2005 01-06
Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meetina
Januarv 6. 2005.
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman David Zaremba.
Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Commissioner David Zaremba,
Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner David Moe, and Commissioner Wendy
Newton-Huckabay.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Jessica Johnson, Anna Canning, Bruce Freckleton, Josh
Wilson, Ted Baird, 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
Zaremba: Good evening, everybody, and happy New Year. We will open this regular
scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the first one for this year,
January 6, 2005. Those of you who attend these meetings regularly will notice that we
have rearranged a little bit. Last year Mayor de Weerd asked all commissions and
boards and volunteer groups in the city to establish a procedure to rotate their officers,
chairmans, and vice-chairmans and stuff and for that purpose last December Chairman
Borup held elections and I was elected to be the chairman for this calendar year. I
would like to comment that all of the time that I have served on this Commission
Chairman Borup has been the chairman and I feel an excellent example. These
meetings often go smoothly, but occasionally there is items that get a little emotional or
a little contentious and Chairman Borup always handled them with decorum and
patience and sometimes a sense of humor, at least he maintains his own sense of
humor and that's some big shoes to fill, so I have an excellent example to follow and I
hope you will all bear with me as I'm learning this process, but I just wanted to thank
Keith for his example and leadership and his continued service as a member of the
Commission.
Borup: Thank you. You'll do a good job.
Zaremba: Okay. Let's proceed with a roll call. We will see who is here.
Zaremba: I failed to mention that at the same I was elected chairman, Commissioner
Rohm was elected to be the vice-chairman, so congratulations to him also.
Rohm: And we are not going to let Dave miss any meetings.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
January 6. 2005
Page 2 of 54
Zaremba: I will try not to. He will take over if I do. Before we proceed also, our city
attorney Bill Nary would like to make a comment.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I just wanted to take a moment. We
have our new deputy city attorney is sitting in our meeting tonight, Ted Baird is sitting
there with the rest of the staff and not all of you had an opportunity to meet him prior to
the meeting and, eventually, within the next month or two, he will probably be attending
one of the meetings, I'll do one meeting, he will do one of the meetings, so you will see
him more regularly. But I just wanted to point him out to you.
Zaremba: Excellent. Welcome, Ted.
Newton-Huckabay: Welcome, Ted.
Moe: Good to have you.
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Zaremba: Next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. Do I hear any
objection to the order of the agenda? Consider it adopted.
Item 3:
Consent Agenda:
A.
Approve minutes of December 2, 2004 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
B.
Approve Minutes of December 16, 2004 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
Zaremba: Consent Agenda. We have minutes for the meeting of December 2, 2004,
and December 16th, 2004. Are there any comments?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Moe: None.
Zaremba: I'll accept a motion to accept the Consent Agenda.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move we accept the Consent Agenda.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: It's been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6. 2005
Page 3 of 54
Zaremba: Thank you. Let me make one further comment, if I may, on a procedure
item. The last couple of chairmen and maybe even longer than that, have made the
personal decision to vote only when they were being a tie breaker. That is a personal
decision and my personal feeling is that I'm uncomfortable with my vote being any more
or less equal to the other members. I'm chairman for the purpose of keeping the
meeting running smoothly, but it is my intent to vote along with everybody else when
they vote and, actually, if we are all five here there shouldn't be a tiebreaker. So, I
would comment that I will change that procedure. That does not mean that I'm
establishing a precedent for future chairman, we will let each chairman make that
decision for themselves, but my intent is to vote. All right. Now, we are ready to move
into the public hearing part and let me discuss that a little bit.
Nary: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Yes.
Nary: One point -- and maybe you were going to raise this. We did have two deferral
requests and I know sometimes we have had members of the public that are here and
don't realize that there has been request for deferrals and you're certainly welcome to
take that up when they come up in the agenda, Item No.5 and item No.9, but in case
there are members of the public, I just thought you might want to mention that up front,
that that has been requested, although you may take it up later, but --
Zaremba: Thank you. We will actually deal with those in order, but the point is we are
likely to continue both Item No.5 and Item No.9 without much discussion tonight. So, if
there is somebody that's here specifically for one of those as a hot topic, we will
continue them. The one for the fifth has been requested to move to February 3rd and
the one for ninth is requested merely to delay and I suspect we probably will move that
to January 20th. So, if anybody's here for those, we probably aren't going to talk about
them tonight. So, let's -- Item 4 will be the first one, but let me make a comment about
the procedure. On each of these items the applicant, of course, has spent a great deal
of time with the city's professional staff. When we open the hearing, the first thing that
we will hear are descriptions of the application and any issues that are still remaining to
be resolved presented by our city professional staff. The applicant will, then, have an
opportunity to discuss what has been said by our staff and make any additional points
that they want. The applicant and anybody that the applicant brings with them are
limited to 15 minutes in their discussion. The reason we have asked for people to be
concise and go to time limits is that we end up often having so many items on the
agenda that we are sometimes here until 1 :00 o'clock in the morning and we don't all do
our best thinking at 1 :00 o'clock in the morning. In line with that, we ask the public when
you have comments to make, if you will limit your remarks to three minutes individually.
And if somebody has already made the point that you want to make sufficiently, saying I
agree with Mr. Smith helps us know that we have, you know, some support on that
subject, but you don't necessarily need to repeat everything. Brevity is always
appreciated and I'm the worst person for not being brief, unfortunately. We have some
lights here and, as I recall the procedure, the white one means that you have plenty of
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6. 2005
Page 4 of 54
time to talk. If the yellow one comes on with 15 seconds left to go or 30 seconds?
Thirty seconds left to go --
Newton-Huckabay: Not very many.
Item 4:
Continued Public Hearing from December 16, 2004: AZ 04-029
Request for an Annexation and Zoning of 8.58 acres from RUT zone to C-
G zone for Cottonwood Lane by Tom Holliday/Cottonwood Lane
Partners - 985 East Freeway Drive:
Zaremba: Yeah. And the red one comes on when we would like you to conclude with
your next breath, please. That helps us all. Okay. So, I would like to open the
continued public -- reopen the continued Public Hearing from December 16th, 2004, for
AZ 04-029. This is a request for annexation and zoning of 8.58 acres from RUT zone,
which would be a county zone, to C-G zone for Cottonwood Lane by Tom Holliday,
Cottonwood Lane Partners, 985 East Freeway Drive. We will begin with staff
comments.
Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, I'm pinch hitting for Craig
today and if I'm too brief in the presentation, I'm used to presenting at Council after you
guys have worked out all the details, so if you need more details, please, let me know,
because the applications we have tonight all present straight forward, but if I miss
information that you would like, let me know. This property is a L-shaped property, as
you can see. It has frontage on both Freeway Drive and -- on the south and, then,
Wells Drive on the west of the property. The request tonight is just for an annexation
and zoning for the property to the C-G zone and it is designated as commercial on the
Comprehensive Plan. You can see there is one existing house on the property. Over
the past pass few years two hotels and multiple office buildings have been constructed
near this parcel and they are not showing up on the aerial, but as you know, they are
along Freeway Drive, the hotels are, and the applicant has presented a conceptual site
plan. Let's see. I'm sorry, but it threw me for a loop for a moment. The property
actually goes here. So, there is the L-shape. This is another property. That's another
hotel. And, conceptually, they have proposed a hotel and/or restaurant toward the
south end of the property, some commercial office uses kind of at the bend of the Land,
then, multi-family on the western portion of the property. And as we go through, staff is
recommending approval of this project, but we are recommending that only the southern
portion be C-G and that this northern portion be zoned L-O and that would
accommodate the offices and the multi-family. The multi-family currently are not an
allowed use in the C-G. And, then, I'll skip forward to the special considerations that
Craig pointed out in his staff report. The first one is just kind of a platting issue. There
is -- in the original plat for this subdivision -- it is a recorded lot in the subdivision. They
specifically stated the setbacks on the plat, so those setbacks, technically, would still go
forward and they are 25 foot front setback, 20 foot side setback, and, then, a 25-foot
rear setback. How you determine that on this piece of property is a good question, but
we did want to point out to the applicant that there were those recorded setbacks on the
original plat. The multi-use pathway at Five Mile Creek -- you can see the bend of it
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6,2005
Page 5 of 54
here as it comes through the property. That is the actual creek. And, then, the flood
plane encompasses almost alf of this area just south of it and, then, it extends into the
property as well. They will have to - we are recommending that they - that the city
enter into a development agreement with the developer, so that we can make sure we
get a pathway along Five Mile Creek. Landscaping, Craig just pointed out what the
various landscape buffers are required between the different uses and we would expect
to see that on any future development. And, then, the conceptual site plan future uses,
we did evaluate the site plan and it does comply with our codes, but we understand that
this was just conceptual, but we just wanted to reiterate that this - the conceptual plan
was not approved with this application. And, then, the existing residence would not be
allowed to - if the zone changes, the existing residence could not be altered or changed
without conditional use approval, because ifs no longer an allowed use in the zone.
The only comment of - the two comments of note, one was that Craig, at the bottom of
page eight, he's noted at least ten days prior to the City Council hearing he would like
the applicant to submit a new legal description to the Planning and Zoning Department,
one fOr the C-G portion of the lot and, then, one for the L-O portion of the lot, just so we
make sure we go into the City Council hearing knowing that we have those - the proper
legal description. And, then, the other condition of note is with regard to the
development agreement and as you see on page nine, Craig has detailed those out.
Applicant will be responsible for any cost associated with bringing sewer and water
service to the area. No alterations, expansions, reconstructions to the existing single-
family residence. All future development must be in accord with the city standards as
we have talked about before. And the applicant will be responsible for the multi-use
Pathway construction along Five Mile Creek. And, then, any other conditions that the
Commission and/or Council may want to place on the project. So, with those
conditions, staff is recommending approval. You will see comments from the other
agencies. Those are just kind of a heads up to the developer that this is what they will
be expected to meet when they do come in for future development, but, again, this is
just a straight rezone, so we do not have conditions of approval, other than the
improvements we are asking for in the development agreement. With that I'll end staffs
presentation.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions for Director Canning? Would the applicant
care to step forward and comment, please? I failed to mention that in all public
testimony, when you come up to testify, please, begin by stating your name and
address for the record. Thank you.
Bowhecker: David Bowhecker, 334 South Bitterroot in Boise. I'm the agent for - real
estate agent for Tom Holliday, he's from out of state, and the applicant is in agreement
with the staff report.
Zaremba: Specifically you - you were in agreement with calling it two zones, L-O and -
Bowhecker. Yes. We will do - yes. And we will do the legal description. We'll get a
surveyor. We have not contacted a surveyor. We think we can meet that deadline, but
that will be what we have to do, get a surveyor to get those legal descriptions.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2005
Page 6 of 54
Zaremba: Commissioners?
Rohm: Wow, that's pretty simple. We have got to complicate things a little bit.
Borup: And, Mr. Chairman, that was the only question I had, if the time frame is okay
for you.
Bowhecker: Yeah. That -- if you can tell me when that date is. I don't know the date of
the --
Zaremba: We don't know when the City Council hearing is going to be, but ten days
before that is when they are asking to have the final -- that's a standard request.
Canning: Generally -- Commission Zaremba -- or Chairman Zaremba, excuse me.
Generally, the time between the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council
is just about a month, so you would have about 20 days.
Bowhecker: We will make the call tomorrow. Should be able to get that.
Zaremba: And let me express appreciation for providing a concept plan. That does
help everybody decide whether the zoning questions are correct and we do try and treat
them just as a concept plan, not etched in stone. But we appreciate having them.
Thank you.
Bowhecker: All right. Thank you.
Zaremba: Is there anyone else who cares to testify on this subject?
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 04-029.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor say
aye. Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: The Public Hearing is closed. Is there a motion for--
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of AZ
04-029, to include all staff comments, conditions of the staff memo date -- Public
Hearing date January 6, 2004, transmittal date January 3rd, 2004. '5. It says '4 on the
sheet, actually. End of motion.
Zaremba: Is there a second?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6. 2005
Page 7 of 54
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5:
Continued Public Hearing from December 2, 2004: PFP 04-008
Request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval for 4 building lots on 8.02
acres in an I-L zone for Nola Subdivision by Bergey Land Surveying -
SWC of East Pine Avenue and North Nola Road:
Zaremba: The next Public Hearing is Item 5 and we'd like to reopen this continued
hearing. Again, this is PFP 04-008, and, again, there has been a request to continue
this until February 3rd for further information from the applicant. Anybody care to make
that motion or do we need some staff discussion on it before we do that?
Wilson: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, the only staff comment I
have is that we do request that you advise us what you would like us to do if we do not
receive the information requested ten days in advance of the next hearing. The options
being prepare a recommendation for denial or continue it another month.
Moe: We haven't opened it --
Newton-Huckabay: Can I ask a question?
Zaremba: It is open. I believe I reopened it.
Newton-Huckabay: Has this one been continued three times?
Borup: No.
Newton-Huckabay: Two times?
Borup: I believe it's the first continuing.
Wilson: It was continued at the December 2nd hearing, so this would be the second
hearing.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, that's a question I had. At that meeting there was discussion of
continuing it to the 16th and they thought that might be a little tight and that this meeting
would be plenty of time --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2005
Page 8 of 54
Zaremba: My recollection was that the issues weren't all that complicated and --
Borup: It needed to be surveyed, I believe. Basically.
Zaremba: Would we want to give the sense to the Commission that we will continue it
to February 3rd, but if it's -- if staff does not have what they need ten days before that --
Wilson: Members of the Commission, I would also mention that the applicant is kind of
wavering on whether or not they will go through with this. So, that's just something to
consider.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I guess I would wonder why we would want to set a date at all. I'd
like to see them get the materials and, then, we could set a date for this, as opposed to
continuing it.
