2004 11-04
4:>\
1
Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meetina
November 4. 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, Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay and
Commissioner David Moe.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Will Berg, Jessica Johnson, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Anna
Canning, Bruce Freckleton, Steve Siddoway, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X David Zaremba X
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X
X Chairman Keith Borup
David Moe
Michael Rohm
Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to begin our regularly
scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for November 4th.
Start with roll call attendance.
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Item 3:
Consent Agenda:
A.
Approve Minutes of October 7, 2004 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
Borup: The first item on the agenda is that of the minutes of October 7th. Comments or
questions?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we approve the minutes of October 7, 2004, as
written.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 4:
Continued Public Hearing from October 7,2004: CUP 04-036 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a music academy and other future uses
as allowed in the C-C zone for Garland & IIse Goff by Garland & IIse Goff
- 1233 North Main Street:
.¡
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4.2004
Page 2 of 64
Borup: Okay. I just wanted to mention a couple things before we go into the -- before
we continue with public hearings. And this Commission -- this Commission hears
annexations and rezones, conditional uses, planned developments, et cetera. We do
not make a decision on that, we make a recommendation to the City Council, and so
that's what -- that's how the motions will be stated, is a recommendation to the City
Council. The procedure is that the staff makes a -- gives a brief presentation of the
proposal, tonight maybe a brief summary of past ones, and, then, after the -- after staff's
information we have -- the applicant has up to 15 minutes to make clarification, their
presentation, and also time -- if there is any questions we have, after which we take the
public testimony, and we -- that is allocated to up to three minutes apiece for each of
those. And we would like to -- and, then, after -- and after the public testimony, the
applicant has a chance to come back up and answer questions and maybe any
clarifications. So, we would like to proceed with continued Public Hearing, that's CUP
04-036, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a music academy and other future
uses.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: We have a request from the applicant to withdraw this application.
Borup: All right. Thank you. I got in a little late and didn't read all the stuff on this
paper. Appreciate that. Okay. A motion for acceptance of --
Zaremba: I move we accept the applicant's withdrawal of CUP 04-036.
Rohm: Second.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5:
Continued Public Hearing from October 21,2004: PP 04-034 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval for 83 single-family residential building lots
and 5 common lots on 25.86 acres in an R-4 zone for Milliron
Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC - northeast corner of North
Black Cat Road and West Cherry Lane:
Borup: Next item is a continued Public Hearing PP 04-034, request for preliminary plat
approval of 83 single-family lots in an R-4 zone for Milliron Subdivision. Again, this --
this is a continued hearing, which is now open. Do we have any additional information
,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4. 2004
Page 3 of 64
from the staff? I think there was a few issues as we left last time with hopes they could
get worked out.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, that's correct. The Commission had asked the
applicant to go to the Ada County Highway District and discuss with them the possibility
of amending their plat to connect to Cherry Lane. My understanding is they did do that.
The Commission did also ask the applicant to hold a neighbor meeting. My
understanding is that happened. I don't know if the Commission received it, but staff did
receive at our staff desk a list of the neighbors that participated and attended that
neighborhood meeting. We have also received a revised plat, which I think the
Commission probably has as well, and, my apologies, I think the world just turned on its
side there. North is actually right. South is to the left. And I guess the rest it you can
figure out. But, as you can see, in this location here -- this is a new access -- direct
access to Cherry Lane that was not provided before. Generally, the other elements of
the layout itself have not changed. We have received a list of some of the things that
the developer spoke with the neighborhood about in terms of the actual design
elements of the houses and the lots and the majority of those -- we were asked can the
city enter into a development agreement with the developer and according to the city
attorney, since this is not an annexation or a rezone, the state statute does not actually
allow a development agreement per se. There is an option, of course, for the city,
maybe, to have a contract of some other kind that -- you know, by another name. I
guess I'll let the applicant discuss that further, as far as what they might envision. The
main concern that staff has is many of the items that -- that the developer and the
neighborhood talked about entering into are elements that are not part of city code and
if we were to be charged with enforcing those, things like the pitch of roofs and putting a
tree in rear yards, et cetera, those are things that we are typically not inspecting or
enforcing and so that's just a cautionary statement, I guess, in terms of enforcing
something like that. I think with that I'll just end staff comments.
Borup: Thank you. Any questions from the Commission? Would the applicant have
anything they'd like to add?
Amar: A couple things. For the record, my name is Kevin Amar, address 114 East
Idaho Street, 230, in Meridian. I do have copies of both the conditions as Brad was
speaking of, as well as a letter from Ada County Highway District that I'll pass out to
the Commission. This -- I guess if I can ask for clarification first, I know this is a
continued Public Hearing. Is this for new information? Is this -- I don't know exactly
what I'm supposed to share. Certainly I can talk about the access and the
neighborhood meeting that was requested by this body. If there is additional
information or limit it to that.
Borup: Commission, is there more stuff you'd like to know? I think most -- we were all
here last time.
Zaremba: Those two items are of interest to me, but you have 15 minutes, so --
,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2004
Page 4 of 64
Amar: I don't want to take 15 minutes. I hope.
Rohm: That works for us.
Amar: Okay. It sounds like there is other issues tonight that are -- I don't have a radio
advertisement about my project, I will say that. This' project -- we were requested at the
last meeting to have -- to do two things, look at an additional access onto Cherry Lane
and hold a neighbor meeting. We have met with -- and Jessica is passing along to you
a letter from Ada County Highway District that has granted permission to add one
additional access at this point. It lines up with the access across the street at Coral
Creek. That has been approved and it is as you see -- as you see here. So, I believe
that -- that satisfies one of the biggest concerns. It also -- we were also requested to
have a neighborhood meeting. We held that on October 28th here in the chambers at
6:00 p.m. and I have to apologize to Jessica, hopefully we didn't get her in trouble, but
we interrupted the decorating for the city party. So, they had to decorate beyond us and
the council -- your legal counsel Mr. Nary was helpful in facilitating that neighborhood
meeting. But at that neighborhood meeting we had approximately a few more than 40
people. I do have a copy of the list. I have given it to your staff, but if you'd like a copy
also you can see that. Does mean times up? We did have quite a few people there
and at that neighborhood meeting we were able to resolve quite a few issues. One of
the -- the larger ones that we spoke about was this list that you have before you. A lot
of these requirements are things that we typically do in the subdivisions, but not things
that were known by the neighborhoods, nor by you prior to that meeting. So, these are
items that we do require within our CC&Rs. One change, rather than the 1 ,400 square
foot house size on all of it, there will be a 1,600 square foot minimum home size on the -
- on the -- Brad's got me messed up here.
Borup: North and east.
Amar: On the east and the north part of the property. So, those homes that are
adjacent to Golf View Subdivision will have a 1,600 square foot minimum home size.
The other items --
Borup: That's the only thing I noticed that looked like it probably wasn't already --
wouldn't normally be in the CC&Rs.
Amar: That is correct. Some of the things that we have started adding is -- to the
CC&Rs - and this is within the last couple of years -- is actual rear yard landscaping.
Previous we let people landscape their rear yards, but we didn't put a time limit on it.
We now require that the rear yard be landscaped within six months of occupancy of the
home. We also required a minimum of one tree in the rear yard. So, we were finding
that people -- as I was telling one of the neighbors, it's for the few that don't finish their
projects or their homes. Most people get in and want it to look nice, but there are a few
that it takes a little bit longer. So, with this requirement the homeowners association
actually has the ability to go out and force people to complete their rear yard and do the
landscaping, so weeds and other things aren't growing back there. It also speaks to the
,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2004
Page 5 of 64
pathway, that it's a private pathway, it's owned and maintained by the Golf View
homeowners association and that we will be fencing that pathway on our north and east
boundaries. I guess with that we -- I believe the neighborhood meeting was very
productive, we got good comments from the neighbors, and I think we were able to
resolve -- I'd like to thank Heather -- and I should know her last name. She's told me a
couple times, but she was very helpful in facilitating a lot of those comments and
helping me address some of those items that were in question. But we certainly have a
more informed neighborhood and a more informed developer because of that
neighborhood meeting, which is always beneficial. We also have a preliminary plat
that's before you with an additional access, which was one of the greater concerns of
those neighbors. So, that being said, I would stand for any other questions and thanks
for your time this evening
Borup: Questions from the Commission? Is there anything else that we discussed last
time that we didn't get covered here?
Zaremba: Just one question. Are you saying that the list that you have provided us are
things that you are going to make sure are in the CC&Rs?
Amar: Yes, sir.
Zaremba: Okay.
Amar: What I'd actually ask -- and maybe we can't put all of these in as a condition of
approval or something, but I know in other subdivisions we have, actually, put minimum
home sizes in as a condition of approval, so maybe we require at a minimum that the
1,600 square feet on the north and on the east boundary be a portion of the condition of
approval. That certainly puts some protection there. I don't know legally what you can
or can't do, that's a question for Mr. Nary, but these are something that will be in our
CC&Rs. So, whether it's a part of this motion or not, they will be there.
Borup: And they are also on testimony.
Amar: Sure. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you for doing all that.
Borup: Anything else from any of the other Commissioners?
Moe: No, sir.
Newton-Huckabay: I have nothing.
Amar: Thank you.
,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4,2004
Page 6 of 64
Borup: Thank you. Okay. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify? This is
the time for public testimony. Come on up, sir.
Nary: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Yes.
Nary: Just so the record is clear, for any public testimony, since the only reason the
hearing was open was the information Mr. Amar brought that was new, then, any other
additional comments should confine to just the new, so that you aren't rehearing all the
other stuff that's already part of the record. So, if this gentleman has stuff that's to - to
stuff that's been spoken of tonight, then, that would be appropriate. If it was just
~omething else, then, that wouldn't be.
Lerner: It's part of the list.
Borup: Okay. And, then, you need to state your name and address.
Lerner: Yes. My name is Dave Lerner, I live at 4603 West White Ash. I did have a
question and I think it needs to be answered here and maybe you can tell me. One of
the things that I wanted added in was the height of the rear fence right now. I live on --
it would be the northern boundary of the new subdivision going in and my question was
-- been kind of led to believe through the neighborhood meeting and the homeowners
association that we could only have a four foot fence in there, because of the walking
pathway. If that's true, there is three more subdivisions just north of us in Meridian there
that have five and five and a half foot fences. The top 12 inches or 14 inches are a
lattice work. You can see through it, but it kind of makes a nice screen across there and
that's what I'm asking. Is that something that could be considered?
Borup: You're saying you'd like a lattice on top of the four feet?
Lerner: Yes. And I'd also like to say that the neighborhood meeting and the developer
went a long way to resolve a lot of issues, so that was a good deal. We do appreciate
it. But that's my only question and comment tonight. Is that something that could be
included in there? I don't know. I don't know if this is the right place to ask the --
Borup: No. This is the place.
Rohm: It's a good place to ask.
Borup: And we will discuss that at the end with the developer.
Lerner: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Okay. Yes. Come on up. Then, I will
go down through -- I do have a list here now.
,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2004
Page 7 of 64
Evans: Do you want to take that as it's listed now or --
Borup: No. Go ahead.
Evans: Okay. I'm Don Evans, 4349 Quaker Ridge.
Borup: You were the first one on the list.
Evans: Okay. The City of Meridian has adopted into their building codes a
comprehensive development plan, of which Milliron Subdivision, as proposed, is not in
compliance with. Meridian City Code 11-10-2, dealing with compatibility with existing
and proposed developments, reads as follows: All new residential housing
developments in the city shall be designed to insure compatibility with adjacent,
existing, and/or proposed developments. It is my understanding that Golf View Estates,
which surrounds the proposed Milliron Place Subdivision on the east and the north,
contains substantially larger lots and homes than what is being proposed here. There
appears to be no effort by development to comply with the City Code 11-10-2, because
they have clearly not designed Milliron Place Subdivision to insure compatibility with
Golf View Estates. Both Golf View Estates and Milliron Subdivisions are located within
the City of Meridian in the R-4 zone. Meridian City Code 11-10-4A requires that any
new single-family detached house in R-4 zone must at least 1,400 square feet in size,
excluding the garage area. Based upon my conversations with Mr. Woodruff, it appears
that this is approximately half the size of the smaller homes in Golf View Estates.
Furthermore, the proposed preliminary plat contains no recitation of this requirement,
stating that all residential homes shall be a minimum of 1,400 square feet, excluding the
garage. In other words, the Milliron Place Subdivision is not designed to insure
compatibility with the surrounding developments, but to authorize construction of the
smallest homes possible in the R-4 zoning. Similarly, Meridian Code 11-9-1 sets the
minimum lot size of R-4 zone at 8,000 square feet. From my reading of the proposed
preliminary plat, 61 of these 81 lots, or roughly 80 percent proposed for the
development in Milliron Place Subdivision are exactly 8,000 square feet. Or exceed the
bare minimum by less than five percent. Again, it appears that Milliron Place was
designed almost exclusively to accommodate lots of absolute minimum required size.
This is not compatible with Golf View Estates, which has lots of greater size and
character. In short, while the proposed development of Milliron Place Subdivision
appears to comply with the bare minimum requirements of the city zoning ordinance for
the R-4 zone, there appears to be no effort whatsoever to design the subdivision to
insure compatibility with adjacent existing developments, such as is required by
Meridian City Code 11-10-2. Does that mean time's up?
Borup: That means you have 30 seconds, I believe. I'm sorry. It was. Questions from
any of the other Commissioners?
Zaremba: Have you measured the lots in Golf View? Do you know how many are
8,000 square feet?
,
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
November4,2004
Page 8 of 64
Evans: I have not. I know what my own lot is. I don't -- you know, according to
information received from the Commission -- or from the --
Borup: Then, are you familiar with the -- what the covenants for Golf View Estates are
as minimum size, especially Golf View No.1?
Evans: I am not.
Borup: Then, how do you know they are not the same?
Evans: Well, like I said, I'm taking this from Mr. Woodruff and he will address that issue
later on --
Borup: Okay.
Evans: -- in this debate. Okay. Do I get to continue, or is my time up?
Borup: Yes. That's -- yeah. When the red light goes on, that's -- unless there is any
other questions.
Newton-Huckabay: You can submit your letter.
Borup: Right. Yeah. And it can be submitted in writing and, then, also if there is any
questions from any of the Commissioners. Any other questions?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Borup: Okay. Nancy Evans, did you wish to come forward or did you wish to testify?
N.Evans: My name is Nancy Evans and I live at 4349 Quaker Ridge Drive in Golf View
2 Subdivision. I'll continue with point two.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, before she continues, the only purpose of this continued hearing
was not to re-hear all the prior testimony or the issues, it was only for the issues that
were raised and brought up by Mr. Amar tonight, which was regarding the access and
the home sizes --
N.Evans: And these--
Nary: And that's fine. The last gentleman did not. And I just want to make sure that the
record is clear that goes forward to the City Council that the testimony is only related to
the new information that was sought by the Commission as the reason for the set over.
N.Evans: Okay. Our concern here, sir, is that we are asking you, the Planning and
Zoning Commission, or you, the attorney, that you follow Meridian code, which we are
,
Melidian Pianning & Zoning
November 4.2004
Page g of 64
expressing to you, which does have to do with lot size, building size, and adjacent
properties, which the Meridian code plainly states. I am under the understanding that
as a Planning and Zoning Commission you would be interested in that.
Nary: I understand, Ma'am. What I'm saying -- and all I'm asking the Commission to do
is to confine themselves to the new information that they sought as to why this was set
over. All of that information and the opportunity to present that was at the last hearing.
And this isn't a brand new hearing, this is a continued hearing for the limited purpose of
what was brought forward by the applicant tonight, not for new -- not for information that
could have been brought the last time.
