2006 02-02•
CITY OF MERIDIAN
O Revised 2-2-06
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Thursday, February 2, 2006, at 7:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
"Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony,
all presentations before the Planning and Zoning Commission are expected to be
truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter."
1. Roll -call Attendance:
O Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Keith Borup
X David Moe - Vice Chairman X David Zaremba
X Michael Rohm - Chairman
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
3. Consent Agenda:
A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05-054 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a new facility for Ada County
Weed, Pest & Mosquito Abatement Operations consisting of a main
administration building, a covered vehicle storage building and 2
storage buildings in an I -L zone for Weed & Pest Control Campus
by Ada County — south of East Pine Avenue and west of Locust
Grove Road: Remove from Agenda
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05-056
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Day Care Center on .58
acres in the C -N zone for Young America Early Care and
Education Center by Young American Early Care and Education
Center —1525 Leigh Field Drive: Approve
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05-055 Request
for modification to existing Conditional Use Permit for a 40 -unit
congregate care facility in Phase II of Grace Retirement Center in a
R-15 zone for Grace at Fairview Lakes by Grace at Fairview
Lakes, LLC — 824 East Fairview Avenue: Remove from Agenda
D. Approve Minutes of January 19, 2006 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting: Approve with Amendments
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — February 2, 2006 Page 1 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
•
0 Revised 2-2-06
4. Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: AZ 05-058
Request for Annexation and Zoning of 49.95 acres from RUT to a R-8
zone for Keego Springs Subdivision by Todd Campbell — 5910 North
Black Cat Road: Continue Public Hearing to March 2, 2006
5. Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: PP 05-060
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 201 building lots and 9 common
lots on 49.95 acres in a 'proposed R-8 zone for Keego Springs
Subdivision by Todd Campbell — 5910 North Black Cat Road: Continue
Public Hearing to March 2, 2006
6. Continued Public Hearing from January 5, 2006: AZ 05-057 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 17.25 acres from RUT and R1 to R-8, R-15
and C -G zones for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff
Development, LLC — 2935 North Eagle Road: Continue Public Hearing
to February 16, 2006
7. Continued Public Hearing from January 5, 2006: RZ 05-019 Request
for a Rezone of 10.05 acres from C -G to R-8, R-15 and C -G zones for
Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC — 2935
North Eagle Road: Continue Public Hearing to February 16, 2006
8. Continued Public Hearing from January 5, 2006: PP 05-059 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 54 single family residential lots, 22 multi-
family residential lots, 14 common lots and 7 commercial lots for Bienville
Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC — 2935 North Eagle
Road: Continue Public Hearing to February 16, 2006
9. Continued Public Hearing from January 5, 2006: CUP 05-052 Request
for Conditional Use Permit for Mixed Use Regional project within 300 feet
of a residence for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff
Development, LLC — 2935 North Eagle Road: Continue Public Hearing
to February 16, 2006
10. Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 2006: AZ 05-062 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 5.11 acres from RUT to R-8 for Sharp
Estates Subdivision by The Gables, LLC — 2445 North Wingate Lane:
Recommend Approval to City Council
11. Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 2006: PP 05-062 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 25 single-family residential lots and 2
common lots on 5.11 acres in the proposed R-8 zone for Sharp Estates
Subdivision by The Gables, LLC — 2445 North Wingate Lane:
Recommend Approval to City Council
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — February 2, 2006 Page 2 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
0 0 Revised 2-2-06
12. Public Hearing: RZ 05-022 Request for a Rezone of 3.36 acres from R-
8 to L -O for Church of the Holy Nativity by Church of the Holy Nativity —
828 West Cherry Lane: Recommend Approval to City Council
13. Public Hearing: AZ 05-066 Request for Annexation and Zoning of .50
acres from R-12 to C -G zone for Meridian Veterinary Clinic by
Architecture Northwest — 415 West Franklin Road: Recommend
Approval to City Council
14. Public Hearing: CUP 05-057 Request for Conditional Use Permit for
operation of a wholesale lumber and floor finishing products warehouse in
an I -L zone for Intermountain Wood Products by Intermountain Wood
Products — 220 South Adkins Way: Approve
15. Public Hearing: AZ 05-065 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.50
acres from RUT to C -G zone for Nesmith Annexation by Jonathan Seel —
2820 East Ustick Road: Recommend Approval to City Council
16. Public Hearing: ZOA 05-002 Request for a Zoning Ordinance Text
Amendment with the areas to be amended include: the Definitions of
collector streets, adult entertainment, and net density; the standards for
the Traditional Neighborhood Residential Districts; the fence standards;
the table, detailing the Decision -Making Authority by Application; changes
to application requirements; how to measure block length; screening and
chainlink fencing; requirement for certificates of zoning compliance; off-
street parking space standards and measurements; off-street loading
space requirements; family day care standards; and sign standards for
family day care by the City of Meridian Planning Department:
Recommend Approval to City Council
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — February 2, 2006 Page 3 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Revised 2-2-06
CITY OF MERIDIAN
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Thursday, February 2, 2006, at 7:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
"Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony,
all presentations before the Planning and Zoning Commission are expected to be
truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter."
1. Roll -call Attendance:
0 Wendy Newton-Huckabay %< Keith Borup
X David Moe - Vice Chairman X David Zaremba
x_ Michael Rohm - Chairman
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
3. Consent Agenda:
A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05-054 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a new facility for Ada County
Weed, Pest & Mosquito Abatement Operations consisting of a main
administration building, a covered vehicle storage building and 2
storage buildings in an I -L zone for Weed & Pest Control Campus
by Ada County — south of East Pine Avenue and west of Locust
Grove Road: Ecmovc kol o.6trWCP-
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05-056
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Day Care Center on .58
acres in the C -N zone for Young America Early Care and
Education Center by Young American Early Care and Education
Center —1525 Leigh Field Drive: Appy
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05-055 Request
for modification to existing Conditional Use Permit for a 40 -unit
congregate care facility in Phase II of Grace Retirement Center in a
R-15 zone for Grace at Fairview Lakes by Grace at Fairview
Lakes, LLC — 824 East Fairview Avenue: k(nove- -From aff
D. Approve Minutes of January 19, 2006 Plannnd
ing and Zoning
Commission Meeting: ArppfOYC W C� .. -
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — February 2, 2006 Page 1 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
® 1 • Revised 2-2-06
4. Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: AZ 05-058
Request for Annexation and Zoning of 49.95 acres from RUT to a R-8
zone for Keego Springs Subdivision by Todd Campbell - 5910 North
Black Cat Road: Ri,bl i C �QYInk -�O '(`( (�V( Yl � t :� ®U Lo
5. Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: PP 05-060
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 201 building lots and 9 common
lots on 49.95 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Keego Springs
bdivision by Todd g. Campbell - 5910 North Black Cat Road: ( OA+I tbl
n�IC VeaVIV[ M a V C h �00u
6. Continued Pubfc Hearing from January 5, 2006: AZ 05-057 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 17.25 acres from RUT and R1 to R-8, R-15
and C -G zones for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff
Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road: (10i}1tryux I &I% C,
W" (I _fO %(tel � lQ � i�U l P
7. Continu d Public Hearin from January 5, 2006: RZ 05-019 Request
for a Rezone of 10.05 acres from C -G to R-8, R-15 and C -G zones for
Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935
North Eagle Road CCr1*VXte O .o y , c "� le, Fr6ru I V `2WU
'"
8. Continued Public Hearin from January ry 5, 2006: PP 05-059 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 54 single family residential lots, 22 multi-
family residential lots, 14 common lots and 7 commercial lots for Bienville
Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle
Road: 00-L+l RU C. PQ" l C9 OCOVVV +-o Fc0.h \LQ .2 -Mx
9. Continued Public Hearing from January 5, 2006: CUP 05-052 Request
for Conditional Use Permit for Mixed Use Regional project within 300 feet
of a residence for Bienville Square Subdivision bRed Cliff
Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road: ca-mn" LaLc-
t6 F 6MLOLI Q. 7®LU
10. Continued ublic Hearing from January 19, 2006: AZ 05-062 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 5.11 acres from RUT to R-8 for Sharp
Estates Subdivision by The Gables, LLC - 2445 North Wingate Lane:
�tCOYiI'f VOCI qW\(LI 1 'r(C._LtI• 061Y j tCl !f
11. Continued Public Hearing from JaLary 19, 2006: PP 05-062 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 25 single-family residential lots and 2
common lots on 5.11 acres in the proposed R-8 zone for Sharp Estates
Subdivision by The Gables, LLC -n445INWrthWing to Lane:
12. Public Hearing: RZ 05-022 Request for a Rezone of 3.36 acres from R-
8 to L -O for Church of the Holy Nativity by Church of the Holy Nativity -
828 West Cherry Lane: PA U rnrf)t RU pYbwU 400,1(2-)
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — February 2, 2006 Page 2 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
0 ® Revised 2-2-06
13. Public Hearing: AZ 05-066 Request for Annexation and Zoning of .50
acres from R-12 to C -G zone for Meridian Veterinary Clinic by
No
Architecture hwesti— 415 West Franklin Road: 2 ����r� Ci N��
�
iv c OUV1N
14. Public Hing: CUP 05-057 Request for Conditional Use Permit for
operation of a wholesale lumber and floor finishing products warehouse in
an I -L zone for Intermountain Wood Products by Intermountain Wood
Products — 220 South Adkins Way: 0j R Ne.
Zb-llcHe=ring�AZ
15. 05-065 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.50
acres from RUT to C -G zone for Nesmit Annexation by Jonathan Seel —
2820 East Ustick Road: PqjPVb\aU . o
at
16. Public Hearing: ZOA 05-002 Request for a Zoning Ordinance Text
Amendment with the areas to be amended include: the Definitions of
collector streets, adult entertainment, and net density; the standards for
the Traditional Neighborhood Residential Districts; the fence standards;
the table detailing the Decision -Making Authority by Application; changes
to application requirements; how to measure block length; screening and
chainlink fencing; requirement for certificates of zoning compliance; off-
street parking space standards and measurements; off-street loading
space requirements; family day care standards; and sign standardsfor
family day care by the City of Meridian Planning Department. 14 CC�1"
AfFroV-8` �6 at � 6 (A)nt�l
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — February 2, 2006 Page 3 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
CITY OF MERIDIAN
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Thursday, February 2, 2006, at 7:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
`Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony,
all presentations before the Planning and Zoning Commission are expected to be
truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter."
1. Roll -call Attendance:
Wendy Newton-Huckabay Keith Borup
David Moe - Vice Chairman David Zaremba
Michael Rohm - Chairman
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
3. Consent Agenda:
A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05-054 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a new facility for Ada County
Weed, Pest & Mosquito Abatement Operations consisting of a main
administration building, a covered vehicle storage building and 2
storage buildings in an I -L zone for Weed & Pest Control Campus
by Ada County — south of East Pine Avenue and west of Locust
Grove Road:
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05-056
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Day Care Center on .58
acres in the C -N zone for Young America Early Care and
Education Center by Young American Early Care and Education
Center —1525 Leigh Field Drive:
C. Approve Minutes of January 19, 2006 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
4. Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: AZ 05-058
Request for Annexation and Zoning of 49.95 acres from RUT to a R-8
zone for Keego Springs Subdivision by Todd Campbell — 5910 North
Black Cat Road:
5. Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: PP 05-060
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 201 building lots and 9 common
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — February 2, 2006 Page 1 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
lots on 49.95 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Keego Springs
Subdivision by Todd Campbell — 5910 North Black Cat Road:
6. Continued Public Hearing from January 5, 2006: AZ 05-057 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 17.25 acres from RUT and R1 to R-8, R-15
and C -G zones for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff
Development, LLC — 2935 North Eagle Road:
7. Continued Public Hearing from January 5, 2006: RZ 05-019 Request
for a Rezone of 10.05 acres from C -G to R-8, R-15 and C -G zones for
Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC — 2935
North Eagle Road
8. Continued Public Hearing from January 5, 2006: PP 05-059 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 54 single family residential lots, 22 multi-
family residential lots, 14 common lots and 7 commercial lots for Bienville
Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC — 2935 North Eagle
Road:
9. Continued Public Hearing from January 5, 2006: CUP 05-052 Request
for Conditional Use Permit for Mixed Use Regional project within 300 feet
of a residence for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff
Development, LLC — 2935 North Eagle Road:
10. Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 2006: AZ 05-062 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 5.11 acres from RUT to R-8 for Sharp
Estates Subdivision by The Gables, LLC — 2445 North Wingate Lane:
11. Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 2006: PP 05-062 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 25 single-family residential lots and 2
common lots on 5.11 acres in the proposed R-8 zone for Sharp Estates
Subdivision by The Gables, LLC — 2445 North Wingate Lane:
12. Public Hearing: RZ 05-022 Request for a Rezone of 3.36 acres from R-
8 to L -O for Church of the Holy Nativity by Church of the Holy Nativity —
828 West Cherry Lane:
13. Public Hearing: AZ 05-066 Request for Annexation and Zoning of .50
acres from R-12 to C -G zone for Meridian Veterinary Clinic by
Architecture Northwest — 415 West Franklin Road:
14. Public Hearing: CUP 05-057 Request for Conditional Use Permit for
operation of a wholesale lumber and floor finishing products warehouse in
an I -L zone for Intermountain Wood Products by Intermountain Wood
Products — 220 South Adkins Way:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — February 2, 2006 Page 2 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
15. Public Hearing: AZ 05-065 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.50
acres from RUT to C -G zone for Nesmith Annexation by Jonathan Seel —
2820 East Ustick Road:
16. ZOA 05-002 Request for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment with
the areas to be amended include: the Definitions of collector streets, adult
entertainment, and net density; the standards for the Traditional
Neighborhood Residential Districts; the fence standards; the table
detailing the Decision -Making Authority by Application; changes to
application requirements; how to measure block length; screening and
chainlink fencing; requirement for certificates of zoning compliance; off-
street parking space standards and measurements; off-street loading
space requirements; family day care standards; and sign standards for
family day care by the City of Meridian Planning Department.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — February 2, 2006 Page 3 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
01
3
" m
'
4 z
i
x
3
a
,l
r
190,11
t:
s z .
x
1, tZl
r
a
x
** TX COATION REPORT Nick AS OF JAN 30 '0607 PAGE.01
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY OF MERIDIAN
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Thursday, February 2, 2006, at 7:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
`Although the City of Meridian no longer requires swom testimony,
alf presentations before the Planning and Zoning Commission are expected to be
truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter.
1. Roll -call Attendance:
Wendy Newton-Huckabay Keith Boni
David Moe -vice Chairman p
David Zaremba
Michael Rohm - Chairman
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
3. Consent Agenda:
A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05-054 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a new facility for Ada County
Weed, Pest & Mosquito Abatement Operations consisting of a main
administration building, a covered vehicle storage building and 2
storage buildings in an I -L zone for Weed & Pest Control Campus
by Ada County — south of East Pine Avenue and west of Locust
Grove Road:
13. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05-056
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Day Care Center on .58
acres in the C -N zone for Young America Early Care and
Education Center by Young American Early Care and Education
Center —1525 Leigh Field Drive:
C. Approve Minutes of January 19, 2006 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
4. Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: Az 05-058
Request for Annexation and Zoning of 49.95 acres from RUT to a R-8
zone for Keego Springs Subdivision by Todd Campbell 5910 North
Black Cat Road:
5• Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: PP 05-060
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 201 building lots and 9 common
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — February Z 2006 Page 1 of 3
Al vodMaterials presented at pUble meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring axommcda 0n for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
Please contact the City clerk's Office at 888.4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
DATE TIME TO/FROM
MODE
MIN/SEC PGS
CMD##
STATUS
21
01/30 14:49 3810160
EC --S
01'38" 003
064
OK
22
01/30 14:51 PUBLIC WORKS
EC --S
00'58" 003
064
OK
23
01/30 1453 8848723
EC --S
00'59" 003
064
OK
24
01/30 1454 WATER DEPT
EC—S
00'58" 003
064
OK
25
01/30 14:56 2088840744
EC --S
01'00" 003
064
OK
26
01/30 14:57 POLICE DEPT
EC --S
00158" 003
064
OK
27
01/30 14:59 8985501
EC—S
00'58" 003
064
OK
28
01/30 15:00 LIBRARY
EC --S
00'59" 003
064
OK
29
01/30 15:02 IDAHO STATESMAN
EC --S
00'57" 003
064
OK
30
01/30 15:03 3886924
EC --S
00'58" 003
064
OK
31
01/30 15:05 P—AND—Z
EC --S
00'59" 003
064
OK
32
01/30 15:06 ALL AMERICAN INS
EC --S
00'57" 003
064
OK
CITY OF MERIDIAN
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Thursday, February 2, 2006, at 7:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
`Although the City of Meridian no longer requires swom testimony,
alf presentations before the Planning and Zoning Commission are expected to be
truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter.
1. Roll -call Attendance:
Wendy Newton-Huckabay Keith Boni
David Moe -vice Chairman p
David Zaremba
Michael Rohm - Chairman
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
3. Consent Agenda:
A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05-054 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a new facility for Ada County
Weed, Pest & Mosquito Abatement Operations consisting of a main
administration building, a covered vehicle storage building and 2
storage buildings in an I -L zone for Weed & Pest Control Campus
by Ada County — south of East Pine Avenue and west of Locust
Grove Road:
13. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05-056
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Day Care Center on .58
acres in the C -N zone for Young America Early Care and
Education Center by Young American Early Care and Education
Center —1525 Leigh Field Drive:
C. Approve Minutes of January 19, 2006 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
4. Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: Az 05-058
Request for Annexation and Zoning of 49.95 acres from RUT to a R-8
zone for Keego Springs Subdivision by Todd Campbell 5910 North
Black Cat Road:
5• Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: PP 05-060
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 201 building lots and 9 common
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — February Z 2006 Page 1 of 3
Al vodMaterials presented at pUble meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring axommcda 0n for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
Please contact the City clerk's Office at 888.4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
** TX CONF&ION REPORT ** AS OF JAN 30 A 23 PAGE. 01
CITY OF MERIDIAN
DATE TIME TO/FROM
MODE
MIN/SEC PGS
CMD#
STATUS
01 01/30 1508 FIRE DEPT
EC --S
00'58" 003
064
OK
02 01/30 15:10 208 888 2682
EC --S
00'59" 003
064
OK
03 01/30 15:11 208 387 6393
EC --S
00'58" 003
064
OK
04 01/30 15:13 ADA CTY DEUELMT
EC --S
00'58" 003
064
OK
05 01/30 15:14 2088885052
EC --S
00'59" 003
064
OK
06 01/30 15:16 LAKEUIEW GOLFCOU
G3 --S
01'53" 003
064
OK
07 01/30 15:18 IDAHO ATHLETIC C
EC --S
00'59" 003
064
OK
08 01/30 1520 ID PRESS TRIBUNE
EC --S
00'58" 003
064
OK
09 01/30 1522 2088886701
EC --S
00'58" 003
064
OK
CITY OF MERIDIAN
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Thursday, February 2, 2006, at 7:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
"Although the City of Meridian no longer requires swom testimony,
all presentations before the Planning and Zoning Commission are expected to be
truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter."
1. Roll -call Attendance:
Wendy Newton-Huckabay Keith Borup
David Moe - Vice Chairman David Zaremba
Michael Rohm - Chairman
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
3. Consent Agenda:
A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05-054 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a new facility for Ada County
Weed, Pest & Mosquito Abatement Operations consisting of a main
administration building, a covered vehicle storage building and 2
storage buildings in an I -L zone for Weed & Pest Control Campus
by Ada County — south of East Pine Avenue and west of Locust
Grove Road:
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05-056
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Day Care Center on .58
acres in the C -N zone for Young America Early Care and
Education Center by Young American Early Care and Education
Center -1525 Leigh Field Drive:
C. Approve Minutes of January 19, 2006 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
4. Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: AZ 05-058
Request for Annexation and Zoning of 49.95 acres from RUT to a R-8
zone for Keego Springs Subdivision by Todd Campbell — 5910 North
Black Cat Road:
5- Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: PP 05-060
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 201 building lots and 9 common
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commisslon Meeting Agenda —February 2, 2006 Page 1 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the 200City of Merge 1
Please coni the CitycClerk's Office x888.443 at least 48 ours prior to the public nmeeting.
** TX CONFISON REPORT ** AS OF FEB 03 '0603 PAGE -01
CITY OF MERIDIAN
DATE
TIME TO/FROM
MODE
MIN/SEC PGS
CMDt#
STATUS
01 02/03
0222 2088885052
EC --S
01'06" 003
101
OK
02 02/03
02:24 LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU
G3 --S
00'01" 000
101
INC
03 02/03
0225 LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU
G3 --S
00'02" 000
101
INC
04 02/03
0226 LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU
G3 --S
00'35" 000
101
INC
05 02/03
02:27 LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU
G3 --S
00'00" 000
101
INC
06 02/03
0228 IDAHO ATHLETIC C
EC—S
01105" 003
101
OK
07 02/03
0230 ID PRESS TRIBUNE
EC --S
01'06" 003
101
OK
08 02/03
0232 2088886701
EC --S
01'06" 003
101
OK
THIS DOCUMENT
IS STILL
IN MEMORY
Revised 2-2-06
CITY OF MERIDIAN
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Thursday, February 2, 2006, at 7:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
"Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony,
all presentations before the Planning and Zoning Commission are expected to be
truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter."
Roll -call Attendance.-
*
ttendance:* Wendy Newton-Huckabay x Keith Borup
X David Moe - Vice Chairman X David Zaremba
X Michael Rohm - Chairman
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
3. Consent Agenda:
A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05-054 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a new facility for Ada County
Weed, Pest & Mosquito Abatement Operations consisting of a main
administration building, a covered vehicle storage building and 2
storage buildings in an I -L zone for Weed &. Pest Control Campus
by Ada County — south of East Pine Avenue and west of Locust
Grove Road: krmvc kyo 11Smck
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05-056
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Day Care Center on .58
acres in the C -N zone for Young America Early Care and
Education Center by Young American Early Care and Education
Center —1525 Leigh Field Drive: /ipprOY'r-
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05-055 Request
for modification to existing Conditional Use Permit for a 40 -unit
congregate care facility in Phase II of Grace Retirement Center in a
R-15 zone for Grace at Fairview Lakes by Grace at Fairview
Lakes, LLC — 824 East Fairview Avenue: kmove %M ("t`rwin
D. Approve Minutes of January 19, 2006 Plangqln and Zoning
Commission Meeting: Approye YU `+-, Ikrnl ngnt�eg
Meridian Planning and Zoning commission Meeting Agenda— February 2, 2009 Page 1 of 3
Ali materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desifmg accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888.4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
26
29
30
31
32
0 0
COMMUNICATIONS REPORT * AS OF FEB 03 '06 02:21 PAGE.01
CITY OF MERIDIAN
TOTAL PAGES
TOTAL TIME
SEND 0061
SEND
00°24'10"
RECEIVE 0003
RECEIVE 00001'11"
DATE
TIME
TO/FROM
MODE
MIN/SEC
PGS
CMD#
STATUS
02/02
08:00
FaxServer
EC --S
01102"
002
079
OK
02/02
08:47
3810160
EC --S
00'32"
001
097
OK
02/02
0e:48
PUBLIC WORKS
EC --S
00'24"
001
097
OK
02/02
08:49
WATER DEPT
EC --S
00'23"
001
097
OK
02/02
08:50
2088840744
EC --S
00'24"
001
097
OK
02/02
08:51
POLICE DEPT
EC --S
00'23"
001
097
OK
02/02
08:52
8985501
EC --S
00'24"
001
097
OK
02/02
08:52
LIBRARY
EC --S
00'23"
001
097
OK
02/02
08:53
2083776449
EC --S
00'23"
001
097
OK
02/02
08:54
3886924
EC --S
00'23"
001
097
OK
02/02
08:55
P -AND -Z
EC --S
00'24"
001
097
OK
02/02
08:56
FIRE DEPT
EC --S
00'23"
001
097
OK
02/02
08:57
208 888 2682
EC --S
00'23"
001
097
OK
02/02
09:5e
2088885052
EC --S
00'24"
001
097
OK
02/02
09:59
LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU
G3 --S
00'44"
001
097
OK
02/02
09:09
EC --R
00'18"
001
099
OK
02/02
18:48
406 449 6607
EC --R
00'53"
002
100
OK
02/03
01:56
3810160
EC --S
01'51"
003
101
OK
02/03
01:58
PUBLIC WORKS
EC --S
01106"
003
101
OK
02/03
02:00
8848723
EC --S
01105"
003
101
OK
02/03
02:02
WATER DEPT
EC --S
01'07"
003
101
OK
02/03
02:03
2088840744
EC --S
01'07"
003
101
OK
02/03
02:05
POLICE DEPT
EC --S
01'05"
003
101
OK
02/03
02:07
8985501
EC --S
01105"
003
101
OK
02/03
02:08
LIBRARY
EC --S
01106"
003
101
OK
02/03
02:10
2083776449
EC --S
01105"
003
101
OK
02/03
02:11
3886924
EC --S
01105"
003
101
OK
02/03
02:13
P -AND -Z
EC --S
01105"
003
101
OK
02/03
02:15
FIRE DEPT
EC --S
01106"
003
101
OK
02/03
02:17
208 888 2682
EC --S
01'06"
003
101
OK
02/03
02:18
208 387 6393
EC --S
01'06"
003
101
OK
02/03
02:20
ADA CTY DEVELMT
EC --S
01106"
003
101
OK
A.
F
k.
}
i
'�'Y9�WA•
i.
p
r'
-fid
ffi 3�
Hok TX COITION REPORT >wK AS OF FEB 03 '06 116 PAGE. 01
CITY OF MERIDIAN
DATE TIME TO/FROM
MODE
MIN/SEC PGS
CMD#
STATUS
18 02/03 0156 3810160
EC—S
01'51" 003
101
OK
19 02/03 0158 PUBLIC WORKS
EC—S
01'06" 003
101
OK
20 02/03 0200 8848723
EC—S
01'05" 003
101
OK
21 02/03 0202 WATER DEPT
EC—S
01'07" 003
101
OK
22 02/03 0203 2088840744
EC—S
01'07" 003
101
OK
23 02/03 0205 POLICE DEPT
EC—S
01'05" 003
101
OK
24 02/03 0207 8985501
EC—S
01'05" 003
101
OK
25 02/03 0208 LIBRARY
EC—S
01'06" 003
101
OK
26 02/03 02:10 2083776449
EC—S
01'05" 003
101
OK
27 02/03 02:11 3886924
EC—S
01'05" 003
101
OK
28 02/03 02:13 P—AND—Z
EC --S
01'05" 003
101
OK
29 02/03 02-15 FIRE DEPT
EC—S
01'06" 003
101
OK
30 02/03 02:1? 208 888 2682
EC—S
01'06" 003
101
OK
31 02/03 02:18 208 387 6393
EC—S
01'06" 003
101
OK
32 02/03 0220 ADA CTY DEUELMT
EC—S
01'06" 003
101
OK
Revised 2-2-06
CITY OF MERIDIAN
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Thursday, February 2, 2006, at 7:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony,
all presentations before the Planning and Zoning Commission are expected to be
truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter."
1. Roll -call Attendance:
O Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Keith Borup
X David Moe - Vice Chairman David Zaremba
X Michael Rohm - Chairman
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
3. Consent Agenda:
A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05.054 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a new facility for Ada County
Weed, Pest & Mosquito Abatement Operations consisting of a main
administration building, a covered vehicle storage building and 2
storage buildings in an I -L zone for Weed & Pest Control Campus
by Ada County — south o East Pine Avenue and west of Locust
Grove Road: Rcmcwc �r yn M&O-k,Ck
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05-056
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Day Care Center on .58
acres in the C -N zone for Young America Early Care and
Education Center by Young American Early Care and Education
Center —1525 Leigh Field Drive: ApprOvl—
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05-055 Request
for modification to existing Conditional Use Permit for a 40 -unit
congregate care facility in Phase II of Grace Retirement Center in a
R-15 zone for Grace at Fairview Lakes by Grace at Fairview
Lakes, LLC — 824 East Fairview Avenue: Vtmode %m qrw—,—
D. Approve Minutes of January 19, 2006 Planging and Zoning
Commission Meeting: ApPrOYC Y11 &K 1111-
Merldlan PISIVtU g and Zonit><j Commission Meeting Agenda — February 2, 2009 Page f of 3
AD materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
please contact the City ClerWs Office at 8884433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
** TX COW IRMI* REPORT **
DATE TIME TO/FROM
11 01/30 13:44 NPR News 91
,Q CITY OF ,
IDAHO
M AY01
Tammy do Weerd
CITY COUNCIL Mr•.mimits
Keith Bird
Joseph W. Borton
Charles M. Rountree
Shaun Wardle
CITY DePAFTmrN-l5
City Attorney/HP.
703 Main street
8965506 (City Attorney)
898-5503 (HR)
Fax 884-8723
Fire
540 E. Franklin Road
588-1234 / fax 895-0390
Parks & Recreation
1 I W. Bower Street
558-3579 / fax 898.5501
Planning
660 R. Watertower Lane
Suite 202
584.5533/fax 888-6844
Police
1401 E. Wah.rtowcr fano
884-6678/fax 846-7366
Public Works
660 E. Watertower Lanc
Suite 200
898-5500 / fax 895-9551
- Building
660 E. Watertower Lane
Suite 150
887-2211 / fax 887-1297
Wastewater
3401 N. Teri Mile goad
888-2191 /fax 864-0744
Water
2235 N.W. 8th Street
888-5242/fax 884-1159
AS OF JAN 30 '13:44 PAGE. 01
CITY OF MERIDIAN
MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS
G3 --S 00'38" 001 043 OK
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT / NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to
the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that
the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian
City Hall, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. on
Tuesday, February 2, 2006 for the purpose of reviewing and considering the
application of ZOA 05-002 by City of Meridian Planning Department for a
Request for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment with the areas to be
amended include: the Definitions of collector streets, adult entertainment, and
net density; the standards for the Traditional Neighborhood Residential Districts;
the fence standards; the table detailing the Decision -Making Authority by
Application; changes to application requirements, how to measure block length;
screening and chainlink fencing; requirement for certificates of zoning
compliance; off-street parking space standards and measurements; off -stmt
loading space requirements; family day care standards; and sign standards for
family day can:. More particular descriptions of the above information are on file
in the Planning Department, 660 East Watertower Lane, Suite 202, Meridian,
Idaho and are available for inspection during regular business hours, Monday
through Friday, from 8:00 a.m, to 5:00 p.m.
Copies of the above applications are available upon request Any and all
interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing, and the public is
welcome and invited to submit testimony. Oral testimony may be limited to three
(3) minutes per person. Written materials may be submitted seven (7) days prior
to the above hearing date so that all interested parties may examine them prior to
the hearing. All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of
the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to
documents and/or hearings, please contact the City Cleric's Office at 888-4433 at
least 72 tours prior to the public meeting. "'""' �,•/,�
DATED this 30th day of January,
- t7�c Ls C off.
' WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CrrACLERK'
Nib �T
CITY HALL 33 EAST IDAmo AVENUE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888`-4�3
CITY CI,FRK -FAX 83S421N FINANCE & UTILITY BILLINC -FAX 8874813 MAYOR'$ OFFICE - FAX he "-Sl 19
` F - a
Printed on rerycled paper
** TX CONFIRMARN REPORT **
DATE TIME TO/FROM
12 01/30 13:45 2083776449
I
CITY OF
10AI-In
790J
MAYOR
Tammy de Weerd
cr1Y COUNCIL. ML'MSERS
Keith Bird
Joseph W Tiorton
Charles M. Rountree
Shaun Wardle
CrrY DCrARTMeNTS
CityAttomey/1IR
703 Main Street
898-5506 (City Attorney)
898-3503 (I IR)
rax 884.872.3
Fire
540 E. Franklin Road
688.1234/fax 895-0390
Parks & Recreation
11 W. Dower Street
888-3579 / fax 898-5501
t'lannint;
660 E. WatertowerT,aru:
Suite 202
884-55331 fax 888-6844
Police
1401 R. Watertower Lane
888-6678/fax 846-7366
Public Works
660 E. Watertower Lane
Suite 200
898-5500 / fax 895-9551
- Building
660 E. Watertower Lane
Suite 150
887-2211 / fax 857-1297
- Wastewater
3401 N.1;2n Mile Road
888-2191/fax 884-0744
- Water
2235 N.W. 8th Strout
888-5242/fax 884-1159
AS OF JAN 30 106 13:45 PAGE. 01
CITY OF MERIDIAN
MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS
EC --S 00'34" 001 044 OK
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT / NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to
the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that
the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian
City Hall, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. on
Tuesday, February 2, 2006 for the purpose of reviewing and considering the
application of ZOA 05-002 by City of Meridian Planning Department for a
Request for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment with the areas to be
amended include: the Definitions of collector streets, adult entertainment, and
net density; the standards for the Traditional Neighborhood Residential Districts;
the fence standards; the table detailing the Decision -Making Authority by
Application; changes to application requirements; how to measure block length;
screening and chainlink fencing; requirement for certificates of zoning
compliance; off-street parking space standards and measurements; off-street
loading space requirements; family day care standards; and sign standards for
family day care. More particular descriptions of the above information are on file
in the Planning Department, 860 East Watertower Lane, Suite 202, Meridian,
Idaho and are available for inspection during regular business hours, Monday
through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Copies of the above applications are available upon request Any and all
interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing, and the public is
welcome and invited to submit testimony. Oral testimony may be limited to three
(3) minutes per person. Written materials may be submitted seven (7) days prior
to the above hearing date so that all interested parties may examine them prior to
the hearing. All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of
the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to
documents and/or hearings, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at
least 72 hours prior to the public meeting.�itiIIJ14.
p
DATED this 30th day of January, 2008. :' U z*
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., €1 -ACI -01W -
CITY BALL 33 EAST IDAIIO AVENUE MERIDIAN, IDA140 83642 (208) 88&-4i
CITY CLERK - FAX tM-4218 FINANCL::&UMLrIY01LLINC-FAX&474$13 MAYOR'SUFFICE-FAX $54-311y'' ft �
Printed on rrcyrled paper
** TX CONFIRM,* REPORT **
DATE TIME TO/FROM
16 01/30 14:28 381 6681
f
6.
t:rry bl` `
MAI 10 ,F
^hot �Rr 1'�tli
7
MAYOR
Tammy de Weerd
C11Y COUNCIL MEMBERS
Keith Bird
Joseph W. Borten
Charles M. Rountree
Shaun Wardle
CITY T)trl'ARTMFNT4
City A tturney/1-IR
703 Main Street
898-5506 (City Attorney)
898.5503 (H12)
Fax 884-8723
Hire
540 F. Franklin Road
888-1234/fax 895-0390
rark,; & Recreation
11 W. Bower Street
888-3579 / fax 898-5501
Planning
660 E. Waterlower Lane
Suite 202
884-5533 / fax 888-6644
Police
1401 F. Watertower Lane
888-6678/tax 846-7366
Public Works
660 E. Watertower Lane
Sults 200
898-5500 / Fax 895-9551
- Building,
660 E. Watcrtowor Lane
Suite 150
887-2211/fax 887-1297
- Wa%tewatcr
3401 N. Ten Mile Road
888-2191 / fax 884.0744
- Water
2235 N.W. 8th Street
888-52421 fax 884-1159
AS OF JAN 30 1014:28 PAGE.01
CITY OF MERIDIAN
MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD## STATUS
EC --S 00'35" 001 058 OK
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT / NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to
the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the Stab® of Idaho, that
the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian
City Hall, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. on
Tuesday, February 2, 2006 for the purpose of reviewing and considering the
application of ZOA OS402 by City of Meridian Planning Department for a
Request for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment with the areas to be
amended include: the Definitions of collector streets, adult entertainment, and
net density; the standards for the Traditional Neighborhood Residential Districts:
the fence standards; the table detailing the Decision -Making Authority by
Application: changes to application requirements; how to measure block length;
screening and chainlink fencing; requirement for certificates of zoning
compliance; off-street parking space standards and measurements; off-street
loading space requirements; family day care standards; and sign standards for
family day care. More particular descriptions of the above information are on file
in the Planning Department, 660 East Watertower Lane, Suite 202, Meridian,
Idaho and are available for inspection during regular business hours, Monday
through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Copies of the above applications are available upon request. Any and all
interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing, and the public is
welcome and invited to submit testimony. Oral testimony may be limited to three
(3) minutes per person. Written materials may be submitted seven (7) days prior
to the above hearing date so that all interested parties may examine them prior to
the hearing. All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of
the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to
documents and/or hearings, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 868-4433 at
least 72 hours prior to the public meeting. ��"����i1 i i 11":
DATED this 30th day of January,
147,,
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., FITY�CLERK' "- �93
CITY HALT, 33 EAST IAAIIo AvKNUE• MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888=4_AS00W1_q �-
CITY CLERK- FAX I#I11-+1218 FINANCE& UTILMYSILUNC- IIAX8874873 MAYOR'S UI:IaCF-FAX 684-8119""
Printed on nclud paper
x* TX CONF I RMAW REPORT »c*
DATE TIME TO/FROM
19 01/30 14:29 208 375 7770
J
i;ITY Of' •11 -
h 11)Ahlt>
MAYOR
Tammy de weerd
CITY COUNG11. Mr•mms
Keith Bird
Joseph W. BOrton
Charles M. Rountree
Shaun Wardle
CITY DEPAM—MUN'I:S
City Attorney/I lit
703 Main Street
898-5506 (City Attorney)
898-5503 (1-4R)
Fax 884-8723
Fire.
540 E. Franklin Road
888.12.34 /fax 895-0390
Parks & Recreation
11 W. Pxlwl•r Street
888-3579 / fax 898-5501
Planning
660 E. Watertower Lane
Suite 202
884-5533 / fax 888-6843
Police
1401 E. Watertower Lane
1188-6678 / fax 846-7366
Public Works
660 E. Watertower Lane
Suite 200
898.5500 / fax 895.9551
- Building
660 E. Watertower Lane
Suite. 150
687-2211 / fax 887-1297
- Wastewater
3401 N. Ton Mile Road
888-2191 / fax 884-0744
AS OF JAN 30 #14* -29 PAGE.01
CITY OF MERIDIAN
MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMDit STATUS
G3 --S 00'39" 001 059 OK
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT / NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to
the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that
the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian
City Hall, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. on
Tuesday, February 2, 2006 for the purpose of reviewing and considering the
application of ZOA 05-002 by City of Meridian Planning Department for a
Request for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment with the areas to be
amended include: the Definitions of collector streets, adult entertainment, and
net density; the standards for the Traditional Neighborhood Residential Districts;
the fence standards; the table detailing the Decision -Making Authority by
Application; changes to application requirements; how to measure block length;
screening and chainlink fencing; requirement for certificates of zoning
compliance; off -sheet parking space standards and measurements; off-street
loading space requirements; family day care standards; and sign standards for
family day care. More particular descriptions of the above information are on file
in the Planning Department, 660 East Watertower Lane, Suite 202, Meridian,
Idaho and are available for inspection during regular business hours, Monday
through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Copies of the above applications are available upon request Any and all
interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing, and the public is
welcome and invited to submit testimony. Oral testimony may be limited to three
(3) minutes per person. Written materials may be submitted seven (7) days prior
to the above hearing date so that all interested parties may examine them prior to
the hearing. All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of
the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to
documents and/or hearings, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at
Water least 72 hours prior to the public meeting.
22.35 N.W. 8th Street`��` y Or
888-5242 / fax 884-1159 `,` Cie.,
?� "%;f ''•
DATED this 30th day of January, 2006.
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., VCI_12kK �, p
CITY HALL 33 EAST IDAHO AvENUE ME-RIDIAN, IDAHO 83%42 (208)E8§:,44
ta'IYCLERK-FAX 888-4218 FINANCti&UTILITY BILLING -FAX 887.4513 MAYOR'S OFFICE -FAX A&I-81 19
PrinW un r ycl,hl papa ,
10 ** TX CONFIRMAN REPORT **
DATE TIME TO/FROM
20 01/30 14:30 2084676958
>r
Q,�'rrrY rn
11�n1Irt ��+
"� M(,y, i iIL.V:1 �0i UNC+�•
100$
MAYOR
Tammy de Weerd
CnY CouriC1L MEMPrPS
Keith Bird
Joseph W. Dorton
Charles M. Rountree
Shaun Wardle
Cl'tY DF.rAFTMEN'I:i
City Attorney/111?
703 Main Street
898-5506 (City Attorney)
898-550.3 (I JR)
Fox W-8723
Fire
540 E. Franklin Road
888.1234 / fax 895-039()
ParLs & Recreation
I I W. Hower Street
888-3579 / fax 898-5501
Planning
660 E. Watertower Lane
Suite 202
884-5533 / fax 898-6844
Police
1401 E. Watertower Lane
SM -6678 / fax 846-7366
Public Works
660 F. Watertower Lane
Suite 2W
898-5500 / fax.995-9551
- Building
660 F. Watertuwer Lane
Suite 150
887--2211 / fax 887-1297
- Wastewater
3401 N. Tan .Mile Road
888-2191 / fax 884-0744
- Water
223.5 N.W. 8th Street
888-5242 / fax 884- 1159
AS OF JAN 30 '01; 14:30 PAGE.01
CITY OF MERIDIAN
MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD#1 STATUS
EC --S 00'35" 001 060 OK
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT / NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to
the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that
the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian
City Hall, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. on
Tuesday, February 2, 2006 for the purpose of reviewing and considering the
application of ZOA 05-002 by City of Meridian Planning Deparlmient for a
Request for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment with the areas to be
amended include: the Definitions of collector streets, adult entertainer and
net density; the standards for the Traditional Neighborhood Residential Districts;
the fence standards; the table detailing the Decision -Making Authority by
Application; changes to application requirements; how to measure block length;
screening and chainlink fencing; requirement for certificates of zoning
compliance; off-street parking space standards and measurements; off-street
loading space requirements; family day care standards; and sign standards for
family day care. More particular descriptions of the above information are on Me
in the Planning Department, 860 East Watertower Lane, Suite 202, Meridian,
Idaho and are available for inspection during regular business hours, Monday
through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Copies of the above applications are available upon request. Any and all
interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing, and the public is
welcome and invited to submit testimony. Oral testimony may be limited to three
(3) minutes per person. Written materials may be submitted seven (7) days prior
to the above hearing date so that all interested parties may examine them prior to
the hearing. All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of
the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to
documents and/or hearings, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at
least 72 hours prior to the public meeting,
DATED this 30th day of January,
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR.,i CL iC
CITY HALL 33 EAST IDAI10 AVENUE ME1U1)IAN, 1vA,Ho 83642 (208) 88g= .
CITY Ct.KRK-FAX N88.4218 FINANCE&VrILrrY8114.INC-FAX$87-4813 MAYUR50FFICIt_FAX8Aae119
Printed on recyrted p,per ...
** TX CONFIRMAW REPORT **
DATE TIME TO/FROM
13 01/30 13:51 4679562
1
C1IY of041•.
eriicn�y
IDA) IU
fj�'i�, 9•�./III�A`aA4tVN11`� etlICE
1906
MAY014
Tommy do Weerd
CITY COUN01. MISMBEItS
Keith Bird
Joseph W. Borton
Charles M. Rountree
Shaun Wardle
CITY Dr.PARTMF.NTS
CityAttorney/HR
703 Main Strect
898-_-%M6 (City Attorney)
898.5503 (1 IR)
Fax 884-8723
Fire
540 T. Franklin Road
888-1234 / fax 895-0310
Parks & Recreation
11 W. Rower Street
888-3579 / fax 898-5501
Planning
660 E. Watertower Lane
Suite 202
884-5533 / fax 888-6844
Police
14(11 E. Watertower Lane
888-6678 /fax 846-7366
Public Works
660 E. Watortower Lane
Suite 200
898-5500/fax 895.9551
- Building
(W) F. Watnrlower lone
Suite 150
887-2211 / fax 887-1297
Wastewater
3401 N. len Mile Road
888-2191/fax 864-0744
Water
2235 N.W. 8th Street
888-5242 / fax 884-1.159
AS OF JAN 30 '*13:52 PAGE. 01
CITY OF MERIDIAN
MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD## STATUS
EC --S 00'34" 001 049 OK
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT / NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to
the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that
the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian
City Hall, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. on
Tuesday, February 2, 2006 for the purpose of reviewing and considering the
application of ZOA 05-002 by City of Meridian Planning Department for a
Request for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment with the areas to be
amended include: the Definitions of collector streets, adult entertainment, and
net density; the standards for the Traditional Neighborhood Residential Districts;
the fence standards; the table detailing the Decision -Making Authority by
Application; changes to application requirements; how to measure block length;
screening and chainlink fencing; requirement for certificates of zoning
compliance; off-street parking space standards and measurements; off-street
loading space requirements; family day care standards; and sign standards for
family day care. More particular descriptions of the above information are on file
in the Planning Department, 660 East Watertower Lane, Suits 202, Meridian,
Idaho and are available for inspection during regular business hours, Monday
through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Copies of the above applications are available upon request. Any and all
interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing, and the public is
welcome and invited to submit testimony. Oral testimony may be limited to three
(3) minutes per person. Written materials may be submitted seven (7) days prior
to the above hearing date so that all interested parties may examine them prior to
the hearing. All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of
the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to
documents and/or hearings, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at
least 72 hours prior to the public meeting. `,,,,,11111,,,,,,,,,
DATED this 30th day of January,
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR.,
0-ry HALL 33 EA57 IDAHO AVLNUS MFRIULAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 84-4
CITY CLERK- FAX M4218 FINANCE&U'nl.ITYBILL(NC- FAX 867.4M MAYOR'S OFFICE -FAX 983-6119
Minted on recycled poper
r
? ORO
-Cr[R na -
�aP
** TX CONF I RMA'I'1'ON REPORT ** AS OF JAN 30 ' P13:53 PAGE. 01
CITY OF MERIDIAN
DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS
14 01/30 13:53 3810160 EC --S 00'52" 001 050 OK
or=
,
CITY OF MERIDIAN
IDAHO
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
h
r,
W*T}"e'vngn: V"JAI [
MAYOR
Tammy de Weerd
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT / NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to
the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that
CITY Ct)LJNCtI. MF,a4DF.RS the C' Council of the Ci of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian
Keith Bird � City
Joseph W. Burton
Charles M. Rountree
City Hall, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. on
Shaun Wardle
Tuesday, February 4 2006 for the purpose of reviewing and considering the
of ZOA 05-002 by City of Meridian Planning Department for a
Crrapplication
S
Request for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment with the areas to be
City
City (LorDyjAy/l IF,
Main
703 Main Street
Street
amended
amended include: the Definitions of collector streets, adult entertainment, and
898-5506 (City Attorney)
898.5503 (I -11Z)
net ,
net density; the standards for the Traditional Nei Districts;
Neighborhood Residential
Fax 884-8723
the fence standards; the table detailing the Decision -Making Authority by
Fire
540 E. Franklin Road
Application; changes to application requirements; how to measure block length;
888.1234 / fax 895-0390
screening and chainlink fencing; requirement for certificates of zoning
Parks & Recreation
compliance; off-street parking space standards and measurements; off-street
11 W. Bower Street
888-3579 / fax 898-5501
loading space requirements; family day care standards; and sign standards for
Planning
family day care. More particular descriptions of the above information are on file
660 E. Watertower Lana
Suite 20z
in the Planning
g Department, 660 East Watertower Lane Suite 202 Meridian
884-5533 / fax 888.6844
Idaho and are available for inspection during g regular business hours, Monday
Polive
J401 E. Waturtower Leine
through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
88$-667R / fax 646.7366
Copies of the above applications are available upon request. Any and all
Public works
660 E. Wako rtower Lane
interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing, and the public is
Suite 200
welcome and invited to submit testimony. Oral testimony may be limited to three
8985500 /fax 695-95.51
- Building
(3) minutes per person. Written materials may be submitted seven (7) days prior
660 E. Waicnower Lane
to the above hearing date so that an interested parties may examine them prior to
Suite 150
887-2211 /fax R87-1297
the hearing. All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of
- Wastewater
the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to
rye -2291 / fax SSa-o74.a;
888- N.19 / n Mile _o74
documents and/or hearings, City '
gs. please contact the C Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at
- Water
least 72 hours prior to the public meeting.
2285 8th 8tr-c t
886.5242242 fax 884--] 159
`\`�.
ccy
DATED this 30th day of January, 2006,
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., € CL
��
Cr1X HALL 33 EAST II)Amo AVENUE MERIDIAN, It)A140 83642 (208) 885 ��•`
CITY
CLIUM - FAX 888.4218 FINANCF.1h U I'ILI'1Y t$ILLINC- FAX 887-4813 MAYORS OFFICE- FAx 8Ws NTi4+'' ^ •
I'Anled an mydinj popvr "
** TX CONFIRMAON REPORT ** AS OF JAN 30 '13:54 PAGE.01
CITY OF MERIDIAN
DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS
15 01/30 1354 3759248 ----S 00'00" 000 042 BUSY
THIS DOCUMENT IS STILL IN MEMORY
rrrr n�
B)AI1O y
1
MAYOR
Tammy de Weerd
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Keith Bird
Joseph W. Korton
Charles M. Rountroe
Shaun Wardle
C.r1Y I)h'I'AR'rMEN78
City Attum y/LIR
703 Main Street
898-5506 (City Attorney)
898-5503 (HR)
Fax 864-8723
Fire
540 E. Franklin Road
888-1234 / fax 89,5-0390
Parks &/recreation
11 W. Bower Street
SM -:1579 / fax $98-5501
Planning
660 E. Waterlower Lane
Suite 202
884-9533 / fax 88R-6814
Polity
1401 E. WakeMwar Lane
$88-6678/fax 846-7366
Public Works
660 E. Watertower Lane
Suite 200
898-.5.500 / fax 895-9551
- Building
660 E. Watertower Lane
Suite 150
$87-2211 / fax 887-1297
- Wastewater
3401 N. Ten Mile Road
888-2191 / fax 884.0744
- Water
2235 N.W. Sth lwaot
888-5242 / fax 884.1159
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT / NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to
the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that
the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian
City Hall, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. on
Tuesday, February 2, 2006 for the purpose of reviewing and considering the
application of ZOA 05-002 by City of Meridian Planning Department for a
Request for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment with the areas to be
amended include: the Definitions of colleMr streets, adult entertainment, and
net density; the standards for the Traditional Neighborhood Residential Districts;
the fence standards; the table detailing the Decision -Making Authority by
Application; changes to application requirements; how to measure block length;
screening and chainlink fencing; requirement for certificates of zoning
compliance; off-street parking space standards and measurements; off-street
loading space requirements; family day care standards; and sign standards for
family day care. More particular descriptions of the above information are on file
in the Planning Department, 660 East Watertower Lane, Suite 202, Meridian,
Idaho and are available for inspection during regular business hours, Monday
through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Copies of the above applications are available upon request Any and all
interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing, and the public is
welcome and invited to submit testimony. Oral testimony may be limited to three
(3) minutes per person. Written materials may be submitted seven (7) days prior
to the above hearing date so that all interested parties may examine them prior to
the hearing. All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of
the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to
documents and/or hearings, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 8884433 at
least 72 hours prior to the public meeting.
DATED this 30th day of January,
,F1Cr
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., i, ITYkC�LE(eK'
CITY I-fALL 33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888
CITY CLI; • IIA x 668.4216 FINANCE as UTILITY BILLING - FAX 887 x673 MAYOR'SOFFICE 864-SI19 •. `""'• „� `'
Printed on mcyck-d 1)31wr
** TX CONFIRMA* REPORT **
DATE TIME TO/FROM
16 01/30 13:55 22
i
cnvbr' +
� trinrlcl �j,
ism
MAYOR
Tammy de Weerd
CITY COUNCIL i rmmim
Keith Bird
Joseph W. Barton
Charles M, Rountree
Shaun Wardle
CI1Y DEPARTMI4NTS
City Attorney/14R
703 Main Street
898-5.506 (City Attorney)
898-5503 (FIR)
fax 884-8723
Fire
540 E. Yranklin Road
888-1234 / fax 895-0390
Parks & Recreation
11 W. Bower Street
888-1579 / fax 898-5501
Planning
660 E. Watertower Lane
Suite 202
884-5533/fax 888-6844
Police
7401 E. Wah:rtuwer Lane
888-6678/lax 846-7366
Public Works
660 L. Watertower Lane
Suite 200
898 5500 / fax 895-9551
Building
660 E. Watertower Lane
Suite 150
887-2211 / fax 887-9297
Wastewater
3401 N. Teri Mile Road
888.2797 / fax 864-0744
AS OF JAN 30 '9113:55 PAGE.01
CITY OF MERIDIAN
MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS
EC --S 00'34" 001 051 OK
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT / NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to
the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that
the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian
City Hall, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. on
Tuesday, February 2, 2006 for the purpose of reviewing and considering the
application of 7.OA 05-002 by City of Meridian Planning Department for a
Request for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment with the areas to be
amended include; the Definitions of collector streets, adult entertainment, and
net density; the standards for the Traditional Neighborhood Residential Districts;
the fence standards; the table detailing the Decision -Making Authority by
Application; changes to application requirements; how to measure block length;
screening and chainlink fencing; requirement for certificates of zoning
compliance; off-street parking space standards and measurements; off-street
loading space requirements; family day care standards; and sign standards for
family day care. More particular descriptions of the above information are on file
in the Planning Department, 660 East Watertower Lane, Suite 202, Meridian,
Idaho and are available for inspection during regular business hours, Monday
through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Copies of the above applications are available upon request. Any and all
interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing, and the public is
welcome and invited to submit testimony. Oral testimony may be limited to three
(3) minutes per person. Written materials may be submitted seven (7) days prior
to the above hearing date so that all interested parties may examine them prior to
the hearing. All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of
the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to
documents and/or hearings, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at
Water least 72 hours prior to the public meeting.Crr ME
2235 N.W. 8th Street
888-5242 / fax 881-11 59��Giy� >� 1
DATED this 30th day of January, 2006. ?
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., iDi 9 K , p
CITY HALI. 33 EAST IDAHO AVENUF. MCRIDIAN, IDAIID 83642 (208) 8fi i
01YCLERK-FAXiiB4219 FINANCE&U10TYSILUNC-FAX887A813 MAYOR'SOFFICF.-FAXW-3119''
Printed on recycki papec
** TX CONFIRM* REPORT **
DATE TIME TO/FROM
17 01/30 13:56 2083737245
i
IDAHO
9 rY,yrgar 7.1.14 �wiui YNJJ v
MAYOR
Tammy de Weerd
CITY COUNCIL WMBERS
Keith Bird
Joseph W. Horton
Charks M. Itountree
Shaun Wardle
CITY DEvARTl TENTS
City Attorney/HR
703 Main Stmet
898-5506 (City Attorney)
898-5503 (lift)
Fax 864-8723
Fin,
540 E. Franklin Road
888.1234 / fax 895-0390
Parks & Recrcution
11 W. sower street
888-3579 / fax 898.5501
Planning
660 L. Wawrtower Lane
Suite 202
884.5533 / fax SRS -6844
Police
1401 E. Watertower l me
888-6678 / I'ax 846-7366
Public Works
660 E. Watertcrwer lane
Suite 200
898-5500/fax 895-9551
- Building
660 F. WatCrtUWr.r Lane
suite 150
8bi•2211 / fax 887-1297
Wastewater
3401 N. Ten Mild Road
888-2)91/fax 884.0744
Water
22.35 N.W. 8th Street
888.5242 / fax 884-1159
AS OF JAN 30 '13:56 PAGE.01
CITY OF MERIDIAN
MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD## STATUS
EC --S 00'36" 001 052 OK
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT / NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to
the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that
the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian
City Hall, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7.00 P.M. on
Tuesday, February 2, 2006 for the purpose of reviewing and considering the
application of ZOA 05-002 by City of Meridian Planning Department for a
Request for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment with the areas to be
amended include: the Definitions of collector streets, adult entertainment, and
net density; the standards for the Traditional Neighborhood Residential Districts;
the fence standards; the table detailing the Decision -Making Authority by
Application; changes to application requirements; how to measure block length;
screening and chainlink fencing; requirement for certificates of zoning
compliance; off-street parking space standards and measurements; off-street
loading space requirements; family day care standards; and sign standards for
family day care. More particular descriptions of the above information are on file
in the Planning Department, 660 East Watertower Lane, Suite 202, Meridian,
Idaho and are available for inspection during regular business hours, Monday
through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Copies of the above applications are available upon request Any and all
interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing, and the public is
welcome and invited to submit testimony. Oral testimony may be limited to three
(3) minutes per person. Written materials may be submitted seven ('n days prior
to the above hearing date so that all interested parties may examine them prior to
the hearing. All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of
the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to
documents and/or hearings, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 8W-4433 at
least 72 hours prior to the public meeting.
DATED this 30th day of January,
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR.,
CITX Iiq1,1 33 )FAST IDAHO AVLNrIF, MPRIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208)
Cr1YCLEKK-FAX 88S•4218 FINANCE&U'rILMEll.UNC-FAX 887.3613 MAYOWS OFFICE -FAX 884-A119''
Printed on recycled paper
K
r;�•,c�A,r_
** TX CONFIRMAIRON REPORT **
DATE TIME TO/FROM
09 01/30 1340 2086721600
An-
1F � zy�
1DAHn 1w
b�'+ TSUvM1'sV,o} V N LLv Ira
MAYOR
Tammy de Wcerd
C17Y COUNCIL MamurR6
Keith Bird
Joseph W. Gorton
Charles M. Rountree
Shaun Wardle
CITY DuARTMENTS
City Attomey/HX
703 Main Street
898-5506 (City AKomey)
898-5503 (IM)
Fax K94-8723
Fire
540 E. Franklin Road
888-1234 / fax 895-0390
Parks & Recreation
11 W. Sower Street
PAP -3579 / fax 898,550 1
Planning
660 E. Watertower Lane
,Suitt 202
884-5533 / fax 888-6844
Polio:
1401 E. Watertower Lane
888-6678 / fax 846-7366
Public Works
660 E. Watertower Lane
Suite 200
898-:95oo / fax 895-9551
- Building
W E. Walenower Lane
Suite 150
887-2211 /fax 887-1297
- Wastewater
3401 N. 'len Mile Road
8&3.2191 / fax 884-0744
- Water
223.5 N.W. 8th Street
868-5242 / fax 884-1159
AS OF JAN 30 '013:41 PAGE.01
CITY OF MERIDIAN
MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS
EC --S 00'39' 001 040 OK
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT / NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to
the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the laws of the State of Idaho, that
the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian
City Hall, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. on
Tuesday, February 2, 2006 for the purpose of reviewing and considering the
application of ZOA 05-002 by City of Meridian Planning Department for a
Request for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment with the areas to be
amended include: the Definitions of collector streets, adult entertainment, and
net density; the standards for the Traditional Neighborhood Residential Districts;
the fence standards; the table detailing the Decision -Making Authority by
Application; changes to application requirements; how to measure block length;
screening and chainlink fencing; requirement for certificates of zoning
compliance; off-street parking space standards and measurements; off-street
loading space requirements; family day care standards; and sign standards for
family day care. More particular descriptions of the above information are on file
in the Planning Department, 660 East Watertower Lane, Suite 202, Meridian,
Idaho and are available for inspection during regular business hours, Monday
through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Copies of the above applications are available upon request. Any and all
interested persons Mall be heard at said public hearing, and the public is
welcome and invited to submit testimony. Oral testimony may be limited to three
(3) minutes per person. Written materials may be submitted seven (7) days prior
to the above hearing date so that all interested parties may examine them prior to
the hearing. All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of
the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to
documents and/or hearings, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at
least 72 hours prior to the public meeting.
DATED this 30th day of January,
O15 UjPb
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., FI CSL K'
CITY Ji '�� l\��F i a(• ~� q�;,� .
TALI. 33 EAs•r loAHo AvFNUt. MhRIDJAN, JDAI10 83642 (208) 888`-4
CI Y CLCRK - FAX 88&4218 FINANCE & UTILITY BILLING- PAX 8874813 MAYOR -11—r-1- FAX asci 8119
Prinwd on mxyeted paper " '
** TX CONFIRAN REPORT **
DATE TIME TO/FROM
10 01/30 13:42 9479712
/
CITY Or I •
C%Vanaian `
IDAHO
ray
if
MAyox
Tammy de Weerd
CITY COUNCIL MkMBERS
Keith Bird
Joseph W. Borton
Charles M. Rountree
Shaun Wardle
CJTY DF..PARTML+NTS
City Attomey/11R
703 Main Street
898.5506 (City Attorney)
898-5503 (1 IR)
Fax 884-8723
Fire
540 E. Franklin Road
888-1234 / fax 895-0390
Parks & Recreation
I I W. Bower Street
888-3579/fax 898-5501
Planning
660 E. Watertower bane
Suite 202
884-5533 / fax 888-6844
Police
1401 S. Watertower lane
888-6678/fax 846-7366
Public Works
660 E. Watertower Lane
Suite 200
898-5:5001 fax 895-9551
- Building
6601". Watert0wer Lane
Suite 150
887-2211 / fax 887-1297
- Wastewater
3401 N. Ten Mile Road
888-21911 fax 854-0744
- Water
2235 N.W. 8th Street
888-5242 / fax 984-1159
AS OF JAN 30 I 13 42 PAGE.01
CITY OF MERIDIAN
MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS
G3 --S 00'36" 001 041 OK
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT / NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to
the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that
the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian
City Hall, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. on
Tuesday, February 2, 2006 for the purpose of reviewing and considering the
application of ZOA 05.002 by City of Meridian Planning Department for a
Request for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment with the areas to be
amended include: the Definitions of collector streets, adult entertainment, and
net density; the standards for the Traditional Neighborhood Residential Districts;
the fence standards; the table detailing the Decision -Making Authority by
Application; changes to application requirements; how to measure block length;
screening and chainlink fencing; requirement for certificates of zoning
compliance; off-street parking space standards and measurements; off-street
loading space requirements; family day care standards; and sign standards for
family day care. More particular descriptions of the above information are on file
in the Planning Department, 660 East Watertower Lane, Suite 202, Meridian,
Idaho and are available for inspection during regular business hours, Monday
through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Copies of the above applications are available upon request. Any and all
interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing, and the public is
welcome and invited to submit testimony. Oral testimony may be limited to three
(3) minutes per person. Written materials may be submitted seven (7) days prior
to the above hearing date so that all interested parties may examine them prior to
the hearing. All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of
the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to
documents and/or hearings, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at
least 72 hours prior to the public r "
DATED this 30th day of January,
CITY HALL 33 EAST ToAHo AvFNun MERtnrAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 844
CrfYCLINK-FAX 888-4218 FINANCE&UTILITY Hit .IINC. -FAX 8874S13 MAYOWSOFFICE-FAX 884,41110
t'rinw d nn recycled paper
Meridian Planning and"Zoning Meeting February 2, 2006
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of February 2, 2006, was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm.
Members Present: Chairman Michael Rohm, Commissioner Keith Borup,
Commissioner David Zaremba, and Commissioner David Moe.
Members Absent: Wendy Newton-Huckabay.
Others Present: Ted Baird, Tara Green, Anna Canning, Craig (Caleb) Hood, Josh
Wilson, Joe Guenther, Mike Cole, Joe Silva, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll -Call Attendance:
Roll -call
Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Keith Borup
X David Moe - Vice Chairman X David Zaremba
X Michael Rohm - Chairman
Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to call this regularly scheduled
meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order for Thursday, February 2nd,
2006, and begin with roll call.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda:
Item 3: Consent Agenda:
A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05-054 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a new facility for Ada County
Weed, Pest & Mosquito Abatement Operations consisting of a main
administration building, a covered vehicle storage building and 2
storage buildings in an I -L zone for Weed & Pest Control Campus
by Ada County — south of East Pine Avenue and west of Locust
Grove Road:
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05-056 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a Day Care Center on .58 acres in
the C -N zone for Young America Early Care and Education
Center by Young American Early Care and Education Center —
1525 Leigh Field Drive:
C. Approve Minutes of January 19, 2006 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 2 of 113
Rohm: Thank you. First item on the agenda I'd like to have adoption of the agenda,
which consists of a Consent Agenda, Finding of Facts, Conclusions of Law for CUP 05-
054 and Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law for CUP 05-056, Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law for CUP 05-055 and approval of the January 19th, 2006, Planning
and Zoning Commission meeting minutes.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: I'm sorry. Commissioner Moe, you're probably going to say the same thing I
was.
Moe: You noted the adoption of the agenda and, then, went to the Consent Agenda.
Rohm: You're correct.
Moe: So, what I'd like to do is so move to adopt the agenda.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All in favor say aye. Opposed
same sign?
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Okay. Agenda is adopted.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Now for the Consent Agenda.
Zaremba: And, Mr. Chairman, that's where my comments were going to go, actually.
Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I do not have in my packet the Findings for A or C. I do have B and D, but
would ask that A and B -- A and C, I mean, be dropped from tonight's Consent Agenda.
Unless other people had them and I'm just not up to speed.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I did not receive those either.
Zaremba: In that case, I would move that A and C be scheduled for a later meeting and
that the Consent Agenda consist of B and D.
Rohm: Okay. Sounds good. Commissioner Moe, do you second that?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 3 of 113
Moe: No, sir. I have one change to make on the meeting minutes.
Rohm: Okay.
Moe: Under D and that would be on page 35 of 92, about two-thirds of the way down
where it talks as Newton-Huckabay made the statement: With ten copies to the clerk.
End of motion. I, actually, made that motion. So, that should be Moe, with ten copies to
the clerk. End of motion. That would be my only comment.
Rohm: Any other changes to the minutes?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I don't have any further changes, which I'm sure is unusual,
but I have been meaning to say for some time that we need to appreciate our recorder
Dean Willis. He does an excellent job. We don't speak in complete sentences or with
punctuation and sometimes very convoluted reasoning. He seems to get it all down and
I, for one, appreciate his work.
Rohm: Comments well taken. With that being said, then, could we get a motion to
approve the Consent Agenda as adjusted?
Moe: So moved.
Zaremba: So -- okay. I will second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda as changed. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Okay. Before we open up any public hearings tonight, I'd like to go through the
process with you just for a bit and as the projects are presented, the first thing we do is
we ask staff to present the project in an unbiased fashion where they talk about the
project as it applies to the Comprehensive Plan and to ordinance. They speak to it from
that level. Then, after we hear from staff and discussion following that, then, the
applicant has an opportunity to come forward and that's when the project is, quote,
unquote, sold to the public and they give their presentation and once those two
presentations have been made, then, it's open to the public for their comments and
during that portion of it, what we typically do is I give each person three minutes to
speak on the issue, but if, in fact, there is an individual that is speaking for a larger
group, say a homeowners association or something like that, we will ask for a show of
hands for the group that the individual is speaking for and that individual would, then, be
given ten minutes to speak on that particular application. And I want to stress that if, in
fact, a person relinquishes their time to a spokesman, unless they have something that
is specifically not addressed by that spokesman's testimony, then, they have foregone
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 4 of 113
their right to testimony and so it's real important that we stick to that, because we could
be here forever if we didn't.
Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: AZ 05-058
Request for Annexation and Zoning of 49.95 acres from RUT to a R-8
zone for Keego Springs Subdivision by Todd Campbell — 5910 North
Black Cat Road:
Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: PP 05-060
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 201 building lots and 9 common
lots on 49.95 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Keego Springs
Subdivision by Todd Campbell — 5910 North Black Cat Road:
Rohm: So, with that being said, I'd like to start by opening up the continued Public
Hearing for AZ 05-057 -- excuse me. I'm going to make sure I have the right notes
here. We had a revisal of our agenda. Okay. For AZ 05-058, PP 05-060 and -- that's
it. These both pertain to Keego Springs Subdivision and start with the staff report.
Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Keego Springs was
originally on the December 15th, 2005, agenda and was continued to tonight's date to
give the applicant some time to talk to the school district and work out some issues that
the school district had. The applicant is proposing preliminary plat and annexation
approval of 49.95 acres from RUT to an R-8 medium density residential zone for
approval of -- as submitted 201 single-family homes and nine common lots. With some
revised plans that you have in front of you tonight, that has been reduced by 22 build-
able lots, to a total of I want to say 176, but that math doesn't sound right. I'm going to
let the applicant address those exact numbers, but I do have here that they have
reduced by 22 build -able lots from the initial plat submittal. The site is located just south
of Chinden on Black Cat, adjacent to a couple of recent projects, one much more recent
than the other. You will remember Volterra Subdivision recently came through on both
the north side of Ustick and the south side of Ustick a little bit, a large subdivision. And,
then, in 2000 -- either late 2004 or early 2005 Bainbridge Subdivision also came
through, which is located in the northeast area of this section. The subdivision does
have quite a bit of frontage along Black Cat Road. They have proposed one entrance to
the subdivision from Black Cat Road and, then, some associated stubs to streets
approved with Bainbridge Subdivision and I will also get into some other requirements
there. Some of the conditions staff has placed on the subdivision in the staff report --
did have a concern about the -- and I will go to a blow up here. The design of the
amenities for the neighborhood. They are centrally located within the subdivision. The
submitted plat does have a gazebo and barbecue area, a tot lot, and a pool and
clubhouse area, which are separated by the entrance road to the subdivision from Black
Cat and, then, also another street within the subdivision. Under the preliminary plat
analysis item one, we have -- actually, item two. I'm sorry. We have recommended that
those amenities be assembled in one location, so the area -- so that neighborhood
residents don't have to cross those local streets to use those amenities. I did speak
with the applicant today and they have a little bit of concern with the way that my
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
February 2, 2006
Page 5 of 113
condition there was worded and I do support their change. The idea being that equal
square footage of land -- and staffs recommendation -- I will back up a bit. Sorry.
Staffs recommendation was that those two areas to the north and south of that
entrance road be moved to this area here to consolidate with the pool house and
clubhouse. Their proposal is to move those areas as an equal area of land, you know,
keep the square footages the same when they do move those lots there and replace
them with build -able lots to here. The staff report mentions that eight lots would be
moved. The applicant did indicate that it would only require the removing of seven lots
that would actually be lost in this area here. And that would keep equal square footages
from the initial submittal and staff is supportive of that. We just -- we would like to see
those -- those assembled in that area where they don't have to cross those local streets
to use them. In addition, the entrance road to the subdivision does create what we
would label through lots, lots that have frontages on two parallel streets. We have also -
- we have recommended a condition of approval that there be a landscape lot placed
along Cascada Street I believe it's called. A ten -foot landscape strip which, essentially,
prevents access to that street by the lots, which double front on these two streets here.
That would maintain access from these lots to these internal loop roads and improve
traffic circulation through here and also maintain the continuity of the landscaping
through that area. The applicant has proposed -- I don't know if we have got a
landscape plan here. It doesn't look like it. They have also proposed detached
sidewalks and parkways with street trees. We are supportive of the design and the
design does meet the standards set forth by ordinance in terms of width of the parkway
and width of the sidewalk and was also approved by ACHD. The one comment there is
that they will be limited to class two trees and I have included that as a condition of
approval. The submitted plat -- and this came up in the ACHD report as well. The
submitted plat does not show a stub street connection to an approved stub street within
Volterra Subdivision. We would echo ACHD's comments and like to see that
connection made. Some discussion we will get into about the school site it sounds like
may move the location of that stub. So, I think the applicant will recommend that the
wording of that condition be changed and be less so towards an exact location, as more
to the idea that it will connect to that stub from Volterra where ever it does end up and
we are supportive of that. I think that brings us to the school site, which is why the
application was continued from its first hearing, so that the applicant could talk with the
school district and address their concerns of having a school site located within the
subdivision. The revised plat that is on the screen -- essentially what it does is it
provides a portion of the school site that the school district would require. I see Mr.
Bigham is here tonight and I will let him address that a little bit more and the talks going
on there. The idea being that a portion of the desired elementary school would be
located within the proposed Keego Springs Subdivision and a portion would be located
within the approved Volterra Subdivision. Now, negotiations, as my understanding, are
ongoing with Volterra in terms of configuration -- ultimate configuration of that school
site and ultimate amounts of land of that school site. As a condition in the staff report,
we did ask that that -- those negotiations be solidified prior to final plat approval. The
idea being that it's not -- it doesn't accomplish what the school district needs to end up
with half of a school site and I don't think it accomplishes what the city needs either. So,
we need to find some sort of mechanism there to insure that that school site is -- is
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 6 of 113
sufficient for the school district. So, that was staffs way of handling that. I think with
that I will end staffs comments and take any questions from the Commission.
Rohm: Any questions of staff?
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple.
Rohm: Okay.
Borup: Just clarification on some of your comments, so I can understand. First one on
the landscape lot on Cassandra, the concern was vehicle access from those lots, is that
what I understood?
Wilson: It is. Yeah.
Borup: Even though it's a divided, separated sidewalk with fence and landscaping
along there already?
Wilson: The divider certainly makes it an awkward area for vehicles to access, but as
that is not -- ACHD did not classify that as a collector, so I believe there is nothing
prohibiting a homeowner from accessing it without that landscape strip.
Borup: That couldn't be a condition?
Wilson: It could.
Borup: Or maybe some extra landscaping in there -- you know, more trees or
something?
Wilson: Well, currently, any landscaping along there would be within the right of way.
don't know if we get any of that here from the blowup. There is not a common lot along
that street.
Borup: No. Right. I mean it does show landscaping on -- the landscape shows trees
on the property line right now.
Wilson: Yeah. It shows trees within the parkway, essentially, yeah.
Borup: Right. Lined up with the -- I had some questions on -- probably never mind that.
On the stub street. But Volterra and Bainbridge and the school site, how many acres
was in Volterra Subdivision and Bainbridge both? Here we go. I see something from --
I'm not sure how many acres. Four hundred and twenty-nine lots in one and 728 in the
other. So, maybe that partially answers that. Volterra was 728 lots. Bainbridge is 429.
1 mean -- right. But neither one of those -- either one of subdivisions have -- there is no
school sites in there now and no city park or anything in either one of those --
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
February 2, 2006
Page 7 of 113
Wilson: There are no school sites proposed within those. I don't believe any city parks.
And no city parks either. In terms of acreage, you can get kind of a rough figure if you
go off of --
Borup: Well, yeah, I found a letter here that shows -- a letter to you that showed the lot
count.
Wilson: Okay.
Borup: And it was 429 and 728, compared to, what, 176 here? So, then, as I
understand it, you're talking about making the off-site -- the off-site negotiations
between Volterra and the school district a condition on this subdivision? Is that what I
understood? I wasn't -- I didn't know when we started requiring off-site performance
condition on -- by others as a condition.
Wilson: Conditioning it that way moves the application forward. You could not act on it
until an agreement is reached. I mean it's --
Borup: Either way, that's requiring something by an off-site third party.
Wilson: Correct. That's true.
Borup: Okay. I just wanted to understand what -- what that was talking about.
Baird: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Yes.
Baird: Before we move on, I wanted to correct the fact regarding the Bainbridge
Subdivision. Although a park was not a condition of approval of that subdivision, the
developer has been in negotiations with the parks department regarding the donation of
a seven acre -- I believe it's seven acres. A neighborhood park site, essentially. So, it's
highly likely that there will be a neighborhood park in the Bainbridge Sub. Public
Neighborhood Park.
Borup: Public. Okay.
Rohm: Thank you.
Borup: I was just curious why a school site wasn't looked at earlier in this area.
Rohm: I think we will probably --
Borup: Find out? Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 8 of 113
Rohm: -- receive testimony to that effect later and it's a good question. Any other
questions of staff before I ask the applicant to come forward? At this time I'd like to
have the applicant come forward, please.
Campbell: In Boise they make you say your name and address, is that -- okay. I'm
Todd Campbell. I reside at 2320 West Preston in Eagle, Idaho. I am the applicant,
developer of the Keego Springs Subdivision, and we do have new site plans for you to
review, showing the revision on the amenities being relocated. We are in agreement
with that and we have had time to redraw those site plans. I'm going to take just a few
minutes and just briefly introduce the project and, then, I'm going to defer all the
technical questions to Jim Howard, our engineer, and any legal issues to Joann Butler,
our legal representation. In developing the Keego Springs project, we believe that we
are bringing a nice subdivision into the City of Meridian with amenities that are seen
normally in more dense or higher acreage subdivisions. We are trying to include a pool
for the neighborhood to use, some higher end landscaping in the entryway and
throughout the subdivision, throughout the parkways with the detached sidewalks and
the nice trees. Trying to create a -- kind of a boutique, if you will, style subdivision, an
intimate feel than some of the -- like the grander projects that are going in around town,
yet giving the homeowners within the subdivision a -- the same amenities that are in
these bigger projects. We also feel that we are bringing various housing types to the
project, alley loaded product, smaller lot product, as well as traditional Meridian size
lots. We feel that we are compatible with the additional project that has been approved
already, the Volterra and the Bainbridge Subdivisions, and we feel like this would be a
good benefit to the City of Meridian. And if you have no questions, I'm going to defer
now to Jim Howard and Joann Butler.
Rohm: Before you step away, one of the things -- kind of -- a little bit off the subject, but
to the point of your drawing that you have up there on the board.
Campbell: Yes.
Rohm: If you can provide that same rendition in either PDF format or a jpeg, so that we
can incorporate that into our minutes, then, we don't need to retain that, but if you make
that part of your presentation, then, we have to archive that as part of the testimony.
So, it would be best if when you bring these projects forward if you could provide either
a jpeg or a PDF format.
Campbell: Okay. That is -- yeah. We can do that. You guys should have copies of the
landscape, plan already in your packages. This has just been slightly modified showing
the school site. Nothing else has been changed on there other than that. But I will now
defer to Jim Howard.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would ask Mr. Campbell two questions, if I may, and you
may very well tell me that it's one of other people that needs to answer it, but -- okay,
now we got a bunch of things. I can't tell from my drawing, but I thought one of the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 9 of 113
things that was up on the display indicated that from the school site -- is there a
pathway going between those two properties?
Campbell: On this side, no. There is a little connection over to the west.
Zaremba: I see over there that it touches the road, but --
Campbell: Yes. No, there is not.
Zaremba: Would you be amenable to the suggestion of putting one? And I will ask the
same question to Mr. Bigham when he comes up here, whether the school district would
even want one, but --
Campbell: We would do that.
Zaremba: -- it would seem like some connectivity -- okay. Then, my other question is --
there is a letter from ITD, dated November 18th, asking you to provide them with a
traffic impact study, I guess because of your proximity to Highway 20-26. That's
probably the same study that you must have prepared for ACHD, but I just wanted to
make sure you were aware that ITD has asked for that.
Campbell: Okay. I was not aware of that.
Zaremba: Okay.
Campbell: We do have that already prepared. Dan Thompson, the engineer, did that
traffic study.
Zaremba: Okay. Just -- I can show you the letter if you need to know where to send it.
Campbell: We will get her done.
Zaremba: Okay. That was it.
Campbell: Okay.
Rohm: Thank you.
Howard: Good evening. My name is Jim Howard with J.J. Howard Engineering and our
office is located here in Meridian, 1530 East Commercial, and I, again, will defer a lot of
my time to perhaps legal counsel concerning the school site. I'm not very
knowledgeable on that, so I think the follow up with be the best. But I do want to cover
some areas that may come up during the hearing. We had a neighborhood meeting
and I noticed that primarily the people that showed up were the people that live within
Rambo Sub. I believe it's four or five lots to our north. They expressed concerns of the
higher density lots abutting their -- I believe they are one to 1.3 acre tracts. I believe
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 10 of 113
there is at least one or two representatives that will be speaking this evening concerning
that. And we looked at the -- we looked at that and we -- I talked to Todd a little bit
about it. There will be a six foot vinyl fence that is placed there, a privacy fence, and as
we look at -- perhaps a term they may use is maybe buffering or creating larger lots
along the north here. I feel like that -- I'm not sure that that's needed, because there is
some natural buffering going on. As I looked at aerial photos, their homes -- the full
home sites, if you go from west to east along the northern boundary there is that natural
buffering. The first home is set back 164 feet from our north boundary. The second
one is 192 feet. The third one is 140. And the last one -- the most easterly one is 86.
So, there is -- there is a bit of buffering for their home sites by virtue of the distance they
placed their home from our north boundary. I appreciated their comments. I think we
learned a lot from them. They are concerned about how that entire area is going to be
developed. I have looked at that entire square mile and I have kind of a drawing or
have superimposed all the preliminary plats and it's going to be a busy area. Some of
the things that I would like to point out that the staff has already talked about is we
concur with the staff report a hundred percent. We don't have major issues. We
recognize the need for a stub street to the south and we will work with ACHD and the
city to determine where the best location of that is. It's going to be based on the
outcome of the school situation and that sort of thing. So, we are prepared to place a
stub street where it's most useful. We also concur that equal areas -- if we move those
areas that are identified as the gazebo, tot lot, pool clubhouse area, if we move those
and we agree -- or we are going to move them like the city has directed us, we will
move those on the basis of area. Like to correct one thing. I, perhaps, when I prepared
the drawing, I called it a clubhouse. It's more properly noted as really a dressing or
changing room. So, it's not going to be a clubhouse per se. So, I want to make sure
that's correct, that we don't mislead you. That covers the -- I think I covered the stub
street to Volterra and I think that's primarily most of it. The changes that were noted by
staff we agree with and I think they are reasonable. And that includes my presentation.
So, I'll stand for questioning.
Rohm: Thank you.
Howard: Thank you.
Butler: Good evening, Commissioners. Joanne Butler, 251 East Front Street,
representing the applicant -- that's in Boise. Representing the applicant. And what
provided for you there -- and a copy to Josh Wilson, is a copy of Exhibit B, which are the
conditions of approval, with the few conditions that we have tabbed here for you,
showing the changes that we would ask you to make in your conditions of approval.
And very simply, I will go through those. The first one on page one, 1.2.6 just would be
the change that represents the correct lot numbers due to the movement of the
amenities from where the original plan shows them to where the staff had
recommended they be. So, that's what 1.2.6 would represent. On the next page we
deal with a couple of different things, the street stub and also the school district issue.
And so I will address those just briefly. 1.2.11 or 11 deals with that stub street. We will
deal with this in the appropriate way. However, the way it has been requested would
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 11 of 113
conflict with a couple of things. One would be the proposed school site and it would
also conflict with the ACHD offset requirements. And I may have, from a technical
perspective, maybe have Mr. Howard come back and explain that as well. But we see
that that does conflict with ACHD's offset requirements. Also, somebody mentioned the
idea of a pathway to the school. If this winds up being a school site, it was a condition
of approval for Volterra that if a school site were placed in this area, that rather than a
stub street, a path would be put in. So, it really -- I think that's one of those conditions
that remains to be seen how it's handled in the future, if this will be a school site, maybe
this becomes a pathway. 1.2.12 and .13 deals with the school site issues and you can
see that we did a couple of things. We deleted the request that the staff had for three
additional lots and we also deleted or made a change to the condition in connection with
the school site. The proposal that we have had -- we have been meeting with the
school district, one private developer with the school district, to discuss a proposed site
and we have provided or shown a site, four acres. The school district is asking for a ten
acre site in this vicinity. I appreciate the fact that somebody raised the issue of how
large Volterra is, how large Bainbridge is, how large Keego is. We, in fact, have 15
percent of the residential lots in here, yet we are showing that we would assist the
school district with a size of site of four acres or 40 percent of the site and we are willing
to do this under a couple of different scenarios. Given that we are providing 40 percent
of the site, then, an additional three lots we don't think is appropriate to ask of this
particular developer in this particular site. So, we -- that's why we deleted 1.2.11. With
regard to the other site -- and we do appreciate the fact that staff tried to find a way to
address this issue, how do we get this addressed, and they were putting the burden on
us to get the negotiation done with the private developer, although we want to ask that
go back to the school district school. The district has been dealing with us and we have
been willing to say we will put four acres up and we ask the school district to deal with
the next door developer to try to gain those other six acres. And so we have changed
this condition and we ask that you look at this. We have said that the condition would
read as follows: That we will hold this site over the next 12 or 13 months, that we will
hold this site until the school district is able to finalize its negotiations with the adjacent
property owner. But if the school district is not able to obtain a reasonable amount of
acreage from the person next door -- from the owner next door, then, we would come
back to the city and ask for a re -plat along the lines of our original submittal. So, we are
saying that we would hold this area for the school district for the next 12 months to the
earlier date, either when utilities are available or 12 months from today's date. And we
think that that's a reasonable position. It puts the negotiations back with the -- correctly
with the school district and the developer next door. The other changes where you
have tabs in here are also a repeat of the requirement for a stub street. Both the fire
department and the ACHD had this issue of a location of a particular stub street, but
that was before we started talking about this school site and the condition as it reads
now would conflict with that school site and conflict with ACHD's offset requirements.
So, I guess what we are saying is we would delete that for now, pending a
determination as to whether or not a school site ever comes into -- into fruition with
successful negotiations by the school district with the adjacent property owner. I would
really appreciate any questions that the Commission has and I will try to explain more
where we are headed with this. Also, let me just mention also with regard to the school
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 12 of 113
site, I think that the Commission is very much aware that there is a recent Supreme
Court ruling that has directed the legislature to deal with the funding for schools and
there are several bills that are pending in the legislature right now, possibly looking at
impact fees for school districts, and we'd just like to get it on the record that if it should
come to pass that -- for example, school districts are -- their capital improvements and
their land are paid for, because due to impact fees, we would, obviously, not want to
pay twice. If it comes to pass in the future that we have to pay -- in fact, we are more
than happy to pay our fair share, but we would revisit that at the time of final plat. I think
that's it. I think Mr. Howard's addressed the issue with the folks up to the north and the
buffering that -- the automatic buffering by virtue of how far distant their homes are from
this site. So, I think the school district is probably the biggest issue. Be happy to
answer any questions.
Rohm: My first question is -- I want to talk about that four acres just for a moment. If
understood you correctly, if the school district's not able to negotiate with the neighbors
for the other six acres, then, is it your point that you wanted to have the opportunity to
go ahead and develop those four acres into usable lots if, in fact, the other six acres
couldn't be obtained by the district? Is that what your plan was?
Butler: That's correct. If the district can't obtain a site large enough for a school in this
area, then, we would want to -- it would just -- obviously, would be just sitting there and
we would want the opportunity to come back to the city and along the lines of our
original plan.
Rohm: Okay. All right. I thought that that's what you said, but I wanted to just ask the
question. That's all I had.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: In regards to the stub street to the south, as far as what you noted somewhat
deleting it, are you requesting to delete the requirement for a stub street or just the
location where you were anticipating it going?
Butler: I think it's just location, really. It's really just the location and, then, also do we
do a stub street or a pathway.
Moe: I just want to make sure, because the other gentleman said they didn't have a
problem with the stub street.
Butler: Right. Right.
Moe: As I read this, it's --
Butler: It's just the location. Correct.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 13 of 113
Moe: Okay.
Butler: And maybe this is something that we need to workout with Ada County Highway
District based on their offset requirements and the possible location of a school.
Moe: I would anticipate that just as long as the wording within a motion reads that you
were going to provide the stub street that's south into the Volterra Subdivision is what
we would be looking for. That's it for me.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Butler: Thank you.
Borup: I had the same question, so you took care of that.
Butler: I will just reserve a few minutes for rebuttal if necessary. Thanks.
Zaremba: I can't tell if Commissioner Borup is asking -- were you going to ask a
question or --
Borup: No. I had the same --
Zaremba: Oh. Okay.
Borup: I had the same question as --
Zaremba: I didn't hear that. I would just comment before we go on, on the impact fee,
should it happen that there is a school district impact fee, my guess is that it would be
crafted similar to the ACHD impact fee, where if a developer, in fact, builds a road and
pays an impact fee, they can apply to get their impact fee back or some portion of it that
goes along to what they spent or what they gave in right of way or something, and I
would assume there would not be a double whammy somehow.
Rohm: I suspect that would be the case.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, could I just request -- would the applicant do me the favor and take
your boards down from the ledge, so that we can kind of see the screen now? I'm
getting confused every time I see it. Thank you very much.
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to have Wendell Bigham come up.
Bigham: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Wendell Bigham, 911 Meridian Road, Meridian,
Idaho. Here representing Joint School District No. 2. In no particular order, we
appreciate the opportunity to work with Mr. Campbell to acquire a school site. This is by
far the worst situation that I can think of for the school district to be in. I will explain how
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 14 of 113
we got to be where we are, as to why Bainbridge and Volterra arguably fell through the
cracks. Where we stand today is Mr. Campbell representing Keego Springs has come
forth with their architects and their engineers and we have worked on a site layout that's
on approximately eight and a half to nine acres. Ten acres is our preferred site. We
were trying to minimize the lot impact of both Volterra and to Bainbridge -- excuse me --
Keego Springs. Bainbridge really had nothing to contribute in a usable way. It was an
odd piece of ground that really gave us difficult supervision area for the playground, so
we terminated our discussions with them. We have a proposed layout. I have a little
drawing here, but I don't see it. It just simply shows the school site. What's happening
is the piece of property is none too wide given the size of our building, so I will speak to
the first issue. The stub street. Right now in the absence of counsel, architect, or
engineer, I'm all you have got for whatever your questions might be. The elementary
school site, because it's on a small site, requires three curb cuts, primary parking lot
area and, then, a bus loop in and out. So, our number of curb cuts and, then ACHD's
distance limitation maybe make a pedestrian path more advantageous in terms of the
number of curb cuts. As stated, we simply need to move forward with all due haste to
bring Keego Springs, Volterra, and ACHD and the school district together to talk about
that interconnection. The discussion as to whether or not there should be a pedestrian
access into the school up in this area -- if you go back to the other drawing. This is a
little out of scale. That building -- it's surrounded by parking lot and offset. We get a
huge sea of parking around the front of it. The pedestrian -- can you flip back to the
plat? Excellent. Pedestrian access here certainly works for these -- this area. We will
be talking to Bainbridge to see if we can reinvent the wheel over here to get some
pedestrian access in. If not, Bainbridge can access into here, whether or not pedestrian
access should be in that vicinity or not. So, I'd like to talk to ACHD about the curb cuts,
the offsets. Want me to finish up?
Rohm: No.
Borup: That's from the previous -- wasn't it?
Rohm: Continue, please.
Bigham: Thank you. We are in discussions with Volterra. We have -- we are not at the
level that they have agreed to the indicated amount of property. Both parties we have
not talked about price or purchase. However, the school district is desirous to proceed
as soon as possible. If the condition went forward to City Council, that the school
district needs to have the deal struck with Keego Springs on the acquisition of the site.
We would agree to anything that brings the parties to the table quickly. We are working
as fast as we can to bring Volterra to the table. We will find a way to get resolution of
this. It ultimately will be a school site. In the absence of that, this square mile probably
will be without an elementary school site, unless we move clear to the other side. So, to
answer how things came to be the way they are, our last bond issue was in 2002. We
ran out of bond money for site acquisition in early 2003. In early 2003 we started
negotiations on this very piece of property with the previous land owner for the 50 acre
parcel for a joint elementary and school site. We talked to them for over a year. We felt
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 15 of 113
we were in good stead to acquire that site. During that time period Bainbridge and
Volterra came forward. In the name of cost effectiveness, the district is trying to look at
consolidating schools into a campus so we get better utilization of the land that we
have. After approval of Bainbridge and Volterra, our negotiations fell through and Mr.
Campbell successfully purchased the property. Left us with a real dilemma. We still
need an elementary school for this square mile. That's what triggered this whole thing
was, hopefully, the ability to work with this development and Volterra. We are still left in
a very large quandary for a middle school site in the area. We are rapidly approaching
a severe overcapacity and we are looking like crazy for a middle school site in this area
that's separate from this. We are also looking for a high school site. So, I think with that
we are here through no fault of really anybody, but a series of circumstances. So, with
that I would gladly stand and answer any questions that you have or --
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I'm a little bit confused. This applicant, as I understand it, has four acres set
aside for the school and you spoke earlier about eight and a half acres. Where is the
other four and a half acres?
Borup: Volterra.
Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, it's coming out of Volterra.
Moe: Okay.
Bigham: Do you want to put that magic little -- there is the southern boundary of Keego.
This is the chunk from Volterra. This is my curb cut problem potentially there. A
parking lot in here or a bus loop in here. So, there would arguably be four curb cuts in
this vicinity and that's kind of the concern. And this is approximately four and a half --
4.3 acres, something -- fourish acres out of Volterra.
Moe: Thank you.
Bigham: And this drawing was a planning drawing. The representation on the Keego
Springs plat is much more accurate.
Borup: Are you done? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Do you have any -- you said you're working
on negotiation with Volterra. Is there an estimate on time frame? The applicant had
mentioned one year. Is that more than reasonable from your view point or --
Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, the one year is more than we would
want. We have multiple calls in and the individual representing Volterra as the
negotiating contact has been out of town. We hope to meet with them immediately and,
quite frankly, I'd like all this to be over in 30 days.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 16 of 113
Borup: Okay.
Bigham: So, really don't need a year in the negotiation. Certainly hope -- well, we will
know if it falls apart before then.
Borup: Okay.
Rohm: Thank you. Any other questions of this testimony?
Zaremba: Thank you.
Bigham: Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you, Wendell. At this time I'd like to ask Don Brown if he would like to
come forward, please.
Brown: Don Brown. I live at 4595 West Rambling Court. Abut on the north end of the
property that's to be discussed. And I am speaking on behalf of the homeowners of the
Rambo Subdivision. We are missing a couple of us.
Rohm: You're speaking for a group?
Brown: Yes.
Rohm: Could I see a show of hands for those to whom he is speaking? Okay.
Brown: Yeah. We are a relatively small subdivision. There is only four properties that
do abut. We have been there for a considerable amount of time and we do have rather
large acreages, as Mr. Howard did explain. And we did have the initial meeting on
10/13, as you can see from my time line, and that was the topic of our concern, is that
this is a very dense subdivision and we have rather large acreages and we would like to
preserve our -- not only our property values, but our property rights. We have had very
open spaces -- while he was discussing the setbacks we do have of our houses. We do
also have animals and which we have got them on the back of the properties which
would abut directly with this proposed subdivision. And at our initial meeting Mr.
Howard recommended that we ask for the buffering. So, it's something that you did
recommend early on. Excuse me. And, then, following the meeting we had with
Howard, we had a neighborhood meeting, we discussed all these issues, and in the
process of this as well, the topic of the school came up and from that I did go in and
make my -- our wishes known from the property owners to Mr. Howard, that if the
school was to go into the subdivision, that we would be more than open for the school to
be on the north end of the property, so that we would actually butt up against the school
property. And if that was not available to us, then, we would like things adjusted so that
the larger properties were put adjacent to our properties to maintain a flow and not just
give the appearance of a subdivision that's kind of crammed in there, which this is a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 17 of 113
very dense subdivision. So, what we came together as a neighborhood and discussed
was that we would like a landscape berm in between the properties, possibly with a
fence on top, just to allow us some safety wishes between the potential property owners
of Keego and ourselves, just to create a little bit more of a buffer and just so we have
some continuity. It seems like we have got a lot of subdivisions going in the area, which
they are just utilizing the space that they have and putting as many houses as they
possibly can cram into an individual parcel as they possibly can get. And in addition to
the berm just landscape, we have got rather mature trees and whatnot in our area, so
we are just trying to create a feel, so that the neighborhoods blend together rather than
just something that's set apart. And since we have been a rural street, we are a dead
end, it's a cul-de-sac, we have no sidewalks and we do have kids that play down at the
end of this cul-de-sac and one of our concerns as well is you have got all these cuts
going in there and what's to keep somebody from coming down to the end of our dead
end street, finding it's a dead end street and, then, having to go back out the other end.
It is marked now, which it hadn't been up until this year. So, we do have children
playing down there. We also have a handicapped individual in a wheelchair that
occasionally goes out into the cul-de-sac. So, we have got some safety issues that we
are dealing with as well. And, then, the other concern, which the traffic counts were not
addressed, but with Volterra they were -- they addressed a potential for 10,000 vehicle
visits down the street. Black Cat has not been widened. There are no plans, to the best
of my knowledge for Chinden to be widened. The speed along the road is 50 miles an
hour on Black Cat. You're pulling onto 55 on Highway 20-26. You're putting in another
entrance here, there is an entrance for Volterra, you have got a potential for a lot of
accidents on the road. So, aside from us seeing any plans or -- I don't know if you're
privy to information that hasn't been released -- I don't think there is anything coming
that shows that these roads are going to be widened, so you have got a definite
problem in that area. And, then, into November we did express this again to Mr.
Howard about the school district. I, then, got on the phone and talked to Mr. Bigham
about the issue and he informed me of the fact that they were trying to procure some
extra property down to share with Volterra, just so there wouldn't be a burden on both
property owners. So, today I did go in and I talked with Mr. Howard and he's kind of
expressed what was going on with the subdivision and this is the first I had heard about
the vinyl fence. That's not acceptable to us as property owners. It would esthetically
not blend into the neighborhood out there. It would be just a nice vinyl fence. If we
could work something out where we could landscape that buffer a little bit more and, as
I said, maybe put the larger lots up on the north border, we would be perfectly amenable
to that. As it stands right now, we are not opposed to the subdivision, but we are
opposed to this current plat. And with the school situation as well, just backing up a
little bit, if your passes are not able to get this through, I have two kids, one goes to
Sawtooth, they are severely overcrowded, nearly capped. Hunter was capped the day it
was open. If there is not a school in here, you have got 1,336 homes that will have
been approved between the three subdivisions, you're going to have a real problem and
so you need to hold off on this subdivision until something absolute is done with the
school. And Volterra is not in any obligation, because they have already been approved
through City Council, so they are off and running. So, this is the subdivision that's going
to maybe take the burden of it and, if that's the case, we would be more than willing on
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 18 of 113
putting a school on the north end. And so, essentially, what we are requesting is if that
can be done, we would like a landscape berm with a fence and we would also like the
opportunity to meet with the developer. Currently everything we have done has been
proactively from our part meeting with the engineer. We have not yet met with the
developer and he has not made an effort to meet with us individually. So, with that said,
we hope you take this into consideration when you're making your decision. Is there
any questions?
Rohm: Any questions of this testimony? Thank you.
Brown: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Margaret Pariko. And Joanne Bick? Oh, excuse me. It was Joanne Butler.
Thank you. Let's see, is there anybody else that would like to testify on this application
at this time? Okay. At this time I'd like to have the applicant come forward.
Canning: Mrs. Butler, we can put the comp plan up larger and zoom in on the piece, if
you'd like us to. You want that whole section?
Butler: That would be great.
Zaremba: The wonders of technology. While that's getting set up, Mr. Chairman, if I
may?
Rohm: Absolutely.
Zaremba: I would ask the applicant one question that was left hanging in the staff
report. It's on a staff report page eight and it's paragraph seven. Variance for block
length and setbacks. The City Council, actually, is the one to which you have to apply
for the variance, except that they asked us to clarify what you are requesting for front
setbacks in your variance, so that staff has a heads up. Just include that in your
discussion.
Butler: I'm sorry, what was the -- for Mr. Howard, what section was that in the staff
report?
Zaremba: It's page eight, paragraph seven.
Butler: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Variance for block length and setbacks and I guess the question from staff is
can you be more specific?
Butler: Okay. Thank you. Anna, thank you. Okay. Just wanted to focus in on this
section and the school -- and I thank Mr. Bigham for addressing this issue and just to
set a little bit of a stage for this particular location, as you can see close to the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 19 of 113
neighborhood commercial area you see the little symbol for the school, which is where
the Comprehensive Plan promotes a school for this area and staff confirmed that the
text for the Comprehensive Plan talks about probably the most appropriate place for a
school is where you have mixed use, the neighborhood commercial areas, and so on.
So, Keego Springs -- and if I might, because I don't have a pointer -- over in this area --
is a bit far from that neighborhood commercial area and from where the Comprehensive
Plan would promote it with its text and with its symbol as a guidance, yet our particular
property owner has stepped up to the plate and I was wrong when I said it was four
acres, it's actually 4.9. So, that's about 60 percent of what the school district is saying
it's looking for in about an 8.5 acre site. So, we have been more than happy to work
with the school district and we are very glad to hear Mr. Bigham talk about the fact that
they are working so diligently with Volterra for the remaining acreage, which, I guess,
would underscore the change in the condition of approval that we have asked for to
have the school district versus us as a private landowner next door to continue those
negotiations. So, we are looking forward to that. I appreciate also that Mr. Bigham is
saying that they would not need a year and so if I would -- although I have asked for
January 2007, 1 would push that back to June 2006 as a little bit of incentive to get that
finished, too. So, if the Commission would consider that. With regard to the area to the
north -- I don't know if I can do this in a fashion that you can see the aerial photograph.
I think if Mr. Howard can show this a little bit. What you had where the area -- this
would be the area below, which would be the proposed Keego Springs and you can see
in the Randall Acres we have some out buildings and so on. We have an equestrian
area, and it looks like a corral along the area. It's -- obviously, there is -- if the
neighbors truly did want to do a berm on their side of the ground for further berming or
berm landscape, they could do that. I think that what you see here is a much great
effect on Keego -- what will be Keego Springs than on Randall, that we have an
equestrian area, out buildings, and so on right up close to -- close to the border on
some of these boundaries and it probably is not appropriate to do more than the six foot
privacy fence along that and I think that having just recently done that in another
development, that has proven to be a very nice buffer for -- especially given what we
see along the boundary. So, we would continue to suggest that that is the appropriate
buffer for that area. Somebody mentioned -- and we are sorry that one of the neighbors
was not able to meet with Mr. Campbell right at the neighbor meeting. There were
neighborhood meetings held. I asked Mr. Campbell if he was there and he had had
surgery the day before, which is why he couldn't attend. But I know that Mr. Howard
has admirably carried through the details of the project with the neighbors. So, with
that, unless there are other questions from the Commission, we would respectfully ask
that you do recommend approval of this project with the minor changes to the conditions
of approval that we have requested. Thank you.
Rohm: Before you step away, they had also asked about the type of fencing that you
propose here and I think your proposal calls for vinyl and --
Butler: Vinyl.
Rohm: -- I'm not sure what alternative --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 20 of 113
Butler: Design? Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
Rohm: What your neighbors would have considered as an acceptable alternative, but --
Butler: From vinyl?
Rohm: Yeah. From vinyl.
Butler: I don't know and maybe they can speak to that. It sounded like they were
saying berm plus fence and so I didn't get the impression that vinyl was unacceptable, I
think they were asking for something greater than just --
Rohm: Just a berm in addition to the fence.
Butler: Right.
Rohm: Okay. Right. Thank you. Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Not a question of the applicant, but I thought I heard it a little differently. That's
why I'm curious about -- I understood that they didn't want the vinyl fencing as well.
They were looking for a different type of material.
Butler: Well, possibly we need to clarify that, because I'm not sure. And also as I look
at my notes, just so that the Commission is aware, a traffic analysis has been done
showing the capacity of the roads is there, that was approved by ACHD. It originally
was scheduled for staff level. They did it, actually, at the Commission level, so that
occurred.
Rohm: Just so that we can get some clarity to this, I'd like to have the previous
testimony -- would you come forward, please, and let's talk about that fence in a little bit
more --
Brown: Just a point of clarification. Mr. Campbell never made an attempt to meet with
us.
Rohm: We are talking the fence --
Brown: Okay. The fence -- we didn't hear anything about the fence until I went in
today. If I wouldn't have -- if I wouldn't have specifically asked about the fence, we
would have not known anything until we got here tonight.
Rohm: What my question is is what fence is acceptable?
Brown: We would prefer a wood fence and we would prefer it to be landscaped better
than --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 21 of 113
Rohm: Like a cedar fence?
Brown: That would be fine.
Rohm: Okay. I'm not obligating the applicant to that, but we need to know what
alternative to a vinyl fence is acceptable.
Brown: We hadn't been given any other options from the developer.
Rohm: I think you have answered my question. Thank you.
Borup: I think probably -- I mean the vinyl fence is usually -- not usually, it's a more
expensive fence. It's the type of fence you usually have in the more expensive upscale
subdivisions, so --
Rohm: Absolutely. And --
Borup: -- we assumed that that was --
Rohm: -- I'm not trying to obligate the applicant to anything, but for point of clarification,
at least now there is some understanding of what the neighbors would view as more
acceptable.
Butler: Right. And I did talk with Mr. Campbell just briefly as you were discussing.
Obviously, the vinyl is a much more expensive fence, it's -- we think it's a much better
look in the area. Cedar -- I guess maintenance and so on, I don't know that that's --
appreciate that they are asking for that. I don't know that they may appreciate the
maintenance and whatnot that they will have to deal with because of that. So, I would
suggest that the vinyl fence is a much better alternative for the neighbors. I do
appreciate that they are asking for cedar, however.
Rohm: Okay. Just -- thank you.
Borup: How about color? That's an option.
Rohm: Yeah. Maybe a vinyl fence with a beige, as opposed to the white, and, then,
you get kind of a combination of the two. Something like that.
Zaremba: For the record, the applicant is nodding his head --
Rohm: Thanks --
Zaremba: -- yes.
Rohm: -- Commissioner Dave. Let's see.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 22 of 113
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to just get a little bit more clarification, you know, in regard
to the stub street. We talked about the walking path or a stub street to the south.
heard a little bit of conflicting information and I want to get clear in my mind just exactly -
- I mean are we anticipating that we will require them to put a stub street to the south,
we just don't know location as of yet, or are we looking to review that in light of the
school district's testimony in regards to possibly just a walking path in lieu of the stub
street?
Borup: Good question.
Moe: Is that kind of where this is?
Borup: Well, that's what I understood --
Moe: Okay.
Borup: -- that the applicant said, yes, they'd do a stub street. The school district is not
saying -- I'm not sure of a stub street is called for --
Moe: Okay. That's --
Borup: -- because of the school located there.
Moe: Okay.
Borup: And I don't think they -- we didn't have any testimony on how the road
connection is between Bainbridge and Volterra.
Rohm: I think that the thing that's kind of unsettling to me is -- is this school site is a
major issue associated with the development of this total square mile and it seems to
me that it's in the best interest of the community as a whole to insure that we have a
school site within this square mile and it sounds like the school district is making great
strides to procure the offsite ground to end up with an acreage that's large enough to
develop an elementary school that is beneficial to all parties concerned and so along
those lines if the 30 days is something that the school district thinks that they can bring
this to fruition, it seems to me that it might be in everybody's best interest to rather than
approve this based upon an assumption that everything is going to come together in 30
days for the school district, it seems to me that maybe the right answer is to let's give
the school district that 30 days to come up with the solution and, then, bring us back
and continue it until the district has an opportunity to obtain it. That seems something
that would be reasonable, but that's just my thoughts. And I'm more than willing to have
the applicant come forward and speak to that.
Borup: I have got a question, too, Mr. Chairman.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 23 of 113
Rohm: Okay. Go ahead. Commissioner Borup.
Borup: And she can still come forward while --
Rohm: Okay.
Borup: If the school district does not reach an agreement, then, what would you foresee
happening then?
Rohm: I hadn't thought that far ahead.
Zaremba: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think the existence of the school in this location has an
impact on where a stub street's going to go to the neighboring properties, where
pathways would go, so there are some issues that -- beyond just whether there is a
school or not, that we continue to hang, and I support your idea of perhaps continuing
this. I think we should get it all out now, as much as we can, but continuing it until there
is a resolution or an apparent resolution, even if it's not all signed and finished, that we
know what direction it's going to go.
Rohm: That's kind of where I'm leaning, but I'm certainly more than willing to let the
applicant speak --
Butler: Commissioners, we have deferred this a couple of times. I have to say that
pointed out the Comprehensive Plan and the location of the school and the guidance
that the Comprehensive Plan provides you to show you that the Comprehensive Plan
guides you away from this particular property. It guides you towards property that has
not yet developed at the edge of where I think Bainbridge is still the owner or the owner
of Bainbridge still has school -- or has property available. And I know that the school
district has said -- or Mr. Bigham has said that they are working solely with Volterra, but
I'm pointing that out only because I'm saying that our client has worked diligently to put
up before the city -- to do more -- honestly, more than their fair share to get this
accomplished and we are glad that the school district is working diligently towards
getting this done, but I think that if we take this off the table and defer it more, it takes
away the incentive to get that done. Although we are willing to work very diligently with
the school district, we think we have really done a great deal towards getting this done
by stepping up to the plate and we think if this is -- I guess if the pressure isn't on, then,
maybe it doesn't happen. And since we don't think that it's really our client's -- totally
our client's issue, especially when the pupil population is about 15 percent of all of the
pupil population in this square mile, that we do look to the Commission to help guide the
school district to make those negotiations happen as quickly as possible and I think with
you recommending this up to the Commission, obviously -- or to the Council, obviously,
the school district, by the time they get to the Council, may have already gotten this
done and, hopefully, they will have and maybe the Commission could encourage the
school district to work hard to make that happen before we do get to the Council.
Rohm: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 24 of 113
Zaremba: While you're still there, I need to ask a question of staff. The subject I raised,
page eight, paragraph seven, about the variance and being more specific, do you need
to know that information tonight? It appears you were asking for us to get that
information.
Butler: We would like to know that information, but it's really essential for the variance
application when it reaches Council. It does affect the subdivision as a whole, so --
Zaremba: I guess the question, then, is will you be able to supply those details at some
time?
Howard: We'd like to withdraw that variance.
Zaremba: Okay.
Howard: I stand corrected.
Zaremba: Belay that statement.
Howard: Yes. Excuse me. The block length is what we'd like to withdraw and the rest
of it can probably stand.
Zaremba: Okay. So, the setbacks are off the table, then?
Howard: Right.
Zaremba: Okay.
Howard: I'm sorry.
Zaremba: Is staff comfortable with that answer?
Wilson: Let me clarify a little bit. The block length header on that discussion point in
the staff report is a little bit misleading. The applicant references a block length
variance on the face of their plat. They do not need a block length variance and they
did not pay for a block length variance. They paid for a single variance for -- to front
setbacks. So, that is the variance that's the application they have submitted. So, if they
are wishing to withdraw that, then, that's the only variance.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rohm: I'm not sure where to go from there. I --
Zaremba: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would just comment that I sympathize with the
applicant's desire to move this along and get it done, but I still kind of lean towards what
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 25 of 113
you expressed and what I commented on, that there are elements that need to be
rethought, depending on whether the school property is there or not. If we were to
continue it for one month and, then, promise that we will make the decision that night
whether the school's settled or not, we at least would know how much closer the school
is going to be.
Rohm: That's the direction that I lean as well and, you know, just to emphasize that the
school district needs to make every effort to get that resolved in the next 30 days, is in --
in the best interest of the community as a whole. That's as I see it as well.
Commissioner Borup, do you have some concluding thoughts on this?
Borup: Well, I definitely agree on the necessity of the school site. I mean after Mr.
Bigham's testimony I understand why this happened. I was real confused why
something wasn't done on some of the earlier ones. It appears that they were
anticipating that they had that locked up. One of the things I was wondering is how
much vacant land in the rest of this square mile. That I don't think we had any
testimony on. But the real question I have is what do we gain by waiting? Is it the
location of the stub street, location of the walking path, or is there something else we
are concerned about?
Rohm: Well, I think it's those things as well.
Borup: What are the concerns, I guess is what all I'm trying to figure out.
Rohm: From my perspective I think that the opportunity of procurement of additional
acreage for the school site is enhanced by not acting tonight, rather than --
Borup: Additional from this application or from Volterra?
Rohm: From Volterra. That's my personal opinion, but that's -- that's just my opinion.
And, then, it may not be by anybody else. I think that if we were to put this off for the 30
days, it would, obviously, give the school district the 30 days that they thought that they
could get this completed in and, then, we would be able to move this forward as a
completed project to City Council without any hang -- anything hanging -- any hang-ups.
So, that's just from my perspective. So, that's --
Borup: And that's probably the only concern I have is maybe not having a final detailed
plat and so maybe the determination is how substantial of a change that would be with
the stub street. From what I saw -- I didn't even see Volterra had a stub street to this
property. Josh, is there -- the only thing I saw of Volterra was the one from the school
district and I didn't see a stub street on that plat.
Wilson: Volterra does have an approved stub street to this property and it lines up with
the middle of that alley right now.
Borup: Okay. It looked like that was open area or something. That wasn't -- all right.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 26 of 113
Wilson: It didn't show that stub street that --
Borup: That's going to --
Wilson: Right. On the approved Volterra plat there is --
Borup: Okay.
Wilson: -- a stub street there.
Borup: Okay. And at that location. All right. I don't think we heard that before, did we?
Wilson: In the condition in our staff report and ACHD's staff report, the location that is
specifically mentioned is 330 feet --
Borup: 330 feet.
Wilson: -- that is right there at that alley.
Rohm: Kind of changing the subject for just a moment, but the conditions of approval
as amended by the applicant's submittal, has staff had a chance to take a look at their
changes and do you have any comments on those?
Wilson: I do. The 1.2.6 that refers to the amenities, staff does not have an issue with
that. 1.2.11 in regards to the stub street, instead of deleting that, we would like to see
some kind of reference to connecting to a stub street from Volterra. I think the location
is what -- and if a stub street does, indeed, end up happening, if Volterra is reconfigured
such that they do not stub to this property, then, we would support that. But if there is a
stub street we would like to see it connected and I think that's, really, the important part
of that. So, I wouldn't like to see it completely deleted, would like to see that just
modified to reflect that. In regards to the school site and how that goes down, I think
that's up to the Commission if you feel comfortable moving -- acting on it or not, with the
reduced time frame that the applicant did agree to, if you feel like that is in the best
interest of the city, in effect.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: I think the other part of that was -- or did you address 1.2.12 on the additional
lots?
Rohm: I guess that one's up for discussion. Why that was in there is that if that stub
street remained at the center of that alley, you have one residential lot between a street
and the school site, you end up with this guy right here, and that's pretty awkward, so
that's what --
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
February 2, 2006
Page 27 of 113
Borup: Is that what that was based on --
Wilson: Yes.
Borup: -- the stub street would go there? Well, that makes sense and I was just looking
at the -- and the other were these two, it looks like you were talking about.
Wilson: It seemed to make more sense to square off the school site, instead of having
also these homes that kind of awkwardly set out within the school site.
Borup: But it didn't appear to me that it really affected the siting of the building or
affected anything that the school needed.
Wilson: I don't think so. It --
Borup: At least -- I mean we don't have a final layout, but --
Wilson: Right. It's hard to say without a final school layout.
Rohm: Thank you. Well, I think we have pretty well thoroughly discussed this and at
this point I'd be interested in hearing a motion either to continue or to move this project
forward.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Let's see if it flies. I move that we continue AZ 05-058 and PP 05-060 to our
regularly scheduled meeting of March 2nd for the purpose of revisiting the school site
and the implications of it either being there or not being there.
Rohm: We have a motion.
Moe Well, I'll second that.
Rohm: And a second. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. All
opposed same sign.
Borup: Aye.
Rohm: And I voted with the affirmative, so this --
Zaremba: Three to one you're saying?
Rohm: Three to one. Yes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 28 of 113
Zaremba: Okay.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: And so this will be continued to the regularly scheduled meeting of March 2nd,
2006, and for the sole purpose of discussion of the school site and the associated stub
streets and pathway.
Borup: And, Mr. Chairman, yeah, I think it would help if we -- and a preliminary plat
showing the stub street and how that would affect the school site and such would be
helpful.
Rohm: Yes, it would. Thank you. Due to the length of that application discussion, we
typically wait until 9:00 o'clock to take a break, but we are going to take a short break
right now for about ten minutes. So, we are adjourned until 20 minutes until 9:00.
(Recess.)
Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from January 5, 2006: AZ 05-057 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 17.25 acres from RUT and R1 to R-8, R-15
and C -G zones for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff
Development, LLC — 2935 North Eagle Road:
Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from January 5, 2006: RZ 05-019 Request
for a Rezone of 10.05 acres from C -G to R-8, R-15 and C -G zones for
Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC — 2935
North Eagle Road
Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from January 5, 2006: PP 05-059 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 54 single family residential lots, 22 multi-
family residential lots, 14 common lots and 7 commercial lots for Bienville
Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC — 2935 North Eagle
Road:
Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from January 5, 2006: CUP 05-052 Request
for Conditional Use Permit for Mixed Use Regional project within 300 feet
of a residence for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff
Development, LLC — 2935 North Eagle Road:
Rohm: Okay. I'd like to reopen the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and
Zoning Commission for February 2nd, 2006, and begin with opening the continued
Public Hearing for AZ 05-057, RZ 05-019, PP 05-059, and CUP 05-052. All of these
relating to Bienville Square Subdivision and begin with the staff report.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. Bienville
Square Subdivision is an annexation. This portion up here. The annexation is for this
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 29 of 113
portion listed in purple on the screen. The annexation is for 18.43 acres and I will go
into the zoning here in a second. The second portion is a rezone of this portion that's
listed in red here. These two parcels are the Bienville Square Subdivision annexation
and rezone. With that, the annexation will require a development agreement and this
portion listed in red -- or shown in red has an existing development agreement tied to it
at this time that I'll try and go into a little bit further here in a second. With this, the site
is located on the southeast corner of Ustick and Eagle. It is approximately 600 feet
south of that intersection and mostly in a southwesterly direction. There is one major
feature, which is the Finch Lateral, which runs around the perimeter of this site. The
Finch Lateral has a 40 foot irrigation easement on it for Nampa -Meridian Irrigation
District. The Finch Lateral will be tiled on this site, as well as there is a user's lateral
that comes in approximately where I'm slowing off of Eagle Road and would continue
through this site, which also will be piped and Public Works will certify that the ins and
outs of that tile pipe will be maintained. With this we have a plat. The plat for 54 single
family residential lots, 24 -- 22 multi -family residential lots, 14 common lots, seven
commercial lots for the entire site of 27.3 acres and the Conditional Use Permit is a
conditional use permit that is issued due to the fact that this is a mixed use regional
district, which is within 300 feet of a residential district. Tried to have Barb include a
slide. This is a slide that I created tonight. It's very rough, but it shows a little better
definition of what the three zoning designations would be for the site. Closest to Eagle
Road the applicant is proposing a general commercial district. The general commercial
district is approximately -- I believe it's 68 acres. The transitional district between the
commercial and single family residential is an R-15 district and, then, the R-8 district
would be to the furthest to the west. This is, actually, tilted a little bit odd ball. This is
facing to the east. North would be to the left of this slide. This has three distinct
portions -- three distinct portions, but there is, actually, four portions of it that I would like
to define. Closest to Eagle there is five building pad sites that are listed for office or
retail use, as well as two larger retail buildings approximately in the 12,000 square foot
range. This is in general commercial. These would be general commercial uses that
would be proposed at this site. The applicant has brought in an amended portion -- an
amended design for this general commercial area. Obviously, within the general
commercial area certain things can shift around slightly. The amended design, staff
would actually support better than this design, due to the fact that the applicant has an
ACHD condition that this portion must terminate and no access shall be directed to
Eagle Road. I should have pointed this out already. This is Sadie Creek Avenue, which
is a -- will be a public road. The public road will loop around the residential district. This
is a commercial cross -access point and there is private streets that have been applied
for in order to provide frontage and access to the multi -family. Now, with that there is a
commercial access point to Eagle being proposed with this site. The applicant has
taken this commercial access point and shifted it approximately to between the
southerly two most buildings. So, the access point to Eagle would be in this location
and that commercial access would continue down to what is referred as Cajun
Boulevard, which would be the private street. This access point here would facilitate
that commercial traffic between the Sadie Creek Promenade application, which was
recently approved to the north of this site, and it would facilitate a better commercial
cross -access to the private street system and, then, out to Eagle Road, as well as to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 30 of 113
satisfy ACHDs' conditions that the public street shall terminate and not provide a direct
access to Eagle Road. Staff would support that design. I will show you that here in a
second. The applicant does not have a hard copy of that I can show you at this time.
It's on his presentation. With this application staff has reviewed it in compliance with the
existing development agreement. This is the conceptual site plan that was brought
before the City Council for the annexation of the ten acres that lied originally within
2003. This site that was to the south of us did pull out of the annexation request, which
was the 18 acres. This site does indicate multi -family residential, as well as commercial
and office, with a transitional use to the residential uses west of this site. The
transitional use in this area is appropriately planned for. The applicant is providing the
multi -use pathway, as well as to landscape the Finch Lateral, according to the Unified
Development Code. The multi -family residential portion, obviously, is within the R-15,
which would be a condominium project, as well as the commercial operation. So, the
plan that is before you is consistent with what the development conceptual plan was
presented to the City Council in 2000 -- in 2003 and signed in 2004. With this we have
several elevations. These would be the alley loaded products and the condominium
projects. I'll let the applicant better define that area. One last thing. There are three
products residential. The condominium projects would be in the R-15 district. In the R-
8 district there is two areas of distinction. These are the front loaded single family
residential products. These lots do approximate in the eight to ten thousand square foot
range. There is some of them are actually larger, which provides a good transition to
the R-2 district to the south of this site. These products in the middle are an alley -
loaded product. They are, obviously, smaller lots and I don't have the lot size, but
believe those were around 4,500 square foot lots. The amenities to the site are
provided to -- there is a basketball court and tennis court, as well as significant open
space design. There is a minimum of 50 feet between these condominium units in the
center. There is a clubhouse with an on-site post office, so each one of these -- this
entire condominium unit would receive their mail at one central location. The applicant
is also proposing to provide the multi -use pathway that would -- that would connect
Eagle Road at this location and continue through to Ustick Road along the perimeter of
the site, which would be off that Finch Lateral. Probably forgetting a couple of things,
but I will stand for questions at this time. Staff is recommending approval of this
application. The dates of the design may change due to the applicant making up the
amendments to their site plan. Staff would support an approval of that, if the applicant -
- or if the applicant's design is satisfactory to this Commission tonight. And at that,
before I guess I'll stop, I'd like to show you the applicant's amended design. This would
be the revised design, which would show one large box retail unit. I believe the
applicant has indicated this would be something of an athletic club, as well as this would
shift that to the -- to the south. Staff would support this better, because this is
approximately the quarter mile location, which does better facilitate limited access to
Eagle than it would at the other alternate location. And I guess at that I will stand for
questions.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff?
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 31 of 113
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Joe, I just had one. I was going through the -- as far as the requirements and
noting in the R-17 -- or, excuse me, R-15, under the lot size, you had it noted as
required as a 8,424 and proposed a 2,400. Is that a type there, I assume? That would
be page six.
Guenther: Yep. That, actually, should be -- 8,424 is the propose lots, 2,400 is the
required lot.
Moe: Okay.
Guenther: Yeah.
Moe: I wanted to make sure. Thank you.
Borup: Oh. Just reversed.
Moe: Yeah.
Borup: Just -- Commissioner Moe, that was it? Just one clarification. Did you say the
pathway was going through to Ustick? I couldn't remember. The project would also be
doing a pathway there?
Guenther: Yes. They have 35 -foot landscaping in here that would continue that
pathway to the Ustick corridor.
Borup: Okay.
Moe: You said there were -- you do have a copy of the -- the new plat?
Guenther: This is the only -- the only revised layout that the applicant has delivered.
This would be the one that we would amend the staff report in order to approve tonight,
if you so chose.
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. Any other questions of staff? At this time I'd like to have the
applicant come forward, please.
Unger: Good evening, Mr. Chair and Commission Members. My name is Bob Unger,
I'm with Red Cliff Development. Our address is 787 East State Street, Suite 125, Eagle,
Idaho. 83616. And appreciate the excellent job staff has done in reviewing the project,
particularly with this revised plan, and we can just go ahead and start with this plan, so I
don't have to explain to you that we are changing it. And we also appreciate staffs
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
February 2, 2006
Page 32 of 113
recommendation for approval. If you remember, about a month ago we were on the
agenda to be heard. You did open up a hearing and we did ask for a postponement. At
that time we thought that we might be getting a commitment from a big box, which that
did not happen, so staff has recommended that we proceed with our application as
originally submitted. So, that's where we are now and I did want to explain to you what
has transpired in this past month. As staff has explained, Ada County Highway District
in their requirements specifically stated that they did not want us to have a public road
that connected from Ustick out to Eagle Road and as such that's part of what
necessitated this -- turning this into a cul-de-sac. So, the public road stops here and we
come back out to Ustick over here. This particular revision and relocating our access
over here is something that we did show to the neighbors. We had a neighborhood
meeting this past Saturday and they seemed to appreciate this revision over our original
access here and, if I remember correctly, I believe the Commission even said
something about that a month ago, that it would rather see something over here. So,
we have tried to do something here that works for everyone and for us. And as staff
has kind of discussed, we do have this public street access here over to Ustick. We
also have our private street here, which will come out and access to Ustick at a location
right in through here. There was a provision for the Sadie Creek Promenade folks to
provide us a cross -access for that and we were to coordinate with them to make that
location happen, which we are working with them to accomplish that. The access on
Eagle Road, we have actually moved that down to the quarter mile mark, which turns
out to have been a location that was identified during the original annexation of the
Rewe property, which is this portion of our property, which staff had shown you earlier.
That was one of the two locations. This location and another location right here for
access to Ustick Road -- or Eagle Road. So, we are trying to follow along with that also.
We have in our -- our ITD application for this access is pending at this time. Our traffic
engineer has been in contact with them and they are kind of holding off on ours and
also the Sadie Creek Promenade accesses. The indication we are getting is that they
are waiting to see what the City Council decides. So, we are hoping to get an answer
one of these days from them. As far as utilities, utilities are available to the site or close
enough that we can extend them into the site, sewer, water, through the city. All other
services are available and, of course, will be installed when we construct the project. If
we could go to the next one, Joe? I'm going to kind of run through these as best as
possible. This is our -- basically our retail area. And I know you have seen these two
pictures before, because these are the same pictures that the Sadie Creek Promenade
folks showed you and the only reason I really wanted to use these -- and forget the
palm trees, because that's not going to happen here. But what we want to convey here
is that we are going to work with the Sadie Creek Promenade folks to -- in our design, in
our architectural design, et cetera, so that we have two projects that work together well,
instead of conflicting architectural structures throughout the project. So, we want to
show that -- we are going to work with them and try to, you know, kind of work our
architecture so that we work as a unified design, instead of two separate designs. Joe,
could we go to the next one, please? All right. And this is in the middle portion of the
project, condominium portion of the project. These are the structures that we are
proposing. And, actually, we are -- we are modifying these structures slightly, so that all
three of these will be two car garages, instead of one. It makes it much more desirable
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 33 of 113
when everybody has a two car garage and it also helps out with the parking situation.
And if you will notice, we have drive alleyways -- or not really alleyway -- well, accesses
-- common accesses to access the garage areas. We have asked that fire review.
These we have met with fire and our accesses and, then, our drives are in compliance
with the fire requirements.
Moe: Could you note the south elevation? I'm interested in the --
Unger: Over here?
Moe: Yes. That's correct.
Unger: Okay. Well, you will see either this end or this end.
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
Unger: And also these structures are very unique. There is a full front porch, covered
front porch on these. You can kind of see it there from side angles. And they really do
take on a single family residential look in the design, although they are, you know, 4,000
square feet total. In fact, each of the units -- we have three bedroom, two bath units
and two bedroom, two bath units in there, and square footage ranges from 1,200 to
1,500 square feet. So, they are fairly nice condominiums. In the next portion of the
project we have alley -loaded or rear -loaded lots. We have a common drive that runs
down through here and, actually, it is going to be designated as a private road. And this
is an example of the type of structures that we are looking at putting in there. We will
work further -- with further detail in getting the full designs on these, but I wanted to give
you some sort of an idea of the appearance of the structures. We also have open
space area with a pathway running through this portion here. And we feel that these
are going to be pretty desirable and our lot ranges in there are just under 5,000 square
feet and we have some that range on up to 6,500 square feet, depending upon which
bend of the road you're in. Joe. And, then, on the -- our western border, which wraps
right around here, these are all front loaded. Once, again, we are just trying to give you
some sort of an idea, an example of the type of buildings we want to put in there.
didn't have any really good single stories to show you, but it would be a mix of some
single stories and two stories. These lots will range anywheres from I think 6,000
square feet up to -- over in this area we are looking into the 10,000 square foot. On the
rear loads and the front loads the square footage of the buildings that we are looking at
are somewhere in the area of at least 1,600 square feet up to 2,400 square feet. Okay.
We can go onto the next one, Joe. Thank you. Okay. As discussed by staff, we have
the Finch Lateral that runs along here. We are proposing to tile that. I have discussed
that with Nampa -Meridian, John Anderson, very preliminarily, and they would support us
doing that and we may also be able to get them to participate. Along with that we are
proposing to put in a pathway that would be located over top of the piped ditch and,
then, of course, our pathway runs across here. We will also tie into this short section
that the Sadie Creek Promenade not would do. Once, again, we have some pathways
running up through here. So, we are trying to get everything connected nicely. Along
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 34 of 113
with -- in discussing the Finch Lateral, we also have this lateral that runs down through
here. Actually, this one that runs right down -- I'm sorry, it's right here. Runs along this
parcel line. Of course, that would be piped and continued onto terminus over here
where it feeds other properties to the west. That would be reviewed by city -- the city
engineer and also we have a gentleman who kind of represents the users, we were
fortunate enough to meet him Saturday and discuss some of the issues on that lateral
and we feel that -- real confident that we can work with them and make sure that we
satisfy everybody's needs and continue the water flow through there. As far as open
space on this project, we have three plus acres of dedicated open space. I'm going to
start off over on this side where we are showing over here -- we have a volleyball court,
a basketball court, or a hard surface court. That's a horseshoe pit there. Over here we
are going to do a clubhouse and a pool. We have a tot lot in this area. And this is all
open space area here for recreational purposes. All of the area in between these
condos -- and we have over 60 feet between the buildings in here, so it's a fairly large
area of open space, sufficient enough for, you know, kids to go out there and throw a
football and things like that. Intermixed throughout all of this we have some picnic
tables, barbecue pits, and things like that. We are very aware that a development such
as this -- and particularly in the higher density areas, that we need recreational areas,
particularly for kids, so that the kids aren't running over into the neighbors' yards over
here or down here or out into the streets. So, we have got a substantial amount of open
space and recreational areas for -- for the kids and for the adults. As far as the
buffering -- of course we have a 35 foot buffer along here and a meandering sidewalk
and with all of our buffering, not just along here, but the buffering that we will be doing
pretty much around the entire boundary of the project, with the exclusion of where we
connect into here, we are looking at putting in substantial buffering with trees and
shrubs and things like that to really, you know, provide a really nice buffer all the way
through this and, then, along here maybe not quit as heavy as what we would do where
we border the existing residential area. But certainly it's -- and they are hard to see.
There, actually, are trees in here. It's hard to see on this plan. Along this -- particularly
along here we are also looking at doing some sort of a berm along with our landscaping
along there. And we have discussed with the neighbors -- I guess Sadie Creek
Promenade has committed to constructing a -- I believe a -- some sort of a decorative
block wall. The neighbors have asked us -- along here have asked us to continue that
forward and up to this point we have said that we would certainly consider that.
Something we would like to do is spend more time with the neighbors and look at some
alternative fencing ideas, bring in a landscape architect and a few things to see if there
is something we can do that would be acceptable with them, but a little more
economical, because I can see if we do it here, then, I'm going to have to do it here and
by the time I get done I'm going to be putting in 13 -- close to at least 3,000 feet of
concrete wall, which is very very expensive, somewhere in the area of about, you know,
five, six dollars a foot. That's just -- and that's probably on the cheap side. So, it is
something that we would like to meet and spend more time with the neighbors on to
discuss maybe some alternate fencing and some dense -- very dense landscaping
along there. Somebody threw this at me today and I thought it was great. We'd much
rather see green-scape than gray-scape. So, we are going to work on that with those
folks, but we will fence the boundary. And I hear the beeper and it's perfect timing,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 35 of 113
because I'm done and I thank you all very much for your time and the time of your staff
and as staff has stated in their report, our proposal substantially does comply with the
city's codes and regulations and we feel that this project will be a very nice addition to
the city and I will stand for any questions you might have.
Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of the applicant?
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Well, I have a couple, yes. I noted on the landscape drawings that you are
showing a cedar fence on the west side. Is that what you have proposed? And you're
rethinking that issue as the block as the property to the north has done?
Unger: That is correct. Our -- in our submittal we showed a cedar block combination
type fence and in the last couple of neighborhood meetings that we have had, the
neighbors have -- along the -- I'm sorry, along the western boundary has said, well,
would you consider doing something like -- like they have done I guess behind -- is it
Home Depot or -- who is that over there? Lowe's. And we have looked at that and we
have said that we would -- you know, we would seriously consider that. But at that time
we weren't looking at the possibilities of doing that, so -- so, it's something we want to
revisit with the neighbors.
Moe: Next you made reference -- showed some elevations for the properties on the
west property line, which were all two story, and you said you were going to have some
single story in there. Do you know what kind of a balance you're going to have as far as
how many -- are there going to be more two stories than single or do you know that yet?
Unger: Actually, we have -- we really have not considered any kind of a balance there
as to what that would be and Rob Haggett is here and maybe he can come up and
address that when I'm done.
Moe: You had shown the elevations of the front side.
Unger: Yeah.
Moe: I would be very interested to see what the rear is going to look like that are
overlooking the properties to the west. That's what I was concerned about. That's it for
me.
Rohm: Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 36 of 113
Zaremba: Three general questions. The sports facilities here -- are you intending to
light those or will they just be daytime use?
Unger: Mr. Chair. They would be daytime use only.
Zaremba: Okay. I ask that question before the people to the south ask it.
Unger: Right.
Zaremba: The second question. With a mix of commercial properties and residential
properties -- where I'm going is the maintenance of the open areas and common areas.
Are there going to be separate homeowners association for the three different zones? I
mean two homeowners and one commercial owners association or is it going to be all
one association or what happens?
Unger: Mr. Chair, in the past on other projects we have had a property owners
association for an entire project, because of the maintenance of the open area and
things like that. I think in this particular situation we may be able to have a -- where we
have a homeowners association for the residential portion of the property and an
owners association for the commercial portion and -- but who would also jointly work
together. I'm not sure how we would work that out legally. So, I guess at this point we
are proposing one property owner's association that would -- that would control all the
architectural and all the maintenance, et cetera and et cetera. Because we have -- not
only do we have public streets in here, but we also have some private streets and also
these little private streets here are also going to be used by these folks also. So, some
of that maintenance should come out of that owners association, so --
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Unger: It's something we have to look at a little bit closer.
Zaremba: Okay. What I hope is my final question at this point.
Unger: Okay.
Zaremba: I do like the suggestion of moving your access to Eagle much farther south. I
believe in Meridian code and perhaps ACHD there is -- they don't encourage connecting
public street and public street with a private street.
Unger: Correct.
Zaremba: So, I'm not quite sure how that's going to fly, but that wasn't really my
question. My question was going to be at the access to Eagle are you looking for a full
access intersection or is that going to be right -in, right -out?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 37 of 113
Unger: Mr. Chair. Although our original application -- our variance, we were requesting
a right -in, right -out, because we knew that that's all we could get here, this particular
location, actually, since it's at the quarter mile mark, actually puts us in a position where
we do want to request a full access there. And that's what I have shown as a full
access, as opposed to the right -in, right -out.
Zaremba: I would certainly encourage that. I probably was the one that suggested the
moving of it, but --
Unger: Yes.
Zaremba: -- also in anticipation of -- we some time ago -- is this working? Well, the two
portions of your property, the one that would be the northern portion -- thank you. We
had a -- we had an application on -- I think it was that piece that only had a right -in,
right -out and as one of the people at public testimony pointed out, that means that
anybody that needs to reverse direction is going to drive through Leslie Lane to do it.
So, I have to say I'm very much not in favor of the right -in and right -out, but I would even
like to see Sadie Creek's right -in, right -out disappear, so that more of the traffic was
coming out here and helped you meet the warrants for a signal there. But if you're
going for a full access, I'm much happier about that. Appreciate that.
Unger: And we appreciate that, too, and if you could pass that onto the City Council
when our variance comes up, we would appreciate it.
Zaremba: Happy to express my opinion.
Rohm: Thank you.
Zaremba: That's it for me.
Borup: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Unger, I think the only question I had clarification on the
boundary fence. You said your original proposal was a block and cedar? Did I hear
that right or --
Unger: Correct.
Borup: So, block pillars with cedar in between, is that --
Unger: Yes, sir.
Borup: And the fence at Lowe's, was that some type of -- was that a concrete panel or -
Unger: It's a -- it's a decorative block wall.
Borup: So, is this a CMU type of block?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 38 of 113
Unger: Yeah.
Borup: Okay. That's what I thought. Okay. That's what I meant when I said a concrete
panel.
Unger: Okay. Yeah.
Borup: But you have not looked into that at all?
Unger: We haven't looked -- we haven't gotten into that part of it that deep yet. You
know, the cost -- I -- you know, just from experience, the cost of that, you know, far
exceeds your cedar fence or a vinyl fence. In fact, one of the things that we -- you
know, that we wanted to discuss with the neighbors was the possibility of a -- some sort
of a wrought iron fence with extensive landscaping and things like that to go along with
it. Just -- and we really haven't had a chance to talk with the neighbors about that. It's
something that we just came up with this week.
Borup: And the property to the north, has been solidified on the type of fence or wall
that they are doing or is that still in negotiation?
Unger: Along this area?
Borup: No. To the north.
Unger: Oh, I'm sorry.
Borup: I thought you had mentioned they were doing a block wall.
Unger: Right here.
Borup: Yes.
Unger: Right here. Right. We understand that that's what they had committed to.
Borup: Okay.
Unger: So, if they have committed to that, you know, it kind of puts us in a spot where
we almost had to follow along with what they are doing, you know, unless -- you know,
unless the neighbors are, you know, open to something else that we don't know, so --
Borup: Or maybe we can get some more testimony on that. Right now I think where
you left it it was kind of open-ended.
Unger: Right. Right. Anyway you look at it, you know, we are definitely going to fence
it and it seems logical to do the same with what Sadie Creek has done, but then, again,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 39 of 113
they haven't gone to City Council yet either, so you never know. If I could, one other
point. I'm -- since you brought up the lighting issue. These units here are -- they are
not going to have like huge outside lighting or anything that like, they are going to have
standard residential lights, you know, just like any single family house out here is going
to have a light, you know, on the front porch and things like that. It will be the same
situation here, unless the city specifically requires any additional lighting, that would be
the only lighting that we would be proposing in this particular area. And, of course, the
commercial will -- this area is definitely going to have the standard lighting that's
required for commercial development. With just this one small one over here, it should
be fairly minimal lighting throughout this area here. So, we are hoping with that -- all of
that we can really reduce any kind of glare that might even try to creep over to the
neighbors. That's everything.
Rohm: Good. Thank you.
Unger: Thank you very much.
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to ask Candy Seeley if she would like to come
forward.
Seeley: Hi, my name is Candy Seeley. I live at 1567 North Leslie Way. I, actually, live
across the street from the houses that will be backing up to the property. I do have a
strong opinion on the fencing. I think it needs to be exactly the same as what's already
been offered and told going to be put up, because it would look pretty stupid, you know,
having a block wall behind two of the houses and, then, go along and having some
other funky design after he just got through saying he's going to try and match the
buildings in design with the people next door. Now, all of a sudden he doesn't want to
match the fencing. I have a problem with that. I also, I guess, am still quite upset by
the fact that I don't understand why the four-plexes still need to be in the middle of the
property. We have already -- from my opinion understood that the requirement for the
housing is already taken care of by the back -- the lots that are backing up and, then,
the alley -driven houses, why the middle area needs to be four-plexes, why can't it be
office space? I guess that's basically my problem with what's going on here. Thank
you.
Rohm: Thank you. Janice Helms? She has indicated she doesn't need to speak.
Linda Morris.
Morris: I'm Linda Morris. I live at 1374 Leslie Way. And my home is on that west end.
I was at the Saturday meeting the developer called and the homeowners specifically
asked several times what kind of fencing would be put along the west end and unless I
misunderstood, what we went away with was that whatever the property owners of
those new homes put behind their yard for fencing is what there would be. This is the
first time we have heard about a path between our property and the undeveloped
property. That really has more concern for us, because -- and that more foot traffic is
going to go right along our boundary and for us, not only on the east side of our
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 40 of 113
boundary, but on the south side of our boundary, because we are right on the corner
down here and where they tile right up to our property line, unless something else
happens that we haven't heard of, we have that open ditch there, which we much enjoy,
because all the wildlife like to be in there. It seems to me you're going to focus the kids
down that path and, then, you're going to go right behind our place right into the ditch
area there, too, which could be a safety concern. Besides more traffic along our area.
So, I guess my real concern is that we have heard several stories on what's going to be
the barrier between us and the development and it changes all the time. Like I said, this
is the first time we have heard about a path. And I would like to see something concrete
before you guys -- excuse me -- before the Commission or the Council here gives an
okay to this development, because we keep hearing so many different things and, well,
we are looking into this, but they don't commit to anything. So, we have no idea what's
going to happen for landscaping and fencing. We keep hearing different stories and
different stories from what you're hearing, so that's my concern.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman. Would you care to offer a suggestion as to what you would
like to go there? I can understand if there is going to be, actually, a regional pathway
there, that you would want to separate your property from it. Do you have a preference
for what you would like to ask go there?
Morris: The block fencing that they are suggesting to go along the north end of the
houses, to go along -- between us and the pathway. But, then, I'm also concerned what
happens, again, right here.
Rohm: You need to speak into the microphone.
Borup: And there is one right there for you.
Zaremba: Right here.
Morris: If this path comes right to here and, then, turns here, I can guarantee you,
unless there is some kind of barrier here, the kids are not going to stop here and hang a
left -- or hand a right. They are going that way. They are going to come right down
here, here is open water here, and here is our place right here and you know how kids
are, the place you're not supposed to go, that's right where they are going to head.
Borup: So, you would like a fence there?
Morris: Something, yes, across here where they are not having access, yes. Thank
you.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, maybe while the next one is coming up, just might mention, the
exhibit that we got dated January 5th shows landscaping and a fence and pathway and
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 41 of 113
everything along the west, so I'm not sure why that wasn't presented at the meeting, but
that was what was presented to us.
Rohm: Betty Rosso.
Rosso: My name is Betty Rosso and I live at 2832 Leslie Drive. I am a little concerned
about the tiling of the canal. Not that I oppose it totally, but I talked with John Anderson
and he told me that it had been over two years before anybody had contacted him about
that Finch Lateral and that if it were tiled, the access road would still be in effect and
that property would still belong to Nampa -Meridian Irrigation and it would not be used
for a path or anything else. There is no trespassing on their property. And, secondly,
wondered if, in fact, as she just mentioned, at the end where the tiling would come
down, then, there would be open canal again. The canal -- I can tell you I keep my
canal clean and I'm down in there working and that can be a very swift running canal.
And I am concerned about the safety of that. Plus, I'm also concerned about the
elevation of the condos, four-plexes, whatever you want to call them, on that lateral
boundary facing our homes along there. I'm also wondering about this access to Eagle
Road and how much traffic is going to be coming through there and back through the
Sadie Creek Promenade out to Ustick. It seems to me there is an awful lot of housing
and a lot of traffic and a lot of commercial stuff and they are all on just one -- one in and
out on Eagle and two on Ustick. It seems to me there is an awful lot of car travel there
for such small streets and small openings and possibly right-hand turn only coming out
of -- onto Ustick. I don't know if that's true or not. Anyway, those are my concerns at
this point and thank you very much.
Rohm: Thank you. Mark Snodgrass. Okay. From the audience he said no comment
at this time. Billy Knorpp.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, while he's coming forward, I would comment that I believe the
one roadway at what would be the west end that intersects with Ustick is intended to be
full access and I believe signalized. And, then, the other side of it will go behind the
Kohl's department store on the north property, so that one at least has full access.
Knorpp: My name is Billy Knorpp. I live at 2972 Leslie Drive. My home is about right
there. I have -- just want to echo some of the concerns that they have. It appears that
they have no plan for a buffer along the back of the entire property line along the south
side. What he just told us, which we didn't hear -- I wasn't at the meeting. I got some
feedback from people. But what he just told us is they are going to make a pathway
that basically goes right along the back of our lots. That's unacceptable. Completely
unacceptable. There is going to be no -- and he's planning on putting up a cheap fence
that will -- and he's not even talking about a fence along our boundary, only along this
one, because he thinks he might be forced to by Red Cliff. So, actually, I want to
change my vote on -- I put I'm neutral. I'm completely against what he's planning right
now. I thought it was going to be acceptable from the earlier plans, but no longer do I
believe that. So, he's planning to tile the ditch, put a path right along the back of my
fence. No barrier whatsoever, except maybe a cheap fence he's going to put up that's
Meridian Planning &Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 42 of 113
going to fall down in another ten years. It needs to be one of the permanent type
fences. Who is going to maintain this fence? Ten years from now the thing's going to
fall down if he puts it up and nobody's maintaining it. It can't be a fence that is going to
fall down. It has to be a block fence with a berm and 30 or 40 feet of a buffer between
us and them. Right here where my house is and right along here where the others are,
very close the way they have got it planned. I can't tell exactly from the plans they
have, but it looks like that is -- on the order of 20 or 30 feet from my back fence. There
is no barrier whatsoever. That is completely unacceptable. The other thing is they are
going to be two story buildings looking right down on my backyard. Those need to be --
if they are going to put two story -- I agree with the previous testimony. They should not
be two story buildings there. If they are going to be two stories, there should be no
lights on our side and no windows on the south. And it was always noted that the right
of way along the ditch -- what we would prefer is that the right of way to the ditch remain
the way it is now with the ditch that they can't put anything on it that is going to encroach
upon our backyards. So, I believe that's all I wanted to say. Do you have any questions
of me?
Rohm: Thank you. Before we move to the next person that signed up here, I have a
question of staff. The proposed pathway along that south line parallel to the Finch
Lateral, is that something that the city is encouraging to move pedestrian traffic through
the properties?
Guenther: Mr. Chairman, the 2002 Comprehensive Plan does call for a multi -use
pathway -- a regional multi -use pathway on the Finch Lateral. The pathway location
does -- is shown to come from the north property -- or the west property -- east property
boundary through the west property boundary, come through the Leslie Creek -- or the
Leslie -- or the Carol Subdivision and, then, continue to the west from there. The
location has changed slightly with the developments that have occurred off of Ustick
Road and it -- this location would better connect that multi -use pathway to the sidewalks
on Ustick and, then, to the north -- again to the North Slough.
Rohm: Thank you. The reason why I asked those questions is because the -- and I'm
not speaking for the developer, but in compliance with ordinances and Comprehensive
Plan, these regional pathways are something that are encouraged within our own
Comprehensive Plan system and I'm not trying to speak for them, but in compliance
with what we are proposing -- what we have told them is a requirement, this is the
response that they have made. So, it's -- I want you to know that it's not something that
they just came up with on their own, it's something that's been encouraged by the cities
themselves. So, with that being said -- and we will continue with that discussion as to
the applicant response to your concerns in their rebuttal. So, with that being said, I will
go to the next person that signed up and that's Steve Grant.
Grant: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, my name is Steve Grant. I live at 1534 Leslie Way,
which is kind of at the northwest corner. My home is the third one in. Third lot in. I
don't see a -- maybe this is it. It would be right about there. And I don't know if my --
yeah. I think the residents have always had kind of too big issues. One transition and
Meridian Planning & Zoning 0 0
February 2, 2006
Page 43 of 113
the other traffic. And as has been indicated before, the Sadie Creek folks have made a
couple of commitments for this property here. One being a masonry fence, as you have
heard. Second being a 30 -foot easement. I think, if I read right in the staff report, that
this area would only be 25 feet and I think we are anxious to have continuity along the --
you know, all of this area here, so that it's consistent and I think you can understand
why we would want that. I think the landscaping plan -- I don't know that it's been
submitted, but is a concern. We would much prefer evergreen trees that would be --
provide that barrier year around, rather than, you know, trees that shed their leaves at
the end of the summer and, you know, for six months you would have -- you would be
staring at each other. I think there is -- you know, I'm not quite sure why, you know, a
public road is not allowed, but a private one is. That doesn't make a lot sense to me,
because access is access and I'm concerned that even moving that down here is going
to cause, you know, some congestion and safety issues here. While I would be in favor
of a full access for reasons that I think Commissioner Zaremba has indicated, if that's
not approved -- and it may well not be, then, they may approve right -in, right -out and,
then, we have a huge issue with this. And that right -in, right -out might be a
compromise. I don't know how that would work and I guess that's to be determined.
think it's also one of the things we would like to have them consider is that, you know,
homes -- those homes along that area there, if they are second story homes, that there
would be no windows facing west and I think that provides privacy for not only us, but
also for the residents there, if that can be accommodated in their designs. I think that
that's -- those are the -- again, the issues that we are concerned about. Transition of
traffic -- and you have heard them a number of times from us over the last two and a
half years and we appreciate your consideration for the things that we have outlines as
our concerns. That's all I had.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions?
Borup: Just one, Mr. Chairman.
Rohm: Yeah.
Borup: And, then, on the -- just on the wall, I think so far everyone has testified on
preferring a block wall. I haven't heard any discussion on the concrete panels like
behind Lowe's.
Knorpp: I think they are interchangeable to us.
Borup: Okay. That's what I was wondering.
Knorpp: Yeah.
Borup: But either one is -- accomplish the same thing.
Knorpp: We are interested in continuity and I think they have -- I don't know -- she's
shown us some elevations that a block that -- they are not necessarily -- they have got,
Meridian Planning & Zoning 0
February 2, 2006
Page 44 of 113
you know, the face of the block wall is broken up a little bit, which would mitigate some
sound issue and other things. So, I think we could work those out. But a good barrier I
think is what everybody is interested in as a part of that transition. And, again, the 30
foot -- by the way, the -- it's important to note that the -- the decision has been made in
the negotiation with those folks on Sadie Creek that the fence would be on our property
line, rather than, you know, the property line of these homes.
Guenther: Correct.
Knorpp: Otherwise, you're going to build -- you're going to probably build two fences
anyway, but we'd wind up building our own fence if it was on that property line, so --
Borup: And that is where their landscaping plan shows it.
Knorpp: It is?
Borup: Yes.
Knorpp: Okay. And to my knowledge there is no pathway here -- dedicated pathway,
it's just -- and if I heard correctly from staff, that the path is -- the only path is -- on the
plan is on that southern boundary. Do I understand it correctly? Because I have never
heard that there would be a path. It would be open, but I have never heard of a foot
path there.
Borup: I think the concern is if you have a path that doesn't go anywhere, you have got
to turn around and go back.
Knorpp: Good point. So --
Borup: And now that would be to Ustick.
Zaremba: Well, what I understood staffs explanation was that the regional pathway
showed on the Comprehensive Plan continues into your subdivision.
Borup: Right.
Knorpp: That's the first time I --
Zaremba: And this is avoiding that.
Knorpp: Well, this would be here no matter what. And I don't know -- again, I don't
know -- I have never heard anybody discuss -- like a paved path. It would certainly be
open, so that somebody could walk there if they wanted to, but I assume it would be
grass or some kind of a maintained, you know, surface. But, again, a lot of questions, a
lot of concerns, and as you have heard from other residents, there are a lot of questions
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 45 of 113
and we are -- we feel like it's appropriate to get those resolved before we move on.
Anything else?
Rohm: Thank you.
Knorpp: Thank you.
Rohm: I'd like to return to Linda Morris for just a moment. I believe she had some --
didn't you have a -- something you wanted to bring up? One more thing on --
Morris: We had heard nothing about this path along the western side at all. I mean
maybe you had heard about it.
Rohm: I think you need to restate your name, too.
Morris: Linda Morris.
Rohm: Okay. And that was your additional concern? Because I saw you down there --
Morris: Yes. That -- and as I said, Saturday -- this Saturday we met with them and we
were trying to get more information on what's going to happen on the western -- on the
western side here and nothing. We didn't get any answers.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. That's what I needed. Thank you. That's the end of the list
of people that have signed up for this, but it's open, so anyone else is welcome to come
forward.
Thurston: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I think
I did sign up. My name is David Thurston and I live at --
Rohm: Oh, I'm sorry, I messed up.
Thurston: Okay. David Thurston. I live at 1470 Leslie Way, Meridian, Idaho. My home
is right there. And the question I have is concerning the -- Mr. Unger's comments about
tiling this ditch. He's indicated that he had met with the gentleman who represents the
water users of that ditch. I'd just like to have clarification of who that gentleman is,
because I am a water user on that ditch and I don't know of anybody who has been
given that authority to speak for all of us. So, I'd like to know the name of the gentleman
who represented the water users for that ditch and represented the things that Mr.
Unger stated.
Rohm: What is your concern specifically to that?
Thurston: Well, he indicated that they had met with somebody who represented the
water users and that this gentleman had agreed to whatever they -- the specifications
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 46 of 113
for the tiling of that ditch and I'd like to know who that individual is and exactly what are
the specifications.
Rohm: Well, I -- not knowing what those specifications are at all, but it is their obligation
to make sure that the water that you currently are receiving will continue --
Thurston: Yes.
Rohm: -- to be received and I think that that's the primary point of any of this, is that you
continue to receive water in the fashion that you had in past.
Borup: And the city also requires it to be tiled.
Thurston: Yes. I realize that. But as a -- the ditch is owned by the water user, not by
Nampa Irrigation District, and so as a water user I want to know who is making
decisions on behalf of my -- on behalf of me. So, I just wanted him to clarify that.
Rohm: And I think we will get that, so thank you.
Thurston: Thank you.
Rohm: And I'm sorry I missed your name on the first shot through. Is there anybody
else that would like to testify on this issue? Okay. At this time -- oh. Quick one.
Please come forward.
Knorpp: Billy Knorpp. 2972 Leslie Drive. The question that you raised about the path,
don't think there is any problem with that path, I just don't want it right along my back
fence, unless there is some -- unless we do put the brick wall in there and there is a
barrier between me and whatever is going along that path.
Rohm: Thank you. Okay. At this time I'd like the applicant to come back forward,
please. Oh. And this will be a --
Rosso: Just short. Betty Rosso. 2832 Leslie Drive. Mr. Davis from Champion -- what
is it called, that new division there? Davis's -- where the Davis's dairy was.
Borup: Champion Park.
Rosso: Champion Park. Okay. He was the one here Saturday that was concerned
about the irrigation and I don't know that he was speaking for the irrigators, he was
more concerned that his water was going to continue to come. And, again, I wanted to -
- the pathway has -- was startling to me, I guess, and especially when Mr. Unger said
that it would follow on top of the canal, which Mr. Anderson just told me that that
property, plus the road, would not be usable. They only maintain it themselves and it is
not to be used or be trespassed upon.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 47 of 113
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Rosso: Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. Okay. With that, would the applicant like to come forward and offer
some clarifications to some of the issues brought up by the testimony?
Unger: Once again, for the record, Bob Unger, Red Cliff development. First of all, I
have to say I misquoted the price on the wall. It's running about 50, 60 foot -- or bucks
a foot, not -- I don't know where I got five. You can't do cedar for five.
Borup: No, you can't.
Unger: And -- yeah. Be a cheap wall, wouldn't it? And it's -- you know, we are going to
settle this right now. You know, we have made somewhat of a commitment to the folks
on the wall, we will make that commitment now. Okay?
Borup: Excuse me. When you say commit, you're saying either -- either block or
concrete wall?
Unger: Yeah. To match up -- to match up with whatever Sadie Creek Promenade is
doing.
Zaremba: Are you including the south property line as well?
Unger: If we end up tiling it, that's probably what we are going to have to do. If we don't
end up tiling it, we will have to fence it all on our side. And that's where I was going with
the whole tiling of the ditch and in -- you know, I have spoken with John Anderson. I
talk to John Anderson all the time in Nampa -Meridian. In fact, I have two other projects
this Finch Lateral runs through that we are building right now and we are piping both of
those projects and we are putting landscaping on top of those projects with a license
agreement through Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District. It is a standard operating
procedure. We also provide a path/drive on their easement, so that they can still
access and maintain if they ever have to get there and repair any pipes or anything like
that. Okay. And that is standard stuff that is done through a license agreement with
Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District, so that's what we are proposing here.
Moe: Mr. Unger, you did make one statement and I'm a little -- you said if we tile. Will
you explain that one to me?
Unger: We have committed to tiling this thing, but the neighbors are saying -- I'm
hearing from the neighbors they don't want us to and -- but our proposal is to go forward
with that and unless you folks change it, that's our proposal.
Rohm: Well, just as a point of clarification, then, the tiling, coupled with the fence, I
think is the solution that everyone wants to drive home here and so if you tile it and a
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
February 2, 2006
Page 48 of 113
regional pathway is along that tiling, then, the fence would be in order. I think that's the
conclusion that we are trying to get to.
Unger: And that's -- and that's what we are trying to say here.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Unger, while we are on the subject of the fencing and so -
- somebody mentioned whether there would be double fencing along the rear property
line, so -- of what you're proposing and I think the city would say that if there is a block
wall on one side, that abutting a pathway would have to be probably no more than four
feet clear vision or something like that along the new property lines. That's pretty
standard. Staff, am I doing that accurately?
Guenther: These standards are -- there is a standard condition in this report that says
that all fencing shall comply with the fencing standards listed in section three of the
UDC.
Unger: Yeah. Did you want a response on that or --
Zaremba: Well, I just want you to be aware of the issue. You probably are, but I just
wanted to raise it.
Unger: Exactly.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, just one other comment on that same subject. Basically, you're
expressing to put the block or a concrete wall up at the property line all the way around?
And, then, the path is -- would be on their side anyway, so, then, they have a shorter
one, if they so --
Unger: If I could, I think -- I think what we -- you know, along the ditch here -- and I
guess maybe that's part of why the fencing issue along this ditch is a tough one for
everybody, is I build a fence on somebody else's property. All of these folks -- and well
-- and we are going to have to figure this out. All these folks along here, their property
lines run to the center of the ditch. And the ditch lies within an easement and I'm not -- I
believe the one along here is -- I think it's a 40 foot easement. It could be a little larger.
I can't build a fence on their property. I can build a fence on my property. So, if we all
work together we might be able to build a fence to accomplish one goal, but at this
point, you know, we are going to have to build our fence and it's going to have to be
along -- along this easement on our side.
Rohm: And the pathway would lie to the south.
Unger: The pathway would be on that side -- yeah, on the south side of our fencing.
Borup: Can you do -- if you had an agreement with them to build a fence on their
property, is there any problem with that?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 49 of 113
Unger: I think we would entertain that.
Borup: But I realize every property owner would have to agree to that.
Unger: Exactly.
Borup: And maybe while you're on that, 40 feet you said is what the easement is, to
your understanding?
Unger: I believe it's 40 feet. I'd have to check that to be sure, but I believe so.
Borup: That is what your document says, too.
Unger: Yes.
Rohm: Okay.
Unger: Okay. Let me finish up a couple things and I think that will wrap it up. As a
matter of fact, you're correct, this -- Sadie Creek there is a full access and signal going
in right there on Ustick. Where was this? Oh. Separation -- I think -- this -- this is a 30
foot landscape buffer with a path there. That's what staff told us. Two years ago I was
doing a 30 foot path or -- you know, a buffer there, so we have 30 foot there minimum.
This is -- you know -- you know, we have at least 40 foot of separation there. Over to
the condos we are looking close to a hundred feet, over to these structures here. So, at
least a hundred foot separation there.
Rohm: And that's to the property line, not to the --
Unger: Yeah. To the center of the ditch.
Rohm: Yeah. Thank you.
Unger: Yeah. So, we have some good separation there and the one gentleman about
piping the lateral that runs down through here -- and I appreciate the lady coming up
and identifying the gentleman. He gave me his name and number and for the life of me
I couldn't find it in my files. But he indicated that -- you know, that there really wasn't
anybody -- a good contact and I said, well, when we get ready to design this, who do we
contact? He says what -- give me a call and, then, you know, I'll help you through that.
So, he really didn't represent himself as, you know, the -- representing everybody of the
users association, but he was the first person that came up and identified himself as
one of the users and I thought good connection to have, since finding out who these
users are sometimes are tough. So, I know I have got it written down, I just didn't have
it on a piece of paper I had in my hand. So, I think we have a good project here and
think -- I think we are responding to a lot of the concerns of the neighbors. I think the
whole wall fencing issue can be totally resolved throughout this process and we are
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 50 of 113
more than willing to work with everybody on it. So, we certainly feel we have a good
project and we would ask for your recommendation of approval.
Rohm: Okay. And thank you, I appreciate your -- I believe we have come a long way --
Unger: Oh, I think so.
Rohm: -- tonight as far as the fencing and I appreciate both the public testimony and
your response to that. There were a number of people that also spoke to the two story
condominiums along that south line and I'd just like your comments on that.
Unger: That's a very hard -- very hard thing for us to look at and restrict. I mean I'm
sure -- catch up with me, Joe. You know, I assume some of these are going to be
single story, but to specifically say half of them are going to be single story or not going
to be single story is -- it really restricts the use of those lots, the value of those lots to
some extent, but also you have to -- also have to understand that the houses to the
west of the project, those are all on their own one acre lots and the houses themselves
are approximately -- and approximately 40, 50 feet from the property line and maybe
even further. So, there is a huge separation of their backyard and, then, we have got
another 30 foot of -- we have the wall, we have the berming and the landscaping, and,
then, these structures that we have in here have an additional 15 foot setback, that's the
rear setback requirement, so you start adding it up, you have got 40 to 50 feet, plus
another 30 feet, so you are looking at at least 70 feet -- 85 feet separation between
buildings. That's a pretty good size separation.
Rohm: And thank you. I -- that's the response I was looking for.
Unger: Okay.
Rohm: Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: One of the other suggestions -- and I think it referred to the condos and not
other areas -- was that on their south surfaces they don't have windows and I would
only comment that the police department consistently asks to have windows, particularly
where there is a pathway involved, so that there is public visibility on anything that might
be happening on the pathway. So, I'm not sure that's an issue we can help the
gentleman with. You probably need to have windows there.
Unger: Right.
Borup: These two are the south, so there is very limited windows.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 51 of 113
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I think he was, actually, talking more about the homes on the west
side.
Rohm: Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant?
Unger: Thank you very much.
Rohm: Thank you. Before we move forward I'd like to just give each of the
Commissioners an opportunity to kind of summarize their thoughts on this project and
see if we have some concerns and we will go forward. Commissioner Zaremba, have
some comments?
Zaremba: I do. And I think my overall comment is that this whole concept pretty well
matches the intent of the mixed use area. It has a mix of uses and combined with the
other uses on the other corners of Ustick and Eagle, brings the proper element of what
is being asked for in the Comprehensive Plan identifying that area as mixed use. I will
say that if on the original plan the roadway continued straight out to Eagle on the
original drawing and had to be right -in, right -out, even though I like the project, would
have been voting against it. The new configuration is important to me. If that can end
up being a full access intersection and it's very logical at that point that the development
on the other side of Eagle would line their road up with it as well and further make it
reasonable that it be signalized and full access, that not only helps this development,
but one of the advantages of a signalized intersection is that people that are trying to
get in and out of Leslie, a signal does what's called platooning. It slows down the
jackrabbits and let's the turtles catch up with them and it gives you several hundred feet
south a break in traffic that would not otherwise be there. So, there is a lot of reasons
why, in my opinion, the project is fine. I think it's extremely important to have the access
where the new design shows it and with it there I can support it.
Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Zaremba. Commissioner Borup, do you have some
final thoughts on this?
Borup: Well, I think it's -- you know, as we hear time and time again, we are -- we are in
the city limits of Meridian and there is going to be growth and we need to try to
accommodate the best we can, realizing that an acre lot is not going to be abutting
against acre lots. So, my concern is best to see what could be done on buffering and
privacy and appears to me that the developer has agreed to -- I mean clarify this, a 38 --
a 30 foot easement to the west and it will either be a block or a concrete panel wall of
some type and I assume to be worked out between the neighborhood and the
developer. The property to the south, I don't know that that's been settled and I -- I don't
have a high comfort to going into things where they are up in the air, unless there --
unless there is some stipulations that can be placed somehow. It sounds to me like a
good solution was if a ditch is tiled, a wall on the south -- to the south side of the
easement, but that would necessitate the wall to be on the property owner's side of the
ditch and on -- against their property -- against their usable property, which would
separate it from the ditch. So, I don't know, I mean it would have to be an agreement
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 52 of 113
with everyone along there. The other concern I had is maybe -- I don't know if we got a
lot of detail on landscaping. I don't think we have the one tree per 35 feet, which is a
minimum along the south. It has that landscape plan. Josh, has that been analyzed at
all?
Guenther: Commissioner Borup, the landscape plan is not approved with this
application. It would need -- and there is conditions in there that this applicant's
landscape architect needs to certify two things, that the appropriate number of trees
have been provided for, as well as one tree per 8,000 square foot of turf be provided for
and we don't have those calculations at this time. We, typically, receive those through
the phasing plans of the final plat, but they are conditions of approval.
Borup: Could maybe something be added as far as maybe increasing that density at
this time?
Guenther: If the Commission so chooses, what we -- what this Commission has done in
the past is say add -- take the total required number of trees in that 20 percent or
something along that line in order to further buffer it. But that's something that we have
utilized in the past.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: There may be an issue along that south property --
Guenther: For the easement.
Zaremba: -- if it's a tiled ditch you can't plant a tree there.
Borup: Yes. I think they will only allow shrubs and bushes and -- without the root
invasion and stuff.
Zaremba: I think the ordinance requires that if there is a place where you can't plant the
trees, you still have to put that number of trees just somewhere else; isn't that correct?
Guenther: Yes. It's tree mitigation.
Borup: So, along the west line would be a good place for that.
Guenther: Yes. Or out of the easement.
Borup: Pardon?
Guenther: Or out of the easement.
Borup: Oh, out of the easement. Right.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 53 of 113
Guenther: On the landscape plan it does show that there is several trees planted along
the southern portion of that boundary. However, the roughly 40 feet of landscaping,
which would be required in this area, most of it is in the easement. However, it could be
designed in order to accommodate trees immediately at that easement line, which is
what the landscape architect has preliminarily shown.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. That's all I had.
Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Before I make comment, Joe, one question I have for you. Well, I guess more of
a statement than anything. I guess if, in fact -- my biggest concern -- as far as what's
gone on tonight, I'm in favor of the project. I think some compromises have been taken
care of and whatnot. The one concern I still have is the block wall, as far on the south
property line, and as to whether or not it ends up being on the north side of the ditch
and, then, we still need to put a fence on the south side of that walking path at that
point, would that not be correct?
Guenther: That would be correct.
Moe: So, that we'd have visual for that.
Guenther: Well, there is standard fencing required for multi -use pathways, which is a
section of our code.
Moe: Well, my point is is I'm just concerned that although the applicant has stated he
will want to work with the neighborhood to try and install block fence on their property,
whether or not all the neighbors agree to that, we don't know that tonight and so,
therefore, we are in a situation where we are requiring them to put a block wall in. If
that is the case, then, that other fence would have to definitely go in on the south side of
that walking path. And, therefore, that would be a condition that we would want to
clarify as well, based on the report.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, my plat shows there is only seven lots on the south. I'm just
curious how many of those seven homeowners are here tonight. South line. Three out
of the seven.
Zaremba: Well, I certainly think they could influence their neighbors to -- if it got them a
nice block wall, I think they could influence their neighbors to join them.
Rohm: Okay. And I guess -- and echoing both the public concern and the Commission
comments on that, has staff seen where they have been able to work with adjacent
property owners and place a fence on the adjacent property outside of their project to
be in compliance with fencing along that regional pathway?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 54 of 113
Guenther: Chairman Rohm, in a situation like this -- and Mr. Cole has already kind of
talked about it a little bit here. Is that they can relocate that pipe anywhere within that
easement and be able to put the fencing in there on their property line in order to
accommodate the required separation from fence to the piped ditch. And
Nampa -Meridian -- obviously, they have dealt with this situation before and have come
up to resolution. I guess while I have got you, it seems that this might be something
that if we continued the application for two weeks to allow staff time in order to draft a
condition with the applicant in order to adequately address that and bring this back to
the Commission in two weeks, because the second thing is that we still -- I haven't been
able to review a full scale plan for this southern boundary and it seems to be more of a
problem than originally I had anticipated. So, in order to give staff more time, I guess
we would change our recommendation to continue it for two weeks in order to allow us
time to keep the hearing open in order to work through this condition that we need -- or
that we seem to be going towards, as well as to get a better large scale copy and adjust
some of the staff report.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Thank you.
Zaremba: If we went that direction, I would add one more thing to be discussed among
staff and the applicant and probably ACHD and that would be the newly aligned access
to Eagle, seeing if we can make that be a public street. I know ACHD has said no
public connection, but they don't actually control Highway 55. Just a comment for
discussion.
Guenther: Chairman Zaremba, just for point of clarification, staff is recommending
denial of that -- of that access point to Eagle Road, as it is inconsistent with Unified
Development Code.
Zaremba: Okay.
Guenther: Which will be presented to the City Council with the bulk of this application.
Rohm: Okay. I think that it's the consensus of the group as a whole that the fencing
issue along the south line is a major concern to those people who spoke tonight and
believe that the applicant has offered up some alternatives that would make it
acceptable to the testimonies received, but it's easier said than done for us to be able to
respond to that in the form of a motion tonight, so I think that a two week continuance,
so that applicant and staff can work together to get that verbiage down, so that it would
be included in the staff report in a fashion that is acceptable to the public and to the
applicant is probably in order. And with that being said --
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I would request maybe one other item be included on that.
Rohm: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 55 of 113
Borup: And that's if those seven property owners could be contacted -- maybe that
would be up to the applicant to contact them and perhaps just to -- I don't know, maybe
a non-binding agreement as far as where they like the fence and see -- basically, in my
mind to see if all seven of them are in agreement on the location of the fence. If they
are not in agreement, then, there is going to be another direction that needs to go. If
they are in agreement, then, something could be worked out.
Rohm: And I think that that's the direction we need to go as well and so I'm pretty sure
the applicant understands where we are going with this. So, I think at this point in time
would entertain a motion.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move to continue file numbers AZ 05-57, RZ 05-019, PP 05-059, and CUP 05-
052 to the regularly scheduled meeting of February the 16th, 2006, give staff time to
review documents and resubmit. Does anybody want to second that?
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue items AZ 05-057, RZ 05-019,
PP 05-059, and CUP 05-0-52 to the regularly scheduled meeting of February 16th,
2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: And thank you, folks, all for coming in and very much appreciate your testimony
and we will see you in two weeks.
Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 2006: AZ 05-062 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 5.11 acres from RUT to R-8 for Sharp
Estates Subdivision by The Gables, LLC — 2445 North Wingate Lane:
Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 2006: PP 05-062 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 25 single-family residential lots and 2
common lots on 5.11 acres in the proposed R-8 zone for Sharp Estates
Subdivision by The Gables, LLC — 2445 North Wingate Lane:
Rohm: All right. At this time I'd like to open up the public hearings of AZ 05-062 and PP
05-062, both pertaining to Sharp Estates Subdivision and begin with the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I realized here late in the
game that the clerk did not run you a copy, because I did not send them any copy of the
staff report. Actually, it was the same copy that you had back on the 19th of January
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 56 of 113
from which this item was continued from. So, I apologize for getting this to you late.
Hopefully, you remember reading this the first time through. I will touch on some of the
conditions briefly. I just wanted you to have a copy of the conditions in front of you
while I ran through the staff report. So, again, this was continued from 1/19. In your
motion if you could reference today's date, the staff report for today's date, I'll go ahead
and change the staff report to reflect this hearing date, that would be appreciated. The
subject site is located on the south side of Packard Acres Subdivision No. 3 on the west
side of Wingate Lane. It's approximately a half mile south of Ustick Road. So, Chinden
and Carol Subdivision, which we were just talking about, is -- here is Leslie Drive. You
can see a portion of it that feeds out to Eagle Road. This site is currently designated
medium density residential on the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant is proposing 25
single-family residential building lots and two common lots on just over five acres, 5.11
acres in a proposed R-8 zone. As you can see from the aerial, it's a few years old now,
this is truly an in -fill subdivision. This is the last five acres on the infamous Wingate
Lane. Everything else is building -- Packard Estates 3 is not fully built out yet, I don't
believe. I think there is still a couple lots in there that have not developed, but all these
other subdivisions are up and running. There are 4.9 dwelling units per acre proposed.
Again, 25 build -able lots on the five acres. There is .53 -- just over half an acre of open
space. The applicant is proposing to extend the stub street in Packard Acres No. 3
south through the project and connect in with the stub street in Kearny Place
Subdivision. Let me go back just a minute and I will give you the names of -- names
and zones, I guess, of the subdivisions that are around. As I said, north is Packard
Acres. To the east is also Packard Acres. South is Kearny Place Subdivision. That
one is zoned R-8. And Chateau Meadows to the west is also zoned R-8. As
mentioned, the applicant is proposing to connect the two stub streets, which feed up to
Ustick Road. They are not proposing to use Wingate Lane. There is a condition in the
staff report that requires the applicant to submit a legal document stating that they will
not use Wingate Lane, basically, is what it amounts to. They have the option of either
vacating that easement and, then, using that area towards their build -able lots or
placing that easement on the face of the final plat and not being able to place any
permanent structures within that easement. So, they do have -- I think something also
I'll mention real quick, since you talked about pathways with the last applicant. There is
kind of an impromptu pathway in a lot of -- a lot of the properties adjacent to this one.
There is a cinder pathway -- I'm going to go back here. You can kind of see it a little bit
here. Eventually there is some gates to irrigation, there is an irrigation easement, 30
feet wide, that runs along all of these properties. It's my understanding a lot of the
children use this pathway and walk across this back side here to get to the school. So,
River Valley Elementary School is just an eighth of a mile away off the screen here.
The applicant is proposing to leave that irrigation area open. There is also a condition
in there -- as you mentioned in the last hearing, Nampa -Meridian does not allow trees
within their easements due to the root system, so there is a requirement that rather than
trees you need to plant low lying shrubs as approved and allowed by an NMID. There is
a common driveway for these four lots here, just to call that out to your attention. I think
that's probably the end of my staff report. Everything does meet the dimensional
standards of the UDC and does comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 57 of 113
recommending approval of this application and I will stand for any questions you may
have.
Rohm: Thanks, Caleb. Any questions of staff?
Zaremba: Not at this point.
Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please.
Sargent: Ron Sargent. 1771 North Wildwood Street, Boise. We are in agreement with
the staff recommendations and requirements in the staff report and we think it's
thorough and covered all the items I think are important. I guess I'd like to go back to
the aerial photograph, Craig, if you could. And I guess just to clarify things just a little bit
further, there is a cinder pathway here, but right at this point here on the property there
is a locked gate and, likewise, there is approximately in this location on the cinder path,
it ends and there is a locked gate there. And, then, likewise, there is a gate that's
locked at this location as well down here where it goes into Chateau Meadows and
where it comes to the public street at that location. So, right now this pathway area -- or
that Nampa -Meridian easement area is not being used, because of those gates that are
located in there. When we had our meeting with the neighbors, there was quit a bit of
discussion about the desire to be able to use that for kids to travel to River Valley
school, but there is some issues about the open canal from here to River Valley. There
is also -- I mean we can only put a pathway in from this location of our property over to
this location. But we will remove this gate here and so they will be able to use the
pathway from this section, you know, up into this area. I guess with -- there is a lot of
weeds and debris and everything along this portion, but it's an open area, it's not -- it's
not used by these homes or their backyards. So, I guess there is a desire by the
neighbors to see this area opened up and have the pathway continue all the way
through. So, in our application we are proposing to put, essentially, what is a multi -use
pathway path though there, even though it's not required, but it would be a paved
pathway. And, then, also as staff mentioned, we'd also have to landscape it to
Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District's requirements, which means we couldn't put trees in
there, but we can put shrubs and grass on either side of the pathway. The other --
guess major item about the subdivision is Wingate Lane and we would agree with the
recommendations of staff to vacate this section of the easement, which the easement,
essentially, ends here at this existing home and doesn't continue on any further. So, we
would, you know, vacate it from this portion where it enters our property to where it ends
today. I guess I would stand for any questions.
Rohm: Well, this is a pretty straight forward application.
Sargent: We don't have any school that we are trying to build here.
Rohm: Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman and Mr. Sargent?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 58 of 113
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Thank you. Is there any reason why Wingate Lane can't be abandoned all
the way to Ustick?
Sargent: Well, we can't control that. I mean we can only deal with what's on our
property. I mean which is from this location -- we can't dictate what happens on other
people's property in that regard.
Zaremba: I guess the difficulty I have is there isn't anybody south of Challis that uses it.
North of Challis -- I believe it's the city that has a well they have to access or maybe it
was an ACHD property, but when the Packard Acres -- is it No. 3 was before this
Commission, the Sharps made a big point of saying they were going to refuse to use
the new public roads and they wanted to continue that access all the way up, made the
developer jump through a whole lot of hoops to put a gate and try and keep other
people off of the Sharp's access, which they legally had the right to. I mean they
weren't asking for anything they didn't legally have to do. But there is no nobody --
can't imagine there is anybody else that needs the other sections. Nobody else has the
authority to give it up, except them.
Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I have reviewed the document that
created Wingate Lane and it's an odd document. It's a private roadway agreement,
which is something legally a little bit different than an easement and to vacate it --
came to the conclusion it's just not the city's issue. It's the issue of the adjacent
property owners to do what they want to do with it. It's unfortunate that it's going to be
vacant land and it's probably going to, you know, have fences on both sides, but it's up
to those property owners to get together to decide to -- whether you call it vacating it or
abandoning it, it's really -- I would urge you to let that be worked out by the proper
property owners. It may not be good planning, but that's what you're stuck with.
Zaremba: Well, I guess the biggest reason I brought it up is that -- I forget whether it's
the city or ACHD, would have an interest in part of it and that's getting to -- I forget what
the facility was, a well or something that's just north of Challis and that's where the gate
was put, so that's why I remember the discussion. But if you're saying stay out of it --
Baird: Well, for purposes of this application,
whatever he has to do to abandon it, vacate
already been pointed out, what's done c
separately.
it's to the benefit of this applicant to pursue
t, to make use of that property. But as has
PP site is just going to have to happen
Borup: So, it's your opinion that adjacent property owners would have control of that?
Not control, but they would -- it would be their place --
Baird: Members of the Commission, I haven't researched it completely, but, you know,
there is no authority to go to to have it abandoned, because it was created by the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 59 of 113
signatures of adjacent property owners, it's likely that the way to abandon it is to find
those successors in interest and get them to agree that they no longer have an interest
in it. And those interests may have been given up while those subdivisions were
developed. Again, it's going to take somebody some research.
Borup: I think that's probably what it was, the adjacent property owners didn't have any
rights to that, did they? Your recollection --
Zaremba: They were wanting to put other things on that property and the Sharps had
ownership of it the whole length of it.
Baird: They certainly had the right to access their property.
Borup: Yeah. I don't think it was ownership, but they had a right.
Rohm: The thing that they can do, though, is just vacate that which they own and I think
that that's what they are agreeing to do tonight and that's about as far as we are going
to be able to take that, so --
Zaremba: Would they be able to word it in such a way that they abandon all interest in
access to any portion of Wingate Lane?
Borup: Would be appropriate.
Sargent: For the property that we own --
Borup: No. But they are claiming interest all the way to Ustick.
Sargent: Yeah. But if we abandon our use of it, we would abandon our use all the way
to Ustick. But that doesn't mean we can influence what the other property owners do
outside of the boundaries of our property. We can't --
Borup: I don't think Commissioner Zaremba was asking that.
Sargent: Oh. Okay. Yeah.
Zaremba: If they would state in a legal document that they are abandoning the use of it,
I think that would be enough.
Borup: And all rights.
Zaremba: And all rights to it.
Sargent: Right. Yeah. And that's what we would --
Zaremba: Including off property.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 60 of 113
Sargent: Yeah. And that's what we had proposed to do.
Rohm: And, then, there would still be other people that would have an interest, but at
least that would eliminate one party from being -- still having an interest in that right of
way.
Sargent: Correct. Yeah. We would abandon our rights to the whole length of the --
Rohm: Thank you.
Sargent: --of the lane.
Zaremba: Perfect.
Rohm: Any other questions?
Zaremba: I would comment that that was also an ACHD requirement.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Anna.
Canning: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, I believe that the two
subdivisions north of this also had to abandon all interest in access to Wingate Lane.
So, I think it effectively ends at this point of all the smaller lots. Now, the ones to the
north still have access provisions to that second street, if that's Challis. And I think they
wanted to preserve that. And that discussion came up as part of the gate, that at some
point they may want to be able to use that access point, so that they don't have to get
up to Ustick -- is that right? So, I do think there is still an interest from the property
owners to the north want to protect their interest to get to Challis, but I don't think that
they had any interest in that one last section that will be left open. So, I think that that's
the only section that I see that will still be there, but it will be just a dead end between
two streets. So, I think that that neighborhood association over time can deal with that
now. I think they have the tools.
Zaremba: That doesn't surprise me. That's the way I would remember it from before.
But I think the thing I'm trying to pin down is that if that section north of Challis --
between Challis and Ustick, if those people ever chose to abandon it, that at that point
we don't have to chase down the Sharps and get their agreement. I would like that to
be established now.
Canning: Yeah. And I think if we look back at the wording the other development had
to sign, it specifically talks about abdicating their interest in the -- the use of the
easement.
Rohm: I think we have got that pretty well ironed out.
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
February 2, 2006
Page 61 of 113
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rohm: At this point in time I'd like to ask William Smith if he'd like to come forward.
From the audience he has indicated had nothing he needed to add. And Kathy Smith?
And she's fine as well. Both of them had marked down that they were for this project.
And so is there anybody else that would like to speak to this project? Okay. Thank you.
Hood: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Caleb.
Hood: I was going through my minutes and -- or my notes in the staff report and I
wanted to mention a couple of things from other agencies that I did not mention in the
staff report. Nothing too major, but I did want to go on record that the Sanitary Services
Company did note that they will not use the common drive to get -- to go down here to
pick up trash for these homes and that a pad needs to be built near the curb here, so
that they bring their garbage cans to the curb for pick up. So, the applicant should
contact SSC and get the dimensions of that curb worked out. The other thing that --
Zaremba: I would add to that, that's not unique to this project, that's something they say
on a standard basis.
Hood: Correct. Whenever there is a common drive --
Zaremba: They are not being -- they are not picking on these people, that's a
standard --
Hood: Correct. I just wanted to call it out for the applicant and the Commission, just so
the people that attend those meetings don't think their comments are for not, so -- the
other comment had to do with the police department. They did have some concerns
about this lot and there being a lack of eyes on that property and it possibly being
subject or susceptible to possible break-ins or other type of crime. It is somewhat
hidden. I did talk with the applicant about that lot and possibly what measures could be
taken to allow this property to be visible. There will be an open vision fence here
adjacent to that pathway that the applicant talked about and I would like in this lot to --
you know, a lot over here that's at the end of a cul-de-sac, this lot isn't very visible
either. I mean his neighbors can see him, but you have got that situation here. So, I
really don't see much of a difference and I did -- do appreciate the police department's
comments, but no changes were made to the plat as submitted. Kind of just talked
through it with the applicant and that's what we had before. But I did want to let you
know that the police department did have some concerns, anyways, with that lot, so --
Rohm: Okay. Thanks, Caleb.
Zaremba: I don't know if we can qualify or quantify what the police department has
said, but would it be an option to place a restriction on this lot that their setback had to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 62 of 113
be a little bit greater and maybe this side setback has to be a little greater than standard
to open up the visibility a little bit?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba -- and I'm not sure that that would -- I mean
you, obviously, would be able to see the front of the house, I guess if they are patrolling
and could maybe look down. It seems to me like they had issues with even the rear
part of that house, you know, someone breaks a rear window and gets in. So, without
putting words in their mouth, I don't know that all of their concerns would necessarily be
addressed. It is certainly, you know, an option if you wanted to add something like that.
I don't know how the applicant feels about that, but, again, I don't think that would solve
all of the police department's issues with that lot as designed, so --
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rohm: Okay.
Cole: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Mike, go ahead.
Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Zaremba, the Public
Works, on the other point you made, a well site at the end of Wingate Lane for access,
we have no well site in that area.
Rohm: Thank you. Okay. Is there anybody else that would like to testify on this
application? Okay. Hearing none, discussion?
Borup: I guess I do have a comment and it's completely the opposite from what I
usually express and that's the size of the lots. For once I almost feel they are not
compatible with adjoining -- adjoining subdivisions. I mean this is completely
surrounded. It's not like it's at the edge of something and, you know, where it's new
development extending out and, you know, there is 50 percent more lots against the
neighboring -- I mean this subdivision has 50 percent more than the adjoining does. But
that being said, I saw no testimony or comments from any of the neighbors, so I'm
assuming that they don't have any concerns, so -- and that's what probably really
matters.
Rohm: I think you're right. Commissioner Moe, do you have any comment?
Moe: No, I do not.
Rohm: Okay. Good. Then, at this time I'd entertain a motion.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-062 and PP 05-
062.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 63 of 113
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the public hearings on AZ 05-062
and PP 05-062. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we forward -- we recommend approval to the City Council of file
numbers AZ 05-062 and PP 05-062 as presented in the staff report for the original
hearing date of January 2006 and re -dated for today's date, which is February 2nd,
2006, with the following modification. On Exhibit B, page two, paragraph 1.1.5, in the
second sentence I would delete the choice, so that that second sentence reads only the
applicant shall terminate or vacate the private road agreement -- or let me ask legal.
Should that say they would terminate or vacate their interest in the private road
agreement?
Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, that's correct.
Zaremba: Okay. So, paragraph 1.1.5 1 would change the second sentence to read:
Further, the applicant shall terminate/vacate their interest in the private road agreement
and by that I mean all the way to Ustick. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we recommend approval of AZ 05-062 and
PP 05-062 with the one change in the staff report. All those in favor say aye. Opposed
same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 12: Public Hearing: RZ 05-022 Request for a Rezone of 3.36 acres from R-8
to L -O for Church of the Holy Nativity by Church of the Holy Nativity —
828 West Cherry Lane:
Rohm: All right. We are doing quite well now. At this time I'd like to open the Public
Hearing on RZ 05-022 and start with the staff report.
Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Church of the Holy
Nativity has applied for a rezone of 3.36 acres from an R-8 district to an L -O district.
There is an existing church on the property. It's located on Cherry Lane across from
Meridian Middle School. Surrounded -- Cherry Lane in this area is really kind of a
mixed bag. It's surrounded by some office uses to the west, some residential to the
Meridian Planning & Zoning ® O
February 2, 2006
Page 64 of 113
north, some more office to the east, and, then, the middle school and some residential
to the south. The sole purpose of their rezone application is to allow the placement of a
free-standing lighted sign on their property, which is not allowed within the residential
districts. Staff supports the application. It brings the zoning more in alignment with
what we anticipate for a church use and it does enable them to be able to place a sign
on the property and staff has recommended approval with no development agreement
required or conditions of approval. And I'll stand for any questions.
Rohm: Thank you. Appreciate that. Any questions of staff? Okay. At this time would
the applicant like to come forward?
Lyle: Gentlemen. My name is Clay Lyle. I live at 2064 North Stonecrest Way in Eagle
and I represent the Episcopal Diocese of Idaho, owner of the property, and am the
building chairman for the Church of the Holy Nativity, which is an Episcopal
congregation. I have to apologize for the simplicity of this application based on the ones
that I have seen earlier tonight.
Borup: We don't mind.
Lyle: But it's -- the application was simply to enable the erection of the church sign. We
don't anticipate any construction or redevelopment of the property in the foreseeable
future. So, it's fairly simple and basically a technical request.
Rohm: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like to testify on this
application? Seeing none --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on RZ 05-022.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on RZ 05-022.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Thank you. I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number
RZ 05-022 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 2, 2006, with
no modifications.
Moe: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 65 of 113
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of RZ 05-022. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion
carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 05-066 Request for Annexation and Zoning of .50
acres from R-12 to C -G zone for Meridian Veterinary Clinic by
Architecture Northwest — 415 West Franklin Road:
Rohm: Moving on. I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 05-066. This pertains to
the Meridian Veterinary Clinic and start with the staff report.
Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Meridian Veterinary
Clinic has applied for annexation and zoning of approximately .50 acres from an R-12,
Ada County zoning designation, to a C -G, general retail and service commercial
designation within the City of Meridian. The property is located on Franklin Road west
of Meridian Road. I lose track of this area a little bit, but I believe Centennial Motors is,
actually, down -- is, actually, east a ways and there is an undeveloped property and,
then, there is this -- the subject property and, then, there is the Troutner Business Park
and the associated road with Troutner Business Park. The majority of the area is
commercial in use. There are some residential uses on Franklin and Meridian and,
then, also further to the west. The applicant has applied in this -- the parcel in question
is a flag parcel with some frontage on Franklin Road and, then, extending to the back of
the property and enlarging. There is an existing veterinary clinic fronting Franklin Road.
This proposal is -- this proposal for annexation is to build a new building. The existing
building will remain and a new veterinary clinic will be built on the rear of the property.
As a permitted use in the C -G zone, it will only require staff level CZC approval once it
is annexed and zoned. So, tonight -- the issues before you tonight are simply those of
annexation and zoning to that C -G zone. I did bring up some issues and some
comments that will need to be addressed when this application does reach CZC level.
Those relate to a required landscape perimeter strip along the western boundary. Due
to some constraints of the existing building and the configuration of this lot, it doesn't
appear as though there is room for that. That is a standard that -- that is -- qualifies
them for alternative compliance, essentially. It's says that if you cannot provide this
perimeter landscape strip over here, then, additional landscape materials placed
elsewhere on the property can make up for that. That's a staff level approval that would
go through with the certificate of zoning compliance. So, again, not an issue that really
is up for decision tonight, just kind of a heads up to the applicant more than anything.
There was also some concerns with the design of the site in terms of fire and SSC
access. This was not shown as the 20 feet that they would require for fire access to the
side of this building and, then, also to their dumpster location right here for SSC. Also,
a turning radius issue for SSC and it probably makes more sense looking at the plan.
It's kind of hard to work with the report, but SSC was concerned about this turning
radius after they accessed the dumpster to, then, make this movement and, then, go out
to Franklin. We did recommend that the western most parking space be eliminated and
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 66 of 113
also that by eliminating that space, then, placing the required landscape plan to there,
that increases that turning radius and SSC was satisfied that they would be able to
make that movement. We did ask for a development agreement with this application
and that is for -- and that is to require a cross -access agreement between the two
properties, cross -access and cross -parking, because although it's one owner and one
business, they are separate parcels and, then, to allow for any future uses we do need
to insure that both buildings have the access and parking that they need. So, that was
the sole reason for the development agreement. Like I said, you know, the issues of the
site design, that's kind of a staff level thing. Just wanted to give the applicant a heads
up and kind of get those issues out in the open tonight. Staff has recommended
approval with the development agreement. That does require that a cross -access
agreement between the two parcels be submitted prior to issuance of a certificate of
zoning compliance. I think with that I will end my comments and take any questions.
Rohm: Good. Thank you. That was a nice report. Any questions of staff?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I do have two. The parcel where the existing building is, is
that in the city or is that county?
Wilson: That is in the city and that is currently zoned C -G.
Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Then, the other question is in talking about eliminating
that one parking space, are you envisioning that there would be a curb -- essentially a
mirror image of the planter on the other side? Something that shape?
Wilson: Essentially. Probably narrower. That looks like a pretty -- we do -- we require
five feet inside of curb to inside of curb. That one looks like substantially more than
that. I would anticipate that that one is a little bit narrower to really open up that turning
radius.
Zaremba: But it would have the curb on the outside so that --
Wilson: Yeah.
Zaremba: Yeah. Okay. Works for me. Thank you.
Rohm: At this time would Joe Thompson like to come forward?
Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Joe Thompson, I'm with
Architecture Northwest. We are representing Meridian Veterinary Clinic. And staff did a
great report on it and I really don't have anything to add to it, but I am here to answer
any questions you guys might have.
Rohm: Thank you. I think the staff report was pretty straight forward as well, but if
there is questions --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 67 of 113
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would only comment, really, for your confirmation. On the
conceptual site plan that we were given it identifies the new building as a new small
animal hospital and the reason I bring that up is that the new Unified Development Code
does not allow for veterinary services to large animals. And since you're building this on
probably the only place you could put large animals at the current time, I assume you're
aware of that condition and this is going to be small animals; right?
Thompson: Yeah. This is going to be small animals. No horses.
Zaremba: Great. Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? Thank you.
Thompson: Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: We have one more person --
Zaremba: Oh, I'm sorry.
Rohm: -- to testify. Larry Rackham. Did you need to speak, Larry?
Rackham: Larry Rackham. You want the residence? 1608 North Kedwick Place in
Eagle. I was just questioning whether there was going to be any landscaping in the
front or not. Or if there wasn't, if there is a reason for that.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I believe we can have staff comment on it, but the front parcel
is not part of this part and we aren't able to require that landscaping along the front
parcel be done. Staff could correct me if I'm wrong,
Wilson: That's correct. Now, when the applicant does submit for alternative compliance
to make up for that landscape strip, they can't provide on that western boundary. You
know, we can look at the site as a whole in terms of where they can provide that
landscaping. If it was their proposal to provide some along the front, we could certainly
be supportive of that as their alternative compliance to that landscape strip they can't
do.
Rohm: Was there a place that you were specifically interested in landscaping?
Rackham: Well, I thought they required it along any improvements along Franklin
Road, is what I thought.
Rohm: Well, that's not where the -- that's not where the improvements are being made.
They are being made off Franklin. Here is Franklin Road up here.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 68 of 113
Rackham: And I wasn't aware that that building was not owned by the same owner.
Rohm: Well, it is owned by the same owner, but this is already developed. This portion
is already developed and they are -- this application is, actually, for this back parcel.
Rackham: So, that only applies to where the improvements are?
Rohm: Exactly.
Rackham: All right. Thank you.
Rohm: Is there anybody else that would like to testify on this application? Let's see.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-066.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the hearing on AZ 05-066. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move to recommend approval -- I move to recommend approval to the City
Council of file number AZ 05-066 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of
February 2nd, 2006.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto the City Council
recommending approval of AZ 05-066. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same
sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Moving right along. CUP --
Borup: I was just going to maybe ask on that one -- I would like to see the staff
encourage them to put that landscaping along Franklin.
Wilson: And I think we would.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 69 of 113
Item 14: Public Hearing: CUP 05-057 Request for Conditional Use Permit for
operation of a wholesale lumber and floor finishing products warehouse in
an I -L zone for Intermountain Wood Products by Intermountain Wood
Products — 220 South Adkins Way:
Rohm: Okay. With that being said, I'd like to open up Public Hearing CUP 05-057,
related to Intermountain Wood Products and start with the staff report.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Intermountain Wood Products is -- this is the
second site. They have a current building out at -- off of Atkins. It is in an industrial
district. This shows both sides. The south side has already received certificate of
zoning compliance and is in full operation. The north side is the one in question for
tonight. Both sides are being listed here. Because they are tied together by this
property line right here, they will be removing a current landscape strip and doing a
cross -access between the two sites. With that, they will be eliminating parking in this
location and with the parking being eliminated, they are proposing to put the parking on
the -- what would be the western boundary. Staff is supportive of that. They should
meet their required parking numbers for this type of a building, except one condition
would be that the entire site, including the amended parking, would be included when
they bring in their certificate of zoning compliance. The other portion is that there are
several neighbors -- there is a neighbor who has written in and, then, a neighborhood
notes is that there is a trash dumpster located in the rear of the site. This is also, I
believe, a trash dumpster and there has been some concern over the trash being picked
up earlier in the morning that the applicant can probably address, as well as the
neighbors are requesting no parking in the rear of the building. These are allowed by
code and would be considerations, more than conditions at this time. Staff is supportive
of this warehouse office complex. The warehouse would be here. The office would be
up front. It meets the standards of the Unified Development Code and I will stand for
questions. Staff is recommending approval.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward,
please?
Kaufman: Mr. Chairman and committee members, I am Dana Kaufman with Insight
Architects, representing Intermountain Wood Products and we are at 2238 Broadway in
Boise and we appreciate staffs comments and agree with those. And we will be
producing all the documentation, cross -access easements, that they are asking for, so
I'll answer any questions if you may have them.
Rohm: It looks like we are in pretty good shape here. Do you have any questions?
Borup: The question I'd have would be on the dumpster.
Kaufman: That wasn't -- that was a discussion that we had at our neighborhood
meeting and the property owner will discuss delivery or pick up times with the BFI or the
SSC, whoever picks that up there, and I'll ask to see if they can have that scheduled at
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 70 of 113
a later time. It does come up -- currently they do pick it up early in the morning. They
are going to --
Borup: Do you know what time that is?
Kaufman: It's -- I think it's between 7:00 and 7:30. Also, there was some discussions
with the -- the existing building has an emergency generator that runs at certain times
and we will reschedule that to happen -- make sure that it doesn't happen in the middle
of the night or first thing in the morning, because it is a little noisy when that starts up.
Borup: Was there any discussion on putting the dumpster in a different location?
Kaufman: There is -- there was some discussion, where do we want to put it. The site
is very difficult. Currently they have a dumpster in the back. The decision that we made
at that time was to put it back there to keep it in line with the other one. We also had
opened it up, a cross -access easement, which will definitely help the garbage removal
system and also fire department access and whatnot through there. We would rather --
we would rather it not be in front of the building for the dumpster.
Borup: Thank you.
Kaufman: Thank you.
Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant?
Moe: Mr. Chairman. The emergency generator, is that just for testing purposes?
Kaufman: The emergency -- yes. It runs periodically. I'm not sure what the schedule
is, but it's at least once a month that the generator runs for approximately 20 minutes.
Rohm: Yeah. Putting that during the daytime might be --
Kaufman: Would be much better, yes.
Rohm: Yes. Thank you. Jeri Smith.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I live behind the constructed building now. We
have had a few problems with the generator. It makes a terrible roaring noise.
Borup: What time of day is that? Has that been in the middle of the night?
Smith: We weren't sure, really, what it was and we weren't told that there was a
generator or anything on the first building. And after meeting with these people, they
said that it could very well be the generator that comes on. And Bob and I noticed it like
at 10:00 o'clock night. There were different times that we'd hear this terrible roar. And
he said it went once a month. I question that. We definitely do not want parking in the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 71 of 113
back. That wasn't really stressed, perhaps, from your zoning part over here. We have
had trouble with the lights. They shine right into the bedroom. It's also a glare into the
house and it's really hard to sleep in the morning. A lot of us -- some of us are retired.
We always thought it was going to be peaceful and quiet and not so noisy and we didn't
have to wake up so early in the morning. But we have no choice now. And he
mentioned -- oh. And I'm going to say something about the garbage trucks. We hear
the garbage trucks sometimes at 4:30 in the morning. And I don't know why they have
to come that early and they come on Tuesday and Friday and you can hear those
garbage trucks come around there next to our residential. And I really feel slighted after
visiting -- after listening to the comments tonight that we got no protection, other than a
fence. And we have no protection against this. We definitely don't want parking in the
back. We do not want the garbage in the back and we don't -- we'd like some strict
rules for hours that the contractors are going to work. When they built the first building
they were out there with lights and they wanted to pour the cement at 3:30 in the
morning and I don't think that should be allowed. And the reason that I bring some of
this stuff up -- and the insulation should be sufficient that we can't hear the hysters and
the noise on the inside of the building. And the reason I bring this up is with the Quali-
Fab building, as we understood it when we consented -- when the Council and us talked
about this, that there would be no work on the outside and there would be no windows.
Can I have more time?
Rohm: Briefly.
Smith: We hear compressors running all day long, seven months out of the year. We
hear grinders out there. Now, this is from the Quali-Fab, this is not from Intermountain.
And they rev their cars and stuff up. So, this is why I think that we are entitled to a little
bit of quiet and I'm sure that you understand that and I hope you take this all in
consideration.
Rohm: Thank you.
Smith: Thank you.
Rohm: We don't have anybody else signed up, but at this time anybody that would like
to speak to this is welcome. Seeing none, would the applicant like to come back up and
respond to --
Kaufman: Yes. This is Dana Kaufman again with Insight Architects. We have tried to
mitigate some of that. We did talk with the -- in our neighborhood meeting we did
discuss when people would come to work, work hours. They do start fairly early
sometimes. They do get there around 6:00 o'clock. The owner has agreed that those
people who would get here earlier would park up front in the facility, because those
parking spaces would be available, and not parking around the back until later in the
day when work out -- when our more regular work hours would come along. We have
also screened the fence. There is a 35 -foot landscape buffer between the two
properties -- or buffer between the two properties. We've also added another five feet of
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 72 of 113
landscaping and a fence line along the property to help with any lights that may come
through as the cars drive in and out and trucks drive in and out. Also, the owner has
expressed it -- an intention that if there is anybody rev'ing their engine or whatnot,
please, come and talk to them. They have not been contacted with that issue. They
would -- they were more than willing to impress upon their employees, you know, not to
do that. Also, the building does not have any openings in it on that backside, other than
what would be required, man doors for fire access and emergency exit. There is one
overhead door that's up in the northeast corner of the property that would let forklift
access in and out of the building. This building will be climate controlled, because they
will be storing hardwood products in there and, thus, the building will be much more
insulated than some of the other facilities. Inside this building they will doing no milling
or cutting of the wood. This is purely a warehouse for wholesale. They may have, you
know, a hand saw to cut something once in awhile, but they don't do any -- any
woodworking at all there. And all the forklift traffic will be inside the facility and it will be
insulated, so that will greatly reduce or eliminate any noise that may come out of that,
unless somebody opens up the door to get out. And there is no reason to bring a forklift
back around the back side of the building, so there should be no forklift traffic on the
backside of the building. The parking is back there. They come -- like I said earlier, will
come later in the day and not the early morning parking there. And there would only be
two or three people that would come in the early mornings to start loading trucks
anyway. So, all that parking should be able to happen out front.
Rohm: Thank you. I think it's important that you, you know, take the testimony that's
been offered and convey to the owners that, you know, the noise pollution has been an
issue in the past and the emergency generator and things such as that need to
specifically be run during the daylight hours and just be aware of your neighbors.
Kaufman: Okay. We will really impress upon them to do that. I know that we can
change the timing of the generator. The garbage pick up is -- we can do what we can
do there. 4:30 in the morning -- I wouldn't want that in my -- so we will do what we can
there and talking with the owners they are not scheduled to come and do that at 4:30 in
the morning, so we will find out why that is their schedule at our -- at around 7:30 or so.
So, we will track that down and make sure that that -- we do what we can to change
that.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any additional questions?
Moe: Yes, Mr. Chairman. You spoke of the screening on the back at the fence.
Kaufman: Yes.
Moe: Was that just for landscape or did you have --
Kaufman: We have an option there. We could do slats in the existing chain link fence
that's there or another fence in front of that. Be a wood or a vinyl fence. And that would
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 73 of 113
be six foot high and that would close out the -- or that would block the headlights of the
cars coming in.
Moe: Okay.
Rohm: That sounds like a good alternative. Let me ask staff if that's acceptable to
them. Can they put a six foot vinyl fence on their back lot line to help eliminate the light
pollution?
Guenther: If they are going to concede to it, then, there is -- they would just need to
include it on their certificate of zoning compliance landscape plan.
Rohm: Okay.
Kaufman: It was discussed when the neighbors did mention slats in the fence, so that
would be our first -- you know, that would be our first choice.
Rohm: And I think both of them would eliminate most of that traffic light contamination.
Kaufman: And any lights that will be on the building, there will be some lighting back
there to help with the parking, but that will be shielded, so that the light will not hit the
neighbors' backyard.
Borup: How about on existing buildings? Is there already slats in the fence there?
Kaufman: There are -- currently in the existing building there are no slats on that
property.
Borup: And I realize that's off site, but if you did slats, rather than new fence, would that
maybe be an option to do both?
Kaufman: Yes. Yes.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: That last one sounds good to me. Mr. Chairman, I would ask a couple
questions, if I may.
Rohm: Yes. Go ahead.
Zaremba: First question. Are both buildings likely to share the generator, the
emergency generator, or is there going to be a separate one for the new building?
Kaufman: We are not proposing an emergency generator for the new building and it
would not share that, no.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 74 of 113
Zaremba: Okay. Would it be possible in the design to move the air conditioning
equipment for this building farther away from the back property line or design it so that
the equipment itself is near the front of your building?
Kaufman: This particular building --
Zaremba: I assume it's on the roof.
Kaufman: Well, this particular building will only be heated. We will not have any air
conditioning. We were just -- do that to keep the temperature from getting too cold for
the wood product. So, any heating unit will be inside, so there will not be any
mechanical units on the outside of the building, other than the office building up front
and that will be -- obviously, that will be kept up front and not a concern for noise.
Zaremba: Good. Thank you. And the third question -- with the parking in the back,
would you be willing to put up some signs that state some specific hours for parking
back there? For instance, no parking 10:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m., or something like that?
Kaufman: Sure.
Zaremba: It would have to be self -policing, because I'm not sure anybody would come,
but at least it would remind --
Kaufman: Yeah. We would definitely -- we could definitely do that, yes.
Zaremba: Okay.
Kaufman: It would help remind everybody not to do that.
Zaremba: That was it for me.
Rohm: Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant?
Kaufman: Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on CUP 05-057.
Rohm: We heard your testimony. Thank you. It's been moved that we close the Public
Hearing on CUP 05-057.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: And seconded. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign. Motion carries.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 75 of 113
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Guenther: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Guenther: Before you make your motion, are you going to bring into the conditions
pretty much everything that you have said tonight with the slats in the fencing, the
acknowledgment that -- Anna wants to take a shot at this.
Canning: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, if you are considering the
applicant's offer to put in slats for the chain link fencing as an off-site requirement, staff
would just ask that you make that clear, that the applicant volunteered to do that and
that you haven't imposed that upon him.
Rohm: Okay. I think that could be incorporated.
Borup: That was my intention. I realize it's off site and can't be mandated.
Rohm: Well, then, Commissioner Borup, would you like to make a motion?
Guenther: Chairman Rohm? Just an advisement from our fire personnel that are here.
I'm sorry, this is probably a little out of order, but he just wants to say something to you
quickly.
Rohm: Oh, by all means.
Baird: Mr. Chairman, I'd advise you to reopen the Public Hearing if you're going to take
some comments.
Rohm: Okay. Then, let's do that, because I don't want to just go with this unsaid. So,
at this time I'd like to reopen CUP 05-057 for additional staff comment.
Silva: Joe Silva, Meridian Fire Department. The fire marshal. Just a quick comment,
Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. We would just like to put the design
team on notice that we would like to request that prior to submitting civil and building
plans for this particular project, that they meet with the fire department plan reviewer
and Lynn Grady to mitigate any -- some moderate fire flows available in the area. We
had some concerns when the project next door, Intermountain Woods, was proposed
and approved, we just want to make the design team aware that the flows are very
close and the design will be very critical on this particular project.
Rohm: Good. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
February 2, 2006
Page 76 of 113
Zaremba: Question on the fence subject again. Would it be appropriate for us to say
that it is a condition of approval to put slats in any new fencing for the new building -- or
maybe the fence is already there?
Borup: Yes.
Zaremba: Okay. So, it is a condition of approval to put slats in the existing fence on
this property and that the applicant has volunteered to continue that onto the original
property.
Rohm: I think that --
Zaremba: Is that a good way to put it?
Rohm: That would work for me. Staff? We have a nod of approval.
Guenther: Staff will write these up as a portion of the staff report that you all present
when we sign Findings in two weeks, if that's your wish.
Rohm: Yeah. I think that would work.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move that we re -close the Public Hearing on CUP 05-057.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we re -close CUP 05-057. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would comment for the record that during the time after we
closed it and we opened it again nobody left the room.
Rohm: Thank you. Good comment.
Zaremba: We are all looking at Commissioner Borup with great anticipation.
Borup: All right. Was there any other conditions besides the slats? I didn't have any
notes on anything else.
Rohm: Only if you wanted to address the hours of operation of the emergency
generator.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 77 of 113
Borup: Yes.
Rohm: State something that it needs to only operate during daylight hours or something
to that effect.
Zaremba: That, actually, is off site, so I'm not sure we can include it with this one.
appreciate the offer. I might add the requirement for the signs at the parking at the rear.
Rohm: There you go.
Borup: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move to approve file number CUP 05-057 as presented
in the staff report for the hearing date of February 2nd, 2006, and the landscape plan
dated December 15th, 2005, with the following modifications to the conditions of
approval: One would be -- I don't know if this would be 1.5 or somewhere else that slats
be added to the chain link fence on this property and make note that the applicant has
volunteered to also add screening slats to the fence on the existing parcel that they own
to the south and that they have also volunteered to adjust the hours of the generator
testing -- I would say between 9:00 and 5:00 would probably be appropriate and that
should handle their requirements. And also that in the back of the property -- the back
of the building on this property there be a sign posted to say no parking between the
hours of -- I mean parking only between these hours of 8:00 and 6:00?
Zaremba: I suggested 10:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. that --
Borup: No parking between 10:00 p.m. --
Zaremba: We discussed those hours, but --
Borup: No parking between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. But I also make note the plan
does not show any parking stalls on this east side of the building either. They would be
parking in non -designated parking spots if they did. Oh, I'm sorry. I was looking at the
wrong building. I was looking at the wrong building. Yes. So, motion as stated. Park --
I would propose no parking between 9:00 at night and 7:30 in the morning.
Rohm: Okay. Good. End of motion?
Borup: End of motion.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto the Council recommending
approval --
Guenther: Sorry. We don't forward on, but we would approve this in two weeks.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 78 of 113
Rohm: Oh. Okay.
Guenther: Did I get the motion wrong on the staff report?
Borup: I think that's -- yeah. That's what I understood. This will be --
Guenther: A final decision.
Borup: Right.
Rohm: Okay.
Borup: I thought that's what my motion said.
Rohm: And you probably did and I misstated when I restated it. It's been moved and
seconded that we approve this CUP 05-057. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same
sign. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, do we need to add to that a request for staff to prepare Facts
-- Facts and Findings or whatever you call it?
Guenther: We will prepare the Findings of Fact and write into the staff report the
comments that were heard at this meeting for two weeks from today and they will be on
the Consent Agenda with the other applications.
Item 15: Public Hearing: AZ 05-065 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.50
acres from RUT to C -G zone for Nesmith Annexation by Jonathan Seel —
2820 East Ustick Road:
Rohm: Good. Thank you very much. Okay. Two more. I'd like to at this time open the
Public Hearing on AZ 05-065 pertaining to the Nesmith Annexation and begin with the
staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The subject application is
for annexation and zoning of 1.5 acres located on the north side of Ustick Road. It is
directly east of Center Point is what the mark -- what's being marketed as you saw as
Blue Marlin annexation. It's the 58 plus acres Winston H. Moore's company owns. The
Kohl's site is just off the site on Ustick Road in this approximate location. The 1.5 acres
is in the white. Champion Park Addition, which you reviewed and recommended
approval to the City Council is directly to the west. The site is currently a rural
residential. There is an existing single family home and some out buildings on the site.
The applicant is not proposing to develop the property at this time. There is not a plat or
a Conditional Use Permit. What the applicant is proposing to do is amend the existing
DA for the Blue Marlin parcel to include this 1.5 acres. With that development
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 79 of 113
agreement there is a requirement that all future uses require a Conditional Use Permit,
so that would carry onto this 1.5 acre parcel as well. Or they submit a planned
development for the entire property or portions .thereof, but a future Conditional Use
Permit would be required. I think I'm going to touch on just a couple of things real quick
in the staff report. There is -- the staff report does have two applications that are
included with the one application and it's hard to talk about one without the other. Like
mentioned, the applicant is proposing to amend the DA. They have submitted a
miscellaneous application. This body does not act on the miscellaneous application, but
just because you do act on the annexation and zoning application, any provisions for a
development agreement we certainly will incorporate your comment and pass them onto
the City Council. With that being said, it was brought to my attention earlier today,
based on a letter submitted by the applicant -- I believe it was last Thursday. They
asked to amend the development agreement to also include a provision to just require a
five-foot wide landscape buffer on their side adjacent to what is being proposed for the
Champion Park Addition and extending all the way through Champion Park. After
talking with the director a little bit, it came to my attention that the correct mechanism or
vehicle to actually approve anything that's not in compliance with the ordinance would
actually require an alternative compliance application. So, I would ask that this board
actually modify the fifth bullet in the staff report on page seven and that condition and
analysis actually goes onto page eight, to require the applicant to actually submit an
alternative compliance application to staff. That is just a staff level approval, but to
actually submit that application for a reduction in the buffer width that would otherwise
be required by ordinance along their western property boundary. I do have a letter from
Sheri Stiles, who is representing Hillview Development Corporation. The e-mail
generally is supportive of the ten foot buffer proposed by the applicant, there was kind
of an out for them. It says we reserve our right to testify to another fact at the City
Council, but she generally said they are okay with the ten foot wide buffer. So, that's
something that definitely staff is going to take into consideration when evaluating the
alternative compliance request. I also have a letter from the applicant. They requested
that two clarifications be made within that development agreement for this property in
the 58 acres. The first one just said, for clarification, that it is included in the 58 acres
for Blue Marlin and this 1.5. Staff does not have a problem with making that clearer,
that this new amended DA includes the whole 60 acres. The other one you should
probably wait on until we see the alternative compliance request. They requested that -
- for clarification that they can build their buildings up to ten feet of their west property
line or up to that buffer line. Something else, I guess, that I'd ask the Commission to
take into consideration tonight is -- well, any discussion that -- first of all, on that land
use buffer, what you kind of think of that, and also staff was also considering possibly
even placing more limitations in the development agreement on what type of uses could
be constructed up to that ten foot line. Again, all of those uses need a CUP in the
future, but if a building comes in and they have say a garbage compactor at ten feet,
that doesn't seem to make too much sense. If they have docks back there and trucks
are idling early in the morning, that may be a little intrusive. So, there may be some
specific provisions that you would also want to put on that that we can include in the DA
and say, okay, you can have a less than standard landscape buffer. However, you
cannot encroach to within 25 feet with like garbage compactors and idling vehicles or
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 80 of 113
any docks that face the west or whatever that -- I'm asking you to brainstorm a little bit,
guess, at 11:30 at night or whatever, if there is anything that you can see -- any
potential problems that you could see with -- and staff will, as part of the alternative
compliance, too, do some of that analysis as well, but if there is anything that you can
think of off the top of your head that should also be included, I would ask that you at
least bring that up at this hearing and have the applicant rebut to that or we could toss it
around a little bit. With that I think I will stand for any questions. Staff is recommending
approval, again, with the modification to that fifth bullet that the applicant submit that
alternative compliance request. So, if you have any questions.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman. One question and refresh my memory if you would. What is
the required setback from a property line for a commercial building?
Hood: The standard requirement between a commercial district, which -- a C -G is what
they are proposing and what Blue Marlin is, and a residential use is 25 feet.
Zaremba: Whether it's landscaped or not, that's the common setback?
Hood: No. That's the land use buffer width is 25 feet. And, then, that is a build to line.
They could build up to that 25 -foot.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please?
Seal: Good evening, Chairman, Commissioners. Jonathan Seal with W.H. Moore
Company. 1940 Bonito, Meridian. I guess at this point I'm in agreement with the staff
report. And, in fact, I had e-mailed something to that effect, that we were -- with the
exception of the clarifications which I provided a memo and you have seen. I know
Craig has mentioned to you about a quarter to 5:00 tonight he called and talked about
alternative compliance. Conceptually we are okay with that. I'm not sure what exactly
I'm agreeing to at this point, so it makes it a little difficult for me, quite honestly. Up until
about a quarter to 5:00 1 simply was going to get up here and say I'm in agreement with
the staff report. Unless you have any questions I'll sit down. He mentioned things such
as trash compactors, loading docks. We don't have any problem with that. One of the
things -- and excuse this, because I wasn't planning on doing this, but I think this will
give some clarification. And I only have one copy of this, but if you can see -- you can
see here, this is Champion Park Subdivision. These are the lots in question that border
it. We have a back -age road back there. The back -age road will make these lots about
150 feet deep on average. I think one of the concerns I believe of staff at the time was
that we might put, for example, a Home Depot or some large box back there. But by the
fact that we have already committed to a back -age road, where this back -age road will
go -- and this is a plat we are going to be submitting, so you will be seeing this shortly.
So, this is not something we are just kind of saying here. That's going to dictate the
type of -- primarily the uses that we will put there. So, I think things such as loading
docks and trash compactors or those type of uses, are not going to be feasible there.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 81 of 113
We are not going to be able to put them. We have no problem agreeing to eliminate
such things as that. Beyond that I'm a little unclear on what other things staff and
ourselves will be able work out, but certainly we understand and we are willing to work
in that direction. So, I guess with that -- it's kind of a qualified, yes, I'm in agreement,
but I'm not sure what I'm necessarily agreeing to.
Rohm: I think it's a way of obtaining that setback that you have requested at the last
hearing and find a way to work with your people and still be in accordance with city
code. So, I think that that's the quick and easiest way to make this happen. My own --
before you step back, I have a question of staff. Because the structures that will be
placed on this property will also come before us with a Conditional Use Permit, isn't it
safe to say that the mentioning of the fact that we are not going to allow trash
compactors and things such as that, loading docks, that are going to infringe upon the
residential properties to the --
Borup: West.
Rohm: -- to the west, we can address that with the Conditional Use Permit at that time
and it's just an acknowledgment that that's going to be part of any discussions that we
have at that time, rather than encumber this application?
Hood: Mr. Chair, that is certainly at your discretion and if you don't want to put that as
a condition to this development agreement, that would be fine. I would hate to mislead
a potential tenant into thinking that, oh, there isn't this restriction on it. Again, the
applicant has testified he doesn't think it's going to be a problem, neither do I, just based
on, you know, the depth of the lots. They probably aren't going to have things going
around. So, it's not a have to put in. We are probably being overly protective and if
someone did come in with a CU it would could be a topic of discussion, but it's up to
you.
Rohm: And thank you. And, then, I guess whomever makes the motion, we know at
that time. But thanks.
Seal: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I think one of the things, as we mentioned when I
was here last time, Champion Park Subdivision -- and we discussed this, you know, the
homeowners to the west are going to be advised in their purchase and sale agreement
and also in the CC&Rs -- we are also posting signs on it and, of course, there is public
testimony of the fact that we will be constructing a commercial project here. So, I think
from their standpoint they should come into this with their eye wide open on this. I'm not
saying that someone is not going to come up here some day and say it, but I think you
bring up a good point that the conditional use allows you another bite at the apple and
at that point, if we happen to show something that shows a trash compactor, which
can't imagine I'm going on record of that, or a loading dock, which I can't imagine either,
at that point it seems to me you can say this is not an appropriate use and we are not
going to approve that, so -- yes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 82 of 113
Rohm: And that's why I went that route. Thank you.
Seal: You're welcome.
Rohm: Any additional question of the applicant?
Borup: I just agree, other than to mention that the tenant may be unhappy, but,
hopefully, you know, they should be unhappy with you, not with the city, because it's on
notice.
Seal: Yes.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Seal: Thank you very much.
Rohm: And we do not have any additional individuals signed up to speak to this, but if
there is somebody that would like to come forward, this is the time. Seeing none --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-065.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-065.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: Once again I believe Commissioner Borup has been making the best notes.
Borup: All I have done is circle things. Well, I think that the staff report handles
everything, doesn't it? Unless we want to add something more and I think that can be
handled as -- under a future conditional use application.
Rohm: Did you see the letter submitted that added clarification to a couple of the staff
report's bullets?
Borup: From -- the one from Mr. Seal you mean?
Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Borup, I don't know if you wanted to include the letter that
was submitted in a motion, but that might add some clarity.
Borup: Oh. Okay. Yeah. I think --
Hood: Mr. Chair. Commissioner Borup, if you so choose to make the motion, I guess if
I could -- I'm okay with the first bullet, if you're looking at that applicant's memo dated
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 83 of 113
January 30th. The second one is okay, too. I may have you strike the ten foot, just in
case we don't end up with a ten foot landscape buffer there. But just make it clear that
they can construct their parking and buildings up to the landscape buffer. I think that --
Borup: Just in case the City Council changes it.
Hood: I wouldn't say it's not going to be approved, but there is a chance.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. That's a good comment.
Borup: Okay. I think I'm -- Mr. Chairman, I move to recommend approval to City
Council of file number AZ 05-065 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of
February 2nd, 2006, with the following -- I think just one. With the following
modification: On page eight of the staff report, referring to the proposed ten foot buffer,
that that apply both to the 58 acre parcel known as Center Point and to the one and a
half acre parcel that is before us tonight. Did that clarify that? That includes both the
one and a half acres and the existing --
Rohm: Yes. That's correct.
Borup: And the second bullet point, the owner developer can construct parking and
buildings up to the landscape buffer. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded --
Hood: Mr. Chair, before you guys vote, I had asked that you ask the applicant to
submit an alternative compliance request. That's really the only way staff can analyze
that reduction in the land use buffer, so if you could make that a --
Borup: Right.
Zaremba: The third bullet.
Borup: On page seven. On the third bullet?
Zaremba: No. I was suggesting add a third bullet to number two on page eight.
Hood: The fifth bullet is, really, the one that --
Borup: Okay. And also add on page seven a fifth bullet, add to that that the applicant
submit their proposed alternative landscaping compliance to the staff for their
evaluation. Does that cover that? Okay. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 84 of 113
Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and
recommending approval of AZ 05-065,
modifications in the motion. All those
carries,
seconded that we forward onto City Council
to include all staff -- the staff report and with the
in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 16: Public Hearing: ZOA 05-002 Request for a Zoning Ordinance Text
Amendment with the areas to be amended include: the Definitions of
collector streets, adult entertainment, and net density; the standards for
the Traditional Neighborhood Residential Districts; the fence standards;
the table detailing the Decision -Making Authority by Application; changes
to application requirements; how to measure block length; screening and
chainlink fencing; requirement for certificates of zoning compliance; off-
street parking space standards and measurements; off-street loading
space requirements; family day care standards; and sign standards for
family day care by the City of Meridian Planning Department.
Rohm: Okay. And I want to thank you folks for sticking around here and we are -- it
looks like we are going to get to our last item on the agenda. So, at this time I'd like to
open the Public Hearing on ZOA 05-002 and start with the staff report.
Canning: Commissioner Rohm, could we have just a moment. We need to get another
presentation loaded on, so we have to shut this one down for just a moment.
Rohm: Absolutely. You take all the time you want
Canning: I think that officially comes under the terms aiding and abetting the enemy,
but that's okay. Thank you for waiting, Commissioners. Shall I start?
Rohm: Absolutely.
Canning: Thank you. Commissioners, we have a very exciting thing before you tonight.
When we started the Unified Development Code, one of the major objectives was to
incorporate a portion of what had been in north Meridian area plan regarding getting
some traditional neighborhood development standards actually into the code that were
a district option. The north Meridian area plan had proposed some standards that were
going to be adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan and we wanted to take those
and, instead, create a unique zoning district that would allow for traditional
neighborhoods to be built and by traditional neighborhood, what we -- what we are
referencing is some of the -- actually, the newer developments that are looking to the
old style of platting where you had an alley, where you had fairly narrow lots, and, then,
where you had a street section that came together and was a little closer and tried to
create a neighborhood feel. So, a very gridded pattern with alley access properties.
So, as we developed the UDC, we had included those, but as it got closer to the time for
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 85 of 113
it to be reviewed by you all and by City Council, the fire department and the police
department expressed some concerns with those standards. So, we decided to hold up
-- they wanted to have an opportunity to talk to the Process Improvement Group, who
had worked on those standards, and they wanted to work with them to see if we could
come up with some compromise solutions or some alternative. So, we went ahead and
just kind of adopted a blank table when it went before City Council. It was -- there was
asterisks in the whole table that said to be determined by Council at time of the plat
approval or development approval. But we have gone back and we now have those
standards for you. And this is -- some of the history is detailed in my memo to the --
that was submitted for the application. We did meet with the fire department and the
police department to try and come up with some alternative provisions, but we were
unable to reach any sort of agreement or compromise. So, you have an unusual
situation tonight where you have two staff departments that have politely agreed to
disagree on this topic. So, the fire department will be presenting their case for why you
shouldn't adopt these standards tonight. I'm going to refer to that -- to that memo,
because it does lay out a couple things. When the PIG group -- the Process
Improvement Group met with the fire department and the police department, they did
come -- they did add additional standards to the draft provisions that had been in the
previous version of the UDC and those were specifically to address the fire department
and police department concerns and I wanted to go over that. They did do special --
they looked at when a reduced street section would be appropriate with regard to when
the developer provided off-street parking and I will go through those in a minute. The
other thing they did is to look at where fences were located, because this was a concern
of the police and to the fire department and to give some specific regulations for these
districts as to when that would -- how that would occur. They also looked at fences
down side property lines and when that would be appropriate and not appropriate. And
they also added some provisions regarding lighting, so that to address some of the
police department concerns related to alleys becoming an attractive nuisance. And you
will spot these as I go through the proposed language that's -- or the language that's
proposed before you tonight. But I did want to point out, though, that those were added
-- the PIG group felt that those were important to address, the police and fire
department's concerns, yet we were still not able to come to consensus on these
standards. So, the first thing I'd like to do is go ahead and go through what we are
proposing briefly. You all have it in your staff report. I think everybody in the audience
has a copy as well. So, we -- or they are close to a copy if they don't have one in their
hand, so -- I will go through it briefly. The first thing we did was to give some clarity on
the purpose statement. The Comprehensive Plan talks about these having a density of
eight units to the acre, so we did go back and make that consistent in the purpose
statement. We had reduced it to six thinking it would be a gross number and, then, we
kind of went back and bumped it back up to eight to be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. But we did make it clear that that was an eight net units to the
acre, instead of an eight gross units to the acre. We also added the definition for net
density, since we were using that term now. We had to go and give a definition of what
that would be. The first major thing we get to is that Table 11-2D2. This is a brand new
table. Basically, we just took out everything that was in there and developed a brand
new table. And this is the dimensional standards for alley accessed property in the TN-
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 86 of 113
R district. As we went through we decided that it was really appropriate that the alley
access properties had different standards than the street access properties. So, the
first table you see is the alley accessed properties. And they would have a minimum
density of eight net and a maximum of 15 net. The minimum front setback would be ten
feet. The minimum rear setback -- if you have a parking pad -- now the parking pad is
this 20 -by -20 pad at the rear of the property, so off the alley that allows for off-street
parking. So, you have got two cars parked in the garage. It's mandatory to have at
least a two car garage for the city. And, then, also this 20 -by -20 pad. So, you're really
accommodating four off-street parking spaces for each residential home when you have
got that parking pad. So, if you have got the parking pad, it would be five feet to a
garage and/or living area and with that parking pad it's 20 to the garage and five to the
living area. The minimum side setbacks for property lines for detached single homes --
family homes would be four feet. If they are attached, obviously, you have got a zero lot
line there. Minimum side street setback off the alley would be five feet, off the local
street ten. And that's consistent with the front setback. And off a collector it would be
20 feet. They did want to require -- and this was a new thing, too. To require that these
developments have an eight foot parkway with class two trees and a five-foot sidewalk.
So, that's an option under our code, but they actually required it of all these
developments to have that separated sidewalk. The street landscape buffer was the
local streets -- again, were required to have the eight foot local -- or the eight foot
parkway with class two trees. Collector, you could go down to 13 feet and this was just
enough to accommodate the eight foot parkway with a five foot sidewalk. Arterial 25.
Entryway corridor 35. Interstate 50. Maximum building height 40. And those are the
same throughout each one. Did want to remind you that some of these notes are rather
important. Setbacks are measured from the back of the sidewalk or the paved surface
of the alley as applicable. So, we are not measuring from property lines. Really, the
important distance was from the edge of the alley pavement or the edge of the sidewalk.
So, that's where we are measuring from. And, then, the -- some of those are build to
setbacks. And that was the -- without the parking pad, that five feet. What we were
concerned with is if it gets anywhere between five and 20 feet, people are tempted to
park. It's pretty clear you can't fit a car in a five foot space. Just not going to work.
Even if you're trying to parallel park it, it really doesn't work. So, it was a build to
setback. You either met that 20 feet or you brought it up to five feet. Okay. The next
setback is for the -- or next table is for the street access properties and I'll just go
through a little bit of what's different. The front setback, instead of being ten feet, it's 20
feet to the garage and to accommodate that 5-20 pad and ten feet to the living area.
Minimum rear setback is 12 feet. Side setbacks are the same. And street landscape
buffers are the same, except for the collector is wider. This assumes that the -- that the
houses are oriented a different way, so that's why it gets a little wider. You're assuming
that because these are street access, that the back of the homes are facing the
collector. Whereas you wouldn't make some assumption on an alley. So, that's why it's
wider. You have got the eight foot landscape, the five foot setback, and you need a little
additional landscaping there between the sidewalk and the fence or back of the
property. And, then, we get into a very interesting section and you may have to think
and I apologize, because it's very late, but it gets a little tricky. There were some
optional street widths that we have proposed and they really kind of key on the fact of
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
February 2, 2006
Page 87 of 113
whether you have this 20 by 20 -foot parking pad. Okay. And so if you have got four off-
street parking spaces, basically, it allows for a reduced street section, where if you're
not providing that, then, you're going to kind of our standard street section. So, the first
one is for alley access properties that provide a parking pad, that parking pad has to be
20 -by -20 and, then, the alleys would have a 20 -foot right of way with 16 -foot of that
paved.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman and Director Canning, I would like to discuss that one. If
you're on E1 B.
Canning: Yes.
Zaremba: Even though the alley right of way is 20 feet wide, if the pavement only
needs to be 16 feet wide and, then, the pad is measured from the edge of pavement,
you end up losing four feet -- well, two feet on a side of really the depth from the garage
to where the roadway bed would be. I mean the parking pad would be two feet on each
side into the right of way, wouldn't it?
Canning: Yes. But that was -- the 20 feet was -- that was our minimum that we have
been requiring throughout the city from the edge of sidewalk. So, sometimes the edge
of sidewalk is in a person's property, sometimes it's in the right of way, and we made
that decision with the UDC to go with the edge of sidewalk, so that we get those
minimum dimensions.
Zaremba: Shouldn't we, then, require, though, that the pavement of an alley go all the
way to the edge of the right of way?
Canning: That's certainly a topic for discussion tonight, yeah.
Borup: Or the other option --
Zaremba: Anybody else want to argue with me?
Borup: Or the other option would be that it would be measured from the right of way,
rather than from the pavement. Wouldn't that be the other option?
Zaremba: Well, then, you could have -- put a strip of bare ground or gravel or
something in between.
Borup: Well, no, you wouldn't want that.
Zaremba: On each side.
Borup: No. You would have a 22 -foot driveway.
Zaremba: Well, that would work.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 88 of 113
Canning: Commissioner Rohm, Members of the Commission, I would get -- maybe
can get through these and I will try and go a little faster, because, otherwise, we will all
be asleep by the time I go -- but this is the last major section I wanted to go through in
any detail and, then, you might want to take other public comment and, then, have your
discussions after that. Okay. So, if you did that 20 -by -20 foot parking pad and you
would be allowed a reduced street section of 29 feet and, again, measured from back of
curb to back of curb, with parking on both sides. If you didn't provide the parking pad,
you would still have the 20 foot easement -- alley easement with 16 -- or right of way
with 16 feet paved and, then, you would have a couple choices there. You could either
do a 33 foot roadway section with parking on both sides or if it were -- if there were not
residences on the other side, like say there was a park or an open space, like what you
see in Heritage Commons where there is that large open space in front of the alley
property, then, you could still have the 29 feet with parking on one side. Is that correct?
Let me double-check. Yeah. Parking on one side with the 29 -foot. Okay. And, then,
for street access properties we wanted to make it clear that we didn't anticipate that
these would just be kind of on the perimeter of the property and that most of the lots
would be alley access, but if you had street access and if you -- you have to provide a
parking pad and so, therefore, you would be allowed the reduced street section of 29
feet with parking on both sides if you requested that. And, then, block lengths would
need to meet some certain standards and those were that although they could exceed
500 when a pedestrian pathway is used to break up the block, it is anticipated that most
blocks will not exceed the 500 -foot requirement. And what this does is this makes this
consistent with the ACHD standards for areas that have a gridded street pattern with
short blocks and so these -- that 29 -foot parking -- or 29 -foot section with parking on
both sides is an adopted ACHD standard for grid -like developments that have short
block, 500 foot blocks. I did want to briefly point out that they added some fence
requirements, only having open vision fences no greater than three feet high in the front
and that they be wrought iron or similar material. And, then, we cleaned up some of the
side yard fences to make sure that there weren't -- if there was only four feet to the
property line that we didn't have an intervening fence, because this is a problem for the
fire department. So, you can't have four foot of fence and, then, a four foot setback.
So, if there is only four feet, then, you wouldn't have a fence. Now, you could do a
fence from building to building if there was a use easement similar to what is out at
Heritage, but you wouldn't have a fence going the length of the side property line. We
also added the lighting and that was that the -- each dwelling unit would have a
minimum of two lights at the front of the unit and two lights along the alley. And those
lights would be on light sensors, so that they activated as soon as -- at dusk and dawn,
basically. And those would be a requirement of those units. I'm going to really quickly
go through the rest of the changes. We changed some of the fence stuff. We realized
that you couldn't put an arbor over your fence gate and not be in violation of our fence
standards, so we went and made some corrections on that. And, then, street collector,
our definition really wasn't working and I apologize -- Steve Siddoway gave me
alternative language to this and I forgot to bring it. I can -- I can get that to you
individually and I can make sure we get a consensus from Compass and ACHD on what
the appropriate definition should be. We were referencing something that's incorrect
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 89 of 113
and, unfortunately, the thing we need to reference isn't created yet, but should be
created within the next six months or so. So, we are really kind of at a quandary as to
what to define at this point, but I think we can come up with something. And, then, we
realized that we were a little bit deficient in our adult entertainment -- and you don't
really want me to go into that, but if you want me to, I will, so -- vacations, we are
recommending some changes here. After -- these were based on what we thought was
appropriate at the time. Really, at this point we are a little unclear still on vacations and
probably any vacation requires a Public Hearing at City Council is kind of the way we
are going, as a determination, regardless of what this says, the city engineer has told us
that any vacation application really should go to a Public Hearing, so we are processing
that way, unfortunately. We are still trying to work this one out. So, you might see this
one again. If you want to adopt it this way you can. If you want to adopt them all as
requiring a Public Hearing, you can. We hope to resolve this, but I'm not sure state
code will let us at this point. The only thing we did agree on is that the Planning and
Zoning Commission doesn't really need to hear vacation applications. That's about the
one consensus we have come to on the matter. The other ones are really just clean-up
stuff and are not worth taking your time about. We did strike the off-street loading
spaces, because they are just -- it's kind of in philosophy with what the parking spaces
was. If they are going to need a loading space, they are going to know what it needs to
look like. There is no real standard these days, because there is -- it needs vary so
much by use. So, we just left it up to them to determine what the appropriate loading
space was, if they needed one. So, we were recommending that be struck from the
existing code. Just some clarifications to family day care. Some clarifications for
parking standards and how parking measurements are done. The figures we had for
parking lots were horrible, I apologize, and just didn't have time to get them fixed up with
the UDC. We decided it would be better just to explain how to measure them. With the
advent of autocad the former tables and -- were really not necessary. They were very
complex. So, we just tried to simplify this and this really gets to the same thing. And,
then, we were missing some sign provisions for family day cares, so we have added
those. And, then, just added some correct numbering for sign tables. So, really, the
bulk of the application is the traditional neighborhood residential development
standards. I do have some pictures and I sent my photographer out to two places and
he forgot that I sent him to two places, so I only have pictures of Soda Springs. Soda
Springs was the development -- and I think Mr. Campbell didn't start it, but I think he
ended up with it and he has developed it and the other one is Heritage. Most of you, I
think, have been out to Heritage and know how that looks, so that's the one that my
photographer forgot to hit. So, I just have Soda Springs for you today. The interesting
thing about Soda Springs was that it ended up being close to what the standards are
that you see today. We tried to take what we knew were some of the deficiencies of
these two developments -- these are the only two new alley -loaded projects that have
actually been built that we could take pictures of. The other ones you have approved
some, but they haven't really been built yet. So, these are the two new guidelines. So,
we took what we thought to be the best from those and tried to fix some of the
problems. So, Soda Springs here, you -- David's giving me glaring looks. I'm sure
Todd will be by the end of this, too. Here you see the reduced front setback where the
houses really welcome the street and you see detached sidewalk, although I don't think
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 90 of 113
that's an eight foot planter. The eight feet has been a fairly new one that comes from
ACHD. So, the sidewalk planter in the front would be wider. This does look to be about
a ten foot setback off the street. So, this is the -- kind of the look we are trying to
achieve with these standards. This is the entrance street as you come in. This is a 29 -
foot back of curb to back of curb street and you see the houses coming out toward that
street. This is the alley. Now, I do want to point out that you have got -- here is 16 feet.
The actual asphalt paving is 16 feet. There is a two foot ribbon gutter that also is on this
side, so -- but the -- this does show a 16 -foot alley. Now, the alleys aren't the most
attractive thing, so, you know, keep in mind this is an alley. What we found on this one
is this is one where the applicant wanted to come closer, but this is too far away. It's too
tempting to park in that area, whereas a five foot one would be closer to here. So, this
is why we came with the build to line, you either build it five feet or you build back at 20
feet. So, you get the -- the full parking pad in the back. So, this was kind of an example
of how we don't -- the distances we don't want these units at. Sorry, Todd. Didn't know
he stayed here to be abused, so I apologize to him advance. But this does have a 16
foot alley and the 20 foot right of way, so -- and that was it. And so I just wanted to
show you those few pictures of that look that we are trying to hit and this is really -- and
if you can imagine the Heritage one looks similar to this. They might be set back a little
bit further and Mr. Turnbull can give you a better indication of that. And I guess I'll pass
it onto our -- the other staff that's presenting tonight.
Silva: Good evening. I should say good morning. Joe Silva, Meridian Fire Department.
I'm here to present -- you know, Anna had graciously offered to present the fire
department's perspective on traditional style neighborhoods and I almost accepted that
when I knew it was going to be probably a little later in the agenda. Thank you, Anna,
for conspiring with the enemy. Basically, what the Meridian Fire Department is here to
speak to is that -- just like the Planning and Zoning Department and our development
community, we are here to promote friendly neighborhoods and I think that was -- I think
that was part of the things we heard in the joint meeting with the City Council the other
night, that we wanted to promote different planning concepts that promoted a sense of
community and we wanted to depart -- a departure from -- from traditional style. I
should clarify that. From styles we are accustomed to seeing in Meridian. But as we
move through design process and the important decisions that the Planning and Zoning
Commission make, we want to make sure that we incorporate things like crime
prevention and fire protection. Obviously, in the City of Meridian, the -- do you want to
use that picture? Do you want to comment on this picture, Anna? This is Heritage
Commons. It's Mr. Turnbull's project. It's a relatively new planning concept to the City
of Meridian, so there have been a couple things that we have learned along the way
that we want to make sure that as we move forward from this point that we have great
planning concepts and good planning guidelines as we move through the process.
Obviously, as Anna alluded to in her presentation, one of the things that we see in
traditional style neighborhoods are detached sidewalks, larger -- you know, we are
trying to get a good greenscape going through there and to get a sense of community
and make it a walk -able community. The thing that really challenges the fire department
and other folks that need to provide essential services in these communities and these
neighborhoods is the fact that we need to have a good network of roads to be able to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 91 of 113
deliver our services. In particular, obviously, it goes without saying that the fire
department has to maneuver large vehicles down through the neighborhoods and we
don't have a choice of -- if we pull around the corner on a given day whether or not we
are going to choose not to deliver or pick up garbage service or pick up children that
may be waiting for a school bus. We have to provide services that the citizens that -- to
meet the expectations of our service levels in the City of Meridian. There are a couple
of concepts that traditional neighborhoods have in common with some things that we
have already in the Old Town. Obviously, alleys are a component there. Some things
are concerns -- as neighborhoods mature sometimes the affect or the vision that we had
when we set out, these things change as the neighborhood -- as the neighborhood
would mature. And so we want to make sure that the vision as we move forward is
correct and we are all on the same pages, both working for the city and giving
information to our elected officials and our appointed officials and also giving feedback
to our development community. Historically, a couple things we have had problems
with areas that have alleys is, number one, that we have -- because it's an area that's
concealed generally out of public view, children will go in there and they will do different
acts of vandalism and also we have had in recent -- in recent months small cases of
arson in alleys, so -- and the ever present parking violations that present obstructions
when we are not expecting them when we turn the corner. Obviously, when we are
talking about single family dwellings in complexes like traditional style neighborhoods,
the only form of fire protecting that these particular people have is fire department
access and an adequate water supply to suppress the fire. However, when we examine
neighborhoods that have already been built -- and this area here is basically between
Pine and Idaho east of 5th. We have access problems as the street sections or the
alleys grow narrower, we have difficult times accessing the rear of these particular
structures. What we are -- what the applicant in this case has proposed as part of this
revision in the traditional style neighborhoods is a 29 -foot street section with parking on
both sides. Just to recap kind of -- and just kind of refresh your memories as a
commission on what that really entails, is in the case of Meridian Fire Department, we
have worked very closely with the development community and we have, actually,
brought out requirements, our standards, into compliance or we have moved them into
being consistent with Ada County Highway District, and that being with a 29 -foot
roadway. We have two ten foot drive lanes, one eight foot parking lane. Anything less
that comes before staff or -- that comes before staff, if it has less than a 29 -foot drivable
surface, there is no parking allowed on that. On a 33 -foot roadway -- and I want to note
there is an asterisk here. These figures on the left-hand side include one foot for the
width of the curb. So, when you do the math on this -- on this chart, I want to make sure
that you know that we have included one foot in there for the width of the curb. So, the
30 -- the typical 33 -foot street section has two nine foot drive lanes and two seven foot
parking stalls. However, we have not been consistent with our surrounding -- and in this
case Boise. They require -- they have the same requirement for the 29 -foot roadway,
but on the -- they don't accept a 33 -foot street section, is because they are trying to
preserve two foot -- two ten foot drive lanes or a 20 -foot fire lane down the center with
two cars parked on either side. So, visually that's what that street section looks like.
That's a 33 -- excuse me 36. It's late. Thirty-six foot back-to-back typical section and a
33 back-to-back typical section. So, that's what those look like. That's a visual recap of
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 92 of 113
what we just had on the chart. The Process Improvement Group has proposed a 29 -
foot street width, again one foot for curb, so what we are going to end up with is two
seven foot parking stalls, one on each side, and 14 -foot net in the center, two seven foot
drive lanes. That particular figure, 14 feet, becomes very important and keep that figure
in mind as we move forward, if you could, please. So, why does the fire department --
fire code in this -- in the Meridian Fire Department require a 20 -foot fire lane? And the
reason is -- and it's very hard -- you know, unfortunately, because of your distance from
the screen, but when you look at the vehicle, our vehicles, the majority of our rolling
stock you will notice presently carries a ladder up front -- excuse me. Up top. I'm sorry.
The result -- the reason we had to go to that sort of change in our apparatus is because
-- because of our customer base, quite frankly. As you drive vehicles that are more
impact resistant, for example, we have to carry extrication equipment on all engines, so
we can access the patients that we need to treat in the field. So, it's required that we
carry that equipment. The equipment so happens to be in this rear compartment. As
our mission has changed and under Council's direction, we have gone in the
advantaged life support business. That requires that we carry a lot more medical
equipment. So, we had to preserve our -- and develop more compartment space on the
fire truck. So, as a result, that's why we have had to go -- when you see the fire truck
going down the street with a ladder up top in this general location right here, when the
arm that that ladder sits on is dropped down to where a firefighter can access that
ladder, it makes that apparatus, with the doors open, because we have to be able to
access the fire department equipment contained within these two compartments, the
width of the apparatus, which is just simply the doors open and the ladder rack down, is
15 feet five inches wide. That's not even taking into consideration that a firefighter has
to stand at the sides of the apparatus, being able to get into these compartments, with
an air tank on his back, and be able to step away and move away to the area where we
need to use the equipment. So, you say, well, you know, perhaps we will look at the old
apparatus. The old apparatus was eight foot wide, two foot compartment doors. So,
even the older style apparatus was 12 -foot wide with no room for allowances for
firefighters actually getting in here on these compartments -- these side compartments
in here to gain access to fire department suppression equipment. Again, kind of
alluding to that compartment door issue, we have to be able to open up the passenger
doors just to be able to get the firefighters out of the passenger compartment of the
apparatus. One other thing is that in the interest of saving space we have used and
brought our fire suppression hoses that we use to suppress fires on typical single family
dwellings, we have brought them down in easy reach of the firefighters down here in
these compartments at the side of the apparatus. These compartments are
approximately six feet long and it takes approximately five feet of space to the side of
the engine to be able to pull these hoses off and to be able to deploy them and get them
up to the front of the structure to attempt to suppress the fire and keep it in check. So,
with that -- here, again, is another example -- and I apologize for the size of this picture -
- particular picture, but this is the ladder rack down. Obviously, we have parked a fire
department vehicle, but this could be a citizen's vehicle here. But there is little room for
a firefighter to get in between the ladder rack and the vehicle to remove the ladder
should a rescue -- ladder rescue be necessary. Also, the other thing -- this yellow hose
here is the hose that we use off the fire hydrants to provide to us, but when this
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 93 of 113
particular fire hose, because of its size -- it's five inches in diameter when it's charged, it
sticks out five feet out from the side of the apparatus. So, we need some room -- some
operational room in and around the apparatus to be effective. And most importantly, to
be efficient with our firefighters, given our limited staffing levels. Sometimes when we
turn the corner we can't anticipate that there will be -- there will be delivery vehicles that
are parked unexpectedly and they block our single only access into a street. Anna
alluded to the 20 -foot by 20 -foot parking pad. One of our concerns here is that a 16 foot
wide alley as proposed, with a 20 -foot right of way, one of the concerns is that there
may be other things that enter this right of way, this two foot right of way that Anna's
proposing would be available to us, one -- two foot on each side of the 16 foot alley,
might add. We have got some examples of some things that are in here that are
unexpected obstructions that can hinder the firefighting operations and our ability to be
effective when we get to a fire scene. Given the popularity -- here is a very popular
vehicle a lot of Idahoans drive, four door pickups, and the problem with providing only a
20 -foot pad out there, as we were just discussing, these vehicles are 20 -- have an
overall vehicle length of 22 feet. As Commissioner Borup had mentioned, you know,
perhaps if we suggest that this pad be 22 feet it would accommodate these vehicles that
we are seemingly seeing more often on the streets of Meridian. This is an example -- a
lot of folks -- a lot of Idahoans are, in fact, people who enjoy the out of doors. So, it's
not -- it wouldn't be rational for us to believe that folks will, you know, not bring their
recreational vehicle home to load their camping equipment and their food and prepare
for their camping trip for the weekend. So, what we are requesting that this pad out
here be extended to 24 feet to accommodate these vehicles that are -- that are being
seen on our streets more and more often. Anna's absolutely correct, we have an
ongoing problem, you know, this -- this five yard rear setback, which is the distance
from the edge of the alley to the front of the garage, one of the concerns there is people
will stop and park sideways in there, therefore, partially obstructing that ten foot --
excuse me -- that 16 foot alley that we have available to us or at least we are
suspecting may be available to us. So, as the developments age, one of our concerns
is that more and more obstructions will show up in these unexpectedly and the problem
with that is as you were seeing and reading in the paper today, cities and agencies are
becoming more concerned about their ability to control taxes and with that would be our
availability of code enforcement people to go in and patrol these sort of situations to
insure that the 20 -foot easement that we originally designed and approved is, in fact,
still available for us. Alleys can become overgrown with landscape, trees, and so forth
that that could also affect both our vertical clearances and our horizontal clearances and
could quickly diminish the 16 -foot wide alley that we have originally approved and
moved forward with. So, as to our challenges in working that easement, this is an
example of, again, that project just between Pine and Idaho where these fences have
been built right on the edge of that 19 -foot alley. So, these are probably, in all
likelihood, inside that easement area. Again, code enforcement will become a very
difficult and very labor intensive issue to deal with patrolling all these easements. One
of the other things that's important to us -- and I know it's been given great debate and
Mr. Turnbull has been gracious enough to improve the turning radiuses at Heritage
Commons, it can be affected by landscaping or as you will see here forward -- moving
forward, sometimes we get trees unexpectedly planted in areas that we are anticipating
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
February 2, 2006
Page 94 of 113
was within that easement that we originally approved as part of the project approval
process. So, then, we kind of look at the anatomy of a turn given a large vehicle that we
are trying to maneuver down through here. We have a mailbox and our mirror is just
barely clearing this mailbox. So, this is a setup of us approaching into this same alley
that I just showed you in the previous slide. Our concern here -- there is really -- there
is no vehicle -- there is not that seven foot wide vehicle that could conceivably be
allowed to be parked along the curb here, so the anatomy of the turn here -- we could,
actually, have been forced over seven more feet. When this particular vehicle made
this turn we couldn't make it on a single tweak, we had to make a backing operation and
this could occur during emergency operations, then, we tried to make a forward
maneuver to go into and down the alley, just barely able to stay on here. Now, this will
be approved -- yes. I'm sorry. Anna has corrected me here. This is a 12 -foot alley that
we are turning onto and Mr. Turnbull has added -- I'll call it a skirt, for lack of a better
term, unless somebody else has a better term we can apply here. Mr. Turnbull, can you
see -- was that two feet on each side that we improved that? Okay. Suffice to say that
we have improved this approach here and it's been widened. Some of our concerns
here are these reduced setbacks and it's proposed that these setbacks be as little as
four feet. When you consider the width of this eave here, these eave-to-eave
dimensions here could be as little as six feet, because we would have eight feet here
and it would be reduced by two -- two feet. So, eave to eave here we could be as little
six feet, which could allow a fire to spread, you know, if it came out any of these
openings on this side of the structure and it would impinge on this -- this adjacent
structure here. Some of our concerns also was the combustible vegetation or Cyprus
that -- or evergreen material that they may form a year around screen just for privacy --
for purposes of privacy, can be highly combustible and propagate the flame on a
combustible exterior surface. So, again, our question that we want to pose back and
hopefully we get addressed is who will enforce the CC&Rs in these situations as these
developments mature. However, we are to believe -- under the belief that given the
vision of the city that we can -- we can accommodate a traditional style neighborhood
feel or sense when we go down and that can be achieved by requiring porches on the
front that allow for seating areas that promote communications between neighbors as
neighbors walk down -- walk down the street. Also, you know, encourages the use of
detached sidewalks and trees to make the community more walk -able. We can have
side loaded garages to remove the concerns that the fire department has over the
alleys. So, with that the fire department will stand for any questions should you have
any.
Rohm: Thank you. That was a good presentation was well.
Zaremba: Pretty clear.
Rohm: I think what I'd like to do here is go ahead and take our public testimony here
and, then, we will try and wrap things up all as one item. So, at this time I'd like to invite
Sherry McKibben up.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 95 of 113
McKibben: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'm Sherry McKibben, I'm the Director of the
University of Idaho, Idaho Urban Research and Design Center and I'm here to support
these changes and to tell you that in my capacity as director of the center we have been
working with Meridian since the Treasure Valley Futures project, which was before the
comp plan amendments, to encourage traditional neighborhoods and traditional
neighborhood centers for the sense of place and the value that it gives to the City of
Meridian and also to support alternative transportation by some density of housing and
neighborhood uses, alternative transportation being pedestrian, bicycles, and potentially
transit, reducing the car trips by allowing people to walk within the neighborhood and to
also allow a diversity of housing types and sizes for all ages and incomes for Meridian
citizens. I have a little Powerpoint presentation myself here. I have done a bunch of
research and I'd like to give you a packet of information for the record. I will just go
quickly. What I found was that narrow streets and alleys are best in, obviously,
residential neighborhoods and if they are the right size for traffic. Best if they are part of
a connected grid of short blocks, 250 to 350 feet, and that makes a connected grid such
that people could walk in a diagonal pattern through that -- it's sort of a zigzag diagonal
pattern through the neighborhood. Safer with on -street parking. Safe with separated
sidewalk and planter strip and safer with the bulb outs on the corners, so that a
pedestrian at the corner can be seen beyond a parked car. Here are the benefits.
Reduced traffic speeds, you know, by traffic calming, fewer fatalities, less crash costs --
that would be crash -- the cost to a victim to property, including vehicles. Efficient use
of land. Allows for greater density and reduces sprawl. Allows for more attractive
residential environments by spatial enclosure of the street. Less costly to construct and
maintain. Less impervious surface. Storm water. Less heat build up by that impervious
surface. Sized to meet the actual traffic need. A connected grid disperses traffic, so
that it's not all on one or two streets, making the streets able to be narrower.
Neighborhood livability and pedestrian friendly and increased property values. And I
can go through some of these things. This was the original diagram that I, actually,
drew that is in your ordinance right now and it shows a connected grid. It shows
accessibility to a commercial center that -- this one is shown in the mid mile there. It
shows a little parklet, schools, et cetera. Here was a graph showing impact speed
versus pedestrian injury, meaning that the faster a car goes the more chance of more
actual injuries occur. Slower speeds are better. Here a reduction in accident -- 15
studies found that traffic calming reported less accidents. A Minneapolis study showed
narrow streets with closer buildings reduces speeds. Reduced speeds means fewer
accidents. Here was another street width and injury accident rate. These are in the
packet if you want to look at them longer, but, in other words, narrower streets reduced
speeds and injuries. Best method to reduce streets is to -- or best method to lower the
speed is to reduce the width and add planter strips. In other words, add things that are
closer to the roadway that make motorists slow down, because they are not sure that
there is going to be a fast pathway. Friendly streets. This is, you know, about what
makes a valuable neighborhood. Reduced sprawl. Ten feet of street width reduces
supply of homes by three to four percentage points. So, in other words, the more land
you have for streets, the less you have for homes. I have a number of graphs from the
Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Crash cost savings. Narrow streets can look great.
Increased property values from reduced traffic volumes and speed. People like to live
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 96 of 113
on quiet streets. Okay. I have a number of alley examples that show that alleys can be
friendly and they can be also accessible. This is, actually, a 12 foot alley. These are
not -- I don't think many of them are from here, though I think there might some. That
was a plan. Here is another alley showing parking. It's a short alley, so it's visible from
both ends. This one with denser housing. Shorter setbacks. This one with trees.
There are a number of publications that talk about emergency response and the number
of factors that are important to think about. A connected street grid is very important,
shorter blocks, so that if a fire does happen in the alley, that you might not have to have
the truck go in the alley, the hose length from the street at the end of the alley could
reach to the middle of the block. Designing streets for everybody is a concern.
Balancing all of these many things, I think, is your job. And this is the last slide and this
would be beyond narrow streets would be making our arterials so that all of us, as we
drive to and from, could see the neighborhood, instead of the backs of fences and
homes, so -- thank you. And I can stand for comments.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Great presentation there, but after listening to the fire department, I have got real
concerns on this issue now and, basically, what I saw in the presentation was on your
narrow alleyways and whatnot, you're anticipating a sign that says no parking is going
to, basically, keep the alley clear?
McKibben: I think that's a concern, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I think crime and
vandalism and violations of parking are a concern to everyone and most subdivisions
are planned these days with homeowners associations and CC&Rs and I would think
that it would be part of any good neighborhood to be responsible to have their own
citizens responsible for monitoring that.
Moe: And, then, how long of a -- how long of a section would it be as far as your point
about the fire hose?
McKibben: Well, a 300 -foot block will allow a truck at the end and a hose length of 150,
to hit the middle of the block. Both ends.
Moe: So, you anticipate that --
McKibben: Yeah. And I think Meridian's downtown blocks are a good example. They
are about 300 feet long, if I'm not mistaken.
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
McKibben: Thank you.
Rohm: Mr. Turnbull.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 97 of 113
Turnbull: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is David
Turnbull. 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. Appreciate the comments that have
been made here tonight. I think that we don't have to look back too far too many years
when Meridian was criticized for being very monotonous, all the developments looked
alike and one wasn't differentiated from another. Each were just subdivisions, one
subversion after another. And I think what you have before you tonight is a proposal
that will allow the creation -- encourage, actually, creation of more of these types of
neighborhoods. Now, these aren't the only kinds of neighborhoods you can have, but
they are certainly one that I think we should have in Meridian city's arsenal that will
actually help differentiate this city and provide different living options that I think should
be attractive to the city. When we started down this path a number of years ago,
probably 1997, when we were doing the planning for Harris Ranch, nobody was building
these kind of developments in this town and so we took a lot of time and effort and
money and traveled around the country, went to places like Washington DC. We went
to Memphis, Tennessee. We went to Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver, Washington,
and -- where else did we go? We went a lot of different places. We talked to
developers that were doing these kinds of developments, we talked to residents that
were living in those kinds of developments, we talked to city officials that had approved
and were living with these kind of developments and we learned a lot of things. We
took a lot of pictures. We had our tape measures out, we measured alleys, and I can
tell you that we measured alleys everywhere from nine feet wide to 16 feet wide. We
measured streets anywhere from 26 feet wide to probably 32 feet wide. And we looked
at sidewalk widths and separation for planters and all of those kinds of things. And we
came back and implemented what we found that we thought worked and would work in
Boise and, you know, we were doing it for the first time, so we -- I think we hit it pretty
well, though, when we did Harris Ranch and I have got to tell you that we have done a
lot of different projects around this valley, but the two that I'm most proud of at the
present time are the Mill District at Harris Ranch and the Heritage Commons project,
because we have successfully incorporated these standards that we are talking about
today. I appreciate the concerns of Joe and I appreciate his calm nature in presenting
tonight. I know this can sometimes be an emotional issue for the fire department and I
know that they have got their list of concerns that they have to deal with. But I think as
Sherry noted, safety isn't just a matter of how fast this fire truck can respond, it's also a
matter of creating nice livable communities with quiet local streets that benefit the
neighborhood, not just on that occasional emergency call, but 24 hours a day every day
making those streets safe and enjoyable for the neighbors. I sat on the PIG, the initial
PIG, the Process Improvement Group. And this was one thing that we had a lot of
discussion about and we have come -- we came up with a set of standards and, then,
we sat down and we listened to the fire department's concerns and we modified those
standards. We went from 12 foot wide allies to 16 foot wide alleys. We accommodated
thing like fence setback standards and build to lines or the parking area pad. I know
that, Dave, you mentioned a concern about that two extra feet of paving -- this is no
different. This is no different in an alley than it would be in a regular street right of way.
You always are -- or generally have some area that's in the right of way that's actually in
the front yard of the property owner, so it's not any different there. And I think that we
0
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 98 of 113
have accommodated that with our 20 -by -20 parking pad. That's the same thing that
would be required in a front street. The alley shouldn't be any different. We -- Joe
brings up several points, access problems -- you know, I look at the alleys as an access
that they aren't going to have otherwise and so I think it's an added benefit. Or is it
going to be the same standard as the street standard? No. It shouldn't be anything
close to that. Otherwise, they won't be built. Joe pointed out that Meridian Fire
Department has agreed with ACHD standards. I think -- I appreciate that, because I
think what they have done so far helps, but the TN -R standards that we are proposing
now are very important. I think this is a matter if we are going to do it, let's do it right.
And I can tell you -- and I appreciate Joe's concerns and I have read his suggested set
of standards, but if those are the standards that Meridian city adopts, I can tell you that
our company, for one, will not be building any TN -R in Meridian city. We will have to go
somewhere else to do it, because we won't do it unless we can do it right. A lot of the
photos that you saw here tonight in these Powerpoint presentations showed you these
narrower streets and you can go back and look at them and you will notice that you
often don't see very many cars parked on those streets. This isn't a situation where you
have bumper -to -bumper traffic on both sides of the street that were impeding the traffic -
- or impeding the fire department. So, keep that in mind. I think that what we are
suggesting here -- what we are proposing gives the fire department adequate access,
adequate operational room. Joe brought up a concern about the four foot side
setbacks. I'll just note that I believe -- Anna, you can correct me if I'm wrong -- but that's
already a part of the code in the R-8 zone, is it not?
Canning: Correct.
Turnbull: Okay. So, this is already something that's been adopted by the city and,
actually, the International Building Code allows anywhere from three to three and a half
foot side yard setbacks. So, I think that that's already been addressed. So, again, we
have worked hard on this. I think we have got it right. I appreciate this Commission
forwarding a positive recommendation to City Council to approve the standards as they
have been presented by Anna tonight. I'll stand for any questions. I know we are all
getting tired.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I do have one, unless you're -- while you're thinking. Is that
what you --
Rohm: It's all yours.
Borup: Just a clarification. You made a comment referring, I think, to Commissioner
Zaremba about the setback on the alleys being the same as the front, referring to the 20
feet?
Turnbull: Yeah. The garage has to be setback 20 feet on a street.
Borup: But the street is 20 feet from the property line.
s 0
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 99 of 113
Turnbull: It's 20 feet from the sidewalk.
Borup: If it's a separated sidewalk it is.
Turnbull: Any sidewalk.
Borup: Did that change?
Canning: Yes. We no longer measure from property lines, we measure --
Borup: Including on non -separated sidewalks?
Canning: Correct.
Borup: Okay. I knew it changed on the separated sidewalks and I didn't realize that it
changed on the non --
Canning: Yes. Any -- any setback now is measured from the edge of sidewalk, if it's
attached or detached.
Turnbull: There are occasions when the pins can actually be in the sidewalk --
Borup: Well, on the separated they usually are.
Turnbull: Or the pin can be behind the sidewalks, but the city, for sake of consistency,
is saying what's really important to us is that we have that setback from the sidewalk --
where the sidewalk actually is and we don't really care that much about where the
property pin is.
Borup: Okay. I think the difference you have on the front and you have on the alley,
also have the width of that sidewalk somewhere, so you're from --
Turnbull: I would just encourage you to --
Borup: Five to -- you know, five to 13 feet from the edge of the driveway to the road,
whereas the alley you're saying it's zero.
Turnbull: I will grant you that alleys are different and they are supposed to be.
Borup: The other question I have on the alley -- and I don't know that there is any
standard on whether they are just paved -- I just noticed a big difference in the looks
when they had a concrete ribbon on the edge, as opposed to unregulated pavement.
Turnbull: One of the things we noticed in our travels around the country is most of them
were just asphalt, you know, how a nice clean edge you don't get on asphalt. We build
all of our projects with full concrete alleys with, basically, a large valley gutter. That's
IMP
�®
l77777777
;�.
+S
{ au
i
f
,.. ...
EV
,,,F9��:gl,.
j
�
g
1
l
� k
a
„ x
'
p r s,. yy
'Sof
lY k i
i
mm
{
f f t- „ 5 ;
.taE sh.S1E #•x{F
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
February 2, 2006
Page 100 of 113
the way we build that. So, you get a nice clean landscaping edge and it holds up better
on the edges, too. You won't have the crumbling.
Borup: Is that in the -- is that addressed?
Canning: Not currently. I also wanted to add -- I'm not -- I think it's already addressed
in the UDC, but the 28 and 48 curve radii, I think that the staff and the PIG group agreed
that those should apply to the -- to the alley aprons as well.
Turnbull: The entrance from the public street to the alley?
Canning: To the alley. Yes. So --
Borup: That's all I had, Mr. Chairman.
Rohm: Yes.
Turnbull: May I sit down, then?
Rohm: Oh. Yeah.
Turnbull: Thank you.
Zaremba: While we are still on the alley subject, I agree with the attractiveness of the
narrow ones, but even comparing it to our parking lot requirements, which we have
some modification to on page ten of the paperwork that we are looking at, alley parking
pads are a 90 degree parking situation. And in our stall width and aisle requirements in
a standard parking lot for a 90 degree parking stall, the stall depth has to be 19 feet. A
one way drive aisle has to be 25 feet. That would add up to -- if you have a 25 -foot
drive aisle and a 19 -foot parking stall on either side of it, that's 63 feet across. If we
allow an alley to be 16 feet and, then, two 20 -foot pads on either side, that's only 56 feet
across. The reasoning behind the 25 -foot wide drive aisle requirement in the parking lot
is so that a vehicle can, actually, make it into the 90 degree stall and I guess I need
some help with why that doesn't apply to alleyways as well.
Canning: Didn't you know that cars maneuver differently in alleys? I'm sorry. I'm being
facetious. It's too early in the morning. Forgive me. That was inappropriate. As Mr.
Turnbull stated, alleys are different. That's true. If this was the only access being
provided to this piece of property, it would look more like a commercial driving lot and
that's what those -- those private street standards are based on is, basically, the same
as the commercial drive aisle with parking spaces. But the issue is is that you have two
forms of access and I think what the TN -R standards are kind of getting at is to create
this look, to create this feel, we don't want to provide the full standard in the front and
the full standard in the back, because it doesn't generate that appearance. On the
street side it doesn't create that enclosed space that Ms. McKibbens spoke of. On the
alley side, if you start providing the same kind of standard that you would for a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 101 of 113
commercial drive aisle, you're just creating far too much asphalt and far too much
pavement. It's just -- it's not economical. You're developing instead of maybe 25 or 30
percent of your property in streets, you've just got everything paved and there is no
room for houses. So, some of it goes back to that look, that density that we are trying to
achieve on our transportation corridors, you just can't achieve them with those kind of
standards that you're talking about. And driving down alleys does require different
driving. There are different expectations as well. If there is somebody else driving on
the alley, you find an empty parking space to pull over or you don't enter the alley until
that person has exited and there are people with large trucks who sometimes have to
make more than one attempt at getting onto the parking pad. But that's expected. You
know, that's -- you know that when you move into your house and you accept that as
part of the package that comes with your home and I can speak to this issue quite well.
I live on the 12 -foot Harris Ranch Mill District alley and you do do that. You pull off at
the alley T, wait for somebody to go by, or you wait until somebody exits before you
enter the alley and you make those accommodations. So, yes, it isn't as roomy as a
commercial drive aisle, but it's certainly not intended to be.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to maybe express another observation I have that applies
to that in a parking lot. You're pulling out of a nine foot stall and you need to be all the
way out before you can start making your turn. Normally on an alley loaded you're
coming -- if you're coming out of the garage you have got 20 feet there, you start
making your turn as soon as you have exited the garage.
Zaremba: That's a good point.
Borup: Unless you have got another car there beside you and, then, it may be a little
tight, but you know -- and even if you're in a -- on the driveway with only one car, you
can start making your turn immediately. So, I think it still allows for turning the same,
unless cars are hemmed in there. But that's been my thoughts on the difference.
Canning: And I would note on the folks that have larger cars on our alley, most of them
park -- if they get two cars inside the garage or three -- some of them have three car
garages and they won't hang over for the most part, they will angle it so that they are,
you know, parking at a right angle and so that they are not overlapping the alley, so --
and my CC&Rs are aggressively enforced I want to note. Nazis.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, if we exhausted that subject, I have a couple others.
Rohm: I have opened -- this is an open forum. Have at it.
Borup: Well, are we still on alleys you mean?
Zaremba: Well, if you have more to say, I'll wait.
Borup: Well, no, I'm comfortable with the width and everything. The comment I would
have is just on the construction, noticing the difference between an alley that had a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 102 of 113
concrete ribbon as a minimum and those that didn't, even brand new it didn't look as
good and after a few years you know what -- I mean the edges do start sloughing off.
So, I -- personally, I'd like to see a requirement for a concrete ribbon at the minimum. I
mean the concrete alley handles that even more so, but is that possible to --
Canning: Did you want to -- the Commission can recommend either the one foot or two
foot ribbon and I assume that would still be the 16 -foot width or -- you need to clarify.
But that certainly gives it a --
Borup: The ribbon would be part of the 16, in my mind.
Zaremba: That certainly would be useful for the homeowners association, who is,
eventually, going to have to maintain the alley. I think even though concrete is probably
more expensive up front, it's easier to maintain in the long run and lasts longer, so that
might be a good thing for people to think ahead on the maintenance.
Borup: I was just thinking of the edges.
Zaremba: Yeah.
Canning: Sir, to clarify, these are public alleys. They are not private. They are public.
Zaremba: You mean ACHD would maintain them?
Canning: Yes. And these do meet the standards for ACHD alleys.
Borup: Their standards are pavement only?
Canning: I don't know.
Borup: I assume they are, because some of the examples showed that.
Canning: Mr. Turnbull is indicating that they do allow just pavement.
Rohm: Just pavement? No asphalt? Oh. Okay.
Canning: No ribbon curb. That's usually referred to as a ribbon curb. That asphalt
edge would be called a ribbon curb.
Moe: I guess I would anticipate, then, if ACHD is going to maintain that, then, you pretty
have to stick with their design?
Borup: No, you don't. Don't have to.
Zaremba: Well, that's a good point as well. ACHD would have to approve the
installation of it in the first place, if they are going to assume the maintenance of it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 103 of 113
Canning: Commissioner Rohm. ACHD wouldn't object to a ribbon curb, if that's what
was being indicated. I'm sorry. But I mean you can require a more stringent standard.
Borup: I think for maintenance and overall esthetics, it certainly is more pleasing.
Commissioner Zaremba, you had some other points?
Zaremba: Yes. I'd like to go to page seven and Item G, the lighting. I agree with what's
there, but I would want to add one more thought to it. I don't know if down shielding is
appropriate, but I think we need a statement that there at least is no up -lighting.
realize lighting in an alley or around buildings you kind of do want the light to spread a
little bit, so down shielding isn't exactly what I'm talking about, but we also don't want
the light to go straight up. So, I don't know what the wording would be, but what's there
like. I would add a sentence to it that says light can't escape straight up or something.
Canning: The UDC does have specific provisions about up -lighting. Now, it depends
on the wattage of the bulb and I suspect that these would be small enough that they
might actually be exempt from that. But you could have it just that there was a cap to
prevent up -lighting. That's certainly a possibility.
Zaremba: Well, I'm just thinking in a fairly good subdivision you -- even with small bulbs
you could have several thousand watts of light escaping into the sky.
Canning: I live in a single loaded alley and that alley stays fairly light. So, it does add
light. Most of them -- some of them are decorative, so you would be -- you would be
putting some limits on those. But there is plenty of decorative ones with -- that prevent
up -lighting as well.
Zaremba: Are you saying we don't need to include a statement like that or --
Canning: No. I'm saying just the opposite. I'm saying that I think these would be
exempt under the lighting provisions. So, if you want to prevent up -lighting, you need to
specifically address that.
Zaremba: I would like to.
Borup: And I don't know if that's a concern on a residential neighborhood. Normally
you don't have anymore than a hundred watt bulb.
Zaremba: Yeah. But if you have two per building and a couple hundred buildings, you
have got some significant wattage all combined. I'm just trying to avoid anymore light
pollution of the sky than we have to have. I certainly agree with --
Borup: This is just on the alley? How about the front of the house?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 104 of 113
Zaremba: Well, that -- I would just add it to that statement and I think that covers both
front and back. And G talks about front and back and I would just say where ever they
are we should prevent up -lighting.
Rohm: Prevent it or minimize it?
Zaremba: Minimize it.
Rohm: Okay.
Zaremba: I guess you will never prevent it, because even down -lighting can bounce off
the surface it's focused on and provide some light pollution.
Rohm: Anything else?
Zaremba: If we have exhausted that subject, I do have a different one.
Rohm: Moving on.
Zaremba: Okay. I'm on page nine. This is item ten. And the deletion of A about off-
street parking for loading, I remember some of the discussion about that and I'm one of
those that was very much in favor of requiring off-street parking for loading. I was not
that interested that there actually be specific requirements that had to be met, but I think
my discomfort just removing that entirely is that building uses change -- I mean the
person that's building or going to use that today may have a use that doesn't involve
any loading. But that building may change hands down the road sometime and there
may be loading and I guess the reason I bring it up is I have done transportation
systems in enough cities where they didn't require off-street parking. The traffic
management is a real problem if you have a UPS truck parked in the middle of the
street for 20 minutes -- I mean they usually try and move real quick, but a lot of traffic
could get balled up in 20 minutes and somebody that has a big semi that needs to be off
loaded, parked in the middle of the street if there is no place else for them to go, it just
creates traffic problems. And the extension of that is I think it would create safety
problems as well for emergency responders. So, while I don't have any problem with
specifying how that has to be, I still would like to say something like loading spaces for
commercial and industrial uses shall be off street. That's really all I'd care to say, but I
feel like something does need to be said.
Canning: I believe we do have that statement, but I will double-check and make sure
that we have something to that effect.
Zaremba: And it can be very generic. I'm not stuck on having specifics, but --
Canning: Could you repeat that language for me again?
Meridian Planning & Zoning O
February 2, 2006
Page 105 of 113
Zaremba: What I said was loading spaces for commercial and industrial uses shall be
off street.
Canning: Thank you.
Zaremba: That may not necessarily be the best wording, but it gets to what I think I'm
looking for.
Canning: If that is not in there, I will make sure that that gets included before it goes up
to Council.
Zaremba: Great. Thank you. I'm done. Anybody believe that?
Borup: I did have one item.
Rohm: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: And probably ask for some clarification. That's on -- Commissioner Zaremba
and I had different numbers, but it's under fences. Mine says page four. In the TN -R --
fences in the TN -R district where it talks about front yard fences, I'm not sure, does that
replace the existing wording we had where this is only approving wrought iron or other
materials are still approved?
Canning: Are we -- this would only be -- so we are talking about F -1-C?
Borup: F -1-C. Yes.
Canning: Okay. That was -- would only apply in the TN -R district.
Borup: Well, maybe all of them, because the previous one said it can be three foot for a
closed vision. Here it says it must be an open vision. So, the three foot closed vision
has been eliminated, is that what this is indicating? In the UDC page six under -- well, it
says -- it's the same reference it refers to here, 11-3-A, 7-A.
Canning: There are fence standards in Section 11-3-A, 7-A. There are also some very
specific set of standards in the TN -R section. Because we were coming up with special
ones to address some special needs, we -- there are ones that only pertain to the TN -R
and one of those is the wrought iron.
Borup: So, this is in addition to what's already in the book, is what I was --
Canning: Yes.
Borup: Okay. It's not replacing what's in there. This is another allowed fence.
54
"f 'p
f
r
011 y�#Sv
pp��W 35
a' - "S Cw
.,S,
nr
x
a
F, 1'
.,1
Meridian Planning & Zoning o
February 2, 2006
Page 106 of 113
Canning: If you get down to item number two with five, six, seven and eight, those are
additional ones for the general section.
Borup: Yeah. I'm looking under C under the TN -R district.
Canning: Yeah. The one C is only for the TN -R, but there is another section that adds
to the overall list of fence standards. But that particular section is only for TN -R.
Borup: Now I'm confused. In which -- in the proposed changes or in the old --
Canning: In the proposed changes, if you go to page seven, item number two, you will
see 11-3-8-7-C and, then, it says five, six, seven, eight.
Borup: For some reason my numbering is different, then.
Zaremba: Yeah. I'm not on page seven with any of that. My fence --
Borup: I'm looking at the -- the one that was in our --
Zaremba: My fence doesn't -- starts on page six right in the middle of the page.
Rohm: Right.
Canning: Are you looking at the memo or the staff report?
Borup: I'm looking at the memo.
Canning: Okay. I will turn to the memo, then.
Borup: Let me turn to the staff report. It won't make a difference.
Canning: Okay.
Zaremba: I think I was looking at the staff report.
Borup: I'm the only one that's out of sync. Okay. I'm looking at page six, item F.
Zaremba: Uh-huh.
Canning: Okay. That only applies to the TN -R.
Borup: Right. Does that -- but the old TN -R district allowed three foot fences of any
material. Is this one only allowing open less than three foot made of wrought iron?
Canning: That's the proposal that's before you.
c
Y1, i}
n*0t
r�
'z
i
f.
i;
y
€Y
pp t l
r•
�
tv
yj
}
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 107 of 113
Borup: Okay. So, a picket fence would not be allowed. I mean that may only be in
magazines, I don't know, but it's a real traditional neighborhood style. Is that clear? So,
if I want to do a picket fence --
Canning: Mr. Turnbull has very strong feelings about wrought iron. I have to admit
staff does not. It was the recommendation of the PIG group, but if the Planning
Commission wants to --
Borup: No. I understand what it's saying. I would say that maybe needs to be a
decision of each individual subdivision CC&Rs or something in the design of that
subdivision.
Moe Well, what I would say is that as is noted in similar quality and appearance, what
one person would say wrought looks good, another would say that your other picket
fence would look good and nice. So, who decides what the similar quality and
appearance is?
Borup: Well, why can't this be added to what's already in there, just as additional, rather
than deleting?
Zaremba: I would support adding traditional picket fences as a choice.
Borup: Well, in the present one I don't think it prevents it. I don't think we need to
specifically say picket fences, but that's getting kind of -- that's getting kind of specific.
guess I'm saying I'm not saying why we need to delete what's already in there.
Rohm: Well, I'd like to know what Mr. Turnbull's thoughts are on why he wants to stick
to the wrought iron. There has got to be a reason. It deteriorates.
Canning: David, I'm sorry, you're going to have to --
Borup: Essentially, he's saying he doesn't think the people will maintain their fence.
Turnbull: I believe it will look better long term for streetscape. If you want to put picket
fences in, that's fine with me. I just wouldn't do it. I can write my own CC&Rs.
Borup: Exactly. I think that's -- I don't think it makes sense to dictate every subdivision
in town needs to be the same. How about some diversity?
Zaremba: I certainly agree with the maintenance aspect. Wrought iron is -- stays
attractive a lot longer and doesn't fall apart, doesn't need to be painted as often, but --
Borup: What I'm proposing this just be added to without -- without deleting the previous
-- however that -- and maybe -- actually, I think the way it's presently written doesn't
prevent a wrought iron fence anyway. The way it's presently written it would allow
anything.
r
43
�^
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 108 of 113
Rohm: It doesn't prevent wrought iron or picket fences.
fi
Borup: Either. Any of it. You can do anything you want under the present standards.
uy4
-�
Zaremba: So, your suggestion is --
Borup: I guess I'm saying leave it like it is.
Zaremba: Take the standard and --
Borup: Leave it like it is.
Zaremba: -- plug it in here.
Canning: The existing ordinance would also allow for a solid fence and I haven't heard
you discuss that issue, so --
t
Zaremba: I agree with the see-through.
g.
Borup: Yeah. I think I -- yeah. Eliminate the solid.
,w
k
Y
Silva: Mr. Chairman, can the fire department just comment on that real quickly? We
are opposed to the wrought iron approach, as long as there is a gate provided there as
a requirement, instead of a solid, because what happens is when we have a solid picket
fence across there, we will quickly pull the pickets off if we have to go down through
there. But wrought iron, if there is not a gate there, it -- its a lot longer operation to
make entry and get down that side of the house should the need arise. So, as long as
there is a gate provided there -- you know, we could quickly, typically, you know, cut a
lock, but it -- to cut through a fence is a little more time consuming than --
'-
Borup: So, you're saying you want a gate if it's a wrought iron?
Silva: I'm sorry. It's only going to be three foot high?
Borup: Yeah.
x
Silva: I'm sorry. It's late.
Moe: It's actually early.
' x
Zaremba: Well, I still agree with having a gate somewhere along the frontage. I think
that's a fair requirement, regardless of the type of fence.
ce
i
Rohm: I would presume that there would be one.
b
' ''4.
n ` t +. py4d'y'� A -u
t
f
y x
<
t f
[ 'T'�(''x'"+F �$
}
s
� � Wa
( a
k
r
I
Meridian Planning & Zoning e e
February 2, 2006
Page 109 of 113
Borup: Well, a gate to the front door, but not necessarily a gate down the side. I think
he's referring to a gate down the side property. Is that correct?
Silva: Yeah. Between the homes.
Rohm: Yeah. So, that's -- I think you're talking about two different things.
Rohm: I think you can get over or around it -- okay.
Silva: All the tall firefighters can typically get over them pretty easily.
Rohm: There you go.
Borup: Well, then, I guess the conclusion is just to eliminate item C?
Canning: Yes, sir. And, then, if you wanted to address the gate issue, that would be in
number two for the side yards for -- and just add a provision --
Borup: If the fence is taller than three foot or higher at a gate -- wait a minute. I -- this
is on what setback?
Canning: If you go to section two, that's where the gate would apply for the taller
fences.
Borup: Under the side yard?
Canning: Yes, sir.
Borup: Well, that --
Canning: It would be 213 for a side yard fence that extends from one building to another.
And, then, also in --
Borup: I'm not sure why that should apply in a TN -R district and not in every other
district in town. What's the difference?
Canning: None.
Borup: We don't require gates anywhere else.
Silva: The only thing is we are noticing a transition here to a wrought iron fence where
we typically -- while we typically always had the wooden fence, we can break through
that --
Borup: Okay. You're saying if it's a wrought iron fence you would have the gate?
a ,
}.. ',, sort;'-�kt,t�i sp -§-yi :„,.
k
t', Y�t`✓'t+`�.t"k$'t ..
f
A
.4.
i�
�,r ,
r "
� c
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 110 of 113
Silva: Yes, sir.
Borup: That makes -- you don't bring a torch with you or anything?
,k
Silva: No. We can make entry. It just takes a little more time.
Borup: All right. Comments from any of the other Commissioners? I --
t
Rohm: Personally, I think a three foot fence can be -- you can get through it --
Borup: Right. But I think they are saying if it's taller than three feet and its on the side
r'
the and it's wrought iron, they have a getting through.
of garage problem
Rohm: There you go. But we are talking about a three foot fence there.
t
s
Borup: No. We have moved on.
Moe: No. We are back into the next section two. We are actually going to discuss --
..
the maximum fence height at the side yard, it's going to not exceed six feet, so,
therefore --
Rohm: Ask Joe on that. Then, we need to add something for a gate on the side fencing
there, don't you think?
Moe: Yes, I do.
r Irv;
Canning: Commissioners, if you'd like some suggested wording, this would go as one
..
of the standard fence regulations applicable in all districts and it's something to the
effect of where wrought iron fences are proposed that are greater than three feet in
height, a gate shall be installed.
r
Rohm: Perfect.
Borup: Makes sense. I have nothing else. I only had one thing, so it grew.
Moe: I'm fine.
Zaremba: Do we want to specify where the gate is? I mean what if they put it on the
back property line?
Canning: I'll work on that part, too. So, this would be for fences in a side yard, but
x.
parallel to the street. I'll figure out some better wording, but --
3
Zaremba: Okay. Works for me.
5.� i
C
f
Vii,_ }
` 4
F
41 1
$
T
�a
S
y
3SC% i u 2 4 k k
a."'C. i,42
N
1�
Meridian Planning & Zoning e 4
February 2, 2006
Page 111 of 113
Borup: So, are we just looking for -- was the purpose of this just to make
recommendations and we have done that and we are done or do we need a motion?
Canning: You need a motion, sir.
Borup: Did we leave anything out?
Rohm: I think that all of the items of discussion have been captured either through the
recorded tape -- I don't think that we need somebody to restate every single listed item
that we discussed.
Borup: Oh, I wouldn't do it if I was doing the motion.
Rohm: Yes. You're on.
Borup: I am?
Rohm: Yes.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number
ZOA 05 -- wait a minute. I do have -- excuse me before I do that. Did we ever reach a
conclusion on the alley width? Everyone's fine with 16 feet?
Rohm: I believe that's where we ended up.
Borup: With garage setbacks of 20.
Moe: Because there was no discussion, I assume that, yes, we were in agreement with
what was noted.
Borup: Okay. Well, I'm going to add --
Canning: Commissioner Borup, we need to close the Public Hearing first.
Rohm: Oh.
Borup: I move we close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on ZOA 05-002. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Now you're on.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 112 of 113
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number
ZOA 05-002 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 2nd, 2006,
with the modifications as discussed and noted, with clarification on the alley widths
would remain at 16 feet as presented with either a concrete edge ribbon on both sides
of the alley or a concrete alley -- do we need to specify the width of that ribbon? I don't
think so. I'd just as soon leave that up to the developer. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: Discussion.
Borup: Discussion?
Canning: For staffs clarification -- so what I have is make sure that there is 28-48 turn
radii from the alley to the street. Lighting fixtures to prevent uplighting. Loading space
for commercial and industrial uses shall be off street. Remove the requirement for
wrought iron from the fences. And, then, add a general requirement for fences that
when they are wrought iron and they are parallel to the street, that there is a gate. Is
that all of them?
Borup: And, then, I'd like to see a concrete ribbon on the alleys.
Canning: Oh, no, I -- those two were clear.
Borup: Okay.
Canning: So, I didn't repeat them, but yes, sir.
Rohm: I think that's it.
Borup: That's it.
Zaremba: If you're incorporating those into the motion, I -- the second accepts those
changes.
Borup: Well, those were intended in the motion to start with. They weren't changes.
Zaremba: Okay. Clarifications.
Rohm: Okay. With that being said, all those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: I would like to hear one more motion.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 113 of 113
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move we adjourn.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: Moved and seconded that we adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Good night.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 1:22 A.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
I Ze , " / /I - —) I- / :
MICHAEL ROHM - CHAIRMAN
ATTESTED.
2 06
DATE APPROVFD�� ,
OF °
AM G. BERG I^4C
r� �
�'a 4tk
X,0,
s
x
x .
{
G,,�.
.i
�•t
+ S
4}
`
t
h
1
rzd, fi 2
d
�a
x
s
w
z
ay�T�7
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 113 of 113
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move we adjourn.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: Moved and seconded that we adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Good night.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 1:22 A.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
I Ze , " / /I - —) I- / :
MICHAEL ROHM - CHAIRMAN
ATTESTED.
2 06
DATE APPROVFD�� ,
OF °
AM G. BERG I^4C
r� �
a Yes ki,
gu
x .
G,,�.
.i
�•t
+ S
4}
`
t
d
�a
x
w
R
Bj
x
C*
�J
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 2, 2006
Page 113 of 113
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move we adjourn.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: Moved and seconded that we adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Good night.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 1:22 A.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
I Ze , " / /I - —) I- / :
MICHAEL ROHM - CHAIRMAN
ATTESTED.
2 06
DATE APPROVFD�� ,
OF °
AM G. BERG I^4C
r� �
a Yes ki,
gu
G,,�.
.i
�•t
+ S
4}
`
3 k?d2
F
AIM11661�Y•j
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 2, 2006
APPLICANT Young American Early Care & Education Center, Inc. ITEM NO. 3-B
REQUEST Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: Conditional Use Permit for a Day
Care Center on .58 acres in the C -N zone for Young American Early Care and Education
Center - 1525 Leigh Field Dr.
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
COMMENTS
See attached Findings
Contacted: ('Or O I Lft-(S(0 Date: Phone: r��ll�`�� ��� 01A
Emailed: Staff Initials: "
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
•
CITY OF MERIDIAN
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW AND
DECISION & ORDER
In the Matter of Conditional Use Permit for a Day Care Center on 0.58 Acres in the C -N
District, by Young America Early Care and Education Center, Inc.
Case No(s).: CUP -05-056
For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: January 19, 2006
A. Findings of Fact
1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 19, 2006
incorporated by reference)
2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 19, 2006
incorporated by reference)
3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January
19, 2006 incorporated by reference)
4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the
hearing date of January 19, 2006 incorporated by reference)
B. Conclusions of Law
1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use
Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503).
2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code
codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of
Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended
Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002,
Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps.
3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code §
11-5A.
4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental
subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction.
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). CUP -05-056 -PAGE 1 of 4
COMO
In the Matter of Conditional Use Permit for a Day Care Center on 0.58 Acres in the C -N
District, by Young America Early Care and Education Center, Inc.
Case No(s).: CUP -05-056
For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: January 19, 2006
A. Findings of Fact
1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 19, 2006
incorporated by reference)
2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 19, 2006
incorporated by reference)
3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January
19, 2006 incorporated by reference)
4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the
hearing date of January 19, 2006 incorporated by reference)
B. Conclusions of Law
1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use
Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503).
2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code
codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of
Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended
Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002,
Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps.
3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code §
11-5A.
4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental
subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction.
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). CUP -05-056 -PAGE 1 of 4
L�
5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not
impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed.
6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which
shall be signed by the Commission Chair and City Clerk and then a copy served by the
Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and
any affected party requesting notice.
7. That this approval is subject to the Site Plan and the Conditions of Approval in the
attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 19, 2006 incorporated by reference.
The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such
requirements as a condition of approval of the application.
C. Decision and Order
Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City
Code § 11-5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein
adopted, it is hereby ordered that:
1. The applicant's Site Plan as evidenced by having submitted the Site Plan dated May 2,
2005 is hereby conditionally approved; and,
2. The following modifications to site specific conditions were made at the Planning &
Zoning Commission hearing:
a. Condition 1.5 should read: "The hours of operation for this business shall be
limited from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday."
b. Condition 3.19 should read: "A fire sprinkler system may be required for this
occupancy. Contact the Fire Marshall at 888-1234 for more details."
3. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff
Report for the hearing date of January 19, 2006 incorporated by reference.
D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits (as applicable)
1. Notice of Eighteen (18) Month Conditional Use Permit Duration
Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a
maximum period of eighteen (18) months unless otherwise approved by the City.
During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the
conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval,
and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or
structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the
final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with
multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the
event that the development is made in successive contiguous segments or multiple
phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one (1) year
from the original date of approval. If the successive phases are not submitted within the
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). CUP -05-056 - PAGE 2 of 4
one (1) year interval, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and
void. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the
period in accord with 11 -5B -6.G.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the
time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional
time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the
Commission may be granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may
require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code
Title 11.
E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis
1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a plat
or conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis.
Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than
twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request
for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for
Judicial Review may be filed.
2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of
Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has
an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of
the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of
this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho
Code.
F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of January 19, 2006
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). CUP -05-056 - PAGE 3 of 4
By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the
day of Rbn I a , 2006.
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM
(CHAIR)
COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE
COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY
COMMISSIONER KEITH BORUP
COMMISSIONER DAVID ZAREMBA
A est:
Tara Green, Deputy City Clerk
VOTED
VOTEDgo�
VOTED SC;iL�
VOTED 10
VOTED
Len M6141
Copy served upon Applicant, The Planning Department, Public Works Department and City
Attorney.
By: �W Dated:
City Merk
6
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). CUP -05-056 - PAGE 4 of 4
U
11
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 2, 2006
APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-C
REQUEST Approve Minutes of January 19, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting:
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
COMMENTS
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
l�
I
AZ 05-058
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 2, 2006
APPLICANT Todd Campbell ITEM NO. 4
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005 - Annexation and Zoning
of 49.95 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Keego Springs Subdivision - 5910 North Black Cat
Road
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
COMMENTS
See Previous Item Packet / Minutes
See attached Staff Comments
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See affidavit of Posting; memo from Sharon Gallivan
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
PP 05-060
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 2, 2006
APPLICANT Todd Campbell ITEM NO. 5
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005 - Preliminary Plat approval
of 201 building lots and 9 common lots on 49.95 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Keego
Springs Subdivision - 5910 North Black Cat Road
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
COMMENTS
See Previous Item Packet / Minutes In AZ Packet
See Staff Comments In AZ Packet
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: Memo from Kurt Relitord and REVISED Plats
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
0 0
AZ 05-057
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 2, 2006
APPLICANT Red Cliff Development, LLC ITEM NO. 6
REQUEST Continued public Hearing from January 5, 2006 - Annexation and Zoning of
17.25 acres from RUT and R1 to R-15, R-8 and C -G zones for Bienville Square Subdivision
2935 North Eagle Road
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Staff Report
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See affidavit of Postin
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
RZ 05-019
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 2, 2006
APPLICANT Red Cliff Development, LLC ITEM NO.
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from January 5,2006: Rezone of 10.05 acres from
C -G to R-8, R-15 and C -G zones for Bienville Square Subdivision -.2935 North Eagle Road
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Staff Report In AZ Packet
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
•
11
PP 05-059
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 2, 2006
APPLICANT Red Cliff Development, LLC ITEM NO. 8
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from January 5, 2006 - Request for Preliminary Plat
approval of 54 single family residential lots, 22 multi family residential lots, 14 common lots
and 7 commercial lots for Bienville Square Subdivision - 2935 North Eagle Road
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
COMMENTS
See Previous Item Packet
See Staff Report in AZ Packet
OTHER:
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
0
E
CUP 05-052
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 2, 2006
APPLICANT Red Cliff Development, LLC ITEM NO. 9
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from January 5, 2006 - Conditional Use Permit for
Mined Use Regional within 300 feet of a residence for Bienville Square Subdivision - 2935
North Eagle Road
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK: See previous Item Packet
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Staff Report In AZ Packet
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shag become property of the Clay of Meridian.
AZ 05-062
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 2, 2006
APPLICANT The Gables, Inc. ITEM NO. 10
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 2006 - Annexation and Zoning of
5.11 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Sharp Estates Subdivision - 2445 North Wingate Lane
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See affidavit of Posting
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 2, 2006
APPLICANT The Gables, Inc. ITEM NO.
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from January 5, 20.06 - Preliminary Plat approval
of 25 single-family residential lots and 2 common lots on 5.11 acres in the proposed R-8
zone for Sharp Estates Subdivision - 2445 NorthWingate Lane
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
•
RZ 05-022
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 2, 2006
APPLICANT Church of the Holy Nativity ITEM NO. 12
REQUEST Rezone of 3.36 acres from R-8 to L -O zone for Church of the Holy Nativity -
828 West Cherry Lane
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
COMMENTS
See attached Staff Report
No Objections
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See affidavit of Posting
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall becomeproperty of the City of Meridian.
El
E
AZ 05-066
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 2, 2006
APPLICANT Meridian Veterinary Clinic ITEM NO. 13
REQUEST Public Hearing - Annexation and Zoning of .50 acres from R-12 to C -G zone
for Meridian Veterinary Clinic - 415 West Franklin Road
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See affidavit of Posting
COMMENTS
See attached Staff Report
No Comment
See attached Comments
No Objections
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shalt become property of the City of Meridian.
0
•
CUP 05-057
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 2, 2006
APPLICANT Intermountain Wood Products ITEM NO. 14
REQUEST Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit for operation of a wholesale lumber
and floor finishing products warehouse in an I -L zone for Intermountain Wood Products -
220 South Adkins Way
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
COMMENTS
See attached Staff Report
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See affidavit of Posting
Contacted:
Emailed:
No Comment
See attached Comments
No Objections
See attached Comments
Date: Phone:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian.
AZ 05-065
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 2, 2006
APPLICANT Jonathan Seel ITEM NO. 15
REQUEST Annexation and Zoning of 1.50 acres from RUT to C -G zone for Nesmith
Annexation - 2820 East Ustick Road
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See affidavit of Posting
COMMENTS
See attached Staff Comments
No Comment
No Objections
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented of public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
ZOA 05-002
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 2, 2006
APPLICANT City of Meridian Planning Department ITEM NO. 16
REQUEST Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Establish TN -R standards and amend
several other sections of Title 11, Meridian City Code, commonly known as the Unified
Development Code (UDC)
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
COMMENTS
See attached Staff Report
No Comment
No Objections
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: Memo from David Turnbull
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.