1995 06-22i •
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
AGENDA
THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 1995 - 6:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
TABLED FROM MAY 9, 1995 MEETING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST
TO C-G BY MICHAEL PRESTON: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE
MODIFIED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR
JULY 11, 1995)
2. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
OPERATE A RETAIL BAKERY BY ROBERT PREECE: (CITY ATTORNEY
TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF WW
FOR JULY 11, 1995)
3. PUBLIC HEARING: REOUEST FOR AN ACCESSORY USE PERMIT TO SELL
AN OCCASIONAL FIRE ARM BY JIM COMBE: (TABLED UNTIL JULY
11, 1995)
4. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD SUBDMSION NO. 2 BY
PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: (TABLED PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL
JULY 11, 1995 MEETING)
5. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6
BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE
AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
AGENDA
THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 1995 - 6:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. TABLED FROM MAY 9, 1995 MEETING: ANNEXATIO AND ZONING REQUEST
TO C-G BY MICHAEL PRESTON: ~'~~ ~i{~-tri-~ 3a jfi.~cN__p
2. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN~ONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
OPERATE A RETAIL BAKERY BY ROBERT PREECE: (ti~ :-144e-~~-
3. PUBLIC HE/~RING: REQUEST FOR AN ACCESSORY USE PERMIT TO SELL
AN OCCASIONAL FIRE ARM BY JIM COMBE: Ta,h-tc,~ t~,,,~v
. S~ i,.-x?~ 1 > i ~~r s
4. PUBLIC HEARIf~G: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD SUBDMSION NO.2 BY
PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: Tr~~ka F«k~<_, t-~?•=~~=x- ~~~4y
5. PUBLIC HEA~NG: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6
BY STEINEtR DEVELOPMENT: Ci-c~.,,,~~~ ~t• ~:~~-~ ~
CITY OF MERIDIAl~
PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET
NAME PHONE NUMBER
~~~-(~ sL,~,-,~ C~d'~ .Z2 I-~
~~ ~~, 2- d-~~- z z s
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISS~r)AI NE 22 1995
The Special meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order
by Chairman Pro tem Charlie Rountree at 6:30 P.M.:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Hepper, Moe Alidjani:
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Johnson, Jim Shearer:
OTHERS PRESENT: Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Anna Doty, Dale Sharp, Helen
Sharp, Billie Jo Premce, Dixie Lee Roberts, Vem Alleman, Sally Norton, Mike Preston,
Robert Preece, JoAnn Thompson, Jim Combe, Diane Bess, Bill Eddy, Kelly Bess, Ted
Hutchinson, Mark Peterson, Albert Dauvin, Roberta Thompson, Floyd Reichert, Mick
Dauvin, Steve Bradbury, Doug Campbell:
TABLED FROM MAY 9, 1995 MEETING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST TO C-
G BY MICHAEL PRESTON:
Rountree: We have findings of fact, the recommendation of the findings of fact was to
table this item for further information. Is the applicant here to provide us with some
additional information? Mr. Preston.
Preston: Yes Mr. Chairman, my name is Mike Preston, President of Shekinah Industries
Inc. I have submitted to Ms. Stiles a revised concept plan for this property. Basically this
plan that has a lot more information on it is the same basic master plan that I submitted.
original but just with additional information giving the Commission the idea of the type of
landscaping, parking, fire protection facilities, access ingress/egress to each of the
facilities. What the office complex might look like, obviously we don't have any tenants for
this project so the shape of the buildings and specifically might change a little bit when we
come back with a specific conditional use in the future. It will be generally like this, now
the important thing so that we can clarify the record that this plan does meet in my opinion
all the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. I have taken specific care to protect the
neighbors, Now your Comprehensive Plan specifically allows this use a G-G use on this
property, but it also states that we have to concem ourselves with the impact on our
neighbors. So what we have done with the close neighbors right here is we have .placed
a professional office complex next to those. There is no quieter use that we can put there,
even a park would be noisier than a professional office complex. The traffic is out away
from the units, and the office buildings will separate the cars from the houses. Plus, please
note that 1 have added a 6 foot high masonry wall all the way around.. Now if they don't
like that we can change it, but what 1 am trying to show is my cooperation with the
neighbors to totally sound proof this area from them. Plus of course the 20 foot landscape
strip that your ordinance calls for. Now, the uses, we have got the same retail area here
like we showed on our other ptan in just bubble detail. The office concept here, office
warehouse back here and product supply over here and then retail down on the comer of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 2
Franklin and Locust Grove. There has been a lot of talk of the impact we are going to
have on the wetlands and so forth, please note that Five Mile Creek is almost all within the
right of way of Franklin Road. In other words the right of way that ACRD requires and also
I guess the City of Meridian was 45 foot from centerline. That is almost to the south bank
of that. creek. Then with my 35 foot landscape strip we will not disturb any of the wetlands,
we will not impact that in any way. We will landscape it and make it prettier than it is
today, but we will not fill it, we will not be digging in the creek or anything like that. So, we
are totally going to protect that area. That has been a concern of the neighbors in this area
for sure. In relation to the area outside of that there probably is a flood plain out in this
area, but it is legal to fill in the flood plain. So, we can get the necessary approvals from
the Corps of Engineers etc. to just, well we don't really even need any it is just a flood plain
to fill out here where we have got the service station and so forth. But we will not impact
that Five Mile Creek in any way. The findings of facts that came out after we had our
public hearing had some indications that I did not have the proper earnest money or option
agreement to tie myself to this property. That is totally incorrect, I could have never gotten
before you, Ms. S#iles checks that very carefully. So, I've got ail the proper documents
with the owner of this property Monty McClure and IVADCO own this property and 1've got
about an 8 month option on it of which t am a little more than half way through already.
So it is critical to us at this stage so that we can do our proper financing and so forth
before this option runs out. To get this project onto the Council so that we can get it
approved or denied whatever it is that the City is going to do to this property. So I highly
request that we could go from tonight directly next month to the Council if at all possible.
I know that the findings of fact as written include that information about additional
information so it is going to have to be modified now that t give it. I am requesting that this
Commission consider authorizing the City Attorney to modify the findings of fact, not
change them in any way be include this additional information if you like it or any
modification if you don't and pass it on with your recommendations pro or con to the
Council so we can get on because we are really under a tight time constraint. I would be
very happy Mr. Chairman, we show all the landscaping, harming and so forth on this to
give you a clear indication that we far exceed the minimum requirements of your
ordinances. It is going to be a very nice project. That is what we wanted to display to you
in this rendering. Do you have any questions that 1 can answer?
Alidjani: I have one questions that is in the form of a clar'rficetion you are saying you don't
want the findings to be changed in any form or shape, you want it modified but also you
indicated that not correctly but incorrectly they have put in the findings that you did not.
have your option was not correctly done or however it was written. Are you proposing at
this time because a portion of the modification will be that portion of the findings will be
changed because in fact at this time you do have technical problems solved with your
option and you definitely do have an option to buy those properties?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 3
Preston: That particular portion isn't in the, 1 don't believe in the findings or conclusions,
it is in a previous statement but it was stated that 1 didn't have a tie to it. I just wanted to
explain to you that 1 did have and. now it is on record. It is, Shari has all the documentation
so that is relatively immaterial. I just wanted to let you know that was incorrect. That I do
have, there was testimony after I spoke last time that stated I didn't have any option that
it was expired and everything else. That was not true, I just wanted to put that on record.
But it is not in the findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Rountree: Any other questions?
Hepper: Do you have any proposed tenants at this time?
Preston: None.
Hepper: Do you have any time frame or schedule when you might do some (inaudible) or
put in roads or anything?
Preston: It is our plan to have this now, this spine road with sewer and water facilities we
plan on having in next spring. Now, Mr. McClure's house which is a walkout basement type
home is a very nice home, it is this home right here, or this office right here. We would
convert that to an office. At this time we don't know ff we would put this in and landscape
the road and then sell this whole spot off as an office complex for someone else to develop
the specifics or if we would put these parking lots in and then sell off the lots for individual
for one owner to own that building. We haven't made that type of a decision yet Mr.
Hepper, but we will. At the very least we are going to develop this road all the way through
because I have shown a phasing schedule. The offices are phase 1 and 2, .and the office
warehouse is 3, and the supply is 4 and of course the retail is 5. The retail, 1 mean 1 think
everybody is aware that this isn't going to be retail for quite a few years. I am not
proposing that today this is retail property. It isn't, it flat isn't. Franklin Road has to be
improved, Locust Grove has to be put over the freeway, a traffic light here, extended north,
all of that has to be done before we could even consider these 2 retail sites. This is in the
future, but some of these. others can go. It is a possibility that this office warehouse back
here might go before the professional office. My phasing might be out of sync so we want
to put the whole road in and make all of these available for potential buyers.
Hepper: With the office space and the warehouse space that will be restricted hours and
stuff, is there anything that they couldn't be manufacturing or they couldn't be running
some sort of business 24 hours a day?
Preston: Well, okay that is a good point but it is preliminary. I don't know my tenants, I
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 4
don't know what they are going to be doing. They might be making pillows that is the
quietest thing in the world and you don't care. The point is when we come back we have
to get a conditional use from this body to do whatever it is. If it is making pillows and it is
nice and quiet that is one thing. If it is manufacturing steel you might have another opinion
of that but. you have total control in the future through conditional use and master planning
that I have to go through in the future. We are only asking for annexation and rezone so
you get a total other shot. When we have the other shot we then have the tenants, we then
have the specifics and we can talk very specifically to those kind of issues that are very
important. For instance if 1 came in and wanted to put something very noisy here instead
of this office complex next to my neighbors I know what you guys are going to tell me, Mr.
Preston do you remember back in June of 1995 when you said, you bet I do. That is why
we are going through this process. So I have got to stick to this general plan especially
around here and so forth. If I come in with something obnoxious you are probably going
to turn me down and you have the total right to do so.
Rountree: Any other questions? What action? I will entertain a motion.
Alidjani: I would like to ask a question from our Counselor. Wayne, in the process of
conditional use permit with a general blanket annexation and zoning of C-G at what point
in time do we come here or do they come here to exercise their option and their zoning
and with the conditions to go in effect with the different departments that we can have
some kind of control of what goes in.
Crookston: In this area it is designated in the Comprehensive Plan as a planned
development area.. It is very similar to what is going on where Avest is developing Fred
Meyer and their other uses. They have to come back to the City and obtain a conditional
use for every use. So the City would have control of the uses at that point.
Rountree: We do have findings, but 1 would suggest they probably at a minimum have to
be modified, correct?
Crookston: I think that is appropriate because of what has been presented. You have the
option to basically approve it as it is. You have the option to have the findings amended
by interlineation. You have the. option to tell me as City Attorney to re-draft them. You
additionally have the option to give them to me to appropriately change as you suggest this
evening and send them onto City Council, which is your decision.
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, just sitting here looking at these 1 am really not comfortable with
recommending approval of this the way these are written. There are so many vague
comments in here about things not being understood and 1 don't know there are several
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 5
pages here that really don't seem like they need to be there. I think we need to have new
findings written up.
Alidjani: Would you like new ones or modify these?
Hepper: I think just mod~ed to reflect the additional testimony that we had.
Rountree: Do you want to make a motion to that effect?
Hepper: Yes, that was it.
Alidjani: I second it.
Rountree: It has been moved and seconded to modify the findings of fact and conclusions
of law with the information provided here this evening, any discussion? All those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Crookston: Mr. Chairman, those then would be presented at the next Planning and Zoning
meeting is that correct on July 11th.
Rountree: Correct.
ITEM #2: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
OPERATE A RETAIL BAKERY BY ROBERT PREECE:
Rountree: Is the applicant here? I will open the public hearing.
Robert Preece, 810 West Amity Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Preece: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners my name is Robert Preece and I owrr an
existing retail building at 126 East Idaho in Meridian. I would like to rent the existing
building to a tenant, Kevin and JoAnn Thompson to operate a retail bakery. We have had
district health out and they have approved plumbing that has .been installed. We have
been to the Highway District and talked to the irrigation people. 1 really feel that the
building is suitable for operating a retail bakery. There won't be any fried bakery items
sold there, they will all be baked so that eliminates some of the things (inaudible). Do you
have any questions?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 6
Hepper: I have one here, you have a comment from the Ada County Highway District,
would you have delivery trucks coming up the alley and loading up?
Preece: To deliver bakery items?
Hepper: Yes
Preece: I am not sure about that.
(Inaudible)
Rountree: If you want to testify to that effect I guess you can deliver that message to the
Commission.
Preece: Well, apparently there will be a delivery in the back there probably. Maybe at the
front door.
Hepper: I am just wondering about the comment from Ada County Highway District about
paving the alley. Did you have any intentions of doing that?
Preece: Well, when I was down there talking with them they kind of left it up to the City to
decide what should be done about that.
Hepper: Do you have a preference?
Preece: Whether it should be paved or not? Well it would help if it was paved, but the
whole alley needs to be worked on. Also, I think it would be really an asset to that alley
when the parking is finished there off of Pine Street that the city is planning on doing. That
is just about directly behind that location.
Rountree: Any other questions? I guess that is all we have, thank you. Anybody in the
audience wish to testify? Seeing none I will close the hearing.
Crookston: I just have a question.
Rountree: I will re-open it then.
Crookston: I think it is just because I was writing something down but Mr. Preece there will
be no product sold there?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 7
(Inaudible)
Crookston: Thank you
Rountree: I will close the hearing, I will re-open it if you want to testify.
JoAnn Thompson, 1310 East 5th Street Avenue, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Thompson: I just wanted to say that we do have the license from the health department
and that has been approved and we got that in the mail today. Also, that there will be a
lot of walk in type traffic not a lot of drive, well I hope there will be some drive in traffic but
there will be quite a bit of drive in that we expect. Also, as far as delivery it wouldn't be a
big truck or anything it would just be a van or a car type delivery, small delivery stuff.
Rountree: Anyone else? Maybe I can close it this time. I will close the hearing, we need
a recommendation.
Crookston: You need findings.
Rountree: We do need findings on this.
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the City Attorney prepare findings on this
application.
Alidjani: Second
Rountree: It has been moved and seconded to have findings of fad and conclusions of law
prepared on this item, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #3: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN ACCESSORY USE PERMIT TO SELL
AN OCCASIONAL FIRE ARM BY JIM COMBE:
Rountree: I will open the hearing now.
Jim Combe, 606 Lawndale Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Combe: Just to tell you a little bit about my business, for the last 3 years a little over 3
years I have had just a small home part time residence which I called Elite Rifle Works and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 8
its only purpose is to help supplement the family income as my wife and 1 both work
regular jobs. Over the past 3 years and 3 months I have sold a total of 15 guns. I only
special order guns, I have no inventory of any kind. When customer comes in and wants
a particular gun I go ahead and order from a sporting goods distributor, it is delivered to
the house there usually UPS. The customer is called that evening and of course the
proper federal fire arm forms are filled out and then the gun is purchased. If the gun is not
picked up that night I have a safe there that I put that gun in and along with the rest of my
personal guns. I don't sell or keep powder or ammunition, I don't have an add in the
phone book Most of the sales are through friends and family members. Having told you
just a little bit about the business I would like to say that when I sent in my application for
my accessory permit 1 went around the closest five neighbors and told them about the
business and they all said they knew nothing about it and it hadn't been a problem, it was
fine with them. The first I knew there was any friction with that business was 2 evenings
ago I happened to stop by here at the City Hall and ask if I needed to be at this meeting
tonight. They gave me a packet from the different departments as well as the letter that
was sent there to Ms. Stiles. Yesterday afternoon a packet arrived in my mail there saying
that there was some concern about me having a small home business. I talked with Kelly
about getting together that next morning it would have been yesterday morning but
schedules wouldn't allow with the neighbors. At this point I guess I am asking for an
accessory permit to sell an occasional fire arm and accessories out of my home.. I would
like to say that the last thing that I want is any friction with the neighbors whatsoever.
People are much more important than the few dollars this small business makes. I know
there are people there in our neighborhood that have small part-time businesses, special
order business such as Amway and Shackly and that type of business that they do in their
spare time. I would rather request the return of that permit rather than have hard feelings
around the neighborhood.
Rountree: Any questions?
Alidjani: Are you also, while you are selling guns are you selling ammunition?
Combe: No ammunition, no powder. It is just not enough or large enough mark up on
anything, $1.50 on a box of shells and the hazardous UPS charges would be $7.50 so
nothing is ever at my home like that.
Alidjani: Do you have to have a special license in order to do that or is just like a catalog
deal that you have some catalog at your home and people come and look and then.
Combe: As far as the license goes you have to be licensed by the Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms. They go ahead and check a person out, you send in your application as well as
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 9
your money and six to eight weeks later if everything checks out they go ahead and send
you the license. And then with that license I can send that to the sporting good distributors
who stocks the guns and then I go ahead and just order from those folks.
Alidjani: So have you obtained that license?
Combo: Yes, three years ago is when I started this business. Like I say I have sold 15
guns and accessories in a little over 3 years.
Alidjani: Any incidents since 3 years ago to now that you wish to talk about?
Combe: No, I have had no incidents. It is just pretty straight forward, folks, generally just
friends or family members just through word of mouth they stop by the house and I go
ahead and talk with them about what type of gun they like and get on the phone and order
it.
Rountree: Any other questions?
Hopper: I have one more question, due to the, you have this form here with these names
of the people who are opposed to it. Apparently it caught you off guard, would you like to
table this possibly until you had a chance to talk to your neighbors and maybe settle this
issue or would you rather proceed with it?
Combe: 1 guess I would like to go ahead and talk with the neighbors who had concerns.
You are right I was just taken off guard a day and a half ago when I found out there was
some concerns about the business there within the neighborhood.
Hopper: Because 1 think possibly a lot of their concerns could be alleviated if you had a
chance to talk to them personally rather than up here or word of mouth or heresy from
people who aren't here. I think maybe if you had a chance to talk to them and stuff maybe
you could get this alleviated and maybe not. But at least we would know that everybody
had been addressed. I guess it is up to you if you want us to proceed or "rf you would like
to table it until you had a chance to talk to them.
Combe: We tried to set up just a meeting on such short notice for last night be we weren't
able to get together. If those who had the concerns if we could just sit down in
somebody's living room instead of a public building and talk to them like neighbors would
that would be great with me.
Crookston: 1 am just wondering, when you came down to the City to apply for something
Meridian Planning ~ Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 10
was there a discussion about whether this was an accessory use or any discussion about
that? Did you have a discussion with Shari Stiles the Planning and Zoning Administrator?
Combe: No, I just asked for the permit that in order to renew an FFL they asked me to
have that accessory permit for my home. So I just came down and they gave it to me. I
went around to the neighbors and did what they requested me to do you know fill out the
questions on the 10 or 12 pages whatever it was and send it bads in.
Crookston: So you say Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms office said this?
Combe: Yes, in order to renew a federal firearms license the Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms as of this year wants a accessory use permit for your home. They didn't ask for
that a little 3 years ago when I applied for it.
Alidjani: Excuse me, do you have any letters that indicate that from them when you filled
out the application?
Combe: I don't, after I sent in my application the second time, it is an every 3 year license,
the federal firearms license. They filled me a week and a half to iwo weeks later and just
asked me if 1 had done these things. The only thing that I hadn't done was to get this
application this accessory permit.
Alidjani: So what you are indicating has been verbal communication on the phone and not
documented that somebody can read?
Combe: That is rightthey just called me on the phone and said we need you to have this
accessory permit. I am sure since that went through this last year that you need that
permit that it would be in writing somewhere, no I don't have that.
Alidjani: So will you educate me I am pretty dumb in that respect. If 1 told you I want to go
get a license where would I start?
Combe: You go ahead, the request that a pad<et from the ATF, they go ahead and send
it to you. You go ahead and fill out the questionnaire, many pages of paperwork, send in
your money. They do a bad~ground cned< on you to make sure you are not a felon or have
an criminal problems at all.
Alidjani: The reason l bring that question up if you want to be a car dealer you have to get
a dealer's license you have to have a place of business, a 4 by 8 sign and your place has
to be zoned commercial and then you can get your license. What I am trying to bring up
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 11
is does alcohol and Tobacco or whatever agency they are, are they indicating that they
need a commercial use property that you can do business from that area or any residential
use also is possible?
Combe: No, as far as the only thing they said I needed was the accessory use permit that
I haven't went through. As far as putting out a sign, no I don't put out a sign, you don't
need to.
Alidjani: Right, that is an example, that is for the car dealership. I know nothing about
alcohol and tobacco. So what would happen tomorrow if I go to Intermountain Arm and
talk to Jack Sweet or Idaho and say I need to start application for selling guns? Do the
have any application that I can look at and see what is necessary to have and not to have?
Combe: Well they would have their FFL, federal firearms license that they would show
you. As far as getting it from them, no you wouldn't get it from them you would have to go
down to the ATF there in Boise and pick up that application or go ahead and mail it.
Rountree: Thank you, any other questions? Thank you Mr. Combe, you may have to
answer some additional questions here. Anybody in the audience wish to testify?
Diane Bess, 1907 Lawndale, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Bess: In the question of him selling firearms, I would just like to know what is the age
group that he sells the firearms to.
Rountree: You need to ask the questions through us and we will get the answer to you.
Bess: I want to know if there is an age group that he sells them to or does not sell them
to. He says that he does it occasionaly to friends and family but is there a limit on the age
that can buy the firearms through him. How extensive was the background check that they
did. Does he do any background checks on the people that are buying the firearms and
how extensive are the background checks that he had to fill out to obtain his license.
Rountree: Any more questions? Given an acceptable response to those questions do you
have a position on this, are you included in the list of neighbors opposing this?
Bess: I am, I have children and I don't like the ideal of firearms in our neighborhood and
I definitely don't like the ideal of the acx:essibility to teenagers of the firearms. I think there
is too much of a problem with firearms and guns and children and I don't want it in my
neighborhood. 1 have nothing, I don't know this gentleman, I know nothing about him, but
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 12
me personally being a homeowner and having children I don't want my kids around it.
Hepper: You don't want your kids around someone that owns a firearm or you don't want
your kids around someone who sells firearms?
Bess: I don't want my children someone who sells firearms. If I wanted them to be
around someone who sells firearms I will take them to that store and I don't. I don't want
the accessibility to them in the neighborhood to be able to purchase things like that.
Hepper: Not coming to his defense because I don't know him or anything but 1 would
guess that most of the homeowners in the neighborhood who do have firearms probably
don't have a safe that they keep them in. Although he tested that he does and he doesn't
have any ammunition so I would guess that he was probably a lot safer than some of your
neighbors, that is just a guess.
Bess: That is probably actually very true that he may be, but I want to know more about
the background checks. Who are you selling them to, are you selling them to some street
kid on the street who comes to you and says hey I want this gun. Do you have any
tracking of where this gun goes out after this. Do you have any tracking of any records of
the guns that you have sold previously. Have they been into any crimes, have they been
in any police reports. 1 want to know more background. I don't want to say yes it is okay
because you have a safe and you are not selling ammunition. I want to know more details.
Bill Eddy, 1908 Lawndale Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Eddy: My first question is I thought we were going to table this so he could speak to the
neighbors?
Rountree: Well, we have the public hearing opened and people have come to testify so
it was my judgement to go ahead and get the testimony and the action on the item will be
a decision by the Commission.
Eddy: I guess our biggest concern is Mr. Combe works or has worked for Intermountain
Arms in the past and he has done this for 3 years. Is he going to increase his business
is he going to quit Intermountain Arms and open a gun shop in our neighborhood? We
need to know what is happening here. We need to know also, so far it has been family and
friends, supposedly are we going to increase and sell to general public? I just don't
believe we should have a gun shop in our neighborhood. We are all aware of what is
going on in the world these days and I think there are proper places for a person to buy
and sell a gun and it is not in a neighborhood. 1 would entertain getting together if he
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 13
wishes and go over it.
Rountree: Thank you, anyone else wish to testify?
Kelly Bess, 1907 Lawndale, was swom by the City Attomey.
Bess: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I agree with your recommendation to table it and
talk with the neighbors to get a better understanding of it of what his intent is. Hopefully.
we can some up with some agreeable terms that the Council would also recommend
(inaudible) if he was to get the permit that he would stick to those terms. That is pretty
much all I have.
Sally Norton, 638 Lawndale, was swom by the City Attomey.
Norton: I do have 2 teenage sons and I do know where you live, the gentlemen I see him
and his wife and his little baby. They seem like a nice couple, but I was concerned when
I was told about the notice in the paper that he wants a permit to sell guns. I don't think
that is a neighborhood activity. I have a real concern, it was spoken to tonight of why all
the sudden he wants a permit to do this if he has been doing it for 3 years. It sounds like
it is a requirement for his other permit. Will his business increase, who is he going to be
selling to. He is probably through his family and friends by now. How is going to
advertise, he said (here is no advertisement in the telephone book but is he planning. on
doing more advertisement. I agree with the other neighbors (End of Tape) if the
gentleman wants to sell firearms I suggest getting a store and doing that and not in the
home. Thank you.
Rountree: Anyone else?
Alidjani: There were 2 questions that arisen by some testimony. One is the age group,
what is the law about age groups, the minors under 21 can they buy a gun?
Combe: Rifles and shotguns which is the only thing that I sell is 18 and above, if a person
was going to go and get another license for pistols it would be 21 and above. The cost for
pistols is just prohibitive, a license to sell pistols. Here again as of this year that new,
another license went into affect where you have to have that additional license to sell
handguns which I don't have.
Alidjani: So, the license you are obtaining just for the record is for rifles and shotguns and
not for handguns?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 14
Combe: That is right.
Alidjani: The next question I have (inaudible) background (inaudible) I come in there
tomorrow and you don't know me (inaudible) Intermountain Arms for many years and I
have seen you over there. If I come over there and you don't know me how do you check
me out.
Combe: As far as doing a bad~ground check on anyone that wants a rifle or shotgun you
go ahead and fill out the appropriate federal forms, swear that everything you say is true.
I go ahead and file those, as well as keep a log book on everything for the federal firearms
log book. As far as a background check there is not one on rifles or handguns, there is
one on pistols.
Alidjani: So what you are saying (inaudible) you have to (inaudible) buy your gun and you
are gone, is that correct?
Combe: I do it exactly the same way as Intermountain Arms does. As far as pistols go that
is a different procedure, they have a number where they call in and do a background check
through the FBI, ATF and they tell you while you are waiting on the phone can that person
have a handgun or not. Like I say 1 don't sell handguns so that doesn't concern me. The
guns that I sell are just hunting guns, deer and elk and then shot guns, of course pheasant
and duck that type of thing.
Alidjani: The last question I have here is, how many (inaudible) in inventory 1, 2, 3 or 15
in the house that are for sale (inaudible) to own?
Combe: I never inventory things that is, there is a little enough mark up in the price of guns
that I couldn't afford to inventory like Intermountain Arms does. No, it is only on a special
order basis, someone, maybe they go and look at a gun and say gosh 1 would really like
to have that I can save them a few pennies and I make a few pennies.
Alidjani: So for resale there is no inventory?
Combe: There is never any inventory at my home.
Rountree: Anybody else wish to testify? I will Gose the hearing.
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table this until the applicant has a chance to talk
to the neighbors and also the counselor has indicated that possibly this is not an
accessory use permit but possibly a conditional use permit in which case that would go to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 15
the City Council directly and not to Planning and Zoning. So during this time that it is
tabled give the applicant time to check with City staff and see if this is the proper
procedure or if he needs to be going directly to the City Council with this.
Alidjani: I will second the motion.
Rountree: It has been moved and seconded to table this item artd to check out the
applicability of the accessory use permit, tabled to our next regularly scheduled meeting
July 11th, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #4: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY PNE/EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION:
Rountree: Is there someone from the applicant that can testify tonight? Was the applicant
notrfied? Interesting we have no information and we have a public hearing.
Crookston: You ask if anybody wants to testify and deny or table.
Rountree: We have apparently no one here from the applicant to present the item #4,
Packard Subdivision? Anybody who wishes to testify on this item? Before you start we
have received some letters on this item, one from Mr. and Mrs. Johnson, another letter
from Alleman and a letter from Landowners on Wingate and those will be entered into the
hearing transcript.
Craig Thompson, 2950 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Thompson: This is the residents of Wingate Lane in Meridian, Idaho. The following issues
have been raised by members of Wingate Road Maintenance Fund as concerns that we
would like to have considered by this body when reviewing the Packard Subdivision
zoning proposal. Wingate Lane has served the residents of the adjoining property since
1920's when an easement was given to the Sharp property. Maintenance and right of way
have always functioned for the land owners of those properties. In 1990 Ada County
zoning board ruled that the Peterson property should be the last one to be allowed access
on the lane for a residence. We oppose any development that would change the status
of our rural setting and impact the traffic on our road. We therefore propose that these
properties by denied use of our lane other than for the existing homes on Wingate Lane.
We would find it less objectionable if the Brown property could be accessed from the west
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 16
and the Borup from the south without crossing Wingate Lane. We would also like to see
the lanes privacy insured with fencing and berms to delineate residential from agricultural
areas. If the 2 properties connect on Wingate Lane the following issues become concems
for lane land owners. Number one the Sharp residence has always had access to Ustick,
would this access be maintained? Number 2 if the access to Ustick is maintained for
Sharp's what would be the liability of property owners if someone without access rights is
involved in an accident while on the lane. How could we control use of the lane if it were
left open to the public street. Human nature being that is people would use the short cut
for northbound access gravel or no gravel. Number 4 how would we keep subdivisions
occupants out of the pastures and ditches. Number 5, how would this development impact
irrigation water from the south. Six, does the current plat have access to Ustick, Locust
Grove or Eagle Road? How does this fit into the master plan for this area. Number seven
we are also concerned that the schools are full in this area. Eight, will these properties
require the City to be saddled with another high price sewer lift station? Number nine,
what about the high water table of the area? Personal concerns of mine, this is a dead
end street right now and what they are trying to do is intersect Wingate Lane and I am a
little bit worried about how that will blend in with the community. Having a gravel road
versus intersect with paved road. Another concern of mine is the fact that Eagle High
School the residents of that subdivision will go to Eagle High School. That is a short cut
to go to Ustick and from there they can turn left or right and use Linder or Eagle Road.
That would be access by the high school kids. I feel that there should be some kind of a
barrier, 1 also feel that the Sharp's should have access to the lane being that they have
been there for years. The only thing that 1 can think of to give them access and also
provide a barrier so the subdivision cannot have access to this lane would be to put in a
gate of some kind that they have now that you can push a button so you don't have to get
out of your car and arm it across, but push a button and raise it and lower it. Access to
that subdivision will be detrimental to our road, we pay for repairs, we maintain it and we
have a budget that we go buy. I know more that access that road our budget will go up.
It is a private road and I wouldn't appreciate somebody not living on that street accessing
that road. Another thing that I think is in question is I question their business ethics. I feel
that, I like to communicate to see what is going on. I feel like they are unapproachable,
when they do talk for example they came to my house and told me that I was there
illegally. Also, that was Edmonds, at a hearing the last hearing that we had about a month
ago, I confronted Sigmund and I just wanted some answers and no answers were given
but when my wife spoke he had his daughter here and she called my wife a name which.
rhymes with itch and then, I don't know if I can use the proper word. Then when she made
another comment his daughter again referred to her as a word that rhymes with grass. I
have to wonder what is going on here, what type of people are we dealing with. My wife
has never been called that in her Iffe. 1 have never been treated so disrespectful in my life.
I wonder being that there are kind of like 2 subdivisions there I think it should be looked
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 17
at to see whether or not one site could be accessed from Locust Grove and the other could
be accessed from Fairview if that would be possible th8t way they would not impede upon
what we are trying to do in our community. And remember this is residential versus
country and we have horses down there, people have horses there is a ditch that runs
through. I really worry if they have access to that the kids the problems that could occur
with the animals with the ditch and so forth. This gives me great concern. Thank you.
Crookston: Mr. Thompson, do you have a copy of what you read that you could submit to
the committee?
Rountree: It has been submitted. It appears that the applicant is here so they can make
their presentation now.
Ted Hutchinson, Tealey's Land Surveying, 109 S. 4th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City
Attorney.
Hutchinson: Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, hopefully we will
be able to Gear some items up tonight. This is the square mile which is Section 5, T.3N,
R.1 E from the Boise Meridian. This square mile includes the sites that we have proposed
for annexation and development within this to be known as Packard Subdivision No. 1
which is this one which this Commission has passed onto the City Council and Packard
Subdivision No. 2 which is this area up in here. We are asking for annexation of this
parcel which was originally well when our clients purchased it, it belonged to the Brown's
up in this area and then the Borup's had this, Sigmond and Edmonds under their
partnership have purchased all of this and in essence own this 40 acxes plus all of the land
that is in this application here. As you can see we are surrounded well not surrounded. but
we have great deal of residential development that has occurred in the area. Wingate
Place subdivision here which is zoned R-8, Kearney Place Subdivision here also zoned
R-8, Chateau Meadows I believe zoned R-8. This is the preliminary plat, I believe the final
plat has been recorded for Chamberlain Estates No. 1 which is this one right here I believe
it is also zoned Rte. What we are proposing is an R-4 subdivision where the minimum lot
in that zone would be 8,000 square feet. We have a mix of lots in this particular area. With
connections into Chamberlain Estates at this point we have a stub road and are proposing.
a stub road which will cennect eventually through this property to Chamberlain Estates No.
2, connect to the south into the Packard No. 1 subdivision which connects out to Dove
Meadows and then onto Fairview Avenue. This subdivision has a stub street that goes
into Wingate I believe Wingate No. 2 has also been proposed and was tabled by the
Applicant's request at the City Council on Tuesday night but that is I believe moving
forward. But it also connects out west to Locust Grove. We are providing for a collector
sized stub street to the north in the event that Mr. Alleman ever decides that he is going
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 18
to develop his piece of ground or sell his ground. There is a place for provision for an
additional street which would connect the collector class status. to the north to Ustick Road
to accommodate the traffic. This subdivision over here is Carol Subdivision, it is currently
in Ada County, it is under Ada County jurisdiction and zoned R-1 which is one acre lots.
It is a completely developed subdivision and I don't believe there are any vacant lots in
that subdivision. They are developed to their full potential. The remaining ground which
includes this parcel is under Ada County jurisdiction and is zoned RT which is rural
transition and the idea there is that as the City grows out to it then the next step would be
to rezone the property to an appropriate zoning classffication to accommodate the growth
in accordance with the comprehensive plan of the City or jurisdiction that would have
authority over this. It also requires the extension of public services such as sewer and
water. We are proposing as this overall development occurs in this subdivision recognize
that the City has the proposal to extend the south slough sewer truckline in this area which
was also going to service the Chamberlain Estates subdivision. We are hoping that will
happen in a timely manner so that we can further extend the sewer and then gravity flow
all of this project and remove a proposed temporary lift station which will service just
Packard Subdivision No. 1. In talking with your City Engineer that is the only subdivision
here that will be serviced by temporary lift station would be Packard No. 1 none of this
proposal could be serviced by a lift station. So it will require the provision of gravity flow
sewer which would be the south slough. We don't intend to have any other traffic from this
development go onto Wingate Lane. We recognize that Wingate Lane is a private street,
it is a private road, there is an agreement
Alidjani: Excuse me could you show me on the map where it is?
Hutchinson: Wingate Lane starts right here, in an agreement that was done in 1913
among the various parties I was just reading that just as the previous gentleman was
finishing his testimony. It is an easement that is 15 feet wide and it is on this boundary so
that this is the center of the section line that runs right through here. The 15 feet is on the
west side of that section line. So that none of these parcels that are on the east side
actually are participants in the agreement it is all of the agreement fell to the west side.
So that all of the property owners or anybody who would buy the property after them would
have access to this 15 foot easement and they actually called it a private road agreement.
haven't had a chance to read through this completely to see what the full extent, but
anyway Wingate Lane runs right here. It actually stops right here at the center of the
section right at the comer so it is 15 feet off of, actually the front part of the Sharp property
and front part of the Reichert property and this portion of the Brown property, also would
be subject to the 15 foot easement. We intend to dedicate a portion of our easement to
public road right of way which would then be paved and constructed to public road
standards. Mr. Reichert has been talking with us and he is willing as well to dedicate to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 19
the right of way that portion that fronts along his property so that we will have a full street
with at least down to this intersection and then the Sharp's would have access from their
property across the easement on the public right of way. We are going to have to get this
worked out as far as preventing whether it be a gate with a key that the Sharp's would
have access to would be the only party that would have access to that gate so that they
can continue to use the access and the easement that they have the right to. But, it is our
intention that the portion of the easement that is on our property we are going to improve
and dedicate to the highway district so it will form a continuous street pattern within the
area that we don't have any breaks within that. We would have the legal right to dedicate
that, we are not going to move the easement we are going to expand our portion of it and
dedicate the whole thing to the public with the street improvements. The green areas I
have indicated on this are open space areas. I know that the Meridian Comprehensive
Plan calls for a park in this section or in this general area. As you are well aware we had
a proposal that had a five acre park I believe the Commission received that fairly well and
but when we got to the City Council for some reason a park of that size wasn't of interest
to the City Council even though we were proposing to maintain it by the homeowners
association. So we have reduced the park size down basically between the 3 large green
areas that we have here, it is little over an acre and a half open area. As well as the street
tree program and the landscape program that we are starting in Packard 1 will also
continue and be incorporated as part of the covenants and design scheme for Packard No.
2 so that there will be street trees and green areas with additional landscape easements
in the front yards for each of these dwellings. We are trying to develop a very nice
residential neighborhood here this is not starter homes but the middle portion of the market
where the house ranges will be 1400 square feet or up. So that establishes a pretty good
size, but I think the major issues that have been raised have been access to Wingate
Lane. We had no intention of providing or in any way making an attempt to make it
convenient for the people in this particular development to use Wingate Lane. We
recognize there are a lot of things that have to be done in order for this to fall together.
One of them would be the completion of the access to Dove Meadows. We have been
speaking with Mr. Leader concerning what his intention is as far as whether or not he is
going to resurrect Dove Meadows No. 2. Regardless of whether he does that we will have
to have that street so we will work with him to get this dedicated to the Highway district
and then we will construct so that we have the access that would lead out to Fairview
Avenue. Once Packard 1 subdivision is complete or approved then we will also have an
access that will get us out to Locust Grove, traffic could then flow that way. When
Chamberlain Estates goes in then there would be additional accesses to Locust Grove
Road. Again if Mr. Alleman ever decides he wants to self or develop then we have
provisions for additional accesses particularly of collector status out to Ustick Road. We
have provided for larger lot development against the Carof Subdivision. And the Carol
Subdivision as I have indicated is R-1 which is acre Tots it is fully developed there would
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 20
be no resubdivision of Carol. It would be impossible without going through and tearing out
a great deal of improvements that have already been made, and there are some very nice
homes in there. So we are providing deeper lots with an additional setback against Carol.
That provides a transition from that large lot estate size residential to the higher density
R-8 which surrounds us on the west side. We didn't provide that same buffer for the other
tracts with the exception of (inaudible) some very deep lots up in here, some larger lots
the way this thing laid out it just required. If you look at the rest of these lots and the way
the area is developing and probably should and ultimately will develop, the agricultural
uses that are there you don't have a viable farm, the ground just isn't big enough to really
produce, to make a family a living. So they would have to be supplemented by other
activities 5 acres by state law is classified a farm but more hobby farm or gentleman
farming type activities. Enough for a pasture and a couple of horses, but I don't know that
you would realty be able to make a living farming that small of a piece of ground. So the
ultimate development pattern is going to be toward urban sized lots, now whether that is
going to be 8,000 square foot lots as we have proposed, 8,000 and up in the R-4 zone or
whether it is going to be down to 6,000 or 7,000 square foot lots as in the R-8 zone. That
is basically going to be up to whomever develops but even though the property owners
who are there now they know we are not going to develop, things change and change
rapidly as we all know. I can't see that this would develop, particularly these sites here or
any of these up in here or here developing at R1 it is just not the highest and best use. The
highest use that those will come out will be single family residential on urban sized lots.
Particularly when you have to pay the cost of sewer it is just economically infeasible to
sewer acre lots because the amount is usually based upon a street frontage and the street
frontage on an acre lot runs the sewer prices and becomes cost prohibitive to even
consider doing sewered one acre lots. So, if you look seriously at the development
probability on this ground that ground that is between Carol's and Locust Grove Road is
going to be urban, it is going to be R-8 and R-4 sized lots. The current trend of R-4 it will
be a buffer between R-8 and the larger Carol Subdivision. So that is why we have not
treated these parcels over here. In fact one of our original proposals which we couldn't
quite put together included Mr. Reichert's piece which is the 5 acres in here. We had a
street stubbed in and actually had it laid out I believe you have probably seen that
particular development proposal. Mr. Reichert wanted to hold off a little bit and see
basically how things would tum out so we have excluded that but we still give him the
option to Mme in and pickup that same development pattern and just plug it right in here
and it would just fit right in with the rest of the proposed development. We recognize that
the sewer is an issue in this particular development pattern. Part of it is going to depend
upon how quickly Chamberlain Estates comes in with theirs. We know that because of the
lift station requirements that we can't go beyond Packard No. 1 that gravity sewer is going
to be required for Packard No. 2. We are hoping to get that worked out but again time will
tell and part of it is going to be how quickly Mr. Howell proceeds with his developments in
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 21
Chamberlain, particularly Chamberlain No. 2. It will combine or add for the opportunity of
continuation of public streets and the additional routes through this particular development.
We have also provided as you are aware in Packard No. 1 a stub street to the east,
however this particular corner develops and this is probably the most prime commercial
property that is just waiting for something to happen probably for the State to finish
whatever they are going to do on Eagie Road. That appears to be a prime commercial
corner and whether or not up in here would go in my estimation it would probably go
residential for portions. of it including I believe this portion up here you would see
residential and then the commercial I think this is a logical expansion of the City of
Meridian, we are not shoestringing an annexation request. We are contiguous to the City
limits right now. The city limit boundaries are right here and here. So we are contiguous
to the City and it is not like we are asking to stretch the city limits out to where (inaudible).
Alidjani: Is that portion (inaudible) phase one is going to be?
Hutchinson: This up here is Chamberlain it is already annexed so this is the City limits
boundary right here.
Alidjani: Is that phase one?
Hutchinson: Of ours,
Alidjani: Which end are you going to start developing and put in roads?
Hutchinson: Because we are tied to roads and sewer to the extension of the sewer we
would have to start on the north and work south. And the sooner this goes in the sooner
the lift station goes away down here. Which is to everyone's benefit including the
developers to have that lift station removed and to put the whole thing on gravity sewer.
It just makes more sense.
Alidjani: What is that big large lot?
Hutchinson: The Brown's house, the existing farmhouse is sitting right here. The
developers have had people that wanted to buy it but they wanted to buy it in a shape that
is going to allow them to keep the corals and barns that are existing. So we have a very
large lot here but it is just to keep intact that existing farmstead and that is because the
people that have looked at in fact I think they have a buyer for it right now.
Alidjani: So later on the only entrance would they have is through the culdesac?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 22
Hutchinson: For this one, yes, this parcel would go out the culdesac, but it is not laid out
for, it wouldn't really be conducive for this lot to resutxiivide given this street configuration.
Those buyers and one of the things it is hinging on is getting annexed so that we can do
the one time split on the parcel. Then they would also come in as part of the annexation
or the subdivision and sign the plat. They have to recognize that they have to participate
in the annexation or the subdivision platting process. But that is the reason for this large
lot right here though it is to keep that farmstead intact. As part of the requirements the City
of Meridian is asking that we determine the seasonal high ground water for this particular
area. We had test holes dug 1 believe it was last week or the week before. There is some
hard pan out there that is about a foot or foot and a half so that kind of prevents the
irrigation waters from seeping down so f think that has probably been the cause of some
of the flooding that has been reported in this area because there has been some hard pan.
I think it is more associated with the flood irrigating than with seasonal high ground water.
Once they broke through the hard pan and got down the average depth to water level was
12 to 13 feet below the surtace. We will provide that information and those results to the
City Engineer. Not everyplace had this cemented hard pan, but those locations where it
did show up it was about a foot to a foot and a half down. In summary it just makes logical
sense to expand your City limits adjacent to the existing city limits and we are not asking
that you make a far reach to take in some additional ground. We have a pretty good
proposal here we worked this one over many times just to get to this point. Recognizing
that your comp plan says that there should be a park in the area that is a tough one I don't
know how to, I know the City of Meridian doesn't have a parks department to be able to
go out and acquire park ground. So it is a provision of private land within the development
seems to be the way that it is being handled but I don't know how you ultimately get a
regional public park in the area. Like I say we did have the original proposal that had the
5 acre park in it. When we got to City Council it just didn't seem that is what they were
looking for at the time. We recognize that there are some issues that have to be
addressed including the access issues, we don't think we are premature on this, we think
that if it is recognizing that there are certain things that are going to have to be done in
order for this to develop, we just want to have everything in place that we can proceed with
a quality development. Are there any questions from the Commission?
Alidjani: Have you seen Shari's comments?
Hutchinson: Yes, I got those about 20 to 5:t~ today.
Alidjani: Have you had a chance to look at them?
Hutchinson: We did, if there are any particular questions I tried to address some of them
in my comments tonight.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 23
Alidjani: There is one of them that I have a concem about is number 7.
Hutchinson: Number 7, yes the access as I have indicated and she brings up the Dove
Meadows No. 2 has expired. We are working to gain this access here. Mr. Leader, this
street Hickory Way here has no other place to go other than as it is proposed into the
Packard Subdivision No. 1, we know to make this we have got to get this ground dedicated
and we will construct this connection so that there will be at a minimum that one as well
as the stubs that are coming out into approved subdivisions.
Alidjani: How about the concern that our City Engineer's Assistant Bruce Freckleton.
Hutchinson: On the water, I was here Tuesday night when Gary Smith the Ciry Engineer
made some comments to the City. We are anxiously awaiting the results of their test on
the water system. We are hoping it is like he said just a scheduling or telemetry problem
and not source. I don't know if he has had an opportunity to look at the data on the water.
Alidjani: But you have seen his comments?
Hutchinson: Yes
Hepper: Is the sewer on the north side does that cross Mr. Alleman's property or does it
go down the south slough?
Hutchinson: The way this is set up it was designed so the sewer would cross Mr.
Alleman's property at this point, when we drew this we had 1 believe Mr. Edmonds had
talked to Mr. Alleman at length and it was Mr. Edmonds understanding that Mr. Alleman
would agree to that whether he has changed his mind since that time I don't know. If all
else I believe there is an easement right of way which would run along the south slough
which would be a United States Government right of way. We may be able to negotiate
into that right of way if necessary to extend it through there rather than straight across Mr.
Alleman's property. It would benefit Mr. Alleman if he decided to develop this because
there would be a natural place for the street as well as a natural place for extension of
sewer into his property. Again, I don't know if he has changed his mind at this point or not.
But this was drawn having in mind just a verbal discussion between Mr. Edmonds and Mr.
Alleman.
Hepper: With that I guess a question for Gary Smith, would that sewer line if it crossed
in an open field would that require an all weather surface?
Smith: Yes, Commissioner Hepper we have been requesting that across open ground so
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 24
we can get to the sewer. I noticed Mr. Alleman sent a letter in that he requested that a road
not be installed.
Hepper: So we may have an issue there that needs to be resolved.
Smith: We have an issue that needs to be resolved correct.
Hepper: Shari Stiles mentioned perimeter fencing and do you have any problems with any
of that?
Hutchinson: No it is their intention to provide the fencing, not only does it provide for
privacy but it also provides a buffer (inaudible).
Hepper: You also said that there are increased setbacks on some of the larger lots how
much of a setback is that increased?
Hutchinson: We were, minimum of a 35 foot setback on the rear property lines against
those properties that were next to Carol Subdivision. That was the same thing that was
proposed down in Packard 1.
Hepper: In Packard 1 there was a question about density and I think there was a piece of
paper somewhere that mentioned the size of the lots, a certain percentage of the lots were
8,000 and 10,000.
Hutchinson: It is on the face of the preliminary plat.
Hepper: I was just wondering if you could read that real quick with the percentage of the
lot sizes were.
Hutchinson: We had 19°k were above 15,000 square feet. 33°~ were from 10,000 to
15,000 square and then 48% were from 10,000 to 8,000 square feet.
Rountree: Any additional questions? Anyone wish to testify at this point?
Mark Peterson, 2700 Wingate, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Peterson: My concerns right now are somewhat with the infrastructure that needs to be
in place before this amount of density of new housing goes in there. They are talking
about access to the different streets, of course every morning 1 go out Eagle Road and if
you have ever been during either rush hour right now we are almost backed up a full mile
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 25
during the morning and evening rush hour you are talking about adding I don't know how
many thousand new homes in the entire area. I don't know whether or not their proposals
have the proper number of accesses into all of the subdivisions. Also, the irrigation
concerns me, right now we are adjacent to the Borup's property and the irrigation comes
across on the high ground right there which accesses our property on the high ground
which allows us to irrigate the entire property. If they try and the that and put it way below
surface so they can put the subdivision in there is that going to affect our irrigation which
then flows down to our neighbors irrigation. The sewer I didn't bring my X-ray vision so
I couldn't see through the card here through the back. To access the second subdivision
the sewer coming down through the slough has to go I believe through my neighbors
property and then through the back of my property. I don't know that they have easement
or access right now to that to access the second property to be able to get rid of the lift
station. So that concerns me. The schools you already know were overcrowded on the
schools for this much density. The access on the road and of course I am against the
subdivision having access to our private road and affecting the way we maintain that.
Those are my major concerns right now. Thanks.
Hepper: Could you show us where your property is on that plat?
Peterson: {Inaudible)
Hutchinson: For record this is Sharp's, this is Reichert's, Peterson's, Dauvin's, Robert's,
Alleman owns this.
Peterson: This is the slough?
Hutchinson: Yes
Peterson: Now to get access for this for sewer you have to come (inaudible)
Hutchinson: (inaudible)
Hepper: Once the roads are in the sewer would be brought down the road right of ways
is that correct?
Rountree: Anyone else wish to testify?
Vern Alleman, 2101 East Ustick, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Alleman: I guess, you each have a copy of the letter that t presented and 1 can go over
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 26
that I don't know as it is necessary in regards and I don't know as it pertains to this
particularly. But in regards to this property and the one time split, the one time split if it is
what I am thinking they are thinking of has already been done on this property. When my
brother (End of Tape) so how it affects what they are doing I don't know. t guess t am
open to any questions you might have concerning my letter.
Hepper: Would you like to address the sewer easement through your property if that
becomes necessary for this project to be viable would you be willing to do that. Is that
something you are against?
Alleman: Well, I have stated there are certain conditions that have to be met in order for
them to cross my property. Of course that is that there would be no roadways across it.
I can read here what I said, I am concerned about the sewer which will need to cross our
property. The location of the sewer is very important it must be located so that it will
properly serve our property if need be in the future. This requires engineering and
planning and legal documents. The timing of construction and method must be done to
conform to my farming operation. Upon completion it must be put back in shape for
present farming without manholes and so forth. There is proposed street exiting the
proposed subdivision on the west and entering our property on the east. There must not
be any streets across our property for traffic or for sewer servicing until such time as our
property is developed. As 1 stated we have owned this land for 25 years on the north and
west side of Packard No. 2. I am presently farm this and additional land, I farm the Brown
until this year and we have 2 sons who are involved in various farming activities with us.
It is my intention to continue to operate as we do now. Because of the development around
us it is important to be involved in the planning process. It is in the context that I make
reference to the developing of the property. And if you so desire I can read the rest of it
but you have it. I would be, I would hope that they could have enough area for sewer
servicing without putting a road and obstacles in my property for sewer. Is there any
questions?
Rountree: Thank you, anyone else wish to testify?
Albert Dauvin, 2820 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Dauvin: I kind of live kitty comer from the Brown property there. We live in a 3,000 square
foot brick home. It is very nicely landscaped. I probably have a deck bigger than the
homes that they are planning on building behind my house. It is an insult to my integrity
to say that they are going to put a 30 foot buffer zone around John Barnes, and Miller's
house and Johnson's house that sits on this Council and they do not consider me or the
Peterson's in this thing. I think the buffer zone needs to go around the larger lots just as
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 27
well as it does the smaller ones. Peterson's have just built their house their they are not
planning on moving. We have lived there for nine years we are not planning on moving.
I am a businessman here in this community. I can't see where they are coming off saying
we are putting a buffer around Carol Subdivision and they come down there and they are
treating us like we are some kind of old farmers or something or yokel-dokles it is just it is
beyond me to what they think they are dealing with here. They have insulted everyone of
the neighbors and done stuff that is just not right. I think maybe they need to go back and
realize we are human beings and they need to come and talk to us before this thing ever
goes any further. They need to have a buffer zone there they need to have, you have
animals we raise horses, we have a cult or 2 a year. You get little kids in there with the
colt and a mean mare and the kid gets between them what do you think is going to
happen? That mare is going to kick the tar out of that kid. How can we, when we work
or are away from home how can we be responsible for these kids. We have it right now
with the kids in Carol Subdivision, they come down the slough, we own the land that the
slough comes through and they come down through there right now and you can't control
it.
Alidjani: Would you show us your house?
Dauvin: (Inaudible)
Alidjani: So then really the southwest corner of your property and their property is
abutting?
Dauvin: (Inaudible) If you are going to have a buffer zone it should be around everybody's
property, it shouldn't be around just a slick few. I guess is what I am trying to say,
everybody should be treated equal, not some better than others. So that buffer zone it
should be in place for everybody because I don't think anybody is intending on living or
moving right away or dying in here. You buy a house to stay there for a while you don't
buy it to sell. We are perfectly happy right there. I think that is basically all I have to say
besides the sewer line as to go through my property sooner or later in years to come and
I am not anti-growth don't get me wrong, it is just the idea the way it was approached. I
told the gentlemen when this first came up that they could I would tell the neighbors and
we would have a meeting in our front room and that never came about. So, it was never
handled responsibly.
Hepper: Are you just to the north of Peterson's property, is that yours, where the slough
goes through?
Dauvin: (Inaudible) That is all I have to say.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 28
Rountree: Anyone else wish to testify?
Roberta Thompson, 2950 Wingate, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Thompson: Of course my concerns are similar to Craig's and he just stated them earlier
in the letter he read. I have a couple more concerns that come up, 1 might need to show
you where our property is. (Inaudible) Our title insurance makes us understand that we
own the property that the slough runs through, the government owns the water. So that
is a little bit of a problem as far as getting access to that area where the slough runs
through without our permission. As far as negotiations it is probably not acceptable
because then it would take some of our property to be able to have access to that sewer
and maintain it and whatever. Another concern I have is a question for Mr. Crookston is
what constitutes a private road and how can, is that a tough one? Except for the fact that
apparently a private road is owned and maintained by the people who use the road. If in
fact the easement statement that the gentleman made earlier is correct we could not find
that information, we went to the courthouse and tried to find it and could not find it. So I
will need to see his documentation to see what that is. 1 am just wondering at what point
can someone on a private lane designate that area to be public and use for public access.
I am under the understanding it cannot be done by any person along the road it has to be
done by everyone in order to designate it as a public use in any section of it. If in fact
which Mr. Sigmond indicated to us earlier in another after another meeting that they would
not impact Wingate Lane at all. They would just put their subdivision in and go along with
their business. Well, it does impact us simply by the fact of how it does cross Wingate and
leaves that open for access by the subdivision. We don't' want to be laborious on this
issues but it is very important that you folks understand our problem with the fact that there
would be an access there. Not only the agricx~ttural meeting with the urban but also where
Wingate intersects with Ustick is halfway between the mile of Eagle and Locust Grove.
There is an immense amount of traffic already. It is a small access so very hard to get out
into that road without some kind of a problem as far as seeing who is coming and who is
going. If it is children, teenagers going to school there are going to be many accidents
there with the more use. It is a single lane and we are able to use it because it is light use,
we have an area where we move over and people come in. I don't think that would happen
with someone that was late for school and trying to get there swiftly. Still concerned about
the R1 and the R~ where there is a (inaudible) acre properties there on Wingate Lane
and having R-4 next to it. I am wondering about the property values and that type of
question a little bit. We are not opposed, 1 can speak for myseff I am not opposed to the
growth, I think growth is good if it is done correctly and if it is done without encroachment
on people that are existing there and having their life there already. So, if these
considerations are made I was a little concerned with the statement made about being
aware of the problem and to be aware of a problem and actually say what you are going
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 29
to do to fix it to me are 2 different things. So, we would really like to know what there
intentions are to solve this problem that we feel like we have with that spot on Wingate
Lane. If there is anyway possible to be able to communicate with them on this at this point
we would appreciate that. That is all.
Rountree: Thank you, anyone else wish to testify?
Helen Sharp, 2445 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Sharp: I think a couple things that need to be reiterated is we have heard repeatedly
about the comprehensive plan and this does not go outside the guidelines of that.
However, in looking at the comprehensive plan there are certain guidelines and those of
course being sewer. I think for a developer to ask this council or anybody to take on an
expensive lift station so they can have what they want at the expense of others is not being
very fair to those of us who will have to pick up the load for that. We hear a lot or hear
quite a bit about they are going to work with us. I have yet to hear a developer say let's
try to divide the Brown and Borup's subdivisions so we don't have to cross Wingate Lane.
This right now is a big thorn for those of us who live on that private lane and of course we
are at the very end of the lane. With the argument we will talk and work with the Sharp's
or the Reichert's or whoever has to cross that, can you imagine a gate and every time you
wanted to go down that lane you had to use, and what if someone came to see you in the
middle of the night? Who is going to maintain the gate, I am sure if I can't get it open they
are going to love to come with an oil can to make sure we can swing that gate. I don't
think these things are really thoroughly thought through. If he is really sincere the owners
and developers that they want to develop this and 1 don't know the highway department
says they have to have 2 accesses in and out they would design it so they could go
without going over Wingate Lane over a private lane. We have a really unique situation
here in that it is a private lane and they want to put a public across it. So 1 think that really
needs to be addressed. I think that when you talk about talking to each other and I
admired the man that was here before who said rather than cause a problem with the
people he would withdraw his permit. I have never heard a developer say that we will
walk and talk and work with you so that we all have what we want. It is I want, we want the
developer and unfortunately they get what they want. Of course they talked about the
schools, we know someone who tried to buy some of that property on Wingate Lane and
we know they can't go to the schools they are going to be bussed over to Meridian schools
which is quite a ways away. Of course here again is another expense for us (inaudible)
bussing these children clear across town because they can't go to Chief Joseph which is
practically a stone's throw away. We have also heard, 1 didn't tonight but we have heard
about the broadening of the tax base and we know that is true, it broadens it (inaudible)
feature for us why are we suffering so with our schools and the things that the taxes
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 30
provide. I wanted to, the thing that comes foremost to my mind, we have lived on the lane
(inaudible) and granted for so that the original owner could get to it. What (inaudible) after
us (inaudible) our choice which is to live out in the rural area where. we have a graveled
dirt lane that we maintain. I think that we need to be considered as well as those people.
Of course I realize that we talked about the water and we talked about the high water table
and it is a serious factor. We have just a small cellar under our house and we have to
(inaudible) is high. These are things that really need to be considered. I would like to ask
you very sincerely to consider our issues too. Maybe off the record, how many people are
usually on this council?
Alidjani: Why should it be off the record?
Sharp: I notice that we haven't got the usual number of people.
(Inaudible)
Sharp: Can you act on it without your other people?
Rountree: Yes, we have a quorum.
Sharp: Well, that makes it interesting. Anyway, I am opposed to it until they redesign it
so they don't have to cross Wingate Lane.
Rountree: Thank you, anyone else wish to testify?
Billy Jo Premoe, 3045 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Premoe: I would also just like to address our concern as members of Wingate Lane Users,
as I understand our property which is near Ustick on the northern end of the lane was the
original land owner and was the property that gave the access to the Sharp property and
established the original use the easement through this property. My concern is that these
people have bought these properties knowing that there was no access and that they
would be having to infringe upon what has been a long standing private area. Now they
expect everyone to bow to meet their needs to find a way to make it work for them. Those
of us who bought through the years purchased our land because we like the type of area
it was that is was private and took upon the responsibility of a private lane and maintain
it so we could have the quality of life we want so we can have the rural environment. We
just don't feel that this property has the right to go across what has been a longstanding
private lane and infringe upon the rights of the Sharp's and the rest of us who have been
maintaining this property. I would like to go on record as saying 1 oppose it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 31
Rountree: Anyone else wish to testify?
Dale Sharp, 2445 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Sharp: I also oppose this subdivision, it has kind of been piece meal planning from the
start and we are getting all of this stuff at a here and there. You don't know what is going
on half the time. As far as going ahead with the subdivision and approving any annexation
or approval of these subdivisions that these services should be available before it ever
goes and approved by City Council so they can proceed with the subdivision. They don't
have access, sewer. They are saying that we should pick up the lift station so that they can
profit from it. As far as I think that the people on Wingate Lane should have the same
treatment as far as buffering as Carol Subdivision. Carol Subdivision is getting preferential
treatment. We have 5 acres, our neighbors, Reicherts have 5 acres and on down the way
they probably have the larger acreage than Carol Subdivision. As far as I am concerned
and others that this is preferential treatment because they are backing up those small lots
right in front of our property. I am opposed to that, as far as access to Wingate Lane that
is a private lane and it has been for as long as I have been there and I have a document
that says it was 1913. As far as those people accessing it and I am sure that what they
would like to do if this is approved these subdivisions is bring their construction equipment
down through there. What about the traffic that is (inaudible) going to come right down
Wingate Lane. So, I think that before anything is ever approved these services should be
available. Our schools can't handle it, our water pressure, my neighbor right south in a
subdivision said they have a trickle and that is in the city right now. We have irrigation
laterals there that certainly has to be addressed to the one that goes down my property to
the west and one goes to the north and to service all of those people down there. So there
is lots of things that should be addressed before it is ever approved.
Rountree: Thank you, anyone else?
Floyd Reichert, 2575 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Reichert: I have some concerns about it, also. I understand from the conversation tonight
that the perimeter of it would be fenced, the irrigation water that we get comes out of the
lateral out there that it comes out it is over on the oki Borup property and Kirkpatrick's and
comes across and comes down Dale's I would recommend that from the lateral on if they
are going to the it they should the the whole ditch so if they go into a pressurized system
so that it is synchronized rather than have it partly buried and then have it open and go to
another pressurized system. I have spoke with the developer, if this development goes in
I agree to grant him dedication acxoss the front of my place to make the flow of that traffic
a little easier which he would come on join onto Wingate and go a little bit further and go
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 32
through so the flow of traffic from the south to the north through the west would be more
feasible and would be a more accessible road through there. We had started like I say
with my property to include it into moose but I have some personal tax problems that at this
time it would not be convenient for me. The road that abuts me on the north like I say
would be adequate if there is any future development of my property and Sharp's that
sewer would be enough to carry it to the north. 1 would speak in favor of the annexation.
Rountree: Anyone else? Ted do you want to come up and address some of the questions.
Hutchinson: For the record the recorded document with the reference to Wingate Lane
is found in Book 6, page 253 of the contrails and agreements on record at the Ada County
Recorders Office, we will provide a copy. It is a little hard to read but it was granted in
1913 and there are several people involved including Cynthia Aldridge, Fred Ames, Harry
Yost, C.K Van Auker, I believe it is L.A. Lewison, and H.A. and I can't quite read that last
name being the owners of several trails of land constituting and bordering on the east line
of the east half of the northwest 1/4 of Section 5, T.3N, R.1 E of the Boise Meridian being
described for opening and maintenance a private road along said line beginning a the
public highway forming the north line of Section 5 and running south along the said east
line of the east half of the northwest 1/4 said Section 5, being the half section line to the
southeast corner of the northwest comer of said section line. Said road to be 15 feet in
width. Now therefore we the undersigned do here by agree to and with each other and
bind ourselves and our successors as owners of the several tracts abutting the said half
section line that we will open and maintain a private road 15 feet in width. The half section
line constituting the east line of the said road. That the road will be for the use of all the
owners or the said trails with equal rights as to use of the same that it has bee witnessed
b those particular owners. That is the document that I have given you. It is a little difficult
to read I think partly because of the age of the document. That did (inaudible) property
owners the developers of this property have taken title the ground, they are owners they
own a portion of that particular easement that is referred to in this document. It is their
intention to develop only that portion and improve that portion that lies within their
property. As far as cutting off that access there are several options one would be to put
in a gate as I have suggested earlier. It is not out of the question and it is not an
impossibility that the balance that is not improved as public right of way could actually be
dedicated to the highway district and the developer could let them do with it what they
desire. But I think because you read that document you will find that the dedication of the
easement was west of the center section line for 15 feet so that in essence cut everybody
on the east off so I don't know how those people have gained access to Wingate. But we
don't want to affect the traffic that uses Wingate lane. Obviously we are going to affect
those properties that belong to the Sharp's and Reichert's because the development
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 33
basically surrounds their properties. We won't affect that portion that is not on our
property they will have complete access through that portion of the development and part
of it on a public street. If they want to continue to use an unimproved gravel road rather
than to take a public street out of their property they have that and we will continue to
provide for that particular access. I am not sure what questions that you might have that
I can answer that have been raised by those people who have testified.
Alidjani: What is your tentative time that you think that Chamberlain will go through the
street and you will have access to sewer and water? Any rough idea at all?
Hutchinson: I believe that they, the time frame that I have heard has been about 2 to 3
years before Chamberlain is built out to that extent. Again it is part of it is market driven,
rf the market stays like it has been of course we have had a bit of a slow down but 1 think
that we are still seeing some growth it is not the rapid rate that we had before.
Alidjani: So would it be correct to say if their project does not go through you do not have
a sewer line to your project?
Hutchinson: That would be correct, we wouldn't have a sewer line to the north to Packard
No. 2, Packard No. 1 is going to connect to existing sewer in Dove Meadows.
Alidjani: May I interrupt you, didn't you also say that Bove Meadows at the present time
do have some problem and the connection of a stub street is not going to happen for
awhile?
Hutchinson: Dove Meadows No. 2 the preliminary plat approval for that subdivision has
expired. Mr. Leader is checking his options to decide whether or not he is going to go
ahead. We are going to have to make that connection make the street connection and that
would also include the sewer connection on Hickory so that, whether Dove Meadows No.
2 goes through or not we will acquire the ground for dedication of the public right of way
and construct the street.
Alidjani: Maybe I am missing something, how could you do that if that doesn't belong to
Dove Meadows No. 2 and you don't have control of it?
Hutchinson: Welt Mr. Leader is witting to work with us to make that provision.
Alidjani: So I guess what you are saying you are going to talk to the original owner then
you would do some kind of easement.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 34
Hutchinson: Actually it would be a public dedication of a right of way so that there would
be public road right of way fully improved to public street standards. In fact it would be a
collector status street 60 feet wide with curb, gutter and sidewalk. So Hickory will be a
continuous street from Fairview up through Packard No. 1. That would be the provision of
the sewer for Packard no. 1 and we worked out, we have been in contact with the City
Engineer about provision of a lift station and it is our understanding and that the lift station
would not be able to serve beyond Packard Subdivision No. 1. So the development of
Packard No. 2 would be contingent upon provision of gravity sewer through the south
slough. I don't know if that helped clarify that or not for you. With regard to the lift station,
I believe the developers will tell you that in the covenants there is going to be an additional
assessment that will be charged to the lot owners on a monthly basis will be collected to
help offset the cost of the maintenance of that lift station so that it is not entirely borne by
the City but it would be by the users.
Hepper: I have a question, one of the concerns was why Wingate Lane couldn't remain
as it is with a subdivision, part of Packard No. 2 accessing from Locust Grove and the
other part accessing from Fairview, could you address why that wouldn't be feasible from
your stand point?
Hutchinson: I don't think it makes good traffic planning sense to make that kind of division.
The highway district is looking for a collector status street in this particular area. They
would love to get Wingate Lane but they know the problems there so they are not about
to push to get Wingate Lane as a collector street. So they would like to have a collector
status street somewhere in that immediate vicinity. We are providing a stub that will
eventually provide that collector status street to Ustidc in the event that Mr. Alleman
decides that it is more profitable to subdivide then to farm. But as far as having one then
the other we are providing a continuity of the existing street pattern and the street system
it makes more traffic sense to provide that then to in essence you would end up with a
dead end that is more than half a mile from Fairview and a dead end more than half a mile
from Locust Grove and that just doesn't make good traffic sense.
Hepper: Have we got comments from Ada County Highway District that would pertain to
that? I don't think in my packet that (inaudible).
Hutchinson: No, the highway district has asked for a traffic study on this and there was
originally a traffic study prepared for Packard No. 1. When we submitted Packard No. 2
they wanted that traffic study updated to inGude the information. That traffic study is being
completed now by Dobey Engineering. As soon as that traffic study is completed a copy
will be forwarded to the City of Meridian and also to the highway district. They will make
their formal comments once they have that traffic study. We took this proposal to the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special. Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 35
highway district from the beginning, we have talked to City staff, we have talked to Shari
about this proposal, and she identified many of the issues that have arisen here. We
talked to the highway district and that is where the issue of the collector streets and the
number of stubs and how the street pattern is laid out in this particular development and
based upon the comments that we received from Ada County Highway District. They are
holding their official comments until they get that updated traffic study but that would be
forthcoming very shortly.
Hepper: Are they going to have a public hearing on that do you know?
Hutchinson: They take care of it at their regular public hearings but I don't know that they
publish the specifics like your notification for this particular public hearing consider this
item I don't know how the highway district operates on that on their agenda. But again the
street patterns has been based upon interviews from the highway district.
Rountree: There were a couple of issues that I heard and 1 don't know if it is a matter of
clarity or what, would you point out not only for us but for the audience the routing of the
sewer. Several people testified it would have to come through their property and that is
not my understanding.
Hutchinson: The sewer would come from the west through Chamberlain Estates in here.
I am not sure exactly where you have that planned as far as servicing Chamberlain, but
it is my understanding that within we are hoping to have this provision across Mr.
Alleman's ground here and once it got to this intersection which would be right here then
it would extend south so that it would pick up not only all of Packard but it would pick up
Packard No. 1 and provide for extension further to the west. However, I don't know how
the city would want to, if they are looking at further extending it on the south slough or
whether they would want it to go out somewhere else. I don't know that you have really
identified that have you?
Rountree: For purpose of your proposal it would (inaudible) south in (inaudible).
Hutchinson: The only place it would cross Wingate Lane would be in this improved public
road section in here. That is down here that is south of Peterson's in the public road right
of way and then come over this way. It would be in the public road in front of Reichert's
and then in the public road down so that we could eventually remove that lift station that
will service this one and then all gravity flow to the northwest.
Rountree: There also seems to be some folks concerned about the use of the Wingate
(inaudible) at the Reichert property you have also indicated that there would be no access
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 36
provided for the (inaudible) and you propose to mechanically gate that or design that into
the project so only those folks will have the easement use of that (inaudible).
Hutchinson: Right, anyone south of this point and that would only be the two the Reichert
property and Sharp property anything south of this point would be the only users. It is
designed so that the public street is more convenient than this very narrow dirt road. This
would be designed to discourage the use of this road. In fact (inaudible) if it takes a gate
with the Sharp's having a key than that is what it would be. The visitors would use the
public road right of way to get down to this point where they would enter the easement
which would then go the Sharp's. The question of using Wingate Lane as a visitor when
there is a public street access.
Rountree: (Inaudible) Anybody else?
Alidjani: I guess the whole complaint or problem is when the dedicated road goes across
Wingate Lane at that point.
Hutchinson: Yes, this section and it actually would go from about this point which is at this
intersection because Mr. Reichert has indicated that he would be willing to allow the
improvement of his ground dedication for public road improvement so it would be to this
point then, this would be public right of way and they are concerned that rather than stay
on a public street that they would want to go over curb, gutter or vertical curb or try to go
through a gate or whatever. The concern is traffic will want to naturally go up this road.
It makes more sense for the convenience of using a paved public road as opposed to a
one lane dirt road, it just makes more sense the traffic will use the higher speed paved
road.
Alidjani: Thank you
Hutchinson: I guess in final comment right now there is a bit of a rural flavor to it and we
recognize that, the city limits is coming out to them, in fact the city limits is to them now.
I don't know if Sharp's commented when Kearney Place went in or when this phase of
Chateau Meadows went in, those are smaller lots than we are proposing. anywhere in our
subdivision. The urban development is there, this is just a logical extension of your own
city limits and your own street patterns.
(Inaudible)
Rountree: You need to come up and ask the question.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 37
Peterson: You stated earlier
Rountree: You need to address the question to the Commission.
Peterson: He stated earlier that the easement for Wingate Lane was on the west side of
the section line and you were saying you were going to maintain access on Wingate Lane
but it seems to indicate here that their property is coming all the way over to the section
line which would be the bads of all of this property is using up Wingate Lane. So is it going
to stay intact on the bads of this property which this is my property here. If Wingate Lane
lines up with this road right here we are going to be cutting all of these lots by a 1 /3 down
this section. This is Wingate Lane here and it doesn't really show it well and I don't know
what is going to happen here.
Hutchinson: The base map which has the colors on it with the exception of these black
and white ones were prepared by Ada County GIS using the assessors records. They
have drawn on here what they have as of record and this thin red line that runs here these
2 -ines are Wingate Lane. Now when it gets down to this point at this scale of map it is a
little difficult, 15 feet on a 200 scale map gets, the lines themselves can be wider than 15
feet. So when you are dealing on this scale it is our intention that those properties will be
fenced against access to Wingate Lane. The easement is there we cannot cut off the
easement, they have the legal right to the access to that easement. We recognize that we
are not trying to interfere with their access (End of Tape) and will still exist once this
development is completed.
Rountree: So you are stating that you would physically cut the access off to those lots in
your development that presently would have access?
Hutchinson: Right, those lots will not have any access to Wingate Lane, in fact not only
the covenants would prohibit it but 1 believe there would be notes on the plat prohibiting
access to it. Only those people who have access which would be the Sharp's, the
Reichert's and I believe Robert's and anybody on the west side of that section line
according to this document have access to that particular easement. But because it is
there we will recognize that easement, we will not interfere with their use of the easement.
Crookston: What kind of a document are you going to have that is going to evidence that
the property that the lot owners in the subdivision would not have access to Wingate
Lane?
Hutchinson: That would be included in the covenants for this subdivision and if the City
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 38
would prefer we can also include it as a note on the plat that there is no access from any
of the lots within this development to the Wingate Lane easement.
Sharp: Here again we are getting conflicting stories, I talked to the engineer for the
department of highway and he says they don't care one thing for Wingate Lane and he is
telling us they want to kind of get their hands on it so they can have another access
through there. I think what I am asking is for the City Attorney or some attorney to really
fine read that document. Of course when that was written in 1913 people were a little bit
more honest and maybe intent is a factor there. Was that road intended only for access
for those. He said his people in the subdivision won't have access to it, if that is the case
why bother to cross Wingate Lane except to annoy us. Like you said, he said it isn't
feasible or to go along with the flow of the traffic to design it so it doesn't cross Wingate
lane why does a drawing in fact submitted or is that they are talking about economic
feasibility which should not be a factor in any decision except for those that are developing
it certainly shouldn't be for this board or the City Council. And going along with the City
Council we were at the meeting Tuesday night and phase 1 was tabled it has not been
accepted yet or annexed by the City of Meridian. Here again they are asked to go back to
the drawing board and take care of some problems. So my question is since this is all kind
of intertwined with phase 1 and 2 maybe we had better look at the whole picture and not
do it just spot by spot. But like I said I talked to the engineer for the highway department
and while he couldn't give me legal advice because he is an attorney for the highway
department I also talked to him and here again I would like to see the attorney's really
scrutinize that document. Thank you
Aiidjani: Mrs. Sharp, what was the gentleman that you talked to what was his name?
Sharp: I have it on another. piece of paper, it ends with Lund, Joel Lund was the engineer
with the highway department. I'm sorry I didn't bring that piece of paper, I could get that
to you, the attorney. Like I said he couldn't give me legal advice because he has to act for
the highway department as I am sure is true for Mr. Crookston here too. I would like to see
him scrutinize that document closely. I think intent might be a factor there too.
Rountree: Thank you, anyone else?
Dixie Lee Roberts, 2855 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Roberts: I would just like to make it a public record that I too am very concerned about
what happens to our community out there. The same as my neighbors, I think with
subdivisions comes a lot of children along with it. My concern is that we do have cattle and
children wander into the fields and it is my concern of their safety and of the ditch also.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 39
Little children and drowning and so on. Thank you.
Rountree: Mr. Alleman?
Alleman: Just for a matter of clarification they have indicated that I want to clarify that I am
presently farming and I plan to continue there. But because of the development around
that I feel it is important that I put the input into this but I am not, it is not my intention to
divide it, develop it or to sell it. So if that enters into the considerations well then I think I
should clarify that for your consideration. Thank you.
Rountree: Anyone else?
Mick Dauvin, 2820 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Dauvin: My concern is that you are looking at an incomplete plan. You don't have highway
studies, you don't have your sewer lines complete. You don't have access defined on here.
I think you ought to wait until you get a total plan to look at for this development. Again my
other concern is a buffer between agricultural and residential. We have got animals and
water and kids don't mix with that very well.
Rountree: Anyone else? Seeing none I will close the hearing. We need findings or an
action.
Alidjani: Mr. Chairman I make a motion that we ask our City Attorney to draw findings of
fact and conclusions of law for this public hearing for zoning and annexation.
Hepper: Discussion?
Rountree: Not unless it is seconded. Motion dies for lack of a second.
Hepper: Can we have discussion now'? I think we need to table this until we can get some
answers to some of these things. I would like to see what Ada County Highway District has
to say about it, about Wingate Lane in particular. Also concerned about the access, it
doesn't appear to be access to the property right at the moment. 1 think they need to
alleviate that problem as well. I think the Dove Meadows access is probably a solution to
that. We have also got a question about sewer through Mr. Alleman's property I think that
needs to be resolved. We have a question about water pressure with City water, the water
table. We have a couple of things there that need to be resolved before we can.
Alidjani: The reason that I made the motion the way I did is because he could get it done
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 40
by next month and if he doesn't than it gets denied. All of these are (inaudible) big
concern about the water pressure, Shari has 13 items, the way I look at it all of those have
to be resolved by the time the findings of fact are ready and if it is not and hopefully that
would be reflected in the findings.
Hepper: That is what I am wondering if that stuff is going to be in in time to be reflected in
the findings.
Rountree: I think Mr. Crookston might have something to say about that.
Crookston; For additional information to be included in the findings it needs to be
presented to the Commission realistically as part of the public hearing or if you make a
statement that you are going to accept written statements for a period of time than you can
do that when you state that they will be put into the record. For the purposes of the
findings it is best to have those made a part of the record so that the findings can use
those things.
Alidjani: So I guess what you are trying to educate me personally is because I did not say
the request of Bruce and Shari that could or could not affect the findings?
Crookston: They could yes, as well as particularly the (inaudible) Ada County Highway
District.
Rountree: And the public.
Crookston: And the public
Hepper: I think that the public also needs to be, these studies and stuff need to be made
available to the public too. I would make a motion that we table this until we receive
further information.
Crookston: Do you want to table have a motion to table the public. hearing so that these
matters can be addressed at a public hearing without publication of a notice then I would
suggest that you make a motion to table the public hearing to be brought back up
whenever you want it brought back up and have the additional information submitted either
to the Commission prior to that time at the public hearing.
Hepper: Say that in English?
Rountree: (Inaudible)
• !
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 41
Hepper: I don't know, I am not trying to circumvent the public, I think they made their
position pretty clear. I think from my own standpoint I think I understand their position
before I make a determination on the recommendation I would like to see what Ada County
Highway District has to say and I would like to see a possible solution to the City's water
pressure question out there and a couple of these other things. I don't know that we need
to have another public hearing.
Crookston: No you wouldn't have another public hearing you would just have this public
hearing hearing, it would need to be re-opened but you would have that continued and
realistically if someone wants to come forward on the date that it is continued to they
would have the right to do that. But if you keep the record open then it is best to do that
so you can have the ACHD comments submitted and made a part of the record.
Hepper: Potentially someone from the public may have a comment about the ACRD
comments. So we would probably want to restrict the public hearing to new information.
Crookston: You can do that, but I want to see ACHD's comments because normally we
have those comments prior to the public hearing. They are part of the record at the time
the public hearing is held. When we do not have them until after the public hearing we
actually need to have the public hearing held open.
Rountree: Did that communicate to you?
Hepper: Yes, I would like to amend my motion that we table the public hearing until our
next
Crookston: You need to re-open the hearing, the hearing has been closed.
Hepper: I would make a motion that we re-open the public hearing and then table it until
we have received ACHD comments and get some of these other questions resolved.
Alidjani: Second
Rountree: We have a motion and a second to re-0pen the hearing, leave the hearing open
until such time as we have received the information specific to ACHD's comments and
addressing the City staff's comments at our next regularly scheduled meeting July 11th,
all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 42
SIX MINUTE BREAK
ITEM #5: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0. 5 AND 6 BY STEINER
DEVELOPMENT:
Rountree: Is someone here for the developer?
Steve Bradbury, 300 North 6th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Bradbury: Mr. Chairman and members of the council you have seen this project a couple
of times before and I didn't expect that I would go into a great deal of detail about it.
Trying to just leave time to respond to any questions that you might have. What I think I
would like to do though is for ease in presentation you all have a book that looks
something like this with a bunch of tabs on it. Open up behind tab 6 and what you will find
there is a map that looks something like that. What I want to do is tell you a little bit about
what it is that we have done since the last time we were here. What this drawing shows
is the overall concept for development across the entire 40 acres. As before on the left
hand side the area that is shown in black that is the R-4 single family residential area.
There are a little under 17.5 acres there, 51 dwelling units for a total of 2.88 dwelling units
per acre and of course that is proposed for an R-4 zoning designation. The center section
what is in pink or purple I am not sure I can tell exactly what color to call that. That is a
proposed R-15 zone designation with 25 lots of about 6000 square feet each as proposed.
That is something that I want to talk a little bit more about as we go along here. The next
part, the part that is in green, the bottom right hand corner that is a proposed R-15 zone
designation. It consists of about 10 acres and there is a proposal to have 63 units
constructed on that portion. Those units would vary, there would be some single family
attached some single family detached. Now, behind these other tabs seven through ten
is more information about each one of these different concepts. If you want to get into
some detail you can flip back through those and take a look at them. But in essence what
we are talking about there is that is proposed to be a complex for senior living persons
aged 55 or older. In there of course you see that there is going to be a club house with
swimming pool and walking track and various amenities along those lines. The blue
portion above that is a townhouse condominium development proposal. The drawing
shows the conceptual drawing shows those 58 units up there and that would be across
about 7.5 acres for a total of 7.75 units per acre. The concept is to include that
condominium townhouse project in the senior development. In other words merge that into
the senior development when it is constructed. As we have told you in the past the concept
and the plan is to construct the southerly portion of the project first and the northerly
portion of the project second. With this townhouse condominium coming behind the other
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 43
portion of the senior project to provide a third living opportunity for seniors and those
people would be able to enjoy the same amenities that are found in that lower section. In
other words they could use the club house and the swimming pool and that sort of thing.
That in essence is the concept. When we were here before we didn't have these specific
conceptual drawings before you, your findings and conctusions made it clear to us anyway
that is what you wanted to see. We have prepared these things, showed this to the Ciry
Council when we were there I guess it was about a month ago, City Council said okay well
that is great why don't you go back to P & Z and show them because we would like to hear
what the Planning and Zoning Commission has to say about the thing. 1 am going to step
over here, we also thought it might be helpful for you to see the project as it sits on the
ground along side the rest of what is proposed and under construction out in that area.
The map that I am showing you there shows let's do it this way, on the right hand side you
can see the darker stuff is the proposal that you had before you tonight and then it goes
into the golf course area, the new proposed golf course area with the additional
development around it. A couple of things that I wanted to show you that may help you
to get a feel for what we are doing here. We are trying to transition for some higher density
out next to Ten Mile and then of course the lower density comes in along the golf course.
There are a couple other areas that I think are worth pointing out to you. (Inaudible) that
we understand have already been approved at least preliminarily for a medium density of
up to 8 units per acre. Overall on the 40 that you have before you if you took it all together
you are under 5 units per acre. It is just under 5 units per acre in total all considered which
is if you look at the (inaudible) overall that is a relatively low density proposal. You have
seen the thing a couple of times and what we would like to suggest to you. tonight is that
we are interested in working with the City to find something that the City is satisfied with.
Something that the City can feel good about. We have the idea that it is going to be a high
end project, you have seen the drawings that we brought in the past that show atl of the
landscaping amenities and the types of things that the developers wants to try and do.
Trying to build a good high end upper end nice development that has a variety of living
opportunities, some larger lots, some smaller lots, some townhouses, some duplex if you
will. Try to get a little bit of variety in Meridian. As far as we have been able to find there
is nothing quite like this in the City. It would be a niche that hasn't yet been fitted. We
recognize that you have some concerns about some of these things and what we would
Tike to do is we would like to encourage you to provide us with some input about what you
would like to see. What would be acceptable to you. If you see problems with this plan
with this proposal tell us how we can fix it and we will try to fix it. What we don't want to
do what we try to avoid doing is coming back and forth and taking more and more of your
time trying to read your minds as to what you might like to try and accomplish. One of the
things that we sense is that you are not particularly enthused about this 25 lot R-15 section
in the center with the 6,000 square foot lots. We are perfectly willing to work on that, we
are perfectly willing to do something different. For example we can increase the lots sizes,
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 44
we can submit to a design review process if the city wants to do that. Is that a tape that
needs to be turned or am I just getting feedback?
Rountree: It must be feedback.
Bradbury: In any event what we would like to try and do is if you see something that you
would like to see us change or to modify tell us and we will try and work it out. We would
like to do that rather than just coming back and forth. We will make those lots larger, if a
different zone designation is something that you folks would be more comfortable with in
that section fine that is okay we will go along with something that makes you comfortable.
I say that about the entire project. I also sense or we sense that you have some concerns
about approving an R-14 and because the R-15 zone will allow such a wide variety of uses
that perhaps you would like to be able to condition the development on something more
speck so the owner of the property doesn't come in with this project today and tomorrow
show up with something different. So, we have some suggestions that you might consider
imposing as conditions for the annexation and the rezone including number 1 condition
approval of the project on residential uses only across the entire 40 acres with the
exception of the fire station that the developer would donate to the City as a part of the
project. So that would be number one. Number two if you waM to restrict the gross density
over the entire 40 acres we would be willing to submit to that and we suggest because the
plan that we have before you is under 5 units per acre just under that a condition be
imposed that the development over the entire 40 not exceed 5 units per acre. Knowing
that in order for you the condominium project and the senior project to be approved that
the developer has to come back to you with a conditional use permit application you get
another whack at all of this stuff. You get another look at the details and some of the
design criteria that you may want to impose under the conditional use permit portions of
the ordinance. So, we are certainly willing to submit to a condition that requires the
developer to come back with a conditional use permit application for those two portions
of the project. We will even submit to a time limit for example 6 months for the senior
portion the southerly part and 1 am going to toss out two years for the northerly part and
those numbers are really off the top of our head and we can work with those. So I guess
set quickly and shortly is we ask that this body recommend approval of the annexation and
rezone to the City Council and that you approve the preliminary plat and you make that
subject to the conditions that you folks are comfortable with. Then we can hopefully get
this thing out of your hair and get on with the getting on. I would be pleased to answer any
questions you have got.
Hopper: You said something about a conditional use on the iwo portions to the east,
would that also apply to that center portion?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 45
Bradbury: It doesn't apply as it is proposed now that we submit to a conditional use, but
yes if that is the wish from the Commission it certainly could be. I don't know if a
conditional use is necessary maybe we can do something along the lines of a design
review because there we are talking about single family detached dwellings that will likely
be constructed separately although not necessarily. I am not sure a conditional use works
but if it does you bet, if it makes sense to you.
Rountree: I have a question, you ident~ed this as being a high end development.
Bradbury: Yes that is what we are aiming for.
Rountree: Mow would that be defined, how would that be quantified at some future date
if there was a dispute between the developer and the City and the developer says it is high
end and the City
Bradbury: The City says it is not as high as what we had in mind. I guess there are
several things that we can consider doing. One is imposing minimum square footage on
the dwellings and those proposals are contained in the information that we have here and
we are certainly willing to go with those. You can condition approval of the project on the
City Attorney, this body the City Council whoever reviewing and approving the restrictive
covenants that would be fried for each portion of this project. In the conditional use process
you get the opportunity to look at fairly closely the design the proposed design for each
portions of the project and you can string conditions on the conditional use permit to make
you comfortable with the high end. With what we are saying we perceive to be high end.
One of the things that I think demonstrates that we are trying to reach a little bit higher
than what might be the average out there is the kind of landscaping improvements that we
have proposed. You have seen the drawings of all of that with the center dividers in the
streets, and the parkway, the park strip along the main access road and all of the
landscaping, the cement block wall that goes around the perimeter of the property. 1 think
that these numbers are accurate but we have been talking about spending somewhere in
the neighborhood of $80,000 to $100,000 on landscaping treatments alone. We can
certainly work with conditions of approval that would require specific types of landscaping
improvements. We certainly don't have a problem including those in the development
agreement that I would expect will be required executing connection with the annexation.
So all of those areas I think are areas that you folks have and can exercise significant
amount of control and discretion and we don't have any problem with that, we encourage
you to do it.
Rountree: Thank you, any other questions? Anyone else wish to testify on this proposal?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 46
Hepper: I guess I have another question for him then. That center portion there you said
possibly different zone or something like that, would you be willing to consider a PUD with
an R-8?
Crookston: Can I interject, Tim when you say center portion where are you talking about?
Bradbury: Are you talking about the 25 lot R-15 portion?
Hepper: (Inaudible)
Bradbury: The answer to the question would be you bet we would consider that. The only
quaycation that I would impose is that as you know we have been at this for quite awhile
and w sure hate to go back through the public hearing process. My opinion would be that
because we are talking about a less intensive use that we shouldn't have to do it again but
I don't know what the City Attorney's thoughts along those lines are. We are certainly
willing to go along with a less intensive use and provide the City with whatever assurances
they need so they feel comfortable with what is going to be buiN out there. You bet, a PUD
if that makes sense with a different zone designation sure as long as it doesn't put us back
on the drawing board and make us go through ugh another series of public hearings if we
can avoid that. That is what we are trying to avoid.
Hepper: I think we are all probably on the same wavelength here. If we are looking at a
proposal here or a suggestion here on some changes we probably want to make it with
your consent because if you don't' consent to it then we have a difference of opinion and
we have a problem. Probably in that particular area you would probably be looking at an
R-8 PUD with 65 foot frontages instead of 60 foot, 6500 square foot lots instead of 6000.
No duplexes or multi family those would all be single family detached with 2 car garages.
Then I think under the, the minimum square footage under an R-8 we would probably want
to go with 1301.
Bradbury: And that is what is proposed presently so that is not a problem. So far I haven't
head anything and Doug is telling me he hasn't heard anything that causes him any
heartburn with that proposal.
Hepper: Then under a PUD and then either a design review or a conditional use, I
suppose a conditional use that probably the part that we are trying to control or make sure
is we have heard promises before of high end and high quality and nice project and then
when it is actually built something else is out there. So I think we want to conditional use
it so we can see when you get ready to do it what exactly your are proposing, what type
of roof treatment, what type of front and wood, stucco or stone.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22; 1995
Page 47
Bradbury: Did you have the idea you were going to build all of those out?
(Inaudible)
Hepper: We can probably come up with some guidelines or something maybe we wouldn't
have to see each individual building but maybe some guidelines that the builders would
have to fallow to assure that we have a quality project.
Bradbury: You bet and that is something that we might be able to handle one of two ways,
using what you are talking about and you folks looking at each I guess building plan that
comes through to make sure you are satisfied with it. 1 don't know if you really want to do
that or you approve the restrictive covenants that are applicable to that portion of the
project so that they say what you intend for them to say. That would be another alternative
another approach. But either one of those things is perfectly acceptable to us.
(Inaudible)
Rountree: Would you relate that to the record since you are sworn and he is not.
Bradbury: You bet, what Mr. Campbell said is he would be perfectly happy to come in with
a conditional use permit in that area and provide you with plans and elevations so you get
a logk at exactly what is going to be built throughout that portion of the project.
Hepper: I guess my next question would be to the City Counselor is all of this feasible?
Crookston: I don't know.
Hepper: Is there any legal reason we can't do it like that?
Crookston: If they agree with it 1 think we can do it. I guess the question that 1 have is as
I remember the application the R-151ots were many of the lots were around this loop road
even on the eastern edge until you get to the cluster homes or condominiums or whatever.
So, what area are we actually talking about where we are changing the R-15 to the R-8
idea.
Hepper: It would be on that loop road on the north side of the main entrance road.
Crookston: But there are R-15 lots as I remember, I don't specifically recall the (inaudible)
but 1 thought there were some R-1 5 lots around that loop road.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 48
Rountree: (Inaudible)
Crookston: I don't have a large enough map to tell by roads. I thought all of these purple
areas
(Inaudible)
Crookston: That is what I thought, we are not just talking about this area in here.
Hepper: No we are (inaudible)
Crookston: That was my understanding (inaudible)
(Inaudible)
Hepper: Originally on the original concept weren't those designated as patio homes or
garden homes or some other vague thing?
Bradbury: Where you didn't know what the heck we were talking about, yes that is exactly
right. They were originally designated as some sort of a patio home or garden home or
something like that.
Hepper: (Inaudible) tie it down a little more so we actually know what we are getting.
Bradbury: Sure, you bet, glad to do that.
Rountree: Any more questions? Again anyone else wish to testify?
Hepper: I had a question for Gary, we have got that letter from the City Gary mentioning
the water pressure. Would you elaborate on that exactly what that is all about?
Smith: Yes sir, we have been experiencing some low water pressures in various parts of
the town. At the time that we wrote the comments we weren't sure what was causing the
problem. We are still not absolutely sure but I know it had more to do with our telemetry
control of our well than it does with actual supply of water. We have made some changes
and so far on a very preliminary basis we have seen some positive changes. But 1 am not
to a position where I can release my comment that I submitted to you folks because I am
not sure that what we have done is the answer to the problem. We have received several
calls from the Cherry Lane Village area. Our sewer inspector lives out there and he
reported to me this morning that his water pressure on his sprinkler system is much
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 49
improved. Well No. 12 which is at Ten Mile and Cherry Lane Road should be in
production again by the end of this month approximately a week. And that should help it
significantly in that area. So I don't perceive that it is a serious problem I just wanted
everyone to know that there was a problem and I have a tendency to not charge on ahead
even though realizing that this development is going to be a time in the future before it
actually needs water. I wasn't sure what we needed to do to our system. I didn't want to
impact the people that are presently using the system by approving the additional
subdivisions or recommending approval.
Hepper: Could we condition that in the, Counselor could we condition that this
Rountree: I haven't closed the hearing yet Tim.
Hepper: This is just a discussion, I was just wondering do we need to table this or can we
make it in the motion or the findings of fact reflect the concern about the water pressure
and the Council needs to be aware of it.
Crookston: We can do that, it is my understanding what Gary said at the City Council
meeting he likely would have his report to the Council at the first meeting in July, is that
still the case Gary?
Smith: Yes
Crookston: So you could even support that you want that to be made part of the findings.
Rountree: Anyone else wish to testify?
Crookston: I am just looking at this thing, Steve, if I am looking at this correctly, you show
the R-4 lots along, what is the name of that road there?
Rountree: (Inaudible)
Crookston: It is not Woodmont?
Rountree: No it is the one north of that.
(Inaudible)
Crookston: Realizing that the lots on the north side of Mirrorfield are not part of this
application but those are R~ lots that are pretty nice and good sized lots you are going
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 50
to have R-15 development to the north of them?
Bradbury: That is right as proposed, now that would be buffered with a, do we have block
wall coming all the way around that part? It would be perimeter fenced the block wall
comes down around to the fire station I guess, the proposed fire station site.
Crookston: What kind of buffering would you be talking about there?
Bradbury: That is not something that we have talked about, I suppose that what I would
suggest is that if you folks think that there needs to be some specific buffering treatment
you tell us what it is and I think we will be able to provide it. We can provide a landscape
buffer, you are right we have got a transition area there between an R-4 and this R-15 but
you also need to recognize that those are all, the lots are smaller but theyare all single
family detached dwellings along there. So we are not talking about big multi unit structures
abutting against that R-4 so I don't tfiink there is going to be a significant conflict. (End of
Tape) from a use standpoint but only just probably from a lot size standpoint. We are
going to have the same types of use, of course we are also talking about a senior
development with people that aren't going to have theoretically a lot of children running
around. So I wouldn't expect that the conflicts would be even, if there were any at all
wou-d be reduced for that reason as well. If you think we need to do some landscaping
treatment along there that is fine. The concept is to provide common landscape throughout
that entire senior project a common landscape with common maintenance of the entire
landscape including the exterior portions of the dwelling units themselves. So I think there
is going to be a fairly good amount of control in order to keep those standards up.
Hepper: Would those be single story or a112 level or does it matter?
Bradbury: Doug is telling me single story so I guess, if you wanted to be sure of that
impose a condition.
Hepper: This would be in the southern half of the senior development would be single
story.
Bradbury: And that would be pertectly acceptable if that is plan and you want to make sure
that doesn't change.
Hepper: You said those would be single family detached what about in the bottom left
hand corner of the senior center, that looks like possibly a tri-plex or a 4 plex or
something?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 51
Bradbury: You are right in that corner it is. In that portion of it it is.
Crookston: Are we talking about duplexes and triplexes?
Bradbury: In some areas yes, there is a mix.
Hepper: Apparently in some of the corners (inaudible)
Bradbury: As well as those, I don't know exactly what all you were pointing to but also
around the Gub house area those are multi family as well duplex, triplex along those lines.
Hepper: Would it be feasible on that bottom left hand corner to make that single family
detached where they back up to the R-4?
Bradbury: I think it is certainly feasible, we just add another lot there instead of making it
a big lot, make it a smaller one.
(Inaudible)
Hepper: I would think those people who have already bought property there that this is
going to border up to them would need some protection there.
(Inaudible)
Bradbury: We can just add, I think the net result would be one extra lot one fewer unit if
you follow what I am saying. You get 2 units instead of three.
Crookston: Other than those corner lots are they all the rest of them going to be single
family dwellings?
Bradbury: All of the rest of which? Along that border'?
Crookston: In the comers of that area where we are talking about that (inaudible)
Bradbury: (inaudible)
Crookston: Other than the ones that are in the corners are the rest of them single family?
Bradbury: (Inaudible) So there are a few scattered around (inaudible) developed along
with the rest of the project. We will try to work on that one, that is the same thing
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 52
(inaudible) right here next to this road and is a part of what (inaudible). Buyers of this will
be aware of what they are up against as well as the rest of these. I can certainly
understand your concern (inaudible).
Crookston: I don't have too much concern about the areas that do not abut the R-4 lots to
the south. It is your development those that do abut those R~ lots I think that we need to
protect those R-4 lots.
Bradbury: And we have no problem with that. Maybe the suggestion I can make is that
you impose a condition that the tots along that southerly line there be single family
detached only single story. And we will go along with that.
Hepper: Do you have any idea what the square footage of those single family detached
homes will be?
Bradbury: Doug is whispering in my ear 1600 an 1 am going to look and see what we are
talking about. Doug is that included in the materials that are
(Inaudible)
Hepper: Well I think a square footage like that would be something that those property
owners would be concerned about.
(Inaudible)
Hepper: Yes along the southern border.
Rountree: We need this on the record.
Doug Campbell, 19 E. Fairview, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Campbell: I don't know how we can, the concept that is before you tonight it just giving
you basically a concept of what we have. I don't want to get stuck, I know we won't be
anything less than 1301 square feet. The plans I have before you are 1600 and 1800. I
don't know, I hate to be held to that, I know it won't be anything under 1300. I would like
to when we come back, because we do have to come back before you with this concept
and maybe let me come back with exactly really what we are going to do as far as the
elevations and floor plans and once we do our market survey as far as what our units are
going to be if they are 2 bedrooms, 3 bedrooms. There is still a lot of work to be done as
far as market surveys to see what seniors are buying, what the square footage is they are
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 53
buying. I know we won't come back on those perimeter units as far as the single family
detached of under 1300 square feet. These units are units we used in another project and
that is why that is how we came about with the 1600 and 1800 square foot. I don't know
if that is going to be a problem, it shouldn't be because like I say you are going to get
another whack at us at the time.
Hepper: Well I think (inaudible) be aware that we will be paying special attention to those
lots on the southern boundary that border up against the R~ those would be the ones that
we particularly be taking a close look at.
Campbell: As far as the square footage wise? Like I say if we have to take one lot off of
there that makes sense and we will keep those single story which they were planned on.
Everything all around the perimeter in the green section was going to be a single story
unit. The center section when Steve had said multi family those will single family attached
units. Those are all basically a duplex with the lot line going down the center is what the
concept, how we are approaching that. So like I say, the book and on record I don't want
to get stuck with the 1600 and 1800 because I would like to present that when we come
back on the conceptual. As far as street layouts this is what we are going to come back
with. The only thing that we are probably, the elevations of the houses might not be what
you are seeing. These are going to be of that quality or better they won't be anything less.
This is just something that the P ~ Z could look at and feel comfortable with and then we
come back with it and you get another whack at us and hopefully we have done our
homework and you will be happy with it.
Crookston: Wayne, anymore? The hearing is still open anyone want to address this item?
Campbell: The blue section of the plat map that is before you, what we are trying to
accomplish there are about 121 units, 63 on one side and 58 on the blue side. What we
are trying to accomplish we are trying to hit all levels of the seniors. We are getting a little
higher density on the blue side. What we want to do is come in with not just a high end
senior complex we want to try and hit all niches of the senior markets so we are meeting
all the needs not just a higher end. What, if we get into a 1600 to 1800 square foot unit
in that complex you are talking something that is going to cost $140,000 to $150,000 if you
go with what is out there currently. We want to get, across the street we want to bring in
something a little probably closer to $100,000 or maybe under 'rf we can and go from
maybe the high 90's all the way up to $150,000 and we have got duplexes, fourplexes and
single family detached.
Hepper: These would all be built as townhouses rather than renting, rather than duplexes
right?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 54
Campbell: Right, they will be a town house with like we say a lot line going through, 2 car
garages, 2 cars out front.
Hepper: They will have a deed to the land that goes with the unit?
Campbell: Exactly, like I say a lot of the odds and ends will be stuff that we are talking
about will be down in writing that will come before you when we submit for preliminary plat
and conditional use permit on those projects. That is where everything will be to a tee.
Rountree: Thank you, I am not going to ask again I am going to close the hearing.
Crookston: Well I was just going to ask a question. It just popped in my head.
Rountree: Okay, I will open it up again.
Crookston: You stated that you are having a high end development. I don't know that
under $100,000 is high end.
Campbell: When we say high end, when you drive by that unit that doesn't necessarily,
when you drive by the project if you look at the drawings in the 7 through 10 that pretty
much says what we are doing. When you put a block wall, you do the landscaping how the
project is completed and finished off they couldn't tell you, they could drive by and it might
look like $110,000 or $120,000 unit but we sold it for $100,000. We are trying to hit all the
markets and that, I don't really. I don't know, as far as, if $100,000 cheap to you I don't
know for a town house, if it is that is a considerable amount of money for a senior.
Crookston: Depends on which senior you are talking about if you are talking about seniors
that have, would say $100,000 that is gross that is wasteful. It just depends on the person.
Campbell: As far as the complex with what we are doing as far as landscaping the
security, the gated community it will be an upper end project.
Crookston: Thank you
Rountree: I guess t had better ask, anyone else? I will close the hearing. We need an
action or a finding. We have findings. Mr. Crookston we do have findings on this particular
are those applicable at this point for mod cation, revision?
Crookston: They are certainly going to be helpful to me but they are not applicable to this
application.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 55
Hepper: Mr. Chairman I move we have the City Attorney prepare findings on this project
with the stipulation that the center loop road there be changed from an R-15 to an R-8
PUD with no duplexes or multifamily housing allowed, 65 foot frontage, 6500 square feet
in the lots and that they submit to a conditional use along with both of the R-15 parts would
be under a conditional use.
Alidjani: How about the minimum square footage on those?
Hepper: Right, with the minimum square footage in the center part where the loop road is
of 1301 minimum square feet.
Alidjani: Second
Rountree: It has been moved and seconded to have new findings of fact and conclusions
of law as conditioned prepared by the City Attorney, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Rountree: I need at least one more motion unless Gary has some things he wants tell us?
Alidjani: I make a motion we adjourn.
Hepper: Second
Rountree: Moved and seconded we adjourn, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:05 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
I J SON, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 22, 1995
Page 6
~. / 2 _
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., T' CLERK
/~/~~ ~, ~'
' lJcc~r4~s
fr.
:>.:
~_
I° •
~•`.
~/~ •~3
• 0. (i~zz-45
` 2 1:i~()
,Aj•TMe7ant I1~
CFttthia Alr9•ioh et a1
i Pritnte road a,R•seLynt.
This A: er.~.rnt :•le 4a>' as M, h• aM b'r~•~en tM Parties hernto as lollow- to-wtt;
i
• tthareae ao Syr%11a Alm•!oa Ly Pnd AAarmo Rarry.L.YOato C,F:,Van Aukers L,A,Ginleon~ h. A,
Nahlao ba'a, oc/nrrs ot•tT:e aevessl Lraate of lan" •:omtitutitt~ wnrf AonterlTtq ~n rhs
j oast 11 », o, the iSwst half ,f the North 'AOSt quartor of Qoo tion5 Toxin htp 3 lb rth of
Rarp 1 Sant of Holac kerid:aftr oM bs Aoairbda-of opent~l aM malnta7nlnj n prtvore roar+
i
alor.Z the aai•f ling begin^:r.y o tro publio Ni;~-ay fo:tnfn;= tho north 11ne of Baia
~ seotioa 5, a:n' runniat soot t -lon3 rho aaSA liaat lfna of tye ra1A F.'7 of the NW~4 of ~wkt
Sae. 5 btin: the !rlr eeotior. Sinoo to c,ie ~at+th ••aat oorrer o! the sold N1R-4 of .elA
' iootioa Ss LM s•1A road to re 15 foot in rArith. Naw therefore we tho uttAStsl~tari c:o
i
h01V 17y agree to enA rith sa0*. other and bled o~eolwe en/1 our euoeass ore o3 e++~+*~ of tro
eevorai tracts sty*.tirtf on the ewirf halt seat ion ]lr,oo that rro viii opan an•1 r !stain a
priaa•.^ roaA 15t+~ feet fn .:•ithr the +,a 1t seotion 1!ro oornLitutityl the east .:ro of the
a+id ready that the eslA road !::all be foritlM use e! all N tTtB o•.nors of the satA tra•as
r,_...._.~.-,._..____ ~. ~~_ _. ._ A..___
` plr__~h ogTL/.1 rim _hts'aa to the u!n of tha same ~ in riitie s • a•haraof we gave horru nto .ot_ oc-
r
hands anA eftSsrA nor aoo le this 12th dey of Junes 1?13 .,
Rarry,T.,Yoat
C,K,Van Auksr
'.;mRMo. A1a1'loh b:• PrnA AAw:s.
N.•J,Yahla
L, A,:,eai s rn
Aubagr7»d in ~~ pruseTtoe and morn to boforo ns by C.K. Van Anker Th1e 13r•h day of
June ly]3,~
i ldNarA R*.e in,
(Sea1) Notary Yubllo,
Subaoritsd in r~ presam a aM rnrorn to bofnro me by f:arry,I/,Yoete PreA AAaos t N.J,
}!att)a and L.A.t,etrieon thin 9th •Ly of July 1~~)3.~
~ R, C.Ptaff ]e .
(Real)
twtap. PuDliO,
Reoordod at the regwet of parry Yost at 2:25 p.m. /Tiny 24th, 141,3 see 6o`.y
~~Gc.liy ~i~'
RocerAOt~.,
~,,,,,;~ ~<z
~~ ~ zz.~~s
_w- ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ I <
e _ . _ ~~