Borup: Well, sir, just -- the one that's at the microphone is the one that has --
N.Evans: Well, that's what I'm asking you, too. This -- in our opinion this does--
Borup: No. He's saying from the last plat that was before us. And the lots got -- did the
lots get smaller from when it was here before us?
N.Evans: Did the lots get smaller?
Borup: Right. That's not the plat that we have. It's the same --
N.Evans: We -- this is the same -- this is information that we brought before you. The
new information to us is that you had this at your fingertips. This comes from Meridian's
code and as Planning and Zoning Commissioners, we heard nothing about this from
you to enlighten us before.
Borup: Mr. Nary--
N.Evans: You didn't seem to be following that.
Borup: -- maybe we could --
Zaremba: I guess my question would be what is it that you're saying does not comply
with the code?
Borup: Well, it's -- the only thing I heard was they are saying it's not compatible, so I
think what we haven't discussed is a definition of compatibility and that may be
appropriate to discuss --
Newton-Huckabay: Is that the issue at hand is compatibility?
N.Evans: Pardon?
Newton-Huckabay: Is that the issue at hand?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2004
Page100f64
N.Evans: Yes. It's not compatible with surrounding areas and we are telling you why
according to your code.
Borup: No. You're interpreting our code for us.
N.Evans: No, sir.
Borup: And that's what I'm saying, it might be --
N.Evans: This was interpreted by a lawyer. Our lawyer.
Borup: By a --
N.Evans: Our lawyer.
Borup: And what's his definition of compatibility?
testimony.
You didn't submit that in the
N.Evans: Yes, he was. He was -- he was submitting it, that according -- and we gave
you code numbers.
Borup: No. I understand.
N.Evans: We gave you code -- what don't you understand, sir? I'm sure what --
Borup: The definition of what's compatible.
N.Evans: We are telling you the size is not compatible, the lots are not compatible.
Borup: And that's what I'm asking, is what does your covenants say?
N.Evans: And that will be brought up.
Borup: Okay.
N.Evans: But not by me. That's not my part.
Borup: All right. Thank you.
N.Evans: May I continue?
Borup: Yes.
N.Evans: Okay. Point two. Milliron Place Subdivision may be brought into compliance
with Meridian City Code 10-11-2 by complying with the site planning review provisions
of Meridian City Code 11-9-3. The Meridian City Planning and Zoning Commission has
,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2004
Page 11 of 64
the discretion to require, as a condition of approval, in addition to those items required
as minimum development, standards by the Meridian city zoning ordinance and
subdivision ordinance, that the development of Milliron Place Subdivision be subject to
site planning review. According to the Meridian City Code 11-9-3, the purpose of this
review is to insure that the development and construction occurs as it is represented it
will occur. Through this site planning review process city staff and potentially adjoining
neighbors have the opportunity to address those instances where Milliron Place
Subdivision may be in violation of Meridian Code 11-10-2. Presumably this process can
include at least assurances that portions of the Milliron Place Subdivision will buffer
dramatic differences in compatibility between Milliron Place Subdivision as proposed
and the existing Golf View Estates. Point three. The Milliron Place Subdivision may be
brought into compliance with Meridian City Code 11-10-3 by complying with the design
review provisions of Meridian city code. In addition to the site planning review,
provisions for Section 11-9-3, implementation of the design review requirements of
Meridian City Code 11-10-3 might also be useful in assisting development of Milliron
Place Subdivision. That section reads as follows: Design review. All new residential
housing developments in Meridian shall be subject to design review to insure that the
proposed housing units are within an established area of community housing needed as
defined by Meridian City Housing Plan, which includes HUD housing inventory and
housing goals.
Borup: Thank you.
N.Evans: Thank you, sir.
Borup: Harry Woods, do you still wish to come forward? Okay. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes,
Ron. There was two people on one line. That's what --
Anderson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Ron Anderson, I live at 4327 West
Quaker Ridge. I would like to continue -- at the last meeting we talked about you guys
would like to have some clarification about the entry on Cherry Lane and also about a
homeowners meeting and you guys have heard from Mr. Amar what his version of that
meeting was. We would like, as homeowners, to tell you what our concerns were and
that's why we are here tonight. Currently -- as currently proposed, Milliron Place
Subdivision does not address community concerns expressed in the Meridian comp
plan. In reviewing and updating the Meridian comp plan in July of 2002, the comp plan
committee expressed a concern of the community that extensive subdivision of property
for residential purposes that only meets the minimum lot size and house size of the
zoning ordinance creates a lack of residential diversity. The community expressed a
strong desire for introducing both lower density ranchettes and higher density
apartments, as opposed to the consistent pattern of small lots and small single-family
homes. Milliron Place Subdivision as proposed is an extension of entry level or one
step up development that prompts this concern. On the other hand, Golf View Estates
certainly comports with the desire to establish lower density ranchettes. For this reason
development of Milliron Place Subdivision in a fashion consistent with Golf View Estates
perpetuates the desire for lower density ranchettes. In other words, the comp plan
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2004
Page 12 of 64
supports Meridian Code 11-10-2, which would require compatibility between Milliron
Place and Golf View. As proposed, Milliron Subdivision is inconsistent with Objective C
and Goal I of Chapter 7 of the land use and housing component of Meridian's comp
plan, which instructs that development approvals should maintain integrity of housing
areas to preserve values and ambiance of the areas. Milliron Place is certainly well
designed and comports with bear minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance.
However, because it is substantially different from Golf View and other developments in
the area, it does not perpetuate the residential values and ambience of the general area
which is proposed. Developments that do not comport with the comp plan should not
be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. As proposed, the Milliron
Subdivision is inconsistent with Goal I of Chapter 8 of the implementation tools, which
requires, with mandatory language, that the Meridian comp plan be used to shape
development at this site. That goal reads as follows: The City of Meridian comp plan
and related ordinances will be used by citizens and city leaders to shape the future of
Meridian and the surrounding area. Much trouble, effort, and public input went into the
creation of Meridian's comp plan and any deviation for its terms that may result in
approval of incompatible development should be rejected. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. I have too many papers up here. Diane, did you wish to testify?
Okay.
Ashbaucher: My name is Diane Ashbaucher and I live at 4557 West White Ash Drive,
which is north of the north boundary. Okay. At our neighborhood meeting he did
answer a lot of questions, Mr. Amar did. He showed us -- when I asked him what type
of homes would be built, he said I have some pictures. He would not tell us who the
builder is, but I also looked up the registered agent of his development company is
Corey Barton. The homes he showed us as examples were not built by Corey Barton
and that's what I have to say.
Borup: Yeah. I called you before I called him. Are you Harry? Come on up.
Woodruff: My name is Harry Woodruff, I'm president of the Golf View Estates
homeowners association. I live at 4386 West White Birch Court. And continuing with
what Mr. Anderson had to say to you, even if the Milliron Place Subdivision is approved,
portions of the Meridian City Comprehensive Plan dictate in favor of signature buffers.
Objective D and Goal I of the land use and housing component of Chapter 7 of the
Meridian City Comprehensive Plan, require that the city plan for appropriate uses within
rural areas. One of the actions required to implement this objective and goal is as
follows: Require new urban density subdivisions which abut or are in proximity to
existing low density residential land uses to provide landscaping, screening, or
transitional densities with larger, more -- excuse me - comparable lot sizes to buffer the
interface between urban level density and rural residential densities. Objective C and
Goal 4 for the land use and housing component, Chapter 7 of the Meridian City
Comprehensive Plan speaks to the implementation of buffer areas between land uses
of varying intensity and density. One of the actions proposed to implement Objective C
is as follows: To require screening and landscape buffer in all development requests
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2004
Page 13 of 64
that are more intense than adjacent residential properties. Taken together, these two
actions set forth in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan would dictate in favor of a
moderate transition interface within the design and development of Milliron Place
Subdivision to serve as a buffer between the higher density smaller home sizes of
Milliron Place Subdivision and Golf View Estates. Specifically, these actions may be
implemented in this matter by requesting or forcing Milliron Place Subdivision open
space to be located along the common -- excuse me - along the existing walking path
common area at the southwesterly edge of Golf View Estates. By aligning common
area for Milliron Place Subdivision with common area of Golf View Estates, the entire
area may be enhanced and a broaden buffer implemented as a transitional area.
Furthermore, these lots and homes closest to Golf View Estates should be required to
upgrade towards compatibility with the lot sizes and home sizes in Golf View Estates.
Blocks 1, Lots 7 through 20, and Blocks 5, lots through four of the proposed Milliron
Place Subdivision should be expanded in size to accommodate the Meridian City
Comprehensive Plan requirements of the transitional interface for buffer areas. This
would lessen the impact of the transition between the two subdivisions. In addition, the
minimum house size of these lots should be increased from the bear minimum of 1,400
square feet to approximately 2,000 to 2,500 square feet, which will place them in a
transitional category between those -- between most of the development in the two
subdivisions. Implementation of the buffering design features will help to provide some
conformance with the Meridian City Comprehensive Plan, which at the same time
protecting the private property rights of the developments of Milliron Place Subdivision.
And I have copies of this presentation I'd like to give to you all.
Borup: Please do.
Woodruff: And I don't know if my list of the comments that Mr. Amar introduced are the
same as what he gave you. I assume they are. I also have a copy of a Settlers
Irrigation District agreement with another subdivision that it would allow landscaping in
the buffer area we have referred to. And if we had time, I would present some pictures
of some -- that area in question, what it looked like now and what we have found in
common with areas that are not required to be developed or landscaped and our fears
of what this may become or what it may look like after the development is finished
without cooperation between the two areas.
Borup: You're talking about the buffer area on the north along the --
Woodruff: The north and the east. We already have an existing walking path there and
that area could be enhanced and developed not only to the benefit --
Borup: Yeah. I thought you were talking about the area, that you were afraid it might
not get developed that's on the north right now.
Woodruff: Well, it's my understanding that what he wants to do is put a fence up behind
the homes.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
November 4, 2004
Page 14 of 64
Borup: Okay.
Woodruff: And we are very concerned with what the area between the fence and our
walking path may get to look like --
Borup: But is that --
Woodruff: -- that's not within our area of control.
Borup: Okay.
Woodruff: It will be within their subdivision. It could be enhanced as a common area to
enhance our greenbelt, if you will, and landscaped. But it requires some cooperation on
the part of the Milliron development, as well as us, to make it look esthetic. These are
copies of the presentation - those were copies of the presentation which myself and the
other homeowners have pretty much read to you. The other list there was a copy of a
Settlers Irrigation District, a common type agreement they have with the subdivisions
where they landscape areas, and this list is a - Mr. Amar's list of improvements that he
could or might consider making to the requirements. It looks to be the same as what
you already have. And if we had time, I would like to present the photos to show you
what is there and what is also within an adjacent subdivision or a very near subdivision
where the development was not continued through and carried out, what we fear might
happen here.
Borup: That can still be submitted on the record if you'd like.
Woodruff: I can certainly do that.
Borup: To the clerk.
Woodruff: Do we have time to show it on the overhead thing or would you just --
Borup: Commissioners, would you like to spend some time looking at that at this point?
Woodruff: They are very brief and I'd give you a very brief explanation of it.
Borup: But I think it's things we have seen before.
Newton-Huckabay: I need a clarification. What specifically are we considering tonight?
Was --
Borup: We are considering the whole subdivision that was -- it was continued for two
items, one, access to Cherry Lane and the second to hold a neighborhood meeting.
Newton-Huckabay: And so any product of the neighborhood meeting is what we are --
which we have the testimony to --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4,2004
Page 150f64
Borup: I guess that's still the way I'm looking at it. If it was discussed at the
neighborhood meeting, then, it could be discussed here tonight. And I think that's the
case.
Woodruff: The developer's opinion of the neighborhood meeting is somewhat different
than ours, I believe, and I think this testimony substantiates that fact and shows --
Borup: Well, he just stated what was -- the things that he would agree to do. I don't
think -- I didn't remember him saying that there was any unanimous consent at the
meeting.
Woodruff: No. No. I agree with that. But here, again, I would comment on those
things and if you have any questions --
Borup: I have got questions. Any other questions for Mr. Woodruff?
Moe: Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. What is the average lot size in Golf View?
Woodruff: Golf view lot sizes -- and I don't know the square footage, what that converts
to, but they range roughly from -- I'd say a quarter of an acre to up to a half an acre.
Mine personally is a third of an acre. The minimum CC&R requirements that are -- or
construction requirements in home sizes was 1,800 square feet and --
Borup: Now are you saying that is --
Woodruff: I don't think there are any homes that -- maybe a couple that were on
extremely abnormal lot sizes that were done strictly to be able to sell those lots, were
allowed as smaller homes. I don't think there is anything in the subdivision under 24, 25
hundred square foot, other than that.
Borup: How many phases of Golf View were there; do you know? Five phases?
Woodruff: Five in Golf View No.2, I believe.
Borup: Okay. And, then, you -- that 1,800 feet, you say that's the covenant? That's
what's in the CC&Rs?
Woodruff: Well, not that -- I believe that was in the construction guidelines.
Borup: Okay. What's in the CC&Rs?
Woodruff: You know, to be absolutely sure, I don't -- I wouldn't swear to you that's in
the CC&Rs. I don't have those memorized. But it's -- the homes are substantially larger
and more expensive than what --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4.2004
Page 16 of 64
Borup: I understand that.
Woodruff: -- is proposed.
Borup: Okay. I do have a question on the boundary -- the eastern boundary of this
development. You were talking about the fence and the testimony last time was -- I had
understood the Golf View neighbors wanted a fence there, so that -- so that no one
would come onto the walking path. Did I misunderstand that?
Woodruff: It's -- I guess it depends on who you talk to.
Borup: Well, I remember the majority of the testimony --
Woodruff: Being on the board and trying to represent all the homeowners, we can't
speak for every homeowner individually, but we try and represent the majority of those
homeowners and I don't think the objection is necessarily to a fence, but what might
happen between the fence and the development of the green path that we already
have.
Borup: But you own that property, don't you?
Woodruff: Well, we own up to our pathway and to the edge that borders next to
Milliron's proposed subdivision here, but we have no control over it from that point.
Borup: Well, if they put their fence on their property line, the rest of it is -- would be your
property.
Woodruff: I would assume so, yes.
Borup: So, you're concerned about them maintaining your property?
Woodruff: No. We are talking about the easements that run through there.
Borup: Some irrigation easements.
Woodruff: There is easements on both borders, is my understanding.
Borup: Okay. That's what I wasn't --
Woodruff: And one of these picture shows the --
Borup: -- understanding.
Woodruff: Well, it shows both areas, the north and the east boundary.
Borup: So, there is an east irrigation easement also?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2004
Page 17 of 64
Woodruff: There is a large irrigation head gate located on Cherry Lane where the buried
irrigation ditch runs north and joins --
Borup: Well, the plat does not show an easement, that's why I asked that question.
Woodruff: And that was a question I had about the plat, too. But the irrigation people
tell me that, yes, they have a tiled buried ditch there and there is an easement there.
But it's kind of contested in that area of the plat also.
Borup: Well, the easement -- the easement is stated on the north. There is just --
Woodruff: There is also one on the eastern boundary running to that northern head -- to
the headgate on the northeast section of the development.
Borup: Okay. We will get some clarification on that. There is not an easement shown
on the plat.
Woodruff: It was my understanding --
Borup: There may be a ditch, but that may be a local user's ditch, but -- and that
wouldn't necessarily show on the easement. .
Woodruff: Yeah. I didn't understand either, because there is head gates at both
locations and the ditch -- the canal company tells me runs between the two. It's buried
and has an easement there.
Borup: Okay. We will get to -- see if we can find out something on that. Thank you.
Woodruff: And I'll leave these photos with you also.
Borup: Thank you. Brent Law.
