2000 11-140
~llH~~.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
AGENDA
Tuesday, November 14, 2000, at 7:00 P.M. ~
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
;.
0
:~
~' . ~:
~,
t_;
F "
~.:
~`>
r
~-
~,
i
~~_
;,
~;
;'
S Y,
;.,c
t'.`
f
' ~~
..-~~.~
~[
{
~~
.+
1 ..i
~i
(~
• ;
~~ ~. ~~
11
I
~~, ~,
F
:~
`s
'F
Roll-Call: X Sally Norton X Jerry Centers
X Bill Nary X Richard Hatcher
X Chairman Keith Borup
Consent Agenda
A. Approve minutes of September 12, 2000: Approved
B. Approve minutes of October 10, 2000: Approved
Regular A_ enda
1. Continued from October 10, 2000: AZ-00-018 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 34.84 acres to R-8 for a church and vacant land by Valley
Shepherd Church of the Nazarene -Meridian Road south of Overland
Road: Recommend approval to City Council
2. Public Hearing: RZ-00-006 Request for Rezone of 7.14 acres from I-L to i;
C-G for the Meridian Business Park by Donald Asbell -East Franklin
Road and Baltic Place: Recommend approval to City Council
3. Public Hearing: PP-00-019 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 13
building lots and 3 other lots on 7.88 acres in an R-4 zone for proposed
Meridian Greens No. 4 by Scott-Fuller Investment/Glenco -northwest
corner and northeast comer of SE 5~" and Overland Road: Recommend
approval to City Council
4. Public Hearing: AZ 00-020 Request for Annexation and Zoning of
339.73 acres to R-4, R-8 and C-N zones for proposed Keltic Heights
Subdivision by Parkland Development for proposed use as single-family
residential and neighborhood commercial located west of Meridian Road
and south of Chinden Boulevard: Continue to January 9, 2001
Meridian Planning and Zoning Agenda -November 14, 2000
Page 1
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 ClerKs
Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
ne •!
~~ q,~
n ~ ® ~
1Yf~ ~Kn R ~ ni{
~~i
y ~ yy t
~* w ~ ~ ~r {
;4 5o Public Hearing: AZ-00-021 Request for Annexation and Zoning of '~~~~ ~~~
r-= ,. E~ ~t~ r~ ~ ~ :.
r,: 70.72 acres to R-8 for proposed Sundance Subdivision by G.L Voigt ,~`~ ~~r • P
- , ; ~~. r~, .4
~; Development -northeast corner of Ustick Road and Meridian Road: ,~
Defer to February 22, 2001 y1~ ~ `~' ~ ` ~ ~ i~s1~r
'... x
°~ '' '~ ~~
LL 6. Public Hearing: PP-00-020 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 14 ~s~~~ ~~ ~ ~°~~~~;
single-family lots, 4 future office lots and 23 common lots on 69.79 acres ~T", , ~~~'_ '~~~
t-~
for proposed Sundance Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development - ~ ~~x r ~-:~~,
northeast corner of Ustick Road and Meridian Road: Defer to February x ~.~, ~~,~~ ~~~` ~~ ~.*~ ~ -
22, 2001 _~ ~~.'_ ~ ~ ~~f;
~. ~~~.. ~ , ~- ~_ t.~ ~'
~ ~'
7 ~. `.,F arts... ~~.r. ti t ~''}Y;,~2~?, ~' -
7. Public Hearing: RZ-00-007 Request for Rezone of 6.95 acres from L-O ~ ~ . ,t °# ~ , t
to C-G for the proposed Mallane Commercial Complex by The Land , "- F ~>,
Group, Inc. -northwest corner of Fairview Avenue and North Hickory '~F~'~r e~~ } :4s~''
Way: Recommend denial to City Council ,xar F= ~~`°~~~'
~~~
8. Public Hearing: PP 00-021 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 5 "'~ . ~~'
:.~.~;:
building lots on 6.95 acres in a proposed C-G zone for proposed Mallane r ' ` ,,,~.z '~ ,.'~,, ~~
Commercial Complex by The Land Group, Inc. -northwest corner of ~ ~ ~~~~ f, ~ - A~~ `
} ?,.
' `' Fairview Avenue and North Hickory Lane: Recommend denial to City '` ~~"` `~` r '§~r r •
Council , ~ 5 ~~~ ~ ' ~ ~}~
9. Public Hearing: AZ-00-022 Request for Annexation and Zoning of ,~~ ~;-0 ~x ~N~`~~ a~
118.4 acres to R-4 for proposed Springdale Subdivision at the Seasons ~ e '~~ ~ {~~ '.
by Gemstat Properties, LLC -east of McDermott between Cherry Lane 'y~~~~y~°;~~ o-,~ ~°
and Ustick Road: Continue Public Hearing to December 12, 2000 ~ `'~ "
~.~ ; ~
-,,~~ ,~& ,. ,~ of ~~~~,
.~• ~~~ 10. Public Hearing: PP-00-022 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of ~`~
400 building lots and 7 other lots on 118.4 acres in a proposed R-4 zone ~ °~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~,
for proposed Springdale Subdivision at the Seasons by Gemstar ~1~~~~ ~,~ ~i}~~
~ .~ ?~s.
x
Properties, LLC -east of McDermott between Cherry Lane and Ustick ~ ~~" ~„~ j _~~~'
~~~~ ~~
Road: Continue Public Hearing to December 12, 2000 ~. ~ ~ ~ "~_,~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
• 11. Public Hearing: RZ-00-005 Request for Rezone of 10.04 acres from R-8 ~,~~_~ _ ,a~ `
to C-N for proposed Linder Crossing by Hawkins Companies and ~,,_ ~`
~ 'F~~ Stubblefield Development -southeast corner of Cherry Lane and Linder ,~ "~
~ Road: Recommend denial to City Council nt~~ ~ ~ ~t~~-~ :'
~_ ! ~ Y
~.. ~4~!~ Zv~+ '~ tlE
''~~55 $ * ~ r
i si t~~~a~~~"~b.+' L~
i', ~~ ~~ _ ~ ,."
~~' Meridian Planning and Zoning Agenda -November 14, 2000 sr ~~.~ ' ~; ~~
Page 2 '~ ~ `~ _,
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~ ~ ,~ ,,,. ? `~ ,. ; ~ i'
s, Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings, please contact the City Clerk's Q~f~ ; ~ ~ ,n ~ ~'
Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. :~~ ' '~°~~ ~ ~«.4'~`"
~~. ~1y s/ ~S
Au,J'Yy k' S x ~s`~1
i ~~
,J~ ~;
r
4 d ~ -. J v~'` 1 ~
f
L.,
s t4-tM:4r t } ~~
~ •. 1 ~
.'
tr f l1
.~ ~ ~ ~
t_ ,, i. ~, ,. . ;.".
t
~ s'
~ .~
yE:;
p
4;
~, i _.~_
f T
..~~
r t
-.~~ 7 -
•~? ''~ ~ -
F;' -~,
~ ~ 6 ., -~
;.' ~ ~1 ri .i - . 1
~~ i ~ 1 ;,
i°, ~ ~`
~' I
y" `'. 3
~.'
~ p~ ~~
,' - .
a
~~~ ~' "
~'', ~
}
I'I
'k:
i
1ti.
Y
rg~ ~
~~
a ~ 'I
~ ~.. y,. ~ . s,>~:~w
_r-
• fi'.
~~_
~.
a. ~ I ~ ..~~ ~ . -
~a`r ~o-~:
'4
~ 2
6
1
~•" ~.'~~
:,
f
'. a
~:,
,.
`~
. ~:~
-.
,~
6d
~~
;. ~.Y
_ },J'
~_
,\
R~
Y
i F~
~',Y
I-
}
.y
c 'I'1~
~t-':.. i-f'F~~
,i
~~
'` ,~
-;
„a
~' ~~
~,;~
~I'
Sj
<t'i
Y
r~~
:Ij
~ ~~
~P
s t
`.: E ;
,r
t .l
~~
.,~ ~ !~
' E
:.LE
~f
'. C)
fi'J1
•~
;f
i
'~
0
12. Public Hearing: CUP-00-048 Request for Conditional Use Permit to
construct a 58,000 s.f. retail commercial building, four fuel stations with a
kiosk and 10,500 s.f. multi-tenant retail commercial building for the
proposed Linder Crossing by Hawkins Companies and Stubblefield
Development -southeast corner of Cherry Lane and Linder Road:
Recommend denial~to City Council
Meridian Planning and Zoning Agenda -November 14, 2000
Page 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 hearinggs, please contact the City Clerk's
Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public mbeting.
s b , ~;~
~ :: ~-0
~~:
ti_
F.: E
~~. ~ it
~~~ ~•
~1
-d
1z.:
,~:
~.
E~
i~~iy.. ,
~:
~.~~
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ; ~,
AGENDA 3~a
0
Tuesday, November 14, 2000, at 7:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Roll-Call: / Sally Norton / Jerry Centers
Bill Nary Richard Hatcher
~ Chairman Keith Borup
Consent A~aenda
A. Approve minutes of September 12, 2000 ' v~``~-
B. Approve minutes of October 10, 2000 ~ ~~~'
Res~ular Agenda
;?
~.. z;,
~.
~~
F»
;t~
_.: ;i~;
,:~
,~
'i
}
;.
;:
4~
t"
G;, 4
x.
;_ . ~~
i i
.:,
~'i
~ji
f
~.k
.-:t
1. Continued from October 10, 2000: AZ-00-018 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 34.84 acres to R-8 for a church and vacant land by Valley
Shepherd Church of the Nazarene -Meridian Road south of Overland
Road: ~' ~~vlm~~~l.. ~~ U-~ ~-~ C L~.-~
2. Public Hearing: RZ-00-006 Request for Rezone of 7.14 acres from I-L to
C-G for the Meridian Business Park by Donald Asbell -East Franklin
Road and Baltic Place:
3. Public Hearing: PP-00-019 Request for Preliminary lot approval of 13
building lots and 3 other lots on 7.88 acres in an R-4 zone for proposed
Meridian Greens No. 4 by Scott-Fuller Investment/Glenco -northwest
corner and northeast comer of SE 5~' and Overland Road:
4. Public Hearing: AZ 00-020 Request for Annexatio and Zoning of
339.73 acres to R-4, R-8 and C-N zones for proposed Keltic Heights
Subdivision by Parkland Development for proposed use as single-family
residential and neighborhood commercial located west of Meridian Road
and south of Chinden Boulevard:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Agenda -November 74, 2000
Page 1
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City o(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.
4!
iu
i.
FG-- :. :_1.
i,,..
.,
'
{ y
' r 3
~ .
~~
~AU'#5
?'
~e~ ~
}
.~
:f
~` ~k:
;<
i.~
~S,
7
4
- ~'M•
~~aa
~Y` `
~-,
,j .
f~la~. ~. ~ P t
~~
~' e ,3.,
S~t }
t
~~
S _•.
i 4
f.
'~ 5. Public Hearing: AZ-00-021 Request for Annexation and Zoning of
tz..'` 70.72 acres to R-8 for proposed Sundance Subdivision by G.L Voigt
~~" Devel went -northeast comer of Ustick Road and Meridian Road:
~~ ~~~ ~ "7~~j~r
~ 6. Public Hearing: PP-00-02D Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 14
~s single-family lots, 4 future office lots and 23 common lots on 69.79 acres
'` ~ ' for ro osed Sundance Subdivision b G.L. Voi t Develo ment -
~;-;~ =; P p Y 9 p
`' northeast corner of Ustick Road and Meridian Road:
~:
.~.__
~~" ~ V ~ ~2Z~®t
~ 7. Public Hearing: RZ-0 -00 Request for Rezone of 6.95 acres from L-O
'~ ~ to C-G for the proposed Mallane Commercial Complex by The Land
s Group, Inc. -northwest corner of Fairview Avenue and North Hickory
,' Way. ~,
s~=` 8. Public Hearin PP 00-021 Request for Preliminary Plat apprc~al of 5
~~,
r building lots on 6.95 acres in a proposed C-G zone for proposed Mallane
?~` Commercial Complex by The Land Group, Inc. -northwest corner of
~~~.
Fairview Avenue and North Hickory Lan ,
i~~ 9. Public Hearing: AZ-00-022 Request for Anne~fcation and Zoning of
'~ 118.4 acres to R-4 for proposed Springdale Subdivision at the Seasons
;b:
}` ~~~' by Gemstar Properties, LLC -east of McDermott between Cherry Lane
l ~~'~~~~'~ and Us 'ck Road:
` ~ I
`" 4 ' 10. Public Hearing: PP-00-022 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of
~.~
,~: 400 building lots and 7 other lots on 118.4 acres in a proposed R-4 zone
~~ for proposed Springdale Subdivision at the Seasons by Gemstar
~'=' ~. " Properties, LLC -east of McDermott between Cherry Lane and Ustick
` Road:
. }
`'~ '`` ~, 11. Public Hearing: RZ-00-005 Request for Rezone of 10.04 acres from R-8
'f to C-N for proposed Linder Crossing by Hawkins Companies and
~a~ Stubblefield Development -southeast corner of Cheer/ Lane and Linder
;r " 7
s~ Road
~~ ~ 12. Public Hearing: CUP-00-048 Request for Conditional Use Permit to
~'~ construct a 58,000 s.f. retail commercial building, four fuel stations with a
€~ , . kiosk and 10,500 s.f. multi-tenant retail commercial building for the
;~ proposed Linder Crossing by Hawkins Companies and Stubblefield
?~ ~ Development -southeast corner of Cherry Lane and Linder Road:
F~.
~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Agenda -November 14, 2000
~$w'. Page 2
,r. All materials presented at public m~tings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
~; - Anyone desiring accommodation far disabilities related to documents and/or hearings, please contact the City Clerk's
Office at 88&4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
!>
~~;:
i;+"' .
~~.,
°n
~~
,,...
,;.-
i€a`
.s
,,~
''
•t
E
;; {
i
~:;, t
~.
':~.
.s
:`
.,.
`}
;~ ;~
,r
:',f
`6
1
' , ~
Ai
i I 1
~~~ MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 14 2000
~;
~`` ~' The meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to
order at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 14, 2000, by Chairman Keith Borup.
t~:
~ Members Present: Keith Borup, Sally Norton, Bill Nary, Richard Hatcher, Jerry
Centers
~- Others Present: Brad Hawkins-Clark, Bruce Freckleton, Tom Kuntz, Dave
Swartley, Shelby Ugarriza
~.
x Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to open the Planning
¢' ' and Zoning Commission Meeting for the City of Meridian. I'd like to begin with
roll-call.
'~ ~ : Item A. Approve minutes of September 12, 2000, Planning and Zoning
~' Commission Meeting:
~;-
~=r~
i
"
-
~
Item B. Approve minutes of October 10,
2000, Planning and Zoning
,~
'
°
Commission Meeting:
~= I
s `1 Borup: The first item on the Agenda is minutes from our last two meetings.
3 ~ ~~ Actually, those are both under a Consent Agenda. Any questions or comments
t`° -
~; from the Commission?
~~~~~~'~ Hatcher: I have none.
`i ~ Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
~ -
t Norton: I would move to a rove the minutes of Se tember 12, 2000 and
p
~.
Y approve the minutes of Octobe p10, 2000.
Hatcher: I'd second that motion.
,~.
~:- ~ Borup: Motion is seconded. All in favor?
3r:,
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
~ - ~.; Item 1. Continued from October 10, 2000: AZ-00-018 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 34.84 acres to R-8 for a church and
f~, vacant land by Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene -
~ 4
~~ Meridian Road south of Overland Road:
Borup: The first item on the Agenda is a continued public hearing from our.
October 10, 2000. It's a request for annexation and zoning of 34.84 acres to R-8
~'
. ~,
~y . i' Meridian Planning and Zoning mission Meeting
November 14, 2000
~~~ Paget
E .,
k~ ~ } for a church and vacant land by Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene. Mr.
"~ ' ' Hawkins-Clark, do you have any additional comments? Maybe it might be good
~;: , just to brief somebody to fill in where we're at on this point.
~~:
~~:
F-~~ Hawkins-Clark: Sure. Good evening, Commission. This is a public hearing
`-~~'= that was continued from the October 10, 2000 meeting. You should have
received in ~rour packets a letter from Scott Field of Roylance submitted on
:. November 8 to Planning and Zoning Commission which included a conceptual
plan for this 35-acre piece and as shown, it's on the south -It's on South
Meridian Road on the west side located here with this crosshatched area. The
letter from Roylance summarized, I thought, quite well, the situation as it was
'. continued -the main reason being because of the requested R-8 and I think
there was some question as to whether or not a Development Agreement could
be tied to this annexation and zoning for some uses that were not residential.
City Attorney did receive a request from our department, looked into it and
~. ~ :,` responded. They felt that the Development Agreement could be crafted, which
~~ : would basically tie the future uses that they are proposing on this 35-acre piece -
to aDevelopment Agreement. There were some other conditions. I checked in
Y , : October 6~' memo from staff that dealt with other standard conditions -the main
~. one being that only the western half is sewerable at this time. We would ask
I
-{ that those conditions still be incorporated in. I was thinking there was another -
,.,
you should have five - we didn't get the site photo into our presentation - or the
f`. ' ~~ conceptual plan onto our presentation. Sorry about that. I think at this point,
" ~'' that's all I have. Given the R-8, nothing has changed and no other discussions
_.~' ` , other than the letter that you have from Roylance have taken place.
~ '~ Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any questions or comments from any of the
-= Commissioners? Those were the two main issues. Is the applicant here this
~x~ ;~ 31 evening? Would you like to come forward? Do you have any additional
comments you'd like to make?
~ ~
4, Field: I'm Scott Field with Ro lance En ineerin 391 Wet t
y g g, s S ate Street, Swte E,
Eagle, Idaho. Just very briefly, I would just like to comment that there were
~ some concerns raised about the possible future use of the property. I think the
~' primary issue that came up was by rezoning this to R-8, that potentially the
' church could opt out or back out or sell out or so forth. Before we know it, we've
~~~=' got a standard residential subdivision of R-8 density going up on the property.
That was a concern to the neighbors, as well as the Commissioners that they
Y~." : didn't see where that was really a compatible use with the surrounding
~. properties. We agree completely and so in attempt to provide some assurance
that that's not going to happen, we have proposed to enter into a Development
Agreement with the City that would limit the uses to those that are shown on that
conceptual plan that was presented. In the event, albeit unlikely, that the church
~
" ~ elected to sell the property, that Development Agreement would still ride with the
~
` property. If somebody did want to try to attempt to put a R-8 development on
that property, then they would obviously have to come in front of you and
5:
t,..
it -.
i~'r . ,
t , ': '
~'
. li, ~
' "-Yh ;~`" ' ~ ~ ~ z ~~ i t ~t't "z 1 T j ~ ~ ~i;~.~;r i~.; ~~tb`
~,{ F'~ $. ~f!»:. ~f. I.{1{{{µ f - ,~.. ~. i Z'. *px 5 1IIIFF i''~ . .~, ~~-
as
i
E
t
~,
r* .
` Meridian Planning and Zoning mission Meeting
a', November 14, 2000
~ ~ Page 3
~;
'`` _
~~ demonstrate why that should be a allowed use. It would give the neighbors and
'' yourselves an opportunity to review that at that time. The purpose of this
- Development Agreement is essentially to try to provide some assurance and
.r <: some protection to the neighbors and the City that this is what we're going to go
~,
forward with. If something does change, that there's opportunity for it to be
reevaluated at that time. R-4 zoning was brought up and there may have been a
little bit of confusion on that, but a church is not a permitted use under the R-4
~, zoning. I just wanted to clarify that. Lastly, in regards to the sewer-issue that
~;: - staff just brought up, we fully understand that a portion of the property is not
,., currently able to be accommodated and we would just request that the conditions
be slightly modified to state something to the effect that it shall remain
~~ <.
~_.
undeveloped until such time of service is available, rather than tying it specifically
- to a future extension, which may or may not occur. That's all I have. If you
r have any questions, I would be happy to answer them.
r;`
' Borup: Any questions from the Commission?
;
<.
Norton: Just if you could repeat that wording that you would suggest.
>.
~ k ~ Field: Basically, reading straight from the staff report, it says that area shall
remain undevelopable until such time a service is available to the future Black
~' . ' ~ Cat Trunk Sewer and I would propose just striking the last part so it just says it
. II
i shall remain undevelopable until such time a service is available, period.
~?
''''~ II
I
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment you on your discussions with
' ~ the City, because from what I read, it's awin-win for everyone.
'~., 4
L'.
Field: Thank you. We feel exactly the same.
' Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone here in the audience that would like to
'
~ ~~ comment or testify on this a lication? Seein none. Commissioners.
pp 9
.
~.:
r
F. Hatcher: Mr. Chairman.
~' ~ Borup: Commissioner Hatcher.
;. Hatcher: I move that we close the public hearing for discussion.
~.
Nary: Second.
~~
~~ '-~:
Borup: Motion seconded to close the public hearing. All in favor?
z
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
~'" y.T C
.q e. ~:
,.
:..v ..
. ka.
~
~
„
;,.. :fit: tit`: .-
:~x'.' ~ :, 6~
`" It..,
'}
• ;i•
' .,
d
;,
'r ,~ ~
' •. , .. t~~. '~
~{l
'~ I R ~~.Z°*(Y ~ ,' "~ t ~,
~ _.
r
.x+..
1
T
~
iy
~~
., a 4. .,, ., ~ •
.; ; i .. .. r I J
~ 'Fh*-';E
~ ,.r
«
_
~
n
y
~.
y
I .
~
l •
`,~r i .
!'
3
'~
'
~
~ ! ,5
a t
,
~.
}}
@
,
1
~
'
}>s
''F; T.
•
4c
^„r ,,:
~'
1 ! Ys !
h
T t i T }
T .l ~ ,
f t? t
*~ 5~.'f, try7;q ,err
l '~'4
nom"
`~'~ i•{•:. ~.. ~ e
f . V :fr~~:Fv~..~4. il" T„Y~. .I.i.~„yr
~ '..:v
+''~;~,..~:
.
, .,
,
5>~.« r.
Y: . ;~ ~
, ,
ry i r ...y
: ' .
'
~
'1
l
'
I ~'
, ~..
~
}
rA ~
. ,~ I
~
S ' T,
e
`. ~4Rr
~t,<!+r. ".~°:i%4'r•5'Ft.•`~9•?~`,i.d
„
5
~
:: i ~
r
~;
i I„' L'bA
t b
~~ P 3 .'i.!'3,~
n
V ' 4
.
'
1~
~ h '
~
~~~
! !
~. IR
s
}v''
~~~ ~
6 .
Vl
f
f . e
1 F
2
?~~
'od }+`
t
-;
. : l
I N
x..- _
F `i< ..
rr. I 1
} I I ~ ... 'hi
~ slew e, t~
I
~
. ( ~ v
i ~`~5~ R
~
"
'
'
5
. d
in.yM
`~
~'
' a {: ' I f ~ ,~' ;..."
1~ Y w .~te.~ ~ I ~
..a
_R R
,
E+
:r
l ~ I S.:1:;:,
' f .
. LS]~jy
Yii$:}
f
~
:' aR, A
::.. i
t... ~. ~
i >
j
% ., 4
'
S r .
xs 2~' :z' f
.. rr .
+l
A dd
:
:~°
.
r
r
~ "
v .
k
I
Y
7
I
, .
f
. ..
~
~` f•
,'~
~,.
ut
,d •,
` h, t..
°k,.-~
~
n.t
r : °TS
,.fi
pni ~~
. ~ i''a'' ~ ..#
'A 'r t
- 1 {k N
.
~.
:~•r` ':o ~
.
,
`, 13'~'y: 'ir 5
'r:
'
` ~
< .
e
I
i i
+ t
ylI
• ~ t
.
.
i :.N ip~ ~w rn~°i bs•y,
~
'
~
J
n"
fi
~. ...
~~~ Y . ~, i ..
~1 A'V_ rW., ~ ~ 1 I ;,~>F,~'
I. ..
F?y' ...y 5 ice;
t
'S v~Yra;Y~:e. "1:xe ~i: f'~
i
~
, ~
T 1
' p
l ~ ' I ~ :tc ,0..c '. •r .. ~j~~~;•tTyy,( '~I-v ~
^+~1s
'e:S
,,
:
:';
t :.;t
d
~-
°
..
r
s
dd ~ I ~' i ~
yf II
~ .
f
€:
s
k
.
:r
.v~
I ci F :yr;~2: n"„,4t}Y°fL'~
~s ~'S~. gar .,. !.,
~'.<, .
` .1 '
{
r
~
y1
~
F li
f .t •: p
.7
R
.
.
.
~..~
J ~ .:~ .~rP
~
f
~ :Q" !J7 ¢
1',r
. ~, Jr 1 ~ _ tiin~'.y4n'.F. :v~. .r,T. .,.
W'
- .-.
r z''~
~
~
~ ~ :.I + 3:
~{t: `'+i`
5~0~1;`
~
I
"S:~Rr"~$~S.y{y 4.p.,i}~P -
'
'
.
^ J ~
~
~~ I
I
{
~
i
S
{ i„~. ~'j,. ~. ,..
L ~~
t LiJ
f ~
; Meridian Planning and Zoning mission Meeting
'
~ , ` ;, `'t .`
; November 14, 2000
Page 4
='s
..
~: ~
>.
Borup: Anybody have any comments?
`.. ,
k;
i'.7
v;
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
r , .
~;
~ ~ ~ Borup: Commissioner Nary. `.~.
,Y~
g . _ Nary: I think I'm the one that brought up some of the discussion last time and
~* do appreciate the church and the engineers finding that the best compromise to
at least satisfy both the neighbors' concerns and the Commission's concerns.
r
i think this is probably the best way to do that. That way, if there is any change at
,
some point in the future, there is obviously opportunity to revisit that if it's
~ ~` ;.
'
~ necessary. I don't think it will be, but this, I think, covers everybody. I ~,
'`
~ appreciate you taking the time to do that. I don't have any other concems. ~
f
n~... Borup: I think the only comment that - and I don't know if it needs any
F discussion -was the recommendation by the applicant to - on revision of staff .
'
comment on the sewer. Does staff have a problem with it? You do have a
-~-
,...
~; -
problem with that? What if you name the trunk line a different name?
~- ~~:~
~- Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. At the time the Bear E, 5
Creek Subdivision was going through approval process through your body and
the City Council, it was expressly approved that the lift station was to be sized
` only for Bear Creek Subdivision and no other land outside of the boundaries of
~~ Bear Creek Subdivision. That was why we had the concem about -that service
y~ was not available until the trunk line is extended. I don't want there to be any
~- misconception that sewer can service to that lift station, because it's not sized to
serve anything more than just Bear Creek. That's why we wrote the comment
~; specific to that mainline extension.
'
~.
^ Borup: I guess it would come down to that is the one that determines that
.-
.. service is available. Is that determined by Public Works?
f- {
~~
Freckleton: Correct.
`
r`
-
~
Bore :Then it doesn't matter ' '
p what it s called. ,
-t~
~~~
..,.
'
Freckleton: Well, if we've got a play of words going on -that's why we wanted ~.
~
.~ s the specifics in there.
~:,~
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
~` w
"
r Nary: Mr. Chairman, would it be satisfacto then to sa that when service is
ry y
~
available to the satisfaction of the City of Meridian or the City Public Works {
' Department or something like that - I understand what your concern is and I ~`
} ~ think - I guess we can sit here and play word games for a long time. As long as
,
a.
~,
~'
~: ~-::
~~
rY
AY
~~:
~~r` ~~
SX "$~~«~~..
~' ~~'.
yy~~
q4 iM ~ ~
' ~ I
l~ ~~ I.
~
t
~ ~~ F
~a ,
~.
).
-y~
2: I
!I
1 ~-..1'S
...
~; .~'.
{.
f
. i
-
~' - ,.
i
'Y o~ -
f~.
P
~~
K
~ .~
a
Ep
~ 'r.Y
t ~ yy
-
~~ ~
t
'v i
..^
-' .., ,pu
k'
'
i', ='r.
Ic
';•
~ { y a r_
?
J
, I
i a2
,:.r
,
ti: j
yea' y
~~ ~ ~,
~t~:
~"
+
'
~
,w
-~
~
~
r
i
~ l
1
.f~
i f ~! -
4,..
~:
} ~! r
''
a~ s -_ .~.:.
ti '~a r
a?'? ..
i
h~
~~ ~\ 2'
E
~_~ ~ ~ ~
~
~" 4m
~`
~;~
: a ,
~ 'f
F
7. _S~ ~ ill ~`~'..`~~'~ (
[. ~~yF l~t•~
ry-
~
,
Meridian Planning and Zoning~mmission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 5
it's in the control of the City and the City Public Works Department, would that be
satisfactory?
Freckleton: I guess my only concern there is it was a Council directive. Would it
take Council action to serve anything outside of the boundaries of Bear Creek
Subdivision since it was a condition of their approval? I don't understand what
the concern is with the wording.
Borup: Maybe the applicant -- unless the applicant would like to talk with staff for
a little bit, which may be a little faster. I think the comment, Scott, is whether
__ that's that critical
~:.- (Inaudible conversation amongst Commission members)
.~ ~,.'
"
_ Freckleton: Mr. Chairman.
~.
~~
~ ~:
Borup: Mr. Freckleton.
,~:.
,~
~~ ,
Freckleton: After discussing this with the applicant, we both have agreed that if ~'
" there was some wording in there that said unless it was approved by Council,
~
i~ think we could both live with that. My concern being that before it was a Council
.
~`~ "
i condition, it was a condition of the Bear Creek project specifically stated - that I F
. ,
~ _
think it would take their action to change it.
~"
~
~
~ti.
~~
Borup: One of the Commissioners had proposed -approved by Public Works,
~~, "
~~~ so that's even more out of your hands, but that's all right.
„~ Freckleton: But Public Works doesn't have the jurisdiction to do that. We can't s
~~_. ,.
overturn Council. ~.
F.
~~:
;, ; : ~ ~, Borup: That's true. So I suppose that would keep the wording as stated - to the ,,,
$" z future Black Cat Trunk Service or other services -
i~ E
j Freckleton: As approved by Council -would that work for you? Sure.
Borup: Okay. Any other comments or questions? Are we ready for a motion?
~
~~ ~ ~
~~. ,
~"^ r "
~~ ~,'? Hatcher: Mr. Chairman.
~ . ,.
[
~ Borup: Commissioner Hatcher.
,~
°~ ~~
o
Hatcher: I would lik
etomakeam f
o ion to recommend a royal to i
C Council
PP tY
for the annexation and zonin of 34.
g 84 acres to R-8 for a church and vacant land
'~' ~ ~i by Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene at Meridian and Overland -south of
Overland to include all staff comments with the one modification in wording that
~~ we just discussed.
~~ ~
y
v:. yk
'„~
i,
~r_.
ff
f{'
~~ r
i
I
.~
' ~
~ ~y
~.-•,
'z n~
s:. ~ i - -
cif ;
.
l a ~+ ,
,~
et
g,v
~'
+i
:a
§
r~~,
~
Y ~-
II I
k
~•
~
f
I c
k
'~
{"
d W~
l '
~
lf ~ y
s:
~
e
~
~Z . ~
i
it ~. a
p7' I
"
~
~ 1
~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
p~n: ..f Ys ~
~
~ ~
i:.
C
~.x~.
~.
~' ~~7~
~
i
~
~ 6
_
~~
`ya
~.
x~ ,
. ~+
W~ _ °~ -
' Q
t ~
! ~~
~ f
5 ~ 4
w,
(¢~
+~.
fR'ri f~
I
~ I
'~h
.f~...
y
3}
( r
1 III ~1
Fk
I ~-
1 iwJ 4 ..r
0.
~
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
"
~ ~~ r
'~7~ e
""
C Y ~'
~:
a ,
K
~'
~-
r`;.
r.
~~' ..
R~_
+?.
'-
Y-
f
~'
k
4_
~:
~-
}!
'~
~.
t,.
,1 S
;~. ~:.
~~~ ~
.:;
S
t : ~~
>~~'~
i ',
Meridian Planning and Zoning ~Cfnmission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 6
Borup: Do you want to repeat that wording? Do we need to do that?
Centers: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: Did you want to include the verbiage regarding the letter with the City
Attorney and that agreement? That wasn't included in the staff comments, I don't
believe.
Borup: We would want to include all staff verbal comments, too. Is that what
you meant?
Centers: Correct. That's specifically a Development Agreement.
Borup: Right -entered into and limiting it to the conceptual plan - no single-
family residential and then the final staff comment that northwestern half be
remain undevelopable until such time the service is available to the future Black
Cat Trunk Line or other service as approved by City Council.
Hatcher: That's correct.
Norton: I second that motion.
Borup: Motion is seconded. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item No. 5 Public Hearing: AZ-00-021 Request for Annexation and Zoning
of 70.72 acres to R-8 for proposed Sundance Subdivision by G.L
Voigt Development -northeast corner of Ustick Road and Meridian
Road:
Item No. 6 Public Hearing: PP-00-020 Request for Preliminary Plat
approval of 14 single-family lots, 4 future office lots and 23 common
lots on 69.79 acres for proposed Sundance Subdivision by G.L.
Voigt Development -northeast corner of Ustick Road and Meridian
Road:
Borup: Before we move on to Item No. 2, I did want to mention concerning
Agenda Item 5 and 6 -Sundance Subdivision. It's located at Ustick and
Meridian Road. There is a request from an applicant that that item be deferred
into the February 22"d meeting. I think the reason was availability of sewer
service and I felt at that time that plans would be a little further along. So that
-.,
f ;- ;
<:>::
=F; ._
- l~.
f
~4
r
rr a`
«~
~.
=
~:~~, ,
r
r~-
n`1
1 ~~~
'
Y ~ l
t r,.
~
~ r
~
~ ~
y.)M1
y
~
~
'AM N1TM ;:
N
~ II
~ a
f
~3
t i
y~
:
~
}
~'
Y W
N.. .. ``
^ M1
~ i
~J
` ~ "~
~ t
f
~
E'~ _
" e '~
~
ib ~
. >,
1
iGrn .,.. c ..
Meridian Planning and Zoning mission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 7
meeting will not be on the agenda. That hearing will not be on the agenda
tonight. If anyone is here for Items No. 5 and 6, Sundance Subdivision.
Item 2. Public Hearing: I~Z-00-006 Request for Rezone of 7.14 acres from
I-L to C-G for the Meridian Business Park by Donald Asbell -East
Franklin Road and Baltic Place:
Borup: Item No. 2 is a public hearing and a request for rezone of 7.14 acres
from I-L to C-G for the Meridian Business Park by Don Asbell -East Franklin
Road and Baltic Place. Brad.
Hawkins-Clark: Again, this application is within an existing subdivision. There
are several lots -eight lots, I believe involved in the request to rezone from is
currently light industrial to commercial general. Just to orient you, the purple
parcel here is the new Meridian Fire Department. This is the cemetery on the
south side of Franklin Road. There are two parcels that are currently
undeveloped. It's this Lot 18 and Lot 21, both having frontage on Franklin Road.
The rest of the crosshatched parcels that are involved with this rezone request
have been -they're all built out. We ask that our comments dated November 6,
2000 be incorporated into the approval. Franklin Road is -there was one
comment from the Police Chief about concern about Franklin being over
capacity. Ada County Highway District does have in their current work plan, for
2003 construction of Franklin Road to a five-lane with curb, gutter and sidewalk.
In our staff report, we did have a couple of comments that are site specific to
those undeveloped lots. One of those being some question about serviceability
there on No. 5, which can be taken care of at the time that they develop. I think
we just ask that our comments be incorporated and we recommend approval of
the rezone.
Borup: Thank you. Any comments or questions from the Commission? Is the
applicant here? Please come forward.
Williams: My name is Dave Williams, 4124 Northwest Few Way, Boise. I'm a
real estate broker at Diamond Properties. I represent both Don Asbell and Thad
Thomas this evening on this application. We have found with all of the frontage
that we have on Franklin Road with these properties, that the request over and
over again, for potential tennis's for office - in the I-L zone, we don't have an
ordinance in the City of Meridian specifically stating that said percentage would
be office versus warehouse, but it seems that the Planning and Zoning staff is
leaning towards somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 percent office to
warehouse. They properties that we've requested to be rezoned are leaning
more towards people wanting to have a little bit of retail exposure and the higher
office percentage. In some cases, they would like 100 percent. Typically, it's a
smaller user or a large user. In Thad Thomas' case, he has a building that has a
net leasable (sic) square-footage of approximately 29,184 square feet. He has
4.3 parking spaces to 1000 square feet. He has plenty of adequate parking.
~:. 1'' i i„~i; ~ 'igF*~`1,. ~ r , ~ ;r ,~~ ~i~ti: ~ ~ i^ ~~: y' ~ .. -
t~. < ~ ~:w ix C f H.,i ~ 8 l~ }. I ) Ctn-'E 4~a k
~ ° ~'~ { + .4 ~ a M t tinF ~' s [ ~ '~ ~f~ 3 c z~ a~~- ~ t~ 'v ~t
k...t - J i~} ~ i- ..n ^l+~f F r`+• 'fir ~ l 1Y I.~"~ 1~~.^'7 ~ ~ ^ (,
~,
'~.jr _ i, ~ 9 '~,.}'Y. € ~{{3 ~(k'4..~ ~.Y+~a $ ~, ,. }~' ~ .ryl un "f_1 ~~~r~ r r~ '' L 1 y~. "~ `
tb- ~} ~ ~ - 55 { -
s Y+ 1'yn~f-f t~~. ~N,:: i "~~ y ~ t ~~ } ~ !ice ~ ~$~' ~ '
~'
Si° 1' sf ~y a .LC~• 99~ A { ~~,~yE 1.~{ b h •'~~. ~ ~Ir E 1 f , -.,
' 7,
r"•, ~. ~ 7 u 1 i C t ~ 2f n ~~'' ~5 ~'P' - Y''Plt~ rtti "~
r ~ ~ A . } i ,.bk+& `r i ~y ~, ~ ~ y s ~ .,-,, p u ~ -~ ~ r
'- - n• 4 c ~ M~ k ~~~tt~xf ~ } r ~*~kt 1 <r "tG ~~. f f x ~._, .. -
c
,7, ~ f ~ 4 ae ..
r ~ ~f ~rfE i4y ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~(k.~3Y~1 1. I T~~ f - 1
3 ~: '~ (? ° ~ 3 .'"a~ °r h--'~`'~ 4 ~t ~i Yl de „'i~: ~ '~ ~ t'`' `. ~' t-~3 ~ ~ 4
;' a. ~ ~ `. :. r
i ~,~ E
1 -' ~ ' ,+ r'~y~~" ~? 1'i'~'a '~`~J} v„{'~• F d r y~ `~~j~ :" A ~ ~','~k t: -~.~* a t-i'4'~`.. ~q"~~,~'r, f {(~- pyn ~i,.y7y~. , ~ ,.
{ R 's_ S -1~ i ~ ~~yy{.~~ Q "t ~.( 1~~'i!cF-~~~i; ~.-l~~q P ..~
~ RTT
5
...,ilk ~ } w r~~ ~7"~ ;~ ~ ~~tip! ~ i ~ ~5~+"~'+,' '~' S y t
f
F .,.. ~ w'~ it ~:~Yrr',br ~., ~.} e~ ''w ~ ~~ ~ y„a~,, ~ i ~,^`.,'.S C rdy~' ~ 1 `.~ r ..
tj~~ ~: 1 ~~ r § T ~ ~ ~~ 3 ~"t ~ r~ 5 .r f e ~
Y.e~ - 'F.;M ~ `~. 5 a)f. `S Y ~# ? rtii. ,' ~ .r.1 E'F T' ~
~',. ': i t~ ~r 7~ a "r-'.,*'~9 {2{'~ ,r.~F§F~ ~ J f y'{~" ca ~.~" ~"`}`;°~ 4 1 1+zµ^~1~'` .~v;
_ ' e ~ ilt ,~h~~r
~~l
t'I
•'N
F'~°~
s:-
~_
_:
t
~,
i,_. ..
~.
k,=
€:,' _
r,+' _
~'
;:
v..-
k
\'
~. .
,=
~~:
r~
~f !F :`
~`
4
~:
~~; ;,;
r
s
;..
~,
~,:
~:
-i
i-:!
~;_,
is , ~.
i. •. ;:',
~,H
x r
i.
Meridian Planning and Zoningmission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 8
That's why you see the rezone request also fronts Kings Street -because those
two lots that you see that front Kings Street are all parking in Thad Thomas'
situation. The two lots that front Franklin Road that would be contiguous to the
east of the Fire Station -the purple there are not built on. As Brad was saying,
at a future date, we would project that Thad would probably want to build office
there as well, which in most cases, we would be looking again at wanting to go
100 percent office. He has built a beautiful office complex. It is stucco and
block -primarily stucco with the frontage showing to Franklin Road. It's got a
wonderful fountain landscape scheme at this project. I don't know if you've had
a chance to drive by it, but it is a very beautiful project and certainly can be built
out as Class-A office space. He presently doesn't have any tenants. The core
of the building is built. The landscaping is all in, et cetera. At this time, large
corporations have been knocking on his door wanting to lease 50 percent of the
building - in some cases, 100 percent of the building. He has made
arrangements on the first floor, of course, to the north of the building that he does
have some overhead doors so he could have some warehousing there, but
certainly, the potential tenants are looking for Class A 100 percent office. In Don
Asbell's case, his buildings that front Franklin Road are astucco - a synthetic
stucco with metal roof. Right now, we have tenants in this building, such as
Idaho T's, which was located at Locust Grove and Fairview, before the new
Walgreen's went in. We have Modern Staple, JB Dental Supply -those types of
people -Boise Electric. His newest building, which is perpendicular to Franklin
Road and contiguous to the east of Thad Thomas' two-story building, we have
ReMax. When we put Remax in that building, we were informed that we pretty
much maxed ourselves out for office space in a 22,000 square-foot building with
leasing out a couple of thousand square foot to Remax. Therefore, the balance
of the building, we were informed that we would have to have nothing but small
offices with the balance being warehouse. That's the reason for our request for
the rezone -that we might be in a zoning that would be more suitable for the
needs of our potential tenants in the future.
Borup: Any questions from the Commission?
Hatcher: Not at this time.
Centers: Dave Lots 18 and 21 aren't built?
Williams: Correct.
Centers: Item 10 of the staff comments you're going to have to dedicate 48 feet
to the Ada County Highway Department.
Williams: Correct from the centerline.
Centers: I was just looking at -you were well aware of that I take it?
T .
}'
~..
.,
~:
C
~:;
a,
,,.
~,
~~~Y
~' ..
Pl.
~:
;;
~,
;r:
:..
t.
~~
~`
~,,:
;:,
~.:
i
°'y ,-.
r,
F.: .
4
~:
~-
_~~'.
~. .
3;'
t;?
~,
~,
~'
~.
r.
4..
a
~,
~.~~:
Y. F 7
x
~.i. i,
rp .
~.
d-" ,
6`- >
{G. '
t I#
~ 57~
r
,, ,F
v :~
,~
Meridian Planning and Zoning L`Efiimission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 9
Williams: Correct.
Borup: Anyone else? Commissioner - i
Hatcher: I have a question. Have you had an opportunity to review staffs
comments?
Williams: Yes I have.
Hatcher: Are you opposed or have any comments to make in regard to any of
these?
Williams: No we're not. We wish that on Building One of the Andon Complex we
weren't going to be in a situation where we couldn't go a 100 percent office. But
we understand the parking scenario in that case so we're willing to abide by that.
Hatcher: Thank you.
Borup: That was my question -you have no future space for parking -you are
going to be maxed out real soon? Is that what you are saying?
Williams: No just on Building One --
Borup: Right that's what I meant on Building One - ~
Williams: Building 1, we were somewhat limited because of the steep drop from
Franklin Road to the elevation of our parking lot. Building Four which is the
building that is perpendicular to Franklin Road the Remax office is located in we
have ample parking.
Borup: So you have no opportunity to add any additional parking?
Williams: Not to Building One.
Borup: So it's just a restriction you have to live with.
Williams: I guess so.
Borup: That must have been in mind or it would have been planned with the
parking to start with if you were planning for more office?
Williams: Correct.
Borup: Thank you. Any other questions from the Commission? Do we have
anyone here that would like to testify on this application? Seeing none.
Commissioners? Commissioner Norton.
u~/~ y i _
~ f!~ )~
LMT
w
J
;.
i
r ~_ f
e ~ _ - h ..
~n
,~~". ... f. ~
a F
-
.
'4~ ~
~
Y~y, - {
,^
~'
,.
"tq '~C ~
fi~
. ~ t -.
