2005 04-07
Meridian Planninq and Zonina Meetina
Apr~
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of
April 7; 2005, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Vice-Chairman Michael Rohm.
Members Present: Commissioner Keith Borup, Commissioner Michael Rohm,
Commissioner David Moe, and Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay.
Members Absent: Chairman David Zaremba.
Others Present: Ted Baird, Machelle Brown, Craig Hood, Josh Wilson, Bruce
Freckleton, Joe Guenther, Joe Guenther, Mike Cole, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Keith Borup X
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X
Chairman David Zaremba
David Moe
Michael Rohm
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Rohm: Good evening. I'd like to call this meeting to order of the City of Meridian
Planning and Zoning and to start off with I'd like to adopt the agenda. If there is any
opposition to the agenda presented. Okay. With that being said, I'd like to take a roll
call.
Item 3:
Consent Agenda:
A.
Approve Minutes of March 3, 2005 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
Rohm: Would somebody like to make a motion to accept the Consent Agenda or is
there any changes?
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the Consent Agenda.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we approve the Consent Agenda. All those
in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Consent Agenda has been approved.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Before we start the public hearings tonight, there is a few things that I think
need to be stated, so that those of you that don't come before this Commission often
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 2 of 55
kind of get a feel for how the procedure goes and the way this works is as a project is
opened up for discussion, the first thing we do is we ask the staff to present the project
from a factual perspective. They take a look at each project as it adheres to the
Comprehensive Plan and to ordinance. They try to point out to us some of the
strengths and weaknesses and things such as that as it pertains to those two bodies of
work. Once the staff has made their presentation, then, the applicant, then, has 15
minutes to present the project and what they are doing is they are selling the project to
the Commission. They are trying to show us the strengths of their project from their
perspective and they have 15 minutes to make that presentation. After the applicant
has made their presentation, then, we open the discussion up to you, the public, for
your input. We want to make sure that you hear each and everyone of you and
everybody has a right to their opinion and their presentation. We can only take
testimony one person speaking at a time and so if, in fact, you have got some thoughts
as anybody's making their presentation, we ask that you hold those comments until it's
your turn to speak. Each of you will be given three minutes to present your position on
any application from which you speak. At the end of about two and a half minutes, this
lighting system will change to an amber color and that will mean you have 30 seconds
to conclude your remarks. If, in fact, there is anybody in the audience that is speaking
for a homeowner's association or something such as that where you're speaking for a
larger group, we do grant that individual an opportunity to speak longer and I believe
that is -- ten minutes? Ten minutes.
Item 4:
Continued Public Hearing from March 17, 2005: AZ 05-004 Request
for an Annexation and Zoning of 9.08 acres to a R-4 zone for The
Reserve Subdivision by C5 Development, LLC - west of North Locust
Grove Road and south of Chinden Boulevard:
Item 5:
Continued Public Hearing from March 17, 2005: PP 05-006 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval for 22 single-family residential building lots
and 7 common lots on 9.01 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for The
Reserve Subdivision by C5 Development, LLC - west of North Locust
Grove Road and south of Chinden Boulevard:
Rohm: Okay. With that being said, I'd like to start off by opening up the continued
Public Hearing on AZ 05-004 and PP 0-006 and hear our staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. As you mentioned, this
is a continued Public Hearing for the Reserve Subdivision. The applicant is proposing
22 build-able lots and seven common lots on 9.08 acres, blocked out in black there on
the screen. The site is located on the west side of Locust Grove Road and on the east
side of Jericho with access 60 feet of frontage on Jericho and I'll come back to that in a
minute. It's one quarter of a mile south of Chinden Boulevard. The site is currently
vacant and has not been platted in the past. The surrounding property to the subject
site to the north -- and this is a 2003 aerial, so it's not totally accurate. There is a
charter school that's been constructed, the large one acre -- or, excuse me, the large
parcel to the north and there are some -- five one acre homes in Westborough
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 3 of 55
Subdivision down Jericho Lane, recently platted. To the south there is a single-family
home on five acres. It's zoned RUT in the county still. To the west is the recently
approved Arcadia Subdivision. That's zoned R-8 in the city. To the east are some
single-family homes on approximately one acres in the Dunwoody Subdivision. Also, I
would like to draw your attention to a couple of other subdivisions in the general vicinity
that have recently been approved. Saguaro Canyon was approved just on the other
side of Arcadia and Westborough -- I did point out Westborough Subdivision already.
That application will be before this board here for re-platting of that soon. Combined
Saguaro Canyon and Arcadia have been approved for 466 lots. Currently, there is no
east-west connection between Locust Grove and Arcadia through Saguaro Canyon to
the west and staff believes that the only major issue -- or I guess point of contention
between the submitted preliminary plat and staff comments was the extension of the
Jericho Road to and through the proposed site. Here is a copy of their preliminary plat.
You can see there is a cul-de-sac with one entrance coming off of Locust Grove Road.
There are -- the lots range in size from 8,000 square feet up to 20,000 square feet. A
couple of other minor changes to the plat that staff has recommended are the -- there is
a one acre out parcel along Locust Grove Road as well. We have asked the applicant
to swing the road up to give that parcel some frontage, that way in the future when that
redevelops, their access out to Locust Grove can be terminated and they can take
access internally off of that roadway. The Public Works Department has noted that to
get water to this site they would like to see an easement come down approximately mid
block between the two islands, somewhere in there. If, in fact, that's what the applicant
chooses to do to bring the water service to this development, staff would also like to see
that stub street to the south, Fandango Street, moved to be in general alignment. Right
now there is that micro-path to the north that goes up to that school site and we'd just
like to see that for pedestrian fluidity, if you will, that that stay in that alignment if that
stub street switches over there. I believe that is the end of my comments. We are
recommending approval, again, with that -- with some fairly minor changes. The stub
street extension or Jericho Road extension is the biggest one and ACHD has also
required that -- required them to extend their street in to connect to Jericho Road and
they are, actually, requiring more frontage to that out parcel than city staff has
recommended, but if the staff is comfortable with this and the recommended conditions
of approval, we have not seen the revision from the applicant with the recommended
conditions, but believe that they can be made and still maintain, basically, this same
design. So, with that I will stand for any questions you may have.
Rohm: Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward?
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Dave McKinnon,
735 South Crosstimber. I think the last thing Craig Hood was just talking about minor
revisions and I guess I'll say that those are actually a little greater revisions than just
minor revisions. We may have to do a little bit of redrawing before we get back in front
of you guys. We feel that the revisions that the staff would require -- and if you want to
get ahead of me, turn to page 11 of your staff report and it's going to be items two
through six. We will talk about those, but just to give you an overview before we jump to
those. You remember a few months back -- actually, about a year ago when we first
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 4 of 55
looked at Saguaro Canyon, big subdivision, then, Jack came in with the Arcadia
Subdivision and there was some discussion at that time not wanting to take all four
hundred and some odd laps worth of traffic out of Saguaro to get to Chinden up through
the Jericho Road. And, then, now we are talking about connecting Jericho Road to this
subdivision. We talked about Arcadia. We talked at that time about connecting the two
subdivisions together and at that time we took out the condition for a stub street
between the two. ACHD's commission has put in a quasi stub street and there was all
the discussion we had about the quasi stub street and that quasi stub street was this
location right here. And, Craig, if you could help me out? Could you go back to the
overall site plan? That works great. This is Jericho Road that runs down. This is the
Westborough Subdivision that Jim Jewett did in the county. And we have that
emergency vehicle access that runs right here to the school site. And, then, we had 60
feet of access right here, so that everybody from Saguaro and everybody from Arcadia
would be able to make it through the EVA or go up to Jericho and at that time you guys
took out the condition for a stub street right here to connect all the way through. So, as
Craig said, there is 466 units in Saguaro and Arcadia. All those people have -- basically
have two options to get east and to the north is up through Arcadia and up to Jericho or
right through here now. And so that's an awful lot of traffic that we are going to be
putting through this subdivision. So, we met with you guys originally and got rid of the
stub street connection to this piece of property and they took it out of your conditions of
approval. There was testimony from neighbors saying they didn't want it, there was
testimony from us saying we didn't want to see it. It's going to bring an awful lot of
traffic through this Reserve Subdivision. Craig, if you can go back to the overall? In
conceptualizing this we originally came to the thinking when we met with the city that
small lots would be a good thing and, then, we saw what happened to the Leeshire
Subdivision when it got to City Council and they said this is way too dense in the front,
they didn't like the office out front, so we said let's revise this concept, let's talk about
doing some bigger lots and, as Craig said, there is some lots in the back here, .46 of an
acre, 20,000 square feet, we have some bigger lots, something that would meet the
needs of the city and, then, mix in some smaller lots as well, so we have a different type
of product type than just all large lots. The problem is if we make this a through street
and bring a whole lot of traffic in, it doesn't make those lots more valuable when you
bring in more traffic, it makes them less valuable. So, we were looking to do a product
that was something a little bit different, not what you see, cookie cutter pattern in the
city, so we thought let's try doing something a little bit different. That all changed when
ACHD said you have to bring this road up and connect to this 60 foot wide piece of
property or right of way right here. It changed things dramatically. Now, if you to turn
page three of the staff report -- I know you're already on page 11, but page three of the
staff report has an interesting comment from staff saying this project may not be dense
enough. They say it's only 2.4 units to the acre and the Comp Plan says you should
have three units to the acre at a minimum. Basically, in order to meet that we'd have to
fit eight more units into this area and that's a lot more houses within this subdivision.
So, we wanted to keep it a little bit bigger and a larger type of subdivision. We are
requesting for that density reduction, I guess, in the Comprehensive Plan. I think it's
probably the first time you have heard anybody ask for a density reduction, rather than
have more density in a project. So, I guess we are asking for you guys to approve this
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 5 of 55
with a density that's actually less than what the Comprehensive Plan is asking for. So,
instead of three to eight units per acre, we are asking for two to four -- I guess less than
three units per acre. Typically, it's not something the neighbors would fight against.
The school is up on the north. Down south, like Craig said, two five-acre pieces with
their houses. We would have liked to have worked with those people, but they didn't
want to sell at a price that we could afford. Now, onto page 11. Let's talk a little bit
about the conditions of approval and those minor changes. The first minor change is
connecting this road up and blowing through these two lots. That's a pretty big change
to add a roadway all the way up through here, so we are going to have to do some
changes there. Item number three on the site specific conditions of approval, it's taking
Hidden Path and instead of having this access road jog up this way, they want Hidden
Path to come in, a hundred feet of connection right here, and, then, drop back down.
That's, obviously, going to change the configuration of these lots and change the
configuration of this open space. And that leaves us right to the -- item number five --
jump forward real quick. Item number five wants us to keep all the open space right at
.74 acres. Not going to happen. We have to reconfigure this, because it's going to
change what happens in this area. That exact number is seven percent of the open
space. That's probably going to change with the redesign of this project. We will still
come in at five percent, but it's definitely going to change from what it is right now.
Number four on that had to deal with the common driveway down here. Obviously, the
common driveway isn't going to be necessary anymore in this configuration, because
there is a requirement for the road to go up and come back down right here. In addition
to that, the variance request that's mentioned in the staff report would no longer be
required, because it won't be a cul-de-sac anymore. Item number six -- Craig pointed
this out to you already. Moving this micro-path that goes to the school in alignment with
the water main that's next to the school. The Planning and Zoning staff, in agreement
with that requirement, wants to move this whole street alignment all the way over here.
Those are pretty major changes to a plat. It's not just minor changes, it's taking this plat
-- getting rid of this traffic circle, moving a road up to here, getting rid of this common
driveway, taking this private -- or taking this public pathway and moving it down here
and taking this road, moving it farther to the west and, then, reconfiguring this whole
configuration right here. We need some time to redesign this and figure out what we
are going to do and whether or not we need to add some more units to this site,
because it doesn't meet your Comprehensive Plan density. We wanted to do something
a little bit different, but in order to match the Comprehensive Plan, you come back to the
8,000 square foot lots, it's just like everybody else, everything is connected, just like
everywhere else, and we are back to a cookie cutter design, if we have everything
according to the Comprehensive Plan. We wanted to do something a little bit different,
we wanted to raise the values, raise the different size of houses in Meridian, to give you
variety, instead of just doing the common place. You know, we got Westborough above
with one-acre lots. We have got Dunwoody across the street with two and half. We
have got Larkwood with their acreage. This would fit somewhere in between that, with
the half acre to the quarter acre, to sub-quarter acre lots. So, it gets you a mix of that,
which is also something the Comprehensive Plan has asked for. We'd like to have you
approve this tonight, but, obviously, in light of what ACHD's requested and all the
changes that staff requested, we have to make some changes to this in order to make
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 6 of 55
this work for you. We are working on a redesign for this. I don't know if it's going to
come back looking exactly like this. Like Craig said, I think it's going to look at lot
different. We are going to be getting rid of probably traffic circles, because there is not
necessarily a need for one down at the end anymore without a cul-de-sac. And the
owner of the property had intended on building his house on this lot and without that lot
being there it changes things for the owner, because it changes the subdivision. It's no
longer a quiet subdivision, but it's carrying the through traffic of 466 lots. So, we are
going to need some time. We'd love some direction from you as to what you would like
to see and we will have to come back to you, but we'd like to know what you feel about
the density of this project, if that's something that you actually think is a good thing, if we
should go the lower density or the higher density. And we'd love to hear what you'd like
to see us do with this open space as you drive in, if this road has to move up, if it should
be aligned just a straight shot straight through. Just some questions and some
comments from you guys would be great. So, I'd turn the time over for you guys for
questions and ask what you would like for us to do.
Rohm: Wow, that's -- I appreciate it, I'll tell you.
Borup: I do have a few questions, Mr. Chairman.
Rohm: Yes.
Borup: First of all, what -- now you mentioned staff requesting a lot of -- a lot of
changes and they have several, but how many of them are in addition to what ACHD
has asked for?
McKinnon: This is in addition to ACHD.
Borup: The alignment?
McKinnon: The alignment of the path moving --
Borup: That's what I thought.
McKinnon: -- lining up the open space requirement of seven percent that staff's putting
on there what we had originally proposed. That's not -- it doesn't -- it's going to change
and that's something that would have to change with the ACHD requirements, but that's
not a --
Borup: You know, maybe they don't stay this way, but my interpretation of what staff
was saying is that in realigning that street you could conceivably add a couple more
building lots, but you're probably needing that for your drainage area, so maybe not. My
assumption was they just were saying that -- leave the lot density where it was and that
open space would stay open space. If it does align straight in, actually, you will be
gaining space, you're not going to be losing space.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 7 of 55
McKinnon: Well, that depends on what happens --
Borup: Well, if the road was lined up straight, like you're saying, you got less -- you got
less pavement there and if you got less, I assume that means the difference is going to
go into open space.
McKinnon: Well, actually, let me go a little bit deeper into what happens with the
realignment up here. If we align our roadway here, we wouldn't be the full road section.
This becomes back to your half plus 12, with the 40 feet of road, rather that the whole
section, because the sidewalk -- we are, obviously, not going to build the sidewalk
across here with the rolled curb for this person for his development. The city is asking
us to go ahead and build the right of way here. We won't complete that right of way,
they will complete that right of way. And so that changes what happens on theirs,
because they have to dedicate right of way, put the sidewalk further back, and align it
without sidewalk -- it changes everything that happens right here.
Borup: I didn't -- was that your understanding of what staff was asking for?
McKinnon: Yeah. It is what staff is asking for.
Borup: To do the half--
McKinnon: They are asking us to provide access from the right of way to that. They are
not asking us to build the roadway for them, they are asking us to provide access to
them with right of way.
Borup: Okay.
McKinnon: And so that changes what happens on their property, because now they
have a setback and they have to dedicate some right of way as well for their property.
They are not getting a free ride on this, they are going to have to do some of their own
construction of sidewalk and road there.
Borup: I don't think that changes the common area size enough to be of any
significance.
McKinnon: Well, like Commissioner Moe pointed out, additional lots could be placed in
that area if the road is moved significantly in that --
Borup: And I assume that's what staff meant by saying that the common area would
stay common area. And you had mentioned that staff was talking about that it doesn't
comply and I think they were doing an analysis of the Comp Plan, of course strictly
reading that, but it also mentioned that -- that there is a one step allowance, plus their
final statement was they recommend approval. I don't think they are objecting to
density specifically, unless there is -- unless there is a lot of objections from the public
here tonight or other commissioners.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 8 of 55
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. McKinnon, I have a question. If we don't provide the access at
the east side of the property for -- I don't have a pointer. Right there.
McKinnon: Uh-huh.
Newton-Huckabay: How are we proposing that that property is going to access --
McKinnon: Craig, can you --
Newton-Huckabay: They are not going to access onto Locust Grove I don't think.
McKinnon: Craig, can you go back to the overall site plan? What we had originally
proposed -- the city, actually, owns this lot right here. This is a well lot. And the city is
going to have to take access to that well lot off of Locust Grove. There will be an
access on Locust Grove for this well lot right there. They are not going to take access
from this subdivision through this guy's property -- through this gentleman's property
and, then, onto their well lot. They will have access. What we originally discussed with
the city was that if you're going to have to have an access there, why not go ahead and
have a shared access. There is an access there right now for the existing single-family
home. The home fronts on Locust Grove. The driveway fronts onto Locust Gróve and
the garage is easily accessible off of Locust Grove. What would happen is you would
have to close off this driveway point, wrap around the house to get into the garage. And
they are asking us to go ahead and provide access through here, so that this gentleman
can develop his small portion of land back here and still keep an access for Locust
Grove there. Currently, they have access on Locust Grove, but we are hoping that the
city could make that work by using a shared access there. but the city and the Ada
County Highway District have felt that it would be more appropriate to close off their
access, go ahead and grant the city well access, and go ahead and say you have to
provide access to these guys back here. That's where we are at.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And when I draw out how it would look there at Jericho,
does it kind of come in like a Y that's out of Arcadia, is that how -- yeah.
McKinnon: Is this similar to your Y?
Newton-Huckabay: Yes.
McKinnon: Yeah. That's kind of the configuration that it would have to look like.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
McKinnon: And, then, you have the emergency vehicle access on the north side.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, you're drawing it out the same way that I would -- okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 9 of 55
Borup: So, your -- Mr. McKinnon, you're saying there is no possibility that --
McKinnon: That--
Borup: Oh, let me see that.
Moe: Yeah. Like that.
Borup: So, there is no possibility to bring that road further south?
McKinnon: Jericho?
Borup: No. Yeah. I mean Jericho.
Newton-Huckabay: There is more to run into Jericho.
McKinnon: Jericho is actually -- you can see where it comes in right here. That's the far
east point of Jericho, so you can't drag it any further onto this piece of property. What
will happen is this will come up --
Borup: Unless Arcadia was redesigned.
McKinnon: Unless Arcadia was redesigned. That's correct.
Borup: Or I assume on both projects.
McKinnon: Well, Arcadia is already through, so the construction drawings are already
done for that.
Borup: Well, but if it went further to the south, you wouldn't lose a lot that you're losing
now with that road tie in.
McKinnon: Then further, then, running it straight through?
Borup: Well, more in line with the existing road, then, you -- you wouldn't be losing that
lot.
McKinnon: You have -- there is a couple things -- you have a Saguaro -- Craig, can you
go back to the overall --
Borup: That's okay. 1--
McKinnon: I was just going to say, the problem is in Saguaro Canyon you have got a
straight shot that's -- if you add that to a straight shot all the way through, it's going to be
two-thirds of a mile of a straight roadway all the way out to Locust Grove.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 10 of 55
Borup: I see.
McKinnon: And so that becomes just a monster road. You have to do something to
keep traffic from going straight through and zipping through that. One of the ideas we
had is to put those traffic calming circles in there, but if we take out that cul-de-sac, that
traffic circle goes away and that's some of the extra open space that we were talking
about that will go away. You don't have a need for a secondary traffic circle anymore at
the end of that cul-de-sac, because putting a traffic circle with no traffic in between it, it
just doesn't make sense.
Rohm: Well, Dave, the map that you just showed here, it looks like you have come up
with some solutions that meet both Ada County Highway District and the staff report and
it looks like you're moving in the right direction, just based what I can see before us
here.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Maybe there is public testimony on this one.
Rohm: Well -- and I'm sure there will be, but before we move to the public testimony,
we want to make sure that we are at least on the same page with the applicant.
McKinnon: Chairman Rohm -- can I call you that tonight?
Rohm: Whatever.
McKinnon: Whatever. Okay. We are getting closer. We will have to reconfigure some
things here. I don't know what we'd do -- I don't know what we are doing with these lots
in here. All of a sudden you have got what's not really a cul-de-sac, it's not really a
knuckle, and you have got a really weird chunk of land. I don't know how you deal with
that. And beyond being able to figure out kind of where we are at with this, there is a lot
of design that needs to go into this, is what are we going to do for this guy, how much
the road -- we align that road straight up, and, then, we have got to make sure that the
owner is happy with the final product. If it's not something that he wants to do, you
know, it's something we could say let's come back at a later date and do something
different and come back in with just a -- just a straight road that runs in there and just do
8,000 square foot lots to meet the ordinance and away we go and maybe there is more
money to be had in that, instead of doing something a little bit different. So, we have
got to make sure that, beyond me being happy and you being happy, that the owner is
happy with what we come up with. So, I'm getting there, but I'm not quite there yet. So,
we need a little bit more time to figure out what we are doing and where we are going
with that.
..~
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 11 of 55
Rohm: Okay. Thanks, Dave. The only person we have signed up is Paul Hertado. Go
ahead and come up. And state your name and address, please.
Hertado: My name is Paul Hertado. I live at 5885 North Locust Grove Road, which is
the lot south of the property proposed. The five acres. Our concerns are -- is that our
living, since we have been there, is kind of a farm life. We do raise a couple livestock
there for butchering and eating purposes, plus we have horses. We just want to know
how that's going to affect us in our daily life and so on and so forth once this gets
approved. We also have an irrigation ditch that runs straight down that property line
between there that provides water for both the five acre lots and how that's going to be
maintained and so on and so forth. Plus, along that ditch line there has been several
wild trees that have come up there, some on his property, some on mine, or right on the
fence line. How are we going to address that, who is going to be responsible for
removing those or if they do need to be removed or what's going affect us on. And
that's what our concerns are.
Rohm: I think that I can answer some of your questions for you, just -- just as a general
statement. Irrigation rights and water flow cannot be taken away from you for the
development of any other property. That's just a course of business. That's the way
that works. And as far as your existing lifestyle with your agricultural applications on
your property, that, too, is a protected right and the development of this project or any
other project does not in any way take away from your rights to use your property as
you -- it currently exists.
Hertado: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: You bet. Is there anybody else that would like to testify before this --
Hood: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Just a moment. Go ahead, Craig.
Hood: I'll let Mr. Lee go ahead and testify. I was just going to clarify a couple of things,
but I can go ahead and wait until his testimony -- I just wanted to clarify the minor
changes, I guess, and that I felt comfortable with the changes being verbal and not
having to see that redesign, but if the applicant would like to have us remand it back
and come back to Planning and Zoning Commission so I can review it and make any
other changes, that's where my minor comment was, that I felt comfortable with the
comments being before City Council to draw these up -- and the only thing with that was
the applicant's have known about the -- since they came in and did a pre-app that we
were going to push for a stub street, the time to redesign -- and they have had the staff
report for over a month, so that there hasn't been enough time to redesign that is a little
bit -- without trying to defend myself too much, they have had some time to do a
redesign.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 12 of 55
Rohm: And I don't have any problem with that, Craig. I think if the applicant is aware
that we are hesitant to move forward without any kind of a redesign, then, I think that's
probably the right answer. So, I appreciate your comments, but the applicant appears
to be willing to go back to the drawing board and take another .Iook at it to meet the
expectations of ACHD and zoning's -- or planning staff and I think that that's probably
the direction this is going to go, but I'd like to take the rest of the public testimony and,
then, we will move from there. Thanks, Craig.
Borup: Yeah. While Mr. Lee is coming up, ACHD's report is dated March 16th, so that
information has been available since then.
Lee: My name is Grant Lee. I live at 5603 North Locust Grove Road. The infamous
Leeshire property. And I did attend the neighborhood meeting for this project. I thought
it was well planned out. I thought that it was an improvement on the cookie cutter
design that we see all the time. My only concern is with access. I have got a building
on Fairview, on the corner of Stonehenge, where my driveway comes out and gets
cutoff within about ten feet, which was extremely poor planning at the time when they
allowed the Stonehenge Subdivision to come passed us. But I see kind of the same
thing here with this highway department and city is trying to avoid with this area right up
there in the front. But I think if they are going to have to put a stub road back here
through Jericho, I think when Mr. Hertado's property gets developed right here and the
long skinny five acre piece next to his, which between Leeshire, my property here, and
Arcadia and Reserve, but if Jericho Road -- you were talking about maybe extending
that, it would solve a lot of problems if it did come straight down through, even if it
butted into our property. We are going to have to stub a street here anyway and we are
already going to stub a street into Arcadia and we are stubbing a street into Saguaro
Canyon and we got a stub street into Larkwood, so we are stubbing all over the place.
But if you're talking about long shots, we have got a long shot from Saguaro Canyon
that's going to go straight out to Locust Grove and there is not too many ways to get
around that, because this is our house and you got room for one road and the shot
starts way back here and it's going to go straight forward. So, Reserve Subdivision is
not the only subdivision that would get a straight shot, there would be a lot of traffic
going down ours, but if they are going to reconsider this Jericho Road issue here, even
though they have already got construction drawings for Arcadia, it, to me, makes a lot of
sense to just extend Jericho Road down, which is going to take some of the pressure off
of them, it will take some of the pressure off of us, and it will solve the problems of
giving access to Mr. Hertado's property at the back and the property from Mr. Almond
on this side. But, all in all, I did attend their neighborhood meeting and I think that their
project was pretty sound with having some bigger lots at the back. If Jericho is
extended, I think that might solve some problems of the owner's lot in the back of the
property. Those are my only comments. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to offer testimony in this
application? Okay. Discussion?
Borup: You want to give the applicant an opportunity to respond?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 13 of 55
Rohm: If he'd like to or -- I think we are --
Borup: Probably the only question that wasn't answered was that about the trees that I
noticed. And I don't know if that's pertinent right now.
Hood: Mr. Chair, while Dave is coming forward, I'll let you know that there is note
placed on the plat for the Right To Farm Act, is standard, and this development cannot -
-- kind of goes along with the water rights, they cannot, you know, impede his right to
farm that property for livestock purposes, so --
McKinnon: Thank you, Craig. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I couldn't have said it better,
other than you just said the Right To Farm Act, and the irrigation, you guys nailed those
right on the head. The trees are something we will have to work out with Mr. Hertado. I
have been out to the site a couple times. I don't know exactly -- I haven't seen the pins
and how everything is placed, but if there is some trees there that need to be saved, so
forth, it is something that will just have to be worked out. I don't know exactly what that
is, but that's something that, you know, has to get worked out and if it's a party tree, I
don't know exactly how you deal with that, if it's right down the middle of the property
line. Those are things that just need to be worked out, but I think that's something that
can be worked out together. I think that's about it. I think you guys covered everything.
I don't think we are going to pursue extending Jericho all the way south. I think that's --
Rohm: Okay. Before you sit down, Dave, as a Commission we are here to try and work
with both the development community and staff and if you think that it's to the
betterment of this project as a whole for us to continue this until the next meeting, so
you can go back and reconfigure your lots and address the issue and, then, have us
take a look at it in its adjusted format, we can do that, or we can act on it as it currently
is, with stating conditions that you will have to address before City Council and, quite
honestly, I don't have -- I don't care, other than it definitely needs to take into
consideration those things that have been presented tonight. So, I guess I'm looking for
a little direction from you.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, may I make just a point here and maybe this might help a lot as
well. Quite frankly, I will not feel very comfortable at all without seeing the changes on
this plan before it would go forward to City Council. So, I'm going to recommend that
the applicant do plan to have us continue this hearing and that's -- I guess my question
to you would be how soon will you have something to come back to us with?
Newton-Huckabay: We are not open on April 21 st.
McKinnon: Commissioner -- Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, I agree with
Commissioner Moe. I'm not comfortable moving this forward until -- actually, I have got
my drawing, but once we get it on engineering and take a look at it and see what it looks
like, I'm not comfortable moving it forward. I'd like to work with you and work with staff.
A lot of those conditions that are in the staff report, especially conditions, you know, two
...."
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 14 of 55
through six, those are all -- they would all go away with the reconfiguration. I don't think
they necessarily need to go to Council with that. I think that, you know, we are not
going to be ready in two weeks, obviously, for the 21 st. A month is fine. If we are too
full on that next meeting, you know, put us out a little bit, but I want to be comfortable
bringing it back to you guys before it moves on.
Moe: I agree.
Rohm: Dave, it looks like there is room to put you on the May 5th agenda --
Moe: I would go to the 19th is what I would want.
Rohm: The 19th?
Moe: Yeah. I think that -- that's a month out, basically. A little over a month.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think you might ask Craig
how quick -- how much time he's going to need take a look at it, too.
Hood: Whatever date the ~- whatever date the Commission decides. I'd like to have
something at least ten days before the hearing date, that gives me three or four days,
anyway, to review, make the changes, get a memo out to you, revise the staff report, so
at least ten days, preferably 14. So, depending on how soon you can have it to me.
McKinnon: I think the 19th would be the best.
Rohm: Okay. That's what we are looking for.
McKinnon: Does that work for you guys? That works for us.
Moe: Thank you.
Rohm: Thanks, Dave.
McKinnon: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chairman, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ --
oh, we continue it, don't we?
Borup: Yeah. We want to continue it.
Rohm: Continue it.
Newton-Huckabay: I move that we continue Public Hearing AZ 05-004 and PP 05-006,
to the regular scheduled Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on May 19th, 2005.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 15 of 55
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue AZ 05-004 and PP 05-006 to
the regular scheduled meeting of May 19th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 6:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-009 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of
1.06 acres from RUT to L-O zone for Mike and Gloria Urwin by Mike and
Gloria Urwin - 2560 South Meridian Road:
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-009 and begin with the
staff report.
Hood: Thank you. The subject property is a request for annexation and zoning of 1.06
acres, commonly known as Lot 1, Block 1, in Volkman Subdivision. It's located on the
east side of Meridian Road, approximately 2,000 feet north of Victory Road. There is
currently a single family home and some outbuildings on the site. This property is
designated as low density residential in the Comprehensive Future Land Use Map.
However, the Comprehensive Plan and the resolution passed within the past six
months, anyways, that allows parcels less than three acres in size that have frontage on
an arterial street, to request an office zone. That is what you have before you tonight is
the request for an office. The area vicinity map. To the north of the site is a canal. A
single-family home. It's zoned RUT in the county. To the south is a veterinarian clinic.
To the east is a single family home on approximately eight acres, zoned RUT in the
county. And to the west is a large 30 plus acre parcel owned by the Nazarene Church.
Here is the conceptual site plan that the applicant has submitted with their annexation
and zoning request. In addition to converting the existing residence that you see there
on the southwest side of the map, they are proposing to change access location into a
site that is currently provided in this location. Conceptually, they would like to move it
up to the north property line and construct some additional parking for the office use.
Staff is recommending that they be granted this access on an interim basis. They do
not have frontage anywhere else, other than the state highway. The access would go
away when access is provided from either of the parcels here -- one of the conditions in
the development agreement that's proposed is that this parcel provide cross-access to
the parcels to the north and south and that will be reciprocated when we see
development applications and annexation applications from these parcels to develop
and that is because -- the main reason that that's -- we'd like to see that as a temporary,
rather a permanent access, high speeds here on a type four roadway, we try to limit
access points onto that roadway and we can get them down to a public street -- there
are public streets in this location and in this location. We are not quite sure exactly how
this is going to develop. It is all shown as medium density residential or low density
residential. Staff could envision some of these other parcels with frontage on the
highway also requesting the same zone and office use on the arterial, rather than the
single-family use. But getting access to these public streets is critical and that's why the
request is there that the cross-access be provided and that the access be on an interim
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 16 of 55
basis. I just want to make one quick note, too, about sewer and water availability right
now. It's currently not available to this site. However, as you can see, the northern
portion of Mussell Corner, which houses Victory Greens Nursery, they are going
through the subdivision process right now and I'm not exactly sure where they are in the
process, but the conceptual plan is to extend sewer and water to that site, thereby
making them available to this property. So, when they are available they will have to
hook up and that was included in the development agreement proposed as well. I do
have a letter from the applicant. It didn't make it into the Commission's packet, I don't
believe, but the clerk may have that to you now. I would paraphrase and let the
applicant testify. It didn't look like they had any real concerns, just a point -- a couple of
points of clarification, that -- again, that they would like to see that cross-access
reciprocated if they provide it to the north and south, they want to see that provided to
them as well. Staff fully intends to do that. And that their other note was that if access
is provided in the rear, excuse me, that they be able to keep this access until it is
provided through a frontage or back-age road, rather than some round about way here.
I don't know that any other conditions need to be changed to reflect that. I think we are
on the same page and would agree with the applicant's comments. With that, I will
stand for any questions you may have.
Rohm: Any questions of staff?
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I don't have any questions, but I guess I would like to get a copy of
Resolution 04-0454 at some point.
Rohm: No other questions--
Borup: I do have one. I'm sorry. I'm slow thinking. Pertaining to the same resolution,
have we approved any other similar projects without city services?
Hood: Mr. Chair?
Borup: I know we've had others that -- the same -- you know, the same situation.
Hood: With services, yes.
Borup: Right.
Hood: That has been -- I may let Bruce talk to that some more if you would like, but,
yeah, we usually add that disclaimer type language and that hasn't been included here,
but --
Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, excuse me, we have had a few -- a
handful of projects that have come through that services were not available at the time
of application. The city ordinances are pretty clear that when services are available
within 300 feet they have to be connected, if you're in the city limits. So, typically, on a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 17 of 55
project like this we will just put the condition in the staff report that highlights that
requirement and -- just to make them aware of the situation, so --
Borup: Okay.
Rohm: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward?
Jones: Chad Jones, B&A Engineers, 5505 West Franklin Road, Boise, Idaho. We have
reviewed the staff report and, to be quite honest, we don't have any exception to it. So,
with that being said, I guess I'll just stand for any questions.
Rohm: Well, that makes it pretty simple.
Moe: No questions necessary.
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you.
Rohm: There is no other individuals that have signed up. Is there anybody else that --
oh, excuse me. Mike Irwin? Okay. Thank you.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing for AZ 05-009.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close Public Hearing AZ 05-009. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? The motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Yes.
Moe: I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-009, to
include all staff comments for the hearing date April 7, 2005, received by the city clerk's
office on April the 1 st, 2005.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same
sign? This one carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 18 of 55
Rohm: Yes.
Moe: Before we open this next hearing, the company I work for is a construction
manager for the school district, so, therefore, I will be recusing myself from this hearing.
Item 7:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-008 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of
41.27 acres from RUT to R-4 for a new middle school for McMillan and
Meridian Middle School by Joint School District No.2 - NEC of
McMillan and Meridian Roads:
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate you bringing that to our attention and with that
being said, at this time I would like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 05-008 and I'd like
to get some staff comments.
Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application
before you is an application by the Joint School District No.2 for the annexation of 41
acres, currently zoned RUT, Ada County. They'd like to annex that to an R-4 zoning
designation and construct a new middle school there. The property is located at the
corner -- the northeast corner of McMillan Road and Meridian Road. A few key things to
point out. As an annexation we are not able to condition on that -- on the annexation. If
there were some outstanding issues, some major issues that need to be dealt with, we
would do it with a development agreement. We are not proposing that with this
application, so just a few key things to point out is we did recommend that the applicant
continue the ten foot multi-use pathway that Saguaro Canyon to the east opted to
construct in lieu of a five foot concrete sidewalk. We did ask the applicant to construct
that through their project. They have agreed to that, is my understanding. I'll let the
applicant's representative address that here in a few minutes, but they have -- they do
feel like that's something that they would like to see done and it will be placed on the
north side of the Lemp canal with a -- the canal company -- it's my understanding the
canal company is requiring a fence along the canal for the safety of the children.
Whether it's required by the canal company or not, I'm not quite sure, but they have
represented there will be a fence there. So, the path would be separated from the canal
by a fence and some landscaping. Something I guess I could mention -- the Lemp
canal does run along the north side of McMillan Road, on the entire south boundary of
this property, so that's a consideration. The Ada County Highway District has, in their
report, their draft report that I reviewed, they did require a signalized pedestrian
crossing on the eastern boundary of the property along Meridian Road from the future
Paramont Subdivision. A little bit more history. Around this area, around this
application, as previously mentioned, Saguaro Canyon has been recently approved
directly to the east of this property. Ventana Subdivision, the Commission recently saw
it, to the north of this property and there has also been a preliminary plat on the western
side of Meridian Road for Paramount Subdivision. A mixture of housing, some office --
and specifically on the corner of McMillan Road and Meridian Road there would be
some light office and commercial use. The properties to the south of this property have
not developed yet. Directly to the south. To the southwest have not developed yet and,
then, to the southeast is Cobre Basin. Staff did raise some issues in the staff report
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 19 of 55
concerning the lack of sidewalks in the general area of the middle school. In order to
start discussions between the school district and ACHD and City of Meridian, to kind of
head off at the pass the problems that we have seen with Sawtooth -- with Sawtooth
Middle School. It's kind of a difficult issue. It's kind of the chicken before the egg. In
order for proper planning, the middle school needs to be in there ahead of these large
developments that are expected in this area and because of that the improvements with
those subdivisions haven't been built yet, so you get a middle school that's isolated from
surrounding neighborhoods, with no sidewalks for pedestrian access to the middle
school that has proved to be a problem at Sawtooth. In meeting with Director Canning
and Wendel Bigham, a representative from the school district, we have begun
discussions about what to do about that. A couple of things that were mentioned -- and
this kind of depends on where the district boundary ends up being, where -- the
boundary between who goes to this middle school and who goes to Sawtooth Middle
School, which is a mile southwest of here, will kind of influence what happens, but there
is some opportunity in subdivisions to the south for the school district to negotiate a
temporary construction of a pathway across some properties that would link
subdivisions together, specifically from the south -- if we could -- I'll use the mouse here.
This neighborhood here, there was some discussion of a temporary path that would
connect this neighborhood to this one -- I'm sorry if I speak generally, I haven't been
around long enough to know exactly what these neighborhoods are -- would connect
these two and, then, bring the students up through this neighborhood and there is a
sidewalk connection along there and that would facilitate the movement of students
from this -- from these southern subdivisions up to the middle school. Director Canning
was optimistic that that was a solution that could work and maybe solve some of the
problems that we saw with Sawtooth. To the north and northwest and generally west
there are still some large gaps in the sidewalk system and there will be until Paramount
and some of those other subdivisions are built out and -- but we do feel that things are
moving in the right direction and just -- you know, this time we are talking about it, trying
to figure out what we can do about it, instead of getting hit with some problems, you
know, later on. And other than that, staff is supportive of the layout of the middle school
and with that I will end staff's comments.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff by fellow Commissioners?
Newton-Huckabay: Not at this time.
Rohm: With that being said, would the applicant like to come forward?
Hanson: Mr. Commissioner, Members of the Commission, my name is Scott Hanson
with Lombard-Conrad Architects, at 1221 Shoreline Lane, Boise. I'm here representing
the Joint School District No.2 and reviewing staff's comments and with our meetings
with staff, we take no exception to any of the recommendations in the staff report nor
the recommendations of ACHD. With regard to the larger picture of the sidewalks on --
in the public way, I'll leave that to a larger discussion with the school district and the city,
as well as ACHD. Obviously, I think Josh touched on that pretty well, is that we have
got a lot of areas that are not connected, because they are not yet developed, just like
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 20 of 55
Sawtooth Middle School was. Certainly, as soon as that development occurs, then, we
will be -- we have interconnected the subdivision that is being platted right now in this
area, as well as Saguaro Canyon here, interconnectivity into the side subdivision --
children in these subdivisions have direct access into the school without going out onto
McMillan or Meridian Road and I would imagine, then, the school district will be working
with ACHD and the city to try to -- yeah, it's not shown here, but there are development
drawings shown for this development that come in and connect -- and that's the same
direction we are bringing the sewer is through this area and we are using that -- that
easement for the sewer as our pathway in, as well as a pathway through into this
subdivision. We are running a sidewalk, as Josh indicated, along this property line that
will connect into the circulation of the school district -- or of the school itself. It will be
bounded with a fence on the south side to protect the children from accidentally getting
into canal and that's their landscape. This drawing prior to our landscaping plan that
shows landscaping and everything along this property line, but I will -- like I say, I'll
leave it to the school district and the other parties to be here to speak to the larger issue
of interconnectivity with the other subdivisions in the area. So, I'll just stand for
questions.
Rohm: Any question from the balance of Commissioners?
Borup: The only thing I had interest on was the sidewalk situation, but I guess maybe
it's been said.
Rohm: Let me ask just this. So, you're saying that the school district is willing to at
least keep that discussion open on the temporary path on the property to the south to
get that connectivity -- can you put that other map back up?
Borup: Doesn't that come up around the -- the second phase anyway? Josh, is that --
I'm not sure. I thought for some -- I don't know what I saw. I thought it was coming up
in the not too distant future, which would kind of solve that problem anyway, wouldn't it?
Rohm: And I believe Josh was speaking to some sort of a temporary path --
Borup: Yeah. That's Berney Glen, so that would be phase -- the next phase of that.
Probably tie in anyway. Or not probably, there is two stub streets there that will tie in.
Rohm: Well, it sounds like --
Hanson: Well, see, I couldn't commit the school district to developing sidewalks on
parcels that they aren't responsible for, but I'm certain that they are going to want to
work with all the parties that be to make sure that the kids can get to school in a safe
manner.
Rohm: And I think that's what staff was getting at, is want to make sure that everybody
is on the same page, so that the flow of pedestrian traffic, if you will, will be conducive to
getting to school in a safe manner.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 21 of 55
Borup: Which I guess that leads to the question -- we're assuming that at least
everybody on this map would all be walking to school, they would not be bused? I
mean they are all less than a mile away or a half a mile.
Hanson: Well, it depends on -- it really depends on what the boundaries are going to
wind up being.
Borup: I'm just -- on this -- what's on the screen right now would all be walking or --
assuming that there is pedestrian crossings.
Hanson: More than likely. But I have seen in some cases -- and I'm assuming this is
the case, but there could be a boundary that is right here, possibly. And everyone over
here walks to school and these people go to --
Borup: No. I understand that.
Hanson: -- Sawtooth.
Borup: I have seen that, too.
Wilson: Commissioner Borup, just a quick point. In discussions with Mr. Bigham, he
did indicate that a mile and a half is the general busing radius.
Borup: Okay.
Wilson: So, closer to that would typically walk or be dropped off by parents.
Newton-Huckabay: Unless there is not the infrastructure there, then, your kids have to
get bused, because it's a safety issue.
Wilson: Correct.
Newton-Huckabay: I'm also confident, being a parent who experiences the joy of
Sawtooth Middle School every morning -- and I live only a quarter of a mile away from it,
that the city and the school district are all going to want to avoid the issues we have at
Sawtooth right now with the new middle school.
Rohm: Thank you, sir.
Hanson: Thank you.
Rohm: Is there anybody else that would like to testify before this Commission on this?
Okay. With that, do any of the Commissioners have any other questions of staff or are
we ready to move forward?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 22 of 55
Borup: I think we are ready, Mr. Chairman. Excuse me.
Newton-Huckabay: I was just curious in those discussions, as I said, getting to
experience the Sawtooth Middle School, are we going to work to try to create some
improvements to that intersection? I know there is something going on at the
intersection right now. I believe that's sewer work or -- I mean is that -- I guess it's a
question for my own edification.
Wilson: Yeah. I'm hesitant to fully represent what Mr. Bigham agreed to, but the
general discussion was that improvements specifically along Meridian and McMillan
Road are difficult, because ACHD doesn't have the right of way and right now isn't
planning for the right of way that would be necessary for those at that intersection. But
he was very open to finding other solutions and Director Canning did make it clear that
Mayor and Council will want to see some sort of solution. So, the school district is very
open to trying to figure something out here. And specific improvements along Meridian
or McMillan didn't sound like maybe was -- was what was going to happen, but the idea
that something will come up is --
Borup: You know, you got to admire the school district. It's a tough situation they are
in. If they wait until there is all the infrastructure, the schools are overcrowded and
everyone gets on their -- gets on them for that. If they go out in an area that doesn't
have the development and they don't have the infrastructure, but they are trying stay
ahead of things -- you know, it's difficult to have it both ways. I think they are doing a
good job on trying to keep ahead of things it looks like.
Rohm: I think it's suffice to say that the school district has worked well with the city in
the past and I don't see any reason why they won't be coming to the table on this one
and finding the right solution, so --
Newton-Huckabay: Are we ready to move on?
Rohm: Yes.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-008.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed? No opposition. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of AZ
05-008, with -- including all staff comments and staff -- what is the memo date? The
one we have before us -- transmittal date of April 1 st for today's hearing date, with no
changes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 23 of 55
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: Recommending approval?
Borup: Yes. Recommending approval.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of AZ 05-008. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Thank you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. ONE RECUSED.
Freckleton: Mr. Chair? While Commissioner Moe is making his way back, I'd just like to
make a staff introduction tonight, if I could. You probably saw Mike Cole's name on staff
reports -- a couple of staff reports today. Mike has -- he's been an employee with the
Public Works Department for about a year -- about a year now and we had a position
open up with the reorganization of Public Works and Mike stepped up and he's doing a
great job. So, just wanted to introduce him to you tonight. Mike Cole.
Rohm: Well, welcome, Mike. Okay. At this time we are going to take a short break,
about ten minutes, and we will be back at about 8:25.
(Recess.)
Item 8:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-010 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
daycare facility for up to 200 children for Nature's Child by Nature's Child,
LLC - Parcel B of Lot 4, Block 4, Silverstone Business Campus:
Rohm: I'd like to reconvene the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and
Zoning Commission and at this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on CUP 05-010
and ask for staff report, please.
Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application
before you is an application by Nature's Child, LLC, for a Conditional Use Permit for a
child care center in a C-G zone in the Silverstone Business Campus. The subject
property is located on Lot 4, Block 4, of Silverstone, directly across the street from the
Citi Group Building. And all the immediately adjacent areas to the site are commercially
zoned. They have requested approval for up to 200 children. That puts them in the
highest classification of day care facilities that the City of Meridian has. Just some quick
background. We classify them from zero to five is allowed as accessory uses in
residential areas. And, then, from six to 12 is a Conditional Use Permit. And, then, also
12 and above is a Conditional Use Permit. And this definitely fits in the 12 and above
category. Staff doesn't have many concerns with the proposal as submitted. A couple-
- just a couple minor outstanding issues. The shared access drive with the property to
the south, the fire department will require construction of that to its full width before
occupancy of the building for emergency access and in relation to that, the applicant will
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 24 of 55
need consent from that property owner and a cross-access agreement with that
property owner for that shared drive. The parking and landscaping all meet City of
Meridian requirements. And with that I'll end staff's comments.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward,
please?
Randall: Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Aaron Randall and I'm with JGT
Architecture and I live at 315 Almond Street in Nampa. I'm representing the applicant
Nature's Child. It seems pretty straightforward having a -- having a day care in within
this business park. We feel it will be an asset both to the community and just to the
business park itself. We are providing an attractive building and we are -- we have no
problems meeting with the planning department's general conditions of approval or the
Silverstone Business Park's conditions of approval. And we will take any questions.
Rohm: Do you think you will have any trouble getting that cross-access agreement with
your neighbor?
Randall: No. We have been working with Silverstone on that, so -- and there doesn't
seem to be any issues yet.
Rohm: Good. Any other questions from the Commission? I guess we are done.
Randall: Thank you.
Rohm: Jerry Backman? If you want to speak. Okay. And, then, Troy Mortensen.
Okay. Good. Is there anybody else that would like to testify on this application? Okay.
Thank you.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on CUP 05-010.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on CUP 05-
010. All those in favor say aye? Opposed same sign?
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Yes.
Moe: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of CUP 05-010,
to include all staff comments of the hearing date of April 7th, 2005, with the comments
received by the city clerk's office April 4th, 2005.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 25 of 55
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we move -- or forward onto City Council
recommending approval of CUP 05-010. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same
sign? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 9:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-011 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
daycare facility for 6-12 children for Stephanie Edwards by Stephanie
Edwards - 1537 West 15th Street:
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open Public Hearing CUP 05-011 and like to get our staff
report, please.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a request for a -- I guess my request did
not show up. This is for the Stephanie Edwards day care. Or it's a group child-care
facility is what it's determined. According to the Meridian City Code, that is a child-care
facility for six to 12 children and that's allowed in an R-8 district as a conditional use,
which is what we are hearing tonight. This is kind of a grade out site plan that indicates
that there is existing vegetation in the front yard -- this is a single-family residence.
There is a backyard that is entirely fenced in, as well as there is a paved area up in the
front of the house and a garage to the side of the house and when this was reviewed, it
was determined that with the number of children, roughly six, on the site, that is roughly
where it would probably end up being, according to state code for the licensing
agreements and the fire code for securing permits over seven children, this site is
probably going to be closer to six than 12 is what we determined and with that there is
enough driveway here for one parked car, a car parked in the garage, as well as a
loading area in that driveway that would be allowable. The standards that I referred to
in this staff report more closely resemble the accessory use standards as listed for a
day care facility, which is one to five children, and that is because the single family
residence as a -- with a child care facility is an accessory use more closely resembles
this project than the conditional use standards which resembled the last project that you
just heard and that's why I applied those as more of the standards for this conditional
use hearing. Staff has recommended approval of this site, with the conditions that have
been stated in the staff report, and I will answer any questions.
Rohm: Thanks, Josh. Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come
forward?
Edwards: I'm Stephanie Edwards, representing myself, and my intentions are to run a
small child care facility --
Rohm: You need to state your address, too, please.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 26 of 55
Edwards: Oh. 1537 West 15th Street in Meridian. And my intentions are to run a small
facility in my home with a base of about six children, possibly a few part-timers here and
there, through a pre-school program.
Rohm: I guess a question that I would have of you is are you aware of the limitations
based upon the size of the dwelling and -- as far as the number of children you can
have? Are you familiar with those -
Edwards: I read through all the material that was given to me for the permit.
Rohm: I'm curious how many -- I don't know the exact ratio of square feet to children.
Can you give me that?
Edwards: I guess that's in my material from the fire inspection, I think. I don't have that
right here, but I could certainly look that up for you.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I actually was speaking earlier with staff and I do believe it is a
hundred square foot per child.
Borup: And that's of the space that's allocated to the child-care portion of the home.
Moe: That is correct.
Rohm: And I guess my only point to bring that up is with the square footage of your
facility you wouldn't be able to go to the max of this size of -- I mean you can't go to 12,
just because of the limitations based upon the size of the structure.
Edwards: I hope to keep it about six.
Rohm: Okay. All right. Thanks.
Moe: I do have a couple questions -- or at least one. Based upon that you have made
the statement six, but possibly some part-timers.
Edwards: Yeah.
Moe: Then, you're increasing your amount allotted. The fire department's not going to
let you have any more than seven before you're going to need to do fire inspections and
whatnot. So, I just kind of want to make sure you're aware of that.
Edwards: We are in that process of having the fire inspection anyway.
Moe: Okay.
Rohm: Would you have any objection to limitations being placed not to exceed seven?
Is that -- is that something that would get in the way of your business down there?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 27 of 55
Edwards: I don't think so. I think seven to eight would be suitable.
Rohm: Well, I think the point is that the -- the parking spaces associated with your
development at six or seven, you have got so many spaces required, but if you go over
that, then, the available parking that you currently have may not meet the requirement
for that number of -- of children being taken care of there. So, we are kind of -- we are
kind of in a spot here that we want, you know, obviously, to make recommendations that
are in your best interest, but we also don't want to make recommendations that will put
you in violation at such point in time that you fully develop and so that's kind of where
we are going with this.
Edwards: What I read in the report am I understanding that there is one parking space
per employee and one parking space per ten children? Is that correct? I saw that in the
information.
Rohm: That's correct.
Edwards: And that was -- I'm a one vehicle family and I would be the only employee
and I would be in the garage and, then, there is two other parking spaces in front with
room to pull in and turn around.
Newton-Huckabay: She's not going to max out.
Rohm: Okay.
Moe: This would be fine there.
Baird: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Yes.
Baird: If I could make a suggestion to have the applicant state on the record the
maximum number. I heard as high as eight. The maximum number that she's
requesting and as you consider that request in your deliberations, that if you do make a
recommendation of approval, that you approve a specific number with the qualification
that if that number would also be allowed by the fire department and other permitting
authorities. So, before you you're required to look at the compatibility issues and if you
think that seven or eight is appropriate, you can make a recommendation based on that.
But I just want to make it clear for the record what she was requesting and that at such
time as you do make a recommendation that you make clear the total number that you
would find compatible.
Rohm: And, thank you, I appreciate your input on that. And that's kind of where we are
going with this is our recommendation to City Council would be somewhat based upon
your testimony and if seven or eight is the max that you would see for this project, then,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 28 of 55
more than likely that -- I can't speak for any of the other Commissioners, but more than
likely that would be the recommendation that we would be forwarding onto the Council.
So, is seven or eight -- is that a --
Edwards: That would be a reason why. I would like to keep a base of about six, but,
then, if I had one child go Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and, then, another child
coming Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, I'd like to be able to overlap a little bit without
being in violation.
Rohm: Okay. So, eight's a good number for you?
Edwards: Yeah.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: My opinion would be that we defer the maximum to what -- did you
say you're getting a fire inspection?
Edwards: I am.
Newton-Huckabay: Just stand with that.
Rohm: Okay. Is that what we -- that works, too. Any other questions of the applicant
from the Commission?
Moe: No.
Rohm: Thank you.
Edwards: Thank you.
Rohm: Further discussion?
Newton-Huckabay: I would suggest that we put the limit -- obviously, it's to 12, but the
same limit -- whatever the fire department -- the fire inspection --
Moe: Well, if she does have the inspection and it's okay, it just says seven or more
children must pass the inspection. So, she -- she could, in fact, go up to the 12, if that's
what we wanted, but after hearing her say up to eight, on the square footage -- I thought
-- I'm apt to think that it should be just to eight at this time.
Rohm: Okay. If there are no further questions, I look for a motion to --
Borup: Public testimony before --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 29 of 55
Rohm: Oh, excuse me. There is no public -- anybody else like to testify on this behalf?
Seeing none --
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we close Public Hearing CUP 05-011.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on CUP 05-
011. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Newton-Huckabay: Can I still ask a question?
Moe: That's where we are at. You bet.
Newton-Huckabay: So, the one -- one child per one hundred square feet and there is
1 ,000 square feet, so ten kids?
Borup: Well, I had understood it was the square footage of the portion of the home that
would be used for day care.
Moe: Yes.
Newton~Huckabay: So, it's approximately a 1,000 square foot primary building will be
used for the child-care center.
Guenther: Chairman Rohm?
Rohm: Yes.
Guenther: That area that you're determining there is an approximate. The actual area
will be determined by the fire inspection. They are the ones who -- when you also talk
about livable space, you might have a thousand square foot footprint, but they take out
a lot of issues like closet space, stairways, and so it might actually reduce that to seven
or eight hundred square feet.
Rohm: Maybe the way we could address this is have it up to eight, but, obviously,
having to adhere to the fire department's limitations as the max, but the applicant has
stated that she's not going to need more than eight, so somehow a motion to include the
fire department's limitations with the max of eight, something like that, is that -- do you
feel comfortable with that or would you just -- rather just leave it with the fire
department's maximum and go from there?
Newton-Huckabay: That's my preference.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 30 of 55
Moe: I really wouldn't have a problem with that either.
Rohm: With that being said, 'lIlook for a motion.
Borup: Okay. You're waiting for me. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City
Council recommending approval of CUP 05-011, request for a Conditional Use Permit
for a day care facility for six to 12 children by Stephanie Edwards, to include all staff
comments and conditions of the staff report for April 7th and with the following condition,
that the number of children be limited to a maximum of eight, unless that number is
reduced by the fire department report.
Newton-Huckabay: I thought we agreed to defer to the fire department.
Borup: Did we? Okay. That's why I wondered why you wanted me to do this.
Moe: Well, you had written notes down, I figured you were doing it.
Borup: How about I revise the second half of that motion. With the one exception being
the number of children allowed will be that determined by the fire department inspection.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of CUP 05-011. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Thank you
very much.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 10:
Public Hearing: PP 05-010 Request for a re-subdivision of Lots 4 & 5,
Block 1 of Bonito Subdivision for Preliminary Plat approval of 9
commercial building lots and 1 other lot on 4.06 acres in a C-G zone for
Bonito Subdivision No.3 by Travis Burrows for Dave Evans
Construction - 3041 & 2967 East Copperpoint Drive:
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on PP 05-010 and hear the staff
report.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is for a re-subdivision of these three lots
within Bonito final plat subdivision, which is also known as EI Dorado Subdivision, which
was the preliminary portion, which also had the Conditional Use Permit that was issued
for this type of mixed-use development. With that there are nine building lots that are
proposed in this location in this configuration. One point that is incorrect on this site
plan is that there is a 50-foot wide easement for the Ridenbaugh Canal in this location
and, then, the applicant has indicated that there is a 35-foot wide irrigation easement in
this location. The original Conditional Use Permit indicates that this 35-foot is the multi-
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 31 of 55
use pathway along the Ridenbaugh Canal. Ridenbaugh. My accent. If you also notice
the conditions of approval that have been stated in the staff report, a detailed fencing
and landscaping plan in compliance with the original Conditional Use Permit and
Meridian City Code Chapter 12-13, shall be submitted with the final plat. This is -- we
do not have a landscaping plan at this time that has been approved with -- that we
approved with this preliminary plat, but this will be addressed through adherence to our
landscaping ordinance at the final plat stage. And there was one letter that was
submitted to the file and that -- I brought up that point with the landscaping, because
they did indicate that no landscaping has been prepared, which is true. However, we
are requiring that as a condition of approval. I believe everybody received that as item
number ten in your packet tonight. And at this time I will stand for -- I will ask for
questions, but keep in mind that this is also subject to the conditions of approval for the
Bonito -- the EI Dorado preliminary plat Conditional Use Permit and the Development
Agreement, which was adhered to at the time of the original development.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff?
Borup: Not right now. I think I will later, though.
Rohm: Yeah. I think we are going to -- this is going to go back and forth just a bit, but
at this time I'd like to hear from our applicant.
Collingwood: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, my name is Rick Collingwood with
Toothman-Orton Engineering. Address is 9777 Chinden Boulevard in Boise. Upon
reviewing the staff comments we have no exceptions to the comments. Everything
looks pretty straightforward to us and I'd just like to open up for questions if there is any.
Newton-Huckabay: Did you get a copy of this?
Collingwood: No, I did not.
Newton-Huckabay: Would it be appropriate for him to respond to this after the public
testimony as well?
Rohm: Yeah. It might be just as well to take a few and give you a chance to just read
through it and, then, we will just proceed after you have had a chance.
Collingwood: Okay.
Borup: Before he leaves, Mr. Chairman, I -- maybe just one question at this point. This
is a re-subdivision of two original lots in EI Dorado; is that correct?
Collingwood: That's correct.
Borup: And we are going to nine lots?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 32 of 55
Collingwood: The proposal is to have nine lots and they are delineated there around
each proposed building.
Borup: Okay. So, then, all the in between would be common parking or landscaping, et
cetera?
Collingwood: Common landscaping or common space. All the access parking, access
aisles would be all common area, common access, and everything that's outside the
lots.
Borup: So, then, rather than to two large buildings, we are probably looking at nine
smaller buildings?
Collingwood: Looking at nine around 4,000 square feet.
Borup: A lot smaller than what would have originally been on those lots.
Collngwood: That's correct.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Let's take a short recess and give you an opportunity to read through that and,
then, we will continue.
Borup: Why don't we go ahead with public testimony, because isn't that the same
thing?
Rohm: No, I -- we can -- I'd rather wait for just -- and let him read through this and,
then, I'd like to have him finish his testimony and, then, that might give the balance of
the people that want to speak answers to some of their concerns before they come
forward, so we will just -- we will take a short break.
(Recess. )
Rohm: I think we are ready to proceed. Mr. Collingwood, are you ready to -- okay.
Collingwood: Okay. In light of this letter from Joe and Andrea Waters here, I'll just go
down here the ones I can address right at this time. The walking path, for instance,
going back to City Council's recommendations back in 2003 -- 2002, I'll just read it
verbatim out of here. It indicated that the pathway will be constructed on a block-by-
block basis or as P&Z recommends and completed when 50 percent of the buildings are
completed in the block. So, as the development -- as the buildings are built we will
improve those plans. The pathway which will go along Ridenbaugh Canal will be put in
in conjunction with this development. And I will stop right there. I do not know if -- well,
there is -- the development right now that's being built next door, their building's going in
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 33 of 55
right now. Are they required to put in this path right now? Are you -- I'm not familiar
with what that is or what's going on there, but --
Rohm: I would bet that they are.
Guenther: I can -- you're talking about the pathway --
Collingwood: The pathway along the Ridenbaugh Canal.
Guenther: Which is the lot closest to Eagle Road?
Collingwood: No.
Guenther: Or is it the one on the other side? To the west.
Collingwood: Where they are building the two buildings right now.
Guenther: I'd have to check their certificate of zoning compliance, but I anticipate that it
will be -- recently we had a discussion with Jonathan Seal, who was the PE of EI
Dorado Subdivision, and he -- we actually went through how the pathway is going to be
interconnected on this site and he is overseeing that it is being completed block by
block as conditioned by the City Council.
Rohm: Thank you. Before you proceed, I'd like to just interject something here. This is
your time to present your project in the light that you want to present it and I only gave
you the letter to read through to help in -- or possibly give you some additional
information to -- for your own presentation. So, at this time I'd like to just let you go
back to the presentation that you had intended and if you choose to include additional
comments, that's certainly your prerogative.
Collingwood: As I stated, the staff's comments are pretty straightforward. We have no
exceptions to the comments and since you handed me this letter here, I'm just kind of
going through each issue here and responding where I can. There is some issues here
that were brought up in this letter regards to the street lighting, down lighting, spacing of
buildings -- as you can see, there is quite a bit of open space between the buildings. I
don't know what corridor is for the parking and access-ways. What you're looking at
there, you see 6,000 square foot buildings and so forth, those have all been reduced to
right around 4,000 -- four to five thousand max.
Borup: So, I assume that was a concept of what maximum building sizes could be, is
that what -- is that correct?
Collingwood: Correct. And it sort of goes with each building, depending on what goes
in there and what -- they can -- they change the size from space to space. I mean they
could -- it's almost dynamic as you go through there, depending on how much space is
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 34 of 55
needed, but that's just a conceptual plan for the approximate square footage of the
building and --
Rohm: Is it suffice to say that the aggregate of the buildings that are now being
proposed, is that close proximity to the total build out square footage that would have
been had there been just the two buildings?
Collingwood: The two lots.
Rohm: It seems like that that's possible, but I --
Collingwood: Well, the two lots that were there -- the two existing lots, I don't know the
exact size of those, but they are very large and you'd have to have a very large building
to fill up those lots. Dave Evans Construction generally works with a smaller
commercial product like this and generally in business and medical and so those lots
were very large for his type of product and that's why we are re-subdividing into smaller
lots.
Rohm: Okay.
Collingwood: Let's see here. We talk about the height standards of the building in here.
That's one question on the letter. And going back to the City Council's approved
recommendations -- let's see here. I'll find it. We are looking at -- it says in the
occasion that all lots -- all construction within lots one through seven -- which this is lots
two and four. Lot three is a small lot with the irrigation pump station there, so this is lots
two and four, which is included in this, they said that the maximum height would be 35
feet and, let's see, their subdivision height is 28 feet. So, there is some confusion here
with the letter and what was approved by the city. The street lighting, we can sure
address that. I mean the letter indicates -- it directs to indirect, the street lighting on
Copperpoint Drive was, of course, approved by the city. I don't know what kind of street
lighting is going into the new buildings that are being built right now or to the existing
Heritage Reflections building there on the corner, but I would assume we would comply
with and stay with that same type of lighting.
Rohm: Yeah. I think that there is actually lighting standards that speak to light
contamination to adjacent property and maybe staff can comment on that after your
testimony, but--
Collingwood: But we are -- you know, whatever staff recommends there. That's not an
issue. We can take care of that very easily. I really don't have any more comments. If
there is any questions I can answer.
Rohm: Okay. I think the only thing that I would say is as we take public testimony; it's
probably to your advantage to take good notes, so that you can respond to them once
you have an opportunity to have final comment, so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 35 of 55
Collingwood: Sure. Okay.
Rohm: I don't have any additional comments. Thank you, sir.
Collingwood: Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. At this time we will take public testimony and we will start with Ed
Strickfaden.
.
Strickfaden: Commissioners, Ed Strickfaden at 3044 East Green Canyon Drive. I think
tonight as we talk about residential areas clashing with business areas, that's going to
happen over and over again in Meridian, probably already has. But what -- how this is
conducted, how this is done, whether officially by law or by the good will of us in Green
Canyon and those that are building the buildings are -- is extremely important. Just
because somebody can, doesn't mean that that's what they need to do, if they can build
in a way that harmoniously blends residential and business. I want to speak specifically
about the walk -- the path and wanted to refer -- apparently it's been amended that I
didn't know about, perhaps, but the case AZ 01-018 as approved by this Commission
and I want to talk about and read a section on page 14 about that path, which says that
it must be completed prior to any building permits being levied on that property. I hear
tonight that they are going to put the path in building by building, block by block, but
already the rehabilitation center is being built on that property with no walking path. It
was my understanding originally Winston Moore, the owner, started to build the path
behind Heritage Reflections, who was allowed to build too close to the canal and
punctured the Ridenbaugh Canal and caused it to be cemented. The irrigation district
told them to cease and desist on the walking path until it was cemented, but it's been
cemented for some time now, but yet no path has been put in and buildings built, which
violates this particular document.
Borup: What document are you referring to? This is the one from City Council?
Strickfaden: This is the approval from the City Council.
Borup: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that.
Strickfaden: That case number that mandated that path be built prior to any building
permits be issued there. So, perhaps it was amended and we at Thousand Springs
didn't -- are not aware of that amendment, because none of us testified to it. But I would
encourage that that path be built and that the compliance with those things that are
passed by the Council, you know, be upheld by the zoning commission. And I would
ask the contractor to -- the rehabilitation center that's being built there is putting dormers
on top of all their buildings and windows that look right out at the backyard of the people
that live there. You know, there has got to be some reasonableness. Things can't be
mandated here all the time, but reasonableness in the building's design should happen.
We got to get along. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 36 of 55
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Before we take the next testimony, I'd like to go ahead and go
back to staff for a moment and let's -- who could speak to this path development prior to
building permits being issued?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, Members of the Commission, yeah, I was the planner when
this originally came through, so I'll go ahead and speak to that and if Joe wants to add.
But the gentleman is correct that the -- there is, actually, two different pathway
conditions in EI Dorado. One of the pathways is public and that's this one, the one
along the Ridenbaugh Canal. The other pathway that is built block by block is a private
amenity of EI Dorado planned development, that they were allowed to construct that
jogs and path, which is internal, in between the buildings, et cetera, and as block by
block as -- when 50 percent of that block is built, then, they have to finish that, but,
again, that's a private internal walking path for the benefit of the business owners
association. There is this public pathway, a pedestrian easement on the north side of
the Ridenbaugh that was required to be completed. Because they had
Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, John Anderson, the superintendent out there, tell
them you're not going to be doing any digging -- I think it was only a matter of ten inches
or something and they started -- you know, they had some pretty significant leakage out
of that. I did meet out on site with W.H. Moore Company and the parks director to look
and see if there was any alternative alignments, but that was contingent on the irrigation
district coming back and saying, you know, absolutely, no, you can't build this and they
did not do that yet. So, they do still need to construct that pathway. That annexation
and zoning condition that was there was somewhat delayed because of this
Ridenbaugh Canal leakage problem and, frankly, we probably just -- I mean it has been
a few months, I don't think it's been a long time, but we do, as staff, need to get back to
the irrigation district, confirm that since it does somewhat impact their maintenance
area, that, you know, we have a clear go ahead on the design of the path, the exact
location of it, et cetera, but -- and, again, that is from Eagle Road all the way over to the
west boundary of this property. So, it's along that entire stretch.
.
Rohm: Well, it sounds like the developers have some responsibility on this as well.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. This was the -- this was a condition of the W.H. Moore
Company on the original plat, not necessarily this development that you're having
tonight, which is a different applicant. But -- and how they work out the financing and
the construction, you know, is really up to the private parties, but it does have to be
done.
Rohm: Yeah. And not trying to speak for the public, but I think that that's part of the
concern, is that it appears as if there is development moving forward without
consideration for that -- for that pathway and it sounds like that's the direction that we
are going to go at the end of the -- at the end of the day the path along Ridenbaugh will
be fully developed along these lots and some of the concerns of the public should be
addressed in that regard.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 37 of 55
Hawkins-Clark: And just to clear up for the record, we, the city, our holding bonding for
the construction of that pathway.
Borup: That's what I was going to ask.
Rohm: Thank you. And I think that really helps everybody understand how this process
works. So, thanks, Brad. Okay. With that being said, we will move forward and the
next person on the list Loren Hornbaker.
Hornbaker: It's Loren Hornbaker and I live at 2918 East Green Canyon Drive. The
thing that -- lights was brought up and I don't know whether it was ever in any records,
but Jonathan said all lighting would conform to -- in other words, they would shine down,
such as parking lots, grocery stores, where the lights would not flood out and bother
people. All the lights that was put in for the roads in EI Dorado were a globe type, which
has no restriction of the light, it goes until it dies out. We could write a letter in our living
room at night with no lights. I got Jonathan Seal up there at night and showed him the
problem and he said, well, we paid X number of more dollars for all this and -- which
doesn't help me a bit. He also said that they would get reflectors and put in them, which
they did at some more cost to them. I am sure they would have saved lots of money if
they would have done what they were supposed to do originally. But that didn't happen
and I don't know who is supposed to bird dog those, whether the residents are
supposed to bird dog it and go down there -- we don't have a lot of authority, so -- but
that's bygone, that's -- unless you want to go in and have them tear them all down and
we'd appreciate it, but he wouldn't. He has also told us that the lighting in -- off of -- in
other words, from Copperpoint to the canal, all of those businesses would have low
lighting that would illuminate maybe -- that said Dr. Jones or something. It wouldn't --
and also canopy lights recessed such as you have here. There would be no lights that
would interfere with the people that lived across the Ridenbaugh. And that's all we ask
as far as lights. I mean the overhead parking lots, if they end up putting lights in like
they did down on the streets, we are going to have a fight. The second thing in this
Exhibit D, which -- and this is in your CC 6-22-04, it lists an awful lot of businesses that
evidently are acceptable for that zoning. We were told when Moore had it, that these
businesses would be doctor's offices, light office buildings, small office buildings, and
things of that nature, not body shops or manufacturing where they would be unloading
trucks at night with forklifts and from reading this Exhibit D, it opens the door for a lot of
things that wouldn't be permissible under what we understood Moore to promise. Mr.
Moore promised to be a good neighbor and I hope the new people do the same thing --
I mean better. I shouldn't say the same thing. But if we can get some idea of what's
going in there, rather than just open the door and there it is, you will get what you
receive, my understanding was that the new company, if it -- that they would have to
conform to the same thing that Mr. Moore did. Now, I hope that's true and I hope that
he abides by it. Can anyone here tell me if that is correct?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, that is correct. This application tonight does not change any
prior commitments to land uses.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 38 of 55
Borup: Everything that was a condition agreed to in EI Dorado Subdivision would still
need to be complied with by any other development in there.
Hornbaker: Well, how much of it's in writing that we have access to and the new
developer has? It's pretty hard when a person gets a building three-fourths along and
you say, hey, that looks like it's too high. You can't walk over and tell the guy to tear it
down, he's got to start over. I mean we can't.
Borup: Are you concerned there is something over 35 feet in there?
Hornbaker: Well, I'm concerned about the child-
care over there -- or not the child care, the rehabilitation center. I looked at the lower
dormers on the print and they were 32 foot seven inches. They put another dormer
over the top in the center part and I bet -- well, I won't bet, but it's -- I'm quite sure that
that's over 35 feet, but --
Borup: That might be a definition of building height, too, whether it's the usable building
height or whether it's architectural projections.
Hornbaker: It's just a --
Borup: Isn't there a difference in definition?
Moe: Yes, there is.
Hornbaker: But, anyway, I think one of the other persons are probably going to talk
some on that, but I would like to have it checked. Another thing on the lighting, I
contacted the city and asked about the lighting. They said there was an entity that
controlled that, but nothing was ever done. And I would like to see more
communications, because some of these amendments we are not aware of. We don't
get -- and so, therefore, something can be changed and we are not -- we don't know
about it.
Rohm: Thank you. Appreciate that. Okay. Next on the list is Frank Herron.
Herron: My name is Frank Herron, I live at 2896 East Green Canyon, which is just on
the south side of the Ridenbaugh Canal. And part of the -- the problem that I have is I
don't understand exactly the distinction between Moore's and the Bonito Subdivision or
whatnot, I just know that there was a lot of discussions and we had a lot of meetings,
some of them was in this building and some was in our own housing district, where
there was the good faith discussions to appease people's types and concerns. One of
them, just starting off, was that initially it was proposed for that 35 feet, they said it
would be no higher -- that they had planned for no higher than the surrounding as if it
was a housing district. For instance, Thousand Springs has a height limit of 28 feet and
there was a big discussion on that, because the subject came of what the definition of
building height -- there seems to be a big to do about that and it was clearly stated that
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 39 of 55
there would be nothing over 35 feet period. And some of the definitions don't even
cover the roof, they just go up to the eaves. They talked about the continuous path of
the multi-use path. It was described to us as a see-through fence to guard against the
security of the canal down on the bank, because they can't put it up above, but as close
to the bank as they could, followed by a five foot landscape between the fence, the
walking path, and a 20 to 30 foot setback for the buildings passed that with 30 foot
preferred and the 20 was the exception of the corner down there that they needed. We
talked about the buildings a little bit. I'd add that the similar things that they was all
small single story office buildings, typical of dentist offices, insurance, beauty shops, et
cetera, that was compatible with the neighborhood compatibility, which they said would
outlaw no such things as sports bars, restaurants, or anything that would be intrusive to
the residents. They also said that it would be for day use only, which consists of no
habitation in any of the buildings between Copperpoint and the canal. They said there
would be some exceptions -- in other words, they would be dark at night, with the
exception of cleaning activities or maintenance activities that would need to be done
during the nighttime or after hours. The lightings of the security on buildings would be
down light, which have been discussed a little bit, cast down -- up and down the sides of
building, the security lights, and they likened them on to what was being developed at
that time in Silverstone was the example they gave us and showed us what they would
be. In placement of the buildings they said that each house in our subdivision that
would be affected by this would have a view zone with this via access roads, landscape
open spaces, or parking lots, but there would be view corridors and I notice just behind
my house they buffered them two directly together. Looking at the plot, comparing it to
my dimensions, it looked like about 150 feet of blockage space to there. Now, these
things, I don't know, they are -- we was done on trustworthy and hand shakes and given
cards and talked to Mr. Moore and Jonathan Seal, who was the people concerned and
interfaced with us. I don't know how -- whether he sold it completely -- I don't know
whether there is any link between these two people, I don't know if any of these verbal
agreements have any merits, but it was the other ever proposed and anything we ever
heard was two huge buildings, they was all small office type buildings, end of story, with
day use only.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Herron, you understand that's what's being proposed now is
nine small buildings? That's what's before us today.
Herron: Well, I have not seen any height limits, other than what's in there. I have not
seen any time zone -- time horizons for development, I haven't seen anything --
Rohm: I think that they are -- they are still subject to the same conditions that were put
on the EI Dorado development at that time and what they are doing is they are just
taking what had been at that time two buildings -- or two building lots, I should say, and
dividing that into smaller lots with more buildings, but they will still be -- has to adhere to
the conditions that were placed upon the development at the time it was originally
approved and -- but I think what you're saying is -- is the -- that which has been
developed doesn't seem to be in compliance with what was agreed to at the time that it
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 40 of 55
was approved and I think that the developer here will be able to address some of your
concerns after we finish hearing the balance of public testimony.
Herron: The concern, I guess, is basically what I have is the -- kind of the verbal
commitment versus the permit and particularly for building types and that sort of thing.
Rohm: This Commission isn't a code enforcement, but there are code enforcement
people within the city and if, in fact, developments that currently exist within the overall
development are not in compliance with that, I would venture to say that you have a
right to question that. But this developer is under the same -- the same rules and
conditions as that which has currently been developed. But I think probably the best
thing is let's finish our public testimony and give the applicant an opportunity to respond.
Herron: Thank you for the opportunity to talk.
Rohm: You bet. Thank you.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, maybe just one question. The hearing before us tonight is just
strictly on the re-subdivision, but on the original plat all these properties were still
subject to conditional use. Is that still -- I assume. So, that's still the case and that still
would apply on any specific buildings or --
Guenther: That is correct. We have that -- we just reviewed that section of the
development agreement and it says that all uses listed in Exhibit D, which are,
essentially, the L-O zone uses, are either allowed or as conditional uses. In
Ridenbaugh area all the uses shall be processed as conditional uses.
Borup: I think -- I think it gets a little more specific than that.
Guenther: Right. It--
Borup: Yeah. The way I read that, the development of the property south of
Copperpoint by crossing Ridenbaugh Canal from Thousand Springs shall be required to
obtain a separate conditional use, unless professional office or flex uses are proposed.
Guenther: Yes.
Borup: So, anything other than office or flex uses would require a conditional use,
which means there would be another -- there would be a hearing for each of those
buildings before this Commission, unless it was office space.
Guenther: And one more point of clarification. The original Conditional Use Permit on
these two lots allowed a 23,000 square foot building and a 50,300 square foot building.
So, there is significant reduction in square footage on these, as per the original concept
plan.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 41 of 55
Rohm: And so in some way this is actually a better neighbor than what had been
previously proposed. But with that being said, I think we should move on to -- the next
name on the list is Tom Conley.
Conley: Okay. Just want to see how that works. Good evening, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners, nice to see you again. I was here about two weeks ago. I was the
gentleman right behind the fire station.
Moe: Would you, please, state your name and your address?
Conley: My name is Tom Conley, 2484 Southwood Avenue -- or Ranch Avenue. That
was a very good experience two weeks ago. You brought two sides together and we
enjoyed that. We both presented our sides and our points of view, we arrived at an
understanding, we shook hands, and from the people that are backing up to the fire
station we felt very good. We thought that was an honorable situation. Now, we just
have to get it done and we are working together. On the other hand, I think what you're
hearing tonight from all of us and a little bit of a summation from me is we are not
getting that good feeling from the EI Dorado Subdivision. I think tonight it was already
stated one of the unique things is we are a private home area and we are butting up to
an extensively large commercial development area and I think that's one of the unique
things for us. Most of the time a commercial or a private area goes up against a private
area and it's probably not as complicated as all these problems with lights and
everything. What we are trying to do is we want you and we need you as an ally and as
does the developer need you as an ally. You have a very difficult position, because it's
your job to grow the area and without forgetting us and it seems like there has been
good exchange that I have enjoyed. I don't have a solution, I don't think any of us have
a solution, we just know that there has been a variety of things that have happened that
we don't feel we are holding the hand to the fire of the developer to follow through on
the majority of the things they have said. The path is one thing that -- actually, I back up
to the Ridenbaugh Canal, I have seen the school kids in the water horse playing
around. That's my -- one of my concerns. I think that path needs to get fixed. That's
one of their -- they jog their -- cross-county I think it is. The loss of the view, the shifting
of building sizes is really concerning. I mean it sounds like we did away with a couple of
big buildings, but now we have nine small ones. But it seems like it keeps shifting on
us. So, that's a bit of our concern, too.
Borup: Would you rather have two large buildings?
Conley: I don't know. What came up without us knowing -- first of all, I had the first
blister and I got the Heritage Reflection and all I see is a big roof. The second blister
that has come up is that rehab center and it's just a monster, taking away a view of
several houses. So, we are just concerned what's going to happen. Now, I know I'm
running out of time. The other thing that -- one of the important things for a lot of my
neighbors is not to build up the ground to the Ridenbaugh height, which did take place
with the rehab center. They actually had elevation from the ground and, then, the 35 or
28 foot came into play. So, I'm just hoping that when the new development of these
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 42 of 55
nine facilities -- they are not going to build it up eight feet at the height of the
Ridenbaugh and, then, really take it away. But you're a good group, thank you, and
enjoyed being with you for a couple of weeks.
Rohm: Thank you for your comments. I believe it's Joe Waters.
Waters: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Joe Waters. I live
at 3000 East Green Canyon. And the worst part about being one of the last guys up is
already everybody has already stoled your thunder and especially when you have to
follow Tom it's real bad. The walking path is probably one of the -- one of my main
concerns, insomuch that it was one of the things that we talked about. Winston Moore
did come up and say, yes, don't worry about it, we are going to have big buildings, but
we are going to push them way to the front. They are going to probably be this big and
the parking is going to be in the back. The first concern is on the 50 feet, is that from
the center of the Ridenbaugh Canal out and, then, the 35 feet from that? That's just one
of the questions. I wish I had counted all the times that, you know, we talked about the
good neighbor thing and that -- but, you know, it seems like we keep coming up with the
same old problems. I won't talk about the walking path anymore. Building heights. I
need to know -- I'd like to know if we can have an answer if the -- from how high up off
the road -- the road which they connect to, the grade road, how high the building is
going to be from there. Are they going to build them up? Are they going to take -- you
know, is it going to be excavated down? What's the height, the gradience. And,
actually, what happened with the -- the thing about the 35 feet, the 28 feet, is that when
we asked how tall the buildings were going to be originally, they said, well, what we
believe is it's 35 feet and what it turned out was our covenants were actually 28. It was
just a misunderstanding on that part.
Borup: Yeah. I think that 35 is city ordinance; right?
Waters: I don't know. In our covenants is where they said we will go with is 28, but
probably is 35. And, actually, everybody else talked about what I wanted to talk about.
And I hope we can be good neighbors, I really do, because I plan on living there a long
time, I plan on raising the kids, we can be good neighbors if we do work together.
Thanks for the time.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Waters, did you see the -- the -- the --
Waters: It's late. It's okay.
Newton-Huckabay: I'm stuck on semantics here. The picture of the buildings -- not that
one.
Waters: The next ones.
Newton-Huckabay: That one.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 43 of 55
Waters: Uh-huh.
Newton-Huckabay: Do you feel as a neighbor that this is better than a 50,000 square
foot building and a 20,000 square foot building?
Waters: Well, it depends how tall it would be. See, all I'm really -- I hate to sound like
I'm really -- you know, this is my -- but I love looking out my back door and seeing -- it
used to be called Squaw Butte, that's the butte that's over in Emmett and now we are
not allowed to call it that anymore, but that's what I really love seeing and just to be able
to see -- I don't, you know, need to look down and see the road or, you know, listen to
the cars go by, but to be able to look out and over. I grew up in the middle of Idaho, a
lot of land around me, and I get claustrophobic real quick. You know, if -- actually, if it
was a 50,000 square foot building, but it was sub grade, you know, and had a soccer
field on top of it, I think that would be great. As far as, you know -- no, no one wants the
50,000 square foot building, you know, nice paintings on the side and -- see, we still
want to see our view.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Rohm: Thank you for your comments. Gary Richards. Roberts.
Roberts: My name is Gary Roberts, I live at 3066 East Green Canyon Drive, which is
directly -- almost directly behind the Heritage Reflections building. Like everybody else
has said, our main concern is that we get the walking path done and that we can
continue to communicate with the developers to help us get these buildings done where
they will -- we can all live there. One of the concerns is the height. Obviously, when we
were told originally that they would not be any higher than what our buildings were in
our subdivision, which was 28 feet, now we are being told that it's 35 feet.
Borup: You know, I think I was at that meeting however many years ago it was. I think
the understanding was that it would be what was allowed in a normal R-4 zone, which is
what your subdivision is.
Roberts: Right.
Borup: And, obviously--
Roberts: Something slipped through the cracks.
Borup: Well, we weren't aware that your subdivision had come up with covenants that
differed from the city ordinance.
Roberts: Well -- but, nevertheless, I mean we have met with Mr. Moore and they -- his
people have told us that they would try to keep his building heights down and we would
like to see them continue to try to keep those building heights down. Also in the original
plots we saw that all the buildings -- all the parking lots were going to be towards the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 44 of 55
back, all the buildings would be pushed out towards the front. And the way that that
land slopes and with all the dirt that has been brought in, especially out of the Heritage
Reflections building, it got all piled onto the lot next to it and graded out. Now, that --
you know, a foot is a foot. You know, if we keep adding a foot here and a foot here, you
know, they are going to build their buildings up and they are going to be 35 feet more, I
mean if we could get them to take some of the soil out and, then, build their buildings,
any little bit would help and that's kind of where we are -- what we would like to see, you
know. The smaller buildings, yeah, that's great. I mean as long as they can position
them, so that some of these people still have their views, like we still have our views, I
mean we can still kind of look through the Heritage Reflections area -- now, if they build
a building right next to that -- and, see, that's one thing we haven't seen -- I mean where
Heritage Reflection stops, but there is another lot there and we haven't seen anything
that they are doing with that lot and, then, all these lots start. So, there is a building lot
in between the two there, somewhere about -- I'm guessing right in this area.
Somewhere in there. And we'd like to see what's going in that also. We haven't seen
anything about a hearing or anything for the building on that either. Thank you for your
time.
Borup: This is what's here tonight is next to the Heritage Reflections. Isn't that what's
showing?
Guenther: This lot where the pointer is right now is not included in this development.
The person who drew the box around here--
Borup: Oh, it got marked out wrong.
Guenther: Right. These two lots are the two lots that we are hearing tonight.
Rohm: All right. That is the end of the list of people that have signed up to speak, but
anybody that chooses to speak is welcome to come forward at this time. One at a time.
E.Herron: My name is Eileen Herron and I live at 2896 East Green Canyon. And can
you put it back on the -- go back one. Go back another one. One more. Okay. This is
my house right here. My total view and the Hornbakers next to us, they might -- well,
we have -- we will have no view. And because there is such a small space there and
our house -- their house is here and our house is right here, we will lose our total view
and that's all I'd just like to comment to you that it's -- I just feel bad that if -- if they could
have had the parking lots behind and they were up a little closer, maybe it would have
helped a little, but at this point both of us totally lose all view of anything except a
building.
Rohm: Is your -- is your side of the canal lower or higher than --
E.Herron: It's a little higher.
Rohm: A little higher.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 45 of 55
EHerron: It was a little higher. Now, they have been built -- it was quite a bit higher
originally, but they -- like they said before, they have been putting dirt in, building it up.
Rohm: Right. Okay. Thank you.
E.Herron: Thank you.
Rohm: Is there anybody else that would like to testify? Okay. Before we go back to
the applicant to respond, I'd like to ask staff a question about how the building height is
determined from -- I mean if it's 35 feet, is it from the original grade or what -- what
changes can occur as development occurs?
Guenther: The building division would look at the elevation from grade to the highest
portion of the roof and we will occasionally have buildings that will have architectural
structures on top of the roof and those are not included in the height. But in this
development they will be included in the height. A few weeks ago we had one that was
not, but that was in a different development. This one specifically calls out buildings
located on properties adjacent to Thousand Springs Subdivision shall be restricted to a
maximum of 35 feet to the top of the roof in height, as opposed to 40 feet.
Rohm: Okay. All right. I think that answered the question. Anybody else have any
additional questions before we turn it back to the applicant?
Borup: Just I think everyone here understood -- maybe just to reiterate that there has
been a bond with the city for that -- for that path, so they put up the money. If they don't
put the path in, the city has the money to higher someone plus, what, ten percent or--
Guenther: It's 110 percent of the cost.
Borup: A hundred and ten percent of the cost. There is an incentive there to make sure
it's done.
Guenther: The entire subdivision bond is not just the pathway, it would be landscape
screening, required improvements, so it's a very large bond that will not be released
until everything has been satisfied.
Rohm: And I think that, in part, construction was halted due to the Ridenbaugh Canal
being in jeopardy there and --
Guenther: In this area, this general vicinity in -- south of Overland Road, along the
Ridenbaugh, we have many properties that have -- the Ridenbaugh is a very leaky
canal and that's why they are working on sealing it for quite an area and if you go on the
other side of Locust Grove -- Victory Road, the developments entirely on the south side
of Victory have completely sealed the Ridenbaugh in order to mitigate their high
groundwater issues as what developed on this site.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 46 of 55
Rohm: Thank you. And that, at least, offers up some explanation why the pathway has
not been constructed to date and knowing the answer sometimes helps people
understand why we are -- where we currently are. So, thank you. Brad, did you have
something else?
Hawkins-Clark: If I could just interrupt. One other clarification. I heard from testimony
some mention about the 28 feet versus 35 feet and I did just look through the written
agreement that we had in 2001, I did not see that. It may have been made verbally to
the neighborhood association. We, obviously, can't confirm or deny that, but what we
have in writing that the City Council approved is what we enforce and that does say 35
feet. Chairman, do you want staff to respond or --
Rohm: Yeah. Go ahead.
Borup: You might want to repeat that question, Mr. Chairman.
Rohm: The question was can the limitations be changed, the height limitations, in future
developments from the original 35 feet in the agreement. And staff could respond to
that.
Hawkins-Clark: In order to amend a Conditional Use Permit or development agreement
that has already been approved by the City Council, you know, there are steps to follow,
obviously. Each of them is a little bit different, but the development agreement is,
essentially, a contract between W.H. Moore Company and the City of Meridian, which
states certain terms that can be followed. I mean and the public -- these are all public
documents and you're welcome -- they can come to the planning and zoning office and
check these out -- you know, look at them all they want to see what those terms are. I
mean I guess the answer to the question is it could potentially be changed, but not
easily at this point, since it is a recorded document.
Rohm: And venture to say that the existing structures probably aren't going to be
changed, but this is an opportunity, possibly, to talk about the buildings yet to be
constructed as part of this development and the applicant's certainly here and will --
maybe this is the time to turn it back to Mr. Collingwood and let him respond to --
Baird: Mr. Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt. I just wanted to make one clarification. Because
of -- as staff pointed out, the development agreement is an agreement between the city
and the developer, those are the only parties that could initiate the change.
Unfortunately, no amount of pressure from -- you know, the request would have to come
-- or the pressure would have to go on -- on the developer to seek an amendment,
basically. Is that staff's understanding about how changes would be initiated?
Guenther: That would be the only way to change the original documentation. I was just
discussing with Mr. Freckleton that this is still a new application, this is a new
preliminary plat, and the answer to the question fielded from the audience is we can be
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 47 of 55
more restrictive than the existing documentation, but we cannot be any more lenient.
We can't be less restrictive at all.
Rohm: And I think that's where I was going with this, that the applicant wants to speak
to the concerns brought before us tonight and maybe -- we can't do anything about the
path and some of the ordinance things, like lighting, that have been brought up, but as
far as the future development of the two lots and converting it into these -- this
development, we can address that and I think at this time let's turn it back to our
applicant and we will take it from there.
Collingwood: I just wanted to clarify that I don't work for W.H. Moore, the original
developer. We are hired by Dave Evans Construction here and I'm not familiar with the
size of the buildings, the architectural renderings of the buildings and how high they are
going to be. But I do know what the small -- with the smaller buildings, instead of using
one larger building, you're going to have less height and with this product that he's put
around the town, generally, you're in the 20 foot height range.
Borup: So, it's all basically been single story?
Collingwood: Single story.
Borup: That's what this --
Newton-Huckabay: You're not going to get 5,000 square feet --
Borup: No. This concept shows all single story.
Collingwood: Uh-huh.
Borup: And I realize it's just conceptual, but --
Collingwood: Right.
Borup: This is showing all single story.
Collingwood: And there was a question about the bike path -- or not the bike path, but
the pathway along the canal. How a lot of fill has been brought in on the site and you
really can't construct the pathway until the site is graded. That's usually one of the last
steps when the building is in and improvements are done, the landscaping is completed.
So, once the proper grading is done and that's been designed, then, we can finish that
pathway through there. But right now it's just raw ground and to construct the pathway
right now and, then, build the buildings is kind of backwards. But it's -- I want to also tell
somebody -- we did the design on the building next door that's going to be the Trout
Weeks Law Offices, Trout Weeks Nemec Law Offices, and they have a lot there, it's
right next to Heritage Reflections, which is off the map there -- maybe I can use this
thing here. What you see here is this is the entrance off of Copperpoint and this right
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 48 of 55
here, this edge of the building, this is the Trout, Weeks, Nemec, probably, right here and
just to let you know that we are removing about five foot of fill that's there now. We are
tying into -- our storage drainage is down here and we are doing the same thing with EI
Dorado here -- or with Bonito No.3 is we are implementing our storm-water retention
down -- everything collects in the middle here and, then, these parking lots or aisles
here, everything drains to there and so we are tying in -- we are draining in off
Copperpoint and we are draining back this way and we keep that a minimum grade and,
for instance, over in Trout Weeks we have a retaining wall behind this building, so we
are, actually, taking out a lot of material and staying -- you know, keeping as low profile
as possible. We are not -- we are not just following the -- what the grade is right now
and putting buildings up on the hill. They are all going to be down below the canal and
we are going to remove a lot of fill and it will all be graded toward the middle here, so
there will be a lot of material that will be removed here. We are not just, you know,
grading from Copperpoint all the way back to the Ridenbaugh as a straight grade, kind
of like where the rehabilitation center is, we are grading from the outside in on both
sides at both ends here. So, we are going to keep as low profile as we can and keep
the grade as minimal as we can through here, but our storm-water collection, basically,
dictates that through here.
Rohm: One of the testimonies was concerning the height of these two buildings,
because they are the very closest to the development across the way. Is there anything
that you can offer up in terms of height limitation commitments on those buildings?
Collingwood: I just don't know anything about their product they are proposing there. I
don't know a thing. We can sure get that, but it's -- I don't know that.
Borup: Again, Mr. Chairman, I think we are here to look at a re-subdivision. Any
buildings coming in will be back for a Conditional Use Permit, so that's not even on the
agenda, any building like -- we are supposed to be looking at is -- is are-platting.
Collingwood: Yeah.
Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Chairman, could I offer a clarification there?
Rohm: Please.
Hawkins-Clark: That the Conditional Use Permits are only if there are not office.
Borup: I'm sorry. That is correct as stated. Yeah. So, that could affect the height. Or
the height could be two story buildings, then, if it's an office.
Rohm: Well, I think it's suffice to say -- and I'm not going to hold you to this, but by
breaking this up into individual office buildings, as opposed a 20,000 and a 50,000
square foot building, the chances of the height not being as obtrusive as the former
proposal are better.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 49 of 55
Collingwood: Uh-huh.
Rohm: Probably not going to see all nine buildings in up to the 35-foot height and I
think that that's one of the concerns that the public has addressed, too.
Collingwood: The only thing I can base that off of is Dave Evans' previous office
building construction on Glenwood and Overland Road and they are single story, 20
feet height, approximately. They are not very tall.
Rohm: Let's talk about lighting for a bit here. It appears as if the lighting that was
installed on the lots that have been developed has been less than what -- or more than
what the public has wanted and can you speak to that a little bit for us?
Collingwood: The dome lighting that's out there now is better -- was that an approved
design for -- for that development? I'm just trying to remember what's at Heritage
Reflections, for instance.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission -- excuse me. The lighting out
there in EI Dorado has been -- has been a problem. At the very beginning before
buildings went in, we received a few calls in the Public Works Department regarding the
lighting and we contacted the developer, talked to them, they -- I know they went out
and they had meetings with several people in Thousand Springs. My understanding
was that they did install some shields in those lights. They -- the lights that are out
there along the roadways have an acorn globe in them and they have -- if I remember
right, they have a vertically oriented bulb that's in those, instead of a horizontally
shielded bulb. And so you do get a hot spot when you're looking at them, you see that
glare. But they did install some shields inside those. I personally haven't received any
calls since that point in time. I guess I would -- I would encourage people to call in and
get those complaint registered in the Public Works Department and we will -- we will
work with the developer to make sure that it gets taken care of. He did -- Jonathan Seal
did tell me that -- you know, that they were going to try the shields and see if -- see if
that took care of the issue and, like I said, I haven't heard -- personally I have not heard
anything since then. So, I guess I was under the assumption that everything was going
pretty well, so -- but they are -- our city code does require down-shield lighting or
downcast lighting, so on the buildings, the wall packs and things like that that they are
going to have on the buildings, are required to be a downcast light. They are not?
Okay. That would be a code enforcement issue and they could -- the person to contact
would be Joe Venamin in the police department. He's the code enforcement officer and
he will work on that situation, get that resolved.
Rohm: Okay. Thanks, Bruce. I think that the important thing here is they are almost
two separate issues. You have got the lighting that's existing that doesn't appear to be
within code compliance and, then, we have got the lighting that will be installed as part
of your development that these people are here to try and make sure that we don't
aggravate the situation that currently exists and I think that -- I think it suffice to say that
the lighting fixtures that you put in this development adhere to the ordinances that are
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 50 of 55
already on record and I think that that will go a long ways towards making the public
happy and I don't see any resistance on your part.
Collingwood: No. None whatsoever. I'm trying to remember what's out there. I just
can't remember. But at Heritage Reflections did they have the dome?
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, we can't have testimony from the floor.
Newton-Huckabay: We can't take testimony from the floor.
Rohm: Okay.
Collingwood: We will do -- we'd like to work with everybody here to get everybody
happy here. We will use the indirect lights with reflectors down. I'm sure Dave Evans
will have no trouble with that, as long as it's okay with the city and --
Moe: Are you anticipating any low lighting whatsoever or is this going to be -- you don't
know yet?
Collingwood: I don't know yet. No, I'm sorry, I'm not--
Moe: Okay.
Collingwood: I'm more in the design and so forth, not the building itself.
Moe: Sure.
Collingwood: So, sorry about that.
Rohm: One more thing on the landscape plan is -- will you have a final landscape plan
prior to City Council?
Collingwood: Yes.
Rohm: Okay. Any other questions of the applicant?
Moe: Not the applicant, but of staff. That is part of the conditions anyway, is that not?
Guenther: That's correct.
Moe: Okay.
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Okay. Any discussion amongst the Commission?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 51 of 55
Borup: You know, I think maybe -- I think -- well, it just depends on where the
discussion is going. Is there -- are we going to be leaving too many height restrictions
on the buildings? If there is, I need some more information.
Rohm: Quite honestly, I think that the height limitations on the existing EI Dorado
Development, I don't feel compelled to change that, but the fact of the matter is that by
breaking this up into multiple units, the likelihood of that being as big of an issue has
been significantly reduced and I don't know that it's -- I don't think it's our place at this
point in time to change those conditions, but they should end up with a better
development than what had been proposed before. So, that would be my position on
that, Keith.
Borup: Okay. I'm fine with that.
Moe: Yeah. Quite frankly, I think we have kind of worked through quite a few issues
this evening as far as -- I would hope that the neighbors are a little bit more settled in
regards to understanding the situation with the pathway and that code enforcement will
take a look at the existing lighting concern still and that, basically, the developer now
has been discussing what they are anticipating for lighting and will make sure that your
concerns are noted there. I guess the -- I think that they have done a great job. I think
nine smaller buildings in this development are going to be much better than two huge
boxes, you know, height-wise as well, I think it's going to be a little bit better to have
view corridors in this arrangement than you would the other way. The only thing that I
guess I would ask that the -- that the gentleman from Toothman-Orton take back to the
Evans Building would be maybe to kind of anticipate what they do in eight and nine over
there as far as what they are doing with the neighbors over there to see if they can't give
them just a little bit of relief over there when they design those two buildings. Other
than that, I, quite frankly, think it's a lot better plan than would be than two large
buildings.
Rohm: Absolutely. Okay. With that being said --
Moe: Well, with that being said, Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing
on PP 05-010.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the public hearing on PP 05-010.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we move -- that we move -- we forward to City Council
approval of PP 05-010, to include all the staff comments of the hearing date of April 7th,
2005, received by the city clerk's office April 4th, 2005.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 52 of 55
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of PP 05-010. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion
passed. Thank you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Thank you, everyone, for your input and I look forward to seeing this
development move forward.
Huckabay: Thank you.
Item 11:
Public Hearing: RZ 05~003 Request for a Rezone of 4.42 acres from a
R-8 PD zone to a C-N zone for Quenzer Commons Commercial by
Landmark Properties, LLC - west of Locust Grove Road and north of
Heritage Park:
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing RZ 05-003 and open it
with staff comments. .
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is for a rezone of a planned development
commercial lots and they are R-8 to a more appropriate district for a commercial
neighborhood. I will stand for any questions. Staff is recommending approval.
Moe: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have a couple questions.
Rohm: Okay.
Moe: Quite frankly, this one confused me a little bit and it took me a few times to read it
through and I'm still somewhat confused. I mean I understand the rezone, but, at the
same time, your findings and what you're requiring, they are to stay with the same
restrictions that were on the PD to begin with, so why make the change? What -- this is
-- bear with me, I'm in a learning process here. What changes?
Guenther: Nothing, except for the appropriate zoning. Generally, when an insurance
company or an appraiser comes through and they ask how did you get a commercial
property on a residential district, because these are R-8, then, we issue letters out to the
commercial appraisers or whoever it might be, saying we have this use exception. It
cleans things up a lot more on the inside edge of the development if the commercial
projects have a commercial zone code. And that's why the developer has come back to
rezone these and we require the rezones for a lot of the R-8 PDs in future
developments and we -- since I have been here I haven't seen a use exception be
actually utilized.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 53 of 55
Borup: So, this isn't really making any change in this project, it's just to help the
uneducated?
Guenther: Yes. Because our zoning code allows for the use exception, which the rest
of the world generally doesn't allow. They, actually, would do multiple zones on this
type of a development.
Borup: That makes sense now.
Hawkins-Clark: Another clarification there, Chairman, Members of the Commission, is
that the current ordinance today, if you want to split -- do a one-time split on property
you are not permitted to do that in a residential district. However, you can apply to the
staff -- it's a staff level for a one-time division in a commercial or industrial zone. So,
just to clarify that that's the way the ordinance read.
Rohm: Thank you. Any other questions of staff? At this time I'd like to turn it over to
the applicant.
Turnbull: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, David Turnbull, 122601 West
Explorer Drive. We agree with the staff report and this is a little bit more of a
technicality, I suppose. Nothing changes with the development. The same Conditional
Use permit is in place, same conditions of that Conditional Use Permit are in place, the
same conditions of the development agreement are in place. It's merely an
administrative issue. We have built the first four buildings in these four lots that you see
platted here. The preliminary plat shows two more lots here, but we have built these
buildings in kind of pairs that are bridged by a -- kind of a bridge structure to give them a
-- kind of a cohesive look. We could go in and build four more buildings, but they would
be sitting on two different lots. When we approached Anna Canning at the -- or the
planning director, she advised -- there is one of two ways to go. We could either go
through a new preliminary plat and final plat or her preference was that we just rezone
the property according to the use of the zone anyway and, then, that way we can take
care of the lot split on an administrative basis. So, that's, really, all there is to it. And
we are in agreement with the conditions. I'd stand for any questions if you have any.
Moe: I have none.
Borup: And we're glad you waited all night for your five-minute project.
Turnbull: The buildings and the plan don't change at all.
Rohm: Thank you. Anybody else care to testify for this? You're welcome to come up.
Donohue: My name is Beverly Donohue. I live at 3735 North Locust Grove Road and I
live right over here. So, the reason I have just two questions tonight -- and one is when
we first started with the plat, the City of Meridian requested that we have an access
easement and a sewer stub, which we got the sewer stub over here and now that this
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 54 of 55
parcel has sold into ten small office units, this is commercial here and, then, we have
the fire department over here, what we would like to suggest and hope the city
recommends, is that we have the access here already for our property, but we'd like to
make it commercial, so that if we ever do develop or sell, we could have a road that
goes from this all the way through here and keep the traffic off North Locust Grove,
because we have the charter school and the elementary schools over here, so if people
are shopping from Quenzer all the way down here, they can go to Brockton or if we
have some in between here, that way that people would not be going back on the road
to go all the way over here to come over here, but they would go straight through. So, I
would like the city to recommend that we have an easement for a commercial driveway,
because it's already scheduled right there for a private one. And, then, the second thing
I also had a question on is when Heritage Commons first put in the commercial area
right here there was a bus stop and they had donated that or amended that to the city. I
no longer see the bus stop that was given to the city. So, those are my two questions.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to speak to the cross-access?
Borup: Well, there is an easement there, isn't it? What was the testimony?
Turnbull: Mr. President, Members of the Commission, this was covered at length in the
original approval of this project. We have complied with all the conditions of the original
preliminary plat Conditional Use Permit and zoning. We have complied with all of the
conditions of the development agreement. If they want to come in and expand a right
they don't have right now, we would object to that, unless they want to work out some
private deal on the side with us and that was -- that was a point of discussion at the City
Council hearing. I'm not willing to open it up for discussion again. As far as the -- what
was the other point? Oh, the bus-stop. We had dedicated an easement in that area
and it's available for ACHD to come in and approve at anytime, but they don't currently
have bus service, so they don't want to improve a bus stop until they have bus service
there. But the easement is in place.
Borup: So, you're saying at this point there can be just private residential -- that
easement was private residential only?
Turnbull: Right. Right.
Huckabay: We can't really address that in this --
Borup: No. I realize that. I just -- I guess for my clarification.
Turnbull: They were concerned about being able to get in and out of their driveway out
onto Locust Grove and so we provided a driveway curb cut for that at his location. It
was a safety issue for them.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 55 of 55
Rohm: Well -- and they -- it's certainly within their prerogative to come back to you
outside of this hearing and reopen that discussion between you and not part of this
application.
Turnbull: Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. Any other testimony? Any discussion amongst the Commission?
Borup: I have none.
Rohm: Hearing none --
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing RZ 05-003.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing RZ 05-003. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of RZ
05-003, to include all staff comments for the hearing date of April 7th, 2005, received by
the clerk's office April 1 st, 2005.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto the City Council
recommending approval of RZ 05-003. All in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Huckabay: Mr. Chairman, I recommend that we end this meeting of the Planning and
Zoning Commission at approximately two hours earlier than the last six.
Rohm: Is there a second to that? Or do you want to wait a couple hours?
Moe: I'll second it.
Huckabay: Come one, Dave. Work with me.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign?
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
.~
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2005
Page 56 of 55
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:14 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
DAVID
C ~t,tt-