Law: My name is Brent Law. I reside at 4888 West Cherry Lane. What I'd like to
address might go back to some of last week's meeting, but I don't know, because,
unfortunately, everything got kind of -- I felt short changed last week. At this point I feel
there is a lot of information lacking. The neighborhood meeting, basically, was to try to
clarify a few things, but not a lot was fixed. As you can already hear, one of the
questions asked by a commissioner last week was what was going to be percentage of
square footage on homes. That was never answered. It was -- it was ignored -- or not
ignored, excuse me, it was just kind of brushed over. I feel the outside perimeter,
approximately 18 lots, they are talking putting 1,600 square foot homes. The rest of it
could be 1,400. We really -- you know, you have got 65 lots that could be 1,400 square
foot homes. That's, basically, putting in a starter subdivision and that's what everybody
was basically against. I was, too. I don't feel there was enough information given prior
to last week's meeting as far as even the meeting he had with the homeowners in the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2004
Page 18 of 64
area. There just really -- two weeks ago here at the Commission when I walked in I had
no clue most of what was going to be discussed, because there had been no given -- no
information given whatsoever to homeowners. And when I walked in here I didn't get an
opportunity to speak, I didn't put my name on the list, because I had no clue what you
were talking about and I just -- my opinion is I feel - I would really like to see the whole
process started over. I think the builder here needs to try to give the homeowners and
the people in the area a little more information and some of these things that are being
discussed here, it ought to have been done at the meeting, but because nobody was
told and we weren't allowed to have a homeowners meeting and really discuss it,
because the only problems he addressed at the homeowners meetings was what you
guys asked him to do. All the other issues that are being addressed here tonight is stuff
that should have been taken care of there. But, again, there we were asked to leave,
because there was decorations going on. Now, it's not our fault and, you know, it's
great, we appreciate the opportunity to use the building and everything here, but we
kind of got short changed on that, too. So, I just feel it's something -- I would like to see
it just start over and see if we can't make it work and agreeable for everybody. Thank
you.
Borup: Thank you. Wayne Hammer.
Hammer: Commissioners, I'm Wayne Hammer, I live at 4604 West White Ash Drive.
And my comments tonight is going to be for the Commission, I've sit there -- I moved
into my place a year or so ago and I've looked at the whole area across the -- and I
think the oversights of our city fathers and city planners need to be rectified. They sit
there and say this was zoned R-4 30 years ago. Thirty years ago a 1,400 square foot
house was fairly standard. Times have changed. Someone along the line in the city
planners should have seen these changes and came along and not be expecting to put
1,400 square foot houses next to 2,500, 3,000. I think if you will look at the whole
square mile of this area, Cherry Lane, Black Cat, Ustick, and Ten Mile, you'd probably
be hard pressed to find a 1,400 square foot house in that area and that as the years
grew from Cherry Lane Subdivision on out, all the subdivisions grew. Quality homes.
One up to -- we had the developers at that time that wanted to build quality subdivisions
and leave a legacy to this city. We no longer have that luxury and I'm advocating it's
time to take a look -- here is a whole square mile of quality homes. Now, we got a little
26-acre plot here that they want to come in and build -- excuse my term, but next year's
slums. And I'm sitting here -- I happen to own a home just across the street where this
is located. It's a very expensive home and I worked long and hard to buy that home and
I cannot believe that in the whole square mile that we could sit there and in fair honest,
no one -- the city planners have let this slip by all these years and just sit there and let it
stay at an R-4 and now with our homes at 250 to 400 thousand dollars are going to be
faced with 1,400 -- 120 to 140 houses -- dollar houses built next to them, I can't fathom
that. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Sir, are you -- you don't think it should be zoned R-4?
Hammer: Excuse me?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2004
Page 19 of 64
Borup: You do not agree that it should be zoned R-4; is that what you're saying?
Hammer: It should not have been.
Borup: Okay.
Hammer: It should have been upgraded as --
Borup: So, if it was zoned the same as Golf View, would that satisfy you?
Hammer: Golf View -.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Hammer: -- is R-4, too. I'm just saying that as they grew, they kept growing bigger and
bigger and people wanted quality and now -- okay. I have said enough. Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. I think we can accommodate the zoning.
Lainhart: Commissioner, I'm not on the list, but I have a point of information you might
be interested in.
Borup: Okay. State your name.
Lainhart: Heather Lainhart, 1801 North Golf View Way. I have right here a copy of the
plat and I just wanted to let you know that the bordering plats, there is not a lot size less
than 11,000 square feet and as quickly as I can flip through and do the math in my
head, I believe there are no lots smaller than 11,000 in the Golf View Estates
developments that are around that.
Borup: Okay. And do you also have the covenants?
Lainhart: Yes, I do. And I did see that in the covenants it is 1,800 square feet minimum
building size.
Borup: That's in all phases?
Lainhart: I only have copies of two, three, four and five. I do not have phase one.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. You're the one I have been -- that had the information I have
been trying to get all night.
Lainhart: There is one other discrepancy in the CC&Rs I noted previously and that was
the setbacks. Our setbacks from the side and front lot lines are much higher than the
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
November4,2004
Page 20 of 64
city required. So, if you would be interested in anything -- any other information, I would
be happy to search through and find that for you.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Questions from any of the other Commissioners? Thank
you.
Pugmire: I also wasn't on the list, because I have never been to one of these before, so
I didn't realize I had to sign up. But my name is Pam Pugmire and I live at 4733 West
Austin Drive, which is -- I don't know -- I believe I live within like the 300 or 500 feet, so
that I was notified about the first meeting. However, I did receive an invitation by the
Dyver corporation, but I received it the day after the meeting, so I was not able to attend
that, because I received it in the mail after -- post tense. But I know that -- I am in
Ashford Greens Subdivision and that the things he's talking about are also very
inconsistent with our subdivision. Our subdivision has the golf course in it and so I
know that I am paying taxes and my appraisal value is much higher, because I am next
to the golf course and everyone in my subdivision is doing that and probably as well as
in Golf View Subdivision and our minimum standards on our buildings in that are 1,800
square feet for the very very bare minimum, you know, on the very smallest lots in
Ashford Greens Subdivision. So, the things that he's talking about, the 1,600 square
feet lots -- or 1,600 square foot homes in the very middle are completely inconsistent
with my home, which is not very far away from that. So, I just wanted to --
Borup: What street were you on?
Pugmire: I am on 4733 West Dawson Drive, which is in Ashford Greens Subdivision.
Borup: Yeah. We are looking at a map here.
Pugmire: Yeah.
Newton-Huckabay: How big is your lot?
Pugmire: You know, I don't know lot size, I'm sorry, and I live just on the second home
from Black Cat, so I am on one of the smaller -- I have a 2,000 square foot home, which
is a little bit smaller, but, you know, still, all my exterior finishes had to be, you know, up
to code and everything with Ashford Greens Subdivision, so my taxes that I'm paying
are like 256,000. So, it's not a starter home by any means. So, you know, I'm just on
the -- I'm the second home in from Black Cat on Dawson Drive. So, you know, I'm not
even -- the homes down the street are much bigger lots and much larger homes. So,
even me being the -- probably one of the smaller homes in Ashford Greens and on a
smaller lot, it's, you know, much bigger than what he's saying would be their minimum.
Borup: The plat we have here shows your lots are bigger than most of those down the
street, but --
Pugmire: Well -- I don't know exactly, but --
,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4,2004
Page 21 of 64
Borup: This is drawn at - and do you know -- also looking -- do you know anything
about the section of lots to the north of you, then?
Pugmire: To the north of me? Let me look.
Borup: This is Dawson here. You had --
Pugmire: Yeah. Uh-huh.
Borup: This area here.
Pugmire: I have driven around in there.
Borup: Okay.
Pugmire: I have driven around in there. They are all on the golf course, so, you know, I
don't know -- what specifically were you --
Borup: Well, those lot sizes look about half the size of yours.
Pugmire: No, they are not. The homes are -- I don't know. The homes in --
Borup: No. The lot size I'm saying.
Pugmire: Oh, the lots. Yeah. I don't know exactly. But I doubt that they are smaller,
because the homes are bigger and you drive in and Ashford Greens is not at all a
subdivision where it's homes stacked right next to each other. And, of course, I assume
that you would agree that, you know, homes on a golf course are not going to be that
way. So, I could get you that information on lot sizes in our subdivision if you would like.
Is that something you would like me to get for you?
Borup: Any other Commissioners? No, we have got --
Newton-Huckabay: Is the lot plot that we have to scale?
Borup: Yes. I think we have got the information on the -- you said it's 1,800 foot.
Pugmire: Yeah. It's our very minimum in our covenants. And a lot of our covenants
also -- it's not just home size, but it's exterior finishes and exterior landscaping that
makes the smaller homes -- you know, you can have two 1,800 square foot homes that
are completely un-comparable and so I believe that that is what sets Ashford Greens
and Golf View Subdivision apart, it's not only the home size and the lot size, but the
amount of exterior finishing and landscaping as well. And I think that shows by taxes
that we all pay -- I'm sure -- do you guys all think you pay a ton of taxes? I pay a ton of
taxes and so, you know, we are not just saying, oh, we live in these nice homes -- you
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4,2004
Page 22 of 64
know, I bought my hom'e -- I live -- have lived in it two years in November and my plan
was to turn around and sell it. It was an investment for me. And so, you know, I'm
assuming a lot of these people are the same way and we are also paying taxes on
those higher levels, so --
Borup: Thank you.
Pugmire: Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Mr. Amar.
Amar: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Again, for the record, my name is
Kevin Amar, here to address some of the issues that have come up tonight. Obviously,
the impression I had at the neighborhood meeting and their impression was significantly
different, as was the impression of some of the other neighbors. I talked to them for
quite awhile and I thought we resolved quite a few of the issues. The neighborhood
meeting actually lasted -- and I recorded it, so if anybody really wants to fall asleep
quick, you can listen to it. But it -- on the tape that was 54 minutes long and, then,
another probably ten or 15 minutes afterwards. So, the presentation lasted to maybe 20
minutes and, then, we fielded questions for the balance of that time. So, it certainly was
not me dictating to them what we were going to talk about, we addressed many issues
from the pathways to the builder. That question came up also. Dyver corporation is a
Corey Barton corporation. I told them that that night. It's pretty hard to hide something
like that. I have got the tape recording and I can certainly bring this back and we can all
listen to it for the next 54 minutes if that's what we want to do. I don't think it's what we
want to do. But what we are trying to do with this subdivision and what we were asked
to do at the last Planning and Zoning meeting was look at two items, one, the access
and, two, the neighborhood meeting. We have done those items. I'm going to address
-- it doesn't seem that the access is an issue, so I think -- I don't need to spend time on
that. I will address some of the items that have been brought up with respect to the
common area and the fencing. First, I will start with the easement on the north
boundary. That easement is an active gravel access and it won't even be set up as an
easement, it will, actually, be set up as an individual lot that will be owned and
maintained by the Milliron homeowners association for two reasons. One, we don't
want all the neighbors, meaning all of these lots, thinking they have the right or the
ability to fence across that easement. They certainly do not. Settlers Irrigation District
needs to access that property. The second reason is maintenance on that area, if you
leave it up to each individual homeowner, will be maintained a myriad of different ways.
So, if we leave it up to the homeowners association, it will maintain that easement in the
event that Settlers does not. Now, currently, Settlers maintains that easement. That's a
drive access road to get to their head gates and get to the irrigation water. So, we fully
ar;¡ticipate that Settlers will continue to maintain that easement. Should they not, then,
the homeowners association will. And they will be able to -- should there be any weeds,
they can do that, should there be any other maintenance items, they can do that. So,
we have done this before and we are interested in making this look nice. As we talked
about compatibility, I won't spend too much time on it, but we have on our eastern
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2004
Page 23 of 64
boundary the exact same number of lots as they have on their western boundary, so we
have a one-to-one compatibility on it. On our northern boundary we have two more lots
than they have, although that is counting one here that is across from a storm drain
pond, so if you actually look at the number of lots starting from here to this point, there
are, I believe, nine lots on our side and eight lots on their side. What we also have is
this access easement, which is 15 feet on our property, in addition to whatever is on
their property. So, there is a separation from the backyards at a minimum of 20 feet.
The pathway is five feet wide. Now, all of that providing more of a buffering and more of
a separation from those homes. Our minimum home size has been bumped up and we
not -- what we have brought before you this evening, the list of conditions, was -- I
actually went to staff and said can we add this as conditions of approval. Well, that is
not the norm. We are not asking for new zoning, we are not asking for new annexation.
Maybe there are neighbors here that do not like that, but we are asking for additional
contracts -- I think that the -- the word Brad used, to insure that these items will be
done. And, again, these are minimum home sizes. The area out there is extremely
diverse. In fact, I have an overhead -- if I might use this, it will explain some items.
What you're going to see is an overhead of the surrounding subdivisions showing the --
not only do we have much higher density than what we are proposing here, but we also
have Golf View, which is a slightly lower density. Oh, and I had it all -- I highlighted it
thinking that was a good thing. If we look around, there are -- there are subdivisions at
this location - Brad, if I point are you able to read the -- the numbers. I don't know if
you can see it. In this area we have over five units to the acre and in this area of have
just under five units to the acre. Ashford Green is right at the same density we are
looking at, as is Turnberry, as is -- oh, the name of this subdivision. I forgot it tonight.
So what we have is extremely compatible with everything else that's out there. We are
not doing anything above, we are not doing anything below. We are being compatible
with what has been developed. We are doing it with what has been be entitled on this
property since the late 1970's. So, we are trying to be considerate to those neighbors,
we are adding additional landscaping. They may have -- in their CC&Rs they do have a
landscaping section and I can certainly give that to you, that shows -- and it actually has
the recording number on it that I will hand you. It shows that they are required to have a
minimum of one tree at an inch and a half caliper six feet in height, three five gallon
plants, five one gallon shrubs. Now, they may have been required higher than that for
the architectural control committee, but that's what their CC&Rs state. And, again, that
has the recording number on it, so you can verify that. Really, I think this project is a
good project. We have met the concerns; we have addressed the concerns of the
neighbors. Unfortunately, everyone is not going to be happy. I realize that. I'm not
going to be happy that I had to lose extra lots and do additional landscaping. The
neighbors aren't going to be happy that there is going to be a subdivision there at all.
They'd much rather have an onion field. It's nice to live next to a field. What I'm asking
for here tonight is a recommendation for approval for Milliron Subdivision, still putting in
these items that I gave you as an additional contract or whatever we need to call that,
so it is insured that these things will be done. I think I'd stand for any additional
questions.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
November 4.2004
Page 24 of 64
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I have one question for Kevin. One of the testimonies was
requesting the six foot fence along that east and north line with the two foot lattice on
the top. Is that something that would be acceptable or -
Amar: I don't like the two-foot lattice on top, only because the lattice breaks. It is a
maintenance issue. If that's something you're going to require, I will comply with it.
Rohm: It was just a question. It wasn't a requirement, just --
Amar: I don't like it. I mean from a construction standpoint from doing it before, I don't
like it. The longevity of it does not last. That's why we are putting in vinyl on that
boundary also, so it is a longer maintenance type of fence.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Can you comment on that east boundary on the irrigation ditch?
Amar: Yeah. The eastern boundary there are no -- there is no easement on our
property. We have researched it. There may be on the Golf View, I don't know, but it
certainly is not on our property or within our property.
Borup: How about the ditch itself?
Amar: There is not a ditch there.
Borup: On your property.
Amar: No. There is currently a road there. That's how -- there is an existing house in
this portion of the property and there is a road that is here that accesses that house.
Borup: So, whatever ditch there is is off your property at least?
Amar: Maybe it's buried. I wasn't aware that anything was there. I don't know.
Borup: Okay. Other questions from the Commission?
Newton-Huckabay: There was a comment made on the housing elevations questioning
whether or not those were actual housing elevations for your developer.