F b ,~- ,. 1~~,
t .f
,.?.:
Wl
`
i
x
~' ~'-
,,. e;
zi F ~~ fi~ 8
~. }
x ,.
r ` Meridian Plannin
and Zonin
llCF
i
i
M
ti
g
g
nm
ss
on
ee
ng
November 14, 2000
~; Page 10
~:.
~'
'~
;
;
Norton: Are there any other staff comments on this?
~ ~`
x.
~F.
Hawkins-Clark: We have none.
Norton: Then I move that we close the public hearing.
~.
~:~ Centers: Second.
.
n Borup: Motion is second to close the public hearing all in favor?
4 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
•
Borup: Any discussion? Any motions?
.
- e
Norton: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we recommend approval of the i
u
request for the rezone of 7.14 acres from I-L to C-G for the Meridian Business
Park by Donald Asbell, east Franklin Road and Baltic Place. To include all staff ;~ ,.
comments dated November 6, 2000. ;
Nary: Second.
t~
~; Borup: Motion is second any discussion? All in favor? °~~
,.
~"
`
MOTION CARRIED: ALL IN FAVOR? ~~
r Item 3. Public Hearing: PP-00-019 Request for Preliminary Plat approval
t, ~ of 13 building lots and 3 other lots on 7.88 acres in an R-4 zone for
proposed Meridian Greens No. 4 by Scott-Fuller
~ Investment/Glenco -.northwest corner and northeast corner of SE
`:~ ~ ~~ 5~' and Overland Road: "~
s
~,I
~.. ~
F - ~l
~~
Borup: Item No. 3 is public hearing request for Preliminary Plat approval of 13
~.. ~. I building lots and 3 other lots on 7.88 acres for proposed the Meridian Greens No.
4 by Scott-Fuller Investment/Glenco, northwest corner and northeast corner of
ti ~:1 SE 5~' and Overland Road. Mr. Hawkins-Clark.
~ '- • Hawkins-Clark: Commission, again, this application crosshatched on there. ~ .
~4
~~ They're proposing to create 13 single-family residential lots that are more-or-less n
i
~ similar size to the other Meridian Greens already built out subdivision phases.
This would be phase No. 4. They are proposing 3 landscaped common lots for
~.::~, (inaudible) gross density of two dwelling units per acre. This obviously would be
~• i;,~
`~ the final phase for Meridian Greens. A couple of site -this is there proposed
Preliminary Plat. Overland Road on the north there are proposing a landscape
~ ~ '
~ buffer here on Overland Road. The city well lot is located here at the northeast
'~
f . corner. Southeast 5~" Way comes off of Overland Road to the south. Which is F
>;.
~ . ,s-
t
~` - ~;
_ ~
!-
~ti. "
k:
~•
~~ ..~..
,
' r c
t
~r
Z
0
~ fi
ill ~'.
dx'
• t~
~! -
!~
~ y~ t -}
jt
, y
i,•
~
~~
1,
f'
l
f
4'~
'~„ I
l
i
3
>~~yr t
'Rc. y:' 7 I r Y' ~_' ~~.
,~
~ f `
~!
~
a
~ ~t
~
;! ~;
~ J, - ~. s r ~~ ad
.;`
~
- }
}
~ y; t ~ ,;
t~
~
~?'
c
'.
y{t
~
4
y~1
~1yE
VF"" ~~ ,I Y F
;,~~ ~ ~.. _
'+1
.~ 4/
f
###
~4
a . C'~
I
~
5
"~ ~ -- -
~$s .t3~
1J. ~~ .
~ir.= r
~~>
~~
~~ '
.~~,.,_ with ax -~~.
~ ~ u.
Ft~
r
~'~~,.°
~~
~~,~~ _
w.~ . ,i~~
~_ ~~{~
~~
~, ~. .. y -
~~.
~y ` :- ,~a~,:`~
r`r ~ 4 ~r ~, ffi *~
t4 ~~%~~'
i ))~~
~~ QM
k
~4• '. 4 ~
° S G~
h
r'~ ; ~,,
,~ , }
4.N
3 ,i t~
~~
~~, y ~~,
i~,yy~ ~~`}3l7~r?
Y
' ~ f~~, w T
HH. 1 tv l~-
r~ ~
LY ~_'
S° d F.
~~ ,
~~ ~~
~-~~
~r
< , _ `t
F~.
a~fi ri ~
4~ i
~~-
r ' -r;-
z".
4 yr
C'. ..~ .y'~. .. ~ "
•~
~;
- r~ `~' ~ _
~.~
~~ ~, w
4 ~~^~~
1 f.F ,t 1 ."
~ ~
.~, ~ -~ ~~
.t. ' ~.4
., , :~
f~~x°~
~~ `~ `~~~c ~'~
C?,/k!-~41 f
,~ s~.a~
~-
s4
k," , ~ ,.~
~ ~ x r~~~~
~ ' '~~
ti kK T~' i
' ~:: L
, ., . ,:,,ii v
Asa ~,..
~~` ~;•~
~ ~>tir'~~r"~
' ,r~
k `tit
`a,}p
V ~' i
.;r~ :
?,~ .
J.-~'. fi ~`F-~4x ..
~.
,~'r~~ ~~
- ,,a,
~,,.: tom,
~;
~~"v
~~~
arcl
~,;
c^:
~`~
`;<z,
~~
,, ti'
,z, . %~,
,r'
,~
r~ ~
i '
a
t #~ _ i. f
~~
~. ..i
~; 1
~f
7
4 ~ ~. 3
~' t. - +.3
={-r` .
Meridian Planning and Zoningmission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 11
currently built without any improvements and is within and easement. Ada
County Highway District has asked and they are going to be dedicatinq~ that as
public right-of-way. I would just point out two items here is Southeast 5 looking
north before I do that it is just south there of the Western Equipment. This is the
Eight Mile Lateral which courses the eastern boundary of the subdivision. I'll just
go back to the plat. On site specific comment No. 4 page 2 there was a
comment about the city's landscaped lot about the 10-foot strip which was
originally proposed to be taken you should have received the applicants written
comments and they stated that there in agreement that they will shift the
alignment to the west so that 10-foot not be an issue at this point. There was a
letter submitted to public record from the Homeowners Association dated
November 6, 2000 that they had some concerns noted from the homeowners -
about the irrigation and those should be addressed. The main issue in the
written response that there may be a little disagreement No. 10 on page 2 deals
with the Southeast 5~' landscape buffer. We had asked in our comments that this
landscape buffer on the west side of Southeast 5~' which is a 20 feet wide strip
be tatted as a common lot to the subdivision and maintained b the
p y
Homeowners Association. The developer would prefer that this strip be just an
easement and maintained by the homeowners and just incorporate into their lots
lines. The city's main concern has always been maintenance and I think their
written response made a good point in terms of the value of these homes and the
other maintenance that has gone on by the homeowners. I think we could be
(inaudible) to that if the Commission leans that way in terms of making that an
easement there are only three lots in question here. The main thing that we
would ask is that a detailed landscape plan should be submitted with the final plat
so we have some input as a city in terms of what kind of landscaping goes along
there its not just left up to each of these homeowners. Tom Kuntz with the Parks
Department also has a comment.
Kuntz: Thank you Commission. I would be amiss as you Parks Director if I didn't
point out the fact that if you look at the overall plat of Meridian Greens there is no
open common space that's been set aside for use by this subdivision that would
allow construction of a small playground area or something that could be used by
the residents of the subdivision. I think its real unfortunate that that is not part of
this final eight acres that they haven't set aside one lot that could be designated
for use for the residents here. Thank you.
Borup: Do you know how many lots in the total phases of the subdivision?
Hawkins-Clark: Sorry I don't think we have that information.
Borup: A whole bunch huh?
Hawkins-Clark: More than 20.
^ s ~
C~ g ~* t
~~ ~ ~: t "+rff a` '`~:^~'~ "tidy `"~"?*7~''~~L,'~''`~~~ ,~'I''~'~t"S'E~`~ 1+-.~`~'`~SC'~t ~{~' ~r+r't ,,t r~ ~ti~~5~, '~~
' r ,-
~ ~'~_ti ~ °s ~~ .~r ~ ~~-~- err S¢
., fi
f o 4 ~x F
- ~ ~ er. $~iw r~ ~x
r. k s, ~~~- ~,. ~ - a, v.,,. ~'i~ ~ ~~ ~ x i
to m 1K e ~ "~"
~'- e, z ' ]:x'34 ~ ~ r t ka '~} :~ bitr s. ~ ~ t„~t"~ ~ r rs. ~ '
~,¢ t. r 1
3 ~?''t ^5~`~~'.~`it;~ ~1~~~°'~?~!, ~` s~ t b'is~ >+~q`.;~~~ ~p v"~ ,r ~»~ ~~}}~~ ~ r
F } x`K r.
?b. r-" ti. `YFf~fyFt~ZL ~, G J~k. 4 f ~ ~ ~'~"S:4 x '~ ~ ~ ...
` ~ ~ ~ "q:t ~ ~i
.w'!, . fi'
~ tea. -
t ~a ee . An z d .4" r ,n 7 t 7
~r ~ ~ rr
iw, : _ i `r ~; r*,J~, i y.~'p?~ ° _` P,,'F"r~`-:,'^~.# r b~•~' 3~ t }~. J ~ r ~ ~ y
~. ~F
r s.y f~ ~~~l~h ~.r{fi ~i e 3'f'r:. r{
k ~~~,,_ ;}~, ~ ~ tia.~~ i F~ ire
`~ ~ zr ~ - xr, r t~, ~ ~~
/!+ r ~;
'Sh r 'c :S ~ " ~~Hi. ~St ~~., - R~ ~]~]. ._ ~,.~, ~ ~I 7~'s~$~~P x } F! it ~~ "
_ ,~i 3 ~~r rx } '^ ~~~w 1~~~ t ~ ~ 't #s~ x,~~yry.~ ,',.tr` 7.~:,' E ~ ~
i
r
°'~t+t d # . M k~l r~ I77~ ~py~
yy r y i • ~. " y7- F S ~~: . ~ ~ F~,~~a?~~ ~ ~~1:'v ';C C _
p y "F4
A rt
' ~d'$'~4,5'i~r,~ ~ `~ ~~ ,*~~'~+~, ~~x •~'T~'
~,j' `
p3J. i.., ,.L r_ .~ ~. .v::
i n,i~
it
a ~"`
F .>
~,,_
::x~~>
~:_~.:
,~~;,,
~~ #x~.y C
~~'~
>,;
.: ~,~~
r,E.
F~ +~t'~dr
x:<, :.
f:
.' Yt:.
~~'
~fi
>~ '::~
'~_
-~sx~
:; ~~
m<<.
_ _ ,~,
,,;
`p i.
rK ~ s
L`':'~ '.
.~ y~ s
~z-
~'~'~~~k
~~ ?~`u~,~-ter
' A4
Meridian Planning and Zoning L'Smmission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 12
Borup: Thank you. There may be someone here tonight that may comment on
that too. Anything else from staff?
Hawkins-Clark: No.
Borup: Questions from the Commission at this time? Is the applicant here this
evening and would like to come forward, any additional comment they might
have? Appears so.
Hart: Good evening my name is Matt Hart I am with Civil Survey Consultants at
100 South Adkins Way, Suite 101, in Meridian. I represent Fuller-Scott and
Glenco for this development. I have a visual aid here prepared if I may present
it.
Borup: Okay. And probably the best use of time maybe address those areas - if
you agree with all staff comments then -
Hart: (inaudible) -
Borup: Okay so that's what we'll be looking for any of your comments on the staff
report.
Hart: As staff had talked there was the issue of the common area lots verses a
landscape easement along the west side of Southeast 5~" Way. The developer
has talked to members of the Homeowners Association and they feel they do not
want to assume the responsibility of taking on anymore additional common area
than is absolutely necessary. We do agree that the water along Overland Road
should be a common area and obviously the medians should be. As far as the
edge of the lots are along Southeast 5~' the developer feels that the best way to
maintain those areas is to have individual ownership of those lots. As my visual
aid tries to demonstrate there's a -there's pictures of existing homes
immediately south of this development that shows the privately owned well
maintained landscaped side yards. There is also pictures showing existing
common areas in the subdivision. Whether through lack of funding or just having
not enough time to maintain the areas some of the areas get ignored. This is the
main entrance into this Subdivision so the developer feels by having the areas as
landscaped easements instead of common areas individual homeowners will
take better care of that area than they would if it was a common area. Second
issue that was in the staff report was the discussion about the Eight Mile Lateral
which runs along the east side of this development. Staff report said they would
not require fences but they strongly encouraged them. I would like to touch on
that for a minute because the other phases of Meridian Greens fences were not
required and property owners were allowed to landscape right up to the edge of
the water. That's what I've tried to portray in my presentation here that overall it
will look much better if the property owners are allowed to landscape and
incorporate the ditch into their backyards. There is also a couple of pictures
~~•,., -.
'. t
~~! ' '. '.t. _
..
j
~~.
.j
~, ` ~ : Meridian Planning and Zoning mmission Meeting
x_, ` November 14, 2000
s;
~~~ ` - ~ ~ Page 13
r.
x-' there that so a few spots in Meridian Greens where the ditch has been fenced off
~ and the area has tall weeds and um-maintained.
~~ 3
`~ `~ Borup: Are any of those pictures along the Eight Mile Lateral?
~' Hart: The - I know the bottom picture the city's well lot there's a picture there
~. showing that .where its fenced and the weeds are growing along the bank of the
canal there.
~"
~- . Borup: So you don't have a picture of the Eight Mile Lateral up there then?
~::
Hart: Yes I do.
' ~ Borup: Which one is --
r- Hart: The one -
,~.
~~;
~.=` ~ ° Borup: Okay it's up there on the computer. So the picture on the left is the lateral
~` = ~- where -that's the property on the east?
~~ Hart: Yes.
~ Borup: That would be the lots up against there?
~'~ ~ Hart: Yes. There is a couple other issues I would like to touch on briefly tonight
,.:
'~'`' _ for the property owners in attendance here. Were going to make this -this
`~` ~ development is proposed to be consistent with other phase in Meridian Greens.
House sizes will be 2,000 square-foot minimum for single-level and 2,400
square-foot minimum for two-story. There is going to be a 250,000-dollar
~~- minimum rice on these homes we Ian on
p p tying into all existing utilities out
- '~ there. We also plan on tying into the pressure irrigation system out there. The
developer has hired my office to take a look at the existing piping system and
~~ pumps that are in there. I have met with the representative of the Homeowners
°, l! Association on site and we currently developing a pressure irngation plan that will
tie into the existing system. I believe everything else staff has already touched
r ~ on so if you have any questions for me.
~'~ ~~ Borup: An uestions from the Commission?
Yq
~ Centers: Mr. Chairman. I guess you kind of lost me. Do you mind going through
the13 item ~
s staff is ro osin
k l p p g . And which ones ou are wantin to Chan a or
Y 9 9
~~ r.-;; requesting -
Hart: There is onl two that we're re uestin to chan e. One, is I don't have the
Y q 9 9
' ~ list in front of me I apologize. One was in regards to the landscape easements or
'~
,;
5
~~~~ -~
~~
,,~~
`: P. f
,
.b
. ~~k,. ! `~''.. ~::i 8 .i .r ,F .x^ ~ Rye
t '~ i4 '.." L 1
.~ rY
~;. ~ C '~
t F
.~S/ yy I
{:'
.~
~;_F__
'
_i Gi
r ~
., {
::...
~
..y ~
1 r,
v
'~'
kr
:,~:
F!
1 ..' C
rI
•. k
j
'A; _ 1
;. '~,
t -,
r .:.;:
~#
s
' .'
~ . ~`
~'
,.
_:
d ~ K .~ f
,~~~ j 1
~, ~ w f
~~
'~- ~ ~nf .
*~' ~
~t~ ~t
k ~rxk ' ..
~ ~ _ ~
i~~ ~ ti> Y~~
x
,~~ t~~, ,L-e
~t '
'' ~, i,; ~,,,,
~~
F
~ ~
~ 1
,~y ' ~ ~t
~.;,
z
~ ~ r
~,,~ ; ~ ,e~.,~ ,
_~ ~ 3
i,
:~ ~
t ~ ~.
tL Y 4r , 1K}
N- .~ z'~ ~
~` {
s~ ~ ~
t
F ~~
~._
>~ ~-
~~ y~~+i`~Rb ._.
;.~ ~a"~
"' , k }
~~
~~~
F~ f
' ~~,
. ~~`
k
- r
r t tJ~
z~.f~
w ~~ ~
t <
}+:' ~ y k~
• ~~,
-..x ~~I~,z-
E~;`' wy r ~ `°`
;~~
<~.~ ,
,~ `'~
,~, =; ~ ,
~t
~~f fis ~ z~"~ ` .
7 Y r 1
z
~.
,, ~ ° ~ ~ ,~
-' W
r:~ ~ ,~
}
z
..
>•~~
~; ;
~:~'
~ S Y `.~ r ,
+I
r~~ ? a- <,r--,r - .,
~.~: .~,
:f,
„2~ _.
~'~-i ~
L~. a. -.
~~
..~,.
.,:, = n
5
~ ~~' F.
u ~'iFt'~w
rar -.
i;
li~1X
.. ~ ~
!±
~~ ~ t.
L, ~
t 5 k 1
~`
~~ ~ S
'1
N'k f
~~ ~ .
f
k ~. - ~~
~n t 3
C t. '
t1
~F ~
~.. Y ~ {~j
Meridian Planning and Zoning~mmission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 14
common areas that staff talked about before I got up here. The second was to
require fencing along the Eight Mile Lateral in the -along Block 2 there.
Hawkins-Clark: Number 10 and 11.
Hart: Yes.
Borup: Was that the only question? Anyone else? Do you know how many total
residents in Meridian Greens as a whole? All the phases?
Hart: I believe there is somewhere around 200 lots.
Centers: What's the children-per-household ratio or do you know that?
Hart: I do not have that information. I do know that the houses in Meridian
Greens are not well to be defined as starter homes. That would typically subject
to young couples with small children. Its primarily elderly retired people that live
in the subdivision.
Borup: Any comment on the - on parks?
Hart: That's an issue that we hadn't discussed yet.
Borup: Its been discussed at previous meeting here.
Hart: I apologize this is a -
Borup: The last application that was before us that came up for this same area.
Hart: No I'm not familiar with the other phases of Meridian Greens and I really
can't comment on those.
Borup: I mean this same project you are talking about this same area was
brought up before with different proposal for this area.
Hart: I remember the one you are talking about it was about three years ago. We
talked about putting in smaller homes in this area.
Borup: Like townhouses or something along that line -patio homes.
Hart: Patio homes that was the word we used yes. That idea has been
scrapped.
Borup: We understand that. I think at that there was some testimony from some
of the neighbors a park would be nice. On the Eight Mile Lateral, is that going to
require an encroachment agreement with Nampa? Would that be the same
J
:Y i ` - l.y''S k f f ~ F f 1~~ yj'j{ 1, j•.~t y~Y„~F'~'i
,.. ~ ~~~ ,ra i Y:'~lri t ~rl
-~ 1 ,j~~~ a~~+'~ ~~' 4. ofd 1~~~ ~' ~ i~.~5t~
~? n~ '~~~. •. - mn-3 q t @
ks P c ~ I
k~:r. - ~ 2
E~ ~
r ~ ~~ `${ J~V tr.' x,71 S p~ ~ ~,~E ~„
~ `~.<rt i s 13 s y~r f
!~~ sue: ~~~~ s
r e '' i.x ec I q
' ~ ~~
t Y iy
_ . a~~ ~ ~.1 if "'~t~{{L~Sk } Via. ~ i r~ Y~~ t IlY t ;t r ter,
~F !: .J wTr~'~''~" ~r'^~J'~~?'if`V,~ }~'k i ~`"* jib jTh~ "'~ ~-~'`'`~~t:W`~~}
t 3 t 3 hl` ~
t ~ - r ~ R y,;.
'k+ ~ ~ ea S~ ~~ i~ ~ ~-
r. Y ~
~~r f M1VZ, Q ~ S, _ ,f ~~
'^ f . v
7 _' ` ~ h ~ C :' x r :: ' y~`a t , ` b.Y`~s , a F~,-,7t ff ~ ~ i ~"" v-w ;
~', 't F fxr ~ f ~v i .Y~~ ~ ~itf.L ,r
w 'y~ ,~4. { ' -
~' '_ i ~ `~~' v~i'~~~?' ~ ~ ~p :°3~c~'1 ~t ` ~-q 'a `,~ `fit # ~ r$rv#
,j f a ~ ~ '~"iy4
G' k 'I
f ', ~t ,
{{ ~~ ~
S~ F F tfi' h `i. t' ,
~ ~
f~Y A ~
y +~ f ~ i ~ ~
~~4'~ r
~3a~
~~!'s ~ ~ ny}y; '`
a ~
~~
Y ,, ~ . >
t "3~~'~N +#u8 't }
~ ~ '~
Z,.
~w'..'
r .. n-
.c~-.
A YY.
l
t
«*~r
y~~
.Il- f,
~~ r
.t ~~'
~`~
~ H :i -
R -
ti~'
r: _
~~~~
4~.Y
.V 3..+_ -
h;,.,,
~~..
a h.
y}
? ~
~ti
t '`
~~~_
~~:
j'~y,,
~~,~.:
~~,
R,~:-!
~~~
~,
r::
?R~ -,
w..>z:
~t _:.~
R3
.::
x~f:~
~,~ ';
~~~~_
,~_}
>:_
~:
~':
}~
~:
~,,
V7~•
l
~r
~P
,~
~- .~,
,~
N
~;.
i
'_
r r
~
, z
~
P }
~. 3
5 ~ ?3
ti
t
ai
~ ~
a t
i,
6~ 0
~.
i
'~,', ;.`
x`
~ ~i
t-
~'
~ ~' 3
~,~ f i
~~ y
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 15
situation as the irrigation laterals or are those delivery laterals. I'm looking at
your top picture there which looks real nice the landscaping they've done there.
I'm wondering if we've got a jurisdiction difference here.
Hart: I believe those are all along delivery laterals in the subdivision.
Borup: So those are not under the jurisdiction of Nampa Meridian then?
Hart: No I'm sure they are. I'm sure - I'm familiar enough with other phases to
comment for certain.
Borup: I agree with the comments that landscaping down to an irrigation ditch or
drain ditch looks really nice as long as you are going to be allowed to do that.
Has there been some discussion with Nampa Meridian are they going to allow
that?
Hart: There's been no discussion. We have revised the Preliminary Plat from the
original submittal to bring the lot lines along Block 2 back in the easement line
along Meridian Greens. There was a letter submitted from Nampa Meridian that
said any area platted into their easement would require an encroachment
agreement. So we have gone back and revised the Preliminary Plat to match the
easement line.
Borup: Are they going to allow landscaping in their easement also? Sometimes
they can be real particular of that. It appears that the maintenance road is on the
other side though. Is that correct?
Hart: that is correct.
Borup: So at this point you don't have an answer on that it sounds like if they're
going to allow that?
Hart: No I don't know.
Borup: Okay. We also have a letter from the Homeowners Association
requesting a written agreement on the design of the irrigation system et cetera.
Hart: Yes.
Borup: It sounds like you're not to a point where you have a written agreement
with them is that --
Hart: No our new addition is currently under design and I have talked to
representatives of the Homeowners Association and we are currently working on
that.
_~~ ~ s ~:
y~ {~ i'tr,l
a - y~, I . 1 .~ ~M' ter ~ i ti
..,y. ;~ T ~~ 2 z.`f n4E- '1r ~ 1 f 7~ 3.a.
E r f e.. ~-y::~ ~ry
t ~ 'fY ~~ ' "~,{~ a'7~ ~ ~~
~ KT~ ~ ~ X z
$' ~ ~ 'R ~•~ 9~
~f d v Y i~ ~+~ a s o gg i ''~
' F N M f. of ~~is~ ~ii/71 S ~}~
1` - - ,.
.kt~ ~ ~ "-a~ ~ t bx~~tr. h f 7
.r ~ ~xi~'~"'ya ~ i~~~ h ~ ~''rZ j~7
r
~k
~ i l;
~~ ..bi ~~
J,
~ ~ ~: i
~° ~ it'3 k I ~ k ' ,
r •.? S r ~ ~ ~. ! ~~%?
p;-.f ~ ~ ~~` J S ~. r..i's`4~+£ ~. i ~ :_~} µ ~'~ ~f i1 ~~
5 "tea . ~<t .m ~ a fi`~ar~Y~ '~`~'~r'° ~ x ~~}'~~> ~ ~
y
~[urF '~"i~,~ ~~~ ~~f~o': 7~~yy~,. ~J'7'tF- { s Y. +'~,O.r"' ~.;
f <'S I~1Ml~
- s^~ i~ g ~ 'ai ilz:
s
,.
2~`F.. ~~ S a -'~ , .3 a 7f11; P~
~~ua' l b t ~> a {fj 4'a u~'~
ii r ~: '' . Y. ,R'
v
;~T* M r 4 ytr ~ '~'
'- ~t r ,
~~I tip', ~ ~ ~"~
j h-
~~r~,, ~''`.7 '2' k~,~; ~,
h~ Sn
9 f v~ a
~ ~/ a wry
~ { '.~
~~ f~V it _ ~ T :. t...
~ ~ ~~~ r
S.1 Ih i ~ 1...
'`> .~.y l..r
i
~~'Gw~vi,':. {hr ii Q t, ~ ~ i ,' r ~
k~ ~ ,s Q a i
~ ~ q~ ~~~~ 7 ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i
t:
A.fI
.,:: i
Y~•
':,, ~i
~4
~c~?- ~ :?
~ ~~
t
~_~ ~ .
~ ~~a~
~'
s~~~
~.
'~?,.t,
!~ ~~~
~ ~' r'~~:
.; .~~tY,
a'~~
a~
5:
{ $4
t
~~~~~
er ti k~
~~ ~,.~ .
i ~ i*y, 1'19:: {~
~. _ _
~ flfi R ~~T~ ~!-
+w r F
1~~
t ~ ~ ++- a~
a°~,~~r -
.~ }
`~~~~.
,:
~t s ~
`ter . `~~~~
,.
-.~
-~
r h~ n m~
t, .. -;r.,~,
~ • ' ~ ~,r
w'~ZAt
>, ~ -{ ~~~
,; ~,
:~ >~. ~ -
_j y
':~.-J t -Y~.i
4 7 ~ ti
~~ f ~ f
~~Kk
f'w~~~i
v
u~
r~
i . ~ ~.`~t
.,
~, ~
~ ,: ,:. ~.~ r ,
.~; : ~ .~
`~
~. ,~~~
~'~'.~ .f Px31wkY
~ 4.:., i~~ry t
..~ ~; .-
:.~
~~ ;
mss:' ~ ~ r ,
4~ 4` ~~
~t :;; ,f
= ~ :~~
1r~': t~
~ ti; tt
~~ ~~~~ ~
aY ~ ~Y~a+r~.
~~:.~'
~,
~,, c. ,' ;~~ .
~ y i'7 w.
~h
~; ~:~~
~r ,
.~. ,~{ . .
fir,: 1~!-. g`t
~ 'ti'. _
i ~ z:
x_ ~ , .
~_~~~
~_S~
~ y' ~~
` y
~1
~..i .,..
i'
r,~ ~ ~ ~
7
t
p~ >'~
~:.a +~,.~~ ~'t
s
i
~' a •"L _ ,
3
a
+.
ij "
~~ ~'.
~i ,-S.
'vs ,,r:_'~ '~~
Meridian Planning and Zonings mission Meetlng
November 14, 2000
Page 16
Borup: Thank you. Any other questions from the Commission? Do you have any
final comments you would like to make Matt?
Hart: No thank you.
Borup: Okay thank you. Do we have anyone here that would like to comment on
this application? Everybody must be here for something else huh. Any final
comments from staff? Commissioners?
Centers: Mr. Chairman. For staff possibly, what could be done with that irrigation
easement the developer owns half of it. can anything be developed there for
what the parks department is talking about?
Borup: That would a pretty narrow strip.
Kuntz: Commission and Commissioner Centers, unless we've got clear
easements that are contiguous along that pathway it doesn't appear to be the
case. It wouldn't probably be an appropriate place for a future walking path. I do
notice however on the -where the maintenance road is on the other side of the
canal is a contiguous running would probably be a more appropriate place. We
probably would not choose to place a pathway future on that side.
Centers: I was talking about the well lot.
***End of Side One***
Kuntz: I'm not really suggesting that we put a park in there, just suggesting there
is no usable common area in the entire Meridian Greens as it is right now. And
that one lot, my suggestion would be Lot 8, be set aside as a common area to be
used by the residents of Meridian Greens. It would be owned and maintained by
the Homeowners Association and whatever amenities they saw fit to put into that
common area would be appropriate. I don't know if that answers your question
or not.
Centers: I think you did yes.
Borup: Any concerns from the Commissioners?
Hatcher: Chairman Borup.
Borup: Commissioner Hatcher.
Hatcher: I just wanted to comment on two items both of them having to do with
green space. In regards to setting aside a lot for a park or green space for the
subdivision to use in this particular phase Ithink - unfortunately I think it's a day
late a dollar short. I know that the subdivision is a high quality subdivision and the
Rr'- ~
Y
~7 ~ ~~
~ ' t ~~ x;A of ~ ~~ v'i r ~~~.
~ ~
:t a~ r
y - T
A ~~ .; 1 ~ ...~J
7~l•~Y
i °' ~ '~,~'~.' ~~I ~ , ,3.
xo , .1ty t ~iyt ~~ ~h`F
~ 'N _ I
..1~ ~ 1 j h1. 4< S.".1 1 _
J, Tq~~~rt
:~t Yy A ,,Z~L~~'yR i
y
~ ~ ~ FFAgg
,w , ~ a.~ ° ~ ~ ~-?,r ..
5 1 ~ 'c
'~u5t 4m 4 .r 1 rt1~h t.4 h
~~.' .. ... } t f,
J „'N ~ _.
b P ~i uu''yy t 7~
,r3
;£ : ~` , Fi
i `~ 1 s•"' ~ .~
~ i
> > sJ~ h yr
_. i ~ '+ H~{<~ c {~ r>` i ~ Fri
'~'`'~ , i~. i t ~ 'sal "~ , >^~t
4 .
~ ,N . i .~ait~'{~S cu
w ' +~` ~
. ~. ~ ~~ ~
~~ .k ,-r ~ ~ `~; r~lrr R~ eye. ~
~' ~•~~ - ~!~ .m
.~
w.~ ~. ~~;.. _.
rc d r 1
~ y
~y'. a'f ~ i Y ~,ly ~C
a
. ~:' r ~
r ~ S ! ~ r
s '
dry ~ t«>~ut
~~~ /
~ tir ~ ?h/ f 4
r L4 ~ / ~ f 2 ~ `
i s
A ~
~~ '` r :?
~~~ ~~ ~~
'~~ ~
~.r$1 '~Y,. ,, ..
i~~????QQyyyy.. ~~~'F'~?~ 'z 3~ j ~''~ ~'~
YEN ~ xr .- ! y,t }
x ~~ ~ ~ {
34: ~
j~~N 9.,•
~ - r ..
?+n mot, ~ ~ 7v 1 r
~., v
i,
Meridian Plannin and Zonin Commission Meetin
9 9 9
,r ;~
-:c~ > November 14, 2000
Page 17
~ ~ ;~ ~ children that live in that subdivision if I were there I certainly wouldn't want them
going up to a lot close to Overland Road to play in a pocket park. If a pocket
park was the answer to this subdivision then they should be scattered throughout
the entire subdivision. Or if it's to be an actual neighborhood park then it should
be centrally located in the subdivision. I don't feel that any of these lots in
;~~' themselves to adequate pocket park. It would just become a vacant lot never be
°ak=Y~;;
,.f:. used. I think it would be to the betterment of the site of the lot to just let it be
developed by a builder. I think its unfortunate that parks weren't developed in this
~~ ~_~ subdivision early on but I don't think - it would be a Band-Aid approach at best.
The second item I wanted to comment on is I don't agree with the applicant on
`~k-r the common lots verses maintained easements. I would like to see the right-of-
;~~' ways be designated as separates lots and be maintained by the homeowners.
We could all drive around different subdivisions and find different photos for
'~Y~t: different conditions we could present what we want to present. My experience
~~" has been that common lots maintained by the subdivision Homeowners
r~~ Association is by far the best way to maintain those lots and to protect the beauty
" '~~ ' ~ of our city.
Borup: Thank you. Anyone else? Did anybody have any concern on the irrigation
system? I know that was brought up last time one of the residents had a lot of
`'~ concern that what they had now wasn't adequate. The letter from the association
`~'~ was over 40 days ago and doesn't look like they made a lot of progress in
~~~'~~~°~ ~ answering their concerns.
~ ~r
Norton: There's nobody here from the Homeowners Association?
Borup: No, there isn't. Maybe they really don't care either.
~~
;,~. ` Nary: Mr. Chairman.
w~'
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
~ ~, r:~
Nary: I guess I didn't read the comments from the Homeowners Association the
`~ letter and the little report that was attached to it certainly that's the same public
testimony as if they would be standing here. They seem to be simply saying they
just want a condition of this approval that they are going to have to get an
,~,~ agreement with them before they can hook up to their irrigation system.
~4 Otherwise they won't have any so it could be certainly before we get to the final
~''" plat they're going to have to have it. So whether they don't have it now I don't
~` ~~ "~ know if that matters as much as that -
.,
Borup: (inaudible)
t Nary: -- this is one of the conditions for the final plat anyway. I guess I have one
~~~ other comment I would like to make. I do agree with Commissioner Hatcher - I
~~~ guess it doesn't seem very fair to me to take a 200 home subdivision and get
~~~
:,
~
,,,,
,~:
~~;;
.z
,~ , ,
~ ~
~~~.
_~,,,
,
~r
~ ~.
_;
~
,
rt~~ `" r
,~-.;
,,: .'
Yki?
::~'~
_
t:~~%~
g`~`?
,.•
=~:::-
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 18
down to the last 13 lots and then want to require them to provide a park now
when the park should have been done 200 lots ago. That should have been
decided that obviously wasn't a priority at the time that was approved so I don't
think that's necessarily fair to add that at this juncture I think it is a little late. I
would also agree with Commissioner Hatcher that I do think weighing between
the two of having whether a homeowner maintains that easement area or
whether the Homeowners Association maintains it. The Homeowners
Association has a lot bigger incentive to maintain that, maintain the beauty of that
subdivision and the look of that subdivision then some homeowners may. You
are always subject to the individual homeowners desire of what it looks like
verses the Homeowners Association. So I would also agree with Commissioner
Hatcher I think its better if its maintain by the Homeowners Association than it is
the individuals. I agree that you can go find pictures for both sides so I don't
think that's probably that compelling either way.
Borup: And they maybe a little bit - I don't know that those pictures in that
subdivision are that biased one way or another. And the subdivision itself to me
does make a difference on how it's going to be maintained by the homeowners.
Centers: Well I would comment Mr. Chairman that the Meridian Greens
Subdivision has been one of the best subdivisions in Meridian, Idaho. The
developer should be commended for the job he has done. He has very high
standards on his covenants. I think those homeowners are going to want their
houses to like nice at the entrance. I guess would go with the group on whether
it's homeowners or the owner. But I've got to think those owners are going to
take care of that easement. When they're in 200,000 -250,000-dollar houses.
To me its not a big issue let me put it that way.
Borup: Did you have any further comment on that, Brad? You had mentioned
that you felt that could be acceptable I didn't know if you felt strongly one way or
the other.
h~ -
~R
Hawkins-Clark: I think in terms of enforcement if it really came down to a issue
where it was just really un-kept and the city needed to go after somebody from
an enforcement perspective and legal maybe will be able to comment on that
better. We just think that a Homeowners Association is for the city to work with
an association to represent on these lots. The enforcement is -that's the
preferred method for us. As compared to going after three or four different
individual property owners and having them agree. Again I think that if we ask
for a detailed landscape plan on the final plat, if the developer's willing to go, that
it does give us some control. I do question whether or not if a future property
owner purchases on of those lots they may choose some other things. They're
not necessarily aware that that's the way the -the city's already approved 20
feet of their side yard in terms of a certain design. I think I would just support our
staff report at this point.
~~;
> ~~'
:~`
,_ a
•.2:
:~,~;
~~-
,;.:::
a 4 3 .
,:
.;;~~„`:
;; .F:~,
,_';<`
~;
°~~t-
`~
,~.
,,,
~; ,
~ ~ }r
~~, ~~=
,t.~
-.
;~:
;Y~;
~~~
F= ~
:,;~:'-
:~w.,
~.~};
V i ~u
qtr
~~~;r ;.~~iFi
•. '*f-:
:,;._
r,~ s~~
k ;
--:Y:"
~%
~r~ .
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 19
Borup: Who is going to be doing the landscaping, the developer is not they're just
designing it? I understood maybe I -
Hawkins-Clark: I think the proposal either way would be for the developer to
install.
Borup: Okay that's what I understood.
Centers: That's about afive-foot berm?
Hawkins-Clark: It's only 20 feet so you wouldn't be able to do 5 feet and 20 feet.
Its more like three in terms of height is that what you're -
~ Centers: Yes.
Borup: So the developer will only be doing the landscaping on the west side not
on the east side? Is that correct also? Are we expecting a landscape design on
the east side also? Their plans do not show -
Hawkins-Clark: I don't know if it was clear or not. We would like to see on both
given that it is the main entrance obviously I think it would just be more
appropriate to see those. We would ask that the final plat have detailed
landscape plans for both sides.
Borup: I think that's the one point I differ a little on having a platted easement
which I agree with. In this case one side of the street is not going to have it. If
you are being consistent then both of them wouldn't we're going to end up with a
platted lot on the west side but not on the east side.
Centers: You can't on the east side because of (inaudible) -
Borup: Right. Commissioner Hatcher you had a comment?
Hatcher: It's just a comment, but it seems to me to the benefit of the developer
and to the city - I support Brad's comment looking at what's been submitted
here. The west side of Southeast 5~' landscape easement which would be the
entry side of the subdivision goes the full length of this phase. The first lot on the
east side is the city well lot and everything to the north of that is abutting
Overland. It would seem to me that a landscape plan that would show the intent
basically how that's all going to be improved, developed and landscaped
including the entry island primarily just right there at that entrance. The once its
gets to Lot 5, Block 2 where the entry island is tapered (inaudible) landscaping.
So you have a formal entry that's fully landscaped.
Borup: So you are saying you don't feel its necessary to have a landscape
design further south?
s ~:t : _. t
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 20
;~~-
~ ~~, . ~~
{,
r~,~~
,,
.;~_;
~~
'~
.
.
<,~
:;~
>;:
,~ ,,~.
~~~~~;
::
~ ~~
}=::,
-=:;~
r-'
--_
r~~
~~,
,
.:.: .
Hatcher: I don't think that its fully necessary if. it was the rest of the Board's
decision to do that I would go along with that. It just you are going to have some
.conflict with the cross access easements. Would have to be taken into
consideration?
Borup: Well yes you wouldn't have landscaping in that area. That's what's a little
different here their restricted to where their entrance -their garages are going to
be at that location.
Hatcher: Right.
Borup: I guess it just (inaudible) makes sense to me for it to be uniform. To have
a nice design landscaping on one side of the street and then whatever each
homeowner wants to do on the other side.
Hatcher: My point what that it is going to have to terminate somewhere. Because
once it hits the existing phase its just going to stop right there.
Borup: Okay that's true.
Hatcher: So if it's going to stop somewhere then it should be formally designed
and stopped at the entry. Then it would seem appropriate between the well lot -
Borup: Now why aren't we doing the same thing on the other side street?
Hatcher: What's that?
Borup: Why aren't we doing the same thing on the other side of the street then?
Hatcher: Either or I'm not picky. Not on this issue.
Borup: Okay. The public hearing is still open. Does the applicant have any final
comments?
Hart: Commissioners I would like to comment a little further regarding the
landscape easements verses the common areas. As you see staff supports the
recommendation that landscape easements would be acceptable for the east
side of Southeast 5~" there. We are simply asking that the west side be kept in
an easement also. The plan was for to have the entire easement area included
in the landscape design will be approved by the city. The developer will build
those landscape improvements.
Borup: On both sides?
~~fi:
~~~
C -
'` ~~
r ~_ ~~+ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 21
'` " Hart: On both sides. As far as for maintaining the landscape easements the
;~~ ~ covenants of the subdivision will be very strict regarding the maintenance of
those areas. I believe that's all.
~~ Borup: Than any -then you are comfortable with a condition that - an agreement
~`'y~ with the Homeowners Association on the irrigation would be worked prior to the
"~ ~ ~y~ final plat?
:~: Hart: Yes I am.
~.~ ~~ Borup: A written agreement?
;3
~'~~~ Hart: Yes we will do that.
.: Borup: Prior to. Any other comments from the Commission? Okay Thank you.
~;-.
a Hart: Thank you.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman I move that we close the public hearing.
.~.an
~~;:
' Nary: Second.
y a
Borup: Motion is second to close the public hearing all in favor?
~~`~Y"< MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
:~" Borup: Are we ready for a motion or do we need some discussion first? Did staff
-`'P
"'hy have a comment? It looks like probably the point in question would be the
~
:~~ landscaping easement.
~ ~
,
Hatcher: I've already stated my position.
''' Borup: Does anybody have any other comments before someone would like to
- make a motion?
z ,~>
~~ ~`
Centers: For the staff again Mr. Chairman did they incorporate the letter here
~_'~ from the applicant into their conditions?
Borup: You mean the one we got today?
~,~
Centers: Yes the one that I'm looking at here from Matt Hart. Because he
~ addressed a lot of your conditions. Do you want to revise some of your
r ~~
~ conditions before approval? In fact he addressed all of your conditions item per
item.
;~=,~:
~~r.~~~
4
,.~
~~
'
f 4
~
~'~
~ ~i~
~~ ~ - -
p,~ ~ ~.
~;, .
. :: ~.54
~
l+;
'.'
~~
`'~
~ ;_~ ~~,
;.
.1~ -r~:
~~:~;<
<c<:3n
~;,; ~:>
:;:-
;;,:-=
~~;~
Meridian Planning and Zoning mission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 22
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Centers that was a requirement of our comments
that they respond in writing to ours. I think our feel -- is that is part of public
record there is an agreement on virtually everything. I think once this decision is
made we would just ask that everything of ours be incorporated except obviously
if you want to modify our conditions then that's your prerogative. But we would
like them to stand as written.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: Just so I'm clear Brad, number 4 condition 4 that is addressed in this
November 9, 2000 letter from Civil Survey Consultants saying there is a
miscommunication regarding that ten-foot strip. Is this correct what he states in
here so is this what we would incorporate or just leave the original comment as
is?
(inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Hawkins-Clark: -- reinforcing what our comment is.
Borup: He is agreeing with the staff saying they redesigned and moved it to.
Nary: And if I understood what you were saying earlier to Brad. Sounded like
some of what you were saying was what Chairman Borup was saying about the
common lots verses the landscape easements. That -you can live with either
way if there was going to be a landscaped as a plan and all that which I guess
the developer is committing to the city could live with that as well. There is some
convenience to having it maintained by the Homeowners Association but it's
probably not the biggest reason to hold up this over that particular issue.
Hawkins-Clark: Well stated.
Centers: Item No. 7 they're disagreeing with you in their letter back to you. They
say no encroachment agreement shall be necessary.
Borup: That's because they're saying they are moving outside of the easement.
Centers: Okay.
Borup: I believe that comment was it if stays in the easement it needs an
encroachment agreement with Nampa Meridian Irrigation. I'm assuming the new
plat shows the new location the one we just received today?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes it does Chairman. That could very well be omitted from -
numberseven could be omitted if you like. That is a mute point now.
~,;
i~„
~~ . -~-r
_,*.
a,!<;
Y t;~,-.
s ~:•a..
_~r,
;.,';`~_
~;~ ~ r~
._>,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 23
Borup: Actually it does not show it outside the easement. So it hasn't been
moved yet on the plat we got today or am I looking at the wrong one? Maybe I'm
looking at the old one still. Did that get changed Matt?
Hart: Yes it did.
Borup: Okay. Got eliminated. No that's still the wrong one. Did that make sense
Jerry?
Centers: Yes.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: As he said we could just take it out.
Borup: I think what the applicant has stated earlier that they were in agreement
with everything except Item No. 10 an Item No. 11 of staff comments. That being
one on the easement and the other on the fence. Their preference is to allow
landscaping down to the lateral without having a fence obstructing it. The other
is having an easement rather than a dedicated lot. I think other than those two
items in agreement with all staff comments. Staffs comment number 11 is they
encouraged it not that they would require it.
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Borup: Okay do we have any other questions?
