1993 10-12
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
AGENDA
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1993 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 30, 1993:
(APPROVED)
1: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO R-40 BY
JERRIE WOLFE AND ASSOC.: (FINDINGS OF FACT W/ACRD)
2: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO R-4
WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR VALERI HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION
BY VICKI WELKER: (FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
3: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HUNTS
BLUFF #2 SUBDIVISION BY MARTY GOLDSMITH: (APPROVED)
4: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR R-4
BY EDWARD A. JOHNSON: (FINDINGS OF FACT AND CODLUSIONS OF LAW)
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING OCTOBER 12 1993
The Regular Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
was called to order Chairman Jim Johnson at 7:30 p.m.:
Members Present: Moe Alidjani, James Shearer, Charlie Rountree:
Members Absent: Tim Hepper
Others Present: Wayne Crookston, Will Berg, Wayne Forrey, Jerrie
Wolfe, Shannon and Darrell Spencer, Douglas Hoy, John Calhoun, Don
Bryan, Raleigh Hawe, Dave Fuller, Vicki Welker, Don Stillwaugh,
Matt Munger, Dave Roylance, Marty Goldsmith:
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 30, 1993:
The motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer to approve
the minutes as written:
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea:
ITEM #1: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO R-
40 BY JERRIE WOLFE AND ASSOC.
Johnson: I'll now open the Public Hearing. Is there someone
representing the applicant that would like to come forward and
address the Commission, please do so at this time.
Jerrie Wolfe, 410 S Orchard, was sworn by the Attorney.
Wolfe: Jerrie Wolfe, architect, representing Gary Belew and Dallan
Taylor. We're requesting an Annexation and Rezone to R-40 piece of
property that due to the shape of the property is hard to work with
for, with anything else but what we're proposing. And if I could
display it, I can explain it a little better. The property is
situated on, off of Meridian Road, here, through Heron Lane. What
or proposal is, to satisfy fire protection what have you, having
two accesses, one of them coming off the right lane here and off
here by the circle drive here. This is ideal for a multi-family
use, we can situate the units 8-plexes, 10-plexes etc. along here,
create a landscaping area with various amenities(gazebos, barbecue
areas etc..) garbage collection areas and we have an area here that
is a ditch that we're hoping to create a greenbelt bike path
situation that would continue on with other portions in the overall
city plan. I think that can be better explained. That basically
covers it, the units are a continuation there are some variations
in height and materials, a continuation of what is, will blend in
with the neighborhood as shown, these diagrams here. We've gone to
the extent of showing proposed floor plans in exterior elevations
that we hope will blend in with the neighborhood, accenting with
Planning and Zoning
October 12, 1993
Page 2
a lot of landscaping berms and variations of height. Are there any
questions, I'll sure try to answer them.
Johnson: Well, I'm sure we'll have a few. Commissioners,
questions? Well I'll start, with respect to the comment by Gary
Smith the City Engineer specifically item #3 are you familiar with
these, have you had a chance to look at them, they're dated October
10? From Gary Smith there are just 3 comments.
Wolfe: Yes I have reviewed that.
Johnson: That last sentence there, a question there,"does the
property have access rights to Blue Heron Lane, and if so should
the lane become a public road?", did you have an opportunity to
discuss that at all with Gary Smith?
Wolfe: I haven't discussed it with Gary Smith, I've discussed it
with owner of the property, and at this time I'm not tying to
sidestep I don't know how to answer to tell you the truth.
Johnson: Well you can just tell me the truth
Wolfe: We're asking for an annexation and a rezone and what we
would like to do is work these details out with the proper
authorities ACHD and those people who are actually going to tell us
what we have to do, but if we have to give that all off to Bell
road, and who splits the cost, we like to work that about at that
time, it's hard for me to make a commitment at this time. Our
other accesses here and if we're required to as an alternate fire
lane we've got access here that depending on what ACHD is going to
tell us what we have to do, these maybe the only two that we have
if we can use this one that would be ideal, so these are things we
still need to work out.
Johnson: So what do you see as the total number of units there?
My copy is so small I can't read it.
Wolfe: Sixty-six, 3.94 acres and that includes the center line of
the right of way on the ditch, 3.19 acres to the easement portion.
Number of units would be 66, which correlates to 20 units per acre.
Johnson: And we're looking at 2 story units, is that what we were
talking about, approximately 10 buildings, 8 buildings, so some of
those are l0 and some are 8.
Planning and Zoning
October 12, 1993
Page 3
Wolfe: I've got one 10 and the rest are 8's.
Johnson: Yeah, that would be 66, okay. Anybody have any questions
of Jerrie Wolfe?
Alidjani: Yes, out of the designated 66 units, how many are two
bedroom, one bedroom, three bedroom, it's a combination?
Wolfe: Twenty-six one bedroom units, which includes the
handicapped units, 40 two bedroom units. The parking ratio we're
proposing is 1.63 to 1 parking ratio which normally 1.5 is
acceptable I like to bump that up a little bit, a little extra
parking. And then a portion of those of course are going to be in
covered parking.
Alidjani: How many parking is designated all together?
Wolfe: 108 parking, car parks
Alidjani: Any other area designated area for extra parking or is
that it?
Wolfe: That's it, handicapped parking dispersed among them but
that is included in the 1.63. The one thing that I would like to
point out is we are proposing a lot of irregular and variation in
the landscaping a lot of bermsand that type of thing. Plus the
greenbelt access.
Alidjani: On sketch that you have what is the dimension of the
opening to Blue Heron and also Meridian road?
Wolfe: Thirty feet
Johnson: Any more questions? Anybody else have any questions,
Charlie?
Rountree: Do you have any proposals for any playgrounds or
recreation on site type of facilities?
Wolfe: our central area would be landscaped and a play area and
then we have various gazebos/barbecue areas we've got 3 of those,
one here, one here, one here and t3ien a picnic playground area
right here, trying to get them centrally located as much as we can.
Planning and Zoning
October 12, 1993
Page 4
Johnson: Anything else Charlie?
Rountree: No, I have nothing at this time
Johnson: Jim Shearer?
Shearer: No, looks like it's pretty well covered between the plans
we have here and what Jerrie has put forth.
Johnson: Wayne you had a couple of comments, did you respond to
Mr. Montoya's letter?
Forrey: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning and Zoning
Commission and Mr. Wolfe, I just got Mr. Montoya's letter about
lunch time today. Mr. Montoya is a business manager at Meridian
Meat Packers, raises some issues, one of which is the compatibility
of land use. Certainly, the city would not approach any business
like this and ask them to relocate and that's one question he
raised in his letter, what is the position of the city. Our
approach here in Planning function is to make sure that these two
uses are compatible, in the Comprehensive plan it addresses this
area as the mixed planned use development area. With that comes a
lot of responsibility to make sure that these two uses an industry,
in this case a packing plant, and where people live, the project
proposed by Mr. Wolfe, can be compatible, and the key thing here is
we know about it in advance. You know there is meat packing plant,
we know it, you know that you have a use that by some definitions
may be compatible, but our challenge here is to make it work.
Screening, buffering landscaping adequate setbacks, good site
design, this request is annexation and zoning only so I really
don't have anything to approve as far as site design, but as we
work with Mr. Wolfe and with Meridian Meat Packers, we'll make sure
that both uses can live together without driving one or the other
out of business. I think they can coexist.
Johnson: Does that basically address his concerns in here?
Forrey: Secondly, it was Blue Heron, and Mr. Wolfe says he will
continue to work with the Highway District, I don't know the status
of who owns Blue Heron, or what the easement agreements are. And
the item in my memo to you pertains to the pathway plan, which is
this section of Jackson drain, which by the way the North side is
the Ewing project, which this commission required half construction
of a bike path pedestrian way so I would hope we would do the same
Planning and Zoning
October 12, 1993
Page 5
on the South side then we've qot a really nice premier pathway
along that section of Jackson drain, good development on both
sides.
Johnson: Have you talked to Mr. Wolfe about anything like that.
Forrey: Yes, you might want to address that.
Wolfe: I thought I did, the Ewing Company is building a bike path
along this side and after talking with you and my client we don't
have any problem continuing that on this side we've left plenty of
room for doing that, it coincides with what you've already got, a
continuation on both ends.
Johnson: Thank you very much Wayne, Wayne Crookston do you have
anything?
Crookston: No
Johnson: Jerrie thank you very much, we may call you back. This
is a public hearing is there someone from the public who'd like to
come forward. Raleigh, you need to be sworn please.
Raleigh Hawe, 530 Blue Heron Lane, was sworn by the Attorney.
Hawe: I have several questions on that project. Number 1 is the
continuation of Blue Heron Lane in an east-west direction from
Meridian road to, I don't recall the subdivision that is to the
east of me, but does Blue Heron continue, a continuation to the
east of my property on that, and the question I had with this, as
this road is developed or is it is developed the bike path and the
Blue Heron Lane will be intersecting each other and that's one of
the questions, since that bike path will be continued through a
piece of my property how that will be handled for that
intersection, I get foot traffic and automobile or in the case of
Meridian Meat Packers commercial semis etc. through that particular
area. I suppose this would be addressed in part from the ACRD unit
if they proceed with this thing. Now as this Blue Heron Lane is
presently a private lane and the ownership of the road is the
property owners. The location of the Blue Heron Lane is entirely
owned by property south of the east-west property boundary off of
Meridian road and to the north side of Blue Heron lane which I
might show you at this time. And this brings up the question of
setbacks who's going to contribute what to the road I noticed that
Planning and Zoning
October 12, 1993
Page 6
everything is based on the center line of the road, shows and
automobile in left hand corner of the print that I'm looking at.