Amar: I showed pictures that night of houses that were built by Corey Barton. In fact,
we have had comment on tape that says, oh, he builds a nice home. Now, maybe not
everybody believe that. Okay. Everybody doesn't have to believe that. But one
resident went in there and looked at Three Oaks Subdivision, which is one of ours in
Boise, which is extremely similar to this one, Corey Barton built the homes in there.
Another one looked at Sundance. Corey Barton built the homes in there and I was told
by both of those that it's a nice project, it looks good.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
November 4. 2004
Page 25 of 64
Newton-Huckabay: What are the lot sizes in Sundance? They are smaller than this?
Amar: Oh, yeah. I think the minimum size -- they have some 60s. Probably on
average of 65 to 70 feet wide. And that's only going off their plats. That's not my
project,
Newton-Huckabay: But these are similar elevations to Sundance -- the homes in
Sundance?
Amar: Yeah. Or greater, because these lots are wider.
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you.
Borup: You showed on your map one, two, three, four, five -- I don't know how many
different areas there, but you're saying that this project has equal or lower density to all
except for Golf View is the way I understood that. The other surrounding -- all the other
surrounding subdivisions?
Amar: The Ashford Greens Subdivision ranges from 3.1 -- there is St. James Place,
which is four. 3.41. 3.04. 3.33. So, yes, we are at 3.2, I believe with the reduction of
one lot, we are at the same density that those are. Golf View ranges from 2.83, 2.56,
2.43. On our eastern boundary the density is 2.83 and on our northern boundary it is
2.56.
Borup: Okay. And, then, the other subdivisions were all in that three plus range?
Amar: Yes, sir. And those were Ashford Greens and --
Borup: No. I meant the other surrounding subdivisions besides Golf View.
Amar: Yes. All of the rest were three plus. Golf View is the only thing that is less than
three.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions from any of the Commissioners?
Okay. Any final comment, Mr. Amar? Ma'am, I'm sorry. Ma'am. Ma'am. I don't know
that -- okay. Commissioners, what's your pleasure?
Rohm: I think that at this point in time we should close the Public Hearing and have
some discussion.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: And with that being said, Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on
PP 04-034.
'Meridian Pianning & Zoning
November 4, 2004
Page 26 of 64
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Okay. Comments?
Rohm: Well, to start off with, Mr. Chairman, I was here for the last Public Hearing on
this proposal and at that -- at that hearing we as a Commission heard almost everything
we heard tonight and the things that appeared to be within our jurisdiction to address via
our recommendations back to the developer were to have an additional ingress-egress
off of Cherry Lane and to request that they go back and have a neighborhood meeting.
The issue over the lot sizes and the zoning, that doesn't change. This property was
already zoned R-4 and the developer has the right to develop within the ordinances and
the Comprehensive Plan as stated with an R-4. When we requested him to go back
and review, we did not ask him to address any of those issues, because they are within
ordinance and I think that if you -- and I apologize to you folks that might view this
contrary to your opinions, but the developer could have come before this board and
requested a rezone to an R-8, because you can move one way or the other within a
given development and the developer, from my perspective, tried to stay within that R-4,
which is in line with the developments that are adjacent to and it appears to me that
even though it may not be exactly what anybody would have wanted, the major issue of
the ingress and egress through your subdivisions has been addressed and I think that
that is a major step forward from where we were before. And so it was -- I can speak
for myself that there was not one testimony that was given last time that was not heard
by this Commission and I believe that we tried to do the very best that we could within
ordinance and within the restrictive covenants to meet your objectives as we move
forward. And that's the end of my speech.
Moe: Very well said, as a matter of fact. Mr. Chairman, just a couple other thoughts.
Quite frankly, last meeting my biggest concern, as Commissioner Rohm had brought
up, was the access point onto Cherry Lane and whatnot. But, basically, in the R-4 the
lot sizes that are on this -- on this plat are acceptable. The developer has enlarged
some of the lots at the perimeter of Golf View and brought the other smaller -- most of
the 8,000 are somewhat centralized, but I think they did do some work on trying to
accommodate some of the other lots in Golf View to kind of blend it through. Basically,
they are meeting the square foot requirements of the zoning and whatnot and since the
last meeting they have gone back and they have increased the minimum size of those
lots to the 1,600 square foot on those perimeters. So, I think they have done a good
faith effort to try and work with the neighbors. I understand it's probably not what you
folks want, but I think they have done some due diligence in taking care of it. Having
said that, anyone else?
Zaremba: Well, my comment would be that the requirements of the R-4 zone have not
changed very much. They are the same right now as we are considering this project, as
'Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2004
Page 27 of 64
they were when Golf View was built and when Ashford Greens was built or at least
when they were approved. The building of larger homes is sort of market driven and
that's the reason that I asked the applicant what I believe was my first question in the
earlier part of the hearing whether or not they thought all of the homes were going to be
built at the absolute minimum and the answer to that was no, of course, not, there is
going to be a full range of houses in there. Might there be one or two built to the
minimum, maybe. But that's something that's market driven and for the same reason
that the other R-4 subdivisions, which, in fact, have the same city rules as this one
does, the builders chose to build some larger houses is market driven and I certainly
see no reason why that wouldn't happen with this project. According to the city code it's
identical to the properties around it.
Borup: And I was hoping to maybe just throw one thing in. I was doing some
calculating -- I was hoping Mr. Amar would have done that, but the lots on the eastern
boundary average 11,031 square feet. There is eight lots on the eastern boundary and
they average 11,000. Again, that's an average. There is one big one in there, but--
Moe: Right.
Newton-Huckabay: I just have one comment before we -- all the information and
testimony that was given -- this is a lot of information and it was written and read. It
would be -- as this moves forward to the City Council, as I suspect everyone can tell the
direction we are going, this information submitted ahead of time when we -- would have
been a lot easier as a Commissioner and I would think as a Council person, to have
been able to review prior to the meeting. You folks have done a lot of work and there is
a lot of information here and I would like -- as you get a chance to testify before the City
Council on this, I would like to suggest that you submit this information in writing ahead
of time as well, because we do get packets before those meetings and we can take that
time to review it prior to the meeting and give it the due amount of time and that's my
only comment on that.
Zaremba: I would ask our legal counsel for an opinion on the best way to incorporate
these suggestions. The applicant has already said that they plan to have CC&Rs that
will incorporate these ideas. Do we need to make any further reference and, if so, how?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Zaremba, what I
would suggest -- and I think it was brought up previously, is the minimum house size is
not uncommon to be included as a condition of approval. It isn't common here,
necessarily, but it is not uncommon in this area to include that as a condition and the
applicant has consented to that. As to these other ones, my recommendation would be
that you -- as a condition of approval that you require these become part of the CC&Rs.
That's what he's indicated. These are not enforced by ordinance; these are CC&R
types of conditions. Yard lights and pitches of roof and those things. Those are all
CC&R conditions and I guess my belief -- my understanding of the testimony from the
applicant was that was their intent was to make them part of the CC&Rs. So, certainly it
would not be unreasonable to include that condition that those be made a part of the
,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2004
Page 28 of 64
CC&Rs be included. But they aren't normal conditions for the city to impose or for the
city to enforce later.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rohm: With that being said, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we forward on to City
Council recommending approval of PP 04-034, request for preliminary plat of 83 single
family residential building lots and five common lots on 25.86 acres in an R-4 zone for
Milliron Subdivision and including in that that the east and north lots to have a minimum
building lot -- building size of 1,600 square feet for each residential dwelling and to
include all staff comments, dated November 1 st, 2004, delivered for this hearing on
November 4th, 2004, and including a list of items to be included in the CC&Rs for
Milliron Subdivision by the developer Kevin Amar. End of motion.
Moe: No. You have got to -- the revised preliminary plat.
Rohm: Oh. Excuse me. And including the revised preliminary plat, dated November
2nd, 2004, and delivered to the city.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to have a short recess.
Borup: Okay. I might explain -- I think most of you understood that this will, again, be
another Public Hearing in front of City Council.
(Recess.)
Item 7:
Public Hearing: PP 04-035 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 62
building lots (8 office, 33 multi-family, 9 single-family attached, 12 -garage
lots) and 6 common lots on 12.731 acres in L-O and R-15 zones for
Sommersby Subdivision by Confluence Management, LLC - NEC of
West Pine Avenue and North Ten Mile Road:
Item 8:
Public Hearing: CUP 04-040 Request for a Conditional Use Permit
(Planned Development) for reductions to the minimum requirements for lot
size, street frontage, setbacks and increased lot coverage in L-O and R-15
zones for Sommersby Subdivision by Confluence Management, LLC -
NEC of West Pine Avenue and North Ten Mile Road:
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
November 4. 2004
Page 29 of 64
Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our Planning and Zoning meeting. Before we do,
I would like to mention -- and I apologize for not mentioning earlier. Item No.7 for
Sommersby Subdivision, the applicant has asked - they would like to spend some time
revising their site plan and they are requesting this be continued to a later date. They
are asking for November 18th. We didn't decide if that works for our schedule. And do
you have the -- I did not -- yes. For Sommersby Subdivision is what we are discussing.
Maybe input from the staff. I don't -- I don't remember that we have a lot of items on
that meeting. So, are we assuming the agenda is open to the extent for that?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, we were talking. I guess we don't have the agenda
for the 18th here right now.
Borup: Right. I'm just remembering -
Hawkins-Clark: But I think -- you know, it's a -- I think a fairly standard agenda for the
Commission, so --
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba usually knows how many there are.
Zaremba: The thickness of my stack for the 18th is about the same as the thickness of
my stack for the 2nd, so those two meetings would be equivalent as far as I'm
concerned.
Borup: Yeah. But I don't remember being -- that meeting. And the only reason I'm
taking the time now is just so those that would like to leave -- unless we find out
something different, it probably will be continued to the 18th. Unless we want to move
that up on the agenda and handle that right now.
Rohm: Let's do that.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Since we are talking about it. Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Yes. Items No.7 and 8.
Zaremba: Since we have not opened the Public Hearing, would we just table it or
should we open it and continue it?
Borup: We probably ought to continue it. Open it and continue it is what we have
normally done.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: So, I'd like to open Public Hearing CUP 04-040 and Public Hearing CUP 04-
041. Oops. I did that wrong.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2004
Page 30 of 64
Zaremba: Back up one, sir.
Borup: And PP 04-035. Okay. Public Hearing open.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move that we continue the public hearings for PP 04-035 and CUP 04-040,
to our regularly scheduled meeting of November 18th, 2004.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Okay. Did we -- I haven't asked for a vote. We have two regular subdivisions
on the agenda and, then, other miscellaneous --
Moe: It has been seconded, sir.
Borup: Okay. Discussion. This was the discussion phase.
Moe: Okay.
Rohm: I think we will just make it fit.
Borup: Okay. All in favor?
Zaremba: Well, before we do that, let me just ask staff if they have been in contact with
the applicant, is that enough time for the applicant to make the revisions and the
revisions to get around to all the departments that need to see them?
Hawkins-Clark: We have had conversations. As you know, we asked for about ten
changes to their plan and they told us that they thought they could get the revised plan
into us, you know, in a few days. That would give us, you know, about ten days. So, I
think we are comfortable with that.
Zaremba: Okay. Then, I'm comfortable with my motion. Which was seconded.
Borup: Okay. Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Canning: Chairman Borup?
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
November 4,2004
Page 31 of 64
Borup: Yes.
Canning: Before you start the next hearing, I wanted to introduce someone to you. The
blond haired gentleman behind me is Josh Wilson and he's our new planner, our new
associate city planner, and he's hot seating it with Craig right now until Mike Valentine
gets me an office space.
Zaremba: Welcome.
Newton-Huckabay: Hello, Josh.
Borup: Thank you.
Canning: He comes to us from Blaine County. They have trained him really well how to
do subdivisions, so he's doing great stuff for us and we enjoy having him here.
Item 6:
Public Hearing: PP 04-037 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 11
commercial building lots and 2 common lots on 36.93+ acres in a CoG
zone for Smitchger Subdivision by Ustick Marketplace, LLC - NEC of
Eagle Road and Ustick Road:
Borup: Okay. Okay. Next item is Public Hearing PP 04-037, request for preliminary
plat approval of 11 commercial building lots, two common lots, in a CoG zone for
Smitchger Subdivision by Ustick Marketplace. I'd like to open this hearing and start with
the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. This item is
on the property located at the northeast corner of Ustick and Eagle Roads. The
application is for a preliminary plat, 11 commercial building lots. The property is -- was
annexed several months ago to Commercial General and as you may recall, there was
a development agreement that discussed the Lowe's Home Improvement Center, which
is under construction right now. Today, as you can see, there are two parcels that exist
and that is the only two legal lots that they have today, so the purpose of this request is
to subdivide into further lots that they can convey. The property, as I mentioned, this
aerial does not reflect it, they are in the process of making several improvements, the
most substantial of which is a new commercial street, which is running along this
eastern boundary. The P&Z Commission and City Council also required a six-foot
sound wall along that entire east boundary, which is also currently under construction.
This is a copy of the preliminary plat that they submitted with their application. You can
see down here in the southeast corner the footprint of the Lowe's and, then, generally
their lot is this area. It is, actually, a flag lot that has frontage on Highway 55, Eagle
Road. That's the only flag lot that is in here. There are two other lots that are, actually,
internal to the project that would have access on an internal commercial driveway that
don't have frontage. All the rest either have frontage on Ustick Road or Eagle Road.
Many of the landscaping issues were dealt with during the building permit for the Lowe's
building. They submitted at that time a perimeter landscape plan that showed a 20-foot
,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2004
Page 32 of 64
wide buffer against Providence Place Subdivision on the east. As I mentioned, there is
a sound wall there as well. Landscaping on Ustick and Eagle Road is 35-foot wide
buffers. The main question - there is two issues that were brought up in the staff report
that I wanted to point out orally here on the record and those start on page five of the
staff report. Well, just before that, there is finding E. There is those five findings that
the city does have to make before you can approve a preliminary plat and one of those
findings does deal with the health, safety, or environmental problems or issues that
maybe arise because of a plat. In there staff just wanted to point out the fact that
Market Square hearings -- during those Market Square hearings, which was the name
of the annexation for this project, there was quite a bit of discussion about traffic and
what would be generated at this site. Obviously, it is a critical intersection for Meridian
and for this entire area of the valley, really. The analysis that was provided by
Earthtech Engineers, traffic engineers, projected at build out they would have 10,825
vehicles per day, 272 a.m. peak and -- and p.m. peak of 945. I'm sorry. So, as you
know, the -- I mean I guess I point that out, because this Commission can, in reviewing
plats -- and, obviously, traffic is a concern out here -- make decisions, in part, on
transportation issues, as long as it's tied to this finding and the Ada County Highway
District has reviewed it, their commission has approved this. And ITD has also granted
the property owner two points of access onto Highway 55. The first one is right here on
this flag lot that Lowe's has, that is right in, right-out only. The second one is on the
north boundary that is shared with the Nazarene church to the north and that's Bald
Cyprus. That was approved as a full approach left and right. Special consideration
number one on page five is the West Broadleaf Street extension. That is shown here
coming -- stubbing to this property from Providence and the applicant -- this was really
dealt with during the development agreement process, but just to refresh your memory
that it's a pedestrian only, not a full vehicular access. We are basically just asking for
Ada County Highway District to confirm that they are okay with that. I was told by the
applicant tonight that their staff report actually says that they are okay with the
pedestrian only, so I guess if the Commission is comfortable with that, then, that's fine.
They are, basically, going to extend landscaping into the right of way a little bit, because
this is a 50-foot wide opening and, of course, the pedestrian is only ten to 15, so they
are going to close that with landscaping within ACHD's right of way. So, that would be a
license agreement with them.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman. Brad, excuse me.