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: I going to move for the approval of Preliminary Plat 00-019 13 building lots
and three other lots on 7.88 acres in an R-4 zone proposed for Meridian Greens
No. 4 by ScottlFuller Investments Glenco at the northwest corner and northeast
corner Southeast 5~' and Overland Road. To incorporate all the staff comments
with only the following revisions on Item No. 11 on the site specific comments I
think that comment also include the developers request that they be allowed to
consider landscaping to the -
Borup: Eight Mile Lateral.
Nary: -- lateral. I guess that's going to be subject to the approval of the irrigation
district if it's going to encroach in their easement. Item 11 be amended to allow
for that possibility. Then Item 10 that the developer provide a - if the developer
is going to maintain separate landscape easements on both the west and the
:y
~. ii;
~-.
~& f r~s
=`~ x-:
;.
~ i~~
w ~,~
-~:?
t±~ ~~,;'h~~'
°y
~,,
.°a~;
,;~..
~,.
~~,
,, -~:~;
Meridian Planning and Zoning commission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 24
east side of Southeast 5th instead of common lot maintained by the Homeowners
Association. Then they provide the city a landscape plan prior to the approval of
the final plat. Is that adequate Brad? Is that going to be adequate to the city's
needs?
Hawkins-Clark: If you could specify both east and west.
Nary: Right I'm sorry I thought I said east and west side of Southeast 5~' that they
provide a landscape plan for that if their not going to have them maintained as
common lots. I guess that leaves them the option between now and final platting
to decide what they want to do. If they aren't going to maintain them as common
lots that they provide the city a landscape plan for the south or for the east and
west sides of Southeast 5~'. Running the length of this phase prior to the final
plat.
Borup: To be constructed and installed by the developer
.,:.~}
~;~ ~~~±
_:~,_:;
rig:;
;, z
:, ~. ^.t
;~r;
~,
,,~~ `~`
~.
kr
Nary: And to be constructed and installed by the developer. I think those were
the only two comments we need to incorporate.
Hatcher: Commissioner Nary. Would you clarify for me in your motion were you
or were you not requiring common lots on the east and west side of Southeast
5~'?
Nary: My motion was not going to require that they make them common lots they
could still choose. But if they do not choose to make them common lots that they
will then have to provide the city with a landscape plan prior to the final plat.
They still have the option between now and final platting to decide which works
the best for them in developing this. But either one of them they're either going
to have a landscape plan or have a common lot pursuant to what number 10 --
Borup: I think either way they're going to need a landscape plan
Hatcher: Yes.
Borup: Even if it is a common lot that would still need a landscape plan. The
landscape plan is going to need to be there either way.
Nary: I guess what I would move that it not be required that it be common that
they be common lots - we would allow them to be maintained by the
homeowners again as long as they again have an approved landscape plan by
the city.
Borup: Commissioner Hatcher, again for clarification the common lot would stay
on Overland Road.
~;
£~_..
art;
._
r~ r~ ~.
~'~ ;*
~
Meridian Planning and Zoning
mmission Meeting
~~~~ November 14, 2000
;~-''~' Page 25
~ Nary: Correct.
A;
\`
.j;'
t
`'
~ Y'~ Hatcher: I understand the motion.
~* }~^~ it
xi~--:
Norton: Would you consider adding with your motion that the developers review
,,
~5 with the Homeowners Association their specific concerns regarding the
*
pressurized irrigation system?
~: Nary: Absolutely they would have to have a written agreement with the
,u t"
=r
x Homeowners Association to attach to their pressurized irrigation system as
~; >
,~ requested by the Meridian Greens Homeowners Association certainly.
fi
~~~~
_
Norton: Thank you. I second.
r ~? Borup: Motion is second any discussion? All in favor?
;~~: MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAYE
...t.
~
j
~r;,~
Item No. 4 Public Hearing: AZ 00-020 Request for Annexation and Zoning
r ~~°"'~a of 339.73 acres to R-4, R-8 and C-N zones for proposed Keltic
=~`'
~ Heights Subdivision by Parkland Development for proposed use
~ ~~ as single-family residential and neighborhood commercial located
;~: west of Meridian Road and south of Chinden Boulevard:
~k~
~ Borup: Item No. 4 Public Hearing Request for Annexation and Zoning of 339.73
~
>r; acres to R-4, R-8 and C-N zones for proposed Keltic Heights Subdivision by
,~ ~5»x~
~ ,.: ~~ Parkland Development. Proposed use is single-family residential and
neighborhood commercial located west of Meridian Road and south of Chinden.
Mr. Hawkins-Clark it's all yours.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you. As shown on the overhead this request does ask for
three different designations. Ustick is at the bottom of the screen the future 56
rt
~~~~~,
acre city park is here on the west side of Meridian Road proposed Sundance
~=~ Subdivision on the east side. They are proposing to begin their annexation legal
~ ~ ~ description connecting to the city park which is currently in the city limits.
Annexation Meridian Road approximately three-quarters of a mile. Then the
~ ~ ~> parcels are configured here with the bold outline. They are proposing
ar "~ ~'; commercial here at the very south end of the annexation and commercial along
Chinden here. There is a total of 37 acres approximately in commercial. 218
°:~ j" acres in R-4 density which is being proposed here in this area and approximately
w:~~ .~ 83 acres of R-8 which is located here. Our staff report submitted November 8,
~ 2000 is recommending denial based on our understanding of state statute Idaho
~~` ~~' Code 50-222. Which halfway down through that state statute does say that
°~ provide further that said council shall not have the power to declare such land
` `'~ referrin to shoestrin s which is the word that has been
g g given to such
;,
`^ ~` annexations where you have no actual legal parcels private land. This is all
,,;
:~~,
,: ~,, .,;
~,,
:;~
pp~~
7^` ~ 1^ly,F~
~`x2
h ~ i'..'+
#~,
..... .. .
~.
a=F~m~
~~:~-
~~ ~~~
,;~-
w. ; ~=;
,r, ~:~
,.;
.r ~;
.,~,
~.
Gr 4
,~<:~1
~~~V
;:. _?;
~~~.
~rF
.-
i,~ Meridian Planning and Zoning mission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 26
public right-of-way being annexed only. That shoestring here and 50-222 council
should not have the power to declare such land, lots or blocks part of the city if
they will connected to such city only by a shoestring or strip of land upon a public
highway. That the primary basis on which were recommending denial of the
annexation at this time.
Borup: Any questions from the Commission at this time?
Hatcher: I have one. Could Bruce address the sewerability for this project?
Borup: Mr. Freckleton.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman members of the Commission, sewer service to this site
is not existent at this point it will take a trunk line extension to serve the north -
what we call the North Trunk Line. Which is not planned at this point in time as
you know the city is -City Council has given us directive and funded made funds
available to build the White Trunk which will open up an area north of Ustick
Road. That's kind of stalled at this point in time but the North Trunk has not had
any planning done on its not - no plans are on the calendar.
Borup: Is the North Trunk -that's the trunk line that was intended to service
Vienna Woods?
Freckleton: Yes that is true.
Borup: Okay Thank you. Anyone else?
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary?
Nary: I also asked our counsel if he could also look at that provision in the state
code and in this particular case and see if they had an opinion that they could
provide us tonight as to the legality of us even annexing this piece based on
what's in the staff report about the Hendrick's case and the Idaho Code
provisions.
Borup: Mr. Swartley any comments?
Swartley: Chairman Borup Commissioner Nary yes I did take a look at 50-222(2)
which does state the shoestring or strips of land on a public highway can not be
annexed. I agree with the staff s analysis of that. Staff also sites to the fact this
is not adjacent or contiguous property I don't necessarily agree with that analysis
because I think that that is somewhat unclear at least in the cases that staff
presented us with. Yes the fact that this is a shoestring property it should not be
,. ~. :4
'S.,
,4 J.._.. ".
l~~
Meridian Planning and Zoning commission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 27
annexed there is case authority, Potvin verses Chubbuck 76 Idaho 453 which
backs that up.
Borup: Anyone else? Is the applicants representative here this evening? Some
of you may have some comments on some of this.
Brown: Mr. Chairman, I am Kent Brown with Briggs Engineering address 1800
W. Overland Road, Boise, Idaho. In reviewing staffs comments would the
Commission prefer I speak to the shoestring or the merits of the proposed
annexation?
Borup: 1 don't know if anyone has any other thoughts my two thoughts would be
probably the two things tha# seem to be pertinent is sewer line and the
shoestring. Any other Commissioners have anything else that -
Hatcher: Well the first two I would like to -
Nary: (inaudible) get over that hurdle there's not much else to talk about.
Hatcher: It doesn't matter how good a project is if you can't get past those finro.
Brown: To begin with we do lie in the North Trunk we have met with staff and the
landowner to the west of us. My client and the landowner to the west are
prepared to extend and design the North Flue Trunk line to this point and through
their various different properties. That would our means of having sewer to our
project where the White Trunk is held up by specific developers this would not
have that block we would have the ability to do that. We have been waiting also
for the White Trunk to come through so that it would make it a little easier for us
to have more adjacent ground to us in annexing. It seems that that's stalled
previous meetings during the summer the Commission and Council were told by
staff this line the White Trunk would be built by March of this year was their
projected date in a workshop. I don't know if it's any further 1 know staff can
comment on that. We would have the ability from our standpoint id f the city was
willing to design and construct that line to our site. On the handout that I gave
you if you look at the first one this is an annexation that was generated, initiated
by the City of Meridian the annexed up half of the right of-way to annex the
sewer treatment plant recently. If you took at the second page the part where
were contiguous with the city limits is the park site the 53 acre park site was also
annexed via the road right-of-way. In looking at these two and with our meetings
with staff I don't know about you but if you remember the old Atari game Pong
I've kind of felt like this ball being bounced back and forth. We really do want to
do a nice project and have tried to work with them as we talked about the viability
to have sewer they've told us that we needed to annex to the city. There was
concern about building permits and the fees that would be generated having
those come to the city verses the scenario like Vienna Woods. Therefore looking
at scenarios and looking at what the city has viewed as being acceptable in the
~ '"
{-
,5.4 ,'~_
4
~, s.~.
..,
..-~
,~
F :~
,~,s
:,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 28
past if it was acceptable for the city to generate annexation via the road and it
was acceptable for them to do it for the park site it should be viable for us to do a
similar situation. The last page is St. Lukes Meridian if you look at the three
parcels outlined south of the interstate those parcels were contiguous by the city
limits and then you take the entire interchange there at Eagle Road to get over to
the 30 acres St. Lukes site that's how they were contiguous. We viewed these
as examples of how were contiguous and feel very strongly that state law doesn't
give a definition as to what a shoestring is different jurisdictions do it different
ways. The City of Nampa a couple of years ago went through and annexed
nothing but street right-of-ways they wanted control over the city streets and it
kept the Highway District from having that jurisdiction so they went out and
annexed streets. The examples I provided to you are just some of the ones we
could probably go back and if we were to look at all the annexations over the
years for Meridian we could probably find some more. What has been
acceptable in the past is to have to touching points you could have a project here
that is in the city and a project here that touch and that touching point makes it
contiguous. Are there any questions that I might answer about that?
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: Mr. Brown you've very amply described what the city has done in the
past regarding the shoestring annexation. Could you talk about the merit of your
project?
.,
Brown: I'd be happy to. We've tried to design a project that meets the
Comprehensive Plan the Comprehensive Plan in the area that we are proposing
commercial and R-8 zoning in .the southeast portion of it that area in the
Comprehensive Plan calls for commercial in a mixed use. Mixed use from
experience as to what the Commission has gone has been R-8. We've tried to
buffer and have a transition from a commercial development to a little bit higher
density. We've put open space around the most dense portion of this. Then
have gotten bigger lots as we transition out. Were proposing a school and park
site, a multiple use facility there. We have some office uses along Chinden
obviously to have that happen the city would have to modify their Ordinance to
have the ability to allow that. The staff has had a recommendation for sometime
to allow planned development and that's what we would be proposing a planned
development. We have open space through the middle of our project larger lots
as we transition to some of the out parcels here on the west. Our point here
would line up with the adjoining land owner to the west and the trunk sewer line
would come through in here to take it over to the road at this point. We've tried
to have a little more density up here close to what would be a commercial area
and a heavily traveled Chinden Road. Then transition as we get closer back into
here into some larger lots again. We feel very firmly the R-4 zoning in this area
would comply with the Comprehensive Plan, the R-8 complies and the
~.
~: ,.~
_
Meridian Plannin and Zonin ~ mi
g g ssion Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 29
commercial area complies. If we were annexed then we would have the ability to
maybe work with the neighbors on specifics on their given out parcels and work
those out in a planned development scenario. This would be a multi-year project.
Obviously there's no - in brining the sewer that distance that going to take some
work to have that happen. Depending on bringing the sewer this is the first place
it would reach this side on the west. We would have a series of phases. We
would work out those details in the Preliminary Plat standpoint. I know that that's
a little different for the City of Meridian having a planned community. They've
done a few Woodbridge is an example of one that was done in the past the
annexation and Conditional Use was done up front and then the plat came in
later and that's what were looking at, at this point. Any questions?
Centers: Your proposing to dedicate part of it for a school site?
Brown: We've been in discussions with the school about selling them a school
site. By having a school and park site they can purchase less and still meet the
state law requirements.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: I'm looking at the map we have and that white space there north of the
trunk line that goes - I guess that's Meridian Road there on the far east side of -
don't see what that is on our map. What is that?
Brown: There is a serious of parcels in this area that is not a part.
Nary: It's not a part of this - oh okay. There is some green space that looks like
landscaping is all of that just landscaping none of that spark except for the area
around the school?
Brown: This is just park here yes correct.
Nary: So all the rest -looks like a green block on the west side of the project
right near looks like a higher density portion verses R-4 is that a park? Or is that
something else?
Brown: It would be a multi-use facility probably storm drainage and open space
that would be landscaped.
Nary: And then the green space that's around the higher density area down at
the bottom that's again just predominately landscaping or storm water drain or
something like that?
Brown: Correct.
t ~. .
I~,a''
+~ ~
a~ ` 5~
Meridian Plannin
d Z
i
C
i
i
M
~rv~ g an
on
ng
omm
ss
on
eeting
November 14, 2000
~~ '
~. F;~~~
~ ~ : ~• Page 30
- Nary: There's no other park sites because its -
Brown: Alittle pocket park here that's in the center of that circle.
~~
' ~`F ,
Nary: And that's because Meridian has a park further down the road is that the
=~ reason you didn't want to do that?
~~t
Brown: Correct. If you look you can see linking pedestrian pathways to get
people to that. The same would be true here we're showing some alley loading
(inaudible) kind of mixes up the use. Once again at this point this would be a
concept and we would have to work out those details at a platting stage. I
~,hx;
~ understand the concern about annexing a piece of property and not really
; knowing what's going to go on it. this is what the developer would like to go
'' -~.~
"k forward with, with a plat if we get to that point. That ping-pong scenario he really
' rn~' didn't want to spend the money to do the plat - we knew up front staffs concern
about our -being contiguous and also about extending the sewer.
~~_
°'`° Hatcher: Mr. Chairman.
-~:~;
r,
`~ ~
~
Borup: Commissioner Hatcher.
;,>
~;
~ ~ ~ `~
Hatcher: Mr. Brown could you elaborate on your proposal for the sewer and your
conversations with staff. We have two concerns here and we've addressed the
~Li
shoestring annexation. I'd like to have -could you address the sewer extension
to this site.
-t}: Brown: Just a little history and background this parcel here was under an auction
j ~r by a previous owner I handle that application. At that time came to staff and this
~` .~
" was the proposal. This is what is allowed out in the county for us to go forward
~~.
'~`s4c~`
f'
' with that project was five acres. We were proposing installing a dry line sewer.
In meeting with the City Engineer at that time he said instead of putting in the dry
f ,~~~' line sewer why don't you extend the sewer. So I take back to my client that and
obviously for the few lots that he's proposing here as state type lots that really
doesn't pencil out when you've got amile-and-a-half of sewer that's from the
~~'
~~~~ treatment plant tot his point plus sewer in this portion. Shari Stiles at the
~N Planning and Zoning Department that five-acre developments would stop or
~~~, prohibit what would happen in the future. We did do a concept plan where you
~' ~Y~~ showed where you could put a house on a portion of the five acres and how each
<; one of those would be split down in the future. So from that stand point that
a "; client became disillusioned we did submit this to the county because he had an
_ option on this portion there was other parts of the property that needed to be
included. The person that owned that property is in this area and he was -
~~:4,
'~ ~ ***End of Side Two***
;~ ~,.~.
h
y
4
Y.i
` ~.
~'~
~2ru+~a4`
. _. _
;:
t ,,
' 7":
M
idi
Pl
i
d Z
;~;~?. er
an
ann
ng an
oning Commission Meeting
November 14, 2000
n _ Page 31
~~ ~~'i~~
,. Brown: -- happened this summer right after the workshop about sewer and about
'~ ~ the north trunk. Their concern was about us doing sewer outside the city limits
s rF they asked us to find a route. Our proposal would be to extend that. I know that
the developer to the west of us is preparing to do the same thing to submit an
annexation route. At one time I had even proposed three months ago I had
~~f= proposed his property for annexation.
..
f~ :.; ,
3`"
~ ;r ~~
Hatcher: So if I follow you here correct me if I'm mistaken. I understand you to -
I hear you to say that this particular developer for this project the adjacent
r developer that's also on the North Trunk line on the other side of Meridian Road
is it?
a~
~ Brown: Yes. Meridian's here this is Linder Road.
'
3 3
i'.-' f...w;
Hatcher: Okay west of Linder Road. How far does that development -
E~ ;{~.
}> Brown: Ten Mile.
.`2; Hatcher: All the way to Ten Mile. So these two developers in conjunction with
one another could conceivably install the North Trunk Line as part of their
~~~~~
-` developments.
a,
.,
:~~;
t
Brown: Correct.
r ~ ~~
Hatcher: To the treatment facility.
Brown: That's correct.
,a
~.~xt
Hatcher: Is that what has been proposed to staff and to the city. Has an
`°~~
., agreement with your developer your client and this other adjacent developer
has
,~ ~{ ,
this commenced or is this just negotiation and talk?
1:;
~
Brown: It's in a negotiation standpoint. You mean with the city?
z:
,.
~"
Hatcher: Well with the other developer. If he's going to pay a mile and your
Y~
~: going to pay a mile.
VV
.:P
Brown: Then jointly construct -
Hatcher: Jointly construct -exactly. Two big developments put the entire trunk in
.; .
because quite frankly neither one of the developments -well his could go in but
~: ~~ yours couldn't without the trunk.
~- ~
a~~ Brown: Correct.
~
~
{
1 ~r
1~ -.
t-
. ~ .'!
} ~'
;«
:
>
s.xrti-,v
,~~~;
1 -"~ F
N-.:'t .:
~~ .
•; ;;~*.
i
~s
~~ _
r':i ;~
~'
~
~
~._
~,~;.
_~;
}~.
~~,
~,
F' ~1
~'`
~~. ~~;
'~
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 32
Borup: Any other questions? Did you mention what the size of the park -the
combinations? Park ground with the school.
Brown: 14.33.
Borup: That's including the school?
Brown: Yes.
Borup: About how much of that would be park area, half?
Brown: Generally that's about what we've done in the past.
Borup: So that would be a six or seven acre neighborhood park.
Brown: As I understand state law and I can be corrected. They require 12 acres
for an elementary school. They allow that to go down when there is a park. It
doesn't necessarily have to be owned by the city it could be a Homeowners
Association in joint. They have a restriction as to the amount of acreage. So this
exceeds that 12 acres and you end up with something like Fuller Park where you
have a school facility using it at certain times and the city using it at other times
and you get multiple uses out of it.
Borup: You have had discussion with the school district?
Brown: We have had discussions with the school district. They in -- reading your
comments if you read your comments in there for the school district Mr. Bigham
he says that they do need a school in that area. They definitely tried to get a
school over by Vienna Woods at one time further east of this site and they
definitely need an elementary site in that area.
Borup: Thank you.
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: As along as Mr. Brown is still at the podium could staff make comment
regarding extending the North Trunk line to this area is that feasible?
Freckleton: Commissioner Norton members of the Commission, I haven't been a
party to the conversations Mr. Brown has talked about he's probably talked with
Gary Smith or Brad Watson. I think it's certainly feasible the trunk line would
have to commence on Ten Mile Road roughly mid-section between McMillan and
Ustick it would have to be built approximately amile-and-a-quarter north on Ten
.~
~,.:: ;.-
,~
•:r
!r~'
'`~.
,.T
~:~-
~.. ~~>`.
,,
~:Y
. - ;-,~_
;"
~ ~,`~~"I
;, j.
~a
.~_:
~~ ~r~~;
.. ~:,.
~.
3 ~~
~n' s
~
,
~,~ .
:
r7 .
r < .
~.
~~:?
-~:
* ~;:
~~
~x{i
4 f5
'~
~:
~~ ~~ ~_
~,
,~~
>::
S ~
4
t,x.,
ir
,~,
-:
f~ ~
c?°ry~
~.
:~`
;:~
»t~
,
~,,
r::
~LS:l,
r:a ; ~t
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 33
Mile then two miles east cross the mid-section. There are some pretty significant
hurdles that would have to be cleared in order to do that but it's feasible.
Norton: I'm assuming this will save the city quite a bit of money if they design and
construct the sewer system is that correct?
Freckleton: That's correct.
Norton: And that's what these developers would be willing to do
Brown: Correct.
Borup: Did the city make a - I know we made a commitment to bring that trunk
line to the Vienna Woods area. Were there also time lines associated with that?
That you can remember five years sticks in my mind but I don't know if that's
correct or not.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman I'm -right off the top of my head I don't remember a
(inaudible) on that.
Borup: Okay. (inaudible) answer Commissioner Norton's question this may be a
little unofficial I know talking about the North Trunk line with Mr. Smith a few
months back he had made some comment that that trunk line that there were
developers looking at that area. Maybe you had heard to.
Hatcher: I remember that we discussed in the workshop.
Borup: That's where it was. There were developers looking at putting in the trunk
line in that area. He didn't mention any names of course at that time but -and
he made the statement that he thought that would be the only way that that
would get in, in the near future because the city does not have the funds to do it.
Hatcher: And I don't remember a time line ever being given on Vienna Woods.
Borup: That's going way back to when that was first went in.
Brown: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Comment.
Brown: Currently the Vienna Woods is being pumped to the South Slue. With
completion of the White Trunk it will dump into the White Trunk so that the
second priority line the South Slue will be able to be constructed to Eagle Road.
Borup: They're still be pumped to the White Trunk its not a gravity flow yet
~~~.,
,.~,
~'-
w ~.,
n:'
F~ ~ ~ ~~
` •'
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
^;~`: November 14, 2000
Page 34
r",~ ~ Brown: It would be pumped. Vienna Woods would be in the North Slue area. It
currently lies within the North Slue trunk area. Eventually Vienna Woods will be
f~~: going through the North Slue.
~,~ ~~.
~~~~~~
Borup: Any final comments?
Centers: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Not final but before we move on.
_r;
~t~
Centers: Would staff or the attorney present have a comment on Mr. Browns
:'~~'~ submissions here of samples that previous shoestring annexation?
~.~=+~
~ 4 " ~Ji
~: t:,
;; Borup: you think the city plans by different rules you mean?
,
~` ~ Swartley: Chairman Borup I don't know anything about any previous - I mean
- Kent was here before I was. That may very well have happened I don't know.
~'°~ My interpretation of this 50-222(2) prohibits that type of annexation. Looks to me
~ti
~~~:-~~
like there's annexation upon land which is upon a public highway which the code
'~ ~ specifically prohibits. That being said it's my understanding talking to Brad there
°~'` ~~ were some other issues that came up besides just the trunk and this. Is that
,`'. correct Brad were there some other Comprehensive Plan problems? Okay so
~ you've got more than just these two issues to address which, are major ones
~
`' which, I'm not sure that have been -you've overcome yet. In addition to a bunch
of others. Keep that in mind.
~"~=~ Nary: Mr. Chairman.
~ ~~}
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
..
" ~k~
Nary: I would think I don't know if any of these folks are here testifying on this
particular project but it seems like we may not be able to reach a decision
s °':4;; tonight. I think whether the City Council asks for it or were asked for it we
~~~`~~ obviously have a discrepancy here between at least the legal opinion we have to
~„ this point and what Mr. Brown has presented. I certainly don't have any reason
'.x~,
~'~ '~ r: to think Mr. Brown is incorrect in showing us the city has in the past done similar
annexations to be proposed here.
~,'",' Borup: None of these are that long I can testify on those three. That that is what
did happened.
~~':;~
r a`?~
~
.;~
Nary: At least there are some inconsistencies. So whether or not we want to -
~ we certainly (inaudible) if there's public testimony to be taken. We may not be
~~ ~~~ ~ able to reach a decision without having that and secondarily if there other
concerns because staff comments since they focus primarily on this one issue
~; only we really don't know any other reasons that there might be a problem here.
S.Y. >.''..~~4-
~..C
~ y_:~ ~
--{'~ •!
,rte
J ~~~~
i' HaY '-~~~+
~~. ~
' ~
i
r^x ~ - - -
':,'i
x
.~
.A~~;
~~ ~~;
~:
Y.'1
.K#t'ji
~(~iM .
-~ i
{::
:.~:
`~F'
~~~
,. d s:~<
s~ ~'
,r
. .:
.~~ ~v
~. ,
i~a ~ ~ _~
';
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 35
We have to set this matter over eventually so everybody else here understands
it, but it sounds like we may need some other information from the staff as to
whether this is good project or there is concerns in regards to the
Comprehensive Plan. Because I do think its fair to our legal staff and to Mr.
Brown we at least have an answer. If we don't ask for it the City Council is going
to ask the City Attorney anyway. If we can't legally do it then we can't legally do
it. It seems like there is a dispute at least as to that tonight.
Borup: Mr. Brown have you got any comment on any other concerns staff may
have has as far as Comprehensive Plan or anything else?
Brown: I'm not aware of any other concerns that were given to us.
Borup: Okay. Do you have a comment at this time or should we move on a little
bit?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman I really didn't come prepared to deal with all of them. I
think we could certainly go to the -- whatever extent you want to do a complete
Comprehensive Plan analysis of this project. I think if you look at the Sundance
Subdivision application many of the same justifications that we've provided in
that report as far as Comprehensive Plan analyses apply to this. As far as the
statute one thing Steve did mention in this report is also the key phrase orderly
growth, which obviously can be disputed again and again. It's my understanding
that was one of the justifications of the city in order to have orderly growth there
are certain amenities the city looks to provide to the citizens of Meridian. That is
being parks and sewer plants. Some things are necessary to accommodate
orderly growth in terms of city taking that jurisdiction to annex those. I think that
phrase would be questioned from staff as to whether or not this could be called
orderly. I hadn't seen the plan that Mr. Brown presented and I think we don't
have any question that large planned developments can make for fantastic long
range planning. I don't think there's any doubt about that. I think it really comes
down to a question of - we haven't given any other consideration to that whole
northern three-section square mile area north of McMillan Road in terms of larger
planning. This certainly does introduce if they build it a completely new
dimension to the city's pressures. Long range planning for up there -- where are
commercial nodes going to be. They've proposed 38 acres of commercial which,
I think is great but where else the schools other issues like that. The Ada County
Highway District has also made a comment that they can't comment on this since
to would exceed the 100-lot requirement and they need a traffic impact study.
That's on the table. I guess the only other point - that I don't know what this is
legally but the city's annexation were not contested to my knowledge. Does that
present a factor to us I don't know the answer. I don't believe they were
contested.
Borup: No I don't believe they were.
Erg;;
t ~.
F ~1~,
~l~
~,~~. z'
,,,~
,;.-
;,
~ ~ r s
Meridian Planning and Zoning~mmission Meeting d
November 14, 2000
Page 36
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Yes.
~r
-,
~$ §,
~;{<
,~:-:
y ~~T
~~-
z~ ~
~~.~~
J. ..~"?~
~T~:
:~~i
;,,:;
J~'r~.:z
Y- ~ ..
-;
~ ~~
~~,
,:
1'.1+'
,~~:
t
~~~ k~r~s-:r
~~~
<~~;
Nary: One other concern I was noticing in there when Brad was bringing it up.
Chief Gordon on comment from the police department it's unclear it says there's
public safety issues I'm not sure what he means by that. Just looking at this
project a number of residences and the number of people that's going to bring to
the city besides the Highway District concerns. I can see that the police
department is going to have a concern about being able to meet that requirement
providing public safety to that particular area. I can see there's a lot more
information that were going to have to gather before we may be able to make a
final decision here.
Borup: Unless you had any other comment Mr. Brown I would like to proceed and
see if we have any public comments here.
Brown: Mr. Chairman we only have the ability to comment to the things that staff
has put in writing. Therefore the only thing they put in writing was the item that
we addressed. Obviously if they have concerns about some of these other items
then we could address those. We did not address any of those because they
weren't included in the staff report,
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone here that would like to come forward to
testify? Come on up. We're ready to move along. Yes right .after this
gentleman.
Unidentified: -- project this.
Borup: We do not. Well we could. But that's the same one we just saw.
Stewart: My name is Doug Stewart I live at 5960 N. Linder Road.
Commissioners good evening I have concerns. This map leaves out the fact that
there are only three properties owned at that particular location on Linder Road.
Two five-acre properties and one property that's approximately three-acres. If
you look at this particular density of housing according to my count they've got
about 748 lots, 15 commercial lots if you just figure the number of cars that well
exit between our properties that's approximately 400 cars a day. I can't get out
to go to work in the morning, as it is Linder is such a busy road. For our property
value for them to exit right between our properties that's going to drive our
property value to zip.
Borup: Your assuming there all going to work to the west?
Stewart: I'm assuming that anybody that lives in this area that's the natural point
of exit would be to Linder Road. When I spoke with these people a year ago
- ,
.; _ .. :.
i
~~
Meridian Planning and Zoningmmission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 37
since there are only two five-acre lots .and athree-acre lot they had talked about
consistency and was going to put five-acre lots back here which would be
consistent with what's already there. They're not only aren't putting the five-acre
lots they've moved the smallest lots with the highest density right up behind our
properties what's this going top do for our property value? Am I than going to be
able to put a trailer court on my property? Only stands to reason.
Borup: Is that a statement or a question?
Stewart: That's a question; it's a statement and a question. Since the zoning
seems to change as time has gone on and money has influenced it. First we had
40 acre parcels that could only be divided once then we've gone down and down
and now all of the sudden we have no more restriction on the size of the
properties. That's one of the reasons that we moved there because we had a
five-acre and we're surrounded by farmland. When it started to develop and last
year when we talked with Mr. Brown that was their plan was to put five-acre
parcels in this area which would be consistent with what's already there. This is
so inconsistent with what's there our two little lots stick out like a sore thumb. If
I've got 400 cars exiting a 100 feet from my house and I'm surrounded by this
high density that makes my property value nil. I have cattle on my property. It's
a rural property. There is also no facility here that I see to bring the irrigation
water. Besides the traffic problem.
Borup: Your irrigation water will not be interrupted
Stewart: I'm concerned with the density that they propose when obviously we've
been there a long time. We've been there's 20 years there's 2 of us. Two
five-acre lots and now they're going too completely surround us with this high-
density building and that's not consistent with what's there. As they talked about
last year.
Borup: I think that's - as you can see any area that's part of what happens when
a city grows.
Stewart: Well (inaudible) still quite away from the city. Were having a hard time
stringing it to the city.
Borup: Thank you any questions for Mr. Stewart?
Hatcher: I have none.
Stewart: Have you addressed my concern?
Borup: I don't know that's -
Stewart: Or are we -
w~.
~~1. ~:
Meridian Planning and Zoningmission Meeting
~~ ~~^?~ November 14, 2000
Page 38
s:;
,~x~.
~,: Borup: Would you like to summarize your concern?
~~ ~~ Stewart: That is my concern and I wonder why they don't have to remain
4i{~ consistent with what's already there?
d ,.
~~ ~ ~~y,;
;~- Centers: Mr. Chairman.
;
Borup: Yes.
~.
~~~ ~~ Centers: Correct me if I'm wrong staff. If you have afive-acre parcel and you
"~ } ~
~` want to submit a plat and go through the same procedure you can do so.
a ~ Subdivide your five-acres.
a ~s ~~ Stewart: I don't su
ppose you would probably want to have to up and subdivide
. your house -
,
.
..
Centers: No I agree with you -
;,,k~,~~;r Stewart: -- or move because they -
~,~,~t.
~t;~
.~
~1 ~~~ Centers: -- but I -
Stewart: -- put a sewer plant next to it.
Centers: I know what you are saying.
.~
~~~' ~' ~
Nary: Mr. Chairman
,;>
~~ ~a~`}
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
~.
Nary: Mr. Stewart it isn't that we're not trying to address your concerns. What
_'-' ? we're here to do is take your - to hear what your concerns are not necessarily as
a dialogue to see whether or not we can resolve the issue you have. But to see
~;~ what you or anybody else has an issue and we make a decision on whether or
~. ,f
~5,
not we recommend to the City Council to approve this project. It isn't really the
=,~
~" ~'~~ forum for us to get into a dialogue to discuss your concerns. You can discuss
your concerns with the developer, like you have. You can tell us what your
"~~ concerns are and problems with it like you have. And we listen to what
- everybody else as to say and decided whether or not it meets the
~~.x * Comprehensive Plan that the city has, that it meets the needs of the City of
Meridian based on your comments as well as anybody else and we recommend
~~~ that to City Council. It isn't that we don't want to address your concerns the way
~~~~~ we address your concerns is hearing what everybody has to say and making a
~~
~
~' "~ ,µ decision. If you disagree with our decision you can appeal that to the City
, Council.
~.
~:
."~i ~~l~~
~ ~ r i'4
t
~
,
*
f ~'
.. ..,
~h- - - ,.
~ ,....
`t
~`r" ._ ..
r~~ e
~
Meridian Planning and Zoning
mmission Meeting
~' '_
'' `~ November 14, 2000
Page 39
" ," Stewart: And also we were never notified of any of this I got this from a neighbor.
We were never notified of any of the goings on here. I think we should have
~"
- been since were adjacent to this property.
~i
-'3e~;
~~~ Nary: I have no idea why that would be sir. I just wanted you to know we weren't
r~
~~:U.~
'~~ trying to ignore that is just the way this forum is set up is for you to tell us what
the problems you have are we listen what everyone says and try to make a
;;~ decision based on what everybody's input is.
~, t ~ Stewart: Well those are my concerns.
~ ;*h C
~`~
Centers: And you are on record and will be in the minutes.
'~ .~k4,~,
" "~~
Nary: Absolutely.
1~~' Hatcher: Just one second could I get you name again please?
-F,,
Stewart: Doug Stewart.
~~
=~ Hatcher: Doug Stewart thank you very much.
~,- ~w
Borup: Okay sir you had a comment. Mr. Stewart your address is 5960 N. Linder
Road?
Stewart: Yes.
~~~ Borup: You are on the list -the notification list. So it was -
{~ :;;
#s ~~~ ~ <
Stewart: (inaudible).
~~~ Borup: It's a mailing list.
:~=
''
Unidentified: (inaudible not at microphone).
`j 4 :;
;~,
Borup: They received a registered mail. That's part of the problem a lot of people
~kr~ don't pick up their registered mail. Yes sir.
~ ~ <<~ ~,
-' Unidentified: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners I did not receive by registered mail
,_
but I did receive a common mailing for the notification of this hearing.
>" a Borup: I'm sorry that did just get changed and for that very reason a lot of people
rw~ were not picking up their registered mail. The new Ordinance was that would be
f "~ sent out as regular mailing.
~ ~;~~
Unidentified: Just trying to help.
,~~-
y?3x`
L i:_
":~~5
is ~f~~
,)5~5 ..
Y.mi -
~~~ - ... r
k~,~.
~~.:
iTu...
z ~`
_ .'; _;:
-~ .
+7~ ~t 2~5
,~:
i~ .~ `'
_`
~.
k:~~~ ~;
~> ~:
;,_
_;. }.
k~ ~F~.
_;.;:,
Meridian Planning and Zoning ~Smmission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 40
Borup: That is true thank you. That just happened last month I believe.
Swanter: My name is Richard Swanter I live at 5995 N. Meridian Road. My
property is contiguous with the planned rezoning located due east about half way
down Meridian Road in one of the one-acre plots that shows up in the portion
that is not planned for rezoning. I also have some concerns with this is an
extremely large rezoning and a large subdivision. Of course being directly
located next to it, it will effect my life a great deal. Also one of the issues I have
the devaluation of property and all the building that will go on. The noise that
occurs during the building. It's common for us to all the trash blowing downwind
from the site so I know I will receive a lot of litter on my property. In the
Preliminary Plat you will notice there is a road that runs right into my yard or it
appears to run into a yard adjacent to my property and Mr. Harrison's. Of course
this is very first time we saw the plan when I caught wind of it from the original
property owner so I don't know anything about -this is the first I've seen. I also
noticed just like Mr. Stewart said the highest density property is located directly
adjacent to mine. It appears to me like an attempt to devalue my property. If you
look at the plan there are four outlets from the subdivision dumping onto Meridian
Road which is a county road. It is two lanes it's extremely fast already. The
intersection at Chinden and Meridian Road is extremely bad access if you're
coming in from the north. It is a little better for us coming from the south. But
that road will definately be a major issue for that amount of traffic dumping in
there. This subdivision will impact our irrigation the individuals along that section
because the ditch is located wholly on the subdivision property. In general this
I've seen Mr. Brown I don't know anything about it. I don't know anything about it
I don't know what the plans are for our irrigation. I don't know anything about
noise abatement. I don't know anything about traffic flow. I don't know what the
long terms plans are. That's why I came to the meeting. Those are my concerns
thank you for listening to me.
Borup: Just maybe for clarification this application is for annexation the plan is
conceptual. If their annexation is successful then they go ahead develop the
plans and get -those type of details would be clarified and worked out with more
public hearings.
Swanter: Thank you Chairman.
Borup: Same thing on that road again that was conceptual and Mr. Brown said
earlier if this proceed that that would be worked out with adjoining property
owners.
Swanter: Probably the major -
Borup: The stub road is that what you're referring to?
s~~~:
~~.~ .
~i
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 41
Swanter: The stub road one issue and of course one of my biggest issues is the
Meridian Road and is not being annexed and will remain a county road which is a
two lane road and all the traffic is dumping onto that road.
Borup: All the roads in the subdivision would be - well I guess it depends on it
proceeds but normally the roads in the subdivision also be maintained by ACHD.
Swanter: Maybe I'm not making my (inaudible) its Meridian Road running from
McMillan to Chinden which will be a county road that's the road I -
Borup: As with all roads in the county.
Swanter: It's my understanding when I look at the map the shoestring that your
annexing would then become -Meridian Road would not be a county road. Am I
wrong?
Borup: That's not true.
Hatcher: The road would still be county it's just -
Swanter: Its just part of the city.
Hatcher: That's why shoestring annexations are against the law in the State of
Idaho.
Swanter: Thank you very much I guess that ends my comments.
Borup: Thank you. Anyone else? Come on up.
Richter: my names Diane Richter and I own a parcel that is adjoining to this. My
concerns are you have from Ustick you have that small park area. Are their any
plans surrounding that? Are we going to be the first bolt of wider plan on the
shoestring? And I want to know how closely I'm certain that I've received all the
mail but if anything below McMillan was going to be annexed and have these
plans et cetera. I would like to know because it seems like we have segments
that don't necessarily have good flow to them from one to another. I think this is
why the fight for the fact you have large areas then you very small areas, large
areas et cetera. So I -would like to see the Commission look at complete flow
from Chinden all the way into town. Especially on the traffic thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Who else? Come on up sir.
Fitch: I'm Dave Fitch I live at 1413 Northgate and I'm not here to address this
problem until I became aware of it. My son-in-law lives at 4450 North Linder
Road. In the past three weeks he's had two different developers approach him
and his neighbors because we've talked to them all about petitioning for
,;:.
,.:
,:, .
Meridian Planning and Zoning~mmission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 42
annexation of the section from it would be from Ustick on to Chinden is what they
were talking about. Which would be inclusive of this area that petition for
annexation tonight. So it looks to me like its starting to grow instead of this patch
coming off Meridian Road somebody, and I don't the developers name is working
on the whole area. Thank you.
Borup: Is that being approached by a developer has that devalued your son-in-
laws property?
Fitch: He owns five-acres they don't know about devaluing the property but he
wants to be in the county and he does not want to be in Meridian. But the point I
was bringing out was somebody is pursuing the annexation of that (inaudible) -
Borup: So you are saying that (inaudible) orderly and contiguous. Thank you.
Come on up sir.
Hamilton: My name is Buck Hamilton I live at 5945 North Meridian Road. I'm in
one of the parcels along side Mr. Swanter and my concern is like his the traffic on
Meridian Road. If the board get the annexation through I believe hardly that
Meridian Road should have a center turn lane from McMillan to Chinden or all the
way from Ustick to Chinden. And a good tum lane and stoplight at Chinden and
Meridian. Because its life saving you start stopping to make a left turn coming
from Meridian into the annexation your going to start having rear-enders
especially in the winter time because it's a narrow two-lane anyway. Of course
the water situation I'm concemed about too but that will be determined whenever
the original plan is brought before the board. Another thing since were not
included in annexation whether we would be required to hook into the sewer
system on our own. Which I don't think would be right either. I believe that the
subdivision if there put in they should be required to hook us up if its necessary.
Thank you.
Borup: Thank you sir.
Packard: Mr. Commissioner my name is John Packard I live at 5665 North
Meridian Road. I also have property along Meridian Road. The only thing I am
concerned about is eventually the road will need to be widened to handle excess
flow and in that case my house in very close to the road as it is. I would want it
widened on the east side of the road taking into consideration for that. Also I
think if they're going to put a subdivision that they stub sewage on those five-acre
parcels that aren't bought up so that we can down the road eventually develop
that if that turns out to make that something we can do down the road. Because
our property along the road front is going to depreciate.
Borup: You have afive-acre parcel?
Packard: I have 1.88 acres on the road front and 5 acres or 4.93 behind it.
_a~
,; '~,:
r;,;,;
n,
b.
,~
~.,.,5
.~~~
~~.', F~.-.~,...
w„~
,,, ;,;
k
G ~~. p
..i5~_.lh
r ,_~~•
f'~fi
~~ ~ a
5.
-T
1., s7,=
-- ~;
~~,~~~~
q.tYx
~~-~,~
~,_
;tip;;.
,;:;
~,:
._
fi'.7'~ ~ t
~~M
;1,,
:.1
,~
~=a~y
,~:
~ ~~
~ }~~
-s.
. ~~z::
~~;.
~~~
^ :..
~;..
z , _,
Meridian Planning and Zoning~mmission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 43
Borup: Two separate parcels?
Packard: Yes.
Borup: Thank you.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Yes.
Nary: Mr. Packard since its been brought up a couple of times. That roadway is
within the purview of the Highway District not the city. So even if we were to
approve this annexation and as I think you may have heard the comment earlier
the Highway District hasn't submitted any comments at this point that would have
to - if we get to the next phase of this if we were to approve this annexation
when they provide the conceptual plan and what exactly they are going to build
there and what they want it to be. That the Highway District purview just so you
understand it isn't the City of Meridian whether it's our board or the City Council
to determine how wide the roadway is or if there's going to be a turn lane on it or
there's going to be a signal there. That's all the Highway District's.
Packard: Do we get any public input on it?
Nary: Absolutely, at the Highway District's meeting, just not at this one. I didn't
want you leaving here thinking that we were going to make those decisions or not
those decisions. Those are really done elsewhere. All we're being asked to do
really is decide if we want to annex that piece to that conceptual idea. R-4 or R-8
- you see that slide. The other stuff that's being provided by Mr. Brown is simply
conceptual so that we, as the board understand what's going to go on those R-4
and R-8 pieces. All we're really asking today is can this be in the City, and if it is,
can it be zoned in that manner so they can build commercial and residences in
that sort of general configuration. So it's not a dealing with the roadway and
those things just so you understand.
Borup: Anyone else? Come on up.