Blue Heron Lane at this time can't be much over 20 feet wide, maybe
a little bit more than that. At this time I'll show where the
property points are, I don't know if this was a question with Mr.
Wolfe or not, but I certainly know where they are. This is the
center line of Meridian road right here and the end of the center
line is located somewhat at the center. This is the north side of
Meridian Road right, or excuse me Blue Heron Lane right here, this
then goes on straight through to this point over here which is
northwest corner which is on the north side of Blue Heron Lane. At
this intersection right here, this Jackson drain goes not quite but
almost perpendicular to the Blue Heron and then crosses here and
comes back over, goes over this way a little ways and diagonals
about 45 degrees lengthwise. At this juncture right here there is
a road proposed to come through Ewings place somewhere I think in
here, and there is another one over in here, I don't have that
drawing of Ewings but there is another over here. Anyway this
intersection right here poses the problem. One of the questions I
have on this particular thing is the people to the north side and
taking a look at some setbacks here, it appears to be a 20 foot six
setback from their property on into the edge of the apartment
complex, as Blue Heron Lane is widened and since it will affect a
partial of the property that I have on the east side of this
particular thing who's going to give up the property or who's going
to dedicate the property to ACHD or to this particular project to
widen that road? As an example, Mr. Wolfe has explained that will
be a fire access going through this particular thing, now that's a
fairly good access going into presently a gravel road and 20 foot,
so something will have to take place in that particular are, but
that's one of the major questions that I have, what will become of
Blue Heron Lane? The other questions I have stated before is Blue
Heron Lane going to be continued through as a through street on
that? That's all I have at this time.
Johnson: Okay Raleigh, thank you very much. Any questions of Mr.
Hawe?
Rountree: Do you have a particular presence on what happens to
Blue Heron in terms of through access or being culdesaced?
Hawe: Well there's a, excuse me Mr. Wolfe how many units are going
to be in that particular area?
Planning and Zoning
October 12, 1993
Page 7
Wolfe: 66
Hawe: 66, Well you'll have one access off of that into Meridian
road and the other will have to go onto Blue Heron Lane, and come
down Blue Heron Lane and back onto Meridian road. The other thing
is that they might come down Blue Heron Lane and pick up a lane
that, I know Mr. Ewing has two roads coming into that particular
Blue Heron Lane right now, that are proposed. So quite conceivably
Blue Heron Lane would carry a considerable amount of traffic. So,
as would I have a preference as to Blue Heron Lane continuing into
existence you mean or as pertained as a private road, all of the
above. Well, if it stays as a, I would want to see Blue Heron Lane
because of it going into a through street type of thing, the reason
is that there the property south of Blue Heron Lane, I'm will be
developed at some time, most of those properties are in a five year
state of being in change at some place in 5 years it will change
from the existing use to some other, either multiple use or some
other single family use. Therefore, I see the road getting a lot
of use, a lot of traffic from that. There would be traffic coming
up from that from, as an example conceivably, from my place as it
develops and from Swings properties to the north and to the east of
this property as those streets are designed, and I have a, I
believe I have the Swings map right here. It's a culdesac that
comes of the north part of that property, that street does not come
through on that corner, but there is a street called North Eureka
that comes off of Swings place onto Blue Heron Lane, if you want to
take a look at this, unless you have a copy yourself. If I may
I'll just pass this down.
Johnson: Wayne Forrey, did you specifically look at that or talk
to anyone at ACHD? Anything to add Raleigh?
Hawe: No I don't, except that that's a 30 foot street as I recall
coming off of it in the Eureka area, total service area of that
plus the commercial services going down Blue Heron Lane at this
particular time, there's a fairly good amount for the size of the
businesses a fair amount of semis traffic in that particular area
a lot of 18 wheeler traffic that goes down in there, we have farm
equipment and that sort of thing that goes through that thing
frequently it isn't significant number of units as compared with
the Meridian Meat Packing plant at this time. Also, at this time
there are two either presently used or temporarily used or
whatever, I don't know what they're called on the Meridian Meat
Packing property at this time, and there is no fences or guards or
Planning and Zoning
October 12, 1993
Page 8
whatever for people falling into them or people getting into them
or whatever. Some people just use them to shoot ducks or whatever.
Well anyway that's basically the use of Blue Heron Lane I see is
increasing traffic area and I hope that I've answered the questions
on that particular thing.
Crookston: Raleigh, Blue Heron is that on a quarter section line?
Hawe: Yes, it's on a half, I don't know it's a quarter section but
it's exactly a half a mile from Cherry Lane to that particular
point and from that point I'm talking about the east-west point
it's a half a mile to Ustick, so I don't if whether you'd call it
the quarter section line or half section mile line, I'm not sure
where that section falls in that particular thing, Wayne.
Johnson: Any comments Wayne Forrey? Apparently we didn't get any
response from ACHD on the application.
Forrey: That's what I was going to say Mr. Chairman. That they
were given an opportunity to comment, perhaps they need more time.
I think it would be important to get their comments and then
address specific items of Mr. Wolfe and Mr. Hawe brought up as well
as the counselors comment about the location of that easement. And
the long term with Ewing and the other developing properties there
it would affect on Blue Heron.
Johnson: What procedure can we use to get those comments, quickly?
Forrey: Well tomorrow we can make a phone call and follow up with
a written request of the Highway district to answer specific
questions, also the City Council will not take action on any of
these things on the agenda tonight unless the comprehensive plan is
adopted in early November or mid-November, and so that again would
give us time to get the bugs worked out with the Highway District.
Johnson: Well, I think we ought to look into why we don't have any
comments on any of these applications. I don't think we have
anything from ACRD on any of these. That would certainly help us.
Anybody else from the public want to address the commission at this
time, yes sir.
Dave Fuller, 890 Ten Mile Road, was sworn by the attorney.
Fuller: Just a simple question, I drive trucks down that Blue
Planning and Zoning
October 12, 1993
Page 9
Heron Lane, and I didn't know it was going to be discussed tonight,
but just input, is the city requiring the Highway departments to
put in curb and gutter in all these types of situations, because
from the semi standpoint that really is, if you're going to have
people living there we got to have sidewalks for them to walk on.
I just wondered if it was a standard policy or not.
Johnson: well that's not exactly the way we would phrase it, the
city doesn't require those things, the Highway District does
because they have jurisdiction over all streets and roads. And
then the city would normally adopt the ACHD's requirements but not
necessarily in each and every instance, is that basically our
procedure?
Fuller: And then the city takes jurisdiction over that?
Johnson: No, the city has no jurisdiction.
Shearer: ACHD won't have any jurisdiction either if it's a
private road and stays a private road.
Fuller: I see that's all I have.
Johnson: Anyone else? Anyone else on this application on hearing
none and seeing none I'll close the public hearing. What is your
pleasure gentlemen? What would you like to do? Would you like to
do anything?
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we have Findings of
Fact and Conclusions prepared,and that we see the comments from the
Ada County Highway District.
Alidjani: I'll second
Johnson: Moved and seconded
Conclusions of Law prepared by
ACHD, all in favor? Opposed?
that we have Findings of Fact and
the City Attorney, and input from
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #2: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO R-4
WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR VALERI HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION BY VICKI
WELKER:
•
Planning and Zoning
October 12, 1993
Page to
Johnson: I'll now open this Public Hearing, is there someone
representing the applicant that would like to come forward and
address the Commission, please do so at this time.
Matt Munger, 6168 Viewpoint, was sworn by the Attorney.
Munger: The first thing I'd like to point out to the members of
the Commission is that a revised layout that we have mounted on the
board there, I'm not sure as to the copy in front of you. We did
revise that, and I believe you got the revised copy. The one that
was sent out in the mailer was the original version and didn't show
the park lot. The annexation proposed is for 8.57 acres of which
we're preliminary platting 6.77 acres, the site is located on the
east side of Ten Mile road approximately 1/4 mile south of Cherry
lane and east-west boundary the east boundary is the Eight Mile
lateral. We are proposing annexation and R-4 zoning for this
project. The proposed subdivision contains 21 lots, 16 of which
are building lots. The gross density for this project is
approximately 2.36 lots per acre, which is in excess of the R-4
zoning. The lots we're proposing range in size from 10,000 square
feet to approximately 21,000 square feet, and we're proposing homes
in the range of 24,000 square feet and up, which is also well in
excess, 2400 square feet I'm sorry,which is also well in excess of
the requirements. Access to this subdivision will be off of Ten
Mile Road, ACHD in their comments requested sub-streets to the
north and to the south. We do not feel this appropriate and the
parcel of ground to the north of us is rather small and a sub-
street would be a hindrance there. The property to the south of us
fronts on both Ten Mile road and Pine Street, so a sub-street there
would also be a hindrance. We're proposing a 50 foot right of way
inside of the subdivision with 36 foot back to back ad the standard
5 foot sidewalk from Meridian. One of Gary Smith's comments was we
were not showing a sidewalk on the park, we don't feel that will be
of any real benefit and we'd rather have that as greenspace in the
park in which we propose to put a pond and a fountain and a small
picnic area. Sewer and water for this project will be extended
down Ten Mile road, there approximately 180 feet north of project
now, the city has mains installed we will extend those across our
frontage and internally to provide services to this side. Fire
hydrants and street lights will be determined by the City Engineer,
and we'll meet those requirements one we receive them. Irrigation
is one of the big items that's come up with our clients dealings
with the neighbors, there is an existing irrigation ditch on our
south boundary, which our client met with the property owner to
Planning and Zoning
October 12, 1993
Page 11
the south, we have no problem at this time with tiling that ditch
and we do not plan on using that ditch for irrigation on site.
