2008 10-02Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission October 2, 2008
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of October 2, 2008, was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Moe.
Members Present: Chairman David Moe, Commissioner Joe Marshall, Commissioner
Tom O'Brien, and Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay.
Members Absent: Commissioner Michael Rohm.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Machelle Hill, Caleb Hood, Bill Parsons, Sonya Wafters, Scott
Steckline, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Tom O'Brien
Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall
X David Moe -Chairman
Moe: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome you to the regularly
scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for October the 2nd. I'd like
to go ahead and call this meeting to order and ask the clerk to call roll, please.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda:
Moe: Thank you very much. Next item on the agenda is the adoption ofi the agenda
and we do have a change in the agenda for this evening. Items No. 6 and 7 for
Cavanaugh Ridge will be continued and those will not be heard this evening. They will
be continued to our regularly scheduled meeting of the 16th of October and we will
continue those in order as we go through our agenda. So, like I said, Cavanaugh Ridge
will not be heard this evening. Having said that, Commissioners, can I get a motion to
adapt the agenda as noted.
O'Brien: So moved.
Marshall: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve the agenda. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 2, 2008
Page 2 of ~}5
A. Approve Minutes of September 18, 2008 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
08-022 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a
10,995 square foot restaurant in a C-G zoning district, per
requirement of the Development Agreement for this site for Great
Wall Restaurant by Kinsan Chan - 2590 N. Eagle Road:
Moe: Next item on the agenda is our Consent Agenda. We have got two items on that.
Item number one being the approved minutes of the September 18th Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting and the second item being Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 08-022 for the Great Wall Restaurant. Any
comments, questions from anyone?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Moe: Okay. All right. Can I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda?
Newton-Huckabay: So moved.
Marshall: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Mae: Thank you very much, Commissioners. Next item on our agenda, then, would be
our public hearing process and before we open a hearing, if there is some folks out here
that have not been here before, we will just give you a -- somewhat of a brief description
of what we will do. I will go ahead and open the public hearing and ask the staff to give
a brief overview of the project and, basically, reasonings for their -- their conditions that
they have put in. After they complete, the applicant will be coming forward and they will
have 15 minutes to, basically, explain their reasons why they think the project should be
as it is or how they'd rather see it. After their 15 minutes are up and if they have one,
five, or ten people that are in that applicant, they get their 15 minutes and, then, after
that point, then, there are sign-up sheets in the back, if you signed up to speak, you will
have three minutes to ask your questions and make any comments in regards to that
hearing. After all the folks that have been signed up on the sheet are complete I will ask
one more time if there is anyone else that would like to speak to this -- to that hearing.
Then we will just take them up one at a time. After that process is done I will ask the
applicant to come back up again and, basically, rebut any conversations that were in the
public hearing process. After that point, then, we will, then, basically, close the public
hearing and the Commission will, then, vote on that hearing.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
Qctober 2, 2008
Page 3 of 45
Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from September 18, 2008: RZ 08-004
Request for Rezone of 93.64 acres from L-O (Limited Office) and R-4
(Medium Low-Density Residential) to C-G (General Retail and Service
Commercial) (25.10 acres), L-O (Limited Office) (10.70 acres), C-C
(Community Business) (37.84 acres) and R-15 (Medium-High Density
Residential) (20 acres) zones for Volterra Mixed Use by Primeland
Development Company, LLP -west of N. Ten Mile Road and north of W.
McMillan Road:
Moe: So, having said that, then, I would like to go ahead and open the continued public
hearing for RZ 08-004 for Volterra Mixed Use and ask staff to give the report, please.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. If you recall, back in
August -- on August 14th you guys acted on a Comprehensive Plan amendment to
change this to a mixed use community designation and recommended approval to the
City Council. The applicant has come forward now with that rezone application and a
DA modification for the site. I have outlined the area that's subject to this. The C-G
zone that you see here, it's not part of the rezone request, but I wanted to kind of show
you the context of what this area -- what's impacted out there and per Commissioner
Newton-Huckabay, I have also left in the platted lots, so she could see how this could
change with this approval.
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you very much.
Parsons: You're welcome. So, you can see here there is a large residential portion.
That will be changing on the site. To the north of this site is Bainbridge, approved --
excuse me -- approved Bainbridge, zoned R-8. Verona Subdivision to the east, zoned
R-$, L-O, and C-G: To the west is the existing Volterra, zoned R-4, and, then, there is
also Volterra South, which is also zoned C-G, L-O, and R-4. Here is the aerial of the
site. The area, again, you can see it's -- at this time there is really nothing out there, it's
undeveloped agricultural land. Here is the site plan, similar to what you saw back on
the 14th. Again, the only difference is that particular concept plan left out that large box
and some of those pad sites in that corner, in the -- excuse me -- the southeast corner
of the development. Again, this portion here in between these three roadways here will
be zoned R-15 to try to promote either some assisted living or some kind of skilled
nursing facility there. The large multi box here, this will be zoned C-C in this area and
that's more of your employee -- large employer-employment type uses and, then, the C-
Gwill transition along North Ten Mile as well and, then, the offices transition along the
northern boundary here to buffer against the residential along the north with Bainbridge
-- the Bainbridge Subdivision. This site is envisioned to have approximately 1.4 million
square feet of retail employment center, residential uses, so it's a fairly large project. If
you look at where the applicant's proposing to align connections with the original
subdivision, Volterra Subdivision, you can see this is pretty consistent to what was
approved with that project in '05 and, again, these stub streets do match up with what
Bainbridge has proposed with that subdivision. Access paints, again, are -- there are
three proposed along North Ten Mile, one along the north boundary that aligns with an
Meridian Planning ~ Zoning
October 2, 2008
Page 4 of 45
existing driveway from Verona Subdivision. This is a full access here and I believe this
driveway along here will be a right-in, right-out and the Meridian Police Department also
has requested that this remain aright-in, right-out as well. And, then, three access
points along North McMillan, which staff has analyzed this and is okay and approves of
what they are proposing to do out there. The applicant -- at the last hearing you did not
-- you weren't able to see elevations for the site. Well, with the DA modification the
applicant has provided some of the elevations that are proposed for the uses on the
site. I have highlighted these far you. Again, this is what some of the potential assisted
living facility could look like on the site. I have highlighted the big box that's located in
the southeast corner of the project. You can see the modulation there, the mix of
materials with stone accents, stucco, some cornices, raised parapets heights. This
building in the lower -- in this corner here is part of their general business scheme as
well and some of those are located here. Some offices here. You can see they
modulate -- again, a mix of materials with some stone, some brick accents, substantial
glazing. They are possibly marketing this for a hotel site out there as well, so they have
added two renderings of potential hotels that could be located in the area. And, then,
again, here is some of their -- they have identified the health club and skilled nursing.
This would be more of that -- in that C-C zone with the mixed employment type center
and that's similar to what's in EI Dorado right now with that private hospital up there.
Here is health care facilities and, apologize, there was so many photos, I tried to
condense them, but, again, similar building materials. All of these -- these -- at least
these design features are a part of the DA modification going forward to City Council to
be heard on November 5th or sometime in that time frame. Sometime in November
anyways. And, then, again, here is some representation of their senior living proposed
for that R-15 zoned area. Excuse me. So, going back to this, I'll try to go back to that
aerial here and that way you can kind of see how -- let you kind of stew on that. Again,
staff is recommending approval of the rezone and that way I will leave it on this map
here in case any of you have questions of staff.
Moe: Okay. Are there any questions of staff at this time? Would the applicant like to
come forward, please.
Larsen: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Planning and Zoning
Commission, my name is Cornell Larsen, I'm here this evening representing the
applicant. My address is 210 Murray Street in Garden City. We have reviewed the staff
report and are happy with it. We have a couple of clarifications we might like to ask of
the Commission and staff -- we have a couple of clarifications that we might like to ask
of Commission and staff on page 11 and see if we might come up with some wording
that would work for those and they are on the -- applicant shall construct five central
plaza areas and we are okay with the five central plaza areas. We'd like to have a little
flexibility in where they go, because, as you know, on commercial projects they tend to
move around a little bit as we do the platting of the project. So, we'd like to just have
the flexibility that those could -- those locations could vary as we do each final plat or
each phase of the platting. And, then, the same thing would hold true on the actual
design of the pathways, which is the last item on page number 11. We'd like to, again,
have a little flexibility on that location of how we interconnect the pathways through the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
Qctober 2, 2008
Page 5 of 45
final platting process. Other than that, we don't have any comments. Be happy to
answer any questions you have.
O'Brien: I have a question.
Moe: Commissioner O'Brien.
O'Brien: So, tell me how they might change.
Larsen: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner O'Brien, usually what happens to us in a
commercial project is we don't always know the size of our lots for our final building
size. As different users come along they have different requirements and, hence, we
end up moving the lot lines and sometimes we end up moving the plazas or the
amenities around as we do that. We have done the same thing in EI Dorado. We have
moved the pathway around and the plazas around as we have gone through the
platting, but they are always connected and they are always continuous, we don't leave
them fragmented by any means.
O'Brien: So, you're saying that the concept remains the same, it's just that you move
them like --
Larsen: Yeah. Just moves. We don't delete them or change them; we just sometimes
have to shift them in order to get a user to fit on a site.
O'Brien: Okay. Thank you.
Mae: Noting the second item at the bottom of the page, reading through it's pretty much
noting where they want them, so --
Larsen: I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we had shown those on our -- some of our
Comprehensive Plan amendments for locations and we'd just like to stay in those
general locations as the road modifies, but we may have to shift them again. So, if we
have flexibility that's fine and if stafFs okay with that, we are fine, too.
Moe: Well, I guess, then, that that would be my next question of staff. Daes staff have
a problem with that?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, let me try to elaborate on that for
you a little bit more. When they came into the -- with their CPA they showed a pathway
coming up through this portion of the residential zoned property that they were
proposing anyways and, then, coming over and connecting into the park. And they also
had a pathway shown along this area here. The Meridian Pathway Plan shows that the
expansion of that pathway plan -- or at least this pathway should come through here
and that's the only one that's designated for this site. So, what they are proposing here
is a bonus as far as the city is concerned, because that's an above -- a requirement
above and beyond what our pathway plan required. So, we are okay with them shifting
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 2, 2008
Page 6 of 45
that. It's just this -- our condition was really in place to make sure that they at least
coordinate with the parks department to make sure that that connection from Verona
Subdivision comes through somewhere in this subdivision and connects via this park or
this residential in the future.
Moe: And, then, the five plazas are within that, as far as where they are located within
that pathway?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, again, we didn't specifically say
place them in the location, we just said provide five of them. 50, there is flexibility there.
Moe: That makes sense. Okay.
Parsons: Thank you.
Moe: Any other questions of the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much.
Larsen: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I just wanted to verify that the Comp Plan designations that were --
actually, that have passed and those are the new Camp Plan designations.
Moe: Those have not passed. Those are into City Council for approval. Regardless
however we act tonight, City Council still needs to act on that and I believe they are
acting on that, as well as --
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton-
Huckabay, that Comp Plan amendment has been continued to the November 15th
hearing. So, anticipation to try to get this caught up with that same application, so
Council could hear them all atone time.
Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Okay. Okay.
Moe: I was notified that the City Council doesn't have the same problem we have in
regards to approving the Comp Plan amendments. They can do them one at a time and
kind of whenever they want to. It's not all at one time. They have latitude, we don't.
Newton-Huckabay: Latitude. Okay.
Moe: Any other questions?
Newton-Huckabay: No. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 2, 2008
Page 7 of 45
Moe: There was no one signed up, so if there is anyone that would like to speak on
this, you're more than welcome to. Don't rush all at once. Okay. Thank you very much.
Well, Commissioners, any comments, questions at all. I think we have -- you know,
going through the CPA process and dealing with this, we all knew this was coming and
pretty much the applicant has no problems with any of the conditions and the items that
were spoken tonight, that's not a problem there as well, so --
Marshall: I think the applicant has worked well with the city in trying to do the path plans
and has gone, obviously, beyond what we have asked for. I also appreciate the fact
with the buffering, I think that's something that's vitally important is the buffering in
between the commercial and the residential.
O'Brien: I don't have anything to add.
Moe: Okay. Well, then, there is only a couple other things to be done, then, and one of
you three have to do it.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public
testimony --
O'Brien: Close the hearing.
Newton-Huckabay: -- I move that we close the public hearing.
Marshall: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on --
Newton-Huckabay: I'm sorry.
Moe: See how fast she picked up on that one -- on RZ 08-004. All those in favor say
aye. Opposed? That motion carries. The public hearing has been --
Newton-Huckabay: Am I blushing?
Moe: You're doing fine.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers RZ 08-004 and MDA 08-002,
as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 2nd, 2008, with no
modifications.
O'Brien: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 2.2008
Page 8 of 45
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve RZ 08-004 onto City Council for
approval. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: We have done this. before.
Newton-Huckabay: You wonder.
Item 5: Public Hearing: CUP 08-023 Request for Conditional Use Permit
approval to construct two multi-tenant retail buildings on approximately
1.25 acres of land in a C-G zoning district as required by the Development
Agreement provisions of the Dorado Subdivision for Grandview West by
W.H. Moore Company -north of E. Overland Road approximately 600
feet west of Eagle Road, Lot 1 and 2, Block 1 of Dorado Subdivision:
Moe: At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on CUP 08-023 for Grandview West
and start with the staff report, please.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is the
Grandview West project. Again, this is a Conditional Use Permit request. Basically,
these two lots here -- part of the DA for the Dorado Subdivision requires that when
these two lots or any other lots within this Dorado Subdivision are adjacent to this
residential subdivision, they were required to get a procurement of a CUP and so that's
why the applicant is before you tonight. Again, this project is -- north of this is pretty
much interstate -- or is residential in Ada County, zoned R-1. To the west of it is the
same residential -- single family residential, zoned R-1. To the south is EI Dorado,
zoned C-C. And, then, some -- to the east of this is amulti-tenant building, zoned C-G,
as part of the Dorado Subdivision as well. Here is the aerial of the site. It's a little bit
more built out than what it currently shows here. Again, it is two lots. Again, you can
see those Ada County residential homes there abutting the site. One thing I would paint
out is that this is -- right now on the Comprehensive Plan this is shown to be
commercial, so some day in the future this is expected to go to some kind of non-
residential use. Here is the site plan for the project. The applicant is proposing 54
parking stalls with the amount of square footage that they are proposing on the site they
are only required to have 22 stalls. So, they exceed the minimum requirement. Again,
they are asking for approval for two buildings tonight. The first multi-tenant building is
roughly 7,351 square feet. They are showing a potential for five tenants and the third --
the second building is 3,291 square feet and that's proposed to have three multi-tenants
-- excuse me -- three tenants. All the landscaping -- I'll move to the landscaping. StafF
has evaluated the site plan as far as the parking and dimensional standards. The
applicant complies with the UDC. Here is the landscaping plan that the applicant is
proposing with the site. You can kind of see where this area is hatched out here. This
was the 35 foot landscape buffer that was park of the subdivision when it came through,
the EI Dorado -- or, excuse me, the Dorado Subdivision. That is not expected to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 2, 2008
Page 9 of 45
change and it should remain protected as part of this prior as construction continues on
the site or occurs on the site. The one thing I do want to point out is this -- these two
lots are on an entryway corridor and based on the UDC they are required to go through
design review and in this particular application the applicant has not submitted for
design review. So, they are asking that they do -- they can do that at CZC and I have
tried to do that in my staff report, provide some analysis to let you know that I have
checked for compliance with design review and everything appears to be pretty good,
except with exception to the building elevations. One other clarification for you is this
Loader Street here, currently there was -- when they came through with their final
platting of their subdivision at that time, their DA required -- I think in the staff report I
had mentioned that they were going to have a 25 foot landscape buffer here. Actually,
what was a requirement was this was already in place; they were to add an additional
five feet with their DA requirements. So, I wanted to clear that -- at least clear that up
for the Commission and the applicant, because he had -- the applicant had contacted
me and wanted to make sure that I let you know that they were only required to do an
additional five foot along the western boundary there. And they have done that. Also
what their DA provision -- along the northern boundary they were allowed to have a five
foot landscape buffer with the erection of a six foot vinyl fence. The applicant on this
site plan is providing a ten foot landscape buffer and the applicant -- also with the six,
foot vinyl fence and the applicant also communicated to me that they were willing to
install that fencing prior to any construction on the site. That way to insure those
neighborhoods to the north that, hey, we are going to make it safe far you while we are
doing construction, so debris and everything won't go onto your property. So, those are
some of the other things I wanted to bring up for you. Here are the building elevations.
Again, in the upper corner here is the proposed large multi-tenant building and this is
the smaller three tenant buildings that they are proposing. Building materials appear to
be high quality materials. They comply with the design standards as far as building
materials and modulation and glazing. If I can go back to the site plan here, this tells
the story the best. One of the things that staff had found looking at the site plan is if you
can look here, some arcades, they are proposing five multi-tenant buildings on the site
and part of the design standards calls out that they need to have weather protection for
main entrances into the building. Well, if you look at this -- the footprint of the building,
you can see they have some dashed lines for two of the entryways, so you know that
has same arcades, so it's going to provide some protection, but these three, the north,
the central, and the south portion don't appear to have any weather protection. So, staff
has conditioned the applicant to revise the east facade of the building and comply with
that requirement. Staff is recommending approval of this CUP and with that I will be
happy to answer any questions Commission may have.
Moe: Thank you, Bill. Any questions of staff at this time? Would the applicant like to
come forward, please.
Seal: Good evening. Jonathan Seal, W.H. Moore Company, 1940 Bonito, Meridian,
Idaho. I think as the -- as staff has said, we have gone through the staff report and we
don't have any objections to it. There was an issue of the overhang, which we have
said we are agreeable to. We will put that on. And as one thing I also wanted to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 2, 2008
Page 10 of 45
mention, just so I can also put it on the record, as he mentioned, there is a residence
back here, it's Gale Sasser's home. When we had the neighborhood meeting their
primary concern was with this fence and that even though they are no longer living in
this home, their son is and their grandson. They were, obviously, concerned about the
safety of the son. I called Mrs. Sasser again today and Isaid -- actually, I specifically
asked that it be put as a condition in the conditions of approval, which I understand it
can't be, but I'd at least like to go on the record that we will put the fence up before we
do start construction and that seems to be their main concern. And everybody knows
Winston Moore, what he says he does. So, we will certainly do that first. That seemed
to be their only concern. Otherwise, they were satisfied. There is a rendering -- and I'm
sorry that I don't have something else. We just got that complete, so that's as good as
can do. But, again, I think it goes back to the quality that Winston does, such as EI
Dorado Business, Hampton, and Grandview Station. And so I think, again, it's going to
be of that type of quality. So, I think, again, it will be something that will be an asset to
the community. So, unless there is any particular questions, I won't take your time. We
ask that you simply approve it and adopt it as it is.
Moe: Well, I think what I'd like you to do if you could, just -- could you give us -- go
ahead and give us some -- just on the record some of the materials that are going to be
involved in your exterior.
Seal: Sure. Well, what we are going to do is we are going to have either concrete tilt
up or steel structure. As I mentioned in there, which is hard to see in this one, if you put
the elevations up -- and Cornell is here, so if I misstate, he can certainly -- this is going
to be a stone type material. This is the larger building right here with stone, with stucco,
and you have the -- I'll call it kind of the architectural relief. I'm not up on all those ,
terms. On the smaller building we are going to have the canopies, along with the brick
structure and, again, the stucco material up here, along with the glass entrances on
both the fronts, as well as the sides facing Overland. So, it does give some relief, it's
not simply a wall type of thing. So, hopefully, with my architectural limitations will -- that
addressed it.
Moe: I understood that entirely.
Seal: Thank you very much.
Moe: Hopefully, the other Commissioners up here did as well. Any other questions of
the applicant?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I have none. I -- do we have people signed up on this
one?
Moe: No. But we should let them go fiirst.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 2, 2008
Page 11 of 45
Newton-Huckabay: Well, no, I was -- I just -- when we originally had this before us and
put this condition on here it was more to give the residences around there an
opportunity to have their voice heard, so I --
Seal: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners --
Newton-Huckabay: Do you have those specific uses on these?
Seal: No, we don't at this time. It's amulti-tenant building. Typically we build it spec. I
guess it goes back to the old saying, you know, build it and they will come, generally.
So, we oftentimes find that retail tenants. don't want to step up until they can see
something happening. So, in this case -- and, yes, we have gone through a couple
different versions on this to I think also satisfy the surrounding neighborhood, even
though it is in transition, but also make something that's viable for us. And as I say, the
main concern was the Sassers, which live directly to the north, and they were very
happy with it. I met with them personally and have talked to them on numerous
occasions. So, I think we have addressed the intent of the development agreement,
which it addresses this.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Great.
Moe: Thank you very much.
Seal: All right. Thank you very much.
Moe: Again, there was no one signed up. If there is anyone that would like to speak to
this hearing, you're more than welcome. Okay. This has been a good evening so far.
Any comments, Commissioners?
Newton-Huckabay: I have nothing.
O'Brien: I think it's good use of that particular property there, especially since there is
going to be transition for the homes behind that. I always wondered why they put those
homes there right next to the freeway. But, yeah, I think it's a good use. Good project.
Moe: My whole intent to basically ask Mr. Seal to give us an indication of the exterior
elevation material is simply because I didn't have to hold this thing up waiting on
something to see for design review. I'm very happy with his explanation and which is
going to -- it will fit right in with everything else that they have done out there and it's
going to be a nice project. So, having said that, any other comments? If not --
O'Brien: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Yes, sir.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 2, 2008
Page 12 of 45
O'Brien: If there is no further adieu from Commissioners, I move to close the .public
hearing on CUP 08-023.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Marshall: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CUP 08-023. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: You're only halfway there.
O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony,
move to approve file number CUP 08-023, as presented during the hearing date of
October 2nd, 2008, with no modifications.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 08-023 for Grandview West. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 6: Public Hearing: RZ 08-005 Request for Rezone of 26.58 acres from an
R-4 to an R-8 zone for Cavanaugh Ridge by Kastera Development, LLC
-east of S. Meridian Road and south of E. Victory Road:
Item 7: Public Hearing: PP 08-010 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 255
residential building lots and 26 common area lots on 91.08 acres in an R-4
and proposed R-8 zoning district for Cavanaugh Ridge by Kastera
Development, LLC -east of S. Meridian Road and south of E. Victory
Road:
Moe: At this time I'd like to open the public hearing for RZ 08-005 and PP OS-010 for
Cavanaugh Ridge for the sole purpose of continuing bath hearings to the regularly
scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting of October the 16th, 2008. Could I get a
motion?
Newton-Huckabay: So moved.
Marshall: Second.
Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning
October 2, 2008
Page 13 of 45
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue RZ 08-005 and PP 08-010 for
Cavanaugh Ridge to the regularly scheduled meeting of October 1 fith. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from September 1$, 2008: AZ 08-012
Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.03 acres of land from RUT in Ada
County to an R-4 zone for Shays Cove by Landmark Engineering &
Planning, Inc. - 3155 S. Mesa Way:
Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from September 18, 2008: PP 08-009
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8single-family residential building
lots and 3 common lots on 4.45 acres in a proposed R-4 zoning district for
Shays Cove by Landmark Engineering & Planning, Inc. - 3155 S. Mesa
Way:
Moe: At this time I'd like to open the continued public hearing on AZ OS-012 and PP 08-
009 for Shays Cove and start with the staff report, please.
Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Moe, Members of the Commission. The applications
before you are an annexation and zoning request for 5.03 acres of land from the RUT
zoning district in Ada County, to the R-4 district and preliminary plat for eight single
family residential building lots and three common lots on 4.45 acres of land. The
property is located at 3155 South Mesa Way, approximately a third of a mile west of
Locust Grove Road on the north side of Victory, as you can see here on the overhead.
Surrounding uses. To the north are single family residential lots in Kachina Estates
Subdivision, zoned RUT in Ada County. To the south is Victory Road and future single
family residences in Cavanaugh Subdivision, zoned R-8. To the east are single family
residences in Cabello Creek Subdivision, zoned R-4. And to the west are single family
residences in Glacier Springs Subdivision, zoned R-4. This is an aerial view of the
property. There is an existing home right here and a couple large shop buildings.
History on the site. The subject property was previously platted as Lot 1, Block 2, of
Kachina Estates Subdivision in Ada County. This is the proposed preliminary plat. As I
stated earlier, it consists of eight building lots and three common lots. Lots 3 and 4 here
will take access from Mesa Way. The rest of the lots will take access from South Coy
Place via -- or, excuse me Victory Road. All of the structures that are existing on the
site are proposed to remain, except for one small structure here on this property line,
which will be removed. Staff is recommending as a development agreement provision
that South Coy Place be extended as a stub street to the north property boundary for
future extension. The fire department requests that a temporary turnaround be provided
until such time as South Coy Place is extended. This is the proposed landscape plan.
A 25 foot wide street buffer is required along Victory Road. No street buffer is required
along Mesa. There are many existing trees on this site, a few of which will be removed
with development. Most of them will be retained on the site. Mitigation is required in
accordance with UDC standards for existing healthy trees, four inch caliper and larger,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 2, 2008
Page 14 of 45
that are removed from the site. Six foot tall vinyl fencing exists along the west property
boundary here adjacent to Glacier Springs Subdivision. The applicant is proposing to
construct fencing to match along the north boundary here. This is a colored version of
the landscape plan. It shows all the existing trees on the site. Existing house. Existing
shops. And a little pond here. These are the proposed building elevations for future
homes on these lots. Construction materials consist of stucco, with rock accents and
file roofs. Staff is supportive of the building elevations as proposed, as they represent
high quality design and construction materials. Staff is requesting that a development
agreement be required with annexation of this property. Some of the pertinent DA
provisions: No direct lot access to Victory. Only Lots 3 and 4 have direct lot access to
Mesa. South Coy Place shall be extended as a stub street to the north boundary for
future extension. And future building elevations and construction materials shall comply
with those submitted with this application. No written testimony was submitted on this
application. Staff is recommending the subject annexation and zoning and preliminary
plat applications be continued, so that the applicant can revise the preliminary plat and
landscape plan to depict South Coy Street as a public street. Excuse me. Stub street
to the north property boundary. Staff will stand for any questions at this time.
Moe: Any questions of staff at this time?
O'Brien: I have one, Mr. Chairman. Sonya, could you explain, again, the stub street.
And maybe I'm confused as to -- are you going to extend it further from what -- I'm
confused with the cul-de-sac, I guess, on Coy Place.
Watters: Yes. Certainly. Chairman Moe, Commissioners, Commissioner O'Brien, staff
is requesting that this street right here be extended clear to the north boundary here
and, then, when the property to the north eventually develops -- I'll show you here on
the vicinity map, then, access will be provided to that site also for future interconnectivity
and cross-access.
O'Brien: So, they are not going to have I guess built out on those lots, of course, if the
-- if it's going to be stubbed further, because it shows like it's going to be building lots
there right now; right? If you go back to the previous --
Watters: The applicant is proposing building Lots on this subject property here. The
property to the north is yet to develop.
O'Brien: Okay. I was confused because of the -- of these -- find this thing. These guys
here, if a road's going to go right through those properties are they going to build on
them?
Watters: This is the proposed preliminary plat. So, at this time is when we want to
request these changes before it's actually approved and before it's final platted.
O'Brien: Okay. That's all I have.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 2, 2008
Page 15 of 45
Moe: Any other questions? Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Mr. Chair, actually. Sonya, could you go back to the
landscape plan. So, is that a building lot up there in the northeast corner?
Fourth? Is that Lot 4?
Moe: Yes.
Wafters: Chairman Moe, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, yes, it is Lot 4. The
applicant has told me that the plan is here -- the existing homeowner that owns this
whole property lives right here. He is going to construct a new home here and, then, his
son is going to move into this home here. Eventually what we perceive happening with
this is a property boundary adjustment to move this lot line to here, so that these shop
buildings will be associated with the future home on this lot.
Moe: Did that answer your question?
Newton-Huckabay: And then -- so, then, Lot 2 -- it's just kind of awkward looking,
guess.
Moe: Well, it's a huge piece of property, too.
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. No, I agree with that.
Moe: Mr. Marshall.
Marshall: This is Lot 2? Is Lot 2 intended to be a building -- a buildable lot?
Newton-Huckabay: No.
Wafters: Chairman, Commissioners, Lot 2 is going to be a buildable lot, yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Oh.
Marshall: And you mentioned that the three lots here will all take their access from this
site. So, this lot will --
Wafters: There are two building lots here that will take this -- Lot 4 and Lot 3 will take
access from Mesa.
Marshall: Okay.
Wafters: This lot and all of the rest of these will take access from South Coy Place.
Marshall: Okay. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 2, 2008
Page 16 of 45
Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Okay. The color is the size designation. On our transmissions
nothing is in color, so it's hard to get --
Moe: Would the applicant like to come forward, please.
Wyatt: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Jed Wyatt. I'm with Landmark
Engineering and Planning, with a business address of 332 Northside Boulevard in
Nampa and it's a pleasure to be here representing this project tonight it's been a fun
one for us to work on, because it's -- Mr. John Shays -- it's his project and he's lived
here in that home for quite some time and it's property he's owned for eight or nine
years and now he wants to develop it and he actually is intending to live on the site and
he will actually -- hopes to live in Lot 2. Just a little bit of correction. And, then, he's
going to sell that existing home to his son and so it's been a fun one to work on. As you
can see with the landscape plan that's before you there, 90 percent of those trees are
existing trees. That pond is an existing pond. Mr. Shay's got a very nice place there
and his intention for this project is right in line with his current home and the quality that
is there already. Also, as you saw on the building elevations, he's got a footprint and
stuff picked out for the home he'd like to build on the lot and the building elevations he's
submitted are in line with the home that he plans to build there and so we see it as a
very nice project and an amenity for the whole neighborhood. The lots on there range
in size from -- the smallest one is, obviously, the one up in the northeast corner, which
is --
Moe: There should be a pointer there.
Wyatt: -- 8,600 square feet. Thank you. Right here. And all the rest of them are over
12,000 square feet. So, they are nice size lots with nice homes. We'd like to thank staff
for the time they put in to working through this with us and we agree with the staff
report, with one exception, and I'd like to talk to you a little bit about that and that is the
stub road to the north. If we can get the vicinity map placed up there. That's great.
Thank you. As this property -- these properties to the north develop -- well, let me start
with this. Generally, I'm in agreement with stub roads and interconnectivity.
understand why planning staff is -- has put that as a requirement and I like to see that
on plats myself as I work on them. But in this case I don't think that -- good planning
principal is a good principal for this particular site and the reason why is we have an
arterial road here in Victory Road that's meant to carry a lot of traffic. It's good to limit
accesses to those roads and we have been granted an access from ACHD for our --our
project here, as there is no other point of access with the existing homes and shops, we
couldn't get our access onto Mesa -- Mesa Road. So, we have an access approved
through ACHD. Mesa Way, as you see here, continues up quite a long ways. That
should be kind of a traffic funneler as these -- as these lots in the future develop and we
will carry -- as you see the subdivision to the east all stub into that, the majority of the
traffic add onto Victory Road. If we stub this road up in this direction, you're going to
have additional trips, potentially, in the future that are going to be coming out to Victory
Road. Through what will be a secondary access point and just it makes a little more
planning sense and traffic sense, in my mind, to funnel that traffic onto Mesa Road.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 2, 2008
Page 17 Df 45
That's the first reason. The second one is that -- as you looked at the landscape plan
that has been done and you see the work that he's put into his existing home and the
monies spent on trees and whatnot and building elevations for what he plans on in the
future, it's going to be a very nice project and with no guarantees of how it will develop
to the north and the R-4 zoning around -- R-8 zoning around, prefer that we have the --
the cul-de-sac to have more of an intimate community there. And thank you for your
time tonight and will stand for questions.
Moe: Any questions of the applicant?
O'Brien: I have one question, Mr. Chairman.
Moe: Commissioner O'Brien.
O'Brien: Is it Jim or --
Wyatt: Jed.
O'Brien: Jed?
Wyatt: Uh-huh.
O'Brien: J-e --
Wyatt: J-e-d. Jed.
O'Brien: So, this -- so this -- this stub street it's going to service this lot -- basically this
lot here and this build out here, is that why they are going to stub it through the center of
this --
Wyatt: Yeah. That's my understanding is it would stub to the north and so as that
development occurs to the north it would just provide some intercannectivity. But if you
look there is plenty of frontage off of Mesa Way and there is also another stub street
provided here to the north. And so there seems to be ample -- ample space for access
as those properties develop.
O'Brien: So, this line here, then, is not -- it's just a dividing line, it's not going to be a
future stub?
Wyatt: It's a property line.
O'Brien: It's a property line, so -- I guess I'm just -- my only concern is haw these
people here are going to have access, unless they go right through these people's
property right now and I'm concerned about that, I guess. Something doesn't seem
right about it all.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 2, 2008
Page 18 of 45
Wyatt: Mesa Way would be their primary access, which runs along their entire piece of
property.
O'Brien: And did I hear your concerns about the traffic flow, then, should be maintained
on here and not up this way or --
Wyatt: That was my thought. Yeah. Victory Road is an arterial road. It's good practice
to limit our accesses onto it and funnel -- funnel the majority of traffic in at certain
designated points.
O'Brien: That's all I have. Thank you.
Moe: Well, I want to discuss this a little bit further in here as well. Okay. Basically,
what you're saying, you got a stub street right there in that subdivision right there that
will take care of this area right here. What are we doing here, if we don't do the
connectivity through, so we got it, you want to have all these folks here, then, have to
come out here, go down here, and, then, come this way to even get into any of this
here. I mean that's why I think it's imperative that -- to have the connectivity of this road
going all the way through this, so that eventually when they are building in, that these
people do have some where to get down into here, as opposed to having to go out and
around and, then, turn coming back in and going back on the arterial again.
O'Brien: I agree. It was kind of confusing, because you think that they would have had
some -- something there already as a proposal, I guess.
Wyatt: You could connect these two properties without having to have access out to
Victory Road. I mean you could have -- both of the properties have access onto Mesa.
You have a stub street here and there can be connectivity between those two and you
could get from here to this subdivision right in that -- in that way. The paint I'm trying to
make is if and when this develops, the residents here could come this way or this way
as easily as that way to get out.
Moe: I think just basically for safety purposes the fire department is going to want to be
able to go, you know, all the way through into here, as well as come up in to do
something here, just for safety purposes alone.
Marshall: How much further up does Mesa Way go? How much is feeding onto Mesa
Way there?
Wafters: Unfortunately, my map doesn't cover that, Commissioner.
Wyatt: It doesn't go up much farther and it's a cul-de-sac, but as you look at the
development directly to the. north of it there is a stub street, which stubs directly into
where Mesa Way is heading.
Rohm: Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? Thank you very much.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 2, 2008
Page 19 of 45
Wyatt: Thank you.
Moe: Well, this hearing took up the fact that we didn't have anyone signed up on the
other ones, so -- you guys did good this time. First one on the list -- I'm going to butcher
this real good. Aneke Billford -- Binford? Binford. I'm sorry. When you do come up,
please, name and address, please.
Binford: Goad evening. Aneke Binford. 31 g1 South Mesa Way, Meridian. Let's see if
can run the pointer. Okay. Our property is this one right directly next to where Shays
Cove is proposed. We have been down this road before with development. Twa of our
other neighbors on the street developed each of their five acre parcels, Cabello Creek
Subdivision that's under development now and sa we know that anything that's within
that area of impact is going to be developed and we are not going to fight that. So, that
being said, we are not completely opposed to Shays Cove. However, we are in
agreement with staff that we feel that that road needs to be stubbed and not a cul-de-
sac, just for future development of our ground, which is right here. The other stub road
that's right there, that one we also requested when Glacier Bay went in. When Cabello
Creek Subdivision went in, which is this road that comes here and this road right here,
that dumps out onto Mesa Way. When that was being developed we had requested
cul-de-sacs there and they told us that because of interconnectivity they wanted those
roads to ga ahead and dump into Mesa. So, our feeling is that to keep that
interconnectivity we would like to see that road stubbed, because we da plan to develop
our property somewhere down the line as well. Could you flip to the one -- let's see. Go
ahead and go back one more. Sorry. He was talking about how they can -- you know,
if we do develop here, they can just run all the traffic from -- those lots can be accessed
off of Mesa, but what happens with that is they are saying that the existing property
where John Shay lives, that they can't run all of their lots onto Mesa Way, because of
his shop and buildings and whatnot. So, that's kind of the same thing that would
happen to us if we only had Mesa Way as an access to our property. So, yeah, we'd
like to see that road stubbed. We are in agreement with staff on that. What else?
think we do have some irrigation issues as well. My husband will probably speak to that
a little bit later, because he's the irrigation guy. And berming -- we'd like to see a four to
five foot berm and white vinyl fence, which is consistent with everything else that's gone
on, sa --
Newton-Huckabay: A perimeter fence?
Binford: Pardon?
Newton-Huckabay: Perimeter fence?
Binford: Correct. And also I know they had a great landscaping plan, but they didn't
show or explain to us -- we have a little piece -- yes. So, right there is our property line
-- the back of our property line and, then, this is our pasture area. We'd like to make
sure that four foot berm is here with the fencing.
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
October 2, 2008
Page 20 of 45
Moe: Earlier in testimony it was said that they were going to do the perimeter fence.
Binford: Okay. Yeah. Oh, am I up?
Moe: Be quick.
Binford: Okay. We were not aware of this smaller lot right here when they presented
that to us at the kind of community meeting, so we are just a little curious how that got
in there. It's just not a large enough transition. The other homes across the street on
Mesa Way that were originally five acre pieces, we requested half acre lots, which they
felt was a goad transition. The other properties on Mesa Way are five acre lots. So, we
feel that that is awfully small of a transition to be thrown in there, so -- all right. Thank
you.
Moe: Thank you. Jed Wyatt. That's what I thought. Thank you. Okay. Sue Haglund.
Haglund: Good evening. This is my first time in a public hearing. I just wanted to -- oh.
Moe: Name and address, please.
Haglund: Sue Haglund, 3126 South Glacier Bay Way and I'm a neighbor of John Shay
and I think it's nice that he wants to do something with his property. I'm just wanting to
express concern for the busyness of Victory Road. As was pointed out, there is quite a
bit of house development around our neighborhood and ground is just sitting, there are
no homes being built, there is just dirt sitting there and we have it an the south of Victory
and we have it up in that RUT, which is Majestic Point, it's all been plumbed, it's
already, but there are no homes in there and I guess as a concerned neighbor I just
don't want to see this go along and, then, it just sit and just be dirt and cement, you
know, and also the -- right at the edge of the property on the left there in our home area
the road -- Victory Road is elevated and so when you're coming down that hill you can
come very quickly and I'm concerned for traffic going into that -- that entrance into that
housing district. Those are my concerns. Thank you.
Moe: Thank you very much. Roy Haglund.
R.Haglund: Roy Haglund. I also live at 3126, which is the second lot in from Victory
that backs onto Mr. Shay's property. We moved up from southern California where we
had lived for 20 years in 2p06 and one of the things that was really appealing to us
about that particular lot was the openness and the view and everything like that and so
when he heard about the development we very sad and chagrined, as you can imagine,
but I understand that, you know, it's Mr. Shay's property and he can do what he likes
with it and if it was my property and I wouldn't want my neighbors to come and tell me I
couldn't do it. I do have a similar concern to what my wife said. We didn't discuss this
ahead of time, but we do see all of the other develops around -- there is four within a
half a mile and they are sitting there empty and, you know, we would prefer that if there
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 2, 200$
Page 21 of 45
was a way to just delay this until the housing market turns, so that we didn't have to look
at empty weed fiilled lots that would be great.
Moe: Thank you very much. Judy Staub. Okay. From the audience she said that her
concerns have been met. Liz -- yeah. That's right. Okay.
Echanis: Liz Echanis at 3042 South Glacier Bay Way in Glacier Springs and I have a
few concerns. We attended the meeting at the Shays and had some concerns and they
were never included in the application and, then, when I went down to check it and,
then, I think you said there was no written information submitted on this and I hand
delivered it down here for our subdivision with signatures from everybody. So, that has
me a little concerned that --
Newton-Huckabay: You had a petition?
Echanis: Yes. We signed an agreement -- in fact, I have copies in my fiile. I talked to
Sonya and, then, I brought it dawn here on a Friday and give it to the gal and said I had
extra copies and she said she would get them to you. So, this has me concerned,
because you mentioned there is a six foot fence on the west boundary and there is not.
We were concerned about landscaping and some privacy and for some issues like that
to be addressed and, then, also there are sa many Cabellas sitting there empty, and
Majestic is sitting empty and I guess Cavanaugh is the one to the south of us. And if he
wants to build, I mean I can understand him building his house, but maybe subdividing
later, because we are going to have dirt surrounding us forever and it is true, Glacier -- if
you look at Glacier Spring, we have one road in for all those houses and, then, you're
going to put another road in and if you have been on Victory Road and you try to turn
into our sub, which is just probably 300 feet from where this entrance is going to be, you
can't see the cars coming. I mean it evens out a little bit toward Mesa. It's dangerous
right now for us getting into our sub. So, that is a concern, too. The road safety on
Victory is a huge concern. But we did have same issues that we wanted addressed and
I'm surprised that it hasn't been.
Moe: Are you speaking of this one here?
Echanis: Yeah. And there is a typed letter to this.
Moe: Uh-huh.
Echanis: Okay. So, those are my concerns.
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Should we read into the -- note it for the record?
Would you like me to do that, Mr. Chair?
Moe: Sure.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 2, 2008
Page 22 of 45
Newton-Huckabay: I just wanted to note into the record the letter and the bullet points
that Echanis -- Mrs. Echanis was pointing out and it was =- they would like development
agreement provisions that would restrict the height of houses all -- to all single level on
the west side of the property that borders Glacier Springs, which are all single level.
This was received on September 12th, 2008. A minimum of 2,400 feet on the home.
Landscaping for privacy, such as evergreens. They'd like to see taller fences. Currently
the fence is -- of Glacier Springs Subdivision that borders the proposed development
are the lower level. They would like to see a cul-de-sac and not a through road. We
already have a road in front of our homes and this would be a way to keep the noise
level down. And, then, same type of turn lane on Victory Road to help avoid a
dangerous situation. Again, that was the letter received on September 12th.
Moe: Thank you very much. Next on the list is Randy Cash. Randy has evidently left.
Ashley Bloom. All right. Ron LaFever.
LaFever: Yes. My name is Ronald LaFever, 2962 Glacier Bay, and I do oppose this
project far several reasons. I bought there because it is five acres behind us and I
realize that you guys would like -- or the city would like to eventually develop everything.
But if you would just -- within probably two or three blocks of us is 300 lots that aren't
sold and only partially developed and I just don't think this is the right time to develop it.
And if -- I developed some property in 1995 in McCall and the city council was reluctant
and I asked them just to come to the property and look the situation over and after the
meeting they got in their cars and went to the -- to the property and looked it over and,
then, it was T- I wanted approved and it was. And I feel like if that's a possibility before
this finally goes through, if you came to the property and saw how they want to get this
road through and its at the bottom of the hill and it is five acres now, it just -- I don't think
that this would go over with the City Council. I just don't think it would be an approved
subdivision at this time with all the lots sitting and just my comment at this and like Liz
brought up, there are four subdivisions within -- I'm going to say two to three blocks,
maybe a quarter mile at the most with hundreds of lots that aren't sold and only partially
developed. And sa I do opposed it and that's what I have to say.
Moe: Thank you very much. Brett Cash. Left with Randy. Shawn -- is that -- is it
Shakori? I can't pronounce that very well. C-h-a-k-o-r-i.
Newton-Huckabay: S-h.
Moe: Well, Linda Baker.
Baker: Good evening. I'm Linda Baker at 3086 Glacier Bay Way.
Nary: Would you pull the microphone down, ma'am.
Baker: Most of my concerns have already been voiced by my neighbors. I am opposed
to the subdivision at this time, again, because of all the vacant lots. The last bad wind
storm we had dirt flying everywhere. I don't want to see that in my backyard for years to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 2, 2008
Page 23 of 45
come. The other subdivision's been there it seems to me a couple years and there has
only been one house built on the other side of Mesa. Glacier Bay -- my home is
elevated from the property that we -- the proposed property right now. The fence, I
believe, is five foot. I know it's not six foot. We have no windows on the second story.
We would be having people looking into our yards. Incorrectly we were told before we
bought our property that that property was five acre lots and could never be subdivided.
Unfortunately, that was incorrect. But that was the basis that we bought our home on.
Because of the wildlife back there, the view, I have my opposition at this time. Thank
yOU.
Moe: Thank you. That was all that were signed up. Is there anyone else that would
like to come forward, raise your hand and -- come forward, sir.
Todd: Sorry I was a little late, I had another commitment, but Chris Todd with Landmark
Engineering and Planning as well. Business address is 332 Broadmore Way. Here on
behalf of John Shay, our client. The owner of this property and our client Mr. Shay
wanted to do something a little bit different and unique for this area. The design and the
preliminary plat that you see in front of you this evening are kind of the brainstorming
efforts of the client and our firm to kind of match the goals that he was looking for and
the piece of land that Mr. Shay owned. The design and the preliminary plat allowed for
our client's goals to be achieved and high standards, quality design, and some superior
homes. If you look through the application and the transmittal that was sent to planning
and zoning, you will see some elevations of proposed housing types and elevations --
Moe: Those were all shown.
Todd: And other -- also included with the application, other than those homes sites,
was this color exhibit and landscaping plan. With the existing landscaping plan and the
potential for the superior homes for this site, I feel that these are kind of wasted by
putting in that stub street. I feel that the potential is lost with the extension of Coy Place
for a variety of different reasons. I'm not going to rehash those, I think Jed went through
them with the irrigation canal that's to the north and two properties -- could you show the
vicinity map up one more time?
Mae: Yeah. I was going to say, you're doing applicant discussions here and --
Newton-Huckabay: They have already been done.
Todd: Okay. I feel that with the existing stub streets and the irrigation ditch that are
there, as long -- as well as ACHD not commenting that they would like the stub street, I
feel that the design of this subdivision is kind of lost with the extension of the stub street
and I will conclude my testimony there, because I don't want to step on any feet.
Moe: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to come forward? Yes, sir.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 2, 2008
Page 24 of 45
M.Binford: Matt Binford, 3101 Mesa Way. So, we live on the property on the north of
the developed agreement. So, one thing I -- I'm not -- neither really opposed, nor for
this development. We know development's going to happen and this area -- you know,
a high impact area, lots of development going on. What I'd like to point out, though, is
John does a nice job,' you know, he does quality development. These people you hear
arguing against that development, I would think would encourage that. His home that
he's going to build is going to be a nice house in this location. But beyond that, my
other concern is irrigation between us and Jahn right along this area. We flood irrigate
from here down across. It catches a ditch in here. I just want to make sure that
whatever they put in there is at least a three foot berm that would keep that water from
going on this new development. And the other concern -- if you go back to that small
lot, is this was a surprise to see it in this -- this rendering. It wasn't in the town meeting
that Jahn had and it really doesn't offer a lot of transition. All the lots across the road
from Mesa Way -- these are all half acre lots, so this lot really just doesn't fit with what's
currently existing. As my wife mentioned earlier, we would agree with the stub road
here. The folks in Glacier Bay, their concerns are valid with the debris and all that that
happens. We have lived with their development and also the development across the
road. You know, that's growth, that's up to the city -- City of Meridian to decide what
kind of growth they want, but that's all I have.
Rohm: Thank you very much. Anyone else that would like to come forward? Okay.
Would the applicant like to come back up, then.
Wyatt: Jed Wyatt with Landmark Engineering and Planning, 332 Northside Boulevard in
Nampa. And I tried to take some good notes. I hope that I can touch on all items here.
The first one I'll address is this lot here and, yes, that is different than what was on our
map in our neighborhood meeting and maybe Sonya, if I missed some of this, can
explain some of the reasons why. That lot originally included these two shed structures
on it, but because of some technicalities in the code and whatnot, we couldn't have a lot
with a shed and not -- not a living structure mainly. So, we were planning on doing a lot
line adjustment in the future and that lot will grow in size and, again, accompany those
sheds. But we didn't add any lots. They are slightly configured differently, but the
general intent is the same and it was just an effort to meet some of city code that we
made the changes that we did for that lot. There was some concern on Victory Road
and there is a little hill there and, yes, there is a little bit of a hill coming -- coming down,
but it's been through ACHD. We have had engineers look at it and it's not a problem as
far as sight distances. There is hills on pretty near any road you go on and it's -- the
safety is not a concern with the experts that have looked at it. But that does bring up a
good point with the housing that is next door. That housing is five or six feet taller than
the backyards and the homes that will be say here and so, really, it's not any of the
homes here that will be looking onto those, they will be looking into this. These lots are
substantially larger than the lots adjacent to them anyway. Irrigation was brought up
and we will insure that all the irrigation rights are met and work through that in our
construction drawings and we will make sure that his historic irrigation rights are there.
There is state laws that protect those and we will make sure that all his irrigation
concerns are resolved. And let me look at my notes here real quick. Oh. Market
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 2, 2008
Page 25 of 45
conditions was addressed. Three of the lots are spoken for already. There is only eight
lots in here. These lots are unique, because they are quite a bit larger than anything
that's around them. This isn't a -- this isn't aproject --atypical developer project, this is
a landowner who wants to live on this project. It's pretty unique and it's really not a
concern for the developer, the land owner. And that's all I have got from my notes. Just
to touch on that, the stub road one last time, we would like to keep it a cul-de-sac for the
intimacy within the neighborhood, the high quality of homes that we are proposing to
build here, as well as we feel that there is -- there is ample cross-access opportunities
available to the north and we thank you for your time and ask for your approval.
Moe: Any other questions for the applicant, Commissioners?
Marshall: I do.
Moe: Mr. Marshall.
Marshall: So, what is the future intent of that lot for, the 8,600 -- you say that's going to
be -- there is going to be a lot line adjustment and it will eventually connect to the
sheds?
Wyatt: Originally we had this lot with the home as its own lot without the sheds on it.
You see that's kind of a funny shaped lot.
Marshall: Right.
Wyatt: And this lot, Lot 4, had the sheds on it. The city code says -- and maybe they
can help me, again, to this, that we can't have that -- that lot with sheds on it without a
living structure and so we put it on with this home and we hope in the future when we
build a home on there that we can adjust that.
Moe: Sonya, can you give us an explanation on that, please.
Wafters: Yes, Chairman Moe, Commissioners. It's just like Mr. Wyatt said, city code
does not allow for these structures to remain on the site without a primary residence, so
they would have to be removed if it wasn't configured like it is.
Wyatt: It's just a small technicality. The reason I brought it up is there was some --
some people noting that we added that lot and it was different than the neighborhood
meeting. I just wanted to explain why we weren't trying to pull a fast one or anything,
but that's the reason it looks the way it does.
Moe: Okay.
Marshall: Appreciate that.
Moe: Any other questions? Thank you very much.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 2, 2008
Page 26 of 45
Wyatt: Thank you.
Moe: Comments? Thoughts?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: These type of developments are difficult and I think we are going to
start seeing more and more of them come in as we start to in fill. If -- you know,
connectivity is something that they point you to the Planning and Zoning Commission
and they hand you the book of good planning practice and connectivity is like number
one in there to build good communities and this is the entryway, if you will, to the rest of
the development along Mesa Way and I think it's critical to provide that connectivity and
I would expect that any -- any -- to do anything else I think would be negligent on our
part. If we said, oh, you can have a cul-de-sac to every development that wanted a cul-
de-sac; there would be a lot of cul-de-sacs in the city. So, I think it's critical that that go
through there. That may not be the best thing for the vision of your development, but
think it's the best thing for the city in the long run and for ultimately that area to develop
as -- to its highest and best use. Understanding why lot -- I do think Lot 4 is an odd lot.
Understanding why that is that way I think I'm okay with it. So, I have no -- I have no
issues -- issues with that. Addressing the oversupply, I -- it's a valid concern and
market conditions, but I don't believe that we have the right to tell someone that they
can't do that because is oversupply on the market. I think that would be -- I'm not going
to say anymore, because the attorney will tell me -- may correct me there. Probably
justifiably so, but -- so, with that Ithink -- I think it's a great development. The elevations
are beautiful. But I do believe it needs to stub through. That seems to be the sticking
point.
Moe: Thank you very much. Mr. Marshall, any comments?
Marshall: Well, when I look at the lot to the north and knowing the feelings of the
owners of that lot, I look at it and if they were to ever develop, they really don't have
access and couldn't without that stubbing in. Right there. Yeah. This lot here. I mean
if you go back to the aerial photo, please. Right there. I mean they might be able to get
a -- you know, this is a separate lot, I believe.
Newton-Huckabay: It is.
Marshall: So, here -- they could -- they could stub in here and that's the only access
they have and, what, we are going to put another cul-de-sac here? I -- I don't know
what you do. I mean that -- that would be silly, you would have to stub to the north.
can't imagine not. I understand that it kind of doesn't meet the division of that little
subdivision, it sounds like a very nice subdivision with a cul-de-sac. I love it. But that's
Meridian Planning & zoning
October 2, 2008
Page 27 of 45
-- really, for connectivity, EMS, fire, things like that, as well as the neighbors to the
north, if they are ever going to develop, they need that connectivity.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, we have to leave options.
Marshall: And the 8,600 square foot lot is not significantly smaller than these lots.
These are not -- those are not half acre lots, those are, you know, fifth acre right in
through here. I'm sure about the same size as the 8,600. So, I don't have aproblem --
don't have a problem with Lot 4, especially considering the fact that the city code will
not allow that to contain the sheds as well. Again, my one issue is the connectivity. I
think it needs it. I really do. Unfortunately, I understand that it kind of goes against the
idea of that subdivision and what they want to have there, but --
Newton-Huckabay: We should have stubbed somewhere in here when Glacier Springs
went in.
Marshall: Even if they had stubbed right in here.
Newton-Huckabay: You know, we are covering 15 acres before we hit the stub.
Marshall: Yeah.
Moe: Mr. O'Brien, any comments?
O'Brien: Yeah. It's a tough thing for us to decide what's in the best interest of the city,
whether we approve the zoning or not. I think that we are kind of caught in a quandary
of which direction to take. Stubbing that cul-de-sac out at a later time may seem like a
solution for connectivity, but I think the value of the property surrounding that is going to
drop considerably. I don't know who would want to buy that, especially with the size of
the lots will be diminished considerably. The traffic flow will increase. But, then, again,
you're going to have the need far connectivity to the property above that. So, we are
kind of caught in a --
Newton_Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Mae: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner O'Brien?
O'Brien: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Your burden lies on helping decide what is in the best interest of
the city.
O'Brien: Exactly.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 2, 2008
Page 28 of 45
Newton-Huckabay: Nat what is the value of the property.
O'Brien: Oh. That was just an after comment.
Nary: Mr. Chairman?
Marshall: I do have a quick question of Sonya.
Newton-Huckabay: I'm getting corrected by the attorney, so --
Marshall: I'm sorry.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay,
you raised a question earlier. It is within your discretion as this Commission to decide in
an annexation request what's in the best interest of the city. The issue that's been
raised by same of the testimony that there is an over abundance of residentia4 housing
that's already available and platted properties that are already available, is certainly
within your discretion to exercise, because, again, it's an annexation request. So, it is
not inappropriate for you to consider that if you want to. Again, you don't have to, but
it's certainly within your purview to make that decision that it's not in the best interest of
the city because of those reasons or certainly it's not a factor to you that it's -- that there
is residential properties available and it's still in the best interest of the city.
Moe: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Mr. Marshall.
Marshall: Well, my question is do we have any comments from ACHD regarding the
entrance there to Victory on what -- how far do they go? I didn't see an ACRD report.
assume they approved the entrance there, but was there any cautions or any
comments that they gave?
Wafters: Chairman, Commissioners, Commissioner, let me pull up their report. They
did approve the entrance, the access point. I'm not sure what the exact comment was,
so give me a minute here.
Marshall: I don't remember reading through it. It's not a separate report.
Newton-Huckabay: There is not one in there.
Marshall: There is not a separate report, at least that I can see, other than it was
approved. I just thought maybe that would be in regard to coming dawn that hill and
turning in and out of that subdivision and --
Moe: Right.
O'Brien: Mr. Chair, if I might interject just one comment about the Ada County Highway
District notations. I would like to know if that was based on the cul-de-sac without stubs
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 2, 2008
Page 29 of 45
or is that -- be included in stubbing all the way through changes considerably the
amount of traffic that would access onto Victory Road and having driven that part of the
highway for many years I can appreciate the concerns of the neighbors, but if they feel it
meets their criteria, then, I don't have any issues with it.
Wafters: Excuse me, Commissioners. In answer to Commissioner Marshall's question,
there really wasn't much analysis in the ACRD report. They, basically, stated the
applicant's proposal for the construction of Coy Place meets district policy and should
be approved with this application.
Moe: I'd like to follow that up, then, with the question that Mr. O'Brien brought up, then.
Was that analysis given after, then, knowing that the city would want that street to go
through -- to be stubbed through at a later day?
Wafters: Prior to that.
Moe: Prior to. Okay. So, ACHD only saw the --
Newton-Huckabay: Stub. Or the cul-de-sac.
Moe: -- the cul-de-sac. Okay. Well, you three have commented. I guess I, myself,
pretty much am in agreement with Commissioner Newton-Huckabay and Mr. Marshall in
regards to the connectivity issue. I'm very concerned that it needs to be there. The
development itself, I -- you know, I -- with the amount of lots and whatnot in there, I
have no problem with it going forward as well. Just realizing that there is a lot of
subdivisions and a lot of empty lots out -- you know, with a little different zoning all the
way through there. So, these are bigger lots and whatnot. I think it's a different
condition all together, so --
Newton-Huckabay: Well, it's a little bit unique in the development, you know, with the
type of rebuilding.
Moe: But I do think it's very important that the connectivity is there and I would leave it
at that. I guess there is one question I do have still of the applicant and that's based
upon staff's recommendation that are dependent upon if, in fact, this Commission does
make a recommendation that a stub street does go through, our time frame as far as
bringing any knew plat with the conditions noted in the recommendation that's basically
our next meeting, which is in two weeks, that we got something that the applicant would
want to get taken care of in two weeks or is it going to take you longer or do decisions
need to be made as to what you want to do to go forward? Kind of need to have same
direction from them as well before we can decide what -- and we are still in public
hearing open, so I want to get that --
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 2, 2008
Page 30 of 45
Newton-Huckabay: I would also like to see the fencing issue addressed when it comes
back, making sure that it's a six foot fence or verifying that it is a six foot fence.
Moe: Would the applicant come forward, please.
Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may, while they are making their way to the mike.
Moe: Yes, sir.
Hood: Just to keep scheduling in mind somewhat. We do have a hearing in two weeks,
Sonya would need something tomorrow, probably, for first part of next week to do a
revised staff report, to just keep that in mind. Also, November 6th, we are going to have
potentially only three Commissioners, so keep that in mind as well, that we are going to
potentially have no quorum on that night. So, just to put those two concerns out there.
Mae: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: So, the soonest we would want to do anything is November 16th.
Moe: So, we can make it to that point and, then, we can go from there and --
Wyatt: We could get something the first part of --first part of next week.
Moe: Okay. Okay. That will do. Thank you.
Wyatt: Was there any other questions?
Moe: That was it. Well, you know, while we are here, though, let's get the fencing
details that you're looking for a little bit more ironed out. I'm sorry.
Newton-Huckabay: The Binfords were requesting to have the six foot white vinyl fence
along the north property -- would be their south property line, your north property line,
prior to construction. Did I get that right?
Wyatt: We are planning on putting a fence there. We can put that in. It shouldn't be a
problem.
Newton-Huckabay: A six foot -- is the fence on the west side of the property -- how tall
is that?
Wyatt: There is one on the west and I thought it was six feet, but I got a picture of it in
my landscape plan, but one of the neighbors was saying it wasn't. It's kind of up on a
hill and so maybe I was mistaken in what -- it being a six foot fence.
.Newton-Huckabay: Will you verify --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 2, 2008
Page 31 of 45
Wyatt: We can verify it. It's a very nice, brand new, vinyl fence.
Newton-Huckabay: It's a vinyl fence?
Wyatt: Yeah.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. It's a white vinyl fence?
Wyatt: White vinyl fence. Yeah.
Moe: With your landscape drawing up here I'm kind of curious, were you -- are you
doing any berming at all at the north? Basically the --
Wyatt: We were not going to do any berming on the north. There was some irrigation
concerns and we will do what we need to to take care of those irrigation concerns.
Moe: Right.
Wyatt: But we feel like our development's going to be very attractive. You're not going
to have to buffer -- buffer us from --
Newton-Huckabay: I'm okay with that.
Moe: Anything else for --
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I guess I would just say for the benefit of those who testified
that are higher than this property, I don't think it would be appropriate to put a burden on
the developer to say you have to make your fierce even higher, just because the
properties to the west of you are higher. So, I would think as long as there is -- a fence
in good repair, that the fence would be appropriate. I don't think --
Wyatt: I have a photo of the fence here. It's very poor quality in black and white. It's
been photocopied, but the fence is -- you can pass that around if you like.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, given the nature of the development you're proposing, it
wouldn't be beneficial to you to have a broken down fence, but I believe the comments
were wanting to have a taller fence and --
Nary: Ma'am, you can't talk from the audience.
Moe: Are you okay?
Newton-Huckabay: I think I'm okay. You're good.
Moe: We are fine. Thank you. Okay. Sa --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 2, 2008
Page 32 of 45
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public
testimony, I move to continue file numbers AZ 08-012 and PP 08-009, to the hearing
date of November 20th, 2008, for the following reasons: The applicant will revise the
plat to extend South Coy Place as a stub street to the north property boundary with a
temporary turnaround for the fire department emergency access. The applicant shall
submit ten copies of a revised plat and landscape plan to the Planning Department at
least ten days prior to the next Commission meeting on the November 20th date.
November 20th, 2008. End of motion.
Marshall: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue AZ 08-012 and PP 08-009 for Shays
Cove to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on
November 20th, 2008, for the reasons as noted. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Nary: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Mr. Nary.
Nary: For the -- I guess the benefit of the people that were here today to testify, you
have continued for that -- for that rendering, but are you taking testimony about those
results, then, at that next hearing?
Marshall: We didn't close the public hearing.
Nary: Right. You have continued the hearing. I just want -- I don't know if these folks
want to testify, but before they leave I thought you might want to make clear, since you
are going to be taking new evidence, that they probably could testify only about that, not
about other stuff, just about the new information that's provided.
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, you made the motion. What would you like to
do?
Newton-Huckabay: Given the potential nature of the development to change, I would
say that we would take testimony only on the changes -- and the intention of my motion.
Moe: Okay.
Marshall: Second concurs.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Nary, did we sufficiently cover that?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 2, 2008
Page 33 of 45
Nary: Just wanted to be sure before they left that they understood that they could testify
at the next hearing, because the hearing is still open, but only about the new information
that's being provided.
Hood: And, Mr. Chair, before folks start to run out the door on this one, too, just a point
of clarification far the applicant's sake. You did hear that they could provide that plat --
revised plat back to Sonya the first thing this next week, so it would be possible for them
to meet our time requirements for processing this to be on the next hearing on the 16th
of this month; correct?
Newton-Huckabay: I did not hear that, no.
Moe: No.
Hood: Okay. That's why he was concerned that you didn't hear -- I heard him say that,
but I didn't know if you took that into consideration and. just wanted to wait another four
weeks to hear that or not. So, you have made the motion, you have acted on it, but that
was just a point of clarification that Ididn't -- I don't know where we go from here or
what. I don't know if anyone's left or not, but that was something that they brought up,
so at this point maybe I'll look back to our legal counsel to see if they can rescind the
order-- if that's your -- I don't know if that's even a possibility, but that is what the
applicant said, in fact, was they could have something back to staff first part of this next
week, again, meeting our requirements to have that on the 16th, if you so choose.
Newton-Huckabay: Didn't you just say that you would have to have information by
tomorrow to have it noticed for the next hearing? That's what -- where I based my
motion on.
Hood: Yeah. Tomorrow or the first -- I mean, essentially, tomorrow. Monday -- we
wouldn't do anything with it, probably, tomorrow anyways. But, yes,. if they had
something on Monday. At this point it's probably not worth -- Sonya would still be
rushed, but she could get it done, so I -- I just wanted to make sure you heard it, but you
didn't, so --
Newton-Huckabay: I didn't and -- I mean for that reason, unless there is something
more -- I would just like my motion to stand.
Moe: I would agree. I would concur with that as well.
Marshall: I think we have had people leave, based on the information given.
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. That's --
Hood: And I apologize for any miscommunication Ihad. I did by tomorrow -- normally
they couldn't get us something -- they are not going to go home and work on it right
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 2, 2008
Page 34 of 45
now, but within the next couple of days isn't very typical either. So, apologize for even
bringing it up, but I thought I would ask.
Moe: You're excused. Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Can we take five minutes?
Moe: What's that?
Newton-Huckabay: Can we take five minutes?
Moe: We are going to take a ten minute break.
(Recess.)
Item 10: Public Hearing: CUP 08-024 Request for Conditional Use Permit for
outdoor speaker systems for the Meridian High School ball fields in an R-4
zoning district for Meridian High PA System by Joint School District No.
2 -1900 W. Pine Avenue:
Moe: All right. At this time I'd like to open the public hearing for CUP 08-024 for
Meridian High School PA system and have staff make their report.
Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Moe, Members of the Commission. The Conditional
Use Permit before you is for two outdoor speaker systems for the Meridian High School
ball fields in an R-4 district within 100 feet of a residential district, per requirement of
UDC 11-3A-13. The property is located at 1900 West Pine Avenue, north of Pine,
approximately a quarter mile west of Linder Road. This is an aerial of the property.
Switch back for a minute here. To the north are single family residences in the
Vineyards Subdivision, zoned R-4. To the south is Meridian High School property,
zoned C-G and single family residents. The Geile property, zoned RUT in Ada County.
To the east is Meridian High School property, zoned R-4. And to the west, again, is the
Geile property, zoned RUT. An aerial view of the property. The ball fields are right here
and right here, in relation to the residential home right here. A little history on this
project. The ball fields were annexed as an R-4 zoning designation in 200. A
Conditional Use Permit was approved with the annexation for ball field lighting adjoining
a residential district. A variance was also approved far exposed light bulbs in the light
fixtures on the ball fields. This is a copy of the proposed site plan. The locations of the
speakers are highlighted in yellow. The red arrows indicate the two speakers that are
within 100 feet of the adjacent residence. The proposed hours of operation are from
3:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. during the baseball season, March through May; during the
summer season there will be sporadic games during the weekends used by youth
leagues and other community baseball groups. If other affiliations use the fields, they
must abide by the same hours of operation as the school does, as stated by the
applicant. These are some photos of the existing speakers. They are mounted to the
light poles around the field. Written testimony was received from Paul Geile on this
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 2, 2008
Page 35 of 45
application. Staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit request per
the conditions of the staff report. Significant conditions of approval are as follows: The
existing four speakers, two on each ball field, should be relocated either to the rear or
side of the bleachers facing away from the Geile property to enable the volume level on
the speakers to be decreased and still meet the purpose. The applicant shall work with
Aatronics, the folks who did the sound system, and staff to determine a suitable location
and possible shielding for the speakers that meet the intent of this requirement. The
applicant shall submit written documentation from Aatronics with the certificate of zoning
compliance application that defines what volume level is appropriate for the proposed
use and proximity to the residence. An appropriate decibel level should be determined
at the shared property boundary of the school and the adjacent Geile residence that
serves the purpose for announcements, but does not create excessive disturbance to
the neighbors. The determined decibel level shall not be exceeded. Last, the hours of
operation for the proposed speaker system shall be limited to the hours between 8:00
a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have at this
time.
Moe: Sonya, what was the time?
Wafters: Chairman Mae, Commissioners, 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Moe: Okay. Thank you. Any questions of staff?
Marshall: Yeah. Sonya, in the report somebody at staff went out to the field and looked
at new positions with somebody at Aatronics; is that correct?
Wafters: Chairman Mae, Commissioners, Commissioner Marshall, myself and Pete
Friedman in our office visited the site. Aatronics was not with us, so we just went out to
see where everything was adjacent to the residence -- or in relation to the residence.
Marshall: And you felt there were some alternate positions that might be better suited?
Wafters: I felt there were. Currently, the -- like I said, the speakers are located on the
light poles quite a distance up and out and they are positioned towards the residence
and the bleachers, so I felt that they may be able to be relocated and the volume level
decreased and closer to the target in the stands.
Marshall: Which would probably require the construction of a pole or something to hold
them?
Wafters: Probably.
Marshall: Okay. Thank you.
Moe: Any other questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come fiorward, please.
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
October 2, 2008
Page 36 of 45
Kennedy: Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners, last but not least -- I can't
even hold it dawn here. Thank you for hearing our application tonight and I thank staff
for working with us on here. My name is --
Moe: Can you give your name and address?
Kennedy: Okay. My name is Margie Kennedy, I'm with Hummel Architects, 27$5
Bogus Basin Road in Boise, Idaho, and I am representing the Meridian School District
and on behalf of the Meridian School District I'd like to address and comment on one of
the conditions of approval in Exhibit D that Sonya talked about and it's item 1.1A and it
talks about relocating four speakers, so that the sound can be decreased and still meet
their purpose. The school district doesn't feel that all four speakers would create a
hardship and excessive noise level at the adjacent property line. I know there is a
requirement of about speakers less than a hundred, but we do have two speakers that
are aver the hundred foot limit from the property line and do meet the ordinances. And
must point out that that third light fixture is 95 feet away from the property line, so it's
kind of a borderline right now. So, I believe that there is just one speaker that's in
question with proximity to our neighbor's property line. In addition, the purpose of the
speakers is also to announce to the players on the field and not just the people in the
bleachers. With that in mind we'd like to propose to relocate, as Sonya talked about,
just one of the speakers that is closest to the west property line or the Geile's house
there. The condition talks about mounting the speaker on the bleachers and our only
concern here -- and I think you kind of followed up with an additional pole, but we might
throw out there, too, that we don't want to put them on the bleachers, because kids will
get to them and vandalize them and whatnot. So, we would like to propose to put them
on the poles of the nets that are right in front of the bleachers, you know, six feet and
put them at a height that brings them a lot further down than those pictures that kind of
show them way up on the pole. So, we will bring it down to just above the level of the
last height of the bleachers or another option here is that there is a forthcoming
concessions building that's 12 feet from the bleachers. In other words, the concession
building is -- let me point out to you. And this concessions building was approved in the
original CUP. Just due to funding we haven't built it yet, but it's right there and the
bleachers are right there. So, we do have an option of mounting speakers on that
building, you know, really close and kind of getting down at the level, as opposed to
same of those pictures that you saw way up there. So, we feel that this speaker, having
the closest proximity to the property line -- you know, we will test different locations and
appropriate sound levels for the speaker, working with our neighbors, Mr. Geile, for
determining the appropriate sound level for the speaker. It's not the school district's
intention to blast the sound system, you know, having respect for Mr. Geile's privacy,
but we'd like to have a reasonable announcement system that brings to life a baseball
game which includes and informs the spectators, keeping them part of the game, just as
much as the players are. So, it's an important element to the ball game and we will
work with that one speaker that's probably. a little too close to his house there. So, we
have no objections to that. So, with that I thank you far your time.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 2, 2008
Page 37 of 45
Moe: Margie, can you take the painter and just kind of show where the speakers are
located on the plan.
Kennedy: So, that -- Chairman Moe, this one here is the one that's kind of in question,
because it's -- it's real close there. This one here, you know, it's over a hundred feet
and so is this one and this is the one that's like 95 feet going across there. So, I'm
thinking this is the one that -- if you look back to the pictures, this is the one we are
talking about right now and you can see how high it is up in the ground and up in the
sky and Mr. Geile's house is dawn here. So, by taking that and, you know, seeing this
pole with the nets on, we could either do that or the concessions building will be built
right here and, you know, we can put the speaker on that building and, you know, try to
aim it here, opposed to everywhere.
Newton-Huckabay: Would that be a hundred feet from the residence or the property
line?
Kennedy: No, it would not be.
Newton-Huckabay: How far would it be?
Kennedy: I mean from here to here is probably 70 feet. I mean we are still within the
hundred feet, but we would be willing to work, you know, with Mr. Geile as far as a, you
know, decibel level at his property line.
Marshall: I'm curious, what is this speaker pointed at right now? I mean the camera is
pointed at it, right where I would be standing if I were here?
Kennedy: Well, the bleachers are right here, so the theory is that this was announcing
down to these people.
Marshall: Is that -- is that speaker pointing away from me, then, is what you're saying?
Kennedy: It's kind of pointing right at you right now.
Marshall: Right. It kind of looks like it's pointing away from the bleachers.
Kennedy: Oh. No, it's really -- that black is pointing to there right now.
Marshall: Okay. So, it's pointing away from me.
Kennedy: Yeah. I mean it's pointing towards the bleachers.
Marshall: Yeah. I see -- is this the same one?
Moe: See, that pale is on the other side of the bleachers.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 2, 2008
Page 38 of 45
Kennedy: And these bleaches here are the ones that are to the right. These are
different bleachers.
Marshall: I've got one eye. No depth perception there. I got it. All right. Okay. So,
this really isn't pointing towards the -- the players at all, is it?
Kennedy: No, but Ithink --
Marshall: There is another one pointing at the players?
Kennedy: No, but I think because of the height, that, you know, the sound -- the
intention of the sound is that, you know, it spreads like this, whereas if we took that
speaker and moved it dawn, we felt like this one, the level of the noise -- you know, is
addressed to here and, then, this one that's over a hundred feet and if it's kept up
higher, you know, it would work enough for the players on the field. So, that I would like
to keep this one up high and bring this one down low. And, you know, I have had
several conversations with Mr. Geile and I know his biggest concern is the noise level
and maybe I'll let him speak himself, maybe not so much as where it's at, but I think to
him it's his noise level on his property.
Marshall: I want to speak to an audio engineer that can help me.
Moe: Any other questions? Okay.
Kennedy: Thank you.
Moe: Thank you. Paul Geile.
T.Geile: May I stand with him?
Mae: You sure can.
Geile: My name is Paul Geile and my address is 4717 Willow Lane in Boise, Idaho.
And I'm here presenting some --
T.Geile: And my name is Tom Geile. I am the one next to the speaker and I live at
2150 West Pine.
Geile: He's the owner of the property. One of the -- I guess one of the things that sort
of brought this whole issue to light is I happened to be there one day when Aatronics
came out to test this system and I became aware of its potential. It is -- it can be
incredibly loud. So, we were -- we were kind of concerned about our own welfare and
living in that same house. There is, in fact, just one residence directly to the west of
there. But that sits on a 20 acre parcel that's currently in the land use map as high
density residential, so there is potentially another 200 doors of people that might be
affected by the decision that's made tonight and when I heard what -- how loud this
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 2, 2008
Page 39 of 45
thing could be, we started looking immediately for a regulator to project ourselves and
our future -- future development potential and what we found was that the high school
is, essentially, exempt from -- from noise violation and -- or .noise violation complaints
and, then, this thing of the CUP came up and we needed to interject any possible
limitation that was going to ever happen in this CUP process and the neighbors -- we
had a little neighborhood meeting, as imagined -- or is required, but at that meeting
there was some discussion of having same limitation of hours, some redesign of the
system, so that the spillage wasn't as bad. We asked specifically about design work
that had been done to sort of limit the spillage and I got the impression from that
meeting that, essentially, since none had been done and that wouldn't be surprising in
the event that the school knew already they were exempt far a noise spillage violation. I
have a quick question of clarification here real quick. Several places on the application
it mentions an 8:00 -- or 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. time limitation and the very last one has
an 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Which of those will be in effect? The 3:00 to 10:00. Excuse
me. And one has an 8:00 to 10:00.
Newton-Huckabay: It's 8:00 to 10:00.
Geile: The 8:00 in the morning until -- $:00 to 10:00 is what's proposed to be passed
tonight?
Newton-Huckabay: The 3:00 to 10:00 -- the 3:00 to 10:00 would be -- what they are
saying -- would be during the school year, that's when it would most likely be used.
Geile: Okay. We also have a kind of conceptual agreement that we will negotiate a db
limitation and we sure would like to see that before they get a CUP passed, because it
seems kind of odd that we are going through a fair amount of regulatory process here
that may create something -- essentially a completely unregulated use if -- if they have
the right to do whatever they would like with those speakers without anybody's ability to
complain. It seemed alittle -- not very defensible for a neighbor. And the last point is
the hundred foot rule is probably not as huge a concern to us as -- as how loud the thing
is. It has demonstrated its potential to be incredibly loud from however distant it is and
we -- if we can get with the applicant to negotiate time of use, which seems to not be an
issue, and a db limit at the property line, that would put us -- start us off in the right
direction. And on the question of a sound engineer, if these are proposed as separate
systems, each producing say a 70 db at the property line, I don't know what that will
produce in combination, if they were bath in use. And that's the end of my testimony.
T.Geile: Well, I'm, basically, in agreement with Paul. The day that they tested the
system -- that Aatronics tested the system -- essentially, I'm in agreement with Paul on
pretty near all of it. The day that they tested the system I had to ask them to turn it
dawn. I was in my yard and I -- it was unbearable. So, it could be very, very
unbearable at our house. Our house from the property line to our garage is
approximately, oh, 30 feet. So, we are still within the hundred feet of the speaker at our
home, let alone anything else. The hours of operation I don't have any problem with.
And as Paul said, the decibel level at the property line, both on the west side and the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 2, 2008
Page 40 of 45
north side of my property, is what we would be concerned about, which is something
that I would hope that we could put in this Conditional Use Permit. The speakers as to
Margie talked about, moving the speakers ofF of the pole, I believe would help getting
the noise level down to a certain extent. And this one speaker that we were talking
about here on the left, it is -- it is almost turned parallel with the -- the fence, the
backstop. So, it really isn't pointing too much at our house. A little bit, but not very
much. But the other thing that I want to bring up is that this last spring I have had a real
good working relationship with Geoff -- Geoff Stands, is he still there --the principal -- in
returning the baseballs that come into my property from the foul balls. I returned
approximately 30 balls, including softballs and baseballs, from the baseball and softball
diamond in the back. I asked him not to have the kids climb over and we worked out a
very nice agreement to get that done and I'd like to continue those kinds of things with
the school. So, I'm hoping that we can work something out with a decibel level at the
property line and we'd work from there. And I think that covers it. Thank you.
Moe: Thank you very much.
Moe: Gil.
Maclennan: Gil Maclennan. I live at 1210 North Rutledge, which is on the -- would be
the northwest corner of the baseball field. It would be right up in the corner up there.
Let's see. Right there. That's our property right there. Basically, the PA system works
really good. This summer the hours of operations we don't have an objection to, but the
db level. The other night they had things going on and Iwent -- I wish I had a db level
thing, because it was deafening. During the weekends on -- in the -- when they rent the
baseball fields out, the other teams we had -- it was so deafening up at the softball field,
which is the closest one t0 our house, they had one set of music going on and the
maintenance guys were out there running their machinery and they had it loud enough
so they didn't have to have ear phones on. I came back around, because we were
trying to get them to turn it down and I went by the Geiles down by the other baseball
diamond and they had theirs on a different system and it was deafening. I mean literally
deafening. When they have -- it's -- the PA system itself, they don't -- the voice is great.
What the complaint is is -- now, I'm a musician, so I'm not objecting to music, but the
decibel point of the music -- and some of the music that they play on that thing is just --
you wouldn't have it in your own home. And as loud as they run those things, we have it
in our open home. We have gone inside, closed the doors, and it's just boom, boom,
boom, boom. So, there is an issue of regulating the sound volume on it. I have no
problem at all with them using it at the baseball -- you never hear them when they are
calling a game, but you definitely hear them when they crank the radio up. And they do
crank it up. And that's about all I have to say, is that there needs to be some control on
the sound level of what's going on and I know the high school is not always under
control of it, because they lease that thing out, but I mean it is -- it's loud. Very loud.
They work great. But you don't hear the game being called. What you hear is the
music going on. Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you.
Meridian Planning 8 honing
October 2, 2008
Page 41 of 45
Moe: Thank you. There is no one else, so would the applicant -- oh. Please come
forward.
Stewart: Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Scott Stewart, I'm the district
administrator, representing the Meridian School District, at 1303 East Central Drive here
in Meridian and I agree with a lot that has been shared tonight regarding the fields and
everything. If we could go to the picture of the -- of the speakers and this particular
speaker is of concern, because Mr. Geile's home is right here and that flow goes right
out there and -- and I'm not much concerned about, as we have heard, the location, as
much as the decibel level and that is something that -- whether we need to have the
company come out and work with us in turning that speaker, so we don't have as much
flaw over the shared property line or whatever it takes, I'd like to be able to get to the
point where we could, myself personally, go out there and work with them on an
acceptable level, so that it meets our purpose to announce the game and to serve as a
public address system, but at the same time we are good neighbors as a school district
and we have been there awhile and plan on staying there and so that's what I'd like to
share tonight.
Moe: Well, I have a question for you, just -- maybe I'm just out of it here, but public
address, calling a game, who's doing the music?
Stewart: Commissioner, the spirit of baseball and baseball games, a lot of times
between innings as a batter comes up, a lot of times they will have a little blurp of
music, that can be regulated. Also, the field maintenance that occurs are the kids. We
don't have a number of maintenance people out there working, the kids work it, when
they are working after a game or something, they turn music on for entertainment. Now,
think we probably all could agree that the choice of their music would not be our
choice, but at the same time the decibel level would be the concern. I'd like to be able
to work with our vendor Aatronics to get some sort of a mechanism where we have
control where there is a limit to the volume that can be done on that -- those systems,
so that even if they were to crank it, it would crank well less than that, but that was --
Moe: That's my concern, you have got two neighbors here and they are off the sides of
the field and they are bath having -- they are both here with the same complaint.
Stewart: And those are two different systems. Correct. And that's what we would like
to address as well. Any further questions?
Moe: Thank you. Well, everyone in the audience has spoke, other than the applicant
now may come back up and address the issues that have been brought.
Kennedy: Chairman, Commissioners, Margie Kennedy again. I just want to comment
that when the system was new and first brought out, my guess is that it probably was
abused a little bit, kids get their new toys and they crank them up too high and I don't
believe that there is probably been a policy with the district as far as how loud it can be
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 2, 2008
Page 42 of 45
yet and so we are kind of working our way through this, kind of seeing what the
Commissioners and staff would do and, then, we are going to need set up policies for
the students who will be supervised by faculty members. So, I think what they heard
was a new toy and it will be brought down and we will try and limit it to the games and
try not do so much maintenance and an ongoing thing, because the idea is that it is for
the baseball games.
Moe: Is there the possibility that the school district and neighbors and Aatronics can all
get together and review the decibels at the property line to see how we can regulate the
whole system to make sure it doesn't go --
Kennedy: I have got control of one myself personally, so I have one to go out there just
to see what the sound level is, even with the one high up in the air, just, you know, out
of curiosity to see how it is and after speaking with Aatronics, they did tell me that the
system they have is controllable and can set limits on it, so knowing that I can do that, I
think that we should be able to come to an agreement.
Mae: My concern is putting the one speaker on the pole of the backstop and getting it
down low enough to be below the top of the bleachers and, then, it was probably going
to be in site of someone watching the ball game and they are not going to want that
either, so putting it on the concession stand is probably a better idea there.
Marshall: Again, I don't care if they don't move them. The issue, I think, is not to hit a
decibel level that doesn't bother neighbors and I think the whole idea behind moving
them, the suggestions of where they go, things like that, were simply ideas on how to
control that and if Aatronics can come in and control one of the speakers over the other,
guess through balance -- you know, just stereo; right? They can just change the
balance and push it more towards one than the other. I don't know -- or maybe they
have some other means of doing that, but whatever it is, if they can control it to
everybody's satisfaction, I think that's the issue.
Moe: Any other questions of the applicant?
Newton-Huckabay: I don't have any questions of the applicant. I would just say that
someone who works in the sound industry for my paid job, I"m pretty confident that
Aatronics has a lot of things in their tool box to fix this issue and they have db, they
have hertz, they have frequency, they have lots of things that -- at their disposal that
they can use to make this system I'm most certain more palatable in putting db levels at
-- so, I'm comfortable there. I guess my question is mare procedural in how do we
proceed forward on this with the unknown of how it's going to be resolved? We can't
really issue a Conditional Use Permit with a bunch of open-ended solutions or potential
solutions, I don't think.
Mae: Well, we can -- I would anticipate we could probably just continue this hearing
until said time that Aatronics has been out to the site and they have made some
changes and we can get verification of those changes.
Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning
October 2, 2008
Page 43 of 45
Newton-Huckabay: Have we ever continued a CUP before?
Moe: No, but we can probably get some instruction from the gentleman down at the
end of the table here. Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, no different than any of your other
hearings. You can continue it for that specific evidence and, then, obviously, offer the
ability to come and testify about that new evidence. I would agree with Commissioner
Newton-Huckabay that without knowing specifically where these would be located or
haw that would be impacting to the neighbors, you really couldn't go forward without
that. So, I don't know if -- it seems like two weeks might be a little rapid to get that
information, but you certainly can continue it, that's not a problem. I don't imagine they
are using it much right at the moment anyway, so --
Newton-Huckabay: I was going to say, I think that we are not in the midst of high school
baseball season.
Nary: Right.
Moe: Any other comments?
Newton-Huckabay: I think I have said quite enough for one day.
Moe: Before the applicant left so quickly here -- I guess I want to get -- get an opinion.
Would you have a problem, you know, with some time limit as far as getting Aatronics
and you folks together to see what can be done and get the sound levels down to a
point where neighbors might be okay with the system?
Kennedy: Uh-huh. Chairman Moe, I think that -- you know, that November 20th
hearing date, I think that would be something we could shoot for.
Mae: Excellent. Perfect. Thank you very much.
Kennedy: All right. Thank you.
Moe: It had to be on the record. That's why you had to come back up, so --
Marshall: Should we leave the public testimony open?
Newton-Huckabay: I believe so.
Moe: Yes. I believe so. So, having said that --
Marshall: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to continue
file number CUP 08-024 to the hearing date of November 20th, to provide time for the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 2, 2008
Page 44 of 45
school district and the neighbors to get together and get a hold of Aatronics and come
to some type of mutual understanding as to the decibel level that would be acceptable
to everyone involved.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Moe: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if Commissioner Marshall would
consider for his motion that it be a sound engineer, in case Aatronics, for some reason,
isn't available, they could still use a sound engineer, rather than one specific business
is --
Marshall: Any sound engineer.
Nary: Okay.
Newton~Huckabay: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue CUP 08-024 to the regularly
scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting of November 20th for the purposes as noted.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Hood: Mr. Chair, before your last motion, if I can ask one more clarification question.
You make it a motion, said all parties involved, I assume you're referring to the two --
three parties this evening that testified, not necessarily everyone that may or may not be
within 300 feet.
Marshall: That was correct.
Hood: Okay. Just wanted to make sure.
Moe: Okay. Now, you can make that motion.
Newton-Huckabay: I move we adjourn.
Marshall: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:17 P.M.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 2, 2008
Page 45 of 45
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPRO
DAVID MOE - CHAI AN
~ I~I~
DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
JAYCEE LL! HOL
``~~~~~r~-urrrrrrr/rr~
`~~, it
_ ~~~ 9~ _
~~ T
~ ~ 'i
>~ ~
CITY ~LE ~~
' ~d,~ r 19~ ' ~ *~
-, ; "
~/////rrrrr,~ r~Y~»~```•,