Corey: I'm Dorothy Corey. I live at 5940 North Linder and we are immediately
adjacent to that road that comes in that looks like a bunch of tenements or small
L.A. North right next door to us. Within a short period of time, we have been
trying to sell her because we're on almost 6 acres. It originally 6.3, but that was
to the middle of the road. So we're just under 6. We have been told -because
we're trying to sell -we're too old to keep up that place. Within six weeks, our
agent had a customer that wanted that house and that land so badly, but he was
a blue glass -was his art - a glass blower. He was an artist. He wondered we
have a shed where he could do that there. The County is cracking down, I
-~~
~,
4~+
y A
kr/^71 3
_;, . ,
s
.;:
.ti
~~~~~:
~` `'`
'-:: -Yi'
a '-2;
~,
~~
~ e `~"
;~
~ << '~~~~
7._1
,~~k
_~{:r
`:
~,st
7
4 -? {
,t
~, ~,
Y.{ v
r'~lr~ ~~•- N)
~..'q _.. y:i
1 ~ ~~ ~.-
7 .}' ::
_, fk,`T
r.~ i.
~>
~"
> ~~,
~,
~,~=?~,~;2;
~,;
_„
~a
~ ~~ s-t
'~~:~-
.~-,;;~
~~~
7
i
Meridian Planning and Zoning~mmission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 44
guess, of anybody having any business in their home. We have landscape all-
around trees that couldn't have bothered anyone. Probably if you went up and
down Linder and Meridian and all of the roads around here, you'd find nine out of
ten - or at least five out of ten are doing something in their homes that is a
business at home. We were told absolutely that they wanted that but they would
not by it. We told them just by it and blow the glass. They were from out of state
and they did not want to take that risk. There are other things that we wanted -
we went down to the County because we thought we could - my son would've
liked to have bought our house and somebody else wanted the land -put
another house on. The house is - we presently are taxed on two parcels. The
house is a parcel just under two acres and the other land is like a nail. We've
been told we couldn't do this and we couldn't do that -everything else. Then all
of the sudden - like I said, L.A. North right up next to us. I think that's too much
too fast. We have too much traffic. It's already dangerous to go out on the road.
The school kids are always going north and south on there and it's atwo-lane
road. We have to be really careful if we're going to go south because we have to
go out and pass the north -and I've seen a high school kid go up the street and
a pickup truck with kids standing in the back and pass other trucks just to see if
they can play a turkey. This doesn't make sense. We did not get this picked.
We got the letter of your meeting. We did not get this map and it's shocking. We
just feel that the personal wishes. of the landowners aren't being considered at
all. It's not fair to be told we can't do this - we can't sell our house to someone
who wants to do that, but we should accept something like this coming in and
making our property worth half what it is at this present time. Who wants a big
home surrounding like this? We have a park in our yard. We have an apple
orchard. All of a sudden, big city -
Borup: Question. Mrs. Corey.
Corey: Yes.
Borup: What if you had more highway and a tum lane to help the traffic
situation?
Corey: I think you're going too fast too quick. Why don't you expand within your
own boundaries and do it slower -not come on like a shocker to everybody who
lives up there and lives in the country because they wanted to live in the country.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: Mrs. Corey, where is your property in relation to that?
Corey: Someone just handed me a map. Excuse me if I'm a little nervous. Wait
until I find it here.
'~ _~::
~,.
.,
y ;;
s ~ ~'" -4
~. ''`~.
~-
~; .;.
xs
,'
~~ ! ti~a;r
. ~_:: r..
~.
~~-~~.
x
i ~~b+
,~, r;;~;
r,
h~~.
2 :,
ti ~~_
_ ~eJ.
f~;;
. x,,
i~:.~~s>
~;
n ..>.:~~F'.
'~.~
~::~~
~~ s~.~ti
-, ,,;.,
,,~;'~~:
:~~~L
=~~.
r ~~:~
r._ ~:i ,
~;
:. r~4.
~~.. ,
~y}5.
Meridian Planning and Zoning~mmission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 45
Borup: It's on the screen, ma'am.
Nary: Where that arrow is, ma'am? If you look up at the screen, in that area?
Corey: That's our property. The road that will probably have the maximum
amount of traffic and has all these little squire shacks on it is right adjacent to our
- and we couldn't sell it three or four months ago because we couldn't do
anything there.
Nary: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to come forward?
Okay. Thank you. Mr. Brown, do you have any final comments?
Brown: Mr. Chairman, obviously a lot of people spoke about traffic. Those would
be issues that we would handle as part of the platting process. We - as a part of
that concern, that's where we would hope to handle that and, have a traffic study
and we talked about specific numbers and where those cars are going and the
traffic flow. We definitely would -this layout has tried to lament the number of
cars that are going at any given direction. In my opinion, most people in one
area are going to go through Chinden because you can't get through town any
other way because you get bound up with some of the streets. Obviously, this
°~ project would take us a number of years to complete. There are a couple of
questions about sewer -that City doesn't extend sewer to anybody that's not
annexed. We could stub sewer if these people want to be annexed. Some of the
people are adjacent. Mrs. Corrie, Mr. Packard -there would be sewer adjacent
to their property line and we could definitely work with them in the platting
process to provide it so that their properties could redevelop. That's kind of why,
as you understand the stub streets are something that we work out so that we
:~~ can provide access to those adjoining properties. At this point, we don't have
any lot sizes on there, but the lots next to Mr. Stuart and Mrs. Corrie are some of
the largest lots within the development. Approximately 10,000 to 14,000 square-
. foot lots -those are similar to Meridian Green lots. On the south side of the
road, that main collector road, there are fewer homes or more homes in there,
but we've tried to buffer them and make the entrance nice. I don't know that I
can speak to anything else. I think from our previous discussion, there's some
more major issues that we have to address with the shoestring. Kind of in light of
the recent week, I would hope that we don't have a mechanical count of your
votes tonight -that we have a manual count so we don't have to recount, but I
thought that that would be appropriate for tonight's meeting, so thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Any other questions from Commission? Commissioners, do
>~.r;~.::~:
5 i'3
~ }:tn
r• ,,'';'F~T~
.;~: `;'<
F 3,1'~ Ti
~```~~-
<;:
~.
~~~
•~T;. '~ ~...
.~:3'~-i:~E
_F~.
~Y.
~e~` ~- .:
,:.t:,
,i
~t
~~.'; P
~~.
3x.
1 Yi
~`~~$~:
{,s
,.~
a
,~ ~ r-'4~
,,~
~~
}-
>.:
~~a': i'.
~ ~~ ~•
~~~~~A
~~.
wu~,
::.'
Meridian Planning and Zoning~mmission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 46
Hatcher: I want to discuss, but I think that it's appropriate to go ahead and close
it. Would we need to bring anyone backup?
Borup: No, I think we finished the audience.
Nary: My only concern about closing the public hearing, I guess is because I
think there's some other information we're going to have to deal with later.
Borup: That was my concern. I guess it depends on which direction we're going
to. I think we are done with the public testimony portion, so that's -maybe
proceed with some discussion.
Hatcher: Sure. I'll start out. My thoughts, my feelings, my position for discussion
purposes - I'm not opposed to growth. I'm not opposed to this project. I am,
however, with full vote against this project tonight because I don't believe that it's
contiguous with the City. I don't believe that it's in the best interest of the City. I
think that this project is premature and it's too early for its time. It's too far away
from our City boundaries. It's too far away from all of our services. We would
have a major undertaking to provide water, sewer, police services, fire services,
traffic -which is ACHD. Every single thing that this development would require
is a major undertaking. It's not just a growth to adjacent space. It's not an
improvement to something that we've already got in place. It's way out there.
The merits -I've worked with Kent. I've known Kent. The work I have seen has
been good. The concept of having this developer and an adjacent developer put
in atwo-and-a-half or three miles of sewer trunk line is phenomenal. That right
there, in itself is five to eight million dollars. That's enticing, but it's not good
enough. Who cares if we have sewer and water? I certainly wouldn't want to live
there if I don't have police to protect my children and the fire department to
protect my house. I just think this project is way before its time.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess the concern that I have here is that I'm trying to be fair both to the
developer and the folks that have spoken tonight. We don't have a lot of
information to be able to make that decision tonight, but this doesn't fit the needs
of the City of Meridian. We don't have information as to regard how it interacts
with the Comprehensive Plan that exists. We have a comment from the Police
Chief that he has public safety concerns, but not really anything specific. We
have a comment from the Fire Department and the Fire Chief that says it's fine. I
think we have to answer the question first -- is can we annex this property at all?
Do we have the legal authority to annex it? I think there's been argument
presented that we do and there's been argument presented that we don't. As I
said earlier, whether we ask for it or the City Council asks for it, that's the hurdle
Meridian Planning and Zoning~mmission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 47
that we have to jump over first before we go anywhere. If we can't legally do it,
there isn't a whole lot else that we need to do and worry -
*** End of Side 3 ***
Nary: Then I think we need to address the concerns that Commissioner Hatcher
has raised as to does this fit into the City's overall plan? Is this a good project?
Does this meet the needs of our community? Is it too far outside the City? All of
the things that Commissioner Hatcher has brought up, I think are legitimate
concerns. I just don't feel we have enough evidence in the record tonight to
make that decision. I guess what I'm going to be looking for and I'll certainly let
the other Commissioners have their say, but, is that we ask the City Attorney to
provide us a legal opinion and set this matter over, whether it be for the next
meeting or the January meeting and give us a legal opinion that we can even get
there. I think the Planning staff needs to have some opportunity to address the
other concems that they have as to the Comprehensive Plan and safety and fire
and all of those other issues that we haven't even dealt with yet on this
annexation. Before we can get there, we have to know if we can even do this. I
don't know that we know that tonight - to be able to even answer that and to vote
and to be again, fair to the developer as well as these other people that have
spoken and whether or not we can even address anything without knowing that
question first.
Borup: The attorney has given us a verbal opinion.
Nary: I think, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Brown has at least presented some
evidence that the City of Meridian has not necessarily done that in the past.
Secondarily, Iguess - my original thought when I looked at this project and
looked at that staff comment, it said would we do this if we wanted to do this? If
they were going to build something there that we really wanted to have in the City
of Meridian we felt that met our needs, whether it's a Micron plant -whether it's
400 homes -whether it's something we felt met the needs of the City. Do we
think as a City, that it is illegal for us to annex it based on that interpretation of
the statute? I agree. We have had an opinion tonight. We've had other
evidence presented that maybe the City has been able to do something different
than that. Whether or not we legally can't, I think we're going to need that
answer done by our legal staff prior to making a decision on whether or not this is
appropriate for the City or not.
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: I'd like to add to that comment from Commissioner Nary. Not only a
written opinion by the City since the City has actually annexed three parcels to
their benefit, but in addition, our Planning Department has not completed their
~~~;
^~d~.
x„y 2t
,;, ;,
5:~~}a
.~.
~~ ,:
°-~
f~~~ ~^
~ah
-; _ -
~.
y..•
,~:z
F ~;~
r}~.`• ^ y
~::.
t., ~~ s.
~.:
. .:.
:;
r`
;_ .~,:r,
... r°
~__,. ~~ z~L7s.
~..:5.
,$
-`
;;~:,:,
,,~;
::'#gt
~=;~..
~<.:.
~;:t~.~s
. ~:
Meridian Planning and Zoning ~Efnmission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 48
comments regarding the Comprehensive Plan and the other information once
they thought that perhaps this wasn't possible because it would be not in
compliance with City Code that they didn't give us any other comments that we
need to consider. I'd like to see the complete set of comments also. I think it's
premature to even vote tonight on this.
Centers: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I would have to agree with Commissioner Nary. I wouldn't vote for or
against the project tonight. The legal question has to be addressed and as
Commissioner Nary stated, we know very little about the project. It could be one
of the best that's ever come down the pipe to the City of Meridian. We don't
know about anything about the covenants and what they plan -the lot sizes.
The Ada County Highway District hasn't been addressed. I understand the
concerns of the people that live on those busy streets. I really do. I live right off
of Overland and trying to get onto that street is tough sometimes. So I think
those issues have to be addressed before anyone can proceed.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: I guess I would move that we table this item until our - I don't know
whether December is full. It looked fairly full. So we table this item to our
January meeting. I don't know what the date is specifically because we don't
have a calendar up there, but our January meeting with the specific direction to
the City Attorney's staff that they provide us a legal opinion with the City's
position on this issue, on whether or not this annexation as a shoestring would
violate the state law or it would be allowed under the state law or City Ordinances
that we not close the public hearing to allow for our staff to also provide further
comment on whether or not this is complying with the Comp plan and all the
other issues that are normally addressed in an annexation request and whether
or not the appropriate zoning is being requested whether it's compatible with the
other zoning in the area and that we allow for further public comment at the
January meeting, both by the applicant and the staff and many of the public
comment that wants to be made.
Hatcher: Commissioner Nary.
Borup: Yes, sir.
Hatcher: Since it appears that that's the direction we're leaning on, I would also
like to ask that the City Council also look into and address the examples that the
applicant has presented to us to find out if they were - as far as the timelines of
,: ;x§
~~.,~
~,~b-
s~~
~l~i
,- -- _ --
,,
,.
Meridian Planning and Zoning mission Meetlng e
November 14, 2000
Page 49
when these particular examples were annexed - as to whether or not they were
shoestring and in compliance and whether the City was out of bounds or not
because I know depending on the timeline, these examples are contiguous to
City limits now. I can look at these examples and know that the property right
next to it -these aren't no longer shoestrings. So were they truly annexed as a
shoestring at that time and they've since filled in?
Borup: They haven't filled in yet. St. Luke's did.
Hatcher: This one here has. This is City right there. It's no longer a shoestring.
Borup: Well, we can look at that later.
Hatcher: I just want to have the City respond to these examples.
Borup: There's been some others annexed off that, but that narrow strip is still
the same.
Hatcher: That's what I want. I would like to see a City rebuttal or response to
these examples.
Borup: The other question I would have is would it be appropriate if the applicant
wanted to - Mr. Swartley - if the applicant wanted to submit any legal opinions of
their own or maybe to the Commission.
Swartley: Mr. Chairman, you're keeping the public hearing open, so I would
imagine it would be just fine.
Borup: Okay. Do we have a motion? It sounds like several of them were
agreeing with Commissioner Nary's opinion. Would you like to -
Hatcher: We're not going to have a motion.
Borup: Oh, I am sorry. Did you make a motion?
Nary: I did make a motion. It just has not been seconded.
Borup: We do have a motion. Do we want to restate that?
Nary: The motion was simply that we table this matter to our January meeting.
Borup: The normally scheduled meeting was the ninth. If the City Council gets
the ordinance passed, we are moving to our new date, but -
Norton: First and third Thursdays.
z:f,;t
,'.i'
.. f.
$"i~'d,'
X+ _
~`,
''Y~-~,,x r.
{ ~``,
~.:~ 1
\~k:,,
45j
4„;~. ,, r
-'>~>
~ h
-;
>>:.r.
Meridian Planning and Zoning~mmission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 50
Borup: First and third Thursdays, but we don't know if they're going to get that
done by then.
Nary: Well, they'll be notified by mail anyway. Well, we table it at least until
January and the specific date could be determined - we table this matter until
January and that the City Attorney provide us with the legal opinion for the City
as to whether or not we legally can annex this property and also incorporate
Commissioner Hatcher's concerns and comments as to whether or not -how in
the relation to the other parcels that have been brought forward tonight by Mr.
Brown - as other annexations -whether again, we could still legally do that and
have it compare that the public hearing remain open to allow both Mr. Brown and
any legal staff for the applicant to provide their opinion as well as to allow the
City's Planning staff the opportunity to comment further on this particular project
and the compatibility with the zoning that's being requested or the other zoning in
the area. The normal annexation type of analysis -Comp Plan analysis that you
would normally see and then allow, of course, any of the public testimony at the
next hearing - to comment on those things before we make a motion.
Borup: We have a short, concise motion there.
Norton: I second that.
Borup: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion?
Packard: Does the staff need to go to all that trouble if the City Attorney says,
"Hey, you guys just can't annex this." Why should the staff go to all that trouble?
Hatcher: I agree.
Packard: Mr. Brown is going to be in touch with you on that, right -with the City
Attorney, I take it?
Borup: Mr. Brown had mentioned the fee has been paid, so if there is no staff
comment, is the fee refunded?
Brown: No.
Borup: Maybe that answered that question. We have a motion seconded. All in
favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: I thank everyone for being here tonight, only we're not done. This would
probably be a good time. Commissioner, we would like to take a short break.
Norton: Five minutes.
,~ nin
and Zonin
i
i
n Meetln
M
ridi
Pl
~
.,
< g
g
g
e
an
an
mm
ss
o
~~~~~; November 14, 2000
~;',~' Page 51
r.~~ '~
Borup: Five minutes.
'f ~::;
-~'
(Meeting reconvened at 9:45 p.m.)
Borup: Ladies and Gentlemen, we'd like to go ahead and reconvene. Item No. 7
r ~ - wait a minute, I'm sorry. Before we get to that, and hopefully no one came in
~~,:
;~~
late and that's Items 5 and 6. The applicant has asked to defer those items to
r~ s ~~'~~ our February meeting -actually our second February meeting. Do we have
`° someone -were you here for that, sir.
~~t~ Unidentified: Yes, I was here for that for two and-a-half or three hours.
~.: P'
-~»
Borup: Well, no. Not that long because I announced that two and-a-half three
.. • .,
°~r°=
hours ago.
aa~~ jr Y~:
X Pt~ !~.~
Unidentified: Yes, I think you just barely started when I got here.
Borup: Okay.
~ ,,4 Norton: That's too bad.
x
,~}
,:..,
,
`xF~ Item 7. Public Hearing: RZ-00-007 Request for Rezone of 6.95 acres
~4 ~ Y~ from L-O to C-G for the proposed Mallane Commercial Complex
by The Land Group, Inc. -northwest corner of Fairview Avenue
and North Hickory Way:
Item 8. Public Hearing: PP 00-021 Request for Preliminary Plat
:y f rti~ approval of 5 building lots on 6.95 acres in a proposed C-G zone
~~3 for proposed Mallane Commercial Complex by The Land Group,
Inc. -northwest corner of Fairview Avenue and North Hickory
~~ ~~ ~ ~ Lane:
'' .~ ~~' Borup: Sorry. Do we need to -can we just defer that? We don't even need to
~'a~: open that, do we? So it is deferred to our February meeting, approximately the
22nd, if that's the correct date. Items No. 7 and 8 -public hearing request for
;~; rezone of 6.95 acres from L-O to C-G for the proposed - is that pronounced
rt ~- Mallane -Mallane Commercial Complex by the Land Group -northwest corner
' of Fairview and North Hickory Way.
~r ~~?x.
f Norton: February 15th.
~'` Borup: Oh, February 15th would be the second meeting. Okay. We'll handle
that maybe at the end of our meeting and discuss some of that. Mr. Hawkins-
-~ Clark, are your comments going to address both numbers 7 and 8?
~.
Y~
'~''~`
~~, Hawkins-Clark: Yes, they will
`, ,
::L
:~w.~d
L~. ...
~~%h ~ ~ ..
.,
off,:
=i=~
® e
Meridian Planning and Zoning _L'~mmission Meetlng
November 14, 2000
Page 52
Borup: Okay. Why don't we open both of those hearings at this time, then and if
you'd like to proceed.
Hawkins-Clark: On No. 7, the rezone request -the property which is
crosshatched is currently zoned limited office - L-O. They are proposing to
rezone the property to C-G -commercial general, which would allow for greater
options in terms of commercial development along that Fairview frontage. Our
staff report dated November 6th gives a little background. I won't necessarily go
into all of that -just suffice to say that there have been three other Conditional
Use Permits approved in this area -these parcels. The way that the Zoning
Ordinance reads is that if you significantly modify an existing Conditional Use
Permit, then you need to modify it through the Conditional Use Permit procedure.
That is how you modify a Conditional Use Permit. It's basically to submit a new
Conditional Use. In terms of the permits that are currently running with this land,
that's one of our recommendations is to modify that and submittal for a new
Conditional Use for the property as a whole, since it does have a conceptual plan
on the entire thing. We did receive written comments on the 9~', which you
should have in your packets from the Land Group. Just to hit a couple of spots
there, again, in terms of orientation, I guess we do have these photos. Dove
Meadows Subdivision is adjacent to this to the west -photo there. The right
photo is taken from about the middle of the site. Looking south across Fairview
is Food Services of America in the background and the Louie's Restaurant is
currently being constructed. Aside from Fairview looking east and then the west
property line from Fairview looking north there, Hickory is already constructed.
This is the - on the rezone; I would just make one other point. On page 3 of our
staff report, we have on No. 4 -for the rezone, we did ask that the applicant
provide you, the Commission with a proposed list of uses -- permitted and
prohibited that they are looking to allow there. Sometimes we as staff make
those determinations but in this case we did ask them for that. They said in their
written response they would provide that. I didn't see it. Maybe they'll provide
that verbally. Now, to No. 8 on the plat itself, they are proposing 5 building lots
on this parcel. The general agreement with our conditions that were proposed,
there is one item that we would like clarification on. No. 9 on page 3 of their
response -just to clarify the sidewalk issue as to who will construct, they
understand that we are asking for a sidewalk to be constructed along Hickory -
along this boundary -well, this piece is not a part, but their property line more or
less comes here and then we're talking about a sidewalk here and the response
says it will be constructed. They are appealing Ada County Highway District's
requirement for that due to some financial issues and background that they may
or may not want to share with you tonight. There is -they did challenge or want
to discuss about No. 14 on page 3 as far as the wall. The Meadow Subdivision
again is here along this boundary, so there's one, two, three residential lots that
are really directly involved that are adjacent here. We had asked for a wall to be
constructed with a 25-foot landscape buffer here as a separator. That primarily,
due to the fact that we really don't know exactly if they could have loading docs
~:
ar "*
~~~~ .
r.-.;~~
' is;'-
~p y^~.
,hh' i"IT' ..'~.~~
x'
i?A~'._.
.~~ ,„
~ ~~_
t~;:
?~'':
r ~ .?d~;
r~.;
a:.
.~ _
nµ}
-.as
_~ t :'.z;
,.F
4 .~~.
~~,
k fQ'
';#
~'~ L't
~ ~:
r~ -:
~~r
,.
~~
~; ~,.;
a~
:: t ;a ~; r
~s~.
_s
f
4~ T
;::)'„'v
{gA '~
Meridian Planning and Zoning~mmission Meetlng
November 14, 2000
Page 53
or where some of the heavier vehicular activity might take place. A wall certainly
helps, but actual physical separation, we felt would be appropriate - a greater
physical separation than just a five or ten-foot buffer. I think that's it. Thanks.
Borup: Any questions from the Commission at this point? Is the applicant or
representative here this evening that would like to come forward?
Hepworth: My name is Russ Hepworth. I'm with the Land Group located at 128
South Eagle Road in Eagle, Idaho. First, to address the rezone, the applicant is
proposing to go C-G to give a mixed use in this not to oversize the Commercial
Use next to Dove Meadows Development. As it stands right now, everything that
you see there is conceptual and we agree to do the Development Agreement and
provide a list and my understanding was that we provide that list of those
intended uses for those lots when we enter into that Development Agreement
and include that within the Development Agreement so as to have that verbally
tonight and I do not.
Borup: You might just mention you're written comment says that you'll provide
the Planning and Zoning Commission with that. We would not be participating in
the Development Agreement, so -
Hepworth: This is the time.
Borup: This is the opportunity, yes, unless you didn't intend to say that.
Hepworth: I guess I didn't intend to say that. I intended to provide that with the
required Development Agreement and include that in that so that each of these
lots isn't just zoned -that anything can be on there that would have a limitation
on it -permitted uses.
Borup: We normally address that at this Commission. We may not always, but
usually.
Hepworth: I know that at this time, those uses are office, retail and restaurant
uses of those that the applicant /owner of this, especially the lot in question
believe that gives most concern is the one that's against the Dove Meadows
property that is foreseen to be an office building with no access to the back to
have it lay out more or less like it is so that the heavy traffic, loading docs, trash
enclosures, et cetera are not adjacent to the residential development. That
brings me to the 14 and the masonry wall where staff is requesting a masonry
wall plus a 25-foot barrier and the masonry wall seemed extensive. If we've got
a 25-foot barrier in the back of an office building with no road there - now, I know
this is a conceptual plan and so it's hard to say if that's going to be the way it is.
We don't know if that can be a condition based on the final planning of that lot.
Hatcher: Can I interject for just a minute?
Meridian Planning and Zoning~mmission Meetlng e
November 14, 2000
Page 54
Borup: Yes, Commissioner Hatcher.
Hatcher: Just so that you're well aware what we're looking at or what you're
asking us to review and approve is not just the annexation or the -
Hepworth: The rezone.
Hatcher: -- rezone -the rezone, but also a Preliminary Plat and this information
is relevant to whether or not we approve in the Preliminary Plat.
Hepworth: The layout of that?
Hatcher: Yes -whether or not that's going to be 14 feet or 25 feet -whether or
not that's going to be a warehouse or an office or a restaurant or drive-thru. It
does have impact on the Preliminary Plat. \
Hepworth: But you have to have specified uses on each of those lots?
Hatcher: That was what was requested by staff.
Borup: I think probably the reason for that is the Conditional Use Permit and not
just a rezone and a plat. Would that be correct as part of the reason? I mean
this is a Conditional Use Permit. That's why we're looking at those uses. If this
was just a zoned and platted Commercial Subdivision, then we would not be
looking at that.
Hawkins-Clark: It's not a Conditional Use Permit.
Borup: It's not.
Hawkins-Clark: No. There is one that runs with the land, but what we are asking
for is that they come and amend the current Conditional Use Permit.
Borup: That's what I meant. We currently have a Conditional Use Permit.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, but right now, these are just a rezone and a Preliminary
Plat that we're dealing with.
Borup: Do we have the option of changing the current Conditional Use Permit
conditions?
Hawkins-Clark: With a rezone application, you certainly have the ability to ask
for, in terms of the Development Agreement certain uses. If you want to leave
that up to the Conditional Use - if you agree to that condition that they submit a
~'rr
~~~,".,,
F~~:
Meridian Planning and Zoning~mmission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 55
Conditional Use at a later time, I think that would suffice. Either way, you're
having a chance as a body to give input on the uses.
Borup: Currently, it is under a Conditional Use Permit?
Hawkins-Clark: That's correct.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, why don't we just address Item 7 first -the rezone?
Borup: Well, we're going to need to vote on them both separate. I guess we
were taking testimony on them both, but maybe - do we want to hit them one at
a time?
Hatcher: Is there anything in the rezone that we need to - we are lack - I don't
believe we are lacking any information on 7.
Borup: Item No. 4 -staff recommends it.
Hatcher: Well, I know staff recommends it. They recommend both of them.
(inaudible)
Borup: I think the only item on the rezone was a list of uses -permitted uses.
Hepworth: But even -sorry to interrupt. Even on that Item 4, in the staff's
comment, that they should provide the Planning and Zoning Commission with the
proposed list and prohibited uses for consideration as part of that Development
Agreement. I interpreted that as saying that when we enter into this
Development Agreement, we would then provide a list of prohibited and
permitted uses for each lot. That would be a part of that Development
Agreement.
Borup: Which would be handled by the City Council - I would not give this
Commission an opportunity to comment on that.
Hepworth: Okay - my misunderstanding.
Borup: I think you're saying this time then that you have not reviewed the
allowed uses in a C-G zone and made a determination on which of those uses
would apply here and which would not. Is that correct?
Hepworth: Yes.
Borup: Mr. Centers, do you still want to proceed on the rezone?
Centers: I guess it depends on the group.
^~: _ --
r - , _ .::~
H:.~
.,:
~,
Meridian Planning and Zoning~mmission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 56
Borup: We're going to be handling them both separate anyway.
Hatcher: As far as the requirements for No. 4, I don't see why this body can't
proceed leaving it in the hands of staff and .City Council. If they meet staffs
requirements and staff feels comfortable - I mean right off, staff has reservations.
If this information is provided to staff and staff feels comfortable with what has
been provided and has adequate time to analyze that before it goes before the
City Council
Borup: I think we've probably handled it that way before. Other times, we've put
in just the public testimony on what be prohibited just by going over the list.
Hatcher: Yes, and if there's any concerns with this body, we can address it now,
but I don't see why we need to hold this up and dwell on this issue if we leave it
in staff's hands.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: I only had one other question. This may be a step back from that. Mr.
Hepworth, what I thought I heard I say a moment ago was that you haven't
reviewed the allowed uses in a C-G zone to this point, but you were going to plan
on doing that in formulating the Development Agreement - to see what permitted
uses you were going to have and what uses you were not going to permit on that
property. Is that correct?
Hepworth: Yes.
Nary: How do we know, since this is the third time this piece of property has
been before this Commission for a change in the zone for it, how do we know
that that's appropriate? Why are we addressing it now as a rezone? What ,
you've just said is we haven't even evaluated if the uses that you want to put in
that property are compatible with the C-G zone." So why are we here?
Hepworth: The owner wishes to have those lots zoned commercial to give the
mix in that development which he was not, I guess allowed in the light office to be
specified under just the light office zoning.
Nary: Like what? What specific uses are they contemplating to want to put there
that C-G is more appropriate than what currently exists?
Hepworth: My understanding is that light office does not permit retail buildings -
retail commercial and that's one of the uses that they want to incorporate into this
complex.
,. ,
.;
r.+ 'd
`';t
~4
:; ~;'
1
- l~'.~,.
,.-r
,~~~;
`;i-
-,.
x ~'.
a ~ ;,~;,
Y~4v
_"`'ti'
~:
`~1,;
~,~'
Fr.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 57
Borup: That's absolutely correct. That's not even a Conditional Use in yellow. I
just looked at the chart here. They'd lump it just as retail stores. Where does
that leave us? Why don't we continue with your testimony?
Hepworth: Are we staying with the rezone?
Borup: No, it needs to be - we need to get all the public testimony before we
could vote on it anyway, and we did combine the testimony for both. Do we have
any other questions on the rezone?
Hepworth: I have one comment or question, I guess, on No. 5 of the rezone. If
we're providing a Development Agreement with a list of approved uses, is then a
planned commercial development required or is that repetitive?
Borup: I'll have someone else answer that. Any comment on that, Brad?
Hawkins-Clark: Commission, yes. I think I see where you're going. The goal for
us is not just to -the purpose of this No. 5 was because of the existing
Conditional Use Permit that is on this property. The ordinance says that it runs
with the land, so it doesn't just disappear. It's there. It needs to be amended.
The PDC doesn't necessarily just deal with the uses. What we're saying is a part
of the rezone should at some point in the future -the ownership change or any
other things happen that would effect how this is developed. It's not just the
rezone. We're also thinking about the layout, which would be handled under the
Planned Development.
Hepworth: Is not that what's happening in the Development Agreement.
Hawkins-Clark: The Development Agreement is just strictly dealing with uses, at
least as this is recommended.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, correct me if I'm wrong. Normally with a Development
Agreement, you're going to look at the table of uses of what's allowed and say
there's 20 different things that are allowed in that property. You're going to say,
"We're going to allow 15 of these of things and 5, we're not." What I think what
I'm hearing what the staff is saying, then when you look at it from a Conditional
Use Permit or the Planned Development Conceptual Agreement, you're saying,
"Okay, now specifically when we get down to this particular property, this one's
going to have adrive-thru on it. This one's going to have a restaurant on it. This
one is going to have astore - so that they know specifically what's on that piece
of property -not which one of this laundry list of 10 or 15 or 5 or whatever things
are allowed -which specific one goes there. So they're not repetitive. One is
talking about the big picture of the whole piece -what things are going to be
there and what things aren't. The next one that they're talking about is what
specific thing. Like, for example, if it's adrive-in restaurant or drive-thru, it may
be a lot different in one part of that property versus another. So they're not
,,, ,
~:
~~.. . :.
,. y, ~ _ ..
., y ~ ri
r*~~
~
~~~= Meridian Planning and Zoning
mmission Meeting
°` ~'
~. `; November 14, 2000
=a Page 58
repetitive. They're two different things that cover the same property. Is that
``~
f~ correct?
- Borup: Yes, that sounds real -
;~ ~:;
~- .::,~
,_,
~`~`' Hepworth: Where this is a conceptual plan, the question is at this time is that we
r~~~ have no way of knowing the specific use that's going to be on any particular lot.
We have a conceptual layout.
Borup: But I think that's why we're asking for a list of uses. I mean are you
going to allow a service station there?
Y,.
' ~'~"`
:.M,
Hawkins-Clark: I don't think staff's intent was to commit to a use for each lot.
:~~-,
=''''
>_
;; Hawkins-Clark: Our intent was just uses for the total -
Borup: He was more concerned about what would not be allowed and not what
:~~~. would be allowed, aren't you?
~~~
r,~k' Hawkins-Clark: Right. Truck stops, for instance, are permitted outright in the C-
w~ ,~ ~.y~ G zone.
''~
~_
Hepworth: Which would be appropriate for this location.
,,,ri
~~
Borup: I think that's what they're saying. A bus station is allowed in a C-G zone.
t.'~.~
"~~ `
Hepworth: Right.
~~ e=
~-
Borup: It's probably not the best place for a bus station.
Hepworth: Is that list in permitted uses still not answering that question of that?
~~- Borup: No, because you've still got the rest of the list that can go on any lot and
"~ ~' is permitted. That's what comes down to getting specific as Commissioner Nary
~_
~~~.
was talking. What use is going on what specific lot?
~~y l
;~. Hepworth: Okay.
F ~~. Borup: That's when that would be addressed at that time.
~~~, Hepworth: And that's when the planned commercial development would then
~~ r address.
~4 ~'
'~ ~~~
Borup: Yes. Some of the others -does that answer that?
r ~~~;.
~. 4r'.
+•S~
S
=
t ~~L
E'
E r
k~nI
'f~ ~ r1 - .~
f
5 ~
~~ .. -
.. t ..
L
,_.,
i_
~r:~
~, ~,~,;
Z~;
~~~.
F~' ~~"'r;~~L
. ,
"y.~ r
,.,,.x,
~ ~~
;,fir"
~ 5>.h
~~ t,`
6 '~i
Meridian Planning and Zoning~mmission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 59
Hepworth: Yes, sir.
Borup: Mortuaries, motels, some of that, those types of things are included in
there also.
Hepworth: So if then, we provide a planned commercial development, then does
this applicant need to provide a list of uses, because then it would be specified.
Borup: I think I'll ask for the letter. Just go through the list of uses and decide
which ones you would include and which ones you would -
Hepworth: Potential - on each specified lot.
Borup: No, not at this point. That would come when -
Hatcher: An overall project. We need a list of what -out of that list of allowed
uses, which ones are you proposing to have on that project? That would satisfy
No. 4. Then I would also like to have additional clarification from staff on 5. The
only thing that I see 5 as addressing, which I think is confusing you is we have an
existing Conditional Use Permit that needs to be maintained and I believe that it's
staffs intent to be able to carry forward the requirements of that Conditional Use
onto this project with the rezone and the Preliminary Plat. But the only means in
which we're capable of doing that is with a planned commercial development.
Am I correct.
Borup: Right.
Hatcher: There are two different issues and that's why.
Borup: Then back to Preliminary Plat, I think there's only two issues. Is that
correct No. 9 and No. 14 in your comments.
Hepworth: Yes. No. 9 -the applicant is appealing the ACHD's -not the
requirement to provide that sidewalk, but the requirement -he's not even
appealing it that that sidewalk needs to be put it. He has posted a bond for that.
They have cashed that and he feels that it is now their responsibility to place that
sidewalk in. That's why that is going -
*** End of Side 4 ***
Borup: Was ACRD willing to return the bond or are they saying they want to
keep the money and have you build it?
Hepworth: No, I don't believe so.
p {-y
~#
-
.~
Meridian Plannin and Zonin L3mmission Meetin
November 14, 2000
Page 60
~.
°R Borup: They would return the bond and have it taken care of all at the same
time.
-~~;
~~: Y'
~
Hepworth: Now it's a financial issue that the owner wishes to discuss with
'~ ACRD.
r ~,~.kY
Borup: So I'm assuming he feels that the cost of the sidewalk is more than what
~~.~>`
4~;. the bond was.
Hepworth: At that point, yes.
~~;,
?3.
Borup: Otherwise, he'd be happy to do it. Then the other on the block wall -
'~ `~~{`~% Hepworth: Yes.
a ~3; Borup: I think that comment on there probably - if Brad may want to correct it,
but according to their staff comments, is that was a part of the previous
='r~
l: Conditional Use Permit.
~~~
,k~~;
y Hepworth: That was my understanding -that the masonry wall is a condition of
~~ ~~=~ that. I guess in the first Conditional Use, it was a masonry wall in lieu of a 10-foot
buffer and the second Conditional Use, it was a masonry wall and a 20-foot
buffer.
Borup: Well, his quote says that it is masonry and a 10 and that was in lieu of a
~ 20.
~~~
;
`
r, Hepworth: Okay. Correct. Right. Now it's a masonry wall and a 25-foot buffer.
~tl ~~~'~ ~. It seems like it's getting somewhat extensive.
~- `- Borup: The longer you wait, the worse it gets, huh?
'y:
,z; ..~-i
Hepworth: I guess what we're requesting - is not a 25-foot buffer adequate if no
y;s s,
- vehicular traffic borders that property - if that is a building?
,~~
y~k'
-^~~ ~ Borup: Would that be a single-story building?
py~ 1~.~,
;~,'.
,~ Hepworth: I believe so,
~•~~ ?~ Borup: Would you be willing to make that a condition?
~~~ Hepworth: I can't say at this point.
~~~~..,,
.:;~
Y~~ Borup: I think that affects the wall
,~
l "r
':
,
'~`'
~.
il~t~?1i~®d`
_ e[~
_ _ ...
1 _
.~' ..
~..
FP.'~i -
~ ~..
Meridian Planning and Zoning mission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 61
Hatcher: I think we can address that as a condition of our approval basically
stating something along the lines of if the adjacent building is an office and
there's no traffic between the building and the wall, then a masonry wall with a
ten-foot buffer between the building and the wall is acceptable if there's traffic
between the building and the wall, then a 25-foot buffer - I mean something
along those lines -however we decide. I believe we could address that to be
flexible enough based upon use. They're going to put a warehouse and we're
going to have loading docs and semis, then they'll be required to have 25 feet in
the wall.
Borup: So at this point on the plan, there is not even emergency access around
the building not contemplating. That's not a concern with fire?
Hatcher: They have 150 feet from either end -which this building is small
enough. It's not a big deal.
Borup: See, I'm not sure. The purpose of a masonry wall 10 feet away from a -
Hatcher: If I was in any of those houses, I would want a masonry wall period. I
don't care what the development is. There is a lot of parking and there's a lot of
automobiles moving around in that site.
Borup: Just for noise.
Hatcher: Just for noise, because believe me, wood and chain-link or anything
else other than masonry is not going to stop sound.
Centers: Well, the wood tends to fall down.
Hatcher: Yes.
Borup: Well, the wood is already existing with the subdivision. Any other
comments?
Hepworth: No, sir.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup.
Borup: Yes.
Hawkins-Clark: Could I just make one suggestion or comment that if that is
going to be an issue, I think we would be willing to modify our comment that says
as long as you are agreeing to them submitting a planned development in the
future, which would be a little bit more detail on specific lots that we could deal
with that issue at that time when you have a better idea of whether that's a
single-story or an office or a retail or -the plat allows us to put requirements on
Meridian Planning and Zoning ~6mmission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 62
perimeter fencing, so it could happen here, but given the uncertainty of that lot,
one idea might be to just omit that condition from the plat and deal with it during
the planned development process if you agree that they have to do that.
Borup: That would make a lot of sense to me. Then you could address it for the
specific use.
Hatcher: I think it would be a better solution.
Borup: It sounds like that's what your preference would be too, is to address it at
the time when -okay.
Hepworth: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone here? Come on up, sir.
McDonald: Yes, thank you. My name is Dave McDonald. I am one of those
three houses concerned - 2579 Grapewood. I'll be at that - I'm not opposed to
development or commercial ventures. I do know that an office space is what we
were told as a Homeowners Association would be in there, which obviously is
servicing a restaurant. Some of us are looking forward to an Italian restaurant.
My concerns will stay focused strictly on the zoning and the plats and I'll have
other comments. Previous comments were focused primarily on traffic and the
impacts to properly values. A traffic study was performed and the results were
tallied by the Ada County Highway Department in September with regards to the
access point of Hickory onto Fairview. Most of the homes in the residential
servicing -Dove Meadows, Packard Estates and Chateau Meadows have a
primary access point off of Fairview through this Hickory Way, then it's directly
across Fairview from Hickory Avenue, which is very much of a commercial zone.
The traffic study for that September timeframe was 30,000 cars per day. One out
of every ten cars that traversed Fairview in front of that intersection will go up
Hickory Way or approximately 2,600 cars that traverse that neighborhood. It's
very simply a statement of if you build it, they will come. Since the addition of
mall and strip mall mania with the Family Center at the intersection of Eagle and
Fairview and two new strip malls 100 yards to the west of this proposed
development, we have noticed perceptively the hazards and the safety concerns
of entering into and off of this intersection. Right now, the Italian Restaurant -its
only access will be from Fairview, which won't impact this issue. Incidentally, the
study from ACHD was performed beyond the parking lot access to the Capitol
Christian Center, so it did not include the traffic coming and going into just the
church parking lot. Many of my associates that have looked at some of the
homes -these expensive homes going into Packard Estates have looked
elsewhere simply because, in their own words, they view it as a near miss
demolition derby coming into and out of this neighborhood. They just built an
elementary school, which the residential access is off this Hickory Way where the
school busses do enter in from Eagle Road, but the residential access is off this
Viz;
,_,; ,
~{'.:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Cd~mmission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 63
road. Primary concerns is that a C-G - a general commercial in reference to the
retail potential there would make an already overburdened access point to
thousands of homes even more of a burden. We've had several major instances
that the Meridian Police Department have had to address at that very
intersection. The issues of a retail zoning in this would definitely be a negative
impact. It's not neighborhood friendly. The uses with the limited office, however,
is not something that I think a lot of us would be objectionable to and to just add
my comments with reference to being one of those three homes right up against
that development, recommendations would be to have some of those uses be
coordinated with the Homeowners Association involved with this primary access
point. I'm not opposed to an office space going there, being that it will be looking
in my backyard. I do favor an office space with a 25-foot wall. If that was staring
at my backyard, I don't think I would be too pleased, but I would be much more
pleased with aten-foot wall and asingle-level office building and a 25-foot buffer
versus atwo-story building and a 25-foot wall, just to offer my opinion.
Borup: The wall won't be more than six feet.
McDonald: Cool. My concerns happen to be in conjunction to carefully consider
and a proposal of getting a traffic study more refined. The other parts of my
proposal would be if the limited office or light office is not conducive to some of
the uses that they would like to have in there, maybe something like a
neighborhood commercial, but primarily, the office limitation was to serve our
needs as well as the commercial developer's needs. I feel that a C-G rezoning
and some of the unknown answers right now would only serve the developers -
not members of the neighborhood. As far as touching on some of the property
values, some of my friends happen to be builders in Packard Estates. Some of
those homes that are selling for $200,000 or $250,000 typically do not move very
quickly, but he has been paying on his builder's loan in excess of ten months
simply because some of the contacts that I've referred in there feel like it's a near
miss demolition derby trying to get into and out of this neighborhood. By
evidence of the new elementary, it is a young family neighborhood and traffic is a
concern. If you build it, they will come. I strongly urge that you give those careful
considerations before you make recommendations.
Borup: It sounds like you're saying, sir, then, office buildings are what you had
expected from the previous applications and you're okay with that. You're
concerned if it goes to retail, you're concerned about an increase in traffic.
McDonald: Plus the negative impact to selling and our home value, right -and
the safety issues concern with children and accessing, traffic accidents. Those
are my concerns.
Borup: Thank you. Any questions from the Commission? Thank you, sir.
Anyone else. Seeing none. Commissioners? Any thoughts at this point?
Meridian Planning and Zoning mission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 64
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: Was there any more staff comment before we close the public hearing?
Then I would move to close the public hearing.
Hatcher: I'll second that.
Borup: Motion is seconded to close the public hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: It looked like previously we had about three issues and then some
testimony - maybe a few other things in the mix there. Do we want to start out
with a little bit of discussion?
Hatcher: I do have a general question for staff. Hickory and Fairview - is that at
a 1/3 marker? Is that slated for signalization?
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Hatcher, I was just looking at the ACRD five-year
work program and did not see it in their five-year plan, but yes, it is 1/3 mile.
Bruce and I were just looking at that. I know that ACHD has been looking at that
intersection. The timing of it, I couldn't tell you.
Borup: So that would qualify under their guidelines. I think that's where you're
going. It could qualify with the guidelines if it warranted.
Hatcher: Right. So potentially we can fix an existing problem with traffic if a
signal was put at this intersection, which could potentially be spurred on by this
development.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner.
Nary: Are the entrances to this property both on Hickory Way and Fairview. I
guess I can't tell from this picture. So there's both -there's both access points.