We're no proposing for any type of a pressurized irrigation system
for this project. The Eight Mile Lateral being our east boundary
there, raises some questions as to the size of the fencing or
tiling requirements that are normally required for a lateral.
We're going to work with the city and Nampa/Meridian Irrigation
District on that to try to address any concerns that may arise
regarding that lateral. Drainage, we're proposing to retain all
the drainage on site from storm water run-off and we're looking at
doing that through surface ponding or sub-surface trenches
depending on the soil conditions when we go out and run our tests
on site. Do you have any questions? I'll be happy to answer them.
Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Munger?
Rountree: What's the size of the park that you're proposing?
Munger: I'm not sure of the square footage on the park, do you
happen to know Vicki?
Welker: It's at least 10,000 square feet
Munger: I believe it's between 12 and 13,000 square feet.
Rountree: Do you know the square footages on lots 7 and l0, I
guess that includes the easement for the Eight Mile Lateral?
Munger: I don't know those right off hand, lot 7 and 10.
Rountree: You might want to check those because you can't include
that easement area in your square footage.
Munger: Even without the easement I'm sure we're well above that
for R-4.
Rountree: The parcel is listed at slightly bigger than what your
preliminary plat shows that is being platted where are your other
acreages to this parcel?
Munger: The other acreage that we have listed in our annexation is
to the north of us and the city boundary is there so we have to
annex that.
Planning and Zoning
October 12, 1993
Page 12
Rountree: There is an irrigation ditch,
Munger: On our north boundary?
Rountree: Yes
Munger: Okay, the dealings that we've had have been centered
around the south and the Eight Mile Lateral, but we'll have no
problem dealing with that one either.
Johnson: With respect to Gary's comment #9 he hand wrote in here,
"it may be necessary to provide sanitary sewer through this
parcel", I believe it's Coe Parker property to the east can't read
it very well, did you talk to Gary at all about this particular
requirement?
Munger: No I haven't.
Johnson: Gary has been rather hard to get a hold of here lately,
with the move and did you have time to think about it?
Munger: The copy of comments that I have doesn't have a #6 or #9,
sorry. I have 8 it was faxed to me this morning.
Johnson: Well, he specifically requested he be, Gary Smith, that
comment with respect to that.
Munger: Providing sewer to the east?
Johnson: Yes
Munger: I'm sure it's something we can work out. We have room for
easements for sewer if that's the Comprehensive Plan to bring that
main through our site, then we'd sure participate.
Johnson: Anyone else have any questions of Mr. Munger? Our policy
with respect to tiling verses fencing is basically that we require
tiling and we have never deviated from that since we adopted that
rule, you might want to be aware of that. The city hasn't deviated
from that point in my knowledge since we adopted that ordinance, is
that correct Wayne? (Wayne shook his head yes)
Munger: Do you have a size limit on ditches for that requirement?
Would that requirement also contain the Eight Mile Lateral, which
Planning and Zoning
October 12, 1993
Page 13
is substantially large?
Johnson: I don't know of any size requirement, do you know of any
size requirement?
Forrey: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, and Matt, that's
always an issue is how big, the New York Canal, the Riddenbaugh
Canal, the Boise River where do you stop? The ordinance says
laterals and in Meridian we have some large laterals, and this is
certainly one of them, but a black and white reading of the
ordinance indicates that this Eight Mile Lateral would have to be
tiled. The ordinance is based on safety and does not have a size
criteria. So, in the sense of safety it wouldn't, size wouldn't be
an issue. Does that help?
Johnson: Thank you Wayne. Anyone else have a question for Mr
Munqer before we go to the public? Okay, thank you, this is a
public hearing, anyone else from the public that would like to
address the Commission on this application, yes sir.
Coe Parker, 2930 W Pine, was sworn by the Attorney.
Parker: I'd like to move over to the drawing and show you where I
am and show you my concern. I have a easement down this lane,
Haven cove is here my concern is that I don't get land locked
here, because I don't have any frontage on any major streets, and
I'm not opposed to this development but I moved out to Meridian to
live in the country but it doesn't look like I'm going to get to.
I'd just like to address that I have access to city either through
Haven cove or through this proposal.
Johnson: Do you have anything else to add Mr. Parker?
Parker: No
Johnson: Any questions for Mr. Parker?
Crookston: I just have one, on Gary Smith's comments it said your
property is to the east of this development.
Parker: I'm on the other side of the lateral.
Johnson: Your property lies just to the west of the road proposed,
is that right?
Planning and Zoning
October 12, 1993
Page 14
Parker: My property line goes right along here and about right
through here. This is just an easement here, it's about 700 foot.
Johnson: Thank you very much. Anyone else from the public like to
address the Commission, yes sir.
Dave Fuller, 890 Ten Mile, was sworn by the Attorney.
Fuller: My concern I've gone over with Vicki quite a bit, on the
water and the, excuse me I have a few notes here. First, we talked
over how the irrigation was going to be set up and she maybe
mentioned a well. Another thing I'd like to talk about here, this
is farm ground and I have the property directly south of this
proposed subdivision. I got some maps here if you guys want to
pass them down. This is the whole corner and her development is
just north.
Johnson: This whole corner right here? Approximately how many
acres are you talking about?
Fuller: About 14 acres, and this ditch she's talking about tiling
is right here. My question is that is fine to the that, but for
the other people once that's tiled what kind of right of way, is
that just buried in someone's backyard or is that how that works?
You still don't have a maintenance right of way of any kind there?
Once it's covered up that's it?
Johnson: There has to be an easement for maintenance, as I under
it. We've had some problems in the past, trouble getting access to
tiled ditches. And as I recall that has been corrected by the
ordinance, Wayne would you like to comment on that?
Forrey: Mr. Chairman, members of the. Commission, the ordinance
does require that there be access to the maintenance of, so if
you're actively using the water you have to be able to continue to
use that water, even though it's tiled ad covered up so we identify
with the developer your access points and schedule that type of
thing. It gets included in the design.
Fuller: My question on this deal is with the, where she was going
to put her chain link for the backyard was on this pin line, and as
you can see on this right here it goes from ten to eighteen foot on
this animal fence line right now which is on the proposed property
she is going to develop. How does that, you know if you're going
Planning and Zoning
October 12, 1993
Page 15
to fence that into someone's backyard how are we going to maintain
any kind of service area there? Go through each one of these
peoples backyard when they divide fences off?
Forrey: Probably relocate it and that's a detail to work with
Hubble Engineers, you know through good engineering design I think
get that point where you can get access and still service the ditch
and respect all the new neighbors you've got along there.
Johnson: This has to be worked out, in order to
Fuller: I just didn't know whether you went with a 15 foot
easement you move the fence back so it was uncovered in the
backyard, if you get someone in there with a broke pipe, you got to
dig it up they don't want you going through these fancy homes to
the backyard to dig this up.
Johnson: And that's what we're trying to avoid.
Fuller: My next thing I'd like to address is right here, this
comes in like this, this is going to be developed to, and I've
already talked to maybe selling to some developers on this and
connecting on to it. And I was concerned about the sewer, whether
it was coming through the field or down Ten Mile and you know how
it was going to connect, because this is going to develop fairly
soon in the next few years, part of it or all of it.
Johnson: I don't know if Gary has a comment here about where the
sewer coming.
Rountree: Coming down Ten Mile
Johnson: Ten Mile,
Fuller: And then the other thing I'd like to address is the
proposed long term R-4 but there is a lot of light commercial
coming down Pine Street, and I may talk to Vicki, and talk to her
about it she wants real fancy homes which is good but I had
thoughts of storage buildings, neighborhood storage, because this
area is growing up so fast. And she said those two weren't
compatible, so if they're not compatible we need to. I'm concerned
about what kind of development we're going to go with.
Johnson: Well it's a basic procedure we operate on, on the basis
Planning and Zoning
October 12, 1993
Page 16
of chronology, who gets the applications in, at this time we're
talking about maybe heresay on storage buildings and yeah it might
pose a problem, cause they're not always compatible with
residential down the road, right now we're looking at an
application for residential development and that's what we're
addressing.
Fuller: I'm just talking about Pine as a Future, there is a lot of
small businesses.
Johnson: There has been quite a few of different plans proposed on
Pine Street, some of which most of which haven't gone through,
you're right is this designated a mixed use area? So the chances
of it being developed commercially there are pretty slim. In the
Comprehensive plan that is not a mixed use area which means that
area is theoretically being held for residential development.
Fuller: I want to go back to my notes here, about, we also
discussed with Vicki about the neighbors and them being notified
that when they purchase this that there will be farming activities
there, I run a small custom farming operation with equipment in and
out. And we do still work jobs and we do do a lot of farming at
night after hours, dark, you're familiar with the situation that
happened in our neighboring counties. So these are some things
that I'd like to see addressed in the proposal plans of whatever
you're going to do with that ground adjoining to it. That's all I
have.
Johnson: Thank you, we appreciate it, your testimony is part of
the record. Anyone else like to come forward and address the
Commission? Seeing no one then I'll close the Public Hearing. Any
discussion gentleman? What's your pleasure?
Rountree: Mr. Chairman I make a motion that we have Findings of
Fact and Conclusions prepared.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: I have a motion for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law prepared by the City Attorney, all in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM //3: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HUNTS
Planning and Zoning
October 12, 1993
Page 17
BLUFF #2 SUBDIVISION BY MARTY GOLDSMITH:
Johnson: I'll now open the Public Hearing, is there someone
representing the applicant that would like to address the
Commission at this time, please do so.
Dave Roylance, 4619 Emerald, was sworn by the Attorney.
