foot solid
fence or you could have a five-foot open vision fence or four foot. The way it's written
right now it says that it has to be a six-foot or a four foot. In the future that's just
something to consider in the changes of the staff reports. Other than that, we agree to
all the conditions that staff has recommended. There were several changes that you
received in my letter. One of those comments being that on item number six on page
eight, that the wording in the second sentence be changed to the homeowners
association shall be responsible for the operation and maintenance, rather than the
applicant. And on number six that's the second sentence, just scratch out applicant and
put homeowners association. The homeowners association will contract with the
operator and the maintainer of the lift station, rather than the applicant, so that in the
future they will be able to control that, rather than the applicant. And as you well know,
once they -- once the lots start to sell, the applicant tends to go out and the
homeowners association takes over. Other than that, we think we have tried to
accommodate all of the stub streets within the subdivision. We agreed with ACHD to
place the quasi-stub street there. We don't believe that that stub street will ever extend
in the future. So, the elementary school that will be going up there, we don't think
additional traffic in front of the elementary school is a good thing. We think it would be
better for those elementary school students to be able to access it with the existing 50-
foot access. We ask for your approval tonight and ask if you have any questions?
Borup: Okay. Questions from the Commission?
Zaremba: I do have one. Just clarify for me the 50-foot access that you were just
talking about.
McKinnon: Okay. Wendy, can we go back to the overhead and toggle that real quick?
Zaremba: Does any portion of it really abut your property line or is it actually north of
your property line?
McKinnon: It is -- right here. It is just north right there and it's 50-foot right here. Can
you zoom in on that, Wendy? Can you hit the zoom button? It's this piece right here,
Dave, that's --
, Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
September 2,2004
Page 40 of81
Zaremba: So, it doesn't run into your property?
McKinnon: It doesn't run into --
Zaremba: It does run into Jericho north of the property.
McKinnon: It runs into Jericho just north of the property. If there was a stub that it
would be extended, it would be immediately south of a 50-foot wide easement already.
Borup: And they adjoin each other?
McKinnon: And they adjoin each other. They are smack up next to each other. The
50-foot -- bring this stub street in 50-foot wide right here as well and it doesn't seem to
make sense to have a 50-foot and a 50-foot right next to each other. It seems to be a
waste of land. There you go. There is the 50 feet. This has been set aside for access
to the elementary school site. So, there is great access, pedestrian-wise, to be able to
get into the school site from here without the need for an additional stub street.
Borup: Well, I think the other concern was access to this parcel here, though, isn't it?
McKinnon: This parcel -- you're doing it in a quarter mile stretch and you guys all
remember when we were going through the Comprehensive Plan, that they said if it's
less than a quarter mile people are going to walk and this is less than a quarter mile for
people to take this down and run into these people. There is no need to drive that
distance. This is a really small lot in comparison to what you see, you know, for
Saguaro. I think Saguaro has got, you know, a quarter mile between these two. You
have got one, two, three all within a quarter mile. This site will have access from the
south, probably another stub street in between here, with access out to Locust Grove.
There is not going to be a need to go north here, because there is an elementary
school.
Borup: Okay. Anything else? Any other Commissioners? Back on the quasi micropath
lot.
McKinnon: Okay. Wendy, can you toggle again?
Borup: Is that 15 feet in width?
McKinnon: It is 15 feet in width.
Borup: Now, I understand -- was your concern about requiring a fence or just not
restricting that fence that's there. Or you stated that the fence is not required.
McKinnon: There is a fence that's not required.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2,2004
Paga41of81
Borup: But right now the homeowners can put anything -- they can put up a six-foot
solid fence.
McKinnon: They could. If you had a chance -- I did submit a letter that said we don't
mind, you know, having that limitation to meet the Meridian requirements, but, rather, at
this point we don't want to have the restriction placed on that. We don't have to fence
that right now. And if they do do it, it would have to be according to Meridian
requirements. .
Borup: Okay. That was what I was trying to clarify. So, you're fine with the four and
two or--
McKinnon: Don't have a problem with that.
Borup: Or whatever.
McKinnon: But we don't think that it needs to be discussed at this point, because there
is no requirement in the ordinance for a fence there. But if one is put there, it would
have to meet the requirements.
Borup: Okay. I misunderstood that.
Rohm: I would like staff's opinion on that, just --
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, the intent is to make sure that we
don't have a six-foot fence around the open space areas and around the micro-path
type lot. We -- I want to make sure there is visibility, eyes on the park, I think it creates
a much better feel for the subdivision. I think it's safer when you have more visibility.
So, the intent is just to make sure we don't have the six-foot solid fences. And I know
that we don't have a section of code that directly applies to this, so it's a staff
suggestion, which I would like to have incorporated into the development agreement.
McKinnon: That's not a problem.
Kirkpatrick: And Dave -- yeah, Dave agrees with it.
Borup: I think he was just concerned that there was not a fence required.
Kirkpatrick: We don't want to require a fence.
Borup: And no fence at all is even more visibility.
Kirkpatrick: That's even better.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2, 2004
Paga 42 of 81
McKinnon: Item number three, the last sentence says the developer shall construct a
fence prior to release and there is no need to require him to construct that fence at this
point.
Borup: So, you're saying strike that whole --
McKinnon: Strike all of item number three, because if it's not required, then, it shouldn't
need to be installed by the applicant.
Borup: And, then, in place of that saying if fence is put in, you comply with --
McKinnon: Well, that's understood, because every fence in Meridian has to meet the
ordinance regardless. They would have to get a fence permit for that.
Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you.
McKinnon: Thank you.
Kirkpatrick: So, Chairman, Members of the Commission, I just wanted to kind of
reiterate all this stuff again. I do want to make sure this requirement is put in the
development agreement and I also want to make sure that the southern leg of the open
space lot in Block 4, I want to make sure that there is a four-foot fence installed, rather
than a six-foot fence. But I wanted to do this prior to -- to permits being issued for that
area.
Borup: You're saying if a fence is installed or are you saying --
Kirkpatrick: I think we want to have that four-foot fence.
Borup: And why is that? We have not required that in other subdivisions.
Kirkpatrick: Yes. We are just talking about that area.
Borup: Right. No. I understand. But that has not been a requirement in other
subdivisions.
Zaremba: I'm comfortable with the idea of saying if anybody puts a fence there; it has to
be, you know, non-sight-obscuring or less than four feet or something like that. But it
doesn't sound like we are agreeing. You are suggesting that there should be a fence
there no matter what?
Borup: Baldwin Park would be an example. And Baldwin Park did not have fencing
along their micro-path.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, the difference between -- you
know, when I think we typically -- we would require -- that would be for an actual micro-
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2,2004
Page 43 of 81
path lot. But the length of this lot exceeds the lot -- maximum lot of a micro-path, so it's
-- it cannot be defined as a micro-path and we can't apply that section of the code to
this. But our suggestion is that a four-foot fence be installed along the edges of the
micro-path type lot, which is the southern extension of Block 4, Lot 6. Now, the
applicants were proposing that no -- that we do a restriction that no fencing be placed
there ever, I guess that's an alternative. I'm assuming fencing will go in, I just want to
make sure it's a four foot fence.
Borup: I think the Commission agrees with that. The applicant has stated that that is
regulated by the fence ordinance and I'm not sure if that is the case.
Kirkpatrick: Because of the length of this lot, it's not technically a micro-path lot, so that
part of the code does not pertain here. But I think the same intent as I would have with
a traditional micro-path lot is I want to make sure that we don't have a six-foot fence
there. We can do that through the development agreement and I think the applicant's
agreeing to the concept.
Borup: Okay. The fence would apply to just a micro-path lot.
Kirkpatrick: Right. And this is not a micro-path lot.
Borup: Which is defined as --
Zaremba: But there are requirements around open spaces, even if you call it an open
space, that it not be a six-foot sight obscuring fence; right? You couldn't do that on any
open space.
Borup: I am not --
Zaremba: If somebody comes in with an application for a fence, they are going to be
told it's an open space, it's got to be either four feet or it's goUo be six feet non-sight-
obscuring, because it's an open space.
Kirkpatrick: And, typically, this is addressed through the planned development
application as a special consideration.
Zaremba: Okay. So, we do need to make the requirement --
Kirkpatrick: And we don't have a planned development application to tie this to, so we
wanted to put in the development agreement --
Zaremba: But we are still phrasing that if anybody puts a fence there --
Kirkpatrick: Correct. We don't want to require the fence.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2,2004
Page 44 of 81
Borup: Mr. McKinnon, you're fine with having that wording in the development
agreement?
McKinnon: As long as it says if a fence is installed it has to meet Meridian's
requirement, that's fine. I don't think it should be a requirement that you build a four-foot
fence, because if we want to come in and build a five-foot wrought iron fence, then, the
development agreement would prohibit that and I don't think that's what the
development agreement's intention is.
Zaremba: No. I think our distinction would be four feet if it's sight obscuring and it could
be six feet if it's non-sight obscuring.
McKinnon: If one is constructed there.
Zaremba: If one is -- yeah. It would all be if.
McKinnon: Okay. That's just for the throated down area in the open space.
Zaremba: I would include all the open space, including what we are or are not calling a
micro-path.
McKinnon: Commissioner Zaremba, Members of the Commission, there is a
requirement in the staff report that this area as well has a limitation on the fencing
heights. There are no micro-paths. It is open space. It's on the perimeter of the lots.
We would like that same language there.
Zaremba: The same if --
McKinnon: Well, I don't know if we want the- if language there. This is a perimeter
fence here and here. Why would we want to require a four-foot fence on the perimeter
of a subdivision? There are no walking paths through there.
Borup: Yeah. I can get some clarification -- I assume that was not intended on the
perimeter fencing, was it?
Kirkpatrick: Correct. The perimeter fencing can be six feet in height. The intent there
was to restrict the fencing along the open space area next to the residences. That
should have been clarified. So, we are looking at the northern and the eastern
boundary, a six-foot fence is fine.
Borup: That's what I assumed, too. Okay. Any other questions?
Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, the applicant has been
suggesting some specific wording that is not what staff is saying. I think there is a
miscommunication going here. He's saying if fencing is proposed, that it should be in
accord with the standard fence provisions. And what we are trying to say is that our
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2,2004
Page 45 of 81
code right now does not require the four foot sight obscuring and/or it doesn't have that
micro-path fencing for open space as well, so we are asking for the four foot, two foot,
difference for all open space. Is that clear? It's not the standard fencing provisions.
Borup: I understood that. Just stating that in compliance with the city ordinances does
not really address the concern here.
Canning: Yes. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure we were clear.
Borup: Unless it was stated that it would comply with -- to have the standards as an
open space.
Canning: As a micro-path.
Borup: Same standards as a micro-path.
Canning: Yes.
Borup: But--
Canning: That will work.
Zaremba: That all open space, except the perimeter, have the same standards as a
micro-path for fencing.
Canning: Yes. That would work. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure we were all
clear on that.
Borup: Okay. You're still fine with that, aren't you, Dave?
McKinnon: To an extent. I think that we have people's side yards here and right here
that back up to the open space. I think -- because we are doing it in the people's back
yards, there is nobody walking through here, there is no micro-path, there shouldn't be a
limitation on the interior here to be able to put up a six foot fence if they so choose.
Borup: That has also been the case in other subdivisions.
Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, there is a path on the south
side of the entrance road. There is not a walking path on the north lot. So, probably a
six-foot fence along the north wouldn't be -. I mean it would be okay. The idea is to
make sure that there is no dark spaces back there where people are lurking. That one
is fairly open. But on the south side there is a path there, so the four-foot -- let's see.
The micro-path fencing would be appropriate along that one.
Zaremba: And trees that might obscure vision from the road.
, Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
September 2, 2004
Page 46 of 81
Canning: Yes.
Zaremba: So, vision from the adjoining house would be appreciated.
Canning: Yes.
Borup: And I don't know that that's in the ordinance specifically, but we have been
approving normally four-foot with a two-foot lattice, so still do a six-foot fencing.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we are dealing with a
subdivision that's just dealing with just the straight subdivision ordinances. I mean we
are adding conditions to a subdivision without a Conditional Use Permit. There is no
special requirements that we are requesting on this plat that you can place conditions
on. The question is does this meet the requirements of the code. The fencing of this
entire area would meet code right now, without putting any fence requirements on this.
Striking all of item three meets the requirements of the Meridian City Code. All people
that live in subdivisions have to meet by that code. When you approve a subdivision,
you're approving whether or not this meets the subdivision requirements and this does
meet the subdivision requirements. They are asking you to apply a section of code that
deals with micro-paths for the rest of the open space. It does not address that. We
would like the requirement for the fencing -- we agree to do the fencing, if it's installed it
would be to that requirement, but the perimeter, these people's back yards and side
yards, I mean you have got people coming down Jericho, if you have a four foot fence --
there are some trees here, why wouldn't they be able to have a six foot fence in their
back yard. You have got a long distance through here, it's a large area, it's open, the
fencing requirements are met by this application. Adding additional conditions to this --
this is not a Conditional Use Permit, this is a plat. The question is does this or does this
not meet the requirements. And I guess Mr. Gabbert could address that, but we are not
adding conditions typically to a plat. It's -- this is what it is. This is what the ordinances
are, do we meet it. I believe that this does meet it, if we drop item number three from
that.
Zaremba: If counsel would care to comment, the way I would rephrase it is that we
would make this a development agreement attached to the annexation and zoning, as
opposed to the condition attached to the preliminary plat, and I feel that is within code.
If you'd care to confirm or object to that --
Gabbert: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I believe that the -- you have stated
it correctly. We would just make it as the -- as the staff originally suggested and make it
a condition attached to the -- excuse me -- the application.
Zaremba: Part of the development agreement.
Gabbert: Development agreement. Thank you. I lost my train of thought. I think that
would be appropriate. I mean the staff has some legitimate concerns here, at least
Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
September 2,2004
Page 47 of 81
regarding this micro-path ish section. They don't want a narrow alleyway, essentially,
that would be sight-obscuring fences, at least for that provision. I don't believe --
Rohm: You're referring --
Gabbert: Right. The extension of lot -- well, Block 6 that was just highlighted up there.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Mr. Gabbert, we don't have a
problem down here in this area, we have agreed to that, that if one is buill, we will build
it to that. I think the question is for these houses right here, we don't have a micro-path
in these areas, these are people's back yards, and we have got a detached sidewalk
that runs through here, granted, but this is not an enclosed area that's an alleyway, this
is right off of the road. We don't think that there needs to be a limitation on these
people's fencing in their back yards. I think that's the issue of contention.
Canning: Chairman Borup, you may want to continue with the rest of the Public Hearing
and address this in your comments or in the rebuttal section, just to get moving.
Borup: Okay. Yeah. I think so. And that's really -- it looks like that's really the only
concern. Thank you, Mr. McKinnon.
McKinnon: Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Do we have anyone else who would like to testify on this application?
Now is the time.
McClure: My name is Mike McClure, I live at 6055 Jericho Road, and that's the piece of
property directly adjacent on the north perimeter of this. One of our primary concerns in
here is the traffic and you're talking about connecting all of the stub streets going in
there. Due to the size of the subdivision behind us, that Saguaro Subdivision, and the
elementary school that's going to be going in across from us over there behind those
one acre lots, we are really concerned about the amount of traffic that's going to be
funneled onto Jericho, which has typically been a little short dead end rural road, you
know, for 30 years and now are -- you know, it wasn't even a paved road until about ten
years ago, it was dirt up to that, and right now that street -- all it is is two layers of chip
seal, with two inches of asphalt on top of it. It won't stand up to any kind of traffic. So,
it's going to have to be required to rebuild that road and, you know, when I moved out
there 19 years ago, my intent was live in a rural setting and, you know, the
developments are going, the city is growing, everything going along like that, but to
take, you know, that amount of traffic that could potentially just be funneled right down
that street, if you start tying in all those stub streets, and that being an easy route
directly to Chinden out the backside of some of those subdivisions, is just going to
develop just a horrendous amount of traffic on there I'm afraid and it really concerns me.
The subdivision itself, I don't really have any contention with. I need to have some
discussion with the developer about the perimeter fence, the type of fence we are going
to put up. It needs to be something that's going to be a low maintenance fence,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2, 2004
Page 48 of 81
because, typically, people don't maintain the fence across the back of their property and
I run livestock in there, I have got horses and cattle that I run back on that five acres,
and, you know, whatever fence we decide to put in there, it's got to be a durable fence
and a low maintenance fence, because I know people in their back yards just aren't
going to maintain it.
Rohm: So, am I to understand that you're not in favor of requiring an additional stub
street? Is that what you're --
McClure: No, I do not want an additional stub street.
Rohm: Okay. That's--
McClure: If any, I would like to eliminate at least one of them.
Rohm: Well, that's kind of -- I was -- that's what I was asking. Thank you.
McClure: Because you have got Saguaro on the back and Leeshire, which was the --
you know, it was a horse property until recently down there and when you funnel all
that, you know, through there and, then, people are going to use that as a shortcut to
bypass the traffic light on Chinden and Locust Grove there now, and, you know, need to
come up with some place -- some way to restrict or cut down the amount of traffic that is
going to be in there.
Borup: Thank you, Mr. McClure.
L. McClure: Hi. Lynn McClure. I live at the same property as he does, at 6055 Jericho
Road, and I just want to make sure that I make the same statement, that your -- if you
could put that one up where you're putting all of those nice, wonderful subdivisions --
The overhead. The next one. That's the one. If you take a look, you have got all of
these properties here, you have got all of this property here, you're all funneling these
kids to school at the same time that we are trying to go to work, over to two schools.
Actually, there are two schools back here. When they proposed that,. they told us that
this would be a road that had bollards in it or -- bollards in it and now I'm being told that
they are not going to do that. So, right now what happens is we have teenagers come
down here and they stop, they can't go flying through -- and they travel pretty fast even
at that. So, you start opening up an opening here, an opening here, then, when this
comes in an opening all the way over to here, and, then, you have got this going back
over into here, all the way into Meridian Road, you have not only tripled, you have
quadrupled -- I mean the amount of traffic that's going to go down that road is going to
become outrageous for a small barely 50-foot wide road, that, as my husband says,
hasn't been maintained. In fact, we maintained it for many many years, until I called
and we started arguing about this, then, they came in and they put in two inches of tar
over the top of that to comply with doing something with our road. But in the past we
have plowed it, we have cleaned it, we have taken and kept the weeds down. So, you
know, all of a sudden, from a nice quite dead end road, we now have all these
, Melidian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2, 2004
Page 49 of 81
subdivisions that are going to be dumping people -- and I understand, they have got to
get their kids to school, but I got to get to work, too, and I have got to be able to take
horse trailers out onto this road and I just feel like there is too many connections here. I
don't think that it's necessary to have all three of these openings into this one little road
here, especially adding a fourth one. I mean I think we are getting carried away with
how much connectivity we have on a little tiny -- well, except quarter -- well, no, it's not
even a quarter, I think it's the eighth mile mark. I feel that we need to cut back on it.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify?
Miller: Mark Miller. I live at 1906 East Dunwoody Court. I just had a couple of
comments and a couple of questions, I guess, for the Commission, just as a -- kind of
looking at the overall general growlh of the area. I have kind of had some concerns
about designating this as R-8 zoning. We already have an R-4 zone with 6,000 square
foot lots that are being proposed just to the south and although you can see that in
Dunwoody and Larkwood, we are kind of concerned about the transition between what's
coming into the area and what things have been like and we would sort of appreciate at
least acknowledgment of an appropriate transition zone between these types of
subdivisions that we already live in. You realize that there is some type of concern that
if we make these lots small and make an R-8 zone, then, what's the -- as they develop
closer in towards Locust Grove, as they ask for R-8 zoning in the same way, are we
going to get town homes and just as we step down, you know, more dense type of
population and lot size, kind of creates -- it creates a problem for the transition that we
have all lived out there for -- you know, for the years that we have been there. So, that's
my concern. I was hoping that you would be able to designate it R-4 and just make
some exceptions if they need a couple for some lot line or whatever they need, but
designating it R-8 to me sets up kind of a cascade of potential events in this area that
may be detrimental to the way an appropriate transition would be and that's basically it.
I'm also a little bit concerned about just these little tiny slivers of development, which I
was just thinking in the greater scheme of things it would be better to get everything
together and develop it all, so it all made a little more sense. I look over there and I see
these little slivers of potential development and even though I can completely
understand why the McClures are concerned about traffic in their area, obviously, we
are concerned, too, about how they are going to develop streets and develop these little
strips of land, if they don't have access from a couple of different ways. So, in some
ways it may be reasonable to at least try some stub street or at least some potential
access there if there is a problem with the way these other homeowners try to develop
down the road. Also, just on those -- on those side streets and fences, it just seems like
there will be a lot of kids, probably, walking to school now, instead of riding buses, and
sometimes in the winter it's dark and going along those pathways and things that --
make sure there is enough visibility for the kids as they are going through our area,
because my kids eventually -- I don't think they will walk that way, but it looks like if
that's their school, they will probably be walking to school, too. So, that's all I had.
Thanks.
Borup: Thank you.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
September 2. 2004
Page 50 of 81
Porter: Darwin Porter, 5780 North Locust Grove. I have some of the same concerns
that Mr. Miller has and that is the transition. We have got a lot of one-acre lots in that
area. We are within a half-mile from Eagle, where we have the one acre lots along
Chinden and we are concerned about the long-term development of this particular area.
While this particular subdivision has lot sizes that I'm pretty happy with, I am concerned
and I would oppose the R-8 designation and I would prefer to see it as an R-4, just
because of what might attach down the road. And I am in favor of the stub street just
for traffic flow purposes and further development. Thank you.
Borup: Mr. Porter, just a question. You say you're satisfied with the lot sizes, so you
would be proposing an R-4 and, then, ask for a variance from the R-4?
Porter: That's correct. Just because I'm concerned about what R-8 might designate if --
if this is designated as R-8 now, what might come down the road, and this is certainly
not within the current flavor of the way it has been developed up until now. And so I
would like to see, you know, that R-4 with some variances and approve those, so that it
would be more difficult to obtain R-8 down the road for other developments and
townhouses, that kind of thing.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else?
Lee: Grant Lee, 5603 North Locust Grove Road. If I could learn how to use one of
these things. This is my home right here. We butt up right against the subdivision. At
the time we built our home we purposely located it where it was to prevent Larkwood
from eventually joining with Jericho and they have kind of bypassed us here, which is
better than what we had to start with. In fact, we obtained a letter from the highway
department stating that it was not their intent to connect those two streets and I know
the people in Larkwood are extremely concerned about a stub street that has been
required for us to go into their property. In basic terms, I am in favor of this
development. I think that the circular street with the green open space in the middle, I
think they have done a good job of trying to funnel what traffic is going to go down
Jericho Road. I am a lazy person and I know I'm going to use that street just as much
as I know people over here are going to funnel through and head out this direction. I
think that's one of the purposes of all these stub streets connecting everything, is that I
think it's going to balance out and there is going to be as many people going each
direction as -- people are going to cut through our subdivision as much as we are going
to cut through theirs and I think they have done a really good job. I would like to see a
Pizza Hut right there in the middle, so I don't have to go so far at night when I get my
need, but I think they have done a pretty good job of dealing with the size property that
they have. I feel for the people that have these long sliver strips that may only have one
road going all the way and one row of houses, which does not allow a whole lot of
creativity, but I am supportive of the efforts that they have put forward for their
subdivision.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2,2004
Page 51 of 81
Borup: Thank you. Any other testimony? Mr. McKinnon, any final comments? We
probably could kind of handle a lot of that with our last discussion; but --
McKinnon: It's always nice to go up after Mr. Lee. I think there were just a couple of
unanswered questions and there were a couple of nice things that were brought up, just
to cover those that Lynn didn't really want to see anymore stub streets. We really don't
need to see one either. We would like that to go away as well. You know, we will work
with the landowner to the north, Mark, with his property with the fencing. We have no
problem working with him on the fencing. As he mentioned, thaI was one of the things
he was concerned with. I know that we have talked out in the hallway with him and
there was some discussion on that already. So, we have no problem working with him
on that. As far as the comments made by Mr. Miller and Darwin Porter, there were, you
know, the concerns about this being R-8. As you know, the lots in the subdivision
actually average larger than an R-4 subdivision. The request for the R-8 was because
there are some lots that are smaller. We wanted to have a mix type of subdivision. Not
everything big or everything small, just a mix type of products within the subdivision.
And so we asked for the R-8 zone to allow for that to happen, as well as for the reduced
lot frontages. The Comprehensive Plan, which guides the development of the city, is
mixed use already. That has been determined -- is medium density, excuse me, for this
area, which would be three to eight dwelling units per acre. We come in at 3.3 dwelling
units per acre, 33 units on ten acres, it's pretty simple. So, we are coming in on the low
end of that. And we feel that this is the appropriate zoning designation for that, to allow
for the mix of different types of housing within this project. Onto the fencing issue. Lot-
- Wendy, can you go back to the other overhead? I will make my comments really brief,
as I still have a green light; it's not yellow yet. This has to deal with the fencing. We
have no problem including in the development agreement wording that would include
fencing on Lot 6, Block 4 here, saying that if fencing is provided adjacent to this lot, it
shall be subject to the same requirements as noted in MCC 12-13-15-9, that's the four
foot, two foot -- the four foot, six foot requirements. We have no problem agreeing to
that. We believe that these two lots should stand alone on their own and not be
included in the development agreement, as those are people's back yards and large
open space lots, plus the perimeter fencing. And so we would like to see it. We agree
with staff that this project should be approved and recommended for approval to Council
by you tonight and I end my testimony at this time and ask if you have any additional
questions.
Borup: Questions from the Commission? Okay. Thank you.
McKinnon: Thank you.
Borup: All right. Commissioners, any discussion before we close the hearing? I think
as far as the applicant -- and the only concern from my understanding is really the fence
up in the northeast corner.
Rohm: And that could be addressed in a develop agreement, as opposed to --
Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
September 2, 2004
Page520f81
Borup: Well, either way. It would be -- I mean I think the fence in this area would be
addressed in the development agreement, so the whole thing. So, the question would
be is -- this Commission needs to decide how we feel about the fencing up there, as far
as what the recommendation is going to be.
Moe: I guess my point would be I would somewhat side with the applicant on those two
lots as far as putting fencing in, so that the back yards to those properties are enclosed.
You're still going to have open space to be able to see anything that's going on in that
corner.
Rohm: You're saying allow a six-foot fence here, but not -
Moe: That would all be open.
Rohm: That's all open.
Moe: That's what I'm saying. The same thing on the lot on the other side to the north
there, yeah, you would have the fence there, but the rest of it is open as well, other than
the perimeter would be fenced as well.
Rohm: Makes sense.
Borup: Oh, I agree. I'm very -- I feel very strongly about the importance of having the
appropriate fencing around the open areas, because of the safety concerns, but this --
these lots, basically, parallel the road and they are open completely to the road, so it's
not -- it's not of the same concern. And what Commissioner Moe said, that -- maybe
that should be included in there, too, not allow any fencing on those lots, then, other
than that perimeters and the--
Rohm: Parallel to the roadway.
Borup: Right. I don't think there was ever any intention of doing that anyway. Mr.
McKinnon, did you have a comment?
McKinnon: My comment would be strike item number three on page eight, just dealing
with the fencing issues. Change that, put it in the development agreement saying Lot 6,
Block 4 right here, the fencing in this area would be subject to the same -- if any fencing
ever is constructed there, it would be subject to the open space or -- the open space or
micro-path ordinance, that's the 12-13-15-9-1 that they keep mentioning. Do it for that,
but don't put any limitations of these two, they should be able to up a six foot fence here
and a six foot fence here and I think that's what everybody is getting to, so if we just
strike item number three and move the language to the development agreement, it
would be item number five under the annexation conditions. The development
agreement for this site includes language-limiting fencing, if provided in this area, to be
limited to the same requirements as MCC 12-13-15-9. Does that make sense?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2,2004
Page 53 of 81
Freckleton: Mr. Chair, for the record, staff concurs with what Dave said.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Well -- and I think it made sense for me as well. Let me ask just one
clarification, if I can. The trees that would line the roadway on both sides, most of those
are existing trees now; is that true?
McKinnon: Yeah. There is a lot of trees there and most of them are existing.
Zaremba: Are most of them deciduous trees?
McKinnon: I have been out there a couple of times and I'm blanking on that.
Zaremba: I'm trying to interpret from the landscape plan.
McKinnon: It's about half. It's about half. Half and half.
Zaremba: And the reason I'm asking that is you usually have better visibility through
deciduous trees, because they don't start their canopy until above the height of children,
whereas evergreens often start right at the ground. So, you know, if I'm satisfied that
enough of the trees that are in there are deciduous, the visibility from the road back to
the back of these open spaces would satisfy me. If they are all down to the ground
evergreens, then, I would want visibility from somewhere else. But as I look at the
landscape plan, I think I'm interpreting correctly that many of them are deciduous and
that there would be visibility. Anybody have a confirming or alternate opinion on that?
Rohm: I think you're right on.
Zaremba: In which case I would accept in that common area six-foot fence anywhere
around that it needed to be put, both perimeter and the two lots. It wouldn't be a
problem for me.
McKinnon: Thank you.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearings on items AZ 04-021 and
PP 04-028.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Okay. There is too many changes for me to go forward.
Maridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2,2004
Page 54 of 81
Moe: There is still the issue of the stub street. We haven't made a decision and I guess
what I would say is I think three is more than enough on this development myself and I
can somewhat concur, I'd just as soon see it stay as it is and not require another one.
Zaremba: Well -- and I'm comfortable with the existing easement that's just a hair off of
this property. I'm not sure it needs to be a public roadway up there and I'm sensitive to
the idea that was behind ACHD's request. They did not actually make it a requirement,
but it was just a suggestion. And staffs agreement with their request, I also understand
why they went that way. But for myself, I would be satisfied, when you look at the
projects that are around it, the potential development of the properties on the east,
which I do hope all come in as one plan. I can't speak for them all being close
neighbors with each other, but I hope they would get together, that the stub streets that
exist out of this and other properties off site, and the easement that's just off of this
property would satisfy me without an additional east stub street.
Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, if I could talk about the sewer a
little bit. The -- and Commissioner Zaremba touched on it that is the fact that, hopefully,
those parcels will all develop together. We can't guarantee that, of course. These two
narrow parcels, hopefully, you know, when they do develop, they will develop together
and they will have access to sewer and water through this stub. This parcel, however,
is large enough that it could develop without needing to have one of these others
tagged on with it. Sewer flows westerly in this area and if we don't get sewer up to this
location stubbed to this property, they are going to be high and dry. And so as you are
considering this stub in here, if you do decide that you're not going to do the stub,
please, do at least require an easement for sewer to get across that common lot and I
know Dave has written something in his staff -- or in his rebuttal for that, but I just
wanted to reiterate that for your benefit as you're discussing the stub street.
Zaremba: My personal opinion is that would be a good solution. It's common area, it
would probably be landscaped, unless it, actually, does need to be used for an
easement, at which time it would probably have to have a solid surface, but I think as
long as that easement exists across the few feet that it would need to exist, that sounds
like a good solution to me.
Freckleton: Well -- and you're correct. If we are going to run the sewer up there
through an easement, we are going to have some restrictions on landscaping over the
top of our sewer and that sort of thing. We can't have trees and, you know, just lots of
extensive landscaping over the top that we might have to deal with some day in the
future. Pathways are a good use over the top of our sewers, if you wanted to consider
at least a pedestrian pathway type use up through that corner, it might give children
from this subdivision a route to the elementary school if that were to develop out.
Borup: So, what is the sewer situation at the school?
Freckleton: The school currently gets their service off of Locust Grove Road. The
school sits approximately here and they are sewering out to Locust Grove. Gravity.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
September 2,2004
Page 55 of 81
Borup: Okay.
Freckleton: But they are the end of the line. We have got a main that comes up Locust
Grove and it is very shallow by the time it gets clear up here to the school.
Westburough Subdivision that Mr. Jewett developed here, pumps back up to Locust
Grove -- or they will pump up to Locust Grove. Same type of situation for this
development. They are proposing a lift station here and on the plan that you have, they
were going to pump up to the same spot where Westburough was going to pump to, but
Dave tells us that plans have changed and they are actually going to pump back to
Leeshire, where they can, then, gravity -- or they are going to pump back up to a point
where it does gravity out to Locust Grove, until the sewer gets built through Saguaro
Canyon and that lift station can go offline and everything can gravity out.
Borup: So, you're saying the parcels to the east are going to have to sewer to the west?
Freckleton: Correct.
Borup: Once the new trunk line goes in.
Freckleton: Correct.
Zaremba: Unless the three develop together, in which case they could sewer to the
south.
Freckleton: If we want to take that risk that they would develop together.
Zaremba: Well, our risk is we wouldn't annex them unless they do.
Borup: Well, wouldn't the concern be if the large parcel to the north tried to develop
first? If the ones to the south developed, they are going to have to bring their sewer
through --
Freckleton: Right.
Borup: -- anyway.
Freckleton: And if the one to the north develops first, that's precisely why I'm concerned
about getting sewer service up into this corner.
Borup: If he develops first he's --
Freckleton: Exactly. I don't want to leave somebody high and dry.
Melidian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2,2004
Page 56 of 81
Zaremba: Well, now, here is the question. They would not need, for their own
purposes, to put sewer anywhere on Jericho Road that would connect to the easement
that we are talking about --
Freckleton: Actually, they would.
Zaremba: Why?
Freckleton: As I stated before, these home sites in Westburough Subdivision, the
concept that they have right now is each home will have an individual grinder pump that
will pump by pressure back to the line at Locust Grove. The developer of Westburough
Subdivision put up monies for the installation of an eight inch diameter main in Jericho
Road that would flow back to the south and connect up with an eight inch line we are
going to -- we are going to have these guys install in this stub street that basically would
connect up with Saguaro and get down to the north slough trunk line. So, the big
picture is everything up here is going to gravity once sewer gets up to the point where
we can.
Borup: So, all we are talking is just a sewer easement in the northwest corner --
northeast corner? That's all you're saying is just a sewer easement in the northeast
corner of the property?
Freckleton: Correct. And the applicant has stated in their report and Dave just
reiterated that they are fine with granting the easement.
Borup: Sounds like it's time to move on.
Zaremba: Help me understand the way the properties on Jericho are an issue to us.
Are they required to annex when we make sewer available to them? They are. in the
county now; right?
Freckleton: Commissioner Zaremba, I believe that the requirement for them to annex is
when they are contiguous. Currently they are not contiguous to the city limits.
Zaremba: But is that their choice or it's a requirement somewhere?
Borup: I don't remember that one, but all that we have done so far -- it's been almost
automatic. It's required as soon as they are.
Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, the properties on the east
side of Jericho Road were done as a non-farm subdivision and there is a requirement
that they put a note on the face of the plat that says that they will hook up to sewer
service as soon as they are available. The question of annexation would tie to the
agreement they made with the city when they -- they got that service and, generally,
there is a requirement that they also annex. So, there is probably -- that requirement is
there.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
September 2. 2004
Page 57 of 81
Borup: And we'll have our first one next month.
Zaremba: Well, the reason I was pursuing that is that it makes a difference to how I feel
about requiring this applicant to take the sewer up Jericho and I think you satisfied me
that - I mean normally it's to and though and I was wondering why it's going through
this direction and you have satisfied me that that's a legitimate requirement for this
applicant, because there is a pre-existing condition off site, but that does place that
requirement on this applicant to a least provide the sewer to edge. So, you have
satisfied me.
Borup: Okay. Are we ready to move on?
Rohm: I just have one more question. The development agreement, does it go with the
preliminary plat or does it go with the annexation?
Borup: Annexation.
Rohm: Annexation. Okay. Okay.
Zaremba: Did you get the note under preliminary plat on page six I mean on page
eight, paragraph six, to change applicant to homeowners association?
Rohm: I got that.
Borup: Okay.
Rohm: Okay. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward on to the City Council
recommending approval of AZ 04-021, request for annexation and zoning of ten acres
from RUT to R-8 zones for Arcadia Subdivision by C7 Development, 3665 Jericho
Road, including staff comments, dated August 30th, 2004, for the September 2, 2004,
Planning and Zoning meeting, with the following change: Trying to find -- under
annexation and zoning we would like to require a development agreement addressing
the fencing along Lot 6, Block 4, matching the micro-path requirements. And I believe
for the annexation that's the end of the motion.
Zaremba: The easement doesn't need to be addressed in the annexation, that's a plat
issue; right? Okay. I'll second the motion as it is.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Borup: Okay.
Melidian Pianning & Zoning Commission
September 2, 2004
Page 58 of 81
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion recommending approval of PP 04-028,
request for a preliminary plat approval for 33 single family residential building lots and
three common lots on ten acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Arcadia Subdivision by C7
Development, 3665 Jericho Road, including all staff comments dated August 30th,
2004, for the meeting date of September 2nd, 2004, with the following changes: On
page seven, preliminary plat special conditions, omit item number two. On page eight,
as. opposed to omitting item three, I think we should go ahead and restate that the
required development agreement addressing the fencing along Lot 6, Block 4, matching
micro-path requirements be inserted in its place. And item six, second line, replace the
applicant with homeowners association. On page nine add a 10th item, require a sewer
easement in the northwest corner of the development to exit the subdivision -- oh,
excuse me, northeast corner so the sewer can exit the subdivision. End of motion.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor. Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 12:
Public Hearing: AZ 04-020 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 43.18
acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Bellingham Park Subdivision
by Gemstar Development, LLC - east of South Locust Grove Road and
south of East Victory Road:
Item 13:
Public Hearing: PP 04-027 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 164
single family residential building lots and 13 common lots on 43.18 acres
in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Bellingham Park Subdivision by
Gemstar Development, LLC - east of South Locust Grove Road and south
of East Victory Road:
Borup: Thank you. That concludes that application. Okay. The next Public Hearing is
AZ 04-020, request for annexation and zoning 43.18 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for
proposed Bellingham Park Subdivision by Gem Star Development and also PP 04-027,
request for preliminary plat approval of 164 single family residential building lots on the
same project. We would like to open both hearings at this time and start with the staff
report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. Staff has
prepared about a two and a half hour presentation, if that's okay. Just kidding.
Borup: Well, we have started before 11 :00, so I guess that means that we can just keep
going.
Hawkins-Clark: No. I will try to make the staff presentation to the point here. The
application before you -- this first one is an annexation and zoning request and the
property is on the east side of Locust Grove Road, about a quarter of a mile north of
Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
September 2, 2004
Page590f81
Amity. The Ridenbaugh Canal runs along the north boundary. The Ten Mile Creek
bisects the property over here on the east. The property is designated in the
Comprehensive Plan -- and this is a correction to my staff report. This was, actually,
pointed out in a letter that was given to you by the property owner to the south, but this
-- all of the property is designated medium density residential, with the exception of this
approximately five acres, which is south of the quarter mile section line, and that,
actually, is designated low density residential in the Comprehensive Plan. I think we
have a Comprehensive Plan map. Yeah. You can see here the differentiation between
the yellow and the green was made -- and this is the 2002 land use map -- was
basically just made right across the quarter mile point within Section 29. You can see
also on this Comprehensive Plan that there are -- there is quite a convergence of water
facilities in this section, with the Ridenbaugh running east-west, the Ten Mile Creek,
Eight Mile Creek, so those are issues -- excuse me -- issues will come up a little bit later
on, but I just wanted to point that out to you. So, to go back, the property is contiguous
to the city limits on the north side here in the northeast corner. Tuscany Lakes
Subdivision is what's shown in yellow here. They are developing from Locust Grove to
the east. They also have started Mecena Heights from Eagle Road building to the west.
The area that is actually immediately north of this has not been final platted yet, but it
has been annexed and it is zoned R-4. This map does not reflect it, but the property
that is located here, this flag L-shaped property, came before you a couple of months
ago -- or maybe last month I think it was, as Chatsworth Subdivision. That is going
before the City Council September 21st, I believe. So, that has not been annexed yet,
but this body has recommended approval of that, so those are the general
developments in the area, as far as city developments. This would be, obviously, the
furthest south that the City of Meridian would annex throughout the area of impact. This
is -- we have not gone south of the half-mile point between Victory and Amity. So, the
annexation findings are outlined in my staff report. We do, for the most part, find that
the finding for annexation and zoning can be met. The R-8 request does comply with
the medium density residential designation that's there. The portion that is designated
as low density residential is three dwelling units or less in the Comp Plan. The applicant
does have the option to ask for the low density residential to be bumped up to medium
density residential. They did not do that in the Comprehensive -- I mean in their
application and, as I mentioned, I neglected to address that in the staff report. But I
think you will be hearing more about that from public testimony. So, I think that kind of
hits the highlights on the annexation and zoning, other than we have one outstanding
issue with the annexation and that is that this Ten Mile Creek is a separate parcel, fee
simple ownership, by the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District Bureau of Reclamation and
we did not receive notarized consent from them for that. I asked for that in the staff
report. The applicant has submitted a letter that is from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation
District, which, basically, says that at their staff level they don't see any issues with their
board saying that we don't mind consent, but their board has not acted yet to say that
they agree to consent. So, that is up for this Commission tonight. If you have concerns
about passing this onto the City Council without that, that is for you to discuss tonight.
On item number 13 is the plat. This is a colored rendering that was submitted by the
applicants recently. There is a couple of changes, slight modifications from what the
original preliminary plat was. The two main ones are that here at the entrance off of
Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
September 2.2004
Page600f81
South Locust Grove Road, Ada County Highway District did ask for that to be moved up
slightly during their review. This does reflect that change. The other change is the
configuration of the lots down on the south side of their entry collector road. They have
now proposed a common driveway coming off of the knuckle and that will serve two flag
lots that are here and that is slightly different. They did not have that common driveway
originally. This stub street is located here. There are eight lots in this area. There is an
existing house on the lot that is closest to Locust Grove Road. There are two other
existing houses, actually, on the property. One is located on this large lot here, which is
about three quarters of an acre in size, and they have accommodated the existing
house there. There is another residence -- existing residence that I believe is down
here in this area, which is proposed to be removed. The other features of their
preliminary plat, the -- there is a hundred year flood plain, which is also addressed in my
staff report, which you can kind of see grade out here. It is a fairly sizeable portion of
the site. As you can see it's -- it's really created here at this point where the Ten Mile
Creek crosses -- intersects with the Ridenbaugh Canal. There is a 60 inch culvert at
that point where the Ten Mile Creek all kind of funnels in and has to go through that
culvert and it appears from FEMA's research that they're showing that that's going to
cause, you know, some potential backup in the one percent chance that there is a flood.
And this is the general formation. And we have asked basically for some hydrologist
input and study on that, which we have not received yet. But I will let their engineer talk
a little bit more about that. If I could just draw your attention to page eight of the staff
report. That's where the preliminary plat special considerations begin. There is about
six or seven issues that staff felt needed to be pointed out. The first one there is the
street side yard setbacks for this large existing house here. The residence side setback
would be 15 feet. They would need 20. They are asking and have explained in their
staff report they are submitting a variance. Their argument is that they -- as designed,
they cannot meet the 20-foot minimum side setback on a street, because if they did that
these lots on the south side of the street would go below the minimum 6,500 square feet
and they have to swag this street to the south, obviously, to accommodate that. So,
they are arguing that -- that the variance is the way to go, since it's at 15 feet and the
street needs to be that wide in order to accommodate the highway district width
requirements. So, they are proposing a variance for that. The special consideration B
is the double frontage for that lot. The original application had this lot to have frontage
on both of these streets. You can't see too well on this, but they have now proposed a
new common lot on the east side of this, so the front will be to the west. The side
setback is here. And, then, on the east they now back up to a landscape common lot
and not a public street. So, that issue is taken care of. Then, on page nine of the
report, item C is -- deals with the hundred-year flood plain and I have already addressed
that. D is the regional pathway location. As you may recall from the Comp plan slide
that I had up earlier, there is a regional pathway that's shown along the Ten Mile Creek.
Tuscany Lakes Subdivision has been approved with the pathway on thè east side of the
Ten Mile. The applicant has met with the city parks director about the crossing of the
Ridenbaugh, as well as Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. They have concluded that
there will never be a bridge, a pedestrian bridge in that crossing. As I have mentioned,
there is a number of facilities -- these are two fairly large irrigation facilities and, besides
that, the Irrigation District owns about a five acre parcel right here, which they use for --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2,2004
Page 61 of 81
as I understand it, dumping of their tailings and other maintenance things and they
really do not want pedestrians in that area. So, what they have proposed is that the
pathway would only be constructed down in this corner in this common lot and, then, I
will just go back to this slide here. So, again, we are talking about this location. The
pathway, not being able to cross the Ridenbaugh, the question is where would it go?
And what the parks director -- and Ms. Wildwood is representing them tonight -- have
talked about is that the -- it could continue over to the east and, then, cross the
Ridenbaugh over in this general area where there will be a street -- a bridge in the
future. And, then, it could make its way over and continue on at that point. So, I guess
the Commission's comments on that location are certainly welcome tonight. Staff, given
the unlikelihood of that crossing, it does make sense to probably just preserve the future
location when we see development to the east. Then, the last one of the special
considerations I wanted to mention is the sanitary sewer and, actually, Bruce, do want
to touch on the sanitary sewer?
Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the sanitary sewer situation out in
this area is we have a -- kind of a split. We have a main line that comes down Locust
Grove. There is a main that is proposed to come on down Locust Grove. We also have
a main trunk that goes into Tuscany Lakes and will come through this portion of
Tuscany Lakes and punch out somewhere in this vicinity here, that will continue on
down generally in this location of the Ten Mile Drain. The subdivision as designed, they
had -- they had designed everything to -- to generally sewer everything west of Ten Mile
Creek out to Locust Grove and everything north of -- or easterly of Ten Mile Creek
would sewer out to the trunk line coming through Tuscany Lakes. Our facility plan that
was developed by our consultants, which we use for sizing trunk lines, shows a line
pretty much at 650 feet paralleling Locust Grove. That is the service area boundary.
Everything west of that line sewers back to Locust Grove. Everything east of that line
sewers back to this trunk line here. Like I said, the facility plan is developed based on
those service areas and the volume of sewer that's generated from those service areas
to set the line sixes and so as designed or as they had proposed originally, taking all of
this area, dumping it over here, they are jumping over those service boundaries and we
have -- we have basically come against that and have limited them to roughly 650 feet.
Now, I have talked with the engineer for the project and that 650 feet can be -- we can
work on that line. It doesn't have to be exactly parallel. We can follow -- more or less
follow the contours of the land. Their phase line -- I was just in the process of trying to
count up the number of lots they have in phase one and I think they exceeded the 50 lot
maximum that the fire department has placed a condition on and it looks to me like --
like if we stuck to the 50 lot maximum, that we would be pretty close to where we want
to be with the sewer coming back to Locust Grove. So, when you get to that point of
formulating a motion, public works department would be fine with taking a maximum of
50 lots to Locust Grove. Everything else has to go back towards the Ten Mile trunk.
Any questions?
Zaremba: So, in the way it was originally planned and that you're proposing to stay
with, at some point the -- what probably would be phase two, this area, whatever
sewering they do has to cross Ten Mile Creek?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2,2004
Page 62 of 81
Freckleton: Correct.
Zaremba: How do you do that? Bore under?
Freckleton: Correct. Just like we have to bore underneath Ridenbaugh Canal up in this
area.
Zaremba: Yeah. Okay.
Freckleton: The applicant's engineer did tell me that they have had some talks with the
developer of Tuscany and they have some verbal agreements for getting access to that
sewer through there, so I think they are well on their way of getting that line through that
area.
Hawkins-Clark: Just two other quick items. One is I wanted to clarify that the police
department has a condition in the staff report which states that all of the lots on the east
side of Ten Mile Creek are prohibited from building permits until one of these two stub
streets provides a permanent secondary access out to the east. The applicant did meet
with Chief Musser and 'lIlet them go further into detail on that, but what I -- I received a
voice mail message from the chief, I did not talk to him, but he did leave a voice mail
and stated that he is comfortable with the lots that -- that are fronting on this first
roadway being allowed to be developed without that permanent secondary access, so
they would still only have the one permanent access, which would be this culvert
crossing of the Ten Mile, but he felt the number of lots that was here that front on this
street, they could sufficiently provide service to with just the one access, so -- the other
point I wanted to make is that we did receive written comments in the public record from
a Mr. Jason Wolfe and Mr. Michael Gray, who have both outlined their concerns there.
And I think unless there is any questions at this time, that ends staff's comments right
now.
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners?
Zaremba: Yeah. I did have one -- actually, one comment on one of the most recent
things you said. I think the police department said that there would be no certificate of
occupancy, as opposed to no building permit on those. At least that's what I'm reading
on page 14, which means they could build them, they just couldn't be occupied.
Hawkins-Clark: Good point. I guess if the builders want to exercise that right, they
could do that, but we would probably want to change that.
Zaremba: You would prefer that there be no building permit?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2,2004
Page 63 of 81
Zaremba: Okay. Then, the Sanitary Service comment about the -- the one private drive
that they won't go on to pick up trash, should that actually be a note on the plat that that
private drive will not be served by trash service and that they need bring -- haul their
stuff out to the street?
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Zaremba, the county engineer has given pretty strong
indications that he supposed to have survey documents, plats, being used to enforce
those kinds of issues. So, no, probably the plat is not a good place for a comment that
is more of a servicing, maintenance kind of issue.
Zaremba: Development agreement on the annexation? Or do we just leave it as a
concern and -- I'm just thinking of notifying the two potential owners of that lot that this is
not something that's a surprise.
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. The covenants, I guess, is one way to do it. It could be, you
know, a deed restriction, covenants, you know, certainly the Sanitary Service company
has the authority under City of Meridian ordinance to --
Zaremba: Well -- and that's their standard requirement everywhere, but --
Hawkins-Clark: And that's their standard. Right.
Zaremba: These two owners might be surprised and because of the length of their
private driveway they might expect otherwise, but you're saying they need to learn that
some other way, besides the plat or the annexation development agreement?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: Anyone else?
Moe: Yeah. I'm just curious, have we seen anything yet in regards to an easement for -
- through the Tuscany Lakes Subdivision for that sewer?
Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moe, no, we have not seen anything. I know they
have had some discussions, but we have not seen anything in writing.
Moe: So, I'm sure they will be more than happy to tell me where we are at when they
get up here; right?
Borup: Okay. Would the applicant --
Zaremba: Staff did leave a question hanging, actually, about whether the P&Z
Commission even wanted to. proceed without seeing Nampa-Meridian's agreement to
the annexation of their piece of property and I think the information given was that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2, 2004
Page 64 of 61
Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District's board of directors meeting is on September 7. The
likelihood is that they will approve that portion be annexed into the city and I would
comment I have no problem with going ahead under the assumption that written
response to that will be provided prior to the City Council hearing.
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Zaremba, yes, that would be ideal. We would -- if we
could have your recommendation on that, should you get to that point tonight, then, we
would make sure that probably -- we wouldn't even notice for the City Council meeting
until we get that, because, obviously, if they don't get that, they can only develop east of
the Ten Mile Creek.
Zaremba: Okay. But I guess my question is to other Commissioners, are we
comfortable going ahead on that kind of assumption?
Rohm: I think so. And the developer full well knows that that has to occur, so --
Moe: Exactly.
Borup: Well, there is more than just that question, too.
Zaremba: But I don't think that question requires us continuing it right at this moment. I
think we can move whatever direction we are going to go, including hearing testimony
and --
Borup: Oh. Right.
Zaremba: -- and make some decisions that --
Borup: Kind of wait and see, then.
Zaremba: -- that includes that being brought to a successful conclusion before it goes
to City Council.
Freckleton: Mr. Chair, there is -- staff has -- this is an issue that staff is a little bit hazy
on as well. Where it is, actually, a simple right of way -- or not right of way, fee simple
ownership, state code, as far as annexation goes, you're required to annex in adjacent
rights of way, ditches, highways, railroad right of way, and things like that. Where this is
a simple owned chunk of land, that's where we are a little bit vague on whether we can
just do it without their consent and so it's kind of a legal question and -- maybe Chris
has some input on that.
Gabbert: Thank you, Bruce. Commission -- Chairman, Members of the Commission,
it's my recommendation, from looking at this, since the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation
District had not given consent for approval, it might be stated at the staff level that they
are going to, it would be my recommendation that we go ahead and have the Public
Hearing tonight and, then, continue the final decision until we get the results by -- and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2, 2004
Page 65 of 61
that actual decision by them, so we can go ahead and take testimony and we wouldn't
have to notice it, but we would actually continue the actual decision. It could be
bumped to the Consent Agenda at the next meeting or whatnot. But we don't actually
do the annexation until we have that notarized consent. That was the recommendation
of counsel.
Borup: Thank you. Would the applicant like to make their presentation?
Wildwood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Susan
Wildwood. I'm an attorney. My office is in Boise. I'm here on behalf of the applicant
and if I can very quickly answer some of the questions that I think are hanging out there.
I had had discussion -- several discussions with John Anderson and, actually, John was
trying to figure out a way that he could sign the consent and I said, well, I -- unless
you're a chairman of the board, I think we are probably going to have to go to the board.
He has recommended it. He's had a tentative discussion with one of the
Commissioners and it looks like it's a go, but we certainly understand what your concern
is, simply because it's one of the most unusual situations where we, instead of a
prescriptive right, we have fee simple for both the Ridenbaugh and the Ten Mile in this
area, which is -- it sort of leads me to the very brief discussion about the regional
pathway. And I'm going to bounce around. I think staff did a great job of walking
through what this is and I'd like to just tap on sort of the major questions and, then, if
you have any other questions hanging out, then, we will get to those, if that's all right. In
this location of the Ridenbaugh and the Ten Mile, this construction season the district is
actually going to be constructing two electronically controlled spillways and they are
adamant that there not be any sort of access across those waterworks in that location.
One, it's a liability issue, but, two, more importantly, it's all the equipment that they are
going to be having in that vicinity and they don't want -- it would affect all of this property
here. Then, the bridge is off of the property and that's why when I went in and talked
with the parks department, we debated where in the world are we going to be putting
that pathway. If you look at the preliminary plat that I have down here, it's sort of -- we
discuss several different items. One, because the Ten Mile actually comes in at an
angle, would it be appropriate to take a pathway in part along the Ten Mile, out the
common area, where, you know, I said we will be happy to do that. It didn't make a
whole lot of sense. Since you're going to have the pathway coming in here along the
Ten Mile, to have it come in here and, then, go back out to the property on the east and
this didn't seem to make a whole lot of sense, but if that's where you want that pathway,
we aren't going to have an objection, but it did seem more appropriate to come along
the Ten Mile and, then, curve up to the east to go over to one of the bridges, which is,
actually, going to be placed across the Ridenbaugh somewhat east of the property. So,
we did have that discussion. We spent a lot of time talking about other alternatives,
come up the Ten Mile, out through the subdivision and out. The parks department also
that it might not be a good idea to try to take your recreational traffic through the
subdivision, simply to come back into the pathway and go east, and so after spending
probably an hour talking about every possibility we could think about, it appeared the
most appropriate to go ahead -- the properties to the south and east of us will be
developing along the Ten Mile and have them cut -- bring that pathway in an
. Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
Septembar 2,2004
Page 66 of 61
appropriate location back out to the -- out to the east, so that you would still find a way
to connect, but we simply can't figure a way to get you across the Ten Mile in any of
those locations. As Brad pointed out, the district also has the property in this location,
they don't want anybody over there either. So, we are sort of stuck on the regional
pathway, not that we would have resisted it, but it doesn't seem like we can get it in
there any further than what you are looking at. With regard to the comment from the
police chief, the -- on this little document I have sort of marked in the lots and I have
available to you -- we tried faxing it over, but by the time you fax a fax, a fax, a fax, you
end up with Amtraks, but have the chiefs signature on the letter indicating which of the
lots he would agree could be developed and perhaps even occupied, plus the building
permits have been issued, so we'd kind of like to have that language changed, too. But
he did agree that his concerns would be allayed, because all of these lots would, in fact,
front along -- and I believe it's south Bradcliff and there would be a cul-de-sac access on
either end that would have to be constructed in any event, so those lots would come in
and they would have visual access along the backs of those lots, it wouldn't be a
situation where you would have all of these lots hidden back in and you couldn't see
what was going on with a single entrance. So, that was the background of that
discussion with the chief.
Moe: Has that been submitted?
Wildwood: I was going to submit the almost readable one that I have. So, that would
take care of the issue sort of on the regional pathway and the issue of the police chief.
With regard to -- there is one correction I would like to make in the staff report and I am
not really sure how we all missed it, but there is, actually, a statement on page -- page
11, item number eight, any portion of the flag lot for Lots 12 and 15, Block 3, beyond the
16 foot wide driveway surface, shall be landscaped, but I think that might have
accidentally made its way in from another staff report, because the only two flag lots we
have are actually down here. There aren't any other flag lots. on here. So, that does
need to be stricken from the staff report, because we have never had any flag lots in
that area. With regard to the sewer sanitary access, as Mr. Freckleton has pointed out,
we have agreed not to violate the sewer boundary. Mr. Bailey, the engineer, is here
and he's available to answer any of the questions on the sewer of -- together with the
issue as to whether or not what the discussions have been with the developer up in
Tuscany. The initial discussions are -- will give you -- when you -- when you are ready
to connect, we will give you the easement coming through. They have started doing the
work up here, but it's going to be awhile before we are ready to go in and do this
development here. As you can tell from the discussion, we've got some fairly complex
things going on here, the issue of where the sewer is coming in versus this boundary on
this side, you have the request from the fire department not to have more than 50 lots
developed, so you have sewer coming in this direction, we have -- we want to be sure
that we have the annexation of the Ten Mile, because, otherwise, then, we would annex
a piece of ground we couldn't get sewer too and we couldn't annex a piece of ground
we could get sewer to. So, all of those pieces we are trying to work together and bring
them to fruition at the same time. The common areas that we have here, I provided a
packet for you, so if I could just leap ahead a little bit, there wasn't much discussion by
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2, 2004
Page 67 of 81
Brad. The common areas that we have here, there are photography of the types of
amenities that we will be having in here. You will see a basketball court. This will be
available for lacrosse, soccer -- there isn't going to be an organized field, but it would be
available for those kinds of games. We would be meeting the fencing requirements.
This gives you a sample -- the middle recreation area where they have this sort of
amenity, this would be -- this recreation area, basically, in phase two, pool, a little
clubhouse, tot lot, and, then, the area on the east side would have available a gazebo
type area and those photographs are in your packet with a listing of the various kinds of
amenities that we are proposing in that particular location. With regard to the secondary
access, if you look at the plat, we have the connection here on South Netman, either
this connection to the south or this connection to the south would be going in in order to
do the full development of the project. We have this section of this property here under
contract, so we will be working on that, that will be coming into you at some point, but
that will be a connected access in order alleviate the concern of the fire department.
So, we will be picking up the fire department access question going down to Amity and
it's going to be roughly -- it's this piece of property, but we would be connecting down to
Amity, so that we can provide the secondary access that the fire department is looking
at. We, obviously, will not be able to connect to the east until the property to the east
develops. And, again, that's the area where we were talking about the regional
pathway. The -- we had submitted a letter indicating our concurrence or responses to
any of the concerns that the staff had and we are right sort of down to the questions that
staff had. Staff had recommended approval with resolution of the hundred-year flood
plain. That is shown probably a little bit easier on the gray map. Mr. Bailey is going to
address that, the studies that have been done, and, then, the discussions with Nampa-
Meridian. That's shown roughly on the preliminary plat. And the -- we talked about the
frontage setbacks and access for Lot 13, Block 5. Brad discussed that. You can see a
little bit better on the larger map where the new common area will be, showing the
access going toward the front of the house, then, Mr. Bailey is going to be discussing
the hundred year flood plain, as well as the sanitary service lines. If I could direct your
attention -- excuse me. I need your head just a little bit out of the way. I didn't want to
laser you. I apologize. Okay. Sneak up on that puppy. Okay. The subject property is
in green, it's a little bit hard to see in this section of the map. Mr. -- Brad talked about
the fact that there is this small section that is down in the R-4, rather than in the R-8, but
there is a significant amount of development that, actually, has occurred in county
development outside of that impact area. So, while this would be probably the farthest
south, there is a significant amount of development that's already out in that area and
the -- with the development of Tuscany and the sewer coming -- the plan bringing it
down along the Ten Mile, you will be seeing more applications coming in. There was a
comment about -- the question as to whether or not this constitutes urban sprawl or are
you actually developing the way that you're intending to do. Keeping in mind that you
have done your sewer studies, indicating that the sewer connection will be coming down
the Ten Mile, as well as down Locust Grove, you have filled in this area here. Tuscany
is filled in. This piece of ground is undeveloped, but as far as we can tell nobody has
been successful in convincing the owners of that land to even consider any sort of
development. Most likely you will be seeing, with the extension of sewer, the
reasonable development headed south in an organized direction. It is within your
Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
September 2, 2004
Page 66 of61
Comprehensive Plan. It does follow along with moving outward from the center, while
you have this section of land, which belongs to the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District,
the rest of the properties are filling in in a reasonable, orderly manner coming out from
the city services and we think that this does fall in with the correct accommodation. I
apologize; we all missed the section of ground here that's in the R-4. Otherwise, you
would have seen the request for the R-8. And I'm not exactly sure -- tonight was the
first night we heard about it after the reading the letter of protest. So, that does need a
resolution. I can tell you that Mr. Gray is here and he would be testifying and he is --
they had some brief discussions outside. He was requesting that these eight lots be
reduced to five. Now, his property is -- let me make sure I have got the correct piece of
ground here. This is kind of difficult. This is Mr. Gray's property; is that right, Mr. Gray?
This piece right there. Right there. And his -- his house and shop are located here. His
shop is between his residence and the edge of the property. He had requested that this
be reduced to five properties, five lots in this area. Now, the way it's planned, there
would be exactly five lots immediately adjacent to him anyway. There would be three
other lots that are closer into the roads. So, his request -- and I'm sure that he will
discuss this with you -- we would already be having five lots at his boundary, so that
would actually match that part of his -- what I think he's going to testify to. He also
requested a solid vinyl fence along this area. We are completely happy to do that. We
would even suggest putting it on perhaps a one or two foot berm, so that what he would
have is a higher fence. The other thing is is the residence on this lot closest to the
street is a single story house. We would even -- actually be willing to restrict Lots 5 and
6 to single height dwellings, no two story dwellings, so that there would be three single
story dwellings. His house actually faces, if I recall correctly from the aerial photo -- and
I have it for you if you would like to see it -- his residence appears to face east and
west. So, we think that that would do everything to buffer any of the concerns that he
has. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would stand for any questions. We do have -- Mr.
Nickel will be talking to you about the Comprehensive Plan. Dave Bailey is here to
answer all your engineering questions. I'm a lawyer; they don't let me do any of those
numbers and any of that engineering stuff. I have got lots of ideas about it, but it
doesn't mean I can get you those kinds of answers. So, with that, sir, I would be happy
to answer any of your questions. Thank you.
Moe: One question I guess I would ask. You're saying the lots that are on the far
south, the three to the west would be single level, but the other two you would anticipate
could be two story; is that what you're telling me?
Wildwood: Yes. This -- let's see. Oh, that's not me. I'm going, oh, dear has -- this
particular lot -- they would have to be building closer to the street, so a two story house
in that location is not going to impact a view. It would be significantly farther away from
here. Again, the same thing would be true on these houses. This is -- I think that this is
the property line. Let me see if that's correct. Let me guess. So, the property line -- his
property line is right here. And, again, his house and shop -- if I may just step over and
turn the aerial photograph around, maybe that would help. I will even hold it up. I will
play Vanna White here.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
September 2,2004
Page690f61
Moe: I wouldn't be able to see it if you didn't.
Wildwood: I'm going to bring it over. I'm going to bring it over, but I have to do it at the
microphone or I will get in trouble for not making a record. Mr. Gabbert is going that's
right. Okay. This is that south boundary. Please -- this is an old old old design, but this
is the aerial photograph that we had. Here is Mr. Gray's shop. Here is his residence.
And this is the visual line. So, let me bring that over to you. And I am happy to report
that is not our current design. In fact, the hidden map may give you a better idea. I
hadn't realized that on that particular map it would show his property in relationship to
those other lots.
Moe: Thank you.
Wildwood: If there is no other questions, thank you very much, gentlemen.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Bailey: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. I'm David Bailey with Bailey
Engineering. My office address is 1500 Iron Eagle in Eagle. And I will talk real quickly
about two of the issues that Susan -- I think must have fooled her and convinced her I
know something about and so I'll tell you what I do know about them and --
Borup: Okay. Before you start I might just mention, this may be a good test of our new
guidelines. You have got 77 seconds left. But we thought to be fair that since the time
was already -- most of the time was used up, should allow you the same three minutes
anybody else would have, so --
Bailey: All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very quick, then. On the hundred-
year flood plain, it is shown on the map there. That's a zone A, which means that there
have been no base flood elevations determined for that, which means there is no
detailed study in effect. When the detailed study was done to the north, you can see
how narrow it gets there and Paul Koonz of Koonz Engineering did the study for the
Tuscany Subdivision to the north, we have retained him to work on the study, I don't
have any results from him yet, because he gets backed up, because he's so good at
what he does, he gets lots of work. So, we have got him working on that and I'm hoping
that we are going to have some results here probably within about a month. So,
hopefully, that's before we get to the City Council meeting that we will have the results
from him. And the outcome of that, I couldn't predict what it is, that's why we hire
engineers to do it, so they can do the calculations, but I'm suspecting that we are going
to find that either the culvert, which is at the northwest end of this, which is, actually, an
84 inch culvert -- I was out there today walking around and measuring that, as opposed
to a 60 inch -- either that culvert there is an issue that's causing this backup of the water
or it's -- or the actual -- with a detailed study, can be shown to be within the area there.
We don't want to build houses in the flood plain. While it's technically feasible to do
that, we don't want to do that, and the developer doesn't want to do it and so we are
going to correct the map, basically, and if we have to do modifications to the ground to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2, 2004
Page 70 of61
correct the map, we will do that. Or if the study shows that it's contained within that
channel, then, we would have the map corrected based on that. So, that's our intent to -
- as we move forward here. The second issue is to the sanitary sewer and we don't
have any problem -- we do need to bring the sewer line down Locust Grove from the
southwest corner of Tuscany Lakes, I think it's called, on the east side of the road,
about 1,500 feet to the entrance of this project here and bore underneath the canal.
That's the sewer and water we are going to be bringing down Locust Grove there. I kind
of shutter when I think we are bringing that all the way down and we are only going to
serve 50 lots off of it, because it's going to be quite a lopsided construction project to get
that there, but I think we can probably work on a latecomers agreement with the city for
the portion that's not in front of our property. Secondly, I met with Kent Brown of Briggs
Engineering, so I haven't had any discussions with Greg Johnson at all directly, but I did
meet for awhile with Kent Brown and he told me of their plans for Tuscany and
somewhat -- I hope I'm not giving anything away that he didn't want me to. He didn't tell
me not to -- of the plans for the property to east of this, okay, and so we have talked
about what we can do there and we told him that we had probably made some deals
with the parks department on the way the pathway would go and he wasn't jumping up
and down and screaming, at least, you know, when we told him that.
Borup: Thank you. That was your time.
Bailey: That is my time?
Borup: Yeah. Any questions from Commission?
Moe: I just want to make sure that I'm clear in regard to the easement from Tuscany
Lakes. Have you had discussions with them in regards to getting that easement?
Bailey: Commissioner Moe, we have had -- I had a general discussion with Ken Brown,
who represents him with Briggs Engineering, and even if we don't get the easement,
they have promised to bring the sewer to the end of that phase and we would have to
wait until that phase was built to get it, if we couldn't get the easements, but in our
discussions it appeared that we could get the easement to bring that down.
Moe: Okay.
Zaremba: I would like to ask a flood plain question. Back to your subject one. If your
engineer determined that the flood plain was fairly similar to the way it's depicted, your
solution would be to provide fill, so that you brought those properties up above the flood
plain line?
Bailey: Commissioner Zaremba, there is, actually -- there is, actually, three potential
solutions of actual work to be done on site to fix that. One would be to -- to replace this
culvert with a larger culvert and that would allow the water to flow through, instead of
backing up in this area. The second would be to widen the channel in this area and
provide that storage volume within that 110 or 112 foot wide area there. And so the
Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
September 2,2004
Page 71 of 61
third solution may be to do fill in this area to raise it up above that area. We still have to
provide that volume of storage for that water or move it downstream. One of the two
has to be done. So, just filling these lots may not solve our problem, it might cause a
worse problem upstream, although that may be part of the solution.
Zaremba: So, my next question while you're still there, though, would be to staff. One
of the concerns was that solution that would be made to the problem here would push
the problem upstream or downstream. Is that still a concern? The solution that he is --
solution choices that he's suggested?
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, it is a concern in terms of pushing a flood -- potential
flood problem further upstream or downstream, yes. But I think the question remains up
in the air at this point, since we don't have the study back, and I mean that's why I put
that as one of the main outstanding issues tonight and if you don't feel comfortable
moving it on, then, that's your prerogative, but --
Zaremba: Then, back to Mr. Bailey. Would your engineer, when he's doing the study
that he's going to do for you, in analyzing probably those three options, also address the
issue of moving the problem somewhere else?
Bailey: He would. Absolutely. That's part of what you do in a study is you got to store
the volume, move the water, and not increase the problem downstream or upstream, for
that matter.
Zaremba: Okay.
Bailey: We can't create a worse problem anywhere else, we have got to work within the
constraints of what we have.
Zaremba: So, we would learn about an answer to that question at some point?
Bailey: We will learn an answer to question at some point.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you.
Bailey: And thank you for the extra time.
Borup: Okay. Mr. Nickel, did you want three minutes, too?
Nickel: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I will be very brief. Shawn Nickel,
52 North 2nd Street in Eagle. Regarding the Comprehensive Plan -- and staff did state
that the majority of the property is within the medium density residential designation. It
is true that we do have that small portion that lies within that low density. It's always
been my understanding of the review of comprehensive plans that, you know, while they
Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
September 2,2004
Page 72 of 61
do designate certain areas, they aren't necessarily site specific, and so I think that the
fact that this is a 1.8 acre parcel that we are trying to develop that's outside of that
designation, it's not like we are asking for like this whole piece right here to be
considered -- well, it's close enough where it touches the boundary, let's include that in
the medium density. We are only talking about this smaIl1.8-acre area. If you average
out the lot sizes that we have there, they come out to 8,668 square feet each, which
would be in line with the R-4 -- an R-4 zone, if we were to rezone that property. The
overall density is 4.4 dwelling units per acre in that 1.8-acre area. So, I just wanted to
point that out as a point of clarification. I think that it's appropriate what we are asking
for. I will leave that to your staff to make that determination or advise you on that.
Other than that, your Comprehensive Plan does call for proper transitioning. I believe
we have done that with those five lots that are immediately adjacent to that -- to the
gentlemen who is probably going to get up next and talk about that. So, with that I will
stand for any questions you may have on those specific issues.
Borup: Questions?
Zaremba: While you are there, I would ask staff a question, actually, on the
Comprehensive Plan subject. Is this request for R-8 within the one step up or step
down from the Comprehensive Plan designation that would be allowed? The
Comprehensive Plan establishes what we would like to see in an area, but, then, allows
a step up or step down. Is the R-8 within that?
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, it is.
Zaremba: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: The R-8 is within the one step.
Zaremba: So, in fact, it would comply with the Comprehensive Plan?
Hawkins-Clark: Right. I mean, you know, that is -- I guess it is an issue for discussion.
I mean our goal is not to see every parcel that's designated low density to automatically
be bumped up to medium. I think that would defeat the purpose of diverse housing
sizes and lot sizes, but -- but the opportunity to request that bump is there and I think
the purpose that we need look at -- the goal we need to look at is the compatibility being
accommodated through the plat, because as Shawn pointed out, the density is -- is
technically there. I mean it meets -- it meets the low density, so --
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Okay. This is the time for public testimony. Do we have
anyone who would like to testify on this application?
Gray: My name is Mike Gray. I live at 4460 South Locust Grove Road, the property
that has been discussed here the past ten or fifteen minutes. I also have left you guys -
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Septamber 2, 2004
Page 73 of 61
- excuse me -- the Commission a copy of a revised letter that was -- that has a
September 2nd date on it, that supercedes the one that we had written on September
1st, as a result of looking at the revised preliminary plat that I saw at the Planning and
Zoning office yesterday. I would like to correct one statement that was made relative to
R-4 zoning. In the low density residential, the Comprehensive Plan identifies an R-3 or
less, not an R-4, and in this particular case we have two noncompliance issues relative
to the Comprehensive Plan. The first of which is that the area that was in question that
has been discussed lately, that area is within the low-density designation in the area
use map. The low density -- that low-density definition means R-3 or less. And they
have eight houses -- eight lots in there currently and I suggest to the Commission that
that number of lots be reduced to five to bring it in line with the R-3 density. And the
second point is that the Comprehensive Plan also establishes a requirement for
screening and landscape buffers for developments more intense than the adjacent
residential properties and I think you can all agree that the subdivision that's proposed is
more intense than an RUT subdivision with two lots, each lot being almost six acres in
size. As a result of that, that means to me that there should be an adequate buffer built
between the Bellingham Park Subdivision and the Terrier Subdivision, and in my mind
reducing the number of lots from eight to five is integral in obtaining that buffer, because
it allows those homes to be built off the property line in an adequate space to provide
some buffer. So, I request that -- that there be a solid six foot fence -- six foot fence
built along the property line on Terrier -- on the northern boundary of Terrier
Subdivision, limit the homes in those five acres to one story in size, and increase the
setback and make it consistent with the existing home that they are intending to leave in
that Bellingham Park Subdivision. There was also a comment made in the staff report
relative to compatibility of zones within the area and in that report they said the R-8 was
compatible, but they cited other R-8 subdivisions in that and the R-8 subdivisions that
were cited are a quarter mile north and on the west side of Locust Grove Road and
totally disjointed from this particular subdivision. The adjacent subdivisions to the north,
which is Tuscany Lakes, is an R-4 and all of the land to the south is an R-3 or low
density housing. So, an R-4 zone would be more appropriate.
Borup: Okay. That did conclude your time. Unless there any questions from any of the
Commissioners.
Zaremba: I do have one question. Would you describe the Terrier Subdivision for me?
Is that --
Gray: The Terrier Subdivision is a two lot RUT subdivision.
Zaremba: What size are the lots?
Gray: They are about 5.85 acres apiece.
Zaremba: Each?
'. , .
Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
September 2.2004
Page 74of81
Gray: I would like to make one other comment and you guys have my
recommendations in my write-up, but this is in regards to the posting of this Public
Hearing. And realize that the developers had the sign posted in the appropriate amount
of time and I included some pictures in there. It was posted on the 20th of August, I
believe. On the 23rd of August the sign was down and laying in the weeds and I took
that picture that you see in that attachment there a week later, which was this Monday,
and -- which means it was down for seven days. So, that sign was, actually, only visible
to the public for five days prior to this Public Hearing. I think the ordinance that requires
that sign be posted should be modified to also include maintenance of those signs, so
that this doesn't occur as in this subdivision and also at the Chatworths Subdivision, in
which the sign wasn't even visible -- and I drive up and down that road all the time --
until the day after the Public Hearing for Chatsworth.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else?
Wolfe: My name is Jason Wolfe. I live at 4646 South Locust Grove. I'm the property
just south of Mr. Gray's. In looking at the proposed development and the R-4
development immediately north of that, it seems that the R-8 zoning doesn't appear to
be necessary in this area. The density that they have, as they have already stated, is,
generally, within the R-4 standards. I think that that is -- is adequate. I think that it
better meets the surrounding areas. I think putting an R-8 density zone there sets a
dangerous precedent for future development, especially that contract land that they
have there that's in the low density area. My guess is that when that gets developed
you will see more R-8 development out there. As an engineer, the numbers that I'm
seeing here have me concerned. The flood plain, that storm c- hundred-year storm
flood plain area, there is ways to correct it, but it's really tough to do. You can't just
widen the channel, because the flow is a relationship between area and speed. If you
make it more wider, you will just make it slower, it doesn't change the height of the flow
at all and it's not going to make a difference. You're going to have to do some type of
fill. It's the same thing with the culvert at the end of it. You make the culvert bigger, it's
just like a stream moving into a lake, essentially, because that -- the Ridenbaugh Canal
is more massive. So, that you can make a bigger culvert. However, it's not going to
make a huge difference to what's shown there. As a homeowner in the area -- I am
needing water. I'm concerned about traffic. I saw the traffic study that was published by
ACHD. It says that there is approximately 1,100 more vehicles anticipated due to this
development. That's 164 lots. What it doesn't take into consideration is the other six
developments in the area, with approximately 1,000 lots coming in. Using a similar
multiplier, that is an increase of approximately 9,000 to 10,000 vehicles per day in that
area. The infrastructure cannot handle that load. It's a dramatic increase and I don't
think that it adheres to the Comprehensive Planning in that area. I am thoroughly
opposed to zoning that as an R-8. I feel there is some pretty good arguments for it.
Thank you.
Borup: Thank you.
Wolfe: If there is any questions?
, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2,2004
Page 75 of 61
Borup: Questions from the Commission? Thank you, Mr. Wolfe. Do we have anyone
else to testify? Come forward.
Dalton: I'm Sheri Dalton, I own the property at 2180 Amity, which is directly south of the
eastern boundary of the subdivision here. Let's see. Be right there. I have a question
to the Planning and Zoning Commission and to the staff as to why there is a midline
separation between zonings and why doesn't it fall down to Amity Road. At one time
the -- it was only changed about two years ago, I guess. My question is why is --
Borup: That's not a zone.
Dalton: -- why is it in that location?
Borup: Yeah. It's in the Comprehensive Plan and that's just -- a line had to be drawn
somewhere, I guess, is part of it. And that was what came out of the recommendations
from the committees working on the Comprehensive Plan.
Dalton: Okay. Because as a potential developer myself, I'm questioning why there is a
line that doesn't meet-- you know, it's at a mid section, as opposed to an actual section
which would follow Amity Road.
Borup: Did you put different input in than that at the meetings?
Dalton: No.
Borup: Okay.
Dalton: But that's my question.
Borup: That may be part of it. There was no input from anybody in that area.
Dalton: Maybe I wasn't notified.
Borup: No. It was -- it went on for two years.
Dalton: Okay. Anyway, that's my only question, is, you know, you're talking about
variances, you're talking about changes, we are talking about one and a half acre parcel
here that's falling into a no-man's land, I'm just questioning how the zoning was done
the way it was. It's kind of a midline.
Borup: So, you would be in favor of the medium density designation to go clear to
Amity you're saying?
Dalton: Of the higher zoning. Yeah. That's all.
Meridian Planring & Zoning Commission
September 2, 2004
Page 76 of 81
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?
Zaremba: I would ask a question of staff or either other COmmissioners. I knew at one
time where the end of our area of impact is as we go south and I have forgotten where it
is. If you know, can you refresh my memory? I know our zip code goes all the way
down to Hubbard, which is like three miles farther south than this, but I don't think that's
where the area of impact is.
Hawkins-Clark: Irs a quarter mile south of Amity.
Zaremba: Thafs the end of our current impact zone?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: That is correct right there. That map is the area of impact.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
Borup: Okay. I guess - are we ready for final comments?
Wildwood: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, again, Members of the COmmission, my name is
Susan Wildwood, I'm here on behalf of the applicant I think this map is kind of -
actually, kind of telling and I am appreciative that ifs up there. You will notice that it isn't
exactly a straight across line as far as the R-4, R-8 differential. You will see that you
have got some R-8 over here, you have got some over here, looking at the various
properties, it isn't just as simple to say that the whole area is R-8 or R-4. In looking at
this particular project, keeping in mind, again, the cost to extend the infrastructure.
When you start pulling - drilling under the Ridenbaugh or when you start looking at
those kinds of requirements to bring the sewer in in accordance with the sewer plant,
south in these areas, the somewhat higher density again supports the extension of
infrastructure and, although, I know that there has been some criticism leveled at
Meridian for the density of what ifs looking at, I am going to make a pitch for farmland.
And you notice that the city of Boise - I don't know how familiar you are with the
insistence on - in Boise, but I can tell you what's happening in the north end, because
of the cost of infrastructure is so extraordinary, they are looking at every way they
possibly can to maximize the land and when you look at this particular project, it brings
in a significant: number amenities, eleven percent of this is usable open space common
area, with a lot of amenities. The density herein supports the extension of city services.
It is within the R-8 zone. I know we have a little bump down below, but it is within the
step up, step down, 3.85 is the gross density on the project. And it is a good solid
'. ! ,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2,2004
Page 77 of 61
paper into you from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. It is like, oh, man, that meeting
is a week too late, but we will have that for you. I'm pretty confident. You do have the
issues that are outstanding on the flood plain. Again, a bit of a scramble there. We
don't have that information for you yet, but I would ask your careful consideration of this
and I am sure that you're looking for confidence in any decision that you make and that
you feel like you want to have a sufficient amount of information to make whatever
recommendation it is to the City Council. We appreciate your time and appreciate
working with staff. This is not exactly one of those cookie-cutter subdivisions trying to
work around the roads, the amazing canal system out there. So, thank you, again, for
your time and attention and I would stand for any questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Questions, Commissioners?
Wildwood: Thank you, sir.
Borup: Final comment? Any comments from staff?
Zaremba: While staff is thinking, I would ask staff a question. Apparently, the ACHD
commission acted on the preliminary plat for this application yesterday. Have we gotten
any updated information from them yet?
Hawkins-Clark: I'm sorry. From whom?
Zaremba: ACHD.
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, the Ada County Highway District commission yesterday
at their noon meeting did approve the revised plat that was shown on the slide tonight.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Okay. I know I said earlier that the issue of annexing the Nampa-Meridian
property, I would be satisfied to move it forward, as long as that was settled before the
City Council Public Hearing, but I am changing my opinion on that. I have -- as always,
the City Council wants us to solve problems before they get there and I, actually, now
that there are two problems in my thinking, one is the flood plain and one is the
ownership of that strip. My inclination is to continue this hearing until those are
resolved, but it sounds like the flood plain issue is at least a month from now. That
certainly would be long enough to get the Nampa-Meridian issue resolved. Apparently,
ACHD issues are resolved. But that's my current thinking. Any support or objection?
Moe: I, actually, would agree and at the same time I would anticipate at that point we
probably have something as far as an agreement in the easement from Tuscany Lakes
as well. So, take care of that issue as well.
Zaremba: Dealing with the sanitary sewer --
'- . .
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2, 2004
Page 76 of 61
Moe: That's correct.
Zaremba: -- boundary issues. I agree with that.
Rohm: I think that's as big of an issue as any of the other two.
Zaremba: I'm satisfied that the regional pathway is going to be off of this property, no
matter what happens, so that really isn't an issue. That resolution is it's not going to go
through this property no matter what, so -- that one seems to be resolved to me.
Borup: Other than the discussion that it will go through, basically, a corner of it.
Zaremba: Whether or not it would go through a corner it? I tend to agree that it doesn't
need to do that little two sides of the triangle to get back off of this property again.
Unfortunately, that would put the whole burden on whoever the development to the east
is to provide that whole pathway. They may do it along public roadways as well. But it
may be a case of just asking for a wider sidewalk along the section that's going to
connect to an eventual bridge on the north end of those properties.
Rohm: Before we move to continue, I would like to have some input from the applicant
as to dates specific that they feel comfortable that they could have these issues
resolved. It appears that the earliest would be October 7th.
Zaremba: In support of what you're saying, it would sound to me that the earliest that
they could provide the information would be October 7th. I would like to leave a little
time for staff to analyze it after that.
Rohm: Well, good point. And just looking at the calendar and so maybe from our side
of it, the preferred day would be the 21st.
Zaremba: Of October?
Rohm: Of October. But I also want their input on this as well.
Moe: I would agree on that, too. The 21st.
Wildwood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. After some kibitzing in the back trying to figure
out when Mr. Koontz is going to be available. We have no promises, but I think it may
be a good idea however, so that we don't get into a notice difficulty is to come back on a
date certain. We will have information back into staff and if we can meet that 21 st date,
having information in early, and, then, giving staff some time, so what I can do if we can
have a date certain, so that you don't to have go through the expense the trouble of re-
noticing and, then, we can re-notice --
Borup: That was our intention.
'. ,.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2,2004
Page 79 of 61
Wildwood: And, then, we can come back with a status report. We have gotten -- and
by that time we will know how we are in the study, are we done, do we have the report,
et cetera, if we need a second continuance, simply so that staff has a chance to digest
it, we can do that.
Rohm: Yeah. I think that we have to continue to a date specific and, then, if, in fact,
you're not ready we can continue it once again.
Wildwood: Yes. Thank you, sir.
Zaremba: Well -- and I would include in that readiness that staff should have the three -
-the answers to the three outstanding issues ten days before that hearing.
Rohm: Exactly.
Zaremba: Are you on the motion?
Rohm: No. No. I am not.
Gabbert: Chairman, Members of the Commission -- Keith, over here.
Borup: Oh. How are you doing?
Gabbert: I have a quick question for staff, if it's all right. Brad, there has been a lot of
talk tonight about -- as opposed to doing R-8, people doing an R-4 and getting a
variance for some of these sizes and just in my time here I haven't seen a whole lot of
that processing go, the R-4 with a variance, as opposed to an R-8. Could you clarify
what the -- just tell me a little bit what the difference in the procedure is -- or why is it
that much more difficult to do an R-4 with a variance and that you just go with the
straight R-8, even though you're meeting the requirements.
Hawkins-Clark: Sure. The difference is that the variance is not an eligible option for
reducing the lot sizes or frontages. I mean they really need to use the Planned
Development Process in order to accomplish that, so if an applicant chooses to develop
with an R-4 and they just draw a plat without a development and they need 80-foot
frontages, 8,000 square foot lots. If they do an R-8 they need 63-foot frontages or
6,500 square foot lots. If they do a planned development, then, that gives them some
flexibility, but the variance, really, is not the appropriate mechanism.
Borup: Yeah. I may have given you the wrong impression. The ones we have seen
have all been through planned unit developments.
Zaremba: Well -- and I would add to that that when I first came on this Commission we
saw a few that apparently were planned developments, R-8 with request for exceptions
on the lot sizes, and I vocally expressed my displeasure at chipping away at the R-4
, :~ .
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2. 2004
Page 80 of 61
zone in that manner and ask the question of several developers why are you afraid to
ask for an R-4 -- I mean, excuse me, an R-8. You ask for an R-4 and all these changes,
why not just ask for an R-8 and I think a lot of them heard that and are responding to the
fact that I expressed a discomfort with chipping away at R-4 in that manner.
Gabbert: Yeah. Thank you. I just wanted a little clarification on that.
Rohm: In this particular case, this five acres that's within the low density is --
Zaremba: 1.9, isn't it?
Rohm: Oh. Excuse me. 1.9. Is in support of what legal counsel is speaking to,
though. Let's go the other direction, but I can sure see what you're saying, too, Dave.
Zaremba: Well -- and maybe that's an issue that still needs to be resolved. Have we
had the motion on a continuance yet? We haven't. What -- whether or not we want to
ask that that 1.9 acres be an R-4, I mean we have subdivisions where the whole
subdivision isn't the same zoning.
Rohm: Do all those lots comply with R-4?
Borup: No.
Zaremba: No.
Borup: He was talking about the - if you took an average -- the square footage was
over 8,000 feet on an average, but the lot sizes --
Rohm: There are some that are less than 8,000.
Borup: Yeah. There is three of them that are over ten and there is several that are
under seven, so --
Rohm: It's probably better to leave it just as it is, then.
Borup: And I agree with Commissioner Zaremba. All the noncompliance issues -- but I
do like the single zoning, especially if there is some diversity in the lot sizes and that's
something I have felt for a long time. You know, a whole subdivision full of 8,000
square foot lots is not near as attractive as something that's got some tens and some
sevens. Okay. Are we ready for a motion?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue the public hearings for AZ 04-020
and PP 04-027, for resolution of the items that are actually specified in the staff report.
I'm sorry. Continue it to the date of October 21st, our regular planned hearing on
October 21st, with the understanding that the necessary information will be to staff by
ten days before that.
. 1 t r
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 2.2004
Page61of61
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Borup: You continued both hearings?
Rohm: Yes.
Borup: All right. Thank you. That concludes our Planning and Zoning meeting for this
evening.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn.
Zaremba: Second.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. THREE AYES.
Borup: Meeting adjourned at 11 :50.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11 :50 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
KE~~
lLLl.LQ!
DATE APPROVED