Zaremba: Well, the legal technicality is we have a noticed open Public Hearing.
Moe: Good point.
Zaremba: And you can only continue it to a date certain. The attorney was rising to say
something and I may have said what he was going to say.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, technically you're correct, your best off setting it to a date certain.
You're not obligated to, but you would have to notice the hearing if you didn't. So,
you're technically correct, you're best setting to a date certain, specifically, and, then,
taking action.
Zaremba: I would entertain a motion continuing PFP 04-008 to February 2nd, 2005,
and instructing the staff to prepare denial if they do not have the required materials ten
days beforehand.
Rohm: That sounds perfect. So moved.
Wilson: Chairman Zaremba, it's the 3rd of February.
Rohm: The 3rd of February.
Zaremba: I was looking at the 3rd of February. If I said something else, I'm sorry. The
3rd of February.
Rohm: Does that work, rather than restate it? It doesn't need to be said again, I
wouldn't think. Anyway, I so move.
Borup: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6. 2005
Page 9 of 54
Zaremba: Keith Borup seconds. Okay. We have a motion and a second to continue to
February 3rd, 2005. All in favor? Anyopposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6:
Public Hearing: PP 04-042 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 18
commercial building lots on 33.1 acres in a C-Gzone for Boise Valley
Commons by Boise Valley Commons, LLC - 2200 East Overland Road:
Zaremba: Item No.6 is the next on our agenda and this is a Public Hearing. I'd like to
open the Public Hearing for PP 04-042, request for a preliminary plat approval of 18
commercial building lots on 33.1 acres in a C-G zone for Boise Valley Commons by
Boise Valley Commons, LLC, 2200 East Overland Road and wewill begin with the staff
comments.
Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, this is just a straight
preliminary plat. They have not asked for any reduction to city adopted dimensional
standards, so there is no planned development with this one today. The property, as
you see, is currently zoned C-G and it has 1-84 on its north boundary and, then,
Overland Road on the south boundary. It's currently vacant, but not really, because
there is a building with walls that are going to go up any day now under construction.
The subject of the subdivision is actually three different tax parcels, one of them being a
13.9 acre piece that was divided off through reduction in platting requirements, this
large parcel here, and that's where the new theater for Meridian is being constructed.
So, that -- one of the conditions of approval was that it be included as part of this plat.
So, they are meeting that condition. The property is shown as mixed use regional on
the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning is consistent with that. They have not asked
for the zoning, they already have the C-G zone. And as I mentioned before, up to the
north is Interstate 84, to the south are the professional medical offices of Resolution
Subdivision, as well as the high school, Mountain View High School, all owned L-O. To
the east is vacant property, all zoned CoG, and to the west is the commercial tractor
sales and, then, Playground Subdivision, which is also zoned CoG. I'm going to move
forward to the special considerations listed on page four. Several of the properties do
not have direct access to a street. We have got two streets coming in. We have -- wait
a minute. Did I get them right? We have streets coming in here and, then, I believe this
will be Cinema Drive coming here, so it will be a third street, but as you see towards the
north end of the property, they don't have direct access to a public street, so we have
required a cross-access agreement across all the properties, so that they have that
ability to get through. This is Millennium and, then, that's Celebration. There we go.
And, then, the fire marshal has provided a memo for tonight that I believe just got
handed out to you. These conditions do need to be added to this project, and, basically,
what the fire department wants the applicant to do -- there is a drive aisle noted on the
plat that goes to here, across and down, so that will be a common drive aisle for the
parking lot. The way our ordinance is structured, they would not be able to call those a
private lane or a get private street name on those, so all the addressing will still be off
Cinema Drive, so the fire marshal has asked that they just place monuments -- I believe
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
January 6, 2005
Page 10 of 54
he wants one in the -- at the entrances here to the drive aisles and, then, on each
property, just indicating the address of that property, so they can get there quickly. It's
particularly for medical reasons. When a building's on fire, they can usually see it.
When there is just someone having a heart attack, it's hard to spot them. There were
some deficiencies in the landscape plan, so Craig has pointed those out and just what's
necessary for the final plat landscape plan when that's submitted. There is also several
existing easements on the property. You can see some of them on the east boundary
and, then, there is another one here, I believe. There is some little ones across the
property. We can't just vacate those with the new plat, they have to actually go through
the vacation process, so the applicant will need to submit separate vacation applications
for those easements. And, again, this is -- I'm not just being brief, there is really no
outstanding issues on this subdivision, it was a pretty clean application. So, with that I
will end staff's presentation.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions for the director?
Moe: No.
Borup: None.
Zaremba: Just one. And you mentioned it, but clarify it for me. One of the other
options that the fire chief suggested is to provide a private street, which was, actually,
the thought I had while I was reading this packet and you seem to say that the private
street was not possible or practical or something. Can you clarify that?
Canning: Yeah. It's not practical from the applicant's standpoint. He was -- he read the
memo just a moment ago and he said, sure, I will do a private street, but, unfortunately,
the way our code is written, the private street would have to be 42 feet in width, with the
sidewalks -- a five foot sidewalk on each side, so you're going from a 30 foot drive aisle
to, basically, a 50 foot right of way and, yeah, built to ACHD standards. So, it's really
not what's necessary in this instance. I think one of the things as staff that we will look
at is moving more towards like what our neighbor to the east does is they only allow
private streets, basically, on commercial and situations like this and that drive aisle does
become a private street and, then, you can get the addressing that the fire marshal
needs and he was very supportive of that when I mentioned it to him. So. I think we will
look at changing our private standards. They don't get used much. I think in the last
two years I think we have had one private street come through, it was on light office
property that needed the frontage, so I think it's a way we can move toward getting
better addressing of not only commercial properties, but also multi-family residential has
become a big property for the fire marshal as well.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. We are ready for the applicant to provide information,
please.
Hallett: Good Evening. My name is Ray Hallett. I'm the general manager of Landstar
Northwest, one of the co-applicants on this application, and I'm here to answer your
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6. 2005
Page 11 of 54
questions, I think, but we concur with the staff, that we like option two better than option
one, because didn't have the room there to make it a public street, but we are intending
to sweep the access to the 30 foot drive aisle in a city street fashion, so it's not going to
be like your coming out to a curb cut and monument signs at the end of the road and
along each parcel, an obvious benefit to the lot owners, as well as to the public. I think
that pretty well covered it and I will be glad to answer any questions that you have. I
don't have anything else that I need to add.
Zaremba: Commissioners?
Rohm: I just have a question on this drive aisle. Are you going to stripe it in such a way
that it will be obvious that it's not additional parking as --
Hallett: Yes. In fact, we have several plans in that regard. One is we have worked out
with the city fire department to post signs at the beginning of each of the drive aisles
that will specify the drive aisles are fire lanes and that no parking is allowed and that
they will be towed and the destination to which they will be towed, similar to the signs
that are used at Edwards 21 theater complex, the whole Spectrum property, and we will
be painting the curb edges red with fire -- no parking, fire lane on the curbs along those
drive aisles to make it obvious it's not additional parking. And there will be a center
stripe.
Rohm: Good. And the center stripe is really what I was looking for on this.
Hallett: Right. There will be a center all the way around. That's the horseshoe-shaped
portion there that goes up to Cinema Drive, up across and back down, is what we are
talking about.
Rohm: Right.
Hallett: I guess there is a pointer here, so -- oh, we got lots of pointers. Too many
pointers. Starting right here. Starting right here and going up to there -- it comes
across and comes back down and those are already recorded -- on this portion, at least,
the description of those are already recorded as part of the deeds for the original theater
parcel and on the other side there will be the legal descriptions on the plat, so public
access drives.
Rohm: Okay.
Zaremba: I had one question on a note that appears in your file that I have not seen in
any other file before and it's from the Idaho Transportation Department warning you that
there is noise from the freeway and requesting that you either do something about
buffering the sound for yourself or write a letter back to ITD saying that you have heard
their warning and you're not going to do anything about it. Do you have an opinion
about that?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6. 2005
Page 12 of 54
Hallett: Well, as the developer of the theater building, I can tell you that that's not a
concern, the theater is sound proof inside between every room and so that's not a
problem for the theater, and we would be more than happy to provide a letter to the ITD,
if they are worried about that, so that these three lots are on public notice. We already
are on notice by our deeds that we don't have access to the freeway and that the
freeway exists. That's part of the -- building of the interstate system 20 years ago. So, I
don't think it will be a surprise to anybody, but I understand your concern is that jet
overflights were a problem with the other theater and maybe they got complaints about
the interstate and jake brakes or something, but we are not worried about it. We will be
glad to provide a letter, if that's what they'd like.
Zaremba: Well, that was their request. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of
that.
Hallett: You bet.
Zaremba: Okay. No further questions? Thank, Mr. Hallett. He, actually, is the first one
signed up to testify. He would have anyhow. Next on the list is Gene Schaffer.
Schaffer: My name is Gene Schaffer. My address is 250 South 5th in Boise. I am the
architect on the project. Basically, we have no exceptions and, basically, would indicate
that we fully support what the applicant has submitted. Any questions for us, I'll
certainly answer those.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Thank you, sir. Kevin -- is it Kingston?
Pardon me if I'm not reading it correctly. Okay. Subject covered. Thank you. Bill Curt I
think it is. No further comment? Supporting the previous comments. Okay. And even
though those are the only ones signed up, if anybody else cares to comment, we would
accept your testimony. It sounds to me like all issues are covered and resolved.
Commissioners?
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on PP 04-042.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor say aye? Any
opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending
approval of PP 04-042, to include all staff comments and conditions of the staff memo
dated -- Public Hearing date of January 6th, 2004, which should be 2005, and
transmittal -- received date by the city clerk January 3rd, 2005, with the following
change -- or addition, I should say: Let me get back to the page. Under the site specific
conditions on page eight, I'd like to add another paragraph 12 to .include -- to provide
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6. 2005
Page 13 of 54
monument signs at both ends of the 30-foot wide access easement and at each curb
cut where a given lot intersects the access drive. End of motion.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries as well.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 7:
Public Hearing; AUP 04-016 Request for an Accessory Use Permit for a
home occupation for a family day care for five or fewer children in an R-8
zone for Marina Galushkin by Marina Galushkin - 2843 North Wolverine
Avenue:
Zaremba: Thank you all. Okay. We are ready for Item 7. Ladies and gentlemen, I will
open the Public Hearing for AUP, Accessory Use Permit, 04-016, request for an
accessory use permit for a home occupation for a family day care for five or fewer
children in an R-8 zone for Marina Galushkin by Marina Galushkin, 2843 North
Wolverine Avenue. And we will begin with the staff presentation.
Wilson: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, as you stated, this is an
accessory use permit application for a family child care home for up to five children at
2843 North Wolverine Avenue in the Finch Creek Subdivision. The property is zoned R-
8 and it's located approximately a quarter mile south of Ustick Road and one half mile
west of Locust Grove Road. Some quick background on the accessory use permit
application. The -- there is only a Public Hearing if we do receive letters of objection
within a set 15 day period. Within that period we did receive three letters of objection --
of objection and we have received three since then as well. The applicant has provided
a site plan. As part of the accessory use permit, no detailed site plan is required. Staff
does need to be able to evaluate the -- the provided drop-off and pick-up area and
parking and also that there is screening on the property and we were able to confirm
that from the site plan provided and the comments provided in the application. Staff is
aware that a daycare has been operated at this home since this summer. It is
procedure when somebody comes to us that is operating a use like this without a permit
and are working proactively with us to remedy the situation, then, we do allow it to
remain open while the application is in process. I would add the condition -- one of the
concerns from the neighbors was the presence of a sign on the property. Meridian City
Code does have a couple of conflicting areas when it comes to signs with home
occupations. However, the more stringent rule does apply, which in this case would
mean that signs are not allowed with a home occupation, so I would just like to add the
condition that any signs on the property be removed upon approval of the accessory
use permit. A comment that this will be a decision, not a recommendation to City
Council. You are the only body that will hear this application. With that I think I will end
staff's comments.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6. 2005
Page 140f54
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? I would ask one clarification. We have had
daycare and child care facilities before and I lose track of at which point they need a
license and when you count the resident's children or don't count the resident's children
and what actually counts towards children. That I understand is not just who's
physically there at the moment, but throughout an entire day.
Wilson: Correct.
Zaremba: Even though they may leave, they count towards the total, but I'm still
confused on whether -- when the resident's children count and whether they don't.
Wilson: Chairman Zaremba, the -- according to the state of Idaho's website, the
threshold for licensing is six children for a state licensing.
Zaremba: Six non-residential children or six children, including resident's children?
Wilson: Six non-resident children. At no time are the resident's children included in the
five allowed or for state licensing the six.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Okay. We are ready for the applicant.
Galushkin: I'm actually going to speak in place of Marina. She doesn't -- she speaks
Russian, so a lot of this she doesn't understand, so -- but her husband is here to
translate for her. But my name is Brandy Galushkin and I, actually, was doing daycare
with Marina, but I had to withdraw from the daycare, because she can only have five or
fewer and you can't have employees. But myself I didn't consider an employee, just
because we were doing it together, but I guess Planning and Zoning considered it an
employee, so -- but the reason why we were doing this daycare in the first place, before
getting the use permit, is Health and Welfare didn't tell us that we had to do that. I
actually had this daycare here prior before this and never had a problem with it and at
Health and Welfare they didn't tell us that we had to get a permit, they just said that you
can watch -- because with Health and Welfare standards you don't have to have a
license -- you can watch six or fewer kids without a license and so -- and that's per
person in the house and so like if I were helping her, we could have had six -- me, I
could have six and she could have six and so that's of kind what we were doing until we
wanted to get Marina a state license, so that she was licensed by the state, and we
could get the food program through her and so we went to Planning and Zoning and
they told us that we had to have an AUP. So, that's why we are here and trying to get
that for us. But a couple things with the neighbors next door is, you know, we did -- we
have had this since June of 2004. I have done daycare prior at my home in Nampa and
I live at 25 South Honey, I forgot to state that, and I brought it over that we could do it
together, because we wanted to combine our income and we wanted to open a bigger
daycare later on and so we went to Planning and Zoning and told us, no, we could only
watch five kids and at first I guess they thought I lived there, but I don't, and so we went
ahead and we paid the money to get the permit and we were -- we went around --
because we wanted to do a Conditional Use Permit also, we were going to do that, just
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6. 2005
Page 150f54
so that we could have up to 12 kids, because they told us we had to pay more fees in
order to get more kids, so we wanted to do that, and told us that it would be a good idea
to go get signatures, so we went around and got signatures from the -- you know, all the
residents and almost everybody signed it and we informed them that, you know, we
wanted up to 12 kids there and that what we were doing there, you know, were just
watching kids and we didn't see a problem with, you know, noise, anything like that. All
of our kids are under the age of four, so they really don't make that much noise and they
are always inside with us. And so we went around and got everybody's signature, but,
then, a neighbor next door, she came to us and said, well, I think my husband is going
to object to it now that I signed the paper and I said, okay, well, you know, then, we
have to have a hearing and so kind of that's where we are. But I just want to clarify a
couple of things is they -- you know, they took some pictures of the yard and, you know,
we have lots of family in this area and tons of family come and visit that home. It's not
just daycare. And all of our daycare parents, they know they have to park on the side.
They know that they can't block anything, they can't park in front of the neighbors' yards,
they know all of this. We have informed each parent of that. And this picture that they
did take -- and I don't know if you guys have it. This is my sister-in-Iaw's car and she
doesn't -- you know, we don't tell them how to park, you know, they are family. We don't
tell them how to park. Which I know maybe they shouldn't be parking on the street, but
we have tons of family and they can't all fit in the driveway, you know, and there is
family gathering quite often. But my main thing is I just -- this is Marina and my main
source of income and I know now that I can't be there, you know. Marina calls me for
questions, I come over, you know, I offer her the help. But these -- you know, I don't
see a problem. The kids aren't noisy, we have had it there since June, there has never
been a complaint and nobody ever knew that we had a daycare there, because we
didn't make a lot of noise, there wasn't a lot of traffic. We have two families that drop off
their kids and the other two kids I bring to Marina, because they are from Nampa. I
brought them from Nampa. And so traffic is -- I don't see that as a problem. I don't
know why that they are saying it's a problem, when I only have two families and they
drop off at separate times, completely separate times, and it's not like they are all
crowding in at once, come and get their kids, and rushing off, you know, driving crazy,
that kind of thing, you know. We are responsible. We are -- you know, we want our
daycare to be good for people and we want them to -- you know, a lot of kids to come to
us, but in that aspect, you know, we want the community to be also happy for it, you
know, we don't want to, you know, hurt anybody in the mean -- you know, in doing this.
But also we have a statement saying about property value. Her brother wrote a
statement saying that it hurts their property value by 12,500 dollars. I have called the
Idaho -- the Ada County Tax Commissioners about that, just because, you know, if it's
going to hurt the value that much of somebody's house, we definitely don't want to do
daycare next to them, because we know how hard it is to buy a home. We bought a
home ourselves, you know, so we don't want to hurt anybody in doing this daycare. We
were actually just trying to help the community in giving them, you know, a good
daycare to bring their children to, so that they are, you know, happy with the daycare.
That's all that we want is to be able to be home and be able to, you know, support our
kids and be able to be home with our children, at the same time still make income,
because neither one of us wants to go to work and have to, you know, take our kids to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6. 2005
Page 160f54
somebody that has to raise our kids for us. We want to be able to raise our own kids at
home. And that's the only reason why we want the daycare there. And, eventually, we
do want to open a bigger daycare and we do plan on moving it to commercial, because
we know that we have to do that in order to have a bigger daycare, but that's in the
future. It's not, you know, right now. But right now, you know, we at least want the five
or fewer kids. At least for Marina. I'm -- you know, I can't be there, so -- I wish I could
be, but I can't be there anymore. We do want to later on come and get the Conditional
Use Permit, but if the people behind us don't want us to have it, there is no sense in us
paying 375 dollars in order to do that, because we would be wasting our money. So, I
just want -- I don't know what else to say.
Rohm: I think you have done a good job.
Galushkin: Okay. But just -- I just want everybody, you know, just to know that we are
not trying to be mean, we don't want a fight between neighbors, that's not what we are
trying -- wasn't what we are out here for. We just want, you know, to help the
community also and help -- knowing that, you know, they have a good daycare for their
kids in the area. That's it.
Zaremba: Thank you. Questions from the Commissioners?
Moe: Yes. A couple things. How many are being taken care of in the house now,
then?
Galushkin: Five kids.
Moe: Five? And, then, she has hers as well?
Galushkin: Right.
Moe: Okay. Just going through the paperwork and whatnot, there was a notation that it
is possible that that house will be selling?
Galushkin: Well, there is the possibility, yes. Alex and Marina, they were building a
home, but they aren't sure that they are definitely moving yet. Nothing is set in stone.
That is up in the air right now. Alex, he was working, now he's not, so it's up in the air
right now. They aren't sure that they are going to be able to.
Newton-Huckabay: The accessory use is issued to them -- isn't the accessory use
permit issued to Marina, so if she moves --
Galushkin: It will no longer -- yes. Unless we do -- if we go for a Conditional Use
Permit, yes. Which we would have to do that prior. But we haven't really talked about
that yet.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6. 2005
Page 170f54
Zaremba: A follow-up question to that. Since this is an accessory use, that's secondary
to it being a residence. There was some question among some of the people that wrote
in about whether they would move, but continue to have the daycare there, and you
realize the accessory use permit is not valid for that.
Galushkin: Right.
Zaremba: It must be there.
Galushkin: Yes. Yes. And we do definitely abide by that.
Zaremba: Okay.
Galushkin: So -- but like I said, if anything, if we do want to keep the daycare there, we
will apply for the accessory -- I mean the Conditional Use Permit before anything
happens, so -- and that's a couple months or so down the line.
Zaremba: I would clarify one thing. You seem to excuse parking across the sidewalk,
because it was family members. Are you aware that that's not legal regardless of who
does it?
Galushkin: Yes, I do. Yes.
Zaremba: Okay.
Galushkin: And we told them they can't do that.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to expand on Commissioner Moe's question on the
number of children. It sounds like previously you were doing 12 children there, then?
Six apiece you said?
Galushkin: No, we never had 12 kids there. Never.
Borup: Okay. You thought that was what you --
Galushkin: Yes.
Borup: -- would be able to --
Galushkin: But see -- and we know, too, that fire -- the fire department has to come out
and they have to let us know, even if we do the Conditional Use Permit, they have to
determine how many kids that we have. We can't just say that we can have that many
in the house. They determine that.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
January 6, 2005
Page 18 of 54
Borup: And you stated there were two families that were bringing children now?
Galushkin: Yes.
Borup: And, then, you're bringing the others?
Galushkin: I bring the other two to Marina, yes, because they are from Nampa.
Borup: Okay. So, you do come everyday, then?
Galushkin: I bring -- not everyday. The kids only come Monday, Tuesday, and every
other Wednesday.
Borup: Okay.
Galushkin: But it's not me staying there and baby-sitting. Marina does it.
Borup: Okay. Then, you stated they were having a home built. That sounds like there
was a pretty firm commitment there, if they were --
Galushkin: They were, but now Alex is not working.
Borup: But they were -- they do have a contract, though?
Galushkin: Yes, they do.
Borup: Okay. And have not voided the contract yet?
Galushkin: Not yet.
Borup: All right.
Galushkin: They're trying to figure out if they can afford the home.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Next on the list is Alex.
AGalushkin: Alex Galushkin. 2843 North Wolverine. Husband to Marina. Brandy did
a really good job. I really wanted her to speak for us. And, basically, we -- this is our
only source of income right now. I'm trying to find a job, trying to -- I used to work for
Micron. Lost my job there. So, we are in the look out for more income right now. We
do have house built, but we haven't broke the contact yet. If everything goes well we
will be moving. It would be two to three months from here. Then, like Brandy said, we
will be applying for a Conditional Use Permit, if we move out of this house. Everything
else she covered pretty good.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
January 6,2005
Page 19 of 54
Zaremba: If you move your application would apply to the new property, not this old
one; is that correct?
A.Galushkion: It's--
Wilson: Chairman Zaremba, it would not apply to the new property.
Zaremba: The new application for the new CUP, you wouldn't make that on a property
that you have moved out of; is that --
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I understand if he is applying for a Conditional Use Permit --
A.Galushkin: If we move out, we would apply for the house that we'd still have, to have
it -- continue to have daycare there. That's what --
Zaremba: State your name again, please.
Galushkin: Brandy Galushkin. My address, too? Okay. They -- if they do -- if they do
decide to move, we do want to keep the home they have there and we do want, if
possible, to keep the daycare there and get a Conditional Use Permit, but we aren't
modifying the home to where it's not residential or anything. It's only until that we can
get a commercial building. That's what we want later on is to do a commercial daycare
later on. But, in order to do that, we have to be sure that we can make that income and
support that building before we can even move. So, we have been talking to see if they
are going to keep the home, if they are going -- if they are going to move, we want to try
to do the Conditional Use Permit, yes, and see if we can keep the home and have the
daycare there at the same time, for at least a few months until we can get the
commercial building later on.
Rohm: And I think we cross that bridge when we come to it.
Galushkin: Exactly. That's what I thought, but like -- you know, like we told the
neighbors before is we are honest people, that's why we - that's the only reason why
we told them everything and that's why we are here now today is because we told them
our future plans. They were okay with the five kids, they didn't mind, they said that five
kids were okay, but because they say that this -- if we get this AUP, that's the first step
of going to the Conditional Use Permit and making it a commercial building. That's not
what we want. We don't want it to be a commercial building, we want it residential.
Alex in the future wants to sell this home, but because he has a really good deal on the
home, he doesn't want to sell it right now and he may have to, just because of his
situation right now, but in order -- if we can keep the daycare there, that will help them
out, so that we can keep that home for him. That's our intention. But the only reason
we are here is because we were honest with them and we told our future plans. No
modifications whatsoever. No walls are being broke down, nothing. The house is
staying as a residential home. When you walk in it looks as if somebody lives there.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2005
Page 20 of 54
And they are living there now. But even in the future, if we were to -- you know, if they
were to move, it would stay residential. It wouldn't be --
Rohm: Thank you.
Zaremba: Next on the list is Marina. Do you care to add anything? Okay. The last is
Hope. The first name is Deloy, I believe.
Hope: Deloy Hope, 814 East Finch Creek. Thank you for letting me speak. I only have
one objection. I don't want a business in my neighborhood and that's it.
Rohm: Do you consider the five as a business or do you -- or would your objection --
Hope: I consider five a business. I consider 12 a business. I consider 24 a business.
Rohm: Pardon me?
Hope: I consider five a business. I consider also what's going to be increased there,
too, a business.
Rohm: Yeah. I think that that would be a separate application entirely from this
application. So, if this moves forward, would not set a precedence for any additional
consideration.
Borup: I understand, Mr. Rohm, but I disagree with the whole proposal from the first
step.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Redge Benson. Okay. Nothing further to add. Okay. David Tolman.
Newton-Huckabay: Was Mr. Benson for or against the daycare?
Zaremba: He's marked as being against it.
Tolman: My name is David Tolman, I live at 2944 North Mule Deer, just four houses to
the north of where this proposal is. I guess my initial objection to this was the fact that
the proposal coming forward I didn't understand that it was the separate different -- to
do a 12 or multiple ones coming forward. I am opposed to that. As long as they live in
the residence I guess my opinion right now is while I'm not in favor of a daycare in the
home, I guess I don't have a very -- a strong objection for them keeping to the five, but
anything more than that c- particularly if they move out, I am definitely opposed to that
piece.
Rohm: Thank you for your comments.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
January 6,2005
Page 21 of 54
Zaremba: Elizabeth Olacsi.
Olacsi: Elizabeth Olacsi at 2827 North Wolverine. I live right next door to the
Galushkins and I had a whole bunch of stuff I wanted to say prepared, but I -- there is
so much I want to comment on what they brought up. The first is Mr. Galushkin not
having a job. He is gone everyday throughout the day -- when I moved in a year and a
half ago, I was not told he worked at Micron, because my husband works at Micron, I
was told that he fixes cars and that's why he continually brings cars home and has like
chalk written on the top and -- you know, on the windshield and that he fixes up and
works on, especially during the summer months, that many neighbors actually
complained about, and that's -- but we all believe that he has been doing all this time.