Hawkins-Clark: Uh-huh.
Zaremba: And I may not recall it -- be recalling this correctly, but -- although it was
going to be a pedestrian access, we did still want to preserve some emergency access
through there, didn't we? Or are they closing it down too far that a fire truck couldn't go
through there?
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, I don't recall your recommendation to the Council. That
may have been your recommendation, but the way that the Council approved it was
pedestrian only.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4. 2004
pege 33 of 64
Zaremba: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: I don't think we recommended to the Council that it be pedestrian
access only.
Hawkins-Clark: And it is --
Zaremba: I remember discussion about it and I didn't -- and I, frankly, don't remember
the exact result of the discussion. But I know we talked about it, because the neighbors
didn't want a vehicular access and since it goes directly into the back of a building, I
would be willing to believe that we agreed to that, although I don't remember it that way
either.
Hawkins-Clark: Just for clarification on that, the emergency services would be Boise
city at that boundary. So, in terms of response, I mean I -- granted I believe there is
memorandums of agreement or whatever between the emergency service providers,
but, you know, this is a service boundary between Meridian fire and Boise fire.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt.
Hawkins-Clark: No. That's fine. Thank you. The second issue we wanted to point out
was the right-in, right-out. There were no details provided to us how that will be
controlled. That's something that, for the most part, is going to be an ITD decision,
although it is on the -- within the boundaries of this plat, of course, so I think if -- we
have seen the pork chop designs, which, you know, basically, you have a raised median
there, which force the right turn and it just -- it's less of an incentive for people to try to
make a left and, you know, just ask Mr. Smith, who is representing them tonight, to kind
of maybe touch on that and to clarify with the Commission how that's going to -- how
that's going to work. And, then, the third item was on Bald Cyprus on the north there.
The city code says that if you're the sub-divider of land, you need to provide all the
street buffers there. There is currently -- the landscape plan, nor the plat show a ten
foot wide landscape easement on the south side of Bald Cyprus up here and that as
long as this is one phase, all the improvements within that single phase would need to
be provided by this sub-divider, so we are just asking for the -- to be added in. And I
guess that's probably the main issues that I had.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Anything the developer would
like to add? Mr. Smith.
Smith: Matt Smith, 12601 West Explorer Drive, Suite 200, Boise, Idaho. Just a couple.
I concur with everything the staff has done. They always do a great job. Just to clarify
a couple things, the -- safety is always an issue. The road that we have put in on the
east side of the property was to help alleviate a lot of the traffic that's going on. That
was, actually, a million dollar cost for our project, but we do think that's an important part
to bring traffic off of Eagle and to be able to circulate it up through there. Secondly, to
'Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2004
Page 34 of 64
address Brad's comment on the pork chop on the right-in, right-out, we, too, on the best
way to do a right-in, right-out. My suggestion would be that we work with ITD, as well
as the traffic engineers to find the best way to do that. Pork chops -- the only problem
that we have seen with pork chops is the truck drivers have a real tough time and it is
always hopped over and the snow plowers always hit them. So, I would suggest that
we work with the traffic engineer and staff here to try to find, if not a better way to put
that together, but we, too, are interested in controlling that. And with that that's all we
have.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Zaremba: I do have one. And this is referring to the ACHD report, which you probably
don't have memorized, but on page five a discussion on the right of way. In the capital
improvements plan they are expecting Ustick to be five lanes with curb, gutter, and
sidewalk, but they say after analyzing the site, staff believes that the intersection will
require seven to eight lanes at the intersection of Eagle and Ustick and I guess my
question do you -- if you have read that or if you remember that --
Smith: I know it very well.
Zaremba: -- and are you allowing -- in your design are you allowing for that to
eventually happen?
Smith: We are.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Smith: You bet.
Borup: Anything else? Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to
testify on this? Have we got anybody signed up?
Beck: My name is Richard Beck, I live at 3723 North Bottlebrush Avenue. Mr.
Chairman, Members of the Commission, tonight I come representing the Heather
Meadows neighborhood association. They -- the board of directors asked me to come
and present some concerns and questions that we have. The first -- the concerns -- the
concerns we have have to deal with findings that you would have to make to approve
this subdivision. Particularly finding D and E. They deal with existing services and
safety and health issues. First traffic. As many people who drive Ustick know, at the
peak hours in the evening there is a considerable backing or stacking. Would it be
possible to get the aerial photo? Is there a laser pointer? It isn't -- it is common at times
to have the traffic back up even to the first entrance of Heather Meadows. I've even
seen it back up to the second. There is a third entrance back here. But one of the
concerns that we have as far as existing services go, our question is can the existing
services meet -- I guess naming the traffic -- the traffic infrastructure, can they support
this development. One of our concerns will lead to cut-through traffic through the
'Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2004
Page 35 of 64
neighborhood in this manner. I know probably when I sit down Mr. Smith may term cut-
through traffic as a red herring, but it is something that we are already experiencing in
the neighborhood. And I guess the primary concerns -- you know, as you have heard --
we hear rumors of other developments, other things may be coming in in the future in
probably the four corners, we are concerned about the infrastructure now. Another item
we are concerned about with the new road and Bald Cyprus going through is speeding.
We'd like to know if there is going to be anything -- anything put in place to help with
that. They are straight -- straight roads, both of them, and wide. The other question we
have are such as with police services. We were wondering how many -- I guess how
often the area will be patrolled, how many people will patrol it, and those type of things.
If the police -- police officers for the City of Meridian are -- have enough staff to cover it.
And some of the complaints -- some of the complaints that we have had -- does that
mean my time's up?
Borup: Yes.
Beck: Can I have a couple more minutes?
Borup: Pardon?
Beck: Can I have a couple more minutes?
Borup: Commissioners, would you like to hear some more?
Moe: Mr. Chairman, he did point out when we first started that he was representing the
subdivision, so I would say yes.
Borup: Okay. Go ahead, sir.
Beck: I will finish up quickly. Thank you. A few other things that neighbors have
mentioned are construction start times. A few people have complained about early
early start times in some of the construction, they are concerned about some of the
future buildings and the start times there. And some airborne pollutants. I'm not sure if
there is already existing city codes that would cover these, but those are some of the
questions that were brought to our intention. But we would ask you to consider the
existing infrastructure, the services, and thank you for allowing us to provide some
public input.
Borup: Any other questions from the Commission. I just wanted to -- the construction
start times you're -- it's for the project that's before you tonight, the new construction
along Eagle Road? That's where the concern was?
Beck: Uh-huh. It's basically brought up with the Lowe's project -- with the Lowe's
building.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4,2004
Page 36 of 64
Borup: Right. And that's already -- and that was why I asked. It looks like that's a
pretty good buffer, the building.
Beck: Yeah. I guess the only other area of concern was to the north where the other
big box might be located.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: There are rules about the hours that construction can go on. How has your
experience been with the Lowe's project?
Beck: Well, I'm not privileged to live adjacent to the site. We do have some friends who
live there and I'm not -- they have never really -- I don't remember specific start times,
they just said it was early.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Emma Beck, did she wish to testify, too? Steven
Holland? Okay. Thank you. Okay. That's all that signed up. Was there anyone else
that -- okay. Mr. Smith, anything you'd like to conclude with?
Smith: I don't think I got all the points, but just to comment on some of them. The cut-
through traffic, that's one of the reasons we did put that road in there, that new road, is
so that -- and that's one of the reasons Broadleaf is a pedestrian, is because we thought
-- I think the Commission especially thought that that would be a cut. I think that was a
good idea. I think to cut through the neighborhood up to Bald Cyprus is pretty difficult.
It's swings. The developer did a nice job designing that through there. So, I think that's
pretty tough. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I think people will be more apt to go
ahead and take this new road that goes directly north that they are trying to cut this
subdivision. So, I'm hoping and believe that will help mitigate that. Also, as far as the
current structure, it's -- we all know we have problems on the roads. We -- just to let
you know what's happening there, we are working with the developer on the other side -
- we are hoping this will work -- with Winston Moore over here on this piece to come
together and to front some of the cash hopefully to be able to widen this earlier. We are
working with ACHD to do that. We think it's -- we think it will handle it as is. It's not
going to be optimal. But I think as we go ahead and get that widened earlier, it will be to
everyone's benefit, so we are working on that. And, then, working time --
Borup: So, you're saying you're looking at doing those improvements --
Smith: Not ourselves, we are working with ACHD --
Borup: To move that timetable up?
Smith: Correct. We are trying to find the funds to put that together. Just as a way of
information, we are working pro-actively to try to put that together with all four of the
corners right here to make that a better intersection earlier and with ITD, so just as a
way of information.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
November4,2004
Page 37 of 64
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I'm sure everybody wants those widened.
Smith: Yeah. It will help. There is no question. Just a matter of getting the funds and
we can do it. Working time. I think -- I think the ordinance is 5:00 to 11 :00. I'm sure
they are noisy. We are -- we have had some calls, we have responded to those as
soon as we received those, and both contractors -- one is doing the -- the building and
ours, we are doing the site improvements -- have worked with them. We have asked
the contractors to definitely abide by those times, so we are cognizant of that and
working. It's not an easy thing, but we are definitely reminding and calling as soon as
we are hearing of those happening, so --
Borup: Okay. Questions from any of the Commissioners? Thank you.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of
PP 04-037, to include all staff comments and conditions of the staff memo for the
hearing date November 4th, 2004, received October 27th, 2004, with one change and
that would be on page six on item number two of the special considerations, I'd like to
just add one last sentence that the developer will work with staff and ITD to design
proper right-in, right-out approach. End of motion.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9:
Public Hearing: CUP 04-041 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
an espresso/internet café in the CoN zone for Joltz Internet Café by Joltz
Internet Café, LLC - SEC of West Franklin Road and Linder Road
Borup: Thank you. Next item is CUP 04-041, request for a conditional use permit for
an espresso/internet cafe in a CoN zone for Joltz Internet Cafe. I'd like to open this
hearing and start with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, this Conditional Use
Permit is for a new restaurant use in a CoN zone. The current Meridian city code does
require restaurants in the CoN. This is -- of our three commercial zones, this is the least
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
November 4, 2004
Page 38 of 64
intensive and it does require the restaurant. This -- as noted in the application, it's not
just a restaurant, they are proposing also, you know, sort of a standard coffee and
internet access, kind of geared towards youth. The building and site improvements all
exist today. The only reason that you're seeing it is really just for the use. So, staff did
not really address, other than just the existing improvements, any conditions regarding
that. We did provide an analysis of the findings. Craig Hood was the planner on this.
He was unable to be here tonight, so I'm filling in here for him. He -- Craig did note that
the hours of operation were suggested to be restricted from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.,
Sunday through Thursday. And 6:00 a.m. to midnight Friday and Saturday. And that
restriction would include deliveries. That's really the only new condition that was
recommended that deals specifically with this use. Other than that, we have no other
comments on it. Thanks.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Moe: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, one thing I'd like to point out, under the standards for
conditional use, on item G it says -- it talks about operation for a fitness center.
Hawkins-Clark: Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. I did catch that as well. Right. That would --
Moe: So, I'd like to make that change.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you.
Zaremba: And that, actually, is also under item C on the page before that. The second
sentence says fitness center. It should also say cafe. And the item that Commissioner
Moe pointed out should say cafe.
Borup: I think that was left from our last meeting.
Zaremba: I did have one question. I noticed in the applicant's letter that they, actually,
are the ones that suggested that hours of 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 on most weekdays and
6:00 a.m. to midnight on Friday and Saturday and their comment was that that complies
with the existing Meridian curfew hours. I'm betraying the fact that I don't have children.
Do we agree that that's what those hours are?
Hawkins-Clark: Well, the standard noise ordinance is 6:00 -- 11 :00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.,
but the curfew, I guess I would ask for our city attorney to comment on that.
Nary: Yes.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you.
Zaremba: What a succinct answer. Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: That would be the first succinct answer of the evening.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4,2004
Page 39 of 64
Borup: Okay. Would the applicant - anything they'd like to add?
Clark: Hello. My name is Sue Clark and I am the managing owner of Joltz Internet
Cafe and I'm also the mother of three teenage girls and that's where this idea has been
born from is a place where they can go that they are not loitering in other places where
they should not be. Closed parking lots is one that I have found to be -- parking lots of
other restaurants. Other people's homes that parents mayor may not be home. They
need a place where they can go and that's why it's the curfew hours, so that I can make
sure that they have a place for the full time that they are allowed to be out by law. I'm
going to offer internet games with three -- or, excuse me, six high end gaming
computers, they are going to be there built for them, that's also going to have homework
helps on those. My oldest is part of Broadcast with Meridian High School and I'm going
to offer all the software that they can do homework inside Joltz itself. Right now they
have to go stay after school and do it on campus at Meridian High. I'm also going to
offer homework helps for home schoolers and offer special times where they come in
during the day, give them deals also. Just a nice great place to hang out that's
comfortable for them and also offers them fun and excitement and social activity also.
I'm excited about it.
Borup: All right. Thank you. Questions from any of the Commission?
Zaremba: What an excellent idea. I hope your greatest need is to open three or four
more of them.
Clark: That's my plan. I'll probably see you in about a few years.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Clark: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify in this?
Holzwarth: My name is Deslie Holzwarth and I live at 3583 West Town Creek Drive and
as a mother of three young men, you know how young men can -- or young teen boys
can get into trouble. Well, their father and I have worked very hard at keeping them out
of trouble and I'm happy to say that they are upstanding and contributing members of
society and wished when they were growing up that they had this kind of place to go to
to hang out where I know they would have been safe. And Meridian needs a place for
kids to go and I know that I'm going to be working with her and I know what's going into
this place and I would not hesitate to Jet my children be there and I want to thank you for
letting me voice my opinion. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Okay. Do we have anyone else?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2004
Page 40 of 64
Sundell: My name is Larry Sundell. I reside at 4410 Rim Street in Boise, Idaho. I was
the architect for Susan Clark. I was here on a different matter and I saw she was here.
This started out as a simple tenant improvement project in a strip mall and, originally,
she was not aware of the complications that she would be involved with when she
started this, but it was simply to be a restaurant adjacent to another restaurant and
through nobody's fault that's here, she is led through this process that was a surprise.
That's the end of my comments. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Okay. Commissioners?
Zaremba: I would comment that I think she's fallen into the process that was intended
for full service restaurants, but we have to go through the process anyhow.
Borup: And I don't see it much different than a tenant improvement, which we have
never seen before.
Zaremba: Are we ready to close the Public Hearing?
Borup: Yeah.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on CUP 04-041.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending
approval of CUP 04-041, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing
date of November 4th, 2004.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10:
Public Hearing: CUP 04-043 Request for detailed Conditional Use
approval for 7 office buildings in an L-O zone for Sagecrest Subdivision
by Sundell Architecture - south of East Overland Road and west side of
South Millenium Way:
Borup: Thank you. Okay. Our next item is CUP 04-034, request for detailed
Conditional Use approval of seven office buildings in an L-O zone for Sagecrest
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2004
Page 41 of 64
Subdivision by Sundell Architecture. I'd like to open this hearing and start with the staff
report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. This
project is located within the Resolution Subdivision, located on the south side of East
Overland Road. The Resolution Subdivision is zoned Limited Office, was approved
back in 2000, annexed and zoned at that time. Most of the improvements for the
subdivision have been done out there. Mountain View High School, of course, is on the
south side. Undeveloped land that was a part of Resolution's conceptual planned
development and zoned CoN is here on the west side. Other commercial --
commercially zoned land on the north side of Overland there. This Sagecrest
Subdivision was already platted. You can see here on the slide -- and basically broke
up that large single lot within Resolution into this mixed-use project, which has in both
office and high density residential. The portion that you're viewing tonight is -- and,
again, here is Millennium Way that comes in off of Overland on the right-hand side of
the screen and the portion that you're dealing with tonight is generally in this area right
here that fronts on Millennium Way. And this is a blowup, a little different angle of that
area. The Conditional Use Permit tonight is required because of the development
agreement when this came through, as well as the fact that it was a conceptual planned
development and they have to come through with detailed conditional uses and that's
what they are proposing to do here. They are showing the curb cut here as it's currently
constructed in the middle of the project, which goes through and serves the residential
portion in the back. They have - this existing landscaping on Millennium Way, they are
not modifying. The original developer had to do that. So, the main issues tonight are
just this new parking area that's shown here. They are showing lots on both sides of
this entry drive. A couple of issues that Craig included in his staff report for your
consideration. Most of them are fairly standard modifications that I think can be dealt
with with just a revised plat before the City Council hearing. Those deal with the
setbacks and the parking and the trash enclosures, with just some slight tweaks that
staff felt should be made in order to comply with code. We believe that the site is large
enough to -- excuse me -- accommodate some of those modifications and we are
supportive of the application, so thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Mr. Sundell, anything you'd like to add?
Sundell: My name is Larry Sundell, I'm the architect for Russ Honeymiller and Dirk
Markham for this project. There were three items that Craig Hood had gone through.
The first item, there was a comment about 15-foot parking. When I went through the
exact analysis, the specific dimensions with the plat, we were off about a foot. Those
changes have been made or are in the process of being made, so that we are able to
do the 19 foot -- 25 foot, 19 foot parking that was part of staff's report. In addition, there
was a comment about the trash enclosure and, originally, we had thought that we would
use the trash enclosure of the existing apartment building, but those are being
separated off, so it's a different ownership. So, we have planned for a new -- a new
trash enclosure that would be in this area right here. And, let's see, his name was
Steve --
,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2004
Page 42 of 64
Hawkins-Clark: Sedlecek?
Sundell: Uh?
Hawkins-Clark: Sedlecek:
Sundell: Bill Gregory was - has gone on vacation right now and I have talked to Steve
about it. Their only comment was that there would be -- it was called a drainage lot and
there was a calculation as to percolating water into that area and I talked to the
engineers about that and it seems not to be a problem. So, that issue, it's my
understanding, has taken -- or is not an issue anymore. The third item was the
setbacks of the buildings as it related to the portion where they would abut the
apartments and those are being corrected, so that we have the correct 20-foot setback
abutting the apartments. There would be the five-foot setback between internal
properties of buildings and the five-foot setback on the north and the 15-foot easement
on the south. So, it's my understanding we have met all of the requirements and we are
in agreement with all the conditions of approval as they are submitted.
Borup: Okay. Questions? Any questions from the Commission?
Moe: No. You answered everything I wanted to know.
Borup: Thank you. We did not have anyone sign up for testimony. Is there anyone
here that wanted to come forward? Okay. Thank you. Commissioners?
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of CUP
04-043 with all -- to include all staff comments and conditions of the memo dated
November 4th, 2004, received by the clerk November 2nd, 2004.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2004
Page 43 of 64
Item 11:
Public Hearing: PP 04-036 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval of 5
commercial building lots on 7.16 acres in a CoG zone for Waltman Court
Subdivision by Buffalo Hump, LLC - 420 Waltman Court:
Item 12:
Public Hearing: CUP 04-044 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
contractor's yard in a CoG zone for Waltman Court Subdivision by
Buffalo Hump, LLC - 420 Waltman Court:
Borup: Thank you. Okay. Next item is Public Hearing PP 04-036, request for
preliminary plat approval for five commercial building lots on 7.16 acres in a CoG zone
for Waltman Court Subdivision and accompanying that is CUP 04-044, request for a
Conditional Use Permit for a contractor's yard in the same project. I'd like to open both
hearings at this time and start with the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I, too, am filling in
for Craig Hood tonight, so bear with me and we will try to point out all the highlights that
we need to on this project. It is for Waltman Court Subdivision. It is both a preliminary
plat and a Conditional Use Permit. You can see the vicinity map before you. The
property is outlined in black. It is located about 1,000 feet west of Meridian Road, just
south of the Troutner Business Park, which is in the area north of it. Waltman Lane,
which most of you are familiar with, runs along the south and the storage facility for a
public storage is to its east. The application is for a preliminary plat of five lots shown
here. It's on 7.16 acres. The area is designated commercial on the Comprehensive
Plan and it is already zoned CoG, so we are not dealing with a zoning issue tonight, it
already has the commercial zoning. They are proposing to construct on Lot 3 of Block 2
in this location a 10,000 square foot shop office building and the Conditional Use Permit
is for that use. You can see that use -- the site plan here. I'll go through it in a little
more detail shortly. I believe north is to the right on this map. Many of you have -- that
have been on the Commission for a while will have -- some of you may remember
having seen this plat before.
Borup: Twice before.
Siddoway: Twice?
Borup: About twice before.
Siddoway: Most recently, anyway, in 2001, so about three years ago, John and Sandra
Goed did receive preliminary plat approval on this site for a six lot subdivision. It was
also called Waltman Court Subdivision. That plat has since expired. It was never
recorded with a final plat. One of the -- the project that is before us now is consistent
with that plat and the conditions of approval on it from us and the county highway district
are similar, with one notable exception. One of the issues that caused the demise of
the former plat was a requirement to contribute 50 percent of the cost for a bridge to go
over Ten Mile Creek at this location. ACHD is no longer requiring a road trust for that
bridge, because their property does not go to the center line, it ends at the northern
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2004
Page 44 of 64
bank. They are, however, requiring a road trust for the remaining on-site portion of
Corporate Drive that's not currently being constructed and I'm not completely sure which
part is not being constructed, so I may look to the applicant for a little bit of clarification
on that. But the plat does propose the proper location as envisioned by the city and
ACHD for the Corporate Drive extension that would eventually cross the Ten Mile Creek
and connect into Waltman Lane to the south. It also does have a short extension of
Southwest 5th Avenue that T's into Corporate Drive at that location. I need to give a
brief history of the project before moving on. When the project first came in and the
staff report was written, we -- the staff report was written under determination that the
use for the lot that's requiring the Conditional Use Permit would be called a contractor's
yard. We are wanting to rescind the definition. We don't think it meets the definition of
the contractor's yard for these reasons. The entire use of the lot is not as a contractor's
yard. This area that we were calling the contractor's yard is serving as outdoor storage
for the business, but most of the business activity is contained within the building.
Outdoor storage in the CoG zone is a permitted use. Contractor's yards are conditional,
but also have other issues related to distance from residences and other things we can
get into if there are questions, but we have made the determination that this area should
not be called a contractor's yard, but would be deemed outdoor storage for the
business. However, the Conditional Use Permit is still necessary, because of the
existing development agreement. The development agreement on this property
requires a CUP for any use. So, we -- we wish to no longer call this a contractor's yard,
but we still wanted to have the CUP continue on as required by the D.A., but that will
necessitate a few changes to the conditions that I'll point out in a moment. I'd like to go
over the special considerations on the preliminary plat beginning on page five. The first
is regarding the multi-use pathway adjacent to Ten Mile Creek. Ten Mile Creek runs
along the south border of the plat and the applicant is proposing, in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan, a multi-use pathway adjacent to it. The majority of that pathway
is located on their own site. However, near this corner it does cross off their site onto
adjacent property and staff is recommending that they either get a - they either provide
consent from the property owners to the south or construct the entire pathway on site.
And there is also a condition in here that they provide to the city an easement for public
access and maintenance along that pathway. Number two deals with some existing
structures on the site. There is a barn that spans between Lots 2 and Lots 3 that would
-- and other outbuildings that would need to be removed that currently span lot lines and
we are saying that those need to be removed prior to signature on the final plat. Let's
see if we have the landscape plan. Number three on page six states that the landscape
plan is not approved as submitted and request ten new copies prior to the City Council
meeting. It specifies three specific things that need to be changed. The first is that a
ten-foot wide landscape buffer needs to be added both along Corporate and Southwest
5th in compliance with ordinance. The second is that there needs to be a five foot
buffer minimum adjacent to the multi-use pathway, with trees along it every 35 feet.
And the third item is that there are a number of existing trees on the site greater than
four inches. They show up probably better on the hard copy site plans that you have,
but there is a condition that any tree greater than four inches in caliper needs to be
mitigated for and we need to work out a mitigation plan for healthy trees that are
removed from the site. All of those are already delineated in condition number six. Item
,
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
November 4.2004
Page 45 of 64
number four on page six is a question about the fencing that would go along the
pathway, both in terms of its location and type of fencing. We'd like to get some
specificity about what would be done along that pathway and how close to it it would be.
Five and six are standard items, so I'm going to skip those and number seven is more
discussion on the bridge crossing, which I have already discussed. I would just point to
the next to the last sentence that says to insure that the right of way for vehicular bridge
across Ten Mile Creek is preserved, the applicant should stub Corporate Drive to the
southwest property line, which they are proposing to do. We want to make sure that
that is a condition, because this is an important connection for us to -- as an alternate
route for the Waltman Lane traffic in the future. Those are the issues with the plat. Now
moving to the Conditional Use Permit. The findings that begin on page ten just all
reference to contractor's yard needs to be stricken. There are some mentions of it
throughout, but item A is probably the biggest one in the first two paragraphs, but other
references should also be stricken to the contractor's yard. In that same vein, the
performance standards for contractor's yards on page 13, that section should be
deleted. Then, moving to page 14, special considerations for the conditional use, the
first one talks about a five-foot landscape planter along all interior lot lines. Again, north
is up, so Corporate Drive that comes around and stubs to Ten Mile Creek is on the right
side here. The entrance would be a shared access with the property to the west and
they are proposing to come in -- they do begin a five-foot planter, but it just doesn't
extend along that property line. The condition would require that the five-foot planter be
continued, but I would like to clarify on the record that we would allow cross access
between the two lots in a location deemed appropriate by the applicant to allow cross
access between those lots and vehicular circulation between them. Item number two
talks about the storage loading area that we are now calling outdoor storage. We do
want to see that improved with some form of dustless material. We are suggesting
recycled asphalt. Changes to the site-specific conditions, the main one is item number
three. Everything except for the last sentence we would propose to be stricken. That's
site-specific condition number three on page 14. That was a condition related to
additional buffers for the contractor's yard. We still would require the screening fence
as mentioned in the last sentence. Then, we would like to add one condition to the
Conditional Use Permit that's not here now and that would require the applicant to
amend the existing development agreement. There is some other language in the
existing development agreement about the city being able to revert the zoning back to
its previous zoning if it's not developed within two years, which has been longer than
two years, so in order to clean that up, we would like to have that development
agreement amended and just a condition of approval that an application to amend that
DA be filed prior to approval of this CUP at the City Council level. We have already
talked with the applicant. I believe they are agreeable to doing that. There is some
other language in there they would like to clean up. They may even consider removing
the condition for CUs on every lot, regardless of zoning, and staff is supportive of that,
too, and have heard suggestions from the Council that when -- when it make sense, that
we should no longer be requiring CUs for every use, unless it's a particularly sensitive
area. But this area may be one where that is not needed and they can at least bring
that forward through a Public Hearing process to see if anyone objects to that. That is
the last change and I will stand for any questions.
'Meridian Pianning & Zoning
November 4.2004
Page 46 of 64
Borup: Questions from the Commission? Okay. Would the applicant have anything
they'd like to add? Is the applicant here? Oh. Anything you'd like to add? Sorry.
Erickson: I'm Ross Erickson, 5293 North Schubert Avenue in Meridian. Mr. Chairman,
Members of the Commission, just a few things I'd like to bring up. Steve, thanks for the
report. I know it kind of got thrown on you at the last minute. We have worked through
a lot of the details with Craig before he left town, but he did a good job, so -- just a few
things to clarify on Steve's report. For the road trust, what that is for -- we are actually
going to be building the road to this point right here and we will be putting a fire truck
turn around in. It didn't make sense to extend the roadway all the way to the property
line at this time, just because when ACHD comes back in and actually designs that
bridge, they are going to come back and set grades and it's likely it will have to get torn
back into Corporate either way, so it just didn't make sense to do it. So we proposed to
trust for those improvements at this point. I'd like to talk just real quick about the
pathway. We are going to take -- you can see right there where the pathway jogs onto -
- actually, off site from our plat. We are going to take and realign that, so that the south
boundary of the pathway is actually -- matches our south lot line. So it actually matches
our south lot line. And, then, in addition, we will propose, I guess consistent with staff's
recommendation, is a five-foot landscape buffer along the north side of that pathway. In
the staff report that it did make mention that a fence plan wasn't submitted and I could
just run you guys through what our proposal is for the fencing for the plat real quick
here. What we are proposing is along the north side of that buffer we will put a six-foot
chain link security fence that's open vision and the fence will actually go from Corporate
down to this point here and, then, jog across to the east property line. Along the east
property line there is, actually, an existing six-foot fence. Along the Waltman lot there
on the south side there is a six-foot wood fence and, then, just north of that there is a
six-foot open vision security fence along the storage unit that goes all the way up to
Corporate. Along the north side a four-foot chain link was built as part of Troutner Park
Subdivision and we will just be retaining that as part of our project. So, really, the only
fence that we are talking about with this plat is just along the north side of that buffer
that parallels the pathway along the south property line.
Borup: So, you're saying that you're differing from the staff report on that item?
Erickson: There, actually, wasn't a fencing plan submitted with the application. At the
time it was kind in flux as to whether or not the pathway was going to be aligned on our
property or if it was going to be on the south side of the drain at the time the application
was made, so Craig did some research on that and went through and found -- you
know, what he actually did is look next door to see if there was easements reserved for
the pathway on the north side and, sure enough, there was, so we need to include that
in our project, our application.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, on page six, item four, that's why he went ahead and explained
what he was going to do. That was a request to have done at the Public Hearing.
f
'"Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4,2004
Page 47 of 64
Borup: Okay. I guess I was making reference to the eight-foot fence that they talked
about.
Erickson: Yeah. The eight-foot fence is actually called out in the CU and that's part of
the language that Steve had mentioned as going to be struck from the staff report.
Borup: Because of the contractor's yard?
Erickson: Because of the contractor's yard, that's correct.
Borup: Okay.
Erickson: I can speak to that fence real quick, too. What we are proposing is a six-foot
close vision chain link security fence around that outdoor material storage area for the
site development. A couple other questions that Steve had when he was giving his
report. We are going to be removing one building. It's the building located right there
and that's the only building on the plat that actually falls on a lot line that's going to
require to be relocated or removed before we come in. We will go through and
inventory the trees. Any trees greater than four inches we will work with staff and figure
out how we can mitigate those, you know, with this project.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, could I just clarify with the applicant that the outdoor storage
area would be a screening fence and not an open vision fence; is that correct?
Borup: That's what he said.
Erickson: A closed vision fence, yeah.
Siddoway: Okay. And is that one chain link with slats or is that one --
Erickson: That's correct.
Siddoway: Okay.
Erickson: Yeah. And it will be a security fence as will.
Moe: While we are on that subject, I just want to make sure, that is a storage area only,
not equipment storage, just materials?
Erickson: Material storage area. That's right.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, we do have some concerns that we would need to workout
on whether those slated chain link is truly sight obscuring enough. We would like to
have some kind of solid fencing around it and we need to work out -- we would propose
something solid like a wood fence or something similar. Oftentimes you can see
\¡eridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2004
Page 48 of 64
through those slats. I know that there are some slat type fences that come pre-
assembled that are quite closed, but the typical slat fences are still --
Borup: You're talking a slat fence in a chain link fence?
Siddoway: -- quite see through.
Borup: You mean -- you're referring to slats in a chain link fence?
Siddoway: Slats in a chain link fence, whether or not that would be screened enough.
Borup: Understand the concern there?
Erickson: Yeah. Why if you look next door -- I don't know, you guys probably haven't
seen this, but the storage units are located right here and they have a fence along this
boundary and it's an open -. it's just a chain link security fence, that's it, there are no
slats, there is no sort of screening or anything and if you look on the other side of this
fence, there is just -- I mean it's accumulated a bunch of junk, really, and there is a
bunch of old cars, RV's, parts of boats, things on blocks. You know, even if we were to
propose -- or even if we were to construct a slatted chain link fence, it's going to
improve the view corridors from the south and from the west and provide some
additional screening for those people as well.
Borup: But you can work with staff on that?
Erickson: We can work with staff on that. Certainly. Can you flip to the site real quick,
Steve? Thanks. Steve mentioned this part right here, how that the code states that the
drive aisles adjacent to property boundaries need to have landscape planters. The
reason why we left this open was for future cross access into the lot to the west. My
client intends to some day expand his business to the lot to the west. He, actually --
owns the subdivision and he will own this site, too. And that's why we left it open, just
so we didn't have to come back and tear it open. I think what we will do after hearing
Steve's recommendation, probably extend that planter a little bit further and come up
with an agreed upon cross-access width, so that we can -- so we don't have planter all
the way across there, but we can still kind of meet both of our goals with the planter. I
think that pretty much summarizes a lot of the questions that Steve had with the report.
He mentioned the development agreement and, really, the development, the only
reason why this site's here tonight is because that stipulation was put in. This would,
typically, be just a CZC applicant to the city, but here we are. And, like you said, we will
be working with staff in the upcoming weeks to try to get that development agreement
amended and get some changes put in place and you guys will probably be seeing that
in a forthcoming hearing in a couple weeks. With that I will close and stand for any
questions that you might have.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
'Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4,2004
Page 49 of 64
Newton-Huckabay: Sure. There was one comment about the asphalt in the outdoor
storage area or putting asphalt. Did you address that one?
Erickson: No, I didn't, but thanks for reminding me. Staff made a comment like that we
have a dustless surface in the material storage area and we concur, we are going to put
a lift of a recycled asphalt material at the surface, something similar to like -- I don't
know if you guys are familiar with the Meridian bus facilities. I think, David, you
probably are, but it's effective out there, it's been working well for them, it's a good
surface, and that's what we will put down in the storage area.
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Steve, the only question I had -- yeah, it was on -- comment on the road
trust and a turn around. I assume that's okay to have a distance back from the property
line to allow for future bridge construction?
Siddoway: Yeah. As long as it is road trust for and that is what they are doing.
Borup: Yeah.
Siddoway: That little bit of extension is not needed for access to any other site, so it
would just be needed at the -- during construction of the bridge across.
Borup: Any other questions from the Commission? Okay. Thank you.
Erickson: Thank you.
Borup: We didn't have anyone signed up. Is there anyone here to testify? Okay.
Seeing none, Commissioners?
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Do we want a little discussion first or is there any concerns on -- there was quite
afew--
Newton-Huckabay: A lot of addendums.
Borup: Yeah.
Rohm: That's why I'm not doing this.
1vIeridian Planning & Zoning
November 4.2004
Page 50 of 64
Moe: Me, too.
Newton-Huckabay: Good job for Dave.
Zaremba: I would be happy to attempt a motion if staff and the other Commissioners
will chime in if they need something.
Borup: Dave has probably got them all, so we will see how he does.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending
approval of PP 04-036, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date
of November 4th, 2004, with the following changes: On page six, paragraph four refers
to a fencing plan. The applicant has described a fencing plan and I would add the
comment that they have agreed to work with staff to make that a reality.
Siddoway: I would just make that part of the site specific condition number seven,
which deals with the fencing as a condition. This is just a discussion item in the special
considerations in number four. But site specific condition seven deals with the fencing
requirement.
Zaremba: Thank you for that. I will move the same subject to page eight, paragraph
seven, and, again, state that the applicant has offered a verbal fencing plan and we
agreed that they can work with staff to make that a reality. That's the end of the
comments for the preliminary plat.
Rohm: I will second that.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending
approval of CUP 04-044, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing
date of November 4, 2004, again, with the following changes: Beginning on page ten
there are references to a contractor's yard and the subject is being changed to being a
storage yard, as opposed to contractor's yard, and this Commission agrees with that
change. and any change in verbiage that would cause, specifically to paragraph A and
any subsequent paragraphs. On page 13, performance, it discusses contractor's yard
again and, again, we acknowledge that we are not talking about a contractor's yard, but
a storage yard. On page 14, under site-specific conditions, paragraph three, the first
sentence may be removed and leave only the last sentence in accordance with MCC
11-13-3.E, et cetera. On page 16 we will add a paragraph 17 that says an amendment
may be made to the original development agreement. The applicant shall work with
staff to provide the amendment before this goes to City Council.
'Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4,2004
Page 51 of 64
Siddoway: If we just make it prior to City Council approval, that may give a little more
flexibility in the timing of getting that in, but as long as we have it before approval I think
we will be fine.
Zaremba: Okay. The amendment to the development agreement shall be agreed upon
between staff and the applicant before City Council approval. I believe those are the
only changes, unless I missed something.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 13:
Public Hearing: RZ 04-013 Request for a Rezone of 1.674 acres from C-
C to CoG zone for Wests ide Body Works by Westside Body Works - 210
East Fairview Avenue:
Item 14:
Public Hearing: CUP 04-042 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to
allow the operation of a body shop in a proposed CoG zone for Westside
Body Works by Westside Body Works - 210 East Fairview Avenue:
Borup: Thank you. Our next two items are Public Hearing RZ 04-013, request for
rezone of 1.67 acres from C-C to a CoG zone for Westside Body Works and
accompanying that is CUP 04-042, request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the
operation of a body shop in the proposed CoG zone. I'd like to open both hearings at
this time and start with the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This application for
Westside Body Works is in the current -- the same location as the current Bobby's
Transmission site. It is located on the north side of Fairview at 210 East Fairview,
approximately one quarter of a mile east of Meridian Road. The aerial photo is a little
hard to see, so let me go back to the zoning map. I was just going to talk a little bit
about the surrounding land uses. The area immediately north of it in this large lot is
owned by Cherry Plaza Associates and, then, north of that is La Playa Manor Estates
and it's zoned R-8. To the south there are commercial properties, including Jack-in-the-
Box directly to the south and Rocky Mountain Collision RV and Repair, which is,
actually, zoned R-8 at the current time. To the east is the Big-O Tire property and to the
west is several commercial properties, including immediately to the west is the cigarette
store and, then, Schuck's Auto Supply and, then, the strip mall that's adjacent to the
Albertson's project. Again, this is a proposed rezone for the 1.7 acres of the site from
C-C to CoG. You can see this pink area is the area currently zoned CoCo The red area
is what's currently zoned CoG. The changes of zoning from C-C to C-G would not be a
spot zone, but would be a continuation of this C-G zone that continues for over a mile to
the east. The Conditional Use Permit is for the automobile repair shop. I'd like to point
out that the existing use on the site is also classified as an automobile repair shop.
. " 'Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4.2004
Page 52 of 64
Automobile repair shops are technically prohibited in the C-C zone, making the existing
use of the property a legal nonconforming use that's been there for quite some time.
Since the - in order to clean up that nonconforming use status, staff has asked the
applicant to rezone the property to CoG. They have complied with that request and
submitted a Conditional Use Permit, because automobile repair facilities are a
conditional use in the CoG zone. I'd like to jump to the special considerations on page
seven. Here is a newer site plan that did not get put in the presentation. Let's see. Do
the Commissioners have a revised site plan dated October 20th?
Borup: We do.
Siddoway: My staff report is based on that revised site plan and --
Borup: We do have it and it's the one where the access was moved?
Siddoway: Yeah. I was going to point out the changes between -- do you have an eight
and a half by 11?
Nary: Mr. Siddoway, too, I think it's 10/26 on the updated plan. The one I'm looking at,
anyway.
Newton-Huckabay: Actually, both dates are down in the corner.
Siddoway: Oh, yes. It has two -- it says updated plan of 10/26, but, then, in the title
block was the date of October 20th that I was reading. So, it has both dates on it.
Okay. I would just like to point out some of the changes between the site plan that was
just up and this revised one. First of all, the property has three existing accesses into
the property. Let me -- I'm going to flip forward -- no. I have a site photo to show you in
a minute, but I'm going to leave this up for now. They are going to abandon two of
those existing accesses at the request of ACHD and leave only the northern most
access in place, which is a shared access with Big-O Tire. The second change is that
the landscape planter along this edge was continuous up to this point, making this a
very long dead end drive aisle. They have punched through a drive aisle, so that both
trash trucks can access the trash enclosure and the fire department won't have any
issues with the long back out that they would have without -- now they can circulate
around that planter island. The third change is that trees were added in this buffer
along the north and the buffer was extended all the way around and trees were added in
there to provide additional buffering. I'd also point out that they do have a screening
fence completely surrounding this back parking area as well. In the southwest corner
down in this area next to the parking a perimeter buffer was added. There was not one
previously. And, then, islands have been added along this eastern parking row, both on
the end and in the middle, to break up the long row of parking. At the request of the fire
department, the trash enclosure has been offset five feet from the building adjacent to a
two hour fire wall and they have agreed to do that. Back out areas have been provided
next to the eastern -- sorry, the western property line on both the north and south
parking areas that were not there previously. And, finally, the trees that are located in
. ., . Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4.2004
Page 53 of 64
the islands have been changed from a conifer species to a deciduous species and that
addressed many of the issues that staff had with the original site plan and we worked
with the applicant to make those changes. The other thing, just to point out, first is an
alternative compliance that we agreed to on the street buffer adjacent to Fairview.
Currently there is no landscaping at all out there. I'm going to go ahead and switch to --
well, that was it. This is the existing site today. I took these photos this afternoon. The
existing Bobby's Transmission building, it will be torn down, replaced with the new one
that I will show you in just a second. This is that same building, just standing along the
sidewalk on Fairview and looking, it's just all asphalt in the front and in the rear of the
existing site it's basically just a dirt gravel area, it has not been paved. An existing --
they park vehicles back there and et cetera. The proposal would be to add 23 feet of
landscaping along Fairview Road from the property line in and, actually, from the
existing edge of the road in it's much more than that. You can see the dimension of 23
feet is measured from this property line in, but they are, actually, going to be
landscaping the full width out to the existing curb. So, it almost doubles the area today,
but we would envision in the future that this area would be used for future road widening
and we would at some point be left with about a 23-foot buffer. The reason for the
reduction in the 23 feet, two fold. One, in looking at existing building locations up and
down Fairview, that really is the approximate maximum buffer we are going to get
between the future right of way and the physical location of those existing buildings. So,
we thought it made sense there. And they are also needing to preserve some space in
here to make turning movements into the overhead doors that would go back into the --
the bays here. Okay. Moving on. Number three regarding the pathway, I'm going to
save that for last and move on to the rock mulch. I would point out that they are
proposing rock mulch around the -- in the planter islands and around the tree wells.
They are proposing grass along this island and not just rock, but on the west side of the
building and back in on the north side they would be proposing rock and as you know
from the last hearing there is a new ordinance amendment in process that would allow
for rock mulch. I have just simply written a condition that would say if that ordinance
passes by the -- when they are coming through with their CZC, then, they can do this,
but, if not, they need to change it to bark. The next item is the parking layout. There
are some substandard parking stall dimensions in here. The parking stalls up against
the south side are only, I believe, 18 feet and along the west side they are narrower
than they should -- or not as deep as they should be, but the adjacent parking aisles are
much more than our minimum standard of 25, so there is room. Now, back here, this
area is pinched off a little bit and I feel that they do need to meet a full 19 and 25.
These northern most parking stalls could be reduced to 17, since they do overhang a
planting area, but with a 17-foot stall, a 25-foot drive aisle, and a 19-foot stall, it may
necessitate just shifting the whole project forward about a foot is all, a foot or two, but
not more than that. And they have more than -- it's about 33 feet in this front drive aisle,
so they should be able to absorb that and would just ask the applicant for any
comments there. Noise and fumes. I anticipate those two to be some of the issues
raised tonight from the public. I have raised the same questions and the applicant to
submit -- or be prepared to address those. I know he did submit a couple of letters
addressing their environmental record on other sites, as well as the types of fans and
filters that they will be installing and would ask the applicant to address the potential
. .~ ~'Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2004
Page 54 of 64
impacts from this project, especially related to fumes from the paint booths and noise
from the auto body work. The last item deals with the pathway. I mentioned that the
Comprehensive Plan does show a pathway along the Five Mile Creek, which is along
the north part of the property. It only clips just the very northeast corner of this project
and we have -- we had not at the time I wrote this report made a formal determination
as to where the creek would be here -- or where the pathway would be in relation to the
creek, whether it's on the north side or the south side. I did go out with the parks
director this afternoon and would submit the following for your consideration. Standing
at the back of the site and looking west, there is a perfect area in that property that's
owned by the Cherry -- I forgot the name of the owner. Cherry Plaza Associates. That
could follow along the south side of the project. The creek runs right through here, you
can see it here. This is that same bank up here. However, standing in that same point
and turning and looking to the east -- this is the view and that's at Big-O Tire and there
is buildings and things in the way. There is challenges, but there is perhaps even more
challenges with siting the project on a future pathway on the north side of the creek.
Moving down to the entrance into La Playa, this is the creek as it runs through the
project. The Westside Body Works would be just in the distance over here on the south
side and along that south side there is a -- like I said, a -- potentially a good path for that
pathway to follow. On the north side it's blocked off by existing homeowners
improvements and literally every homeowner on the north side owns out to the center of
the ditch, there is no common lot in this location. So, the city would have to deal with
every individual homeowner to put it on the north side, which presents a problem.
Moving west behind Burger King and I think it's Econo Lube, it does open up again west
of the project on the south side of the ditch, but, again, once you get beyond that, there
are impediment. Where I'm going with this is it appears that the best location for the
pathway in the future is on the south side, but it's not going to happen until some future
redevelopment at Big-O and other pinch points that just don't make a good location at
this point. So, what we would simply ask, in short, is that the applicant dedicate to the
city an easement for the pathway right across this corner, so that the city can put a
pathway through in the future if we can make it work. They don't -- we won't place a
requirement on them to build the pathway at this time, just to dedicate an easement
and, then, if we can -- and that easement can go over the top of the existing Nampa-
Meridian Irrigation District easement, which they are not encroaching in any way. So, it
does not require modification to the site plan, it's simply the addition of a dedicated
easement and, then, the city can work with Nampa-Meridian through our master
pathway agreement in the future if we find a way to get the pathway through. So, that
would be a proposed new condition that does not currently show up to dedicate a public
access easement across the pathway and to submit that. I suppose we should have
that prior to issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance or we could make it prior to
occupancy if you wanted to give them a little more time. We just need to make sure we
get that easement before the project is done with the city approvals. I believe that is it
and -. yes. I will stand for any questions.
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners?
Zaremba: Steve, I think you were going to show some elevations.
'" 'Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4,2004
Page 55 of 64
Siddoway: Oh, yes. Thank you. These are elevations of the building. This would be --
if this section were to continue, Fairview would be out here. This would be Longview.
This would be the -- let me look -- I got to look closer. Yeah. This would be the south
elevation facing Fairview with the street trees, I do believe. This would be the western
elevation facing towards the cigarette shop. And, then, the north elevation facing
toward the canal.
Zaremba: In our packet I think we had some of these elevations. For the drawings it
appeared that the building was going to be made perhaps out of brick and, then, there
was a picture of a sample that made it look like it was metal siding. Do we know what
the materials are? .
Siddoway: I believe the elevation depicts it as CMU -- maybe split face block, but let's
have the applicant address that.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: That is what's labeled. Any other questions for Mr. Siddoway? I have got one.
Does this project -- does this require EPA approval for the -- I guess I'm thinking
specifically for the paint booth or the painting areas or exhaust.
Siddoway: I know of no such requirement by city ordinance. Now, the -- I know that the
-- well, let's ask that same question of the applicant.
Borup: Okay. I am familiar with other woodworking shops that the paint booths have to
have EPA approval. Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation?
Wallace: My name is Tim Wallace. My address is 3834 South Gideon Place, Meridian,
Idaho. 83642. I am the owner of Parks Wests ide Body Works located on Five Mile
Road in Boise. Currently we employ 16 employees and we will be adding
approximately another 15 to our staff when the new shop opens up. We pride ourselves
in quality collision repair. We won inaugural Integrity Council award in '97 and were a
finalist in 2001 to date. We are the only collision repair shop to win an award from the
Better Business Bureau. We are excited to bring our business to Meridian. By doing
this we hope to bring 16 to 17 hundred cars per year to this facility. That's about 140
cars a month is what we currently do at the Five Mile location. Right now I have a way
through my system of finding out by zip code where I get my cars from and right now a
little over 400 cars we pull from Meridian that come to Boise and that's not counting the
other body shops in Boise that pull cars, too, the same way. I do all of Meridian Ford's
work. We currently do all of Edmark Chevrolet's work. And this work would all be
routed here to Meridian, instead of the shop on Five Mile. I have some handouts that
were passed out on some of the pollution and it kind of goes over the first page on the
filtration in these booths. They are 98 to 99 percent efficient as far as anything going in
the atmosphere. I currently have two of these booths at the -- my Five Mile location.
And I am directly across the street from Eddy's Bakery and I have been for eight or nine
. ... 'Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4,2004
Page 56 of 64
years up until they closed and I have never had any issue with any scent or anything
from the bakery at all to date. I have a gentleman here from Specialty Environmental
that picks up all our waste. We accumulate at the Five Mile facility anywhere from one
55 gallon drum to two 55 gallon drums of paint waste a month and his company picks
up, does the manifesting and hauls everything off. And to this date I have never had a
violation whatsoever from the EPA at all and they have been to my shop numerous
times just to look around, but I have had no problem. As far as the building, the
architect's here, he can answer questions, if you have any questions on the hazardous
waste, I have a gentleman here that can answer those questions, too.
Borup: Okay. Anything else?
Wallace: That's it.
Borup: Okay. Questions from the Commission? Could you explain a little the EPA's
involvement? I assume they preapprove the exhaust systems? Is that what they do?
Or do they come after the fact?
Wallace: Boise is pretty tight on that type of activity and I -- to my knowledge -- I don't
know if Jeff would know this. Do you know anything --
Borup: Well, we will give you a chance to --
Wallace: Okay. He could answer that, but my shop is fairly new and I don't know if you
can go back in your records to the recent shop that just opened here in Meridian, if that
Steel head Collision had --
Borup: But you're not required --
Wallace: I've never had to at Boise.
Borup: Okay. But we have got your information here on the type of exhaust system
that you're using. Questions from any other Commissioners?
Zaremba: I have a couple questions on materials. One is the building, the siding of the
building, is --
Wallace: The building is block.
Zaremba: Okay. So that's what will be visible?
Wallace: Yeah.
Zaremba: And the -- then, in the rear of the property there is an area identified as
customer vehicles awaiting repairs. What is the surface of that area?
. ~'Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2004
Page 57 of 64
Wallace: It's paved. The whole facility will be paved.
Zaremba: Okay.
Wallace: The other concern was noise. This is an air-conditioning -- conditioned
building, so 90 percent of the time the doors are shut, as like my Five Mile facility. It is a
metal building, but with the doors shut I haven't had anybody complain about any noise.
Borup: Anyone else? Mr. Wallace, did you have any concern with any -- with the --
doing that pathway easement that --
Wallace: No. I'm sure we can -- I saw one thing he wanted us to move the building
forward, which is -- we can accommodate that.
Borup: Right. So--
Wallace: And the easements -- that's fine, if we have to grant that easement.
Borup: Okay.
Moe: Just one quick question. You had said it was CMU and now you have brought up
a metal building. Am I assuming it's a metal frame with a metal roof, with --
Wallace: Dale, the architect, could answer more of that.
Moe: I'd like to know that. Okay.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. You want some answers on --
Moe: Yes, I would.
Borup: -- on both of those items?
Zaremba: Would you like to hear the rest of his team?
Borup: Yeah.
Moe: Yes.
Zaremba: Take turns answering those questions.
Borup: So either the architect or -- yeah. Come on forward.
Binning: I'm Dale Binning, I live at 1590 Shenandoah Drive, Boise. I'm the project
architect from Westside Body Works. The building is decorative concrete block. It's not
plain. It's a broken face decorative block in two colors. It has a metal rough, gray
. " ~Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2004
Page 58 of 64
galvanized roof. It goes -- it covers the entire facility. It is all completely trimmed out
metal that is -- they are company colors, it's the turquois color that is associated with
Wests ide Body Works and so all the trim and all the window glazing and everything is
matching the color scheme, so it's basically two-tone gray concrete block, a galvanized
metal roof that -- and, then, the turquois colored trim on everything. All the -- there is
only two overhead doors and they are all prefinish painted to match the rest of the trim.
Then, the other entry doors are aluminum glass store front type doors and there is a
couple service doors on the side.
Borup: Any other questions on the architecture from anyone? How about on the --
Burdock: How are you doing. My name is Jeff Burdock, I live at 2580 Pronghorn Lane
in Eagle, Idaho, and I have a hazardous waste management business that's been
managing I guess Parks Wests ide's waste for the last seven years on a monthly
service, so -- I'm here to answer any questions.
Borup: Okay. Questions? So those are in the 55 gallon containers and you just
remove those --
Burdock: Well, the body shops today, they generate paint waste from clean up
materials and, yes, they are generating -- or they, actually, dispose of their waste in 55
gallon drums and, then, usually, on a monthly or a bimonthly basis we come around and
pick up the waste drums and send it off for recycling, so -- the paint booth, the air -- you
know, I'm not an air expert, but the company is like Amalgamated Sugar, Simplot's,
them are the companies that are requiring to get air permits and people that do large
volumes. You know, today's body shops, everything is -- with the technology they have
in the auto body industry, they are using the exact amount of paint waste or paint
material to paint that specific part on the car, so there is, really, not a lot of waste, as
there was at old -- you know.
Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. Okay. I think we have had -- most of
those have already testified that signed up. Mr. Bodine, did you still have anything
you'd like to say? Okay. And John? Mrs. Bybee, did you -- anything you want to
testify on? Okay. Terry Moore?
Moore: My name is Terry Moore, I live at 4763 Ridgeview Drive here in Meridian. I also
own the property adjacent to the proposed body shop that's going in. The area --
Borup: Wait. Wait. Are you on the west side?
Moore: This side over here. I'm not -- it would be on the --
Borup: Across the street?
Moore: Yeah. Across the street. I'm sorry.
. " >Meridian Pianning & Zoning
November 4,2004
Page 59 of 64
Borup: Okay. You said adjacent.
Moore: Okay. Sorry. Okay. So, anyhow, I'm adjacent to the -- no. Across the street
from it. All right. The area that I have in concern is the bullpen is where you bring your
cars for the customers before it's brought into the body shop. And what I'm going to do
is I'll just give you a little scenario. This is -- okay. There is an auto wreck and it's hit in
the front. Let's say it's down at -- the auto wreck is on Eagle Road. The radiator and
the air condenser both have a minute crack in it and are leaking slowly. The tow truck
brings the auto to the body and paint shop and drops it off in the bullpen. Well, the
problem is there that the largest concentration of hazardous waste is right there in the
bullpen, because, remember, this is still leaking chlorine, fluorine, carbon, and I failed to
mention that it took out the battery, now we have to add battery to the mix. Okay? So,
what the deal is is that this stuff lingers in the air, okay, because, see, it's spewing out of
the car slowly and it's in the bullpen, it's not inside or anything like that. All right. So, it
will just kind of hoover there, you can't see it, it's leaking for like a number of hours and,
then, a slight breeze will blow it off. Okay. That's the problem with that type of stuff.
Okay. Now, I have to agree with concerned citizens around, if you drive around you can
see what's going on. I say no to rezoning, no to the Conditional Use Permit. This is an
industrial heavy duty work. It's grinding, reduced to small particles. Welding fumes.
Okay. This is -- welding fumes. Cyanide, a poisonous compound of carbon and
nitrogen, with another element as potassium. How you come across with this is that if
you're welding on a fairly new car and it has a rust proofing on it or the galvanized, why
just by welding on it why you're going to produce cyanide. It smells like soap. If you
ever smell it, get away from it. And, then, we have like the industrial painting, which,
obviously, he has that under control real well. Okay. Here is the big point is is that
whatever the pollution is, we don't need to have it here in Meridian. We have an
intricate, unsettled problem with the air shed now and if we go over the federal Clean Air
Act, they will pull our federal highway funds and establish strict standards. We are at
the limit and we can't afford nothing. This is bigger than us. Right now we are having a
major war not to exceed this amount. This is not the place to put industrial work. That's
why we have--
Borup: Okay.
Moore: Done?
Borup: Yeah. Can you just summarize real quick. We will give you a few more
minutes.
Moore: A few more minutes?
Borup: Well, another minute to summarize.
Moore: Okay. Well, the big thing is is that -- is that that's why we have locations that
are zoned industrial. That's where this stuff needs to go. You can't -- you can't
. " 'Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2004
Page 60 of 64
guarantee that there is none of this is going to get out. I just showed you how it was
getting out and he hasn't even started working on the car.
Borup: Okay. Question from the Commission?
Zaremba: Yes. Since you are in the collision repair business across the street from
this, I appreciate your expertise in pointing out what the problems can be. How do you
deal with those problems on your property?
Moore: This is something that -- well, number one is is that we are a neighborhood
collision repair shop. We -- our volume is hardly nothing to compared to -- what did he
say, 400 a month or something?
Borup: But his question was how do you deal with that.
Moore: There really isn't a way to deal with it, because they -- you have to realize that
this is an accident, but -- and that's the bottom line.
Zaremba: Your point is it's a matter of scale?
Moore: It's a matter of scale. Yes. I mean the more you have, why, the bigger it is.
That's just the point. I mean there is no getting around it. I mean it's going to pollute,
period, and you don't have -- that's just the way it is.
Borup: Are you familiar with the exhaust system that they are using?
Moore: I'm sure everything is like state of the art, okay?
Borup: Okay.
Moore: I mean -- but, still, there is accidents. And Meridian doesn't need it.
Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Moore? Thank you. I didn't have anyone else that
was signed up. Does that conclude everybody that wanted to testify? You did sign up,
but you want to - okay.
Bodine: I used to be neighbors to him. I had a --
Nary: Name and address. Mr. Bodine, you need to put your name and address in the
record, please.
Bodine: Oh. I'm sorry. Marvin Bodine. I had Bodine Oil Company, a bulk plant that
was next to him and it doesn't have a fence up, probably should have. I had to go after
him when the insurance company came to me and get him to move his junk over onto
his property. He wouldn't anymore than get it moved over, then, it would be back on
t. Ü 'Meridian Pianning & Zoning
November 4, 2004
Page 61 of 64
there. They had pictures of it. Well, there is where it's -- he got by with a lot of this stuff.
But it was back over off his property.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wallace, anything you'd like to conclude with? You have
an opportunity if you'd like to. Okay. Thank you. Commissioners?
Moe: Probably just one thing just for the architect. That is a sand and grease
interceptor back here in the holding pen back there for the drainage?
Wallace: There is several throughout the site, yes. That is one of them back there and
it is designed to contain all the storm water or anything like that.
Moe: Well, my biggest concern is based on the testimony of the past, if, in fact, there
were cars that came in and things were leaking out, they would anticipate going into that
sand and grease interceptor and, then, the -- after it's flushed through that, then, the
water would go into the seepage bed and that would be fine. Just making sure of that.
Borup: Thank you.
Moe: Because you do have a creek to the north.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Yes.
Rohm: I move that we close the Public Hearing on this application.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Both hearings?
Rohm: Both hearings.
Borup: Okay.
Moe: I second that.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: I'm just trying to make sure I understand Commissioner Moe's comment.
Your feeling is that there is sufficient protection of the creek?
Moe: Yes, because, basically, they are going to -- this is all asphalted in, it will be
draining to the sand and grease interceptor to clean that out and particulants will be at
,-' "Meridian Pianning & Zoning
November 4. 2004
Page 62 of 64
the bottom of that tank right there before the water goes into the seepage bed. Would
you agree with that, Bruce? Somewhat?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, Members of the Commission, the
applicant will be required to comply with best management practices with the state of
Idaho, so that is something that we will look at. We will look at the types of materials
and -- as part of their design for the drainage system.
Borup: Okay. The first item would be that of the rezone application.
Rohm: I'd like to speak to that just for a moment, Mr. Chairman. It appears to me that
the existing use of that property is already along this same line, so this is, actually, just,
from my perspective, a formality, more than anything else, because the existing use
couldn't be denied anyway, just from a grandfather perspective, so all we would be
doing by doing the rezone is bringing everything into compliance. So, it seems to be in
order to make that adjustment.
Borup: That's the way I understood that, too. I mean even the existing one should have
had this zone,
Rohm: Yeah. If, in fact, the zoning requirement would have been there at the time the
business was started, so --
Moe: That's the way I understand it as well.
Rohm: Right. Okay. All right. With that being said, Mr. Chairman, I move that we
forward on to City Council recommending approval of RZ 04-013, including all staff
comments from the memo dated November 2nd, 2004, for the hearing date November
4th, 2004, including all staff comments.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I also move that we forward on to City Council recommending
approval of CUP 04-042, request for a Conditional Use Permit, including all staff
comments dated November 2nd, 2004, for the hearing date November 4th, 2004. End
of motion.
Zaremba: I would clarify that we are referring to the drawings dated 10/26/04. This is
the latest revision drawing.
Rohm: Yes. That--
- ;. ~eridian Pianning & Zoning
November 4. 2004
Page 63 of 64
Zaremba: And did staff want us to add a paragraph about the easement or are we
satisfied about that?
Siddoway: Let's add a paragraph, please.
Zaremba: On page ten it would be a paragraph 14.
Moe: Dedicated easement.
Rohm: Okay. On page 10 I'll add a paragraph dedicated easement.
Moe: Well, I'd just put to the city for future --
Rohm: To the city for future parking.
Moe: A pathway.
Rohm: Oh. Excuse me. Pathway. Couldn't read your writing. End of motion.
Zaremba: Second.
Newton-Huckabay: 1--
Borup: Did Commissioner Huckabay have any amendments to that motion?
Newton-Huckabay: No. I think it was just the pathway easement.
Borup: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: But before it made it through the approval process of the city --
Borup: Okay. You just said that it needed to be. You didn't give a time frame that the --
Rohm: Well, before it gets to the City Council.
Siddoway: Well, it doesn't need to be prior to City Council, but certainly prior to granting
occupancy of the structure. If we have it by then, it will be fine.
Rohm: As stated by staff.
Borup: Okay. So, we do have a motion and a second.
Zaremba: And I will accept all of the revisions to my second.
Borup: Okay. Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
~ Ù ,¡iIIeridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2004
Page 64 of 64
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Okay. Thank you, everyone.
Moe: Mr. Chairman --
Borup: Unless there is any other business, one more --
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to adjourn.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to adjoum. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED. ALL AYES.
Borup: Meeting adjourned at 10:34.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:34 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
KEI~CH~
RL--ΕΎ_1 (j"¡
DATE APPRO\ïêt)