Roylance: Mr. Chairman, Commission members, I'm Dave Roylance, a
civil engineer representing the applicant. Hunts Bluff #2 is a 20
lot single family R-4 residential subdivision. We propose ACHD
public streets, city water, sewer and other standard utilities.
May I answer any other questions?
Johnson: Questions for Mr. Roylance? Is this application still
accurate with respect to your plans, minimum square footage?
Roylance: What is your question please?
Johnson: The application states your minimum square footage on the
lots is 8,000 and that your minimum square footage of structures is
1,300 is that still accurate?
Roylance: Yes it is.
Johnson: Have you familiarized yourself with the comments of Gary
Smith, I realize they're late.
Roylance: Yes I have
Johnson: Any questions concerning those?
Roylance: No I do not, they are all standard, normal and we can
comply.
Johnson: Have you or your client had any discussion at all with
the owners of the property adjacent to your, owned by Darrel and
Shannon Spencer?
Roylance: Yes sir,
Johnson: Would you summarize those discussions.
Roylance: Their concerns are that they do not want to be part of
Planning and Zoning
October 12, 1993
Page 18
our subdivision, in fact we initially submitted the project
including the Spencer lot and apparently that is against their
wishes, we either miscommunicated or whatever. As a result then we
resubmitted and redesigned the project to exclude their existing
home, they would like to keep their address and access point on
Overland Road. And to do that we have to exclude that from the
project and that was at their request. Further, they've requested
at least 15 feet minimum from the rear of their house to our lot
lines so they try with city setbacks, and we had provided 20 feet.
We've also had discussions with ACHD regarding the street
improvements on Overland, because typically ACRD does not want to
see and out parcel like this, it looks like in their eyes an
obvious attempt to avoid paying for curb/gutter/sidewalk
improvements along Overland Road, which is the normal requirement.
So we've met with them and also discussed the Spencer's concerns
they also have a shed that is in the corner, would be the northeast
corner of their property. If the street improvements went in it
would be moving some trees and a shed which is a concern to them,
so we don't know quite how to deal with the issues, we'll do
whatever is reasonable, we certainly want to comply with requests
we also know that ACHD wants the street improved so hopefully we,
us and the Spencer's and ACHD can meet and find some middle ground.
I believe that's the total of their concerns, but they're here to
address this.
Johnson: Moving on have you talked to anyone with respect to
Meridian Greens about their desire to have certain sized homes back
up to Meridian Greens, as other subdivisions have done?
Roylance: No sir I haven't, in reading this information tonight,
I assume it's the same information you have, I read the Letter from
Norm Fuller and we can comply with his request, we did that in
Hunts Bluff #1 we put 1500 square foot homes and shaped roofs and
certain sized lots and we're prepared to do that.
Johnson: As I recall, the adjacent subdivision also in Meridian
Greens 1600 I believe is the number we arrived at their, your
application I believe states 1300 square feet and I believe the
minimum is 1400 in R-4 now, just so you're aware of that.
Roylance: You can make that a condition, if 1400 is minimum.
Johnson: Okay, do you have anything further?
Roylance: Yes I do, in this memorandum from Wayne Forrey, there
i
Planning and Zoning
October 12, 1993
Page 19
was one thing there that caused me a little bit of concern and that
I'd like to discuss with you. And that is, it is dated October 12,
n
and the last paragraph from Wayne it says, I would recommend that
a pedestrian access/canal crossing be appropriated into the
approved Hunts Bluff #2, conditioned upon securing necessary access
to Meridian Greens to link both subdivisions together." Is that
suggesting that we provide access to the Eight Mile Lateral, which
if that's the case we can do that, but is it suggesting that we
fund the bridge over the Eight Mile Lateral, and if that is, we
feel that is a bit much of a burden for a 20 lot subdivision to
endure.
Johnson: Do you want to address that please Wayne?
Forrey: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, in this
particular section the School District is re-evaluating school
sites and my latest conversation with Dan Mabe indicates he wants
to get a school site closer to the interior of the subdivision, at
one time it was a different area. His concern of the Hunts Bluff
#1 and 2 link up somehow with Meridian Greens so children should be
able to walk south over the canal and go farther south through
Meridian Greens into a school site. Just to visualize that, what
you're looking at here is the Eight Mile Lateral and this is the
project that's up for approval right now, somewhere in here getting
access as Dave said to the canal is probably not difficult but,
we've got to get kids through another lot line somewhere in an
existing subdivision, and I don't see that as the developer of this
project, I don't see that as their responsibility, that's probably
the city's responsibility now to go out and talk to property owners
and see what arrangements to link the two subdivisions together,
and that's on the premise that down here in the near future there
is going to be a grade school, and Dan Mabe wants to be able to get
children to walk through these streets or ride their bicycles to
get to school rather that bussing them all the way out to Meridian
Road or excuse me Overland and over to Meridian Road and back down
and back in because it's costly to the school district. So even if
it's some expense to the school district I think maybe they would
rather pay and work with us to get access here than they would
forever to be bussing. This is more cost effective, so if we can
get Hunts Bluff to cooperate and we work with the developer, I
think it's a solution we ought to proceed with.
Johnson: At this point you don't have any discussion with the
property owners or the developers?
Planning and Zoning
October 12,1993
Page 20
Forrey: No Mr. Chairman.
Rountree: Isn't this developer going to have to the the Eight
Mile Lateral?
Forrey: According to the city ordinance it would be required.
Rountree: So the bridge is not the problem
Forrey: If we can find a couple of property owners that would be
sympathetic to that.
Rountree: One possible solution would be to extend Gunsmith
through to the 5th and provide pedestrian ways up 5th through lot
7 and block 2, because that's not subdivided.
Roylance: I guess we should look at all those options.
Johnson: I think we need to know if there is really going to be a
school there.
Forrey: Definitely, there will be Dan Mabe indicates that that
section will have an elementary school and it's that section and
noted in Comprehensive Plan Map for a future elementary school, and
he has started some property negotiations south of those red
arrows.
Johnson: That looks like a challenge to me, but I don't know maybe
it's easier than I think it is. Yes sir, you want to go on?
Roylance: If I could please. Mr. Chairman, Commission members I'm
not sure what the outcome of all of that was,our position would be
we would certainly participate in any kind of a neighborhood
adventure to get that canal crossed, we just don't want the whole
cost and burden to be born by us when sportsmen should could help
maybe Meridian Greens maybe somebody else but we will help in that
in that venture.
Johnson: Maybe the city
Roylance: Maybe, on another issue regarding tiling, I heard the
previous testimony regarding tiling the ditch if that's your
ordinance than so be it we have to live with it. However one
concern comes to mind, unless I have my ditches and I could, I
• ~
Planning and Zoning
October 12, 1993
Page 21
think in Central Valley Corporate Park we're
ditches, I think it's Eight Mile Lateral and Ten
both of those we wanted to the the ditch to
project in attempting to do that we found out f:
that the Army Corps of Engineers and from G.
Department of Water Resources that those ditches
Federal Water Way and have wetlands vegetation in
to wetlands issues which would mean if I under:
correctly they would not allow us to the the ditc
Nine Mile lateral but I don't believe is affect
Nine Mile Drain, but not a Lateral, I see. Have
the past required the Eight Mile Lateral tiled,
criteria?
dealing with two
Mile Drain and in
benefit our own
rom Greg Martinez
sne Gibson Idaho
are designated a
them, are subject
>tand the process
:h that may affect
s any of the, or
you typically in
or is this a new
Johnson: I don't know of any places that have been tiled, have
they been tiled?
Crookston: If there has been an application, pertaining to Eight
Mile since we've had the ordinance enacted, it has been required.
Johnson: But I can't think of one, and that was kind of his
question, wasn't it? Not if there had been but did we ever, isn't
that your question?
Roylance: The question apparently this is a new requirement and
it's not.
Johnson: That's a very sensitive issue right now for the city, I
can tell you that, tiling ditches is we do have the ordinance and
there are some teeth in the ordinance, the teeth are getting longer
and sharper as I understand it, that's the best way I can phrase it
right now, we're trying to anticipate here some of the questions
the city will have, City Council Members will have when you go to
that step, and so we want that part of the testimony to get your
feelings on that, they can peruse that part. I can't speak for
them, how they're going to react, we think at this point that
they're going to be hard and fast on tiling ditches. And ditches,
we know of no deviations they've made since we've had it, I can't
say that we've had an application of Eight Mile Lateral because I
don't recall one.
Crookston: Kennedy Lateral, they asked for a variance and it was
not approved.
Planning and Zoning
October 12, 1993
Page 22
Roylance: This new requirement then came to pass after the
Moratorium during that time period, what I'm getting at we did it
at Hunts Bluff #1 maybe we did wrong, and it was not a requirement
then to the the Eight Mile lateral, it just seems like an awful
big ditch to be tiling.
Johnson: It is a big ditch
Roylance: You have your needs
Johnson: It's longer than that, we're looking at the third year of
it
Roylance: We just got Lucky on #1 then
Johnson: Well or unlucky,I don't know how you look it it's a
safety thing, and that's foremost in their minds at this point, as
opposed to having a nice foot path along it, that's the safety
factor has been an overriding factor to this.
Roylance: I won't belabor the issue, I guess if we want to present
an argument we do that at City Council. One last issue,
Crookston: Let me interject, if you do want to have a variance do
apply before the City Council you have to apply for the variance.
Roylance: So a formal variance procedure application
Johnson: Right, the variance is not handled at this level, its
only handled at the City Council Level.
Roylance: I see okay. We had a meeting with the Ada County
Highway District on october 7th and we viewed the project with
them. And one of the things they brought up is that they would not
be opposed to they would encourage a culdesac in this location
here, and not punch through the access onto Overland road. The idea
being this is and ulterior and to allow to access points on the
ulterior takes away the function of the street, given the fact that
one lot would be here, the road turns and makes the connection onto
Overland, and then the from the transportation standpoint they
didn't see a need for this road to go through.
Johnson: How long would that make your culdesac if it's not
punched through?
Planning and Zoning
October 12, 1993
Page 23
Roylance: 450 feet
Johnson: So your 450 feet over the ordinance which you'd have to
get a variance for that.
Crookston: The ordinance is 450 feet
Johnson: See I'm wrong again, maybe it's 451 feet
Crookston: That's only 449 feet
Johnson: Well I'll take it into consideration, that's where we
really need some ACHD input on that, we're not getting it.
Roylance: I do have a letter here from them dated October 7th
Johnson: Is there a copy to the City incidentally, or is it just
to you?
Roylance: No just us, that's all the comments that I have, unless
you have questions?
Johnson: Thank you, any questions of Mr. Roylance? This is a
Public Hearing anyone else from the public like to come forward at
this time?
Marty Goldsmith, 4550 West State St, was sworn by the Attorney.
Goldsmith: I've had recent conversation with Gary Smith concerning
the Eight Mile Lateral on an upcoming project of Jerry McDermot's
farm and it would be southeast of this area and it is defiantly
been pointed out to me that we will not be required to the the
Eight Mile Lateral. And that I should address the concerns of
Nampa/Meridian Irrigation District and I have done so and that the
fence does do this, this is an exceptionally large ditch and
possible might make development prohibited. It will be fenced, it
has not been required by Sportsmen Point to fence the Eight Mile
Lateral,Meridian Greens, Hunts Bluff #1 and he said that he is not
going to start that on the Eight Mile Lateral, because it hasn't
been followed through before. That's what I wanted to say.
Johnson: That's his recommendation? Okay, well I appreciate that
thank you. Anyone else from the public like to come forward now?
Planning and Zoning
October 12, 1993
Page 24
Doug Hoy, 1806 Southeast 5th Way, was sworn by the Attorney.
Hoy: Good thing you don't miss one of these, lots of surprises
when you get here. I'm lot #1 block #1 first lot going down
Southeast 5th Way, coming in from Overland.
Shearer: You're here to donate property for easement through.
Hoy: I have a few things and I'm not against free enterprise, I
believe in protectionism too. I would like to request that we stay
within 1600 square feet of the square feet on some of these
houses, even though that is somewhat A little small then what we
have in Meridian Green, I still think that will flow ok across
that, we do have a buffer zone. I would like to see some similar
structure to what we have in Meridian Green and Hunts Bluff is
doing quite well in #1, I'm not complaining about that. Keep it ,
with shaped roofs, I would like to a requirement that these house
have shaped roofs so that they flow with Meridian Green, it seems
like to me you're trying to flow that into Meridian Green. Those
two parts of the building structure I'd also like to see a six foot
high buffer fence between their lot in between the canal, I think
you said something about doing that?
Johnson: You have to talk to us that's the procedure.
Hoy: Okay, a six foot high buffer fence between Meridian Green
between the canal.
Johnson: We wouldn't have a problem if Meridian Green put in the
fence too.
Hoy: I'll probably put one in, I don't like to look at my
neighbors back yards or them into mine. I happen to be higher than
they are by the way. I'd also like to have a little access to
Meridian Green, we have one on 5th already all you want to do is
float some more traffic in there, never heard about a school in
there in the first place that's a big surprise. So, he just said
how easy it was to get out of that subdivision by Overland Road,
it's just as easy for a bus to get out there won't it. So why open
that up into Meridian Greens, i suggest that you not allow that.
Shearer: I think it's just pedestrian
Hoy: No traffic just pedestrian?
Planning and Zoning
October 12, 1993
Page 25
Johnson: Depends on who you listen to.
Hoy: Also, I think the question has been answered about Eight Mile
Lateral, I bought a nice lot there that backs up to the Lateral, i
never knew you had an Ordinance now that tiled and covered laterals
that's news to me. I would like to resist that and ask that you do
not force that issue because that is a very nice lateral it
resembles a creek, and if you cover it and turn it into sewer
instead of creek we would lose a lot, I've got it landscaped back
there and I enjoy my evenings on the lateral, I've got a six foot
waterfall which I bought that property because there was a
waterfall on it. I request that you no do that, that's all I have.
Johnson: Any questions, by the Commission? Thank you sir. Anyone
else from the public that would like to come forward at this time?
Don Stillwaugh, 1822 South East 5th Way, was sworn by the Attorney.
Stillwaugh: I live at, see the green arrow going to my property
there, circle #1 there and lot #3 is my property. My wife and I
moved in there just about a year ago and we were one of the last
homes to build in the older part. the reason we built in Meridian
Greens we lived in Boise 20 years at another home and this is the
first time we built a home, we moved there because of the quality
of life and the homes. We also moved there because we looked for
a long time for a house with a canal behind it or something that
would have a nice view, I would second Mr. Hoy's opinion, the
reason we bought that lot is because it had water behind it, and it
adds to our property, we enjoy that also. We had the luxury of
getting all of our landscaping not quite as much as mr. Hoy, but we
plan to get that done next year in the back. So I also would say
that if, as far as covering that canal we think it would be a very
negative thing for our property, and I think if you walked down the
rest of Meridian Greens the lots that back you'll. see that a
majority of them do have landscaping right up to the canal, and
they do enjoy that canal. I also would this first time I saw the
green arrow and it kind of startled me a little bit, I'm not sure
how Mr. Bachman feels about that who owns the lot #4 I mean. My
wife is a school teacher in Meridian School District for 20 years
we do love children and enjoy them but I don't know if we'd want
the whole School District going through our property. If that is
necessary I would recommend there are some options and if they do
have to go across the undeveloped part I'm not sure what the plans
are for that, and also the other area where they show the green
arrow,
Planning and Zoning
October 12, 1993
Page 26
those lots haven't been sold yet, and there are no houses I know in
that 3 or 4 lots there, there is quite of bit of area up there.
The other issue as far as construction I'd go along with Mr. Hoy in
saying that I think that, I know that at some point when you build
homes there has to a blending of property and all property can't be
the same, I think Hunts Bluff is the area to do the blending and
not Meridian Greens. Make those homes the same as Meridian Greens
that back up we build our homes with certain value I don't want a
1300 square foot home behind my home its about half the size. If
they want the blending they can do it in their own subdivisions not
next to other subdivision. And shake roofs also, we bought our
specifically because with the canal even if they built a home
behind us we would still have somewhat of view and be able to see
the snow on the mountains that may be in question if the build 2-
story homes, I know I don't have a lot of control on that, but I
would hope that it would be a red composition shake roof, I'd like
to see a regular shake roof. I think that covers everything.
Johnson: Any questions for Mr. Stillwaugh? Okay thank you very
much, next who'd like to come forward and address the Commission?
any rebuttal any comments regarding their comments you'd like to
address clarify, you don't have to just if you do.
Goldsmith: We would be happy to go up on the square footage of the
homes, up to 1500 maybe 1600 square foot, 1500 square foot being
the minimum and 1600 square foot on the back two lots where we
adjoin Meridian Greens.
Johnson: How large are those lots square footage wise, you may
have already answered that but I forgot? Those lots that abut,
8,9,10,11,12?
Goldsmith: Yeah, those are 11,000 plus
Johnson: So pretty good sized lots?
Goldsmith: Absolutely, the majority in there average 11,000.
Johnson: What do you say about shake roofs for the record?
Goldsmith: I do oppose shake roofs in there.
Johnson: You don't like shake roofs.
Planning and Zoning
October 12, 1993
Page 27
Goldsmith: No
Alidjani: Which one would you like, the the or the asphalt.
Goldsmith: I believe a 25 year dimensional shingle is going to
outlast a shake roof and I speak from record of being in the
roofing business for ten years.
Johnson: Okay any questions for Mr. Goldsmith? Thank you,
anything you'd like to add to that Wayne Forrey?
Forrey: No
Johnson: Keep my Wayne's straight here, how about Wayne Crookston?
Crookston: Nothing
Johnson: One last shot anybody from the public, you got to be
quick because you already had on shot.
Hoy: I didn't buy a shake roof for the length of stay I bought it
for the aesthetics and that's what I respect in, also when you say
2 lots back up to Meridian Greens, I see five.
Johnson: I didn't say 2 did I?
Hoy: He said 2
Johnson: Oh, did he, I was talking about 8,9,10,11,12
Hoy: Okay, I just wanted it for the record, that's all.
Johnson: Okay thank you, well if no one else would like to come
forward, then I'll close the Public Hearing at this time. What
would you like to do Mr. Shearer?
Shearer: I thinking
Johnson: Do you have a comment there Mr. Crookston or are you just
resting your arm?
Crookston: I'm just scratching my head, thank you.
Shearer: I move we have the Attorney prepare Findings and Fact and
Planning and Zoning
October 12, 1993
Page 28
Conclusions of Law.
Crookston: There's no findings on, this is a preliminary plat
Johnson: So we don't have any
Shearer: Oh,
Rountree: Mr. Chairman I make a motion that we recommend to the
City Council approval of the plat with the conditions the Engineer
look at culdesacing Gunsmith Ave at Overland Road the the minimum
square footage of housing be 1500 square feet with a 1600 square
foot minimum on lots 8,9,10,11 and 12, and at minimum shake
requirement on the same lots.
Alidjani: Did you say for all of them Charlie, or those that just
are on the back?
Rountree: The same lots 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12.
Alidjani: I'll second
Johnson: It's been moved and seconded to recommend approval of
plat to the City Council with stipulations so stated regarding
culdesacing and square footage of 1500 and 1600 square footage on
lots 8,9,10,11 and 12 also shake roofs on the same lots 8,9,10,11
and 12. All in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #4: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR R-
4 BY EDWARD A. JOHNSON:
Johnson: Is Mr. Johnson, your representative here to address the
Commission, please come forward at this time.
Johnson: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, My name is
Edward A. Johnson, or Ted Johnson, President of Land Developers
Edward A. Johnson was sworn by the Attorney.
Crookston: It gives me pleasure to swear in an ex-judge.
E.A. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Crookston, the application we have
tonight
Planning and Zoning
October 12, 1993
Page 29
gentlemen is an application for an annexation of 12.46 acres, I
believe the number is I'm sorry I'm a little bit unprepared
tonight, because this came up without much notice to me, and I'm
very depending on your sketches tonight. But the annexation
request is for a little larger parcel than what we're proposing as
a subdivision for the reason that Mr. and Mrs. Calhoun, John and
Colleen Calhoun, who are here tonight, would like to annexed on the
remaining property that they're going to retain. Our proposal with
them is to purchase a ten acre parcel from them that would be
adjoined on the east by property we already have, we already own
and have a preliminary plat approval on in the Landing project,
this would be this particular proposal would be Landing #7. It
would be consistent with or a little larger than what we already
have in the existing first five or six spaces of the Landing
subdivision. The lots are a little larger and they're footages are
probably a little larger, the access on Linder Road it would be
what I understand from long standing that there has been a desire
to extend Waltman Lane to the west to commute to Linder Road, and
this would accomplish that purpose. Our proposal here would amount
to about 52 lots in the 14.45 acres that would be a composite of
the ten acres we would be purchasing from the Calhoun's. At about
4.5 acres from existing ground that we've already had zoned from
before.
Johnson: What's that density work out to?
E.A. Johnson: The density is just a little over 3.5
Johnson: That's excluding the ten acres of that property?
E.A. Johnson: Yes, that does not include the development property.
Johnson: Most of the R-4, is that what you're saying? Pretty close
to R-4 itself?
E.A. Johnson: That's correct, I had a chance to read Mr. Forrey's
letter of comments this evening, and there are a couple of things
there I think we need to talk about. As you know this land(end of
tape) As you know the Landing project has been going on now for
about 3.5 years, and in that effort over a period of time we have
worked with all the agencies including the Highway District and the
City to determine just how that interior project was to be
serviced. And the attempt for a long time on our part was to use
Waltman Lane and going east, but there was some resistance to that
Planning and Zoning
October 12, 1993
Page 30
so there was a discussion here in this room as a matter of fact,
between the ACRD people, City Engineer, myself and other interested
parties there was quite a large crowd talking about what could be
done to service that, the idea was that we would try to provide
another access off to Linder Road or in some other direction and
it's been foretoitness that we've been able to work on that, where
e could out to Linder Road through the Calhoun property. That
however presents a problems, I see Mr. Forrey's comments having to
do with the sewer I know the long range plan for the Calhoun
property and any property on the west side of the kennedy Lateral,
is to flow by gravity to the west, we would propose to put in
attempt with a list station at Linder Road and come back into our
system that would be a distance of about 600 feet into a facility
we already have oversized to allow that to happen. And that would
be crucial to our application and for annexation because without
the sewer we wouldn't be able to go forward.
Johnson: Excuse me where would the lift station be located?
E.A. Johnson: It would be located on the eastern most portion in
the intersection of the roads that come in from Landing #6, do you
want me to point that on the map?
Johnson: Yes if you would please.
E.A. Johnson: Well this station would be down here and pump to an
existing sewer now
Johnson: So the station is right off Linder
E.A. Johnson: Yes, it would pick up onto the sewer and be very
handy when this sewer is removed it could flow on by gravity to the
west when there is someplace for it to be handled. We do have a
lift station in phase 1 of the Landing which handles phases 1, 2,
nd 3 or a portion of it, actually the portion to the west to the
eastern portions of those are gravity flow and the western portions
had to be lifted back up to the manhole furtherest to the west. We
see this to be a similar kind of an application it would make the
need is to do that on a temporary basis. And we would furnish of
course the pumping unit. The question Mr. Forrey raised is
relative to schools and parks, is something we've already been
concerned about, and interested in working with. About three years
ago we had some conversation with the School District and again two
years ago and we find when we finally platted the remainder we
started with three
Planning and Zoning
October 12, 1993
Page 31
phases, and then we came back and did the remaining portion of that
probably about 65 acres. And in that conversation, those
conversations, we'll offer a school site in that area and we wanted
to do so we could plan with it not have it interrupt it. Well two
years ago or maybe a year and a half the School District indicated
to us that they were no interested in a site in that location.
Johnson: Yes I remember that conversation.
E.A. Johnson: The reason was is the Highway I-84 cuts us off from
the south, they'd like to have a place that's more central than
this, and that's from the premise we're going to operate now for a
couple years. We do have a park in the next phase, at the eastern
most portion of this phase touches the edge of this park, it's
about a 3 acre park that would be centrally located in the middle
of the project we privately owned and maintained, we've done that
in many of our projects and find them to be a good addition to the
neighborhood. I need to raise the issue of the Kennedy Lateral
again, I've heard a lot of conversation about it here tonight, we
do intend to pipe the Kennedy Lateral through the lots that abut
the, the lateral goes through the eastern tail of this project. We
would like to the that but we would prefer not to the that which
goes through on west for the reason that they, the Calhoun's own to
the middle of it, somebody else owns the other half and it would be
very handy as we've done in other jurisdictions, just to fence that
out so that the last two feet of the property but is not part of
the subdivision and would be protected from access to anyone who
wanted to be in the part of the lots and the other part of it is
the other side of it is the lateral is a nursery a greenhouse where
commercial activity goes on and this is a residential kind of place
along that section of the Kennedy that's where the maintenance road
is maintained for the maintenance of the whole lateral it's on the
north, and on the east where it makes a curve. So our application
would be to the Council that we would be allowed a variance on that
portion which we only own half the right of way, I can't control
the other half. I believe those are the major points that I have
gentleman, it's one of those things that we think is a positive
thing for the community in that it provides better access and opens
up ground that's already zoned in close proximity to the city with
a great deal of effort having been put in to this project the last
couple two to three years, well a lot of input all we're trying to
do is satisfy all those agencies that we've dealt with that you've
suggested.
Planning and Zoning
October 12, 1993
Page 32
Johnson: That's a lot of fun trying to do that isn't it? Have you
had any recent discussion with the school? I know this was a couple
of years ago regarding the site, have you talked to them say within
the last couple of months?
E.A. Johnson: Mr. Chairman I could be fececious and say yes
because I talked to them late this afternoon, but I didn't know
this was an issue anymore because we've been working on our other
site in a different part of the county, but I have not raised the
issue nor has he.
Johnson: Could you comment for me on surface water and drainage I
understand there has been some problems out in the adjacent areas
with the high water table.
E.A. Johnson: There is a high water table Mr. Chairman, our
approach to that has been to lay an additional line along side of
the sewer a perforated line that carries off and drops the water
table quite a little bit, and drops it to the point where the crawl
spaces are not directly affected if they're anywhere close to the
sewer line.
Johnson: Have you actually done that in part of your other
development or do you have any success with that.
E.A. Johnson: Yes Mr. Chairman that's what we've done in every
part of the development because of the very issued you raised. It's
more costly but we feel that handles, it drops that water table
down to where we prefer to have it.
Johnson: Okay, any questions for Mr. Johnson? Charlie?
Rountree: How close are you to the Interstate?
E.A. Johnson: We about border the Interstate on the south.
Rountree: You have individual lots bordering the Interstate with
home sites within 50 or 60 feet?
E.A. Johnson: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rountree we have them backing up
against the Interstate in one of the later phases but we know that
FHA requires a 50 berm and we're going to have to fudge it a little
bit, move the streets to the north we just learned that recently
but their will be a buffering along the Interstate for the noise
and traffic control, or at least just the noise of it.
Rountree: You indicated that you're going to improve access it
seems to me like its going to aggravate the problem on Linder on
the corner of Linder and Franklin with traffic congestion.
Planning and Zoning
October 12, 1993
Page 33
E.A. Johnson: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rountree that is the very question
we're addressing here in this room about a year ago. The question
was how do we handle that and there were people who were concerned
about the access onto Linder at Franklin then. And ACHD said all
that up to this point we'll handle it but by putting in a four way
stop. When it goes beyond that another hundred homes or something
like that, we'll put in a centi-four, and they said that will
handle it easily.
Johnson: I believe it was another 100 or 200 homes I don't
remember, any other questions?
Crookston: I just have one question on your drawing here Mr.
Johnson, on I guess it's block 7. I don't know if there's blocks
on there or not. Lot 2 it's a double frontage lot.
E.A. Johnson: Mr. Chairman may I step over there and see that map?
Crookston: This lot right here. That's a real hard thing to deal
with because the individual owner doesn't know which is going to be
his backyard and which is his frontyard and which he can fence and
he's going to want to fence to the street, which our ordinances do
not allow, I just reference that is very difficult to deal with.
E.A. Johnson: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Crookston, I understand what you
are saying exactly we don't like double frontage lots any better
not as well as you do I'm sure that's the case and we've developed
something like 3,000 lots in the last 25 years. We try to avoid
them but in this situation I think the better approach is to deal
with people who can handle that in the covenant so that they still
meet the criteria of the city, not having fences clear out into the
street which we don't like either but it's a matter of question if
we have to cut our price on that one and let somebody come in there
and have a nice backyard and it isn't fenced then that's what we're
going to have to do. Because I don't see how to use that strip
otherwise.
Crookston: Thank you.
Johnson: Any other questions of Mr. Johnson?
Rountree: Is this graphic out here your proposed subdivision plat
it seems rather confusing to me, you've got some lines cutting
through the middle of lots and you've got some lots renumbered,
Planning and Zoning
October 12, 1993
Page 34
you've got some lots that obviously don't make the minimum square
footage you have the lot that Wayne just pointed out is a problem
lot, you don't show curb/gutter and soil block on Linder.
E.A. Johnson: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rountree, I recognize what you're
saying is true and we'd had a whole dog and pony show here tonight
if I had known just a little bit ahead of time but I know until
this morning, I'm sorry.
Crookston: Well it is only and annexation and zoning, we were just
interested in that.
E.A. Johnson: And let me assure you Mr. Rountree that we've made
every effort to meet that requirement in fact the engineering
sketch that he has drawn for this subdivision shows 8,000 or more
feet on every lot.
Rountree: Well lot #35 doesn't meet the requirement if you take
away the square footage for the lateral easement it's right at
8,000 now and and there is certainly more than 9 square feet at the
lateral easement.
E.A. Johnson: Mr. Rountree we can adjust that, there are some over
there that are about 9.000 that lot can move when we get ready to
Rountree: I just wanted to point out that whatever we do this
evening really this is not a factor because of what you have is
strictly conceptual. I think there are going to be significant
adjustments.
Johnson: Good point, thank you Charlie. Anyone else? Thanks Ted,
anyone from the public that would like to address the Commission on
this issue, anyone else? Any comments from you Mr. Forrey?
Forrey: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission and Ted,
I can clarify one point, in the last two months Dan Mabe and the
School Board have been re-evaluating the school siting needs so I
don't know two three years ago that might have been the case where
they didn't anticipate a school site in this section but now they
do. And so somewhere in this area in the future they'd like to
have a school site. Now they didn't specifically ask that it be in
this project but just so you know that's why the comment is there.
Planning and Zoning
October 12, 1993
Page 35
Johnson: I understand that conversation
there is a need in that area but they
further south north on Linder and across
•
is still valid because
were focusing a little
the street.
Forrey: Correct, and that's still the site in that area. As far
as the sewage issue and the drainage, I wish Gary was here i think
that is something Gary has to work out with that lift station and
the capacity. And he eludes to that in his comments. That piece
of property is in two different drainage areas so it will require
a pump station and then as an interim solution and as a long term
in the Black Cat trumping, okay that's it.
Johnson: Thank you very much. Apparently no one else from the
public wants to come forward so we'll close the public hearing.
We'd need Findings of Fact on this if you're through with your
questions?
Shearer: I move we have the Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for this project.
Rountree: I'll second
Johnson: Okay a motion for the City Attorney to prepare Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law on the application for annexation
and zoning all in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: I have one thing just a reminder I mentioned this to
Wayne I just want it on the record when we get it's difficult to
deal with stuff when you get is this late you know that. Tonight
would have been a perfect example of why we need some of the agency
comments if we can do anything to get those on time from ACHD etc.
we need to do that. If Gary can't make the meetings and I
understand that on occasion where we've got sewer problems like
that can his stand in his fellow work with him, can he attend some
of these meetings, or is that out of the question. That would help
particularly when we get tiling the requirements, Gary said I don't
have to tile, and Gary doesn't make that decision the City Council
does. The other thing is I can't play Carmac as I've said and we
get a list that just gives us answers and no questions I don't know
what the questions are, I'm not real good at that, so I would like
a list of the application questions and if the answers are on a
separate page I can probably match them up, but in this case sir
Planning and Zoning
October 12, 1993
Page 36
things like square footage size of houses things that aren't
answered because the questions are the answers aren't all there.do
you follow me what I'm saying? There was only one application in
1 out of 4 tonight. It just makes it easier for us, it's a good
check and balance because there might be some questions that are
important there to add, other than that those are my bitches for
the evening.
Forrey: Will has hired a new secretary, Anna Doty, Will has been
busy, so this was a bad packet no question about that, we'll get up
to speed. I'm glad we have a chance to chat there is one thing the
last couple of meetings you talked about follow up, and even of the
of the Comprehensive Plan hearings we talked about making sure that
the conditions that the Commission puts on a project that it gets
to the Council and if it gets approved a year or two later or about
a week later we make sure those conditions are met, well the rubber
hit the road today a lady came in and asked a pretty simple
question, and Will had talked to her and we just invited her to go
through the file it's a matter of public information so satisfy
yourself she was delighted to do that. As she was digging through
the file to check on the status on why a fence was put on a certain
boundary and not on another boundary she discovered that there was
supposed to be a homeowners association and her being an owner was
not aware that she was a member of homeowners association it also
indicated that there was supposed to be landscaping on two sides of
the subdivision and lot backed up to one of the sides and she came
to me and said where is the, is this just mythical. And of course
it was right in the Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law it's
exactly what the Commission had talked about where you had approved
and the Council had approved here is subdivision right here here is
where the landscaping and a fence here and none of it was done and
there is supposed to be a Homeowners association and all the .
Johnson: I remember our comments not so long ago regarding design
review and that was one of my concerns is this whatever you want
to call it, is there any follow up? I think Jim Shearer thought I
was way off base because he said that is not part of design review
so I don't know how you want to call it, there should be some
kind of staff follow up
Forrey: Design compliance review whatever, but here is a better.
Johnson: Yes, it just makes you wonder how many times we assist on
the conditions that aren't met you know.
Planning and Zoning
October 12, 1993
Page 37
Forrey: So I called the developer in fact I wanted to hear his
side of it. He was unaware, he said he didn't know that was a
condition.
Alidjani: That was the problem for the last mont on North Ten Mile
before Ustick we had a beautiful subdivision Candlelight and right
before that the two sidewalks are not within harmony, have you
noticed that? In fact they are both beautiful but if you put them
side by side there so ugly. One has those in and out snake kind of
curves but then the grass comes out to the blacktop. I don't know
how they got away with one one way and one the other way.
Forrey: I would have thought the Highway District would have
caught that.
Alidjani: They're both beautiful in their own merits on their own
sides but when they get together they're ugly.
Johnson: Kind of like a mixed marriage right?
Crookston: One comment on the applications, I think it's really a
joint problem of the City and the applicant, the city I believe
accepts application that just go down the application and they type
their own and they just put in answers.
Johnson: It does not happen in Boise city, you know what happens
over there you're lucky to get your application through on the
first two or three times.
Crookston: We should buck them back and say that is not complete.
Johnson: It happens down there, they review them when they come in
before they even accept the application. You know if it's not if
everything isn't answered in accordance with them they just kick it
back to you and say you can't apply for this its against the
ordinance or whatever, or you didn't answer this question.
Forrey: I think Will did one today, didn't you?
Johnson: It's a time saver, we don't want to run into that at this
level.
Forrey: I am developing new application forms that I think will be
better.
Planning and Zoning
October 12, 1993
Page 38
Johnson: That's why I want the questions and not just the answers
because I can't tell if they are following the form. I know on the
application it asks for number of lots, density, the size of homes
and the price range, some of these answers none of those answers
And that is a clever way of doing it.
Rountree: I'd like to see when we get something like this last one
is how it ties into the section, because the whole section is
maybe.
Johnson: We needed that for Blue Heron.
Rountree: That one was so fresh in mind about two months age that,
but if we've got on file a plat of the adjacent property if would
be nice to see how they tie in together. I know it's more work on
the staffs part.
Forrey: I'll do it even for an overhead.
Rountree: Like this gut out in the middle of Pine and Ten Mile, I
know exactly where he is I didn't realize he didn't own his lane.
He probably should already be hooked to the city sewer/water since
he abuts the city limits.
Shearer: We should have when we put that subdivision to the north
of him.
Rountree: It should have been extended to him it would have saved
us.
Crookston: I believe that our ordinance requires a ,I can't think
of the exact terminology, but basically a 300 foot radius around
the outside.
Johnson: It's called a vicinity mag
Crookston: A vicinity map, here is the vicinity map and here is
the lot that doesn't show me what is over here.
Rountree: The applicant should be pulling that together from the
city's information.
Shearer: For example Hunts Bluff you couldn't tell nothing from
that map. I had to go out there to make sure which entrance it
was. What we need is for the city to get the entire city on
Planning and Zoning
October 12, 1993
Page 39
computer. On a computer disk and then whenever we got the
applicant approved make the engineers furnish it.
Forrey: We have and it's what we've done is join the Ada County
digital base map it's about a $90,000 expense we just received a
contract once we get that negotiated and on line every week they
update the base map and we can get copies and have them and I'll
make sure everyone get one, an accurate zoning a good planning
area.
Shearer: That would sure help.
Rountree: That could be a requirement of the submittal instead of
these full planning sheet plans is to have them provide a data file
of the subdivision as how it fits into that mapping. You could
pull out a 300 of a 1/4 mile section and use that as the
illustration.
Forrey: Two requests then, one I think tonight it would help Will
if you could set a deadline for him how to process this
information. We've been going on the assumption we get stuff by
everybody Thursday and then by Friday noon before your meeting we
have it out and Will gets busy things happen and it just didn't
happen this time, but that is one thing, maybe you want it a week
before the meeting instead of the night before or the day of.
Shearer: I think that is an internal process
Johnson: Not only applicant but to internal processing
Forrey: We would back it up to tell the developers and everyone
else when we need information to get enough time to get a packet
together etc.
Shearer: You ought to make that part of the letter to send out to
the individuals for me I would rather have it the weekend before.
I can do it the night before the meeting if I can get it you feel
like you've done that and you come in tonight and you find letters
that have come in after 4:45. Friday before the meeting or mid-
afternoon before the meeting. I think you guys as city employees
need to set that time, and if you don't have it I thinks it's
legitimate even if it's advertised a hearing say sufficient
information was not obtained by the due date this item is tabled
until next meeting. You do that a couple time and you're going to
get information. In Boise city I think that's about a two week
period of time, it has to be in two weeks before hand.
Planning and Zoning
October 12, 1993
Page 40
Johnson: It has to be to the staff so they have a full week to
study it. If we could have the stuff for the weekend, I'd like to
take this stuff home. I don't have any free time during the day.
Alidjani: Then you could take a trip to the property and take a
look at it
Shearer: If you had your own map you could take it back to your
office or home
Alidjani: I'd like to make a motion to adjourn so I can go home
and eat.
Forrey: I think we should schedule a work session so we can
accomplish a couple things, I'd like you all to look at this
application packet all of them from the variance to the day care to
the annexation and get all of your comments. Well they are about
ready to have a work session now, I can put them all in your boxes
and do it collectively and then secondly I'd like to get started on
updating the zoning ordinance and any kinks that we all know of
through this hearing process on the Comprehensive Plan and anything
that's thorny.
Johnson: There just is no reprieve is that what your talking
about?
Forrey: That's right. WE have to start thinking about that and
move to a work session.
Johnson: Well if you're going to do the packet give us a week to
ten days, so we're not all fumbling going into the workshop.
Forrey: Should we anticipate some time at the end of the next
agenda?
Johnson: Is there a motion we adjourn?
Rountree: I so move
Shearer: Second
Johnson: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
MEETING ADJORNED AT 9:20 P.M.
Planning and Zoning
October 12, 1993
Page 41
(TAPE OF FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CI ERK
JI$R JO NSO , CHAIRMAN
10-15-93
MERIDIAN CITY PLANNING & zonning
meridian city council
33 E ID AVE
MERIDIAN ID 83642
TO WH0;1 IT MAY CONCERN:
I am writing regarding the proposed rezonning of the acreage located at
North East corner of Fai-:view & N Locust Grove.
Ply home is located at:
1370 Carol Meridian ID
I have owned the property for 14 years and enjoy the quality of this life
style.
I do not want the acreage at the Corner of Locust Greve & Fairview to be
zoned commercial. We who live in Doris subdivision enjoy the quietness of the
area and would not welcome the noise, traffic & litter that would come should
the area around us be zoned commercial. It would pollute our irrigation water,
possibly our wells, locaer our property values & reduce our quality of life.
I would prefer the area stay zoned as farm land but at least i_t should
remain residential with decent sized lots of no more than 3 homes to the
acre with a commercial strip along Fairview.
Its time the people in planning & zoning started listening to the
people who live i.n the area.
Thank you for listening to us.
Sincerely,
~.,,
Mary $humway
Owner of above property
,~o. ~~~
~{ ~ ~~,-
~,~_ ~ ~,~~~ ~.~--ti-~~~ -~-
~~ ~ ~~ ~~~
« ~-~.~i~
~ ,,., -ra-~~~
P ~~~«T n
~ ~ !/J~/ ,
~ ~T
c~ ~ C~-v ~~~ /--o ~„iCG-G
/ ~ ~
9 ~C't+-tom a-l~zu.~~'i/ ~--
.c-~ .eu¢~=-
G~~ r~2- t~-zt~-- ~,"~ %x
n
_c1!1G~1Dnnl!1nl _C~T-`~~J PLr+NN i N td ~- Zonf_i fi k~ ,
_ _. _. ~L~~i1J_l. ~'!J Ll ~._l CCIJ ~.I C.I (_... _-____._.._. _.
~s i9 t-If?n'i~ou.~N~Z Ie~SipiN~- Ar _[~loy ~1~~ s?",
~V1~P101(~rS_1 ~- AM _. vG~~ GsPFc~ _~TG _T~L _P~cPcs~D
__ --__CoMvn~;~ci~L QEy:~~oPM.F,~;`i--_RT_Ti-4~ ~peQrN£/asr Cc~n%~:~
GF ~FF~KVI~,,s _l4NQ _Nc2rl+ _LOC-us"C ±~4'~, _
___ _ __F~~-c- T1~}R__T'lNc (1~C~£~s~_ fr.; Ncls~~ TKr~FFIC, RHO
_ ~._ir~~?~ i~oui.D _5~21o~!s~4___D~rC'AcrFR~r~~_.ovK_.~rUR~~r`{
_ _ - GF UFO FlS i.',Ei.L_ ~`~ TH~_Pf?cPEP~T`f 1fAW£S _IN~ TH1S
__iMM£Atl~z-5_._A~~:i~• 1 AM_. Nd'r G'~=~0 7t _%~n1T'f~~c.EO
_EF~iTH ~ 1~ii1=__L Qo FFcL _TFIA`t- Tl~1S PAP'~iCc.'~A~_AP-~A
Vl,p Qf-.~cnf~J _P.~SfD~1T1AL_, lHlS_ PR+ZT1G1~A~ _~~4
_ _isJcvt..()_iMAK~.-phl_.iD~4l.. siT~._ ~~_f4 _C1 TY f'1~~~ Otl~ Tc
_'jli~_.S`C.~'IoUS C.iAC.K_oF__P!}KKS _Ifv CLOSE. PRcxIM±T~(__'~a
_ THfS_ C,ct,P.T1orJ.--_ _ _ ___ __
_ __ _ _
__ __-
~N _AI.T~~~r~Tlv~- rc ~ls p~i1~~~~~~~ Miroi+r ~ R
~~IP_GF .f~mtYt~~CiA~- ~1frOtJlo FAi~L'lE~..:= u=iTii ~ ~:;FF~C~
OF P P~!~K- 'rte 71-1 Ne~CN PNQ (~ESi.
_ -f(-1A-J~ 4?c~t ~(L_T1+~. ci'Pc~T~;ctl~ _Ta ~x('f~~ss_M ~ illE;,~:
(2({L~ti Ni~~_ _
f Noel cl+~~ s~ .
yVt~ti~OfAti! , ~p _
$~~ - 133e
__ ~.F~..L dam'
_.,
MERIDIAN CITY PLANNING AND ZONING ~-
33 East Idaho Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642
October 14, 1993
Dear Commission:
This is to address the proposed rezoning of the acreage located at
the northeast corner of Fairview and N. Locust Grove Rd.
The commission must address the following issues when considering
this application:
1. The pattern of strip commercial along Fairview can be continued
without unduly disturbing the current pattern of development in
this area. The new gymnasium has been far more on a nuisance to
nearby homeowners than was anticipated ie. invasion of privacy -
with windows where "gymnasts" stand and look down into our windows
and backyards, "music" and paging from the outdoor speaker all day
and all night. Whatever the final pattern is, this type of
nuisance to neighbors cannot be permitted! We don't need to listen
to rock and roll from some kids car at the C-Store at 1 AM.
2. There have been no provisions made for a park or other
recreational facilities for this part of town. This is an ideal
location for a park, which could ensure a good buffer zone.
3. N. Locust Grove Rd. has been a traditional bikers and joggers
route for many years. Bike paths and sidewalks are needed on N.
Locust Grove for those people, as well as for Chief Joseph school.
4. Why not keep the commercial and light industrial between
Fairview and Franklin where it fits into the developing patterns
with a minimum of disturbance?
This part of town has just been "allowed to happen" according to
where the money was, for too long now, we do not intend to sit back
and allow our quality of life and property values to be this
severely eroded. We intend to have our needs addressed, or make
some major changes to the composition of and/or challenges to the
planning and zoning commission.
Let's keep the development pattern where it works best: Commercial
and light industrial between Fairview and Franklin. Strip
commercial on Fairview (no commercial entrys on N. Locust Grove),
with a park, berms, etc. for a buffer zone, and residential.
~-~
. ^~ vr' `
r~-3~ ~~~
X36 '~~ /~y/
C,
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
33 East Idaho Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642
C
,, , -
Y _.._. a._~.. i __.J
October 14, 1993
Dear City Council members:
This is to address the proposed rezoning of the acreage located at
the northeast corner of Fairview and N. Locust Grove Rd.
The Council must address the following issues when considering this
application:
1. The pattern of strip commercial along Fairview can be continued
without unduly disturbing the current pattern of development in
this area. The new gymnasium has been far more on a nuisance to
nearby homeowners than was anticipated ie. invasion of privacy -
with windows where "gymnasts" stand and look down into our windows
and backyards, "music" and paging from the outdoor speaker all day
and all night. Whatever the final pattern is, this type of
nuisance to neighbors cannot be permitted! We don't need to listen
to rock and roll from some kids car at the C-Store at 1 AM.
2. There have been no provisions made for a park or other
recreational facilities for this part of town. This is an ideal
location for a park, which, properly planned, could ensure a good
buffer zone.
3. N. Locust Grove Rd. has been a traditional bikers and joggers
route for many years. Bike paths and sidewalks are needed on N.
Locust Grove for those people, as well as for Chief Joseph school.
4. Why not keep the commercial and light industrial developement
between Fairview and Franklin where it fits in so well with what is
already there?
This part of town has just been "allowed to happen" according to
where the money was, for too long now, we do not intend to sit back
and allow our quality of life and property values to be severely
eroded. We intend to have our needs addressed, or make some major
changes to the composition of and/or challenges to our city
government.
_~ -~~,,
~~-~
/~-3 2 Ca,-~-P ,~
• ~P~Z /o /z-y3
PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET
NAME: PHONE NUMBER: