1998 01-13
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
AGENDA
TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1998 - 7:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD DECEMBER 9, 1997:
(APPROVED}
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR INCLUSION OF A DRIVE THRU WINDOW ON THE WEST END
OF A NEW ADDITION TO EXISTING CHERRY WOOD RETAIL CENTER BY W.
ROY BROWN 8 RICHARD BROWN - SW CORNER OF CHERRY LANE AND
CINDER ROAD: (DISAPPROVED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW)
2. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A TV BROADCASTING STATION HOPE TV 22 WITH
MICROWAVE DISH STRUCTURES TO BE PLACED ON ROOF, SATELLITE
DISHES ON ROOF AND NEAR BUILDING BY WILLIAM HULL - 230 S.
MERIDIAN ROAD: (APPROVED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW)
3. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 9, 1997: REQUEST
FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER BY
TOM BEVAN - 2030 W. FAIRVIEW AVENUE: (TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY
10, 1998)
4. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
PLUMBER'S UNION FACILITY BY PLUMBER'S 8~ PIPEFITTERS LOCAL 296
- LOT 5, BLOCK 2 RAILDSIDE PARK SUBDIVISION: (CITY ATTORNEY TO
PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
5. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE OF .36 ACRES FROM R-4 TO
L-0 BY KEITH 8~ CATHY THURGOOD - 236 W. CHERRY LANE: (CITY
ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW)
6. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
DAY CARE CENTER BY JODI FIFE -LOT 33, BLOCK 4 OF BEDFORD PLACE
SUBDIVISION NO. 2: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
MODULAR BUILDING AS A TEMPORARY OFFICE BY MERIDIAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT - SE CORNER OF IDAHO AVENUE AND E. 2ND STREET:
(CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW)
8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TEARE
COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION, 3 LOTS BY RONALD VAN AUKER - NW
CORNER OF TEARE AVENUE AND OVERLAND ROAD: (APPROVED)
9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MERIDIAN
GREENS UNIT NO. 4, 20 LOTS BY FULLER SCOTT INVESTMENT CO. - NE
OF MERIDIAN GREENS UNIT N0. 1: (TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 10, 1998)
10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR MERIDIAN GREENS UNIT NO. 4 BY
FULLER SCOTT INVESTMENT CO. - NE OF MERIDIAN GREENS UNIT NO.
1: (TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 10, 1998)
11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT, 48 LOTS FOR
THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT -
NW OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1: (TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 10,
1998)
12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT - NW OF
CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS
OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
13. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.13
ACRES TO C-G BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC - NW CORNER OF EAGLE
ROAD AND MAGIC VIEW DRIVE: (CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL
FEBRUARY 10, 1998)
14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
CHEVRON C-STORE, MCDONALD'S W/DRIVE UP WINDOW AND IDAHO
POWER COMPANY CREDIT UNION W/ DRIVE UP BANKING BY EAGLE
PARTNERS LLC - NW CORNER OF EAGLE ROAD AND MAGIC VIEW DRIVE:
(CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL FEBRUARY 10, 1998)
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
AGENDA
TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1998 - 7:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD DECEMBER 9, 1997: "- ^ j . = ~ r' = ~
1. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR INCLUSION OF A DRIVE THRU WINDOW ON THE WEST END
OF A NEW ADDITION TO EXISTING CHERRY WOOD RETAIL CENTER BY W.
ROY BROWN 8 RICHARD BROWN - SW CORNER OF CHERRY LANE AND
CINDER ROAD:
2. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A TV BROADCASTING STATION HOPE TV 22 WITH
MICROWAVE DISH STRUCTURES TO BE PLACED ON ROOF, SATELLITE
DISHES ON ROOF AND NEAR BUILDING BY WILLIAM HULL - 230 S.
MERIDIAN ROAD:
i
3. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 9, 1997: REQUEST
FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER BY
TOM BEVAN -2030 W. FAIRVIEW AVENUE:
4. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
PLUMBER'S UNION FACILITY BY PLUMBER'S 8 PIPEFITTERS LOCAL 296
- LOT 5, BLOCK 2 RAILDSIDE PARK SUBDIVISION:
l ~
5. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE OF .36 ACRES FROM R-4 TO
L-0 BY KEITH 8~ CATHY THURGOOD - 236 W. CHERRY LANE:
6. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
DAY CARE CENTER BY JODI FIFE -LOT 33, BLOCK 4 OF BEDFORD PLACE
SUBDIVISION N0.2:
7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
MODULAR BUILDING AS A TEMPORARY OFFICE BY MERIDIAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT77 - SE CORNER OF IDAHO AVENUE AND E. 2ND STREET:
f-/Y'y (. ~{i:iu cl It ~i ~<~~._~.i ~~i f~5~['~(
8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TEARE
COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION, 3 LOTS BY RONALD VAN AUKER - NW
CORNER OF TEARE AVENUE AND OVERLAND ROAD:
9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MERIDIAN
GREENS UNIT NO. 4, 20 LOTS BY FULLER SCOTT INVESTMENT CO. - NE
OF MERIDIAN GREENS UNIT NO. 1:
i.i,, .: ~i. t c t ._ ~ --
10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR MERIDIAN GREENS UNIT N0. 4 BY
FULLER SCOTT INVESTMENT CO. - NE OF MERIDIAN GREENS UNIT NO.
1: t.
~~ ~, ~ ._ .
11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT, 48 LOTS FOR
THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT -
NW OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE N0. 1:
12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT - NW OF
CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1:
.. ,~ ..
13. PUBLIC HEARING:.rREQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.13
ACRES TO C-G BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC - NW CORNER OF EAGLE
ROAD AND MAGIC VIEW DRIVE:
;. ,, ,;:
14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
CHEVRON C-STORE, MCDONALD'S W/DRIVE UP WINDOW AND IDAHO
POWER COMPANY CREDIT UNION W/ DRIVE UP BANKING BY EAGLE
PARTNERS LLC - NW CORNER OF EAGLE ROAD AND MAGIC VIEW DRIVE:
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 13. 1998
The regular meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to
order by Chairman Jim Johnson at 7:00 P.M.:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Borup, Byron Smith:
MEMBERS ABSENT: Malcolm MacCoy, Mark Nelson
OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, John Prior, Mike Capshaw,
Keith Thurgood, Deal Fife, Jennifer Bell, Mark Lloyd, Darin & Tina Bruce, John
Albertson, Jodi Fife, Bill Musser, Gayle Jenson, Jay & Nadene Edmonds, Don
Carnihan, Dennis Piper, Jeff & Janet Brooks, Roy Huenta, Larry Benttago, Virginia
Christianson, Frank Kelly, Doug Hoay, Janice Avera, Ed Strong, Maeda Heitner, Don
Stillwell, Dale Antnskie, Ron Appleford, Randy Winn, Dave Channer, Larry Bertitt, Steve
Bradbury, Vern Moore, Gordon Braebo, Barbara Moore, Richard Brown, Janet Ford,
Harvard & Geneva Hanks, Mike Spomer, AI & Mary Gabiola, Chuck Horel, Dave Miller,
Stephen Gardner, Jerry Pollard, Dale Woidci, Bill 8 Camita Hammond, Robert
Shazpnack, Gordon Margulieux, Paul Diehl, Dick Williams:
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD DECEMBER 9, 1997:
Johnson: Are there any corrections, additions or deletions? I will entertain a motion
please.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I v~rould like to make a motion that we approve these minutes from
the last Planning and Zoning Meeting.
Borup: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded that we approve the minutes as written, all those in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Before we begin with the numbered items on our agenda I want to address
items 13 and 14 that is the public hearing for the request for annexation and zoning by
Eagle Partners LLC. There are some issues that are unresolved that have caused the
applicant to inform us that he is going to not make a presentation this evening. If he
does it will be extremely brief. We also have a request from another source to do the
same thing. Since we have noticed this and it is a public hearing if you want to stick
around in to the wee hours of the night and testify you may do so but you will have
another occasion to do so here on February 9, 1998 when meet again at which time
there could possibly be a full presentation. The problem with this issue is the Idaho
Department cS Transportation and ACHD have not decided on the cite plan the location
of the traffic signal. Until that is done this project can't move forward. It wouldn't make
~ Meridian Planning & Zon.Commission •
January 13, 1998
Page 2
sense to move it forward. You may stick around if you wish but testimony will probably
be brief and the item will probably be tabled, although that will have to be voted upon.
February 10, I said the 9~h
ITEM #1: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR INCLUSION OF A DRIVE THRU WINDOW ON-THE WEST END
OF A NEW ADDITION TO EXISTING CHERRY WOOD RETAIL CENTER BY W. ROY
BROWN AND RICHARD BROWN - SW CORNER OF CHERRY LANE AND CINDER
ROAD:
Johnson: You have the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared by the City
Attorney, are there any comments or any discussion? Commissioner Borup?
Borup: I am not sure if I can agree 100% with all of the findings. Essentially it is saying
to deny or if it was approved with a list of conditions. I certainly agree with the list of
conditions and maybe add some. Mainly the buffering I think is one condition that could
be addressed more. I don't know if Commissioner Smith had any other thoughts along
those lines.
Smith: I think my, I don't see how the conditions that are listed here could address my
biggest concern and that is the stacking space that is recommended by ACHD and the
safety considerations of routing the traffic around the rear of the buildings. So although I
don't agree with all of the issues that were addressed in the findings I don't think that
those two things could be overcome by any conditions that we set forth on this so I don't
see how I could support not approving these findings of fact.
Johnson: We need a motion one way or another by either of you. These findings as
prepared recommend denial. You do have the alternative of tabling them if you don't
agree with the content and the way it was put together. But actually denying the
findings might result in the same thing (Inaudible).
Borup: Either way it goes onto City Council, if we approve this it goes on with the denial
recommendation and the City Council votes through the normal process. I don't really
have, I don't feel like I would like to do any major amending. (Inaudible)
Smith: I am not into passing the buck but we didn't have all the information on vehicular
stacking before, it wasn't clear and now it is and I just can't (inaudible) There was a 100
foot and 200 foot (inaudible) and now it seems we have it defined a little more clearly
here.
Borup: I didn't have quite the concern as some of the others but because of the use.
Johnsen: Well there was a lot of testimony taken that re211y wasn't pertinent to the
issue, it had to do with maintenance on the property that is existing on problems with
existing tenants there. This is just an application for a drive thru window. Our job is to
Meridian Planning & Zon~Commission •
January 13, 1998
Page 3
look at the application with (inaudible}. I find these findings to be somewhat subjective in
nature rather than objective and that is not to say that in itself is enough to have them
re-worked or whatever, but,it is your pleasure gentlemen as to what you want to do. We
need to move on so we need a motion one way or another.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that the .Meridian Planning and
Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves findings of fact and conclusions of
law.
Borup: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of
law as prepared by the City Attorney, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup -Nay, MacCoy -Absent, Smith -Yea, Nelson -Absent,
Johnson -Nay
MOTION CARRIED: 2 Nay, 1 Yea
Johnson: With that I guess the option is to have these findings prepared again or does it
die here? What is the procedure attorney?
Prior: My understanding is it then gets forwarded to the City Council and they will have
an opportunity to review and make their own determination.
Johnson: Well if that is the case then we will leave it at that.
USE PERM TDI FOR OA TV BROADCASTING OSTATOION HOPER TV N2D2 I WITH
MICROWAVE DISH STRUCTURES TO BE PLACED ON ROOF, SATELLITE DISHES
ON ROOF AND NEAR BUILDING BY WILLIAM HULL - 230 S. MERIDIAN ROAD:
Johnson: Any comments or suggestions regarding these findings of fact as prepared?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I have a questions given the comments that were made at our last
meeting regarding Meridian Road being a gateway corridor into the City what options
are open to us. Those satellite dishes are not the most attractive thing on the roof and I
don't really have a problem with them and the way that whole area of town is developed
and maintained now but in the future we want to start cleaning up our act so to speak
would we have an opportunity to kind of review these things since this is a conditional
use permit it renews on a yearly basis. Would that be when it is up for renewal would
that be our opportunity if and when we start doing that kind of upgrade, an opportunity
to kind of get some changes made or if someone deems them appropriate.
Meridian Planning & Zon~Commission
January 13,1998
Page 4
Johnson: That is the key phrase if someone deems it appropriate in practice conditional
use permits continue until there is a squeaky wheel. If that is your thinking you can be
the squeaky wheel you can review it in a year. But by its very nature in definition it is
conditional and it is conditional for a period of one year.
Smith: Well that answers my question Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that
the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these
findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Borup: Second
Johnson: Moved and second to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as
prepared, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup -Yea, Smith -Yea, Nelson -Absent, MacCoy -Absent,
Johnson -Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Is there a recommendation you wish to pass onto the City Council?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the conditional
use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with
the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law and any others
required by the City Council.
Borup: Second
Johnson: Moved and second to pass the recommendation onto the City Council as read
by Commissioner Smith, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #3: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 9, 1997: REQUEST
FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER BY TOM
BEVAN - 2030 W. FAIRVIEW AVENUE:
Johnson: Has any new material come in on this staff? We do have it, I don't have it in
my packet. Is the applicant available? Is the applicant or the applicants representative
here this evening? Does the Commission have any questions they would like to ask of
the applicant?
Smith: Yes
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission •
January 13, 1998
Page 5
Johnson: In that case I would recommend that vve table this item.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, is that correct there has not been any communication between
this applicant and staff in the past month?
Stiles: The applicant did submit some new site plans, none of you have that?
Smith: I have a site plan dated the 5"' of December, 1997.
Stiles: That would be the new information they have submitted.
Smith: And the elevations which were the 4"' of December.
Borup: I have the same thing too, that was before last months meeting
Stiles: There wasn't sufficient time between the time they submitted it and the time the
meeting was for you to be able to review it. That is why we went ahead and continued
the public hearing last time.
Borup: I think we continued it because the applicant wasn't here.
Johnson: Is there anyone in the audience that is here for this item that would like to
address the Commission? If not then I think we should look toward tabling this to a date
certain.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion to table this item to our February 10
meeting.
Borup: Second
Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that vve table item #3 until our next
scheduled meeting on 2-10-98 and that staff contact the applicant to find out if they
want to proceed further with this.
Borup: This is the second month it has been tabled.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to amend my motion to include the last comment you
made which was to have staff contact the applicant so that we can find out if he is
serious about this to move forward or not.
Borup: Second
Johnson: It has been moved and seconded to table this item one more time until
February 10, 1998 with staff contacting Mr. Bevan or the applicant's representative to
determine if they want to proceed or not, all those in favor? Opposed?
Meridian Planning & Zon~ Commission
January 13, 1998
Page 6
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #4: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
PLUMBER'S UNION FACILITY BY PLUMBER'S & PIPEFITTERS LOCAL 296 -LOT 5,
BLOCK 2 RAILSIDE PARK SUBDIVISION:
Johnson: I will now open this public hearing and invite the applicant or the applicant's
representative to address the Commission at this time.
Mike Capshaw, BRS Architects, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Capshaw. Initially when this project was ensued we had assumed that this project met
the light industrial nature of this subdivision. However staff informed us that while they
agreed that it did meet the intent there was no specific allowance for a union use. So
that is why we are here before you tonight. Probably the most close use to us would be
contractors yard. We will be demonstrating at this facility pipefitting and plumbing
techniques as well as a union office and union activities. Again there will be obviously
welding and what have you there so it really does not fit in with an office type use it is
more of an industrial use. If you have any questions?
Johnson: Any questions from the Commissioners?
Smith: I have just a couple quick ones. The style wall panel and the shadow wall panel
those are a specific pre-manufactured building manufactured wall panel?
Capshaw. Yes they are, they are a Butler panel.
Smith: I am not familiar with the style wall and the shadow wall.
Capshaw. The shadow wall has a texture to it and the style wall is more of a plain panel
so we have dressed up the front there with some split face block and a texture panel.
Smith: Do you have a color scheme proposed for this?
Capshaw. We do and that was in the submittal, staff should have a big color chart that
we put out.
Smith: I haven't seen it, do you mind letting me know what it is just off the top of your
head.
Capshaw. We have a light blue or a blue accent color at the roof line everything else is
pretty much an off white.
Meridian Planning & Zo~j Commission
January 13, 1998
Page 7
Smith: The CMU is this going to be an integral color block or is this something that you
are painting?
Capshaw. This is going to be a painted block.
Smith: I don't have any other questions, I would like to make a comment that it is nice
to see a complete building set of plans so we know what the building is going to look
like.
Capshaw: As I mentioned we had assumed that this was going to fit within the light
industrial so we had a complete set of plans prior to putting in for a conditional use.
Johnson: Thank you very much, anyone else from the public that would like to address
the Commission on this application? Any further comments, any comments from staff? I
will close the public hearing at this time. This application will require findings of fact and
conclusions of law to be prepared.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I would move we instruct Counsel to prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law on this application.
Smith: Second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to have the City Attorney prepare findings of
fact and conclusions of law on item #4, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #5: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE OF .36 ACRES FROM R-4
TO L-O BY KEITH AND CATHY THURGOOD - 236 W. CHERRY LANE:
Johnson: I will now open this public hearing and ask that the applicant or the applicant's
representative come before the Commission to be sworn.
Keith Thurgood, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Thurgood: We would like to have this rezone done on behalf of our residence and the
purpose is we are preparing to turn it into our office for our business and make the
whole thing an office.
Johnson: Thank you Keith, questions from the commissioners?
Borup: You are saying you want to turn it into a business?
Meridian Planning & Zor~ Commission •
January 13, 1998
Page 8
Thurgood: Yes, right now we have an accessory use permit to have an office in a
portion of it our residence is in the rear part of it. We are wanting to have the whole
structure become an office.
Borup: I thought you had a home office in there now, so you are looking to turn the
entire building into office space. You weren't looking at doing any other improvements
on the property, just every thing is pretty much as is right now?
Thurgood: A some point in the future we would like to pave, add some additional
parking and paving. We are not ready to do that yet and we would like to do some
signage, we have not applied for any of that yet. But it is our intent. We are not looking
to add onto the structure if that is what you are asking.
Borup: That was my question, are you looking at additional office space for yourself or
to rent out to others.
Thurgood: We would occupy the majority of it, we may sublease a portion of it out if we
don't need it.
Borup: And that is probably where the additional parking would come in if you do need
it.
Smith: You noted in your application that you were going to continue to reside in the
back portion of your home on a temporary basis. Do you have any kind of a time line in
mind of what you are projecting to do?
Thurgood: Well for the kids sanity and mom and 1 the sooner or better but probably in
the next year to year and a half we would like to be out and have it converted over to
office in that time frame.
Johnson: Where is the parking now?
Thurgood: There is parking space on the east side of structure right now adjacent to
the building. We anticipate that the parking we would add would be in the rear, we have
a yard in back there that would be converted into parking.
Johnson: Have you had discussions with staff specifically about the parking and the
requirement to have that paved?
Thurgood: Yes
Johnson: Do you have any problems with any of the comments that staff made
regardirsg your application, have you seen those?
ti
Meridian Planning & Zor~ Commission
January 13, 1998
Page 9
Thurgood: Yes we did receive those, and we didn't have any concerns. What was
address was relative to the usage of water and sewer and increased fees associated
with that and we expect that.
Johnson: Anything further? Thank you Keith. Is anyone else here for this application in
the audience that would like to address the Commission? Any comments from staff? I
will close the public hearing at this time. Item 5 would require findings of fact and
conclusions of law to be prepared.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion to instruct Council to prepare
findings of fact and conclusions of law on this item.
Borup: Second
Johnson: Motion and a second to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #6: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
DAY CARE CENTER BY JODI FIFE -LOT 33, BLOCK 4 OF BEDFORD PLACE
SUBDIVISION NO. 2:
Johnson: At this time I will open the public hearing and ask if the applicant or the
applicant's representative address the Commission at this time.
Dean L. Fife, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Fife: There have been a couple of small changes with the plans that were handed in.
They reversed the basic house plan, just did a mirror image on the other side and the
purpose was for better, and then reposition on the lot was to give better room for the
play area.
Johnson: Is this the first time it has been submitted to the City, the change, right now?
Fife: Yes
Johnson: In addition to that do you want to address City comments or tell us briefly what
you plan to do?
Fife: We plan to have a day care for 13 or more children. I have read the City
comments, I have no particular questions. Is there something you would like to ask
me?
Meridian Planning & Zor~ Commission •
January 13, 1998
Page 10
Borup: Well first a comment the layout is not reversed in the one that I have in my
packet, it has shifted over as Commissioner Smith pointed out.
Fife: Alright, we asked them to get the plans in and evidently they did that.
Johnson: When you say "they" who are you talking about?
Fife: The builder.
Smith: I don't know that any other plans were submitted but the house isn't mirrored
over it is just shifted over on the lot.
Fife: Well the original plans that I got were the other way, they mirrored them, they must
have submitted those. I am sorry for that.
Borup: The packet submitted was pretty complete and I think I could not read a lot of the
neighbors signatures and if that is inaccurate we will be hearing about that in a little.
Probably the only question I had was more of which really doesn't have any effect on
the application more of a personal question. That was closing down the center during
the holidays, have you tried that approach before, does that work? I am just curious
more than anything. It is saying that during three weeks during the year you are going to
close down and people are going to have find another place for child care.
Fife: That is a normal procedure in child care, they advertise those out and have those
out ahead of time for their comment. That was the only question I had.
Jennifer Bell, 3004 Regan, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Bell: What was the question you had?
Borup: The question probably wasn't pertinent to the application I was just curious on
closing down three weeks during the year and it was stated that is standard in the
industry.
Bell: I have a day care in my home right now and I don't close for the holidays except for
like Christmas day and Thanksgiving day. So the whole rest of the vacation I am open
because most people work (inaudible) does that answer your question?
Borup: Well no, the application stated that it is going to close down for three weeks
during the year. We probably spell enough time on that don't you think Mr. Chairman?
Johnson: We do understand that you read the application Mr. Borup. Do you have
anything else to add, any other questions Mr Smith?
Meridian Planning & Zor~ Commission .
January 13, 1998
Page 11
Smith: Yes, the application states 13 or more children, the numbers scare me right off
the bat being familiar with that neighborhood and the size of the lots and homes. Can
you maybe elaborate on that a little.
Fife: One license can have up to 12 and my wife and daughter you just met Mrs. Bell
will be working it together. So there will be somewhere between 13 and 24 maximum.
Smith: 13 and 24 where are you going to put them all?
Fife: The house is designed to do that and the square footage of the day care area. The
house meets the requirements for 35 square feet per child for a maximum of 24. Do you
have a plan there. The area, how can I best describe that to you, do you see the area
of the garage, behind that is the kitchen and living room, the family room and what is off
in there which would normally be 2 bedroom, there is going to be no wall going to be
built in there. So you will have that room plus the family, plus the kitchen and dining
room area which will be used for arts and crafts and that total area meets the State
square footage for up to 24 children. I think I put that in the application how many
square feet that was.
Smith: What are the ages of the children you are going to be caring for?
Fife: I would have to ask Ms. Bell that.
Smith: And she would probably answer my next question that has to do with how many
staff people you will have.
Fife: The staff people right now are two, Jodi Fife and Jennifer Bell.
Smith: And where is staff going to park, because the driveway you have described that
is where the parents will park to pick the kids up. There is room it looks like if it is 45
feet wide you have room for four cars there.
Fife: Staff will park in the garage it is oversized three car garage almost 900 square feet.
What was the question on ages?
Smith: What are the ages of the children you are going to be caring for?
Bell: Zero to twelve is the usual ages of the children in the day care. We haven't
decided on the number in each age group yet we will kind of do that as we go along.
Smith: There is going to be a clear barrier between your living space in the house and
the day care?
Fife: So the children can't go from the day care area into the house, yes there will be
gates provided so that the day care area will be gated so they can't go through.
Meridian Planning & Zor~ Commission
January 13, 1998
Page 12
Smith: Thank you, those are all of my questions at the moment
Johnson: Thank you, is there anyone from the public that is here for this application and
would like to come forward?
Mark Lloyd, 2685 Arrowwood Way, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Lloyd: Mr. Chairman 1 am here to go on record concerning this day care that I stand
before you and give my testimony that I am completely and totally against this for a
number of reasons, some of them being some of the questions that were brought up
already in addition to the devaluing of residences by putting in a business as well as a
noise factor. I did not get a chance to sign any petition, however my home looks over
the back part of this property. f did receive a certified letter in the mail notifying me of
this hearing, this is what brings to this meeting tonight.
Johnson: Have you had any contact with the applicant at all, they knocked on your door
and asked you about your feelings?
Lloyd: No sir
Johnson: Have you talked to any of your neighbors about the application?
Lloyd: Yes 1 have sir.
Johnson: What has been the general response?
Lloyd: I think there was some confusion as to what the original plans were. I think many
people thought it was just going to be someone living there and watching a few children
in their home and not realizing Ihat it was a full blown business. There are some other
people here tonight that have also realized that this is going to be a business venture
and I think the common consensus of everybody I have talked to is that they are against
that.
Johnson: I appreciate your comments, your property is adjacent right?
Lloyd: It is not adjacent it is a street from, one street behind.
Borup: What lot are you on, we do have a plat.
Lloyd: It is the corner of Arrowwood and Moose Street.
Johnson: Thank you very ;nuch, is there anyone else that would like to come fornrard?
Tina Bruce, 2769 N. Arrowwood Way, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Meridian Planning & Zo~g Commission
January 13, 1998
Page 13
Bruce: My property is adjacent to this business going in. Our fence line is kitty comer
so the comer of our fence we can look right into the back yard of this new business.
According to the plans that I received in the mail via certified letter I did not see any
living space in this house. I was approached by Mrs. Fife and her daughter a few
months ago and they were telling me that they were going to be moving into this home
and they ~nrondered if I had any objections to her having a day care. I said no not at all
because 1 myself have a day care where I have three small children that 1 watch and I
was not aware that this was going to be a full blown business where she was going to
have anywhere from 12 to 24 children. I made the mistake of signing her petition
because I thought that it was going to be a home day care and 1 was very disappointed
to learn that she was not 100% truthful with me and letting me know that it was going to
be a center and not a home. Do your plans show that it is going to be a living quarters,
they are going to be living in it, because mine do not? Are they going to be living there?
Borup: Our plan just shows the lower floor, it doesn't show the upper floor. It dues state
2400 square feet with lower 915 for the day care is how it is stated.
Bruce: The plans that were attached just strictly, I just see a day care center, I did not
see a two story building. I do also want to, 1 don't if the neighbors that are directly
behind me are here in the audience tonight but they have two very large dogs and since
ground has been broken and since the construction workers have been building this
residence those dogs have barked pretty much all day long. So if you can imagine what
they are going to do with 20 kids outside in the back yard. My windows are adjacent to
this yard and in the Springtime if my windows are open and my children are sleeping I
don't want to necessarily want to have a lot of loud noise in the yard next door to me.
Johnson: Anything else? Any questions?
Smith: Yes, it looks like from what you described you are in lot 1, block 7?
Bruce: We are in the home that is facing Arrowwood in between the two homes that
face outward, Arrowwood and Hawk.
Smith: The home that faces Wakely and the home that faces Hawk.
Bruce: The home right directly next to us faces Wakely and we are the house behind it.
Smith: When the applicant approached you some months back with a petition did she
have a specific number of children that she had ident~ed or you had discussed.
Bruce: She just said that they were going to be building a home and she wondered if I
had any objections to her watching some children in that home and I at the time was
just beginning my own day care and I told her that and I said No I think what would be
fine and I signed the petition. Now I wished I wouldn't have.
Meridian Planning & Zorl~ Commission •
January 13, 1998
Page 14
Johnson: I think that is your name there if you want to come forward and look at that.
Because the top of this petition specifically states 13 children or more. Does that look
like the form you signed.
Bruce: I did not read the top of that form, I was involved in discussing it with her and I
was excited about my own business and was excited about her I guess so I did not read
the top, so that was my mistake.
Johnson: Any other questions? Anyone else that would like to come fonnrard at this
time?
John Alverson, 520 East Hawk, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney
Alverson: I am the neighbor that lives right behind with the two big dogs. Our biggest
concern is the safety of the kids between the back of our fence and where the house is
going to be. I have not seen the plans but I would say somewhere between 15 and 20
foot in between the house and we feel that there is not enough room there for the kids
to play safe. If they play football, baseball or whatever they are going to be hitting the
ball over there and it is going to be coming over the neighbors fence and everything.
The other thing is my wife works night at Micron, she sleeps during the day. With the
kids outside all of the time the noise, my dog is going to be barking. I am totally against
the whole idea of it. The value of our property going down, we were never approached
by the people that are building the house to sign a petition or anything or else we would
never have signed it. I think it is just a bad area to put a day care. The lot is awful small,
I just don't feel like there is enough room to be safe with the kids.
Johnson: Thank you any questions?
Smith: I have one and I should have asked the other two that testified. Are you opposed
to the day care or are you opposed to the number of kids that they want to put in the
day care?
Alverson: I don't have a problem with the day care, I think the amount of kids that they
are going to be putting in there and the age group of the kids. 1 have been there four
years and that is the reason I bought the house out there. I Tike the area, with the
understanding that area was not going to be ran as a business type area, it would be
strictly residential type area. Then we come to find out they want to put a business in
there. But the size of the day care is what really got us bothered, how many kids are
going to be outside and making a bunch of noise when my wife is trying to sleep.
Smith: Is there a number of kids you feel like you could support in a day care like this?
Alverson: 't just depends on the age. If you get babies, 3 and 4 near olds that are going
to stay in the house where there is not a lot of noise, 1 don't have a problem with how
many they put in there. But when they start getting the bigger kids in there and stuff
Meridian Planning & Zon~g Commission •
January 13, 1998
Page 15
many they put in there. But when they start getting the bigger kids in there and stuff
and outside playing, they have to go outside and play. My dogs are going to be barking
all of the time, I am going to get complaints from the neighbors. I am not comfortable
with it.
Smith: Thank you, you are in lot 3, the second house off of Arrowwood?
Alverson: Off of Hawk
Smith: (Inaudible]
Johnson: Is there anyone else that would like to testify on this application? Any
comments from staff? Any further discussion among the Commissioners?
Smith: I did have something regarding the little plat (End of Tape) I think that you are
going to get a lot of traffic that is going to be coming off Meridian Road onto Woodbury
onto Arrowwood. Just the way the population base is right now I don't think you are
going to be getting the majority or all of your traffic flow off of Ustick. 1 personally think
that is too may kids to go into a neighborhood day care like this.
Borup: I would agree with the traffic flow, people are going to come whatever is easiest
for them. I think vre all realize that.
Johnson: Any closing remarks by the applicant?
Fife: The value of the property being devalued I have a little problem with that issue
because the size of this home the construction and the quality of construction and the
architecture of the home definitely won't be on the low end of the scale in that area. So I
don't think that there is going to be a problem with devaluing the area. I seriously doubt
the age limit, there will be very many children that will be over 7 years old in that
because the nature of day cares don't have that many in them. That is normally what
they take up to. But I would be more apt to think it is going to be more of the younger
age children. The area of the noise will be making that much noise. The thing with the
dog I don't think is our issue on that. Was there other issues, the traffic flow. We expect
to be able to draw from the subdivision itself several or a large percentage of the day
care kids from the subdivision so there won't be necessarily increased traffic to that
degree that all of them coming in from the outside are. We expect that area will have a
lot of day care from that area. Is there something else you would like to ask me?
Johnson: Any questions? Is there anyone else before 1 close the public hearing?
Jodi Fife, 324 W. State, Eagle, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Fife: I wanted to apologize to, 1 am sorry I don't remember her name, Tina, I wanted to
apologize to her publicly because my daughter and I had no intention of misleading
Meridian Planning 8 Zor~ Commission
January 13, 1998
Page 16
children. I meant to mention that I thought that I had and it was on my form so I didn't
purposely mean to mislead anyone. Earlier when my husband stated that we could do
up to 24 children, we have been working on licensing with the State and those are the
numbers that we are licensed to do with but we don't have any plans to do more than
13. Possibly we won't do that many. In her day care now she has four children and it is
highly possibly that we might end up doing only 8 or 10 children but 13 is the number
that we kind of have in our mind. I don't think that we will have any children much over
the age over 3 or 4 or 5 because once they begin kindergarten they don't come to day
care that much or if they do it is on a part time where they would go to kindergarten in
the morning and come to the day care in the afternoon or vice versa. Sometimes you
get a few little children that come after school for a short period like maybe two hours
until their parents come. I would say that 80 or 90% of our children will under the age of
kindergarten age. So the one gentlemen's concern was playing, the types of games
that older children play football and baseball and that kind of thing really isn't going to
be an issue because our day care is more going to be toddlers, those are the kind of
children that we enjoy and that we want to work with. Is there anything else that I didn't
respond to that you can think of.
(Inaudible)
Fife: She wanted to respond to the issue of the noise level.
Johnson: She being?
Fife: Jennifer Bell, and we were going to do a tall wooden fence rather than a chain link
or something to help with the noise. Also it is not our intention to give the children free
reign to go out into the yard and play. But they will always be supervised there will
always be one of us on playground duty with them at all times. This is a more structured
kind of a play situation. Even though there is noise with the children. it doesn't have to
be the loud screaming and obnoxious fighting. It is a more structured kind of a play. Are
there any other questions that any one would like to ask me?
Johnson: Any questions?
Borup: Mr. Chairman, it sounds like you are saying that you anticipate most of it most of
it being pre-school children.
Fife: Absolutely
Borup: And that would probably be the number of 13 or under.
Fife: Thirteen
Borup: Anything over that would probably just be the drop ins after school.
Meridian Planning & Zor~ Commission •
January 13, 1998
Page 17
Fife: Exactly and I don't even anticipate having as many as 13 but we wanted to make
our facility large enough, our home large enough and we wanted to be licensed for that
number trying to cover all bases. Actually she and I prefer to do something smaller, a lot
more like what you were describing. It is my home and we are going to be living there all
of the time and we are just doing it in our home more as a home day care. More like
she was describing
Johnson: Who is "she°?
Fife: Tina, she watches three children, we thought with two of us we could do eight
maybe ten something like that. It really is going to be more of a home care not so much
of a business as some of you are fearing that we are going to come in and do a huge
commercial business is not what we have intentioned. My daughter is a young married
person, she has a baby, she wants to stay home with her baby.
Johnson: You are making a real good case to apply for an application with less children.
That is what you are doing at this point because your application states up to 24.
Fife: Our home is large enough for that.
Johnson: If we proceed on that basis then you can do 24 if it is approved. The
consideration here seems to be focusing in on the number of children and you might be
well off to reapply for less children. That is just a suggestion but right now you seem to
be making a case yourself holding it to 13 or under.
Fife: We would like to submit it at the number of 13 so we don't limit our selves too
much like 13 or more like it was previously submitted.
Johnson: That was just a suggestion you might consider that.
Fife: Would we have the opportunity to re-submit if it doesn't pass tonight.
Johnson: If it is denied you always have the opportunity to appeal.
Fife: To resubmit it at a lower number, so I think we would like to submit it at 13 or more.
Are there any other questions or comments?
Smith: I think the gentleman who lives in the house behind yours statement about the
types of games that children would be playing was a response to the testimony that was
given as far as the age of the children that you were going to care which in my mind that
was one of the two key issues here is the number of children and the ages of the
children. You are saying one thing and Jennifer Bell is saying another thing. So we are
getting two different.
Meridian Planning & Zori Commission •
January 13, 1998
Page 18
Fife: I understand your question, I think when she responded before she was referring
to the licensing. We are licensed to take up to age 12, that is just the way that Idaho
license states. But we would not be watching children of that age because they are in
school.
Johnson: Well they are not in school in the summertime.
Fife: We personally don't want to watch children of that age, that is not the type of
facility we want to do. We are going to do pre-schoolers and litter children. And I don't
think it said in our application that we were going to do that age.
Smith: No you tested to that.
Fife: Okay, but I think she was just stating the limitations of the license. Anything else?
Johnson: No, thank you. Anyone else? I will close the public hearing at this time. This
is a request for a conditional use permit, it would require findings of fact and conclusions
of law to be prepared.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I would move we instruct the City Attorney to prepare findings of
fact and conclusions of law on this application.
Smith: Second
Johnson: Motion and a second to have the City Attomey prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Those findings of fact and conclusions of law will be at our next regularly
scheduled meeting on February 10~h at which time anyone interested can have a copy
of those.
ITEM #7: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
MODULAR BUILDING AS A TEMPORARY OFFICE BY MERIDIAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT - SE CORNER OF IDAHO AVENUE AND E. 2ND STREET:
Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, if the applicant would be sworn in please.
Lieutenant Bill Musser, 201 E. Idaho Avenue, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Musser: Basically the only presentation I have for gentlemen today on this is just to let
you know the primary concern for what we are looking at here with this modular unit is
dealing number one with accessibility and the utilization of the services that we already
have at the department where we have moved off site with the investigative division,
Meridian Planning & Zon~ Commission •
January 13, 1998
Page 19
this will bring us in closer again we can go back to utilizing our existing phone system
without being outside of it and also be able to route our data lines over so we can get
back on our computer system as well. That is most of the overall reason there. In
conjunction with that we also found it to be a significant cost saving venture for the
department in relation to the city budget as well.
Johnson: Thank you, any questions from the Commissioners?
Borup: Does this look tike you are going to be able to get the structure in there without
removing the existing concrete work that is in there now?
Musser: From what they have told me from GE Modular on it when I met with their
Sales Representative he doesn't see it to be a problem whatsoever with moving it onto
site with all of the existing concrete that is in place that would go for the curbing
(Inaudible)
Borup: And the supporting of the ovefiang on the back there.
Musser: Right, we kept the building short enough that it won't come in contact with the
building structure that is already there on site.
Borup: Nampa Meridian made a comment, are they referring to along the back of the
property, that is not even in this area is it? I am assuming it is not in this area from, it
didn't look like it was. That is all I had other than I noticed from Department comments
for some reason the Police Chief thinks this is a wonderful idea.
Smith: The portable is going to be accessed directly from the existing facilities?
Musser: It will have a separate entrance, we can't tie directly into the building that we
are in now. We will however have a door that faces out to the east direction which will
access our existing parking lot. So we can walk in under the over hang and into our
back door as the employees use it now.
Johnson: Are we talking about a purchased or a leased facility?
Musser: This will be a leased facility?
Johnson: And the length of the lease?
Musser: Length of the tease at this time has been projected for two years. In talking
from the representatives of GE Modular that is entirely based upon where the City
decides to move with the police department in the future.
Johnson: Speak to us about compatibility in terms of visual, the colors.
Meridian Planning & Zor~ Commission •
January 13, 1998
Page 20
Musser: What we have basically looked at is remaining with a fairly neutral off white
siding consistent with what the building colors would be along the back side or I should
say the south side to the east facing on our existing building that we are in and would
also be compatible with AEI which is the business located directly to the south of our
area where we are going to be into the little lot between the two buildings.
Johnson: This is going to be a self contained unit with plumping?
Musser: No it wilt not be, the only utilities that we are bringing in would be the electrical
hook up and then phone and data lines that we need and will be tying directly into our
facility.
Johnson: At this point how many people would you guess or estimate would occupy the
facility?
Musser: Occupancy, probably be looking at no more than 12 at this point we will be
going in with nine.
Johnson: What are we talking about in terms of hours?
Musser: Hours of the day the majority of those would be in with an occupancy probably
anywhere from 7 in the morning until as late as 5 in the afternoon for a majority of those
people. Often times we don't occupy the office totally during those hours. There is
potential that we may have an officer assigned later as we grow but right now it is
predominantly between 7 and 5 p.m.
Johnson: So there would be occupants of this facility that are not presently on the Pine
Street location is that correct?
Musser: If we have further expansion within the development that would allow for also
expansion within the investigative division.
Johnson: Those are all the questions that I have, do you have any Commissioner
Smith?
Smith: Are you going to have skirting around the bottom to match the siding?
Musser: Yes, we already checked on the skirting it will match and have a one hour fire
(inaudible)
Smith: Thanks
Johnson: Apparently that is all we have, thank you very much. Anyone else in the
audience that would like to address the Commission on this application? Seeing no one
then I will close the public hearing at this time.
Meridian Planning & ZoniCommission •
January 13, 1998
Page 21
Smith: Mr. Chairman; I would like to make a motion that we direct the City Attorney to
draw up findings of fact and conclusions of law on this item.
Borup: Second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to have the City Attorney prepare findings of
fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TEARE
COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION, 3 LOTS BY RONALD VAN AUKER - NW CORNER OF
TEARE AVENUE AND OVERLAND ROAD:
Johnson: At this time I will open the public hearing and ask the applicant or the
applicant's representative address the Commission.
Gayle Jenson, 9975 Sussex Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Jenson: Primarily we are subdividing this property into three lots to make it a legal
conforming subdivision. We have two buildings on it and need to just clean this up so
we can develop the third lot. That is really what we are attempting to do and working
with the City on.
Johnson: Thank you, any comments or questions from the Commissioners?
Borup: Mr. Chairman, the main thing I am wondering at this point it is not a legal
subdivision, how did that happen?
Jenson: It was two parcels of ground we were able to get two building permits for this.
Borup: So the building permits are on the two separate parcel originally. The new
proposed lot one is part of one of those parcels.
Jenson: That is correct.
Borup: Have you had a chance to review staff comments?
Jenson: Yes we have, we have responded back to them.
Borup: On the setback item?
Jenson: The setback item when we did the building I believe that Planning and Zoning
looked at it as Overland was the frontage road and that Teare was a side street so we
Meridian Planning & Zor` Commission .
January 13, 1998
Page 22
met the setback of 30 feet, in fact it is a little over 31 feet. Now as it is being subdivided
Teare will become the primary street so that is how that came about.
Borup: Any comment on ACHD's
Jenson: We have seen ACHD's comments.
Borup: Apparently there is some sidewalk missing?
Jenson: Yes it is about a 3 foot piece of sidewalk down by the Stor Mor comer.
Johnson: Commissioner Smith?
Smith: Just a correction on your preliminary plat check list, item 3 lots per acre, the
acreage is 5.26 plus or minus, number of lots 3, lots per acre you have 1.75 I think that
was backward, it is acres per lot is 1.75. So that is just an error. That is all I had.
Johnson: Thank you very much, anyone else from the public that would like to address
the Commission on this application?
Jay Edmonds, 1500 South Teare Avenue, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Edmonds: The only thing that I would like to bring to Mr. Van Auker's representative's
attention and to the Council members and I was going to compliment him on the last
two jobs that he did Mr. Borup, especially the last one. He did a fine job, he policed it
well, kept it watered down, kept the dust level down. He is good neighbor, better than
some. But what I would like to bring to his attention is Instrument No. 597317 recorded
with Ada County by Meridian Nampa Irrigation District. That is the easement of irrigation
water along Overland, eastbound going uphill. I would assume that Ron is going to
address this in his developing and I would assume that he would prioritize it depending
on when you let him start building it.
Johnson: Thank you Jay, any questions of Mr. Edmonds? Thanks, anyone else? I will
close the public hearing at this time. This is a preliminary plat so this would entail
making a recommendation for approval or disapproval.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we recommend to City Council approval of this
plat..
Smith: Second
Johnson: Motion and a second to recommend approval to the City Council regarding
the application for Ron Van Auker, Teare Commercial subdivision, all those in favor?
Opposed?
Meridian Planning & Zor~j Commission
January 13, 1998
Page 23
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Some of you late arrivals we had a little discourse earlier on about Eagle
Partners application, the last two items on the agenda, does anybody not know what I
said there or would like clarification? We are going to open that public hearing as
scheduled because we are obligated to do so. The applicant was here they are not
prepared to make a presentation based on the fact they can't proceed or can't see any
sense in proceeding because the Idaho Department of Transportation and ACHD have
not arrived at a conclusion for the site for the traffic signal. So we also have a request
from the homeowners association for a deferral of this item as well. It would be my
supposition that when that item comes and we open the public hearing we will take
whatever testimony you want to present tonight, there will a brief or no presentation by
the applicant and that item will be tabled until our next meeting on February 10`". So that
is just for your information in the event you didn't want to hang around until the middle of
the night.
ITEM #9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FORA PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
MERIDIAN GREENS UNIT NO. 4, 20 LOTS BY FULLER SCOTT INVESTMENT CO. -
NE OF MERIDIAN GREENS UNIT NO. 1:
Johnson: I will now open this public hearing and invite the applicant or the applicant's
representative to address the Commission.
Don Carnihan, 1530 W. State Street, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Camihan: Council if I may can I put some poster boards up?
Johnson: Yes we would like you to, if you could position those as best you can so that
both the Commissioners and the audience can see that I v~rould appreciate it. Before we
begin I am sure you are aware that any material used in the presentation remains here.
Carnihan: First I would like to start off by introducing the project. As I said my name is
Don Carnihan I am with Civil Survey Consultants and I represent Fuller Scott
Development for this Meridian Greens Unit No. 4. This is a 7.2 acre plan development
residential and as originally proposed it consists of 20 lots, 18 of which are residential.
This is situated South of Overland Road, at the intersection of SE 5th Way. It is
bordered on the south by other units of Meridian Greens to the east by Hunts Bluff and
to the North by the Caterpillar Equipment dealership. The current zoning for this parcel
is R~ and the reason that we have requested this as a PDR is because of the
landscaping and the alley way arrangement. These are the two main components of this
project. I would like to start with the first one, the first reason for this development is to
take the existing entrance into the Meridian Greens Units and to improve on those. The
way that we would do that would be with the 20 foot landscaped areas. There would be
one in front of the frontage of Overland Road and then both sides of SE 5`h Way. This
would be done with landscape with flowering plants and bushes with a mixture with lawn
Meridian Planning & Zo~ Commission
January 13, 1998
Page 24
and keystone walls. The existing trees along the Overland Road frontage will be utilized
and put in v~ith the landscape plan. We have prepared a conceptual landscape plan
that shows some of the ideas. This is Overland Road, SE 5"' Way, it shows the mixture
of the plantings and the walls and the sod. If that can give you any better idea. The
other second reason for this subdivision is to provide a different product to residential
home buyers and that is as you can see the driveways do not come off of the public
right of way. They instead have the alley way concept that access is taken behind the
homes. We think that this development will be very compatible and an improvement on
the existing Meridian Greens houses that are there. The developer has come up with
about three different house plans that he would anticipate envision being built in this
development. In the covenants he has required that the square feet be 1700 square feet
or greater with a lot and home value of greater than $180,000. So we feel this will be an
improvement on the existing homes that are out there. I know there are some people
that are concerned about this development and how it-will affect their property. So we
feel these houses will be very large, nice homes. Some of the lots are a little smaller but
the developer has had some request for more of a patio home type situation where the
houses are fairly large but maybe the yards aren't so large and not as much
maintenance required. We think this alley way concept is a very good idea. We think
that it eliminates the garages and the automobiles as the focal point of the house and
thus enhancing the appearance of the neighborhood. The other project components
are the Eight Mile Lateral. In order to build this alley way and incorporate it into the
project we will need to use part of that easement that Nampa Meridian has along there.
Traffic concerns for this development there should be approximately 180 additional trips
per day. The SE 5"' Way is a residential collector and there shouldn't be very much
impact to that road. Concerns for additional parking. The culdesac at the end of Port
Maria Court 8 additional spaces for visitors that will come to see their friends. For the
utilities and drainage there is already sewer and water existing in SE 5"' Way and this
development proposes to expand those services. The drainage will be along the gutter
to drop inlets into a (inaudible) box and then for subsurface disposal. And the pressure
irrigation will be tied into a system that was built during a previous phase and used for
this. So just in summary I would like to say that we feel this development will be an
excellent asset and benefit to Meridian and will mix well with the existing use that is
there. I would like to answer any questions.
Johnson: Thank you very much, questions from the Commissioners? Commissioner
Borup?
Borup: A couple, I think I answered my one, covenants are required on how they
access on all units is that correct?
Carnihan: Yes, there will be in a plat they will restrict access off of the public right of
way and will have to take access through the alley ways.
Borup: The other question is more of curiosity and one on design. I certainly
understand why you have the alley on the property on the east, probably. First of all that
Meridian Planning & Zor~ Commission
January 13, 1998
Page 25
is designated a collector to the existing Meridian Greens or is 5`" a collector all the way
through this?
Carnihan: I believe that SE 5`" Way as it exists today is classified as a residential
collector.
Borup: 5"' Way clear continue onto the south of the existing property?
Carnihan: I believe so, I don't know when it changes.
Borup: So on the existing the ACHD did not restrict drive ways on that collector then. Is
that a requirement that they are looking at now at this point?
Camihan: That was not a requirement for this but they were very complimentary of this
alley way set up because it does allow traffic to flow through the collector more
efficiently since traffic is going off at several places it is going to give off at one or two
places only.
Borup: A lot of times they will restrict no entry at all to a collector. The question I guess
on the property on the west, your section on the west there. The thought there and
(inaudible) for that alley way in that section. You have still got the same buffering along
5~' Way and actually access from the other street you wouldn't even be able to see the
garages from 5`h Way. Are they just trying to be consistent with the whole thing?
Carnihan: Yes, I believe the idea was to keep a consistent neighborhood feeling and to
kind of like I said the developers have several people that wanted some I think the best
thing is to call it a patio home. For the whole development to have the same feeling and
not be disjointed by part of it having the alley way and the other part not having that.
Borup: I was a little confused cn the lot sizes. It looks like some of them you were
figuring with the alley in and without the alley. The lot sizes on the plat are including the
alley is that correct?
Carnihan: Well we originally I believe did not include they alley ways.
Borup: 1 am referring to the square footage that is on your plat there presently, that
includes the alley way in that square footage.
Carnihan: Yes
Borup: Have you had a chance to review ACHD's comments?
Camihan: Yes we have, no major difficulties.
Borup: Even to the comment as far as eliminating the parking?
Meridian Planning & Zo~ Commission
January 13, 1998
Page 26
Carnihan: Right, we originally had four additional sites in this common area and these
sites are the ones that they were concerned about as well as Meridian's comments. So
we will eliminate these four parking spaces and take care of both of those comments.
Borup: And you are requested not having RV parking because of the size of the
development.
Carnihan: The covenants state that any RV vehicles must be kept in the garage or off
site at a facility not associated with this development.
Borup: Well that statement is somewhat tied in with the PUD.
Carnihan: Yes it is in the package there in the covenants.
Johnson: Commissioner Smith?
Smith: Just following along on the lot size I am confused on that too. It looks like these
lots on the west side are not only including the alley but they are also including the Eight
Mile Lateral easement in each one of those parcels.
Carnihan: Yes, the way the area (inaudible) as one of the comments to this proposal it
has been requested that the Eight Mile Lateral be platted as a common open lot and
that will change those lot sizes.
Smith: And you would landscape that compatible with the rest of the development?
Carnihan: Right now we are proposed to have a 24 foot paved roadway with like a rod
iron fence that is similar to what exists across the Eight Mile Lateral along Hunts Bluff in
that subdivision, it would be similar to that.
Smith: I really like the concept of the auto access off the back side of the site and have
personally been .involved in some planning for a development in Boise that works off
that same concept. I haven't really, I am not totally convinced that this particular parcel
that way but one thing that kind of surprises me from a design standpoint is that we
would come in and put all of the auto access and auto parking on the backsides of the
lots and then right in the middle of the culdesac you have eight parking spaces in front.
It is a contradiction, it is fighting your concept of the auto access around the back sides.
If you look at a lot of the neighborhoods that work with this kind of concept like the North
end and East end there are some driveways that access from the front but in all cases
the garages are in the back of the property and most of them have access off the back.
I would like to see you do some more studying as to how you actually approach this
visitor parking here. We have a 50 foot right of way here that looks like i± is Port Maria
Court would be a 50 foot right of way street. Maybe there is a way to put a one hour or
two hour time limit on street parking that would be used by visitors and residents would
Meridian Planning & Zotj Commission •
January 13, 1998
Page 27
still have to park in the back. That way you discourage the auto clutter in the front but
you still address the need that is going to be there for visitors coming in and finding a
place to park. Unless you force them all to park in the back, this is just fighting the whole
concept here of removing the automobile and garage from the front of the house. It
looks like the typical one story and two story footprints have as generous as any other
residential subdivision side yards, maybe not in this particular density but it doesn't look
like it is real tight to me. I guess I would just like to see you try to work out that visitor
parking a little differently. That was probably all of my comments at the moment.
Johnson: Thank you, any response to that at the moment?
Carnihan: No, I have no more response.
Johnson: Is there anyone else that would like to come forward and comment on this
application?
Dennis Piper, 560 East Antigua Drive, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Piper: Commissioners I am a member of the Meridian Greens Homeowners
Association and I am here representing the homeowners of this subdivision. 1 would like
to present this letter to the Commissioners that we have drafted as a board committee.
When Mr. Fuller approached us with this idea it was much smaller lots, they are ranging
from 6500 to 8500 square feet. He has incorporated the alleys and other areas to make
the lots appear larger. So that is kind of the changes that we have seen and we
addressed to him that we oppose this development. The letter that I have given you is
in reference to the preliminary plat and conditional use permit for Meridian Greens Unit
No. 4. The Meridian Greens Homeowners Association board members representing
over 200 homeowners would like to request that the preliminary plat approval and
conditional use permit applied for by Fuller Scott Investment Company for the section of
land described in their application as Meridian Greens Unit No. 4 be rejected for the
following reasons. Number one, the proposed development would be constructed along
one of Meridian Greens main entrances, SE 5"' Way. This would pose a serious safety
hazard with vehicular traffic parking along the road. We understand the developer's
intent to provide parking to the rear of the units. However we are convinced that this
would not happen and that the owners and visitors would park along this main artery
making passing traffic much more congested. The current homes have large driveways
adjoining the road that allow visitors to park off the road. Item two, the proposed paved
alley abuts its existing properties with established fences and landscaping. We believe
that the alley adjoining these properties poses a potential hazard during inclimate
weather. Vehicles negotiating the curves on slippery roads could damage the existing
homeowners properties and will increase property insurance of those homeowners
needlessly. We also believe the alley like most alleys will accumulate trash and debris
resulting in unnecessary policing and unsightly appearance. Item three, this
development would not enhance the adjoining properties and may decrease valuations.
The smallest lot adjoining this proposed development is approximately 10,8000 square
Meridian Planning & Zrg Commission
January 13, 1998
Page 28
feet with the remaining lots in excess of 12,000 square feet which I might add do not
include alleys or other areas that are non-use. This development would impact the
property values of these existing units due to the reduction in size of the surrounding
properties. Homeowners strive to increase valuation not decrease. If these applications
are approved we ask that the following items be included in this development. Number
1, the existing covenants of the homes adjoining this proposed development #8836653
recorded in Book 56 of plats at pages 5106 through 5108 records of Ada County, Idaho,
July 25, 1988 should be included for this proposed development. The following sections
within these convenants should be included as a minimum. A) Article 2, Section 4, last
paragraph, the ground floor area of the main structure exclusive of open porches and
garages shall not be less than 1700 square feet for a one story dwelling, nor less than
a total of 2,000 square feet for a split level or a two story dwelling. B) Article 2, Section
4a, all buildings shall have wood shingles, wood shakes, the roofs or any other roofing
material product that may become available in the future would definitely need to be
specifically approved by the Architectural Control Committee. C) Article 2, Section 4b,
each dwelling building shall be provided with a minimum of a suitable two car garage
and a minimum of permanently maintained off street parking space of two cars.
(End of Tape)
Piper: In reference to the pressurized irrigation we request that he install a new,
independent pressurized irrigation system to accommodate this development. The
existing pressurized irrigation is not capable of increased demand and the existing
homeowners do not wish to pay for the re-engineering or re-design of an already poorly
designed system to accommodate this development. Currently an irrigation line passes
at the edge of the proposed alley along the back side of E. Antigua Drive. This line will
be in danger of damage during construction and in danger of early freeze ups due to the
reduced amount of cover to insulate them in a driving surface that would drive the
freezing temperatures into the ground much more rapidly. Commissioners, the existing
homeowners of Meridian Greens Subdivision purchased their homes asking the
question what is the vacant property at the entrance of the subdivision going to be. And
the response nice, professional offices. The response was not smaller lots with smaller
houses that would decrease property valuations. We respectfully request that the
current zoning stand and we look forward to seeing those nice professional offices as
promised.
Johnson: I have a couple of questions regarding these comments. Paragraph 2 on page
1, what is your source there for stating the property insurance will increase?
Piper: It is an assumption. My property is the corner lot of the back alley of his proposal.
In inclement weather I can foresee vehicles just travelling right through my fence onto
my property. As well as when they make the corner around coming in.
Johnson: On page 2, what is your source for determining that the pressurized irrigation
system would not be capable of increased demand?
Meridian Planning & Zo~ Commission .
January 13, 1998
Page 29
Piper: My source is we just repaired the system this past year, we spent over $12,000 of
homeowner dollars to repair. The system barely functions now as it is. We re-
engineered what we have:' Mr. Appleford will speak here in a little bit in regards to that
irrigation system to back that up more completely.
Johnson: And thirdly and lastly from me with response to this letter, to whom did you
ask this question in the last paragraph?
Piper: About what the property is going to look like at the front entrance?
Johnson: Right.
Piper: I talked to several people and when I bought my property I asked the question
what was going to be out there I was told nice offices. Several neighbors
Johnson: Are you talking about a realtor or a developef?
Piper: Realtor, my understanding through hearsay that a developer has also made
those comments to other homeowner purchasers.
Johnson: Any other questions from the Commissioners?
Borup: Basically one and 1 guess you have answered that, what would you propose for
this area, you would rather see office buildings it sounds like.
Piper: Well I like the idea of houses there but I don't like the idea of an alley way being
in back of other property owners. I would like to see a minimum of 1700 square foot
house which he has stated, but that is not to include a garage or a porch, that I can't
verify. Then a two story minimum of 2000 square feet which is the existing covenants
for the adjoining areas. 1 would like to see off street parking to where people can pull
into a driveway and park and not congest the main artery into our subdivision.
Borup: I am still not sure what you prefer, you said you would rather see houses there
so you would rather see an entrance street with 12 driveways coming onto the street.
You think that would be more attractive than a landscaped entrance.
Piper: We prefer a landscaped entrance, our hope was that, the board members had
hoped that we could take this entrance and liven it up and jazz it up with a lot of
landscaping. We have a great concern with that much area in front of that corner that
people are not going to pull into their back paved areas to park, they are going to be
parking on the street and cause problems with passing traffic.
Borup: So one of your main concerns is parking on 5"'?
Meridian Planning & Zo~ Commission
January 13, 1998
Page 30
Piper: Yes
Borup: Which I assume you are concerned about the houses on the. east side.
Piper: Yes
Borup: Because the ones on the west side would park on the other street there. I am
not sure if that really answers my question. Maybe you didn't want to answer specifically
what you would like to see there. Unless you want it to stay an empty lot. The developer
may be willing to sell it to you.
Johnson: Commissioner Smith?
Smith: Nothing at this time.
Johnson: This letter you have prepared which obviously indicates some conversation
and some study with the homeowners association, did you have the developers present
at the meetings, have you had any contact with them?
Piper: Yes
Johnson: How did that go?
Piper: Norm Fuller met with us I believe October/November board meeting, he
presented this preliminary idea to see how the board felt about this development. We
took his ideas of how he was going to build this and what his ideas were. We discussed
it, we gave it a lot of thought and we gave him a negative reply that we did not concur
with this development.
Johnson: Thank you I have no other questions at this time. I saw a lady here that had
her hand up.
Janet Brooks, 1027 E. Cayman Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Brooks: I would just like to add a little bit to what Dennis said. A big huge sign in front of
the subdivision right where he wants to put those tiny little houses, large lots,
distinguished homes. When I bought my house I asked Mr. Fuller's daughter Shannon
what was proposed for that area, office buildings. We have asked numerous times to
have them give us a plan. We were told office buildings, nice landscaping. I fail to see
how this is compatible with the other homes in the subdivision, if you have seen the
other homes in the subdivision. They are smaller lots, smaller homes, they are
completely incompatible. I would also like to reiterate irrigation, I have had several days
in the summer where I can't even water my lawn. So I would like to see him if he is
going to do something out here build his own irrigation and take care of it himself, not
my water. That is all I have to say.
Meridian Planning & Zor~ Commission
January 13, 1998
Page 31
Johnson: Any questions of Ms. Brooks?
Smith: Yes I have a couple quick ones, assuming for the moment that the square
footage proposed does not include the garages, so the size is not necessarily an issue it
is the lot size?
Brooks: I would like to see compatible, 1 would like to see these homes and lots
compatible with what is existing which the minimum square footage I believe in my
section was 2200 square feet.
Smith: I thought Dennis said 1700
Brooks: That is in his section, 1700 is what they are proposing, 2200 square feet is the
minimum square footage where I live in my section. I don't feel 1700 square feet is
compatible.
Smith: Then I would assume you have an issue with the lot size as well.
Brooks: Definitely, they are not compatible with the existing lot sizes.
Smith: As far as who told you folks what was going to be developed out here I think your
issue is with them not with us. There is nothing we can do about it, and quite frankly I
don't know what you can do about it. We have heard this time and time again, I can't
tell you how many times I have heard the same story.
Brooks: I feel it is pretty disgusting that this man can mislead us and get away with it, I
think we need to turn it down. He needs to be stopped some time and you can stop him
by turning him down. He can do something else that is compatible with this subdivision.
That is what I think can be helped.
Johnson: When you say compatible, 1 am not trying to put words in your mouth or
anything, but are you talking about the same size or bigger or are you talking about you
don't see any possibility for any kind of transition between lot sizes and homes
anywhere because that happens everywhere. So I don't understand when you keep
saying incompatible or non-compatibility.
Brooks: Well this gentleman here was talking about compatibility, I consider
compatibility likeness in square footage, lot size, there aren't any patio homes in
Meridian Greens that are existing now. That is a step down, I would like see,
compatibility to me and I don't know about everybody else means compatible lot size,
comparable lot size, comparable square footage. That to me is what comparable
means. Not, I don't see how he thinks that $180,000 homes are going to enhance
$200,000 to $300,000 and $400,000 homes in that neighborhood. I would like maybe
clarification on how that would enhance it which is what he said.
Meridian Planning & Zo~ Commission •
January 13, 1998
Page 32
Borup: Just clarification on the square footage, apparently it sounds like the minimum
square footage in Unit No. 1 which is the adjoining area is 1700, so you are saying in
Number 2 and maybe some others that are further away is 2200?
Brooks: Exactly, each one has been different.
Borup: So the further you get away from this the larger they are?
Brooks: Well I don't know for certain but it appears so.
Borup: So you are saying right now then the closer you get to this the smaller they are
getting and this is staying down to the same size as the adjoining is that what you are
saying or apparently that is what I have heard from the others.
Brooks: Could you repeat that?
Borup: Well apparently it looks like this parcel is surrounded by Unit No. 1 that we have
on the plat which is 1700 square foot minimum the same as what they are proposing.
Brooks: I don't know how many houses are 1700 square foot in there.
Borup: Well I don't know either.
Brooks: But I don't think there are many.
Borup: Another question on the compatibility would you by a 2500 foot house that was
on Overland Road?
Brooks: What does that have to do with this?
Borup: Because that is what they are proposing here, this project is an entrance to the
subdivision it is adjoining
Brooks: They can certainly put fewer homes in, make a nice landscaping so they are
not directly on Overland Road. Entrances can be off of SE 5`h I would think.
Borup: The property adjoins Overland Road, you can't
Brooks: Put a fence up and do some landscaping the back of the home. I am not talking
about an entrance off of Overland Road but I think they can certainly make homes that
are a little bit more compatible with the subdivision larger if that is what they are going to
do. I don't think they need to squeeze every last penny out of that lot which is
apparently what they are trying to do.
Meridian Planning & Zo~ Commission •
January 13, 1998
Page 33
Borup: They are looking at 2.5 lots per acre. (Inaudible) lots on an entrance to a
subdivision houses on an entrance to a subdivision or not even a road as busy as
Overland those tots, those houses won't sell for what an interior lot will.
Brooks: Well and apparently
Borup: That is just the way it is, so either leave that
Brooks: I would like to see if he is, I would prefer an empty lot to houses crammed in
there patio homes crammed in there as part of Meridian Greens. I think consistency is
key here. This is not consistent.
Borup: Would you also prefer the office buildings?
Brooks: I would prefer the office buildings as opposed to that.
Roy Huerata, 871 E. St. Martin Drive, Meridian, was swum by the City Attorney.
Huerata: Just the first comment with Mr. Piper when we asked Chuck about what they
were going to do with that property they said the same thing.
Johnson: Chuck?
Huerata: Chuck Fuller, the one point being though when we, we were in the first house
of phase 2 that road was a dirt road leading in there. We were told that road was going
to be shut off and would not be an access road into Meridian Greens and then they
would close that up and then that section there would be totally separate. My concern, I
guess I kind of see Mr. Borup's point on what they are going to do with that property. My
biggest concern is using Meridian Greens name and I doubt if you will find more than
three houses if that many in Meridian Greens that are 1700 square feet. If they were to
utilize a different name try to identify that possibly a separate subdivision and not utilize
our inadequate sprinkler system that we have now I can see maybe where that would
work. But it kind of peeves me that we are in the second phase, 2200 square feet.
When they went to the third phase they increased the size of those square footage on
those houses even more. So it seem like Fullers are going backwards on the fourth
phase of this just because they are trying to utilize Meridian Greens name in order to
sell those lots. If they want to change it to something else like Overland Road
Subdivision or whatever and keep it totally separate from Meridian Greens I don't see
such a problem with that subdivision. But to try to represent a house of 1600 square feet
with the rest of the homes in that subdivision I disagree with. I think one of the things in
the neighborhood is compatibility. And compatibility also is an income level and house
size. Obviously the houses of that size are much more in the same size of Hunter's
Point or one of those subdivisions. Ironically when they built that subdivision Fullers
demanded that all the houses that were on the perimeter that faced Meridian Greens
had to be big, had to have shake roofs and basically they look like Meridian Greens
Meridian Planning & Zgrg Commission .
January 13, 1998
Page 34
subdivision houses. Yet when he builds this thing there are houses that are 1600
square feet, that is a starter house. That is not in the income level or the square
footage size of the average house in Meridian Greens. That is all I have to say.
Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Huerata? Okay, try your best not to be repetitive.
Larry Bertetto, 665 E. Antigua, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attomey.,
Bertetto: I guess since I was the sixth house there I have a lot of history behind me but I
won't go into it. I have heard both of them. I guess we at Meridian Greens have to
realize what Mr. Borup said is a fact that I wouldn't put my house and mine is 2700
square feet on Overland Road. So we have to acknowledge the fact that Meridian
Greens either going to be a less expensive house or we are going to have to have retail
or whatever is in there. That is happening, we are not going to build $300,000 house on
Overland and I think we can see that. Transition, I think every city or every subdivision
has to have a transition point, you can't go everybody be a $300,000 house because it
has to stop somewhere. One of the concerns that I have is the fact that you have a
berm and I have been through the hearsay, is the berm being removed? Second one is
there is going to be an alley, who will own the alley and take care of the maintenance of
the alley. Does that belong to the City of Meridian to maintain, does that belong to the
Subdivision to maintain? Assuming this is an alley, probably asphalt who replaces it
when it goes bad? Irrigation I am not going to get into that. I am going to get into pet
peeves and you know what that is, water pressure. We have gone through that, that has
been pretty good, I have only had to talk to the Mayor a couple of times. That appears
to be alright now. But now we go back to the same problem again like when JB's went
in that we don't have water pressure. When Hunt's point went in or whatever it is over
there we fluctuate water pressure, you can't get the water pressure out of your house. I
live the second house in on Antigua, pretty close to this. What is going to happen, we
always hear these things, this has been a problem, I have been there. since 1989. That
is going to be a problem that doesn't get solved, it just pops its ugly head up every time
something change and you have to come in and argue with you guys and I really don't'
like to do that. That is all that I have.
Johnson: Thank you, we don't really consider it arguing, we are just listening to you.
You are perfectly welcome to whine anytime you want to.
Virginia Christianson, 635 E. Antigua, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Christianson: I have just one question, I know there are some people on the board
Commissioner Borup and others that might be able to answer my question, I have heard
from realtors that it is always better for a subdivision any kind of residential appendage
to a subdivision is better than a commercial even if it is fine doctor's offices, is that true
sir?
Johnson: I think that would be highly subjective, do you really want to make an answer?
Meridian Planning & Zc~g Commission
January 13, 1998
Page 35
Borup: Well I can answer the question, my answer would be no I don't know if I can
specifically answer that. The thing that struck me as unique here is this is the first time I
have seen a group of homeowners want to remove houses and put in office buildings, it
is usually the other way around. Before this body it has always been the other way
around.
Christianson: Why is that? You don't have an opinion on why that is?
Smith: I think it was brought up earlier it is transitional zoning is commercial or
professional offices better transitional zoning next to low density residential than a
higher density residential. Personally I don't think so but again as Chairman Johnson
stated that is a subjective call. I would like to say that you have had realtors tell you that
are they the same realtors that told you what this development was going to be when
they didn't know.
Christianson: No, they didn't know anything about it they were just making a comment
that traditionally residential better for the homes existing homes and commercial and I
didn't even know if it is was true.
Borup: The way I usually approach things like that is put it right back what would you
personally want and that I the way I think most people need to look at things. What
would you rather have yourself and assuming that enough people agree then that is the
majority I don't know a comment beyond that.
Johnson: Thank you
Frank Kelley, 512 E. Antigua, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Kelley: One thing that has been a little bit of discussion here I think is called equal to or
comparative to the existing homes that are in the subdivision. We purchased a home
there last year because of the fact we liked not only the surroundings of the place but
the good possibilities of appreciation on the home and for investment purposes. I
certainty do not feel in any way, shape or form that this quality of home would be
complementary to the appreciation on my home or any other home in existing
subdivision. Now had he had a little better proposal or better quality of home then I
could possibly agree to that. But I do have several questions on this, I have seen
children playing on that water way there and I have fished one child out of there about
12 years old one day. I hardly find that it is safe to put up anything like they are
proposing along there that would be safe for children or anyone else along that stream
of water. Number 2 I think the alley ways I think are to me degragative to the whole
area. Number 2, this gentleman quoted that there would be approximately 180 vehicle
additional per day, we don't eYCeed that much now on that street. All in all I think it is a
bad plan. I think he needs to regroup, re-plan it and come back and present it again.
We all have a good chunk of money in this again.
Meridian Planning & Zo~ Commission i
January 13, 1998
Page 36
Johnson: Any questions?
Borup: Yes, again would you rather see residential or commercial?
Kelley: I would prefer to see residential, but better quality residential by far.
Borup: And that was my other question, you made several comments that the homes
they are proposing are the same quality, but I didn't hear them propose anything
specific. Are you basing that just on the square footage or
Kelley: The type of structure and the type of people, clients that they would be drawing
to purchase those homes.
Borup: Retired, affluent.
Kelley: A little more affluent such as we have now sir.
Borup: Well that, the information that we have been given that is the target. One of the
purposes here is to gather information and understandingly we have some information
you don't have. We have a set of the covenants and what they are proposing. That
raised my question on the quality of the home. The covenants say the roof period, if you
have a the roof do you know what the cost there is. They are saying no wood siding,
they are talking maintenance free siding.
Kelley: Well what kind of siding?
Borup: Well there are several that are listed (Inaudible) and it goes on and on to some
other things. I am just questioning your quality statement unless you are basing it strictly
on size.
Kelley: No I am not basing it strictly on size because I am not privy to that information
that you have. So subsequently you are going to have 10,0000 additional questions that
I could have (inaudible) if we had that information. That is kind of compounding the
whole situation here tonight for you folks and just as well because we don't have that
information. Now I am not slamming anybody but I am just saying it would have been
very helpful had we had more information from the builder to start with. There is one
other thing I wanted to mention is this would also I feel would compound the traffic not
only at that intersection but down Antigua as well and out the other exit of the track right
in front of my home. Also I am curious about who is like this gentleman down here said
who is going to maintain those alley ways number two and number three when they pull
those berms down that is going to affect our fences back there and we have vegetation
along there which that would affect also. Which also tries to stop some of the noise off
of Overland and how is that going to affect us? That is all I have.
Meridian Planning & Zor~ Commission
January 13, 1998
Page 37
Johnson: Mr. Smith do you have any questions?
Smith: What is degradative about the alley ways?
Kelley: Because we don't have any of that in the whole subdivision right now and I don't
think that is very tasteful design work. I am only a manufacturing engineer not a civil.
But I think in design work that I have held plan on I think it looks degradative.
Smith: I am not going to get into my personal experience with this, is this just based on
your personal experience with alley ways and what you have seen with residential
development and alley way homes that were designed 30 to 40 years ago before we
started plunking these garages on the front of homes and that is the first and only thing
you really see on the front of most homes today, just kind of what you are used to
seeing.
Kelley: This is based on (inaudible) this is the fourth home I have had and so I am
basing this on what I have owned as well as other homes I have seen in other
subdivisions, the prices of subdivisions, the quality of people that they attract and etc. I
can design homes part time but I only do the artistic designs of the home not
necessarily all the civil engineering work.
Doug Hoay, 1806 SE 5~' Way, Meridian ,was sworn by the City Attorney
Hoay: Well I have heard a lot of interesting comments so far but I probably have the
best because I am the first lot after you pass that subdivision. I probably have had more
conversation with Mr. Fuller than anybody in regard to the housing or office complex
whatever. At one time I was in favor of office complex, still don't have a big problem
with it. When this came out I kind of liked what I saw then it came down and took a
closer look after we got our cert~ed letter which unfortunately not everybody got to do.
And there are some things that worried me a little bit. When you look at compatibility all
of a sudden we have a different subdivision here. I understand why, developers are in
the business to make money right. Homeowners are in the business to protect their
investment. When you look at $200,000 to $300,000 there are a lot of people in this City
that don't have businesses worth as much as those houses out there and we must
protect them. I do believe that it may have a tendency to drag down our value of our
homes. But the main thing that I am worried about is a few items. Number one is the
setback situation, I understand why they did that with the alley. But if I understand
correctly where are back to 15 feet setback from the street now with the new
subdivision, we are all on 20. So all of a sudden we are coming in with a narrower
setback situation and (inaudible) not compatible there. The next thing is we have a five
foot setback on the side lines on single dwellings and ten feet on two story. Why not
have it all the same? Well the reason is you have to cut out some square footage from
Mr. Fuller's proposal if you spread that out, everyone else in that subdivision 200 homes
plus is you have ten feet, ten feet, ten feet. I would like to see it ten feet over there. The
thing that I have heard to keep it more compatible and more with what we are used to,
Meridian Planning & Zo~g Commission
January 13, 1998
Page 38
that concept is not going to work. To do that Mr. Fuller is going to get less houses. He
has over 200 already, how many do you want. Out of that he has not put one square
foot of park space, common ground or anything else for our children to use. All we have
done is continue to expand the connector that now you can reach 80 miles and hour
before you get to my house. I would like on street, I hope they park on street, I hope
they put the garages in the front, I hope that will slow the traffic down and I don't have a
problem with that. But if they put the garages in the front we don't have a problem with
on street parking. You have a problem here, we have no on street parking on 5"' Way
that is a way to lose your car. 1700 square feet I think that is small, I think the entrance
to this subdivision needs to be perked up a little more than an alley coming in. I have
the same story that everybody else has that is going to be a Gosed street and I will take
care of it someday. None of this has happened. I think we need to have them re-draw it
and cut back some lots, make it more compatible with what we live in and go from there.
I would rather see houses, across my fence I would rather see a house than an office
complex. That is all I have, any questions?
Johnson: Thank you
Janice Avera, 942 E. St. Martin Drive, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Avera: I would like to start out by directing a question to Byron Smith, probably for my
educational benefit. It sounded like you were not in favor of the eight visitor parking
spaces planned for the culdesac and I am curious as to why since you seem to be
generally in favor of this concept. Can you explain to me?
Smith: I am in favor of the concept of parking in the back as opposed to on the street. I
am not necessarily saying that this proposal here works in that regard. It is attempting to
work that way but there are some issues here that have complicated it and maybe make
it not work quite as well as it could or should ..But the whole, they are spending a lot of
money to put alley ways behind every one of these lots and then they plunk 8 spaces in
the middle of the culdesac and 4 in this landscape area and it just seems like an after
thought to me. To me it is not a good thought through design, it needs to go back and
get refined and work out some bugs.
Avera: I was going to say I could see that some might consider it inconsistent but I know
that in some of the culdesacs down in the more recent phases of the subdivision and I
don't live in those phases, I know they have that and I have not heard whether it works
or doesn't work but it seemed if somebody were ever to give a birthday party or
Christmas party that you would need something like that for that kind of visiting. I have
several questions, my first most basic is I only count 18 lots and unless it is a typo, the
agenda says 20 lots, are there two mystery lots?
Smith• There looks like there are 2 lots that are landscape common areas
Meridian Planning & Zor~ Commission •
January 13, 1998
Page 39
Avera: I wasn't sure where they were. Will the alley be visible from Overland in terms of
on this alley way is there going to be a fence between the alley way and that
landscaping or is there a berm, will it be visible from driving down Overland will you look
through the trees and the bushes and see the backs of people's homes and their
garages and the alley way? I haven't heard that addressed and I would like to know
that. I can appreciate the realities of the market place and I understand that they want
to develop that. I certainly don't have a problem with it, I myself prefer residential of
some type over offices. I would like them to be as everyone has said somewhat more
consistent with the homes in terms of protection of property values. So I would think
frankly they squeezed a couple lots too many out of there. I do think we have some
valid safety concerns on the lots on the east side that back up to that irrigation area. I
myself have also seen some young teenagers playing in that irrigation canal, luckily I
haven't had to drag anyone out. But that would scare me that if you are putting in
houses that are 1700 square feet that are starter home size and going to be at
$180,000 versus the rest of them in the subdivision and whatever they are going for, I
am not a realtor and I don't know, that you are going to get families with children there.
And that those lots are going to back up and maybe be separated only by chain link
fence from a very fast flowing irrigation canal and I think that is a real recipe for disaster.
I think that is a problem. I guess last but not least I would want Norm Fuller to change
the name and give it some other name but I don't want this connected with Meridian
Greens. I don't want them on our poor, overburdened pressurized irrigation system. I
had to be on City water for six weeks this summer because I could not get my lawn
watered. I don't know if anybody else had as much problem but this is the first year that
it has been that difficult. So I think that should be a completely separate development,
not related, not named with Meridian Greens, not on our water supply. And if he wants
to do that fine, I still think he has too many houses and again I think there is a very real
safety concern if you have those small starter size homes backing up against an
irrigation canal.
Johnson: I have a question, we see a lot of home applications here and subdivision
applications, a starter home is around 1100 square feet these days it is not 1700.
Secondly explain to me why the name means so much to you, I don't understand it, that
sounds very uppity to me.
Avera: Yes it probably does, I think that the people in our subdivision do take pride of
home ownership and I don't know that we would classify ourselves as uppity, maybe
some of us gardening buffs like to take a little extra pride. I think everybody has pride in
the subdivision and the upkeep of it. 1 realize that the phases have slightly different
square footage amounts. I happen to be in phase two the same as Janet Brooks, I know
ours is a minimum of 2200 square feet for the house. I am more concerned that we that
the subdivision have a certain level of consistency. And I realize that there are homes in
the subdivision that don't have as large a lot as I do and mine is about a 1!3 of an acre.
I don't have a problem with that. If you currently drive through the subdivision you know
whether you are in the far south part or whether you are up in phase 1. You are in the
same subdivision, there is a certain consistency of landscaping, architecture, and it
Meridian Planning & Zd~g Commission
January 13, 1998
Page 40
flows visually. I would think that is one of the things that people want to take into
consideration and want to have continue. I personally don't have a problem with this
design with alley ways that is probably because I don't have. any personal experience
with alley ways. My concern would be as echoed before who will maintain it, we already
put a lot of money into trying to keep our pressurized irrigation system going. I am not
real keen on having another new section of the subdivision hoisted upon us here we are
going to build this you are going to have to take care of it, you have to protect yourself
against law suits if somebody's child drowns in the canal, if the irrigation system doesn't
work, if there are problems with the alley ways and suddenly we have potholes or trash
problems. I don't want to deal with that really and the rest of the subdivision doesn't
have alley ways, it is not a problem that we have to deal with. Right now our biggest
headache is usually the irrigation system. It is simply that flow and that consistency and
it is neighborhood pride. I am sorry if it sounds uppity and it is offensive, I don't think
that is how it is intended.
Johnson: Sorry I asked.
Ed Strong, 620 E. Antigua, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Strong: Tonight I would like to take a look at this drawing, tonight gentlemen you have
heard from the individual who owns this lot, you have heard from Dennis who owns this
lot and now you are going to hear from me and I own this lot. I own the smallest lot of
all of these, it is 10,000 square feet. I recognize that there are going to be houses in
there, that is a foregone conclusion. I knew there would be houses in there the day I
moved in, the day I was told it was going to be office buildings. I knew that so I bought it
knowing that full well. So what I would ask is that the minimum size of these lots be
10,000 square feet, that way it would be consistent with the lots that border it. I would
also ask that there not be an alley way behind my house because the people are going
to come in the alley and guess what we had a little snow last week and who is going to
plow the snow off of there. Who is going to run into my yard? This is a little bit of a tight
corner. Another thing nobody has asked about where are you going to put the garbage
cans, are they going out here or are they going in the alley for pick up. I don't want a
garbage truck going around back behind my house picking up garbage. Mr. Smith I
agree that this concept is good in certain areas this doesn't happen to fit with this area.
I don't have any objection to this concept but not here. I think it has its place, but I
would like to have a 10,000 square foot lot border my house. That is all I am asking, I
know you are going to put houses in there, I knew it when I moved in 1989. So a 10,000
square foot lot with a front entrance on the driveway. Or if you want you can put the
garage on the side, in the new part of the subdivision they have done some creative
development down there where you enter the garage on the side, there are some
offices on the side. They don't all enter from the front from the street. You can do that
with some of larger lots. So I would ask that you consider that and I would ask that you
send this back to the developer removing the alley way and increasing the lot size to a
minimum of 10,000 square foot lots. Yes it will reduce the amount of money that the
developer makes, the objective of a developer is to make money. That is why we all
Meridian Planning & Zor~ Commission
January 13, 1998
Page 41
work to make money to support what we want to do. I am asking you to reduce the
amount of income that he is going to get because that way I feel like my house value
will remain the same. My house is 2375 square feet, this gentleman's house right here
is a little over 1900, I believe he has the smallest house in phase one. So if you would
turn it back and request 10,000 square foot lots, with no alley way I would appreciate it.
Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Strong? Thank you
H. Lee Seegmiller, 512 E. Whitehall Street, Meridian, was swum by the City Attorney.
Seegmiller: I would like to add my concerns to those previously voiced about the lot
sizes and the congestion. I won't go into that, we have heard much of that. But I do
want to ask some questions about utility. For instance how do we get a fire struck down
that alley and around the comers. What about police protection with this type of
situation, does that add to the problems of patrol? Will a garbage truck make the turns.
I am awful concerned about parking along SE 5~h for the houses along the East side
particularly. I can't believe that there won't be a lot of cars parked along that street.
And in bad weather the streets become narrower as you know because of the snow and
problems at the curbs. So I can foresee that there could be a number of problems with
congestion and also some safety issues in terms of fire protection.
(End of Tape)
M. Heitner, 767 E. Kingsford Drive, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Heitner: I picked out the lot in Meridian Greens in the beginning of 1992 and I dealt
directly with Norm Fuller because I hadn't picked out a builder yet. He told me I am the
only one he told this to evidently, it was going to be a park. He wasn't sure about a
swimming pool probably not a swimming pool because of the liability involved in running
a swimming pool, but we would work out some kind of a park situation there. I think it is
criminal, I was born in New York and I know I should be very suspicious of everything
but I have gotten used to the western atmosphere and I believe people. I think it is kind
of criminal that I have to get in writing from a developer what he promises me when I
buy land. I built my house according to the covenants of the subdivision and when you
think it doesn't matter what this proposed subdivision looks Tike when you enter this is
the entrance or one of the proposed entrances a main entrance to our subdivision. And
you tell somebody I live in Meridian Greens, I have worked a lot of years to be able to
afford to buy a house in Meridian Greens that I am proud of. I am proud of the way all of
my neighbors keep their homes. Maybe it is snotty, maybe I don't know what you want
to call it, but it is nice to know we live there. Now to have something that, you live where
with what you paid for your house and you live where? The entrance to our subdivision
is the crummiest of any subdivision in the area regardless of price. Hunter's Point is
prettier, Sportsman Pointe is prettier and their houses run for less money. The idea that
we would have something now that is cheaper than any of the subdivisions that abut us
to me is an affront. I don't know why when you have as many people who have invested
Meridian Planning & Zc~g Commission
January 13, 1998
Page 42
their hard earnings in homes in our subdivision that we should have to put up with a
developer just because he is greedy and wants to make more money. Well excuse me
that is wrong. I think he should be held to, alright he is not going to. put in a park but at
least put in homes that meet the same standards as the rest of the subdivision. If I
wanted to live in an apartment complex I would have bought a condo on the other side
of Meridian. I don't think we should be subjected to that. It may sound snotty but I don't
think there is anything wrong with having pride in where you live. I don't think that the
proposal as it stands now will make me want to ever come in that entrance. I will go
down to the other entrance and there are expensive homes on Overland at the other
entrance. We are 5"' Way and they are 3`' Way, there are homes that come right up to,
there are shrubs and stuff, but there are homes that meet the requirements of the
existing subdivision that are right off Overland. 1 don't know why our new homes here
couldn't be the same requirement as in Unit No. 2. Questions?
Johnson: Thank you, we are glad you have been influenced by the Western atmosphere
we appreciate it.
Don Stilfwaugh, 1822 SE 5"' Way, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Stillwaugh: I live in the third house down from this subdivision on 5`h Way. When I
bought my lot all the other houses were built around there and that lot was vacant and I
had a lot of questions why it was vacant and I talked to Mr. Fuller. He too told me the
same stories and I think the word park was mentioned in that conversation just for the
record. I too am a realist and knew that he would probably build houses someday. He
did tell me one thing when I talked to him when I asked him the question why didn't you
build houses there? The answer was nobody wants a house next to an equipment
company. Well the way you solve that is you build more expensive houses and then you
sell cheaper houses next to it. It is easier, you can't sell a more expensive house in the
middle of the cheaper. So you build the more expensive and then you build the cheaper
houses and then you can sell them and then people will live next to an equipment
company. The solution that I see having driven in and out of there many times and
believe I think there should be something there, I am tired of just garbage over there
and dirt. We have a big berm beside Meridian Greens that the homeowners association
takes care. Move that berm down next to Meridian and take care of a large lot, we can
take care of that and have it mowed, irrigated, and then make the lots 10,000 square
feet or larger and bring that, it will automatically make the houses nicer. It is not
snobbish it is economics. My house is a certain amount, you build a house of a lower
value next to it and I tell you
Johnson: My word was uppity not snobbish
Stillwaugh: I wouldn't know how to be uppity 9nyhow, but I don't think anybody is in
Idaho. It is just economics, we are trying to maintain the value of our homes. ;think
they have done a nice job on this but I don't think it meets what we would like to see.
When they did Hunts Bluff behind us the lot sizes were issues, we came before here
Meridian Planning & Zor~ Commission •
January 13, 1998
Page 43
and talked about the lot sizes, the developer even agreed to increase the size of the
homes, they didn't change the lot sizes. There was also some discussion about the fact
that the lots were so small that they would have to build two story houses and the
developer stood in here artd told people that he wasn't going to build two story houses
on the lots next to them. Unfortunately that didn't become a covenant and he built two
story houses. Now the view of the mountains is blocked but that is our fault for not doing
that. But the standard was set that the consistency between Meridian Greens and the
adjacent lots was set at that time that (inaudible) in the covenants as far as the types.
My suggestion would be to move the berm down let Meridian Greens maintain it and
make bigger lots so people don't have to live next to Meridian road.
Johnson: Thank you, any questions?
Dale Wocicki, 612 W. Antigua Drive, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Wocicki: I would like to address Commissioner Smith's question about why an alley
doesn't work here. I think maybe an alley does work if that is the way you start a new
subdivision. But I am an adjacent property owner and I think what we are going to end
up with is everybody that lives on the north side of Antigua Drive is not going to have
traffic flow both out the front door and the back door. When we talk about resale or
living along Overland Road, what has that done to our property now when we have
resale and we have traffic flowing front and back? I guess that is my response to why
you think and alley doesn't vwork in this development.
Smith: Did I say why doesn't an alley work or what is your disagreement with an alley in
this situation.
Wocicki: Either one that is my disagreement with an alley, I am going to have traffic
flowing both front and back.
Smith: I think there are some obvious reasons to me anyway why an alley doesn't
work. The longer we sit here the less I am willing, this is a concept that I feel very
strongly about that I think is a good design concept and I think it works very well. But
unfortunately in this particular application I have been trying to cling to it the longer I
can, the more willing I am to see a good concept compromised by my opinion again
poor design application.
Clarence Appleford, 86 E. Antilles, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Appleford: First of all I would like to address your uppity comment, I picked comment
for my home and I believe I have the right to be uppity. I am the gentleman that was
going to talk about the irrigation system in the existing Meridian Greens Tract. What
portion of it is served by pressurized irrigation system now is very poorly served. The
system that was initially put in there was not properly designed, it didn't serve anybody's
interest but the builder that put it in, he satisfied someone's requirement. Last year we
Meridian Planning & Zo`g Commission •
January 13, 1998
Page 44
did a complete redesign and reconstruct, I was involved in that. I am also doing the
maintenance and overseeing of the irrigation system. Today we can't maintain pressure
that will irrigate the entire tract at any one given time. We can't cut off half the people
and irrigate the tract. His proposal just won't work. The system that is in there today we
upgraded pumping capacity as much as we could feasibly at the time. The next time if
we ever have to do that again it will be a lot more than $12,000. Unfortunately we can't
dig up the pipe and redo the piping system. The piping system is inadequate, should
have been reviewed, it is unfortunate that system was not required to be reviewed by a
good, competent mechanical engineer that did irrigation systems because it is not good.
We are fighting that system and the people that are there now, and I have heard a lot of
testimony, the people that are there now have teamed to live pretty much we irrigate
pretty much in the middle of the night. And gardeners will tell you that is not a good idea
for your lawn, but we do it. In addition to that a comment made by Mr. Fuller, I was at
the board meeting that Mr. Fuller proposed this addition to us. His comment was
couldn't sell the homes if he left the lots the same size as those lots in the rest of the
tract. Meaning probably 10,000 to 12,000 square feet. Norm, there are homes all
around you on lots like that and some that you built that were sold. And he left. As Mrs.
Heitner said there are homes constructed to the older, larger standard, they were sold
they are being occupied right now by him in tracts next door adjacent to them on either
side there are these homes. I am not against, I believe that homes fit well there, I
believe that a 10,000 to 12,000 square foot lot fits there. I am not so sure that the alley
way innovation is appropriate because I think there is a problem with heavy equipment
and namely the fire equipment and the garbage equipment. I think that you also impose
traffic into someone else's backyard which may or may not create a problem of people
coming across that fence. Not a good idea. By the way, the 20 lots on 7 acres, I heard
the comment earlier that these lots were large. WeII 20 lots on 7 acres minus streets,
curbs and gutters is a very small lot. That is small.
Johnson: It is much larger than the average lot, the density is 2.87 or whatever it is on
this and that is a much lower density than most of the subdivisions in Meridian. That is
just for your edification because I know you never get into those subdivisions I want you
to know they are there.
Appleford: I not only get into them I came from them.
Borup: Mr. Appleford, you were talking about on the irrigation system is the source of
the water is that coming from the irrigation canal or are there any separate wells?
Appleford: It is all canal water, we have a header that goes over
Borup: At the present time does it cover the whole subdivision 100%?
Appleford• No, he did the first going in the tract up to SE 5"'
Borup: So the first phase probably 1 and 2 did not have it?
Meridian Planning & Zo~g Commission
January 13, 1998
Page 45
Appleford: Well approximately Y the tract is presently serviced, the other portion of the
tract back on the backside now it is under consideration for them. They would have to
build their own vault, they vi~ould have to build their entire system. It is a back fit and it is
very costly.
Borup: That is what I was questioning, it has not been the requirement of the City of
Meridian until the last few years to have a (inaudible) at the present time it is owned and
maintained by the homeowners association.
Appleford: Yes it is and I don't know how he would go about connecting to our system,
that is another question I have. How is he going to connect to a system that we own
and maintain, operate and pay the bills, you are going to have to tell me that fellows.
Borup: Thank you
Johnson: Someone else?
Randy Winn, 2911 Teton Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Winn: I am just here to address some of the concerns that the homeowners have.
Believe me we wanted to know what those concerns were. A couple of issues well
several issue it looks Tike, the number one issue was the alley way. When vre first, when
I talked to Norm about the design of what we wanted to do up there he approached me
and sure there was some talk about some offices. But I told him that may not be the
best thing for Meridian Greens. Again that was just my voice. He said he thought it
would be better if we went with some homes as well. His idea was to go ahead and stay
with what the first phase had as far as the conditions and covenants which was a 1700
square foot minimum. We also discussed the fact that the garages on the front of the
homes would actually make the homes look smaller and that it would be more in tune
probably for the benefit for the homeowners to put the garages in the back. That way
giving a more appealing, aesthetic design on the front of the home. Apparently that isn't
something that the homeowners want, so I will definitely bring that to his attention. I
think there was talk that there would be a separate homeowners association, at one we
had talked about that but he mentioned he thought the Meridian Greens name would be
something that the people would like to see on that because of the fact that we were
addressing the homes at a higher standard than what the first phase was. That was
including the the roofs; versus the shake which a lot of people when they came into the
subdivision weren't real thrilled that there were shake roofs on the homes. They wanted
to go with asphalt shingles. I made a comment that if we were to dress the subdivision
up in the front that we should go with the more expensive material and that would a the
roof. We also had concern as far as the exterior of the homes not just with the garages
being in the front of the homes but with the material that is placed on the homes. We
talked about possibly going all stucco on homes, that is a definite if somebody wanted
to do that they could go with all stucco or all brick. They could go with the vinyl siding
Meridian Planning & Zor>•Commission
January 13, 1998
Page 46
but we would allow them to put something or be mandatory that they put either brick or
stucco on the front of the homes. The 1700 square foot minimum there again we felt
that was in line with the first phase and there again knowing that the homeowners would
have some question as to'why we would do that it was simply because we didn't feel
that we could market a home that was over that in the front of the subdivision. The fact
remains that if the builder was going to get greedy on this he would definitely go with
office buildings. I don't think that was in his mind to get the most out of this that he
could as far as the monetary value. As far as the pressurized irrigation system I am not
really sure what he had planned there. That apparently is another concern that I think
should be addressed. As far as property values go I think that if anybody would like to
question that the fact remains that homes that are appraised aren't appraised by the,
they are appraised by square footage but they are appraised by comparable homes in
the area. I know there is a question well these aren't comparable. Well if you have a
2500 square foot home they are not going to use a 1700 square foot home as
comparable. They will address the other homes that have sold in the subdivision that
were 2500 square feet or more right in that size. The newer phase or the third phase I
should say, we have actually increased the square footage on that to 2400 square feet
with the minimum of $250,000 or $225,000. Some of the lots in the subdivision have
actually increased the value of the homes starting at $250,000. That in itself is going to
give the increase that these people are wanting in the value of their home. I think that if
it is the consensus of the homeowners to go with a commercial value in the front then
that is something that the developer would look at. What we intended on doing the
whole intent was to make a very nice entrance. The question of the fence going up
against Overland Road that is a question that I will definitely come back with and see if
they would be interested in doing that. The mounding I believe on the landscape plans
is to mound the front of the subdivision as well. The name of the subdivision, when we
first talked about this, you had asked me if it would be better to have the names
Meridian Greens I said it would probably be better to leave it as something else but
incorporate the Meridian Greens name such as patio homes at Meridian greens or
something like that. I feel that, there has to be a transition between an industrial
situation to a larger residential area. Now I am not sure that it would be appropriate to
go with too much higher if any higher at all in lot size. That is my feeling as a realtor and
it is not because I make more money at it, I can make more money if we go ahead and
put the offices in. That is not the point, the point is that Mr. Fuller did intend on making
this a very attractive entrance for the homeowners at Meridian Greens. We just weren't
sure what to do with it. The homeowners I think at one time were offered to buy the
property if they wanted to but a park there if they wanted to go ahead and put tennis
courts or whatever they wanted. I don't think that is something that they wanted to do,
and I don't blame it is not a cheap venture. I just think that in all fairness you have to
understand that the builder, the developer is not trying to down grade the subdivision at
all, he isn't. His whole idea was to give it a more attractive, he just wasn't sure what to
do with it. We felt that if we went with a littler higher, well actually it is not a higher
density but a more compatible use for people, there have been several people that have
some through the subdivision that really didn't need that size of lot but loved the quality,
loved that Meridian Greens. Granted they can be a little uppity if they would like
Meridian Planning & Zo~ Commission •
January 13, 1998
Page 47
because that subdivision has made a name for itseff in the last 10 years. I think there
are a lot of people that would prefer to have smaller lot but have Meridian Greens as
well. I would be able to answer any questions if you had any. This was, Norm Fuller
didn't even know I was coming up here, this is just on my own accord, so I am happy to
answer any questions.
Johnson: Thank you, any questions of Mr. Winn?
Borup: Yes Mr. Chairman, I had some that I was going to ask the engineer, but it may
be, you are speaking as the marketing agent?
Winn: I am a marketing agent for the builders, the development has no market I don't
market the lots myself, I just market the homes in the subdivision. If people are
interested in the lots I give them the information.
Borup: Maybe you will answer a couple of these then. At this time is it intended that the
lots would be on the open market or is it going to be closed on the construction end?
Winn: This is something that vre haven't discussed yet, we weren't sure if that would be
a favorable way to go, just to leave it to one developer or would it be better to go ahead
and sell them on the open market. There again I think that is a good question because
the one reason we wanted Meridian Greens name on there is because we wanted the
Meridian Greens people to have a say in what went in there. If we didn't have Meridian
Greens name on there and we just left it open as a different subdivision then we
wouldn't have as much to say about that particular subdivision if we sold it out.
Borup: Do you know when Mr. Fuller spoke to the group earlier did they bring any
conceptual plans of houses going in or are you familiar?
Vann: I haven't even seen the plans yet, this is the first time I have seen the plans. But I
had been looking at some that I thought would be favorable.
Borup: This was some stuff that was put in our packet, it sounds like this information did
not go out. You had mentioned the different name, is that something that is still open
for discussion with the developer or is that something you are able to comment on?
Winn: I am not sure that I can comment on that on his behalf but I think that if that is
something that the association wants it would definitely something that I would refer
back to him and see if that couldn't be something that could be worked out.
Borup: How far along did the office discussion get, did he pursue that very fai?
Venn: Well I came into the subdivision three year; ago to start marketing their homes.
At that point there was discussion as to what we should do there. He had been
approached by some people to put offices there. At one point we thought that we might
Meridian Planning & Zor` Commission •
January 13, 1998
Page 48
have. But then I started talking to some of the homeowners that were in the area that
came through the open houses and asked me what we were planning on doing there.
Well I told them that I would favorably like to see homes but there was some discussion
that maybe offices would be an option.
Borup: I meant more at present time, has he given serious consideration to that?
Winn: No
Borup: At this point, I have been keeping track a little bit it looks like it is split about
50/50 on what people would like to see there.
Winn: If I had known a little more about that we may have gone in with a different
concept altogether.
Johnson: Thank you, anyone else that would like to come forward at this time?
Dave Channer, 2567 SE 5~" Way, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Channer: I have just jotted down a couple of things and feel that it is just based on my
experience for whatever it is worth. It seems to me, I am new to the subdivision, moved
there less than a month, I am in the new section minimum square footage of 2400
square feet. I looked around, I looked at Banbury, Island Woods, Hobble Creek and
decided to stay in Meridian. Interesting I asked Chuck what they were going to do with
the entrance and he turned to Norm and said Norm what are you going to do. Norm
said I don't know. So for whatever it is worth. I disagree based on some of the I guess
they are nothing more than opinions, so I will disagree with some of the opinions that
there has to be a transition. Going through the other subdivisions through Island Woods
they have a berm and it is big berm. Maybe it is not only to keep the noise down from
Eagle Road, maybe it is partially due to flood control but it is a large berm. The berm at
Hobble Creek, the berm at Bristol Heights there are tons of them. I would not be in favor
of a fence along Overland Road, I don't think it would do any good. Drive along the
freeway and see what has happened to the fence. It is 20 years old it is falling down, it
is a real eye sore. It just seems to me that after listening to everyone here tonight that at
feast from the homeowners perspective this is a very simple fix. I cannot understand, in
fact some of the implications that I have inferred from some of the comments that it
almost seems that you folks are defensive on this project trying to stand up for it. But
the fix is simple, just make it look like the rest of the subdivision. I do not understand
why there is so much flak or push back for that concept. Make them 10,000 square foot
lots, just make it look like the rest and put a big berm up there, like you see in Banbury
and Island Woods and all of the subdivisions where those homes cost a lot of money.
That is, I can't say it any simpler. I think a person would have to be brain dead not to
see what the homeowners want. You probably have some competing interests and you
have got to take other things into consideration. I hope it has come through loud and
clear tonight, I mean it has come through loud and clear sitting here as a new
Meridian Planning & Zo~ Commission •
January 13, 1998
Page 49
homeowner. For whatever it is worth I think it is a very simple fix, I would just send
them back and make it look like the rest.
Borup: You are saying you would like to see a large berm along Overland and then
increase the lot sizes.
Channer: It might leave him only three building lots, I don't know how much it would
leave him.
Borup: It would probably eliminate one from looking at the plat. There are only 4 lots
that are under 10,000 square feet (inaudible). The other comment and again we don't
have a vested interest in this either way. And a couple of things you mentioned about
houses being right up against Banbury and Hobble Creek that definitely is true. But the
price range of the houses are 40 to 50% under the other houses in the interior of the
same subdivision and that is just kind of a general rule.
Channer: I think the bigger berm you put out there the more easily you will be able to
market it .
Borup: Well the houses in Banbury against Chinden are considerably under (inaudible)
Channer: I even have some dirt on my lot that I would give to Norm, he could move it
out there.
Borup: I am saying with or without a berm it happens that way and it is just economics,
they don't sell.
Johnson: Thank you, anyone else? Is there anyone that hasn't testified that wants to?
Strong: I can say nothing and take a long time doing it. Just a question, are the 10,000
square foot lots is that the actual building size or does that include the alley ways or the
coverage over the laterals?
Johnson: That is a question we will put to the developer, I have got kind of a short list
here for him to respond to.
Strong: That is one question and I would like a 10,000 minimum building lot not
including right of ways.
Johnson: But you do want the same definition you have on your lot right?
Strong: That is correct and I would also like to have a question as to when a decision
will be made regarding the alley ways, because it does impact those of us that live
along that area. As a previous speaker said we have traffic on both sides, I just want to
Meridian Planning & Zor~ Commission •
January 13, 1998
Page 50
know so I can sell my house and I would like to know as quick as possible. So I would
like to know when a decision will be made.
Johnson: Anyone else?
Bertetto: He asked a question about the alley ways and I speak from a little bit of
experience about that. I was president of a homeowners association with 500 homes
and there was 1.9 miles of street that somehow when the builder came in he deeded
that to the homeowners which you want to repair X amount of street costs you a lot of
money and the town we lived in didn't assume responsibility. So my question was when
I asked about the alley ways was important because as a homeowner if this thing gets
finagled to us and I have seen it happen over the different phases if they are going to
put in any streets in or anything that I think they should belong to the City to keep track
of not the homeowners.
Johnson: Thank you, anyone else? Is the person that did the presentation still here? If
you would grab the microphone please and you are free to respond anything you want.
One of the questions that repeatedly came up or at least came up once because I wrote
it down was the alley ownership and the maintenance of that. I believe you have
addressed that in your application as being an assessment for that owned by the
homeowners association. Why don't you elaborate on that, because that is what your
application says.
Carnahan: The application as proposed does call for those alley ways to be ingress
egress easements. One of the comments from the Meridian staff was to make that a
common open lot that would be part of the homeowners association. I think that is the
direction that it is headed right now.
Johnson: I am not sure that you answered my question.
Carnahan: Yes I believe that the homeowners association will be responsible for the
maintenance of the alley ways.
Johnson: There was some verbiage that I wanted to clarify in the application. If you
would answer Mr. Strong's question about the definition of a 10,000 square foot lot,
what is the definition?
Carnahan: The square foot area shown on the displays include the alley ways.
Johnson: I had one other question here if l can locate it. Mr. Appleford made a comment
that I would like to see if you had an answer to, that is how would you connect to the
pressurized irrigation system there. How can it physically be done, I am sure you
researched that right?
Meridian Planning & Zor~ Commission •
January 13, 1998
Page 51
Camahan: I believe the intent of the developer was that this would be part of the
existing homeowners association and that they would work with them on a new system
and be able to connect with them. As (inaudible) phases that. are developed the
homeowners association takes in the new subdivisions that are developed.
(Inaudible)
Bertetto: Again I think, I don't know if there are any original people here but when
whatever the phase I was in like I said the 6~" house that was there when we put in the
other ones that board of directors made Mr. Fuller put in everything to our expectations
what needed to be done. At this point we are saying something different. So I think Mr.
Fuller makes a lot of promises and you fellows haven't been here over the years, only
Jim. There are a lot of things that go on and probably at the Sunrise Cafe or what have
you that dealings are discussed and then all of a sudden they are presented to us as if
we want it. So I think, I want to make that clear is that what happens is all these
promises. We just want to be aware of all of these things and maybe now with the new
Council and new guys we can get things done the right way.
Johnson: Did you have anything else to add? On the CC&R's that you submitted, it
says owners of lots in Meridian Greens Subdivision Unit No. 4 shall be charged an
additional assessment for the alley in Unit No. 4 and you kind of gave me a reaction like
you didn't know that.
Carnahan: Well I looked through covenants and I hadn't remembered that exactly that
way, but that is what we are proposing, yes.
Johnson: Does anyone else have any questions of the developer's representative?
Smith: I just have a comment on the plat as it is presented. Because of my working with
the alley way concept in other developments I was really when I first looked at this
application I was impressed that somebody is finally coming forward and do a
development like this. But I have looked this thing over for some time and trying to
figure out a way to make it work it just doesn't work. This alley way around on the west
side of the property, it backs up to lots that can't even use it because their homes
weren't designed to use an alley. They are single loaded alley, they don't work they are
not efficient. All of these alleys are single loaded alleys they need to be double loaded
alleys, they are more efficient. I think they work better when they are in a more urban
setting with a higher density development. I sure as hell wouldn't want a house backed
up to that alley that couldn't even access it. It just doesn't work in this particular
application. I think that the whole plat map is predicated on that concept and that
approach. I am, I think that some kind of transitional zoning can work here, I don't think
that there has to be, I am not saying apartments or condors or something like that. But
something that is complimentary to or the same as existing development would be
something that would be appropriate for this development. If you look at the area,
everything on the south side of Overland here is residential. Professional office
Meridian Planning & Zo~ Commission
January 13, 1998
Page 52
buildings don't fit and if somebody comes in and wants to put professional office
buildings on this site I will not support, I will just go on record saying that. That is
basically, I can appreciate most of the comments that were made tonight. I would like to
see them kind of go back and address those concerns.
Johnson: We have actually two items that deal with this item #9 and #10 and just for
you people that aren't familiar with the way we operate. We would gladly incorporate
your testimony when we get to item #10 when we get to that public hearing so we don't
have to go through this again. One of the applications was for a preliminary plat and the
other is for a conditional use permit. We do combine those two in the testimony because
a lot of your comments tonight didn't have anything to do with the plat. If no one else
has a comment at this point.
Kelley: Mr. Smith I want to compliment on your viewpoint, I think you have very good
taste as far as what you are saying about this type of design and what you are saying
also that it is more suitable to other situations other geographic locations other than next
to where we are at. I do have, I am schooled also in real estate appraisal but
nonetheless I just want you to know that I compliment you on that.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I did have a follow up, I had about 6 items you asked most of
them to the applicant. Has there been any consideration of a separate stand alone
homeowners association for this phase rather than combining with the existing?
Carnahan: We didn't go either way.
Borup: Well you probably got some direction from this group tonight on which way.
Then have you in concept designing has there been some look at designing this without
the alley ways?
Carnahan: I believe on some of the earlier concepts just to get a starting point there
were some other ideas looked at. Again the whole idea was to create an appealing
entrance (End of Tape)
Borup:... on the west side you get the same street scape with or without the alley. On
the east side, you are talking seven driveways entering rather than one. That would
probably be the difference in concept. I kind of got the feeling that that was the majority
of the residents there would like to see it go, so maybe that is something you may want
the developer to look at. That was all of the questions I had. A couple of other
comments. Just something I would like to - on the record, I think there is a need for
upper end construction on smaller lots. This may or may not be the subdivision, but I
think for what they are proposing, I don't think it is incompatible. You get some retired
people that maybe just don't want a third of an acre to mow, but want to have a nice
quality home. And there is really not a lot of places around Meridian, anyway, for that to
go. And I don't know all of the things that Norm Fuller has promised everybody when
they moved in. But I do know the reason that Meridian Greens has a nice name is
Meridian Planning & Zor+ Commission •
January 13, 1998
Page 53
because of what he did years ago: He started that subdivision when the market was not
like it has been the last few years. He forced a lot of what's - he forced that subdivision
to the standards of what it is now by him going in and building. all the homes and
building the large homes and putting the price on them. And you have got -Meridian
Greens has an outstanding name. Everyone here -almost everyone here has repeated
that. I think that's why because of a lot of the stuff he did. Apparently he is not pleading
everybody with wha# he is doing here, and at this point, I am not sure how I feel either
way. I think that's something that I just wanted to mention because of the stuff he's
done in the past and why you have the subdivision that you do, and I think he was
concerned about the subdivision as a whole. If he wanted to make money selling lots,
especially when he started, he would have done the lots half the size they are and sold
twice as many. I think he was trying to build a nice community.
Johnson: Okay, thanks.
Smith: Just one quick comment in contrast to what Commissioner Borup just mentioned
is you're really concerned about that entry street and access and houses fronting,
maybe you consider a little bit larger and pulling the garages behind the house, not
necessarily sticking them all the way back so everybody along the back side is upset
about them again. You know, you don't have to have them right on the front of the
house either.
Johnson: I never let anybody testify three times, Mr. Strong. I've never let that happen.
Strong: Thank you, sir. I'm just a first timer here. See, I don't know the rules yet.
Johnson: The rules are, the staff gets up and walks out when you testify three times.
They don't listen to you.
Strong: That's all right. I would just like -there was a comment made that there was
majority of the people on the west side that opposed the alley. It is not a majority, it is
unanimous.
Johnson: That's a majority.
Strong: No, it's not.
Johnson: Majority is one more than fifty percent.
Strong: I think the majority of the people would not like to see an alley.
Johnson: Now, that's correct. All four of us have property against there and all four of
us don't want the alley.
Meridian Planning & Zo~ Commission .
January 13, 1998
Page 54
Johnson: Good, okay. I'm closing this public hearing now. What's your pleasure? This
was really because of the order of the Agenda was the preliminary plat which would be
right for us probably not to take any action, but we should move to the conditional use.
It's up to you. It's your pleasure.
Borup: I'd like to see another plat myself.
Smith: One question 1 forgot to ask the applicant...
Johnson: Maybe I can answer it for you.
Borup: ...what their feeling is. Would their preference be to rework this or take their
chances on the way it is.
Johnson: I can't answer that for you.
Borup: Oh. I just remember the last time I asked that question, the whole thing
withdrew and it wasn't on the subject either.
Johnson: It was on a bar in an industrial zone. Well, you guys have the floor, so what
would you like to do?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup and I would like to give the developer a
chance to go back and address these concerns and reapply with a new plat.
Borup: So, would that be appropriate to table this and give him an opportunity to do
that?
Johnson: Well, he's under no -
Borup: Well, we realize that. He may just want to return the same one as it is.
Johnson: He's not compelled to do that.
Borup: That's his option also.
Johnson: I think actually your action has to be a recommendation to the City Council
because this item is for the preliminary plat.
Borup: We can't table it?
Johnson: Sure you can.
Meridian Planning & Zer`~ Commission
January 13, 1998
Page 55
Borup: But would that be a separate -would that be a separate -maybe ask Sheri that.
Would that be a separate application if it was redesigned, or could that still be under the
existing application?
Johnson: In other words, he's asking probably, "Would that require separate notice, etc.
Stiles: I think as long as you make that a part of the continuance of a public hearing to
ask them to revise it and submit it, everybody here is notified of that and wouldn't
require additional application.
Johnson: I'm thinking of the time factor, is what I'm thinking.
Borup: You know, it will add another month.
Stiles: Are you talking complete redesign of the project or some -
Borup: Well, the size of the project is not going to change. He's got the same amount of
acreage. But we're talking -
Johnson: Until you see what it is, you don't know how substantial the change would be.
Borup: Right.
Stiles: Depending on the changes that were required, it may have to submit a totally
new application.
Johnson: You can table it with a stipulation the applicant and staff meet prior to our
next meeting and they can work out perhaps whether they want to do that or not. But
you can't tell them what to do.
Borup: No, I realize that.
Smith: Well, I think that the comments made warrant substantial changes.
Prior: Then you are going to have to have another public hearing if you are going to
have substantial changes. It's the way it's going to be.
Smith: Hey, I didn't design it. I'm sorry.
Borup: Another consideration for this body is if it is in compliance with zoning and with
the comprehensive plan. Now, if we limit ourselves to that.
Smith: Well, then we just wasted three hours too.
Johnson: It depends on your point of view. I'm waiting. Do something please.
Meridian Planning & Zd`g Commission •
January 13, 1998
Page 56
Borup: Mr. Chairman, is there anybody here that can speak on behalf of the developer,
and maybe give any input on what their preference may be?
Johnson: As I told you I would have to reopen the public hearing. Are you asking me
to do that?
Borup: I know that. Let me think about that.
Borup: Yeah, if everyone here promises not to come up again. (Inaudible)
Johnson: This is a real formal hearing tonight I can tell. Okay, I will reopen the public
hearing at this time then. You may ask the developer a question if you wish, or his
representative.
Borup: Is there a preference from the developer, can you speak to that?
Carnahan: I will try. We have two options, either voting on the concept as presented or
tabling it for a month to rethink things or regroup possibly.
Borup: The vote would not actually be tonight, it would be next month.
Camahan: Next month. Then the only question other than that that has been raised is
if we do significant changes are we still under the same application, or would we have to
resubmit?
Stiles: I think if the changes are significant to the point that the entire roadways are
moved, things like that, if lots are made bigger to accommodate larger houses, things
like that, with the same configuration of roads, I don't think that you would need to do a
new application. But it sounds like what they are asking you to do is going to require
significant change, then you have the option of going ahead and continuing with the
recommendation to the Council to deny it, or you know, whatever that may be.
Johnson: But if there are significant changes, all the agencies involved, ACHD etc.,
need to have an opportunity to respond. That's why it is going to be difficult to avoid, in
my opinion, re-notify.
Borup: And I'm not sure what Mr. Smith had in mind, but I can see where it can be
done with existing roadways like they are, without changing the road.
Smith: Fifth is kind of ...
Borup: That's gonna...
Smith: ... is where it's got to go
Meridian Planning & Zot~ Commission
January 13, 1998
Page 57
Borup: You've only got one road.
Smith: It might shift a couple of feet one way or the other, but that's the way it's got to
go.
Borup: You've only got one road in there, one street.
Smith: So I guess my thought was that it could be redesigned with existing roadways,
with either very minor or -
Johnson: You can incorporate all that in your motion if you wish assuming you want to
make a motion.
Smith: well, (guess -
Carnahan: I don't want to lock him in -
Smith: I don't think you ever answered the question, did you?
Borup: Well I was trying to get more information than - 1 think that the idea of tabling it
and letting us soak in what we've heard tonight and to talk to the developer and see
what we can do would probably be the favored option for us.
Johnson: Now, I'll Gose the public hearing.
Borup: It makes it easier for us to make a decision or motion.
Johnson: Doesn't make it any easier.
Borup: Make a motion.
Smith: I move we table this application, give the applicant a chance to rework the
project and present it at the next meeting.
Borup: Second.
Johnson: We have a motion to table this item and permit the applicant an opportunity to
discuss with staff so tabled to the date certain of February 10, 1998. All in favor of the
motion? Oppose?
MOTION CARRIED: All yea.
ITEM NO. 10: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
FOR MERIDIAN GREENS UNIT N0. 4 BY FULLER SCOTT INVESTMENT CO. - NE
OF MERIDIAN GREENS UNIT NO. 1
Meridian Planning & Zo~j Commission
January 13, 1998
Page 58
Johnson: Quickly, I will open the public hearing for item number ten. We need to do
this as a formality, if nothing else. It's the same applicant. It's a conditional use permit.
If someone would like to testify on this item, anything additional, you are welcome to do
so. If the applicant would please address the podium and be sworn, and we ask for
prior testimony to be incorporated if that's your desire.
DON CARNAHAN was sworn in by City Attorney.
Carnahan: I need to make a request that my testimony from my previous item be
included in this item. I would like to do that.
Johnson: Yes, that would help. Okay. Thank you. Doe anyone else want to say
anything? Yes, sir, Mr. Piper.
DENNIS PIPER was sworn by the City Attorney.
Piper: I'd like to have my previous statement on item number nine incorporated into the
conditional use permit please.
Johnson: Okay, and in your statement you are referring to your written statement.
Piper: Written statement and oral statement.
Johnson: Thank you. Okay, anything else? Anybody else? At this point I'll close the
public hearing. I'll close this public hearing.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we table this item to February 10rn
to be heard concurrently with item number nine which was tabled as well.
Borup: Second.
Johnson: Motion is seconded. Table this item number ten as was item number nine.
All in favor of that? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All yea.
Johnson: In the interest in time I am going to skip quickly to item number thirteen. That
is an executive privilege here so we can get that out of the way. I don't anticipate any
testimony.
ITEM NO. 13 -REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.13 ACRES TO C-G
BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC - NW CORNER OF EAGLE ROAD AND MAGIC VIEW
DRIVE:
Meridian Planning & Zo~ Commission S
January 13, 1998
Page 59
Johnson: I will now open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to
reply. Seeing no one - we have had a request for a deferral on this item, and that is
why the people aren't here, so we'll continue public hearing. We will not close it, and
defer to the date certain of February 10, 1998.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we defer this item to February
10"'.
Borup: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded. We defer item number 13 and continue the public
hearing until February 10, 1998. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All yea.
Johnson: Item 14 is related. Same thing. I will now open this public hearing. This is a
REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHEVRON C-STORE,
MACDONALD'S W/DRIVE UP WINDOW AND IDAHO POWER COMPANY CREDIT
UNION W/DRIVE UP BANKING BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC - NW CORNER OF
EAGLE AND MAGIC VIEW DRIVE:
Is there anyone here that would like to testify on item number 14, and again, we
have a request for a deferral on this item. Seeing no one then, 1 will continue this
public hearing with a motion, if that's your pleasure.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we defer this public hearing
and continue this public hearing until February 10`"
Borup: Second
Johnson: Motion and second to defer this item number 14 until February 10, 1998. All
in favor. Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All yea.
Johnson: Item number 11 we will move into now is a public hearing REQUEST FOR A
PRELIMINARY PLAT, 48 LOTS FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY
STEINER DEVELOPMENT - NW OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1:
I will open this public hearing and invite the applicant or the applicant's representative to
address the commission.
STEVE BRADBURY was sworn by the City Attorney
Meridian Planning & Zc>~g Commission •
January 13, 1998
Page 60
Bradbury: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Steve Bradbury. I
am representing the applicant, Steiner Development. What we have before you actually
is a request for preliminary plat and conditional use permit, for planning and
development for a residential subdivision. The site is 8 and a half acres, and it is
located east of Black Cat between Ustick and Cherry Lane. And if you wanted to see a
close up view of the location, - I should ask -did you folks all have the books that
made for -great. You can look behind tab four on the second page, it shows a location
map. It's this parcel right here. This map might be a little easier to work with. The
parcel that we are talking about is located right here. We have the Lakes at Cherry
Lane Subdivision over here. We've got the Ashford Greens over here. Cherry Village, I
think is what they call that. And then Golf View Estate over here. So this piece that we
are talking about is right in here. The green that you see on the map is the, of course,
the golf course. By way of background, I suppose, I should tell you little bit about this
parcel. This piece was originally part of the conceptual plan for the Ashford Green
Subdivision, and it was approved conceptually sometime back for a, what was called,
medium density development, and the concept was that it would be a 8 unit to acre
project of some not well defined sort. And as a part of that concept approval, the City
required the developer of the Ashford Green Subdivisions to come back before you
folks and submit a more precise site plan. Well, the Ashford Greens developer did not
exercise the option on this piece of property, so Steiner Development did. And Steiner
Development is now before you with a proposal for the residential subdivision.
If you would open your books to behind tab two, you can see a basic project
amenity or project characteristic sheet. I will just go through that a little bit. Property
zone R-4 now. The proposal is for 37 single family detached units, three two unit
townhouses. 1 know it says duplex there, but that denotes that we are talking about a
single ownership which would be a rental and that's not what would be proposed. They
will be -each of the units-They are actually zero lot line units. Each of the units will be
on its own lot. And would be sold separately. And then there's one 3 unit townhouse
building as well for a total of 46 living units. That comes out to a units per acre of about
5 and ahalf - a little over 5 and a half -units per acre over the 8 and a half acres. The
proposal is to construct a private street on a forty- two foot right- of- way with a five foot
sidewalk on one side. The sidewalk would be along -probably the best way to describe
it - it would be around the outside perimeter of the street system there. The lot sizes on
your sheet are not correct. It says, "4500 up to 8400 square feet". Because of the
change that was suggested by staff, which is to take the 20 foot sewer easement out of
the lot to make it into a common lot. That, of course, made those lots a little smaller
along the south easterly border. What it ended up being as drawn today is about 3500
square feet. While we had time to put out heads together out in the hallway for the last
several hours, we kind of did a little bit of sketching and thinking about how maybe we
can move some lot lines around and get that size up, and we think we can get that lot -
even the smallest of the lots - up above 4,000 square feet -probably close to that 4500
square feet after all. Average lot size is approximately 5790 feet across the whole
subdivision. The size of the homes is a minimum square footage of 1304 square feet.
Actually if you look behind tab number eight In your book, you will see a list of the seven
Meridian Planning & Zo~ Commission S
January 13, 1998
Page 61
different plans, and there's a list of the various numbers of units and the square
footages for them. You see it ranges from 1304 up to the biggest one is 1785 square
feet, and the proposal is to have 14 of those. So most of the home that would be built in
the subdivision would be larger than that minimum. Each of the units would have atwo-
car garage, and of course driveways in front of that garage which would accommodate
two additional vehicles, so we have a total of four - in essence four off street parking
spaces for each unit. The setbacks -all of the units by the way are single story units.
The setbacks are in accordance with the code except for a request that the front
setback be reduced to 15 feet from the required 20, and the street sites setback also be
reduced to 15 feet from the required 20. Just to kind of give you a feel for something
you can compare this to. This is really quite similar in concept and design to the Lake at
Cherry Lane Subdivision #7, and I will show you where that is. On the map here, it's - I
said 7, I meant Lake at Cherry Lane #6. It's more like the design for Lake at Cherry
Lane #6. The primary difference is that in #ti, it is -that was a proposal for asenior -
housing for older person, senior living. This one would not be so restricted. Let's see,
what else should we talk about. Well, maybe you can look behind tab four, and find the
preliminary plat. You can see the general layout that is being proposed. Among the
things that we are trying to accomplish is to provide a pedestrian access way around the
perimeter of the subdivision in order to get to the Gub house -the new proposed club
house which would be northerly of this. You can see it's marked on the map as well.
The idea would be to put a pedestrian pathway along the sewer easement and then up
the canal right-0f-way so the people can then access the golf course and the club
house. There is also - and I say pedestrian - I expect it would be used for golf carts as
well. There is also a piece of property which is located here on easterly side of the
property, a little triangular piece. That piece of property is actually on the opposite side
of the canal from where the building lots would be and is right now a part of and used by
the golf course, and the proposal would be to dedicate that piece of ground to the City
free of charge. When originally proposed, we had thought that piece of property was
about a third of an acre. The engineers have surveyed it now - I don't want to say
surveyed because that is probably not accurate - did a little more careful calculations.
It turns out it's about a quarter of an acre. In any event the idea is to give to the Ciry for
uses a part of its golf course, the portion of this site which is on the opposite side of the
canal. Behind tab six in your book, is a series of floor plans and elevations. Seven
different floor plans, each with two elevations each, - I guess that makes 14 different
potential elevations. Each of the units vwuld be two or three bedrooms, two bath, and
as 1 said two car garage. The proposed buildings materials for the units is found behind
tab number eight in your book. And of course I can go through any of those if you have
any questions about them. Keith Jacobs from PLS Engineers submitted the responses
to the staff comments. tt is my understanding that the City has received those. I don't
know if you have them in front of you. If you don't I have extra copies. I didn't intend to
go through any of that unless you had any specific questions. I just wanted to make
sure you in fact had them. I just briefly had an opportunity to inquire to Shari as to
whether or not she was satisfied with those, and I got the idea that she at least in
general was. Of course Siiari can point out any errors if there any. The exceptions, --
as you know -this is also a for a planned unit development, and under the planned unit
Meridian Planning & Zo~ Commission
January 13, 1998
Page 62
development ordinances the applicant may request certain exceptions from the typical
ordinance requirements. Shari has, I think, correctly identified the exceptions that would
be required and are being requested for this project. In the staff, comments on the
second page. There's a list of them, except the minimum lot sizes; the frontages, the
private road, the front street setback and the minimum house sizes. Those are the
exceptions, and they are properly identified. Rather than me talking about a bunch of
things that maybe you don't want to hear about, I'll stop now and respond to any
questions that you may have.
Johnson: Thank you. It's always a pleasure to see your presentations. This is very
nice and we wish we had presentations like this even like 50% of the scale. It would
improve our ability to respond and cut down the questions. At this point I will pass it on
through Commissioners Smith and Borup and see if they have any specific questions.
Smith: No, I don't. It looks just real similar to say number 6, I believe. Maybe if
anything a little more expensive on the home prices.
Bradbury: I would expect probably so.
Smith: If this is - is this accurate, your application says 130 and up?
Bradbury: Well, I would have to rely on Mr. Campbell to answer that question.
Borup: $100 a square foot. But I have no comment.
Smith: This is a good site, and I think it deserves some decent homes. I don't know if it
is getting late, or I am just stupid. But - it is my understanding that you are going for a
variance on the minimum lot size, and the front yard setback, but the blueprints still says
minimum lot size 8,000 square feet, building setbacks front 20 feet.
Bradbury: Yeah -
Smith: Is it just not correct?
Bradbury: Well, we had this discussion before, not you and I, but I have had this
discussion with the members of the commission before. What you see on the blueprint
are the typicals, the required sizes for an R-4 zone. Right. And I know that gets
confusing. It's not what's proposed.
Smith: It clear you've stated that you wanted a 15 foot front yard setback, and you went
through the beginning of your narrative some of the minimum lots sizes, and I'm
assuming that the small lot sizes are the ones that are for the triplexes and the
duplexes.
Meridian Planning & Zoi~ Commission ,
January 13, 1998
Page 63
Bradbury: The smaller lots are in the duplex - I'm not suppose to say duplex. I'm
suppose to say two unit townhouses. Correct.
Borup: I have a clarification question just for my information along with what
Commissioner Smith said. So the conditional use is granted is a flat change -that
information is changed on the plat before it's recorded; is that correct?
Bradbury: Correct. It would be part of the planned unit development, it would among
the conditions, and all the plat notes would be reflective of the true state of affairs as
opposed to just a recitation of the standard ordinance requirements. Thank you very
much.
Johnson: Thank you. This is a public hearing. Would someone else like to come
forward.
VERN MOORE was sworn in by City Attorney
V. Moore: I just have a couple of questions here that weren't quite on the Notice of
Hearing that we got. If I can point out just -yes, this is our property right here, on 1991
Interlachen. And the question we had, is there is going to be 20 foot sewer easement
apparently right behind that property. Now will that be a walking path or golf lane or golf
cart lane or anything? Do you know that? If I can ask this gentleman?
Johnson: Is that your only question, or do you have others?
V. Moore: No, I have another-
Johnson: Why don't you present all of your questions, and we'll have the developer
respond.
V. Moore: Okay, I would like to know what lot is the triplex is going to built on and what
was your other question Barbara? Do you have any others? I think that's it. Thank
you.
Johnson: Okay, she'll have an opportunity later if she forgot. Anyone else before the
developer responds because we might as well get all of the questions up front here.
V. Moore: I know what it was now. I noticed that you are going to have pressurized
irrigation and since we are adjacent to that, is there any possibility of hooking into that?
Johnson: I saw a hand back there, did you -you need to be sworn it first
GORDON MARGULIEUX was sworn in by the City Attom~y.
Meridian Planning & Zo~ Commission .
January 13, 1998
Page 64
Margulieux: I live at 2040 Interlachen Way. I first of all, what I think the developer and
the architect, 1've talked to them both, and they have been very helpful and open in
talking to me about the development. I just have a couple of concerns, but one of the
concerns is the lot size because of the sewer right-of-way they have there. I understand
that they can't build on the sewer spot. And at the current one, lot 2, which is for single
families not the duplex -it's not aduplex -would be about 3100 square feet. Now what
they mentioned just now is that they are thinking about revising that, and I would
interested in seeing how they revise that. Right now when you take that away, you are
about 3100 square feet which is quite a bit different that 8000 which again is R-4.
Again, Ashford Greens when they made a proposal a couple of years ago, they were -
during the meeting they were talking about possible apartments and units of apartments
and they were looking for 8 units -family dwellings -per acre. And I understand this is
about 5 and a half per acre. We're not talking about apartments adjacent. What we're
talking about is individual homes and over half those home would be on lots that range
from 4500 to 5100 square feet. There are some - I think there is one lot that's about
8400 and a couple that are around 6700, but the majority of the homes are between
4500 and 5100. So my concern, is one the lot size. I think it's not consistent with the
Cherry Subdivision 1 which this is -you go through that subdivision and this is the end
- and I am looking forward to a completion of the subdivision. Right now it sort of goes
off into the clubhouse parking lot. So I am looking forward to the end of it. And this is -
looking at the plat -they did a very good job, and I really enjoy talking to them on it. But
again you're going off and the area that you are going through a little over 8000 square
feet areas. Our lot is 13000. So we have the largest lot. Ours was the very first house
even though we didn't live in it all that time. Ours was the very first house that they put
into the subdivision, it was on lot 3 adjacent - in the Cheny Lane #1 Subdivision. So,
the size of it. The other one that I haven't quite gotten - I'm not quite sure how they are
going to do this, but if you look at the point at the corner of lot 3, where it meets -
where the corner of the subdivisions meet, if you move all the way to there out to the
street, this puts their street ten and a half feet longer or farther out than the current
house, and I'm not quite sure because the street belongs to the Ada County Highway
District. And they show on their plans correctly that it's going to move the sidewalk. But
we're not quite sure what is going to happen to that little section that belongs to the
highway department and how they are going to handle that for the comer home owner.
Because is going to add to something to it, or he going to have a big rectangle over
there. The last one is, -again this thing about the sewer easement, I was wondering if
- right now it shows it as part of the individual owners' lot, and I was wondering if it's
possible -one of my understanding with talking to them that there will be a home
owners association associated with just this section of houses, not part of the Cherry
Subdivision Home Owners Association. But it's going to be a separate home owners
association, and that they are going to maintain the path -that 20 foot path -that is
expected to be paved over. It's going to be going out to the golf course. I was
wondering if it makes more sense that of having it as part of the individual lots that they
make that a separate lot that -like the street - make it separate lot that they can go
ahead and then have that somehow attached to the home owners association so it has
more legal binding that way. I was just wondering. The reason why I brought that up is
Meridian Planning & Zo~ Commission •
January 13, 1998
Page 65
because of all of the headaches they were talking about with Meridian Greens. But
those are the concerns I have. Again I want to say that I am really pleased with talking
to the architect and talking with the developer. They have been very helpful, and I am
looking forward to closure on this thing.
Johnson: Thank you. Any questions? Anyone else like to comment?
BARBARA MOORE was sworn in by the City Attorney.
B. Moore: I'm Barbara Moore. I live at McCall, but we own property at 1991 Interlachen.
My only question is, again, is that on this map we came in and got a blow up and on lot
40 its says there is a 20 foot sewer easement. They list right below that south 61.37 -
whatever how you read that -west 149.16. On our plat map it lists it 187.78 foot. Is our
property line longer than theirs, it goes out in the street, or does our property line go ten
foot back into this easement. There's a discrepancy between these two maps. Then
again I am still not clear -what are they going to do with that sewer easement because
right now it's just weeds and kids go in there and smoke. It's a real fire hazard. I
wonder what is the plan. Are they going to make that a paved path and take care of it.
Johnson: Anyone else like to testify? Okay, Mr. Bradbury, I hope you heard all of those
questions.
Bradbury: I'll try. I may need a little bit of -may be need to be reminded just a little bit.
With respect to the sewer easement adjacent to these folks' property the intention is to
not to include that as part of the pedestrian pathway. That would be simply included as
part of the side yard for that lot, and would be a landscaped area - as a part of that lot.
That's right; that's correct.
Johnson: You have to keep your conversation with us.
Bradbury: Sorry. They asked the questions. The triplex - oops I said it again. It's not
a triplex; it's a three unit townhouse - is in this location which is remote from where they
live here or property, it would be up here. I'm going to turn around and show you, is
here. What was the third question? The question is there a discrepancy in the length of
one of the calls in the legal description on the plat. Keith Jacobs, the engineer who
prepared the plat is here, and he may be able to help that. I don't know the answer.
Obviously we're not going to plat something that voe don't own or doesn't match up.
And maybe that' s a detail that gets worked out between now and the time of the final
plat unless Keith can answer the question. The other gentleman was talking about how
to deal with these particular lots, and we have been kind of playing around with that just
a little bit over the last little bit here tonight and yesterday -today, I've lost track, it's so
late. The gentleman was talking about this lot. I asked him as he walked by which one
was the one he thought was smaller. Now we have recalculated that lot -the square
footage on that lot -taking out the 2G foot sewer easement. Here, this one, and our
calculations right now show that to be 4000 square feet. Now, one of the ways that we
Meridian Planning & Zor~j Commission
January 13, 1998
Page 66
would accomplish that is by moving this road -this little road here - a little bit further up.
So we would actually get more distance in there. We can still make more adjustments,
and that's what we were talking about out in the hall by moving some of these lot lines
around. We think we can get even a better square footage calculation on these lots by
spreading it out. As you can see, we have one here that is 8400 square feet. This, by
the way, is a two unit townhouse combination on these lots, and this one would be a
single family, but we think we can make some adjustments and do a little fine tuning
and probably solve the gentleman's concerns. What else?
Johnson: Mr. Margulieux, did we miss some of your questions? Okay, we have
addressed all of your questions?
Margulieux: One question that I had was whether or not the sewer line would be on a
separate lot.
Johnson: Okay. The question was, "Whether - I'm doing this for the record - (end of
tape)
Bradbury: Staff has suggested that that sewer easement be made a separate
commonary lot and that's what the developers agreed to do. And I think I got
everything. Anything?
Margulieux: There is one question that you missed about the pressurized irrigation.
Bradbury: The question was whether or not their property might be included in and
hooked in to the pressurized irrigation. It's not something that we have discussed at all
with the developer. It certainly seems like it's something that we ought to be able to
accomplish. It's complicated somewhat by the fact that we need to deal with the issue
of water rights, and where they can be applied and get approval. from the Nampa
Meridian Irrigation District to include additional properties outside of this platted
subdivision. But I don't' see any reason why it's not something that we couldn't address
to the irrigation district and see whether or not it would work. The other side of that
coin, of course, is that whoever is hooked up in to the pressurized irrigation systems
gets billed by Nampa Meridian Irrigation District for a part of the costs of operation and
maintenance of that system, and I would expect that these folks, if they chose to be
included and if the Irrigation District would do it, they would be required to pay a portion
of the costs. And unless you have any further questions of me, I will sit down and let
you get on with this.
Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Bradbury?
Smith: Actually, I do have one, and I think that you talked about this last month, but my
- to reiterate again -what's the reason why you are going for the smaller lot sizes and
narrower streets as opposed to the standard R-4 requirements?
Meridian Planning & Zo~j Commission
January 13, 1998
Page 67
Bradbury: What the developer is trying to accomplish is to provide a variety of housing
types and housing uses in this area. And that's part of the reason why we brought this
blow up over here that shows all of the subdivisions and the proposed subdivisions in
the area. We think there is a market. The developer thinks that there is a market for
nicer homes on a just a little bit smaller lots, and primarily in this mile section is R-4 lots
with the standard 8000 square foot plus or minus, and what we are trying to accomplish
is to provide a variety of housing choices for people who like different things. You can
kind of get an idea of some of the areas where there are some smaller lots also being
proposed up in the upper right hand corner in those two R-15 areas. Those are smaller
lot sizes proposed there. There is a section which would be immediately -I'll walk over
there - There's a part of the Ashford Greens project this area here is composed of
about 5000 square foot lots as well. Most everything else is more standard R-4, and
what we are trying to accomplish as I said is just to provide a variety of housing types
and lots sizes for people who like different types of living arrangements. The other half
of your question, I think, was with respect to the street. It would be -the proposal is to
provide a private street which would be owned and maintained by the home owners
association and would not then be used by the regular travelling public, and so the use
of that street would be limited to a great extent and for that reason I just didn't think that
the typical 50 foot right-of-way would be required.
Johnson: But it's the location and the fact that it's a unique market and that why the
developer thinks it will work. Right?
Bradbury: That's the bottom line. That's right.
Johnson: Any other questions? Anyone else like to speak with us this evening? I get
tired of seeing the same thing all the time. There are no comments from staff. I will
close the public hearing at this time. This was a request for a preliminary plat. And we
probably want to handle this the way we normally do when we have two items like this
which would be to table this item and to open a public hearing and incorporate the prior
testimony on the next item, if that's your pleasure. It's just a suggestion.
Borup: Okay.
Smith: That means or else?
Johnson: That just mean it says 11:15.
Borup: Chairman, I move we table this item to the February 10~h meeting.
Smith: Second.
Johnson: Moved and second. We table this item until date certain of Fetbruary 10,
1998. All in favor? Opaosed?
Meridian Planning & Zor~j Commission
January 13, 1998
Page 68
MOTION CARRIED: All yea.
ITEM NUMBER 12: REOUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT - NW CHERRY LANE VILLAGE
NO. 1:
Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite the applicant's representative to
address the commission.
Bradbury: I would simply like to ask that the commission incorporate the testimony
given in the previous matter into the hearing on this matter. I have nothing further to
add. I think I covered everything.
Johnson: Does anyone else want to do the same or we would just automatically
incorporate your testimony anyway so everybody gets a shot you know. Anybody else
have anything additional then. All right, I will close the public hearing at this time. This
require Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we direct the City Attorney to
draw up Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on this item.
Borup: Second.
Johnson: Motion is seconded to have the attorney prepare Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law. All in favor? Opposed.
MOTION CARRIED: All yea.
Johnson: Any further motions for this evening? Mr. Berg. would like to make a
comment.
Berg: Yes, thank you Mr. Chairman. Just another reminder of this thing. I'll get you
some notices out that this is the Planning and Zoning Seminar at Boise State on
January 24"'. I do want to say that I've response from our - I guess three active
members of the commission, and they are all attending. If you would like to attend.
Johnson: Isn't the City Council going to this?
Berg: So far, no. They have some conflicts, chili cook-off. And John if you would like
to, that would be great. And if Gary or Shari would too. I just need to get this into the
people running the workshop.
Prior: Sign me up. What day is that a Saturday?
Berg: Saturday, the 24~', and it's kind of an all day thing
Meridian Planning & Zo~ Commission
January 13, 1998
Page 69
Smith: Do we have times on that yet? Because I didn't see a time on that?
Berg: Usually it's sort of irrthe 8:00 or 8:30 range.
Prior: Between 8:30 or 9:00 somewhere.
Smith: I hope 9:00.
Berg: Do you like to sleep in?
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn.
Smith: Second.
Johnson: Motion to adjourn and seconded.
MOTION CARRIED: All yea.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:15 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
JIrA ~lOHNSQN, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
.~
~`--- k7~~'G a `~'w ~Ci
G. BERG, JR., CLERK ~~
' '~~ ~~~
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBIS MEETING SIGN-UI~HEET
NAME PH N NITMBFR
i
~ n
11
~.J ~YLR..~ Pc~..._,a rip
~~^ S6~`/
~_~
y -r ~:3 5'
~ar-5Y3f
~~ _ _ -- '',!~rr~~'o-- ~ ~~,~ ~ o ~ ,
(:1TY OF MERIDIAN
PUBI~ MEETING SIGN-UI*IiEET
G
-~
`Z~X-
~~?