So, parking is like that everyday. It's -- I know they have a very large family, but this is
what parking is like everyday and in - there so many cars out there all the time. So, I
don't -- you know, I don't think their family is visiting them, you know, every morning and
every evening at the same time. And, then, also Brandy is there everyday from 10:00 to
6:00 o'clock. I see her car out there everyday. So, I have a hard time seeing that she's
coming and going and she's just dropping off the kids and, then, comes back and picks
them up, because her car is there throughout the day. I stay at home and I peek
through my window and I see that. We -- I was aware that something was going on
over the summer when there were children all out in the backyard and my kids thought
there was a party going on everyday, but I just assumed it was their large family. When
they came around saying that they wanted a preschool, five or fewer, they really
emphasized the fewer. We were never told that it would be -- that they wanted to
eventually have 12 or more. It was after their children -- you know, and they had
mentioned that they were going to be moving, I started asking questions and that's how
I found out that it was going -- what their future plans were going to be. But my
husband works nights and there is a lot of other night workers and day sleepers in the
neighborhood and, you know, when you can't control the noise from children who live in
the homes, you can from a business right next door. My husband was wondering what
all the noise was, you know, over the summer and we just thought, well, you know,
there is kids and now we know it was a preschool that was keeping him up and it's very
imperative the people who are working their jobs be able to get an adequate sleep to
perform, because that can affect their ability to support their families and to. you know,
do a good job at work. Another thing is traffic. We have a walking path on one house --
next door, next door to me is a walking path and children are always coming and going
on their bicycles and to and from school and I'm really worried about the cars, the
parents who are in a hurry to drop their children off at day care, skidding down, coming
around the corner, and all these children we have walking to school, riding their bikes,
who kind of come out and go in the street a little bit, I'm worried about accidents with
children. And also the cars blocking the sidewalk. There is cars there all the time, there
is no place for someone to park. And not only are the cars blocking the sidewalks, there
has been occasions when they have blocked my driveway. I can still get out, but there
is still a car blocking part of my driveway. Also is when they drop off their children they
are leaving their cars on and all the exhaust is coming right on over to our house. My
husband had to be hospitalized with pneumonia a couple years ago, he has horrible
asthma, he's on three different medications, and that's part of where our heating and
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6. 2005
Page 22 of 54
airconditioning system is set up, it's like alongside theirs, all the exhaust, especially with
this inversion we are having, is just terrible. And, again, we are really concerned with
property values. How many people want to buy a home where there is a daycare right
next door? Not many people. And you have to decrease the amount you're asking for
your home in order to find a buyer and that's what we are really greatly concerned
about.
Zaremba: Can I ask you to conclude or turn the rest over to your husband, if you --
Olacsi: Okay. Sure. Can I just like say goodbye?
Zaremba: You're making progress. That's why I'm tolerating a little bit of that.
Olacsi: Sure. I would like to ask the Commission to, please, deny the Galushkins their
AUP for the overall good of the neighborhood of Finch Creek and its homeowners.
Thank you.
Zaremba: Any questions from the Commissioners? Thank you. Byron Olacsi.
B.Olacsi: Byron Olacsi. I just want to say that I agree with everything that she said.
Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Barbara Barbey.
Barbey: My name is Barbara Barbey and I live at 5461 North Hondo Lane in Eagle,
Idaho. I have purchased -- my husband and I have purchased in that subdivision four
homes, two of which are located pretty much directly behind the home in question that
wants to be a daycare and we purchased these homes specifically in this neighborhood,
because we believe it to be a quiet, nice residential neighborhood, and which it is.
However, there have been a series of daycare centers being opened up, one of which
has been opened up on Cougar Creek. We just purchased two other homes in that
subdivision in Cougar Creek, one right down the street, and our home in Cougar Creek,
right after we moved a tenant into it, was commissioned to be a daycare center and our
tenant has expressed their disapproval of living across the street from a daycare center
and has asked to have their rent reduced and they also had a mailbox knocked over,
which they told us was probably from the daycare center, people pulling out, knocked
into the mailbox. There is no way to prove that, of course, but it sounds very logical to
me. I am concerned about this daycare center, because I do believe that tenants are
less likely to want to move into an area that has a daycare center next door or around
nearby and I believe that we won't be able to rent it for as much as we would like when
tenants find out that there is a center nearby and this will affect Our retirement income,
because that is what we bought these houses for. And so I'm very concerned about the
encroachment in this nice, beautiful residential neighborhood of what basically is a
commercial business and I am expressing my just disapproval for it and I really would
like to see that these neighborhoods be kept the sweet neighborhoods that they are,
where children are free to come and go and not -- not have to worry about hazards and
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2005
Page 23 of 54
traffic. It's like we are from California, it's like moving back in time, you have -- you have
here this wonderful community and I would like to see it stay a wonderful community. I
realize there is a need for daycare centers, but I believe that they belong in a center
somewhere, not in a residential neighborhood where families are trying to abide. Thank
you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Thank you. Tom Stewart, please.
Stewart: Tom Stewart. I live at 775 Finch Creek. First of all, I didn't even know they
had -- was keeping kids for the last six months. If I knew that, I would have had a
problem. I work night shift. I sleep all day and I have an objection for them keeping
kids and especially if they are planning on moving out and having a daycare. That's
another objection I have. Thank you very much.
Rohm: I have a question for you.
Stewart: Sure.
Rohm: If you didn't know that they had kids there over the last six months, then, it
couldn't have been too big of a problem.
Stewart: Well, I can see the traffic - they had ten times more traffic in their house than
anyone else in the neighborhood, cars coming and going all day long. So, it's definitely
a traffic issue.
Rohm: Well, a traffic issue, I can see what you're saying there, but as far as noise and
that, if, in fact, it hasn't bothered over the last six months, by the fact that they are
making an application to make it legitimate isn't going to change that any. Correct?
Stewart: Correct.
Rohm: Thank you.
Zaremba: Okay. Sandra Cook-Stewart.
Cook-Stewart: My name is Sandra Cook-Stewart, I live at 775 Finch Creek Street also.
We have been there about six years and I think what my husband was saying about the
traffic, we just knew they had a large family, so we just assumed all the traffic was
family. Where you saw our subdivision at the beginning there, the other picture, it's like
a little cul-de-sac and, of course, yeah, we are the corner that has no parking at all.
Rohm: There is a pointer right up there. There you go.
Cook-Stewart: Let's see. That's us right there. So, you can see our driveway is the
only parking in front of our house and so we can't complain about parking, because we
have none. But that little black pathway that goes right there, there are a lot of kids that
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6. 2005
Page 24 of 54
come and go through there. Like I have always just thought most of the traffic back
there knew that it was family and they knew that there were a lot of kids back there, so I
just wanted to make sure that it was safe. I didn't know for the last six months, you
know, we just thought it was family, we didn't know it was a daycare running. So, I
didn't notice a lot of noise, I just don't want it to get worse and more of a commercial
area. I mean I understand moms wanting to stay home and make a little money and
take care of their kids, too, but we have been there for six years, I just want it to stay
quiet and safe and, you know, we knew they had home businesses going on, but I just
figured let people live, as long as it doesn't hurt us. But if it's going to start hurting our
property values or start making more noise and stuff like that, I didn't want that to
happen. So, that's alii have.
Moe: Before you -- I do have a question for you. If, for the last six months, they have
been running a day care there and it really hasn't -- you really have not noticed it, are
you basically stating that as it is now you don't have a real objection, because it's five
children and you just don't want to see it expand anymore? Basically, tonight what we
are dealing with is the auxiliary use permit to have no more than five and so I guess I'm
just wanting to make sure that I understand your position, because, to me, when I'm
listening to you, it sounds like you don't really have an objection as of yet.
Cook-Stewart: Well, I don't live right next door either and it's been winter right now. I
mean I do work full time, I'm not at home during the day. My husband is trying to sleep,
so we just always keep things on loud in the house to try to drown out noise, so I'm not
really there all the time, like a lot of the neighbors are. During the summers there is a
little park right there. If you walk the black path, that's all a little park. So, I mean I think
we are used to a lot of kids playing and running back and forth, so we definitely don't
want any traffic back there. I hate for me to be the one to say, no, I don't, when I'm not
home all day long, you know.
Moe: I wasn't putting you on the spot, I just wanted to make sure I understood your
position.
Cook-Stewart: Okay.
Moe: Thank you.
Zaremba: Jodi Rhodes is next.
Rhodes: My name is Jodi Rhodes, I live at 1318 West Roberts Place in Nampa. My
two children are the ones that Brandy so graciously takes from Nampa into Meridian
every day. A couple of points I want to make, just after hearing everybody else talk. I,
too, work nights. I live in a quiet neighborhood in a cul-de-sac. There are several
children in my neighborhood, I know that there is noise, people mow their lawns in the
summertime in the afternoon when I'm sleeping, I can't object to those noises. People
make noises, they live, and so I just really -- you know, I just don't see that that's a real
big issue. You know, there is ear plugs, people, you know, drown out the lights, there is
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6. 2005
Page 25 of 54
just things that you can do, I guess, to accommodate for those things, because there is
noise no matter what you do. Secondly, I want to make a point about a center daycare.
I am a mother of three, my oldest is 12, my youngest is two, so I have a lot of
experience, I guess, in daycares. A center daycare, I guess, for me is not what I want
for my children. I have to work, I'm a working mother, and I want my children to be in a
loving environment with the same person. In a center daycare you go through
employees like crazy and so to me that's an issue. I want consistency with my children
and I want my children to feel loved in a home, you know, and so for me a home
daycare is a must and I would -- I don't accept center daycares for my children for that
reason. It's hard to find good daycare, especially in a home daycare, unfortunately,
because it's not monitored I guess as closely as a center daycare is -- not that a center
daycare is all that great either. But I found that here. My kids have been going with
Brandy, they have been with Brandy for over a year now and I have nothing but
wonderful things to say and she's very up front and she is a very honest person. So,
that's alii have to say.
Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Stephen Barbey.
S.Barbey: Good evening. My name is Steven Barbey, I reside at 2659 Salisbury Court
in Eagle. I submitted for the review of the Commission a letter stating the -- a potential
reduction in value should the Commission elect to grant the AUP and I wanted to
provide, first, the opportunity for the Commission to ask any questions in that regard.
Newton-Huckabay: Yours is the one from the realty --
S.Barbey: Correct. The great thing of an AUP does become an adverse material fact
for the homes immediately surrounding the home in question, so we are -- Elizabeth
Olacsi or the neighbor to the other side or the neighbor to the rear, elect to sell their
home while there was a working business in place that had an AUP in place, but
allowed that business to occur, the seller of that home would need to disclose to all
potential buyers that there was a business in the immediately adjacent home and, as
such, that adverse material fact would result in a negative impact to the property values.
That is one of the reasons that Elizabeth Olacsi noted in her objection of the AUP. Any
questions on that?
Moe: Yeah. What if it was a family of six that needed daycare that bought the house?
You can argue that point quite a bit.
S.Barbey: No, I disagree, because there is a difference between a -- the integrity of a
community in which there are families of different sizes, you might have a family of two
children, a family of zero children, a family of ten children, and there is what happens
naturally and there is a balance in the community of different size families. When you
begin to artificially increase the amount of individuals that are at a residence during the
course of a day, that artificial increase upsets that balance and, therefore, does have an
impact.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
January 6. 2005
Page 26 of 54
Borup: Are you basing this statement just on your belief or do you have any -- do you
have any concrete --
S.Barbey: Sure. Adverse material facts take many forms.
Borup: No. I mean have you got any concrete sales and et cetera to back this up or is
this just your opinion?
S.Barbey: No. This information was provided based upon concrete information. This is
not an arbitrary, off-the-cuff assessment. This information was based upon real market
data.
Borup: From where?
S.Barbey: From the multiple listing service. The multiple listing service and the -- in our
community is the Intermountain Multiple Listing Service and that service keeps track of
all sales prices of homes that are sold through real estate agents in our community.
Borup: And it keeps track of every home that has a daycare center next to it?
S.Barbey: No, that's not true. What it does do, though, is it allows agents and others
who have access to that information to make individual market assessments based on
individual scenarios. So, if I were to look at a home that had a -- that had been
converted to a daycare and I were to assess the sales values of the homes in the
immediate area -- and when I say immediate, I really do mean immediate. Many of the
-- permit me a side bar, if you will. Many of the folks that have spoken this evening in
opposition to the -- to the granting of the AUP have wavered a little bit and you will
notice that that wavering occurs as the geographic area grows larger away from the
subject home. Those in most opposition are right next-door or right behind and the
homeowners two doors away for four doors away have less impact and, therefore, are
willing to be a little bit more forgiving and that makes sense. But the greatest impact
does occur to the properties of immediate adjacency to the subject home and that would
be evident in a market analysis in looking at property values.
Borup: So, you have done that market analysis?
S.Barbey: I have. I have done it both for -- if you look at homes that are in the entry to
a subdivision, for example, that are subject to more traffic or homes that have a power
line behind them or a home that has a commercial property behind them, they do sell at
a discount, as opposed to homes that are more nestled in a subdivision.
Borup: But that's not what we are talking about here.
S.Barbey: No. I'm drawing similarities. I'm not saying that they are exactly the same, I
am saying, though, that if -- I mean probably the closest similarity would be a home that
had a business behind it, some type of commercial operation. Yes, the dilution factor--
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6. 2005
Page 27 of 54
or the reduction in property value would be less -- if there was a home with a
commercial property behind it, the discount might be 15 percent. A home with a
daycare --
Borup: No. I understand what you're saying.
S.Barbey: -- might be five percent.
Borup: But you're saying you could provide us with a written report?
S.Barbey: I'm not prepared to do so this evening, but would it serve the Commission, I
would be willing to do so at a later date.
Newton-Huckabay: This is the resource, I assuming, that you use when you prepare to
sell a -- or list a client's -- house for a client?
S.Barbey: That's correct. If I were to meet with a client and prepare for them a
comparative market analysis, one of the lines of the questions that we would have to
pursue was is there anything of concern that you feel would be appropriate to disclose
to a potential buyer and one of those -- and I would pursue that. We need to make sure
that all sellers disclose adverse material facts to buyers, so we really have to push
them, because that's a liability not only for them, but as their agent it's a liability for the
agent, so --
Newton-Huckabay: So you own property in the subdivision?
S.Barbey: I own industrial property in the Meridian area.
Newton-Huckabay: Are you with the Barbey that owns the property behind the house?
S.Barbey: That's correct. There is a relationship and as a licensed real estate agent in
the state of Idaho I have an obligation to act with integrity and to act in good faith and
my statements made this evening are being made with that very clearly in mind. Any
other questions?
Zaremba: Any other questions? Thank you.
S.Barbey: I would ask only that -- I know that it's a difficult situation for everybody and
I'm certain everybody that's spoken this evening and all the Commissioners are
sympathetic to the specific situation that the -- excuse me -- that you're in and it's
difficult, there is never a winner for everybody. What I might propose would be the --
would be some sort of middle ground. These folks have said that this is their only
source of income and it would be difficult for me, even if they were operating a brothel,
to say, you know, hey, you know what, go away, because it's people, you know. Bad
example. But it's people and it's hard to take away their income. So I would propose,
perhaps, that the Commission grant -- and I don't know if you have this in your power,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2005
Page 28 of 54
but potentially grant something that would have a termination date, perhaps an AUP of
five children or less that would last for a period of three months or six months and
protect the long-term interest of the surrounding homeowners and also provide the folks
here with the opportunity to transition, find another source of income or other locations
to operate the business and I think that would be a fair compromise that would serve the
interests of all parties that have presented their case this evening. Any additional
questions? Thank you for your time.
Zaremba: Thank you. That's the end of the list of those that have signed up. Anybody
else care to offer testimony? Again, I failed to mention it earlier, but, traditionally, at the
end of all public testimony there is an opportunity for the applicant to respond if they can
clarify any issues that have been raised and I suspect that Brandy would speak for the
applicant again. And this is usually limited to five minutes.
Galushkin: Okay. I'll hurry. Brandy Galushkin again.
Zaremba: I'm sorry. Ten minutes.
Galushkin: Oh, ten minutes? Oh, good. Okay. Marina does want to speak. She'll try
to gesture what she can to you. But a quick thing I have is with them saying about the
property values, again, I talked with the Ada county tax commissioner -- or assessor
and those are the people that actually do tell you what the value of your home is and
your land, that kind of thing, and Tim there said that if you guys wanted to really clarify
that it does not hurt your value of your home by 12,000 dollars. It doesn't. He said that
who -- you know, this real estate agent shouldn't have a license because of the fact that
he stated this on real estate paper. He said there is no way that it will depreciate your
house at all that much, even much of anything. They said that -- he said the only thing
is, like he said, a power line or something, and a commercial business. This is not a
commercial business, we only want five kids or fewer right now. Later on if we do do
the Conditional Use Permit, so be it, they can fight with us about it again, because, you
know -- but I don't -- you know, five kids or fewer is not a commercial business. And
also another real estate agent I called about that and an appraiser and I have all their
names and phone numbers if you guys wanted to speak with them about that also.
They said they would have came, but it was short notice, because I talked to them
yesterday, but they said that they are willing to stand in place with us saying it does not
hurt the value of your home at all to have an in-home daycare. It doesn't. But also
another thing -- quick thing is about sleeping at night. I know he works nights at Micron
and, Alex, he did work nights at Micron in Nampa, there is a Nampa Micron and there is
a Boise Micron, so he did work at Nampa. And my husband also works at the Nampa
Micron. Them sleeping at night, they were sleeping in the bedroom, in the master
bedroom, where -- with all of these kids in daycare and never heard them. They
performed their job perfectly, no problem, it's the individual. And living next door, I don't
think noise from a four year old is going to carry to the other side of their home and with
closed doors and windows and the fact of the kids screaming and yelling and they heard
the noises, the kids in the summertime, I don't agree with that at all, due to the fact that,
you know, during the summertime it's very hot, if our kids ever did go outside, they are
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2005
Page 29 of 54
four year olds, their voice can't carry that much into a home. And, for another thing, is
they weren't even outside maybe 30 minutes due to the fact that it's very hot out there,
they can't -- they can't stand to be outside that long, you know. And most of our -- the
kids that are with Marina, the age limit is no more than four and if she does take any
other kids, the age limit is seven. So, it's not, you know, that kids are just going to bank
up and that kind of thing and, you know, they do have two kids and a baby on their way,
you know, how is he going to sleep with a baby crying, you know. Is he going to tell his
wife to take the baby, you know, three blocks down the street, because she's crying or
he? You know, that's -- you have kids, you have to deal with it, you know, and, I'm
sorry, I don't want to be mean, but, you know, they are kids, you can't control them
completely, you know, but we do keep them quiet and they are always in the house and
they are not yelling and screaming, so --
Rohm: The first time you got up you didn't present a petition, but alluded to -- that you
had actually talked to a number of neighbors.
Galushkin: Yes.
Rohm: And I'd like you to talk about that just for a moment and I think what happens in
many of these public testimony environments is the people that are in objection will
come out in force, but the people that are in support of a particular project, as long as
they have signed off on it, they are less likely to show up for public testimony. So, if you
could just speak to that for us, I'd appreciate it.
Galushkin: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Would you like that submitted as a public record?
Galushkin: I would like to, because the people that did speak in objection, I have all of
their signatures here. Everyone of them that are here that objected to this, I went and
we talked -- Marina and I took the time out of our evening with our family to go door to
door to show them and say, hey, you know, we are the ones that want to have this
daycare and when we did this -- this is actually -- we were -- we were advised to get
signatures for the Conditional Use Permit, so they were aware that it was for 12 -- up to
12 kids, because we specified to them that it was up to 12 kids. We were working on a
Conditional Use Permit for up to 12 kids. So, when we spoke to every one of these
people, they knew it was for up to 12 kids. We didn't do this for the five kids or fewer,
we did for a Conditional Use Permit and we have all of their signatures.
Rohm: Well -- and I'd like to see that list if we could and just have it entered into the
public testimony.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, since she's made a reference to it as part of her testimony, we
should probably have the exhibit as part of the record.
Rohm: Okay. And you just need to bring it up.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6. 2005
Page 30 of 54
Galushkin: Okay. Do you want the list of all the people -- I have the list -- because they
gave me everybody within 300 feet, not just neighboring people. We had to go clear on
the other side of the subdivision in order to get signatures and we got them also. The
only signatures we didn't get were people that were renters, some renters said we don't
feel that we should, because we don't own the home or they were moving.
Rohm: That wasn't my point. My point was that there is not a consensus that this is an
objectionable inclusion in the neighborhood. But if you will bring that up to the clerk.
Zaremba: I would comment while we are doing this, just to clarify, there has been
discussion of a couple things that may happen eventually, which are that they may
move out of the house, that there may be a CUP applied for 12, but I want to clarify for
you and everybody else, the issue tonight is solely --
Galushkin: The five or fewer.
Zaremba: -- an accessory permit that they must live in the house, they cannot have
more than five non-family children, and if they move that expires.
Galushkin: Exactly.
Zaremba: I want to clarify for everybody, even though you're warning us that the other
subject --
Galushkin: Yeah. No. And we know that, too, because we have read the rules and
regulations and we know that if they move, that it's completely -- they are going to revoc
the license, if we don't do the conditional --
Zaremba: It becomes invalid automatically.
Galushkin: If we don't go further with it. So -- and right now we have been discussing it
just if we should even worry about it or if we should look for our commercial building,
you know, that kind of thing, because we are looking, it's just -- it's hard to find one and
a good one, you know. So, that's just -- you know, we know that it is going to -- if they
do move we don't have a Conditional Use Permit and we have -- we know it's gone, we
can't watch kids, we know that. Yeah. And we will abide by that, too.
Rohm: I have another question about the home auto repair and I know that that's not
part of this application, but I want to just comment to the public that this application is
not related to that, but if, in fact, there is something of that nature going on, there would
have to be an application made for it as well and if there is not --
Galushkin: Correct.
Rohm: And so I'm just putting on record that you need to not be doing that, if, in fact --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6. 2005
Page 31 of 54
Galushkin: Right. And, Alex, he knows that and -- I mean he does have a dealer's
license and he does buy cars from auctions for other people. That's why there are extra
cars there sometimes, because he has to have them transported there, but there is a
business -- his -- our brother-In-law -- well, my brother-in-law, his brother, has a
business where they do transport the cars later on and they do work on them there at
the business, so -- in the auto business, yes.
Rohm: Okay. It's just that this application for the childcare is separate and aside from
issues associated with the auto repair, but it's --
Galushkin: Okay.
Rohm: Thank you.
Galushkin: Yeah. I understand. Thank you.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, just one final question. Mr. Barbey brought up the idea of having
a time limit. Do you have any thoughts on that?
Galushkin: Well, you know, I really don't, because -- I mean, like I said, in the future we
do want more kids and -- but we just haven't decided if we really want to waste our
money of 375 dollars that we have worked for in order to do the Conditional Use Permit,
because I know we are going to be right back here in front of you again and we don't
know if it's worth it, because we can put that 375 toward a different building. So, that's
kind of -- I think, you know, as long as Alex and Marina are living there and that, you
know, we have this -- we are able to have the daycare there, I don't feel that there
should be a time limit. There is the daycare right behind us that has been there for
years and there has never been an issue. Houses have sold greatly there, their
property value has never been negative toward that. Nothing.
Moe: Excuse me. This is the first I have heard of this one.
Galushkin: What?
Moe: The daycare behind --
Galushkin: There is a daycare behind. In fact, I didn't know that either until the
homeowners association lady, we talked to her this morning, and she advised us that
there is another daycare center in the subdivision directly behind us a little ways down
and --
Newton-Huckabay: Could you point out that property?
Galushkin: You know, I don't exactly know. It's on -- off of -- well, I don't even know
where we are at.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2005
Page 32 of 54
Newton-Huckabay: You're the one that's edged in black. It's about dead center right
there.
Galushkin: Oh, we are right there. Okay. So, she's told us if you take this little
walkway right here, that daycare is right here somewhere. Right directly behind us.
Newton-Huckabay: By the park.
Galushkin: By the park. And, in fact, I'm pretty sure -- I think it is this home here,
because when we went and got signatures, she signed for us, so it's either here or on
this side, one of these homes here, because I know the lady did mention that she did
have a daycare -- she did daycare and she watched children there, so -- but there is
another daycare directly behind us, but there has never been an issue with -- I can get
that address and give it to you guys if you guys need that for sure. I can get that
address. Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: And I believe Mrs. Galushkin was going to testify, but she changed
her mind.
Zaremba: I would ask Brandy one more question. I'm sorry. You got away. And,
again, this is partially from your knowledge of the neighborhood having walked around
and this is probably just a wild guess off the top of your head. Among the residences
maybe within 10 or 15 houses either direction, do you have any idea how many children
live in the -- along this street or in this block or --
Galushkin: In this block? There are a lot of children that live there. I don't know exactly
how many.
Zaremba: Okay.
Galushkin: But--
Zaremba: So, the children in this home are not the only children in the neighborhood?
Galuskin: Oh, no. No. Not by far. Yeah. In fact -- let me see where we are at again.
These people here down this road here, there are a ton of kids. In fact, this house here
-- I believe this one or this one, they asked us to bring their kids to our daycare. They
said it's great. They said I can't believe, you know, that I'll save myself time, you know,
to bring my kids just next door, because they have to take daycare clear over to Kuna,
because that's the only other daycare that they know, you know, that is a good daycare.
So, she asked if she could bring them and I told her that we were involved in doing this,
so we weren't able to take any kids right now, so -- but there are a ton of kids in that
subdivision. It's not just the ones that -- that Marina has. And she has three kids of her
own.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6. 2005
Page 33 of 54
Zaremba: Thank you.
Galushkin: Uh-huh.
Zaremba: Commissioners?
Rohm: I think it's time to close the --
Newton-Huckabay: Close the Public Hearing.
Rohm: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on AUP 04-016.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye.
Okay.
Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any discussion?
Rohm: Well, I'd like to have a little discussion here. I'd like to just encapsulate what I
think that I have heard here on both sides of the issue here and I think the primary
objection initially was based upon the fact that they were going to move forward and try
and expand it into 12 and there was less opposition to the fact that it was five, but it kind
of escalated as the testimonies were heard and, then, the fact that the petition had a
number of names on it in support of this, but they didn't -- they didn't come, because
their signature in and of itself lends the support. So, even though a significant amount
of the testimony that we hear at the Public Hearing is in opposition, I don't believe that
the opposition is as great in the whole from the subdivision inclusively. So, that's -- I'd
just like to spread that just a bit. And I think that it's -- it's something that we need in our
community and it's -- I think I'm in general support of granting this myself.
Zaremba: Do I interpret from your comments that the five children, while they live in the
house, sounds like it's acceptable and that shouldn't give them any confidence that a
further CUP for 12 is going to be acceptable?
Rohm: I would generally say that a Conditional Use Permit would probably not receive
the same support.
Borup: I know that definitely would be my position.
Zaremba: I would feel that way myself.
Rohm: I think that conditional use permits, whether you're talking about for a daycare or
for any other Conditional Use Permit, is just that, it's upon condition and we have a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2005
Page 34 of 54
greater responsibility to address those objections for a Conditional Use Permit, I
believe, than we do for an AUP. That's my position on that.
Zaremba: Does staff have anything to add?
Wilson: No.
Rohm: With that being said, Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the AUP 04-016,
including all staff comments for the hearing date January 6, 2005, received December
29th, 2004. End of motion.
Newton-Huckabay: I'll second that.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor, please, say aye. Any
opposed?
Borup: Nay. And just mainly because I want to emphasize the point that would not be
in favor of expansion. And that's maybe a way I could express that.
Zaremba: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Now, wait a minute.
Borup: It's a pass anyway. I realize that's not part of the motion,but--
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I have a statement to make, then. I didn't know that was an
option.
Borup: What? To vote no?
Newton-Huckabay: No. That you're making a point that should have been made before
the motion, is it not?
Zaremba: Well, it's actually been stated several times--
Borup: Yes. Commissioner Rohm already made that point and 1--
Zaremba: What he's reinforcing for the applicant is that there is very little chance of a
CUP for 12 children.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Well--
Borup: That's alii was saying.
Newton-Huckabay: I mean I would voice my concurrence with that, but --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2005
Page 35 of 54
Rohm: Well, we all have --
Borup: It really doesn't have anything to do with this application. I realize that.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Sorry.
Zaremba: The motion for the AUP for five children was carried four to one.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES, ONE NAY.
Zaremba: And we have had a suggestion that we have a short break and I think this is
probably a good time. We will take about five minutes and we will reconvene.
(Recess.)
Item 8:
Public Hearing: PP 04-040 Request to amend the Preliminary Plat (PP
02-006) to add six additional building lots in location that were previously
platted as storm drainage ponds for Tuscany Lakes Subdivision
(Amended) by Tuscany Development, Inc. - south of East Victory Road
and west of South Eagle Road:
Zaremba: Ladies and gentlemen, all Commissioners have returned and we will
reconvene the meeting and go on to Item No.8, which is a Public Hearing on PP 04-
040, request to amend the preliminary plat, which was originally PP 02-006, to add six
additional building lots in locations that were previously platted as storm drainage ponds
for Tuscany Lake Subdivision Amended, by Tuscany Development, Inc., south of East
Victory Road and west of South Eagle Road. And we will begin with staff comments.
Wilson: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, the application before you is
for Tuscany Lakes Subdivision preliminary plat to amend it to add six additional building
lots. Some background. On August 13th, 2002, the Meridian City Council approved the
preliminary plat of Tuscany Lakes Subdivision, with 455 build-able lots, with a gross
density of 2.4 units per acre, 38 common lots, and one school lot. The subject property
was also granted a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development. That included
reduced frontage requirements, block length modifications, and modifications of
sidewalk requirements. This property is designated medium density residentiai on the
Comprehensive Plan map and this new -- this revised preliminary plat does include six
additional lots, which range in size from approximately 10,000 square feet to 29,000
square feet. Some special considerations of the application were the amount of -- that
the amount of open space not be reduced to such a point that it was below what was
required. The approved preliminary plat that went through City Council had a total of 18
acres of open space, which was approximately 9.4 percent of the gross acreage. This
preliminary plat -- and you will have to excuse me, these numbers are off of a previous
lot configuration and the applicant has submitted a new lot configuration for one of the
lots. Numbers will be slightly larger. They, actually, increased the open space a little bit
with those revisions. But the calculations that I did at the time, they were reducing the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6. 2005
Page 36 of 54
open space by approximately .9 acres. So it's actually -- they are actually reducing it by
a little bit less than that now with the revised plans and maybe the applicant could speak
to some exact numbers. But the amount of open space still remains well above the five
percent minimum required. Another concern is the amenities for the subdivision, since
it was a planned development. They do provide a tot lot with active open space on Lot
53, Block 1, and there does not appear to be a loss or a reduction in the neighborhood
amenities as part of this revised -- this revised preliminary plat. I think I will go into
maybe some specifics about a couple of the areas. The area on the screen now is Lot
53, Block 1. This is the one that was actually reconfigured by the applicant. There is
some concerns with this lot as far as visibility by the police department. They don't like
blind corners in open space lots like this and, as you can see, there are a couple areas
that the police department would have some difficulty seeing, being this rear corner
from this street here, that's a -- kind of a blind corner there. And from this street here
they would also have some difficulty seeing back into there. Because of this -- and this
did not make it in the staff report, but a condition that we are recommending is that
those two property lines -- north property line on Lot 54 and the south property line on --
I believe that's Lot 38, be restricted to transparent wrought iron fencing to help the
police department with those visibility concerns back into those blind corners. And also
that Lot 53 would be designated un-build-able due to inadequate street frontage. You
can see that it has very minimal actual street frontage there and does not meet the
requirements, so it would be designated an un-build-able lot. The second section here,
it's a little bit more difficult to see, but -- let's see. I believe if I can find a map I can read
here. Sorry for the delay. Concerning Lots 22 and 23 -- and those are Block 7. And
also Lots 7 and 8 -- the applicant has reconfigured the lot that is adjacent to the -- to the
-- I guess the Ten Mile Lateral to reconfigure the lot to plat a build-able lot and also
leave some open space there and, then, the couple of lots further to the east has
actually changed configuration there to add a couple of lots as well. This drainage lot
that's being reconfigured is quite a bit more straightforward. It was one large
rectangular lot and is proposed to be divided into the three lots here. I think Bruce
might speak a little bit to the specifics of the drainage, but the reason for the platting of
these lots that were formally drainage lots -- platting them now as residential lots, ACHD
has changed their policy in what type of drainage is allowed, going from drain - storm-
water retention ponds in these locations to a drainage system that consists of swales
along the subdivision streets. It's my understanding that the wet ponds were
determined to not be an efficient means of draining this property and that these swales
along the streets will do a better job of handling the drainage for the subdivision, which,
apparently, is a little bit problematic in this area of the city, it has a high water table and
some drainage problems. ACHD has given approval for the applicant to have one tree
within these drainage swales at each property line intersection, which can be -- it's a
little bit hard to describe that in words, but, basically, where each property line intersects
the ACHD right of way here, they are allowed to have their one tree at that intersection
and we would recommend that as -- and it's part of the conditions of approval, that
those trees be limited to class one or class two species due to concerns over size and
ACHD's concerns for maintenance of that dedicated right of way. And with that I will
end my comments and see if Mr. Freckleton has anything to add. Okay. So, with that
one staff comment --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6.2005
Page 37 of 54
Zaremba: Commissioners, questions?
Rohm: Could you expand on that -c what was that last comment, the species one or
two?
Wilson: Yes, I can. The City of Meridian in our landscape ordinance adopted -- I
believe it's a publication by the city of Boise in regards to tree species that are
appropriate for planting, broken into class one, two, and three, three being extremely
large trees that -- the largest oaks, maples, and beeches and things of such that they
become extremely large, would pose maintenance problems and in the limited space of
the right of way are not appropriate, so the class ones and twos, would recommend it be
restricted to those.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: I would appreciate a clarification. You made the comment about some
ACHD requirements. The only thing I have from ACHD in my packet is their November
9 letter where they clearly state that their staff is not approving roadside swale and go
on that there needs to be a further application. Or are you referencing something later
than November 9?
Wilson: The ACHD approval I referenced was just the trees and the drainage swale,
you know, and that was a conversation with the director of the design review of ACHD.
I guess I wasn't actually aware of ACHD's comments that you just stated.
Zaremba: I assume we all have that in our packets.
Borup: Well, my understanding is that the letter is not the approval, that there needs to
be a formal process for the approval, which we don't have.
Wilson: I'll let the applicant address their conversation with ACHD as far as what ACHD
is requiring from them.
Zaremba: Okay. Any questions at the present time from the Commissioners? Okay.
Let's have the applicant come up, please.
Brown: For the record, Kent Brown, 1800 West Overland, Boise, Idaho. I guess a little
background. After our approval we started through the process of start getting different
phases of the final plat approved and trying to get those on as the demand required.
When we came to Messina Hills 2, if you could show the overall, Josh, I'd appreciate it.
Messina Hills 2 is the portion that's on this drawing - basically, it's everything that's
located in Messina Hills 1. This is one and two of Village One and it's the remaining
piece on the east side of the Ridenbaugh Canal. As we brought that to the City Council,
the Council discussed with us what's on your revised drawing as Lot 53 and that portion
of 53 and 54 where we were trying to take that storm draining pond, as we discussed
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6. 2005
Page 38 of 54
with the City Council, that layout, we informed them with our original approval we
showed that being a wet pond, we would do everything possible to make it not a wet
pond, but it looked like it was going to be a wet pond and we wanted to make them
aware of that. We mirrored the approval with Public Works Department for sewer lines
and water lines for their street approval and, then, got called in by the highway district
that they wanted to talk to us about our pond and that they didn't want to approve a wet
pond and they are the ones that suggested to us that we use this roadside swale. It's a
new policy that they have had, they use it almost on every development that they do in
Star, for example, in a couple over there. Their entire subdivision in and around there,
Steven Springs is a good example of that one just recently went in, where every street
in the subdivision has these roadside swales and the reason is because of the high
ground water. The other place that the highway district allows these is in .areas of the
basalt. So, in the Kuna area they would allow them and they are also allowing them in
what we would consider a rural or estate type densities. Their problem of the past has
been with these roadside swales is residential builders filling them in, landscaping them,
and, then, not having a swale. And they believe that they have a mechanism for this. I
think that when it proves out, realistically, I think this is the trend of the future. What you
end up with not having concentration to one spot by channeling in your curb and gutter
and taking water, making your streets go up and down to move the water throughout the
development. The city of Nampa has adopted the roadside swale and mandates that
you put it and you have to ask special permission not to do it in Nampa. And so it's a
common practice.
Rohm: Those are just small collectors?
Brown: It's just -- what we would, growing up, call borrow pits, but they are -- they are
not as deep, they are -- basically, what they are is eight foot wide at the top, three feet
down, and they are requiring -- you can see on our preliminary plat drawing the cross
section that shows the swale there. The thing that makes this really work is that there is
a continuous gravel trench that runs through the whole thing and each builder has to
deposit 500 dollars -- actually, the developer deposits 500 dollars and upon the
occupancy of the house, the developer or the builder can get that money back when
they are assured that they haven't filled it in, because of the previous problems. After
we went through this and it literally cost us a month of time, because we had to redraw
the plans, get the sewer laterals deep enough to go underneath the swales. I think the
Public Works department did their efforts to try to make this happen, but it was probably
one of the first ones that they did. The Messina Meadows -- or the Messina Hills
property number two, they are constructed, they are in, and they have signed off on that
-- the highway district has signed that plat. The only reason I haven't recorded that plat
is the modification that we are here today trying to get that one extra building lot and so
it's constructed. They signed off on it, which is typical, because they are using it all over
the place. One of the things that we have done -- when you look at this area right here,
we are trying to get this as a building lot and, then, leave the rest as open space.
Where we are taking this area that was going to be a pond here, we are adding a
clubhouse and pool. I have an elevation drawing showing this is what they are looking
for the clubhouse and the pool would sit behind and the parking. If you look at this
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2005
Page 39 of 54
really close on your drawing, you can see the clubhouse right up here in the northwest
corner, the pool sitting behind, and some parking. That's an added common area lot
that wasn't there before that we have added to the development. We have tried to -- in
changing what we have done is we have tried to provide more active space than what
this passive space that we had before, hoping that the ponds would be dry and that they
have multiple uses. So, what we have provided is where we had a large rectangular
pond on Lot 54 and 53, now we have a tot lot that would be an active space. We are
providing a clubhouse. The other two areas that are up here, they were active, but they
also had ponds in them before, now the active part is the pedestrian trail. With our
original approval we provided a trail system that goes along our ponds and comes
through here, walks down, and, then, along the Ten Mile. You can do loops in there on
that. That was a part of our original approval and we are retaining that by the open
space that we leave in there.
Moe: Well, what are you anticipating doing with Lot 23, as far as access into the lot and
whatnot when you're walking path goes right through it? Is that not going to be a build-
able lot?
Brown: Twenty-three will be the open space lot. Lot 22 will be that one that we have
added.
Moe: Okay.
Brown: And Lot 12 is the one that we have added. Lot 8 is the common area.
Moe: Thank you.
Brown: We are in agreement with all the conditions, including the wrought iron fencing
on Lot 53. We have used wrought iron against the Ten Mile and against our ditches
where the Nampa-Meridian's -- when I explained it to my client, he says we will put that
in. That's -- we don't know that that's really going to take care of it. There is still going
to be a site concern when you consider that they build a house and they build it to their
setbacks, which -- I mean they always do and there is --
Newton-Huckabay: May I ask a question on that. On Lot -- we are talking about Block
53?
Brown: Yes, ma'am.
Newton-Huckabay: And it may not be particularly for you, but is there an option for
some other amenity, other than a tot lot, something that might attract a little bit older
child, rather than -- maybe like a basketball court or a tennis court or --
Brown: We have a basketball court just right up here, just to the north of that. That was
what we put up there. I mean a basketball court is real cheap, we will put in a
basketball court, but --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6. 2005
Page 40 of 64
Newton-Huckabay: I would just be concerned as a parent with young children, even
with wrought iron fencing; I would be concerned about a tot lot that, you know, attracts --
Brown: My client wanted to put in a basketball court and I told him that you probably
should do something a little more upgrade, but we would be happy to put in a basketball
court.
Newton-Huckabay: What about like -- I don't know what the rule is on that --
Brown: Basketball courts are probably the most active, other than the walking, in the
developments that we have done. I agree that they are --
Borup: What about a tennis court?
Brown: Tennis courts are real difficult. That's a little harder.
Borup: They don't get that much use.
Brown: We are going to get a lot more use out of the pool and clubhouse. One of the
things that -- we have already put in one pool right here, so this will have two pools in
this overall development. We have tried to kind of spread them in different places that
make them accessible. I think what they told me is like 34,000 dollars for the
playground equipment that they would put in there. But if you want another type of
active use, sure, we can do that.
Rohm: It was a good question.
Zaremba: I need one thing clarified a little different than this and that is exactly where
are we in the process. Are we talking about a paperwork change or has engineering
already been done and grading already done and the roadways designed, so that the
water flows to the existing --
Brown: Drainage swales. Yes.
Zaremba: It's been redesigned so it goes to the drainage swales, not into the original
ponds?
Brown: Not into the ponds. Yes.
Zaremba: Okay. So, I guess the reason I ask that question is that every time ACHD
has a budget hearing or a five year work plan hearing, there is a couple that comes from
a subdivision that I -- if I remember correctly, it's in the county and I think it's at Amity
and Locust Grove or something, but, anyhow, they have a house the floods every time
there is precipitation, that they discovered that it was originally platted as a drainage lot,
nobody knows when somebody changed it to build-able lot, but the whole engineering
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2005
Page 41 of 54
was done to send all the water onto this lot and even though they built a house on it, it
still sends all the water onto that lot and my concern is if you have real stuff on the
ground, roads and stuff like that, waving a wand isn't going to change where the water
goes. If this is still just on paper, I think it's a good solution, but I need to be comfortable
that the water is going to go where you're telling it to go and that everything has been
reengineered.
Borup: I may make one comment that might pertain to that. Mr. Brown's comment that
this is the way of the future, it's really the way of the past.
Zaremba: Coming around again.
Borup: Yeah. I mean all the subdivisions that -- acre lot type subdivisions that were
done in this county in the 70s had -- well, we called them borrow pits, but no sidewalk
and no curb and gutter, so the water ran off -- just ran off the roads into that area and
there was never any drainage problems. I always wondered why 30 years ago we didn't
have to worry about drainage problems and now it is. You know, what's changed in
those -- in that time and that's -- it looks to me like that's the main thing that's changed is
we have covered everything over, we have got -- we have got full concrete -- I mean
sidewalks, curb and gutter and we are -- rather than letting the water drain and absorb
where it falls and comes off each lot, we are forcing it to these ponds. That's why --
that's why the water is accumulating in them.
Zaremba: I guess my comment is I don't have an issue with this method of dealing with
the runoff and drainage. My question is --
Borup: But there is no curb --
Zaremba: -- where are we in the timing. If it's already etched in concrete and it's
already engineered so the water flows to the lots that we are talking about --
Borup: But there is no curb and gutter to bring the water to anywhere on this design.
Zaremba: Your answer is you can deal with it?
Brown: I will be happy to speak when you guys are done. I was letting you go. We
have Lake -- Tuscany Lakes Two will be here, Tuscany Lakes Three will be here. This
will be Messina Hills Three. Those phases are not etch in concrete. We have gone
through our first paper approval with the highway district on Lake Two and Hills Three,
all subject to us getting this done, we want the City Council to approve, you know,
hopefully, this amendment. That's what we are hoping for with the additional lots. So,
we are patiently -- some days not patiently -- waiting, trying to get this submitted and
approved. And Hills Two is built and that one was built with the understanding that it
wasn't going to take water to that point and when you look at the drainage swale that
Josh had up on the screen and it's on the modification, what you have is you have a
crown in the road with -- taking the water going either side to the borrow pit and, then,
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
January 6. 2005
Page 42 of 54
it's not traveling anywhere where on a -- what we could call a traditional method, it got to
the gutter and, then, had to, you know, pick up enough water to carry it someplace else.
So, then, you put grates in the streets and make it travel those directions.
Rohm: From a maintenance perspective, who takes care of the borrow pit?
Brown: The homeowners association does.
Rohm: It's not part of a lot? Is it a common lot?
Brown: It's the public right of way and the developer had to sign an agreement for the
maintenance. This method is, actually, even a little more expensive, because of the
type of mixture of soils that they have come up with. They want something to percolate,
but they also want them to look nice and --
Freckleton: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Mr. Freckleton.
Freckleton: If I could maybe -- a point of clarification. On the maintenance aspect of
that, Kent, isn't it true that the ACHD enters into -- they require the language in your
CC&Rs for heavy and light duty maintenance and the homeowners association is
responsible for the light-duty maintenance, which is the surface -- or, excuse me, the
homeowners association or the property owner who fronts that area, is responsible for
mowing that grass and surface cosmetic type maintenance. If the sand trench that's in
the bottom of these swales plugs up, for instance, then, I believe that the ACHD is
responsible for the maintenance on the functionality of that, they would go in and
restore or rehab that portion of the facility. So, it's kind of a shared maintenance
responsibility.
Brown: Which is the same as the ponds are. The ponds have that same kind of
restriction. What you have here is you have less concentration, because you're not
pooling all the water and having it flow to one spot and so you have less concentration
of the water. And that's one of the blessings of it. One of the other blessings of it is --
since my wife is not here we can pick on her or talk about her. She over-waters our
yard. I mean just turns the sprinklers on and they are on the lawn a long time and you
end up in the curb and gutter with this nuisance water that runs down the street. Well,
now that nuisance water doesn't go anywhere and if someone is over-watering, the wet
spot is out in front of their house. I mean it -- instead of having that run through the
streets and -- I live pretty close to Woodbridge and you drive through there and we
haven't had storms as much, we have had, you know, near drought, if you will, and their
pond is a little wet and it's because people are over-watering their yards and it's running
onto the sidewalk and across and into the gutter and so now that's just going into the
swale in front of their house.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2005
Page 43 of 54
Rohm: I guess my only concern on that was that if, in fact, there is over-watering
continued and that's all wet --
Brown: You have this continuous trench that takes care of that water. We have twice
as much area; for example, in phase two. I did a brief calculation and took what that
pond area was and, then, took the eight-foot area on either side of the road and we are
almost double that overall site, because you have got eight foot on either side of the
road.
Rohm: I'm just curious, not growing up --
Brown: And I guess I'm not here for you to approve my storm drainage system, that --
ACHD is the one that approves the storm drainage system. Those are the conditions
that are placed upon me that -- you can talk to your own staff and they can reaffirm that.
My storm draining system is not what you have wanted authority to decide how I take
care of my storm drainage. You have pawned that off on the highway district as part of
what they are doing at the highway district and phase two told us what to do and we
have taken that consideration, because they said you're going to have the same thing
throughout the rest and have adopted that and are running forward with that. I'm here
to get the open space that previously had and called out as common area, for you to
approve it and give me six more lots. Okay. And I'm not here to have you approve --
Zaremba: My only concern was those aren't going to be wet lots and I think you have
satisfied me on that.
Brown: Are there any other questions?
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Mrs. DeChambeau.
DeChambeau: My name is Mary DeChambeau and I live on 2015 East Victory and I
think most of the staff knows me pretty good by now. I want to thank you for some of
your very intelligent observations and comments about the drainage system. I think this
is more of an issue than just adding six additional lots. Do you have my brother's letter
in front of you that he sent from Tucson? You should. He sent it about two or three
weeks ago. Our main issue is something that you discussed this very night a little bit
about something I have been wondering why the City of Meridian hasn't been doing
about this drainage problem. My brother lives in Tucson and they tried these ponds,
then, they tried the swales and now they are going back and digging up all the streets
and directing all the water into the sewer system and this is exactly what's going to
happen here in this area, I can guarantee, because you're already talking about what's
going on in the future. First of all, I just want to let you know, I am not a builder, I'm not
a contractor, I have absolutely no ties to the building community. I am just a concerned
citizen of this area that has sat back and we are kind of questioning policies and things
like that and -- because if you will bring up that other map -- stop laughing. I know this
is late. Just so you guys know, my property is this, this, and this. Tuscany does not
own this, okay? One of the ponds that you were -- he was talking about the open space
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6. 2005
Page 44 of 54
-- is right here. If I was to walk over my fence I would fall right into it. That is how close
it is to my fence line. We are still farming, will be farming for awhile, and we have great
concern -- that water -- that water in that pond right here that -- the open space they are
talking about putting -- adding more additional lots in or -- is standing with water, has
never -- the water has never drained from it once they dug it. Okay. I was the one that
called ACHD, my family did, and said, look, we really need to re-Iook at the way that you
are draining somebody else's property into someone else's property. When Mr. Smith
owned that piece of property, whatever we had to get our crops off, he would not
irrigate. That piece of property that Tuscany is trying to develop here has never been
farmed, except for one time the guy didn't -- couldn't get his crop off. It has always been
grass land for a reason. Pasture land for a reason. Our piece of property drains pretty
good, because everything in this area drains this way. Okay? So, there has been a
drainage problem and when this subdivision first came to light, I brought up this
drainage system in 2000, I brought it up in 2001, I brought it up in 2002, talked about it
in 2003 -- you guys know I have, right? Okay. Thank you. At least we are validating
that. 2004 and here we are in January in 2005 and we are talking about an issue that
still needs to be fixed and still needs to be talked about. The problem is I'm at a
disadvantage, because I've never been able to get ahold of that particular plat thing that
you all have in front of you, I'm at a disadvantage, because I don't have any contacts in
this business, I have to call ACHD and hope they call me back. I have to call the DEQ
and hope that they have plànned this system, so that it doesn't -- the oil and the grease
doesn't run into our crops. The next time you buy a loaf of bread or buy some beef, you
better hope those cows haven't been eating contaminated, you know, crops that have
been grown are contaminated crops. I mean we still haven't even got to that issue yet
and I found that I have been bringing up so many issues, because I just have so many
questions -- and our family just wonders how -- we feel like you're jumping the gun on
adding building lots -- and I don't really care much about this, because I can't -- you
know, this is already, basically, done, they have a curb there and the whole thing. But I
am concerned about this, I'm concerned of how this -- how your policy is that when they
come in and they change these whole subdivisions, if I don't -- because I live right here
and I can see it out my window, that's the only way I know that stuff is going on. That's
the only way. No one notifies me, nobody ever contacts me. Tuscany Development
has never spoken directly to our family about these drainage issues. They have never
talked to us about covering up the drain ditch that runs right here -- right here, it goes
right here, and, then, it drains in to our place. I guess they are going to tile -- I don't
know. It goes right through that lot where they are talking about. We have never
addressed that. They have never addressed fences with us yet. I mean there is so
many issues. And when I went through all the meetings in 2001, 2002, I think it finally
got approved, those ponds were right there and, then, they ended up right here, there
was never a hearing about that pond, there was never a hearing about these right here.
And now the City of Meridian -- I guess you know about them -- Meridian Irrigation
District is having them have to concrete the Ridenbaugh -- let's see, they are concreting
it -- I'm not quite sure where they are starting their little part, but they are going all the
way around here and they are concreting and they are stopping it right there. The
reason they are having to do that is because they had dug all those ponds and what the
board of directors of Meridian Irrigation District told me, that they were just praying and
Meridian PlaMlng & Zoning
January 6, 2005
Page 45 of 54
keeping their fingers crossed that that water was coming through there with such force
this summer they were afraid that our whole back piece of property here would be just
completely blown out and thafs why they are making them concrete all of this, because
there is a drainage problem back in here. I mean these are a lot of issues, I just hope
you're aware of, of why I feel a liWe bit - you see my anger and my little horns are out,
because this has just been a five year endurance span of people not working on it. I
know that the red light has gone off, but let me mention that the City of Meridian has
failed to notify my family about this sewer issue, so you owe me another three minutes
here. When you voted on changing that sewer line, you did.
Zaremba: I'm willing to agree to more time. We have nobody else to testify on anything
else.
DeChambeau: Okay. Well, I was patient. I mean this is a pretty important issue,
because I think what's going to happen is - is I think this is going to be a - set a
precedence for maybe the way the rest of these developers do things. You know, I
think that you're looking at cost, but what is the cost to the city ten years from now when
all these houses - and you're absolutely right, that house is going to be nothing but a
soppy wet little mess. You know why I know that? Because I bought a house in
Gresham and that's exactly what happened to me. And we tried to find the developer
and the developer was gone and, then, we did the study of the land and everything,
found out it was just - that was where the water was supposed to be going and they
decided to close it in and build a couple more houses there. Exactly what happened.
So, I already lived a dreamed, that problem. so, I don't know, I don't - and I'm at a
disadvantage, because I don't - all I'm using is my common sense. I don't have any
information, ifs been very difficult to get information from the city and, I'm sorry, you
guys don't want to hear that, because it is, I come in and I ask for these plats and they
say they haven't been submitted yet. I don't even know what Lot 53 is. All I know is I
see what I see out of my back window. So, I don't know if you have any questions.
Basically my brother's letter, which should be - I'm surprised you don't have it. He's
from Tucson and I'm actually representing my brother, Monte Morgner from Tucson, my
sister Loretta Eamst and also my sister Luann Koontz and there is four of us that own
this piece of property. Just a little background. We have owned that property for 80
years. So, I know the lay of the land, I have irrigated it myself, I know which way the
water flows, I'm not somebody that came in and just bought this land and wanted to
develop it. The development has surrounded us. And, you know, I'm sorry, you know, I
mean that's just what's happened and we are just holding tough for awhile. So, I just
wanted you to know that's not - you know, I kind of know what the irrigation situation
has been and I guess I'm just a liWe frustrated, because I bring this situation up at the
very beginning and it's never been addressed and I'm surprised that we are this far
along in the building process and we are still dealing with the same drainage problem.
So, please, look at this very seriously. rm not - I know I can't stop development, but
lefs do it right and lefs not infringe on the neighbors' property and make their property
worse. So, I don't know. Do you have any questions for me?
Zaremba: Questions?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6,2005
Page 46 of 54
Borup: Mr. Chairman. I guess after your ten minutes of testimony I'm still confused.
DeChambeau: Okay. I know you would be, Keith. I'm ready for--
Borup: You stated you did not want the ponds there.
DeChambeau: No.
Borup: That's what I heard you say earlier, that you didn't think the ponds should be
there.
DeChambeau: No, they shouldn't be there. And you know why? Have you driven by
my place and seen the corn still standing? There is a reason.
Borup: So, they have eliminated the ponds, but you don't want that. That's why I'm
confused.
DeChambeau: I know. I know. I agree. What I'm trying to say is is that the swales are
probably better for us, but they are not the answer.
Borup: What is the answer?
DeChambeau: The answer I would say is putting this stuff directly into the sewer
system.
Borup: Okay.
DeChambeau: I mean since we are talking oil and grease and in order for these swales
to work, they have already been bringing in soil --
Borup: Okay. Then -- now I understand what you -
DeChambeau: And they have to level that land out and the whole land goes like this, so
they better make sure -- one of the ACHD requirement is that that land -- that water
better not -- it has to go straight down, but if it's not level, it won't, it will all go down the
street and it will still end up in our piece of property or down that direction and whoever
is on the end. So, they have already been bringing in dirt.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.That answered my question. Someone else may have some
more.
Zaremba: Other questions?
Moe: No.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2005
Page 47 of 54
Zaremba: All right. Thank you. I would question the notice part of it. This is a Public
Hearing and there are requirements for notice about that. Do we know what notice was
provided?
Canning: I believe the notice that Mrs. DeChambeau was referring to is when Tuscany
Village, which is across -- which street? Locust Grove? Locust -- on the west side of
Locust Grove, there was the issue of about relocating the sewer main. Originally, it was
going to go up to Locust Grove and, then, and straight down and, instead, the developer
requested to angle it. At the first hearing or prior to the hearing Mrs. DeChambeau
asked to be notified of that upcoming hearing. She's technically more than 300 feet
away. I made a verbal commitment to her that I would and we forgot and so they didn't
have the opportunity to attend that hearing.
Borup: Wasn't the property posted?
Canning: The property was posted. All the legal noticing was done, it was a verbal
commitment on my part that I, unfortunately, didn't get in the file and we forgot to notify
her.
Zaremba: I thought her complaint referred to this hearing tonight.
Canning: The item was continued, because improper notice was sent out. Mary came
in and pointed it out to us, my administrative assistant didn't act on it right then and so
when it came to the last month's hearing or November's hearing, we realized that they
had not been properly informed, we continued it to tonight, so that we could get all the
proper notices out.
Zaremba: Okay. And the evidence of that is she's here. All right. Mr. Brown.
Brown: So, I think for the record we should state that tonight the meeting is properly
and adequately noticed; correct?
Canning: As was the other hearing. It was just -- it was just a verbal commitment on
my part.
Brown: It has nothing to do with what we are here for, so I --
Zaremba: Thank you.
Brown: I guess if there is a specific question --
Moe: I just have one in regards to the lots that you're replacing the drainage with three
lots for building. Has that area been tested as far as -- I mean are we going to have a
problem with drainage in that area?
Meridian Piannlng & Zoning
January 6. 2005
Page 48 of 54
Brown: We have been moving dirt around and we have been grading. The city has a
requirement that we are three foot above highest ground water elevation, so we went
and dug that area next to Mary's home where we are proposing to put three lots in, now
we will have to structurally go in requirement of your staff when we bring in that final
plat, which is a pretty standard condition for when we are moving dirt, is that it's tested
and certified that it is put back in and we can build -- obviously we aren't going to put it
in the hole and so that's -- and Bruce is the one that put that condition on, so as a
standard requirement we are required to put that back in and that's what we would do in
those spots where we have lowered those anticipating being a pond there and tried to
take that dirt and fill it someplace. Now, we will get dirt from somebody and fill that in.
And we have had dirt hauled in to raise the elevation, so that we don't have that
groundwater problem with the building lots.
Moe: Thank you.
Freckleton: Mr. Chair? Commissioner Moe, I'd like to maybe add to that just a little bit
and that is the fact that the City of Meridian does require the applicant to conduct
subsurface soils -- that is to establish a ground water elevation. Mr. Brown is correct,
we do require that the -- there is a three foot separation to the ground water -- basically,
it's a foot from the bottom of the footing elevation. Got a licensed Idaho professional
engineer that's putting his license on the line when he -- he has to certify to our
department in writing with his stamp on it that those elevations have been established
and that they meet our criteria. So, it's in their best interest to make sure that it's taken
care of.
Moe: Thank you.
Zaremba: Is there an established percentage of how much runoff can go -- can or
cannot go onto a neighbor's property? In the ground water studies and surface water
studies, all that sort of stuff, is there any rule about how much can run off onto a
neighbor's property?
Freckleton: Typically, for the purposes of drainage -- drainage discharge to a drainage
facility, the irrigation and drainage districts will allow you to discharge predevelopment
flows. So, basically, they will look at the land prior to development and based on the
slope and the ground cover that's there, they will determine volume of water that
historically predevelopment has flowed across the land. That, to my knowiedge, is the
only way that you could ever really establish, you know, any kind of a number as to
what kind of flow ran across the surface. As far as an established standard as far as --
to establish a percentage, I'm not aware of any.
Zaremba: Well, I asked the wrong question and you answered the right one.
Freckleton: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6,2005
Page 49 of 54
Zaremba: So, theoretically, the end result has to be that the DeChambeau's property
cannot be affected any differently than it historically has been.
Freckleton: That's correct.
Zaremba: Okay.
Brown: And we have tested the site for many many years and it cycles like it does
everywhere else in the valley. You have the Ridenbaugh Canal that's elevated on this
site above the DeChambeau or Morgner property and on both sides they have had, if
you will, drains that immediately pick up the water as it comes flowing out of the
Ridenbaugh Canal. With the lining of the canal that we are doing, it will greatly change
that. You can kind of take it two ways. You know, Nampa-Meridian doesn't allow you to
flood someone else, but doesn't think very badly about the Ridenbaugh Canal noting
and flooding property. Farmers in the past have been excited about getting water, the
lining of the canal will stop that water from leaving their facility and to go to our property
and it will change the ground water in that area by lining it. To the north up here that
lined that portion and it changed that also. So, there is a series of gravel in here. The
water generally flows to Ten Mile. Ten Mile has been channelized by farmers over the
years, according to our soil scientists, kind of meandered around and probably very
wide and probably didn't want that and I'll stand for any other questions and we agree
with staff comments and hope it will be approved.
Zaremba: Any further questions? Thank you. Any discussion?
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing.
Borup: Second. Oh, excuse me. No, that covered it.
Zaremba: Moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on PP 04-040. All in
favor? Any opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Josh, a couple things you talked about. I know we discussed the wrought iron
fencing for, basically, both the north and south sides of Block -- or of Lot 53; correct?
Wilson: Correct.
Moe: Okay. And, then, you also -- you also talked about the --
Zaremba: When you reference that, I probably would make that a condition of the
adjoining lots as well, so that that common property line has that requirement.
Moe: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6. 2005
Page 50 of 54
Zaremba: Just a comment.
Mae: I'm just talking here. And, then, you also discussed the class one and class two
trees. That's already within your report here, so that doesn't need to go --
Wilson: Correct. The only additional condition that I didn't mention that's not in the
report is the wrought iron fencing. That's not actually in the report.
Mae: Okay. I guess my next question would be does it have to be wrought iron? I
mean is that -- not a non-sight obscuring fence and you want wrought iron for a tot lot?
He's shaking his head that's what he wants. Okay.
Zaremba: I think the applicant expressed a preference for the wrought iron.
Mae: Yeah. That's what I -- that's fine. Okay. Okay. In that case, Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Mr. Moe.
Newton-Huckabay: I thought Commissioner Rohm had a comment.
Rohm: Well, no, I -- no. I -- not at this time.
Zaremba: Okay. Commissioner Mae.
Newton-Huckabay: I'm going to assume nobody liked the basketball court idea. Okay.
Borup: Well, I wasn't -- yeah, I wasn't opposed to it. I'm not -- I would assume the
developer would like what's going to get the most use and what is going to be the most
attractive to the home buyers and I don't know how you answer that question.
Rohm: I think they have good logic in suggesting that they have an alternate to a tot lot
adjacent to the canal system. I think that was --
Newton-Huckabay: Well -- and it was the site, you know, you would attract a different
clientele for something about --
Borup: Would it be practical -- I mean what would it -- do a basketball court and a
smaller tot lot, not as many -- maybe not as many -- not as much playground equipment
or something.
Newton-Huckabay: I don't feel strongly either way, I was just throwing that out there.
Nary: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Mr. Nary.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2005
Page 51 of 54
Nary: Just a suggestion, maybe, Commissioner Huckabay. You can certainly just
direct as part of your recommendation if you wanted to do that, that the applicant and
staff work in looking at the whole site and what the amenities are. They have to provide
these amenities as part of the PUD, but looking at the whole picture of the site, the
applicant and staff can certainly look at whatever would be most suitable and they could
probably work that out before the City Council. But, obviously, the applicant is
amenable to either type of amenity, but you don't have to decide tonight if you don't
want to what specific one, but simply directing that back to the applicant and staff.
Rohm: That's a pretty good solution.
Newton-Huckabay: I agree.
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe, you're on.
Moe: Boy, I was ready to go. Okay. We will try this, then. Mr. Chairman, I move that
we forward to City Council recommending approval of PP 04-040, to include all staff
comments and conditions of the staff memo dated for the P&Z hearing date of
December 2nd, 2004, and a transmittal date of November 29th, 2004, with the following
changes: Okay. Let's see here. Under site-specific conditions on page four, I would
like to add a number six and that condition to --
Borup: Would it work just to add another sentence to number three, since we are
talking about the same lot.
Moe: I'll get to the tot lot after I get to --
Borup: Oh, I'm sorry. Excuse me.
Moe: Okay. Number six would be to include the installation of wrought iron fencing at
the northern property line of block -- or, excuse me, of Lot 53 -- between Lot 53 and 38
and the south property line of block -- of Lot 53 -- between 53 and 54 for that. Then, on
-- under the preliminary plat special considerations, item number three, just add another
sentence to read that the applicant will work with staff to -- give me a word.
Borup: Well, you may want it down under site-specific conditions, rather than special
considerations.
Moe: Oh, I'm sorry. Where are we at? We are not --
Borup: Same page. but page three and under site specific -- number three under site
specific talks about that -- that's the same motion you just made. Yeah. Only it doesn't
talk about on the fence line, it talks about on the pathway. So, that number six you
added restates the same lots that are mentioned in three. That's why I brought that up.
Moe: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were working on the --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6. 2005
Page 52 of 54
Borup: So, probably, the amenities would be another number seven in this case.
Moe: Well, I'll go ahead and add a number seven under the site specifics and that the
applicant will work with staff to -- what word did you say -- determine what amenities will
go in the tot lot. End of motion.
Rohm: I'll second that.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9:
Public Hearing: AZ 04-033 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of
15.92 acres from C-2 and RUT zones to C-G zone for Stor-It by Avest LP
- 355 North Ten Mile Road:
Zaremba: Thank you all. Next we will open a Public Hearing, which is Item 9, AZ 04-
033, request for an annexation and zoning of 15.92 acres from C-2 and RUT zones to a
C-G zone for Stor-It by Avest LP, 355 North Ten Mile Road and we have a request from
the applicant to delay any further comment on this, so do we need staff comments or
shall we go straight to a continuance?
Canning: Chairman Zaremba, just a quick update. This is .another one where the
applicant is reconsidering whether they really want to annex into the city at this time.
So, we may end up just pulling -- they may end up withdrawing it. We are not sure what
they are going to do yet, so if we just continue it for probably two hearings and, then, we
will see if he's made up his mind by then.
Zaremba: Okay. You're thinking February 3rd or--
Canning: Yes. I have been trying to keep your 20th agenda light, so that -- for the
Compass presentation that we talked about earlier today.
Zaremba: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: For the 3rd or continue it for two full hearings?
Zaremba: February 3rd is the one that I think was being suggested.
Canning: I think that should be fine.
Borup: Did they express how much time they felt they needed?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2005
Page 53 of 54
Canning: Probably when something froze over, but at this point, no, they have not, so --
I mean if you wanted to move it to the second hearing in February that would probably
be okay, too.
Borup: Mr. Chairman? The other question I -- and this may be mainly just for my
curiosity, but their letter stated it was unanticipated and I want -- that kind of surprises
me that it would have been unanticipated. Weren't they aware of requirements -- and
are they talking about the street --
Canning: The big issues were the street widening and, then, the location of a pathway
across their property.
Borup: So, maybe the pathway may have been unanticipated.
Canning: I think that was the straw, yeah.
Borup: Okay.
Canning: I think they didn't realize that -- what they came to realize is if they annex
now, they end up dedicating right of way. If they wait until ACHD does their road
improvements, then, they are paid for the right of way and I think that that was one of
the big factors. And, then, having to install the pathway was the second one.
Borup: So, if they proceed ahead, they'd proceed with a county application?
Canning: No. They'd have to be refused annexation by us, which we haven't done at
this point.
Borup: Okay. Before the county -- that's what I was wondering. So, they would not
develop it.
Canning: And my understanding is the county -- they are on city water and the city
made it a clear condition of approval that they would not approve any additional
development with city services until the properly were annexed.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: That already runs on their existing development; right?
Canning: Yes.
Zaremba: Okay.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue Public Hearing AZ 04-033 to the
February 17th, 2005, date. End of motion.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6. 2005
Page 54 of 54
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: I believe we need one more motion.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: We have adjourned at it looks like 9:55.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:55 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
f=tt13 1~1 ~ø5
DATE APPROVED