I'll just throw this out for discussion sake. I guess I am a little bit concerned. I
think we've all driven by that intersection in that area a lot. That is a terrible
place to try to get in and out. In fact, I knew somebody that used to live back
there that said the same thing you did -that it's a very dangerous place coming
in and out.
Borup: I'm assuming you want to go left.
~i~.
".; -
€1 ;
'~~ f'~'~
r;;
.k~#
>., ;
- x::,y
a ~ =~~
.-~.:
;,'~~f
~~E
w ~~
~:
{~~ r
~,;
~~:
'~;
:;:
~,~r
:-a
W
~.;
,,;
{ x94:
~2m}
'*1y
r'
~~~.
~,,.
.:~~
_:-~~,
~ar;.~
~~v
~~ ':
Meridian Planning and Zoning ~mmission Meetlng
November 14, 2000
Page 65
Nary: Yes.
Hawkins-Clark: It's easier to go left.
Nary: It is a pretty difficult place. My concern is you look at this lot and you look
at the history of what's gone on here and we keep revisiting this particular piece
of property, it appears to be, trying to make it more commercially viable. It's not
necessarily a bad thing in itself, but it doesn't - it doesn't seem to be addressing
anything else regarding that surrounding neighborhood and it's focusing
everything towards Fairview. Because there's access points off that street on
Hickory, it would appear to me that you're going to encourage people to take that
alternate route out of it - at least out of that area to try to get out of there versus
just trying to exit out onto Fairview. I guess making it more commercially viable
is a nice idea, but it doesn't appear to me that this particular rezone is really
taking into consideration the surrounding area and that is something we need to
make a decision on and evaluate in granting such a thing. Certainly, a limited
office is what those people anticipated being there. I recognize they don't
necessarily have a right to that, and there's not necessarily a guarantee the rest
of their life is going to be that zone. That's why we're having this discussion.
Just having a Development Agreement doesn't appear to be enough necessarily
to address these particular concerns about that area. We don't have ACHD
committing to helping with the traffic flow in that area by at least signalization for
that particular intersection, so that, I think is still a problem. I just think there's a
number of issues here that we keep revisiting, but we're really not getting a
solution and just making it more commercially viable certainly helps the property
owner, but doesn't necessarily help anybody else. I'm not saying I'm going to
vote against the project. I just -for discussion purposes, it doesn't appear to me
that what we have before us is a very good reason to rezone other than it makes
it more commercially viable for the property owner, not that that in itself is a bad
reason, but that doesn't at least to me appear to be enough of a reason just to
rezone it just to make it a little bit better.
Borup: Brad, was there any request for ACHD study at all on this with the
rezone? I take it they're still going by their original -their original report back
from the CUP. They haven't taken a second look at it, have they?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, they have submitted a revised report, yes. On this
application -yes.
Borup: We didn't get a copy of that. That's why I asked.
Hawkins-Clark: Okay.
Borup: Any comment on what -did they have anything pertinent to say?
~. .,
. .
"rf-~~'.~~- ~ ~ ..
N .: -
i„r r ~,Y.i.
'1 ,. ~ ..
L. ~A:
ss;::
r ".:i'2?
f ~S
ti vi
~ ~ _~ ~':
>.
,;
~-
.-
s.l.5'
,,
~~~;,
~`-
r, ~°.
~~~~~:
%^
„y
~~ ~:f.
:,~;~
;`~ ~;
~Y
' \ ~.k
r ;::: ,
,;
'..
Meridian Planning and Zoning L~nmission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 66
Hawkins-Clark: In summary, they said that this development could generate up
to 2,000 vehicle trips per day. In terms of the site-specific requirements, they are
asking for 60 feet of right-of--way dedication on Fairview. They've approved the
one driveway location of Fairview and the two on Hickory. They have asked for a
recorded cross-access easement to be provided for all the lots within the
subdivision, then the sidewalks on both Fairview and Hickory. That's their
comments.
Borup: There's no comment on capacity - on intersection capacity or anything?
Hawkins-Clark: There is no analysis on the intersection at this time in this report.
Hatcher: Chairman Borup.
Borup: Commissioner Hatcher.
Hatcher: Brad, there was no comments there about alert-turn lane for Hickory or
an acceleration lane in front of the project on Fairview -nothing in that regards -
nothing on signalization?
Hawkins-Clark: Nothing on signalization. I believe that the additional 60-foot - I
mean a total 60-foot right-of--way dedication from center line on Fairview would
allow for a -
Hatcher: But that was only right-of--way -not installation of.
Hawkins-Clark: That's correct.
Hatcher: And it would be an acceleration because deceleration would be in front
of the church.
Borup: Is 120 feet what we've been doing? Is that what we have on the rest of
Fairview?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
~~_ ~.
x,1~;
;; -~:.
r,~.. ~.:
ti
}~~:;
~'~
~~~.
Borup: It is 120?
Hawkins-Clark: I forget how far. I think it's up to -
Borup: But I mean where it gets in the City -
Hawkins-Clark: Descend, yes. They've been asking for 120.
Borup: Did that answer - I guess you mainly made a comment there.
F - .~. .
___ ..
i, }4°
t t
a+ft
~:
;~ } ~ k:t
;;~'
* k.,
",";
l l?g.
r.~ ~_ t<fr
:.
;~'~.
,~,~ ~~
~'
~~?
~~~~°-
'~~'r
,_ w~
ti~ ~ - ~:
~~~ ,.
Meridian Planning and Zoning mission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 67
Hatcher: Yes, Brad answered my questions, but ACHD didn't answer my
concerns.
Borup: Anybody else have any other comments?
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: Just some comments that Ihave - I don't see that there is much for us
to go on. We don't have a list. There's a lot of things that you can have in a C-G
zone, but you can't have an ofFce at like service stations and shopping centers
and things that perhaps that may not good to have the beginning of a
neighborhood. I don't feel like I want to vote for this without having anymore
input into what the planned commercial development would be and without
having a list of -approved list of prohibited and permitted businesses that they
want to put in here -just to go on.
Borup: If this was a planned commercial, they would be coming back for us
anyway, wouldn't they? With the specific uses?
Hawkins-Clark: That's correct if you ask them to submit a planned development.
Norton: A planned development or a planned commercial development?
Hawkins-Clark: Planned commercial development -which PUD after this that
would obviously have to comply with the rezone and the plat, but then they would
need to provide more specifics on the other interior issues.
Norton: For each lot, then?
Borup: Each building -each use.
Centers: They can move the pieces and parts around. All they have to do is tell
us what the pieces and parts are.
Norton: Right.
Borup: But they can't put a building in without -
Hatcher: Well, we would be leaving that up to staff at this time as to whether or
not staff will allow a gas station or a bus station. It wasn't presented to us
tonight.
Borup: We're talking about two different things. One would be a usage list and
the other would be if it was a planned unit development, then it would come back
iV ~r
}
~~ ....;
r
". r 7.
T ' 'S X V lT'..f .i Y , -
' .
- I
.~ ~ ~ .~
....r i'. '.. .'
., j wig'
~k
~~, ~~ ~~
~
t
~
"
°
' Meridian Planning and Zoning
mmission Meeting
;<~ 4`,- November 14, 2000
Page 68
~~~~. Hatcher: That's right.
-~•
'°
~~, Borup: Planned commercial development.
a xt, r ~ +~
Hatcher: That's correct. We would see what staff approved as the allowable
=- ,~"" uses because of the planned development.
~~
r Nary: Mr. Chairman.
. ,;t.
.x,
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
.~
~~ : ?~
Nary: I guess what I'm still weighing in my mind is when the properly owner
purchased this property, it was zoned as a light office property. That's what
those property owners bought it at also. They developed -they made the
decision to develop the Louie's Restaurant on their property knowing at the time
~~ ~` that was what it was. It's a light office property. That's what's allowed there.
Ar, ~~
R~, guess what really is being asked of this Commission is would we really just have
s '" ~ a strip mall there instead. Do we want another small little development
.z~
~-~-~° :~
commercial strip mall just like what's down the road at -where the new Lotus
thing is -where the Norco is -where the Smoky Davis is. Do we want another
` ~ `~ one of those on Fairview? Is this the same thing that we've already approved a
r;:,,k little further down the street, and that's the uses that we want to have along
Fairview because realistically, what's going to happen, if we rezone this property,
,r?~;; then the property to the west of it is probably going to be the same thing. The
~~ ' property all the way down Fairview on both sides is just going to be that all the
,~ . way down because there's nothing else that will seem compatible than that.
"J ~ ~~'~ There's no other alternative design. There's no other creativeness to putting a
'' z;` neighborhood commercial type of thing - a little smaller type of development
that's a little more compatible with the neighborhood - a little more
neighborhood-friendly - has a little bit more office space -those things that were
,~- already part of the zone. I guess I think we're asked to make a decision here as
Y,~:~ to changing it from what was already on the table and on the map when they
`'~"`, made the decision to develop this property. Again, all that's been presented is
t ~~
n, we think it would be more commercially viable if we made it a commercial
,~„~ property instead. I'm sure if you made all of them a commercial property, they'd
sell for a whole lot more, but is that the best interest of the City or the neighbors
or the other folks in that area? Is that the best thing to put there? I guess I just
haven't heard a whole lot of information presented by the applicant that that is -
-' that's a better use of this property than what's already there -what's already
~~"
?x k~;
-7:<,y;, zoned for.
~,~ ~.~~~~~ R - Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I'd have to whole heartily agree with Commissioner
Nary. It's the same thing that I've been mulling over since I reviewed this
` package. To make is short and sweet, I would have a - I wouldn't feel
"r ~
.: comfortable continuing this and I know for sure I couldn't approve it. I don't see
_:,
~,
r,,
,ry
~;:;,~
_~ -~
" .. ~
_. - -
,:5,~ ry:~~ q +
:~?' ;~
~~~ `.
. ~"f!
L i:T' Y ~~ ~L.
,;~:
5~
x ..:_
.:a
~~~.
r
,,;.
;~ a,:
,a: ~,,--.~~,
~-
`~~~!
~ ~,. .n
ti;~ r~:
;<
~;
„~
.,:
=~~"`~,
~:.;,:
~:
~_z
':~~'
_ ;
~ti. ~. :.
i~,ti- ;:
k~
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 69
what's wrong with the current zoning and the current conditions. I -think
Commissioner Nary hit it right on the head. Property was bought and developed
based upon its current situation. Now you want to be a little brash -you want an
extra buck out of the property, let's change the zone. I don't think we need
another mini strip mall and I don't think it's in the best interest of the adjoining
subdivision.
Borup: Okay. We do have two public hearings. We have closed them both. We
would need to address each one individually.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion on Item 7 - RZ 00-007. I would move to
deny the request for a rezone for the 6.95 acres from L-O to C-G for the
proposed Mallane Commercial Complex.
Hatcher: I'd second that motion.
Borup: Motion is seconded. Any discussion?
Centers: Well, it may be a little late. I see where the Commissioners are coming
from. I really do, but you've got commercial all over -adjoining, across. You've
got an individual that wants to develop it commercial. I guess I can't object to
that. I understand where the homeowners are coming from and obviously they're
going to have a nice fence there. You have three homeowners. It's kind of a
large subdivision -that bought those homes knowing that there was going to be
some type of commercial or office or whatever. There is a difference, but not a
big difference, I wouldn't say. I'm not against the rezone, but that's just my
opinion because it's surrounded by commercial. Fairview is Fairview. If you
travel Fairview, you know it. Getting in and out of any street -whether its
Hickory or whatever access street you're talking about.
Hatcher: I'm not opposed to any uses of L-O, which still provide commercial
development. I just don't see that we need another mini strip mall of retail.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I will, I guess, sort of seize on Commissioner Centers'
comment. How many people in this community say all the time, "We don't want it
to look like Fairview?" They're talking about further in Boise. They don't want it
to look like one little strip mall after another all the way down the street. At least,
for right now, that's all that's been presented is they're going to change it and
make it into a strip mall. I don't think that's just the most creative use of this
property. I don't see anything wrong with what the zone was -
Borup: I agree with that comment. The practicality of it is you have to have a
large enough project to make it not a strip mall. The Family Center -Fred Meyer
- you've got to have the land there to do that. If that's all the property there is,
you're limited to what you can do. It doesn't necessarily need to be all retail
~ .. ---
_, ,. , ;
.~ :;~
r. _ ~ . .
~.' rr-:i~r~~~i: -:i~-
,.SM;
~q
:~°~
r.
~:'
~~
x~~>>~~~
.:, ~~.
{?~L
. .~
'~y::
{~~~.
;,tip
`:'t;
,~ ~,~ ; ,
{,,
,~,f},.
A
_,~;
„~ ~>
~~
>~
,r
FF~;
.~,~
`,r
::,
:,;
~~:
~~ ~~.
L. "~ k._.
~s4':
~,:~'
{ ,~
. ~,
<, t;
36
h
~a
~r-~
~~ ,
~~,: .
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 70
commercial, though. You are limited on the scope of the project just by the
constraints of the land size. Commissioner Norton, did you have a comment?
Norton: I have no comment.
Borup: Then we're ready to vote. The motion was to deny. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAYE.
Borup: There's probably no need to -Item No. 8 is a mute point.
Nary: Well, I think it is but I think for the records sake I would move to deny PP
00-021, the request for Preliminary Plat obviously based on the vote on the
previous one.
Hatcher: I'd second that as well.
Borup: Motion seconded. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item No. 9 Public Hearing: AZ-00-022 Request for Annexation and Zoning of
118.4 acres to R-4 for proposed Springdale Subdivision at the
Seasons by Gemstar Properties, LLC -east of McDermott
between Cherry Lane and Ustick Road:
Item No. 10 Public Hearing: PP-00-022 Request for Preliminary Plat approval
of 400 building lots and 7 other lots on 118.4 acres in a proposed
R-4 zone for proposed Springdale Subdivision at the Seasons
by Gemstar Properties, LLC -east of McDermott between Cherry
Lane and Ustick Road:
Borup: Next item -Item No. 10 and 11 -
Hatcher: 9 and 10.
Borup: I'm sorry. I skipped down one. Item No. 9 and 10, again are on the same
project. Before we do start, I need to say that I own some property adjacent to
this property and felt that rather than to have any perceived conflict of interest, it
would probably be better for me to step down during this hearing and ask
Commissioner Hatcher if he would take over at this point. I assume when we're
done, someone will let me know. Commissioner Hatcher.
Hatcher: Bear with me. I usually just let him take care of all this. What I'd like to
do is go ahead and open up the public hearing for both items 9 and 10 -request
for annexation and rezoning and request for Preliminary Plat. We'll start out with
fin: iW
~ + ~ i" ~
i` _ ~ ,~.. .yam - .?:
~~ ,
,fix:.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 71
staff comments, but before we do that, I would like to go ahead and make it know
to all in the audience and the applicant that a ACHD report has not been
submitted to staff or to this board. Because of the incomplete package that we
currently have in front of us tonight, we will not be able to rule on this one way or
the other. At this time, I'd like to go ahead and pass it over to staff for project
presentation.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you. Orientation -this is McDermott Road here on the
very left side of the screen -Black Cat and Cherry Lane. The subject parcels
comprise about 118 acres. It's currently in Ada County zoned Rural Urban
transition. They are adjacent to City limits. On the east boundary, this is
Turnberry Crossing Subdivision. They are proposing an R-4 zone, which is the
same zoning as Turnberry Crossing is currently. The Ten Mile Creek does
course the property. This is an example of that. The long-range plan for the City
of Meridian -the Comprehensive Plan does call for a pathway along Ten Mile
Creek, which was addressed in our comments. The right photo is taken from
McDermott looking to the east. This is taken from Turnberry Crossing looking
west - as you can see currently, agricultural land. The proposed plat is here.
The staff report which was dated today, which you all should have received
addresses a couple of different issues related to the plat as well as the
annexation and zoning. The major issues in terms of servicing the property is
that it would require a regional lift station - a forced main line and a related sewer
trunk line extensions to be constructed by the developer. This is a different
drainage boundary in terms of sewer than Turnberry has to the east, so for that
reason, the new lines would need to be constructed. This doesn't reflect it, but it
would be going north of the current wastewater treatment plant - is up northeast
there. There's a couple different issues that we feel warrants in terms of the
annexation at this far out. Those were addressed in there. One of those is that
the Comprehensive Plan does have several policies that deal with varying
residential housing types and calling for the lower density the further west you go
in Meridian. This is as far west as you can go in Meridian. McDermott Road is
the County boundary at this point, so one argument could be that in terms of
decreasing density, this is not meeting -this plan is not meeting that
Comprehensive Plan desire since they are proposing an R-4, which is not a
decrease in density. An R-2 or an R-3 would be. The Ten Mile Creek is
designated as a multiple use pathway, as I mentioned. If the commission moves
on and decides to recommend annexation, we would ask for some of these
changes that the plat shows and the new pathway. The school symbol is shown
in this area, which again, as we've said in other projects, it doesn't necessarily
mean a school site on this parcel, but one certainly needs to be in this section
and discussions with the school district needs to take place. Just one last thing
to point out, the potential significant modification would be on the north side of
this plat. Coming up McDermott Road, this potentially could be a residential
collector based on Ada County Highway District. They do have a policy that says
"no front on housing on residential collectors" given the potential volume of traffic
that travels along those. Obviously, that would require amodification -the plat
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 72
should you move ahead on that. To summarize, we just feel there's not enough
adequate evidence at this time and the public hearing should be continued to
meet with the applicant and continue discussions. That's all I have.
Hatcher: Do you have anything to add, Bruce?
Freckleton: No.
Hatcher: The applicant is present. Would you like to come forward?
Wildwood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is
Susan Wildwood. I am an attorney licensed to practice law and I'm here on
behalf of Gemstar. First of all, I'd just like to remind you in case it's been some
time since we've been back before you, but Gemstar is the developer of Autumn
Faire. As you'll recall, we worked quite diligently with staff and well into mind the
comments and desires of this Commission in developing Parklands off of Autumn
Faire and in Autumn Faire 2. In fact, I would like just to point out that the
proposed park that we ended up developing or proposing appears in the upper
right hand corner of your diagram. There's slightly a U-shape next to the lots that
you'll see in the upper right-hand corner. That's actually the parkland that will be
donated to the City as part of Autumn Faire. Preliminarily, what I would like to tell
you is that we did not receive any of staff's comments until 3:00 p.m. today. We
submitted this package actually September 22nd and in a phone conversation last
week with Mrs. Stiles, she indicated that she had some questions on the
application and Mr. Stanfield faxed her a memorandum and I've got a copy of
that here requesting that we receive her comments so that we could respond to
them. There was another conversation yesterday and we did not receive
anything in writing until today. So we have had an extremely short period of time
to respond to this, especially given the fact that the matter has been in the office
since the 22nd of September. What I can tell you is that in the scurrying around,
based on the comments that we've received, directly with regard to ACRD and
going to provide this to the Commission -that's the letter from Mr. Stanfield.
Hatcher: It has to go to Shelby.
Wildwood: What I also did is I telephoned Christy Richardson at ACRD because
of her letter which indicated - is that ACHD was recommending that the
application not be processed. I telephoned her today and I have available for the
Commission a memorandum from her that in fact suggests that the Commission
go forward with this application and that she needed to review the language in
her letter. We had some conversation about a number of things and some
recommendations, so I do have that memorandum from her that was faxed to me
late this afternoon. With regard to the ACHD traffic study, the issues for that
study peripherally deal with whether or not one of the roads may be designated
as a residential collector. If it is designated as a residential collector, then there
would be some additional restrictions imposed. According to Christy, you have
~~. , ;,
~~:
x~,-.
4~7+- .
`?~li"
-r, , .
y'qe~,:;::,
~~; ,
~~:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 73
local roads, residential collectors and collectors and the difference has to do with
the vehicle trips per day on that particular roadway. If it's a local road, that's up
to 1,000 vehicle trips per day - requires a 36-foot travel section and a 50-foot
right-of--way. If it becomes a residential collector, that's between 1,000 and 2,500
vehicle trips per day. That's a 35-foot wide section and 50-foot road right-of--way
in their parking restrictions on that residential collector. Because Mrs. Stiles,
early on in the discussions on this project indicated that that may in fact apply,
this is based on an early design. We redesigned the project to address that very
issue and we're not sure whether or not that redesign is going to result in that
road being declared a residential collector based on the traffic study and the
review by ACHD. Even if the Commission proceeded forward tonight, which we
are going to request that you do, and the ACHD travel study came back
indicating that that is a residential collector, it would simply result in a reduction in
the number of lots for the Preliminary Plat. There would be no increase. It would
result in a redesign around that roadway, but there would be a net reduction in
the number of lots and not an increase, so we believe that you can proceed on
that and make the Preliminary Plat conditioned upon the ACHD study and their
determination with regard to that study. Based on Christy's memo, she did
suggest and did say that I could represent to you that we had this discussion.
She attempted to set forth what that was and it was quite late in the day, as I
said. With regard to this project, we're asking for an annexation of contiguous
property. I suppose we're in a situation where we're significantly reversed of the
project that you had under consideration earlier. We're in fact immediately
adjacent to the City with Turnberry and we do have -that will be coming before
the Commission the Autumn Faire 2 project. Autumn Faire 1 has come in and
been approved by the City. The property is presently zoned rural transitional. I
think it's important if you review your Comprehensive Plan, you will note that this
property is, in fact located in an area that is designated on a Comprehensive
Plan map as low-density residential R-4, which is exactly our particular request.
The comments by Mrs. Stiles on the Comprehensive Plan don't, I think, give as
much information as the Comprehensive Plan actually provides. On the
Comprehensive Plan on page 22, it indicates the full discussion of the policy that
she referenced - is quality residential neighborhoods north, south, east and west
of old town. The plan is for -when you look at the old town statements, it's with
the higher density- residential to be in old town and lower density as you go
outward. There isn't any indication, either in your Comprehensive Plan or the
zoning map that the zoning that we're requesting here is inappropriate. In fact, it
falls in with .the designation of the Comprehensive Plan as well as the
designation on the Comprehensive Plan map. The project involves a couple of
very important things that we believe are important to the City. Number one -
and it was referred to by staff and that has to do with the sewer. We will be
constructing at our expense the forced main - a regional lift station at the Five
Mile Drain south of 2026 in McDermott. We will be putting in approximately
9,000 feet of gravity feed line -approximately -excuse me, 8,000 feet of gravity
and 9,000 of forced main. As I said, constructing the regional lift station, we will
be going out from the city. This will provide a number of benefits. It will go
.;a , .
i.~~~
.- ..}``:
j~ s
V~~'~~y~r: s~E
~.
~,~
zt~:
"'kS
~~{~;;
~...' Y',
~,~p ~~'r
-:~,
,t;
. ,. ;:4
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 74
directly into the sewer treatment plant. It will allow for sewage treatment for a
number of properties in that area including if you look on the Comprehensive
Plan, there is a school site and park area that has been designated. That will
allow for sewering in that area if the school is able to pick up the property in that
area. In addition, it allows for sewer treatment for any of the adjacent properties,
all to be constructed again at the developer's cost that's in excess of two million
dollars. In addition, we have provided open space in the Preliminary Plat and if I
can get Scott to stand up and show you this - we have been put in green -the
green in the upper left-hand corner is the part that will be donated to the City as
part of Autumn Faire 1, which is in the north side of this project. There will be
interconnectivity into the project that's before you tonight. We have placed the
private park close to McDermott at the request and through discussions with Mrs.
Stiles as far as beautifying the City limits along McDermott so anybody looking
from Canyon County is going to see some beautification in that area. We also
have green space -
*** End of Side 5 ***
Wildwood: -- project. Basically those are storm water retention ponds. We have
created multi-use areas in them. We have paths that are interconnecting so that
the pathway through the project will actually allow access into the Autumn Faire
Park on the northeast as well as on the west for the other park. The comment on
the Ten Mile Drain -the drain is actually off the property. It is to the south of the
property. It actually comes in and then goes along the southern boundary. We
concur with staff comment and are happy to provide any of the property. If our
property that contains the Ten Mile Drain to be a separately platted lot, the
difficulty at this point is that if you look at your pathway designation in the
Comprehensive Plan, the pathway that would connect to this actually comes
significantly away from the property and would require additional development in
this lower parcel that's not a piece of this particular development. We have open
space there. While there are no City requirements for the park, we have
provided the private park and will still be paying the park fees. What we've
actually done is we were providing a double benefit to the City because we were
providing a private park as well as paying the park fees. Now, we also exceed
the proposed landscape ordinance. It has not adopted, but we exceed the
requirements. That is a requirement of five percent open space. We have 118 -
basically .4 acres. The park is 5.79 acres. The multi-use open space facility -
that's the retention ponds et cetera are a total of 1.66 acres. The Ten Mile lot,
which we've agreed to provide brings it up to a total of 6.42 acres. If we were
utilizing the figures from the City, it would be 400 lots, 1200 population, which
would require six acres for open space and we exceed that at this time. It also
meets the urban services planning area and requirements under the sewer, and
I'm sorry. I've neglected to mention that. The Preliminary Plat -there was some
comments and we'll address these very quickly through the comments that were
made by staff. A couple of them -one of them had to do with comments on
corner lots -that we needed to show arrows and comments stating front which
~~f::.
~~i'~.;
'J' :_
~~- L, .x
- ! r
i
~_n~~.
x ~.+;
~ _ ~:
,z_„-_,.
~~,~y'
r ,:>
a<.
::y,.
A
21 *i~}}.
,,
,, ,
~.~Y~'L
u ,~x~
~r -
.,%
-` ,
+~ y4,
_RR ~;1
5~~,. ~~ Y4.~:
.,'-~'~.~ ,f,~`
;:~.~
a"ly v'
t
;._
_y~1.
lr *:~`»
ST7r
~~,:~~,
;;
~~;
~X
~~~~~.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 75
indicated which frontage would be utilized for the builders. That's essentially a
detail that is part of the Final Plat and not done as the Preliminary Plat stage. It
does have to appear on the Final Plat for the very reason it was identified by Mrs.
Stiles so the builders know which way they need to face their residences -
whether or not their frontage is on one road or another one. ACHD -I've
commented on along here -one other thing that Mrs. Richardson did point out to
me today - I asked her about the policy that was mentioned by Mrs. Stiles on
having collector roads -that ACHD had a policy of doing collector roads on a
half-mile. In fact, ACRD has a collector road study that they've been in the
process of doing for some time. They had spoken with JUB Engineering who is
handling that. That study will not be available for at least two months and even
after that period of time, they have to review that, go out to public hearings and
determine where they will be, in fact, applying that. It's not going to be a policy of
every third mile as suggested by Mrs. Stiles. That particular thing is going to - in
this project, is going to be a function of the traffic study rather than a policy that's
yet to be adopted under the roadway study. A couple of the other comments that
came in actually had to do with the same - we think it's virtually identical
comments by the Police Chief on public safety issues. We were never able to
figure out what that was, but it looks like it's the identical comment that has come
out so we're not exactly sure what that means. We were unable to get hold of
him. By the time we were able to get the staff comments and pull these
additional items together. The other issue that I think is of special concern for the
City of Meridian has to do with schools. I took the opportunity to meet with Mr.
Bingham and he was familiar with this project. I've met with him before on
Autumn Faire 1 when we were discussing the impact on schools. The new
school site, and he confirmed this today, and I've provided this information to the
City Council -the new elementary school will relieve some of the pressure on
Chaparral as well as - I believe it's called Chief Joseph Elementary School.
They are looking for additional school sites, but they are not yet identifying where
those sites will be. There is a committee that is going to be convened for the
school district. They will be reviewing potential areas for school sites throughout
the City of Meridian. That committee will be identifying areas where they do want
to locate school sites. I assured him and I will tell this Commission tonight that
we will actively work with them. If we do not have properties that we own that we
can provide for purchase at our cost to the school district, we will actively work
with them to identify other schools and we've made that commitment before on
Autumn Faire. I asked him what I might be able to represent to the Commission
tonight and he said, "Please tell them that you have been in. We appreciate the
fact that you've come in. You're willing to work with us to help identify and
acquire school sites." They are not particularly interested in having a school site
in this particular location until the committee can meet and make a determination
as to whether or not they're looking for elementary school, middle school or high
school sites. They're wouldn't be enough acreage available in this project for
either a middle school or a high school. They're basically looking for about 55
acres for a high school - at least at 15 to 20 if they can get it for Middle Schools
and of course, much smaller sites for Elementary, but they're working to identify
f ry~~ E~.~~ ~~
- ~: ~ -~ ..~ e. .~ ,
~,;n~
i ! 4:
Vii': ~~~',
,'pi3
:.:~,
~ ~.
°:'t
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 76
those and he said while the concems about schools remain in that we have come
in and we're actively working with them in that particular area. In conclusion,
before I stand for any questions, I do have an additional letter from Mr. Dean
Langely who has adjacent property in support of the project. In conclusion, I
think that if you make a review of the Comprehensive Plan -the particular areas
that I've sited to specifically on the review of density - I think the three issues that
Mrs. Stiles identified that she had the greatest concerns was a question on
density. I believe that it's well supported in the Comprehensive Plan -especially
the Comprehensive Plan map that shows this area is low density residential.
Working with the sewer system, bringing that in at the developer's expense, with
great benefit to the City because the McDermott -while the City has talked about
that needing an upgrade, that has not been available to the City and the City has
chosen to go in other directions. And with that, I thank the Commissioners. I
know we've gone late tonight, and thank you very much for your patience. I'd
stand for any questions, Mr. Chairman.
Hatcher: Thank you. Any questions at this time?
Nary: Mr. Chairman. Ms. Wildwood, there's a comment in here from the staff's
letter about the fact that there is pretty much the same type of housing that exists
in every other older subdivision and there's no creativity or anything like that. Do
you have any comment to that?
Wildwood: Yes. I don't think that lot size necessarily means there is no variety in
housing styles and types. I think one of the interesting things about Meridian is it
sort of plays both ways. There has been explosive growth out here. Meridian
has done, I think, a good job there. Our variety of subdivisions out there - it is
relatively consistent with some of the other subdivisions in the area that are quite
popular and the lot sizes will dictate to some regard the size of the house, but not
necessarily the variety of housing styles or prices. Some of those subdivisions
are going to have more expensive lots, therefore more expensive houses. Some
of them are going to have less expensive lots and some of them will have less
expensive houses. So I'm not entirely sure that it is a sea of houses that look all
the same.
Nary: One more question. That bottom comer - I notice on your map that you
showed was some green space. What is that?
Wildwood: I've got to have Scott explain it to you.
Nary: I guess it's the bottom west corner.
Wildwood: Yes, and I think that's one of the retention ponds, but I'm going to
have to have Scott explain it. He's the technical guy on this project. You will
notice -one thing that I will comment on -you'll notice that the south boundary
looks a little wobbly, if you will. There are some old surveys. They moved the
Y~t[
~~' ,., .
x,11.' . ::
Y ..~~ ~ ~ 1
~ 1 •'~
.:r ,.
1 J
,.. .~.rc..,_ .
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 77
Ten Mile Drain. There's a number of things that are out there. We're trying to
get the surveys nailed down to make sure we know exactly where those property
lines are, but that's one of the reasons that has such a scurry looking south
boundary.
Centers: One question, Mrs. Wildwood - a comment really. You made a very
good presentation and you addressed a number of items very well and you
referred to the Comprehensive Plan very well. It proves you've done your
homework, but the last item you mentioned - I had it flipped over here waiting to
see you talk about the school situation and the Comprehensive Plan, let's refer to
page 14 - 3.3. You commented that they were looking for sites and they were
attempting to find sites. It's very specific. School sites should be reserved for
future acquisition and advance of development of planned land use. Approval of
subdivision plans may be withheld if adequate school facilities or sites are not
available to serve the proposed subdivision.
Wildwood: Mr. Commissioner, I would specifically -and thank you for bringing
that up because Ihad -I've been in to speak with Mr. Bigham twice because I
felt it was important to provide that information for you because I did ask him, not
about the specific section or that language, but about that particular concept
because I've been a long resident of the Treasure Valley and have watched
growth all over the place. I specifically asked him, "How are you going to identify
these school sites and how will it effect this particular project? If you refer to their
letter, they say that Middle School is at capacity. The high school is at capacity.
The only real issue is the elementary school because saying that it is at capacity
is not that it is at over-capacity and cannot serve the subdivision without an
undue burden. I asked him, "Is this letter a form letter?" and he said, "Yes, it is,"
and he said, "We've struggled with exactly what to send out." We have awell-
served policy. Our questions are where are the schools and where are they
coming in. That's why I specifically asked him about the elementary school
issue. This came up with Autumn Faire. That was why we had the discussion on
the elementary school and whether or not it would relieve the pressure on both of
the other two schools, which would be Chief Joseph's -these children would
probably not go to Chief Joseph. They would most likely go to Chaparral. That
was why -the questions with regard to that. The new elementary school, when it
comes online, should relieve the pressure on both of those elementary schools.
Centers: Well, excuse me, but he wrote the letter on October 25th and he could
have said that at that time.
Wildwood: I understand that. I have a copy. I brought with me the copy of the
letter from the Autumn Faire Subdivision and the language is identical in both
letters and that's why I asked him and he said, "It's a form letter that we're
sending out. It's to say we have some concerns, not that the district is not
addressing them, but that we have had some concerns." That's why I specifically
went in for Autumn Faire.
,,,
.. ...
~ ~ < _ _
- ~ t i ~ _
,.,
4
- : ~ t
- _ i'^, ~ ~ ryas
k~'r
_y r Jx~.
:a. . .
~;~
*3y"i
~:
t ;~ ;~~.
x
t p`',
fit;
E~:~
~_ ~ ~~ ,_
z ~z
~,
~,
_~,:.~~
~, ;.
:~ ~F
~`_a' ~Ci
• I'i' 'Y -?~n ~.
y:'~_,
~:%g-'Si
,,.
~f3"~e::..;'.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting S
November 14, 2000
Page 78
__ Centers: He would need to write a new letter. Wouldn't you agree?
Wildwood: That's why I said, "What can I tell this Commission?" because we
only got in the comments from staff this afternoon. I had gone in yesterday to
talk with him because of the phone conversation that Scott had with Mrs. Stiles.
So I went in with this project, and I took in a map. I took in a map to him. I'm
sorry. It's a section map. I said, "How are you determining where you're looking
for school sites?" What he identified to me, because I said that we can look at
properties any place you want. Do you want one in this location. He said, "No."
He said, "What we're looking for is a school site per section." I said, "Okay. So if
we take these elementary schools and we go around this area, you're not looking
for one right here." He said, "No." I said, "Okay. You have the other sites up
along Ustick." He showed me. In his office, he has pushpins in the map. I said,
"Now, have you identified sites or areas that you want to purchase in?" He said,
"No." He said, `That's why we're convening acommittee - to make a
determination as to where we want to have these school sites. We think we've
got enough school sites along Ustick. Maybe that's a good location for a high
school -probably not for Middle School and probably not for another elementary
school." Until that committee meets and we identify the locations or approximate
locations for those properties, then we're not going to know. Now if you will
commit to us to working with us, and if it means that you require the property and
you hold it for a period of time, will you do that? I said, "Yes, we will do that." He
said, "Then you tell that to the Commission that we've been in and had this
discussion. You're committed to working with us to help us acquire -
"That addresses the specific language in the Comprehensive Plan where if you
own the land and it's on that property, to go ahead and do it. Otherwise, to assist
the school district in acquiring properties that they can identify. He said, "Also, it
could mean that we might end up with a piece of property that we would hold for
them that they could then trade for another more desirable property." What
they're looking for is a way of creating some alternatives for finding those school
sites.
Centers: You referred to the previous annexation request.
Wildwood: Yes, sir.
Centers: I think they had 23 acres reserved per school site, so they came in
prepared in that regard.
Wildwood: Autumn Faire did not have a school site.
Wildwood: Oh, the previous one tonight. I'm sorry. It was also over three times
the acreage. That was why we had the discussions. That's why I asked Wendell
and I said, "You show me what it is that you want." I said, "You know, if you're
going to be writing these letters, it's not particularly helpful for the Commission if
~r - _ ,s,
- ~ t +' ..il.~s.s
i r ~tirFa~':%, n .
^~,. ,_ - -
i
~~ z
:'~h
,~,
,~,~ }~ y
! tirr ;
~~.
~ ~~~"s.
~;;:
~,.,~ .
':;
K:~S :F
~~
~-
:k%.
~~
r~~~,.~.ly.
+ `-;';"
.*
tis"rf~
~~ ~ ;.
t ,t
~~~
;;`;r
~:-.-`:
~~, ~Y
:;
:.
t
Meridian Planning and Zoning mission Meetlng
November 14, 2000
Page 79
you're going to be writing the same letter." He said, "When we can get this
committee convened to identify these, we're going to have better information for
them."
Hatcher: If I might interject here - I think to shed a little light on two issues that
are at hand is that as you've already stated, the school district has a will serve
policy. It doesn't matter whether it's under, over -whatever. They will serve.
That's why we end up getting the form letter. I do also know - I personally know
that Chaparral is overburdened. Until that new school is online, it will remain
overburdened and only get worse. I think also, in regards to the finding of sites
for schools - if I'm not mistaken, and staff might be able to assist me in
addressing this. The City of Meridian is in the process of finalizing the new
Comprehensive Plan. I believe that the school district's endeavors is part of that
Comprehensive Plan -being able to finalize what sites -what specific sites and
what specific locations we want our schools to be at and get that into the
Comprehensive Plan, but that Comprehensive Plan has not been adopted nor
can we any information. Even though it's the most up to date, it has not been
approved. Thus, we have to go by -basically this board at this time has to go by
the current Comprehensive Plan. The current Comprehensive Plan shows that a
school site would be on or adjacent to this project. It's a little north. So it's just
west of Autumn Faire. I think that's kind of what we're talking about as far as the
school serviceability -that future school in that approximate location. Now, as
far as any other deals or agreements and what not with the school district, I think
that's very commendable with the client and the developer, but I don't think at
this point in time, it really has any bearing for this project that's at hand. I think
more importantly is how do we serve this project with our current facilities and the
new school coming up. Do we have that capability. I think with the new school
coming online, we probably do.
Wildwood: I appreciate the comments because in looking at the site ability of the
schools, Mr. Bigham said there are so many factors to consider on these that it's
a difficult choice. He did talk about the Comprehensive Plan work to try to
identify those sites in a more, organized manner so that the City could do that
forward planning.
Hatcher: Right. Do you have any other comments?
Norton: Mr. Chairman, I just have one comment on a totally different issue. Mrs.
Wildwood, the Fire Department has commented that the phone service in this
area sometimes has gone to Canyon County and since this annexed to Meridian,
they would insist on having a 911 Ada County Phone Service so that they could
serve this area. Have you contacted the phone company to see what kind of
prefixes would be given to this area?
Wildwood: I have not and I am sorry that I was unaware of this. I see scribbling
over here. He may be able to answer that question. I think that that's a good
,.
,..y ~.~
:. _
t . .,
,.
~.:. -
i. ~ 1 },
,.
s; ,, n
Yj 5 hi~a
Meridian Planning and Zoning ~oinmissfon Meeting
~;.~, ;
~:.. :.
1~.
~.5°:_'
November 14, 2000
Page 80
one to have an answer for. I do not know. I'm sure that the developer would
work very carefully. Obviously, we would have to extend telephone service to the
area. You have your line extensions. When you lay your electrical or telephone
extensions, that would probably be a matter for US West - or I guess it's Qwest
these days. We would work actively with Qwest to see that we could have that
put in place because I know that there has been - I do a lot of business over in
Canyon County and having the call go to the correct jurisdiction is critical,
especially when you get into outline areas. This is not an outline area, but it is a
matter that is important to the citizens for their safety. I'll let Scott -I'll defer that
to him.
Norton: Thank you.
Hatcher: At this time, no more questions for Ms. Wildwood. Scott would come
up and address the couple of issues.
Stanfield: Scott Stanfield with Earl and Associates, 314 Batiola in Caldwell,
Idaho. I'll try not to repeat what Ms. Wildwood said, but there are a couple of
specific items I want to kind of reiterate, and I'll come back to some of the issues
that were just brought up. I think for once, we have a project regarding
sewerability (sic), if there is such a word, where, number one, we're not
requesting a service area jump. We're following the City's master plan. We're
following their goals. We're following what the City has laid down as a path to
follow. We're not proposing any kind of temporary lift station. This will be a
regional permanent lift station that the City has in their master plan. One
developer is working on this, not several. There's no joint coordination effort,
which obviously has fallen apart between the north trunk and the white trunk line,
so that makes it quite a bit easier to construct. He's doing that at his own cost.
One thing he asks is that he be treated fairly when it comes to the typical late
comer's agreement that the City has used in the past. He will abide by those
requirements. The park space exceeding the five percent open space, which is a
goal of the City's upcoming Landscape Ordinance - we went ahead and met
that. The Fire Substation -I'll point out that I believe next year, the City intends
on building their substation, which is approximately two miles to the east. I think
that's laded for early next year. I believe Ms. Wildwood did a good job touching
the traffic study. I'll reiterate a little bit. At apre-application meeting, we had
quite a bit different layout than what you see here and Mrs. Stiles mentioning the
collector status roadway at that point, so we sat down and regrouped and kind of
did a new layout, lost quite a bit of lots, added a couple roads just to try to
disperse the traffic throughout the project versus consolidating it. I think it's
important to point out that ACHD's own policy manual says it's typically 1,000,
but may reach 2,000 in certain situations. There's kind of a range there. My
general personal numbers and my personal analysis show that we'll just be
under 1,000 at our entry/exit points for the project, but again, the final traffic study
is something that we will abide by and follow the recommendations of. The
residential collector street -their policy manual also states that a minor number
., t a .. - r ~; , ~;; ~
r !y ,
.Mor
~~
";.~ h
., a;
~°'ts
u~ ~~
~~f
_.~;_.
~, :P
~,~~~~.
.. ,.~
_.
,r~'
~,~.;_
~.
J,~ ~:
.'
r
~;~ ~~~_
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 81
of abutting parcels may abut that parcel. Again, I don't think there will be
significant changes. If there are changes, it will be losing a few lots -maybe
slightly more than a few, but I don't feel those are significant. Now, going to
some of the things that were brought up by you folks just recently on the open
space, I believe the question was in the southwest corner. What's that? That
corner down in the southwest -that is the natural low spot of the land, or portions
of the land. That is going to be a multi-use open space. It will be a large area
and a shallow and gently depressed area -grassed, landscaped. It's not going
to be your deep, steep, ugly detention pond. It's truly going to be a multi-use.
This developer group here is really proud of their projects and wants to leave
something nice versus a typical hole in the ground. That's the same case with
this piece down here. More than that, on this piece, the Ten Mile Creek makes a
turn right there and you really can't get anything out there, so we've already said
that we will agree to the pathway down there. We have plenty of lot depth.
These lots are over 140 feet deep. So we can afford to give a common lot along
there. That will tie in nicely with this piece that gets you out for the roadway.
That will work out quite nice. I think it's important to point out on the School
District that the site that they show the school symbol in the Comprehensive
Plan, that was our first approach and our first goal with the district was that we
can help you get this site. Is this where you want it? No, that's not where we
want it. So our first instinct was to follow the Comprehensive Plan precisely. As
Ms. Wildwood pointed out, we were pointed in other directions. We'll continue to
work with the School District, obviously to pinpoint exactly what their wishes are.
The phone company -that is a really good comment. The - I haven't raised the
issue on this specific project, but I've been involved in numerous projects across
county lines and back and forth and the answer that I have been getting has
been, "We will try to accommodate you, but keep in mind that we are governed
by one body, and that is the PUC." Not the City, not the state, not the FEDS -
the PUC. That's the rules that the utility companies will abide by. We will try our
best to make our wishes known when we submit plans, but once we do that, it's
quite honestly out of our control. I encourage the City to offer any facilitation they
can with the utility companies because you, as a large government body
obviously have more power and voice than we do.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Hatcher: Yes, Commissioner Nary.
Nary: I just had one question. Ms. Wildwood stated that that other park that's
north of the site there -that Autumn Faire Park. There was going to be some
connectivity, I think was the word she used. I don't see anywhere that a path can
be, so where is the path proposed to -that one street that looks like a -
Stanfield: Yes, there's a stub street right there. We're required to meet certain
block lengths and have stub streets to adjoining parcels. When visioned, if the
piece to the north developed, that would be a nice tie-in to that and then hook a
'7 7: - '.
r~~
~~f°'.
[~ t _ _
~ .. ,.. ~.. _. . . _
S''e>: ?~~t .,~r.~ ~ ,.
.. - L-.err
~. `; 1
,a.r _ -
~~
,~ 'ri ~ e
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 82
stub into Autumn Faire 2, which is around the parkland here, which is waiting for
'4} sewer. Or if the City doesn't like that, we'll move the stubs straight to the east,
r#~
~..-~
and stub it directly across that bold line you see running north/south.
}' x~,f~ ~ Hatcher: I believe the colored rendering also showed pedestrian paths between
=4- lots.
Stanfield: I don't think it did there.
~~
r_'R=~~ ~:<
Nary: I just didn't notice it. It doesn't mean it wasn't there. I just didn't notice it.
k'..
rte;
Stanfield: No colored pathways there, but if you want apathway - if you want a
'~ ~ roadway, that's neither here nor there. It's easy enough to do.
Hatcher: I have a couple of questions before we move on. I think we've
adequately addressed the sewer with the Black Cat Trunk.
-~ * Stanfield: Excuse me, the McDermott Trunk -this will drain into the McDermott
a
,; .^ ~~#
Hatcher: McDermott Trunk, yes. Sorry. Just confirmation from staff that what
-.:~~ they're proposing to do for development of this project is within our sewer plan
and that we're not doing any special lifts. We're not doing any temporary lines.
~}" Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Chairman. The sewer, as they propose, follows the facility
t~~' plan that was derived by JUB Engineers recently and adopted by the City. Scott
~
~~ has been closely with the City Engineer trying to get some questions answered
,
~ x-~ on design type criteria. To my knowledge, everything is going as planned - as
we have always planned.
Stanfield: If I could add to that really quick, knowing some of the things that have
occurred in the City -and I'm going to go back to my personal experience. I was
~ pretty much bom and raised here and I still have three kids here and we'll
~~-~~„ probably be here for quite some time. As I've seen other projects come along
that want to hop here and hop there, that's something that really caution our
r~ ~'~~ ' client about. He accepted our input and said, "Okay. Let's not jump sewer
~~~ services. What does the City want? What's their plan? Follow it." As Mr.
~s ~ Freckleton pointed out, I've been meeting with -primarily with Mr. Brad Watson.
~`"'' Gary Smith has been involved in a few of those meetings working out details,
~~ locations, what it looks like -we've toured a couple sites around the City. We've
,y;~T ~ pretty much been focusing on that very issue.
rk ~
~~ ~Y
~,~~~~~ Hatcher: Okay. Next question -maybe for you or maybe for Ms. Wildwood has
_ to do with lot size density and configuration. I think what was addressed earlier
was a concern about Comprehensive Plan requirements or recommendations of
r ~~ -~ diversity. There's no so much just to houses, but subdivisions - to lots
~~
.;~f,
~; .
_~
.,
ti~~ ~~x,~
?~-. -,
~ -.
,~
-~~ ~ ,'
. ~ ~ ..
~'.
ry~l
~.
~.t~'~k
__.J Vii:
:,}
,.`';.
_~_
~~~~
:,
~~ ~:
=tip
~' ~~#~ f
~'~ s;
N
r-'4~::
^.z
. +._.
r,;
;.z
•:; ~:
,,:
~~ ~-
j ~'~~
=;
' ' ~_`
~_ f,..
y„
.,lv ~-~. .y4
z~~
~; >~~~
<_:
~~
~:
;.
Y ,;-u
{,
,;
t,
,:, a
i
~~~
r~
4y~
1+~^a
~~.
°:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 83
themselves. I'm not opposed or for particular types of subdivisions. I think that
8,000 square-foot lots are needed - 10,000, 12, 14 -whatever. Diversity is well
deserved and well needed. However, I am a bit concerned about Meridian
having too many 8,000 square-foot lots. This is a rather large project. We've
seen bigger. We've seen smaller, but in the big scheme of things, this is still a
pretty good sized development. There is very little diversification in lot sizes
within this project. The proposed lot sizes are not uncommon to the majority of
the subdivisions that are done throughout the City of Meridian. I think it's the
body's general feeling that we have enough of these size of lots. We need larger
lots. We need diversity. That's what the intent of the Comprehensive Plan is.
That's what we're here to try to uphold. I bring that to the forefront as possible
discussion later on -something for you guys -food for thought. I'd like you to
further address the Ten Mile drainage. The drawing that I have in front of me
and the package of what you submitted here actually shows that Ten Mile
drainage on your lot -not south of your property and looks to be 2/3 or those
southern lots. If you do a common lot line, or excuse me - if you do a common
lot at that drainage to provide the parkway -the pathway as this particular
drainage impacts your project, it appears to me -again, this is only preliminary,
but it still appears to me that there could be a reconfiguration of that entire lot.
You've mentioned that they're deep lots and that you can absorb that. I question
can you absorb that. I'd see some reconfiguration there because that's quite a
bit of land. Then the other thing is this collector issue. As far as whether or not
the ACHD is going to designate a particular collector as a residential collector or
a primary collector - I guess this would be considered a secondary collector. As
it's currently configured, you have lots on both sides of this road that you have
been addressing as a collector. My experience is since this is on a quarter, or
close to a quarter, this would probably be considered a secondary collector and
not a residential collector, but until we know which direction ACHD is going, that
could have a major impact on your configuration as well. I know that you have
talked with them and staff and have made several changes at this time, but I see
a big, open-ended issue there. Then the last thing that I wanted to just bring on
to record, and let the Commission know is that Ms. Wildwood had said that she
had a letter from ACRD which she had submitted to our City Clerk -that ACRD
said for us to go ahead and proceed. I wanted to correct that and read here on
this letter dated November 1St, from Christy Richardson. It specifically states
here in the last sentence, first paragraph - "With this request, we are also
recommending that the City not process your application until your plat has
received approval from the ACHD Commission. She follows up with a memo
faxed today stating that -let me find it. "ACHD does not object to the Planning
and Zoning Commission hearing testimony on this item and making an initial
review, but would prefer that action not be made until after ACRD has reviewed
and approved the project." It's not our common policy to proceed without
ACHD's report so that we can have a chance to address those issues, but also
we have documentation from ACHD that they would like us not to pursue it as
well.
.. ~. ~.
,t , -.
.V'
.r
r•
jam, ~:,._. ,
_
- ,- 'S .
~ -t, n L/\
_.~.
'.:
t.r;
,~~,
~va
:'
_~ ,t~.
1
-f,~,
a,~t.
. ;# `~'
~.
ti
-~~.
~~,
' _ fi'~a
i il~ _ <` r~..
,, .
:^;
~~~:
,; ~r;
x*
k ~ r_~ .
~~
;,,;
,;
z ~ ~.~
~ ~~4~~~
-~;~
~~ ~
~_~
• s
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 84
Stanfield: I've been writing everything down you said and I'm going to do them in
inverse order and I'll let Susan take care of the one you just brought up. Do you
want to take it now, Susan?
Wildwood: If I might address that - I did ask her in our discussions, and I said,
"Okay, if they proceed on this, my understanding from what you're saying to me,
the only thing that would happen is that we would need to redesign that one
street." She said, "That's correct." I said, "We can do that before we get the
Preliminary °Plat to the City Council." She said, "Yes, I think you can do that."
The letter came in and that was faxed to me immediately before she left the
office. I've had no opportunity to discuss that with her -what we talked about,
and I understand what your City Policy is. I'm just saying that that would be the
design and obviously what the Commission chooses to do is what the
Commission chooses to do, but we did attempt to discuss that. It was late in the
day. As I said, we didn't exactly have all the time to get all this clarified as best
we could.
Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Chairman.
Hatcher: Yes.
a
Freckleton: Could I maybe clarify one point? That is that the discussion tonight
has been on the collector only. In my discussions with Christy this morning, this
application has not even gone before their tech review as a whole. They haven't
looked at all the streets in here. We've got to look at the big picture, and not just
this collector question.
Stanfield: Bruce is correct. They haven't acted on it yet, but as City Ordinance
requires, in our submittal, we made some statements about the traffic impacts to
surrounding roads and we're qualified to make those statements. I feel
comfortable with that. We've moved forward personally I have projects here
were we haven't received ACHD input until the Council hears it. So I don't think
that's beyond the realm of possibilities. Again any revisions they may have if
they may have any are going to decrease the number of lots. They're certainly
not going to increase them. I'll be honest with you we're probably just a little bit
under a 1,000 is what my calculations show but their own policy manual which I
have right here in front of me says may reach 2,000. That's quite a bit of range
so there's some flexibility there. But none the less Mr. Freckleton is correct that
they haven't even seen all of it. We've diligently been pursuing this process for
quite some time now and just need to get moving. There are so many
government agencies involved and one waits for the other and one waits for this
and really all we're seeking is conditional approvals and we'll live with them we're
not going to argue with you about them later. That's the bottom line. In
regarding some of the issues that you brought up Commissioner Hatcher, the
quarter section your feeling about quarter section road would be a collector. Ms.
Stiles has stated in her letter or her memo last paragraph about the same issue.
~~
'~
r;~~.f
f., ~ : ~~
.,,. ~~,
~ _ .. 4
k . ,. ~ ..~h~'~ 2 i~~ ~0 r
+Zf ~ ;
d
t ~Y
Meridian Plannin and Zoning Commission Meeting
9
h ,~ri~<
" ~ `:~` - November 14, 2000
Page 85
'' ortant to look at ACHD's letter that was faxed to Mrs. Wildwood this
k it
im
I thi
j ~} * p
n
s
afternoon that says ACRD is a long ways from adopting that and they cannot
enforce that. I believe she says that right in her memo. We're months from that
~ wouldn't be surprised if we're more than a year from that statement. So to
u expect this project to hold up and wait and every other project I think is
=?
unreasonable in the scheme of things. None the less we have to live with what
~~~
~_ ~~ ~;~~ ~
our own traffic study says we have to live with. Regarding the questions you had
and the Ten Mile that has caused some great confusion. I'll back up to state the
mapping requirements that the city requires. So many size maps, so many
1,
copies about the only place you could feasibly get those, is the County
Assessors map off the GIS data base. I don't know what that's based on, but
"~s~ that's what we used to put our mapping together just as I think probably 99
}' percent of the projects do. You go out and do a detailed topo survey they don't
''~'' ~ match. I just checked with our surveyor this morning and he assured me that the
` ~ ~~'~ Ten Mile is on the south side of the boundary. So this pathway would be on our
_ south i.e. the north side of the Ten Mile. So there I hope explains the some of
=F from our reduced maps which are in your packet are from the
anc
the discre
``~ ~~ y
p
assessor's aerial's I imagine deeds going back 100 years ago verses our ground
'~ ~ survey. So hopefully that addresses some of the comments there. The mixed
k ~ ~`
~~; use, the variety I think its important to point out if scan through this project there
a ~~::
there are some 13,000 and there quite a
000
there are some 12
000
are some 9
A~; ~- ,
,
,
,
bit of 8,000. But we didn't pencil in all 8,000 we have a nice mix of lots and can
4Y ~~.4 ;~! ~'l
we make them all 12,000 sure you could on paper but it just wouldn't pencil out.
I'll be honest with you with the cost of the sewer you need to keep your lot count
``~,~ up to pay for that sewer. I'll make no bones about it but at the same time we
should try to throw in as much diversity as we can. One thing we would get rid of
-~ the five percent open space and then you can put bigger lots in. We don't want
~t~}Y~ ' to do that because we understand the city's goal of their future Landscape
,_
Ordinance that requires five percent and it would be nice to get a project off on
k~~,~~; that foot. I think I -
Hatcher: I think you addressed them all.
Centers: I have one question. Have you started on the CCR's?
:: =
~~;
,~ _
Stanfield: Yes we have submitted -
~~ r~ ~~ ~ `~~ Centers: -- do you have a minimum square-footage?
f ":
' ~ ,~`
Stanfield: -- the minimum square-footage of the house is per City of Meridian
` ''~~'~` requirements which I think is 1,400 square-feet. In our application we list and
anticipate a property range I think it is 125 to I can't remember what we had in
"-~~:
~ out application.
~F
~:~,
s~~ Norton: 225.
;,- ~~-~
~;
-
,~- _
~,
: ;, ,
z . ~~, ~ ,
~ { . , . i
;~ ~ , 5 -.
~,~~ _;
., _ 1
.: _.
r
{ ~ ~ ~,.' _
is
_
fI, ~. t~.lh R`~~.: '- ^.
I'
p' x _
1, ~ -
~ - y ~~ - ~ lyt tr A"y ~
.. - Y i -
s s
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 14, 2000
~~
;, Page 86
~.Y ~~
~~ ~{
Stanfield: 225 so we have a nice mix there. That's excluding a garage that's per
~~~
,:
city requirement.
Hatcher: Thank you, any other questions? Thank you Scott is there anyone from
- the public that would like to make comment on the project?
Janicek: Mr. Chairman I'm Monte Janicek owner of this piece of property my
-d~ address is 2256 N. McDermott Road. First thing I would like to start off with here,
` ~~ ~~ I come into the meeting today I was handed a note here from Bob and Lois
~~~ Morgan. I like to just read it to you and give it to the clerk. They just wrote that
''~ `::~~x, we support the Janicek subdivision Bob and Lois Morgan. They were out of town
" ~" and couldn't come here today to testify so (inaudible).
"`
:: Hatcher: Okay you bet.
>L
~3 Janicek: We've been here on that property for 25 years, 25 years ago when we
u_~ ~~ bought here it did have a Nampa address and a Nampa phone number there.
we probably only lived there four or five years it wasn't even four years I think but
they changed all the addresses and the phone numbers to Meridian so the last
20 years we've had Meridian phone number and Meridian address. Just a week
' ago we had an incident out there and we had to call the sheriff and called 911
~ ~ and we got the Ada County Sheriff out there no problems at all. I would like to
~ K ,` point out we're only about amile-and-a-half to two miles by the way the crow flies
from the Idaho Center and the proposed BSU campus and the auto mall that's
~.,
~~
going on over there in Nampa. So there is a lot of development going on in that
~~
Y~ ~~~ `rs~
area out there coming both ways Meridian and Nampa I'd like to pint that out. I
really don't have anything I think these guys pretty well covered and don't really
x °°4:~ want to take up a lot of your time there but I'm available for answers if you have
any questions about the property.
~~ Hatcher: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to comment? Come
~~*° -
;
: on up.
;
~
~` Yr~ Rice: Ronald Rice 6295 W. Ustick Road. I own the property on the northwest
corner in the area map going north from the property. I see no I have no
~° °~=
~ objections in changing this from RT to R-4. I have talked to all the neighbors who
' " joined him on the north. Porter who is an absentee owner lives in Bountiful, Utah
. ~ ~~ and he said he had no objections. The next one that of course is the one that he
read the note from, from the grove. There is a couple of other neighbors
~`~~~
rY Anderson and Grow and they have no objections of this project. I `m a retired
r ~-~z farmer so I would like it.
Hatcher: Thank you.
r:
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
' ix
~7`r.:?;
~~
7'i}°
p~
b~
rti
~~~:i
i i',~•'-^`t COY _~y ~ j.
.-~ ~-..
vxy ~ 1 TJ. ~ t S H{jtir~`•s
. ~~hs : _
r.
~
~E ~ ...
~ ', i..~ yr - .. ...,
i ~ i Y ~ t
~ ~ ,fix:,."
,. t ~ ,. _.
~ ,: a - , .,
,
h~' ~ . .. t
,. . ,,.
1
t.;~~~ti
~Y~
,i ~>
:`
a
~<
~,`
;i
~A
,~.~
'~':~ ~?'
~.
;~k~~,
-iw:v,
r y1 .i~~~~. ';a .~ ~-
<E
_ ..
,;;
~t, -~'.~
~<
~.~~
~y~.
,`'~
"~.~:
~::~_
:,_
.:~;
s;~ ,~r~~.r-~~+,
r
hi'
-, .
#a ,~~
~~
r ~~:
n~ ~ . a~
~,~ ~. _.
~z
~~
~~w .
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 87
Hatcher: Yes.
Nary: Mr. Rice I just had a question we have a letter from the Anderson's on
north McDermott Road and they object to the project. Did you speak to them?
Rice: Well there's two Anderson's the ones on McDermott Road might object
(inaudible) the other Anderson lives down by the grove.
Nary: Okay so there is two different people. Thank you
Rice: Thank you for asking the question.
Hatcher: Is they're anyone else at this time? Seeing none.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Hatcher: Yes.
Nary: I guess since we've heard from the applicant as to whether or not obviously
they don't want us to wait for ACRD to do that. Do you have a final comment
Brad? It still sounds to me from what we've heard and what Bruce has said that
would be the staffs preference is that we still wait and get ACHD's comments
and get the review done. As we would in majority the subdivision's we ever look
at we generally have that all done prior to us reviewing it. Would that be correct?
Hawkins-Clark: I'd say that's fair. One of the required findings in the zoning
Ordinance under the amendment section, zoning amendment section states you
must find adequate evidence before you annex property. This is not Ada County
Highway District this is the City of Meridian required finding that there is
adequate vehicular infra-structure in place. Granted there is a lot of issues with
that. I think we would just feel comfortable more comfortable staying with our
typical standard policy.
Hatcher: I think I would like to say too is that we keep it open for public comment
and I think the recommendation from staff and my feelings as well is we were
able to have the applicants statements placed on record. I think we've been able
t0 -
***End of Side Six***
Hatcher: -- move forward with other projects with draft copies that just needed to
be finalized. The review had already been done, the count had already been
done, the concerns had already been expressed not having anything from
ACHD at all in itself is reason to not postpone but table. Table to the January
meeting.
~
,__ ti~k
-
. _ T.
..
~_ .sj s1 c~ F '.4
.t ..
1'`,i
,'
~~
_ .~~'t
,t,
~;~.;~F:
'r
Meridian Planning and Zoning L'ammission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 88
Nary: Mr. Chairman I had one other question because I don't remember the
timelines but Mr. Swartley I think does. There is a certain time period if we do
recommend annexation that has to go back -City Council -- 30 days -
Swartley: 45 days.
Nary: -- 45 days. So I think were putting the City Council at a disadvantage as
well if we approve this tonight and they have to hear it by approximately their
January meeting as well. We may or may not even have the staff report at that
point.
Hatcher: I'd like to address that is 9 months ago 12 months ago I can't
remember exactly when it was. This board with City Council's request had
decide in situations like this where we have annexation, rezoning along with the
Preliminary Plat that we would hold on to both of them. That we would not
approve and forward annexation on without the application whatever it may be.
Because once it even got to City Council they would have to sit on it and it s a lot
easier for us to hold them together and send them both forward to City Council.
Do I hear a motion?
Norton: Mr. Chairman is there any date that we might hear what the ACHD have
to say. Is there a hearing -
Hatcher: Do we have any timelines?
Norton: -- is there a timeline on this?
,r
,:
~_;~;
?r ,~
~p~;,
-~
Hatcher: We not going to be able to put this into the December agenda. I don't
see why we wouldn't be able to hear from ACHD by January.
Centers: Why can't we put in December?
Hatcher: Decembers already full.
Nary: Pretty stacked.
Centers: Totally full. It should go quick in December if -
Hatcher: They would go first. If we -
Centers: If we have what we need from ACHD. They've spent a lot of time tonight
and have done a good job in their presentation (inaudible) -
3' -~ :.
'lS"y ' :'
~~~ :~ .
Stanfield: Our sub-consultant is a very reputable sub-consultant that does a lot of
ACHD and that's why picked him because of their working relationship. I
checked with them just this morning and their probably about two weeks away
.. ~. ~
M ~ ~ ... ~,~
' ~ ~;~ r ~~.
,
p.2 ;r~dk~ ,3-~
~S .a.~,~ ,..
~° .
ri
y~
~~x ~,~~ e
Meridian Planning and Zoningmmission Meeting
November 14, 2000
= Page 89
,;,
:
from completely that and getting a copy from ACHD. So that's puts us towards
;~.
{ `= the end of November. Obviously they would like to have it earlier but everybody
°~=~~ is extremely busy now for several months. Probably towards the end of
November the Commissioners I think is a minimum we should be able to get
F ,{ c 7+r
~y~ `'~'~ ~
~'4 through a tech review quite rapidly. You may or may not be aware the tech at
_- ACHD usually carries most of the weight and that's what goes to the
Commissioner hearing.
Hatcher: Well what I would suggest is that we tentatively table this until the
December meeting. If we have the adequate information in December we can
`~~ act on it. If we don't well postpone it to January.
=fig '~ ~` ` Centers: I would make that motion.
Hatcher: Yes I'm leaving the public hearing open.
Nary: Would you include in your motion to leave the public heating open?
,~~E
~,
~~ ~{r~
Hatcher: I don't have a motion you guys got to make the motion.
_ ,~,~~~.
Nary: Well he was starting to make the motion.
' ~" Centers: I would move that we would include this applicants request in our
December meeting if at all possible we have the information from ACHD.
j : _":
~~~k
~, Nary: And that the public hearing would remain open for comment.
~; A`~~~ Centers: Yes.
~:.
Nary: I'd second that.
Norton: I'd like just for a comment. I'd like to move this forward as fast as can
~_ ~~ move it forward. They've done a lot of work on it they've paid their fees back in
FY~~ September, we're just waiting on ACHD. So December 12, 2000 is our next
meeting at seven o'clock I would concur that if we get that ACHD review by then
'~~:'; ~ would like to move this forward. That's my discussion.
->,~:;
:: . =.
Hatcher: Comments noted. We have a motion a second. All in favor?
-~ ~~
MOTION CARRIED: 3 AYES, ONE ABSTAINED.
.. 6...~.
_,t~.t _
`~~~' Hatcher: Yes why don't you go grab Keith. I'll relinquish my -
ol~ ~~ ~ Freckleton: Mr. Chairman I assume that was for both applications.
-; ~ _ ,_
Hatcher: Yes.
r;:;
_~:
~~ z ..;~
~. £2F Jr'
~" r~3xC. `tl'
- ,, y .. ,- - ~ .. _._ - -
- `' .,~..
fir. .. :. ,, sn ~~.. _.
w
15.t
.v ~ ~ r( ri ~ai~:~''
_._. t ..
~~` ..y
~ - - -
,:~ e
tin
i
i
M
d Z
i
~
~, # T~, g
ss
on
ee
on
mm
ng
Meridian Planning an
x ~°' November 14, 2000
~.~° y Page 90
Borup: We appreciate the patience of everyone here we'll make an attempt to get
~' ' through this our policy we've tried to apply with is a -and you're just barely
making it. That we don't start anything new after midnight and conclude at one
~ = ~~` o'clock. If looks like something that's going to drag it may need to be continued
h,
f~, ~~',i
but we would like to get through tonight. Let's open the public hearing for 11 and
~`?~
.: ~.;; 12 --
dk ~`i`~t~ 's ~°,
Item 11. Public Hearing: RZ-00-005 Request for Rezone of 10.04 acres
r -;: from R-8 to C-N for proposed Linder Crossing by Hawkins
:y^ Companies and Stubblefield Development -southeast corner of
Cherry Lane and Linder Road:
:'~
°~~
Item 12. Public Hearing: CUP-00-048 Request for Conditional Use Permit
~~ ~~~ to construct a 58,000 s.f. retail commercial building, four fuel
rh ~~~°~S~ ~ stations with a kiosk and 10,500 s.f. multi-tenant retail commercial
building for the proposed Linder Crossing by Hawkins Companies
~~ ~>.
and Stubblefield Development -southeast corner of Cherry Lane
and Linder Road:
Wes;
,~.ma 04 from R-8 to C-N for proposed Linder
uest for rezone of 10
: First is a re
Boru
r~~~ .
q
p
Crossing by Hawkins Companies and Stubblefield Development. Number 12 is a
:~
request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 58,000 square-foot retail
`'~~ building, four fuel stations with a kiosk and a 10,500 square-foot multi-tenant
1 ~ ~
` retail commercial for proposed Linder Crossing. These are both on the same
~~~ ~ property. The purpose of opening both public hearings is so we can testimony
on both at the same time. I'd like to start with the staff report Mr. Hawkins-Clark.
,~}~
.~
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you I think most of you are familiar with this piece
`"#~` southeast of Linder and Cher The Maverik is located here along with the other
retail shops there is an existing church here. This is existing one parcel the
subject parcel, this is the library located here. Some single-family homes here
,f ~~ and of course the Northgate Subdivision to the south. The rezone application
does only pertain to approximately this point east the corner is already zoned
~-` x' C-N commercial Neighborhood so the rezone applies to just the eastern half of
Yt~
i~~~
the parcel. We have been informed that they are in the process of going to split
' ~~}.
~
;
off this piece so the corner other than the entry drive would be a separate
~~ ~
~'~ r~ development not a part of the Conditional Use application before you tonight.
Have a couple of photos just to orient you. Cherry Lane at this location does
have sidewalk there are a couple of curb cuts. Cherry Lane at this point built out
~~~~~° to the four lanes two travel lanes each direction. This is the southeast corner of
Linder Road here actually looking at the site. All of it is existing vacant use for
a~ agriculture. This is the Conditional Use Permit. Our site specific comments in
~r~{ our November 8, 2000 memo we just ask that all those be incorporated. I believe
.,.r~
'° that Clint Boyle the representative of developer tonight does have some written
~:~:;n.F
r
.,
,:_ ,t,
_
_
~ - - ..
_... ..
i..
- ~ ~ •Z .I
:, '. -.
w' .: .~'3 r: ,',
2.
~..
.
L .!~iti _ - '~.-~', n. ;fit. -
f Yj~s~~Cy~Zi~
' ~ ,
}; .:gyn
.. ~ r ~ - ~ ~ ..
:' . ...
..
Meridian Planning and Zoning~mmission Meeting
~~
~~ x~,
=`,
=:
a,-;
{ ,
~'~x°~r.
~~ ,
November 14, 2000
Page 91
comments to you that you'll be receiving that address some of these. I haven't
had a chance to go each one I'll let him do that as far as anything that might be
disagreeing with our comments. Generally what they're looking to do the one
entrance here on Linder Road that access the property again this is a piece that
is not a part but they are proposing an entry drive here with a 20-foot wide
landscape buffer that's fully landscaped. 15th Street currently stubs here and we
have asked that a pathway pedestrian connection be made here, that a sidewalk
be extended the full length of this buffer to give pedestrians access from Linder
Road from Maverik. Into the site without going all the way around. But this is
not proposed by either us or Ada County Highway District to be a vehicular
access. So entering in we have an entry drive here a t this location, parking
there is a proposed 10,000 square-foot building here at the south boundary,
proposed fuel four fuel pumps here at the entry. Then a 58,000 square-foot retail
commercial building proposed here. 13th Street stubs here on the south that is a
bit of a choke down design and that would at this point be proposed. I believe
the Highway District is asking for that to allow some vehicular connection
although -- they have stated that should there be a problem in the future they
would barricade it off. We would want at least to see some kind of bicycle or
pedestrian connection. This is the piece that's not a part of this application here
it is going to be purchased by the developer but they don't have any plans for it at
this time. I think other than that I'll just (inaudible) staffs report comments thanks.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Hatcher.
Hatcher: I have a question for Brad. Could you elaborate a little more on ACHD's
requirement on that on 13th? What were the requirements for keeping it open
why wouldn't just barricade it off with break down bollard.
Hawkins-Clark: That's not our decision. Ada County Highway District - I did not
talk with them about that condition I'm just telling you what their staff report said.
Hatcher: Okay.
Borup: I think part of their reasoning is they wanted a second emergency access.
Hatcher: That's my point emergency access.
Borup: As one of the reasons and maybe I can't remember - I read that when I
was out there. They're talking about choking it down to 16-foot.
Hawkins-Clark: Which I believe is incorrect Ithink -and Clint t think address's
that I think its like a 25 or 26.
Borup: So their staff report is incorrect?
V y~ev _
~a~.
~':
~~~, .. ;
~ >t _.
M1 ~ } '~y~ v
t ', yea ',~.
Y,,.
~~
ti~
'ii'ryF'`
r `=~;i
.•
;:;-
-~ . ,>
~~:;f-
Zrn:
~,xF~
~~'
fi+S
. ~~.. ,
`~-
-.3: <4~„
~:~ ,.
}. ;~;,
;, fi.
'~~
. =~~x.~
v °-
~.
__}`«
.~w,
.1
{yy71 .'~CSK
s:,
,~
~~•
.'.:'~Y; ~:1~
:`'.
;~v`~y
:.~
~~,.
~~,;:
`:
n~;e;
Meridian Planning and Zoning mission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 92
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. I think we -the whole concept of some kind of activity
ultimately it has been on other sites you actually tend to reduce the traffic and in
terms of the commercial deliveries. There really is very little incentive for anyone
to use this road when you have a primary access to Linder Road and a primary
access to Cherry Lane. One of the reasons to support it is to provide an
opportunity to get into the site for all of the subdivision here as compared to
going all the way out to Linder Road up Linder Road and in this way. You
would not be able to see this access point from Cherry Lane if you notice if this
design is approved the building more or less shields this access. It would not be
a full 50-foot right-of--way and an inviting a lot of vehicular traffic.
Hatcher: The hidden back door.
Borup: What they've stated before just what Brad said it's a way for the
neighborhood to get to the site without driving around and having to go onto
other streets. Any other comments or questions? Would the applicant like to
come forward? I think what we would be interested in of course any summary
you want to give but specifically addressing the staff comments.
Boyle: Certainly. Planning Commissioners, Planning Commission, Chairman.
Clint Boyle 8645 W. Franklin Road, Boise, Idaho. Before I begin like Brad
mentioned I do have just a quick handout. Its kind of a written format going
through those staff comments and I would like to just place those in front of you
so you all have a copy and you can review those as I run through them. In
addition to those comments I also have a site plan that I have revised to meet
some staff comments. I've got copies of those for the Commission as well. I
appreciate the opportunity that we have to review this tonight I'm glad it hasn't
dragged on like other things this past week. To start with this project Brad did a
good job of explaining our intentions of the overall project. First thing that I would
like to point out is we have been through ACHD's process on November 8, 2000
the ACHD Commission did approve the project through their process. So we do
have their approval on the project. What I would like to do is just point out a
couple of their items quickly that are some of the I guess more major points from
their approval. I'll let you know if the laser goes out on me. On the Linder Road
driveway they are requiring aright-in right-out driveway and we will comply with
that they are requiring that we restrict that with a physical barrier meaning a
(inaudible) type design or some other design that we work out with them. The
Linder Road access to the project will be strictly right-in right-out only physically
restricted. The other item that is I guess a highlight of their report is that the
eastern most driveway on the plan ACHD requests that this drive be relocated
further to the east essentially where 13~' Street and maybe if can go back to the
vicinity map we might be able to see that a little bit better. 13~' Street is across
from our project they require that the access point to our project be offset a
minimum of 150 feet. So essentially what you're seeing n that revised site plan is
that access point has been relocated so that it is offset from 13~' Street per
ACHD's request. You will note it is the area that is referred to as not a part we do
„~
::~ ; Vii: , ,-
x .~~;:.
~~~~.
,;
..{!:
s4T
> ~~fi
ti
~~~~:
• ~::
~~;
y ,,~ rm
.;;
,>--
:>~~„+
-t;
~ ~„;_'
~~
~,,
r~ ~~:~ ~;
~`~
X
FR `~v4
=t.
f T..
~- `~'~
_ t•yk
" "fi'
;,;
t '} +;:
riF,y~~i
~.~ .
x,<
t ~-r
'~~ '~~";
~:,
-. _. .
~;~~~.
.~
,r
<:~~
,~ ~rr~.
~.
Meridian Planning and Zoning~mmisslon Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 93
not have plans at the moment to develop that area however when we do that will
be the driveway access for that area as well. In other words we don't have any
problem doing a cross access agreement there or whatever it takes to ensure
that that is a shared driveway. Those are the highlights of ACRD there was a
requirement that we dedicate 48-feet from the center line on Linder Road and
that site plans that you have also indicates that new right-of-way proposal and
shows our compliance with that requirement. So we have received ACHD
approval and we intend to comply with all the items outlined by ACHD. The other
driveway approaches that are indicated on the site plan, meaning those drive
accesses out to Cherry Lane its part of ACHD's approval they have approved
those as full movement full turning movement accesses. I'm going to run through
some of these items quickly now. As it was mentioned 15~' Avenue our current
proposal is that that would become a dead end street. In other words we will
landscape along that south boundary as well as the remainder of the site.
Vehicular access will be closed and essentially what you are seeing on that site
plan there is we'll just provide a pedestrian path, sidewalk or asphalt path out to
that Linder Road access. This street will terminate as it exists right now. ACRD
didn't have a problem with that. One of the main reasons for that is we felt that if
this access were left open it would encourage cut through traffic out of the project
because they would have a full turning movement access further down it's a very
easy route out to Linder from that street. So that street we have closed down
we'll just provide a pedestrian path connection there. that was item one on the
memo that I indicated to you. The only item's that I've indicated in this memo are
ones that we are either clarifying the staff comments they asked us for some
clarification, or that we wanted to modify the staff comments. In other words
were starting with item six we agree with the staff comments previous to that.
Item number two is that we extend a pedestrian walkway along the south side of
the Locust Grove driveway. Again the same thing there we have provided and
will provide a pathway that extends in 400 feet to this point from Linder Road to
allow pedestrian connection into the site.
Nary: Do you mean Linder?
Boyle: Linder.
Unidentified: You said Locust Grove.
Boyle: My goodness it must be late at night. Locust Grove that was the last
project we ran through here.
Norton: (inaudible) Linder side street.
Borup: That is Linder.
Norton: That is Linder.
~~
w~ ,.
f ,~. -
~~~;_,
.. , _.
.. .._
.,.
`
..
_ _ c' ~..
a 1 ., - ..
F
1~1 4
.. ~
- -
y ~
_ _ ~ a -
_ af'i ~
t , .
` ,..
::~~_o
~, ~Yti
~~~ ~..
~
' S mmission MeeBng
Meridian Planning and Zoning
•~~_.~ November 14, 2000
~
Page 94
,
~' Boyle: I'm talking the connection from Linder into the project.
k'~ ~
- Norton: Okay.
=a~L4
- .:-3M
r
5 ~ Boyle: In other words the plan you have in front of you shows that pedestrian
$
S, y:~~
connection.
. j ~ Borup: Maybe it will help move things alittle -maybe you just want to address
the things where you either had a clarification or -
~j
~: Boyle: Sure.
.
ik ..k Borup: -- something different from staff comments. If you agree with them we'll
.,~ - assume that you -
Boyle: Item No. 8 in the staff comments which is item 3 in my memo. We did
-
,
' provide an additional landscape planter in the location shown to break up this
t
.
.~
}
,f~~
row of parking stalls.
_
~~~~~'
j ~~~' Borup: That's what I'm saying you agree with that so we don't need to know that.
~~~.
~ry
Boyle: Okay.
- Borup: Thank you.
~,~
~~~~4
Boyle: They were requesting or at least recommending two and we feel just
~~~ adding one there was adequate. We actually didn't have to relocate any of the
t
;
~~ trees here to provide that pedestrian access to 15~' Street essentially all we had
x
,~
' ` to do was move them further apart. Item No. 9 on the staff comments which is
-t item number 4 on mine is the driveway connection at 13~' Street and this
r ```' ~' driveway connection here if you just scale it off on your site plan its 26-feet wide.
- That's what we've always proposed and it's the same plan that went to ACHD.
~~ Really it doesn't matter to us the width on this in fact it does not matter to us at
r t~
$ this time if this is closed or left open and has absolutely no bearing on the project
,
~'~5 per say. The reason that this has remained open as an access and that we've
s~~ ~~ ..
_''°'` tried to choke down the driveway was that in our discussion with Shari Stiles as
~~' ` well as our discussion with ACRD. They felt that it would one, beneficial to the
.s j~ neighborhood as far as providing them a convenient access into this
.:. ~=
'~ " ~ ~ neighborhood commercial area; two, it would eliminate them having to go out
- onto the arterial streets to access this project.
3:
rte.
:;
Borup: So you are saying ACHD was a typo.
,~~ ~~~~
;;, Boyle: ACHD actually -they agreed to the connection it did not specify the width.
~'
,,*
~`i
f ~ ~a,
Nh ~~,~ ..~t ft
~kG -
.rw]
- `~
~~Y:; ,
- -
u~.
~ -.~ ...
a ~ - ....~-h , -.: - ., ~.
o ~ -, -. _ .. .:
{4`- -
~,.- .:(
t LY t' 3Y',. ~ ~ ~:~
.; ~. .. -
- ~' +r .
Meridian Planning and Zoning~mmission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 95
Borup: It did in their comment. It did in their narration but not in their final site
specific comment.
Boyle: It doesn't matter to us if they want 16-feet we'll go 16-feet. Our discussion
with the fire Department and them as well as the planning staff, typically for a
2-way access drive they want at least a 20-foot drive. It doesn't matter either
way to us.
Borup: Okay I take that back it was in their site specific comment.
Boyle: That's fine we'll provide 16-foot if that's what pleases you. Really no
bearing on us we can close it we can leave it open. Really does not matter there.
I'm going to skip five I've already addressed that other than the pylon sign we did
move that as well 8 feet into the project so that we could comply with the 48-foot
dedication requirement on Linder Road.
Nary: Just to clarify number five Locust Grove is Linder Road.
Boyle: Yes Linder Road exactly. Item number six related to the fire department
the staff wanted to clarify if the fire department was able to provide adequate fire
service to the 10,500 square-foot building. You can read through that the
conversation that I had was that there was no problem serving that. With regards
to the signage again there was a request in the staff report. Item No. 13 of the
staff report, seven on my list related to the signage on the overall project. Now
what were proposing right now is a 20-foot pylon sign. The location indicated by
the pointer. A monument sign that is nine feet tall at this location. Then another
20-foot tall pylon sign out at Linder Road. Essentially what were looking at is as
we stated this particular parcel is going to be in separate ownership. In other
words the current property owner of the entire site - we will be purchasing the
site that is the Conditional Use Permit in front of you as well as this piece to the
east. He will maintain ownership of this piece here. We've agreed to provide
cross access into his site from these drive locations off of Linder and also off of
Cherry so there will be cross access into the site. I can not speak to his signage
request because I don't know what he will request. Essentially when we
originally came in with this project we were proposing to place our pylon sign at
the corner of the intersection and we were informed that we couldn't do that
because it would be considered an off-site sign. Considering that we were
proceeding through with this plat. I guess were kind of getting bantered around
on the signage issue. Essentially I think where the city is coming from is on this
proposal they are saying that two signs would be allowed along the Cherry Lane
frontage. They did numbers as far as the square-footage on those and we are
with the one pylon sign we are proposing the monument we are well under that
square-footage even if we were to add another sign in front of this remainder
area at some point in the future. Assuming we did a sign similar either of the
signs that were doing Cherry Lane we would still be under the square-footage
requirements. The issue comes as to the number of signs apparently I guess at
~,+.
pm9~ -.
0
.
. I a ~ ~~.,
, -..
; . .. - ~ r
~. ~
'
}: _
;
...... .
..
te
,,
~ ;,y Sx7,' ~
~i
~
.
,
~ .
. f 4 1
~~
,_ .,
~;: k:.
~~ ~;~~
~~
t: ix
z'
;~ i., :. ~..ti~
-~~,.
:;..
~~: ~:
>>:`
~:t
=~~~;
1i.
~~
~'
F
~ .~:
,:~ ~:
;>
_,~.
,,.,
t,:
~~ ~~
k:;~ ^ r ^
._~nr
,7
I x~'.
., ~.
~~..,ti
a,-
~~>.
~~`
,:
x w ; ~~r,
,1;.
Meridian Planning and Zoning mission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 96
this point in time if that be the case what we would propose if we couldn't do the
pylon and the monument and then still have this open for signage on this
remainder is that we eliminate the monument sign. And then leave this
remainder open for another sign at the time that it develops. Item number nine
on my memo which is Item No. 16 on the staff report relates to the landscaping
along Cherry Lane. Essentially what we've got is a buffer that varies between 28
and 32 feet and above along the frontage. Essentially what staff is saying is the
Comprehensive Plan likes to see 35 feet what I've done there is I have attached
at the very end that measurements that we took up and down the Cherry Lane
corridor as far as commercial projects and their landscaping. Several of them
are essentially new projects I guess our proposal because we are constrained in
a couple of aspects. Essentially our proposal would be that we would be allowed
to the 28 to 32 feet of landscaping and the reason for that is for our site
landscaping were required to provide 10 percent of the entire site in
landscaping. We are at over 16 percent of the entire site in landscaping so we
have exceeded substantially exceeded the minimum landscaping requirements
on the site. Part of that comes into play because we have taken consideration in
looking at he new Landscape Ordinance and we have provided various internal
landscape planters that basically breakup roughly every 12 to 13 parking stalls in
a row. I guess our proposal right now is that we be allowed to maintain that 28 to
32 feet if the Commission so desires we would certainly be considerate of
installing some sort of a mound or berm there if they felt that would further buffer
that. Item number 11 on my memo which is Item No. 18 on the staff report
related to the 10,500 square-foot building. Again it was stated that we had a
20-foot setback and per the zone it's a 25-foot setback from the rear of the
building on the side of the building we have a setback that varies from roughly
23 feet to 26 feet along the side here. Then on the back it's at a straight 20 feet
along the back of that. Due to the amount of landscaping that we've tried to
buffer the neighborhood with this a row of evergreen trees that we've got along
this back side. We feel with those evergreen trees and with the fencing
proposed along the south boundary line that we would like to remain with the
20-foot setback off of the lot line. The final clarification was Item No. 20 in the
staff report which was they were wondering what this area was that I'm pointing
to here and on your site plan. That's essentially a sidewalk it provides a
connection from the larger retail store to the smaller store. I think that pretty
much wraps up the staff comments other than those that I have outlined we
agree with all the staff comments and like I said the majority of these were items
that the staff wanted us to clarify at the meeting. You have questions I'd be
happy to answer those.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Hatcher.
Hatcher: I have a question for you. Could you explain to me the configuration of
the proposed project. This is more for the Preliminary Plat than the annexation.
~~~
''
.,-,
~
~ t
_ ,
.1
~...
,7 ., __ ,, -. ~i ~~„x -
~ ,. '.
~ hip a ~~ "r: _ S
;emu
~~ xr
~~;
~~ s ~~~,'
,:~ ~~
~~is
r~ ,rx~F
Y, ,
`~~.
w ~:
x
,,
+.i!, i'c
'°~~_
'Y:
r:
~y:
~3~, :.
s ~ ~. , ~ ..
~ k a.
.-;t.
zyT,
~. ..w
:~
~,
k ~ :~.
,~~t
_?
~4~«~;
~, %r,
~~
7 SE A
Y~~ .
~~'.
~~,`>
;;
t
Meridian Planning and Zoningmission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 97
East of the proposed store you have a rather narrow deep lot that this is being
purchased but not being developed. I have pondered how you are going to
develop that in the future. You not going to be able to put a little mini strip mall
against the property line and just have some frontage parking lot. You're going
to be looking on the back of the superstore. Sale it off to a one tenant or a multi-
tenant probably not likely because of its configuration. The only conceivable use
that I can see that that piece of land would be used for is expansion by depth of
the proposed store. Could you please elaborate on to what the intent of land is.
Boyle: Sure I can tell you they don't have any future expansion plans that we're
aware certainly. The intent of this piece here and again this entire project we will
maintain ownership of. The intent on this piece here is just that the we have
essentially two pad site and our marketing department has looked at that.
Essentially for a pad to really be feasible you need to have a minimum of a one-
acre site. What we have here is just over two acres so essentially they're looking
at two pad users. Obviously the one in the back here isn't going to be as high
value per say from out stand point from a marketing stand point. Were not going
to be able to market that for as high as a value as this frontage here. Again were
going to have a common access were going to have cross access between these
pieces. Essentially this parking area will have cross access with the parking area
in the back here. Our intention would be that we would have to pad users
whatever they might be. Kinko's Copy Center or - we don't have anything in
mind I'm just throwing it out, But our marketing department has looked at that
and they do feel they do have two usable sites there based on the square-
footage that were left with.
Centers: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I noted based on the staff comments I noted two that you were wanting
exceptions to Items 16 and 18. Were there any that I missed that you wanted
exceptions to?
Borup: That's the two I noted also.
Centers: 16 and 18. Were there any others that you were wanting an exception
to the staff report?
Boyle: 16 and 18 were the primary ones and I'm just breezing through the only
other one was the issue on putting internal islands in here and essentially it
related to the pedestrian connection.
Centers: Which item is that? 20.
_- - - __
:,
t
Y~
`~~
mission Meetin
d Z
i
i
i
Pl
- g
n an
on
n
ann
an
Merid
9 9
~~ ~
~:K
,t .~: November 14, 2000
,~, s4 Page 98
~.~~< ~ ;: Borup: I think staffs concern there -there's going to be some kind of wheel stops
~;= ;~; or bumpers to prevent the cars from going into the walkway.
~;~<
~~ ~~~ -
Boyle: Not on this sidewalk here we'll have a full height curb there. Essentially
there was an item - I'm looking through related to the pedestrian connection
r ~ ' here. Essentially what they said if we put a pedestrian connection here they felt
+ h;f y
;
that we would have to relocate some trees and they wanted them relocated
~,,;
_'~~ somewhere in this area in little bumped out islands within that parking. They
'`=~ wanted two of those planters was what they recommended and what were saying
.
' and what were showing on that site plan is just site plan and we've relocated one
T ~~
" tree over into that landscape island to break up this row of 33 stalls. In other
words it just splits it up so it doesn't have the look of such a long row of parking
there. I forget what item that was but that essentially was the only other item
~~~ other than clarification items that were requesting modifications from the staff.
~, , -
.~'' Hawkins-Clark: And 13 signage.
~i +~~~ -', n,
Boyle: signage correct.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
'~~~
r?~Y
r Bore Commissioner Na ~
p: ry.
,
,,
y
."yr.
y
.{
Nary: The other I'm curious Mr. Boyle is - I'm assuming the front of the store is
:
~
~
`
~'
"
~
.. facing west is that correct?
_
~ n ,
~.
Boyle: Correct.
~' ~~' Nary: Your entrance way now basically comes in sort of behind the store.
~~~~
> , (inaudible) entrance ACHD made you move comes on the back side of the store.
~k s-~~~~ . Boyle: Correct.
,,,
~;.
Nary: One of the things you didn't talk about in signage is the wall signs. The
<rr~ wall signs only going to be on the front of the building or the side of the building?
~
~~`- Boyle: The wall sign as we would propose there would not be any wall signage
,.
facing the residential area.
4~,,
~~ ~53~r
Nary: Okay.
.-`~ ~ Boyle: There would be wall signage across the frontage and you should hopefully
`~' ~"~` have elevations in your packet there. There we go.
r~y~ Nary: I saw that but I -when your driving down Cherry Lane when going west
A'~ yf.
'', ~a
Cherry Lane you're going to see this back of this building -
~`~:;;
:~ "
r ~T,
,. ~,
_ ~~ F '. X4`4. ,Y
L ~y F4 r
-
'~ ,
_
~. ~~.}
~ ~'~. .. -
L
~r.~;v ~ r '' : ~
~~?:.'
.' r ~„ ..
` -•;_
~ ~ "rh
"`'`~
`~~~
~.;
,,
,.}
~;
x a..:
r ~~rx
~:_..
,, ,
,~~ ti
A
~a ~yxzs~a
:~:
Y
3'-st°
~~
e~ ~-`,-aAi
k f
4'.'~~:
~ ; k,.;
~:~ ~;
~~~.
~ ~; ~*
,~;.
-;=:~y
Meridian Planning and Zoningmission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 99
Boyle: There will be if we can go back to the site plan. There will be signage
along this wall as well.
Hatcher: What about on the back side which appears to be the loading dock.
Boyle: At this point and time we don't have any proposal on the back side.
Essentially we've got this landscape buffer here that's going to restrict visibility as
well as future development of these future pad areas.
Nary: My other question -
Boyle: Unless you would like signage on that side then we could certainly -
Nary: -- I just didn't know what it was going to look like is all is why I'm asking.
Hatcher: We didn't get elevations so we don't know.
Nary: the other thing is that back side area where that notch kind of sticks out I
assume is a loading dock area of some sort. Is that what that is?
Boyle: Correct.
Nary: If the loading dock goes south of that notch towards those homes. Notice
any wall -
Boyle: The loading goes north.
Nary: Okay.
Boyle: The loading dock goes north and then essentially this item here which is
difficult to read on this particular plan is an enclosed trash compactor. That's
how the handle their trash its all an enclosed -
Nary: And all the residents south of that is there any wall or buffer noise traffic
dust anything on that bottom south side of the property? Is there anything down
there -there's homes right along that --
Boyle: Right along here?
Nary: Yes.
Boyle: Certainly we're willing to install the landscaping and we've also stated
that we'll construct a fence or wall. J believe that's indicated on your plan along -
Hatcher: -- six foot by -
~~~,.~
f~~:a '.
Yli i;.
f
,.
s
,.
,. ,
.~..
:.. ... >
.Y ~ ~~< t,~,.
~ _
T'. ~l~c vC ff -
.. - ~ -t t
' }
~7.. _
~~
?
;
,
~~;;~ .
K~,:.`:
~
Meridian Planning and Zoning
mmission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 100
,k~ ~ Boyle: -- along the south boundary and then extending north along this boundary
~~? here and continuing on out to Linder Road. Obviously there would be breaks
w~
~'
~ where the pedestrian connects and where this access point was unless you
'
`~ ~:
~ determine you don't want that access there then we could just extend that
:`~ ~~' straight through.
~'
-~~~ .. Nary: Thank you.
~,
~'~-~
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
>,y
-
x
~
~ Borup: Commissioner Norton.
~.
.
,
4
`'
~~
Norton: What is a superstore?
Boyle: It is a great store to shop at. A lot of people have been asking us about
~~
t = =t that and essentially the client we have in mind has requested that we not
;. Y~
.~ disclose their identity and I think that that has something to do with market
conditions here in the Boise area. I can tell you that they do a nice store I mean
~~ ~ 4Nr~ the front of it is all brick other than some of the upper (inaudible) here that's a
stucco design. But this lower concourse that you see here is an all brick store
.
Then this is window frontage here.
Hatcher: Would this require a Conditional Use?
~1 k,
~~~.
Boyle: We are in front of you for the Conditional Use.
~"' ` `~~ Hatcher: I'm sorry -what am I getting at -never mind let me get my thoughts
_ together.
=` Boyle: this shot that he has up here now this is a look at the 10,500 square-foot
retail building. Essentially this one is kind of a standard design and depending
~x=
:, on what kind of users we get in. It could either go as amulti-tenant or as a
~..k57~ single-tenant or two tenants et cetera. It may be a craft store
it ma
be a co
r~ ~ ; ~ _ ,
y
py
center we don't have any proposals for any drive-thru windows or anything like
that on it on any of the buildings. So there is no proposal for any drive-thru
windows.
' ~~' ~~ Nary: Mr. Chairman.
~.~~' Borup: Commissioner Nary.
~~ ~~ ~ Nary: I also noticed Mr. Boyle on the staff comments there was a requirement for
a Development Agreement, you didn't have any problem with that?
.:;,
~K
~..
~-::
r
xn .;
~ ,'~
+4.~'+ ; ;. ..
":.-~
~5F1"~_
_{
~ ~
_r ~a~hi~itt`
,'t
',. r ~ ,k q .~'~'. 7 :.
Meridian Planning and Zoning~mmission Meeting m
November 14, 2000
Page 101
Boyle: No we pretty much new we would have to enter into one. No problem at
all.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Hatcher.
Hatcher: What I was getting at is that this project will come back before us as a
Preliminary Plat but we won't ever have an opportunity to review the building
itself after tonight. What I'm getting at and what I was addressing earlier about
not getting any elevations we have a west elevation in the package but we have
no north elevation or east elevation of the building. Which has just as much or
more of an impact of than the west elevation.
Boyle: Those should have been submitted to you. They've been submitted to the
city in fact I probably have a copy of them here. Essentially that was one of the
reasons we actually submitted this application several months ago we didn't get
on an agenda because we had to address some of those items and that was one
of them. So we submitted that information with all four elevation of the building.
That should have been in your packet.
Hatcher: Is that true Brad?
~ Hawkins-Clark; I did not receive those no.
Hatcher: Because the only thing I received is what we've seen.
Borup: Yes they're not in our packet.
Hatcher: I think driving eastward looking at this building could be quite an
attractive building. Driving westward -
Borup: We've got a copy down here.
Boyle: I submitted these on September 25, 2000 to Shari Stiles hand delivered.
~ ***End of Side Seven***
Hatcher: Are they in there?
Borup: No they're not but -somehow they didn't make it.
Hatcher: So there will be wall signage on the north wall nothing proposed on the
east wall.
'r
yr.{A.• .,__
,,_ ,
r~: ~,
.w,
_
. ta..r~t.
. .
.~
.
~ ~
,.~_ ~ i r,
..:
., ;
_ . _
;a ,. .,.
f ~_
i.
~.`
3'~~/f~i
~~
.,, .~1
<:: _~,
~,
~ ~'~. a
~~~
s~,.
'i'"-'
' ~"~
{
~ ~~;
;$
~`;
t:$. ~y;
z
,; ~'.
~r~;
~,:~;
,~JJ.
,~.~z:
~ :;:;
` ~'~ r
Meridian Planning and Zoning~mmission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 102
Boyle: I apologize if you didn't receive those like I said they were submitted
September 25, 2000 which essentially addressed a completeness review that we
had done on the project. With our original submittal like I said there were items
that the staff deemed on our application wasn't complete. This was essentially
on of the items we needed to address and that we hand delivered to the city.
Borup: Any other questions from the Commission?
Hatcher: I have one but hold on a second. Never mind I've answered it myself.
Borup: Any kind of comment Mr. Boyle?
Boyle: I think we've covered them all.
Borup: We may have some more later on and you'll your chance. It looks like we
have a number of people here and we liked to have the opportunity here
everyone that wishes to make a comment. Probably to enable us to do that we
will need to stay to our time limit. Unless there is someone here speaking here
on behalf of a neighborhood for all in that situation there is more time allowed. Is
that the case? Doesn't look like it. Let's start would anybody like to come up
and -
Norton: Three minutes.
Wood: Hi my name is Carolyn Wood I live at 1538 N. Linder Road. It is the first
residence as you turn south on Linder off from Cherry. Some of the pictures that
were taken from - my house is the first one right there. I lived there 25 years we
bought it from Stubblefield Development. When we bought it we were told that
there was going to be a side street around the neighborhood that there was
going to be apartment buildings next to us or some kind of housing. Now 25
years later I knew it was going to be developed but a development that is next to
us impacts us. We can hardly get out of our driveway as it is. My daughter was
rear ended a week ago yesterday I've seen many kids almost hit and kids hit in
the intersection. This business - I haven't heard anybody talk about the schools
around this business or that the Meridian Public Library is across the street from
this. There is a lot of kid traffic on the street there is a high school down the
street the 13~' Street back door access if you think the high school kids aren't
going to find that and use that you are wrong they will. I would like to know or
hear if there was an ACRD study on the traffic of that intersection.
Borup: Yes there was.
Wood: I think that should be addressed. The sign this is news to me about a sign
going next to my property that's 20 feet tall. A sign that is bringing traffic into that
side street next to me I `m glad to hear that its right-in right-out but I don't see the
purpose of a sign that is for a business that is a half-a-block away. That impacts
i -;
,~':7. ... ~:.
'Fig
~1~..
~ ;,;~ r
~ ~ ~ - - .AMY ~t ~. j. :.. -
~y, . ~y Ji k i ' . R'
i ~-
'?; ?_
~ f r~~.
;1.
::1~.
~~~i
~~ti
r_::x:°
-~r;~~
:=_ U`
;~;~,.
•~:,
~'~-''
,T:~;f
~, ,~
_ -,~
~~;~
,,. ti.,
w ~~
~,~
1 r~~;
-':~z
~YSFt
;~-.
;;
'~
^Y~
m
~t
~:;
Meridian Planning and Zoninc~~mmi§ston Meeting ~'
November 14, 2000
Page 103
us to in the neighborhood. I did request information from the city on what the
development for our subdivision was 25 years ago and I was told that that
information probably would not be found because the records are purged every
six years. So if the city's looking at trying to plan now for the future here we are
in a subdivision that was developed 25 years ago and I would like to know what
the plan was 25 years ago for our subdivision. I can't find that out and t think that
would help our neighborhood to understand why some of the things we were told
25 years ago like side streets and you know you were talking before about
putting a - is that my time?
Borup: That's your time.
Wood: So I'm done?
Borup: Let me - I might comment a little unless you had one quick thing.
Wood: No.
Borup: Okay maybe comment on some of your questions and I can't comment on
a time frame but currently the property north of you is zoned commercial and has
been for -they're not asking for a change there that has been zoned commercial
for a while. The other part in the center is where the apartments would have
been.
Wood: Well my understanding -
Borup: As far as anything outside your subdivision that's a separate parcel.
Wood: I agree with that but earlier we all sat here the whole evening and heard
another person come in and have concerns about when he bought his property
he was told he was told there was going to be a commercial business next to
him. That developer came in and wanted to change what he was going to put
next to this -three houses were effected here this is a whole neighborhood
effected. I think if the Commission is looking at that one person with three
houses they should be looking at how it effects many houses.
Borup: That's why were asking for everyone's input and testimony.
Gathagam: My name is Michelle Gathagam I live a t 1538 W. 15~' Street. I'm kind
of curious what's going to happen about the water rights. Right now we're all
paying for our water. I've attempted to contact Stubblefield seven times
regarding the water rights with no return phone call. You guys are moving the
irrigation system are they going to take us off so we don't have pay for the rights
since we don't have access to it.
Borup: Is that a question?
„ ,-
~ l ~ ` ' ' ~:~_le L ~~' ~'l.C ,._:.~
fi~rr[[
. , . . ~
a
'.
Y
_
-
1; r . ,,. ..,.,,: .
. ~a
~t~; -
_ ~K.~
+ ,
~ tt
;:;
i •t~s
`;~,~>
~-~,:
r
~. ~.-J:~
~,=.
ate' d'
~;;,~1~
~~,
,~9
~s ..
,~,
,,
~.; r
r'
~._u,
s ~ t ~`
`t .:~:
T~'yyi,.
i',f:
tai:
~u _ _ n+- ~~ ~,~
~_
' x'v
";i:,~3
~~.
~-~ _
~ ~~
~r
~_ ~<
~>
cy
r 4
>'->`;.e
~.. ~,~:,N~.,
~,
y t 3}+ a ,? .x
~f.
.~, y~~
r _,>
x ~ ~ ~:~~ _
~ ~~4
.;,
;,
~~~`
~~
Meridian Planning and Zoning~mmission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 104
Gathagam: Yes.
Borup: I don't know that we can answer that but have you got irrigation water to
your property at this time?
Gathagam: No. I never have.
Borup: Okay. Someone may want to clarify that's my understanding that you can
opt out make an application to -
Gathagam: Right for 52 dollars. But are they going to pay to have all our rights
taken away since they're routing it up and over or not going to route it down to all
the residents.
Borup: Well its not going to your property now they're not effecting you if they
were effecting you if you had water delivered now it would need to be continued
to be provided. At this point it doesn't sound like its changing any so I think the
application -
Gathagam: They say fence or wall what is it? Is it a fence or is it a wall?
Borup: The present application calls for a vinyl six-foot fence.
Gathagam: Asix-foot vinyl fence is there a way we can have a buffer wall
because we've got traffic and people parking up our against our property line.
People starting cars taking off and commotion of people getting in and out of their
cars and what not.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman could I address that one?
Borup: Yes.
Hatcher: It's on my list as one of my concerns. What I would be recommending if
I were to move forward on this project that minimum just on that particular issue
is that a masonry wall not just a gray CMU wall but some sort of decent wall be at
the designers discretion be installed. Because I don't feel that a vinyl fence is
going to be adequate to stop the headlights and sound. There is no buffer -
Gathagam: Because my bedroom window is six feet away from that fence
Borup: Six feet.
Gathagam: Eight feet ten feet something like that.
Borup: Sounds like your preference would be the block wall?
~ ~~~ ~ f
- ~i: .. -
i, ~~ ~ly `.~ `
v
ct _ ~y y i f }..j F ~
`..
Meridian Planning and Zoningmmission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 105
Gathagam: Yes.
Hatcher: Sound can only be stopped by mass. I would make that a condition of
approval. That six foot be a wall not a fence.
Gathagam: Will there be any conditions regarding like the unloading of traffic like
the stores being stocked at night.
Hatcher: Don't we have city Ordinance's that protect them for that?
Hawkins-Clark: There are noise Ordinance's. That six to ten that's the hours six
in the morning to ten at night. But that's certainly something that could be
addressed as a conditions of a project.
Gathagam: Did I just lose my time?
Borup: Did you have one quick one thing you want to -
Gathagam: Well I have a couple more regarding the walkway path through on
west 15th. I live on west 15th and I would drive around. Not to have people
walking through you start inviting the teenagers to walk through you invite a lot
more than just walking through over to the stores.
Hatcher: You live on 15th and would drive around?
Gathagam: I live on 15th I am the second house to the end and I am willing to
drive around.
Borup: Thank you.
Brain: Rhonda Brain I live at 1605 NW 13th. It's directly across the street from
the proposed development. Actually our subdivision is going to open directly into
it and I have to agree with one of the comments about the kids. There are at
least 100 kids that walk by house everyday on the way home from school
because this will be right next door to the middle school so I have a problem with
that. One of the other things is it doesn't really fit into our area. We have a
library and a church and a school. But a superstore doesn't fit in to a
neighborhood area. One of my other problems with this are the signs. I'm going
to have a 20-foot sign right in front of house because I'm right on the comer. I
already have a lot of garbage that ends up in our yard and its just going to get
worse. I really am opposed to this whole thing. I think that's about it Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Anyone else.
,, 4
n5
F k~y r•
. _..
~ _ a
`
y ;~ ,,
s~~T:
.R
;~ ~;
b~rk~
_„
v;,^~`
?x ;;~
~.~;
~a ~~,y;,,~,
=;v..
i'T.\
~4i:a;
~w `-'
~~ ' : '.
~~,~_ +!
Meridian Plannin and Zonin ~mmission Meetin
9 9 9
November 14, 2000
Page 106
Younger: Patricia Younger I represent the Meridian Library District. As already
has been said the library's located directly across the street. I talked with Christy
Richardson today at ACHD and she informed me that the eastern driveway of the
project is going to be centered between the two driveways at the library. We
have -one is an entrance the other is the exit. It's already really difficult to get
out of the exit if your going to turn left. I talked to her about that and she said the
solution to that is the people will have to use the turning lane. Well the people
already do use the turning lane and there have been several near accidents with
my own car going out turning left into the turning lane. Someone coming from
the same direction turning into the turning lane to go in our entrance. Now this
driveways going to be right between them. Here you go to turn out here
somebody coming out the other way -that's what's going to happen in the
turning lane.
Borup: Is this there middle driveway or their eastern driveway ?
Younger: It's their eastern driveway. Secondly the foot, bicycle, skateboard and
scooter traffic is extremely heavy on Cherry Lane. Especially in the morning or
after school in fact at least 25 percent of our library patrons come to the library
with that mode. We have already had two car bicycle incidents in the last six
months where the people have come into the library for first aid. We don't know
how many others have already happened out there. ACHD told me there's going
to be a minimum of 2,000 trips added on Cherry Lane for this project and I think
that's going to add more danger to an already dangerous street. The next thing
have are neighborhood environment issues. The library has been reminded by
both Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council on more than one
occasion that this area is residential. Because of that the library was designed
with a residential facade non glaring lighting non flashing sign that goes off at
nine o'clock every night. We've done everything we can to be a good neighbor in
the residential area. The proposed - what I would like to know is will the
proposed Linder Crossing have to adhere to these same residential standards
apparently not because they are going to have really big signs. Will delivery
trucks be coming and going late at night or will they be there during the day when
there's traffic out on the street? Will the activity over there stop at 10 o'clock and
the lights go off probably not. That's all I have.
Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Thank you.
Shurte: My name is Jan Shurte and I live at 1522 W. 15~' which is directly behind
the - I don't know the 10,500 square-foot building. In the beginning this is a
hearing for a rezone I think. I'm opposed to a rezone because it has the part that
they're talking about has been residential for several years I have lived there for
24 years. Everything that they're proposing is going to effect all of the neighbors
that live right along their if they get it they definitely need the buffer. You've got
to have the wall buffer it can't be just the trees. I think they should be setback 30
feet instead of 25 or whatever there I thought they said 20. Is there a way that
i ~, 5 u ~ _
` .. - _
~k~
.i:i~r
,,.:_
n ~ `:?x
~.
s
t
:~ ._:;
:~;:
{~ ~ <~a~
3 '.{'
.:,..;~
,.:a
:~ .._~.,
~;
~::
.~~~
~ `,."`
3a ~~,
.~.
a .
>~~,:
`>
,;:~
~:~
F ~ ~:
;~;;_
i`r
- ;~.
__~'F
Gpj fY 1 k.-`
,.
=::r
`~':5
~~
~~•
~~
Meridian Plannin and Zonin mmission Meetlng
9 9
November 14, 2000
Page 107
the people in the neighborhood can get together - is there a signature thing I
mean there's a lot of people that aren't here right now that I'm sure would be
interested in knowing this. Is there way we can get - do people do that get a
certain number of signatures and do we have another to come in and talk about
this before anything happens?
Borup: Depending what happens tonight. The next step would be to go to City
Council after it leaves here it would go to City Council.
Shurte: Okay and tonight your going to -
Borup: For another public hearing. And we don't know what we are going to be
doing tonight.
Shurte: Okay but it's a rezoning right and that's the first part and then the
Conditional Use Permit?
Borup: Yes.
Shurte: But they can't get the Conditional Use Permit until it's rezoned. So I
think the purpose of everybody here is to stop the rezoning then. Because it was
zoned residential and now all of the sudden its commercial. With a lot of
children, schools, churches the whole nine yards.
Borup: Thank you. Anyone else?
Dunten: Jeannie Dunten 1239 N. Northgate were right off 13~'. I would totally
object to that being a through fare at all. Basically because we are the comer
house and even the high school coming through I think there would be a
possibility of a lot of vandalism going on. I'm also concerned about the lighting
we have the street light but if you've got more lighting from that superstore were
going to get that were close enough to that. The other thing they've mentioned
the school if you notice if you've gone down Cherry Lane that flashing yellow light
is going to be right by one of their exits where you have to slow down during the
school morning and then when they're leaving to 25.
Borup: Which flashing -
Dunten: That will back up traffic.
Borup: What flashing light?
Dunten: There's a yellow flashing light -
Borup: -- oh you mean the -
-~;~ ° .,
,y :.,... ,~ .,. ,...'yA G+z .4.,E -.,
> ' .. ~ ~ ~. ..
~ 1
,..
~ ~! a
t
.hi ~J".~'1 ,~ ~~s Jx ~t.~
~ - _
~ _ ~i, ti~.x.~~-
e.
a: ' ,
~'~. ~.lf-pN-'
.,J ~~.
{`~.
:,~sf;
. ~-;;
--
~>
~~ 4
:~-~:
_y
r~~<~,~
,4N~:~
t i"+
r 13ix, ;~
<~,,
_' ~.
~, ..:.: T,,:
~> ~,ti }
~,,;:
"i~4;
r 4.71
~. .:~.
-;~
~:~~r,
~~,~~-
'~,; {:
r
,,-.
~:;>~
~y;, .~~.~rp
~.:
;~:
a'~fr~.
"rt;t~:
_.
~~
~'~r
_.;_
a
Meridian Planning and Zoning mission Meetlng
November 14, 2000
Page 108
Dunten: For the students and that's another thing and you've got all those kids
plus the high school is down on Linder. They didn't -the people who live on
Linder didn't mention that that's only a two lane it's not like a four lane with a turn
lane. You're going to impact a lot of traffic that's coming, that come off Linder
Road and the students that are there.
Borup: Any questions from -- anyone else? Might mention that Linder is in the
ACRD report it is in their five year work plan to widen to three lanes with bike
lanes.
Dremeier: My name is Karen Dremeier I live at 1418 Northgate. I pretty much in
agreement with everything that has been said. I also have another concern have
a lot right next to me that faces Northgate that doesn't really shoe on there but it
is attached lot behind us. Its always been a vacant lot and I'm wondering if
Stubblefield or what's going to happen to that lot. Does anybody know?
Borup: It does not show on here though.
Dremeier: It shows as a -
Unidentified: It's this one right here. It's an empty lot. It's always been empty
Dremeier: It's an empty lot it's been empty it's never been maintained it's always
got weeds in it and -
Borup: I'm sure it's just a lot that someone owns.
Dremeier: Well but it's attached to the Stubblefield's field in the back it always
has been. Its part of his property so I am just wondering what -does any body
know what's going on with that? Is it going to be a vacant lot forever that we
worry about it burning our fences down and stuff?
Borup: Does the plat show any indication -
Hawkins-Clark: I did look at the plat it is a platted lot in Northgate Subdivision it's
a buildable lot somebody could buy it and put a house on it tomorrow.
Dremeier: Is he going to put it up for sale?
Hawkins-Clark: Her hasn't made any indication to the city. He may not even own
it I don't know do you -
Dremeier: He owns it.
Hawkins-Clark: He owns it okay.
i ~
/.f:
~ ,
N,T~I~N ,:. ~r
Meridian Planning and Zoning mission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 109
Dremeier: Because I'm also a 25 year resident and when I first bought my house
that was supposed to be a road going back into the last part of the subdivision.
Borup: It sounds at this point its available lot it's a regular platted lot.
Dremeier: Its never been developed.
Borup: It would not be part of the project. Its part of the subdivision. Who's
next?
Stewart: My name is Mark Stewart. I am at 1537 N. 15~' and I'm two houses
behind this project. I've lived in another area that some of this same things have
happened to. I'm not against any kind of development but I've seen problems
happen that are very similar to what I see is going to happen here that I would
like to have addressed. One of the things is this wall does specifically need to be
a masonry wall. Nothing less will do. It also needs to be designed so kids can't
get on top it and use it for a walkway to access backyards I've seen that happen
and everybody was robbed. The lighting in the area needs to addressed way up
front its just like having the sun come over your fence 24 hours a day. If it isn't
addressed up front it won't be corrected once its installed. The traffic turning off
of cherry is definitely going to be crossing the kids coming down the sidewalk
before and after school. That's definitely trouble. I think its important we know
who the occupants of those buildings are ahead of time so we know what kind of
traffic it generates, what kind of people go to those places, what kind of trucks sit
out and idle all night long in our backyards. We need to know if there is exterior
loudspeakers or music or things that go throughout the night. But I understand
City Ordinance should take care of a lot of that. I think the access off of Linder is
too close to the intersection and you're going to be driving right across peoples
front steps practically. They'll also have a tough time backing out of their
driveways in the morning. I just think that's a wreak waiting to happen too. As
far as the buffer zone inside the development I think earlier tonight we heard
masonry wall and 25 feet I think that should consistent at least throughout this
one too. I believe it looked to me like a design flaw in the loading dock. I don't
know how they're going to get trucks around there to that site. Thank you.
Borup: Anyone else? Did everybody have a chance? Thank you. Clint is there
some final comments you would like to make?
Boyle: Hopefully I can make these brief. Clint Boyle again 8645 W. Franklin
Road. Like I mentioned before I understand the residents concerns there are a
lot of them that I think that we can easily comply with their needs. Some of them
we might not be able to. Essentially if the Commission so sees that we do need
to do a masonry style wall whatever they might desire split face block with some
integrated color whatever they desire we would certainly entertain that idea along
the project boundary. Essentially what that will do with the pedestrian access as
well as -- pedestrian access I am referring to 15~' Street and drive access on 13~"
,.nom
f~,"s
E~~, ;
' ."
tx,
---
y ~•;;tk~$ ;.a ,
[~~~i~~Y
;Skf
". ~. -
~
mmission Meeting
Merldian Planning and Zoning
- - °
~' November 14, 2000
Page 110
Street. Makes it a little more problematic in the future if either of those
;<' ~; connections are deemed that need to be closed down to try and go in and in fill
#>r with block. Were certainly acceptable of doing the block again like I said on the
.- ~ 13~" Street connection there was statements made that the statements made that
~ r<M~.~:
°'~~} the high school kids will use that as cut through. Our stance has always been we
don't have any problem closing that off and landscaping it in and extending our
~` : block wall right on down it. Essentially I think that one of the reasons it might be
,r,._
`` problematic is if we do close that access off and we install a block wall you've
just eliminated any emergency access into the Northgate Subdivision. I don't
~_ >-_ know that the -that would necessarily be in the city's best interest. We wouldn't
}.
=~ ~ have any problem with that at all. The kid traffic from the high school and from
~._;<. the schools. I don't know how to best address that other than we have existing
~;: commercial on the corner that is essentially already prepared for commercial
- development. Currently has the zone so essentially it is ready for development
°z ~° all the applicant would have to do is submit his plans on that particular location.
Remainder of the site you're right it is in residential and I guess my point her
2~ would be one, even if this did go as a residential development even residential
,~}~` developments have drive access's, have street access's and have traffic. The
' x~,~
issue could be debated which one generates the most traffic and maybe this
~~ commercial project does. Essentially that issue with the kids will be an issue no
u~ ~~~~
matter what goes in there the only way that it wouldn't be an issue is if it stayed
stagnant and was farmed as it currently is. I don't know that there is a good
-~ ~,` solution there what I do know is that there is an existing seven-foot wide sidewalk
~. ;K
hopefully the high school students and the middle school students would be wise
enough to watch for traffic, maybe they're not. Essentially there would some
3,,.r ~ - crossing there that you would have to watch there is currently sidewalks for them
a ~ to travel down and I think that that is a factor (inaudible) I going to play. Outside
„7 ,
~u r e ,, _.
"``"` ~ '
_ of that I don't know really how to address that issue other than saying no matter
what goes in there you're going to have impacts to pedestrians as far as they'll
~, have to watch when they're crossing a driveway they'll have to watch for cars.
t:
`~'~` As I stated before ACHD has approved and that is a Commission level approval
~ all of the drive approaches for this project. I've gone through those exceptions
~ Y before so I won't get into those. As far as the loading issue goes there's a
>~~
1-,~~
question as to how the trucks would access the side. Essentially the trucks the
' ~~ way the designated route would be for the delivery trucks to enter the site would
°~ =~~ ~ be from the what I'll call the middle approach on Cherry Lane. After they enter
the site on the middle approach they would turn east on the drive that is north of
the building and proceed down that drive. You can see on the plan that I've
_ submitted that drive continues on and then essentially they would back into that
loading dock. So that is essentially the design and route on those deliveries that
';'~ would coming into the store. Now as far as landscaping the fencing I think I've
'~~~~ addressed the fencing and we are willing to provide a masonry block wall. We've
~~_ done commercial developments around the valley we've done them in areas all
'''~~ ~ over the west and really depends on the community some communities do not
"~~~~~ like block walls at all. Integrated block or whatever they might be they prefer an
~.~. opaque vinyl fence. We've done both we can accommodate whatever this
,,
~v t*
fi~4 }rs;
': ~i -
~~.W:
~,
~w
,, ..
... -
l , _. ~ .. ,
~' V
~~,>
.. t .
~ ,_ . ~.
,x .J~ j Sets ~`.._,
~,~; t
~- _
a:4~f
'M~!7
SF
T
~,,
,? ~ Meridian Planning and Zoningmission Meeting
~' ,
"~ November 14, 2000
Page 111
~,
`~ Commission desires there. The point that I wanted to drive is a lot of people are
looking at buffering .issues and what not we have accommodated just about as
F ~~~
s many trees as we could potentially pack in to the south perimeter of this site.
F~~~ There is a substantial number of those just because that residential
':~, neighborhood that we have designated as evergreen trees. Essentially those
~, ~~f> ~ trees are going to be standing year round its not going to be a deciduous tree
that the leaves are falling off of et cetera. We certainly accommodated as many
of those as we could if the Commission wants us to put in more evergreens along
~' ~ there we certainly would be willing to do that. Essentially -just wanted to mix up
the variety somewhat so it wasn't a monotonous tree line fence all the way down
,.~_ .
Our intention all along is to provide either a fence or a wall to provide the
~~~; landscaping buffering that is per city requirements. As far as the ACRD study
` '`
~
y~; think has been spoke to. The ACHD did have traffic counts on both streets
~~ _
~ ~;`~~ Linder Road and Cherry Lane. Both of those are operating at better than of a
_~ level of service C according to their staff report. With this project built out they
'~ still operate at better than a level of service C and you'll find that in the ACHD
report. They have reviewed the traffic movements on this street. Cherry Lane
roughly runs 21,000 trips at this location which is well below other locations as
~~
. ,. you get in closer to town and closer to Eagle Road. It is substantially less traffic
_.~t there. Linder Road if I remember right was right around 8,000 trips a day.
~~ guess at this point we would certainly like to move forward. As far as lighting
~ ~"' goes essentially we do like to have lighting around the parking areas obviously
for safety reasons we realize that there are city Ordinance's in place as far
{ ~~ . lighting goes and its standard practice for us as developers that any lights that
maybe located near the residential areas that we would provide screening
`- shields or other methods to screen those. Again part of the screening is just
E ~:~~~ going to come from the fact that the majority of the areas have pine trees or
~'~~ evergreen trees along that buffer. I think that will help to shield some of that light.
v~ ~~ ~ As for the pylon sign out on Linder Road and the lady that lives next door to that.
That particular pylon sign the main intention obviously is going to be for people to
''~ provide visibility that there is an access into the project at that location. One of
the items that we are dealing with right there if you were to look at her site she
- ` has a large tree in what would be the northwest corner of her property. Already
~~
that is potentially going to help to shield any potential lighting issues that may
~~j}: come through at that point. Again we get into we will provide a block wall or
~~ ~ - fencing in addition. I don't know that I've addressed all of the comments as far
r~ ~~~ ~ as the garbage goes I mentioned before the store does utilize a trash compactor
_
} on the superstore site. Essentially all of the garbage is fed into the compactor
.;
' ~
from inside the building so there isn't trash bins per say outside of the building
~, d where you might get blowing trash or whatever might be if the lids left open.
<~;~
,u
~ Borup: Are there any plans for exterior speakers?
,
~~
~ Boyle: I failed that mention that I'm going through my list here. No exterior
` ~'~' ~ speakers are proposed on any of the buildings on the project. Superstore, retail
~- no outside speakers, no drive-thru windows.
~,;
3'
d
~•
?.:i S
,,~,_`
ii•_
~~, ,~~a=a~.
,.-
,,
~~r
' - ,. _ ~ -
,;~ t t5a~ t ~.
}
... T::, ;r,~ `b. is . ..~ ~ _
< i ~ ~
s ~ .. - ... '~~`„gar
~ri~ ~ • ~~ n #V ~ l.w
c ~~~.
:,
.
Meridian Plannin
and Zonin
i
i
M
ti
~ „ ,
`'`~~
~'"~~ s"
F;~ g
g m
ss
on
ee
ng
November 14, 2000
Page 112
-~ ~' Borup: Could you address hours of operation?
`'p'"
~,~
y Boyle: Hours of operation the tenant here would like the feasibility of remaining
,
~
,gyp, open 24 hours or at least that potential. Depending on how the Commission
:R,~, feels on that. There are certain things that they can do there as far as lighting
~' ~ ~~~~°'~" and signage and what not. I don't know that they will utilize this as a 24 hour
r = ~ store probably depends on the demand through the night per say. I think that
} r~= they would certainly like to propose that. That would be in accordance with the
commercial that you see that is further west across the street on Linder Road
~~>;~
.
~
~: you've got a Maverik gas station there that is 24 hour and then strip mall further
~
.
r
~ on.
:~-
J;_;
~~
`'~ Borup: Thank you any questions from the Commission?
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
,;
t`~ Borup: Commissioner Nary.
4 ,..4
-~F~
Nary: Mr. Boyle I'm really terrible with these square-footage things. Can you give
'~" an example of a 60,000 square-foot store that's here in town?
:
~ ~'_
_
°a Boyle: Albertson's.
x: ;~::
fir.` Nary: The Albertson's at Ten Mile and Linder Road.
a ~'
~ Hatcher: No.
:
~'~, Nary: That's 60,000 square feet/
.
~`x,' ~'° Boyle: Somebody's shaking there head that's -
"~ ,__~
;,;,
~ Hatcher: That's less than 58,000 square-foot store.
,~ ~` s Boyle: That's typical -
~.
>~~_
r
~,;
Hatcher: The one on Ten Mile would be about a 46,000 square-foot store.
`~ .};err
~'"~
Boyle: Typical Albertson's is right around 60,000 58,000.
'_ ~ Nary: You've developed a lot of stores can you give me some example of the
store -- this looks like a big box to me. And this is supposed to be a
`; ~ neighborhood business district zone which says in our Ordinance 11-7-2H the
kz '~ purpose is permit establishment of small scale convenience business uses.
'~~£~~ look across the street where the Maverik is and where that Dominos and that
,,~ 5~~~`~ ,., ' little strip of stores are. That's what they're talking about that's what that means
to me. Is that it's a small scale business. This is a giant box that's - I certainly
,~;=,..
~Y
=_
:.4 ,
~~
:r t
~~ ,_ ~ -
~„~~ - ..
~~'
,. {., - .
~+,~). _
Meridian Planning and Zoning mission Meeting
.~ ~ }<
...~$ r
''.:~,.;
~.
r~¢
-.~;:
s ~~'
-,~~,rt
s r ~'
~:_~;
_~{,
,':nr~
~'~~:;
,_
,y
°~:
,;,~..:
sJ ~`
,~:
~~,.
~j}~
~t~a<<' -,..
November 14, 2000
Page 113
trust Commissioner Hatcher's estimate its bigger than the store a mile down the
road. That doesn't seem to fit. I guess what I'm struggling with is I don't
disagree that this area may need to be rezoned that the change in use in the city
over the last 25 years has changed significantly that R- 8 may not be the most
appropriate type of use for that property any longer. It a big patch of weeds that
needs to be something other than a big patch of weeds. I don't have big
heartburn with rezoning it but what you're proposing to me doesn't seem to fit
that. Doesn't seem to fit what this neighborhood business zone was supposed to
be for. When I look at -why don't you go ahead and address that.
Boyle: I can address that. Essentially for perspective here the particular site that
were looking at is roughly over -roughly 7.50 acres that were looking to develop
as this total Conditional Use Permit. We have developed Winco food stores on
28 acres. We just opened one two years ago in Idaho Falls 28 acres. 4-times
the size of this development if you looked at Fred Meyer, Wal-Mart much larger
to the tune of three-times four-times larger that what were proposing. This is not
certainly not what we would consider to be a regional traffic generator the market
poll from a store similar to this is going to be a three four mile radius. Its going to
be a small radius you're not going to have a super Wal-Mart that's drawing
people from 10 miles out into it to or a Fred Meyer super center. I can tell you
that the store -its not going to have any sort of clothing sales or anything that
you see in those super centers its not a super center store. Now with respect to
the neighborhood and the design on the neighborhood essentially what his store
has done. I guess the point could be argued that it is slightly larger than
Albertson's that's a mile away and I don't know that assuming Albertson stores
are typically the same size as this on their standard design but maybe there was
a modification there. What we have done here that is similar to what they have
done there is if you look at our elevations we have broken up that facade with
pitched roofing as well as the brick design and an extensive amount of windows
on there to give it more of a friendly neighborhood feel than you get from a
standard Wal-Mart or Fred Meyer that has a flat roof. There are some
colonnades in there to further break up the look of the wall and create more of a
pedestrian scale there. We have certainly gone to the effort to make integrate
well with the surrounding neighborhood. This particular store if you look at the
store that is a mile away down Cherry Lane the Albertson's this particular
concept that were going forth with right now is very similar in many respects to
that particular store. Again I'd have to ask the question 10,000 square-feet in the
scheme of things were talking a 10,000 square-foot difference between this and
the Albertson's which in commercial terms is next to nothing. That's very minimal
on the square-footage I guess the point I'm trying to raise is you feel that that is a
neighborhood type store this would certainly be something that would be a
comparable neighborhood type store. I think you know when we look at
neighborhood stores this provides many of the amenities that a neighborhood
would want as far as shopping goes. It's not a large user by today's big box
world.
- - --__
- , - -
. ; ~<,
._,.._.
~.~.~g:-;s.
.
..
{
_ ,.
..~. ,..
r ^f=~... 1 ,1•} .4.1.1 {~
,:~
f~~Y.
_;,<;~,
''~~Y'.
Y ?: fi,
x~ ~;
Meridian Planning and Zoning mission Meetlng
November 14, 2000
Page 114
Nary: Is the Albertson's store a neighborhood commercial zone down the street
there?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes it is.
iw1~. 1C
~:
,;. ;;
,~ ,
~._
'~ -~~_,
F~:; a
~~m~~~.
~~~.'~,
P?''e:
:~ ,
Nary: I guess that was the other thing Mr. Boyle I was going to bring up. I
understand what you are saying I have a hard time reconciling that when you're
saying that the tenant is also pondering a 24 hour a day store. The Albertson's
doesn't have a gas station down the street in fact it was denied. I mean there are
some differences that I guess we have to weigh. If they're looking at a three or
four mile radius as what there market is and that they're trying to be this low
profile commercial neighborhood place. I'm not thinking 24 hours a day really fits
very well with the neighborhood.
Boyle: Right now I can't really speak to that other than if its in the Commission's
interest we'd like to leave that open to the tenant. If its not then we'll deal with
the recommendation. We'd certainly hope at least get the hours that have been
granted to other commercial areas in the vicinity.
Nary: Thank you.
Borup: Anyone Else? Thank you Mr. -
Hatcher: I'd like to make acomment - no wait I'll wait for discussion.
Borup: Thank you.
Boyle: Thank you.
Borup: I guess that's now.
Hatcher: The only thing that I could really ponder this project and it does have a
lot to do with what its going to be. Based off designing Albertson's stores for five
years knowing what needs to be done as far as how a grocery store functions
this is obviously a - if I were to hypothesize either a Smith's or a Safeway
needless to say a grocery store competing against Albertson's. because of that
we've been comparing to the Albertson's store at Ten Mile. There's a big
difference big difference when I was doing the Albertson's work the big concern
was the adjoining neighbors. If you want to use Ten Mile as an example you
have a building that separates the adjoining neighborhood and the parking lot
and the security lighting. Here you have a parking lot right up against the
neighborhood. Street appeal, city you know the appeal to the city the person
driving down Cherry Lane I'm not to keen on a western orientation for the front of
the building. I think at all of different things can be done. I don't want to be
driving home looking at the back of a store I've already got that with Wal-Mart.
Having these two pads between the junior high and the back of the superstore
- - - - I - ~.
;~$, ~.
;..
_ ,. ~ ;:- .~
~' •.
1 sia ':4 ~~ ~ ..
'.f( ~f~ a ... ~ ~-'~'J.
.. - .- ~, 'fir ~,~ p{..c.t -
7.'
::-'-F'~
f? ~*
A~ 7~~
Meridian Planning and Zoning mission Meeting
:,{
November 14, 2000
. < ~? i ` Page 115
„ I'm sorry I don't buy that. Maybe one pad with a whole bunch of vacant parking
,_~~~ behind it because nobody in their right mind is going to build a pad tucked back
`~'" behind a superstore and another pad and be looking at a trash compactor.
~, ,~ ~~ ,... wouldn't want to do business there let alone own a business. I'm not opposed to
the project I'm not opposed to having this project on this site. I can not approve
the configuration as its shown here. I think a little more sensitivity to the
adjoining neighborhood and configuration and orientation of the site I think
they're trying to do too much on a small lot. I think that with maybe with some
j-u~= reconsideration on what needs to be done maybe it could be done. I'm totally
'~ <~~ against a 24 hour store. To many times I have sat up here in the last 16 months
-~ and have seen things get built by developers outside box companies. Well take
~" ' care of the lighting well take care of the landscape buffering not a problem. After
everything is all said done people can't sleep at night because of the lights
~~°~~ shining in their bedrooms windows, the noise. I mean forget it. this has to be
rethought in my opinion. That's an opinion of an architect.
~~` "
.ter Borup: Before we proceed maybe we need to ask the Commission if we
'°~ ~ anticipate would be - making a recommendation this evening.
`` ~x.~ ~ Nary: I don't see any reason that we can't . Mr. Chairman I guess I'm agree
- =~R~ with Commissioner Hatcher as well. As I previously stated I truly believe that
5: something needs to be done with that property. I think the current zoning of R-8
~`~~~; '~ is not the most appropriate use of that property any longer. I think 25 years ago
when you folks moved there that was a good use. I lived here when Cherry Lane
~~'? was two lanes and that would have been just fine wouldn't have been a problem.
}'` Now its five lanes across it is not a good place to put a bunch of apartments or
~~
~~~ duplexes and things and trying to get and out of there I think it would just be a
~ nightmare. I don't disagree that rezoning this for something else like a
neighborhood commercial is not a bad idea. But I will agree with Commissioner
'' "" ~ Hatcher I don't think this is it. I don't think this fits what that was intended. I think
this area can be done better. I think it can be done in a way to both buffer and
,' protect those neighbors and those people that live behind there as well as
`rY` provide something better to the community that is oriented towards Cherry Lane.
..,~,r: I think if you want traffic then we need to have the traffic where there are five
F~~ y ~~ . lanes and stop lights and other ways to deal with it on two different streets as
t;w ";' _ well as having a little back door entrance that the high school kids will use.
;~ _ ~`; have two kids that go to the high school they would use it just like everybody else
_t will. I don't think it really fits the neighborhood. I guess I agree I think we can
make a decision tonight I just I don't think were here to redesign everybody's
~~~~; projects I -
'~ F
"
;~"..
;T
` f:
***End of Side Eight***
~ v'~ ,
x ~ ,
~~ Nary: -- buffering and putting a wall and putting trees and things like that. I don't
4 ' ` ''
~ think this bi iant buildin Is what this zone was intended to have.
9g~ 9~
J,,
.4 ~ ~.'
~:~
-
"
~: M1:
1.'~~~~~
.
;
,
i
'
~i f,~~+~ -
~ ~ 1~
~i ~r .. .. ~ ice: ~. ~ i -::. LL~i~V"y} ~..: ....
y :... . ..
A
sr
Meridian Planning and Zoning mission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 116
Borup: Anyone else?
Centers: I would tend to agree. I guess I don't like the mystery of the store and
what's going to be there? Wal-Mart comes into an area the Glenwood Chinden
they came in up front were Wal-Mart do you want us or not. If this store doesn't
want to tell Meridian who they are - I don't like that mystery.
Norton: Or even the 24 hours until our Chairman asked what the hours of
operation was it never occurred to anybody it would be 24 hours.
Nary: I guess Mr. Chairman one of the things we didn't do is we didn't move to
close the public hearing.
Borup: No I was just going to mention the hearings still open -
Nary: So I move that we close the public hearing.
Centers: Second.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Nary: Mr. Chairman I would move that we recommend denial of Items 11 and 12
we could do this in one motion its probably faster. RZ 00-005 request for a
rezone of 10.04 acres from R-8 to C-N as well as the request for the CUP 00-048
request for Conditional Use Permit to construct a 58,000 square-foot retail
commercial building on this same location Linder Crossing.
Norton: I second.
Borup: Motion is second any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: That concludes our agenda for this evening. Commissioners I don't if we
have maybe a little bit - I don't that we've got dates established. Brad do we any
word on the progress on the Ordinance has far as our meeting schedule for next
year?
Hawkins-Clark: I have not heard if that's going to be on next week's schedule or
not.
Borup: I just keep hearing next week.
$~~'!r ;
~?`~ .
~~i.
ar~,4r
~. :- ,~,:~
:. . ,-
..
, ~.. r
-;
:
i
~'; •
i
.
.
.
..
s-
ti.. ;.
. - - . ~.
.:r
y:
:,
~: z .
';
? ~
,.~..t
''~2~e
.",y!:°
s ,'.~~;
'~~'
~f,
~S
h ~Y,~;~
s _.
~_ ~;
~:
~: ~;
rr;*.
`r
~,<. ~`
~~.. _-~~
~~~~~
~~, ~ ~'-
_;:
+,
~ ~^Y,
Meridian Planning and Zoning mission Meeting
November 14, 2000
Page 117
Hawkins-Clark: We've told several people that the first and third Thursday is
where were going and January 4, 2001 being your first meeting. So I hope that
something happens.
Norton: January 4, 2001
Borup: So we may want to start pencilling that in. David have you heard any
word within in your office on writing the Ordinance or anything. What kind of time
frame do we need? As far as -it's just one public hearing at City Council. It
doesn't even take very long then.
Borup: This meeting is adjourned 1:38 -- oh I'm sorry we can't do this without a
motion we haven't had a motion to adjourn.
Norton: I move to adjourn the meeting.
Nary: I second.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 1:38 A.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
~~ r~ -~-~
ITH BORUP, CHAIR AN
'{`r~~~1!lJ6r1I11!/Fl
~ ~'~` ~~ i
i 'tl7 /~.
s1 ...
,~ o`~ w ILLIAM G. BERG, JR. I CLERK
i ~~~ ~~
4 i,0 Y
~~ `~ti
dy a~' \
„-
~.
;~, .
'
., 2:: ...., .
~;. -.: is
r: ,
..': .. ~ . ., ,
j ~.
" Kc^
}-
rk i
.SsJ
ti;~~;
~',
w ~~k
_~:
}~:
~~'
cj~.
R
WHITE PETERSON
WHITE, PETERSON, MORROW, GIGRAY, RossMAN, NYE & RoSSMAlV, P.A.
Jtn>E I{tEtrr Ftsctrtx Ct~nusTOt+~mt 3. NYE ATTORNEYS AT LAW NAMPA OFFICE
WM F. GtatwY, Iu Ptm.>P A. PEfFRSOx 1049TH AVE. Sotmt
BRF2Tf J. JoHxsox Ewc S. Ross~tpx Z00 EAST CARLTON AvH., SilfJ'E 31 PosT OFFICE BoX 247
D. Sadnm. lottrrsox TODD A. Rossbwx ppgT QFFJ~ $07Q 150 NAMPA, IDAHO 83633-0247
WILLt.4M A. MoR[tow Da vtD M. SwnRTt.~r
IDAHO 83680-1150
MBRIDtAN TEL 208 466.9272
)
(
WII:LIAM F. Ntcxot.sa TERRFNCE R WHITE" + 08)
466.4405
FAX
*Also admitted in OR
'°'" Also admitted in WA Tn. (208) 288-2499
Y
Fnx (208) 288.2301 E-Mau.: @wPFt~a.coM ~
MERID ~
~.
~~EIV~+
December 7, 2000
~ E ~ ~ 9 200D
To: Staff CITY OF NIERRIDIAN
Applicant
Affected Property Owner(s)
Re: Application Case No. RZ-00-006
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION
Staff, Applicant and/or .Affected Property Owner(s):
Please note that these Findin and Recommendations of the Planning and
Zoning Commission shall be presented to the ~ity Council at the public hearing on the above
referenced matter by the Plannin and Zoning Administrator. Due to the volume of matters
which the City Council must deci~e, and to insure your position is understood and cleaz, it is
important to have a consistent format by which matters aze presented at the public hearings
before the City Council.
The City Council strongly recommends:
1. That you take time to carefully review the Findings and
Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and be
prepared to state your position on this application by addressing the
Findings and Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission;
and
2. That you carefullyy complete (be sure it is legx'ble) the Position
Statement if you disa ee with the Findings and-Recommendations
of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Position Statement
form for this application is available at the City Clerk's office.
It is recommended that you pprepare a Position Statement and deliver it to the
City Clerk prior to the hearing, if possible. If that is not possible, pplease present your Position
Statement to the City Council at the hearing, along with eight (8) copies. The copp><es will be
resented to the Mayor, Council, Planning and Zoning Administrator, Public Woilcs and the
~ity Attorney. If you are a part of a ggrroup, it is strongly recommended that one Position
Statement be filled out for the group, wFiich can be signed by the representative for the group.
ty~
fi 1.1 i`. ~i:~:.l-Y f~
1 - '
4
V •
BEFORE THE PLANNING AP
In The Matter of The REQUEST FOR )
REZONE FROM I-L to C-G of )
APPROXIMATELY 7.14 ACRES FOR
8 FULL LOTS AND A PORTION OF 2 ;
OTHER LOTS IN MERIDIAN
BUSINESS PARK ,
DON ASBELL ~ THAD THOMAS,
Applicant
TD ZONING COMMISSION
Case No. RZ-00-006
RECOMMENDATION TO
CITY COUNCIL
i
i
I
I
1. The property is approximately 7.14 acres in size. The property is
generally located in Meridian Business Park, north of Franklin Road west of North
Baltic Place, in Meridian.
2. The owner of record of the subject property are Donald R and Annette
Asbell, of Eagle, Idaho.
3. The Applicant is owner of record.
4. The property is presently zoned as I-L, and is partly vacant and six lots
have been fully developed.
5. The Applicant requests the property be rezoned to C-G.
6. The proposed site is surrounded by industrial office/warehouse buildings
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 1
REQUEST FOR REZONE - 7.14 ACRES IN MERIDLAN BUSINESS PARK
FROM I-L TO C-G BY DON ASBELL ~ THAD THOMAS
~:4. , ~ .
rSA~,
j~,:. _
,.. :~=, , ~ ~~
,
_~
and vacant lots zoned I-L to the north, Meridian Cemetery zoned RT to the south,
,~ft~~
a.
ff it
y ~ R 4 residential subdivision to the east and Meridian Fire Station zoned L-O to the
# ~~ ~r
t west.
7. The subject property is within city limits of the City of Meridian.
~J; ~.
r3V
t k;sj
he entire parcel of the property is included within the Meridian Urban
8
l.;
.
~~:
~~;~
`'
Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area which is defined in the
~,
~~ y
.~ ~;
Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
~`"
:~ 9. The Applicant proposes to develop the subject property in the following
.~
~~
anner: increase the leasable/sellable square footage of office and retail space beyond
~x.;~,~ m
`,
what the IL zone currently allows.
_;;
10. The Applicant's requested rezoning of the subject real property as C-G is
`~
~`~`
consistent with the commercial designation on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan
a~ ,s s
~ ~~
~
Generalized Land Use Map which designates the subject property as Existing Urban.
:;
~=
There are no significant or scenic features of major importance that
11
.
~~ x
t
;y"~
affect the consideration of this application.
\
~k
e M ~
RECOMMENDATION
~~ r~~~.
`
1. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to
=.E
} J 1
the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the rezoning as requested
'.
' a_~
~'`
by the Applicant for the property described in the application subject to the following
nr;;
conditions:
~,
,; RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 2
F~.
3}; REQUEST FOR REZONE - 7.14 ACRES IN MERIDIAN BUSINESS PARK
w~~-~ FROM I-L TO C-G BY DON ASBELL ~ THAD THOMAS
,~
~.
,
,,
~a=.
r;~u ~ .
~,~ .
r,~ : i
HR`>'~
r~,
.. _
_ -
,.
L~
Adopt the Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning and Engineering staff as
follows:
1.1 Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems. within this project will
have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance
Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes
such as landscape irrigation.
1.2 Off street parking shall be provided in accordance with the city of
Meridian ordinance 11-13 for use of undeveloped lots.
i
1.3 Outside lighting shall be designed and placed in accordance with City
Ordinance Sections 11-13-4.C. and 12-5-2.M.
1.4 Two-hundred-fifty- and 100-watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights will
be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department.
All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical
locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants.
1.5 Sanitary sewer service to Lots 18 and 21, Block 3, is questionable.
Applicant shall provide the Public Worlcs Department with an
engineering plan demonstrating serviceability from these two lots to
existing services with submission of building permit applications on
these two lots.
1.6 A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or
engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engineer
(Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all off-street parking areas. All site drainage shall
be contained and disposed of on-site.
~" 1.7 All signage shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in Section
~~ 11-14 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance. No
r '~~~
~ temporary signage, flags, banners or flashing signs will be permitted.
s
.
~; -
~t `
_
r ~
.
- 1.8 Provide five-foot-wide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance
;,
,.
.
's Section 12-5-2.IC
:-;w-
1.9 All construction shall conform to the requirements of the Americans
~~~ with Disabilities Act.
yr
4. j Af
--
,.. ~~
~~ ~~~'~ RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 3
_
~ REQUEST FOR REZONE - 7.14 ACRES IN MERIDIAN BUSINESS PARK
~,
~~-~ FROM I-L TO C-G BY DON ASBELL &. THAD THOMAS
~_.,.
~=
~_
Ftf~
~JY`t
((
1 ... t
n .~i,wtt
g
., .
- r, yy r,
:, a ;c ~ _. ~,,
5;:~=. ;-
t ~ ...
if;'"' _.
1.10 At the time of building permit submissions for Lots 18 and 21, Bloclc 3,
the Applicant and/or current property owner at the time shall submit
evidence to the Planning and Zoning Department that the required
amount of ACHD right-of--way dedication (48 feet) for the Franklin
Road expansion is complete.
1. I 1 There are three (3} existing office%varehouse buildings within the
boundaries of this rezone application. The floor area-to-parking ratios
for these existing buildings are:
Thomas Bldg., Asbell Bldg. # 1 Asbell Bldg. #4
Phase II
Bldg. square footage 30,000 14,000 20,000
Existing Parking 100 stalls 28 stalls 67 stalls
Count
Required Parking for 75 stalls 35 stalls 50 stalls
100% Office Use
(1:400)
Required Parting for 150 stalls 70 stalls 100 stalls
I00% Retail Use
(1:200)
Based on the above figures, the Thomas Building and Asbell Building #4
would meet the minimum number of required parting fora 100% office
occupancy. However, Asbell Building # 1 will not be permitted a full office
occupancy and none of the existing buildings would be permitted a full retail
occupancy. These use ratios will be monitored by the Planning ~ Zoning
Department on a tenant improvement, application-by-application basis.
a,
w~ .:
~;~''"~~
~'-
Z:\Wozlc\M\Nleridian\Meridian 15360M\Recommendations\RZ006Asbell.wpd
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 4
REQUEST FOR REZONE - 7.14 ACRES IN MERIDIAN BUSINESS PARK
FROM I-L TO C-G BY DON ASBELL & THA,D THOMAS
-'
yF'~~: `.
~'~' . ;.
ii ~ ~~
.'rt.
.. ~ ~ i~- _
;;;'
~_;;
~;
".ti•:. ~.+.J
.2. r:Y
p~r~~
7 ;?''yl
:: 4}~Y
,,$. m
;r,
~::=
'i'n's
-,'::7
_t
a ~~-~4
,:;
~:.
'~~Y
,x ~ ~'
s ,~ ~~~%.
"~ r
~F_
.. ~... '7:...
:-~;
;:~~~
~,~
~' ~ - ~`
~~..
r'~
• ~7;
~u~~'r
;~:
~..;~`>
`~3 ~.
hw
}~'w .
' ';
;.
~~ `
WHITE PETERSON
WxITE, PETERSON, MORROW, GIGRAY, ROSSMAN, NYE & ROSSMAN, P.A.
J[n>EKt.IIrtFtsCHFR CrmtsrOPt~R S. NYE ATTORNEYS AT LAW NAMPA OFFICE
WM. F. Gtoxa.Y, It[ PttII.m A. PEfIItsON 104 9Tx Av>: Sotrrx
BRHZJT J. JOtt[45oN Etuc S, Rossnfax 200 EAST CARLTON AVH., S[)11'E 31 PosT OFFICE BoX 247
D. SatKUPi. JOI~tSON Tonn A. Rossrwux
PosT OFFICE $0x1150 NAMPA, IDAHO 83633-0247
Wut.tAmt A. MoRttow DAVID M. SwaanEr
IDAHO 83680-1150
MERID]AN TF-I.. 208)466-92?2
~
Wt[.I.tanlF. Ntcxot.s* TERxratcER WtItTE** , FAg (
OS) 466403
*Also admitted is OR
** Also admitted in WA TII. (208) 288-2499
Fax (208) 288*2301 E-MAIL: @wPPh1o.COM
PLEASE REPLY TO
MERIDIAN OFFICE
December 7, 2000
To: Staff
Applicant
Affected Property Owner(s)
RECE~D
DEC - 9 2000
CITY OF bIEEIDIAN
Re: Application Case No. PP-00-019
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION
Staff, Applicant and/or Affected Property Owner(s):
Please note that these Findin s and Recommendations of the Planning and
Zoning Commission shall be presented to the ~ity Council at the public hearing on the above
referenced matter by the Plannin and Zozling Administrator. Due to the volume of matters
which the City Council must deci~e, and to insure your position is understood and clear, it is
important to have a consistent format by which matters are presented at the public hearings
before the City Council.
The City Council strongly recommends:
1. That you take time to carefully review the Findings and
Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and be
prepared to state your position on this application by addressing the
Findings and Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission;
and
2. That you carefullyy complete (be sure it is leg~'ble) the Position
Statement if you disa ee with the Findings and-Recommendations
of the Plaiuung and Zoning Commission. The Position Statement
form for this application is available at the City Clerk's office.
It is recommended that you pprepare a Position Statement and deliver it to the
City Clerk prior to the hearing, if possible. If that is not possible, pplease present your Position
Statement to the City Council at the hearing, along with eight (8) copies. The copies will be
resented to the Mayor, Council, Planning and Zozung Administrator, Public Works and the
~ity Attorney. If you are a part of a ggrroup, it is stropgly recommended that one Position
Statement be filled out for the group, wLiich can be signed by the representative for the group.
:, ,
~y~
~. - -- - - - a
,,~
< <.
~ - d
,' ;-
-
i.. ~ - ..
41 ~ ,..~
.~r; s~~ __ t~ ~~f3~r~i.~}~
~... ,z,
- . , a
^`~'
r
~z r _,
,.~S~s~x ~.~. .. _
-
~,
BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE ) Case No. PP-00-019
REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY )
PLAT FOR MERIDIAN GREENS ) RECOMMENDATION TO CITY
NO. 4 SUBDIVISION, ) COUNCIL
SCOTT-FULLER )
INVESTMENTS, )
E Applicant )
1. The property is approximately 7.88 acres in size and is generally located
on the south side of Overland Road between Meridian Road and Locust Grove Road
in Meridian, Idaho.
2. The owner of record of the subject property is Fuller-Scott Investment
Company of Meridian.
3. The Applicant is owner of record.
4. The subject property is currently zoned R 4. The zoning of R 4 is
defined within the City of Meridian's Zoning and Development Ordinance Section
11-7-2.
5. The subject property is within the city limits of the City of Meridian.
6. The entire parcel of the property is included within the Meridian Urban
Service Planning .Area as the Urban Service Planning Area which is defined in the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 1
PRELIMINARY PLAT -MERIDIAN GREENS NO. 4 BY SCOTT-FULLER
INVESTMENTS
~'?+:, .
;z ` : g
_ ~ ;f. r ''
i . -
~.
.,
t t f k '
~Y
'
,
} ~ r..
':j ~
~;
~
'F~Y~
is
,~; 7. The Applicant proposes to develop the subject property in the following
~
"~' `
~ manner: 13 single family residential lots and 3 landscape/common lots.
,,b
~s
8. There are no significant or scenic features of major importance that
,,
~w~ affect the consideration of this application.
h~ ~~ `'~
?'
RECOMMENDATION
4
4 ~_~ -~ 1. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to
s ; :;
~ ; x'`
the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the preliminary plat as
~,
.~ ~.~
~,~~~ requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application, subject to
~' ~'
~ the following:
r
Adopt the Planning and Zoning Administrator and Assistant City Engineer
~,~.:
~~~
'~`~Y
Recommendations as follows:
1.1 Sanitary sewer and water service to this site shall be via extensions from
_ existing mains installed through the proposed subdivision in SE 5`''
E.~;= Street. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with
~.
. ; _~
the Public Works Department. Sewer manholes are to be provided to
~~ keep the sewer lines on the south and west sides of the centerline.
r,.~.
u,~
~Z 3+'i
*'`'~°
i
1.2 Lots 1-5, Block 2 are impacted by an irrigation easement. The Applicant
~'<;' is proposing to allow each lot owner to utilize the rear 40-feet of these
five lots for landscaping, which would be consistent with other Meridian
~# ~ Greens lots further south. Typically, Staff recommends all irrigation
<: easements be platted as common lots and fenced, especially when the
lateral is not piped and there are potential hazards. However, to remain
":^ ~ consistent with other Meridian Greens lots, Staff could support
c~ «r~
~ ~N~s
inclusion of the irrigation easement in the lots. If this option is proposed
~~ ~~ and approved by the Commission and Council, the Applicant must
,w,.; provide a copy of the executed encroachment agreement with Nampa-
~`` Meridian Irrigation District, indicaxing how the land underlying these
easements may be used, prior to City signature on the final plat. If
T.rY
~.?,~~'
2-;
,,n~~. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 2
PRELIMINARY PLAT -MERIDIAN GREENS NO. 4 BY SCOTT-FULLER
~,~ ->` INVESTMENTS
}'°k~' __ _ __
.T.
:. ~ .. ~ r
r- f r. Ir.
~ -tif ~ 1 d i' ~ -~a;:
„~^",- ,; . .
~
~ .. .a~;~;;4°'
. , , ~ f , ,
r _ ..t., .~~ .. . _ _ .., ._
~:<:
c~,X
r~.,.:
5'' ~f. `i
st)x
,~
:,,,<
"s~"'
r
' , s fi,,
5~ }mot
~' ~ l a ZµY
~;r'.
,;
'4:
~:
~: ~:
..-l kj'
~ f:~ .
~:
-~;
y;
~,
r ~ _r
=:.~~
~:
r'
~; ~fn..
~:; a
_F~~q,:
~.'>,~
~~;, ~~'°
~;_~F;
encroachment of the Eightmile Lateral is not granted, this 40-foot
easement area will need to be removed from the building lots and
platted as a common lot.
1.3 Underground pressurized irrigation must be provided to all landscape
areas on site. Due to the landscape area, primary water supply
connection to the City's mains will not be allowed. Applicant shall be
required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary
source. The preliminary plat map indicates that the existing P.1. system
that borders the eastern boundary of the subdivision be utilized as the
primary source. Applicant has indicated that the pressurized irrigation
system within this development is to be owned and maintained by the
Meridian Greens Homeowners Association. Under this scenario, plans
and specifications for the irrigation system shall be reviewed by the
Public Worlcs Department as part of the development plan review
process. A draft copy of the pressurized irrigation system O&M manual
must be submitted prior to plan approval.
1.4 The Applicant is proposing that a 10-foot strip of the City's well lot at
the NE corner of the subdivision be dedicated to ACHD for aright-turn
lane on to Overland. A legal description for this 10-foot strip was
submitted with the application. The Developer has stated that the City
has indicated a willingness to dedicate the 10-foot strip. The City
Engineer and Public Worlcs Director have both told staff that this is not
the case, and that they are not willing to let the strip of land go. Staff
recommends that SE 5`t' be re-aligned to utilize the developers own land
on the west side to provide the necessary width for the intersection
design.
1.5 The length of the entry island (Lot 1, Bloclc 3) shall be modified to
provide for access into the City's well site from both directions of travel,
ie. the south end of the island needs to be north of the driveway leading
into the site.
1.6 There appears to be a discrepancy between the Ada County Assessor's
basemap and the legal description describing the boundaries of the
subject parcel. The Assessor's map shows that the City's well lot eastern
boundary does not extend to the centerline of Eightmile Lateral and that
the 40-foot NMID irrigation easement on the east end of this well lot is
within the Applicant's parcel. However, the preliminary plat shows the
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 3
PRELIMINARY PLAT -MERIDIAN GREENS NO. 4 BY SCOTT-FULLER
INVESTMENTS
t.
~`~~ .. .. •.
-
...
fit, ,, r
- .. ~
.. .:
4 ~ ~..~y
' f ~:fi,f
~
_. ~ -
. s ~r. •.
~~~~;;.;Y , .
. .
~ za,.;
~;':'„
}~~~`
h~ ~~ ~°°
,,
<-r.t
~;
~,
~~;~~~.
.~.~.>
L ;
~-
,.
~~
~ jl
`:~`~'
-~, ~ ..~~
f~
.4rf ..~.
City owning the land all the way to the centerline. The Applicant should
verify the correct boundaries of the subject parcel in this NE corner and,
if necessary, modify the legal description and plat boundaries
accordingly.
1.7 The plat shows the pressurized irrigation line along the eastern
boundary within NMID's Eightmile Lateral easement. Prior to signature
6 on the Final Plat, submit a copy of an encroachment agreement with
NMID approving this irrigation line in the easement.
1.8 Lot 1, Block 2 does not have direct lot access to SE 5th Way or a cross
access easement. Please modify the plat to demonstrate how this lot will
access the public street and provide evidence that ACHD has reviewed
e and approved of the access point. Staff recommends the access be
locaxed on the southern half of the lot.
1.9 Since SE 5~' Way is designated as a Collector, Applicant shall add a note
to the plat that the front yard building setback for Lots 1-5, Bloclc 2 is a
nunimum of 30 feet, per Zoning Ordinance 11-9-1.
1.10 The plat shows the Overland Road landscape buffer and both the east
and west SE 5`" Way landscape buffers a.s within landscape easements.
Staff does not support the Overland Road or the western SE 5~' Way
buffers as being platted within easements. As with Lot 1, Block 3 and
Lot 1, Bloclc 4, the Overland Road buffer and the western SE 5`~ Way
buffer, both north and south of Port Maria Court, must be platted as
separate common lots to be owned and maintained by the Homeowner's
Association. Platting these areas as separate lots is also consistent with
the SE 3rd Way entrance to Meridian Greens and the Goldsmith
Avenue entrance to Hunts Bluff Subdivision. Since the eastern SE 5~'
Way landscape buffer is part of the front yards and these five lots will
take primary access off of SE 5th Way, Staff supports platting this
eastern landscape buffer within an easement. Developer to provide the
City with a landscape plan prior to approval of final plat. Developer will
also review the agreement with the homeowner's association to attach to
their pressurized system.
~, 1.11 A solid, 6-foot fence is required along the north boundary of Lot 5,
Block 2 (except within the 20-foot landscape buffer), to separate the
City well lot from this residential lot. A wrought iron fence is
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 4
PRELIMINARY PLAT -MERIDIAN GREENS NO. 4 BY SCOTT-FULLER
INVESTMENTS
~i: _~.
"~'=:::.
.: ' - - - w,
~~"rl ~`
:~,
,~~~
~f1j
,~F :r
Em ~4, 4 ~s~
< '_~~_
+:Y
.~t'
e
constructed along the eastern boundary of Eightmile Lateral in Hunts
Bluff Subdivision. Staff encourages the Developer to consider similar
construction in Meridian Greens #4 Subdivision, Lots 1-5, Block 2.
Developer requests that they be allowed to consider landscaping to the
waterline in a separate easement.
1.12 The Applicant has stated that the large, mature trees along Overland
Road will be preserved and incorporated into the landscape plans. This
shall be a condition of the development.
1.13 A detailed landscape plan for the common areas, including fencing
locations and types of construction, shall be submitted for review and
approval with the submittal of the final plat application. The plan must
include sizes and species of trees, shrubs, berm and swale details, and all
proposed ground cover/treatment. No fencing will be permitted within
the required landscape buffers. Also, no evergreen trees will be permitted
within the clear vision triangle areas at the intersections of public roads
and driveways. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%
will be required for all fencing, landscaping, pressurized irrigation,
sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the Final Plat. Perimeter
fencing shall be installed prior to obtaining building permits.
1.14 Submit letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving
the subdivision and street names with the final plat application. Malce
any corrections necessary to conform.
1.15 Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public
Works Department.
1.16 Provide five-foot-wide sidewallcs in accordance with City Ordinance 12-
5-2.IC
:a~
~~.~
-= m~
t~ p'
''n=~'-ply
"g:
~,~. .R N S
_y :,. ~~,
_~_,~,c;:ant
.g~i'r~'..:~. -.
i~',
~S!Siht
1.17 All construction shall conform to the requirements of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
J
•
confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Worlcs
Department.
1.19 Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will
have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance.
Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape
irrigation.
1.20 Two-hundred-fifty and one-hundred watt, high-pressure sodium
streetlights will be required at locations designated by the Public Worlcs
Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense.
Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants.
1.21 Indicate on the final plat map any FEMA. Flood Plains affecting the area
being platted, and detail plans for reducing or eliminating the boundary.
Z:\Work\M\Meridian\Meridian 15360M\Recotnmendations\PP019Merid4.wpd
'r
~1 ':'
_,
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 6
PRELIMINARY PLAT -MERIDIAN GREENS NO. 4 BY SCOTT-FULLER
INVESTMENTS
~;r,
.t r ..
1 ~ .. r.'+1 5 k J i .' ~ ~~
_ ,
~ _... ~ 5 L
...
t .+ W xi4
piu;: ~j:'k:~.
a.
~~:~~
r±
~~
r,_
,Y•
~`r~'r'°
_$~~
:,,;_ .
1
"z=
~F~~,
-r
r
,t,
_ ~~:
~;
3 ~"
1 t .,. ~`•
p '. 4,'
w,
'' ? ~,
w
E~,~a: -
` ~ •
WHITE PETERSON
WxrrE, PETERSON, MORROW, GIGRAY, ROSSMAN, NYE & ROSSMAN, P.A.
EQr F7scttt1t
Jtn
~ Kr CERlSTOPFff1! S. NYB ATTORNEYS AT LAW NAMPA OFFICE
.
.
wrn. F. C$aRAY, nt
Baran' J. Jotn~rsox PxE.~ A. PE1rltsox
ERtC S. RossrsAx
200 EAST CARLTON AvE., SUITE 31 104 9'rE AvE SonrE
PosT O~tcEBox 24'7
D. SnM[m. JoFwsox
wu,LLans A. MOSnOW Tonn A. ROSSnrax
DAVm M. SWARTLEY ppsT OFFJCE $0X1130
MF,~~
IDAHO 83680-1150 NAMPA, IDAHO 83653-0247
TEL. 208)466-9272
W05
66
~
W¢.L[AM F. NICHOLS* TEKxnvcE R WHirE** , j
OS) 4
FAX (
*ALso admitted in OR Td (208) 288-2499 pf"RASI? REPLY TO
** Also admitted in WA FAX (208) 288*Z301 E-MnO.: @WPPMa.coM ~~ ~~
December 7, 2000
To: Staff
Applicant
Affected Property Owner(s)
RECE~'ED
DEC - 9 2000
CPfY OF MERIDL9TT
Re: Application Case No. AZ-00-01$
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION
Staff, Applicant and/or Affected Property Owner(s):
Please note that these Findin s and Recommendations of the Planning and
Zoning Commission shall be presented to the ~ity Council at the public hearing on the above
referenced matter by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. Due to the volume of matters
which the City Council must decide, and to insure your position is understood and clear, it is
important to have a consistent format by which matters are presented at the public hearings
before the City Council.
The City Council strongly recommends:
1. That you take time to carefully review the Findings and
Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and be
ppreppared to state your position on this application by addressing the
Fiundings and Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission;
and
2. That you carefullyy complete (be sure it is leg~'ble) the Position
Statement if you disa ee with the Findings and-Recommendations
of the Planxung and Zoning Commission. The Position Statement
form for this application is available at the City Clerk's office.
It is recommended that you pprepare a Position Statement and deliver it to the
City Clerk prior to the hearing, if possible. If that is not ppossible, pplease present your Position
Statement to the City Council at the hearing, along wit~n eight (8) copies. The copies will be
resented to the Mayor, Council, Planning and Zonng Administrator, Public Works and the
~ity Attorney. If you are a part of a ggrroup, it is stropgly recommended that one Position
Statement be filled out for the group, which can be signed by the representative for the group.
~yi
~ :~rw~^~r~^ ~ ~^s~^ ~^ ~
.v'. ~ ~ -
,:. _~ .,
_. ._ .,.
'^... 'F` `~s.x~`rr.'
~~~=`f
^5i
~:
~~
+~;
'~~j~':
p:~,
_ ;.,`rs
~.;:
,,; -
{.;; ;~
~~:
1'
'~!,~,
;}~ ~,
. ,.{~,
=~x
{'
r',~'
;~«=.
,,
f r;"::~~
~.R.
BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE
REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION
AND ZONING OF 34.84 ACRES
FOR A CHURCH AND VACANT
LAND
Case No. AZ-00-018
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY
COUNCIL
BY VALLEY SHEPHERD
N~?-ZARENE CHURCH
INTRODUCTION
1. The property is approximately 34.84 acres in size and is located on the
west side of Meridian Road between Overland Road and Victory Road.
2. The owner of record of the subject property is the Valley Shepherd
Church of the Nazarene, Inc., of Meridian, Idaho.
3. Applicant is owner of record.
4. The property is presently zoned by Ada County as RT, and consists of
vacant land.
5. The Applicant requests the property be zoned as R-8.
6. The subject property is bordered to the north by a vacant parcel in Ada
County and by Elk Run & Bear Creelc Subdivisions zoned R-4, to the South by a
vacant parcel in Ada County, by the approved Bear Creelc Subdivision zoned R-4 to
the east and RT zoning in Ada county to the west.
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 1
ANNEXATION AND ZONING -VALLEY SHEPHERD N~?-ZARENE CHURCH
34.84 ACRES FROM RT TO R-8 FOR A CHURCH AND VACANT LAND
~~~
~~~~
~~~, , _
-;..
{ . , _
4 }#q
M1~. - i,~5 1. -
i ;..
~, r..tw F~. -
1 . .. ~ ~l _.,~p us..~.F3 ~ ' J....
~:,,x,
,`tiy,r..
'='~:,£ .
Kx ~#~~~~
,.
7. The property which is the subject of this application is within the Area
of Impact of the City of Meridian.
8. The entire parcel of the property is included within the Meridian Urban
Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan.
9. The Applicant proposes to develop the subject property in the following
manner: as a church and multi-purpose facility .
10. The Applicant requests zoning of the subject real property as R-8 which
is consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Generalized Land Use Map
which designates the subject property as residential.
12. There are no significant or scenic features of major importance that
affect the consideration of this application.
RECOMMENDATION
1. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to
a
the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the requested annexation
and zoning as requested by the Applicant for the property described in the
application, subject to the following:
Adopt the Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning and Engineering Staff as
follows:
s~m~'^~:SeF
~y~~{..
9
P,.
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 2
ANNEXATION AND ZONING -VALLEY SHEPHERD NAZARENE CHURCH
34.84 ACRES FROM RT TO R-8 FOR A CHURCH AND VACANT LAND
. f. L _. ' ,ate A i±ltic:. l ~ - -
..
~ '_ ~
. ~(
t ~ t,
~ ~, ..
,: ~
}
.j-'~.r
,_~ ,
« ;.
`L~a
,-
~~` w
}~: ~ ~~
.~,
.~~~-
,:
,,
,.~:
_;. ~,
r
-?' ; «;
-Y; i:,
Sit
„:~:
~ s
~^_-:c
~N;
:"~?i
m„
t
4
1.1 All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways,
intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the parcel shall
be tiled per City Ordinance 12-4-13. Plans will need to be approved by
the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association,
with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public
Works Department.
1.2 Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will
have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance
Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes
such as landscape irrigation.
1.3 Outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as not to direct
illumination on any nearby residential areas and in accordance with
City Ordinance Sections 11-13-4.C. and 12-5-2.M.
1.4 Two-hundred-fifty- and 100-watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights will
be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department.
All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical
locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants.
1.5 A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or
engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engineer
(Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all off-street parking areas. All site drainage shall
be contained and disposed of on-site.
1.6 Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with the City of
Meridian Ordinance 11-13 for use of progeny.
1.7 All signage shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in Section
11-14 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance. No
temporary signage, flags, banners or flashing signs will be permitted.
1.8 Provide five-foot-wide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance
Section 12-5-2.K.
1.9 All construction shall conform to the requirements of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
~~,
~_.
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 3
ANNEXATION AND ZONING -VALLEY SHEPHERD NAZARENE CHURCH
34.84 ACRES FROM RT TO R-8 FOR A CHURCH AND VACANT LAND
.,.
I
~ ~ ?.~
{ `
~ r
~~
~
~~
~
~~k,s,,-,~~ V
~''
,~ 1.10 Applicant shall be required to enter into a Development Agreement with
~
' the City as a condition of annexation.
J7 1.11 Buffering of adjacent properties will be reviewed during the conditional
• use permit process.
rr +r
.
~~
~~ ref
~~
.12 Approximately half of the 35-acre parcel proposed for annexation is
Yt~ designated to sewer into the Black Cat Trunk which will be constructed
z ' a;~ in the future through Bear Creek Subdivision to the west. The other
half, fronting Duna-Meridian Road, is designated to sewer into the 12-
inch sewer that must be extended from Ells Run Subdivision. The Bear
'-~? Creek Subdivision lift station will be designed to serve only itself. The
>'W ~'~~~
~'1~~ rw ' ,.. lift station will discharge into an existing eight-inch gravity sewer line in
Overland Road which will be at or over capacity at build-out of Bear
<, ~-
~, ;: Creek Subdivision. The Bear Creek developer and his engineer are
~~ { aware that as additional phases are developed, flows into the eight-inch
tr
i receiving sewer will be monitored and, if capacity is exceeded, they will
s ~E~~4 be required to re-route the pressure sewer to the Ten Mile Trunk along
.:~~
~`"' the east-bound off ramp of I-84. As per P/Z and Council approval of the
~; ~xF _ Bear Creek project, the lift station is being sized only for Bear Creek
Subdivision. No provisions are being made for any other development
4 to sewer into it.
Adopt the Recommendations of the Ada County Highway District as follows:
tra ~~.
r,~o 1.13 The applicant should have a maximum of two driveways on Meridian
n~ ~~' - - ~ Road. The driveways should offset or align a minimum of 600-feet from
F ,
N;
';
~ ~ any existing or proposed driveways or roadways on Meridian Road.
vi
~
Yi
y ~'~~
r
'~ 1.14 The applicant should be required to pave the driveways their full width
` and at least 30-feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of
:~'~~ ? Meridian Road (SH-69) and install pavement tapers with 15-foot radii
j }'
+,
f abutting the existing roadway edge.
~+
r
F~~; ~ 1.15 The applicant should be required to construct a 5-foot wide concrete
z ~• ~ sidewalk on Meridian Road (SH-69) abutting the developed portion of
the site. Coordinate the location of the sidewalk with 1TD staff.
,>
~.~
> j
_~~r
:
=
-x:
.
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 4
~~~ =~.
~~~'~
ANNEXATION AND ZONING -VALLEY SHEPHERD N~-ZARENE CHURCH
; 34.84 ACRES `FROM RT TO R-8 FOR A CHURCH AND VACANT LAND
r
;
,:2
;~.~<`
,,--,>
~';;
i a: _
~~~f
,~,.
t ~ ~, k - ~ ,
} ,
,_ _ ,
. t. ~ -
r , - I a,
r ir~ '
.. , ..
~. - ~ ' _
¢Yx`,
~ o
1.16 Comply with requirements of ITD for State Highway 69 (Meridian
Road) frontage. Submit to the District a letter from ITD regarding said
requirements prior to District approval of the final plat or issuance of a
building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first.
1.17 When a specific development application for this site is received, staff
will evaluate the need for a residential collector roadway along the south
property line.
1.18 In accordance with District policy, stub streets to the undeveloped
parcels abutting this site may be required upon review of a future
application for this site.
1.19 As required by District policy, restrictions on the width, number and
locations of driveways, shall be placed on future development of this
parcel.
Z:\Work\M\Meridian\Meridian 15360M\NazareneChurchAZ018\AZ018VaIleyChurch.wpd
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 5
ANNEXATION AND ZONING -VALLEY SHEPHERD N.F-ZARENE CHURCH
34.84 ACRES FROM RT TO R-8 FOR A CHURCH AND VACANT LAND
~k~ ',
., ~~
'ri~•;
~,:.:.
~~_ .:
t {
i _ _~ t
_
y,
_H.- i ~ L .r :.
,~ r ~ ~~ '
ii~:;'-.
f-~C- ~..
. a ~
r?.,
:y ',
1J i
.~
"rY
,^
~~
{~~
:~.~:{:
y ~,:
~~;;z
~z'
:~;
,,~
/-i 5 ~
r'x~.
~Jin 4,
~t~
yry
y
~~~n,
r,
rt
ri .~
~..
?,
~~:.
s r 2~
~h ~ 7 ~n
}:
w r.
t r,t,;z~
_::~;.
t
r
.. ~'~~ ~~
1
I ~
~
~ I
i
V ti ^~
~
~ ~
~ ~
~ m
fnA
~'~G
~ J
~
~ V~
~
~ ~ vJ
m
~
-~
~~ b
~
~
a
~ ~
~
~
~
~ Q
~
' ~ ~+
~ ~
n
f ~
~.
m
~
i
i , ~ r~
~
,
~
" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
' ~
~
~
~ p
~>
-~ .
~
o
~
~ ~ h ~
J ~ ~'
~ e
~ ~
5 ~
~,,,
c
~
~;
~.
' /~w~
r/J
cn
~ F
~ ~y ~ f
C
~ ~~
~-~..
k
~.
~
r
~ r
r+ d
~ o
m
~ ~ n
'1
~ ~
~ -~
~ ~ ~ ~
~a
~ ~ °o
~ m~
0
rn
rn
Z
s -,
1`' ~
~ C
r
. ~
rn
O
~ ~
n~
~I
~rn
~~
?v
Z
n rn
rn
1
M.
r~' 1 .. - '-A S tA: S.'~T
_ .
s , .
c.. ~ - ..
~,.;T,t
z~~:
-~,
,,t ~~ .
~ti~
~~~::
T
i{ ~~
s~,
$;~.
~~a
~ ,
~f.
„~;: _ .;
-~.
~~~~
~,:~
~~:~
tom,
~~
~~
:~ :z
~:, ~~
- :-
s
i ':<`
-~:~
~;;
,.. r1,5
R.:..
L :1F;I
tf~
y
of
~~ ~~'~
~~~,
~ :.,
~~~
~ ~
~ m
~ rn
~ ~
r z
;~
i
~ ~
~~
~
~
C
r
_
n n
rn
~
~ O
z ~
~ ~
~ rn
_
~ ~
_
z p
_
z -
~
v v~ Z
n =
rn rn
rn
0
{ 1
~ ~i .'~N ~4Y ~ ~ Y
'.:} ~ .nom:; 4~'~ .i.,.._.
~ ~. S f'~;
yi,. ~_
'. _f-y`
~v~
;S~iC;
.`J.
k's~4;:
'-,.
,;
~t
~:~'
<.;:
,;;~; ,~ .
:~~~
;
~~'~;
;~~
~~ ~~} ~~~
r;~`
t;.
~
,
a::>>`
~ .; ~.r
~~~~~~
''° '~;
` J ~t_<
~4
a-,~,
tub.
S'f~t
~. :<~.
'. L ~ . ~ :-
...-1T ~~'.~
._m~.,.
t~.h„,.'ay'
k '6~<.
try ~_~,~ ..
t~`',
~_~.
~_
~';~
~~~ Arz~
~'r *, ~''
.:; i:.
~Y`~
~s ~, ;.
~?~ .
~'i " -.
.~ ..
~,ti ,# _
~,.,:, ~.~~, ~aM::,t ;..; ,
t y ~ ~ ~ ~fca~~ ~;
~ ~ ~'; .
~~,
~~iy'
~t~~^
.... , ~
~~C ~ _ 1~Tt•.p. Y
,~
[T ,.
~ i ~ro -..
ff 4 '• l .~.' ~
~. .. r
i - ~
r ~
.,:.z., , ... ... .. ,_
',
,... ..
~~.
~~i: ' <:.
'~;'.
yeti
~ Project M
~. .._ _~
z
~ ~
.c
:.:~_:
~:
r,
~> ~,$~
r-r : _ ~:
,.
J_sj.4
- &i _y ~ -
.~
.,.~ ~,
N
_~'
~,.
k~° .. ~h'~~{g'-~
V 4~="~
~_;
s: ~:
~$y
~;; .
fit:`' ~`'
,.:sue'
_~~~`~=
.;
~:
~y~#;
~~.r>~.~
F~i
','w,'U'iu__
MAYOR
Robert D. Corrie
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Ron Anderson
Keith Bird
Tammy deWeerd
Cherie McCandless
HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY
A Good Place to Live
CITY Off' MERIDIAN
33 EAST IDAHO
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
(208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813
City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218
December 11, 2000
Applicants for Projects:
Dear Applicant
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
(208) 288-2499 • Fax 288-2501
PUBLIC WORKS
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
(208) 887-2211 • Fax 887-1297
PLANNING AND ZONING
DEPARTMENT
(208) 884-5533 • Fax 888-6854
CUP 00-049 Mountain West Bank
CUP 00-050 Ashford Greens #4 Subdivision
CUP 00-053 Ameritel Inn
CUP 00-054 Meridian Police Station
CUP 00-055 Sonntag Eye Associates
PP 00-023 Autumn Faire #2 Subdivision
AZ 00-023 Tuscany Lakes Subdivision
CUP 00-052 Tuscany Lakes Subdivision
PP 00-024 Tuscany Lakes Subdivision
RZ 00-008 Devlin Place #2 Subdivision
PP 00-025 Devlin Place #2 Subdivision
Due to the incorrect Notice of Public Hearings being published in the Idaho
Statesman for the above listed projects, these projects have been rescheduled
for Thursday, January 4, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers in the
Meridian City Hall. The notices will be re-noticed for the new public hearing date.
These projects will need to be reposted one week prior to the new hearing date.
We are sorry for the inconvenience.
Please contact me with any questions or concerns. Thank you for your
cooperation.
Sincerely
~~V .
William G. Berg, Jr.
City Clerk