.~~~~ u~wcrcxz ~'ys -v~~~
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
W. ROY BROWN AND RICHARD BROWN
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
A NEW ADDITION TO THE EXISTING CHERRY WOOD RETAIL CENTER
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CHERRY LANE
AND CINDER ROAD
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINIDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing on
December 9, 1997, at the hour of 7:00 o'clock p.m., the Applicant,
appearing through its representative, Richard Brown, the Planning
and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly
considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. A notice of a public hearing on the application for the
conditional use permit and application for annexation and zoning
was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to said public
hearing scheduled on December 9, 1997, the first publication of
which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter
was duly considered at the December 9, 1997 hearing; that the
public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit
evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to
newspaper, radio and television stations.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 1
W. ROY BROWN AND RICHARD BROWN - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
2. The property is located within the City of Meridian at
the Southwest corner of Cherry Lane and Linder Avenue. The
property is described in the application for a conditional use
permit, which description is incorporated herein as if set forth in
full. The Applicant is the owner of record of the property.
3. Pursuant to the application, the property is presently
zoned as C-N, Neighborhood Business District. The proposed use of
the property is to construct an addition to an already existing
building with the addition of a drive through window on the west
side of the building. This addition will constitute approximately
6400 square feet of additional space. The Applicant presented a
site plan depicting the location of the proposed use. Pursuant to
the application, the Applicant agrees to pay any additional sewer,
water or trash fees or charges, associated with the use, whether
that use be residential, commercial or industrial.
4. Richard Brown, representative for the Applicant,
testified substantially as follows at the public hearing. The
partnership intends to build an addition to an already existing
building at approximately 1800 W. Cherry Lane, making an addition
of approximately 6400 square feet and requesting to include in that
addition a drive through window towards the rear, west end of the
building.
5. Commissioner Johnson asked about the letter dated
December St° from Bruce Freckleton, Assistant City Engineer, and
Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator. Mr. Brown
responded there are 15 points in the letter. The first point
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 2
W. ROY BROWN AND RICHARD BROWN - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
addresses water service to the development. Mr. Brown noted the
addition would not require any changes to water service, as it was
included in the original plans.
6. Commissioner Johnson noted that we need not discuss each
item in the report and asked if Mr. Brown would like to discuss any
specific items. Mr. Brown stated that item #5, the Drainage Plan,
will be designed by a licensed architect and the specifications are
in line. Mr. Brown stated the parking stalls on the west side need
to be 9x19 with a 25-foot driveway and his plan did not meet this
requirement. He requested to work with Planning and Zoning
Administrator, Shari Stiles, on the use of compact parking stalls
as an alternative. Mr. Brown noted that his plan has 50 stalls and
the requirement calls for 32. His design is in excess of the number
required.
7. Commissioner Johnson noted the Commission is getting
away from compact stalls because they do not do the job. Mr. Brown
responded the 8 stalls in question do not need to be included in
the plan because it still would have 10 more than what would be
required.
8. Mr. Brown brought up item #10, the Communication System
for the menu board. Mr. Brown testified the system provided by
MUZAC only requires 3 points decibel above the ambient sound level.
The sound can be heard from 25 feet away and the subdivision fence
is 50 feet away. Mr. Brown noted that the buffer zone behind the
building is sufficient.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 3
W. ROY BROWN AND RICHARD BROWN - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
9. Commissioner Johnson asked if other Commissioners had
any questions. Commissioner Borup noted the stacking issue from
Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles', recommendations.
Mr. Brown had Terry Butler respond to the stacking issue. Mr.
Butler responded that there was some confusion on the distance
requirement for a Hogi Yogi restaurant. Mr. Butler noted that
District Planning and Zoning did not know where the 200-foot
stacking requirement came from, but it would likely be changed to
100 feet. Mr. Butler testified the tenant is Hogi Yogi, an ice
cream type vender, and it would not have the traffic or stacking
needs of Burger King, Wendy's or a high impact fast food
restaurant. Mr. Butler noted that the 200-foot stacking
requirement would put them clear out into Cherry Lane.
10. Commissioner Borup asked if the reader board is
indicated on the plans. Mr. Butler responded that no reader board
is on the plans. Commissioner Borup asked for a proposed location
for the reader board. Mr. Butler responded the location would
probably be at the northwest corner of the building.
11. Commissioner Borup asked the Applicants if they have
read the Fire Department's comment #12. Mr. Brown responded the
fire department request deals with the occupying permit being
obtained prior to any tenant occupying the building. Mr. Brown
noted there was a problem in the past, but has no trouble complying
with that requirement.
12. Commissioner Johnson inquired about the landscaping and
lighting for the project. Mr. Brown responded it is all existing
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 4
W. ROY BROWN AND RICHARD BROWN - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
and there are no additions. "The site is complete in regards to
those two items."
13. Commissioner Smith wanted to discuss the stacking issue
in more detail. He wanted to know how many cars could be stacked
from the drive through window back. Mr. Brown noted that five cars
could be stacked, based upon his calculations. Commissioner Smith
noted the stacking figures did not appear to add up to him. He
felt that it would not be possible to get 5 cars in front of the
drive through window. Mr. Brown testified he did not believe it
would be a high volume stacking type unit, and Ada County based
their stacking figures on the tenant. Commissioner Smith stated
that 5 cars would probably not fit in front of the drive through
window. Mr. Butler responded that the window would be moved back
to the corner as far as possible. The front driveway has quite a
bit of space, and the parking section could be pulled out to
accommodate the stacking. Commissioner Smith noted that he would
like to get a clarification on the stacking. He would like to know
if it is a requirement or a recommendation. He also noted that in
order to accommodate the stacking it may require putting the window
on the back of the building.
14. Commissioner Smith asked about the menu board's
location. Mr. Butler responded that it would be on the northwest
corner of the building. He noted that the menu board would not be
free standing and the speaker would be on the menu board.
Commissioner Nelson commented on how difficult it is driving
between the Dominos and the car wash. He noted that there was a
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 5
W. ROY BROWN AND RICHARD BROWN - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
• s
considerable amount of traffic in that area. Mr. Brown responded
that it is a Dominos's management problem. There is adequate
parking behind the building. He noted that since the west part of
the building is closed, the Dominos people cannot circle the
building. He noted that it would be a convenient way for them to
get around the building.
15. Commissioner Smith commented about omitting the compact
parking. Mr. Brown responded that parking is not a problem because
117 spaces were built, and the original building required only 71.
He also noted that any configuration is possible on the west side
of the building because the black top has not been put down.
Commissioner Borup noted that angle parking makes sense to him
in order to avoid wasting space. He asked whether the Milwaukee
Avenue Hogi Yogi had a drive through window. Mr. Brown responded
that it did not and the same franchise would operate at Cherry Wood
Retail Center.
16. Commissioner Johnson then asked whether the public would
like to address the Commission. John Wasson from the Vineyard's
Subdivision addressed the Commission. Mr. Wasson presented a
petition with 90 signatures from the residents of Vineyard's
Subdivision who oppose granting the conditional use permit. Mr.
Wasson wanted to know what was going in the drive through and noted
that there is potential for a great deal of traffic. There is no
guarantee it would remain a Hogi Yogi and at some point it could
become a Wendy's or Burger King. Mr. Wasson noted that Mr. Brown
did not come to the hearing with specific plans, drawings or
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 6
W. ROY BROWN AND RICHARD BROWN - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
• i
diagrams, delivering exactly what is going into the location. Mr.
Wasson noted that currently there are problems with kids and
criminals jumping fences and going into the backyards of the
neighborhoods. He further noted that garbage collection occurs
between 5:00 a.m. and 7:30 a.m. four times a week, in violation of
the noise ordinance and that it wakes ups his kids. He noted that
putting a drive through window on the west end of the building
would create even more noise. The trash seems to gather in the
residents' backyards, gathers against the fence and creates an
eyesore. He expressed the current lights shine into his bedroom
window until 1:30 a.m. or 2:00 a.m., and that this construction
will only exacerbate matters. He showed photos of fence damage and
requested that a ten-foot cinderblock fence be built to cut out the
noise and to prevent further damage. He noted that it could be
like the one at Albertson's at Ten Mile.
Commissioner Johnson asked where the broken fence was located,
as it was not clear from the pictures. Mr. Wasson responded that
the fence is about 30 meters west of the building. Neighbors have
had to replace fence boards and posts that have been kicked in or
broken by kids climbing the fence. Mr. Wasson also expressed
concern about the stacking, especially during lunch hours and after
school, as the location is close to the high school. Commissioner
Johnson inquired about the process for obtaining the signatures on
the petition. Mr. Wasson responded that all of the people on the
petition had an opportunity to read the letter and petition.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 7
W. ROY BROWN AND RICHARD BROWN - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Commissioner Smith asked if any of the problems have ever been
addressed to the tenants. Mr. Wasson responded that on more than
one occasion neighbors have gone to Videoland and Dominos to talk
about the garbage and noise. There was also concern about the
delivery times and that some pizza managed to make it into
neighbors' yards.
Commissioner Johnson asked if anyone else from the public
would like to comment on the application.
Mr. Carlton testified that cars squealing, fumes and noise are
common problems he currently deals with being a neighbor of the
building. He feels that any addition of a drive through would only
depreciate and aggravate the problem. He believes that putting up
a cinderblock wall, much like the one at Albertsons and Ten Mile,
might alleviate the problem.
Commissioner Johnson asked about the lease arrangements with
the current tenants in regards to noise and garbage pickup. Mr.
Brown responded that the lease requires the tenants to comply with
the laws and requirements of the City of Meridian. Commissioner
Johnson asked if there were any specific requirements. Mr. Brown
responded there is nothing specific in the lease and many of the
citizens' concerns are management problems.
Commissioner Johnson inquired about the Hogi Yogi's operating
hours. Mr. Brown responded 10:00 p.m., and there are no special
summer hours that he is aware of. Mr. Brown also stated that there
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 8
W. ROY BROWN AND RICHARD BROWN - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
will be no parking on the west side of the property because it will
be bermed and that there is a six-foot high fence to help cut down
on potential noise.
Commissioner Smith asked whether Mr. Brown would consider a
CMV or block wall. Mr. Brown responded that he would consider it
as long as there would be some association of cost. He also noted
that he might do something in regards to his side of the current
wood fence.
Ms. Doty Furhman, a neighbor of the proposed drive through,
expressed her concern that the application did not specify the
business and she further expressed her support for a ten-foot block
wall.
17. Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer, and
Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, have submitted
comments, which respective comments are incorporated herein as if
set forth in full.
18. The Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police
Department, Meridian Sewer Department, Meridian Water Department,
Central District Health Department and Nampa & Meridian Irrigation
District submitted comments, which respective comments are
incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
19. There was no further testimony given at the hearing.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 9
W. ROY BROWN AND RICHARD BROWN - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. All the procedural requirements of the Local Planning
Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met,
including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300
feet of the external boundaries of the property.
2. The City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional
uses pursuant to Idaho Code Section 67-6512 and pursuant to 11-2-
418 of the Zoning And Development Ordinance of the City of
Meridian.
3. The City has the authority to take judicial notice of
its own ordinances, other governmental statutes and ordinances, and
of actual conditions existing within the City and the State.
4. The property is currently zoned (CN) Neighborhood
Business District. The (CN), Neighborhood Business District is
described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B 8 as follows:
(CN) Neighborhood Business District - The purpose of the (CN)
District is to permit the establishment of small scale
convenience business uses which are intended to meet the daily
needs of the residents of an immediate neighborhood (as
defined by the policies of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan);
to encourage clustering and strategic siting of such
businesses to provide service to the neighborhood and avoid
intrusion of such uses into the adjoining residential
districts. All such districts shall give direct access to
transportation arterial collectors, be connected to the
municipal water and sewer systems of the City of Meridian, and
shall not constitute all or any part of a strip development
concept.
9. Conditional Use Permit is defined in the Zoning And
Development Ordinance, City of Meridian, Idaho as "Permits allowing
an exception to the uses authorized by this Ordinance in a zoning
district."
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 10
W. ROY BROWN AND RICHARD BROWN - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
10. The City of Meridian has authority to place conditions
on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to
Idaho Code, Section 67-6512, and pursuant to that section
conditions minimizing the adverse impact on other development,
controlling the duration of development, assuring the development
is maintained properly, and on-site or off-site facilities may be
attached to the permit; that 11-2-418 (D) authorizes the City to
prescribe a set time period for which a conditional use may be in
existence.
11. Section 11-2-418 D, states as follows:
In approving any Conditional Use, the Commission and
Council may prescribe appropriate conditions, bonds, and
safeguards in conformity with this Ordinance.
Violations of such conditions, bonds or safeguards, when
made a part of the terms under which the Conditional Use
is granted, shall be deemed a violation of the Ordinance
and grounds to revoke the Conditional Use. The
Commission and Council may prescribe a set time period
for which a Conditional Use may be in existence.
12. This Application for a conditional use has been judged
upon the basis of guidelines contained in Section 11-2-918 of the
Zoning And Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian and upon
the basis of the Local Planning Act of 1975, Title 67, Chapter 65,
Idaho Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, and the
record submitted to it and the things of which it may take judicial
notice.
13. Section 11-2-418 C of the Zoning And Development
Ordinance of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under
which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall
review applications for Conditional Use Permits. Upon a review of
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 11
W. ROY BROWN AND RICHARD BROWN - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the
conditions of the area, assuming that the above conditions or
similar ones thereto would be attached to the conditional use, the
Planning and Zoning Commission concludes as follows:
a. The use, would in fact, constitute a conditional
use and a conditional use permit would be required by
ordinance;
b. The use would not be harmonious with and in
accordance with the Comprehensive Plan;
1. Land Use: Residential Policies:
2.3U, Protect and maintain residential property
values, improve each neighborhood's physical
condition and enhance its quality of life for
residents.
The addition of a drive through window, along with
its traffic, noise and increased business, would
impact the surrounding residential neighbor's
quality of life. It could affect their property
values because people my not be inclined to
purchase a residence so close to a drive through
establishment.
2. Commercial Policies:
4.40, Locate new Planned Neighborhood Commercial
Centers on arterials or collectors near residential
areas in such a way as to compliment but not
conflict with adjoining residential areas.
The testimony from neighboring residents indicates
that the current shopping area creates excessive
noise, and that there are existing conflicts.
Further, expansion in the form of a drive through
would only add to traffic, noise and further
conflict. with the adjoining residential
neighborhoods.
c. The use should be designed, constructed, operated
and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in
appearance with the existing or intended character
of the general vicinity, and that such use will not
change the essential character of the same area.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 12
W. ROY BROWN AND RICHARD BROWN - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
The addition of a drive through window would change
the essential character of this Neighborhood Shopping
Area. The stacking of traffic in front of the menu board
is a big concern. As the plans are currently designed,
and per the testimony, the menu board would be located
at the northwest corner of the new addition. ACHD
recommends that the Applicant provide between 50 and 100
feet of stacking before and after the reader board.
These figures are based on traffic volume and proposed
use. It is 50 feet to establishments other than fast
food restaurants or drive through bank facilities. If
the drive through window is placed on the southwest
corner of the new addition and the reader board is
placed on the northwest corner of the new addition, the
minimum 50-foot recommendation would be met, in regards
to the space between the window and the menu reader
board. The amount of stacking recommended in front of
the menu board would be a problem. The 50-foot minimum
would cause the stacking to block traffic around the
west side of the building and could potentially cause
congestion of traffic coming off Cherry Lane.
The situation is further complicated in that the
parking spaces on the west side of the building would
have to either be eliminated or turned into angle
parking. The west side parking, as designed, does not
meet the requirements for length (currently 18 feet of
the 19 feet required). If the parking is turned into
angle parking that will essentially create a one way
road around the building. Another concern is the exit
from the drive through window. Traffic behind the
building will essentially be coming towards the
customers driving from the drive through window. The
drive through window will cause some traffic concerns in
front of the reader menu board, as well. The overall
flow of traffic around the building will be adversely
affected by the addition of a drive through window.
Another concern is the impact on the car wash and
Maverick Store. The entrance and exists are located in
such a way that any additional traffic from the drive
through would impact customers at both the Maverick
Store and the car wash. The drive through would create
more traffic behind the building causing greater impact
on the surrounding residential neighbors that are
located behind the shopping center. Another concern is
the flow of traffic between the car wash and the
Dominoes. That would be the only exit from the drive
through other than Linder Road.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 13
W. ROY BROWN AND RICHARD BROWN - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Another concern is the noise coming from the speaker on
the menu board. The decibel level has the potential to
be heard in the residential neighborhood. Shari Stiles
recommended a telephone system, however, the testimony
at the public hearing indicated that a speaker system
would be used. This could create excessive noise for
the neighborhood residential areas.
d. The use would be hazardous or disturbing to
existing or future neighboring uses if the permit is
granted (see notes from (c) above).
e. Sewer and water service is available, but the
Applicant may have to pay additional fees for the use.
f. The use would not create excessive additional
requirements at public cost for public facilities and
services and the use would not be detrimental to the
economic welfare of the community;
g. The use would involve activity, process, material,
equipment or conditions of operation that would be
detrimental to person, property or the general welfare
by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise,
smoke, fumes, glare or odors. As stated above in (c)
the drive through would create excessive noise, traffic
and disturbance to residents and other customers
visiting the neighboring businesses.
h. The use will have vehicular approaches to the
property, which, as designed, will create an
interference with traffic on surrounding public streets;
i. The development o£ the property will not result in
the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic
feature of major importance.
It is recommended that the conditional use permit not be
granted in this case.
14. However, conditions may be placed upon the granting of a
conditional use permit if it is determined that the permit should
be issued, to minimize adverse impact on other development. It is
recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission that the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 14
W. ROY BROWN AND RICHARD BROWN - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
following conditions of granting the conditional use be required,
if a permit is issued, to wit:
1. Water service to this development is contingent
upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by
our computer model.
2. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the Meridian
Public Works Department.
3. Approval of this application needs to be contingent
upon our ability to accept the additional sanitary
sewage generated by this proposed development.
4. Provide parking lot lighting plans to the Meridian
Public Works Department. Illumination of the site
shall be designed to not cause glare or adversely
impact neighboring residential properties or the
traveling public, as determined by the City of
Meridian.
5. A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho
licensed architect or engineer is required and
shall be submitted to the City Engineer with
calculations (Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all paved
areas. All site drainage shall be contained and
disposed of on-site.
6. All parking stalls are to be a minimum of 9'x19'
with 25' driveways per City Ordinance. The parking
layout shown does not meet these requirements.
Compact stalls may only be approved with the
approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
7. Provide handicapped accessible stalls in accordance
with ADA, including appropriate signage.
8. No communication system is shown on the plans. Any
proposed system shall be shown on the site plan.
Telephones rather than loudspeakers should be
required if the conditional use is granted.
9. The configuration of the drive through window will
encourage increased traffic to access the area
behind the buildings. Additional buffering may be
required as a condition of the application.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 15
W. ROY BROWN AND RICHARD BROWN - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
10. Applicant is to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy
signed by all appropriate staff and agencies prior
to opening. A letter of credit or cash for all
improvements would be needed prior to granting
temporary occupancy.
11. Ada County Highway District has made a special
recommendation to the City that the stacking before
and after the reader board (if a restaurant or bank
is proposed) be a minimum of 50 to 100 feet. This
does not appear to be possible with the existing
site configuration.
15. The above-conditions are concluded to be reasonable and
the Applicant shall meet these conditions.
16. It is recommended that the request for the conditional
use permit be denied.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 16
W. ROY BROWN AND RICHARD BROWN - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
i r
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
COMMISSIONER BORUP VOTED n/~ Y
~
V
COMMISSIONER MACCOY VOTED ~
--/
R SMITH VOTED ~
COMMISSIONE
COMMISSIONER
NELSON y
/~ ~'N
VOTED
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) n
VOTED
DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION
The Meridian~Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
to the City Council~~ the City of Meridian that it deny the
~,
Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property
described in the Application. Hbwever, should the Application be
approved, the Applicant shall satisf~j~the conditions set forth in
~,
the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of ~L,aw or similar conditions
as found justified and appropriate by the Ci~Council and that the
property be required to meet the water and sewer\ requirements, the
Fire and Life Safety Codes, Uniform Fire\Code, parking
requirements, and the paving and landscaping requireme ts, and all
Ordinances of the City of Meridian. The conditional use hould be
subject to review upon notice to the Applicant by the City.
MOTION:
APPROVED:
DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 17
W. ROY BROWN AND RICHARD BROWN - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT